content
stringlengths 1
15.9M
|
|---|
\section{Introduction}
Although maximum mutual information (MMI) training has been used for hidden Markov model (HMM) parameter estimation for more than twenty years (\cite{bahl}, \cite{merialdo}, \cite{gopal}, \cite{normandin}, and \cite{valtchev2}), it has recently become an essential part of the acoustic modeling repertoire thanks to the refinements introduced by Woodland and Povey (\cite{woodland2} and \cite{povey2}). The earliest incarnations of MMI worked well on small vocabulary tasks with small models, for example digit recognition. However, one can expect to gain 10-20\% in recognition accuracy over standard maximum likelihood methods regardless of the size of the task or the models when using the current methodology, lattice-based MMI.
The machinery of lattice-based MMI consists of a model selection criterion called the MMI criterion and an iterative estimation algorithm called the extended Baum-Welch algorithm. This machinery is analogous to -- it is in fact based on -- the standard machinery used for maximum likelihood estimation with HMMs, where the model selection criterion is the log-likelihood of the training data and the iterative estimation algorithm is the Baum-Welch algorithm (\cite{baum}). In both cases the estimation algorithm operates on the space of all possible model parameters by producing a new estimate of model parameters from an original estimate. Also, both of these estimation algorithms have been designed so that the model selection criterion is larger on the new estimate than it was on the original estimate. Finally, in both cases the machinery is operated in the same manner: starting from a choice of initial model parameters, we repeatedly apply the estimation algorithm, first to the initial choice, next to the result of this, etc., thereby creating a sequence of model parameters. In the case of maximum likelihood estimation with the Baum-Welch algorithm the properties of the resulting sequence of model parameters are understood and generally good, while in the case of lattice-based MMI with extended Baum-Welch these properties have never been studied.\footnote{However, the tacit assumption in the literature is that the sequence of model parameters produced by extended Baum-Welch does converge. For example the notion \emph{weak sense auxiliary functions} in \cite{povey2} appears to depend upon this convergence.}
Figure \ref{usual_mmi_graph} is representative of plots that appear in nearly all of the literature on MMI. We note that the MMI criterion steadily increases over the twenty iterations, while the word error rate (WER) initially decreases, levels out, and then begins a slight upward trend with notable oscillation. The conventional wisdom has been that this is due to `over training', i.e., that MMI, whether lattice-based or not, somehow over specializes the models to the training data at the expense of recognition performance on more general test data. Even if one believes this explanation it is worth understanding what the mechanism is that is to blame for this over specialization. Is it a property of the algorithm, extended Baum-Welch, or a property of the model selection criterion, the MMI criterion, or something else entirely that is at the root of the problem? This the central question that we will address in this paper.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{usual_mmi.png}
\caption{The WER on an independent test set and the MMI criterion on the training data during twenty iterations of extended Baum-Welch. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label{usual_mmi_graph}}
\end{figure}
One of the starting points of this research was to investigate what happens if we run many more iterations of extended Baum-Welch than is typical. The motivation was to investigate whether or not the model parameters are actually converging. Figure \ref{longer_mmi_graph} extends the results in Figure \ref{usual_mmi_graph} by running eighty more iterations of extended Baum-Welch. The MMI criterion is by design supposed to be more predictive of recognition performance than the maximum likelihood criterion. Yet we see that the MMI criterion steadily increases while the corresponding recognition performance falls apart. Since the MMI criterion has not converged, we also conclude that the models parameters have not converged even after 100 iterations.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{longer_mmi.png}
\caption{The WER on an independent test set and the MMI criterion on the training data during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label {longer_mmi_graph}}
\end{figure}
This is in stark contrast to what happens with maximum likelihood estimation with the Baum-Welch algorithm. Figure \ref{usual_bw_graph} shows the analogous experiment. Note that the behavior is much more benign. The log-likelihood steadily increases, as theory predicts, but it appears to be converging to around \(-48.9\). Also, while the WER oscillates, the amplitude is very small, and it too appears to be converging to \(17.7\%\). Note that this, as a practical matter, is much more desirable behavior than what we observed in Figure \ref{longer_mmi_graph}. There is little to gain by worrying about how long we run maximum likelihood estimation, while one has to be very careful to run lattice-based MMI just the right number of times. To make matters worse, since the MMI criterion is puzzlingly disconnected from test set recognition performance, we are forced to use recognition performance on a independent validation set to determine when to stop extended Baum-Welch. Aside from being puzzling, this disconnect between the MMI criterion and general recognition performance leaves one vulnerable to questions about how to construct an adequate validation test set for model selection. These considerations also make lattice-based MMI more difficult to fit into a fully automatic assembly-line acoustic model factory than maximum likelihood estimation.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{usual_bw.png}
\caption{The WER on an independent test set and the log-likelihood on the training data during 100 iterations of Baum-Welch. The x-axis gives the Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being initial models.\label {usual_bw_graph}}
\end{figure}
So, again, why does lattice-based MMI behave so differently from maximum likelihood estimation? As we will remind the reader in Section~\ref{notation}, for practical reasons we actually use an approximate version of the MMI criterion. In lattice-based MMI there are two aspects to this approximation and they are both encapsulated in the use of phone-marked word lattices. The first approximation occurs in the calculation of the MMI criterion via Bayes' Rule. Instead of summing over all possible transcriptions of a given training utterance -- which is impossible -- we restrict this sum to the transcriptions that occur in the corresponding lattice. The second approximation occurs in the calculation of the HMM-based acoustic scores which are inputs for the calculation of the MMI criterion. Instead of summing over all possible state sequences compatible with a given transcription, as the HMM demands, we restrict this sum to a subset of state sequences that are compatible with the phone-level time boundaries -- the phone-marks -- that occur in the corresponding lattice. The resulting approximation to what we might call the true MMI criterion is what extended Baum-Welch actually uses as a model selection criterion in lattice-based MMI.
In this paper we will demonstrate that the properties of lattice-based MMI depend on the properties of this approximation. The usual practice is to first generate the phone-marked word lattices using the mle seed models, then use these fixed lattices throughout multiple iterations of extended Baum-Welch. This results in the behavior displayed in Figure \ref{longer_mmi_graph}. In Section~\ref{fixedLats} we will demonstrate that difference between the approximate and true MMI criteria is very small at the mle but steadily increases as the model parameters move away from the mle. We will also demonstrate that the approximate MMI criterion appears to attain its maximum value not within the model parameter space but, instead, at a point at infinity. This suggests that model estimation using the approximate MMI criterion is an ill-posed problem. It also means that the approximate MMI criterion is a terrible choice to perform dual r\^oles, first as an approximation to the MMI criterion and second as a model selection criterion, since by design it will produce estimates for the model parameters that are far from the mle where it is no longer related to the MMI criterion. Extended Baum-Welch obliges these properties by producing a sequence of parameters that heads to a point at infinity with steadily increasing approximate MMI criterion. In this respect, the algorithm, extended Baum-Welch is blameless, it is merely obeying the pathological demands of the approximate MMI criterion.
In Section~\ref{regenWordPhoneLats} we explore what happens if we use a much better approximate MMI criterion. We accomplish this by regenerating the lattices between each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. The resulting approximate MMI criterion is very close to the true MMI criterion at each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. We observe that the resulting behavior of lattice-based MMI is much more benign, similar to what we observe with maximum likelihood estimation. In particular nothing that could be labeled `over fitting' occurs.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{prelimiaries} we introduce the notation that we will be using, details concerning the approximate MMI criterion, and the particulars of our experimental set-up. Section~\ref{experiments} describes and analyses the behavior of extended Baum-Welch using three different approximate MMI criteria. We then wrap up the main body of the paper with a discussion in Section~\ref{discussion}. Finally, we have also include three appendices that further analyze the experiment in Section~\ref{fixedLats}: they cover an alternate analysis of the behavior of the model parameters in Appendix~\ref{modelParameters}, the effect on our results of a parameter that controls the behavior of extended Baum-Welch in Appendix~\ref{E_experiments}, and preliminary results concerning MPE in Appendix~\ref{mpe}.
\subsection{Acknowledgments}
First of all, the core of the researcher described in this paper were obtained while the author was a researcher at VoiceSignal Technologies. He is grateful to VoiceSignal for its support of this project. The author is also extremely grateful to Nuance Communications for setting up what was essentially a sabbatical year for him in 2008. This freedom helped him simplify and clarify the ideas presented below. The author would also like to thank his colleagues Gunnar Evermann, Mike Newman, and Bob Roth for help with the lattice generation. Lastly, the author is deeply indebted to Larry Gillick for his help with this and many other projects over the years, his sage advice, and his friendship.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{prelimiaries}
\subsection{The approximate MMI criterion}\label{notation}
Let \(X_1, X_2, \dots, X_n\) be a sequence of random, \(d\)-dimensional acoustic vectors, which we will abbreviate by \(X\) and let \(W\) be a random transcription taking values in \(\mathcal{W}\). We let \((x,w)\) be the acoustics and the transcription of the training data that we will describe in Section~\ref{experimental_prelimiaries}. We will denote the HMM-based probability model for \(X\), the acoustic model, by \(f_\theta\), where \(\theta\) are the model parameters that take values in \(\Theta\). We will denote the probability distribution, or language model, for \(W\), simply by \(p\).\footnote{In practice there are really two language models in play in this paper. The first is used exclusively on the training data for lattice generation, discriminative training, and recognition. Following current standard practice (see \cite{schluter2} or \cite{povey2}), \(p\) is a relatively weak bigram language model estimated from the training transcriptions \(w\). The second is used exclusively on our independent test set. This distribution is a larger, bigram language model estimated from transcriptions disjoint from both the test and training transcriptions.}
The earlier versions of MMI used the conditional likelihood of the training data, \(p_\theta(w \mid x)\), as a model selection criterion which is given via Bayes' rule by
\begin{equation}
p_\theta(w \mid x) = \frac{f_\theta(x \mid w) p(w ) }{\sum_{\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}} f_\theta(x \mid \textrm{w}) p(\textrm{w} )}.
\end{equation}
In principle the criterion that lattice-based MMI uses for model selection is a scaled version of \(p_\theta(w \mid x)\), which we denote by \(p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa)\), that is defined by
\begin{equation} \label{scaledTheoretical}
p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa) = \frac{f_\theta(x \mid w)^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(w ) }{\sum_{\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}} f_\theta(x \mid \textrm{w})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(\textrm{w} )}.
\end{equation}
The scale \(\kappa\), which is known as the \emph{language model scale}, is used in all practical recognition systems to balance the relative weights of the probabilities obtained from the language model and the acoustic model. Since something analogous to the conditional likelihood \(p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa)\) is used for hypothesis selection during recognition, it is also natural to use it as a model selection criterion.\footnote{This idea was first described in \cite{schluter}.} In reality, however, lattice-based MMI actually uses an approximation to \(p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa)\) for model selection. This approximation, which has two aspects, is the result of efficiencies that extended Baum-Welch is able to make based on two properties of the lattices.
The first aspect of the approximation, which is common to all of the versions of MMI, involves the word level properties of the lattices and the sum in the denominator term of (\ref{scaledTheoretical}). Instead of summing over all the possible transcriptions in \(\mathcal{W}\), which is impossible except in the simplest tasks, we restrict ourselves to a finite subset \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0} \subset \mathcal{W}\). The subset \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) is obtained by keeping all of the hypotheses with probability bigger than some small \(\epsilon > 0\) during a recognition over the training data using the seed acoustic models \(\theta_0\). The correct transcript, \(w\), is also added to \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\). We may think of \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) as essentially\footnote{This is not precisely correct since a practical recognizer is unable to consider all possible \(\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}\) except on tasks like isolated digits. Thus in general there will be some \(\bar{\textrm{w}} \in \mathcal{W} \setminus \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) with \(p_{\theta_0}(\bar{\textrm{w}} \mid x; \kappa) \geq \epsilon\). These \(\bar{\textrm{w}}\) are often called \emph{search errors}.} being defined by
\begin{equation} \label{definitionV}
\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0} = \{\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W} : p_{\theta_0}(\textrm{w} \mid x; \kappa) \geq \epsilon\} \cup \{w\}.
\end{equation}
We use \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) to construct an approximation to \(p_\theta(\cdot \mid x; \kappa)\) that we denote by \(p_\theta(\cdot \mid x; \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0})\) and that we define for any \(v \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) by
\begin{equation} \label{firstSumApprox}
p_\theta(v \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}) = \frac{f_\theta(x \mid v)^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(v ) }{\sum_{\textrm{v} \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}} f_\theta(x \mid \textrm{v})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(\textrm{v} )}.
\end{equation}
The approximation \(p_\theta(\cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0})\) is also a probability mass function, however \textit{prima facie} not for \(W\), instead for \(V\), where \(V\) is the restriction of \(W\) from \(\mathcal{W}\) to \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\). Of course, we can extend \(p_\theta(\cdot \mid x; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0})\) to be a probability mass function for \(W\) by setting it to zero on \(\mathcal{W} \setminus \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\). How good the approximation
\begin{equation} \label{wordLevelApprox}
p_\theta(\cdot \mid x ; \kappa) \approx p_\theta(\cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0})
\end{equation}
is for arbitrary \(\theta\) depends on how large the missing probability density given by
\begin{equation} \label{missingWordMass}
\sum_{\text{w} \in \mathcal{W} \setminus \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}} f_\theta(x \mid \textrm{w})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(\textrm{w} )
\end{equation}
is. At the seed models \(\theta_0\), provided that we have chosen the \(\epsilon\) in (\ref{definitionV}) small enough, the corresponding sum in (\ref{missingWordMass}) should be very small, so the approximation (\ref{wordLevelApprox}) should very close to an identity. Hence for all \(\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}\)
\begin{equation*}
p_{\theta_0}(\textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa) = p_{\theta_0}(\textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}).
\end{equation*}
The second aspect of the approximation involves the phone level properties of the lattices and the allowable state sequences in the definition of the hidden Markov model \(f_\theta\). For any \(\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}\), let \(S_{\textrm{w}}\) denote the set of hidden state sequences, \(s\), that are compatible with transcription \(\textrm{w}\) and have the same number of frames as \(x\), namely \(n\).\footnote{For example, in this paper we will be using HMMs to model triphones. So to construct the set \(S_{\textrm{w}}\) we first take all the phone-level pronunciations consistent with \(\textrm{w}\), then expand them to produce corresponding triphone level pronunciations, and finally enumerate the all of the state sequences with length \(n\) consistent with all of the possible triphone pronunciations.} One facet of the model \(f_\theta(x \mid \textrm{w})\) is that we need to perform the following sum
\begin{equation} \label{hmmSum}
f_\theta(x \mid \textrm{w}) = \sum_{s \in S_{\textrm{w}}} f_\theta(x, s).
\end{equation}
Unfortunately, in the denominator of (\ref{firstSumApprox}) we need to compute \(f_\theta(x \mid \textrm{v})\) for every \(\textrm{v} \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\), which means that we need to efficiently evaluate sums analogous to (\ref{hmmSum}) for all the state sequences in \(S_{\textrm{v}}\), where \(\textrm{v}\) ranges over the large set \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\). Lattice-based MMI gets around this problem by making use of so called \emph{phone-marked} word lattices. Effectively this means that each transcription \(\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) has been force aligned using the seed models \(\theta_0\), but only the times at the phone boundaries -- these are the phone-marks -- are kept from the alignments. The approximation involves restricting the sum in (\ref{hmmSum}) to a subset \(R_{\textrm{w}} \subset S_{\textrm{w}}\) that respects the phone-marks, in the sense that each phone's HMM is anchored at the start and end times given by the corresponding phone-marks.\footnote{This is accomplished in extended Baum-Welch by accumulating statistics using an phone-arc version of the forward-backward algorithm. This is described in detail in \cite{povey2}.} If we let
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{R}_{\theta_0} = \{R_{\textrm{v}}\}_{\textrm{v} \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}},
\end{equation*}
then given \(v \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) we define an approximation to \(f_\theta(x \mid v)\), \(g_\theta( x \mid v ; \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})\), by
\begin{equation*}
g_\theta(x \mid v ; \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}) = \sum_{s \in R_{v}} f_\theta(x, s).
\end{equation*}
The combination of these two approximations results in the following definition\footnote{The notation that we are using for \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) and \(\mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}\) is ambiguous because \(\mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}\) depends on \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) and both depend on \(x\). Fortunately, from now on, all these quantities will be appearing together, e.g. in \(p_\theta(v \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})\), thus eliminating any ambiguity.}:
\begin{equation*}
p_\theta(v \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}) = \frac{g_\theta(x \mid v; \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(v ) }{\sum_{\textrm{v} \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}} g_\theta(x \mid \textrm{v}; \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(\textrm{v} )}.
\end{equation*}
The approximation \(p_\theta( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})\) to \(p_\theta( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) is also a probability mass function for \(V\) which we extend to \(W\) by setting it to zero on \(\mathcal{W} \setminus \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\). The approximate conditional likelihood of the training data, \(p_\theta(w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})\), is what lattice-based MMI actually uses as a model selection criterion.
If \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}\) and \(\mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}\) are large enough, then for any \(\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}\) the approximation
\begin{equation} \label{probApprox}
p_\theta( \textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa) \approx p_\theta( \textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})
\end{equation}
should, in fact, be an equality at \(\theta_0\), namely
\begin{equation*}
p_{\theta_0}( \textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa) = p_{\theta_0}( \textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}).
\end{equation*}
This statement follows from construction. How good the approximation in (\ref{probApprox}) remains as \(\theta\) moves away from \(\theta_0\) is one of the central questions in this paper. Note that this approximation is only valid given the acoustic training data \(x\).
We shall be using the mle, which we denote by \(\theta_{mle}\), to generate the transcriptions and phone-marks in various combinations in our experiments. Instead of writing \(\mathcal{V}_{\theta_{mle}}\) or \(\mathcal{R}_{\theta_{mle}}\) we shall simplify these by writing \(\mathcal{V}_{mle}\) or \(\mathcal{R}_{mle}\) instead.
We shall refer to the quantity
\begin{equation*}
\num(x, w ; \theta, \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}) \equiv \log g_\theta(x \mid w; \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(w )
\end{equation*}
as the \emph{numerator log-likelihood} and the quantity
\begin{equation*}
\den(x; \theta, \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0}) \equiv \log \left(\sum_{\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{V}_{\theta_0}} g_\theta(x \mid \textrm{w}; \mathcal{R}_{\theta_0})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(\textrm{w} )\right)
\end{equation*}
as the \emph{denominator log-likelihood}.
\subsection{Experimental preliminaries}\label{experimental_prelimiaries}
In this Section we give the details that all of our experiments share. We chose to work on a standard Wall Street Journal (WSJ) task from the early 1990's (\cite{paul}, \cite{kubala}) because, by modern standards, it is small enough so that experimental turnaround is fast even with MMI, but it is large enough so that the results are believable. This task is also self-contained, with nearly all of the materials necessary for training and testing available through the LDC, the exception being a dictionary for training and testing pronunciations. We use pronunciations created at VoiceSignal Technologies (VST) using 39 non-silence phones. We use version 3.4 of the HTK toolkit to train and test our models.
We use the WSJ SI-284 set for acoustic model training. This training set consists of material from 84 WSJ0 training speakers and from 200 WSJ1 training speakers. It amounts to approximately 37000 training sentences and 66 hours of non-silence data. Each session was recorded using two microphones; we use the primary channel recorded using a Sennheiser microphone.
The VST front-end that we use produces a 39 dimensional feature vector every 10 ms: 13 Mel-cepstral coefficients, including c0, plus their first and second differences. The cepstral coefficients are mean normalized. The data is down-sampled from 16 kHz to 8 kHz before the cepstral coefficients are computed.
We use very small, simple acoustic models to lower the computational load for MMI. The acoustic models use word-internal triphones. Except for silence, each triphone is modeled using a three state HMM without skipping. For silence we follow the standard HTK practice that uses two models for silence: a three state tee-model and a single state short pause model; the short pause model is tied to middle state of the longer model; both models allow skipping.\footnote{See \cite{young} for details.} The resulting triphone states were then clustered using decision trees to 1500 tied states. The output distribution for each tied state is a single, multivariate normal distribution with a diagonal covariance.
We report word error rate (WER) on two test sets. Using the nomenclature of the time, these test sets use the 5k closed vocabulary and non-verbalized punctuation. The first test set is the November 1992 ARPA evaluation 5k test set. It has 330 sentences collected from 8 speakers. The second test set is referred to as si\_dt\_05.odd in \cite{woodland1}. It is a subset of the the WSJ1 5k development test set defined by first deleting sentences with out of vocabulary (OOV) words (relative to the 5k closed vocabulary) and then selecting every other sentence. This results in 248 sentences collected from 10 speakers. Together, these two test sets amount to about an hour of non-silence data. We test using the standard 5k bigram language model created at Lincoln Labs for the 1992 ARPA evaluation. The combined WER rate on these test sets using the models described above is 18\%.
When we refer to MMI training, we mean lattice-based extended Baum-Welch as described in \cite{povey2} or \cite{woodland2}. We use HTK 3.4 to perform extended Baum-Welch with standard settings, e.g, \(E = 1\). We update the means and variances, but do not update the transition probabilities. We use a VST tool and a relatively weak bigram language model estimated from the acoustic training sentences (we kept bigrams that had 8 or more examples) to generate word lattices on the training set. We use HTK tools to create phone-marked numerator and denominator word lattices, the latter starting from the word lattices described above. The language model scores in the phone-marked word lattices come from the weak bigram language model that was used to generate the word lattices.
For each feature we create a variance floor set to 1\% of the total variance of that feature in the training data. These floors are respected during maximum likelihood and MMI training.
In all of our experiments, \(\kappa = 16\). The HTK extended Baum-Welch software reports the per frame average of three quantities, namely, the numerator and denominator log-likelihoods, as well as their difference, i.e., the logarithm of the approximate MMI criterion. When we report results we too shall report per frame averages of these quantities.
\subsection{A remark concerning \(\Theta\)} \label{thetaClosed}
Since we are only updating the model means and variances during MMI we shall think of the model parameter space \(\Theta\) as consisting of just the space of model means and variances. Even with the small 1500 state unimodal models that we are using, \(\Theta\) is still quite large: on the order of \(10^5\) dimensional. In general, if we define \(\mathcal{H}_{39} = \{\sigma^2 \in \mathbb{R}^{39}: \sigma_i^2 > 0 \textrm{ for } 1 \leq i \leq 39\}\), then each the variance and mean for state \(j\), \((\sigma_j^2, \mu_j)\), range over the product \(\mathcal{H}_{39} \times \mathbb{R}^{39}\), so
\begin{equation*}
\Theta = \prod_{j=1}^{1500} \left(\mathcal{H}_{39} \times \mathbb{R}^{39}\right)
\end{equation*}
which is an open set. But as a practical matter, we are flooring the variances: if we let \(y \in \mathbb{R}\) be the variance floor, i.e. for each \(i\) with \( 1 \leq i \leq 39\) we have \(y_i > 0\), and we let \(\bar{\mathcal{H}}_{39} = \{\sigma^2 \in \mathbb{R}^{39}: \sigma_i^2 \geq 0 \textrm{ for } 1 \leq i \leq 39\}\) be the closure of \(\mathcal{H}_{39}\), then in actuality
\begin{equation*}
\Theta = \prod_{j=1}^{1500} \left((\bar{\mathcal{H}}_{39} + y) \times \mathbb{R}^{39}\right)
\end{equation*}
which is a closed set.
At several points in the paper it will be useful to refer to the distance between model parameters. We will use the usual Euclidean distance on \(\Theta\), denoted \(\| \cdot \|\), to measure these distances.
\section{Experimental results}\label{experiments}
All of the experiments described in this section start from the mle, \(\theta_{mle}\), then construct a sequence of models parameters \((\theta_k)\) by iteratively applying the extended Baum-Welch algorithm 100 times. The experiments differ in what lattices each iteration of extended Baum-Welch uses. In the first experiment we shall follow the standard procedure in the literature that uses lattices generated the mle for each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. This corresponds to using \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) as the model selection criterion during each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. In the second experiment we shall regenerate the lattices between each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. This corresponds to using \(p_\theta( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_k}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) as the model selection criterion during iteration \(k+1\) of extended Baum-Welch. In the third and final experiment we shall use the word lattices generated by the mle but we shall regenerate the phone-marks between each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. This corresponds to using \(p_\theta( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) as the model selection criterion during iteration \(k+1\) of extended Baum-Welch.
\subsection{Fixed lattices} \label{fixedLats}
In this experiment we generate the lattices once and for all using the mle, then run 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch. Figure \ref{longer_mmi_graph} in the introduction shows the results of this experiment, which we redisplay for the reader's convenience in Figure \ref{longer_mmi_graph_repeat}. It is worth noting that 14 iterations of extended Baum-Welch reduces the WER of the mle, \(17.7 \%\), to \(11.6 \%\). This is a remarkable reduction in WER, which illustrates the utility of lattice-based MMI. Unfortunately after 20 iterations the WER starts to steadily increase on the test data. Indeed after 60 iterations the WER has exceeded that of the mle, and after 100 iterations the WER is \(42.4\%\) which is nearly 2.5 times worse than the WER of the mle. This is in spite of the fact that the approximate MMI criterion is steadily increasing during these 100 iterations. The approximate MMI criterion that is displayed in Figure \ref{longer_mmi_graph_repeat} is the sequence \((\log p_{\theta_k}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}))\).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{longer_mmi.png}
\caption{The WER on an independent test set and the MMI criterion on the training data during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label {longer_mmi_graph_repeat}}
\end{figure}
Note that during the first 14 iterations the WER steadily decreases, in synchrony with the steady increase in the approximate MMI criterion. By construction the approximation
\begin{equation} \label {probApprox2}
p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa) \approx p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})
\end{equation}
should be quite reasonable for model parameters \(\theta\) near the mle, \(\theta_{mle}\). Our hypothesis is that as extended Baum-Welch proceeds it gradually pushes the sequence \((\theta_k)\) away from the mle into a region where the approximation (\ref {probApprox2}) is no longer valid.
We supply further evidence for this hypothesis by running recognition on the training data using the sequence of model parameters produced by extended Baum-Welch, \((\theta_k)\), and two different recognition methods. To perform recognition using the models \(\theta_k\) in the first method, which we refer to as `method A', we first generate the phone-marked training lattices using \(\theta_k\). We then pick the best path through the phone-marked word lattices, which corresponds to choosing a transcription \(\textrm{w}^{*}_k \in \mathcal{W}\) according to the rule
\begin{equation*}
\textrm{w}^{*}_k = \arg \max_{\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}} p_{\theta_k}( \textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_k}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k}).
\end{equation*}
Since, as we have remarked in Section~\ref{notation}, the distributions \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_k}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) and \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) should be essentially the same, this amounts to constructing a sequence of recognition transcriptions \((\textrm{w}^{*}_k)\) according to the rule
\begin{equation} \label{bigram_rule}
\textrm{w}^{*}_k = \arg \max_{\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}} p_{\theta_k}( \textrm{w} \mid x ; \kappa).
\end{equation}
In the second method, which we refer to as `method B', we first rescore the phone-marked word lattices generated by the mle -- the lattices that we used during extended Baum-Welch -- with the acoustic model with parameters \(\theta_k\), then pick pick the best path through the resulting lattices. This amounts to constructing a sequence of recognition transcriptions \((v^{*}_k) \in \mathcal{V}_{mle}\) according to the rule
\begin{equation} \label{constraint_rule}
v^{*}_k = \arg \max_{v \in \mathcal{V}_{mle}} p_{\theta_k}( v \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}).
\end{equation}
Table \ref {100iterationsEbwFixedLatWErTraining} displays the results of these recognitions as extended Baum-Welch proceeds. The pattern of the WER of the recognition of the training data using method A is very similar to the pattern that we saw on the independent test data, but these patterns are very different from the pattern of the WER of the recognition of the training data using method B. In particular, the sequence of WERs generated by method B steadily decreases, apparently headed towards \(0\%\) WER.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Method}\\ \cline{2-3}
iteration & A & B\\
\hline
\hline
mle & 28.3 & 28.3\\
10 & 17.6 & 15.4\\
20 & 15.6 & 11.3\\
30 & 14.9 & 9.3\\
40 & 15.2 & 8.1\\
50 & 15.6 & 7.2\\
60 & 19.3 & 6.1\\
70 & 23.8 & 5.2\\
80 & 33.2 & 4.2\\
90 & 45.7 & 3.2\\
100 & 57.3 & 2.6\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{WER on training data during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch using two different recognition methods.\label {100iterationsEbwFixedLatWErTraining}}
\end{table}
As extended Baum-Welch proceeds the probability of the reference training transcription, \(p_{\theta_k}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\), steadily increases, while the sequence of transcriptions recognized by the rule (\ref{constraint_rule}), \((v^{*}_k)\), has steadily decreasing WER. Since the WER is steadily decreasing, the sequence of recognized transcriptions, \((v^{*}_k)\), is moving closer to the reference transcription \(w\). It follows that extended Baum-Welch is making the reference transcription, or a transcription very close to it, the most likely transcription under the rule (\ref{constraint_rule}) which uses the approximation \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) for \(k \gg 0\). In contrast, the WER of the sequence of transcriptions recognized via the rule (\ref{bigram_rule}), \((\textrm{w}^{*}_k)\) is steading increasing after iteration 30 which means that this sequence of recognized transcriptions must be steadily moving further away from the reference transcription \(w\). Since the probability distributions \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) and \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) are making drastically different choices under their respective recognition rules for large \(k\), it follows these probability distributions must be very different after many iterations of extended Baum-Welch.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{bad.png}
\caption{Numerator and denominator log-likelihoods during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch.\label{numdenebw}}
\end{figure}
Why does the approximation in (\ref{probApprox}) break down for \(k \gg 0\)? To answer this, we examine the sequence of numerator log-likelihoods
\begin{equation*}
(\num(x, w ; \theta_k, \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}))
\end{equation*}
and the sequence of denominator log-likelihoods
\begin{equation*}
(\den(x, w ; \theta_k, \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}))
\end{equation*}
over the 100 iterations in Figure \ref {numdenebw}. Since the sequence of numerator log-likelihoods is steadily decreasing, the sequence of parameters \((\theta_k)\) must be steadily moving away from \(\theta_{mle}\). The sequence of denominator log-likelihoods is not only steadily decreasing but is also moving closer to the the sequence of numerator log-likelihoods. From the definitions of the numerator and denominator log-likelihoods, it follows that
\begin{equation} \label{shakyApprox}
g_{\theta_k}(x \mid w; \mathcal{R}_{mle})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(w ) \gg g_{\theta_k}(x \mid \textrm{w}; \mathcal{R}_{mle})^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(\textrm{w} )
\end{equation}
for large \(k\) and every transcription \(\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{V}_{mle}\) different from the reference transcription \(w\). This property of \(g_{\theta_k}\) and \(\mathcal{V}_{mle}\) is not shared by \(f_{\theta_k}\) and \(\mathcal{W}\). We have already shown that for large \(k\) the transcript \(\textrm{w}^{*}_k \in \mathcal{W}\) recognized by rule (\ref{bigram_rule}) is very different from \(w\), hence the the analog of (\ref{shakyApprox}) does not hold for \(f_{\theta_k}\) since \(\textrm{w}^{*}_k \not = w\) and
\begin{equation} \label{trueApprox}
f_{\theta_k}(x \mid \textrm{w}^{*}_k)^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(\textrm{w}^{*}_k) > f_{\theta_k}(x \mid w)^{\frac{1}{\kappa}} p(w ).
\end{equation}
We conclude that the reason that probability distributions \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) and \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) are different is because by restricting the relevant sums in the definition of \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) to \(\mathcal{R}_{mle}\) and \(\mathcal{V}_{mle}\) leads to ignoring state sequences in \(\mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{R}_{mle}\) or transcriptions in \(\mathcal{W} \setminus \mathcal{V}_{mle}\) that have zero probability under \(\theta_{mle}\) but non-trivial probability under \(\theta_k\).
However the situation is actually much worse than this analysis suggests. To see this we turn to investigating the convergence properties of \((\theta_k)\). As we noted in the introduction, Figure \ref{longer_mmi_graph_repeat} shows that the the sequence of model parameters \((\theta_k)\) cannot have converged during these 100 iterations, since the sequence \((\log p_{\theta_k}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}))\) has clearly not converged. If the trend exhibited in Figure \ref {numdenebw} continues, then
\begin{equation} \label{ill-posed:root}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \num(x, w ; \theta_k, \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}) = \lim_{k \to \infty} \den(x, w ; \theta_k, \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}) = -\infty.
\end{equation}
It (\ref{ill-posed:root}) were true, then the continuity of \(\num(x, w ; \theta, \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) as a function of \(\theta\) would show that not only is the sequence \((\theta_k)\) not convergent, but that it does not remain within any given compact set. Furthermore, as we remarked in Section~\ref{thetaClosed}, because we are flooring the variances \(\Theta\) is in fact closed, so it would follow that the sequence \((\theta_k)\) must be unbounded. More precisely, the sequence of model parameters \((\theta_k)\) created by 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch is consistent with the following conjecture:\footnote{The observed conditional log-likelihood of the training data does change dramatically after 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch, in fact decreasing in absolute value by a factor of 14, which means that the relationship between the conditional likelihoods before and after 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch is given by is
\begin{equation*}
\log p_{\theta_{100}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}) \approx \left(\log p_{\theta_{mle}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}) )\right)^{\frac{1}{14}}.
\end{equation*}
Thus the probability mass is considerably more concentrated on \(w\) under \(\theta_{100}\) than it was to begin with under \(\theta_{mle}\).}
\begin{conjecture}\label{mainconjecture}
Let \((\theta_k) \in \Theta\) be the sequence of model parameters defined inductively by \(\theta_0 = \theta_{mle}\), and \(\theta_{k+1}\) is obtained from \(\theta_k\) by using extended Baum-Welch with \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) as the model selection criterion. Then
\begin{equation} \label{goestoinfty}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \|\theta_k\| = \infty
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation} \label{supequals0}
\lim_{k \to \infty} \log p_{\theta_k}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}) = 0.
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
Conjecture \ref{mainconjecture} suggests that the approximate MMI criterion, \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\), is a terrible choice for a model selection criterion. This is because the problem
\begin{equation} \label{illPosed}
\hat{\theta} = \arg \max_{\theta \in \Theta} p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})
\end{equation}
admits an absurd solution, namely a point at infinity with
\begin{equation*}
p_{\hat{\theta}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}) = 1.
\end{equation*}
In other words, this would mean that the model selection problem in (\ref{illPosed}) is ill-posed. On the other hand, the algorithm, extended Baum-Welch, appears to be blameless since it is doing what the apparently ill-posed problem requires it to do.
One possible mechanism that extended Baum-Welch could use to drive the numerator and denominator log-likelihoods to big -- but not infinite -- negative values is to simply push a large number of the model variances to the variance floor. We rule this mechanism out by observing that none of the mle model parameters have floored variances, while after 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch only 10 out of the approximately 59,000 variances have been floored. In Appendix~\ref{modelParameters} we give a more detailed analysis of what happens to the model parameters after 100 passes of extended Baum-Welch. In particular, we show that there is an significant expansion of the space that the means occupy.
Finally, as we noted in Section~\ref{experimental_prelimiaries}, the extended Baum-Welch parameter \(E\) was set to 1 in this experiment. It is natural to ask if larger values of \(E\) would result in different results. In particular, we might speculate that it is possible to choose \(E\) large enough to guarantee convergence of the resulting sequence of model parameters \((\theta_k)\). In Appendix~\ref{E_experiments} we examine this question. There we find that increasing \(E\) only slows the behavior that we have observed in this section, with the fundamental problem of parameter divergence remaining with larger choices for \(E\). However, this result should not be surprising since it is consistent with the results of this section: the parameter divergence, among the other deficiencies of lattice-based MMI, is due to properties of the approximate MMI criterion and not due to properties of extended Baum-Welch.
\subsection{Regenerated lattices: word and phone-marks} \label{regenWordPhoneLats}
In this experiment we regenerate the phone-marked word lattices between each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. Thus at iteration \(k+1\) we are using \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_k}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) as the model selection criterion when we estimate the parameters \(\theta_{k+1}\). Starting from the mle, we run extended Baum-Welch 100 times. We observe the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] The logarithm of the approximate MMI criterion, \(\log p_{\theta_k}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_k}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\), increases for the first 30 iterations and then starts to oscillate. It reaches its peak value after 50 iterations and then continues its oscillation. See Figure \ref {mmi_regen_wer_mmi}.
\item[(2)] The WER on the test set steadily decreases for the first 25 iterations, then continues to decrease but with oscillation. After 36 iterations the WER reaches its minimum value, \(10.1\%\), and then oscillates from \(10.1\%\) to various values ranging from \(10.4\%\) to \(10.9\%\). See Figure \ref {mmi_regen_wer_mmi}.
\item[(3)] When we when measure the WER on the training data to three significant figures it steadily decreases and in fact appears to converge to \(12.3\%\). See Table \ref{denlatrecmmieachtime}. However, when we measure this WER to four significant digits, there is a small oscillation of \(\pm 0.05\%\).
\end{itemize}
Using a matched pairs test (\cite{gillick}), the minimum WER on the test set in this experiment, \(10.1\%\), is significantly better than that of the previous experiment, \(11.6\%\), at a confidence level \( < 0.001\) (the smallest non-zero p-value that we can detect with our software is 0.001). But the difference in the relative reduction in the WERs \(17.7 \to 11.6 = 34\%\) versus \(17.7 \to 10.1 = 43\%\) are similar. Perhaps the improvement that we are seeing is artifact of the inherent noise in WERs obtained using simple models on small test sets.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{mmi_regen_wer_mmi.png}
\caption{MMI criterion on the training set during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch with lattice regeneration. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label{mmi_regen_wer_mmi}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|}
\hline
iteration & WER\\
\hline
\hline
mle & 28.3 \\
10 & 17.4 \\
20 & 14.6 \\
30 & 13.3 \\
40 & 12.7 \\
50 & 12.5 \\
60 & 12.5 \\
70 & 12.4 \\
80 & 12.3 \\
90 & 12.3 \\
100 & 12.3 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{WER on the training set during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch.\label {denlatrecmmieachtime}}
\end{table}
For model parameters \(\theta\) near \(\theta_k\) the approximation
\begin{equation} \label{approxRegenMmi}
p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa) \approx p_\theta(w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_k}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})
\end{equation}
should be very good. So by regenerating the phone-marked word lattices between each iteration of extended Baum-Welch, we are effectively using something very close to \(p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa)\) as our model selection criterion for each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. Figure \ref {mmi_regen_wer_mmi} shows that while the sequence \((p_{\theta_k}(w \mid x; \kappa))\) is oscillating for \(k\) large, it is not being driven to 1. In other words, the model selection criterion \(p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa)\) is not exhibiting the pathological behavior that \(p_\theta(w \mid x; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_{mle}}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_{mle}})\) exhibits. Also, the sequences of word error rates on the independent test set and the training data behave similarly as extended Baum-Welch proceeds and are consistent with the sequence \(((p_{\theta_k}(w \mid x; \kappa))\) . In particular we do not any phenomena that might be labeled `over training' or `over fitting'.
Finally, even though we are seeing much more benign behavior than in the previous experiment with fixed lattices, neither the approximate MMI criterion has converged after 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch, nor has the sequence of underlying parameters, \((\theta_k)\), converged. However, in contrast to the previous experiment with fixed lattices, Figure \ref {mmi_regen_wer_mmi} suggests that in the limit the sequence \((\theta_k)\) is orbiting a compact limit set.
\subsection{Regenerated lattices: only phone-marks} \label{regenPhoneLatsOnly}
In this experiment we generate the word lattices once and for all using the mle, but we regenerate the phone-marks in the lattices between each iteration of extended Baum-Welch. Thus at iteration \(k+1\) we are using \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) as the model selection criterion when we estimate the parameters \(\theta_{k+1}\). Starting from the mle, we run extended Baum-Welch 100 times. The results we observe are a less extreme version of what we saw in Section~\ref{fixedLats}, namely the approximate MMI criterion steadily increases, while the WER on the independent test set steadily decreases until it reaches its minimum of \(11.5\%\) at iteration 15, levels out between iterations 16 and 22 where it finally then starts to gradually increase. Significant oscillations in the WER begin after iteration 47. See Figure \ref {phonemark_wer_mmi_100}. So just as in the experiment with fixed lattices in Section~\ref{fixedLats}, we observe a disconnect between the steadily increasing approximate MMI criterion and the increasing test set WER.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{phonemark_wer_mmi_100.png}
\caption{MMI criterion on the training data during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch with lattice regeneration. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label{phonemark_wer_mmi_100}}
\end{figure}
Following the example set forward in Section~\ref{fixedLats}, we run recognition on the training data using two different recognition methods. The first method is exactly the same as method A in Section~\ref{fixedLats}, namely we use the distribution \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) to select our recognition transcription at iteration \(k\) via the rule (\ref{bigram_rule}). The second method, which we refer to as `method C' is analogous to method B in Section~\ref{fixedLats}, except that here we use the distribution \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) to select the recognition transcription instead of the distribution \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) in the rule (\ref{constraint_rule}). The resulting recognition results are displayed in Table \ref{phoneMarkEachTimeComp}. Notice that the sequence of WERs are both slowing decreasing over this range. An argument analogous to what we presented in Section~\ref{fixedLats} shows that the probability distributions \(p_{\theta_k}(\cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) and \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) must be very different for \(k \gg 0\). The only possible explanation for why these distributions are different is: by restricting the relevant sum in the definition of \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{k})\) to \(\mathcal{V}_{mle}\) leads to ignoring transcriptions in \(\mathcal{W} \setminus \mathcal{V}_{mle}\) that have zero probability under \(\theta_{mle}\) but non-trivial probability under \(\theta_k\).
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|r|c|c|}
\hline
& \multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Method}\\ \cline{2-3}
iteration & A & C\\
\hline
\hline
mle & 28.3 & 28.3\\
10 & 17.3 & 15.1\\
20 & 14.7 & 11.0\\
30 & 13.3 & 9.1\\
40 & 12.8 & 8.1\\
50 & 12.7 & 7.7\\
60 & 12.6 & 7.3\\
70 & 12.4 & 7.0\\
80 & 12.4 & 6.8\\
90 & 12.3 & 6.6\\
100 & 12.2 & 6.4\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{WER on training data during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch using two different recognition methods.\label {phoneMarkEachTimeComp}}
\end{table}
While the WER on the independent test set is increasing in Figure \ref {phonemark_wer_mmi_100} after iteration 22, the increase is very gradual and the oscillation in the WER is large. We decided to run 290 more iterations of extended Baum-Welch to see if the minimum value in the oscillating WER ever exceeds that of the mle, namely \(17.7\%\). Figure \ref{phonemark_wer_mmi_380} displays the results of the resulting 390 iterations from the beginning. At iterations 337-341 the oscillation in the WER temporarily stops, with the WER at \(18.2\%\).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{phonemark_wer_mmi_380.png}
\caption{WER on the test set during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch with lattice regeneration. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label{phonemark_wer_mmi_380}}
\end{figure}
In Figure \ref{phonemark_wer_mmi_380} we see that the approximate MMI criterion begins to oscillate after about iteration 100. The test set WER also begins a secondary oscillation at about that iteration. This is easier to see in Figure \ref {phonemark_wer_mmi_50_380}. Note that even though the overall trend in approximate MMI criterion and test set WER is upward until about iteration 300, which means that there is a disconnect in the approximate MMI criterion from the test set WER, the oscillations in the approximate MMI criterion are connected to the secondary oscillations in the test set WER. For example at iteration 371 the approximate MMI criterion is at the bottom of a steep valley, while the test set WER is at the top of a peak (\(19.2\%\)).
Finally we note that while the overall trend in both the approximate MMI criterion and the WER appear to be converging -- both trends start to level out at around iteration 300 -- the amplitudes of the secondary oscillations appear to be increasing. Thus, even after nearly 400 iterations, the sequence of model parameters is not close to converging. Also, because the secondary oscillations are increasing in amplitude, it is possible that the sequence of model parameters is heading to a point at infinity, but more extended Baum-Welch iterations and further analysis would be required to settle this point.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{phonemark_wer_mmi_50_380.png}
\caption{WER on the test set during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch with lattice regeneration. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label{phonemark_wer_mmi_50_380}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Further analysis of the three experiments} \label{extraAnalysis}
In this section we present an analysis that shows that if we use \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) as our approximation to the MMI criterion, then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] For the first 9 iterations of extended Baum-Welch, this approximate MMI criterion consistently overestimates the value of its choice of model parameter relative to the value that the true MMI criterion would place on it. We express this mathematically, in the range \(0 \leq k \leq 8\), by:
\begin{equation*}
p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa) < p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}).
\end{equation*}
\item[(2)] This overestimation is solely due to ignoring alternative transcriptions that the mle placed zero probability on.
\item[(3)] Significant errors in this approximation due to ignoring alternative state sequences, that the mle placed zero probability on, do not occur until after iteration 27.
\end{itemize}
Figure \ref{comparison_test_wer} compares the WERs on the independent test set as extended Baum-Welch proceeds using the three approximate MMI criteria: \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) which is labeled `Fixed lattices', \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{k})\) which is labeled `Regenerate phone-marks', and \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{k}, \mathcal{R}_{k})\) which is labeled `Regenerate all'. These WERs are all essentially the same until iteration 10, when the `Regenerate all' WERs separate from the other two. We infer from this that the corresponding sequences of model parameters follow the same pattern: all three sequences of model parameters are essentially the same until iteration 10, when the sequence created using the model selection criterion \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{k}, \mathcal{R}_{k})\) separates from the other two sequences.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{comparison_test_wer.png}
\caption{Comparison of WERs on the independent test set during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch with the three types of input lattices. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label{comparison_test_wer}}
\end{figure}
Similarly, Figure \ref{comparison_mmi_criterion} compares the values of the three approximate MMI criteria as extended Baum-Welch proceeds. For the first nine iterations all three sequences of model parameters are the same, but in the range \(0 \leq k \leq 8\)
\begin{equation} \label{wordInequality}
p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{k}, \mathcal{R}_{k}) < p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{k}) = p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle}).
\end{equation}
The definitions show that inequality in (\ref{wordInequality}) must be due to alternate training transcriptions \(\textrm{w} \in \mathcal{W}\setminus\mathcal{V}_{mle}\) satisfying
\begin{equation*}
g_{\theta_{mle}}(x \mid \textrm{w}; \mathcal{R}_{mle}) = 0
\end{equation*}
and, for \(k\) with \(0 \leq k \leq 8\),
\begin{equation*}
g_{\theta_{k+1}}(x \mid \textrm{w}; \mathcal{R}_{\theta_{k}}) = g_{\theta_{k+1}}(x \mid \textrm{w}; \mathcal{R}_{mle}) > 0.
\end{equation*}
Recall that the approximate MMI criterion \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{k}, \mathcal{R}_{k})\) is essentially the same as \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\). However, we have shown that the approximate MMI criteria \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{k})\) and \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) are overly optimistic relative to \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\) solely because the corresponding distributions place zero probability on transcriptions that are not in \(\mathcal{V}_{mle}\) but have non-zero probability under \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\textwidth]{comparison_mmi_crits.png}
\caption{Comparison of the approximate MMI criterion during 100 iterations of extended Baum-Welch with the three types of input lattices. The x-axis gives the extended Baum-Welch iteration, with x=0 being the mle.\label{comparison_mmi_criterion}}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{comparison_test_wer} and \ref{comparison_mmi_criterion} show that the test set WERs and the approximate MMI criteria are very similar for the first 27 iterations when we use the approximations \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) and \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\). Thus a similar argument shows that it is not until after iteration 28 that ignoring state sequences in \(\mathcal{S}\setminus\mathcal{R}_{mle}\) starts to degrade the approximation in \(p_{\theta_{k+1}}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\).
Finally, Figures \ref{comparison_test_wer} and \ref{comparison_mmi_criterion} also make clear how important the regenerating the phone-marks are to good asymptotic behavior for lattice-based MMI.
\section{Discussion} \label{discussion}
We showed in Section~\ref{regenWordPhoneLats} that if we iteratively estimate model parameters using extended Baum-Welch and an approximate MMI criterion -- \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{\theta_k}, \mathcal{R}_{\theta_k})\) at iteration \(k+1\) -- that is a consistently good approximation to \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\), then the resulting behavior is nearly ideal. The WERs on the training and test data decline while the approximate MMI criterion rises. In fact the minimum WER on the test set is lower -- albeit by a small amount -- than when we use the standard approximate MMI criterion. The sequences of WERs and approximate MMI criteria do not appear to actually converge, but instead oscillate within a small range of values, which suggests that the underlying parameters will asymptotically orbit a compact limit set. In particular, there is no evidence that anything like `over fitting' is occurring. On the contrary, this suggests that parameter estimation using the ideal MMI criterion, \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\), and the extended Baum-Welch algorithm should have properties that are nearly as good as maximum likelihood estimation using the Baum-Welch algorithm.
In contrast, we showed in Section~\ref{fixedLats} that the properties of the standard approximation to the MMI criterion, namely \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\), make it unsuitable as a model selection criterion. First of all, when \(\theta = \theta_{mle}\) the approximation
\begin{equation} \label{mmiCritApprox}
p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa) \approx p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})
\end{equation}
is essentially an equality and this approximation remains good while \(\theta\) is close to \(\theta_{mle}\). However, we showed that as \(\theta\) moves away from \(\theta_{mle}\) the two distributions \(p_{\theta}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) and \(p_{\theta}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) become very different. This is because, by construction, \(p_{\theta}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) ignores transcriptions in \(\mathcal{W} \setminus \mathcal{V}_{mle}\) and state sequences in \(\mathcal{S} \setminus \mathcal{R}_{mle}\) that have zero probability under our model at \(\theta_{mle}\). As \(\theta\) moves away from \(\theta_{mle}\) these ignored transcriptions and state sequences start to accumulate non-trivial probability mass, leading this approximate MMI criterion to consistently overestimate \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\). Interestingly, we showed in Section~\ref{regenPhoneLatsOnly} and Section~\ref{extraAnalysis} that the ignored state sequences appear to contribute just as much as the ignored transcriptions do to the discrepancy between \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) and \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\) when \(\theta\) is far from \(\theta_{mle}\). Second of all, and to make matters worse, we also showed that the approximate MMI criterion \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) appears to have a maximum value of 1 (i.e., the approximate MMI criterion places all the probability mass on the reference transcription \(w\)) when \(\theta\) is at a point at infinity. This means that estimating model parameters using
\begin{equation*}
\hat{\theta} = \arg \max_{\theta \in \Theta} p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})
\end{equation*}
appears to be an ill-posed problem. This also means that using \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) as a model selection criterion will produce estimates \(\hat{\theta}\) far away from \(\theta_{mle}\) where (\ref{mmiCritApprox}) is no longer a good approximation.
Our explanation for the behavior of lattice-based MMI is in terms of the quality of the approximation (\ref{mmiCritApprox}) and the properties of \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) as a model selection criterion. For the first several iterations of extended Baum-Welch, the estimated parameters, \(\theta_k\), stay close enough to \(\theta_{mle}\) so that the approximation (\ref{mmiCritApprox}) is still good. As we have shown, parameter estimation using a model selection criterion close to \( p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\) is well behaved, and the first several iterations of model estimation using the approximate MMI criterion \( p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) is well behaved too: WERs on the training and test set steadily decline, while the approximate MMI criterion steadily increases. However as the number of iterations of extended Baum-Welch increases beyond 20, we have shown that the approximation (\ref{mmiCritApprox}) degrades and the distributions \( p_{\theta}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) and \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) become increasingly unrelated. The WER on the training data performed by using the distribution \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) (method B in Section~\ref{fixedLats}) steadily declines and the related approximate MMI criterion steadily increases, which shows that extended Baum-Welch is correctly optimizing the approximate MMI criterion. However, the distribution that we really care about is not \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\), but rather what is now the very different distribution \(p_{\theta_k}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\). The WER on the training data using the distribution \( p_{\theta}( \cdot \mid x ; \kappa)\) (method A in Section~\ref{fixedLats}) begins to get steadily worse as do WERs on the test data. This is not due to 'over fitting', but instead the natural consequence of using an ill-behaved approximation.
We also believe that this is the explanation for the behavior that was labeled `over fitting' in all the earlier versions of MMI. Except in the case of tasks like isolated digits, it has never been possible to sum over all possible transcriptions or state sequences which the definition of the earlier MMI criterion, \(p_\theta(w \mid x)\), also requires. Instead, all the early versions of MMI used approximations to this MMI criterion, say \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\), analogous to the approximation that we have studied in this paper. It would be very surprising if the earlier approximations exhibited markedly different properties than those that we have shown \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa, \mathcal{V}_{mle}, \mathcal{R}_{mle})\) exhibits.
One approach to improving lattice-based MMI would be to come up with a better approximation to \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\). There are two directions that one could pursue. The first would be to come up a better functional form for the approximation itself. This could involve something as simple as adding a regularization term to prevent the model parameters from straying too far from the mle or a deeper analysis of what useful properties \(p_{\theta}( w \mid x ; \kappa)\) has that can be captured in practical form. The second would involve a better, quantitative understanding of how close \(\theta\) needs to be to \(\theta_{mle}\) in order for the approximation (\ref{mmiCritApprox}) to be valid. With that knowledge, instead of regenerating the lattices between each iteration of extended Baum-Welch, we could regenerate the lattices only as needed based on how far the model parameters have moved and our estimate of how much (\ref{mmiCritApprox}) has deteriorated. A related issue is that it would be extremely useful to have a quantitative measure of how `good' the lattices need to be for (\ref{mmiCritApprox}) to be valid. Although \cite{povey2} contains some useful guidance in this regard, this remains part of the `black art' of lattice-based MMI.
Finally, we believe that this paper illustrates a fruitful area of research that is usually ignored in the speech recognition literature. For a variety of reasons, we tend to treat our estimation algorithms as `black boxes'. A great deal of attention is paid to the external responses of the algorithm to stimuli in the form of training and test data. Especially important responses to these stimuli are computational efficiency and word error rate. In fact, we tend to develop algorithms expressly to lower the word error rate, often by tinkering with or combining extant algorithms. We also tend to prefer one algorithm over another based on these considerations, which leads to a form of word error rate and computational efficiency based natural selection in the evolution of algorithms. While this state of affairs is perfectly reasonable, indeed it has led to remarkable progress in field of speech recognition over the last twenty years, what goes on inside the resulting rather intricate collection of black boxes has rarely if ever been examined. For example, the models and their parameters typically live deep inside the black box, which means that asymptotic properties of the algorithm at the model parameter level are also hidden from view. Another example is the overall effect of the many approximations that are used to make computations feasible. When taken individually these effects are well understood, but their overall effect in combination is often overlooked or even ignored when theoretical analysis is undertaken. Lattice-based MMI is a perfect example of one of these black boxes. It is a complicated algorithm with many facets that has evolved over more than twenty years, the evolution driven by the goal of lowering the word error rate. When considered in the light of word error rate reduction, lattice-based MMI is remarkably successful. However, this paper shows that when we peer deeper inside this particular black box we see that the model parameters are behaving pathologically. We were not only able to diagnose the problem -- a flaw in a key approximation -- but we were also able to correct it, which results in more stable model parameter behavior and a small improvement in the word error rate. We intend to continue investigations of this sort on other important algorithms used in speech recognition.
|
\section{Introduction}
\subsection{Background}
The basic premise of mathematical behavioral economics is that human beings
are rational. A natural model of rationality, when faced with uncertainty, is
Bayesian inference together with a utility function that depends on
the state of the world and the actions of the individuals. This model, from
its first days, ran into the difficulties of computational
intractability~\cite{Simon:82}.
An obvious source of difficulty is the complexity of the world; it is
infeasible to even represent a probability distribution over the possible
states of our world.
But even when the state of the world is taken to be very simple - binary
for example - the computational challenge an individual faces may still prove
insurmountable, when {\em social networks} are taken into account
\cite{GaleKariv:03}.
Research in this field has been characterized by a tension between rationality
and tractability: Rational models are in general intractable, and
therefore unrealistic, whereas other (usually boundedly-rational) models
are somewhat arbitrary.
For some network geometries the problem is easy. For example, when the network
graph is a clique,
Condorcet's Jury Theorem \cite{Condorcet:85}, a founding work in this field,
states that when each individual
receives a weak, independent, binary signal on the state of the world,
the group can aggregate
their information using Majority Rule to recover the true state of the
world with high probability, if the group is large enough. More specifically,
the probability of correct
recovery goes to one as the number of agents goes to infinity, a property of
the model known as {\em asymptotic learning}.
The history of {\em Social Learning on Networks}
can be viewed as an attempt to find extensions of
Condorcet's Jury Theorem, to setups
where direct interaction is allowed only between some of the agents, so that
the structure of social relationships is given by a connected network. An
elusive goal has been finding a model that is rational, tractable and results
in asymptotic learning, as Condorcet's does.
First models, such as the De-Groot model \cite{DeGroot:74}, consider
iterative network processes,
where each node performs the computationally simple task of averaging its
current distribution for the state of the world with that of its neighbors. This
leads to convergence of all agents to the same value, which is the
average of the original beliefs, as weighted by the degree. This model is
elegant, but leaves more to be desired; the nature of the
utility maximized by the actions of the different agents is unclear, and so
it is hard to see how this model can be classified as rational. Additionally,
convergence
to a weighted average may be considered as suboptimal, as the true average of
the signals is a better estimate of the original signal under standard
statistical assumptions. This is most apparent in networks where some nodes
have degree
which is proportional to the total number of connections in the network. In such
networks, no matter how large they are, with constant probability the
estimates will converge to values which are bounded away from the true ones.
A modern approach to the problem is in the Bayesian setup.
Founding work in the Bayesian realm (e.g., \cite{Banerjee:92},
\cite{BichHirshWelch:92}
and \cite{SmithSorensen:00}) focused on chains of individuals, each
of which, in turn and according to a set order, chooses an action
based on private information and past actions. Similar models, in which
agents have limited sets of social ties, have also been devised,
e.g. \cite{AcemMuntDahlLobelOzd:08}. Of course these models are somewhat
limited in their modeling power, as most realistic network
interactions are iterative, and so agents learn and act over and over again.
This problem is partially addressed in the work of Bala and Goyal
\cite{BalaGoyal:96}, where iterative interactions are allowed.
They have shown that for some priors and some network structures,
the agents converge to an optimal action.
However, their model assumes that in each round each agent may receive an
independent signal of the state of the world, and thus a potentially unbounded
amount of information may be available to an individual. Furthermore, they
bound the
rationality of the agents for various reasons, one of which is that fully
rational agents would have to carry out intractable computations.
Gale and Kariv \cite{GaleKariv:03} propose a model in which each agent
receives an independent signal at the beginning
of the process, and thenceforth all agents act and observe
simultaneously and repeatedly,
improving their knowledge of the state of the
world with every iteration. The model is completely Bayesian in the sense that
the agents are Bayesian and their actions
are aimed at maximizing the expected utility at each round. It requires the
agents to know the structure of the network graph.
This is a natural model for studying the paradigm of the Condorcet Jury
Theorem, in a network setup.
It is shown in \cite{GaleKariv:03} that all the beliefs of the agents converge,
and that it could not be that different agents will converge to
different actions. However, their results do not rule out the possibility that
the actions will not converge at all. Additionally, their model, in its full
generality, is computationally intractable.
\subsection{Our Contribution}
We consider a model which is a variant of this model. We insist that the action
space is infinite and indeed that the action of each agent reveals the mean of
its belief to its neighbors.
We further assume that the original signals are Gaussian.
In this model the state of the world is $S$, a real number.
The agents each have a private Gaussian measurement
of $S$. Iteratively, they pick an action, and learn their neighbors'
estimate for the expected value of $S$ from {\em their} actions.
Then they perform a fully Bayesian calculation which results in a new estimate
of $S$.
We prove that this model satisfies the strongest possible Condorect Jury
Theorem:
\begin{itemize}
\item
The agents are fully rational {\em and } the agents' calculations are tractable.
\item
For every connected network, all
agents will converge to the same beliefs, and that this belief is
optimal, i.e. the belief given by the average of the original signals.
\item
Finally, convergence takes place in a finite number of
rounds - in fact the number of round is at most twice the number of
agents in the network times the diameter of the network.
\end{itemize}
After the first draft of our paper was circulated~\cite{MosselTamuz10:arxiv}
Marcus M\"obious (whom we would like to thank) brought to our attention that
essentially the same model is briefly mentioned in a paper by DeMarzo, Vayanos and Zweibel
\cite{DeMarzo:03}, who prove that convergence takes place after a number of
rounds equal to the square of the number of agents. It appears that the main
reason that \cite{DeMarzo:03}
did not devote more attention to the model was computational, as they write:
``We should emphasize that the calculations that agents must perform even in
this simple case where the network is common knowledge can be very complicated.''.
In contrast, we show that the computations are efficient - both theoretically (each update involves linear algebra
manipulations in dimension $n$) and in practice (we have efficient code that performs all the agents calculations for large networks).
A second property of this model that DeMarzo et al.\ found unrealistic is
the requirement that all agents know the structure of the social network. While
indeed this may be difficult to justify for some large networks, {\em it is perhaps not
strictly necessary}; in order to perform their calculations, the agents need
to know the covariance between the estimators of {\em their neighbors only}.
In our model, they derive this knowledge from the structure of the graph, but in principle
it may be derived by other means. This observation (which was clarified in discussions with Rafael M.\ Frongillo, Grant Schoenebeck and Adam Kalai, whom we would like to thank) presents an opportunity
for follow-up work involving some variant of this model, which does
not require knowledge of the network, but still preserves rationality,
tractability and efficient learning. More on this and other future research is presented at the conclusion section.
\section{The Model}
The model can be divided into three parts: the agents and their social network,
the state of the world and its measurements, and the agents' behavior.
\subsection{The Agents and their Social Network}
The agents in our model are the nodes of a fixed network of social ties.
Formally:
\begin{itemize}
\item The agents are a finite set $V$.
\item The set of social ties $E$ is a set of pairs of agents,
so that $\{u,v\}=\{v,u\}$ is in $E$ if agents $u$ and $v$ are neighbors.
\item Every pair of agents is connected by a chain of neighbors: even if
$u$ and $v$ are not neighbors, then there exists a chain $w_1,\ldots,w_k$
such $u=w_1$, $v=w_k$, and $w_1$ is a neighbor of $w_2$, $w_2$ is a
neighbor of $w_3$ etc.
\end{itemize}
Hence $G=(V,E)$ is a finite, simple, connected, undirected graph. Note that
this graph does not change with time.
\subsection{The State of the World and its Measurements}
The agents reside in a world characterized by some number $S$. They have some
information on $S$ which is not certain.
\begin{itemize}
\item Let $S \in \R$ be some state of the world.
\item For each agent $v$, let $S_v$ be $v$'s private measurement, so that
$S_v$ is picked from the normal distribution with mean $S$ and standard
deviation $\sigma$.
\item The different $S_v$'s are independent.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{The Agents' Behavior}
The agents are Bayesian, so they initially have some prior belief
regarding $S$, and update it to a posterior belief, according to Bayes' Law,
with each additional piece of information they encounter. Both prior and
posterior beliefs are distributions on the possible values of $S$.
In our model each agent $v$ has a {\em different} prior, which is the Gaussian
distribution with mean $S_v$ and variance one. An equivalent
model, in which all agents initially have {\em identical} priors, is the
one in which the common (``improper'') prior is the uniform measure on $\R$.
After learning the private measurement, each agent would update its belief
and would at that point have
the prior belief of the agents in our model.
Roughly speaking, this improper prior is well approximated by
the normal distribution with some extremely
large variance.
At each iteration, each agent picks an action $A_x$, where $x$ is some
real number. We assume that when $x$ is equal to the expectation of an
agent's current belief, then $A_x$ is its optimal action. This can be
achieved by, for example, setting the agents' utility to be
$U(A_x)=-(S-x)^2$ and assuming that the agents want to maximize their expected
utility. We also assume that one can learn $x$ by observing that an agent
has picked $A_x$. That is $A_x$ is different from $A_y$ when $x$ is different
than $y$.
Having carried out some action, each agent observes its neighbors' actions,
and calculates a new posterior distribution,
based on all the information it has come across so far.
Formally:
\begin{itemize}
\item Agent $v$'s prior belief regarding $S$ is the Gaussian distribution
with mean $S_v$ and standard deviation one. Denote this belief $B_{v,0}$.
\item At time $t \in \mathbb N} \newcommand{\R}{\mathbb R$, agent $v$ takes
action $A_{x_v(t)}$, where $x_v(t)={\bf E}} \newcommand{\Cov}{{\bf Cov}[S|B_{v,t}]$.
\item Next, it observes its neighbors actions, and learns $x_u(t)$ for each of
its neighbors $u$. It then calculates, using Bayes' Law, a new
posterior distribution $B_{v,t+1}$, based
on all it has observed so far - its neighbors' actions in the previous
iterations.
\end{itemize}
Note that the fact that each agent knows the structure of the graph allows its
to know what calculation each of the other agents performed; not the actual
numbers involved in the calculation, but rather ``the formula'' that was used.
This model is similar to the one presented in \cite{MosselTamuzAllerton:09}.
The agents in that model, however, were not Bayesian and had no memory of
their observations in past iterations.
\section{Results}
We prove two results:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\em Efficient Computation}:
Each agent's calculation is computationally efficient: it can be achieved
using simple linear algebra operations, involving matrices whose size is
the size of the network.
\item {\em Efficient Learning}:
The agents' posterior beliefs all converge to the same value.
This is
the value that they would have converged to, had they all access to each
other's private measurements.
Furthermore, the process converges in at most $2n\cdot d$
iterations, where $d$ is the diameter of the graph.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Computational Efficiency}
We begin with an informal discussion of the computational aspects of
the learning process.
The agents' private signals are distributed normally, with means $S_v$ and
standard
deviations one. When an agent observes its neighbor's action, it learns the
mean of its neighbor's current belief. This is an estimator of $S$, which can
inductively be shown to also be normally distributed. It can also be shown
to be a weighted average, and hence a linear combination, of the
estimators seen so far, and hence a linear combination of the
different $S_v$'s. Knowing the structure of the graph, an agent can know
the coefficients of these linear combinations, coefficients that are independent
of the actual values of the $S_v$'s.
When an agent observes a neighbor's action, it adds to its memory an additional
estimator of $S$, and in particular one that is a linear combination of the
original $S_v$'s. If this estimator is already in the space spanned by the
estimators in the agent's memory, then the agent gains no new information.
Otherwise, the agent increases the dimension of the space spanned by its memory.
In this multivariate Gaussian case, an agent's belief, at each iteration,
is the unique linear combination, over a basis of the estimators in its memory,
that
minimizes its belief's variance while keeping it unbiased. This calculation
involves inverting an $n$ by $n$ matrix, where $n$ is the number of linearly
independent estimators observed so far (so at most equal to $n$, the number of
agents). This can be done very efficiently as the more rigorous
analysis below establishes.
\subsubsection{The agents' calculation}
In this subsection we take the alternative, but equivalent, point of view that
the agents' prior is the improper uniform measure over the reals,
and that their
private signals are their first observation. It is easy to see that this is
indeed equivalent to having the private signal as the prior.
Let $\mathcal{W}$ be the vector space spanned by the different $S_v$'s:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:rv_vector_space}
\mathcal{W}=\left\{\sum_{v\in V}\beta_vS_v\mbox{ s.t. } \forall v:\beta_v \in \R\right\}.
\end{equation}
It is easy to
convince oneself that this indeed is a vector space of finite dimension. Note
that all the random variables in this space are normally distributed, since
a linear combination of independent normal random variables is in turn normal
too. Denote by $\mathcal{W}^1$ the subset of unbiased estimators in
$\mathcal{W}$:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{W}^1=\left\{\sum_{v\in V}\beta_vS_v\in \mathcal{W}\mbox{ s.t.} \sum_{v\in V}\beta_v=1\right\}.
\end{equation}
\begin{theorem}
For all agents $w$ and times $t$, it holds that $x_w(t)\in\mathcal{W}^1$, with
$x_w(t)=\sum_v\beta_{wv}(t)S_v$ for some $\beta_{wv}(t)$.
Moreover, given the graph structure only,
there exists an efficient algorithm to calculate the coefficients
$\beta_{wv}(t)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We shall prove this by induction on $t$. At time $t=0$ the claim is true
since $\beta_{wv}(0)$ is one when $w=v$ and zero otherwise. Assume that the claim is
true until time $t$.
Consider an agent $w$, and
denote by $r_0,\ldots,r_k$ the random variables that agent $w$ has observed
up to time $t$, with $r_0=S_w=x_w(0)$. Those are $w$'s own and its neighbors past
estimators, and so knowledge of the graph structure is required here.
By our assumption these are all
in $\mathcal{W}^1$, and we can write
$r_i=\sum_v \alpha_{iv}S_v$, where the coefficients $\alpha_{iv}$ are a
simple re-indexing of the coefficients $\beta_{wv}(t)$, by some relation that maps
each $w$ and $t$ to some $i$. Since by assumption $r_i\in \mathcal{W}^1$ then
$\sum_v\alpha_{iv}=1$.
Denote by ${\bf r}$ the
vector $(r_0,\ldots,r_n)$, denote by ${\bf 1}$ the
vector $(1,\ldots,1)\in \R^n$, and denote by $C_{ij}$ the covariance between
$r_i$ and $r_j$, so that $C_{ij}=\sum_v\alpha_{iv}\alpha_{jv}$.
Then ${\bf r}$'s distribution is the normal
multivariate distribution with covariance matrix ${\bf C}$ and mean
${\bf 1}S$ (since $r_i\in\mathcal{W}^1$), and
the likelihood of $S$ given that agent $w$ has observed ${\bf r}$ is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:s_likelihood}
\mathcal{L}(S|{\bf r})=p({\bf r}|S)={1\over \left(2\pi\right)^{n/2}|{\bf C}|^{1/2}}
e^{-{\textstyle \frac12}({\bf r}-{\bf 1}S)'{\bf C}^{-1}({\bf r}-{\bf 1}S)}.
\end{equation}
Note that in the case that ${\bf C}$
is not invertible (equivalently, ${\bf r}$ is not linearly independent)
we remove from it
(and correspondingly from ${\bf r}$) a minimal set of columns and rows such
that it becomes invertible. By corollary, ${\bf C}$ is never larger than
$n\times n$.
The expression $({\bf r}-{\bf 1}S)'{\bf C}^{-1}({\bf r}-{\bf 1}S)$ can
be rewritten as
\begin{equation*}
{1 \over {\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf 1}}\cdot\left(S - { {\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf r}
\over
{\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf 1}
}\right)^2 +B
\end{equation*}
with $B$ a normalization factor. Denote by ${\bf \gamma}$ the vector
${ {\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}\over{\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf 1}}$. Note that
$\sum_i\gamma_i=1$.
To calculate its posterior distribution, agent $w$ uses Bayes' Law. Then
\begin{eqnarray*}
p(S|{\bf r})&=&p({\bf r}|S) \cdot p(S) \over p({\bf r})
\\ &=& \mathcal{L}(S|{\bf r}),
\end{eqnarray*}
because the prior distribution $p(\cdot)$ is uniform. This can be written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:posterior_explicit}
p(S|{\bf r})={1\over \sqrt{2\pi\tau^2}}e^{-(S-x)^2/2\tau^2}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:new_estimator}
x= { {\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}
\over
{\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf 1}
}
{\bf r}=\sum_i\gamma_ir_i
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation*}
\tau^2 = {1 \over {\bf 1}'{\bf C}^{-1}{\bf 1}}.
\end{equation*}
Note that $x$ is a linear combination of the observations that $w$ made up
to time $t$. The expected value of this distribution
\eqref{eq:posterior_explicit} is $x$, and
therefore $x_w(t+1)=x$.
Then
\begin{equation}
x_w(t+1)=\sum_i\gamma_i\sum_{v}\alpha_{iv}S_v
\end{equation}
and therefore
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:new_beta}
\beta_{wv}(t+1)=\sum_i\sum_{v}\gamma_i\alpha_{iv}.
\end{equation}
Since $\sum_i\gamma_i=1$ and $\sum_v\alpha_{iv}=1$
then $\sum_v\beta_{wv}(t+1)=1$.
We have shown then that $x_w(t+1)\in\mathcal{W}^1.$
We have also shown that to calculate $\beta_{wv}(t+1)$, given the coefficients at
time $t$, one need only
invert $n$ matrices (one for each agent),
of size at most $n\times n$ - certainly an efficient
calculation. Furthermore, no knowledge of the $S_v$'s is needed, but only of the
graph structure.
\end{proof}
All the agents, if they know the graph structure, can perform this calculation
efficiently. In particular an agent can calculate its coefficients vector
${\bf \gamma}$, and from it calculate its next estimator for time $t+1$, given
that it has performed the calculation above up to time $t$.
\subsection{Learning Efficiency}
\subsubsection{Convergence in $n^2$}
To show that the beliefs of the agents converge, we need only note that being
conditional probabilities over increasingly large probability spaces, these
beliefs are martingales. Then, because these martingales are bounded in $L_2$,
they converge. However, the following proof, which does not require the power
of martingales, shows that convergence in fact takes places in at most $n^2$
iterations, and that furthermore all agents converge to the same belief. This
proof is similar to the one presented by DeMarzo et al.\
\cite{DeMarzo:03}.
When two neighboring agents have different beliefs, then at least one of them
will learn from the other and improve its estimator: Assume agents $u$ and
$v$ are neighbors with different estimators, and agent $v$'s belief has
variance lower than or equal to that of agent $u$. Then agent $v$'s estimator
is necessarily not in the space spanned by the estimators previously seen
by $u$. Hence the dimension spanned by $u$'s memory will increase at this iteration. We have thus
shown that in each iteration, unless all the agents have the same estimator,
at least one of
them increases the dimension of its space by at least one. Since the maximum
dimension possible is $n$ then convergence will occur after at most $n^2$ steps,
and all agents will converge to the same belief.
\subsubsection{Convergence in $2 n\cdot d$ iterations}
A slightly more subtle argument proves a better bound for the convergence
rate, namely $2 n\cdot d$, where $d$ is the diameter of the graph. The idea
of the proof is that the current estimator of an agent $u$ cannot remain
unchanged for many steps, unless a growing neighborhood around $u$ also remains
stagnant. The formal proof uses the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
If some agent's estimator has not changed for $2 d$ steps then the
process has converged.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Assume agent $u$'s estimator does not change from iteration $t_0$ to $t_0 + 2d$, so that
\[
x_u(t_0)=x(t_0+1)=\cdots=x(t_0+2d).
\]
Denote $x:=x_u(t_0)=\cdots=x(t_0+2d)$,
and let $\mathcal{U}$ be the space spanned by the
estimators in $u$'s memory at time $t_0 + 2d$. Then by definition of the process
$x$ is the optimal unbiased estimator in $\mathcal{U}$.
Let $w$ be a neighbor of $u$. Then $w$'s estimator at time $t_0+1$, $x_w(t_0+1)$,
is in $\mathcal{U}$, since $u$ observes $x_w(t_0+1)$ at time $t_0+2$. Now $x$ by
definition is better than any estimator in $\mathcal{U}$, and so, since
$w$ has observed $x$ at time $t_0$, it must be that $x_w(t_0+1)=x$. By the
same argument $x_w(t)=x$ for $t_0+1\leq t\leq t_0+2d-1$.
Applying this argument inductively, it follows that at time
$t_0+i \leq t \leq t_0+2d-i$ all
the agents at distance $i$ from $u$ have estimator $x$, and so at time $t_0+d$
all agents have the same estimator.
Recalling that at each iteration an agent's estimator is a weighted
average of those of its neighbors,
we conclude that all nodes will have estimator $x$ for all times $t \geq t_0+d$.
The proof follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
The process stops after $2 n\cdot d$ iterations.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Every time an agent's estimator changes, the dimension of the space the
agent's memory spans increases by at least one, and so this cannot happen more
than $n$ times. Since This must happen every $2 d $ steps as long as the
process hasn't converged,
the process must stop after $2 n \cdot d$ iterations.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Convergence to the Optimum}
At any particular iteration, any node $v$ contains $S_v$ in the space of its estimators.
At each iteration the estimator at $v$ is then of the form $a S_v + b S$ where $S$ is an unbiased linear estimator based on some signals but $S_v$, and $a+b=1$. Note that the variance of this estimator is $a^2 + b^2 Var(S)$ and it is minimized when $a = Var(S)/(1+Var(S))$.
Since $S$ depends on all the signals but $S_v$ its variance is at least $1/(n-1)$ and therefore $a$ is at least $1/n$.
Hence all the agents, at all iterations, give their own estimators
weight which is at least $1/n$. Since they all converge to the same
estimator, and since the sum of the weights in this estimator must be
one (since it, too, is unbiased), then the weights must all be $1/n$,
and the limiting estimator is the simple average of the private measurements, as stated.
\section{Conclusion and Future Work}
In this work we presented a first learning model on social networks which is both rational and computationally efficient.
Our work raises a number of future research direction which we briefly discuss.
\subsection{Network Structure}
A shortcoming of the model introduced here is the assumption that all agents
have complete access to the network structure.
Future work may relax this assumption in a number of ways. In particular:
\subsubsection{Random Networks}
In the Bayesian literature it is common to model the unknown network structure by a common prior distribution
on network structures.
One may model this by picking the network randomly
from some distribution, which is known to the agents. The agents then proceed
similarly, calculating conditional expectations Bayesianly, and incorporating
into their posterior distributions whatever information
they may have gathered about the structure of the network.
While there are many options for choosing such a distribution over networks,
an interesting challenge is to see for which distributions the agents' calculations
remain tractable. We leave this as an open question. We note only
that the standard martingale arguments in the area~\cite{SmithSorensen:00} for convergence remains valid for any
distribution of connected networks and that therefore, in any case, we have
convergence in this scenario, too.
\subsubsection{Learning Covariance Structure}
A different approach is to study natural mechanisms by which neighbors learn
the covariance between their neighbors' signals at different iterations.
As we noted above, this knowledge is sufficient for calculating optimal
estimators, even without any understanding of the graph structure. We have
begun to explore such models, and their computational feasibility,
together with Rafael M.\ Frongillo and Grant Schoenebeck.
\subsection{Convergence Rate}
The results established in this paper show convergence in $O(n \cdot d)$.
A natural question is whether this bound can be improved. Certainly, convergence cannot
happen faster than $O(d)$ - the time it takes information to propagate through
the network. For binary trees, where the diameter is
$O(\log n)$, convergence
does happen in $O(d)$, as it does for cliques and stars. However,
simulations have led us to believe that convergence in general is not that
fast, and requires - we conjecture - $O(n)$ steps.
In our simulations we sampled a population of regular
graphs of degree three and diameter $\log n$. The result almost always was
convergence in time $n/3$, with every agent increasing the dimension of
the space its memory spanned by three, at every iteration.
This may hint that convergence time
may, in some sense, be inversely proportional to the degrees of the graph
vertices. We thus conclude with the following conjecture and open problem:
\begin{conjecture}
For any graph the learning process converges in $O(n)$ iterations.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{open}
Does the process converge in $O(n/d^{\ast})$ iterations for all graphs, where $d^{\ast}$ is the minimal degree of the graph?
\end{open}
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Shachar Kariv for introducing us to the literature on learning on networks and for fascinating discussions.
Thanks go to Marcus M\"obius for an interesting discussion and for directing us
to the work of DeMarzo et al., after a draft of this paper had been
circulated.
We also thank Grant Schoenebeck, Rafael M.\ Frongillo and Adam Kalai for
interesting discussions regarding follow-up work. Finally, we are indebted
to Yaron Singer for much support and helpful suggestions on writing the results.
\bibliographystyle{abbrv} |
\section{Introduction}
The need to better understand gauge fields has lead to an widespread use of
local transformations due the natural manner gauge fields appear in it. In the
attempt to write (1+2)-D gravity as a gauge theory, the formulation requires
some specific technicalities, by virtue of the possibility of including the
so-called (topological) Chern-Simons term. Adopting the Poincar\'{e} group as
the local gauge group, one naturally obtains the curvature and torsion tensor
by means of the Cartan%
\'{}%
s structure equations. The translational part of the Poincar\'{e} group is
represented by the vielbein gauge fields, $e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}}$, which
are also diffeomorphic invariant under general coordinate transformations, and
the Lorentzian part --- realizing the equivalence principle --- given by the
spin connection gauge fields, $\omega_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{ab}}$. The vielbein
fields associate to each point a locally flat coordinate system and the spin
connection relates any two local Lorentz coordinate systems at the given point.
This formalism is believed to be completely equivalent to the formalism that
employs affine connections and define curvature and torsion in terms of them.
There is a great deal of results that confirm this, mainly at the level of
expressions to the curvature and torsion. At the classical level, this
equivalence is indeed true. However, when we go over to the quantum
field-theoretic version, there appear remarkable differences and we must
indeed adopt the vielbein and spin connection as the independent fundamental
degrees of freedom \cite{Arcos:2005ec}.
More recently, there has been a considerable raise of interest in $(1+2)$-dimensional gravity models with higher powers of the curvature. Specially, the New Massive Gravity Theory proposed by Bergshoeff, Hohm and Townsend \cite{Bergshoeff:2009hq, Bergshoeff:2009aq, Bergshoeff:2009fj} has triggered a number of contributions to the study of remarkable peculiarities and properties of higher-order $3d$-gravity models \cite{Nakasone:2009bn}-\cite{ Andringa:2009yc}.
Motivated by these these recent results, we propose here to pursue an investigation of planar gravity actions with propagating tensor, since we have in mind to understand which role torsion degrees of freedom may play in connection with unitary higher-derivative gravitation in $3D$. In order to investigate this further, we begin with the analysis of a traditional (1+2)-D gravity model previously done by two of us \cite{Boldo:1999qw}, where we have studied the inclusion of torsion in three-dimensional
Einstein-Chern-Simons gravity and added up higher-derivative terms; we have worked in affine connection formalism. In this work, due to invertibility problems that
appear in the theory if we adopt the first-order approach, we are lead to change to another Lagrangian density, where we introduce torsion algebraic terms, yielding dynamical spin-connection.
Due to the importance of the torsion terms, it is worthwhile to remember that
torsion was introduced by E. Cartan in 1922, as the antisymmetric part of the
affine connection and was recognized by him as a geometric object related to
an intrinsic angular moment of matter. After the introduction of the spin
concept, it was suggested that torsion should mediate a contact interaction
between spinning particles without propagation in matter-free space
\cite{Hehl:1976kj, Hehl:1994ue, Mielke:1991nn}. Later,\ due the fact that at the microscopic level
particles are classified by their mass and spin according to the Poincar\'{e}
group, gauge theories of General Relativity were developed that brings in it
dynamic torsion \cite{DeSabbata:1980gb}. These theories are motivated
by the requirement that the Dirac equation in a gravitational field preserves
local invariance under Lorentz transformations which yields, across the
minimal coupling, a direct interaction between torsion and fermions.
Observational constraints for a propagating torsion and its matter
interactions are discussed in \cite{Carroll:1994dq, Hammond:1995rp, Belyaev:1997zv, sabbata, Shapiro:1994vs, Shapiro:2001rz}.
Our work is organised according to the following outline: in Section 2, we
present a quick review of the Einstein-Cartan formalism, with the purpose of
fixing notation and setting our conventions. Next, the general model and the
decomposition of the action in terms of spin operators is the subject of
Section 3, where we point out a serious problem related to a spin-2
excitation. This motivates us to introduce and to analyse a number of torsion
terms in the action, which is done in Section 4. In Section 5, we come to the
task of computing the propagators and we analyse thereby their poles with the
corresponding residues, in order to locate the physically relevant regions in
the parameter space. Finally, in Section 6, we present our Concluding
Comments, with a critical discussion on our main results and possible issues
for future investigation.
\section{Well-known Results on the Einstein-Cartan Approach}
A Riemann-Cartan space-time \cite{Hehl:1976kj, sabbata, Shapiro:1994vs, Shapiro:2001rz}\ is defined as a
manifold where the covariant derivative of the metric field exists and is
given by:%
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\gamma}g_{\alpha\beta}(x)=0, \label{um}%
\end{equation}
where this equation defines the so called metric-compatible affine connection,
$\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma}$; it allows the presence of torsion, given by
the antisymmetric part of the affine connection,%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma}=2\Gamma_{\lbrack\alpha\beta]}{}^{\gamma}.
\label{dois}%
\end{equation}
We then have:%
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma}=\left\{ _{\alpha\beta}^{\ \gamma}\right\}
+K_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma}, \label{tres}%
\end{equation}
where $\left\{ _{\alpha\beta}^{\ \gamma}\right\} $ is the Christoffel
symbol, which is completely determined by the metric,%
\begin{equation}
\left\{ _{\alpha\beta}^{\ \gamma}\right\} =\frac{1}{2}g^{\gamma\lambda
}(\partial_{\alpha}g_{\lambda\beta}+\partial_{\beta}g_{\alpha\lambda}%
-\partial_{\lambda}g_{\alpha\beta})
\end{equation}
and%
\begin{equation}
K_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma}=\frac{1}{2}(\mathcal{T}_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma
}+\mathcal{T}^{\ \gamma}{}_{\alpha\beta}-\mathcal{T}_{\beta}{}^{\gamma}%
{}_{\alpha})
\end{equation}
is the contortion tensor, antisymmetric in the last two indices.
In order to study local properties one introduces (in our specific (1+2)-D
case) the dreibein vector fields, $e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}}(x)$,\ that spans
at any given point the local Minkowski space-time, which in this work has
metric: $\eta_{\mathsf{ab}}=diag(1,-1,-1)$.
The introduction of the tangent Minkowski space-time allows local Lorentz
transformations on geometrical objects (with Latin index). In order to render
these objects invariant under local Lorentz rotations, one introduces the spin
connection $\omega_{\mathsf{\gamma b}}{}^{\mathsf{c}}$. The covariant
derivative of the dreibein then reads:%
\begin{equation}
\nabla_{\gamma}e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}}=D_{\gamma}e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}%
}-\Gamma_{\gamma\alpha}{}^{\lambda}e_{\lambda}{}^{\mathsf{a}}=0, \label{seis}%
\end{equation}
where $D_{\gamma}e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}}=\partial_{\gamma}e_{\alpha}%
{}^{\mathsf{a}}+\omega_{\gamma\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{a}}e_{\alpha}%
{}^{\mathsf{i}}$ is the Lorentz covariant derivative.
One finds from eq.(\ref{seis}) that the affine connection can then be written as:%
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma}=e_{\mathsf{j}}{}^{\gamma}D_{\alpha}e_{\beta}%
{}^{\mathsf{j}}, \label{sete}%
\end{equation}
and the torsion tensor, eq.(\ref{dois}), reads%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{T}_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\gamma}=2\Gamma_{\lbrack\alpha\beta]}{}^{\gamma
}=e_{\mathsf{j}}{}^{\gamma}(\partial_{\alpha}e_{\beta}{}^{\mathsf{j}}%
-\partial_{\beta}e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{j}}+\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{i}}%
{}^{\mathsf{j}}e_{\beta}{}^{\mathsf{i}}-\omega_{\beta\mathsf{i}}{}%
^{\mathsf{j}}e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{i}}). \label{doze}%
\end{equation}
As known, the curvature tensors and scalar are given in terms of the affine
connection by the expressions:%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\mu\alpha\beta}{}^{\nu}=\partial_{\mu}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}{}%
^{\nu}-\partial_{\alpha}\Gamma_{\mu\beta}{}^{\nu}+\Gamma_{\mu\rho}{}^{\nu
}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\rho}-\Gamma_{\alpha\rho}{}^{\nu}\Gamma_{\mu\beta}%
{}^{\rho},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\alpha\beta}=\mathcal{R}_{\mu\alpha\beta}{}^{\mu}=\partial_{\mu
}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\mu}-\partial_{\alpha}\Gamma_{\mu\beta}{}^{\mu
}+\Gamma_{\mu\rho}{}^{\mu}\Gamma_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\rho}-\Gamma_{\alpha\rho}%
{}^{\mu}\Gamma_{\mu\beta}{}^{\rho}%
\end{equation}
and%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}=g^{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{R}_{\alpha\beta}.
\end{equation}
In terms of the spin connection,%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\mu\alpha\beta}{}^{\nu}=e_{\beta}{}^{\mathsf{i}}e_{\mathsf{j}}%
{}^{\nu}(\partial_{\mu}\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{j}}-\partial
_{\alpha}\omega_{\mu\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{j}}+\omega_{\mu\mathsf{k}}%
{}^{\mathsf{j}}\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{k}}-\omega_{\alpha
\mathsf{k}}{}^{\mathsf{j}}\omega_{\mu\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{k}}),
\end{equation}%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}_{\alpha\beta}=e_{\beta}{}^{\mathsf{i}}e_{\mathsf{j}}{}^{\mu
}(\partial_{\mu}\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{j}}-\partial_{\alpha
}\omega_{\mu\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{j}}+\omega_{\mu\mathsf{k}}{}^{\mathsf{j}%
}\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{k}}-\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{k}}%
{}^{\mathsf{j}}\omega_{\mu\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{k}}) \label{oito}%
\end{equation}
and%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{R}=\eta^{\mathsf{ai}}e_{\mathsf{a}}{}^{\alpha}e_{\mathsf{j}}{}^{\mu
}(\partial_{\mu}\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{j}}-\partial_{\alpha
}\omega_{\mu\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{j}}+\omega_{\mu\mathsf{k}}{}^{\mathsf{j}%
}\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{k}}-\omega_{\alpha\mathsf{k}}%
{}^{\mathsf{j}}\omega_{\mu\mathsf{i}}{}^{\mathsf{k}}). \label{nove}%
\end{equation}
\section{A Problem Related to a Spin-2 Excitation}
We start off with the three-dimensional action for topologically massive gravity:%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S=}\int d^{3}x\ e\left( \mathsf{a}_{1}\mathcal{R+}\mathsf{a}%
_{2}\mathcal{R}^{2}+\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathcal{R}_{\alpha\beta}\mathcal{R}%
^{\alpha\beta}+\mathsf{a}_{4}\mathcal{L}_{CS}\right) , \label{dez}%
\end{equation}
where%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{CS}=\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}\Gamma_{\gamma\delta}%
{}^{\lambda}\left( \partial_{\alpha}\Gamma_{\lambda\beta}{}^{\delta}+\frac
{2}{3}\Gamma_{\alpha\rho}{}^{\delta}\Gamma_{\beta\lambda}{}^{\rho}\right) ,
\label{quatorze}%
\end{equation}
is the topological Chern-Simons term \cite{Deser:1982vy, Deser:1981wh}
and%
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}=\frac{\epsilon^{\alpha\beta\gamma}}{e}%
\end{equation}
is the completely antisymmetric tensor in (1+2)-D, with $\epsilon^{\alpha
\beta\gamma}$ the Levi-Civita tensor density in the flat space and $e=\sqrt
{g}$ where $g=\det(g_{\alpha\beta})=\eta e^{2}$. $\mathsf{a}_{1}$,
$\mathsf{a}_{2}$ and $\mathsf{a}_{3}$ are free coefficients, whereas
$\mathsf{a}_{4}$ is the Chern-Simons parameter. For a clear and detailed discussion of theories with Chern-Simons term, see
\cite{Zanelli:2002qm}.
As the Riemann tensor, $\mathcal{R}_{\mu\alpha\beta}{}^{\nu}$, it has the same
number of independent \ components as the Ricci tensor, $\mathcal{R}%
_{\alpha\beta}$, in three dimensions, a term squared in $\mathcal{R}%
_{\mu\alpha\beta}{}^{\nu}$ is not necessary in the action of eq.(\ref{dez})
In \cite{Boldo:1999qw}, we have written the affine connection as in eq.(\ref{tres}),
further decomposing the torsion in its SO(1,2) irreducible components: a
scalar from the totally antisymmetric part, a three-vector from the trace and
a symmetric traceless rank-2 tensor. With this procedure, we have obtained a
particle spectrum where only massive excitations of spin-2 associated with the
linearized gravitational field, $h^{\alpha\beta}$, and with the symmetric part
of the torsion field had dynamics that preserved the unitarity of the theory
for some values of the action parameters. In view of the results we obtained
there we saw that a ghost-free 3D gravity theory can be formulated once some
constraints are imposed on the parameters of the Lagrangians we dicuss
\cite{Sezgin:1979zf, Sezgin:1981xs}. Thus, the interesting result that arised from
our previous discussion is the possibility to write down a higher-derivative
model for 3-D gravity with unitarity under control.
In this section, we reconsider the action (\ref{dez}) but, contrary to what we
have done in \cite{Boldo:1999qw}, we propose to adopt in the first-order
formulation, dropping the torsion as a fundamental excitation and electing
the dreibein and the spin connection as the fundamental quantum fields, which
reveals the full gauge structure of gravity.
Now, we consider eqs. (\ref{sete}),(\ref{oito}) and (\ref{nove}), and we adopt the weak field decomposition of the gravitational field,%
\begin{equation}
e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}}=\delta_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}}+\frac{k}{2}H_{\alpha
}{}^{\mathsf{a}}\left( \Rightarrow g_{\alpha\beta}=\eta_{\alpha\beta
}+kh_{a\beta},\ \ h_{\alpha\beta}=\frac{1}{2}(H_{\alpha\beta}+H_{\beta\alpha
})\right) , \label{vintedois}%
\end{equation}
where $k$ is the Planck lengh,
\begin{equation}
H_{\mathsf{ab}}=h_{\mathsf{ab}}+\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{ab}}\ ,\ h_{\mathsf{ab}%
}=H_{(\mathsf{ab)}}\ \ e\ \ \mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{ab}}=H_{[\mathsf{ab]}}
\label{vintetres}%
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{ab}}=\epsilon_{\mathsf{abc}}h^{\mathsf{c}}\Rightarrow
h_{\mathsf{a}}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mathsf{abc}}\mathcal{H}^{\mathsf{bc}}.
\label{vintequatro}%
\end{equation}
The spin connection can be written in terms of its dual as follows:%
\begin{equation}
\omega_{\mathsf{a}}{}^{\mathsf{bc}}=\epsilon^{\mathsf{bcd}}Y_{\mathsf{ad}},
\label{quinze}%
\end{equation}
which can be further split according to,%
\begin{equation}
Y_{\mathsf{ab}}=y_{\mathsf{ab}}+\mathcal{Y}_{\mathsf{ab}}\ ;\ y_{\mathsf{ab}%
}=Y_{(\mathsf{ab)}}\ \ ,\ \ \mathcal{Y}_{\mathsf{ab}}=Y_{[\mathsf{ab]}}
\label{dezesseis}%
\end{equation}
and%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{Y}_{\mathsf{ab}}=\epsilon_{\mathsf{abc}}y^{\mathsf{c}}\Rightarrow
y_{\mathsf{a}}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon_{\mathsf{abc}}\mathcal{Y}^{\mathsf{bc}}.
\label{dezessete}%
\end{equation}
We then rewrite the action (\ref{dez}), to which we add the gauge-fixing terms,%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{GF-diff}=\lambda F_{\mathsf{a}}F^{\mathsf{a}}\ ,\ F_{\mathsf{a}%
}=\partial_{\mathsf{b}}\left( H_{\mathsf{a}}^{\mathsf{b}}-\frac{1}{2}%
\delta_{\mathsf{a}}^{\mathsf{b}}H_{\mathsf{c}}^{\mathsf{c}}\right) ,
\end{equation}
and%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{GF-LL}=\xi\left( \partial^{\mu}\omega_{\mu}{}^{\mathsf{ab}%
}\partial^{\nu}\omega_{\nu\mathsf{ab}}\right) ,
\end{equation}
in a more suitable (linearized) form:%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}\mathcal{=}\int d^{3}x\frac{1}{2}\Phi^{T}M\Phi\ ,\ \Phi=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
y^{\mathsf{cd}}\\
y^{\mathsf{c}}\\
h^{\mathsf{cd}}\\
h^{\mathsf{c}}%
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{equation}
$\lambda$ e $\xi$ are the gauge-fixing parameters. The wave operator, $M$, can be expressed in terms of an extension of the
spin-projection operator formalism introduced in \cite{rivers}%
,\cite{VanNieuwenhuizen:1973fi, Nunes:1993yu, Boldo:1999qw}.
Here, we would like to point out that, if we are concerned just with the
excitation spectrum associated to the model under consideration and its
unitarity property, we could simply decompose the fields according to their
irreducible components, diagonalise the bilinear piece of the action (this
would split the physical field components from the gauge compensating ones)
and them read off the spectrum. However, the field components so obtained are
non-local fields, since a $\square^{-1}$\ appears in the projectors which act
on the fields to separate their physical components. Since we wish to get the
propagators for the local fields, having in mind that we can later carry out
pertubative loop computations, we choose to keep the full fields and we are
then obliged to gauge-fix the action so as to give propagation to the
compensating components, and invert the wave operator, $M$.
In this article, we follow the notations of \cite{VanNieuwenhuizen:1973fi, Nunes:1993yu} for the
Barnes-Rivers operators, where it refers to the energy-momentum tensor: $(2)$
is the pure spin-2 sector, $(1-m)$ is the part related to the spin-1 momentum
vector, $(0-s)$\ is the part related to the spin-0 stress scalar and
$(0-w)$\ is the part related to the spin-0 work (energy) scalar; $(0-sw)$\ and
$(0-ws)$\ are operators that map the spaces with the same spin. Five
additional operators coming from the $y^{\mathsf{a}}$ -- and Chern-Simons
terms are needed, where the notation $(2a)$ indicates that this operator is a
spin-2 operator with comutation relations only with the pure spin-2,\ in
analogy to $(1a)$. Throughout this work, it is supposed that all differential
operators that appear in the spin operators are duely replaced by a momentum
3-vector, in Fourier space.
The six operators for a rank-2 symmetric tensor in 3D are then given by:%
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}=\frac{1}{2}(\theta_{\mathsf{ac}}%
\theta_{\mathsf{bd}}+\theta_{\mathsf{ad}}\theta_{\mathsf{bc}})-\frac{1}%
{2}\theta_{\mathsf{ab}}\theta_{\mathsf{cd}},
\]
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1-m)}=\frac{1}{2}(\theta_{\mathsf{ac}}%
\omega_{\mathsf{bd}}+\theta_{\mathsf{ad}}\omega_{\mathsf{bc}}+\theta
_{\mathsf{bc}}\omega_{\mathsf{ad}}+\theta_{\mathsf{bc}}\omega_{\mathsf{ad}}),
\]
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0-s)}=\frac{1}{2}\theta_{\mathsf{ab}}%
\theta_{\mathsf{cd}},
\end{equation}
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0-w)}=\omega_{\mathsf{ab}}\omega_{\mathsf{cd}},
\]
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0-sw)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\theta_{\mathsf{ab}%
}\omega_{\mathsf{cd}}%
\]
and%
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0-ws)}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\omega_{\mathsf{ab}%
}\theta_{\mathsf{cd}},
\]
where $\theta_{\mathsf{ab}}=\eta_{\mathsf{ab}}-\omega_{\mathsf{ab}}$ is the
transverse and $\omega_{\mathsf{ab}}=\frac{\partial_{\mathsf{a}}%
\partial_{\mathsf{b}}}{\square}$ is the longitudinal projector operator that
act on vector fields to split their spin-0 and spin-1 components. The others
five operators are:%
\[
\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}=(\epsilon_{\mathsf{ace}}\theta
_{\mathsf{bd}}+\epsilon_{\mathsf{ade}}\theta_{\mathsf{bc}}+\epsilon
_{\mathsf{bce}}\theta_{\mathsf{ad}}+\epsilon_{\mathsf{bce}}\theta
_{\mathsf{ad}})\partial^{\mathsf{e}},
\]
\[
\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}=(\epsilon_{\mathsf{ace}}\omega
_{\mathsf{bd}}+\epsilon_{\mathsf{ade}}\omega_{\mathsf{bc}}+\epsilon
_{\mathsf{bce}}\omega_{\mathsf{ad}}+\epsilon_{\mathsf{bce}}\omega
_{\mathsf{ad}})\partial^{\mathsf{e}},
\]
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{ab}}=\epsilon_{\mathsf{abc}}\partial^{\mathsf{c}},
\label{operators}%
\end{equation}
\[
\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,bc}}=\eta_{\mathsf{ab}}\partial_{\mathsf{c}}%
+\eta_{\mathsf{ac}}\partial_{\mathsf{b}}%
\]
and%
\[
\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{a,bc}}=\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{ab}}\partial_{\mathsf{c}%
}+\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{ac}}\partial_{\mathsf{b}}.
\]
We recall that the usual Barnes-Rivers operators obey the algebra:%
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,kl}}^{(i-a)}\mathsf{P}^{(j-b)\ \mathsf{kl}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\delta^{ij}\delta^{ab}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(j-b)},
\]
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,kl}}^{(i-ab)}\mathsf{P}^{(j-cd)\ \mathsf{kl}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\delta^{ij}\delta^{bc}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(j-a)},
\end{equation}
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,kl}}^{(i-a)}\mathsf{P}^{(j-bc)\ \mathsf{kl}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\delta^{ij}\delta^{ab}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(j-ac)},
\]
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,kl}}^{(i-ab)}\mathsf{P}^{(j-c)\ \mathsf{kl}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\delta^{ij}\delta^{bc}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(j-ac)}%
\]
and satisfy the tensor identity,%
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}%
+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0w)}%
=\frac{1}{2}\left( \eta_{\mathsf{ac}}\eta_{\mathsf{bd}}+\eta_{\mathsf{ad}%
}\eta_{\mathsf{bc}}\right) . \label{onze}%
\end{equation}
The new set of spin operators that comes about displays, besides the operators
$\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}$, $\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}$,
$\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{ab}}$, and $\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,bc}}$\ (already known
from \cite{Boldo:1999qw}), one new operator, $\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{a,bc}}$,
given in (\ref{operators}). These five operators have their own multiplicative
table; we quote below only some of the relevant products amongst them:%
\[
\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,ef}}^{(2a)}\mathsf{S}^{(2a)}{}^{\mathsf{ef}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=-16\square\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)},
\]
\[
\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,ef}}^{(1a)}\mathsf{R}^{(1a)}{}^{\mathsf{ef}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=-4\square\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)},
\]
\[
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,ef}}^{(2)}\mathsf{S}^{(2a)}{}^{\mathsf{ef}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,ef}}^{(2a)}\mathsf{P}^{(2)}%
{}^{\mathsf{ef}}{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)},
\]
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,ef}}^{(1m)}\mathsf{R}^{(1a)}{}^{\mathsf{ef}}%
{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,ef}}^{(1a)}\mathsf{P}^{(1m)}%
{}^{\mathsf{ef}}{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}=\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)},
\end{equation}
\[
\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{ae}}\mathsf{A}^{\mathsf{e}}{}_{\mathsf{b}}=-\square
\theta_{\mathsf{ab}},
\]
\[
\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,ef}}\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{c,}}{}^{\mathsf{ef}}%
=2\square(\theta_{\mathsf{ac}}+2\omega_{\mathsf{ac}}),
\]
\[
\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{e,ab}}\mathsf{B}^{\mathsf{e}}{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}%
=2\square(\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}+2\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}%
}^{(0w)}),
\]
\[
\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{a,ef}}\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{c,}}{}^{\mathsf{ef}}%
=2\square^{2}\theta_{\mathsf{ac}}%
\]
and%
\[
\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{e,ab}}\mathsf{D}^{\mathsf{e}}{}_{,\mathsf{cd}}%
=2\square^{2}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}.
\]
Here we have, just for the sake of calculational simplification, omitted the
$h^{\mathsf{c}}$\ component, dual of $\mathcal{H}_{\mathsf{ab}}%
=H_{[\mathsf{ab]}}$, in $M$, since we are not going to actually calculate the
propagators in this section, and we already can see the problem that is going
to appear with the reduced matrix. In the next section, where the propagators
for all field components will be derived, the anti-symmetric part will not be
left aside.
Thus, the wave operator acquires the form, without the anti-symmetric part of
$H_{\mathsf{ab}}$ as commented above:%
\begin{equation}
M=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{ccc}%
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yy} & M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{yy} & M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yh}\\
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yy} & M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{yy} & M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yh}\\
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hy} & M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{hy} & M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hh}%
\end{array}
\right) ,
\end{equation}
where%
\begin{align*}
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yy} & =(2\mathsf{a}_{1}-2\mathsf{a}_{3}\square
)\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}+(2\mathsf{a}_{1}-\mathsf{a}_{3}\square
-2\xi\square)\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}-(2\mathsf{a}_{1}%
+2\mathsf{a}_{3}\square)\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}\\
& -4\xi\square\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0w)}-2\sqrt{2}\mathsf{a}%
_{1}(\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0sw)}+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}%
^{(0ws)})+\frac{\mathsf{a}_{4}}{2}(\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}%
+\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}),
\end{align*}
\[
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{yy}=\mathsf{a}_{4}\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{c,ab}}+(2\xi
-\mathsf{a}_{3})\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{c,ab}},
\]
\[
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yh}=\frac{k\square}{2}\mathsf{a}_{4}(\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}-\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)})+\frac{k}%
{4}\mathsf{a}_{1}(\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}+\mathsf{R}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}),
\]
\[
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yy}=-\mathsf{a}_{4}\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,bc}}%
+(2\xi-\mathsf{a}_{3})\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{a,bc}},
\]
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{yy}=-(4\mathsf{a}_{1}+2\mathsf{a}_{3}\square+4\xi
\square)\theta_{\mathsf{a,c}}-(4\mathsf{a}_{1}+32\mathsf{a}_{2}\square
+12\mathsf{a}_{3}\square)\omega_{\mathsf{a,c}}+2\mathsf{a}_{4}\mathsf{A}%
_{\mathsf{a,c}},
\end{equation}
\[
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yh}=-\frac{k}{2}\mathsf{a}_{1}\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,bc}%
}+k\mathsf{a}_{1}(\theta_{\mathsf{bc}}+\omega_{\mathsf{bc}})\partial
_{\mathsf{a}},
\]
\[
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hy}=\frac{k\square}{2}\mathsf{a}_{4}(\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}-\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)})+\frac{k}%
{4}\mathsf{a}_{1}(\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}+\mathsf{R}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}),
\]
\[
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{hy}=\frac{k}{2}\mathsf{a}_{1}\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,bc}%
}-k\mathsf{a}_{1}(\theta_{\mathsf{bc}}+\omega_{\mathsf{bc}})\partial
_{\mathsf{a}}%
\]
and%
\[
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hh}=-\lambda\square\left( \mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}%
}^{(1m)}+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}+\frac{1}{2}\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0w)}-\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}(\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}%
}^{(0sw)}+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0ws)})\right) .
\]
In order to write down the propagators of the model,%
\begin{equation}
\left\langle 0\right\vert T[\Phi(x)\Phi(y)]\left\vert 0\right\rangle =iM^{-1}%
\delta^{(3)}(x-y), \label{dezoito}%
\end{equation}
we need to calculate the inverse matrix, $M^{-1}$, of the wave operator. But,
here we face a problem: the matrix element $M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hh}$ does not have a
term in $\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}$, and we cannot find the inverse
element of this fundamental term (to compute the inverse, we need to close the
relation given in eq.(\ref{onze}), which not occur).
At this point, a comment is worthy: the lack of invertibility of the wave operator, $M$, is
understandable and should be expected, once we are now adopting the
first-order formalism, where some of the gravity-field components are
non-dynamical, and so can rather be replaced in terms of the independent
components by means of the classical equations of motion, which acctually play
the role of constraints. This is a particularity of auxiliary fields appearing
in actions with local symmetry. This is indeed the case of gravity. We can see, in this manner, that a completely invertible theory, when
decomposed in terms of one gauge field and its torsion tensor components, has
difficulties when we adopt the version where the torsion is not taken as the
fundamental field, but rather work with the gauge field associated to Lorentz
local transformation that incorporates the torsion information (in a
Einstein-Cartan theory $\omega_{\mathsf{abc}}=\gamma_{\mathsf{abc}%
}-K_{\mathsf{abc}}$, where $\gamma_{\mathsf{abc}}$ is the "pure Riemannian",
without torsion, part and $K_{\mathsf{abc}}$\ is the contortion term). The
missing spin-2 term of the gravitational gauge field is incorporated into the
"Riemannian part" of the spin connection gauge field in the first-order formalism.
\section{Introducing the Torsion Terms}
In order to try to formulate a pure gauge model for planar gravitation, and yet
to understand the role torsion plays, we drop from the action (\ref{dez}) to a new action where the curvature terms are replaced by torsion:%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S=}\int d^{3}x\ e(\mathsf{a}_{1}\mathcal{R+}\mathsf{a}_{2}%
\mathcal{T}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\alpha\beta\gamma}+\mathsf{a}%
_{3}\mathcal{T}_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\mathcal{T}^{\beta\gamma\alpha}%
+\mathsf{a}_{4}\mathcal{T}_{\alpha\beta}{}^{\beta}\mathcal{T}^{\alpha}%
{}_{\gamma}{}^{\gamma}+\mathsf{a}_{5}\mathcal{L}_{CS}). \label{treze}%
\end{equation}
$\mathcal{L}_{CS}$\ being the usual Chern-Simons term, given in eq. (\ref{quatorze}).
$\mathsf{a}_{1}$, $\mathsf{a}_{2}$, $\mathsf{a}_{3}$\ and $\mathsf{a}_{4}$ are
free coefficients, whereas $\mathsf{a}_{5}$ is the Chern-Simons parameter. See
reference \cite{Sezgin:1979zf} for a complete discussion about the specific torsion terms. From now on, all
our calculations and results refer to the action (\ref{treze}). In our final
section, we shall make a comment on the possibility of introducing a term which is
linear in the torsion \cite{Zanelli:2002qm}.
We consider equations (\ref{nove}), (\ref{doze}) and (\ref{sete}), and the
decompositions (\ref{quinze}), (\ref{dezesseis}) and (\ref{dezessete}), with
the weak expansion (\ref{vintedois}) and equations (\ref{vintetres}) and
(\ref{vintequatro}), we can rewrite the action (\ref{treze}), introducing the
gauge-fixing term,%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}_{GF-diff}=\lambda F_{\mathsf{a}}F^{\mathsf{a}}\ ,\ F_{\mathsf{a}%
}=k\partial^{\mathsf{b}}\left( H_{\mathsf{ba}}-\frac{1}{2}\eta_{\mathsf{ba}%
}H_{\mathsf{c}}{}^{\mathsf{c}}\right) ,
\end{equation}
in the linearized form below:%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{S}\mathcal{=}\int d^{3}x\frac{1}{2}\Phi^{T}M\Phi\ ,\ \Phi=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
h^{\mathsf{cd}}\\
h^{\mathsf{c}}\\
y^{\mathsf{cd}}\\
y^{\mathsf{c}}%
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{equation}
As before, we express the wave operator, $M$, in terms of the extended
spin-projection operators. In addition to the operators listed above,
there appear two new operators:%
\begin{equation}
\theta_{\mathsf{ab}}\partial_{\mathsf{c}}\text{ \ \ \ \ \ and \ \ \ \ }%
\omega_{\mathsf{ab}}\partial_{\mathsf{c}},
\end{equation}
which, together with the old ones, completely close the algebra.
This yields the form below for the wave operator:%
\begin{equation}
M=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cccc}%
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hh} & M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{hh} & M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hy} &
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{hy}\\
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{hh} & M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{hh} & M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{hy} &
M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{hy}\\
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yh} & M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{yh} & M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yy} &
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{yy}\\
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yh} & M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{yh} & M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yy} &
M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{yy}%
\end{array}
\right) ,
\end{equation}
where%
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hh} &=&\frac{k^{2}}{2}\square(\mathsf{a}_{3}%
-2\mathsf{a}_{2})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}+\frac{k^{2}}{4}%
\square(\mathsf{a}_{3}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-\mathsf{a}_{4}-4\lambda)\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}\nonumber\\
&& +\frac{k^{2}}{2}\square(\mathsf{a}_{3}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{4}-2\lambda)\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}-(\frac{k^{2}}{2}%
\square\lambda)\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0w)}\nonumber\\
&& -(\frac{\sqrt{2}}{2}k^{2}\square\lambda)(\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}%
}^{(0sw)}+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0ws)})-\frac{\mathsf{k}^{2}}%
{2}\mathsf{a}_{5}(\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}+\mathsf{R}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{hh}=-(\frac{k^{2}}{2}\mathsf{a}_{5})\mathsf{B}%
_{\mathsf{c,ab}}+\frac{k^{2}}{4}(\mathsf{a}_{3}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-\mathsf{a}%
_{4}+4\lambda)\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{c,ab}},
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{hy} &=&\frac{k}{2}(\square\mathsf{a}_{6}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{5})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}-(k\mathsf{a}_{5})\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}-\frac{k}{2}(\square\mathsf{a}_{6}+2\mathsf{a}%
_{5})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}\nonumber\\
&& -(k\mathsf{a}_{5})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0w)}+\frac{k}{4}%
(\mathsf{a}_{1}+2\mathsf{a}_{2}-2\mathsf{a}_{3})(\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}%
}^{(2a)}+\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{hy}=\frac{k}{2}(\mathsf{a}_{1}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}%
-2\mathsf{a}_{4})\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{c,ab}}-k(\mathsf{a}_{1}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{2}-2\mathsf{a}_{4})(\theta_{\mathsf{ab}}+\omega_{\mathsf{ab}})\partial
_{\mathsf{c}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{hh}=(\frac{k^{2}}{2}\mathsf{a}_{5})\mathsf{B}%
_{\mathsf{a,cd}}+\frac{k^{2}}{4}(\mathsf{a}_{3}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-\mathsf{a}%
_{4}+4\lambda)\mathsf{D}_{\mathsf{a,cd}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{hh}=\frac{k^{2}}{2}\square(\mathsf{a}_{3}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{2}-\mathsf{a}_{4}-4\lambda)\theta_{\mathsf{a,c}}-(k^{2}\square
)(2\mathsf{a}_{2}+\mathsf{a}_{3})\omega_{\mathsf{a,c}}-(k^{2}\mathsf{a}%
_{5})\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{a,c}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{hy}=-\frac{k}{2}(\mathsf{a}_{1}+2\mathsf{a}_{2}%
)\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,bc}}+k(\mathsf{a}_{1}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{3})(\theta_{\mathsf{bc}}+\omega_{\mathsf{bc}})\partial_{\mathsf{a}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{hy}=(2k\mathsf{a}_{5})\theta_{\mathsf{a,c}}+k(2\mathsf{a}%
_{5}-\square\mathsf{a}_{6})\omega_{\mathsf{a,c}}+k(\mathsf{a}_{1}%
-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-2\mathsf{a}_{4})\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{a,c}},
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yh} &=&\frac{k}{2}(\square\mathsf{a}_{6}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{5})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}-(k\mathsf{a}_{5})\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}-\frac{k}{2}(\square\mathsf{a}_{6}+2\mathsf{a}%
_{5})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}\nonumber\\
&& -(k\mathsf{a}_{5})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0w)}+\frac{k}{4}%
(\mathsf{a}_{1}+2\mathsf{a}_{2}-2\mathsf{a}_{3})(\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}%
}^{(2a)}+\mathsf{R}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}),
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{yh}=\frac{k}{2}(\mathsf{a}_{1}+2\mathsf{a}_{2}%
)\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{c,ab}}-k(\mathsf{a}_{1}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{3})(\theta_{\mathsf{ab}}+\omega_{\mathsf{ab}})\partial_{\mathsf{c}},
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{yy} &=&2(\mathsf{a}_{1}+2\mathsf{a}_{2}-\mathsf{a}%
_{3})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}+2(\mathsf{a}_{1}+2\mathsf{a}%
_{2}-\mathsf{a}_{3})\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1m)}\nonumber\\
&& +2(6\mathsf{a}_{2}+5\mathsf{a}_{3}-\mathsf{a}_{1})\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}+4(2\mathsf{a}_{2}+\mathsf{a}_{3})\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0w)}\nonumber\\
&& +2\sqrt{2}(2\mathsf{a}_{2}+3\mathsf{a}_{3}-\mathsf{a}_{1})(\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0sw)}+\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0ws)})+(\frac
{\mathsf{a}_{6}}{2})(\mathsf{S}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}+\mathsf{R}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(1a)}),\nonumber\\
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{yy}=\mathsf{a}_{6}\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{c,ab}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yh}=-\frac{k}{2}(\mathsf{a}_{1}-2\mathsf{a}_{2}%
-2\mathsf{a}_{4})\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,bc}}+k(\mathsf{a}_{1}-2\mathsf{a}%
_{2}-2\mathsf{a}_{4})(\theta_{\mathsf{bc}}+\omega_{\mathsf{bc}})\partial
_{\mathsf{a}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{yh}=(2k\mathsf{a}_{5})\theta_{\mathsf{a,c}}+k(2\mathsf{a}%
_{5}-\square\mathsf{a}_{6})\omega_{\mathsf{a,c}}+k(\mathsf{a}_{1}%
-2\mathsf{a}_{2}-2\mathsf{a}_{4})\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{a,c}},
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{yy}=-\mathsf{a}_{6}\mathsf{B}_{\mathsf{a,cd}}%
\end{equation}
and%
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{yy} &=& 4(2\mathsf{a}_{2}+2\mathsf{a}_{4}-\mathsf{a}%
_{1}-\mathsf{a}_{3})\theta_{\mathsf{a,c}}+4(2\mathsf{a}_{2}+2\mathsf{a}%
_{4}-\mathsf{a}_{1}-\mathsf{a}_{3})\omega_{\mathsf{a,c}}\nonumber\\
&& +(2\mathsf{a}_{6})\mathsf{A}_{\mathsf{a,c}}.
\end{eqnarray}
Once all operators have been identified, we finally come to the
task of computing the inverses. This is what we shall do next.
\section{Propagators and Excitation Modes}
In order to calculate the propagators, eq. (\ref{dezoito}), we use a
straightforward, but lengthy, procedure in terms of which we decompose the
matrix $M$\ into four sectors, namely:%
\begin{equation}
M=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
M^{hh} & M^{hy}\\
M^{yh} & M^{yy}%
\end{array}
\right) .
\end{equation}
Thus the inverse matrix $M^{-1}$\ can be written as:%
\begin{equation}
M^{-1}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
M^{HH} & M^{HY}\\
M^{YH} & M^{YY}%
\end{array}
\right) ,
\end{equation}
where its blocks are given by:%
\begin{align}
M^{HH} & =[M^{hh}-M^{hy}(M^{yy})^{-1}M^{yh}]^{-1}.\nonumber\\
M^{HY} & =-(M^{hh})^{-1}M^{hy}M^{YY}.\label{dezenove}\\
M^{YH} & =-(M^{yy})^{-1}M^{yh}M^{HH}.\nonumber\\
M^{YY} & =[M^{yy}-M^{yh}(M^{hh})^{-1}M^{hy}]^{-1}.\nonumber
\end{align}
Once the propagators are read off, we must check the tree-level unitarity of
the theory. To this, we have to analyse the residues of the current-current
transition amplitude in momentum space, given by the saturated propagator
after a Fourier transformation. The sources that saturate the propagators can
be expanded in terms of a complete basis in the momentum space as follows:%
\begin{align}
S_{\mu\nu} & =c%
\acute{}%
_{1}p_{\mu}p_{\nu}+c%
\acute{}%
_{2}p_{\mu}q_{\nu}+c%
\acute{}%
_{3}p_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu}+c%
\acute{}%
_{4}q_{\mu}p_{\nu}+c%
\acute{}%
_{5}q_{\mu}q_{\nu}\\
& +c%
\acute{}%
_{6}q_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu}+c%
\acute{}%
_{7}\varepsilon_{\mu}p_{\nu}+c%
\acute{}%
_{8}\varepsilon_{\mu}q_{\nu}+c%
\acute{}%
_{9}\varepsilon_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu},\nonumber
\end{align}
where $p_{\mu}=(p_{0},-\overrightarrow{p})$, $q_{\mu}=(p_{0},\overrightarrow
{p})$\ and $\varepsilon_{\mu}=(0,-\overrightarrow{\varepsilon})$\ are linearly
independent vectors that satisfy the conditions:%
\begin{align}
p_{\mu}p^{\mu} & =q_{\mu}q^{\mu}=m^{2}.\nonumber\\
p_{\mu}q^{\mu} & =p_{0}^{2}+\overrightarrow{p}^{2}\neq0.\\
p_{\mu}\varepsilon^{\mu} & =q_{\mu}\varepsilon^{\mu}=0.\nonumber\\
\varepsilon_{\mu}\varepsilon^{\mu} & =-1.\nonumber
\end{align}
These conditions and the symmetry requirements of the theory split the
sources, $S_{\mu\nu}$, in a symmetric and an antisymmetric part:%
\begin{align}
S_{S\mu\nu} & =S_{(\mu\nu)}=c_{1}p_{\mu}p_{\nu}+c_{2}(p_{\mu}q_{\nu}+q_{\mu
}p_{\nu})+c_{3}(p_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu}+\varepsilon_{\mu}p_{\nu})\\
& +c_{4}q_{\mu}q_{\nu}+c_{5}(q_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu}+\varepsilon_{\mu}%
q_{\nu})+c_{6}\varepsilon_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu}\nonumber
\end{align}
and%
\begin{align}
A_{S\mu\nu} & =S_{[\mu\nu]}=d_{1}(p_{\mu}q_{\nu}-q_{\mu}p_{\nu}%
)+d_{2}(p_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu}-\varepsilon_{\mu}p_{\nu})\\
& +d_{3}(q_{\mu}\varepsilon_{\nu}-\varepsilon_{\mu}q_{\nu}),\nonumber
\end{align}
where $c_{1}=c%
\acute{}%
_{1},$ $c_{2}=\frac{c%
\acute{}%
_{2}+c%
\acute{}%
_{4}}{2},$ $c_{3}=\frac{c%
\acute{}%
_{3}+c%
\acute{}%
_{7}}{2},$ $c_{4}=c%
\acute{}%
_{5},$ $c_{5}=\frac{c%
\acute{}%
_{6}+c%
\acute{}%
_{8}}{2},$ $c_{6}=c%
\acute{}%
_{9}$ $d_{1}=\frac{c%
\acute{}%
_{2}-c%
\acute{}%
_{4}}{2},$ $d_{2}=\frac{c%
\acute{}%
_{3}-c%
\acute{}%
_{7}}{2},$ and $d_{3}=\frac{c%
\acute{}%
_{6}-c%
\acute{}%
_{8}}{2}$.
The currente-current transition amplitude is written as:%
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A} & =\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
\tau^{\ast} & \rho^{\ast}%
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc}%
M^{HH} & M^{HY}\\
M^{YH} & M^{YY}%
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}
[c]{c}%
\tau\\
\rho
\end{array}
\right) \Rightarrow\\
\mathcal{A} & =\tau^{\ast}M^{HH}\tau+\tau^{\ast}M^{HY}\rho+\rho^{\ast}%
M^{YH}\tau+\rho^{\ast}M^{YY}\rho,\nonumber
\end{align}
where $\tau$\ is the source to the $h$\ fields and $\rho$\ the source to the
$y$\ fields.
$\mathcal{A}$ can then be cast into the form below:%
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A} & =t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{HH}t^{\mathsf{cd}%
}+t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{HH}t^{\mathsf{c}}+t^{\mathsf{a}%
^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{HH}t^{\mathsf{cd}}+t^{\mathsf{a}^{\ast}%
}M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{HH}t^{\mathsf{c}}\nonumber\\
& +t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{HY}r^{\mathsf{cd}}%
+t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{HY}r^{\mathsf{c}}+t^{\mathsf{a}%
^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{HY}r^{\mathsf{cd}}+t^{\mathsf{a}^{\ast}%
}M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{HY}r^{\mathsf{c}}\\
& +r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{YH}t^{\mathsf{cd}}%
+r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{YH}t^{\mathsf{c}}+r^{\mathsf{a}%
^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{YH}t^{\mathsf{cd}}+r^{\mathsf{a}^{\ast}%
}M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{YH}t^{\mathsf{c}}\nonumber\\
& +r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{YY}r^{\mathsf{cd}}%
+r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{ab,c}}^{YY}r^{\mathsf{c}}+r^{\mathsf{a}%
^{\ast}}M_{\mathsf{a,cd}}^{YY}r^{\mathsf{cd}}+r^{\mathsf{a}^{\ast}%
}M_{\mathsf{a,c}}^{YY}r^{\mathsf{c}},\nonumber
\end{align}
where $t^{\mathsf{cd}}=\tau^{(\mathsf{cd)}}$,\ $t^{\mathsf{c}}=\frac{1}%
{2}\epsilon^{\mathsf{cde}}T_{\mathsf{de}}$ with $T_{\mathsf{de}}=\tau
_{\lbrack\mathsf{de}]}$ and $r^{\mathsf{cd}}=\rho^{(\mathsf{cd)}}%
$,\ $r^{\mathsf{c}}=\frac{1}{2}\epsilon^{\mathsf{cde}}R_{\mathsf{de}}$ with
$R_{\mathsf{de}}=\rho_{\lbrack\mathsf{de}]}$.
Due to the source constraints, $p_{\mathsf{c}}t^{\mathsf{cd}}=0$,
$p_{\mathsf{c}}T^{\mathsf{cd}}=0$, $p_{\mathsf{c}}r^{\mathsf{cd}}=0$ and
$p_{\mathsf{c}}R^{\mathsf{cd}}=0$, only the projectors $\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}$, $\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}$, $\mathsf{S}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2a)}$, $\theta_{\mathsf{ab}}\partial_{\mathsf{c}}$and
$\omega_{\mathsf{a,c}}$,give non-vanishing contributions to the amplitude.
For a massless pole, or for a massive pole in the rest frame (where $p_{\mu
}=(m,0)$, $q_{\mu}=(m,0)$\ and $\varepsilon_{\mu}=(0,-\overrightarrow
{\varepsilon})$), only the projectors $\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}$ and
$\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}$\ survive and contribute.
With the restrictions above, the amplitude reads:%
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A} & =<H2H2_{(2)}>t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}%
}^{(2)}t^{\mathsf{cd}}+<H2H2_{(0s)}>t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}t^{\mathsf{cd}}\nonumber\\
+ & <H2Y2_{(2)}>t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}%
^{(2)}r^{\mathsf{cd}}+<H2Y2_{(0s)}>t^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}r^{\mathsf{cd}}\\
+ & <Y2H2_{(2)}>r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}%
^{(2)}t^{\mathsf{cd}}+<Y2H2_{(0s)}>r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}t^{\mathsf{cd}}\nonumber\\
+ & <Y2Y2_{(2)}>r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}%
^{(2)}r^{\mathsf{cd}}+<Y2Y2_{(0s)}>r^{\mathsf{ab}^{\ast}}\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(0s)}r^{\mathsf{cd}},\nonumber
\end{align}
where $<H2H2_{(2)}>$ is the symmetric rank-2 ($H2$ in $H2H2_{(2)}$)
gravitational field propagator associated to the operator $\mathsf{P}%
_{\mathsf{ab,cd}}^{(2)}$ ($_{(2)}$ in $H2H2_{(2)}$). The other coefficients
have analogous meaning. Explicitly writing the sources, we get:%
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A} & =\frac{1}{2}(<H2H2_{(2)}>+<H2H2_{(0s)}>)\left\vert
c_{6t}\right\vert ^{2}\nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{2}( & <H2Y2_{(2)}>+<H2Y2_{(0s)}>)c_{6t}^{\ast}c_{6r}%
\label{vinte}\\
+\frac{1}{2}( & <Y2H2_{(2)}>+<Y2H2_{(0s)}>)c_{6r}^{\ast}c_{6t}\nonumber\\
+\frac{1}{2}( & <Y2Y2_{(2)}>+<Y2Y2_{(0s)}>)\left\vert c_{6r}\right\vert
^{2}\nonumber
\end{align}
where $t$ and $r$ in the $c$ mean the source associated to the particular term.
We must now replace the results obtained by the procedure described in
(\ref{dezenove}) into (\ref{vinte}). Before, explicitly we put our results,
the following comments should be done:
\begin{enumerate}
\item With the whole set of action parameters, $\mathsf{a}_{1}$,
$\mathsf{a}_{2}$, $\mathsf{a}_{3}$, $\mathsf{a}_{4}$ $\mathsf{a}_{5}$ and
$\lambda$, different from zero, our computational algebraic facilities failed
in attaining an analytical result, due to the extension of the resulting expressions.
\item Considering the Chern-Simons term, $\mathsf{a}_{5}$,we obtained the
following behaviour in the denominator of the propagator:
\begin{itemize}
\item With $\mathsf{a}_{1}=0$, we have terms proportional to $p^{22}$.
\item The lowest power, $p^{6}$, occurs with $\mathsf{a}_{1}=\mathsf{a}%
_{2}=\mathsf{a}_{4}=0$, only $\mathsf{a}_{3}$\ and $\mathsf{a}_{5}$\ are considered.
\item With $\mathsf{a}_{3}=0$, we do not have\ an invertible case.
\end{itemize}
\item Without the Chern-Simons term, $\mathsf{a}_{5}=0$, we obtain, in all
invertible cases, a power $p^{2}$. This is not a straightforward result; we
may justify it by pointing out that Chern-Simons contributes a term quadratic
in the spin connection with a space-time derivative, whereas the scalar
curvature contributes a term that mixes $H$ with $\omega$. Setting
$\mathsf{a}_{5}$\ to zero, we suppres $\omega-\omega$\ terms with a
derivative, and so we unavoidably reduce the powers in the momentum appearing
in the propagators.
\end{enumerate}
We then consider in (\ref{vinte}) only the cases with $\mathsf{a}_{5}=0$.
Anyway, we have a procedure that works out for all possibilities in parameter
space (once we keep $\mathsf{a}_{6}=0$; we come back to this point in our
Concluding Comments). We simply report here the cases with $\mathsf{a}_{3}$,
and $\mathsf{a}_{1}$\ and $\mathsf{a}_{3}$, different from zero to have an
illustration of how our general procedure works.
The least invertible case occurs by considering only $\mathsf{a}_{3}$
different from zero in the action. In this case, the relevant propagators read:%
\begin{align}
H2H2_{(2)} & =\frac{2}{3k^{2}p^{2}\mathsf{a}_{3}}i.\nonumber\\
H2H2_{(0s)} & =-\frac{2}{k^{2}p^{2}\mathsf{a}_{3}}i.\nonumber\\
H2Y2_{(2)} & =H2Y2_{(0s)}=Y2H2_{(2)}=Y2H2_{(0s)}=0.\\
Y2Y2_{(2)} & =\frac{1}{6\mathsf{a}_{3}}i.\nonumber\\
Y2Y2_{(0s)} & =0\nonumber
\end{align}
and the saturated amplitude is as given below,%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}=\left( -\frac{2}{3k^{2}p^{2}\mathsf{a}_{3}}\left\vert
c_{6}\right\vert _{tt}^{2}+\frac{1}{12\mathsf{a}_{3}}\left\vert c_{6}%
\right\vert _{rr}^{2}\right) i.
\end{equation}
We notice in this expression that the massless pole comes from the $h$-block
and has contributions from the spin-0 and the spin-2 sectors.
Then, by calculating the imaginary part of the residue of the amplitude at the
massless pole, we get:%
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{Im}(res\mathcal{A})=\operatorname{Im}\left( \lim_{p^{2}%
\rightarrow0}[p^{2}\mathcal{A}]\right) =-\frac{2\left\vert c_{6}\right\vert
_{tt}^{2}}{3k^{2}\mathsf{a}_{3}}.
\end{equation}
From the requirement of having positive-definite residue at the pole, we must
have $\mathsf{a}_{3}<0$.
Considering now the addition of the scalar of curvature term $\mathsf{a}_{1}$,
we get:%
\begin{align}
H2H2_{(2)} & =\frac{2(\mathsf{a}_{3}-\mathsf{a}_{1})}{k^{2}p^{2}%
\mathsf{(}3\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}+\mathsf{a}_{1}^{2}-3\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}%
_{1})}i\nonumber\\
H2H2_{(0s)} & =-\frac{2(\mathsf{a}_{3}+\mathsf{a}_{1})}{k^{2}p^{2}%
\mathsf{(\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}-\mathsf{a}_{1}^{2}+\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}_{1})}%
}i\nonumber\\
H2Y2_{(2)} & =H2Y2_{(0s)}=Y2H2_{(2)}=Y2H2_{(0s)}=0\\
Y2Y2_{(2)} & =\frac{\mathsf{a}_{3}}{2(3\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}+\mathsf{\mathsf{a}%
_{1}^{2}}-3\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}_{1}})}i\nonumber\\
Y2Y2_{(0s)} & =0\nonumber
\end{align}
and the amplitude becomes:%
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{A}=\left( -\frac{2}{k^{2}p^{2}}\times\frac{\mathsf{\mathsf{a}%
_{3}^{3}}}{3\mathsf{a}_{3}^{4}-5\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}\mathsf{a}_{1}%
^{2}+4\mathsf{a}_{3}a}_{1}^{3}-\mathsf{a}_{1}^{4}}\left\vert c_{6}\right\vert
_{tt}^{2}+\frac{\mathsf{a}_{3}}{2(3\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}+\mathsf{\mathsf{a}%
_{1}^{2}}-3\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}_{1}})}\left\vert c_{6}\right\vert
_{rr}^{2}\right) i.\nonumber
\end{equation}
We can see that the structure of the amplitude is not changed, with the pole
having contributions from the same spin sectors. The parameters relations now reads:%
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{Im}(res\mathcal{A})=\operatorname{Im}\left( \lim_{p^{2}%
\rightarrow0}[p^{2}\mathcal{A}]\right) =-\frac{2}{k^{2}}\frac
{\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}^{3}}}{3\mathsf{a}_{3}^{4}-5\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}%
^{2}\mathsf{a}_{1}^{2}+4\mathsf{a}_{3}a}_{1}^{3}-\mathsf{a}_{1}^{4}}\left\vert
c_{6}\right\vert _{tt}^{2}. \label{vinteum}%
\end{equation}
The denominator in (\ref{vinteum}) can be written as:%
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{(\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}+\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}_{1}-\mathsf{a}_{1}%
^{2})(3\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}-3\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}_{1}+\mathsf{a}_{1}^{2}).}%
\end{equation}
The binomial $\mathsf{3\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}-3\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}%
_{1}+\mathsf{a}_{1}^{2}}$ has complex roots and is greater than zero.
The requirement of having positive-definite residue at the pole implies (with
$\mathsf{a}_{3}<0$) $\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{1}^{2}-\mathsf{a}_{3}\mathsf{a}%
_{1}-\mathsf{a}_{3}^{2}<0}$. And the scalar term must obey $\frac{1+\sqrt{5}%
}{2}\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}\approx1.618\mathsf{a}_{3}}<\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{1}%
<}\frac{1-\sqrt{5}}{2}\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}\approx-0.618\mathsf{a}_{3}}$.
The case where all parameters (with exception to $\mathsf{a}_{5}$) are
different from zero brings only new algebraic corrections to the amplitude,
without changing its structure. The relations among the parameters become very
cumbersome, due to the considerable number of parameters involved, so that
many hypotheses must be done.
\section{Concluding Comments}
In the course of the calculations we report in this work, if we complete the
action (\ref{treze}) by adjoining the term $\mathsf{a}_{6}\epsilon^{\mu
\nu\lambda}\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}{}^{\mathsf{\mathsf{a}}}e_{\lambda}%
{}^{\mathsf{b}}\eta_{\mathsf{\mathsf{ab}}}=\mathsf{a}_{6}\epsilon^{\mu
\nu\lambda}\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu}{}^{\mathsf{\alpha}}e_{\alpha}{}^{\mathsf{a}%
}e_{\lambda}{}^{\mathsf{b}}\eta_{\mathsf{\mathsf{ab}}}=\mathsf{a}_{6}%
\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda}\mathcal{T}_{\mu\nu\lambda}$ \cite{Zanelli:2002qm},
a\ problem shows up: though our procedure of introducing the spin operators
works, the propagators could not be found in their generality (with all the
six coefficients $\mathsf{a}_{i}$) even with the help of algebraic computation
techniques. However, we found out that, once any of the $\mathsf{a}_{i}$ are
set to zero, we succeed in reading off the propagators, even if they display
higher powers in the momentum. It is worthwhile to mention here that this
linear term in the torsion combines with the Chern-Simons action to give a
rich structure of poles in the propagators. We do not report these results
here because this investigation is the matter of a forthcoming publication
\cite{futurohelay}. The situation gets better when we discovered that, ruling
out the Chern-Simons term, we get only simple poles in the terms that
contribute to the amplitude. Very surprising was the discovery of the very
different role the torsion terms ($\mathsf{a}_{2}$ and $\mathsf{a}_{3}$) play,
being $\mathsf{a}_{3}$ fundamental to compute the inverse matrix, which is not
the case for $\mathsf{a}_{2}$.
We see that the physical poles are all massless. It is worthy to note that, in
\cite{Boldo:1999qw}, we get only physical mass poles. The unitarity condition
for the physical poles demand that $\mathsf{a}_{3}<0$ and this implies in that
the parameter that governs the scalar curvature must obey the condition
$\frac{1+\sqrt{5}}{2}\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}}<\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{1}<}%
\frac{1-\sqrt{5}}{2}\mathsf{\mathsf{a}_{3}}$.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors acknowledge Prof F. W. Hehl for discussions and helpful
suggestions. They also express their gratitude to CNPq-Brasil for the
invaluable financial help.
|
\section{Introduction}
It has been argued that the QCD dense matter in relativistic heavy ion collisions (HIC) exhibits properties
of a collective fluid-like motion with low viscosity to entropy ratio (see e.g. \cite{Luzum:2008cw}). Thus,
relativistic hydrodynamics has become an important analysis tool for HIC.
Relativistic hydrodynamics is formulated in terms of conservation laws of the stress-energy tensor
and various conserved currents.
It has been recently revealed that the hydrodynamics description exhibits an interesting effect when a global symmetry current of the microscopic theory is anomalous.
This has been first discovered in the context of the gauge/gravity correspondence \cite{Erdmenger:2008rm,Banerjee:2008th,Torabian:2009qk}.
The Chern-Simons term in the gravity action, which corresponds to having an anomalous
global symmetry current in the dual gauge theory, has been shown to modify the
hydrodynamic current by a term proportional
to the vorticity of the fluid.
At first sight the additional vorticity term seemed to contradict the second law of thermodynamics \cite{Landau}.
This, however, has been resolved by a redefinition
of the entropy current in \cite{Son:2009tf}.
In this work we suggest an experimental signal, which is a consequence
of the anomaly effect. We will consider the effect of the vorticity term as well as that of the gauge fields.
The major effort in the experimental study of QCD topological effects in the context
of HIC has been focused on charge separation. The origin of this effect is the assumption
that in the deconfined phase of QCD a non-trivial, space-dependent, value for the QCD $\theta$ angle can be generated. In this $P$ violating vacuum a strong magnetic field would induce an electromagnetic current along the magnetic field lines. The experimental signature of this effect is an asymmetry in the charge distribution of the scattered particles in non-central collisions \cite{Kharzeev:2007jp,Fukushima:2008xe}.
In this paper we propose an observable which is charge independent.
The basic idea is that the axial charge density,
in a locally uniform flow of massless fermions,
is a measure of the alignment between the fermion spins.
When the QCD fluid freezes out and the quarks bind to form hadrons,
aligned spins result in spin-excited hadrons.
The ratio between spin-excited and low spin hadron production and its angular distribution
may therefore be used as a measurement of the axial charge distribution.
Due to the short lifetime of high-spin hadrons such as the $\rho$ mesons and $\Delta$ baryons,
we propose to focus on narrow resonances such as $\Omega^-$.
We will predict the qualitative angular distribution and
centrality dependence of the axial charge. Our main proposal is that for off-central collisions we expect enhancement of $\Omega^-$ production along the rotation axis of the collision
(see fig. \ref{fig_prediction}).
\FIGURE{\includegraphics[width=7cm]{cone_belt.eps}\includegraphics[width=6cm]{prediction.eps}
\caption{The left figure shows an off-central collision of two Gold ions (the beam direction is transverse to the plain of the plot). In blue we see the two spatial angles in which we compare the production rates -- in the upper and lower "cones" we expect to find an enhancement of spin excited hadrons due to the non-zero axial charge $Q_A$
in the fluid, and the "belt" can be used to measure the production without axial charge. The plot on the right shows qualitatively the predicted centrality dependence of the effect.\label{fig_prediction}}}
As we will explain, the calculation of the precise magnitude of the effect requires a detailed numerical analysis as well as making certain assumptions about the hadronization process.
In particular, the Bjorken flow ansatz which is very useful in the numerical analysis of the
hydrodynamics equations cannot be used in this case.
Instead, we will use an estimate for the axial charge distribution at early stages in the evolution of the system.
The paper is organized as follows:
In section \ref{sec_hydro_anomaly} we briefly review the theoretical background for the anomaly effect
in the hydrodynamics framework and discuss the issues involved in detecting this effect in heavy ion collisions.
In section \ref{sec_experimental_signal} we present an
experimental signal, use the Glauber model as the initial condition
to estimate the axial density and give an outline for the data analysis.
The last section is devoted to a discussion and outlook.
\section{Hydrodynamics, Triangle Anomalies and HIC}
\label{sec_hydro_anomaly}
\subsection{Relativistic Hydrodynamics With Anomalous Currents}
The hydrodynamic description of a classical relativistic fluid is a set of conservation equations of
the stress-energy tensor and the global symmetry currents
\begin{equation}
\label{eq_conservation}
\partial_{\mu}T^{\mu\nu} = 0,~~~~~~~\partial_{\mu}j_a^{\mu} = 0 \ ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_rel_hydro}
T^{\mu\nu}&=&(\epsilon+P)u^\mu u^\nu - g^{\mu\nu}P+\tau^{\mu\nu}\nonumber \\
j_a^\mu&=&\rho_au^\mu+\nu_a^\mu \ .
\end{eqnarray}
$u^\mu$ is the fluid velocity field, normalized such that $u_\mu u^\mu=-1$,
$\epsilon$, $P$ and $\rho_a$ are the energy density, pressure and charge densities, respectively.
$\tau^{\mu\nu}$, $\nu_a^\mu$ are
the dissipative terms that contain derivatives of the various fields.
There exists an ambiguity in the definition of the
fields, which we will fix by choosing the Landau frame in which the velocity represents the rest frame of the \emph{energy} density\footnote{
Another useful choice is the Eckart frame, where the velocity is determined by the rest frame of the charge. In this case $\nu_a^\mu=0$.}.
The conditions for the Landau frame are
\begin{eqnarray}
u_\mu\tau^{\mu\nu}=u_\mu\nu_a^\mu=0 \ .
\end{eqnarray}
In the Landau frame the global symmetry current takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
j_a^\mu=\rho_a u^\mu-\sigma_a T(g^{\mu\nu}+u^\mu u^\nu)\partial _\nu\left(\frac{\mu_a}{T}\right) + \sigma_a E_a^\mu\ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $T$, $\mu_a$ and $\sigma_a$ are the temperature, chemical potentials and the conductivities of the medium, and $E_a^\mu\equiv F^{\mu\nu}_au_\nu$ is an external field which is coupled to the current $j_a^\mu$.
This form of the current is modified when
the global symmetry current corresponds to an anomalous current in the microscopic theory \cite{Erdmenger:2008rm,Banerjee:2008th,Torabian:2009qk,Son:2009tf}.
In the latter case the current takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_modified_current}
j_a^\mu&=&\rho_a u^\mu-\sigma_a T(g^{\mu\nu}+u^\mu u^\nu)\partial _\nu\left(\frac{\mu_a}{T}\right)+ \sigma_a E_a^\mu+\xi_a\omega^\mu+\xi^B_{ab}B_b^\mu \ ,
\end{eqnarray}
where the vorticity $\omega^\mu$ and the magnetic field $B_b^\mu$ are defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega^\mu&\equiv&{\frac{1}{2}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}u_\nu\partial_\lambda u_\rho \nonumber \\
B_b^\mu&\equiv&{\frac{1}{2}} \epsilon^{\mu\nu\lambda\rho}u_\nu (F_{b})_{\lambda\rho}~.
\end{eqnarray}
The vorticity and magnetic field coefficients for abelian currents read \cite{Son:2009tf}
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_xi_xi_B}
\xi_a&=&C_{abc}\mu_b \mu_c-\frac{2}{3}\rho_aC_{bcd}\frac{\mu_b\mu_c\mu_d}{\epsilon+P} \nonumber \\
\xi_{ab}^B&=&C_{abc} \mu_c -\frac{1}{2}\rho_aC_{bcd}\frac{\mu_c\mu_d}{\epsilon+P} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
$C_{abc}$ is the coefficient of the triangle anomaly of the currents $j^\mu_a$,$j^\mu_b$ and $j^\mu_c$,
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{abc}&=&\frac{\sum_iQ^i_aQ^i_bQ^i_c}{2\pi^2}\nonumber \\
\partial_\mu j^\mu_a&=&-\frac{1}{8}C_{abc}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}F_{\mu\nu}^bF_{\sigma\rho}^c~.
\end{eqnarray}
and $Q_a^i$ is the charge of the $i$'th Dirac fermion with respect to the $a$ symmetry.
Note that we absorbed the coupling constant in the definition of the gauge fields.
\subsection{Heavy Ion Collisions and the Axial Anomaly}
\label{sec_hydro_rhic}
A set-up in which the hydrodynamics description seems useful is the description of high density
QCD matter created in
heavy ion collisions. In very energetic collisions the hot dense QCD matter can go through a phase transition
into a deconfined phase described by a fluid-like collective motion of quarks and gluons.
The comparison of the relativistic hydrodynamics simulations with the data suggests that
the relativistic fluid is characterized by a low shear viscosity to entropy ratio, which is a property
of strongly coupled systems.
In this work we will relate to experimental observables the effect of triangle anomalies on the hydrodynamics description
discussed in the previous section.
We will consider a deconfined QCD fluid phase, with three light flavors and chiral symmetry restoration.
The global $U(1)$ currents correspond to
$U(1)_B$, the Cartan subalgebra of $SU(3)$ of flavor (which we denote by $U(1)_{I3}$ and $U(1)_S$), and their
axial versions. Accordingly, the relevant currents will be denoted by $j_B^\mu,j_{I}^\mu,j_S^\mu$ and $j_A^{\mu5},j_{I}^{\mu5},j_S^{\mu5}$. The electromagnetic current will be considered as a linear combination of the vector currents, $j_\gamma^\mu = j_{I}^\mu+{\frac{1}{2}} (j_B^\mu+j_S^\mu)$.
In this work we are interested in the axial current for which the relevant triangle anomalies are
\begin{eqnarray}
&&C_{ABB}=\frac{1}{2\pi^2},~~C_{AII}=\frac{3}{4\pi^2},~~C_{ASS}=\frac{3}{2\pi^2},
~~C_{ABS}=-\frac{1}{2\pi^2},~~C_{A\gamma\gamma}=\frac{1}{\pi^2}
\end{eqnarray}
The vorticity coefficient will therefore be given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_xi}
\xi_A&=&\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\big(\mu_B^2 + \frac{3}{2}\mu_I^2 +3\mu_S^2-2\mu_B\mu_S \big)+\mathcal {O}(\rho_A)
\end{eqnarray}
where, as will be discussed in section \ref{sec_estimate}, we neglect the terms in the vorticity coefficients proportional to the axial density because they are subleading. The only external magnetic field coupled
to these currents is the electromagnetic field, therefore we will use the linear combination of these
global currents which couple to this field
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_xi_B}
\xi_{A\gamma}^B
=\frac{1}{\pi^2}\mu_\gamma+\mathcal {O}(\rho_A)
=\frac{1}{2\pi^2}\big(2\mu_I+\mu_B+\mu_S\big)+\mathcal {O}(\rho_A)
\end{eqnarray}
In the deconfined phase there are in principle additional degree of freedom that must be taken into
account, and these are the color current and gluon fields.
We consider these as external sources and their contribution to the
equations of motion for the axial current is in the (non-)conservation equation for the axial current
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_\mu j^\mu_A&=&-\frac{1}{8}C_{A\gamma\gamma}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}F_{\mu\nu}F_{\sigma\rho}
-\frac{1}{8}C_{ACC}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}G^a_{\mu\nu}G^a_{\sigma\rho}~.
\label{axialcurrent}
\end{eqnarray}
where $G^a_{\mu\nu}$ is the gluon field, and
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{ACC}=\frac{3}{4\pi^2} \ .
\end{eqnarray}
We will estimate this effect, but will not assign a nonzero chemical potential to the color current.
Note that equation (\ref{axialcurrent}) requires some clarification. In a hydrodynamics description one considers conserved currents,
while the axial current is not conserved. One can allow a non-conservation of the currents due to external sources in a hydrodynamics framework.
However, can we actually consider the electromagnetic and gluon gauge fields as external sources?
The fact that fields generated by the fluid are considered here as external, is similar to the standard discussion of stellar magneto-hydrodynamics, where the magnetic fields generated by the rotation of the star are considered as an external force. Moreover, in an off-central collision the gauge fields are generated mostly by spectator nucleons, and can be treated as external force terms.
When attempting to make precise quantitative predictions one encounters several issues.
First, we need to estimate the chemical potentials appearing in the formula for the coefficients $\xi_A$ (\ref{eq_xi}) and (\ref{eq_xi_B}). We will provide such an estimate in \ref{sec_estimate}. In general, in the analysis of HIC in the hydrodynamic framework one assumes a small chemical potential compared to the temperature, which can imply an effect too small to be detected.
Second, in most analyses of HIC, one assumes a Bjorken flow ansatz, where all the observables are boost invariant.
This means that the divergences of the vorticity and magnetic fields are zero, and the equations for the axial density are trivial (see eq. (\ref{eq_conservation}) and (\ref{eq_modified_current})). Another way to see this is to note that the Bjorken ansatz assumes zero angular momentum in the reaction plane,
while the existence of large angular momentum is the main source for vorticity and magnetic field in the fluid.
Solving the hydrodynamics equations without the Bjorken ansatz is a difficult task, which we will leave for future work.
Instead we will estimate the axial density distribution at an early stage of the flow without fully solving
the complete set of equations.
Third, there is no direct experimental access to the axial charge distribution of the fluid, since
all the information regarding chirality is erased during the hadronization process. We will propose a solution to this problem in the next section.
\section{An Experimental Signal}
\label{sec_experimental_signal}
\subsection{The Axial Charge and Enhanced Production of High-Spin Hadrons }
\label{sec_signal}
The phase transition from a fluid state of QCD matter into hadron gas is arguably the least understood stage in the hydrodynamic description of the collision. It is unclear where and when the phase transition occurs and how exactly the free quarks bind and form hadrons.
Nevertheless, using a phenomenological description of the process we argue that non-zero axial charge in the context of heavy ion collision can lead to an enhancement in the
production of spin-excited hadrons.
For simplicity, we will assume that the momenta of the fermions in a small volume of moving fluid are pointing in the same direction (see figure \ref{fig_cone_alignedspins}).
Note also, that in the zero mass limit, a non-zero axial charge means a preferred helicity for these fermions.
The combination of these two statements means that a non-zero axial charge enhances the probability for quark spins to be aligned.
When the fluid freezes-out and particles with aligned spins bind to form hadrons,
the bound states cannot have low intrinsic spin\footnote{for example, a pseudo-scalar meson can only be formed by quarks with anti-aligned spins}. We therefore propose
that a non-zero axial charge enhances the production rate of spin-excited hadrons.
In order to make this more quantitative, let us define
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_{i}(\Omega) \equiv\frac{N_{i} (\Omega) }{N_{tot} (\Omega)}~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $N_i(\Omega)$ is the number of hadrons of species $i$
detected in a solid angle $\Omega$ and $N_{tot} (\Omega)$ is the total number of detected particles in that angle.
In order to find the dependence of this quantity on the axial charge in a volume element, $Q_A=\int dV \rho_A=N_L-N_R$, we define
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^0_{i} \equiv\frac{N^0_{i} (\Omega) }{N^0_{tot} (\Omega)},\qquad
\lambda^{*0}_{i} \equiv\frac{N^0_{i} (\Omega) }{N^{*0}_{tot} (\Omega)}
\end{eqnarray}
where $N^{*}_{tot} (\Omega)$ is the total number of spin-excited hadrons detected in $\Omega$,
and the index $0$ means that this quantity is evaluated at zero axial charge in the QCD fluid.
Note that assuming a radial flow, the relevant volume of fluid is a cone covered by the angle $\Omega$ (See fig. \ref{fig_cone_alignedspins}).
$\lambda^0_{i}$ and $\lambda^{*0}_{i}$ are parameters which depend on the hadronization process.
They are unknown theoretically and will be measured in scattering angles which cover cones with no axial charge,
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda^0_{i} =\lambda_{i}(\Omega_{(Q_A=0)})~.
\end{eqnarray}
\FIGURE{\includegraphics[width=12cm]{conealignedspins.eps}
\caption{The figure on the left shows the spatial angle $\Omega$ and the cone of QCD matter which flows in its direction. On the right we show a zoomed-in cartoon of a small volume of fluid with non-zero axial charge. The small circles represent the fermions and the thick arrows represent their spins. The larger circles represent the bound states. Bound states with aligned spins can form only spin excited hadrons.\label{fig_cone_alignedspins}}}
We now divide the total number of fermions denoted by $n_{tot}$ (both left handed and right handed quarks and anti-quark), in a given volume of QCD fluid into two groups: one with an equal number of left and right fermions, and the other with left handed only (or right handed only, if the axial charge is negative).
Thus, their relative portions in a given volume are $\frac{n_{tot}-|Q_A|}{n_{tot}}$ and $\frac{|Q_A|}{n_{tot}}$ respectively.
While the species and spin of hadrons produced from the first group will be distributed according to the "regular" ratios $\lambda^0_{i}$ as dictated by
the hadronization process,
the second group can only bind into spin-excited hadrons, because the spins are aligned. The species of the particles in the second group, therefore, will be determined by $\lambda^{*0}_{i}$. If we take, for example, the proton as a representative of the low spin hadrons and the $\Delta$ resonance as a representative of the spin-excited hadrons we can write
\begin{eqnarray}
\lambda_p (\Omega) &=&\frac{n_{tot}(\Omega)-|Q_A(\Omega)|}{n_{tot}(\Omega)} \lambda^0_{p}\nonumber \\
\lambda_\Delta(\Omega) &=&\frac{n_{tot}(\Omega)-|Q_A(\Omega)|}{n_{tot}(\Omega)} \lambda^0_{\Delta} +\frac{|Q_A(\Omega)|}{n_{tot}(\Omega)}\lambda^{*0}_{\Delta}
\end{eqnarray}
where the notations $n_{tot}(\Omega)$ and $Q_A(\Omega)$ mean the fermion number and axial charge in the
volume covered by the angle $\Omega$.
Using this result we get the following ratio:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\lambda_\Delta(\Omega)}{\lambda_p(\Omega)}
&=&
\frac{\lambda^0_{\Delta}}{\lambda^0_{p}}\left(1+\frac{|Q_A(\Omega)|}{n_{tot}(\Omega)-|Q_A(\Omega)|}\frac{\lambda^{*0}_{\Delta}}{\lambda^0_{\Delta}}\right)
\end{eqnarray}
Treating $\frac{\lambda^{*0}_{\Delta}}{\lambda^0_{\Delta}}$ as some unknown parameter of order 1\footnote{$\frac{\lambda^{*0}_{\Delta}}{\lambda^0_{\Delta}}=\frac{N^0_{tot}}{N^{*0}_{tot}}$
can naively be approximated as $\frac{10}{7}$, using the degeneracy of the various spin multiplets.}, and writing in terms of experimental quantities, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{N_\Delta(\Omega)/N_\Delta(\Omega_{(Q_A=0)})}{N_p(\Omega)/N_p(\Omega_{(Q_A=0)})}-1
&\propto&\frac{|Q_A(\Omega)|}{n_{tot}(\Omega)-|Q_A(\Omega)|}\approx\frac{|Q_A(\Omega)|}{n_{tot}(\Omega)}\propto\frac{|Q_A(\Omega)|}{N_{part}(\Omega)}
\end{eqnarray}
In the last step we assumed that $n_{tot}$, the number of particles in the fluid,
is proportional to the number of nucleons participating in the collision, $N_{part}$, which will be discussed in more detail in the next section.
A more precise analysis of the effect, which requires a numerical solution of the hydrodynamics equations, is suggested in the discussion.
\subsection{The Glauber Model and the Distribution of Axial Charge at Early Stages}
\label{sec_axial_Glauber}
In this section we describe a method of estimating the axial charge distribution at early stages of
the evolution of the system. We focus on the QED contribution, and relate it to QCD effects in the next section.
The non-conservation equation for the axial current in the Landau frame is
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_\mu j_A^\mu =\partial_\mu \big(\rho_A u^\mu-\sigma_A T(g^{\mu\nu}+u^\mu u^\nu)\partial _\nu\left(\frac{\mu_A}{T}\right)+\xi_A\omega^\mu+\xi^B_{A\gamma} B^\mu\big)=C_{A\gamma\gamma}E_\mu B^\mu~,
\end{eqnarray}
where the coefficients $\xi_A$ and $\xi^B_{A\gamma}$ are taken from (\ref{eq_xi}) and (\ref{eq_xi_B}), and
since there is no external field associated with the axial charge, we dropped the $E_A^\mu$ term.
$E_\mu$ and $B^\mu$ are the electromagnetic fields generated in the HIC.
Under the assumption of uniformly distributed chemical potentials and anomaly coefficients
$\partial_\mu \mu_A|_{t_0}\approx\partial_\mu \xi_A|_{t_0}\approx0$, the equation takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_conservation_and_source}
\partial_\mu (\rho_A u^\mu)
= C_{A\gamma\gamma}E_\mu B^\mu-(\xi_A \partial_\mu\omega^\mu+\xi^B_{A\gamma} \partial_\mu B^\mu) \ .
\end{eqnarray}
Thus, the RHS can be considered as source terms for the "classical" axial current, $\rho_Au^\mu$.
At $t=t_0$, the axial density is zero and so is its spatial derivative ($\rho_A=\partial_i\rho_A=0$) and we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t \rho_A|_{t_0}=\frac{1}{u^t}(C_{A\gamma\gamma}E_\mu B^\mu-\xi_A \partial_\mu\omega^\mu-\xi^B_{A\gamma} \partial_\mu B^\mu)|_{t_0}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Given the time derivative of the axial density we can estimate its distribution at early stages
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_A|_{t_0+\Delta t}\approx \Delta t\partial_t \rho_a|_{t_0} = \frac{\Delta t}{u^t}(C_{A\gamma\gamma}E_\mu B^\mu-\xi_A \partial_\mu\omega^\mu-\xi^B_{A\gamma} \partial_\mu B^\mu)|_{t_0}~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\Delta t$ is a time interval in which this linear approximation is assumed to be valid.
The important assumptions that have been made so far are the uniform distribution of the chemical potentials and
anomaly coefficients, and that for sufficiently short times, the evolution in time of the system can be approximated
by a linear expansion.
We will now estimate the source terms at the initial conditions using the Glauber model.
In this model the energy and velocities at the initial conditions will be obtained assuming that the nucleus density is given by the Woods-Saxon distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(r)=\frac{\rho_0}{1+e^{-(r-R_0)/a_0}}~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\rho(r)$ is the nucleon density, and for gold ions we use the values $a_0=0.54$ fm and $R_0=6.4$ fm \cite{Luzum:2008cw}. $\rho_0$ is determined by the condition $\int dV \rho = A = 197$.
It is useful to define the "Thickness function"
\begin{eqnarray}
T(x,y)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dz\rho(\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2})~.
\end{eqnarray}
In a non-central collisions, we set the origin of our coordinate system between the centers of the two colliding ions, and set the $y$ axis along the rotation axis.
The number of participating nucleons, $N_{part}$, is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
N_{part}(b)=\int dx dy \Bigg[&~&T(x+\frac{b}{2})\left(1-\left(1-\frac{\sigma_{NN}T(x-\frac{b}{2})}{A}\right)^A\right)\nonumber \\
&+&T(x-\frac{b}{2})\left(1-\left(1-\frac{\sigma_{NN}T(x+\frac{b}{2})}{A}\right)^A\right)\Bigg]~,
\end{eqnarray}
where the nucleon-nucleon scattering cross section $\sigma_{NN}\sim40$ mb.
The energy density of the fluid in the Glauber model is proportional to the product of the thickness functions
\begin{eqnarray}
\epsilon(x,y)|_{t_0}\propto T(x-b/2)T(x+b/2)~.
\end{eqnarray}
The initial velocity of an infinitesimal area of fluid $v_z(x,y)$ is assumed to be the center of mass velocity at that location
\begin{eqnarray}
v_z(x,y)|_{t_0}&\approx&\frac{ \beta T(x+b/2,y)-\beta T(x-b/2,y)}{T(x+b/2,y)+T(x-b/2,y)}
\end{eqnarray}
$\beta\approx1$ is the velocity of the colliding ions. The $z$-component of the 4-velocity, $u_z$, is given by $\gamma v_z$.
We now use this model to evaluate the source terms in (\ref{eq_conservation_and_source}).
We have
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_source_vorticity}
\partial_\mu\omega^\mu={\frac{1}{2}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\rho\sigma}(\partial_\mu u_\nu)(\partial_\rho u_\sigma)~.
\end{eqnarray}
Since at $t=t_0$ all the velocities are along the $z$ axis, namely in the beam direction,
we find that $u_x|_{t_0}=u_y|_{t_0}=0$, and $u_t|_{t_0}=\sqrt{1+u_z^2}$.
Therefore, at this stage the only non-zero contribution to the divergence of the vorticity is
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_\mu\omega^\mu|_{t_0}=\left[(\partial_t u_x)(\partial_y u_z)-(\partial_t u_y)(\partial_x u_z)\right]|_{t_0}~.
\end{eqnarray}
In order to estimate $\partial_t u_x$ we use the hydrodynamics equations for a perfect fluid:
\begin{eqnarray}
u^\nu\partial_\nu u_\mu = \frac{(g_{\mu\nu}+u_\mu u_\nu)\partial^\nu P}{\epsilon + P}
\end{eqnarray}
using the equation of state for conformal hydrodynamics $\epsilon=3 P$ (this condition can be easily relaxed), and the initial conditions $u_x=u_y=\partial_zu_x=0$, we are left with
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_t u_x|_{t_0} = \frac{1}{4\sqrt{1+u_z^2}}\frac{\partial_x \epsilon}{\epsilon}|_{t_0}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, we can find the divergence of the 4-dimensional magnetic field
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_source_magentic}
\partial_\mu B^\mu|_{t_0}&=&{\frac{1}{2}}\epsilon^{\mu\nu\sigma\rho}(\partial_\mu u_\nu) F_{\sigma\rho}|_{t_0}\nonumber \\
&=&\Big(F_{xz}(\partial_yu_t-\partial_tu_y)-F_{yz}(\partial_xu_t-\partial_tu_x)-F_{xt}\partial_yu_z+F_{yt}\partial_xu_z\Big)\big|_{t0}~.
\end{eqnarray}
The electromagnetic fields generated by the colliding ions can be obtained by boosting the electromagnetic field from the ion rest frame. The electric field can be estimated assuming the charge density is also given by the Woods-Saxon distribution.
\subsection{Estimating the Magnitude of the Effect}
\label{sec_estimate}
There are several additional factors that we have to estimate:
\begin{itemize}
\item
As discussed in section \ref{sec_signal}, the magnitude of the signal depends on the ratio between the number of fermions in the
fluid and the number of participating nucleons. The number of participating nucleons is $O(100)$, while for having a fluid-like collective motion one needs $O(1000)$ particles, we therefore estimate the required ratio as $O(10)$.
\item
We take $\mu_B,\mu_I,\mu_S\sim10$ MeV$\sim0.05 fm^{-1}$ \cite{Andronic:2005yp}
\item
The anomaly coefficient is the sum of two terms
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi\propto \mu^2\left(1-\frac{2}{3}\frac{\mu\rho}{\epsilon+P}\right)~.
\end{eqnarray}
The second term can be neglected because in high energy HIC the chemical energy ($\mu\rho$)
is negligible with respect to the total energy.
Also, the axial density is zero at $t_0$ and therefore this term will not effect the initial conditions.
\item
The quantity that we have to compute is the axial density at freeze-out.
This could be obtained using the linear approximation described above only if the
time of freeze-out were in the regime of validity of this linearization.
Since the linear approximation is not valid for the entire process, one must solve the full set of
equations
for the velocities, energy densities and magnetic fields, and then use them as input for the axial
current EOM. This task will be left for future analysis.
In the following we will assume that the general trend (the axial charge being concentrated
along the rotation axis) will remain the same during the evolution of the system.
This assumption may be supported by the fact that all the terms in eqs. (\ref{eq_source_vorticity}) and
(\ref{eq_source_magentic}) may be reduced due to dissipative effects, but will not change signs.
We will approximate the freeze-out time by $\Delta t \approx 10^{-22}sec = 30$ fm/c.
\item
The boost factor in HIC collisions is taken to be $\gamma=100$.
\item
When integrating over the volume we assume a thickness of order $\frac{R0}{\gamma}$.
\end{itemize}
Before showing the numerical results, let us compare the three QED source terms for the axial current:
\begin{eqnarray}
CE_\mu B^\mu &\sim& C\gamma F\widetilde F \sim C\gamma\left(\frac{e^2Z}{R_0^2} \right)^2\nonumber \\
\xi^B \partial_\mu B^\mu &\sim& C \mu\gamma F \partial_t u \sim C \mu\gamma\left(\frac{e^2Z}{R_0^2} \right)\frac{1}{ R_0}\nonumber \\
\xi \partial_\mu \omega^\mu &\sim& C \mu^2\partial_x u \partial_t u \sim C\mu^2\frac{1}{ \zeta R_0^2}
\end{eqnarray}
(where $\zeta$ is a small factor that takes into account that the relevant regions are close to the rotation axis, and not at a distance $R_0$).
We see that the first is larger than the second by a factor of $\frac{e^2Z\zeta}{\mu R_0}\sim 25$, and by a factor of $\gamma\zeta\left(\frac{e^2Z}{\mu R_0}\right)^2\sim\zeta\cdot 10^5$ than the third.
The dominant contribution will therefore come from the $E\cdot B$ term.
It is worth mentioning that although the dominant terms are linearly proportional to the boost factor $\gamma$,
the volume of integration is inversely proportional to $\gamma$, and therefore the total axial charge should be independent of the collision energy.
The QCD contribution of the chromo-magnetic field is much more difficult to estimate. We will therefore
assume that in the deconfined phase, the dominant
contribution to the colored interaction is the 1-gluon exchange, and that the interaction is similar to the electromagnetic Coulomb interaction, up to a change of coupling constants and group theory factors. In this case, the contribution of the chromo-magnetic
field to the source term of the axial charge is similar in its spatial distribution to the electromagnetic one.
Assuming that this method of finding the chromo-magnetic field is valid,
the ratio between the external chromo-magnetic and magnetic field contributions is $\frac{\alpha_s}{\alpha}\sim 100$.
Finally, note that we are not considering topological effects that can induce a change in the total axial charge.
In the whole discussion, the total axial charge is zero, and we only study the implications of its distribution.
\subsection{Numerical Results}
\label{sec_numerical}
In the following plots we show the numerical results of this analysis for the QED effects.
As discussed above, we do not have precise values for the various anomaly coefficients and
external fields and therefore we cannot accurately add the various contributions.
However, the general features of the effect (axial charge distribution, centrality dependence)
are similar for all types of contributions, thus combining these results will affect
only the over-all magnitude.
In plot \ref{fig_rhoA} we see the resulting axial charge density as a function of location in the plane transverse to the beam direction.
We see that the areas of largest charge density are located along the axis of angular momentum,
and that along the $x$-axis the charge is zero.
\FIGURE{\includegraphics[width=4cm]{nparticipants.eps}\includegraphics[width=4cm]{rhoA.eps}\includegraphics[width=4cm]{rhoA_B.eps}\includegraphics[width=4cm]{rhoA_EB.eps}
\caption{The number of participants and axial charge density (dark shade means larger absolute values) at $t=t_0+\Delta t$ for a midcentral collision ($b=R_0$).\label{fig_rhoA}}}
Plots \ref{fig_rhoAx0}, \ref{fig_intrhoA} and \ref{fig_intrhoA_np} demonstrate the dependence of the density on the centrality. As expected, the effect is small for central collisions, because of the low angular momentum.
An important feature of the axial charge distribution is the fact that it is concentrated along the rotation axis.
In plot \ref{fig_pi_2_phi} we show the second moment of the angular distribution
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq_pi_2_phi}
\langle|\pi/2-\phi|\rangle\equiv\sqrt{\frac{\int dxdy\rho_A(x,y)\arctan^2\frac{x}{y}}{\int dxdy\rho_A(x,y)}}~,
\end{eqnarray}
and its dependence on the centrality ($\phi$ is defined as the angle with respect to the $x$-axis). As will be discussed below, this parameter is relevant for the
detectability of the proposed signal.
\FIGURE{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{rhoAx0.eps}\includegraphics[width=5cm]{rhoAx0_B.eps}\includegraphics[width=5cm]{rhoAx0_EB.eps}
\caption{The axial density for $t=t_0+\Delta t$, $x=0$ for various impact parameters.\label{fig_rhoAx0}}}
\FIGURE
{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{QA.eps}\includegraphics[width=5cm]{QAB.eps}\includegraphics[width=5cm]{QAEB.eps}
\caption{The axial charge in the upper cone at $t=t_0+\Delta t$ as a function of centrality. The cone is centered along the rotation axis, with angular radius of $\Delta \theta_{cone}=60^0$.
The centrality is measured by the number of participants estimated using the Glauber model.
\label{fig_intrhoA}}}
\FIGURE
{\includegraphics[width=5cm]{QA_NP.eps}\includegraphics[width=5cm]{QAB_NP.eps}\includegraphics[width=5cm]{QAEB_NP.eps}
\caption{The axial charge in the cone at $t=t_0+\Delta t$ as a function of centrality, divided by the number of participants. The cone is centered along the rotation axis, with angular radius of $\Delta \theta_{cone}=60^0$.
\label{fig_intrhoA_np}}}
\FIGURE{\includegraphics[height=4cm]{Qcone_Qtot.eps}\includegraphics[height=4cm]{pi_2_phi.eps}\includegraphics[height=4cm]{legend2.eps}
\caption{The left plot show the ratio between the axial charge in the belt and in the cone with $\Delta \theta_{cone}=60^0$ and $\Delta \theta_{belt}=30^0$ (see fig. \ref{fig_prediction}). The plot on the right shows the second moment of the angular distribution defined in \ref{eq_pi_2_phi}.\label{fig_pi_2_phi}}}
\subsection{Signal Detection}
\label{sec_detection}
The signal discussed in section \ref{sec_signal} is proportional to the axial charge in a cone covered by the
angle $\Omega$. According to the results of section \ref{sec_numerical}, the angles with largest axial charge are centered along the angular momentum axis. According to figure \ref{fig_pi_2_phi}, most of the axial charge is located within a cone of angular radius $\Delta\theta_{cone}\approx30-40^0$.
Plot \ref{fig_rhoA} also demonstrates that matter scattered in the $x$ direction passes through a region of
zero axial charge, and should have regular production ratios.
The scattering into the belt around the equator, with width $\Delta \theta_{belt}$ can therefore be used to
measure $N_\Delta(\Omega_{(Q_A=0)})$.
The two relevant regions (the one with maximal axial charge and the one with zero axial charge) were shown in figure \ref{fig_prediction}.
The numerical computation described here can only provide us with the qualitative features of the effect under the linear evolution approximation. It does not give us the precise axial charge distribution at the moment of freeze-out.
This means that it is not clear at this stage of the analysis what are the
values of $\Delta \theta_{cone}$ and $\Delta \theta_{belt}$ which will give the most significant signal.
Another difficulty in the search for this signature is the fact that unflavored high-spin hadrons
are very short lived, and decay before they reach the detector.
As a solution we suggest to focus on narrower high-spin hadrons such as $\Omega^-$ (see e.g. \cite{Timmins:2009vy}).
The angular distribution of the production of $\Omega^-$ can be affected by charge and strangeness effects.
In order to isolate the spin-dependent effects, it is possible to use $\Xi^-$ as the representative of the spin ${\frac{1}{2}}$ baryons. This choice of hadrons will decrease the statistics, but will also reduce the theoretical uncertainties.
$J/\psi$ is yet another narrow high-spin hadron which could be used as a probe for this signal, but in the case of the charm quark, it is not obvious whether the zero mass limit is valid.
The quantity we therefore propose to measure and compare to the plot is
\begin{eqnarray}
\left[\frac{N_{\Omega^-}(cone)/N_{\Omega^-}(belt)}
{N_{\Xi^-}(cone)/N_{\Xi^-}(belt)}-1\right]
\end{eqnarray}
as a function of centrality, for various collision energies. As discussed above, this quantity is expected to be proportional to $\frac{Q_A}{N_{part}}$, and we therefore expect to find the functional behavior seen in plot \ref{fig_intrhoA_np}, with no dependence on collision energy.
\section{Discussion}
We presented a proposal for detecting effects of triangle anomalies in heavy ion collisions.
It is curious that such subtle quantum effects might be revealed in a collective fluid-like motion.
Several parts of the presented analysis require careful study. The dynamics of phase transitions and the nature of
the colored currents in the fluid require a solid theoretical understanding.
Of particular importance is a precise estimate of the magnitude of the effect, which requires
a numerical solution to the equations beyond the linear approximation.
Several important assumptions need clarification:
\bi
\item
We assumed that in the deconfined phase the gluon field and its contribution to the axial current
can be estimated assuming a Coulomb interaction.
\item
The estimate of the chemical potentials and the assumption that they are coordinate independent require a better study.
\item
The distribution of the strangeness current can also be centrality dependent. We assumed that comparing $\Omega^-$ ($sss$) production with $\Xi^-$ ($ssd$) production can take this effect into account, and isolate the spin dependence, but this needs further study.
\item
In the current theoretical framework the freeze-out is successfully modeled by a sharp transition from a hydrodynamics description of deconfined QCD fluid with chiral symmetry restoration into a kinetic theory of hadron gas. However, if chiral symmetry breaking occurs before freeze-out then the enhanced spin alignment discussed here might be washed out before the quarks bind into hadrons. The study of this possibility requires a better understanding of the phase transition process.
\item
The assumption that the fermion number density is proportional to the number of participating nucleons requires
a stronger theoretical justification. The proportionality factor is a crucial ingredient in the analysis.
\item
In the analysis of section \ref{sec_signal} the volume over which the integration is performed was not specified in details. Since the process of freeze-out is not understood,
it is not clear what is the relevant volume. We performed the integral over the entire region of non-zero axial charge. Taking the integral over smaller regions should increase the effect, because the axial charge
is concentrated in regions of low participant density.
\item
We neglected the contribution of hadronization of gluons in the QCD fluid.
\ei
The last three items can be studied given a full numerical solution to the hydrodynamics equations,
and a modification of the freeze-out process computation.
In the full analysis, the number of particles produced during freeze-out is determined by the
off-equilibrium distribution functions\cite{Luzum:2008cw}
\begin{eqnarray}
f_i(x^\mu,p^\mu)=g_i\exp(p_\mu u^\mu/T)\left[1+\frac{p_\mu p_\nu \tau^{\mu\nu}}{2T^2(\epsilon + p)}\right]
\end{eqnarray}
in which $g_i$ is the degeneracy of the $i$'th particle species, and $\tau^{\mu\nu}$ is the dissipative term discussed in (\ref{eq_rel_hydro}).
In order to take into account the effect of the axial charge we suggest the following modification:
\begin{eqnarray}
f_i(x^\mu,p^\mu)&=&g_i\exp(p_\mu u^\mu/T)\left[1+\frac{p_\mu p_\nu \tau^{\mu\nu}}{2T^2(\epsilon + p)}
-a\frac{|\rho_A|u^\mu p_\mu}{(\epsilon + p)}\right]\nonumber \\
f_i^*(x^\mu,p^\mu)&=&g_i^*\exp(p_\mu u^\mu/T)\left[1+\frac{p_\mu p_\nu \tau^{\mu\nu}}{2T^2(\epsilon + p)}
+a\frac{\sum_j g_j}{\sum_kg_k^*}\frac{|\rho_A|u^\mu p_\mu}{(\epsilon + p)}\right]~,
\end{eqnarray}
where a quantity marked by $^*$ refers to spin excited hadrons (otherwise it refers to a ground state hadron),
the sums run over all produced particle species, and $a$ is a parameter that can be extracted from the data.
This phenomenological modification generates the effect discussed above, while keeping the total number of produced particles fixed. The results can be translated into a cosine expansion of the scattering cross section
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{dN_i}{d\phi}\propto(1+2v_{2i}\cos(2\phi))
\end{eqnarray}
and the expected result is a suppression of the $v_{2i}$ parameter for spin-excited hadrons.
\acknowledgments
We would like to thank A. Casher, M. Karliner, E. Kiritsis and M. Lublinsky for valuable discussions.
The work is supported in part by the Israeli
Science Foundation center of excellence, by the Deutsch-Israelische
Projektkooperation (DIP), by the US-Israel Binational Science
Foundation (BSF), and by the German-Israeli Foundation (GIF).
|
\section{Introduction
The physical origin of the dark energy (DE) which is responsible
for an accelerated expansion of the current Universe is one of the
largest mysteries not only in cosmology but also in fundamental
physics \cite{review}. Although the standard spatially flat
${\rm \Lambda}$-Cold-Dark-Matter (${\rm \Lambda CDM}$) model is consistent with
all kinds of current observational data \cite{WMAP7},
some tentative deviations from it have been reported recently
\cite{Shafieloo:2009ti,Bean:2009wj} which, if proven to be not due
to systematic and other errors, may eventually rule out an exact
cosmological constant. Furthermore, in the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model, the
cosmological term is regarded as a new fundamental constant whose
observed value is much smaller than any other energy scale known
in physics. So, its understanding in fundamental physics is
lacking today, although some non-perturbative effects may generate
such a small quantity \cite{Yokoyama:2001ez}. On the other hand,
we know that ``primordial DE,'' which is responsible for inflation
in the early universe \cite{S80,sato,guth}, is not identical to
the cosmological constant, in particular, it is not stable and
eternal. Hence it is natural to seek for non-stationary models of
the current DE, too.
Among them, $f(R)$ gravity which modifies and generalizes the
Einstein gravity by incorporating a new phenomenological function
of the Ricci scalar $R$, $f(R)$, provides a self-consistent and
non-trivial alternative to ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model, see {\it e.g.} Ref.\
\cite{SF08} for a recent review. This theory is a special class
of the scalar-tensor theory of gravity with the vanishing
Brans-Dicke parameter $\omega_{BD}$
\cite{Chiba:2003ir,Tsujikawa:2008uc}. It contains a new scalar
degree of freedom dubbed "scalaron" in Ref.~\cite{S80}, thus, it is a
{\em non-perturbative} generalization of the Einstein gravity.
This additional degree of freedom imposes a number of conditions
on viable functional forms of $f(R)$. In particular, in order to
have the correct Newtonian limit for $R\gg R_0\equiv R(t_0)\sim
H_0^2$ where $t_0$ is the present moment and $H_0$ is the Hubble
constant, as well as the standard matter-dominated stage with the
scale factor behaviour $a(t)\propto t^{2/3}$ driven by cold dark
matter and baryons, the following conditions should be fulfilled:
\begin{equation} |f(R)-R|\ll R,~~|f'(R)-1|\ll 1,~~Rf''(R)\ll 1, ~~R\gg R_0~,
\label{ineq} \end{equation}
where the prime denotes the derivative with
respect to the argument $R$. In addition, the stability condition
$f''(R)>0$ has to be satisfied that guarantees that the standard
matter-dominated Friedmann stage remains an attractor with respect
to an open set of neighboring isotropic cosmological solutions in
$f(R)$ gravity. In quantum language, this condition means that
scalaron is not a tachyon. Note that the other stability
condition, $f'(R)>0$, which means that gravity is attractive and
graviton is not a ghost, is automatically fulfilled in this
regime. Specific functional forms that satisfy all these
conditions have been proposed in
Refs.~\cite{Hu:2007nk,AB07,Starobinsky:2007hu} etc.,
and much work has been done on their cosmological consequences.
In the previous paper \cite{Motohashi:2009qn} we calculated
evolution of matter density fluctuations in viable $f(R)$ models
\cite{Hu:2007nk,Starobinsky:2007hu} in the limiting case $R\gg
R_0$ during the matter-dominated stage and found an analytic
expression for them. In this paper we extend the previous analysis
and perform numerical calculations of the evolution of both
background space-time and density fluctuations for the particular
$f(R)$ model of Ref.~\cite{Starobinsky:2007hu} without such
restriction on $R$. As a result, we have found the phantom
boundary crossing at an intermediate redshift $z\lesssim 1$ for the
background space-time metric and an anomalous behaviour of the growth
index of fluctuations.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. In \S 2 we
introduce evolution equations for the homogeneous and isotropic
background and present results of numerical integration. In \S 3
we report numerical solutions for the evolution of density
fluctuations and other observables. Section 4 is devoted to
conclusions and discussion.
\section{Evolution of the background Universe
We adopt the following action with a four-parameter family of
$f(R)$ models:
\begin{align}
S&= \frac{1}{16\pi G} \int d^4x \sqrt{-g} f(R) + S_m, \label{S}\\
f(R)&=R + \lambda R_s \left[ \left( 1 + \frac{R^2}{R_s^2}\right)^{-n}
-1
\right] +\frac{R^2}{6M^2}, \label{fR}
\end{align}
where $n,~\lambda,~R_s$, and $M$ are model parameters and $S_m$ is
the action of the matter content which is assumed to be minimally
coupled to gravity (thus, the action \eqref{S} is written in the
Jordan frame). This is the model of Ref.\
\cite{Starobinsky:2007hu} modified by the last term in \eqref{fR}
borrowed from the inflationary model of Ref.~\cite{S80}.
This term is introduced for several purposes associated with
high-curvature behaviour of the theory. One of them, as explained
in Ref.~\cite{Starobinsky:2007hu} , is to avoid excessive growth of the
scalaron mass, $m_s^2=1/3f''(R)$ in the regime \eqref{ineq},
towards the early Universe, $t\to 0$. The other one is to remove
the additional and undesirable ``Big Boost'' singularity which can
arise in the original models
\cite{Hu:2007nk,AB07,Starobinsky:2007hu} as was shown in Ref.\
\cite{F08} (see Refs.~\cite{Motohashi:2009qn,TSC09,ABS09} for more
discussion on this point). The value of $M$ should be sufficiently
large in order not to destroy the standard cosmology of the
present and early Universe. In particular, the values of $M$
considered in Refs.~\cite{D08,KM09} are not high enough for this
purpose, because $M$ should not be smaller than the Hubble
parameter $H(t)$ during the $N\sim 60$ last e-folds of inflation
in the early Universe in order to avoid overproduction of relic
scalarons, as well as to solve other cosmological problems. In
fact, if we take $M\approx 3\times 10^{13}$ GeV, the scalaron
itself can act as an inflaton \cite{S80} and generate primordial
scalar (adiabatic) and tensor perturbations \cite{MC81,S83} with
the amplitudes and slopes of their power spectra in agreement with
all observational data available today. Note, however, that as
shown in Ref.~\cite{ABS09}, such a "unified" model describing both
primordial DE driving inflation in the early Universe and present
DE driving recent acceleration of the Universe in the scope of
$f(R)$ gravity leads to slightly different predictions for
parameters of the primordial perturbation spectra, as compared to
the purely inflationary model with $\lambda R_s=0$, due to a
change in the number of observable e-folds of inflation $N$ caused
by different evolution of the Universe during generation and
heating of usual matter after inflation. Furthermore, in this
unified model the term in the square brackets in \eqref{fR} should
be modified for $|R|<R_0$ in such a way as to ensure the
fulfillment of the stability condition $f''(R)>0$ in this region,
too.
So, we take this value of $M$ and assume that the evolution of the
Universe is identical to that in the standard ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model
at high redshifts without any relic scalaron oscillations. Then
the $R^2/6M^2$ term is totally negligible in the epoch we are
concerned here. Therefore, we do not include its contribution
below.
We can express field equations derived from the action in the
following Einsteinian form.
\begin{equation}
R^{\mu}_{\nu}-\frac{1}{2}\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}R=
-8\pi G\left(} \newcommand{\rmk}{\right) T^{\mu}_{\nu (m)}+T^\mu_{\nu ({\rm DE})}\rmk, \end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} 8\pi G T^\mu_{\nu ({\rm DE})}\equiv
{\cal{F}}'(R)R^\mu_\nu-\frac{1}{2}{\cal{F}}(R)\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}
+(\nabla^\mu\nabla_\nu-\delta^{\mu}_{\nu}\square){\cal{F}}'(R),~~~
{\cal{F}}(R)\equiv f(R)-R \label{EMtensor} \end{equation}
(the sign conventions
here are the same as in Ref.~\cite{Starobinsky:2007hu}). Working in the
spatially flat Friedmann-Robertson-Walker (FRW) space-time with
the scale factor $a(t)$, we find
\begin{align}
3H^2&=8\pi G\rho-3{\cal{F}}' H^2+\frac{1}{2}({\cal{F}}' R-{\cal{F}})-3H\dot{{\cal{F}}}',\label{hubble}\\
2\dot{H}&=-8\pi G\rho -2{\cal{F}}'\dot{H}-\ddot{{\cal{F}}}'+H\dot{{\cal{F}}}',\label{hdot}
\end{align}
where $H$ is the Hubble parameter and $\rho$ is the energy density
of the material content which we assume to consist of
non-relativistic matter.
From \eqref{EMtensor} the
effective energy density and pressure of dark energy can be expressed as
\begin{align}
&8\pi G\rho_{\rm DE}=\frac{1}{2}({\cal{F}}'R-{\cal{F}})-3H^2{\cal{F}}'-3H\dot{{\cal{F}}}'
=-3H\dot{R}{\cal{F}}'' +3(H^2+\dot{H}){\cal{F}}'-\frac{1}{2}{\cal{F}},\label{rhoDE}\\
&8\pi G(\rho_{\rm DE}+P_{\rm DE})=2\dot{H}{\cal{F}}'-H\dot{{\cal{F}}}'+\ddot{{\cal{F}}}', \label{PDE}
\end{align}
respectively, where $R=12H^2+6\dot{H}$. We define the DE equation
of state parameter $w_{\rm DE}$ by the ratio $w_{\rm DE}\equiv
P_{\rm DE}/\rho_{\rm DE}$.
With the appropriate initial condition after cosmic inflation
mentioned above, ${\cal{F}}$ takes an asymptotically constant value
${\cal{F}}=-\lambda R_s$ at high redshift (apart from the $R^2/6M^2$ term
which we neglect here). In this regime, evolution of the Universe
is the same as that obtained from the Einstein action with a
cosmological constant $\Lambda(\infty)=\lambda R_s/2$. The scale
factor therefore evolves as
\begin{equation} a=a_i\left(} \newcommand{\rmk}{\right)\frac{16\pi G\rho_i}{\lambda R_s}\rmk^{\frac{1}{3}}
\sinh^{\frac{2}{3}}\left(} \newcommand{\rmk}{\right)\sqrt{\frac{3\lambda R_s}{8}}t\rmk \cong
a_i\left(} \newcommand{\rmk}{\right)\frac{t}{t_i}\rmk^{\frac{2}{3}}, \end{equation}
where the suffix $i$ denotes quantities at an initial time $t=t_i$.
The time dependence of $\rho_{\rm DE}$ is mainly governed by the first
term in the right-most expression of \eqref{rhoDE} initially.
Since $\dot{R}< 0$ and ${\cal{F}}''>0$ for stability, this means that the
effective energy density of dark energy {\it increases} with time
in this regime. Therefore, DE exhibits the phantom behaviour,
$w_{\rm DE}<-1$, during the matter-dominated stage with $z>1$, which
lasts only temporarily because the late-time asymptotic de Sitter
stage has an effective cosmological constant smaller than
$\Lambda(\infty)$. So, $\rho_{\rm DE}$ stops growing after the end of
the matter-dominated stage and begins to decrease.
Indeed, as shown in Ref.\ \cite{Starobinsky:2007hu}, the late-time
asymptotic de Sitter
solution has a curvature $R\equiv R_1\equiv x_1R_s$ where $x_1$
is the maximal solution of the equation,
\begin{equation} \lambda = \frac{x(1+x^2)^{n+1}}{2\kk{(1+x^2)^{n+1}-1-(n+1)x^2}}. \end{equation}
It satisfies the inequality $x_1<2\lambda$, so that
$\Lambda(R_1)=R_1/4<\Lambda(\infty)$. These inequalities are
saturated in the limit $n \gg 1$ for fixed $x_1$, or $x_1 \gg 1$
for fixed $n$. In these cases cosmic evolution is
indistinguishable from the standard ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model.
Thus, this model naturally realizes crossing of the phantom
boundary $w_{\rm DE}=-1$ in a recent epoch. Note that phantom
behaviour of DE is generic in its models based on the
scalar-tensor gravity \cite{BEPS00} which includes the $f(R)$
theory. Here we see that it is realized in all simplest stable
$f(R)$ models of present DE.
The stability condition of this future de Sitter solution\cite{MSS88} ,
$f'(R_1)>R_1f''(R_1)$, imposes the following constraint on $x_1$.
\begin{equation} (1+x_1^2)^{n+2} > 1 + (n+2)x_1^2 + (n+1)(2n+1)x_1^4,
\label{x1constraint} \end{equation}
which is stronger than any other
constraint discussed above. For each $n$ we can find $x_1$ which
marginally satisfies \eqref{x1constraint} and gives the minimal
allowed value of $\lambda$. Numerically we find
$(n,x_{1\min},\lambda_{\min})=(2,1.267,0.9440),(3,1.041,0.7259)$,
and $(4,0.9032,0.6081)$ for each $n$, respectively (if $n=2$, the
analytic expression for $x_{1\min}$ is $x_{1\min}^2=\sqrt{13} - 2$).
For comparison, the analytic results for $n=1$ are $x_{1\min}=\sqrt
3\approx 1.732,~\lambda_{\min}=8/(3\sqrt3)\approx 1.540$.
We numerically solve evolution equation \eqref{hdot} using
\eqref{hubble} to check numerical accuracy, taking $t_i$
at the epoch when matter density parameter took
$\Omega_i=16\pi G\rho_i/(16\pi G\rho_i+\lambda R_s)=0.998$.
We determine the current epoch by the requirement that
the value of $\Omega$ takes the observed central value
$\Omega_0=0.27$ and $R_s$ is fixed so that
the current Hubble parameter
$H_0=72$km/s/Mpc is reproduced.
We find the ratio $R_s/H_0^2$ is well fit by a simple
power-law $R_s/H_0^2=c_n\lambda^{-p_n}$ with
$(n,c_n,p_n)=(2,4.16,0.953),~(3,4.12,0.837),$ and $(4,4.74,0.702)$,
respectively, whereas in the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ limit it would behave as
$R_s/H_0^2=6(1-\Omega_0)/\lambda\simeq 4.38\lambda^{-1}$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Evolution of $w_{\rm DE}$ for different values of $\lambda$
with $n=2$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{outbg_w.eps}
\label{fig:1a}}
\subfigure[Evolution of $w_{\rm DE}$ for $\lambda_{\min}$
for $n=2,3,$ and 4.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{outbg_w_min.eps}
\label{fig:1b}}
\caption{Evolution of the equation-of-state parameter of
effective dark energy.}
\label{fig:outbg_w}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:outbg_w} depict evolution of $w_{\rm DE}$ as a function of redshift
$z$ where phantom crossing is manifest. As expected, it approaches
$w_{\rm DE}=-1=\text{constant}$ as we increase $\lambda$ for fixed
$n$. For minimal allowed values of $\lambda$, deviations from
$w_{\rm DE}=-1$ are observed at $\sim 5\%$ level in both directions for $z
\lesssim 2$ independently of $n$.
Such behaviour of $w_{\rm DE}$ is well admitted by all most recent
observational data, see e.g. Ref.~\cite{WMAP7}. The average value
of $w_{\rm DE}$ over the interval $0 \le z \le 1$ to which all BAO and most
of SN data refer is very close to $-1$. Moreover, in this range (but not
for larger values of $z$), the behaviour of $w_{\rm DE}$ for minimal
allowed values of $\lambda$ (i.e. for largest possible deviations
from the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ background model) is well fitted by the CPL fit\cite{CPL}
$w_{\rm DE}(z)=w_0+w_az/(1+z)$ with
$(n,\lambda_{\rm min},w_0,w_a)=$
$(2,0.95,-0.92,-0.23)$, $(3,0.73,-0.94,-0.22)$
and $(4,0.61,-0.96,-0.21)$, respectively.
$|1+w_0|$ and $|w_a|$ decrease slowly
for larger values of $n$. These values of $w_0$ and $w_a$
lie very close to the center of the $68\%$ and $95\%$ CL ellipses
for all combined data in Fig. 13 of Ref.~\cite{WMAP7}.
As explained above, this phantom
crossing behaviour is not peculiar to the specific choice of the
function \eqref{fR} but a generic one in models which satisfy the
stability condition ${\cal{F}}''>0$. Indeed, a similar behaviour has been
observed in other $f(R)$ DE models, too
\cite{Martinelli:2009ek,ABS09}. We also note that different
definitions of $\rho_{\rm DE}$, $P_{\rm DE}$, and $w_{\rm DE}$ have been used
in literature \cite{Amendola:2007nt} which lead to different
behaviour of $w_{\rm DE}$.
Although the behaviour of dark energy is quite different depending
on model parameters, the total expansion factor $a_0/a_i$
from the epoch $\Omega_i=0.998$ to the present varies only
between $a_0/a_i=10.8$ and 11, the latter corresponding to the
value in the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model.
We have also calculated the quantity
$B(z) = (f''/f')(dR/d\ln H)$ introduced in Ref.~\cite{Song:2006ej} at present time.
We have found $B(0)=0.21$, $6.1\times 10^{-5}$, and $0.17$,
for $(n,\lambda)=(2,0.95)$, $(2,8)$, and $(4,0.61)$, respectively.
\section{Density fluctuations
We now turn to evolution of density fluctuations.
In $f(R)$ gravity, the evolution equation of density fluctuations,
$\delta$, deeply in the sub-horizon regime is given by
\cite{Zhang:2005vt,Tsujikawa:2007gd}
\begin{equation} \label{de1} \ddot \delta + 2H\dot \delta - 4\pi G_\text{eff} \rho \delta = 0, \end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{tsuji} G_{\text{eff}}=\frac{G}{F}
\frac{1+4\frac{k^2}{a^2}\frac{F'}{F}}
{1+3\frac{k^2}{a^2}\frac{F'}{F}},~~~F(R)\equiv f'(R). \end{equation}
This equation reduces to the correct evolution equation
for all wavenumbers for the CDM model in the Einstein gravity where $F=1$.
In the previous paper\cite{Motohashi:2009qn} we obtained
an analytic solution in the high-curvature regime
when the scale factor evolves as $a(t)\propto t^{2/3}$
and $F$ takes the asymptotic form
\begin{equation}
F\simeq 1-2n\lambda \mk{\f{R}{R_s}}^{-2n-1}\equiv
1-\mk{\f{R}{R_c}}^{-N-1}, \label{kinjiF}
\end{equation}
with the following correspondence:
\begin{equation}
N=2n ~~~{\rm and}~~~
R_c=R_s(2n\lambda)^{1/(2n+1)}.
\end{equation}
The two independent solutions of \eqref{de1} in this regime read
\begin{align}
&\delta_{\vecs k}(t)=\delta_{i\vecs k}\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{\frac{-1\pm
5}{6}} \nonumber \\
&\times \,_2F_1\left(\frac{\pm 5-\sqrt{33}}{4(3N+4)}, \frac{\pm
5+\sqrt{33}}{4(3N+4)};1\pm\frac{5}{2(3N+4)};
-3\frac{(N+1)k^2}{a_i^2R_c^2}\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{2N+8/3}
\right) \label{as}
\end{align}
in terms of the hypergeometric function\cite{Motohashi:2009qn}.
In the following discussion, we consider the upper
sign solution only, because the other solution corresponds to the
decaying mode and is singular at $t\to 0$. Then the solution behaves
as
\begin{equation}
\delta_{\vecs k}(t)\xrightarrow[]{t\to 0} \delta_{i\vecs k}
\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{\frac{2}{3}}
~~{\rm and}~~
\delta_{\vecs k}(t)\xrightarrow[]{t\to \infty}
\delta_{i\vecs k}C(k)\left(\frac{t}{t_i}\right)^{\frac{-1+\sqrt{33}}{6}},
\label{limiting}
\end{equation}
respectively. The transfer function, $C(k)$, is given by
\begin{align}
C(k)&=\f{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{5}{2(3N+4)}\right)
\Gamma\left(\frac{\sqrt{33}}{2(3N+4)}\right)}
{\Gamma\left(1+\frac{5+\sqrt{33}}{4(3N+4)}\right)
\Gamma\left(\frac{5+\sqrt{33}}{4(3N+4)}\right)}
\left[\frac{3(N+1)k^2}{a_i^2R_c}
\left(\frac{3R_ct_i^2}{4}\right)^{N+2}\right]
^{\frac{-5+\sqrt{33}}{4(3N+4)}} \notag \\
&= \f{ \Gamma\mk{1+\frac{5}{4(3n+2)}}\Gamma
\mk{\frac{\sqrt{33}}{4(3n+2)}} }
{ \Gamma\mk{1+\frac{5+\sqrt{33}}{8(3n+2)}}
\Gamma\mk{\frac{5+\sqrt{33}}{8(3n+2)}} }
\kk{\f{6n\lambda (2n+1)k^2}{a_i^2 R_s}
\mk{\frac{3R_st_i^2}{4}}^{2(n+1)}}^{\f{-5+\sqrt{33}}{8(3n+2)}},
\label{transfer}
\end{align}
where
\begin{equation}
t_i=\f{2}{3}\sqrt{\f{6}{\lambda R_s}}\sinh^{-1}
\sqrt{\f{1-\Omega_i}{\Omega_i}}.
\end{equation}
Note that the effective gravitational constant \eqref{tsuji} reads
\begin{equation}
G_{\rm eff}=G\mk{1+\f{1}{3}\f{k^2/a^2m_s^2}{1+k^2/a^2m_s^2}},
\end{equation}
in the high-curvature regime when $F\cong 1$. In the position space,
such a theory has the potential
\begin{equation}
V(r)=-\f{G}{r}\mk{1+\f{1}{3}e^{-m_sr}},
\end{equation}
per unit mass \cite{Gannouji:2008wt} for such sufficiently small $r$ for which
time dependence of $m_s(t)$ may be neglected.
Thus, each Fourier mode feels $4/3$ times the conventional
gravitational force if and only if
$k/a(t)\gtrsim m_s(t)=\mk{3F'}^{-1/2}$.
The transition from former temporal behaviour to the latter one in
\eqref{limiting} occurs at the epoch $t_k$ determined by
\begin{equation}
k=a(t_k)m_s(t_k)=a(t_k)\mk{\frac{R_s}{6n(2n+1)\lambda}}^{\f{1}{2}}
\mk{\f{R(t_k)}{R_s}}^{n+1}. \label{kprop}
\end{equation}
The above expression is proportional to $ t_k^{-2n-4/3}$ for
those modes which physical wavenumber (momentum) $k/a(t)$ crosses the scalaron
mass $m_s(t)$ in the high-curvature regime. This explains
$k$-dependence of the transfer
function \eqref{transfer}\cite{Starobinsky:2007hu}.
If we adopt an expression of $R(t)$ in ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$,
\begin{equation}
R(t)=3H_0^2\kk{\Omega_{m0}\mk{\f{a_0}{a(t)}}^3+4(1-\Omega_{m0})},
\label{rt}
\end{equation}
we can further approximately obtain the crossing time,
$t_{\ast}(k)$,
for a smaller wavenumber, $k_{\ast}$, as well:
\begin{equation}
\f{k_{\ast}}{a(t_{\ast})}=
\f{\lambda^{\mk{n+\f{1}{2}}p_n-\f{1}{2}}}{\sqrt{6n(2n+1)}c_n^{n+\f{1}{2}}}
\kk{3\Omega_{m0}\mk{\f{a_0}{a(t_{\ast})}}^3+12(1-\Omega_{m0})}^{n+1}H_0.
\label{kscalaron}
\end{equation}
From \eqref{kscalaron} we find that the physical wavenumber crossing the
scalaron mass today is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{pwcsmt} \f{k_0}{a_0}=\frac{9.57^{n+1}\lambda^{\mk{n+\f{1}{2}}p_n-\f{1}{2}}}
{\sqrt{6n(2n+1)}c_n^{n+\f{1}{2}}}H_0=
\begin{cases}
3.2\lambda^{1.88}H_0 & (n=2)\\
5.3\lambda^{2.43}H_0 & (n=3)~.\\
5.0\lambda^{2.66}H_0 & (n=4)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Thus, except for cases with large $\lambda$, all observable scale feels
the scalaron force today.
Since the analytic solution \eqref{as} is valid in the high-curvature era
only, we must solve \eqref{de1} numerically to obtain a
full solution using the analytic solution as an initial condition.
Figure \ref{fig:dk_n=2_l} depicts the ratio of linear density fluctuation in $f(R)$
model, $\delta_{{\rm fRG}}$, to that in the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model,
$\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}}$, with the same initial condition.
Fluctuations with small wavenumbers have practically the same value as those in
the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model, while those on larger wavenumbers acquire
additional growth due to the scalaron force with the additional
power $k^{\f{-5+\sqrt{33}}{4(3n+2)}}$ as given in
\eqref{transfer}.
From \eqref{pwcsmt},
the physical wavenumber of this transition is given by
\begin{equation}
\f{k_0}{a_0}=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
1.07\times 10^{-3} h{\rm Mpc}^{-1} &\quad (n=2, \lambda=1) \\
8.44\times 10^{-3} h{\rm Mpc}^{-1} &\quad (n=2, \lambda=3) \\
8.12\times 10^{-2} h{\rm Mpc}^{-1} &\quad (n=2, \lambda=10),
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
that explains the figure well.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{dk_n=2_l.eps}
\caption{ The ratio of linear density perturbations
$\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}}$ at present as a
function of $k$ for three different values of $\lambda$ with $n=2$.}
\label{fig:dk_n=2_l}
\end{figure}
In order to make a simple comparison of our results with observations of galaxy
clustering, we define an effective wavenumber, $k_{\rm eff}(r)$, corresponding to
each length scale $r$, in terms of the top-hat mass fluctuation within the same radius:
\begin{equation}
\sigma^2_r=\int\f{d^3k}{(2\pi)^3}|W(kr)|^2P(k)\equiv
\frac{4\pi k_{\rm eff}^3}{(2\pi)^3}P\mk{k_{\rm eff}(r)},~~~W(kr)\equiv
\f{3j_1(kr)}{kr}.
\end{equation}
Here $P(k)$ is the linear matter spectrum obtained by the
standard CDM transfer function\cite{Eisenstein:1997ik}
with the scale-invariant initial power spectrum of perturbations, i.e. with the
primordial spectral index $n_s=1$,
and $W(kr)$ is the Fourier transform of the top-hat window function.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{drt.eps}
\caption{The ratio of linear density perturbations $\delta_{\rm fRG}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}}
(k=0.174h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$) as a function of redshift for three different values
of $\lambda$ with $n=2$.}
\label{fig:drt}
\end{figure}
The wavenumber of our particular interest is the scale
corresponding to $\sigma_8$ normalization, for which we find
$k_{\rm eff}(r=8h^{-1}{\rm Mpc})=0.174h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$.
Figure \ref{fig:drt} depicts the redshift evolution of the ratio
$\delta_{\rm fRG}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}}$ for this scale for the same values of
$n$ and $\lambda$ as in Fig.~\ref{fig:dk_n=2_l}.
Note that this ratio does not stop
growing at the accelerated stage of the Universe expansion which
begins at $z\approx 0.8$ for $\lambda=1$ and $z\approx 0.75$ for
two other values of $\lambda$.
Since the standard
${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model normalized by large-scale CMB observations explains
galaxy clustering at small scales well, $\delta_{{\rm fRG}}$ should
not be too much larger than $\delta_{\rm \Lambda CDM}$ at these scales. We
may typically require $(\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}})^2(k=0.174h{\rm
Mpc}^{-1})\lesssim 1.1$.
Although we neglect non-linear effects here,
the difference between linear calculation and non-linear N-body simulation
remained smaller than 5\%
at the wavenumber $0.174h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$\cite{Oyaizu:2008tb}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[$n=2$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{outpt_w=0.174_rt_p_n=2.eps}
\label{fig:3a}}
\subfigure[$n=3$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{outpt_w=0.174_rt_p_n=3.eps}
\label{fig:3b}}
\subfigure[$n=4$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{outpt_w=0.174_rt_p_n=4.eps}
\label{fig:3c}}
\caption{The present ratio
$(\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}})^2(k=0.174h{\rm
Mpc}^{-1})$ as a function of $\lambda$ together with two
fitting functions.}
\label{fig:outpt_w=0.174_rt_p}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:outpt_w=0.174_rt_p} represent
$(\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}})^2(k=0.174h{\rm Mpc}^{-1})$
as a function of $\lambda$ for $n=2,3,$ and 4.
From the analytic formula \eqref{transfer},
this $\lambda$ dependence would have the form
$(\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}})^2\propto C^2(k)\propto
\lambda^{-\f{(2n-p_n+1)(\sqrt{33}-5)}{4(3n+2)}}$
which is depicted by a broken line in each figure.
This curve, however,
does not match the asymptotic behaviour $(\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}})^2
\longrightarrow 1$ for large $\lambda$. We find that an
exponential function
\begin{equation}
(\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}})^2=1+b_ne^{-q_n\lambda}
\end{equation}
fits the numerical calculation very well
with $(n, b_n, q_n)=(2, 0.47, 0.19),~ (3, 0.43, 0.49), $ and $(4, 0.39, 0.70)$
, respectively.
From these figures, in order to keep deviation from
${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model smaller than 10\% at $k=0.174h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}$,
we find $\lambda$ should be larger
than 8.2, 3.0, and 1.9
for $n=2,3,$ and $4$, respectively.
From these analysis, we can constrain the parameter space
as Fig.~\ref{fig:n_lam_con}.
The region which satisfy
$(\delta_{{\rm fRG}}/\delta_{{\rm \Lambda CDM}})^2(k=0.174h{\rm Mpc}^{-1}) < 1.1$
corresponds to above the solid line.
We also show the 20\% boundary by the broken line.
The region below the dotted line is forbidden
because of instability of the de Sitter regime.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{n_lam_con_P.eps}
\caption{Constraints for parameter space.}
\label{fig:n_lam_con}
\end{figure}
Next we turn to
another important quantity used to distinguish different theories
of gravity, namely, the gravitational growth index, $\gamma(z)$, of density
fluctuations\cite{Peebles:1984ge,Linder:2005in,Polarski:2007rr,Gannouji:2008wt,
Tsujikawa:2009ku,Narikawa:2009ux}. It is
defined through
\begin{equation}
\f{d\ln\delta}{d\ln a}=\Omega_m(z)^{\gamma(z)},~~~\text{or}~~~
\gamma(z)=\f{\log\mk{\f{\dot{\delta}}{H\delta}}}{\log\Omega_m}.
\end{equation}
It takes a practically constant value $\gamma\cong 0.55$ in the
standard ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model\cite{Peebles:1984ge},
but it evolves in time in modified
gravity theories in general. We also note that $\gamma(z)$ has a
nontrivial $k$-dependence in $f(R)$ gravity since density
fluctuations with different wavenumbers evolve differently.
Therefore, this quantity is a useful measure to distinguish
modified gravity from the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model in the Einstein gravity.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\subfigure[Evolution of $\gamma(z)$ for $n=2$ $\lambda=1$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{gamma_n=2_l=1.eps}
\label{fig:4a}}
\subfigure[Evolution of $G_{\text{eff}}/G$ for $n=2$ $\lambda=1$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{G_eff_n=2_l=1.eps}
\label{fig:4b}}
\subfigure[Evolution of $\gamma(z)$ for $n=2$ $\lambda=3$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{gamma_n=2_l=3.eps}
\label{fig:4c}}
\subfigure[Evolution of $G_{\text{eff}}/G$ for $n=2$ $\lambda=3$.]{
\includegraphics[width=77mm]{G_eff_n=2_l=3.eps}
\label{fig:4d}}
\caption{Evolution of $\gamma(z)$ and $G_{\text{eff}}/G$.}
\label{fig:gG}
\end{figure}
Figures \ref{fig:gG} show evolution of $\gamma(z)$ together with that of
$G_{\text{eff}}/G$ for different values of $k$.
In the early
high-redshift regime, $\gamma(z)$ takes a constant value identical
to the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model because $f(R)$ gravity is indistinguishable
from the Einstein gravity plus a positive cosmological constant then.
It gradually decreases in time, reaches a minimum, and then
increase again towards the present epoch.
We can understand this
tendency from the evolution equation for $\gamma(z)$\cite{Polarski:2007rr},
\begin{align}
-&(1+z)\ln(1-\Omega_{\rm DE})\f{d\gamma}{dz} \notag \\*
&=-(1-\Omega_{\rm DE})^\gamma
-\f{1}{2}\kk{1+3(2\gamma-1)w_{\rm DE}\Omega_{\rm DE}}
+\f{3}{2}\frac{G_{\text{eff}}}{G}(1-\Omega_{\rm DE})^{1-\gamma},
\end{align}
where $\Omega_{\rm DE}=1-\Omega_m$ is the density parameter of dark energy
based on \eqref{rhoDE}.
In the high-redshift era when $\Omega_{\rm DE}$ is small, the above
equation may be approximated as
\begin{align}
&(1+z)\Omega_{\rm DE}\f{d\gamma}{dz} \notag \\*
&=\f{3}{2}\mk{\f{G_\text{eff}}{G}-1}
+\Omega_{\rm DE}\kk{\f{11}{2}\mk{\gamma-\f{6}{11}}-\f{3}{2}(1-\gamma)\mk{\f{G_\text{eff}}{G}-1}-\f{3}{2}(2\gamma-1)(w_{\rm DE}+1)}.
\end{align}
In the earlier stage, the first term in the right-hand side is more important.
That explains why $\gamma(z)$ starts to decrease when $G_\text{eff}/G$
starts to increase. As time goes by towards lower redshifts, the
second term becomes more important to make $\gamma(z)$ increase
again. We note that
recently Narikawa and Yamamoto\cite{Narikawa:2009ux} calculated
time evolution of $\gamma(z)$ in a simplified model \eqref{kinjiF}
numerically and also obtained some analytic expansion, which behaves
qualitatively the same as our numerical results but with much more
exaggerated amplitudes. Our results, which satisfy all the
viability conditions, exhibit milder deviation from the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model
than those they found. Existing constraints on the growth index\cite{Rapetti:2009ri}
are not strong enough to detect any deviation from the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model and/or to obtain
new bounds on $f(R)$ DE models, but future observations may reveal its time and wavenumber
dependence.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=140mm]{eta_n=2.eps}
\caption{The evolution of $1/\eta=\Phi/\Psi$ with $n=2$.}
\label{fig:eta_n=2}
\end{figure}
Another quantity which can characterize the evolution of density perturbations
more directly is the ratio $\delta_{{\rm fRG}}(z=0.5)/\delta_{{\rm fRG}}(z=0)$. However,
it varies only from 0.75 to 0.78 for different choices of the
model parameters when the current matter density parameter is
fixed to $\Omega_{m0}=0.27$ and $n\ge 2$. This variation is smaller than
that caused by the uncertainty of $\Omega_{m0}$\cite{Gannouji:2008wt}.
So, at present it does not help much to single out the best DE model among the considered ones,
in contrast to the $f(R)$ DE model\cite{Hu:2007nk} (it has the same behaviour
\eqref{kinjiF} for $R\gg R_s$) in the case corresponding to $n=0.5$ in our notations
which was recently studied in Ref.~\cite{SVH09}.
Finally we consider the quantity $1/\eta=\Phi/\Psi$,
namely the ratio of gravitational potential to curvature perturbation,
for which some results from observational data
were recently obtained in Ref.~\cite{Bean:2009wj}.
In $f(R)$ gravity, $1/\eta$ is expressed as
\begin{equation} \f{1}{\eta} = 2-\f{1}{1+2\f{k^2}{a^2}\f{F'}{F}}. \end{equation}
Due to the stability conditions $F>0,~F'>0$, this quantity always lies between 1 and 2.
Thus, stable $f(R)$ DE models may not explain such a large value of $1/\eta$ which
is presented in Ref.~\cite{Bean:2009wj} for the redshift interval $1<z<2$.
Figure \ref{fig:eta_n=2} shows the evolution of $1/\eta$ for $n=2$ and
$\lambda=0.95$ (the minimal possible value) and $8$.
\section{Conclusions
In the present paper we have numerically calculated the evolution of
both homogeneous background and density fluctuations in a viable $f(R)$ DE model
based on the specific functional form proposed in Ref.\ \cite{Starobinsky:2007hu}.
We have found that viable $f(R)$ gravity models of present DE and
accelerated expansion of the Universe generically exhibit phantom behaviour during the
matter-dominated stage with crossing of the phantom boundary
$w_{\rm DE}=-1$ at redshifts $z\lesssim 1$.
The predicted time evolution of
$w_{\rm DE}$ has qualitatively the same behaviour as that was recently
obtained from observational data in Ref.~\cite{Shafieloo:2009ti} .
However, it is important
that the condition of stability, or even metastability,
of the future de Sitter epoch strongly restricts possible deviation of $w_{\rm DE}$
from $-1$ by several percents in these models. Thus, the DE phantomness should be
small, if exists at all, that agrees with present observational data. Still
for the models considered, it is not so hopelessly small as in the case of the similar
model\cite{Hu:2007nk} with $n=0.5$ recently considered in Ref.~\cite{SVH09} using data on
cluster abundance.
Note also, that in contrast to Ref.~\cite{BBDS08}, we do not impose
the so called thin-shell condition $|\Delta(f'(R)-1)|\lesssim
|\Phi_N|$, where $\Phi_N$ is the Newtonian potential of matter
inhomogeneities and $\Delta$ means change in the quantity in
question, for scales exceeding galatic ones where a
background matter density approaches the cosmological one.
On the other hand, this condition is satisfied automatically
for matter overdensities more than $10$ for the parameter range
$n\ge 2$ considered in our paper.
As for the density fluctuations, we have numerically confirmed
our previous analytic results of a shift in the power spectrum index
for larger wavenumbers which exceed the scalaron mass during the matter-dominated
epoch\cite{Motohashi:2009qn}, while for smaller wavenumbers
fluctuations have the same amplitude as in the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model. Once more, the
future de Sitter epoch stability condition bounds possible increase in density
fluctuations for cluster scales (compared to the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model) by $\sim 20\%$ for $n\ge 2$.
On the contrary, if it is proven from observational data that
this increase is less than $5\%$, then the background evolution
should be practically indistinguishable from the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$
one: $|w_{\rm DE}+1|<10^{-4}$ for $n=2$. This shows that $\sigma_8$
and related density perturbations tests are the most critical
ones for the $f(R)$ DE models considered in the paper.
We have obtained that the upper limit on $|w_{\rm DE}+1|$ for
$n=2$ and $\lambda = 8$ is $4.4\times 10^{-5}$ when $z=0.16$,
which is of the same order as $B(0)$.
We have also investigated the growth index $\gamma(k,z)$ of density fluctuations
and have presented an explanation of its anomalous evolution in terms
of time dependence of $G_{\text{eff}}$. Since $\gamma$ has characteristic
time and wavenumber dependence, future detailed observations may
yield useful information on the validity of $f(R)$ gravity through
this quantity, although current constraints have been obtained
assuming that it is constant both in time and in wavenumber\cite{Bean:2009wj,Rapetti:2009ri}.
Another related observational test of this model is supplied
by the large-scale structure of the Universe which should be
different from that in the ${\rm \Lambda CDM}$ model.
In particular, voids are expected to be more pronounced since
the effective gravitational constant is bigger inside them
compared to large matter overdensities where it is practically
equal to that measured in laboratory.
\acknowledgments
HM and JY are grateful to T.\ Narikawa and K.\ Yamamoto for useful
communications.
We thank T.\ Kobayashi for poiting out
a typo in Ref.~\cite{Motohashi:2009qn} and in the first version of this manuscript.
AS acknowledges RESCEU hospitality as a visiting professor. He was also
partially supported by the grant RFBR 08-02-00923 and by the Scientific
Programme ``Astronomy'' of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
This work was supported in part by
JSPS Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research No.\ 19340054(JY),
JSPS Core-to-Core program ``International Research Network
on Dark Energy'', and
Global COE Program ``the Physical Sciences Frontier'', MEXT, Japan.
}
|
\section{\textbf{Introduction}}
Let $K$ be an algebraically closed field, and let $G_0$ be a semisimple
linear algebraic group over $K$.
Let $\rho : G_0 \rightarrow GL(V)$ be an irreducible representation of $G_0$,
and let $G=K^*\cdot \rho(G_0)$ be the image of $G_0$ under $\rho$,
adjoined by the scalar matrices. The $J-irreducible\ monoid$ $M$ associated
with the pair $(G_0,\rho)$ is the Zariski closure of the group $G$ in $End(V)$ (see \cite{Renner85}).
The group $G\times G$ acts on the monoid $M$ by
$(g,h)\cdot x = g x h^{-1}$, $x\in M,\ (g,h)\in G\times G$.
Let $J_x= GxG$ denote an orbit for some $x\in M$.
There is a natural partial ordering on the set $\{J_x:\ x\in M\}$ of orbits:
\begin{equation}
J_e \leq J_f \iff J_e \subseteq \overline{J_f},\ e,f\in M.
\end{equation}
Here $\overline{J_f}$ denotes the Zariski closure of $J_f$ in $M$.
In this manuscript we are concerned with the combinatorics of the set
$\{J_x:\ x\in M\}$ of orbits.
The above construction hints just a special case of a much more general
theory of algebraic monoids which has been developed during the past 30
years largely by M.S. Putcha and L.E. Renner. The reader can find more
about algebraic monoids in the books \cite{Putcha88} and \cite{Renner04}.
In \cite{Putcha83}, Putcha shows that there exists a finite
{\em cross section lattice of idempotents,} denoted by $\Lambda$, for the set
of $G\times G$-orbits.
More precisely, there exists a finite set $\Lambda=\{e\in M:\ e^2=e\}$ of idempotents such
that a) $\bigcup \{J_e:\ e\in \Lambda\} = \bigcup \{J_x:\ x\in M\}$, b) if $x\in M$, $|J_x \cap \Lambda|=1$, c)
$\Lambda$ is a graded lattice with respect to the partial ordering
\begin{equation}\label{Jclasses}
J_e \leq J_f \iff J_e \subseteq \overline{J_f} \iff e=ef=fe,
\end{equation}
with the rank function given by $rk(e) = \dim GeG$.
It turns out (see Chapter 6, \cite{Putcha88})
that one can recover basic subgroups of the group $G$ from
$\Lambda$: the centralizer of $\Lambda$ in $G$ is a maximal torus
$$T=C_G(\Lambda)= \{ g\in G:\ g e=e g,\ e\in \Lambda \},$$
and the {\em right centralizer}
$$B=C_G^r(\Lambda)=\{g\in G: \ ge=ege\ \text{for\ all}\ e\in \Lambda\}$$
of $\Lambda$ in $G$ is a Borel subgroup containing the maximal torus $T$.
A remarkable theorem of Putcha and Renner identifies $\Lambda$ by a
subposet of the Boolean lattice of all subsets of a set $\Delta$ of simple
roots for $G$. Before we state the Theorem, we explain briefly the terminology
about simple roots and Coxeter diagrams (disjoint unions of Dynkin diagrams).
The details can be found in \cite{Humphreys}.
Recall that simple algebraic groups are classified according to the discrete data
of the ``Dynkin diagrams.'' There are four infinite families of simple groups, denoted
by $A_n,B_n,C_n,D_n$, and five exceptional groups, denoted by $E_6,E_7,E_8,F_4,G_2$.
For each group in this list the {\em Dynkin diagram} is a connected ``graph'' as
shown in the Figure \ref{Dynkin}. Let $T$ be a maximal torus in the simple group
$G_0$, and let $X(T)=\text{Hom}(T,K^*)$ be the group of group homomorphisms from
$T$ into $K^*$. The nodes of a Dynkin diagram correspond to some special vectors, called
{\em simple roots}, in the vector space $V=X(T)\otimes {\mathbb Q}$. The set of simple roots is denoted
by $\Delta$. Each simple root $\alpha \in \Delta$ gives a reflection (with respect to the hyperplane
perpendicular to $\alpha$) on $V$, which is denoted by $\sigma_{\alpha}$.
The group generated by these involutions is called the
{\em standard reflection representation} of the Weyl group of $G$ relative to $T$.
Here, a {\em Weyl group}\footnote{More generally, for an algebraic group $G$ a
Weyl group is defined to be the quotient group $W=N_G(T)/Z_G(T)$, where
$Z_G(T)=\{g\in G:\ gt=tg,\ \text{for all}\ t\in T\}$ is the centralizer of $T$ in $G$. }
is defined to be the quotient of the normalizer $N_{G_0}(T)=\{g\in G:\ gT=Tg\}$by $T$.
When the group is not simple, one still has a diagram (as well as $\Delta$),
called the {\em Coxeter diagram}, which is a disjoint union of the Dynkin
diagrams of the simple components. A subset $Y \subseteq \Delta$ is called
{\em connected} if it is a connected subset of the underlying graph of the Coxeter diagram.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=2.4in]{Dynkin.pdf}
\caption{Dynkin diagrams of the simple groups.}
\label{Dynkin}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We turn back to the monoids. If $M$ is a $J-$irreducible monoid,
then $\Lambda$ has a unique minimal nonzero element, denoted
by $e_0$ (Lemma 7.8, \cite{Renner04}).
\begin{Theorem} \label{T:PR88} (Putcha-Renner, \cite{PR88})
Let $M$ be a $J$-irreducible monoid with a cross section lattice
$\Lambda$. Let $T=C_G(\Lambda)$, $B=C_G^r(\Lambda)$.
Let $\Delta$ be the set of simple roots of $T$ relative to $B$.
Let $2^{\Delta}$ be the Boolean lattice of all subsets of $\Delta$.
Define
$$
\phi : \Lambda \longrightarrow 2^{\Delta}
$$
$$
\phi(e) = \{\alpha \in \Delta|\ \sigma_{\alpha} e = e \sigma_{\alpha} \neq e \}.
$$
Here, $\sigma_{\alpha}$ is the simple reflection associated with the root $\alpha$.
Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] $\phi$ is injective and order preserving.
\item[(ii)] $I\in 2^{\Delta}$ is in the image of $\phi$
iff no connected component of $I$ (in the Coxeter graph of $\Delta$)
lies entirely in $J_0= \{ \alpha \in \Delta| \ \sigma_{\alpha} e_0 = e_0 \sigma_{\alpha}\}$
where $e_0\in \Lambda - \{0\}$ is the minimal element.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
The above theorem, which we exploit is the bridge between a
cross section lattice and the combinatorics of finite sets.
Now we can state our main results and give a brief summary of the article.
In the next two sections we setup the notation and give the necessary background.
The M\"obius function of a poset $P$ is the unique function
$\mu: P\times P \rightarrow {\mathbb N}$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mu(x,x) =1$ for every $x\in P$,
\item $\mu(x,y)=0$ whenever $x \nleq y$,
\item $\mu(x,y) = - \sum_{x\leq z < y} \mu(x,z)$ for all $x<y$ in $P$.
\end{enumerate}
It is well known that the set of all chains of a poset is a simplicial complex
and the M\"obius function is the reduced Euler characteristic of the associated
topological space (see \cite{Stan97}). The M\"obius function
of a cross section lattice is computed by Putcha:
\begin{Theorem}(Putcha, \cite{Putcha04})\label{T:PM}
Let $\Lambda$ be a cross section lattice of an algebraic monoid.
Let $e\leq f$ be in $\Lambda$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\mu(e,f)=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{rk(f)-rk(e)} & \text{if}\ [e,f]\ \text{is relatively complemented,}\\
0 & otherwise.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
Here relatively complemented means that for every interval
$[x,y]\subseteq L$, and for every $z\in [x,y]$, there exists $z'\in [x,y]$ such that
$z \vee z' = y$ and $z\wedge z'= x$.
In Section \ref{S:Jirreducible} we describe a method for deciding when an
interval $[e,f]$ in $\Lambda$ is relatively complemented.
We use the notation $\Lambda^*$ to denote $\Lambda - \{0\}$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{T:relcomp=atomic}
We use the notation of the Theorem \ref{T:PR88}.
In particular, let $J_0= \{ \alpha \in \Delta| \ \sigma_{\alpha} e_0 = e_0 \sigma_{\alpha}\}$
where $e_0\in \Lambda^*$ is the minimal element.
Then, for $e\leq f$ in $\Lambda$, the interval $[e,f]$ is relatively complemented
if and only if there does not exist $\alpha \in J_0$ such that
$\alpha \in \phi(f) - \phi(e)$ and $\sigma_{\alpha} \sigma_{\beta} = \sigma_{\beta}\sigma_{\alpha}$
for every $\beta \in \phi(e)$.
\end{Theorem}
A graded lattice $L$ is called {\em (upper) semimodular} if the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{E:semi}
rk(x)+ rk(y) \geq rk( x \wedge y) + rk(x \vee y)
\end{equation}
holds for all $x,y \in L$.
It is known that $\Lambda$ of a $J-$irreducible monoid is upper semimodular.
The lattice $L$ is called atomic if every element is a join of atoms (elements covering $\hat{0}$).
Recall that (see \cite{Stan97}) a semimodular lattice is relatively complemented
if and only if it is atomic. As a corollary, we also prove that
\begin{Corollary}
An interval of $\Lambda^*$ is relatively complemented if and only if it is atomic if
and only if it is isomorphic to a Boolean lattice.
\end{Corollary}
Recall that a lattice $Z$ is called {\em distributive} if for every $a,b$ and $c$
from $Z$, $a\wedge (b \vee c) = (a \wedge b) \vee (a \wedge c)$ hold.
It is observed in \cite{PR88} that $\Lambda$ is a distributive lattice whenever
$\Delta - J_0$ is a connected subset of the Coxeter graph of $\Delta$,
where $\Delta$ and $J_0$ are as before. In Section \ref{S:flagsymm}, we prove:
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\Lambda$ be the cross section lattice of a $J-$irreducible monoid
of the pair $(G_0,\rho)$, where $G_0$ is a simple algebraic group of one
of the types $A_n, B_n$ or $C_n$. Let $J_0$ be as in the
Theorem \ref{T:PR88}, and let $\Delta$ be the set of simple roots.
Suppose $|J_0|>1$.
Then, the followings are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Lambda^*$ is a distributive lattice,
\item $\Lambda^*$ is isomorphic to a product of chains,
\item $\Lambda^*$ is isomorphic to a sublattice of a Boolean lattice.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
A particularly interesting class of distributive cross section lattices are
studied by Renner in \cite{Renner09}.
Let $M$ be a $J-$irreducible monoid, and let $\Lambda$ be the cross
section lattice. Let $T=C_G(\Lambda)$ be the maximal torus associated with
$\Lambda$, and let $W = N_G(T)/T$ be the Weyl group as before.
Then, $W$ acts on $V=X(T)\otimes {\mathbb Q}$ via its reflection representation,
where $X(T)=\text{Hom}(T,K^*)$. Let $\mu \in V$ be a vector which is in
general position with respect to lines determined by the simple roots
$\Delta \subseteq V$. Let $\mathcal{P}_{\mu} = Conv(W\cdot \mu) \subseteq V$
be the polytope obtained by taking the convex hull of the set of points
$\{w\cdot \mu:\ w\in W$\} in $V$. Let $P=P_{\mu}$ be the (projective) toric
variety associated with this polytope.
Assume, temporarily, that $K={\mathbb C}$. Let $O$ be a variety over $K$ of dimension $n$.
The variety $O$ is called {\em rationally smooth} at $x\in O$, if for every point
$y\in U\subseteq O$ in a neighborhood of $x \neq y$ the cohomology groups
$H_y^i(O)=H^i(O; O- \{y\}, {\mathbb Q})$ vanish except at the top dimension,
which is 1 dimensional. In other words,
$$
H^i_y(O) = 0\ \text{for}\ i\neq 2n,\ \text{and}
$$
$$
H^{2n}_y(O) = {\mathbb Q}.
$$
In \cite{Renner09}, Renner calls a subset
$J\subset S=S(\Delta)=\{\sigma_{\alpha}:\ \alpha \in \Delta \}$
of the simple generators of $W$ by {\em combinatorially smooth}, if the toric variety
$O=P $ associated with the polytope $\mathcal{P}_{\mu}$ is rationally smooth
at every point. In his paper, Renner lists all combinatorially smooth subsets for a Weyl group.
Looking at his table one sees that \footnote{for the sake of space we mention
type $A_n$, $n\geq 2$ only.} the subset $J$ is combinatorially smooth if
$J\subseteq \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n\}$ is equal to one of the followings:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $J_0 = \emptyset$,
\item $J_0= \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_i\}$ where $1\leq i<n$,
\item $J_0= \{\alpha_j,...,\alpha_n\}$ where $1<j \leq n$,
\item $J_0= \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_i,\alpha_j,...,\alpha_n\}$ where $ 1\leq i,j \leq n$ and $j-i \geq 3$.
\end{enumerate}
In other words in type $A_n$ $P$ is a rationally smooth toric variety, then
$\Lambda^*$ is distributive. However, the converse need not to be true:
In Figure \ref{F:nonsmooth} we have an example of a cross section
lattice such that the associated toric variety is not rationally smooth.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[ scale=0.3]{nonsmooth124.pdf}
\caption{Combinatorially {\em non-smooth} but distributive $\Lambda^*$.}
\label{F:nonsmooth}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
This motivates us to understand the structure of a distributive $\Lambda^*$ more precisely.
Thus, we make the following conjecture:
\begin{Conjecture}\label{C:chains}
Let $\Lambda$ be a distributive cross section lattice of the $J$-irreducible monoid of
the pair $(G_0,\rho)$, where $G_0$ is a simple algebraic group of one of the types
$A_{n-1}, B_{n-1}$ or $C_{n-1}$. Let $J_0$ and $\Delta = \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_{n-1} \}$
be the set of simple roots as in Theorem above. Suppose that $J_0$ has connected
components $J_0^{(1)}=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,...,\alpha_k\}$
and $J_0^{(2)}=\{\alpha_l,\alpha_{l+1},...,\alpha_{n-1}\}$ (with possibility that
$J_0^{(1)}=\emptyset\ \text{or that}\ J_0^{(2)}=\emptyset $).
Then $\Lambda^*$ is isomorphic to the product of the chains:
$$C_{k+2} \times C_{n-l+2} \times C_2 ^{l-k-3} =
C_{k+2} \times C_{n-l+2} \times C_2 \times \cdots \times C_2.$$
\end{Conjecture}
Suppose that $L$ is a finite lattice, and let $\vGam$ be a maximal
chain such that for every chain $\vGam'$ of $L$, the
sublattice generated by $\vGam$ and $\vGam'$ is distributive.
Such a lattice $L$ is called {\em supersolvable},
and the maximal chain $\vGam$ is called an {\em $\mathcal{M}$-chain}.
This notion about lattices, introduced and used by Stanley \cite{Stan72} is a
direct generalization of the supersolvability
of a group (where there is a series of normal subgroups with all the factors are cyclic groups).
In Section \ref{S:SS}, we determine the supersolvable cross section lattices with respect to $J_0$.
More precisely, we prove that
\begin{Theorem}\label{T:ss}
Let $\Delta = \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_n\}$ be the set of simple roots and
$J_0$ be as before. Then, the cross section lattice $\Lambda$ is
supersolvable if and only if a connected component of $J_0$ is either
a singleton $\{\alpha_i\}$ for some $\alpha_i \in \Delta$,
or is a subset $\widetilde{J_0} \subseteq \Delta$ whose
induced subgraph in the Dynkin diagram
is connected and contains an end node of $\Delta$.
Here, a simple root $\alpha \in \Delta$ is called an end-node if there exists a unique
$\alpha'$ in $\Delta$ such that
$\sigma_{\alpha} \sigma_{\alpha'} \neq \sigma_{\alpha'} \sigma_{\alpha}$
where $\sigma_{\alpha'}$ is the simple reflection associated with the root $\alpha'$.
\end{Theorem}
We prove this theorem by exhibiting an $\mathcal{M}$-chain $\vGam$
as in the definition of the supersolvability.
The {\em characteristic polynomial} of a graded poset $P$ with $\hat{0}$ and $\hat{1}$ is
\begin{equation}
p(x,P) = \sum_{x\in P} \mu(\hat{0},x) x^{rk(\hat{1})-rk(x)}.
\end{equation}
Here $rk: P\rightarrow {\mathbb N}$ is the rank function, and $\mu$ is the M\"obius function on $P$.
\begin{Theorem}(Stanley, \cite{Stan72}) \label{T:Stanley72}
Let $L$ be a semimodular supersolvable lattice.
Let $\hat{0} = x_0 < x_1 <\cdots < x_n = \hat{1}$ be an $\mathcal{M}$-chain. Then,
\begin{equation}
p(x,L) = (x - a_1)(x -a_2) \cdots (x - a_n),
\end{equation}
where $a_i$ is the number of atoms $u\in L$ such that $u \leq x_i$ and $u \nleq x_{i-1}$.
\end{Theorem}
In Section \ref{S:CP}, using the above theorem of Stanley we prove
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\Lambda^*$ be a supersolvable cross section lattice of a $J-$irreducible monoid
of the pair $(G_0,\rho)$, where $G_0$ is a simple algebraic group of one of the types
$A_n, B_n$ or $C_n$. Let $J_0\subseteq \Delta$ be as before, and let $n=|\Delta|$.
Then the characteristic polynomial of $\Lambda^*$ is
\begin{equation}
p(x,\Lambda^*)= x^{|J_0|} (x-1)^{n-|J_0|}.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
Based on computer experiments, we conjecture that
\begin{Conjecture}
Let $\Lambda^*$ be the cross section lattice of a ($J-$irreducible) monoid $M$. Then
\begin{equation}
p(x,\Lambda^*)= x^{|J_0|} (x-1)^{n-|J_0|}.
\end{equation}
\end{Conjecture}
Even though we state our theorems only for the
$J$-irreducible monoids of the types $A_n$, $B_n$ and $C_n$ the reader
will not have difficulty in proving similar results for the other types.
\section{\textbf{Preliminaries}}
\subsection{Poset terminology}\label{S:posetterminology}
The unexplained terminology about posets and
(quasi) symmetric functions can be found in the books \cite{Stan97}
and \cite{Stan97II}.
We assume that all posets and lattices are finite, and furthermore have
a minimal element, denoted by $\hat{0}$, as well as a maximal element
which is denoted by $\hat{1}$.
Let $\Delta$ be a finite set (which is going to stand for the set of simple roots).
We use the notation $2^{\Delta}$ to denote the Boolean lattice of all subsets
of $\Delta$ with the partial order of inclusion.
For any integer $m>0$ we denote $\{1,...,m\}$ by $[m]$.
An increasing sequence of numbers $m_1<m_2<\cdots < m_k$ is
denoted by $\{m_1,...,m_k\}_<$.
A {\em composition} $\gamma$ of a positive integer $m$ is an ordered sum
of positive integers whose sum is $m$.
The set of all compositions of $m$ is denoted by $Comp(m)$.
A {\em partition} $\lambda$ of a positive integer $m$ is an unordered sum of
positive integers whose sum is $m$.
There is a $1-1$ correspondence between subsets of $\{1,...,m-1\}$
and compositions of $m$ which is defined by sending
$\gamma=\gamma_1+\cdots + \gamma_k $ to
$S_{\gamma}=\{ \gamma_1 , \gamma_1+\gamma_2, ... , \gamma_1+\cdots \gamma_{k-1}\}$.
For a composition $\gamma$ of $m$, $\lambda=\lambda(\gamma)$
denotes the partition of $m$ obtained by rewriting the entries of $\gamma$
in a decreasing order.
Let $P$ be a graded poset of rank $n$ with $\hat{0}$ and $\hat{1}$.
Equivalently, $P$ has the smallest and the largest elements and every
maximal chain in $P$ is of the same length $n$. Let $rk: P \rightarrow {\mathbb N}$
be the {\em rank function}, so that $rk(x)\in {\mathbb N},\ x\in P$ is the length of the
maximal chain from $\hat{0}$ to $x$. If $x\leq y$ in $P$, then the length of
the interval $[x,y]=\{z\in P:\ x\leq z \leq y\}$ is defined to be
\begin{equation}
rk(x,y) = rk(y)- rk(x).
\end{equation}
A graded poset $P$ of rank $n$ is called {\em locally rank symmetric}
if every interval of $P$ is {\em rank-symmetric}, i.e., has the same number
of elements of rank $i$ as of corank $i$ for all $i$.
Here corank of an element $x\in P$ means $n-rk(x)$.
The set of all chains in an interval $I$ (resp. in $P=[\hat{0},\hat{1}]$) of
$P$ is denoted by $\mathcal{C}(I)$ (resp. by $\mathcal{C}$).
Similarly, the set of all max chains in $I$ (resp. in $P=[\hat{0},\hat{1}]$) of
$P$ is denoted by $\mathcal{C}_{max}(I)$ (resp. by $\mathcal{C}_{max}$).
The {\em rank set} $rk(\tau)$ of a chain $\tau=(t_1<\ldots < t_i) \in \mathcal{C}$ is
defined to be
\begin{equation}
rk(\tau) = \{m_i:\ m_i = rk(t_i)\}_<.
\end{equation}
Let $n$ be the rank of $P$, and let $I,J \subseteq \{1,\ldots,n-1\}$. Define
\begin{eqnarray}\label{E:alpha}
\alpha_P(I) &=& |\{ \tau :\ rk(\tau)= I \} |,\\
\beta_P(J) &=& \sum_{I\subseteq J} (-1)^{|J - I|} \alpha_P(I).
\end{eqnarray}
The function $\alpha_P$ (from the set of all subsets of $[rk(P)]$ into ${\mathbb N}$) is
sometimes called the {\em flag $f$-vector} of $P$.
The formal power series
\begin{equation}
F_P(x) = \sum_{\hat{0}=t_0\leq t_1\leq\cdots\leq t_{k-1}<t_k
=\hat{1}} x_1^{rk(t_0,t_1)}x_2^{rk(t_1,t_2)}\cdots
x_k^{rk(t_{k-1},t_k)}, \label{1}
\end{equation}
where the sum is over all multichains from $\hat{0}$ to $\hat{1}$
such that $\hat{1}$ occurs exactly once is
introduced by Ehrenborg in \cite{E97}.
In \cite{Stan96}, Stanley shows that
$$ F_P= \sum_{I\subseteq [n-1]} \beta_P(I)F_{I,n},$$
where
\begin{equation}\label{Gessel}
F_{I,n} = \sum_{j_1 \leq \cdots \leq j_n \atop i\in I \Rightarrow j_i < j_{i+1}} x_{j_1} \cdots x_{j_n},
\end{equation}
are the {\em fundamental quasi-symmetric functions}.
A poset $P$ is called {\em flag-symmetric} if the function $F_P$ is a symmetric function.
Let $L$ be a lattice (hence joins ``$\vee$'' and the meets ``$\wedge$'' exist).
$L$ is called {\em relatively complemented}, if for every interval $[x,y]\subseteq L$,
and for every $z\in [x,y]$, there exists $z'\in [x,y]$ such that $z \vee z' = y$ and $z\wedge z'= x$.
A lattice $L$ is called {\em atomic} if every element of $L$ is the join of atoms
(elements covering $\hat{0}$) of $L$.
A graded lattice $L$ is called {\em (upper) semimodular} if the following inequality
\begin{equation}\label{E:semi}
rk(x)+ rk(y) \geq rk( x \wedge y) + rk(x \vee y)
\end{equation}
holds for all $x,y \in L$. Equivalently (Birkhoff's characteriztion):
if $x$ covers $x\wedge y$, then $x \vee y$ covers $y$.
In an (upper) semimodular lattice $L$ being relatively complemented is equivalent
to being atomic (see Proposition 3.3.3., \cite{Stan97}).
A graded lattice $L$ is called modular if the inequality in (\ref{E:semi}) is equality for all
$x,y\in L$. A lattice $L$ is called distributive if for all $x,y,z\in L$ the following holds
\begin{equation}
x \wedge ( y \vee z ) = (x \wedge y) \vee (x \wedge z ).
\end{equation}
It is easy to show that a distributive lattice is modular.
A pair $(a,b)$ of elements of $L$ is called a {\em modular pair}, if the following holds
\begin{equation}
c \leq b \Rightarrow c \vee (a \wedge b ) = (c \vee a )\wedge b.
\end{equation}
It is convenient to denote a modular pair by $a \mathcal{M} b$. An element $b\in L$ is called
{\em right modular} if $x\mathcal{M} b$ for every $x\in L$. Similarly, an element $a\in L$ is called
{\em left modular} if $a \mathcal{M} x$ for every $x\in L$.
It is easy to see that a lattice is modular if and only if every ordered pair of elements of $L$ is modular.
\subsection{Reductive groups and monoids}
The purpose of this section is to introduce the notation of the reductive monoids. We focus mainly on
the orbit structure of these monoids. For more details the reader should consult \cite{Renner04} or
\cite{Putcha88}. For an introduction, with many explicit examples,
we suggest the survey by Solomon \cite{Sol95}. For more background on the theory of
algebraic groups, we suggest Humphrey's book \cite{Humphreys}.
Our basic list of notation for groups is as follows.
\begin{align}\label{A:groupnotation}
G &= \text{reductive group,}\\
B &= \text{Borel subgroup,}\\
T &= \text{maximal torus contained in $B$,}\\
W &= N_G(T)/T = \text{Weyl group of}\ (G,T),
\end{align}
An algebraic monoid is a variety $M$ together with
\begin{enumerate}
\item an associative morphism
\begin{equation*}
m: M \times M \rightarrow M
\end{equation*}
\item a unity $1\in M$ with $m(1,x)=m(x,1)=x$ for all $x\in M$.
\end{enumerate}
The set $G=G(M)$ of invertible elements of $M$ is an algebraic group. If $G$ is a reductive group
and $M$ is irreducible $M$ is called a \textit{reductive monoid}. It turns out \cite{Rittatore98}
that the reductive monoids are exactly the affine, two-sided embeddings of connected reductive groups.
Many interesting examples of (reductive) monoids are obtained as the
Zariski closures $\overline{K\cdot G}\subseteq End(V)$
of (representations of) reductive groups in a space of endomorphisms on a linear space $V$.
In a reductive monoid, the data of the Weyl group $W$ of the reductive group $G$
and the set $E(\overline{T})$ of idempotents of the embedding $\overline{T} \hookrightarrow M$
combine to become a finite inverse semigroup $R=\overline{N_G(T)}/T \cong W\cdot E(\overline{T})$
with unit group $W$ and idempotent set $E(R)=E(\overline{T})$.
The inverse semigroup $R$, controls the Bruhat decomposition
for the algebraic monoid $M$. Recall that the Bruhat-Chevalley order on the Weyl group
$W$ is defined by
\begin{equation*}
x \leq y\ \mbox{iff}\ BxB \subseteq \overline{ByB},
\end{equation*}
where $B$ is a Borel subgroup of $G$.
Similarly, on the Renner monoid $R$ of a reductive monoid $M$, the Bruhat-Chevalley order is
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{E:BRordering}
\sigma \leq \tau\ \mbox{iff}\ B\sigma B \subseteq \overline{B\tau B}.
\end{equation}
One observes that the induced poset structure on $W$, which is induced from $R$
is the same as the original Bruhat poset structure on $W$.
Let $T$ be a maximal torus and $E(\overline{T})$ be the set of idempotent elements
in the (Zariski) closure of $T\subseteq G$ in the monoid $M$. Similarly, let us denote by
$E(M)$ the set of idempotents in the monoid $M$.
Plainly we have $E(\overline{T}) \subseteq E(M)$. There is a canonical partial
order $\leq$ on $E(M)$ (hence on $E(\overline{T})$) defined by
\begin{equation}\label{E:crossorder}
e\leq f\ \Leftrightarrow \ ef=e=fe.
\end{equation}
Notice that $E(\overline{T})$ is invariant under the conjugation action of the Weyl group $W$.
We call a subset $\Lambda \subseteq E(\overline{T})$ as a \textit{cross-section lattice} if $\Lambda$
is a set of representatives for the $W$-orbits on $E(\overline{T})$ and the bijection
$\Lambda \rightarrow G \backslash M / G$ defined by
$e \mapsto GeG$ is order preserving. It turns out that we can write
$\Lambda=\Lambda(B) = \{ e\in E(\overline{T}):\ Be=eBe\}$
for some unique Borel subgroup $B$ containing $T$.
The partial order given by (\ref{E:crossorder}) on $E(\overline{T})$ (hence on $\Lambda$)
agrees with the Bruhat-Chevalley order (\ref{E:BRordering}) on the Renner monoid.
The decomposition $M= \bigsqcup_{e\in \Lambda} GeG$,
of a reductive monoid $M$ into its $G\times G$ orbits, has a counterpart on the Renner
monoid $R$ of $M$. Namely, the finite monoid $R$ can be written as a disjoint union
\begin{equation}\label{E:RennerDecomposition}
R = \bigsqcup_{e\in \Lambda} WeW
\end{equation}
of $W\times W$ orbits, parametrized by the cross section lattice.
It is shown by Putcha \cite{Putcha01} that each orbit $WeW$, for $e\in \Lambda$,
is a lexicographically shellable poset. Notice, as a special case, that if
$e\in \Lambda$ is the identity element of $G$, then the orbit $WeW$ is the Weyl
group $W$, and the lexicographically shellability of the Coxeter
groups is well known \cite{BjWs82}, \cite{Proc82}.
The author shows in \cite{Can08} that the Renner monoid (so called {\em rook monoid})
of the monoid of $n\times n$ matrices is lexicographically shellable.
The question of shellability of a Renner monoid in general is still an open problem.
It is known that $E(\overline{T})$ is a relatively complemented lattice, anti-isomorphic
to a face lattice of a convex polytope. Let $\Lambda$ be a cross section lattice in $E(\overline{T})$.
The Weyl group of $T$ (relative to $B= C_G^r(\Lambda)$) acts on $E(\overline{T})$,
and furthermore
\begin{equation}\label{E:ELAMB}
E(\overline{T})= \bigsqcup_{w\in W} w \Lambda w^{-1}.
\end{equation}
It is shown by Putcha [Corollary 8.12, \cite{Putcha88}] that if
$\emptyset \neq \vGam \subseteq E(\overline{T})$ is such that $(\vGam, \leq)$
is a relatively complemented lattice with all maximal chains having length equal to
$\dim T$, then $\vGam = E(\overline{T})$. Therefore, the cross section lattice
$\Lambda \subseteq E(\overline{T})$ is relatively complemented if and only if
$\Lambda = E(\overline{T})$, and this is possible if and only if $W$ is trivial.
A reductive monoid with $0$ is called $J-$irreducible if there exists a unique minimal,
nonzero $G\times G$ orbit (= a $J$-class). This explains the terminology.
Notice that this is equivalent to the fact that $\Lambda$ has a unique minimal nonzero
element $e_0 \in \Lambda$. One of the many reasons to be interested in $J-$irreducible
monoids is a theorem of Renner \cite{Renner85}, which shows that a monoid $M$ is
$J-$irreducible if and only if there exists a rational representation $\rho: M \rightarrow End(K^n)$
such that $\rho$ is a finite morphism, and $K^n$ is an irreducible module for $M$.
\section{\textbf{The cross section of a $J-$irreducible monoid}}\label{S:Jirreducible}
Let $\alpha \in \Delta$ be a simple root.
We denote by $\sigma_{\alpha}$ the simple reflection corresponding to $\alpha$.
Let $\Lambda^*=\Lambda - \{0\}$.
The following theorem of Putcha and Renner is one of the crucial steps in determining
the structure of the cross section lattice of a $J-$irreducible monoid.
\begin{Theorem} (Putcha and Renner, Theorem 4.13, \cite{PR88})\label{T:PR4.13}
We use the notation of the Theorem \ref{T:PR88}. Let $e\in \Lambda^*$.
Then there is a one to one correspondence between
$\{\alpha \in \Delta:\ \sigma_{\alpha} e \neq e \sigma_{\alpha} \}$ in $\Delta$
and $\{f\in \Lambda:\ f\ \text{covers}\ e \}$. Furthermore, $\alpha$ corresponds to the
unique $f=f_{\alpha}$ with $\phi(f)=\phi(e) \cup \{\alpha\}$.
\end{Theorem}
By Theorem \ref{T:PR88}, we see that $\phi(e \wedge f)$ is the largest subset $U$
of $\phi(e) \cap \phi(f)$ such that there exists an idempotent $h\in \Lambda$ with
$U=\phi(h)$. Therefore, the following corollary of
Theorem \ref{T:PR4.13} (and Theorem \ref{T:PR88}) is straightforward.
\begin{Corollary}\label{C:PR88}
Let $e,f \in \Lambda$, and let $U=\phi(e),\ V=\phi(f)$. Then,
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\alpha \in \phi(e\wedge f)$ if and only if $\alpha \in U\cap V$, and $J_0$
does not contain the connected component in $U\cap V$ of $\alpha$.
\item If $V\cap J_0 =\emptyset$, then $\phi(e\wedge f)=U\cap V$.
\item If $V\cap J_0 =\emptyset$, then for any subset $Y \subseteq V$
there exists $h\in \Lambda$ such that $h \leq f$ and $Y =\phi(h)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Corollary}
The following, which was already known to the experts (see Remark 3.6, \cite{Putcha01})
is also a straightforward corollary of the above considerations.
\begin{Corollary} \label{C:rank}
Let $e_0 \in \Lambda$ be the minimal nonzero idempotent.
Then, $\Lambda$ is an (upper) semimodular lattice. Furthermore,
the value of the rank function $e \mapsto \dim (eT)$ on $\Lambda$ is equal to
$|\phi(e)|=| \{ \alpha \in \Delta:\ \sigma_{\alpha} e = e \sigma_{\alpha} \neq e\}|$.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{proof}
By Theorems \ref{T:PR4.13} and \ref{T:PR88}, $\phi(e \vee f) = \phi(e) \cup \phi(f)$.
If $e$ covers $e\vee f$, then there exists a unique $\beta \in \phi(e) - \phi(f)$
such that $\phi(e) = \phi(e\wedge f) \cup \{\beta\}$.
Then, $\phi(e\vee f) = \phi(e) \cup \phi(f) = \phi(f) \cup \{\beta\}$.
In other words, $e\vee f$ covers $f$.
This proves the semimodularity.
The second assertion is straightforward from Theorems \ref{T:PR4.13} and \ref{T:PR88}, also.
\end{proof}
The set of join irreducibles of $\Lambda^*$ is found as follows.
\begin{Definition}\label{D:connected}
Let $J \subseteq \Delta$ be a subset of the nodes of the Dynkin diagram.
A subset $A=\{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_k\}$ of $J$ is called
{\em a connected subset} if the subgraph of the Dynkin
diagram induced by $A$ is connected.
Therefore, if $|A| > 1$, then for each $\alpha_i \in A$ there exists
$\alpha_j \neq \alpha_i$ in $A$ such that
$\sigma_{\alpha_i} \sigma_{\alpha_{j}} \neq \sigma_{\alpha_j} \sigma_{\alpha_i}$.
A subset $A \subseteq J$ is called {\em a connected component} of $J$ if its
a maximal connected subset of $J$.
Without loss of generality we assume that $\emptyset$ is a connected subset of $J$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Proposition}
Let $J_0 \subseteq \Delta$. Then, $e\in \Lambda^*$ is a join irreducible if one of the
following statements holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] $\phi(e)$ is a singleton $\{ \beta \}$ where $\beta \in \Delta - J_0$,
\item[b)] $\phi(e)=A \cup \{\beta\}$, where $\beta \in \Delta - J_0$ and $A$ is
a connected subset of $J_0$ such that there exists an $\alpha \in A$ with
$\sigma_{\alpha} \sigma_{\beta} \neq \sigma_{\beta} \sigma_{\alpha}$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $A$ be a connected subset of $J_0$ and let $\beta \in \Delta - J_0$.
Since $\beta$ is an atom, It is a join irreducible. Suppose that there exist $\alpha \in A$
with $\sigma_{\alpha} \sigma_{\beta} \neq \sigma_{\beta} \sigma_{\alpha}$.
Therefore, $A \cup \{\alpha \}$ is of the form $\phi(e)$ for some $e\in \Lambda^*$.
Assume for a second there exist idempotents such $e_1,e_2 \in \Lambda^*$ such that
$e=e_1 \vee e_2$, and neither $e_1 \leq e_2$, nor $e_2 \leq e_1$ is true.
Since $A\subseteq J_0$, and since $A\cup \{\alpha\} = \phi(e_1) \cup \phi(e_2)$,
the assumption forces either $\phi(e_1)$ or $\phi(e_2)$ to have a connected
component lying in $A\subseteq J_0$.
Therefore, such $e_1$ and $e_2$ cannot exist, hence, $A\cup \{\alpha\}$ is a join irreducible.
Next we show that these are all of the join irreducibles. It is convenient to identify
$\Lambda^*$ by its image in $2^{\Delta}$.
Obviously, any element of $\Lambda^*$ is of the form $I=A \cup B$ for some connected
subset $A \subseteq J_0$ (possibly empty) and $B\subseteq \Delta$.
Assume that $I$ is a join-irreducible. Suppose that $A$ is maximal with respect
to the property that $A\subseteq I$. Then, there must exists
$\beta \in (\Delta - J_0) \cap B$ such that
$\sigma_{\beta} \sigma_{\alpha} \neq \sigma_{\alpha} \sigma_{\beta}$ for some
$\alpha \in A$. Since $A$ is maximal, if $I \neq A \cup \{\beta\}$, then $I- A$
is an element of $\Lambda^*$, so is $A \cup \{\beta\}$.
Then, $(I- A) \vee (A\cup \{\beta\}) = (I- A) \cup (A\cup \{\beta\}) =I$.
But this contradicts with our assumption that $I$ is a join-irreducible.
\end{proof}
Recall that a lattice is called relatively complemented, if for every interval $[x,y]$
and for every $z\in [x,y]$, there exists $z'\in [x,y]$ such that $z \vee z' = y$ and
$z \wedge z' = x$. Recall also that a lattice is called atomic, if every element of the
lattice is a join of atoms. In a semimodular lattice these two concepts
are the same (see \cite{Stan97}).
Therefore, an atomic interval in $\Lambda^*$ can be characterized as in the Theorem
\ref{T:relcomp=atomic}.
\noindent
{\em Proof of Theorem \ref{T:relcomp=atomic}.}
($\Rightarrow$) Assume contrary that there exists $\alpha \in J_0$ such that
$\alpha \in \phi(f) - \phi(e)$ and
$\sigma_{\alpha} \sigma_{\beta} = \sigma_{\beta}\sigma_{\alpha}$
for some $\beta \in \phi(e)$.
Then, by Theorem \ref{T:PR4.13} $\phi(e) \cup \{\alpha \}$ cannot be in the
image $\phi(\Lambda^*)$.
This forces $|\phi(f) - (\phi(e) \cup \{\alpha\})|\geq 1$.
Let $\mathcal{A}_f$ be the set of all subsets
$U\subseteq \phi(f) -(\phi(e) \cup \{\alpha \})$ such that
$U \cup \phi(e) \cup \{\alpha \}$ lies in the interval $[\phi(e), \phi(f)]$.
Clearly $\mathcal{A}_f$ is non empty. Let $U_0$ be a minimal element of $\mathcal{A}_f$
(with respect to inclusion ordering).
Clearly $U_0 \cup \phi(e) \cup \{ \alpha \}$ is a join irreducible. Since
$U_0 \neq \emptyset$, $U_0 \cup \phi(e) \cup \{ \alpha \}$ is not an atom.
Since in a relatively complemented interval a join-irreducible has to be an
atom, we obtain a contradiction.
\noindent $Example.$ Let $\Delta = \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_8\}$ be a set of simple roots with
$\alpha_i \alpha_{i+1} \neq \alpha_{i+1} \alpha_i$, $i=1,...,7$, for $G=GL_n$.
Suppose that $J_0= \{\alpha_3, \alpha_6,\alpha_7\}$. Let $\phi(e)= \{\alpha_5\}$, and let
$\phi(f)=\{\alpha_3,\alpha_5,\alpha_6,\alpha_7\}$. Then, the pair $(\alpha,\alpha')$ can be
chosen to be $(\alpha_7,\alpha_6)$.
Clearly $\phi(e) \cup \{\alpha_6,\alpha_7\} = \{\alpha_5,\alpha_6,\alpha_7\}$ is a join irreducible
in $[\phi(e),\phi(f)]$ but not an atom.
Next, let $\phi(e)= \{\alpha_7,\alpha_8\}$, and let $\phi(f)=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_7,\alpha_8\}$.
Then, the pair $(\alpha,\alpha')$ can be chosen to be $(\alpha_2,\alpha_3)$.
Clearly $\phi(e) \cup \{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\} = \{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_7,\alpha_8\}$
is a join irreducible in $[\phi(e),\phi(f)]$ but not an atom.
We depict the Hasse diagrams of these intervals in Figure \ref{F:non-atomic}.
\begin{figure}[h]\label{F:dortresim}
\centering
\subfigure[]
{
\includegraphics[width=1.5in]{Example11.pdf}
\label{F125}
}
\subfigure[]
{
\includegraphics[width=2.1in]{Example12.pdf}
\label{F123}
}
\caption{Some non-atomic subintervals.}
\label{F:non-atomic}
\end{figure}
($\Leftarrow$) We prove the converse statement. Let $\phi(e) \subseteq
A \subseteq \phi(f)$ be an arbitrary subset. Let $\beta \in A - \phi(e)$
be a simple root. Hence, by hypotheses, either $\beta \notin J_0$ or $\beta \in J_0$
and $\sigma_{\alpha'} \sigma_{\beta} = \sigma_{\beta} \sigma_{\alpha'}$ for some
$\alpha' \in \phi(e)$. In both of these cases, we see that $\phi(e) \cup \{\beta\} \in \phi(\Lambda^*)$.
But we can repeat this for all elements of $A- \phi(e)$. Therefore, $A \in \phi(\Lambda^*)$.
This shows that the interval $[e,f]$ is isomorphic to the Boolean lattice
$2^{\phi(f) - \phi(e)}$ which is relatively complemented, of course.
This finishes the proof.
The second part of the proof the Theorem shows that
\begin{Corollary}
An interval of $\Lambda^*$ is relatively complemented if and only if atomic if and only if
isomorphic to a Boolean lattice.
\end{Corollary}
As an application we rewrite the Theorem \ref{T:PM}
\begin{Corollary}
Let $\Lambda$ be a cross section lattice of an $J-$irreducible monoid. Let $e\leq f$ be in $\Lambda$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\mu(e,f)=
\begin{cases}
(-1)^{rk(f)-rk(e)} & \text{if}\ [e,f]\ \text{is a Boolean lattice},\\
0 & otherwise.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
\end{Corollary}
\section{\textbf{Flag symmetric cross section lattices}}\label{S:flagsymm}
Recall that a poset is called flag-symmetric if and only if the flag-quasi
symmetric function $F_P$ is a symmetric function.
In this section we answer (at least, partially) the following question:
\vskip.5cm
\begin{center}
{\em Which $J$-irreducible monoids do have their cross section lattice flag-symmetric? }
\end{center}
\vskip.1in
The following observation of Stanley is useful for deciding when a distributive lattice is flag-symmetric.
\begin{Theorem}(Stanley, \cite{Stan96})
Let $L$ be a finite distributive lattice. The following four conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is locally self dual.
\item $L$ is locally rank-symmetric.
\item $L$ is flag-symmetric.
\item $L$ is a product of chains.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Remark}\label{R:PRD}
\noindent Let $e_0$ be the minimal nonzero idempotent of $\Lambda$,
let $\Delta$ be a set of simple roots and let
$J_0= \{ \alpha \in \Delta| \ \sigma_{\alpha} e_0 = e_0 \sigma_{\alpha}\}$ be as before.
In \cite{PR88} Putcha and Renner observed that $\Lambda^*$ is a distributive lattice if and only if
$\Delta - J_0$ is a connected subset of the Dynkin diagram of $G$
(in the sense of the Definition \ref{D:connected}).
In Figure \ref{F:subposets} we have depicted some distributive cross section lattices.
The example in Figure \ref{F:adjoint23}, however, is not distributive. For more examples see
Renner's book \cite{Renner04}.
\end{Remark}
We are going to show that a distributive cross section lattice has to
be a product of chains. In order to use Stanley's theorem, however, we need to further
analyze the structure of $\Lambda^*$. We start by strengthening the
observation of Putcha and Renner about the distributivity of the cross sections.
\begin{Proposition}\label{P:equal}
Let $J_0$ and $\Lambda$ be as in Theorem \ref{T:PR88}.
The followings are equivalent
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\Lambda^*$ is isomorphic to a sublattice of the Boolean lattice of all subsets of $\Delta$.
\item $\Lambda^*$ is distributive.
\item $\Delta - J_0$ is connected.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Remark \ref{R:PRD} the equality of the second and third items is already known.
Recall also that $\Lambda^*$ is closed under union operation.
Therefore, it is enough to prove that $\Lambda^* $ is closed under intersections.
The $J_0$ consists of one or two connected subsets of $\Delta$.
We first assume that it has a single connected piece.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $|\Delta|=n$ and that
$J_0 = \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_k\}$ for some $k<n$ such that
$\sigma_{\alpha_i} \sigma_{ \alpha_{i+1}} \neq \sigma_{\alpha_{i+1}} \sigma_{\alpha_i}$
for $i=1,...,k-1$. Let $I_1 \subseteq \Delta$ be such that no connected component of
$I_1$ lie entirely in $J_0$.
Therefore, either $I_1 \cap J_0 = \emptyset$, or
$I_1 \cap J_0 = \{\alpha_i,\alpha_{i+1},...,\alpha_k\}$ and $\alpha_{k+1} \in I_1$.
Let $I_2 \subseteq \Delta$ be another such subset.
Then, either $I_1 \cap I_2 \cap J_0$ is empty (hence there is nothing to prove),
or $I_1 \cap I_2 \cap J_0 = \{ \alpha_j,\alpha_{j+1},...,\alpha_k\}$, for some $j\leq k$,
and $\alpha_{k+1} \in I_1 \cap I_2$.
In other words, no connected component of $I_1 \cap I_2$ lie entirely in $J_0$.
Hence, in this case, $\Lambda^*$ is closed under intersections.
Next, we assume that $\Lambda - J_0 = \{\alpha_i:\ k\leq i \leq l\}$ for some
$1\leq k < l \leq n$. Let $I_1$ and $I_2$ be two subsets of $\Delta$ such that
no connected components lie entirely in $J_0$.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $I_1 \cap I_2 \cap J_0 \neq \emptyset$.
Then, either
$I_1 \cap I_2 \cap \{\alpha_l,\alpha_{l+1},...,\alpha_n\} = \emptyset$, or
$I_1 \cap I_2 \cap \{\alpha_l,\alpha_{l+1},...,\alpha_n\} \neq \emptyset$ and
$I_1 \cap I_2 \cap \{\alpha_1,\alpha_{2},...,\alpha_k\} \neq \emptyset$.
In both of these cases we may proceed as in the previous paragraph.
Therefore, $I_1 \cap I_2$ has no connected component lying entirely in $J_0$.
Hence, $\Lambda^*$ is closed under intersections.
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
A distributive lattice is always modular, but the converse does not need to be true.
A modular lattice is distributive if and only if it does not contain any interval of rank
three which is isomorphic to a ``diamond,'' $M_3 = \{a,b,c,d,e,f\}$ with
$a<b,c,d$ and $b,c,d < e$. (See Gr\"atzer, \cite{Grat} ).
\end{Remark}
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\Lambda$ be a modular cross section lattice, and let
$J_0 \subseteq \Delta$ be as before. If $|\Delta - J_0| > 1$,
then every interval of rank three in $\Lambda^*$ is locally rank symmetric.
If $|\Delta - J_0|= 1$, then every interval of rank three in
$\Lambda^* - \{e_0\}$ is locally rank symmetric.
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
The second assertion can be checked from the Fig. 2 of \cite{PR88}.
We are going to prove the first assertion. If $|\Delta - J_0| =2$,
then the first assertion can be checked from Fig. 7.1. of \cite{Renner04}.
Therefore, we assume that $|\Delta - J_0| > 2$.
It is enough to prove that this for $J_0=\{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_k\}$, where
$\alpha_i \alpha_{i+1} \neq \alpha_{i+1} \alpha_i$ for $i=1,...,k-1$.
(The case $J_0=\{\alpha_l,...,\alpha_n\}$ is identical, and the case
$J_0=\{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_k,\alpha_l,...,\alpha_n\}$ is similar.)
It is convenient to identify $\Lambda^*$ by its image in $2^{\Delta}$.
Let $[U,V] \subseteq 2^{\Delta}$ be an interval of rank 3.
Let $V= U \cup \{\alpha_x,\alpha_y,\alpha_z\}$ for some $x<y<z$ from $\{1,...,n\}$.
If $\{\alpha_x,\alpha_y,\alpha_z\} \cap J_0 \subseteq \{\alpha_x\}$, then
$[U,V]$ is isomorphic to the Boolean lattice of subsets of $\{x,y,z\}$, which
is locally rank symmetric. Thus, we may assume that
$\{\alpha_x,\alpha_y\}\subseteq \{\alpha_x,\alpha_y,\alpha_z\} \cap J_0$.
Then $U \cup \{\alpha_x\}$ can not be of the form $\phi(f)$ for some $f$ covering
$\phi(e)=U$. In other words, $U \cup \{\alpha_x\}$ is not contained in the interval $[U,V]$.
By the same token, $U\cup \{\alpha_x,\alpha_z\}$ cannot be in $[U,V]$.
If, in addition, $\alpha_z\in J_0$, then neither $U\cup \{\alpha_y\}$ nor
$U\cup \{\alpha_x,\alpha_y\}$ can be in $[U,V]$. In this case,
$[U,V] = \{ U, U\cup \{\alpha_z\},U\cup \{\alpha_y,\alpha_z\}, U\cup \{\alpha_x,\alpha_y,\alpha_z\}=V\}$
is a chain, and hence locally rank symmetric.
If $\alpha_z \notin J_0$, then
$[U,V]= \{U,U\cup \{\alpha_y\}, U\cup \{\alpha_z\},U\cup \{\alpha_x,\alpha_y\}, U\cup \{\alpha_y,\alpha_z\},
U\cup \{\alpha_x,\alpha_y,\alpha_z\}=V\}$ which is also locally rank symmetric.
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
The proof of the theorem gives the proof of the following corollary, also.
\begin{Corollary}
Let $\Lambda$ be a distributive (hence modular) cross section lattice of a
$J-$irreducible monoid of type $A_{n}$. Let $J_0$ be as before.
If $|\Delta - J_0| > 1$, then every interval of rank three in
$\Lambda^*$ is isomorphic to one of the followings.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $2^{\{a,b,c\}}$, the Boolean lattice on three letters.
\item $\{a,b,c,d,e,f\}$ where $a<b,\ a<c,\ b<d,\ c<d,\ c<e,\ e<f,\ d<f$.
\item $\{a,b,c,d\}$ where $a<b<c<d$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Corollary}
\begin{Theorem} (F. Regonati, \cite{Regonati})
Let $L$ be a finite modular lattice. The following three conditions are equivalent.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $L$ is locally rank symmetric.
\item Every interval of $L$ of rank three is rank-symmetric.
\item $L$ is a product $P_1 \times P_2 \times \cdots \times P_m$ of $q_i$--primary lattices
$P_i$ (including the possibility $q_i=0$, in which case $P_i$ is a chain.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{Corollary}
Let $\Lambda$ be a distributive (hence modular) cross section lattice of a
$J-$irreducible monoid of type $A_{n}$. Let $e_0\in \Lambda$ and
$J_0 \subseteq \Delta$ be as before. If $|\Delta - J_0| > 1$, then $\Lambda^*$
is locally rank symmetric and is isomorphic to a product of chains.
If $|\Delta - J_0| =1$, then $\Lambda^* - \{e_0\}$ is locally rank symmetric
and is isomorphic to a product of chains.
\end{Corollary}
\begin{figure}[htp]\label{F:dortresim}
\centering
\subfigure[$J_0=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_5\}$]
{
\includegraphics[width=2.3in]{125-5.pdf}
\label{F125}
}
\subfigure[$J_0=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3\} $]
{
\includegraphics[width=1.3in]{123-5.pdf}
\label{F123}
}
\subfigure[$J_0=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_5\} $]
{
\includegraphics[width=2.5in]{15-5.pdf}
\label{F15}
}
\subfigure[$J_0=\{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\} $]
{
\includegraphics[width=2in]{12-5.pdf}
\label{F12}
}
\caption{Some distributive cross section lattices for $\Delta = \{\alpha_1,...,\alpha_5 \}$.}
\label{F:subposets}
\end{figure}
\begin{Definition}
Let $\gamma = \gamma_1+\cdots +\gamma_l$ be a partition (of a composition),
and let $L_{\gamma}$ be the product
$C_{\gamma_1}\times \cdots \times C_{\gamma_l}$ of chains $C_{\gamma_i}$
of length $\gamma_i-1$. We call $\gamma$, the {\em partition type} of $L_{\gamma}$.
\end{Definition}
It is easy to see that the flag quasi-symmetric function
$F_{L_{\gamma}}$ of $L_{\gamma}=C_{\gamma_1}\times \cdots \times C_{\gamma_l}$
is equal to the complete homogenous symmetric function
$h_{\gamma} = h_{\gamma_1}\cdots h_{\gamma_l}$ (see Proposition 3.3, \cite{Stan96}).
It is easy to see that the partition types of the distributive cross section lattices in
Figure \ref{F:dortresim} are $(3,2), (4,1), (2,2,1)$ and $(3,1,1)$ in the given order
of the figures (a),(b),(c) and (d). Notice that these are partitions of 5.
In fact, it is easy to see that, for $n\leq 6$ the number of distinct distributive
cross section lattices associated with $GL_n$ is equal to number of partitions of $n-1$.
Unfortunately this is not a general fact. The number of distinct distributive cross section
lattices associated with $GL_7$ is 10, but the number of partitions of 6 is 11.
This reminds us the curious phenomena of ungradedness of the dominance
partial order on partitions for $n \geq 6$.
\begin{Remark}
Note that the Conjecture \ref{C:chains} gives the possible ``partition types" of the distributive cross section
lattices; possible they are of the form $(k+1,n-l+2,1,1...,1)$, $k\geq 0,\ l\geq 0$.
\end{Remark}
\subsubsection{Combinatorially smooth subsets of $W$}
An important result of Renner says that, when $M$ is $J$-irreducible monoid,
the poset of idempotents of the (maximal) torus embedding $E(\overline{T})$ is
isomorphic to the face lattice of the polytope $Conv(W\cdot \mu)$, where $\mu$ is
the highest weight associated with the defining irreducible representation of $M$.
The set of {\em nonzero minimal elements} in $E(\overline{T})$
$$E_1(\overline{T} ) = \{ e\in E(\overline{T}):\ \dim (Te)=1\}$$
plays a special role in Renner's descent sysyems (see \cite{Renner09}).
\begin{Definition}
Let $e, e'\in E_1(\overline{T})$ be two different minimal, nonzero idempotents. We write
$ e < e'$ whenever $eBe' \neq 0$.
\end{Definition}
To be consistent with Renner's notation from \cite{Renner09}, in this section, we let $e_1$ denote the
minimal nonzero idempotent of $\Lambda$.
\begin{Theorem}(Renner, \cite{Renner09}) \label{T:minidem}
The followings are equivalent for $v,w \in W^J$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item $e= v e_1 v^{-1} < e'= w e_1 w^{-1}$ in $(E_1,<)$
\item $w < v $ in $(W^J,<)$ in the Bruhat ordering on $W^J$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
It is implicit in this theorem that $E_1(\bar{T})$ can be identified with $W^J$.
This follows from (\ref{E:ELAMB}) and the fact that $M$ is $J-$irreducible.
Recall that $J$ is called combinatorially smooth if the toric variety associated
with the polytope $Conv(W\cdot \mu)$ is rationally smooth.
The reader can extend the following observation to other types:
\begin{Proposition}
Let $\Delta$ be a set of simple roots of type $A_n$, $n\geq 2$.
Then, a subset $J \subseteq S=\{ \sigma_{\alpha}:\ \alpha \in \Delta\}$
of the simple reflections is combinatorially smooth
if and only if $\Lambda^*$ (defined by $J_0=J$) is distributive and one of the followings hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] $| \Delta - J | \geq 1$, if $J$ contains only one of the end nodes
of the Dynkin diagram,
\item[b)] $|\Delta - J| \geq 2$, if $J$ contains both ends of the Dynkin diagram.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Proposition}
\begin{proof}
See Corollary 3.5 in \cite{Renner09}.
\end{proof}
\section{\textbf{Supersolvability}}\label{S:SS}
In this section we find a necessary and sufficient condition for a cross section lattice of a
$J-$irreducible to be supersolvable.
We assume for this section that all the cross section lattices belong to one of the following
types $A_n,B_n$ or $C_n$.
\begin{Definition}
A finite lattice $L$ is called supersolvable if it possesses a maximal chain $\vGam$,
called {\em modular chain} or $\mathcal{M}-chain$, with the property that the sublattice of $L$
generated by $\vGam$ and any other chain of $L$ is distributive.
\end{Definition}
Recall that an element $b\in L$ of a lattice is called right modular if and only if for every $a\in L$
\begin{equation}\label{E:rightmodular}
c \leq b \Rightarrow c \vee (a \wedge b ) = (c \vee a )\wedge b.
\end{equation}
Similarly, $a\in L$ is called left modular if and only if for every
$b\in L$, (\ref{E:rightmodular}) holds.
An element $a\in L$ is called modular if it is both right and left modular.
The following characterization of semismodular supersolvable lattices is useful.
\begin{Lemma} (Stanley, Corollary 2.3, \cite{Stan72})\label{C:USS}
Let $L$ be a finite upper semimodular lattice, and $\vGam$ be a maximal chain of $L$.
Then, $\vGam$ is a modular chain
if and only if every element of $\vGam$ is modular.
\end{Lemma}
To prove the Theorem \ref{T:ss} we need the followings, as well:
\begin{Lemma}\label{L:emptyintersection}
Let $X$ be the image $\phi(e)\in\phi(\Lambda)$
of an idempotent under the map $\phi: \Lambda \rightarrow 2^{\Delta}$ of the
Theorem \ref{T:PR88}. If $X\cap J_0 = \emptyset$, then $e$ is both right and left modular.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
By abuse of notation, using the map $\phi$ of the Theorem (\ref{T:PR88}),
we identify $\Lambda$ by its image. (Therefore, if $h\leq f$ in $\Lambda$
and $Z=\phi(h),\ Y=\phi(f)$, then we write $Z \leq Y$.)
Let $X=\phi(e)$ be as in the hypotheses: $X \cap J_0 = \emptyset$.
We first show that $X$ is right modular.
Let $U$ and $V$ be two subsets from $\Lambda$ such that $V \leq X$.
Using Corollary \ref{C:PR88} $U \wedge X = U \cap X$, and there
exists $H\in \Lambda$ such that $U \cap X = H$.
Since $V \vee H = V \cup H$, $V\vee ( U \wedge X) = V \cup ( U \cap X)$.
Since $V \subseteq X$ we see that $V \cup ( U \cap X) = (V \cup U) \cap X$.
On the other hand the right hand side of the last equality is
$(V \vee U) \wedge X$.
Hence for $U,V \in \Lambda$ such that $V \leq X$
the implication in (\ref{E:rightmodular}) holds.
In other words, $X$ is a right modular element of $\Lambda$.
Next, we show that $X$ is left modular. We need to show that for every
$V\in \Lambda$ and $U \leq V$,
\begin{equation}\label{E:leftwanted}
U \vee (X \wedge V) = (U \vee X) \wedge V.
\end{equation}
By the Corollary \ref{C:PR88}, the left hand side of the Equation (\ref{E:leftwanted})
is equal to $U\cup ( X \cap V)$, and $(U\vee X)= (U\cup X)$.
Hence, $(U \vee X) \wedge V \subseteq (U \cup X) \cap V$.
Therefore, it is enough to prove that $ (U \cup X) \cap V \subseteq (U \vee X) \wedge V $.
To this end, let $\alpha \in (U \cup X) \cap V$. If $\alpha \notin J_0$, then $J_0$
cannot contain the connected component of $\alpha$, so $\alpha \in (U \vee X) \wedge V$.
Therefore, we may assume that $\alpha \in J_0$. It follows that $\alpha \in U \subseteq V$.
Therefore, connected component of $\alpha$ in $(U \cup X) \cap V$ is at least as large
as the connected component of $\alpha \in U$. In other words, $J_0$ cannot contain the
connected component of $\alpha$, and hence $\alpha \in (U \vee X) \wedge V$.
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{Lemma}\label{L:nonemptyintersection}
Suppose that a connected component of $J_0$ is either a singleton
$\{\alpha_i\}$ , $\alpha_i \in \Delta$, or is of the form
$\widetilde{J_0}=\{\alpha_{i_1},\alpha_{i_2},...,\alpha_{i_k}\} \subseteq J_0,\ k>1$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $\alpha_{i_k} \in \widetilde{J_0}$, then there exists $\alpha_{i_l} \in \widetilde{J_0}$
such that $\sigma_{\alpha_{i_k}} \sigma_{\alpha_{i_l}} \neq \sigma_{\alpha_{i_l}}
\sigma_{\alpha_{i_k}}$, and
\item there exists an end-node $\alpha_{i}$ of $\Delta$ contained in $\widetilde{J_0}$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $X=\phi(e) \in\phi(\Lambda)$ be such that $\Delta - J_0 \subseteq X$.
Then, $e$ is both right and left modular.
\end{Lemma}
\begin{proof}
We proceed as in the proof of the Lemma \ref{L:emptyintersection},
using the map $\phi$ of the Theorem (\ref{T:PR88}) to identify
$\Lambda$ by its image.
Let $X$ be as in the hypotheses, so that $\Delta - J_0 \subseteq X$.
Notice if we can show that for every $U\in \Lambda$, $U\wedge X = U \cap X$,
then we are done by the proof of the Lemma \ref{L:emptyintersection}.
To this end, we assume that there exists $U\in \Lambda$ such that
$U \wedge X \neq U \cap X$. Thus, by Corollary \ref{C:PR88}, there must exist
$\alpha \in J_0 \cap U \cap X$ with a connected neighborhood (in $U \cap X$)
which lies completely in $J_0$.
Since $\Delta - J_0 \subseteq X$, if $\{\alpha \}\in J_0$ is a singleton subset of
$J_0$, any connected component of $U$ which contains $\alpha$ has to intersect
$X$ with more than one element. In other words, the connected component in
$U\cap X$ of $\alpha$ cannot lie in $J_0$ completely.
If $\alpha$ lies in a component $\widetilde{J_0}$ of $J_0$ which contains an
end-node, then we proceed as in the proof the Proposition \ref{P:equal}.
Suppose that $\widetilde{J_0}= \{\alpha_{j_1},\alpha_{j_2},...,\alpha_{j_k}\}$ is
the connected subset $J_0$ containing $\alpha$, and $\alpha_{j_k} \in \widetilde{J_0}$
is an end-node (of $\Delta$).
Then, $U\cap J_0=\{ \alpha_{j_1},\alpha_{j_2},...,\alpha_{j_l} \}$, for some
$l \leq k$ such that $\sigma_{\alpha_{j_m}} \sigma_{\alpha_{j_{m+1}}} \neq
\sigma_{\alpha_{j_{m+1}}} \sigma_{\alpha_{j_m}}$ for $m=1,...,l-1$.
Furthermore, there exists $\alpha' \in U- J_0$ such that
$\sigma_{\alpha'} \sigma_{\alpha_{j_1}} \neq \sigma_{\alpha_{j_1}} \sigma_{\alpha'}$.
Since $\Delta - J_0 \subseteq X$, $\alpha' \in X$.
Therefore, $\{ \alpha' \} \cup U\cap J_0 \subseteq X$, and hence, no connected
component of $\alpha$ in $U \cap X$ can lie completely in $J_0$.
In other words, $U\cap X = U\wedge X$.
The rest of the proof goes as in the previous Lemma \ref{L:emptyintersection}.
\end{proof}
\noindent {\em Proof of Theorem \ref{T:ss}.} ($\Leftarrow$)
We explicitly construct an $\mathcal{M}$-chain.
Once again, we identify $\Lambda$ with its image in $2^{\Delta}$.
Let $J_0=\{\alpha_{i_1},\alpha_{i_2},...,\alpha_{i_k}\} \subseteq \Delta$ be as in the
hypotheses of the Theorem \ref{T:ss}, and let $\{\alpha_{j_1},...,\alpha_{j_m}\}$
be the complement of $J_0$ in $\Delta$.
We assume that $i_1<i_2 < \cdots < i_k$, and $j_1<j_2<\cdots < j_m$.
By Corollary \ref{C:PR88}, any entry $U$ of the chain
$$
\emptyset \subset \{\alpha_{j_1}\} \subset \{\alpha_{j_1},\alpha_{j_2}\}
\subset \cdots \subset \{\alpha_{j_1},...,\alpha_{j_m}\}
$$
is an element of $\Lambda$, and furthermore, by Lemma \ref{L:emptyintersection},
$U$ is both left and right modular.
Let $I=\{i_1,...,i_{k'}\} \subseteq [k]$ be the set of indices of elements of
$J_0$ which are less than $j_1$.
The set $I$ might be empty. If not, by the hypotheses of the Theorem,
$\{i_1,...,i_{k'}\}=\{1,...,k'\}$.
Then, it is easy to check that the entries of the chain
\begin{equation} \label{E:orta}
\{\alpha_{i_{k'}} \} \cup (\Delta - J_0) \subset \cdots \subset
\{\alpha_{i_1},\alpha_{i_2}, \ldots , \alpha_{i_{k'}} \} \cup (\Delta - J_0)
\end{equation}
as well as the entries of the chain
\begin{equation}\label{E:son}
U_{i_{k'+1}} \subset U_{i_{k'+2}} \subset \cdots \subset U_{i_k} = \Delta,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align*}
U_{i_{k'+1}} &= \{\alpha_{i_1},...,\alpha_{i_{k'}} \} \cup (\Delta - J_0) \cup \{ \alpha_{i_{k'+1}}\} \\
U_{i_{k'+2}} &= \{\alpha_{i_1},...,\alpha_{i_{k'}} \} \cup (\Delta - J_0) \cup \{ \alpha_{i_{k'+1}}, \alpha_{i_{k'+2}} \} \\
& \vdots \\
U_{i_{k}} &= \{\alpha_{i_1},...,\alpha_{i_{k'}} \} \cup (\Delta - J_0) \cup \{ \alpha_{i_{k'+1}},\alpha_{i_{k'+2}}, \ldots, \alpha_{i_k}\}
\end{align*}
are in $\Lambda$.
By Lemma \ref{L:nonemptyintersection}, any entry of the chain
(\ref{E:orta}) and any entry of (\ref{E:son}) is both left and right modular.
Therefore, we have found a maximal chain $\vGam$ whose entries are
both left and right modular.
($\Rightarrow$) Assume $\Lambda$ is supersolvable and that there exists a
connected component $\widetilde{J_0} \subseteq J_0$ which does not contain
an end-node of $\Delta$, and $|\widetilde{J_0}| > 1$, say
$\widetilde{J_0} = \{ \alpha_{i_1},...,\alpha_{i_k}\}$, $k>1$.
Then, there exist $\alpha, \alpha' \in \Delta - J_0$ such that
$\sigma_{\alpha} \sigma_{\alpha_{i_1}} \neq \sigma_{\alpha_{i_1}} \sigma_{\alpha}$, and
$\sigma_{\alpha'} \sigma_{\alpha_{i_k}} \neq \sigma_{\alpha_{i_k}} \sigma_{\alpha'}$.
Let $\vGam$ be a modular chain for $\Lambda$.
Then, there exist an entry $\vGam_t$ of $\vGam$ such that there exists
$\alpha_{i_{m}} \in \widetilde{J_0} - \vGam_t$ for some $1 \leq m < k$.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\alpha_{i_n} \in \vGam_t$
whenever $m < n \leq k$.
Let $C$ be the subset $\{ \alpha_{i_{m+2}},...,\alpha_k,\alpha'\} \subseteq \vGam_t$.
Let $A$ be the set $\{ \alpha, \alpha_{i_1},...,\alpha_{i_m},\alpha_{i_{m+1}}\}$.
Clearly, $A$ and $C$ are in $\Lambda$. Since $\alpha_{i_{m+1}} \in A \cap \vGam_t$
is isolated in $J_0$,
$A \wedge \vGam_t$ cannot contain $\alpha_{i_{m+1}}$.
Therefore, $\alpha_{i_{m+1}} \notin C \vee (A \wedge \vGam_t)$.
However, it is easy to check that $\alpha_{i_{m+1}} \in (C \vee A)\wedge \vGam_t$.
In other words,
$$
C \vee ( A \wedge \vGam_t) \neq (C \vee A) \wedge \vGam_t.
$$
Therefore, the element $\vGam_t$ of the modular chain $\vGam$ is not (right) modular,
which contradicts with the Lemma \ref{C:USS}.
Therefore, we must have $|\widetilde{J_0}| \leq 1$. This finishes the proof.
\section{\textbf{Characteristic polynomials}}\label{S:CP}
Recall that the M\"obius function of a poset $P$ is the unique function
$\mu: P\times P \rightarrow {\mathbb N}$ satisfying
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\mu(x,x) =1$ for every $x\in P$,
\item $\mu(x,y)=0$ whenever $x \nleq y$,
\item $\mu(x,y) =- \sum_{x\leq z < y} \mu(x,z)$ for all $x<y$ in $P$.
\end{enumerate}
The {\em characteristic polynomial} $p(\alpha,P)$ (also known as
{\em Birkhoff polynomial}) of a finite graded poset $P$ of rank $n$ is
\begin{equation}
p(x,P) = \sum_{x\in P} \mu(\hat{0},x) x^{rk(\hat{1})-rk(\hat{x})}.
\end{equation}
A particularly nice survey about characteristic polynomials is written by
B. Sagan and can be found at \cite{Sag99}.
\begin{Conjecture}
Let $\Lambda$ be the cross section lattice of a $J-$irreducible monoid $M$. Then
\begin{equation}
p(x,\Lambda^*)= x^{|J_0|} (x-1)^{n-|J_0|}.
\end{equation}
\end{Conjecture}
In this section we prove the following following special case of the above conjecture.
\begin{Theorem}\label{charpoly}
Let $n$ be the rank of the supersolvable cross section lattice $\Lambda^*$.
Then the characteristic polynomial of $\vGam$ is
\begin{equation}
p(x,\Lambda^*)= x^{|J_0|} (x-1)^{n-|J_0|}.
\end{equation}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
Recall Theorem \ref{T:Stanley72}:
If $L$ be a semimodular supersolvable lattice and
$\hat{0} = x_0 < x_1 <\cdots < x_n = \hat{1}$ is an $\mathcal{M}$-chain,
then
\begin{equation}
p(x,L) = (x - a_1)(x-a_2) \cdots (x - a_n),
\end{equation}
where $a_i$ is the number of atoms $u\in L$ such that $u \leq x_i$ and $u \nleq x_{i-1}$.
In the proof of Theorem \ref{T:ss} we found
an $\mathcal{M}$-chain $D$. It is easy to check that $\Delta - J_0$
is the set of atoms of $\Lambda^*$. Furthermore, initial part
$x_0=\hat{0} < x_1 < \cdots < x_k$ of $D$ is given by the subsets
$x_s = \{j_1,...,j_s\}_< \subseteq \Delta - J_0$.
Therefore, $a_s = 1$ for $s=1,...,|\Delta - J_0|$.
Since $x_s \subseteq x_r$ for $s<r$, it follows that $a_r = 0$.
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
p(x,\Lambda^*) = \prod_{s=1}^{|\Delta - J_0|} (x - 1)
\prod_{r=|\Delta - J_0|+1}^{|\Delta|} x =x^{|J_0|} (x-1)^{n-|J_0|}.
\end{equation}
This finishes the proof.
\end{proof}
The monoid in the following example is interesting in its own right.
\begin{Example}
Let $\Lambda$ be the cross section lattice of the monoid obtained from
$SL_5$ by using the adjoint representation $\rho(g) = \text{Ad} (g)$.
Then, one can show that
$J_0 = \{\alpha_2,\alpha_3\} \subseteq \Delta = \{\alpha_1,\alpha_2,\alpha_3,\alpha_4\}$.
The Hasse diagram of $\Lambda^*$ is as in Figure \ref{F:adjoint23}
(see also Section 7.4.1. of \cite{Renner04}).
By Theorem \ref{T:ss}, $\Lambda^*$ is not supersolvable, however,
a straightforward calculations shows that the characteristic polynomial of
$\Lambda^*$ is equal to $x^2(x-1)^2$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[ scale=0.3]{adjoint23.pdf}
\caption{The cross section lattice of an adjoint representation.}
\label{F:adjoint23}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\end{Example}
\section{\textbf{Future directions}}
In this section, we briefly report some of our progress as a continuation of the
results of this article. However, we take the liberty of not introducing
the further notation.
In \cite{McNamara03}, McNamara shows that a lattice $L$ is supersolvable
if and only if there exists a 0-Hecke algebra action on the maximal chains of the lattice $L$.
He furthermore shows that under a suitable analogue of the Frobenius characteristic map,
the representations on the maximal chains might be identified with the flag quasi
symmetric functions studied by Stanley (see Section \ref{S:posetterminology},
and \cite{Stan96}). We will write our progress on the representations of the
0-Hecke algebra on $\Lambda^*$ in a forthcoming article. However, we would like to
mention that, in general, flag quasi symmetric functions of Stanley are nice for a cross section
lattice of a $J-$irreducible monoid.
To give the flavor of the results in that direction we state without a proof the following observation:
Let $\langle, \rangle$ be the nondegenerate inner product on the space of
quasi symmetric functions such that the set $\{F_{I,n}:\ I\subseteq \{1,...,n-1\}\}$
of fundamental quasi symmetric functions forms an orthonormal basis.
\begin{Theorem}
Let $\Lambda^*$ be a rank $n$ cross section a $J-$irreducible monoid.
Let $J_0\subseteq \Delta$ be as in Theorem \ref{T:PR88}, and let $n=|\Delta|$.Then,
$$
\langle F_{\Lambda^*}, F_{\{1\},n} \rangle = |n-J_0|.
$$
\end{Theorem}
The NilCoxeter algebra of a Weyl group plays an important role in the theory of
symmetric functions, especially in type $A_n$.
We can show that, like a 0-Hecke algebra, the nilCoxeter algeba acts on the
maximal chains of $\Lambda^*$, also. Thereby, we apply the work of
S. Fomin and C. Greene, \cite{FominGreene}.
This enables us to generalize Stanley symmetric functions, as well as stable
Grothendieck polynomials (via 0-Hecke algebra action) to the setting of the cross section lattices.
We will report on these considerations in future papers.
\subsection{\textbf{Variation of the theme}}
As a result of Theorem \ref{T:PR88}, the following definition of
a ``combinatorial cross section lattice'' is appropriate:
\begin{Definition}\label{D:combcross}
Let ${\mathcal G}$ be a graph. By abuse of notation we use ${\mathcal G}$
to denote the set of vertices as well (thus $2^G$ is the
set of all subsets of the vertex set ${\mathcal G}$).
Let $J_0 \subseteq {\mathcal G}$ be a subset of the vertex set.
The combinatorial cross section lattice
$\Lambda= \Lambda({\mathcal G},J_0) \subseteq 2^{\mathcal G}$ associated with the pair $({\mathcal G},J_0)$
consists of those subsets $U\in 2^{\mathcal G}$
having no connected component contained entirely in $J_0$ as an induced
subgraph. The partial ordering on $\Lambda$ is the set inclusion.
We consider the empty set as an element of $\Lambda$.
\end{Definition}
\begin{Remark}
It is clear that if $U$ and $V$ are from
a combinatorial cross section poset $\Lambda$, then
the join $U \vee V \in \Lambda$ exists and equal to the union $U \cup V$.
If $U\cap V$ is an element of $\Lambda$, then it is equal to the meet $U \wedge V$,
otherwise the meet is equal to $\emptyset \in \Lambda$.
\end{Remark}
Obviously, when ${\mathcal G}$ is the graph ${\mathcal G} = \{\alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_n\}$
with the edge set $E=\{ e_1,\ldots, e_{n-1} \}$, where $e_i$ connects
$\alpha_i$ and $\alpha_{i+1}$ an associated combinatorial cross section lattice
is equal to a cross section lattice of a $J$-irreducible monoid of type
$A_n$, considered in the manuscript.
We are planning to investigate the case of an arbitrary graph
in a future paper. However, let us mention here briefly the case when ${\mathcal G}$
is a circuit. In other words, the (Coxeter) graph of an affine root system
of type $\tilde{A}_{n}$.
Its vertex set is ${\mathcal G}= \Delta_{af} = \Delta \cup \{ \alpha_0 \}$,
where $\Delta$ is a set of simple roots of type $A_{n}$, and $\alpha_0$ is connected
to both of the end nodes of $\Delta$.
\begin{Theorem}\label{T:circulartoline}
Let ${\mathcal G}$ be a circuit, and let $J_0 \subseteq {\mathcal G}$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If ${\mathcal G} - J_0$
contains (at least) two adjacent vertices, then $\Lambda({\mathcal G},J_0)$ is
isomorphic to a cross section lattice of a $J$-irreducible monoid of type $A$.
\item ${\mathcal G}$ is supersolvable if and only if each connected component of
$J_0$ is a singleton.
\end{enumerate}
\end{Theorem}
\begin{proof}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that the vertex set of ${\mathcal G}$ is $\{\beta_0,\beta_1,\ldots, \beta_n \}$
and its edge set is $\{ e_0,\ldots, e_n\}$ where $e_i$ connects $\beta_i$
and $\beta_{i+1}$, $i=0,\ldots, n-1$, and $e_n$ connects $\beta_n$ and $\beta_0$.
Without loss of generality we may assume that $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$
are the two vertices which are not contained in ${\mathcal G} - J_0$.
Let $\Delta $ be a root system (of type $A_{n+1}$)
with the set of simple roots $\{ \alpha_1,\ldots, \alpha_{n+1}\}$ such that
there exists an edge between $\alpha_i $ and $\alpha_{i+1}$ for $i=1,\ldots, n$.
Define $$J_0' =\{ \alpha_i \in \Delta:\ \beta_i \in J_0 \}$$
For $U \in \Lambda( {\mathcal G}, J_0)$ define $\Phi (U)$ by
\begin{equation*}
\alpha_i \in \Phi(U)\ \text{if}\
\begin{cases}
i \neq n+1\ \text{and}\ \beta_i \in U,\\
i= n+1\ \text{and}\ \beta_0 \in U.
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
Let $\Lambda$ be the cross section lattice of a $J$-irreducible
monoid on $\Delta$ determined by $J_0'$ as in the Theorem \ref{T:PR88}.
Then, it is easy to check that $U \mapsto \Phi(U)$ is an isomorphism between
$\Lambda( {\mathcal G}, J_0)$ and $\Lambda$.
\item Similar to the proof of the Theorem \ref{T:ss}.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\begin{Remark}
It is easy to see that the proof of the first part of the Theorem \ref{T:circulartoline} can be reversed
to show that if $J_0'\subseteq \Delta$ does not contain any of the end nodes of the
diagram of $\Delta$, then $\Lambda$ is isomorphic to a combinatorial cross section lattice
$\Lambda({\mathcal G},J_0)$ for some $J_0 \subset {\mathcal G}$, and ${\mathcal G}$ is a circuit.
\end{Remark}
\bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
|
\section{Introduction}
In Favaro et al. (2009) explicit expressions for Bayesian nonparametric estimators for conditional species richness under two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet priors have been derived to deal with the problem of prediction when the size of the additional sample tends to be very large. The paper also investigates the asymptotic behavior of this quantity in order to obtain asymptotic highest posterior density intervals for the estimates of interest. Despite referring to the Bayesian nonparametric treatment of {\it conditional Gibbs structures} as introduced in Lijoi et al. (2007, 2008), the proofs are somehow cumbersome and do not resort to previously established properties of these structures nor to some specific available results for the two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet family. \\
Here we show how the results in Favaro et al. (2009) may be derived by a much more direct and simpler approach, resorting to the {\it deletion of classes} property of the two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet model (Pitman, 2003) and to known properties of the Beta-Binomial distribution. Moreover, as a by product, we obtain a new scale mixture representation for the limit law of the conditional species richness which differs from that derived in Favaro et al. (2009). \\
Notice that, to make the paper easily readable to those unfamiliar with the Bayesian treatment of exchangeable Gibbs partitions, we adopt Pitman's (2006) notation. A preliminary rephrasing of the Lijoi et al. (2007, 2008) approach in terms of Pitman's theory may be found in Cerquetti (2008), where even the relationship between conditional Gibbs structures and the operation of {\it deletion of classes} has been first pointed out. For the sake of clarity and to make the paper self-contained, we open each section with known results of which we will make use throughout the paper.
\section{Some preliminaries on the two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet partition model}
The two-parameter $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet distribution for $\alpha \in [0,1)$ and $\theta \geq -\alpha$ is a model for random partitions (Pitman and Yor, 1997), which belongs to the class of exchangeable Gibbs partitions of type $\alpha \in [-\infty, 1)$ as defined in Gnedin and Pitman (2006). This class is characterized by an exchangeable partition probability function of the form
$$
p(n_1,\dots, n_k)=V_{n,k} \prod_{j=1}^k (1-\alpha)_{n_j-1},
$$
where $(a)_b=a(a+1)\cdots(a+b-1)$ are rising factorials, with weights $V_{n,k}$ satisfying the backward recursion $V_{n,k}=(n -k\alpha)V_{n+1,k} +V_{n+1, k+1}$.
The $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet distribution is well-known to arise for
\begin{equation}
\label{pesi}
V_{n,k}=\frac{(\theta +\alpha)_{k-1\uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +1)_{n-1}},
\end{equation}
where $(x)_{s\uparrow \alpha}$ stands for generalized rising factorials $(x)_{s \uparrow \alpha}= (x)(x +\alpha)(x+2\alpha)\cdots (x +(s-1)\alpha)$.
This model has been largely studied in the last twenty years (see e.g. Perman et al. 1992, Pitman, 1995, 1996a, 1996b, Pitman, 2003) and a lot of results are available for it. Here we just recall few of them that we are going to exploit in the following. A general reference is Pitman (2006). \\
For $S_{n,k}^{-1, -\alpha}$ the generalized Stirling numbers of the first kind (see e.g. Hsu \& Shiue, 1998), the law of the number of blocks $K_n$ observed in an $n$-sample for $k \in \{1, \dots, n\}$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{blocksPD}
\mathbb{P}_{\alpha,\theta}(K_n=k)=\frac{(\theta +\alpha)_{k-1 \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +1)_{n-1}} S_{n,k}^{-1, -\alpha},
\end{equation}
with expected value equal to
\begin{equation}
\label{primoPD}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_n)=\frac{(\theta +\alpha)_{n}}{\alpha(\theta +1)_{n-1}} - \frac{\theta}{\alpha}.
\end{equation}\\
A general expression for the moments of any order of $K_n$ has been obtained in Yamato and Sibuya (2000) and Pitman (1996b) in terms of {\it non-central} Stirling numbers of the second kind $S_{r,j}^{0,1,\theta/\alpha}$,
and corresponds to
\begin{equation}
\label{momer}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_n^{r})= \sum_{j=0}^{r} (-1)^{r-j}\left(\theta/\alpha +1 \right)_{j} S_{r,j}^{0, 1, \theta/\alpha} \frac{(\theta +j\alpha +1)_{n -1}}{(\theta +1)_{n -1}}.
\end{equation}
\\
Now, {\it conditional Gibbs structures} have been introduced as tools for a Bayesian nonparametric approach to species sampling problems in Lijoi et al. (2007, 2008).
In this setting, given a sample $(X_1, \dots, X_n)$, with $(n_1, \dots, n_k)$ the vector of observed multiplicities of each species represented, interest typically lies in the law of the number $K_m$ of different species observed in an additional $m$-sample $(X_{n+1}, \dots, X_{n+m})$. The general form of this distribution
have been first obtained in Lijoi et. al. (2007, cfr. Proposition 1.) by combinatorial arguments, and may be expressed in terms of {\it non-central} generalized Stirling numbers of the first kind (cfr. Cerquetti, 2008, cfr. Eq. 32) as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{newblocks}
\mathbb{P}(K_m=k^*|n_1, \dots, n_k)=\mathbb{P}(K_m=k^*|K_n=k)=\frac{V_{n+m, k+k^*}}{V_{n,k}} S_{s,k^*}^{-1, -\alpha, -(n -k\alpha)},
\end{equation}
for $k^* \in \{0, 1, \dots, m\}$. This formula specializes under the $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet model as
\begin{equation}
\label{blockskm}
\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m=k^*|K_n=k)=\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)_{k^* \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +n)_{m}} S_{m, k^*}^{-1, -\alpha, -(n -k\alpha)},
\end{equation}
whose expected value, given by
\begin{equation}
\label{att}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m|K_n=k)=\sum_{k^*=0}^{m} k^* \frac{(\theta +k\alpha)_{k^* \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +n)_{m }} S_{m, k^*}^{-1, -\alpha, -(n -k\alpha)},
\end{equation}
plays the role of a Bayesian estimator for $K_m$.
\section{Conditional analysis for species richness under two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet priors}
Favaro et al. (2009) move from the need of an alternative expression for (\ref{att}) to reduce the computational effort needed to calculate both (\ref{att}) and Bayesian estimators for related quantities of interest in species sampling problems. These basically sum up to the {\it discovery probability}, the probability to discover a new species at the $(n+m+1)$th draw without observing the $m$ intermediate records, and the {\it sample coverage}, the proportion of species represented in a sample of given size featuring a certain number of distinct species.\\
Here is our approach to the problem. Let $S_m$ be the number of observations in the additional $m$-sample belonging to new species, with values in $\{0,\dots,m\}$. By the basic rules of conditional probability we can always write (\ref{newblocks}) as
$$
\mathbb{P}(K_m = k^* | K_n =k)= \sum_{s=0}^{m} \mathbb{P}(K_m=k^*, S_m=s|K_n=k)=$$
\begin{equation}
\label{mix}
= \sum_{s=0}^{m} \mathbb{P}(K_m=k^* |K_n=k, S_m=s) \mathbb{P} (S_m=s |K_n=k).
\end{equation}\\
The general form of $\mathbb{P} (S_m=s |K_n=k)$ for Gibbs partitions of type $\alpha \in [0,1)$ has been derived in Lijoi et al. (2008, cfr. Eq. (11)), and expressed in terms of generalized Stirling numbers as in Cerquetti (2008) is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{obsinnew3}
\mathbb{P}(S_m=s|K_n=k)= \frac{1}{V_{n,k}}{m \choose s}(n-k\alpha)_{m-s}\sum_{k^*=0}^s {V_{n+m, k+k^*}} S_{s,k^*}^{-1,-\alpha}.
\end{equation}
This formula specializes under the $(\alpha, \theta)$-Poisson-Dirichlet model as follows. First notice that
$$
\frac{V_{n+m,k}}{V_{n,k}}=\frac{1}{(\theta +n)_{m}},
$$
then, by means of the multiplicative property of generalized rising factorials and the definition of generalized Stirling numbers as connection coefficients, the sum in (\ref{obsinnew3}) reduces to
$$
\frac{1}{(\theta +1)_{n+m-1}}\sum_{k^*=0}^s (\theta +\alpha)_{k+k^*-1\uparrow \alpha} S_{s,k^*}^{-1, -\alpha}=
\frac{(\theta +\alpha)_{k-1 \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +1)_{n+m-1}}\sum_{k^*=0}^s (\theta + k \alpha)_{k^* \uparrow \alpha} S_{s, k^*}^{-1, -\alpha}=
$$
$$= \frac{(\theta +\alpha)_{k-1 \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +1)_{n+m-1}} (\theta +k\alpha)_{s}.
$$
It follows that (\ref{obsinnew3}) specializes under the $(\alpha, \theta)$ model as\\\
$$
\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}(S_m=s|K_n=k)
={m \choose s}(n -k \alpha)_{m-s} \frac{V_{n+m,k}}{V_{n,k}}(\theta +k\alpha)_s=$$
\begin{equation}
\label{polya}
={m \choose s}\frac{(n-k\alpha)_{m-s}(\theta +k\alpha)_{s}}{(\theta +n)_{m}},
\end{equation}
which is a {\it Beta-Binomial $(m, \theta +k\alpha, n- k\alpha)$ distribution} with expected value
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(S_m|K_n=k)=m\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)}{\theta +n}.\\\\
$$
\\
{\bf Remark 1.} In Lijoi et al. (2008) an analogous derivation of (\ref{polya}) in terms of {\it generalized factorial coefficients} (see Charalambides, 2005) is in Example 3.2. Nevertheless the relationship with Beta-Binomial distributions is not highlighted, (e.g. in deriving the expected value they resort to a general formula in Proposition 2.). Notice that Beta-Binomial distributions (see e.g. Johnson and Kotz, 1977, 2005) can be seen as a generalization to non-integer parameters of {\it P\'olya urn distributions} of parameters $(a, b, c=1)$, for $a$ and $b$ the initial composition of the urn and $c$ the number of balls of the same color replaced in the urn with the ball observed. Asymptotic results for P\'olya distributions extend to Beta-Binomial models, something that we will exploit in the following sections. \\
As for $\mathbb{P}(K_m=k^* |K_n=k, S_m=s)$ this is the law of the number of blocks for a conditional Gibbs structure as defined in Lijoi et al. (2008, Prop. 3). As shown in Cerquetti (2008, Section 4.1), the operation of conditioning to the number $s$ of observations in the new blocks is equivalent to conditioning to the number $m-s$ of observations in old blocks, i.e. to the vector $(m_1, \dots, m_k)$ and corresponds to the operation of {\it deletion of the first k classes} as defined in Pitman (2003). \\\\
{\bf Definition 2} [Deletion of classes, Pitman (2003)] Given a random partition $\Pi$ of $\mathbb{N}$, the operator {\it deletion of the first $k$ classes} is as follows: First let $\Pi_k^*$ be the restriction of $\Pi$ to $H_k:=\mathbb{N}-G_1-\cdots-G_k$ where $G_1,\dots, G_k$ are the first $k$ classes of $\Pi$ in order of their least elements, then derive $\Pi_k$ on $\mathbb{N}$ from $\Pi^*_k$ on $H_k$ by renumbering the points of $H_k$ in increasing order. \\\\
Pitman (2003) shows that this operation characterizes the two-parameter Poisson Dirichlet family of distributions for $\alpha \in (0,1)$ in that produces a Gibbs partition still belonging to the Poisson-Dirichlet class with updated parameter $(\alpha, \theta +k\alpha)$ (see Gnedin et al. 2009 for recent results and a comprehensive treatment of the topic). It follow that, by (\ref{blocksPD})
\begin{equation}
\label{deletion}
\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m=k^* |K_n=k, S_m=s)=\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta +k\alpha}(K_s=k^*)=\frac{(\theta +k\alpha +\alpha)_{k^*- 1 \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +k\alpha +1)_{s-1}} S_{s, k^*}^{-1, \alpha}.
\end{equation}
\bigskip
\noindent Notice that by (\ref{mix}), (\ref{polya}) and (\ref{deletion}) it is possible to reobtain (\ref{blockskm}) as follows
$$
\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m = k^* | K_n =k)= \frac{(\theta +k\alpha +\alpha)_{k^*- 1 \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +n)_{m}}\sum_{s=k^*}^m {m \choose s} \frac{(n-k\alpha)_{m-s}(\theta +k\alpha)_{s}}{(\theta +k\alpha +1)_{s-1}} S_{s, k^*}^{-1, \alpha}=
$$
by the definition of generalized rising factorial $(x)_{n \uparrow h}:=h^n(x/h)_{n \uparrow 1}$ reduces to
$$
=\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)}{(\theta +n)_m}\frac{\alpha^{k^*-1}\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k +k^*)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k +1)}\sum_{s=k^*}^{m} {m \choose s}(n- k\alpha)_{m-s} S_{s,k^*}^{-1, -\alpha}=
$$
and by the definition of non-central generalized Stirling number as connection coefficients yields
$$
=\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)_{k^* \uparrow \alpha}}{(\theta +n)_m} S_{s,k^*}^{-1, -\alpha, -(n-k\alpha)}.
$$
Now we show how the approach described in the present section applies to the study of expected value, moments and the asymptotic behaviour of $(K_m|K_n=k)$ under $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet model.
\subsection{Moments}
By the mixture representation (\ref{mix}), and the simplification induced by the deletion of classes property, the moments of any order for the number of species in the additional sample conditional on the basic sample are given by:
\begin{equation}
\label{mom}
\mathbb {E}_{\alpha, \theta }(K_m^{r}|K_n=k)=\sum_{s=0}^{m} \mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m^{r}|S_m=s, K_n=k) \mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}(S_m=s|K_n=k).
\end{equation}
For $r=1$ deriving $\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m^{r}|S_m=s, K_n=k)$ is just a matter of specializing (\ref{primoPD}),
\begin{equation}
\label{mprimoks}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m|S_m=s, K_n=k)=\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta+k\alpha}(K_s)=\frac{(\theta +k\alpha +\alpha)_s}{\alpha(\theta +k\alpha +1)_{s-1}}-\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}.
\end{equation}
For $r >1$ specializing (\ref{momer}) yields
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m^r|S_m=s, K_n=k)=
$$
\begin{equation}
\label{rmag}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta+k\alpha}(K_s^{r})= \sum_{j=0}^{r} (-1)^{r-j}\left(\frac {\theta +k\alpha +\alpha}{\alpha} \right)_{j} S_{r,j}^{0,1, {(\theta +k\alpha})/{\alpha}} \frac{(\theta +k\alpha +j\alpha +1)_{s -1}}{(\theta +k\alpha +1)_{s -1}}.
\end{equation}\\\\
We are now in a position to prove Favaro et al. (2009) Proposition 1. in a much more direct and simple fashion.\\\\
{\bf Proposition 3.} Under the $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet model an explicit expression for the expected value of $K_m$ conditioned to the number of blocks $K_n$ observed in the basic $n$-sample is as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{mioprimo}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m|K_n=k)= \left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right) \left[\frac{(\theta +\alpha +n)_m}{(\theta +n)_m}-1\right].
\end{equation}
{\it Proof}: By (\ref{polya}), (\ref{mom}) and (\ref{mprimoks})
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m|K_n=k)=\sum_{s=0}^{m} \mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta +k\alpha}(K_s) \mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}(S_m=s| K_n=k)=
$$
$$
=\sum_{s=0}^{m} {m \choose s} \left[\frac{(\theta +k\alpha +\alpha)_s}{\alpha(\theta +k\alpha +1)_{s-1}}-\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right] \frac{(n-k\alpha)_{m-s}(\theta +k\alpha)_s}{(\theta +n)_m}=
$$
$$
=\frac{1}{(\theta +n)_m} \sum_{s=0}^{m} {m \choose s} \left[ \frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\left( \frac{(\theta +k\alpha +\alpha)_s}{(\theta +k\alpha)_s} -1\right)\right](\theta +k\alpha)_s (n -k\alpha)_{m-s}=
$$
$$=\left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)\frac{1}{(\theta +n)_m} \left[\sum_{s=0}^{m} {m \choose s} (\theta +k\alpha +\alpha)_s
(n-k\alpha)_{m-s} - (\theta +n)_m\right]=
$$
$$
=\left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)\left[ \frac{(\theta +\alpha +n)_m}{(\theta +n)_m} -1\right].
$$\hspace{14.7cm} $\square$\\\\
{\bf Proposition 4.} Under the $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet model an explicit expression for the moments of any order for $(K_m|K_n=k)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m^{r}|K_n=k)= \sum_{j=0}^r (-1)^{r-j} \left( \frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)_j S_{r,j}^{0, 1, (\theta+k\alpha)/\alpha} \frac{(\theta +n +j\alpha)_m}{(\theta +n)_m}.
\end{equation}
{\it Proof}: By (\ref{polya}), (\ref{mom}) and (\ref{rmag})
$$
\label{successivi}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m^{r}|K_n=k)=
$$
$$
= \sum_{s=0}^m {m \choose s} \sum_{j=0}^{r} (-1)^{r-j}\left(\frac {\theta +k\alpha +\alpha}{\alpha} \right)_{j} S_{r,j}^{0, 1, (\theta+k\alpha)/\alpha} \frac{(\theta +k\alpha +j\alpha +1)_{s -1}}{(\theta +k\alpha +1)_{s -1}} \frac{(\theta +k\alpha)_s (n -k\alpha)_{m-s}}{(\theta +n)_m}=
$$
$$
=\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)}{(\theta+n)_m} \sum_{j=0}^r (-1)^{r-j}\left(\frac {\theta +k\alpha +\alpha}{\alpha} \right)_{j}S_{r,j}^{0, 1, (\theta+k\alpha)/\alpha} \sum_{s=0}^m {m \choose s}\frac{(\theta +k\alpha +j\alpha)_s (n-k\alpha)_{m-s}}{(\theta +k\alpha +j\alpha)}=
$$
$$
=\sum_{j=0}^r (-1)^{r-j}\left(\frac {\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha} \right)_{j} S_{r,j}^{0, 1, (\theta+k\alpha)/\alpha} \frac{(\theta+n +j\alpha)_m}{(\theta + n)_m}.
$$\hspace{14.7cm} $\square$\\\\
{\bf Remark 5.} As from the name {\it Beta-Binomial} distributions arise as Beta mixtures of a Binomial models, i.e. are models for the number of success in a sequence of independent trials once the probability of success has been randomized according to a Beta distribution. This, to some extent, clarifies the proof of Proposition 1. in Favaro et al. (2009). In fact, despite they do not consider mixing explicitly over $(S_m|K_n=k)$ their proofs work in a multistep procedure that ends up in a double conditional mixing, both with a Binomial distribution and a Beta distribution.\\\\
In the next section we apply our approach to the study of the asymptotic properties of $K_m$ given $K_n$ and show how it strongly simplifies the derivation of relevant results. As a by product we obtain a new decomposition for the limit law, different from that obtained in Favaro et al. (2009) but still a scale mixture of a Beta density and a transformation of the Mittag-Leffler density.
For implementation of this kind of results in Bayesian nonparametrics in genomic applications, and for the need to derive asymptotic distributions connected with derivation of HPD intervals, see Favaro et al. (2009).
\subsection{Asymptotics}
We start recalling known results of which we will make use in the following. First a local limit law for the number of blocks under the $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet model can be found e.g. in Pitman (2006). As $n \rightarrow \infty$
\begin{equation}
\label{limitk}
\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta} (K_n=k) \sim g_{\alpha, \theta}(z)n^{-\alpha}
\end{equation}
with $k \sim zn^\alpha$, where for $z >0$
\begin{equation}
\label{mittag}
g_{\alpha, \theta}(z):= \frac{\Gamma(\theta +1)}{\Gamma(\frac \theta\alpha +1)} z^{\frac \theta\alpha} g_\alpha(z),
\end{equation}
and $g_\alpha(\cdot)$ is the Mittag-Leffler density
\begin{equation}
\label{mit}
g_\alpha(z)= {\alpha^{-1} z^{-1-1/\alpha}}{f_\alpha(z^{-1/\alpha})},
\end{equation}
for $f_\alpha(\cdot)$ the $\alpha$-stable density with $\alpha\in (0,1)$.
This implies that under $\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}$, (see Th. 8 in Pitman, 2003) almost surely and in $r$-th mean
\begin{equation}
\label{limit}
\frac{K_n}{n^{\alpha}}{\longrightarrow} Y_{\theta/\alpha}
\end{equation}
for $f_{Y_{\theta/\alpha}}(z)= g_{\alpha, \theta}(z)$.
From again Pitman (2006) we also know that, as $n \rightarrow \infty$, for $\alpha \in (0,1)$
\begin{equation}
\label{asinprimo}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_n)\sim n^{\alpha} \frac{\Gamma(\theta +1)}{\alpha\Gamma(\theta +\alpha)},
\end{equation}
and for each $r > 0$
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta} (K_n^{r}) \sim n^{\alpha r}\frac{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +r +1) \Gamma(\theta +1)}{\Gamma(\theta +r\alpha +1) \Gamma(\theta/\alpha +1)}.
$$
It follows that for a $PD(\alpha, \theta +k\alpha)$ model we have
\begin{equation}
\label{asinprimom}
\mathbb{E}_{\theta, \theta +k\alpha}(K_s) \sim s^{\alpha} \frac{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +1)}{\alpha \Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +\alpha)},
\end{equation}
and for the $r$-th moment
\begin{equation}
\label{asinrsimo}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta+k\alpha}(K_s^{r}) \sim s^{\alpha r } \frac{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k +r +1) \Gamma(\theta +k \alpha +1)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha +1) \Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k +1)}.
\end{equation}\\
Adopting our approach to obtain a local limit for the moments of $(K_m|K_n=k)$ as in Favaro et al. (2009, Prop. 2) is just a matter to mix (\ref{asinrsimo}) over $s$ with a local limit law for $S_m|K_n=k$,
\begin{equation}
\label{localapp}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta}(K_m^{r}|K_n=k)= \int_0^{m}\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta+k\alpha} (K_s^{r}) f_{S_m|K_n=k}(s)ds.
\end{equation}
Notice that, by definition of rising factorials in terms of Gamma function, $(x)_s=\Gamma(x+s)/\Gamma(x)$, (\ref{polya}) may be written as
$$
\mathbb{P}_{\alpha, \theta}(S_m =s|K_n=k) = \frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha) \Gamma(n-k\alpha)}\frac{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +s)}{\Gamma(s+1)}\frac{\Gamma(n-k\alpha +m -s)}{\Gamma(m-s+1)}\frac{\Gamma(m+1)}{\Gamma(\theta +n +m)},
$$
and by Stirling approximation i.e. $\Gamma(m+a)/\Gamma(m+b) \sim m^{a-b}$ as $m \rightarrow \infty$, a local limit law for $(S_m|K=k)$, for $s \in (0,m)$, is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{localsm}
f^{\alpha, \theta}_{S_m|K_n=k}(s)\sim \frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha) \Gamma(n-k\alpha)} s^{\theta+k\alpha -1} (m-s)^{n-k\alpha -1} m^{-(\theta +n -1)}.
\end{equation}
\\\\
In the next Proposition we obtain the general result for $r\geq 1$ from (\ref{asinrsimo}). The case $r=1$ may be alternatively derived applying the same operation to (\ref{asinprimom}).\\\\
{\bf Proposition 6.} Under the $(\alpha, \theta)$-Poisson-Dirichlet model the asymptotic behaviour of the $r$-th moment of $(K_m|K_n=k)$ is described by the following approximation
\begin{equation}
\label{primoasy}
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta} (K_m^{r}|K_n=k)\sim \left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)_r \frac{\Gamma (\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +n +r\alpha)} m^{r\alpha}
\end{equation}
{\it Proof}: By (\ref{localapp}) and (\ref{localsm})
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta} (K_m^r|K_n=k)=
$$
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k +r +1)\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +1)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha +1) \Gamma (\theta/\alpha +k +1)} \int_0^m \frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha) \Gamma(n-k\alpha)} s^{\theta+k\alpha +r\alpha -1} (m-s)^{n-k\alpha -1} m^{-(\theta +n -1)}ds,
$$\\
multiplying and dividing by $\Gamma(\theta +n +r\alpha)$ it simplifies to
$$
=\left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)_r \frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +n +r\alpha)} \int_0^m \frac{\Gamma(\theta +n +r\alpha)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha)\Gamma(n-k\alpha)} s^{\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha -1} (m-s)^{n- k\alpha -1} m^{-(\theta +n-1)} ds
$$
and by a change of variable, for $w=s/m$ and $ds=mdw$,
$$
=\left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)_r \frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +n +r\alpha)} m^{r\alpha}\int_0^1 \frac{\Gamma( \theta +n +r\alpha)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha) \Gamma(n-k\alpha)} w^{\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha -1} (1 -w)^{n-k\alpha -1}dw=
$$
and the result follows. {\hspace{11cm}}$\square$
\bigskip
\bigskip
\noindent As for the asymptotic law of $K_m|K_n=k$, first notice that, as $m \rightarrow \infty$, we can always write
$$
\left(\frac{K_m}{m^\alpha}\Big\vert K_n=k\right){=} \left(\frac{K_m}{S_m^{\alpha}}\Big\vert K_n=k \right) *\left(\frac{S_m^\alpha}{m^\alpha}\Big\vert K_n=k\right),
$$
which can be rewritten as a product of independent random variables as
$$
\left(\frac{K_m}{m^\alpha} \Big\vert K_n=k \right){=}\left(\frac{K_m}{S_m^{\alpha}}\Big\vert K_n=k, S_m=s\right) *\left( \frac{S_m^\alpha}{m^\alpha}\Big\vert K_n=k \right) .
$$
Now, for the deletion of classes property of the $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet model,
$$
\left(\frac{K_m}{S_m^{\alpha}}\Big\vert K_n=k, S_m=s\right)_{\alpha, \theta} \stackrel{in \hspace{0.1cm}law}{=} \left(\frac{K_s}{s^{\alpha}}\right)_{\alpha, (\theta+k\alpha)/\alpha}
$$
and by (\ref{limit}) almost surely and in $r$-th mean
\begin{equation}
\label{limks}
\frac{K_s}{s^\alpha} {\longrightarrow} Y_{(\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha}
\end{equation}
whose limit distribution, by an application of (\ref{mittag}), for $y >0$ is given by
$$
f_{Y_{(\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha}}(y)= g_{\alpha, (\theta +k\alpha)}(y)=\frac{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +1)}{\Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha +1)} y^{\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}} g_\alpha(y).
$$ \\
As for $(S_m/m|K_n=k)$, for each $m$ this is the proportion of success in a Beta-Binomial distribution of parameters $(m, \theta +k\alpha, n- k\alpha)$ to which the same asymptotic properties of the {\it P\'olya urn distribution} apply (see e.g. Johnson \& Kotz, 1977). It follows that as $m \rightarrow \infty$ almost surely
\begin{equation}
\label{limitbeta}
\left(\frac{S_m}{m}\Big\vert K_n=k\right) {\longrightarrow} W \sim Beta(\theta +k\alpha, n -k\alpha).
\end{equation}
We are now in a position to state the following \\\\
{\bf Proposition 7.} Under the $(\alpha, \theta)$ Poisson-Dirichlet model $(K_m/m^\alpha|K_n=k)$ converges almost surely to a r.v. $Z_{n,k}^{\alpha, \theta}$ with limit distribution
$$
f_{\alpha, \theta}^{n,k}(z)=\frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k) \Gamma(n -k\alpha)\alpha} z^{\theta/\alpha +k-1}
\int_z^\infty (1- (z/v)^{1/\alpha})^{n-k\alpha -1} f_\alpha(v^{-1/\alpha})v^{-1/\alpha -1}dv,
$$
for $f_\alpha(\cdot)$ the density of the $\alpha$-stable r.v. for $\alpha \in (0,1)$.\\\\
{\it Proof}:
By (\ref{limks}) and (\ref{limitbeta}) the almost sure limit of $(K_m/m^\alpha|K_n=k)$ exists as the product of independent r.v.s each admitting an almost sure limit, hence
$$
\left(\frac{K_m}{m^\alpha}\Big\vert K_n=k\right) \stackrel{a.s.}{\longrightarrow} Z_{n,k}^{\alpha, \theta}= Y_{(\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha} * W^\alpha.
$$
The density of $Z_{n,k}^{\alpha, \theta}$ is given by
$$
f_Z (z)=\int_0^1 f_Y(z w^{-\alpha})w^{-\alpha} f_W(w) dw=
$$
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +1)}{\alpha\Gamma(\theta/\alpha+k+1)}\int_0^1 (zw^{-\alpha})^{\theta/\alpha +k -1 -1/\alpha} f_\alpha[(zw^{-\alpha})^{-1/\alpha}] \frac{1}{w^{\alpha}} \frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha)\Gamma(n- k\alpha)} w^{\theta +k\alpha -1}(1 -w)^{n-k\alpha -1}dw=
$$\\
which simplifies to
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k)\Gamma(n-k\alpha)} z^{\theta/\alpha +k -1-1/\alpha} \int_0^1 (1 -w)^{n- k\alpha -1} f_\alpha [(zw^{-\alpha})^{-1/\alpha}]dw=
$$
and by the change of variable $zw^{-\alpha}=v$, $w=(zv^{-1})^{1/\alpha}$, $dw=\alpha^{-1} z^{1/\alpha}v^{-1/\alpha -1}dv$, it follows
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta/\alpha +k)\Gamma(n-k\alpha)\alpha} z^{\theta/\alpha +k -1} \int_0^\infty (1 -(zv^{-1})^{1/\alpha})^{n -k\alpha -1} f_\alpha (v^{-1/\alpha}) v^{-1/\alpha -1}dv.
$$\hspace{ 15cm}$\square$\\\\
Next Proposition proves both the convergence in $r$-th mean of $(K_m/m^\alpha|K_n=k)$ to $Z_{n,k}^{\alpha, \theta}$ and that our result, while agrees with Favaro et al. (2009, Proposition 2.) provides a new decomposition for the limit law.\\\\
{\bf Proposition 8.} Let $H=Y_1*X$ for $Y_1$ and $X$ independent r.v.s, $Y_1 \sim g_{\alpha, (\theta+n)}$ and $X\sim Beta(\theta/\alpha +k, n/\alpha -k)$, then $Z_{n,k}^{\alpha, \theta}$ and $H$ have the same characteristic function
$$
G_{\alpha, \theta}^{n,k}(t)= \sum_{r \geq 0} \frac{(it)^r}{r!} \left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)_r
\frac{1}{(\theta +n)_{r\alpha}}.
$$
\\
{\it Proof}: First notice that Proposition 3. is enough to say that for $m \rightarrow \infty$
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\alpha, \theta }\left(\frac{K_m^r}{m^{r\alpha}}\Big\vert K_n=k\right) \stackrel{}{\longrightarrow} \left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)_r \frac{\Gamma (\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +n +r\alpha)}.
$$
Now the density of $Z_{n,k}^{\alpha, \theta}$ may be written as
$$
f_Z(z)=\frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)\Gamma(\theta+k\alpha+1)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha)\Gamma(n -k\alpha) \Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha +1)}\frac 1\alpha z^{\theta/\alpha+k-1}\int_z^{\infty}\alpha^{-1}s^{-1/\alpha-1} f_\alpha(s^{-1/\alpha})\left( 1-(z/s)^{1/\alpha}\right)^{n-k\alpha-1}ds
$$
whose characteristic function by (\ref{mittag}) and (\ref{mit}) is given by
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)\Gamma(\theta+k\alpha+1)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha)\Gamma(n -k\alpha) \Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha+1)} \frac 1\alpha \int_0^\infty \exp\{itz\} z^{\theta/\alpha+k-1}\int_z^{\infty}g_{\alpha}(s)\left( 1-(z/s)^{1/\alpha}\right)^{n-k\alpha-1}ds dz
$$
this may be rewritten as
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta+k\alpha+1)}{\Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/ \alpha+1)}
\frac 1\alpha \int_z^{\infty}g_{\alpha}(s)
\int_0^\infty \exp\{itz\}\frac{ \Gamma(\theta +n)}{ \Gamma(\theta +k\alpha)\Gamma(n -k\alpha)}z^{\theta/\alpha+k-1}
\left( 1-(z/s)^{1/\alpha}\right)^{n-k\alpha-1}dz ds \nonumber
$$
and by a change of variable $(z/s)^{1/\alpha}=y$, $z=y^{\alpha}s$, $dz=s\alpha y^{\alpha-1}dy$ reduces to
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta+k\alpha+1)}{ \Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha+1)}
\frac 1\alpha \int_0^{\infty} g_{\alpha}(s)
\int_0^s e^{ity^{\alpha}s}\frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{ \Gamma(\theta +k\alpha)\Gamma(n -k\alpha)}(y^{\alpha}s)^{\theta/\alpha+k-1}
\left( 1- y\right)^{n-k\alpha-1}s \alpha y^{\alpha -1}dy ds
$$
and then to
$$
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta+k\alpha+1)}{ \Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha +1)}
\int_0^{\infty} s^{\theta/\alpha +k} g_{\alpha}(s)
\int_0^1 e^{ity^{\alpha}s}\frac{\Gamma(\theta +n)}{ \Gamma(\theta +k\alpha)\Gamma(n -k\alpha)}(y)^{\theta+k\alpha-1}
\left( 1- y\right)^{n-k\alpha-1}dy ds.
$$
By the characteristic function of $Y^\alpha$ for $Y \sim Beta(\theta +k\alpha, n -k\alpha)$ we can write
$$
\label{last}
=\frac{\Gamma(\theta+k\alpha+1)}{ \Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha +1)} \sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(it)^{r}}{r!}\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)_{r\alpha} }{(\theta +n)_{r\alpha}} \int_0^{\infty} s^{\theta/\alpha +k +r} g_{\alpha}(s) ds
$$
and by (\ref{mittag})
\begin{equation}
\label{last}
=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(it)^{r}}{r!}\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)_{r\alpha }}{(\theta +n)_{r\alpha}} \frac{\Gamma(\theta+k\alpha+1)}{ \Gamma((\theta +k\alpha)/\alpha +1)} \frac{\Gamma((\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha)/\alpha +1)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha +1)}.
\end{equation}
By the usual properties of Gamma function the last expression corresponds to
$$
=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(it)^{r}}{r!}\frac{\Gamma(\theta + k\alpha +r\alpha)\Gamma(\theta +n)}{\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha) \Gamma(\theta +n +r\alpha)}\frac{(\theta +k\alpha)\Gamma(\theta +k\alpha)}{\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\Gamma(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}) }\frac{\Gamma(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}+r) \frac{\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha}{\alpha}}{(\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha) \Gamma(\theta +k\alpha +r\alpha)}
$$
which simplifies to
$$
=\sum_{r=0}^{\infty} \frac{(it)^{r}}{r!}\left(\frac{\theta +k\alpha}{\alpha}\right)_r\frac{1}{(\theta +n)_{r\alpha}}
$$
and the conclusion follows by the result in Proposition 2 in Favaro et al. (2009).
\section*{Acknowledgement} The author wishes to thank Andrea Tancredi and Serena Arima for some helpful and illuminating discussions.
\section*{References}
\newcommand{\item \hskip-1.0cm}{\item \hskip-1.0cm}
\begin{list}{\ }{\setlength\leftmargin{1.0cm}}
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc {Cerquetti, A.} (2008) Generalized Chinese restaurant construction of exchangeable Gibbs partitions and related results. {\sf http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.3853}
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc {Charalambides, C. A.} (2005) {\it Combinatorial Methods in Discrete Distributions}. Wiley, Hoboken NJ.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Favaro, S., Lijoi, A., Mena, R. and Pr\"unster, I.} (2009) Bayesian non-parametric inference for species variety with a two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet process prior. {\it JRSS-B}, 71, 993-1008.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Gnedin, A. and Pitman, J. } (2006) {Exchangeable Gibbs partitions and Stirling triangles.} {\it Journal of Mathematical Sciences}, 138, 3, 5674--5685.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Gnedin, A., Haulk, S. and Pitman, J.} (2009) {Characterizations of exchangeable partitions and random discrete distributions by deletion properties}. {\sf http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.3642}
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Hsu, L. C, \& Shiue, P. J.} (1998) A unified approach to generalized Stirling numbers. {\it Adv. Appl. Math.}, 20, 366-384.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Johnson, N.L. \& Kotz, S.} (1977) {\it Urn models and their application}. Wiley \& Sons.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Johnson, N. L. \& Kotz, S.} (2005) {\it Univariate Discrete Distributions}. 3rd Edition, Wiley \& Sons.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Lijoi, A., Mena, R. and Pr\"unster, I.} (2007) Bayesian nonparametric estimation of the probability of discovering new species. {\it Biometrika}, 94, 769--786.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Lijoi, A., Pr\"unster, I. and Walker, S.G.} (2008) Bayesian nonparametric estimator derived from conditional Gibbs structures. {\it Annals of Applied Probability}, 18, 1519--1547.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Perman, M., Pitman, J, \& Yor, M.} (1992) Size-biased sampling of Poisson point processes and excursions. {\it Probab. Th. Rel. Fields}, 92, 21--39.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Pitman, J.} (1995) Exchangeable and partially exchangeable random partitions. {\it Probab. Th. Rel. Fields}, 102: 145-158.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Pitman, J.} (1996a) Some developments of the Blackwell-MacQueen urn scheme. In T.S. Ferguson, Shapley L.S., and MacQueen J.B., editors, {\it Statistics, Probability and Game Theory}, volume 30 of {\it IMS Lecture Notes-Monograph Series}, pages 245--267. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, CA.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Pitman, J.} (1996b) Notes on the two parameter generalization of Ewens random partition structure. {\it Manuscript} University of California, Berkeley. Unpublished.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Pitman, J.} (2003) {Poisson-Kingman partitions}. In D.R. Goldstein, editor, {\it Science and Statistics: A Festschrift for Terry Speed}, volume 40 of Lecture Notes-Monograph Series, pages 1--34. Institute of Mathematical Statistics, Hayward, California.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Pitman, J.} (2006) {\it Combinatorial Stochastic Processes}. Ecole d'Et\'e de Probabilit\'e de Saint-Flour XXXII - 2002. Lecture Notes in Mathematics N. 1875, Springer.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Pitman, J. and Yor, M.} (1997) The two-parameter Poisson-Dirichlet distribution derived from a stable subordinator. {\it Ann. Probab.}, 25:855--900.
\item \hskip-1.0cm \textsc{Yamato, H. and Sibuya, M.} (2000) Moments of some statistics of Pitman sampling formula. {\it Bull. Inform. Cybernet.}, 32 1--10.
\end{list}
\end{document}
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
Our knowledge of the laws of physics in the sub-nuclear domain
(at distance scales of about $10^{-13}$ cm and smaller) is for the most part derived from analyzing the outcomes of high-energy collisions of elementary particles. While the size and sophistication of each component of high-energy collision experiments have steadily grown, the basic experimental setup has remained unchanged since late 1960's. First, a particle accelerator uses a carefully designed combination of electric and magnetic fields to produce narrowly focused beams of energetic particles (typically electrons, protons, and their antiparticles). Then, two beams collide head-on, usually with equal and opposite momenta so that the center-of-mass frame of the colliding system coincides with the laboratory frame.\footnote{For about three decades before the advances in accelerator technology made it possible to steer two beams into a mid-air head-on collision, the principal technique was to accelerate a single beam and crash it into a stationary target. I will always consider a collider setup in these lectures, and all experimental data I will show are from colliders; however, in terms of theoretical interpretation, the main subject of these lectures, the differences between the collider and fixed-target setups are rather trivial.} The region where collisions occur (the ``interaction point") is surrounded by a set of particle detectors, which attempt to identify the particles coming out of the collision, and measure their energies and momenta.
Since physics at subatomic distance scales is governed by laws of quantum mechanics, the outcome of each collision cannot, as a matter of principle, be known ahead of time; the best that any theory can do is to predict the {\it probabilities} of various possible outcomes.
Modern collider experiments collect and analyze outcomes of huge number of collisions; the number of events with specified properties within the collected data set is proportional to the probability of such an event. Thus, the probability of a specific outcome of a collision (or a closely related quantity typically used in particle physics, the {\it cross section}) provide a natural bridge between theory and experiment. Narrowly speaking, one can say that a particle theorist's job is to infer laws of physics from experimentally measured cross sections. There is no known algorithm that can do this job. (This is lucky for us, since otherwise theorists could be replaced by computers!) There is, however, a well-developed formalism for predicting cross sections, given a Lagrangian quantum field theory. In practice, therefore, theoretical interpretation of collider data proceeds by picking a candidate theory, computing relevant cross sections within that theory, comparing with data, and (if the comparison does not work) moving on to the next candidate theory. For the last 30 years, the default ``leading candidate" theory has been the Standard Model (SM). As everyone knows, no statistically significant deviation from predictions of this theory
has been observed so far, although at times mild inconsistencies with data have motivated theorists to try alternative candidates. It is, of course, equally well known to the TASI participants that strong theoretical reasons exist to expect that the SM hegemony will finally break down at the energy scales around a TeV, which will be explored experimentally for the first time by the Large Hadron Collider
(LHC) in the next few years. Obtaining detailed quantitative predictions for the LHC experiments, both from the SM and from alternative candidate models, is a crucial task for theorists in the LHC era. The aim of these lectures is to introduce TASI students to some of the basic concepts and theoretical tools necessary to make such predictions.
\subsection{Definitions and Basics}
Consider a collision of two elementary particles, $A$ and $B$, in the reference frame where the net momentum of the pair is zero. This frame is called the {\it center-of-mass frame}, or {\it c.o.m. frame} for short, since the center of mass of the system is at rest. In the case of $e^+e^-$ colliders, $A$ and $B$ are just the electron and the positron, and the c.o.m. frame coincides with the lab frame. For hadron colliders, $A$ and $B$ are partons (quarks or gluons), and the c.o.m. frame, which we will also call the {\it ``parton frame"} in this case, is generally moving along the collision axis with respect to the lab frame. In either case, we will neglect the masses of $A$ and $B$, since they are tiny compared to the energies we're interested in (of order 10 GeV and higher). By convention, we will choose the $z$ axis to lie along the direction of the $A$ momentum. The four-momenta of the colliding particles are
\begin{equation}
p_A \,=\, (E,0,0,+E)\,,~~~p_B \,=\, (E,0,0,-E)\,.
\eeq{pin}
The total energy of the colliding system, the {\it center-of-mass energy}, is $E_{\rm cm} = 2E$. We will also frequently use the Mandelstam variable $s
=(p_A+p_B)^2 = E_{\rm cm}^2$. In the case of hadron colliders, the center-of-mass energy in a collision of two partons will be denoted by $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$, to distinguish it from the energy of the colliding hadron pair $\sqrt{s}$.
In particle colliders, collisions actually take place between beams containing large number of particles. If two beams collide head-on, the number of collisions leading to a final state with particular characteristics (type of particles, their momenta, etc.) should be proportional to the number of particles in each beam, $N_A$ and $N_B$, and inversely proportional to the beams' cross-sectional area ${\cal A}$. The coefficient of proportionality is the {\it scattering cross section} for this particular final state:
\begin{equation}
\sigma \,=\, \frac{{\rm (Number~of~events)}\,\cdot {\cal A}}{N_AN_B}\,.
\eeq{xsec_def}
If beams collide at a frequency $f$ Hz, the rate $R$ (number of events of a particular kind recorded per second) can be written as
\begin{equation}
R \,=\, L \cdot \sigma\,,
\eeq{Rev}
where
\begin{equation}
L \,=\, \frac{N_A N_B f}{A}\,
\eeq{Linst}
is the {\it instantaneous luminosity}. Simple as it looks, Eq.~\leqn{Rev} is a fundamental cornerstone of collider physics, and it is worth examining it more closely. The rate $R$ is measured directly by experimentalists.\footnote{Actually, what is measured is $R\cdot {\cal E}$, where ${\cal E}$ is the {\it detector efficiency}: the probability that an actual event with particular properties is identified as such by the detector. Efficiencies vary widely depending on the detector and the kind of process one is considering. In addition, the measured rate typically includes events that do {\it not} actually have the requested properties, but are mis-identified due to detector imperfections. In these lectures, we will mostly not be concerned with such detector effects, except for an occasional brief comment. An interested reader is referred to Eva Halkidakis' lectures at this school.} The quantity $L$ (together with $E_{\rm cm}$) contains all the information about the accelerator needed to analyze the experiment. Experimental collaborations carefully monitor and record $L$, as a function of time. The experimentally measured value of the cross section is inferred from Eq.~\leqn{Rev}. This value can then be compared with the theoretically expected cross section.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{table}
\tbl{Recent and future energy-frontier particle colliders. (Parameters listed for the LHC and the ILC are design values.)}
{\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|} \hline
Name & Type & $\sqrt{s}$ (GeV) & $L_{\rm int}$ (pb$^{-1}$) &
Years of & Detectors & Location \\
& & & & operation & & \\ \hline \hline
LEP & $e^+e^-$ & 91.2 (LEP-1) & $\approx 200$ (LEP-1) & 1989-95 (LEP-1) & ALEPH, OPAL, & CERN \\
& & 130-209 (LEP-2) & $\approx 600$ (LEP-2) & 1996-2000 (LEP-2) & DELPHI, L3 & \\
SLC & $e^+e^-$ & 91.2 & 20 & 1992-98 & SLD & SLAC \\
HERA & $e^\pm p$ & 320 & 500 & 1992-2007 & ZEUS, H1 & DESY \\
Tevatron & $p\bar{p}$ & 1800 (Run-I) & 160 (Run-I) & 1987-96 (Run-I) & CDF, D{\O} & FNAL \\
& & 1960 (Run-II) & 6 K (Run-II, 06/09) & 2000-??? (Run-II) & & \\
LHC & $pp$ & 14000 & 10 K/yr ("low-L") & 2010? - 2013?&
ATLAS, CMS & CERN \\
& & & 100 K/yr ("high-L") &2013?? - 2016???& & \\
ILC & $e^+e^-$ & 500-1000 & 1 M??? & ??? & ??? & ??? \\
\hline
\end{tabular} }
\label{tab:colliders}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
Throughout the lectures, we will contrast theoretical predictions with data from recent and ongoing experiments at energy-frontier colliders. Table~\ref{tab:colliders} shows the basic parameters of these colliders, along with the upcoming LHC and the proposed next-generation electron-positron collider, the International Linear Collider (ILC).\footnote{For lack of time, I will not be able to discuss results from recent lower-energy, ``luminosity-frontier" collider experiments, such as CLEO, BaBar, and Belle.} It is important to keep in mind that, for hadron colliders, the listed center-of-mass energy corresponds to the colliding (anti)protons. Since high-energy processes are initiated by partons, which only carry a fraction of the proton momentum, the energy scales that can be probed at a hadron collider are substantially lower than this energy, typically by factors of $3-10$ depending on the process. Electron-positron colliders, on the other hand, are able to explore many reactions at energy scales extending all the way to their nominal $\sqrt{s}$. The luminosity values shown in the table are the {\it integrated} luminosities, $L_{\rm int}=\int L dt$ over the lifetime of the experiment. The table also lists the detectors at each collider. Detector names coincide with the names of collaborations of physicists operating them, and are frequently used to refer to the data published by these collaborations.
Computing and interpreting cross sections will be our main focus. It is clear from its definition, Eq.~\leqn{xsec_def}, that the cross section has cgs units of cm$^2$. A unit typically used in experimental nuclear and particle physics is 1 {\it barn} $=10^{-24}$ cm$^2$. In ``theory units", $c=\hbar=1$, the natural unit for cross section is GeV$^{-2}$; the conversion factor is
\begin{eqnarray}
1~{\rm bn} &=& 2568~{\rm GeV}^{-2}\,,\nonumber \\
1~{\rm GeV}^{-2} &=& 3.894\cdot 10^{-4}\,~{\rm bn}.
\eeqa{bn_GeV_convert}
To get a very rough estimate of cross sections expected in particle physics experiments, we can use dimensional analysis: away from thresholds and resonances, the only energy scale in a collision of two massless particles is $E_{\rm cm}$, and we should expect the (total) scattering cross section to behave roughly as
\begin{equation}
\sigma \sim \frac{1}{E_{\rm cm}^2}\,.
\eeq{xsec_scaling}
A similar result (larger by $\pi$) is obtained by replacing the colliding particles with classical ``billiard balls" of radius equal to their Compton wavelength $\lambda \sim 1/E$, and taking their geometric cross section as an estimate. The geometric cross section also coincides with the upper bound on the total inelastic cross section (assuming $s$-wave scattering) from unitarity considerations. The cross sections for specific processes are typically lower, by an order of magnitude or more, than this bound: For example, the $e^+e^-\to Z$ cross section on resonance ($\sqrt{s}=M_Z$) is about 40 nb, compared to $\sigma_{\rm geom} = \pi/M_Z^2 \approx 2500$ nb.
The decrease of cross sections with energy has an important implication for accelerator design: Colliders operating at higher center-of-mass energies must also have higher luminosity, adding to the technical challenges of expanding the high-energy frontier. This trend is clear in Table~\ref{tab:colliders}.
The ``master formula" for evaluating the cross section and kinematic distributions for a $2\to N$ scattering process is
\begin{equation}
d\sigma \,=\, \frac{1}{2s}\,\left( \prod_{i=1}^N\,\frac{d^3p_i}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{1}{2E_i}\right)\,\cdot\, (2\pi)^4 \delta^4(p_A+p_B-\sum p_i)\,\cdot\, \left| {\cal M} (p_A,p_B\to \{ p_i \} \right|^2\,,
\eeq{master}
where ${\cal M}$ is the invariant matrix element, a.k.a. {\it scattering amplitude}, and $p_i = (E_i, {\bf p}_i)$ are the 4-momenta of the final-state particles. Note that ${\cal M}$ contains all information specific for the process under consideration (such as coupling constant dependence, etc.), whereas all other ingredients are simply kinematic factors common for any $2\to N$ process. While Eq.~\leqn{master} is written in the center of mass frame of the colliding particles, it is in fact invariant under boosts parallel to the collision axis. This feature will be important when hadron collisions are considered. If the colliding beams are unpolarized, one needs to average the quantity $\left|{\cal M}\right|^2$ over all possible initial-state polarizations. If the beams are polarized (this was the case at the SLC, and may be implemented at the ILC), an appropriately weighted average should be computed instead. In addition, if the final-state particles have spin, $\left|{\cal M}\right|^2$ should typically be summed over all possible spin states, since no collider detector is capable of detecting spins of individual particles. (Exception occurs when the final-state particles decay promptly, in which case the angular distribution of their decay products may carry information about their polarization state.) The appropriately averaged and/or summed $|$scattering amplitude$|^2$
will be denoted by $\overline{\left|{\cal M}\right|}^2$.
The number of independent kinematic variables in a $2\to N$ process is $3N-4$. In practice, the initial state is always symmetric under rotation around the collision axis, and no physical observable can depend on the overall azimuthal coordinate, leaving $3N-5$ physical variables. The simplest case, most commonly encountered in practice, is $2\to 2$ scattering. The only observable not constrained by energy and momentum conservation is the scattering angle $\theta$, which by convention is defined as the angle between the 3-momenta of particles $A$ and $1$. The differential cross section is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta}\,=\,\begin{cases} \frac{1}{16\pi}\,\frac{|{\bf p}_1|}{s^{3/2}}\, & \text{ if $\sqrt{s}> m_1+m_2$;} \\ 0 & \text{otherwise,} \end{cases}
\eeq{2to2}
where
\begin{equation}
|{\bf p}_1|=\frac{1}{2}\sqrt{\frac{(s-m_1^2-m_2^2)^2-4m_1^2m_2^2}{s}}\,.
\eeq{momentum}
In the most common case of equal masses in the final state, $m_1=m_2=m$, this formula further simplifies (for $\sqrt{s}>2m$) to
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta}\,=\,\frac{1}{32\pi s}\,\sqrt{1-\frac{4m^2}{s}}\,\overline{\left|{\cal M}\right|}^2\,.
\eeq{2to2m}
Note that the square-root factor is simply the velocity of the final-state particles (in units of $c$). The quantity $\overline{\left|{\cal M}\right|}^2$ is often expressed in terms of the {\it Mandelstam variables}, Lorentz-invariant (scalar) bilinears of the 4-momenta of incoming and outgoing particles. In the case of $2\to 2$ scattering, these are
\begin{eqnarray}
s &=& (p_A+p_B)^2\,,\nonumber \\
t &=& (p_A-p_1)^2\,,\nonumber \\
u &=& (p_A-p_2)^2\,.
\eeqa{Mandel}
They are not independent: it can be easily shown that $s+t+u=m_1^2+m_2^2$. The Mandelstam variables are related to the scattering angle: for example, if $m_1=m_2=0$, we simply have
\begin{equation}
t \,=\, - \frac{s}{2}\,(1-\cos\theta)\,,~~~u \,=\, - \frac{s}{2}\,(1+\cos\theta)\,.
\eeq{Mtotheta}
The main advantage of using Mandelstam variables comes in applications of crossing symmetry to relate processes such as, for example, electron-positron annihilation $e^+e^-\to\gamma\gamma$ and Compton scattering $e^-\gamma\to e^-\gamma$. They are also convenient for analyzing hadron collisions, being invariant under boosts connecting the parton and lab reference frames.
\section{Electron-Positron Collisions}
\label{sec:epem}
In this Lecture, we will study a few examples of reactions initiated by electron-positron collisions, and use them to illustrate some fundamental concepts and issues central to the field. Since colliding particles are elementary, $e^+e^-$ collisions are somewhat easier to analyze than collisions between hadrons, which will be discussed in Lecture~\ref{sec:hadrons}.
\subsection{Muon Pair-Production}
\label{sec:eemumu}
We start with the process $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-$. At tree level, only two diagrams contribute, see Fig.~\ref{fig:eemm}, making it possibly the simplest $2\to 2$ reaction in the SM - the {\tt "hello world"} example of collider physics.
Most (probably all) TASI students would have calculated the cross section of this reaction in their Quantum Field Theory (QFT) classes, probably using four-component (Dirac) notation and trace technology to perform spin sums. An alternative is to use two-component (Weyl) fermions, and to evaluate the scattering amplitudes for particles in definite helicity eigenstates. This method provides more insight into the physics of the process, and becomes especially valuable when weak interactions are considered. Let us outline the calculation.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(130,65)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-65)
\ArrowLine(1,109)(31,87)
\ArrowLine(31,87)(1,65)
\Photon(31,87)(76,87){2}{6}
\ArrowLine(76,87)(106,109)
\ArrowLine(106,65)(76,87)
\Vertex(31,87){2}
\Vertex(76,87){2}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(108,109)[cl]{$\mu^-$}
\Text(108,65)[cl]{$\mu^+$}
\Text(54,100)[tc]{$\gamma/Z$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Leading-order (tree-level) Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-$.}
\label{fig:eemm}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Muon Pair-Production in QED}
To begin with, let us only consider the diagram with the virtual photon exchange, ignoring the $Z$. (This would be a good approximation at low energies, $\sqrt{s}\ll M_Z$.)
In two-component notation, electrons and positrons are described by a pair of two-component (Weyl) spinor fields, $e_L$ and $e_R$. The subscript $L/R$ denotes the field's {\it chirality}, which determines its transformation properties under the Lorentz group. The QED Lagrangian in this notation is
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} \,=\, i e_R^\dagger \sigma^\mu D^R_\mu e_R \,+\,i e_L^\dagger \bar{\sigma}^\mu D^L_\mu e_L + m_e \left( e_R^\dagger e_L + e_L^\dagger e_R\right)\, .
\eeq{L_QED}
Here $D^L_\mu=D^R_\mu=\partial_\mu - ieA_\mu$ are covariant derivatives, and
\begin{equation}
\sigma\,=\,(1, \vec{\sigma}),~~~\bar{\sigma}\,=\,(1, -\vec{\sigma})\,,
\eeq{sigmas}
where $\vec{\sigma}$ is a three-vector consisting of the usual three Pauli matrices.
A particle's {\it helicity} is defined as the projection of its spin on the direction of its motion. Since helicity of a free particle is conserved, we can choose to describe a scattering process in the basis of one-particle in- and out-states of definite helicity. For electrons and positrons, these states are $|e^\pm_h\rangle$, where the superscript denotes the particle's electric charge and the subscript $h=\pm 1/2$ its helicity:
\begin{equation}
\frac{{\bf p}\cdot {\bf S}}{\left|{\bf p}\right|} \,| e^\pm_h\rangle \,=\, h | e^\pm_h\rangle \,.
\eeq{hel_def}
States of positive helicity $|e^\pm_+\rangle$ are often referred to as ``right-handed", while states of negative helicity $|e^\pm_-\rangle$ are called ``left-handed". We will use this nomenclature, and replace the subscripts $+\to r$, $-\to l$.
In the limit of zero electron mass, the Weyl fields $e_L$ and $e_R$ are completely decoupled in the Lagrangian~\leqn{L_QED}. After quantization, each field contains creation/annihilation operators for states of specific helicity only: for example,
\begin{eqnarray}
e_L\,|0\rangle &\sim &|e^+_r\rangle\,,~~~ e_L^\dagger\,|0\rangle \,\sim\, |e^-_l\rangle\,,\nonumber \\
e_R\,|0\rangle &\sim &|e^+_l\rangle\,,~~~ e_R^\dagger\,|0\rangle \,\sim \,|e^-_r\rangle\,.
\eeqa{crann}
Note the relation between helicity of a state and chirality of the field creating it:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\rm Particle:} & & {\rm helicity}~=~{\rm chirality}\,;\nonumber \\
{\rm Antiparticle:} & & {\rm helicity}~= -~{\rm chirality}\,.
\eeqa{hel_chi}
It follows that helicity eigenstates are simply the solutions to Weyl equations of motion:
\begin{equation}
i\sigma^\mu \partial_\mu \psi_R = 0,~~~i\bar{\sigma}^\mu \partial_{\mu} \psi_L = 0\,.
\eeq{Weyleom}
Explicitly, the solutions have the form (up to normalization constants)
\begin{equation}
e_h^- \sim e^{-ip\cdot x} \xi_h\,,~~e_h^+ \sim e^{+ip\cdot x} \xi_{-h}\,,
\eeq{Weyl_soln}
where
\begin{equation}
\xi_r=\exp\left[\frac{i}{2}\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{\omega} \right]\,\cdot\,\left( \begin{array}{c} 1\\0\end{array}\right)\,,~~~ \xi_l=\exp\left[\frac{i}{2}\vec{\sigma}\cdot\vec{\omega} \right]\,\cdot\,\left( \begin{array}{c} 0\\1\end{array}\right)\,,
\eeq{xis}
where $\vec{\omega}$ is the rotation from the $+z$ direction to the direction of the momentum ${\bf p}$. It is straightforward to obtain the Feynman rules in two-component language: For example, an incoming electron line of helicity $h$ gives $\sqrt{2E}\xi_h$,
an incoming positron of helicity $h$ gives $\sqrt{2E}\xi_{-h}^\dagger$,
the $e^-_r e^+_l\gamma$ vertex is $ie\sigma_\mu$, the
$e^-_l e^+_r\gamma$ vertex is $ie \bar{\sigma}_\mu$, etc. Note that $e^-_r e^+_r$ and $e^-_l e^+_l$ vertices do not exist, since there is no coupling between $e_L$ and $e_R$ fields in the Lagrangian.
The same construction describes the electromagnetic interactions of any other fermion, as long as its mass can be neglected: in particular, it can be applied to the $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-$ scattering in the limit $\sqrt{s}\gg m_\mu$. Using the Feynman rules above, and the standard photon propagator, yields the {\it helicity amplitudes}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M} (e^-_le^+_r\to\mu^-_l\mu^+_r) = {\cal M} (e^-_re^+_l\to\mu^-_r\mu^+_l) &=& -e^2\,(1-\cos\theta)\,,\nonumber \\
{\cal M} (e^-_le^+_r\to\mu^-_r\mu^+_l) = {\cal M} (e^-_re^+_l\to\mu^-_l\mu^+_r)&=& -e^2\,(1+\cos\theta)\,,
\eeqa{amps_mu}
with all other helicity configurations giving vanishing amplitudes. Using Eq.~\leqn{2to2m}, this yields the differential cross section
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta}\,=\,\frac{\pi\alpha}{2s}\,\left(1+\cos^2\theta \right)\,,
\eeq{eemm_xsec}
where we introduced the fine-structure constant $\alpha=e^2/(4\pi)$.
\subsubsection{Scalar Muon}
It is instructive to repeat the above calculation replacing the muon with a {\it scalar} (spin-0) particle $\tilde{\mu}$ of the same mass and electric charge. (Such ``scalar muons", or smuons, are actually predicted by supersymmetric theories.) The helicity amplitudes (in the limit $\sqrt{s}\gg m_{\tilde{\mu}}$) are
\begin{equation}
{\cal M} (e^-_le^+_r\to\tilde{\mu}^-\tilde{\mu}^+) = {\cal M} (e^-_re^+_l\to\tilde{\mu}^-\tilde{\mu}^+) \,=\, -e^2\,\sin\theta\,.
\eeq{amps_smu}
{\bf Homework Problem 1:} Derive the amplitudes~\leqn{amps_smu}.
~\\
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(120,120)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,20)
\LinAxis(0,0)(100,0)(4,5,3,0,1.0)
\Line(0,0)(0,100)
\Line(0,100)(100,100)
\Line(100,100)(100,0)
\Text(0,-2)[tc]{$-1$}
\Text(100,-2)[tc]{$+1$}
\Text(50,-4)[tc]{$\cos\theta$}
\DashCurve{(0,0)(10,27)(20,48)(30,63)(40,72)(50,75)(60,72)(70,63)(80,48)(90,27)(100,0)}{3}
\Curve{(0,75)(10,61.5)(20,51)(30,43.5)(40,39)(50,37.5)(60,39)(70,43.5)(80,51)(90,61.5)(100,75)}
\Text(12,64)[bl]{$\mu$}
\Text(10,25)[tl]{$\tilde{\mu}$}
\Text(-3,90)[cr]{$\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta}$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Angular distributions for muons (solid line) and scalar muons (dashed line) produced in $e^+e^-$ collisions. (Normalization is arbitrary.)}
\label{fig:dists}
\end{figure}
\noindent This yields the differential cross section
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta}\,=\,\frac{\pi\alpha}{4s}\,\sin^2\theta\,.
\eeq{eesmsm_xsec}
The angular distributions predicted for muons and smuons are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:dists}. Comparing these distributions with data allows one to distinguish between the two possible spin assignments, providing a determination of the muon spin. (Note that spins of elementary particles are {\it not} directly observed by the detector, so spins can in fact only be inferred by indirect means such as this.) No evidence for spin-0 muon has been seen in the data, indicating that supersymmetry, if it is indeed a symmetry of nature, must be broken to lift the muon-smuon mass degeneracy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(300,65)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-50)
\Vertex(1,90){2}
\LongArrow(1,90)(31,90)
\Vertex(81,90){2}
\LongArrow(81,90)(51,90)
\DashLine(-10,90)(111,90){3}
\LongArrow(106,90)(111,90)
\Line(25,80)(10,80)
\Line(25,76)(10,76)
\Line(6,78)(14,82)
\Line(6,78)(14,74)
\Line(75,80)(60,80)
\Line(75,76)(60,76)
\Line(56,78)(64,82)
\Line(56,78)(64,74)
\Text(107,87)[tc]{$z$}
\Text(81,95)[br]{$e^+_r$}
\Text(3,95)[bl]{$e^-_l$}
\Text(41,67)[tc]{$J_z=-1$}
\Vertex(151,90){2}
\LongArrow(151,90)(181,90)
\Vertex(231,90){2}
\LongArrow(231,90)(201,90)
\DashLine(140,90)(271,90){3}
\LongArrow(266,90)(271,90)
\Line(175,80)(160,80)
\Line(175,76)(160,76)
\Line(179,78)(171,82)
\Line(179,78)(171,74)
\Line(225,80)(210,80)
\Line(225,76)(210,76)
\Line(229,78)(221,82)
\Line(229,78)(221,74)
\Text(267,87)[tc]{$z$}
\Text(231,95)[br]{$e^+_l$}
\Text(153,95)[bl]{$e^-_r$}
\Text(191,67)[tc]{$J_z=+1$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Helicity configurations of the $e^+e^-$ pair leading to non-vanishing tree-level scattering amplitudes for muon and smuon production. Thin arrows show the direction of particles' momenta, while thick arrows indicate their helicities.}
\label{fig:arrows}
\end{figure}
The most striking feature of the distributions in Fig.~\ref{fig:dists} is that the smuons cannot be produced in forward and backward directions ($\cos\theta=\pm 1$), while muons can. This can be easily traced to conservation of angular momentum. The $z$-component of the total angular momentum of the colliding system is $J_z=\pm 1$; all helicity amplitudes corresponding to $J_z=0$ vanish (see Fig.~\ref{fig:arrows}). Since $J_z$ is conserved, the same must be true in the final state; but for scalar particles, $J_z$ can only be contributed by the {\it orbital} angular momentum $L_z$. When particles move along the $z$ axis, $L_z=0$, and angular momentum cannot be conserved; thus, scattering along this direction is forbidden for smuons.
\subsubsection{Including the $Z$ Exchanges}
\label{sec:Zmuons}
Apart from the somewhat more complicated form of matrix elements, two conceptually important new features arise when the diagram involving the $Z$ boson in Fig.~\ref{fig:eemm} is included.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(260,55)(0,0)
\SetOffset(-40,-65)
\Photon(46,87)(66,87){2}{4}
\Vertex(66,87){2}
\BCirc(81,87){15}
\Vertex(96,87){2}
\Photon(96,87)(116,87){2}{4}
\Vertex(116,87){2}
\BCirc(131,87){15}
\Vertex(146,87){2}
\Photon(146,87)(156,87){2}{2}
\Vertex(160,87){2}
\Vertex(168,87){2}
\Vertex(176,87){2}
\Photon(180,87)(190,87){2}{2}
\Vertex(190,87){2}
\BCirc(205,87){15}
\Vertex(220,87){2}
\Photon(220,87)(240,87){2}{4}
\Vertex(240,87){2}
\BCirc(255,87){15}
\Vertex(270,87){2}
\Photon(270,87)(290,87){2}{4}
\LongArrow(46,93)(60,93)
\Text(53,98)[bc]{$p$}
\Text(86,105)[bc]{$\Pi(p^2)$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Vacuum polarization corrections to the $Z$ propagator. Each circle denotes the sum of one-loop diagrams with quarks, leptons, $W$ and Higgs bosons circulating in the loop.}
\label{fig:Zprop}
\end{figure}
First, the $Z$ propagator is proportional to $(s-M_Z^2)^{-1}$, which is infinite when $\sqrt{s}=M_Z$ (as was the case at LEP-1 and SLC). This infinity is in fact a feature of leading-order (``tree-level") perturbation theory, and is automatically removed when radiative corrections (``quantum loops") are included. More specifically, consider the vacuum polarization diagrams shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Zprop}. They can be included by replacing
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p^2-M_Z^2} \,\longrightarrow\,\frac{1}{p^2-M_{Z,0}^2-\Pi(p^2)}
\eeq{Zprop1}
in the $Z$ propagator, where $\Pi(p^2)$ is the one-loop vacuum polarization. We introduced the notation $M_{Z,0}$ for the bare (Lagrangian) $Z$ mass, to distinguish it from the physical (pole) mass $M_Z$. Note that to derive Eq.~\leqn{Zprop1}, an infinite series of diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:Zprop} had to be included and summed; this is not surprising, since the infinity in the tree-level calculation should be interpreted as a sign of a breakdown in perturbation theory. The physical $Z$ mass is the solution to $M_Z^2 - M_{Z,0}^2 -
~{\rm Re}~\Pi(M_Z^2)=0$. For $p^2\approx M_Z^2$, we can expand
\begin{eqnarray}
p^2-M_{Z,0}^2-\Pi(p^2) &\approx& p^2-M_{Z,0}^2-\left(~{\rm Re}~\Pi(M_Z^2) + \frac{d}{dp^2}~{\rm Re}~\Pi(M_Z^2)\,\,(p^2-M_Z^2)\right) +i~{\rm Im}~\Pi(M_Z^2)\,\nonumber \\ &=& \left( 1 + \frac{d}{dp^2}~{\rm Re}~\Pi(M_Z^2)\,\right)\,(p^2-M_Z^2) + i~{\rm Im}~\Pi(M_Z^2) \nonumber \\ &=& {\cal Z}^{-1}(p^2-M_Z^2) + i~{\rm Im}~\Pi(M_Z^2)\,,
\eeqa{prop_exp}
where in the last line we introduced the field strength renormalization factor ${\cal Z}$. Note that the propagator no longer blows up at $s=M_Z^2$, as long as the imaginary part of the vacuum polarization is non-zero. This is in fact guaranteed by the optical theorem, which relates Im~$\Pi$ to the {\it total decay width} $\Gamma_Z$ of the $Z$ boson:
\begin{equation}
{\rm Im}~\Pi(M_Z^2)\,=\,-\frac{{\cal Z}^{-1}}{2}\,\sum_{f_1,f_2} \int \frac{d^3p_1}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2E_1}\frac{d^3p_2}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2E_2}\,\overline{|{\cal M}(Z\to f_1 f_2)|}^2\,=\,-{\cal Z}^{-1} M_Z \Gamma_Z\,,
\eeq{optical}
where the sum runs over all possible two-body decay channels of the $Z$. To summarize, the $Z$ propagator near the pole (in the 't Hooft-Feynman gauge) can be approximated by
\begin{equation}
\frac{-ig_{\mu\nu}{\cal Z}}{p^2-M_Z^2+iM_Z\Gamma_Z}\,.
\eeq{Zprop2}
If the diagram with the photon is ignored (which is a reasonable approximation near the $Z$ pole), the cross section is proportional to
\begin{equation}
\left| \frac{1}{s-M_Z^2+iM_Z\Gamma_Z} \right|^2 = \frac{1}{(s-M_Z^2)^2 + M_Z^2 \Gamma_Z^2}\,.
\eeq{BW}
This is the famous {\it Breit-Wigner function}. Since the above discussion did not depend on any specific features of the $Z$ boson, the same function can be used to approximate the dependence of any cross section on $s$ in the neighborhood of a resonance of a given mass and width. This behavior is in excellent agreement with experiment, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ALEPH1}. (The data is in fact precise enough that the contribution of the photon exchange diagram must be included even at the $Z$ peak; this has been done in the figure.)
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=xsec_mumu.eps,width=7.5cm}
\hskip1cm
\psfig{file=AFB_mumu.eps,width=7.5cm}
\end{center}
\vskip-0.5cm
\caption{Cross section (left panel) and forward-backward asymmetry (right panel) of muon-pair production at LEP, measured by the L3 collaboration, compared with the SM prediction (solid lines). From Ref.~\cite{L3_mumu}.}
\label{fig:ALEPH1}
\end{figure}
The second interesting feature brought in by the $Z$ is violation of two discrete symmetries, charge conjugation (C) and parity (P). In the two-component language, $Z$ coupling to electrons has the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} \,=\, \left( g_L e_L^\dagger \bar{\sigma}^\mu e_L + g_R e_R^\dagger \sigma^\mu e_R \right) \,Z_\mu\,,
\eeq{Zcoupl}
with
\begin{equation}
g_L = \frac{e}{c_ws_w}\,\left( -\frac{1}{2}+s_w^2\right),~~~g_R = \frac{es_w}{c_w}\,,
\eeq{Zcoupl1}
where $s_w, c_w$ are the sine and cosine of the Weinberg angle ($s^2_w=0.231$). The fact that $g_L\not=g_R$ signals C and P non-conservation. The $Z$ coupling to the muon has an identical structure, and the $Z$-exchange contribution to the helicity amplitudes
for $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-$ is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M} (e^-_le^+_r\to\mu^-_l\mu^+_r) &=& -g_L^2 (1+\cos\theta)\,f_{BW}(s)\,,\nonumber \\
{\cal M} (e^-_re^+_l\to\mu^-_r\mu^+_l) &=& -g_R^2 (1+\cos\theta)\,f_{BW}(s)\,,\nonumber \\
{\cal M} (e^-_le^+_r\to\mu^-_r\mu^+_l) &=& {\cal M} (e^-_re^+_l\to\mu^-_l\mu^+_r) \,=\, -g_L g_R
(1-\cos\theta)\,f_{BW}(s)\,,
\eeqa{Zamps}
where
\begin{equation}
f_{BW}(s) \,=\, \frac{s}{s-M_Z^2 + iM_Z \Gamma_Z}\,.
\eeq{fBW}
Summing and averaging over spins (and ignoring, for simplicity, the photon exchange contribution) yields the cross section
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\theta}\,=\,\frac{|f_{BW}|^2}{32\pi s}\,\left[
\left(g_L^4 + g_R^4 \right) (1+\cos\theta)^2 \,+\, 2g_L^2g_R^2 (1-\cos\theta)^2\right]\,.
\eeq{Zxsec}
The cross section contains a term proportional to $\cos\theta$, so that the angular distribution is no longer symmetric under the parity transformation $\theta\to\pi-\theta$. A useful way to quantify this is to introduce the {\it forward-backward asymmetry} via
\begin{equation}
A_{FB} \,=\, \frac{\sigma(\cos\theta>0)-\sigma(\cos\theta<0)}{\sigma(\cos\theta>0)+\sigma(\cos\theta<0)}\,.
\eeq{Afb_def}
It is easy to show using Eq.~\leqn{Zxsec} that $A_{FB}\propto
(g_L^2-g_R^2)^2$. Once the photon exchange diagrams are included,
$A_{FB}$ becomes a function of $s$, since the relative contributions of the P-conserving photon exchange and P-violating $Z$ exchange depend on $s$. Experimental measurement of $A_{FB}$ at LEP, along with the SM expectation, are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ALEPH1}.
\subsection{Initial-State Radiation}
\label{sec:ISR}
Not all collisions occurring at an electron-positron collider with the nominal c.o.m. energy $\sqrt{s}$ in fact have that energy; in some cases, the energy is lowered by an emission of a photon (or multiple photons) by the electron, the positron, or both, just ahead of the collision. This process is called {\it initial state radiation}, and it is worth a closer look: In addition to being important in its own right, it serves as a portal into the topic of treatment and interpretation of infrared (soft and collinear) divergences in applications of quantum field theory to collider physics. These divergences are behind many of the most challenging issues in the field, from both conceptual and technical standpoints.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(290,75)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-45)
\Line(1,109)(16,98)
\Line(16,98)(31,87)
\Photon(16,98)(38,120){2}{6}
\Line(31,87)(1,65)
\Photon(31,87)(76,87){2}{6}
\Vertex(16,98){2}
\Line(76,87)(106,109)
\Line(106,65)(76,87)
\Vertex(31,87){2}
\Vertex(76,87){2}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(40,120)[cl]{$\gamma$}
\Text(108,109)[cl]{$\mu^-$}
\Text(108,65)[cl]{$\mu^+$}
\Text(54,100)[tc]{$\gamma/Z$}
\Text(54,54)[cc]{(a)}
\Line(151,109)(181,87)
\Photon(166,76)(188,54){2}{6}
\Line(166,76)(181,87)
\Line(166,76)(151,65)
\Photon(181,87)(226,87){2}{6}
\Vertex(166,76){2}
\Line(226,87)(256,109)
\Line(256,65)(226,87)
\Vertex(181,87){2}
\Vertex(226,87){2}
\Text(204,54)[cc]{(b)}
\end{picture}
\begin{picture}(290,75)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-45)
\Line(1,109)(31,87)
\Line(31,87)(1,65)
\Photon(31,87)(76,87){2}{6}
\Vertex(91,98){2}
\Line(76,87)(91,98)
\Line(91,98)(106,109)
\Photon(91,98)(121,98){2}{6}
\Line(106,65)(76,87)
\Vertex(31,87){2}
\Vertex(76,87){2}
\Text(54,54)[cc]{(c)}
\Line(151,109)(181,87)
\Photon(241,76)(271,76){2}{6}
\Line(151,65)(181,87)
\Photon(181,87)(226,87){2}{6}
\Vertex(241,76){2}
\Line(226,87)(256,109)
\Line(256,65)(226,87)
\Vertex(181,87){2}
\Vertex(226,87){2}
\Text(204,54)[cc]{(d)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Leading-order (tree-level) Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-\gamma$. Diagrams (a) and (b) describe initial-state radiation (ISR), while (c) and (d) describe final-state radiation (FSR).}
\label{fig:ISRmu}
\end{figure}
Consider a simple extension of the muon pair-production process: the reaction in Fig.~\ref{fig:ISRmu}, $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-\gamma$. We will first focus on initial-state radiation (ISR), described by diagrams (a) and (b); we will consider diagrams (c) and (d), describing the final-state radiation (FSR), in Section~2.3. Naively, this process should be much more rare than the muon pair-production:
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{2\to3} \sim \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\sigma_{2\to 2} \sim \frac{1}{300}\sigma_{2\to 2}\,.
\eeq{mmgamma_naive}
However, this estimate is missing an important point. Consider, for example, the diagram~\ref{fig:ISRmu} (a). The matrix element is proportional to the electron propagator:
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}_{2\to3} \propto \frac{1}{(p_A-p_\gamma)^2-m_e^2} = \frac{1}{-2p_A \cdot p_\gamma}\,.
\eeq{M3}
Neglecting the electron mass, the electron and photon four-momenta can be written as
\begin{equation}
p_A = (E,0,0,E);~~~p_\gamma = (zE,{\bf p}_\perp, \sqrt{z^2E^2 - {\bf p}_\perp^2})\,,
\eeq{4momenta}
where we introduced the photon energy fraction $z=E_\gamma/E$ and the {\it transverse momentum} ${\bf p}_\perp$. Then,
\begin{equation}
p_A \cdot p_\gamma = zE^2 \left( 1-\sqrt{1-\frac{{\bf p}_\perp^2}{z^2E^2}}\right)\,.
\eeq{dotprod}
There are two limits in which the dot product vanishes, so that the matrix element in Eq.~\leqn{M3} blows up:
\begin{eqnarray}
p_A \cdot p_\gamma \to 0~~{\rm when}~& & z \to 0~~~{\rm ``soft ~singularity"}\,, \nonumber \\
{\rm or}~& & \frac{{\bf p}_\perp}{z} \to 0~~~{\rm ``collinear~singularity"}\,.
\eeqa{singularities}
There is also a double-singular region where both conditions are satisfied.
What is the meaning of these singularities? First, we should note that both are artifacts of approximations we have made: the collinear singularity is in fact removed by including the mass of the electron,
while the soft divergence in the tree-level diagram cancels an infinity encountered in the one-loop correction to the QED vertex function. So, the full theory gives finite answers. Still, the apparent divergence does have physical meaning: it signals a large enhancement in the probability of emission of soft and collinear photons, above the naive perturbative expectation of Eq.~\leqn{mmgamma_naive}. This enhancement is even more pronounced in the case of gluon emission in QCD, where the coupling constant is larger. Understanding this effect quantitatively is crucial for making successful predictions.
In an experiment, very soft and very collinear ISR photons are unobservable. Photons emerging at a small angle to the beam line do not get detected, since even the most hermetic detectors must have small holes around the beam line to let the beams in. Soft photons leave very small energy deposits in the calorimeter, which are drowned by noise, e.g. from thermal effects in readout electronics. Thus, experimental conditions set minimal values of energy and angle for which the photon is registered. To simplify the discussion, let us assume that a photon must have a minimal transverse momentum $Q$ to get detected. In other words, if $p_\perp>Q$, we register the event as a $2\to 3$ reaction, whereas if $p_\perp<Q$, the photon is not observed and the event gets recorded as an ordinary $2\to 2$ muon pair-production. The ``observable" $2\to3$ cross section defined in this way is automatically finite; the soft and collinear singularities are hidden in the correction to the $2\to2$ cross section. Let us estimate this correction, focusing for concreteness on the collinear singularity.
The matrix element corresponding to the diagram~\ref{fig:ISRmu} (a) has the form
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}_{2\to3} \,=\, \bar{v}_B \gamma^\mu \frac{i(\sl{p}_A-\sl{p}_\gamma )}{-2p_A\cdot p_\gamma}\,\cdot(-ie\gamma^\alpha)\,u_A\,\epsilon^a_\alpha(p_\gamma) \times \left[ \ldots \right]\,,
\eeq{M3_full}
where the dots in square brackets denote ``the rest of the diagram" (in this case, the photon propagator and the muon Dirac string; however, as we're about to show, the ISR calculation is independent of the particular structure of those terms). In the small-$p_\perp$ limit, $p_\gamma\approx z p_A$ up to terms linear in $p_\perp$. The momentum flowing through the electron propagator is then $p_A-p_\gamma \approx (1-z) p_A$, so that $(p_A-p_\gamma)^2\approx 0$ -- the electron propagator is nearly on-shell! This suggests replacing the numerator of the propagator with a spin sum:
\begin{equation}
\sl{p}_A-\sl{p}_\gamma \approx \sum_s u^s\left((1-z)p_A\right) \bar{u}^s\left((1-z)p_A\right).
\eeq{spinsum}
The matrix element becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal M}_{2\to3} &\approx& \bar{v}_B \gamma^\mu \frac{\sum_s u^s\left((1-z)p_A\right) \bar{u}^s\left((1-z)p_A\right)}{-2(p_\perp^2/2z)}\,\cdot(e\gamma^\alpha)\,u_A\,\epsilon^a_\alpha(p_\gamma) \times \left[ \ldots \right]\,\nonumber \\ &=& -\frac{z}{p_\perp^2}\,\cdot\sum_s
\Bigl[ e\,\bar{u}^s\left((1-z)p_A\right) \gamma^\alpha u_A \epsilon^a_\alpha(p_\gamma) \Bigr] \cdot \Bigl[ \bar{v}_B \gamma^\mu u^s\left((1-z)p_A\right) \Bigr] \times \left[\ldots \right] \nonumber \\
&=& -\frac{z}{p_\perp^2}\,\cdot\sum_s {\cal S}^{s,a}_{e^-\to e^-\gamma}(z)\cdot {\cal M}^s_{2\to 2}\left((1-z)p_A, p_B\to p_1,p_2\right)\,,
\eeqa{M3_expand}
where we defined the {\it splitting amplitude}
\begin{equation}
{\cal S}^{s,a}_{e^-\to e^-\gamma}(z)\,=\,e \bar{u}^s(p_A(1-z))\gamma^\alpha u_A \epsilon^a_\alpha(p_\gamma)\,.
\eeq{split}
The $2\to 3$ matrix element is a product of the splitting amplitude, which describes collinear photon emission, and the $2\to 2$ matrix element, describing muon pair-production in the electron-positron collision, with the electron energy reduced by photon emission. This behavior of the matrix element is called {\it factorization}. It is clear from the derivation that the splitting amplitude is {\it universal}: it does not depend on what particular reaction the electron enters after the photon has been emitted. The derivation can also be easily generalized to include soft photons. Factorization of matrix elements in soft and collinear limits is a general property of QED. It holds even in processes where a photon can be emitted off virtual particles in addition to external legs, since the diagrams with photon radiation off internal propagators are non-singular in the collinear and soft regimes, and their contributions are subleading.
Physically, factorization occurs because the soft/collinear photon emission and the $2\to2$ scattering process involve different length scales. Collinear photon emission typically occurs at a distance of order $m_e^{-1}$ from the interaction point, while the $2\to 2$ scattering process involves fluctuations of fields at a much shorter scale of order $1/\sqrt{s}$. The separation of scales suppresses quantum interference between the two, so they can in fact be considered as independent, sequential events, and total probability (proportional to the cross section) is simply a product of two probabilities. We will see other examples of such factorization later in these lectures.
Returning to our derivation, it can be easily shown that collinear photon emission does not change the electron's helicity. The splitting amplitudes are only non-vanishing when $s=h$, where $h$ is the helicity of the incoming electron:
\begin{equation}
{\cal M}_{2\to3} \approx -\frac{z}{p_\perp^2}\,\cdot {\cal S}^{h,a}_{e^-\to e^-\gamma}(z)\cdot {\cal M}^h_{2\to 2}\left((1-z)p_A, p_B\to p_1,p_2\right)\,.
\eeq{M3_final}
Plugging this form into the master formula for the differential cross section, Eq.~\leqn{master}, yields
\begin{eqnarray}
d\sigma_{2\to3} &\approx& \frac{1}{2s}\,d\Pi_\gamma\,\left(\frac{z}{p_\perp^2}\right)^2\,\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{h,a} \left|{\cal S}^{h,a}(z)\right|^2\,\nonumber \\ &\times& d\Pi_1 d\Pi_2
\left| {\cal M}^h_{2\to 2}\left((1-z)p_A, p_B\to p_1,p_2\right)\right|^2 \,\cdot \delta^{(4)} (p_A+p_B-p_\gamma-p_1-p_2)\,,
\eeqa{23xsec}
where we defined
\begin{equation}
d\Pi_i = \frac{d^3p_i}{(2\pi)^3}\frac{1}{2E_i}.
\eeq{Pi_def}
It is straightforward to show that
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{2}
\sum_{a} \left|{\cal S}^{h,a}(z)\right|^2 = \frac{2e^2 p_\perp^2}{z(1-z)}\,\Bigl[ \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z} \Bigr]\,,
\eeq{Ssum}
independent of $h$.
\vskip.3cm
\noindent {\bf Homework Problem 2:} Derive the formula~\leqn{Ssum}.
\vskip.3cm
\noindent Using this result, Eq.~\leqn{23xsec} can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
d\sigma_{2\to3} &\approx& d\Pi_\gamma\,\left(\frac{2e^2}{p_\perp^2}\right)\,\left[ 1 + (1-z)^2 \right]
\nonumber \\ \times
\frac{1}{2s(1-z)} & & \hskip-0.3cm \sum_{h} d\Pi_1 d\Pi_2\left| {\cal M}^h_{2\to 2}\left((1-z)p_A, p_B\to p_1,p_2\right)\right|^2 \delta^{(4)} ((1-z) p_A+p_B-p_1-p_2)\,.
\eeqa{23xsec1}
The second line of this equation is precisely the differential cross section for $2\rightarrow 2$ scattering (in our example, $e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-$) at a reduced center-of-mass energy $\sqrt{(1-z)s}$. Thus, we can simply write
\begin{equation}
d\sigma_{2\to3} \approx d\Pi_\gamma\,\left(\frac{2e^2}{p_\perp^2}\right)\,\left[ 1 + (1-z)^2 \right]
\,\cdot d\sigma^{\rm LO}_{2\to2}\left( (1-z)s\right)\,,
\eeq{23xsec2}
where the superscript ``LO" serves as a reminder that this cross section is computed at tree level, or leading order in perturbation theory.
Factorization, which was previously shown at the level of matrix elements, persists at the cross section level: The cross section is a product of the cross section
for the reaction with no ISR photon, but at an energy reduced by the photon emission, and a universal factor describing the photon emission. Let us now work out this factor. In the collinear limit, the photon phase space element is
\begin{equation}
d\Pi_\gamma \,=\, \frac{d^3p_\gamma}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{1}{2E_\gamma}\,=\,
\frac{d^2p_\perp\cdot d(zE_A)}{(2\pi)^3}\,\frac{1}{2zE_A}\,=\,\frac{p_\perp dp_\perp}{8\pi^2}\,\frac{dz}{z}\,,
\eeq{phase_space}
so that
\begin{equation}
d\sigma_{2\to3} \,\approx \,\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\,\frac{dp_\perp}{p_\perp}\,dz\,\left[ \frac{1 + (1-z)^2}{z} \right]
\,\cdot d\sigma^{\rm LO}_{2\to2}\left( (1-z)s\right)\,.
\eeq{23xsec3}
To compute the correction to the observed $2\to2$ reaction rate, we need to integrate over the part of the phase space where the photon is unobservable, namely, $p_\perp\in [0, Q]$. This integral is logarithmically divergent at the low end. As already mentioned, this divergence in QED is not physical, but is due to the fact that we've set the electron mass to zero
throughout the calculation. Restoring this mass is equivalent\footnote{The equivalence works in the limit $Q\gg m_e$; that is, the formula~\leqn{WW} captures the leading (logarithmic) behavior in this limit, but not the subleading corrections.} to imposing a lower cutoff of $m_e$ on the $p_\perp$ integral in~\leqn{23xsec3}, which regulates the divergence:
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma^{\rm ISR}_{2\to3}}{dz} \,\approx \,\frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\,\left[ \frac{1 + (1-z)^2}{z} \right] \,\log\frac{Q}{m_e}
\,\cdot d\sigma^{\rm LO}_{2\to2}\left( (1-z)s\right)\,.
\eeq{WW}
This formula has a simple physical interpretation. A supposedly monochromatic beam of electrons of energy $E=\sqrt{s}/2$ in fact contains electrons that lost some of their energy due to ISR, but were not deflected since the emitted photon was collinear, and so may collide with the positrons and initiate reactions such as muon pair-production.
The probability of finding an electron carrying energy between $xE$ and $(x+dx)E$, where $x\in[0,1)$, can be read off from Eq.~\leqn{WW}: since $x=1-z$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
f_e(x)dx = \frac{\alpha}{2\pi}\,\left[ \frac{1 + x^2}{1-x} \right] \,\log\frac{Q}{m_e}\,dx\,.
\eeq{fe}
Of course, the total probability of emitting an ISR photon is less than one, so $f_e(x)$ must also contain a term proportional to $\delta(1-x)$.
In addition, since the collinear ISR photons travel in essentially the same direction as the original electron, they may also collide with the positrons (initiating, for example, a Compton scattering process $\gamma+e^+ \to
\gamma + e^+$), so it is quite reasonable to consider them a part of the beam as well.
The probability of finding a photon with energy between $zE$ and $(z+dz)E$ is given by
\begin{equation}
f_\gamma(z) = f_e (1-z).
\eeq{fgamma}
Since both electron and positron beam contain photons, there is even a possibility of a photon-photon collision: Fig.~\ref{fig:ggmumu} shows the cross section for $\gamma\gamma\to\mu^+\mu^-$, measured by the L3 collaboration at LEP.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=L3_ggmumu.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Comparison of data from the L3 experiment at LEP-2 (points) and theoretical prediction (solid line) for the cross section of $\gamma\gamma\to\mu^+\mu^-$ as a function of $\gamma\gamma$ center-of-mass energy. From Ref.~\cite{L3_ggmumu}.}
\label{fig:ggmumu}
\end{figure}
The functions $f_e$ and $f_\gamma$ describe the composition of the electron, in a way similar to how the parton distribution functions (pdf's) of the parton model describe the composition of the nucleon (more on pdf's in Lecture~\ref{sec:hadrons}). When ISR is included, an ``electron beam" in fact consists of electrons and photons. The probabilities of finding electrons and photons in the beam depend on $Q$: This should not be surprising, since $Q$ sets the boundary in $p_T$ below which the ISR photons would not be observed and so are included in the beam. In particular, if all photons were observed, corresponding to $Q= m_e$, we would get $f_e=\delta(1-x)$, $f_\gamma=0$, consistent with the naive picture of the beam.
The distribution $f_e(x,Q)$ is singular when $x\to 1$, while $f_\gamma(z,Q)$ blows up when $z\to 0$. This is the region where the collinear ISR photons are also soft, {\it i.e.} overlapping soft and collinear divergence. As I already mentioned, this divergence is canceled when next-to-leading order (NLO) contribution to the $2\to 2$ cross section, containing the interference term between the tree-level and one-loop matrix elements, is taken into account. A convenient way to see this cancellation is to introduce a fictitious photon mass $\mu$, which regulates the $z\to 0$ divergence in~\leqn{23xsec3} in the same way as the electron mass regulates the $p_\perp\to 0$ singularity. The NLO contribution to the $2\to 2$ cross section also has logarithmic dependence on $\mu$, coming from an infrared singularity in the one-loop correction to the matrix element which is regulated by the photon mass. The dependence on $\mu$ cancels in the sum of ISR and NLO cross sections, giving a finite and well-defined answer for $f_e$ and $f_\gamma$. However, the probability of emitting a single soft photon is typically not small, indicating that processes with emission of {\it multiple} soft photons are important.\footnote{This is another example of a breakdown in perturbation theory in a particular region in phase space, similar to its breakdown in the neighborhood of an $s$-channel resonance discussed above.} The reason for this is that while formally each extra photon in the final state costs a factor of $\alpha/\pi \sim 1/300$ in the cross section, in reality collinear photon emission is only suppressed by
$(\alpha/\pi)\log(Q/m_e)$, with an additional logarithmic enhancement in the soft-collinear double-singular region. The logarithmic factors can be large, slowing down the convergence of the perturbation theory.
To obtain accurate predictions, terms of higher order in $\alpha$ must be included, at least those containing the highest power of the large logarithms possible at each order. Luckily, this problem turns out to be tractable. To all orders in $\alpha$, leading-logarithm accuracy, the distribution functions obey a system of integro-differential equations known as {\it Gribov-Lipatov (GL) equations}. For example,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial f_\gamma(x,Q)}{\partial\log Q}\,=\,\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\,
\int_x^1 \,\frac{dz}{z} \,\left[ P_{e\to\gamma}(z) \left( f_{e^-}\left(\frac{x}{z},Q\right) + f_{e^+}\left(\frac{x}{z},Q\right)\right)
+ P_{\gamma\to\gamma}(z) f_\gamma\left(\frac{x}{z},Q\right)\right]\,,
\eeq{GL}
where $f_{e^+}$ is the positron distribution function. (Positrons must be present in the ``electron beam" due to processes such as $e^-\to e^-e^-e^+$, which appear beyond the leading order in perturbation theory.) The {\it splitting functions} are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{e\to\gamma} &=& \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z}\,,\nonumber \\
P_{\gamma\to\gamma} &=& -\frac{2}{3}\,\delta(1-z)\,.
\eeqa{Ps}
Note that $P_{e\to\gamma}$ is essentially the leading-order ISR photon emission probability computed above, while $P_{\gamma\to\gamma}$ is proportional to a delta function, reflecting the impossibility of a photon splitting into a photon pair at leading order in QED. (The photon can, however, split into an $e^+e^-$ pair, hence the coefficient of the delta function is not unity.) The physical meaning of this equation is as follows: if we shift $Q\to Q+\delta Q$, the photons with $p_\perp \in [Q, Q+\delta Q]$ that were previously counted as ``detectable" should now be counted as ``part of the beam" and included in $f_\gamma$. The beam at $Q$ consists of electrons, positrons, and photons; each of these particles, if its energy is above $xE$, can emit an ISR photon with energy $xE$ and
$p_\perp \in [Q, Q+\delta Q]$. The right-hand side of the equation simply sums up the probabilities of such emissions. Solving Eq.~\leqn{GL}, together with the corresponding equations for $f_{e^\pm}$, with the boundary conditions
\begin{equation}
f_{e^-}(x,Q=m_e)=\delta(1-x), f_\gamma(Q=m_e)=f_{e^+}(Q=m_e)=0,
\eeq{BCs}
gives the desired distribution functions. For more details, as well as for a derivation of the GL equations, the interested reader is encouraged to read Section 17.5 of Peskin and Schroeder's textbook~\cite{PS}.
\subsection{Final State Radiation}
\label{sec:FSR}
Final-state radiation diagrams, Fig.~\ref{fig:ISRmu} (c) and (d), can be treated in exactly the same way as the ISR. Again, the cross section is dominated by photons that are either soft or collinear with the muon or antimuon.
One slight difference experimentally is that collinear (but not soft) FSR photons can be observed, so instead of using $p_\perp$ to separate $2\to3$ and $2\to2$ events, we simply assume that the photon gets detected once its energy is above $E_{\rm min}$. Following the same steps as in the derivation of Section~\ref{sec:ISR}, we obtain the total {\it observable} $2\to 3$ cross section:
\begin{equation}
\sigma(\mu^+\mu^-\gamma)\,=\,\frac{\alpha}{\pi}\,\log \frac{s}{E^2_{\rm min}} \,\log\frac{s}{m_\mu^2}\,\cdot\,\sigma^{\rm LO}(\mu^+\mu^-)\,,
\eeq{mmgamma}
where we assumed $\sqrt{s}\gg m_\mu$ and $\sqrt{s}\gg E_{\rm min}$, and ignored terms not enhanced by large logarithms. The factors of $\log \frac{s}{E^2_{\rm min}}$ and $\log\frac{s}{m_\mu^2}$ come from the soft and collinear singularities, respectively; their product is referred to as the {\it Sudakov double logarithm}. To obtain the correction to the observed $2\to 2$ rate, we must combine the contribution from FSR with $E_\gamma<E_{\rm min}$ with the NLO correction to the $2\to 2$ cross section. The result (again in the leading-log approximation) is
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\rm obs}(\mu^+\mu^-)\,=\,\left(1- \frac{\alpha}{\pi}\,\log \frac{s}{E^2_{\rm min}} \,\log\frac{s}{m_\mu^2}\right)\,\cdot\,\sigma^{\rm LO}(\mu^+\mu^-)\,.
\eeq{mmnogamma}
Notice that, up to terms with no large logarithms, $\sigma^{\rm obs}(\mu^+\mu^-)+\sigma(\mu^+\mu^-\gamma)=
\sigma^{\rm LO}(\mu^+\mu^-)$. This result is independent of $E_{\rm min}$. This observation will play an important role when FSR in QCD (gluon radiation off quarks) is considered below.
\subsection{Hadronic Final States}
\label{sec:ee_hadrons}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(100,70)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-50)
\ArrowLine(1,109)(31,87)
\ArrowLine(31,87)(1,65)
\Photon(31,87)(76,87){2}{6}
\ArrowLine(76,87)(106,109)
\ArrowLine(106,65)(76,87)
\Vertex(31,87){2}
\Vertex(76,87){2}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(108,109)[cl]{$q$}
\Text(108,65)[cl]{$\bar{q}$}
\Text(54,100)[tc]{$\gamma/Z$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Leading-order (tree-level) Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $e^+e^-\to q\bar{q}$.}
\label{fig:qqbar}
\end{figure}
Since quarks are electrically charged and couple to the $Z$, quark-antiquark pairs can be produced in $e^+e^-$ collisions in the same way as muon pairs, see Fig.~\ref{fig:qqbar}. A qualitatively new feature in this case is that the quarks themselves are not observed: they turn into color-neutral hadrons, which are then detected by the tracker (if electrically charged) and the hadronic calorimeter. A complete theoretical description of the scattering process must include a model of {\it quark hadronization}. Since hadronization is inherently non-perturbative, involving momentum transfers comparable to the QCD confinement scale $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim 200$ MeV, it is very challenging to analyze this part of the reaction from first principles, and in fact all existing approaches rely on phenomenological models. It is hard to quantify their accuracy. In general, the most useful theoretical predictions involving hadrons are those that are least dependent on the details of hadronization. This typically involves sums or averages over a large class of final states. Observables involving such sums are often referred to as {\it inclusive}, while those where a particular final state is specified are called {\it exclusive}. An extreme example of a fully inclusive observable is the total $e^+e^-\to$~hadrons rate considered below: At collision energies large compared to $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ (which we will assume throughout this section), it can be predicted, up to corrections suppressed by powers of $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/\sqrt{s}$, with no recourse to a hadronization model. On the other extreme are fully exclusive quantities, e.g. $\sigma(e^+e^-\to 2\pi+2K+3\rho)$, which can only be calculated within a hardonization model. Trustworthy quantitative predictions for such observables are currently out of reach. Luckily, there exists a large class of useful observables that are sufficiently inclusive to allow for precise predictions, and at the same time carry much more information than the total hadronic rate. We will consider an example in Section~\ref{sec:jets}.
\subsubsection{$e^+e^-\to$ Hadrons}
\label{sec:R}
The simplest inclusive observable is the {\it total hadronic} cross section, $\sigma(e^+e^-\to$~hadrons$)$. If collision energy is well above $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, it is reasonable to assume that there is no quantum interference between the short-distance process of quark pair creation (characteristic length scale $1/\sqrt{s}$), and the long-distance
hadronization process (typical scale $\sim\Lambda^{-1}_{\rm QCD}$)\footnote{This is another example of factorization due to separation of scales, see comments under Eq.~\leqn{split}.}. In other words,
\begin{equation}
\sigma(e^+e^-\to{\rm~hadrons}) \,=\,\sigma(e^+e^-\to q\bar{q})\times~{\rm Prob}~(q\bar{q}\to {\rm~hadrons}) \,,
\eeq{voila}
up to corrections of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/\sqrt{s}$ and $\alpha_s$.
Since each quark must hadronize in one way or another, the probability factor is equal to unity. A simple calculation then gives (for collision energies well below $m_Z$)
\begin{equation}
\sigma(e^+e^-\to{\rm~hadrons}) \,=\, 3\,\cdot \sum_q Q_q^2 \cdot \sigma(e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-)\,,
\eeq{hadrons}
where $Q_q$ are the quarks' electric charges, and only quarks with $m_q\ll \sqrt{s}$ should be included in the sum. (In threshold regions, $\sqrt{s}\approx 2m_q$, the cross section behavior is somewhat more complicated due to quark mass effects and the presence of bound states.)
It is customary to present experimental data on this process in terms of a dimensionless ratio
\begin{equation}
R = \frac{\sigma(e^+e^-\to{\rm~hadrons})}{\sigma(e^+e^-\to \mu^+\mu^-)}\,.
\eeq{R}
At energies well below the $Z$ peak, and away from thresholds, the formula~\leqn{hadrons} is in excellent agreement with experiment, see Fig.~\ref{fig:R}. This gives firm support for the parton model and the factorization assumption. The calculation can be easily extended to include $Z$ exchanges. This result is in good agreement with data up to the highest energies reached at LEP-2, see Fig.~\ref{fig:R_PDG}. Radiative corrections must be included to match the high experimental precision available for $\sqrt{s}\approx M_Z$ (see section~\ref{sec:jets}).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=rr.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Total hadronic $e^+e^-$ scattering cross section, normalized to $\sigma(e^+e^-\to\mu^+\mu^-)$, as a function of center-of-mass energy, at energies well below the $Z$ peak. The solid blue line is the SM prediction. From Ref.~\cite{Rhadron}.}
\label{fig:R}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=Rhadron_PDG.eps,width=12cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Total hadronic $e^+e^-$ scattering cross section as a function of center-of-mass energy, at all currently available energies. Adopted from the Particle Data Group~\cite{PDG}.}
\label{fig:R_PDG}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Hadronization}
\label{sec:string}
To predict cross sections for specific hadronic final states (e.g. $\pi^+\pi^-$ or $K^+K^-\pi^0\pi^0$), one must model the hadronization process. In practice, this is done by using a {\it Monte Carlo (MC) generator}, a computer program implementing one of the available phenomenological hadronization models. Popular hadronization models include the {\it string fragmentation} model, implemented in {\tt PYTHIA}~\cite{pythia}, and the {\it cluster hadronization} model, implemented in {\tt HERWIG}~\cite{herwig}. The models are quite complicated, and contain a large number of free parameters that must be fitted to data. A detailed description of hadronization is beyond the scope of these lectures. Still, just to give a flavor of the physics involved, let me briefly consider the basic picture behind the string fragmentation model.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(450,80)(0,0)
\SetOffset(70,-40)
\Vertex(-20,90){8}
\Vertex(80,90){8}
\Gluon(-15,90)(75,90){4}{8}
\Gluon(-15,93)(75,93){4}{8}
\Gluon(-15,87)(75,87){4}{8}
\Gluon(-15,84)(75,84){4}{8}
\LongArrow(-20,90)(-60,90)
\LongArrow(80,90)(120,90)
\Text(-20,78)[tc]{$q$}
\Text(80,78)[tc]{$\bar{q}$}
\Text(30,55)[tc]{(a)}
\Vertex(200,90){8}
\BCirc(258,90){8}
\Gluon(205,90)(250,90){4}{4}
\Gluon(205,93)(252,93){4}{4}
\Gluon(205,87)(252,87){4}{4}
\Gluon(205,84)(253,84){4}{4}
\LongArrow(200,90)(160,90)
\LongArrow(258,90)(248,110)
\Text(200,78)[tc]{$q$}
\Text(258,78)[tc]{$\bar{q}$}
\Vertex(336,90){8}
\BCirc(278,90){8}
\Gluon(286,90)(331,90){4}{4}
\Gluon(284,93)(331,93){4}{4}
\Gluon(284,87)(331,87){4}{4}
\Gluon(283,84)(331,84){4}{4}
\LongArrow(336,90)(376,90)
\LongArrow(278,90)(288,70)
\Text(336,78)[tc]{$\bar{q}$}
\Text(278,78)[tc]{$q$}
\Text(268,55)[tc]{(b)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{String fragmentation model of hadronization. (a): Quark-antiquark pair, connected by a color flux tube, immediately after the collision. (b): After the first string breakdown. Filled circles denote primary partons, while open circles denote secondary partons. Primary parton momenta are $\sqrt{s}$, while the typical secondary parton momenta are of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\ll \sqrt{s}$.}
\label{fig:string}
\end{figure}
Consider a quark-antiquark pair created in an $e^+e^-$ collision. Let us refer to these $q$ and $\bar{q}$ as ``primary partons".
To hadronize, the primary quark must form a bound state with an antiquark; however, the primary partons are rapidly moving away from each other. Their invariant mass $\sqrt{s}$ is large compared to the binding energy $\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, so they typically do not bind. Instead, quark hadronization proceeds by a spontaneous creation of new ``secondary" quark-antiquark pair(s) from the vacuum, and formation of bound states between the primary quark and a secondary anti-quark. The spontaneous pair-creation process is possible because the primary partons create color (gluon) field in the surrounding space; it is this field that supplies the needed energy. Color field lines originate at the quark and end on the antiquark. In the string model, the color field immediately after the collision is modeled as a {\it color flux tube}, or string, connecting the primary partons: see Fig.~\ref{fig:string}. The string tension is of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2 \sim 1$~GeV/fm, and its width is of order $\Lambda^{-1}_{\rm QCD}$, corresponding to typical transverse momenta $\sim\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$. As the primary partons move apart after the collision, the string between them is stretched, and at some point it breaks down. A secondary $q\bar{q}$ pair is spontaneously created at the breakdown point, so that the original string splits into two string fragments. The secondary pair has typical momentum (both along and transverse to the string) of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, so that the invariant mass of each string fragment after the breakdown is of order $\sqrt{E_q \Lambda_{\rm QCD}}\sim s^{1/4}\Lambda^{1/2}_{\rm QCD}\ll \sqrt{s}$. Each string fragment then breaks down again, further reducing the invariant mass. The process is iterated until the invariant mass of all fragments is about 1 GeV. At this point, each string fragment is associated with a meson. The probabilities for a string to turn into a particular meson are phenomenological parameters, to be fitted to data. A similar, though a bit more complicated, picture is used to describe baryon formation.
It is clear that the above model is heuristic, and a large number of input parameters is needed: string tension, breakdown probability, secondary pair momentum distributions, relative probabilities of nucleating $u\bar{u}$, $d\bar{d}$ and $s\bar{s}$ pairs, {\it etc.} A reasonable agreement with data can be reached by adjusting these parameters; however, it is difficult to quantify how uncertain the model predictions really are, especially for highly-exclusive observables.
\subsubsection{$e^+e^-\to$ Jets}
\label{sec:jets}
Since secondary quarks and antiquarks have typical momenta of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\ll \sqrt{s}$, most of the momentum carried by the hadrons is due to the primary partons. This can be seen explicitly in the string model outlined above, but is in fact independent of the details of the hadronization model. The hadrons come out in two collimated {\it jets}, one approximately collinear with the quark and the other with the antiquark. (Experimentally, a ``jet-finding algorithm" is used to find clusters of approximately collinear hadrons in the event and identify them as jets, and the precise definition of a jet depends somewhat on the details of this algorithm.) The sum of the four-momenta of all hadrons in each jet is equal to the momentum of the corresponding primary parton. Corrections to this expectation, and the opening angle of each jet, are of order\footnote{This estimate applies only to effects of hadronization. As we will see below, there are additional corrections from higher-order perturbative QCD; however, these are still small, and in addition are (at least in principle) fully calculable.} $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}/\sqrt{s}$. While these corrections depend on the hadronization model, they are small. Ignoring them, jet production cross sections and kinematic distributions are identical to those of the primary partons, which can be calculated within perturbation theory. These cross sections and distributions provide a wide class of observables that can be used to test the SM.
As an example, consider the angular distributions of jets produced in $e^+e^-\to q\bar{q}$. The differential cross section $d\sigma/d\cos\theta$ can be easily computed: at tree level, it has the same form as the muon cross section in Eq.~\leqn{Zxsec}, but with
\begin{eqnarray}
g_L^u &=& \frac{e}{c_ws_w}\left(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{2}{3}s_w^2 \right),~~~g_R^u \,=\, -\frac{2}{3}\frac{es_w}{c_w}\,;\nonumber \\
g_L^d &=& \frac{e}{c_ws_w}\left(-\frac{1}{2}+\frac{1}{3}s_w^2\right),~~~g_R^d \,=\, +\frac{1}{3}\frac{es_w}{c_w}\,,
\eeqa{quark_gs}
where the superscript refers to up-type and down-type quarks. Comparing this prediction with data
at the $Z$ resonance could be used to test the SM prediction for quark couplings to the $Z$ boson, in the same way as the measurement of the muon forward-backward asymmetry discussed in Section~\ref{sec:eemumu} tests the muon couplings. However, there is an additional complication: Jets originated by $u, d, s$ quarks {\it and} their antiparticles are indistinguishable experimentally, since it is impossible to determine which of the partons making up the hadrons in a given jet was the primary. This ambiguity completely washes out the forward-backward asymmetry, which has opposite sign for particles and antiparticles. The situation is better if the primary is a heavy quark, $c$ or $b$: since the probability to nucleate heavy quark pairs from the vacuum is very small, the jet typically contains just a single heavy quark. This heavy quark can be detected
using the fact that it travels a small but macroscopic distance before decaying ($c\tau\approx 500~\mu$m for $b$, $100-300~\mu$m for $c$), producing a secondary vertex in the inner tracker detector. If the decay is semileptonic, the charged lepton inside the jet can serve as an additional signature. A combination of these techniques is known as {\it flavor-tagging}: For example, a jet with an identified $b$ quark is said to be ``b-tagged". In addition, the charge of the lepton from a semileptonic decay can be used to infer the charge of the heavy quark (e.g. $b\to \ell^-$ vs. $\bar{b}\to \ell^+$; make sure you understand why!), giving a ``charge tag". This allowed for a direct measurement of
the forward-backward asymmetry in $e^+e^-\to b\bar{b}$ at LEP-2 and SLC. The result is $A_{\rm FB}^b = 0.0992\pm 0.0016$, about 2.5 standard deviation below the SM prediction. This is the largest deviation from the SM among precision electroweak observables, although not large enough to be taken seriously as an indication of new physics.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(300,80)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-40)
\Line(1,109)(31,87)
\Line(31,87)(1,65)
\Photon(31,87)(76,87){2}{6}
\Vertex(91,98){2}
\Line(76,87)(91,98)
\Line(91,98)(106,109)
\Gluon(91,98)(121,98){2}{6}
\Line(106,65)(76,87)
\Vertex(31,87){2}
\Vertex(76,87){2}
\Text(123,98)[cl]{$g$}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(108,109)[cl]{$q$}
\Text(108,65)[cl]{$\bar{q}$}
\Text(54,54)[cc]{(a)}
\Line(151,109)(181,87)
\Gluon(241,76)(271,76){2}{6}
\Line(151,65)(181,87)
\Photon(181,87)(226,87){2}{6}
\Vertex(241,76){2}
\Line(226,87)(256,109)
\Line(256,65)(226,87)
\Vertex(181,87){2}
\Vertex(226,87){2}
\Text(204,54)[cc]{(b)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Feynman diagrams contributing to the process $e^+e^-\to q\bar{q}g$ at the tree level.}
\label{fig:3jets}
\end{figure}
At leading order in the QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s$, all hadronic events in $e^+e^-$ collisions result in two jets. At the next-to-leading order, an additional gluon can be emitted, see Fig.~\ref{fig:3jets}.
While formally suppressed by $\alpha_s/\pi\sim 1/30$, this process is enhanced by singularities for soft and collinear gluon emission, analogous to those encountered in the photon FSR analysis of Sec.~\ref{sec:FSR}.
The emitted gluon hadronizes, creating an additional jet. The experimental signature of this jet depends on its direction. If the gluon is approximately collinear with the (anti-)quark, the jet-finding algorithm will merge the hadrons originating from the (anti-)quark and the gluon into a single jet, identifying the final state as 2-jet. If the gluon is emitted at a large angle, the extra jet will be reconstructed separately, resulting in a 3-jet event. Thus the 2-jet and 3-jet rates depend strongly on the details of the jet-finding algorithm, and the value of parameters used to define a jet.
However, just as in the case of photon FSR, the {\it sum} of the two rates is completely independent of these details. A complete NLO-QCD calculation gives\footnote{A reader interested in the derivation of this formula is encouraged to work through the Final Project at the end of Part I of Peskin and Schroeder's textbook~\cite{PS}.}
\begin{equation}
\sigma^{\rm NLO}(e^+e^-\to\geq2~{\rm jets})\,=\,\sigma^{\rm LO}(e^+e^-\to q\bar{q})\,\cdot\,\left[ 1\,+\,\frac{3\alpha_s}{4\pi}\right]\,.
\eeq{2plus3jet}
Comparing this result with the cross section at the $Z$ resonance precisely measured by LEP experiments yields one of the most precise determinations of the QCD coupling constant: $\alpha_s(M_Z)=0.123\pm 0.004$.
Numerically large value of $\alpha_s$ and collinear enhancement mean that most jets contain multiple collinear gluons in addition to the primary parton. These gluons can in turn split into $q\bar{q}$ or $gg$ pairs,
which can emit additional gluons {\it etc.} This phenomenon is known as
{\it parton showering}. The internal structure of the jets, {\it i.e.} observables such as the jet opening angle, is dominantly determined by the parton showering, which plays a more important role than hadronization. In addition, depending on the parameters used to define jets, parton showers may contribute significantly to the observed $n$-jet rates for $n>2$. Parton showering can in principle be completely described in terms of perturbative QCD, although resummation of large logarithms to all orders in perturbation theory is necessary. In practice, most phenomenological and experimental analyses rely on the numerical implementation of parton showers in Monte Carlo programs such as {\tt PYTHIA} and {\tt HERWIG}.
\section{Hadron Collisions}
\label{sec:hadrons}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(200,60)(0,0)
\SetOffset(10,-60)
\LongArrow(1,90)(31,90)
\Text(15,94)[bc]{$P_1$}
\Oval(41,90)(20,10)(0)
\ArrowLine(51,90)(91,90)
\Vertex(91,90){4}
\ArrowLine(131,90)(91,90)
\LongArrow(91,90)(81,110)
\LongArrow(91,90)(101,110)
\LongArrow(91,90)(81,70)
\LongArrow(91,90)(101,70)
\Oval(141,90)(20,10)(0)
\LongArrow(181,90)(151,90)
\Text(166,94)[bc]{$P_2$}
\Text(116,94)[bc]{$x_2P_2$}
\Text(66,94)[bc]{$x_1P_1$}
\Text(91,112)[bc]{$Y$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Parton model picture of a hadron-initiated process $p(P_1)+p(P_2)\to Y+X$.}
\label{fig:partons}
\end{figure}
Theoretical analysis of hadron collisions ($pp$ or $p\bar{p}$) proceeds along the same lines as for $e^+e^-$. The main new difficulty is that the initial state consists of composite particles. According to the {\it parton model}, production of final states with total invariant mass large compared to $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$ is initiated by a pair of partons, with the rest of colliding hadrons serving as spectators, as represented graphically in Fig.~\ref{fig:partons}. Quantitatively, for a proton-proton collision, this picture implies that
\begin{equation}
d\sigma(p(P_1)+p(P_2)\to Y+X) \,=\, \int_0^1 dx_1 \, \int_0^1 dx_2
\, \sum_{i_1, i_2} f_{i_1}(x_1) \,f_{i_2}(x_2) d\sigma(i_1(x_1P_1) + i_2(x_2P_2) \to Y)\,.
\eeq{parton_model}
Here, $Y$ denotes the high-invariant-mass final state of interest; $X$ denotes anything else (including the re-hadronized remnants of the colliding protons); $P_1$ and $P_2$ are the momenta of the incoming protons; $x_1$ and $x_2$ are the fractions of those momenta carried by the partons that initiate the reaction; and the sum runs over the types of partons (quark and antiquark flavors and gluons). The functions $f_i(x)$ are the {\it parton distribution functions (pdf's)}; we will discuss them in more detail below. The analogous formula for cross sections in $p\bar{p}$ collision is obtained by replacing $f_{i_2}(x_2) \to \bar{f}_{i_2}(x_2) = f_{\bar{i}_2}(x_2)$, where $\bar{g}=g$ by definition. The parton-level cross section on the right-hand side, $\sigma(i_1(x_1P_1) + i_2(x_2P_2) \to Y)$, is calculated within perturbation theory.
While the center of mass of the colliding hadron pair is at rest in the lab frame, the {\it parton frame}, {\it i.e.} the frame in which the center of mass of the colliding partons is at rest, is moving with respect to the lab frame with velocity
\begin{equation}
\beta\,=\,\frac{x_1-x_2}{x_1+x_2}
\eeq{beta}
along the collision axis. (Note that the parton-level cross section in Eq.~\leqn{parton_model} can always be evaluated in the parton frame, since the differential cross section is invariant with respect to boosts along the collision axis.) Conservation of energy-momentum implies that the invariant mass of the state $Y$ has to be equal to the parton center-of-mass energy, $\sqrt{\hat{s}}$, where
\begin{equation}
\hat{s}=x_1x_2 s\,.
\eeq{shat}
Since $x_1$ and $x_2$ are not the same in each event, but instead are picked from a distribution dictated by the pdf's and cross sections, the values of $\beta$ and $\hat{s}$ in each event are a priori unknown. If the final state $Y$ is fully reconstructed (all particles are detected and their energies and momenta measured), these quantities can be experimentally determined on an event-by-event basis. If, however, $Y$ includes invisible particles (neutrinos in the SM, neutralinos in supersymmetric models, {\rm etc.}), their values in each event remain unknown. This lack of kinematic information complicates the analysis of such final states at a hadron collider.
\subsection{Parton Distribution Functions}
Building qualitative intuition about hadron collisions requires some familiarity with the parton distribution functions. Conceptually, the pdf's are
close cousins of the electron and photon distribution functions in an ``electron beam", encountered in Section~\ref{sec:ISR}. Part of their job is exactly the same: They account for emission of collinear ISR gluons, whose transverse momentum $p_T$ is too small for them to be detected individually, and for further splitting of these gluons into collinear $q\bar{q}$ and $gg$ pairs. Just as in the photon ISR case, these effects depend on the minimal transverse momentum $Q$ for which a gluon (or a quark from gluon splitting) {\it can} be resolved as an additional jet; thus, the pdf's are really functions of two arguments, $x$ and $Q$. The dependence of the pdf's on $Q$ is encoded in the {\it Altarelli-Parisi (AP) equations}, which extend the Gribov-Lipatov equations of Section~\ref{sec:ISR} to QCD. For example, the counterpart of Eq.~\leqn{GL} is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial f_g(x,Q)}{\partial\log Q}\,=\,\frac{\alpha_s}{\pi}\,
\int_x^1 \,\frac{dz}{z} \,\left[ P_{q\to g}(z) \left( f_{q}\left(\frac{x}{z},Q\right) + f_{\bar{q}}\left(\frac{x}{z},Q\right)\right)
+ P_{g\to g}(z) f_\gamma\left(\frac{x}{z},Q\right)\right]\,,
\eeq{AP}
where the QCD coupling constant $\alpha_s$ should be evaluated at the scale $Q$. The splitting functions are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
P_{q\to g} &=& \frac{4}{3}\,\Bigl[ \frac{1+(1-z)^2}{z}\Bigr] \,,\nonumber \\
P_{\gamma\to\gamma} &=& 6 \,\Bigl[ \frac{z}{(1-z)_+} + \frac{1-z}{z} + z(1-z) + \left(\frac{11}{12}-\frac{n_f}{18}\right)\,\delta(1-z) \Bigr]\,,
\eeqa{APsplit}
where $n_f$ is the number of quark flavors with masses $m_q \ll Q$.
(For derivation, as well as definition of the ``+ prescription'' used to regulate the denominator of the first term in $P_{g\to g}$ at $z\to 1$, see Section 17.5 of Peskin and Schroeder~\cite{PS}.)
The physical meaning is the same as for the GL equation, see comments at the end of Section~\ref{sec:ISR}; the only qualitative difference is the possibility of $g\to gg$ splitting at leading order, due to non-Abelian nature of QCD. The key new feature is the boundary conditions at small $Q$. In the case of QED, the conditions~\leqn{BCs} are motivated by the observation that, if all ISR photons were detected, one would simply end up with a monochromatic electron beam. In a hadron collision, though, even if every collinear gluon is detected, one still needs to specify the probabilities of finding various partons in the proton. These cannot be computed within perturbation theory, and at present the only viable approach is to measure them from data. Thus, in applying the parton model, one must first perform a fit to a number of experimental observables which would provide the pdf's, and then use these pdf's to predict other observables. The reason this works
is that the pdf's are universal, that is, independent of the reaction that the partons enter. The proof of this universality follows along the same lines as the collinear factorization proof in Section~\ref{sec:ISR}, although details are considerably more involved.
Which observables should be used to determine pdf's? They should obey three important criteria. Firstly, the set should be broad enough to achieve sensitivity to as many pdf's and in as broad a range of $x$ values as possible ($Q$ values are less of a concern, since evolution in $Q$ is calculable via the AP equations.) Secondly, an accurate theoretical prediction {\it at the parton level} should be available. Observables used in practice are typically known to NLO or NNLO in the QCD coupling constant. Finally, only processes where contamination from new physics beyond the SM is unlikely should be used; ideally, all data included in the fit should be at energies well below the scale where the SM has already been extensively tested and verified.
\begin{table}
\tbl{The main processes included in the MSTW-2008 fit, ordered in three groups: fixed-target experiments, HERA, and the Tevatron. For each process, the table lists dominant partonic subprocesses, the partons whose pdf's are primarily probed, and the $x$ range constrained by the data. From Ref.~\cite{MSTW}.}
{\begin{tabular}{llll}
\hline
\hline
Process & Subprocess & Partons & $x$ range \\ \hline
$\ell^\pm\,\{p,n\}\to\ell^\pm\,X$ & $\gamma^*q\to q$ & $q,\bar{q},g$ & $x\gtrsim 0.01$ \\
$\ell^\pm\,n/p\to\ell^\pm\,X$ & $\gamma^*\,d/u\to d/u$ & $d/u$ & $x\gtrsim 0.01$ \\
$pp\to \mu^+\mu^-\,X$ & $u\bar{u},d\bar{d}\to\gamma^*$ & $\bar{q}$ & $0.015\lesssim x\lesssim 0.35$ \\
$pn/pp\to \mu^+\mu^-\,X$ & $(u\bar{d})/(u\bar{u})\to \gamma^*$ & $\bar{d}/\bar{u}$ & $0.015\lesssim x\lesssim 0.35$ \\
$\nu (\bar{\nu})\,N \to \mu^-(\mu^+)\,X$ & $W^*q\to q^\prime$ & $q,\bar{q}$ & $0.01 \lesssim x \lesssim 0.5$ \\
$\nu\,N \to \mu^-\mu^+\,X$ & $W^*s\to c$ & $s$ & $0.01\lesssim x\lesssim 0.2$ \\
$\bar{\nu}\,N \to \mu^+\mu^-\,X$ & $W^*\bar{s}\to\bar{c}$ & $\bar{s}$ & $0.01\lesssim x\lesssim 0.2$ \\\hline
$e^\pm\,p \to e^\pm\,X$ & $\gamma^*q\to q$ & $g,q,\bar{q}$ & $0.0001\lesssim x\lesssim 0.1$ \\
$e^+\,p \to \bar{\nu}\,X$ & $W^+\,\{d,s\}\to \{u,c\}$ & $d,s$ & $x\gtrsim 0.01$ \\
$e^\pm p\to e^\pm\,c\bar{c}\,X$ & $\gamma^*c\to c$, $\gamma^* g\to c\bar{c}$ & $c$, $g$ & $0.0001\lesssim x\lesssim 0.01$ \\
$e^\pm p\to\text{jet}+X$ & $\gamma^*g\to q\bar{q}$ & $g$ & $0.01\lesssim x\lesssim 0.1$ \\ \hline
$p\bar{p}\to \text{jet}+X$ & $gg,qg,qq\to 2j$ & $g,q$ & $0.01\lesssim x\lesssim 0.5$ \\
$p\bar{p}\to (W^\pm\to\ell^{\pm}\nu)\,X$ & $ud\to W,\bar{u}\bar{d}\to W$ & $u,d,\bar{u},\bar{d}$ & $x\gtrsim 0.05$ \\
$p\bar{p}\to (Z\to\ell^+\ell^-)\,X$ & $uu,dd\to Z$ & $d$ & $x\gtrsim 0.05$
\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular} }
\label{tab:PDF_processes}
\end{table}
As an example, consider the recent MSTW-2008 pdf fit~\cite{MSTW}. The reactions used in the fit, along with the pdf's primarily constrained by each reaction, are listed in Table~\ref{tab:PDF_processes}. Most of the data
comes from {\it deep inelastic scattering} (DIS) experiments, including neutral-current scattering $e p \to e X$ and charged-current reactions $ep \to \nu X$, $\nu p\to \ell X$. The most accurate and complete data set on $ep$ scattering is provided by the experiments at the HERA $ep$ collider. Using DIS data has an important advantage that only one of the reacting particles is composite. A disadvantage is that only some linear combinations of pdf's are determined. For example, there is no direct sensitivity to the gluon pdf, since at tree level leptons do not interact with gluons. Measuring quark pdf's at different $Q$ scales provides an indirect measurement of the gluon pdf via AP evolution equations. This method works quite well at low $x$. The fit includes additional data, such as the Tevatron dijet rate (see Sec.~\ref{sec:ppjet}), to constrain the gluon pdf at high $x$. Large uncertainties remain at $x\stacksymbols{>}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 0.1$, partly because $f_g$ is quite small in that range.
Additional constraints on quark pdf's are provided by the measurements of electroweak gauge boson rapidity distributions at the Tevatron, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:Zrap}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=PDF_all.eps,width=14cm}
\end{center}
\caption{MSTW-2008 pdf's at $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$ and $10^4$ GeV$^2$. The width of the lines indicates the error bars. From Ref.~\cite{MSTW}.}
\label{fig:PDF_all}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:PDF_all} shows the MSTW-2008 pdf's for two values of $Q$: $Q^2=10$ GeV$^2$ and $10^4$ GeV$^2$ (the latter corresponding roughly to $Q=M_Z$, a common choice for describing electroweak processes). Error bars are indicated by the width of the lines; roughly speaking, pdf's can be varied within these bands without spoiling consistency of the fit with the data. A few features of the pdf's are worth remembering for anyone wishing to build qualitative intuition about hadron collider physics. First of all, note that while in the naive quark model
the proton is ``made of" $u$ and $d$ quarks, in reality they only dominate the pdf's at $x\stacksymbols{>}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 0.1$.
(The $u$ and the $d$ do carry all of the proton's electric charge, but the pdf's describe the distribution of {\it momentum}, not charge, among partons.)
For lower $x$, the dominant component of the proton is the gluon, especially in the low-$x$ and high-$Q^2$ regions. (Note that in the figure, the gluon pdf is divided by 10!) This is especially relevant at the LHC, where most collisions with parton center-of-mass energies up to about 1 TeV will be between gluons; for this reason, the LHC is sometimes called a ``gluon collider".
Moreover, below $x\stacksymbols{<}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 0.01$, the pdf's of all light quarks and antiquarks are roughly the same; this is because most of them come from gluon splittings, which are flavor-blind and produce equal number of $q$ and $\bar{q}$. (The strange and charm pdf's are suppressed due to their mass, but the effect is not strong. At $Q\gg m_b$, bottom pdf should be taken into account as well.)
The low-$x$ quarks and antiquarks are often referred to as the ``sea" partons, whereas $u$ and $d$ quarks carrying $x\stacksymbols{>}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 0.01$ are called ``valence quarks". Of course, the distinction between
sea and valence $u$ and $d$ quarks is not precise, so these terms can only be applied in a qualitative sense. As far as $Q$ evolution is concerned, for both quarks and gluons, pdf's migrate towards lower $x$ as $Q$ is increased. The reason is that, as $Q$ is increased, new partons are added that come from collinear splittings of the original partons. Since splitting always lowers $x$, this increases density at low $x$ and suppresses it at high $x$. This effect can be clearly seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:PDF_all}. Since splitting amplitudes are proportional to the QCD coupling constant evaluated at the scale $Q$, the speed of the evolution decreases with $Q$ due to asymptotic freedom of QCD.
\subsection{Electroweak Gauge Boson Production}
As an example of a hadron collider process, let us consider production of a single $Z$ boson. We will first compute the total production cross section of the $Z$ at the Tevatron and the LHC, and then proceed to discuss its kinematic distributions.
\subsubsection{Cross Section}
At leading (tree) level in perturbation theory, the $Z$ can only be produced in $q\bar{q}$ collisions, with cross section
\begin{equation}
\sigma(q\bar{q}\to Z)\,=\,\frac{4\pi^2}{3}\,\frac{\Gamma(Z\to q\bar{q})}{M_Z}\,\delta(\hat{s}-M_Z^2)\,,
\eeq{Zparton_xsec}
where $\Gamma(Z\to q\bar{q})=\Gamma_Z \cdot\,{\rm Br}~(Z\to q\bar{q})$ is the partial decay width of the $Z$ in the $q\bar{q}$ channel. At the hadron level, this yields
\begin{equation}
\sigma(pp\to Z+X) \,=\, \frac{4\pi^2}{3}\,\frac{\Gamma_Z}{M_Z}\,\int_0^1 dx_1\,\int_0^1 dx_2 \, \sum_q 2 f_q(x_1, Q) f_{\bar{q}}(x_2,Q)\, {\rm Br}\,(Z\to q\bar{q}) \,\delta(x_1x_2s-M_Z^2)\,.
\eeq{Zproton_xsec1}
The same formula applies to $p\bar{p}$ collisions, with the substitution
\begin{equation}
2 f_q(x_1, Q) f_{\bar{q}}(x_2,Q) \,\longrightarrow\, f_q(x_1, Q) f_q (x_2,Q) +f_{\bar{q}}(x_1, Q) f_{\bar{q}}(x_2,Q) \,.
\eeq{ppbar_subst}
An alarming feature of Eq.~\leqn{Zproton_xsec1} is that the cross section seems to depend on the scale $Q$. Recall that $Q$ is defined as the minimal transverse momentum at which an ISR parton is registered as an extra jet. However, we are considering the process $Z+X$, where $X$ includes any hadronic activity, so events with any number of extra jets should be included and the cross section should be independent of $Q$. The reason for this apparent contradiction is that we used the {\it leading-order} parton-level cross section in our calculation. When radiative corrections are included, the parton-level cross section itself becomes $Q$-dependent. For example, at NLO in $\alpha_s$, the parton-level cross section contains a contribution from the process $q\bar{q}\to gZ$, but only gluons with $p_T>Q$ should be included. (The gluons with $p_T<Q$ have already been accounted for by the pdf's, so including them again in the parton-level cross section would be double-counting.) Including the NLO parton-level cross section cancels the $Q$ dependence of the pdf's up to terms of order $\alpha_s^2$; cancelling those terms would require an NNLO parton-level calculation, {\it etc.} The upshot is that while the true hadron-level cross section is $Q$-independent, in practice theoretical predictions always have a residual $Q$-dependence due to uncalculated higher order terms in perturbation theory. This raises two questions: How does one choose $Q$? And, since the $Q$ dependence should presumably be considered as a systematic uncertainty on theoretical predictions, how does one assign a conservative but reasonable value for this uncertainty? Not surprisingly, there are no precise answers. Several prescriptions have been proposed based on physical arguments. As more and more higher-order calculations become available, these prescriptions can be tested against ``data": For example, if both NLO and NNLO answers are known, as is the case for $pp\to Z+X$, one can ask whether the central value and the error bar based on an NLO calculation would be compatible with the NNLO result. Without going into details, let me simply state the simplest prescription: For the central value, take $Q$ to be the invariant mass of the final state, in our case, $M_Z$. (This is motivated since higher-order terms involving collinear emission are enhanced by $\log (s/Q^2)$, as we saw in Section~2; the choice $Q\sim M_Z$ avoids large logs.) For the error bar, take the variation of the cross section as $Q$ is varied between $M_Z/2$ and $2M_Z$. This recipe is often used in practice, and tends to roughly agree with more sophisticated prescriptions.
Returning to our calculation, we can easily perform one of the integrals:
\begin{equation}
\int_0^1 dx_2 \, \delta(x_1x_2 s-M_Z^2) \,=\, \frac{1}{x_1s} \,\theta(x_1s-M_Z^2)\,,
\eeq{int1}
yielding
\begin{equation}
\sigma(pp\to Z+X) \,=\, \frac{4\pi^2}{3}\,\frac{\Gamma_Z}{M_Z}\,\frac{1}{s}\int_{M_Z^2/s}^1 \frac{dx_1}{x_1}\,\sum_q 2 f_q(x_1, M_Z) f_{\bar{q}}(\frac{M_Z^2}{x_1s},M_Z)\, {\rm Br}\,(Z\to q\bar{q}) \,.
\eeq{Zproton_xsec2}
Note that only partons carrying momentum above a certain threshold can participate in $Z$ production:
\begin{eqnarray}
x_{\rm min}\,=\,\frac{M_Z^2}{s} &\approx& 2.5\times 10^{-3}~{\rm at~the~Tevatron}\,,\nonumber \\
&\approx& 4.0\times 10^{-5}~{\rm at~the~LHC}\,.
\eeqa{xmin}
Comparing with Table~\ref{tab:PDF_processes}, we confirm that pdf measurements at HERA probe the entire range of $x$ values necessary for the Tevatron calculation, and almost the entire range (except for the extreme low-$x$ corner) needed for the LHC. (In practice, the cross section only receives a small contribution from $x\sim x_{\rm min}$, since this requires the other parton to be close to $x=1$, where pdf's are suppressed. Most of the cross section is typically contributed by the region with $x_1\sim x_2 \sim \sqrt{x_{\rm min}}$, although this is not a sharp peak.) The next step is to perform the $x_1$ integral. This can be done numerically using the pdf's downloaded from the web site~\cite{DurhamPDF} in {\tt C++}, {\tt Fortran}, or {\tt Mathematica}-compatible versions. To get an estimate, we can use rough log-linear extrapolations of the pdf's: for example ({\it cf.} Fig.~\ref{fig:PDF_all})
\begin{equation}
xu(x, M_Z) \,=\,\begin{cases} -1.2 -0.9 \log_{10} x\,,& \text{$10^{-3}<x\leq10^{-2}$;}\\
0.7\,,& \text{~~~$10^{-2}<x\leq0.1$;}\\
-0.2 -0.9 \log_{10} x\,,& \text{~~~$0.1<x\leq0.6$;}\\
0\,,& \text{~~~$x>0.6$.}\end{cases}
\eeq{updf_extrap}
For the Tevatron parameters, this gives
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{x_{\rm min}}^1\,\frac{dx_1}{x_1}\,u(x_1)\,u\left(\frac{x_{\rm min}}{x_1}\right) &\approx & 600\,,\nonumber \\
\int_{x_{\rm min}}^1\,\frac{dx_1}{x_1}\,\bar{u}(x_1)\,\bar{u}\left(\frac{x_{\rm min}}{x_1}\right) &\approx & 5\,.
\eeqa{Tev_pdfs}
So, $Z$ production at the Tevatron is mostly due to valence quark collisions, with sea partons contributing only about 1\% of the cross section. Plugging in the numbers gives the cross section (from $u\bar{u}$ collisions alone) of about 3 nb. The actual SM prediction, including all quark flavors as well as NLO-QCD corrections, is 8.2 nb. Note that the NLO (${\cal O}(\alpha_s)$) corrections are not small, enhancing the cross section by about 30\%. (This is not unique to $Z$ production: many hadron-initiated processes receive an NLO-QCD correction of a similar size or even larger.) Next-to-next-to-leading order (NNLO) corrections have also been computed~\cite{Ztot_NNLO,Zrap_NNLO} and are numerically much smaller, indicating convergence of the perturbation series. The SM predictions for inclusive $Z$ production, and for a very similar process $p\bar{p}\to W+X$, are in excellent agreement with data, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Zxsec}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=Zxsec.eps,width=10cm}
\end{center}
\caption{$p\bar{p}\to Z+X$ and $p\bar{p}\to W+X$ cross sections, multiplied by leptonic branching ratios, as a function of center-of-mass energy. Data collected by CDF and D{\O} collaborations at the Tevatron Run-I and Run-II, as well as earlier data from the CERN SPS collider, are shown. Solid lines: SM prediction. From the CDF collaboration web site~\cite{Zxsec_CDF}.}
\label{fig:Zxsec}
\end{figure}
At the LHC, we obtain
\begin{equation}
2 \int_{x_{\rm min}}^1\,\frac{dx_1}{x_1}\,u(x_1)\,\bar{u}\left(\frac{x_{\rm min}}{x_1}\right) \,\approx\, 6\times 10^5\,,
\eeq{LHCpdf}
and the total cross section is about 60 nb. $Z$ production at the LHC is dominated by sea parton collisions, and the cross section is {\it larger} than that at the Tevatron, thanks to the growth of pdf's at low $x$. The growth of cross section with $\sqrt{s}$ is due to the composite nature of hadrons, and is in sharp contrast with the decrease of cross sections with $\sqrt{s}$ in {\it elementary} particle collisions, see Eq.~\leqn{xsec_scaling}.
\subsubsection{$Z$ Rapidity Distribution}
\label{sec:Zrap}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(150,70)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-50)
\LongArrow(41,90)(1,90)
\LongArrow(41,90)(81,90)
\DashLine(-10,90)(121,90){3}
\LongArrow(115,90)(121,90)
\LongArrow(1,90)(1,60)
\LongArrow(81,90)(81,120)
\LongArrow(41,90)(81,120)
\LongArrow(41,90)(1,60)
\Vertex(41,90){3}
\Text(43,87)[tl]{$Z$}
\Text(117,87)[tc]{$z$}
\Text(68,87)[tc]{$\hat{{\bf p}}_{\parallel 1}$}
\Text(21,94)[bc]{$\hat{{\bf p}}_{\parallel 2}$}
\Text(83,105)[cl]{$\hat{{\bf p}}_{\perp 1}$}
\Text(-1,75)[cr]{$\hat{{\bf p}}_{\perp 2}$}
\Text(59,107)[br]{$\hat{{\bf p}}_1$}
\Text(23,73)[tl]{$\hat{{\bf p}}_2$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Kinematics of $Z\to \ell^+\ell^-$ decay in the parton frame.}
\label{fig:Lkin}
\end{figure}
The produced $Z$ boson is at rest in the parton frame; in the lab frame, it has no transverse momentum, and is simply moving with velocity $\beta$, see Eq.~\leqn{beta}, along the beamline.
The $Z$ decays promptly; let us consider the leptonic decay $Z\to \ell^+\ell^-$, where $\ell=e$ or $\mu$. (The {\it ``Drell-Yan"} process $pp\to Z\to \ell^+\ell^-$ provides the cleanest signature of the $Z$ at hadron colliders due to low backgrounds. Hadronic $Z$ decays must be distinguished from a large background of 2-jet events from pure QCD processes, which is challenging.) The kinematics of the leptons in the parton frame is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Lkin}. For each lepton, its {\it pseudorapidity} $\hat{\eta}_i$ is defined by
\begin{equation}
\tanh \hat{\eta}_i \,=\, \frac{\hat{p}_{\parallel i}}{ \hat{E}_i}\,,
\eeq{eta_def}
where hats on all symbols indicate that they refer to parton-frame values of the variables. (The term ``pseudorapidity" is often abbreviated to simply ``rapidity" in collider physics applications, since true rapidity is never used; we will follow this practice below.) With this definition,
\begin{eqnarray}
\hat{p}_{\parallel i} &=& \hat{p}_{\perp i} \sinh \hat{\eta}_i\,,\nonumber \\
\hat{E}_i = \sqrt{(\hat{p}_{\parallel i})^2+(\hat{p}_{\perp i})^2} &=& \hat{p}_{\perp i} \cosh \hat{\eta}_i\,,
\eeqa{heta}
where $\hat{p}_{\perp i}=|{\hat{\bf p}}_{\perp i}|$. Note that $\hat{p}_{\perp 1}= \hat{p}_{\perp 2}$, and $\hat{\eta}_1=-\hat{\eta}_2$. To find lepton momenta in the lab frame, we must boost by $-\beta_z=\frac{x_2-x_1}{x_2+x_1}$. Defining
\begin{equation}
\eta_z \,=\, \tanh^{-1} \beta_z \,\equiv\, \frac{1}{2}\,\log \frac{1+\beta_z}{1-\beta_z}\,,
\eeq{boost_rap}
it is easy to show that
\begin{equation}
p_{\perp i} = \hat{p}_{\perp i},~~~\eta_i = \hat{\eta}_i + \eta_z\,,
\eeq{boost}
where the symbols with no hats refer to the lab-frame values. The variables $p_\perp$ and $\eta$ (in addition to the asymuthal angle $\phi$) fully define the lepton momentum, and have an important advantage of very simple transformations under boosts along the beamline: $p_\perp$ and $\phi$ are invariant, and $\eta_i$ transforms additively. This feature makes this set of kinematic variables extremely convenient, and they are in fact widely used not just for the process at hand but throughout hadron collider physics. Their relation to the directly measured lab-frame energy $E$ and scattering angle $\theta$ is
\begin{equation}
p_\perp = E \sin \theta\,,~~\sinh\eta_i = \frac{1}{\tan\theta}\,.
\eeq{rela}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=D0_Zeta.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Data points: $Z$ boson rapidity distribution measured in $p\bar{p}\to Z\to e^+e^-$ at the Tevatron by D{\O}. Solid line: NNLO theoretical prediction by Anastasiou {\it et.al.}~\cite{Zrap_NNLO}. From Ref.~\cite{D0_Zeta}.}
\label{fig:Zeta}
\end{figure}
Note that the quantity $\eta_z$ is simply the $Z$-boson rapidity in the lab frame. In each event, $\eta_z$ can be determined experimentally: since $\hat{\eta}_1=-\hat{\eta}_2$, we have $\eta_z=\eta_1+\eta_2$. On the other hand,
\begin{equation}
\eta_z \,=\,\frac{1}{2}\,\log \frac{1+\beta_z}{1-\beta_z}\,=\,\frac{1}{2}\log\frac{x_1}{x_2}\,=\,
\frac{1}{2}\log\left(\frac{s}{M_Z^2}x_1^2\right)\,.
\eeq{Zrap}
Thus, measuring the $Z$ rapidity distribution in effect provides the distribution of $x$ values of partons contributing to $Z$ production, giving an indirect but powerful constraint on pdf's. The distribution measured by the D{\O} collaboration at the Tevatron, along with the NNLO theoretical prediction of Ref.~\cite{Zrap_NNLO}, is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Zeta}. The agreement between theory and experiment is spectacular. Note that, while the shape of the curve depends on the pdf's, the location of the endpoints is easy to understand: $x_1\in [x_{\rm min}, 1]$ implies $|\eta_z|\leq \frac{1}{2}\log s/M_Z^2=3.0$ at the Tevatron. (At the LHC, $\eta_{\rm max}=5.0$.)
The inclusive processes whose cross sections we computed here are sometimes called ``$W/Z+\geq 0$ jets". Cross sections with 1 or more jets in the final state are also of interest. In general, cross sections for $W/Z+\geq 1$ jet, $W/Z+\geq 2$ jets, etc. are easier to compute and compare to experiment than those with {\it exactly} specified number of jets, due to the ambiguities in counting jets arising from collinear gluon emission (see Section~\ref{sec:jets}). These cross sections depend sensitively on the minimum $p_\perp$ required for the jet(s), since low-$p_\perp$ jet rate is large due to the collinear singularity in ISR gluon emission. Very roughly speaking, each extra jet in the final state with $p_\perp\stacksymbols{>}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} M_Z$ reduces the cross section by $\alpha_s\sim 0.1$, but the suppression is smaller if $p_\perp$ is lowered.
\subsubsection{$W$ Mass Measurements}
It is easy to measure the $Z$ mass at a hadron collider: One simply needs to select the Drell-Yan events (those with with two opposite-charge leptons in the final state), and compute the {\it dilepton invariant mass}, $s_{12} = (p_1+p_2)^2$, in each event. Most Drell-Yan events with large invariant mass come from $Z$ decays, with a small contribution from off-shell photon exchanges.
While the $Z$ velocity along the beam line varies between events, it does not affect $s_{12}$, which is Lorentz invariant. So, plotting the number of events vs. $s_{12}$ will produce a Breit-Wigner curve, with a peak at $M_Z$ and width $\Gamma_Z$. This method provides a simple and unambiguous determination of the mass of any unstable particle, provided that it has at least one decay channel where {\it all} decay products can be detected, and backgrounds in that channel are manageable.
Unfortunately, this is not the case for the $W$. Hadronic $W$ decays produce dijet final states, which are buried under a large background from pure-QCD events (see Section~\ref{sec:ppjet}). Leptonic decays are clean, but involve a weakly-interacting particle, the neutrino, whose momentum cannot be measured. Thus, the simple invariant-mass measurement is impossible, and other techniques have to be used. I will outline two useful approaches below.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=Wenu_ElecPt.eps,width=7.5cm}
\hskip.5cm
\psfig{file=Wenu_Mt.eps,width=7.5cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Distributions of the electron $p_T$ (left panel) and transverse mass (right panel) in the reaction $p\bar{p}\to W\to e\nu$, measured by the D{\O} collaboration at the Tevatron. From Ref.~\cite{D0_mw}.}
\label{fig:mw}
\end{figure}
The first approach is to look at the $p_\perp$ distribution of the charged lepton. Since (at least to leading order in $\alpha_s$) the produced $W$ is at rest in the parton frame, we have
\begin{equation}
p_\perp \,=\, \hat{p}_\perp \,=\, \hat{E} \sin \hat{\theta} \,=\, \frac{M_W}{2}\,\sin\hat{\theta}\,,
\eeq{pperp}
where hats indicate quantities evaluated in the parton frame, and the lepton mass has been set to zero. It follows that
\begin{equation}
0 \leq p_\perp \leq \frac{M_W}{2}\,.
\eeq{pperp1}
Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{dp_\perp} \,=\, \frac{d\cos\hat{\theta}}{dp_\perp}\,\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\hat{\theta}}\,=\, \frac{p_\perp}{\sqrt{\left( \frac{M_W}{2} \right)^2 - p_\perp^2}}\, \frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\hat{\theta}}\,.
\eeq{pperp2}
It is easy to show that $\frac{d\sigma}{d\cos\hat{\theta}}$ does not vanish at $\hat{\theta}=\pi/2$, corresponding to $p_\perp=M_W/2$. Eqs.~\leqn{pperp1},~\leqn{pperp2} then imply that the lepton-$p_\perp$ distribution blows up at its upper boundary, $M_W/2$, and then abruptly drops to zero.
This discontinuity is tempered by the $W$ width effects, but a sharp peak at $M_W/2$, called {\it Jacobean peak} to reflect its origin in the variable change $\hat{\theta}\to p_\perp$, remains.
The peak is clearly seen in the distribution of electron $p_\perp$ from $W$ decays measured by the D{\O} collaboration at the Tevatron, shown on the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mw}.
Measuring the position of this peak determines the $W$ mass.
A difficulty in using the lepton $p_\perp$ is that the transverse motion of the $W$, for example arising from recoils against an extra jet which can be emitted at NLO in $\alpha_s$, must be carefully taken into account before an accurate mass determination can be made. An alternative variable, which does not suffer from this problem, is the {\it transverse mass}. To define it, note that while neutrino cannot be detected, its momentum in the direction {\it transverse} to the beam can be reconstructed, since the sum of all transverse momenta in the event must be zero by momentum conservation:
\begin{equation}
{\bf p}_\perp^\nu \,=\, - {\bf p}_\perp^\ell - \sum_j {\bf p}_\perp^j\,,
\eeq{nu_pT}
where the sum is over all jets in the event. (The neutrino momentum along the beamline cannot be reconstructed, since the momentum carried by remnants of the colliding protons along this direction cannot be measured.) The transverse mass is then defined as
\begin{equation}
m_T^2 \,=\, (|{\bf p}_\perp^\nu|+|{\bf p}_\perp^\ell|)^2\,-\,({\bf p}_\perp^\nu+{\bf p}_\perp^\ell)^2\,.
\eeq{mT_def}
~\\
{\bf Homework Problem 3:} Show that $0\leq m_T^2\leq M_W^2$. Hint: compare $m_T^2$ with the (unobservable) $e\nu$ invariant mass, $s_{e\nu}=(|{\bf p}^\nu|+|{\bf p}^\ell|)^2\,-\,({\bf p}^\nu+{\bf p}^\ell)^2 = M_W^2$.
~\\
Just like for the lepton $p_\perp$, the change of variables $\hat{\theta}\to m_T$ introduces a Jacobean factor that blows up at the upper boundary $m_T=M_W$, leading to a Jacobean peak around this value. This peak is clearly visible in the experimental data, shown in the left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:mw}.
A combination of these techniques yields an amazingly accurate measurement of $m_W$ at the Tevatron: at present, the error is only about 30 MeV, or $\Delta m_W/m_W\approx 4\times 10^{-4}$! This is comparable to the precision achieved at LEP. The lesson is clear: with clever variable choices and thorough understanding of systematic issues, hadron colliders may be capable of matching the precision measurements possible in $e^+e^-$, even for observables which at first glance suffer from the lack of kinematic information.
\subsection{Dijet Production}
\label{sec:ppjet}
The most common processes at hadron colliders are QCD-mediated reactions with only strongly interacting particles in the final state. Conservation of energy-momentum and fermion number imply that there are no $2\to1$ processes of this kind; the dominant reactions are $2\to2$ processes, which upon hadronization result in two-jet, or {\it dijet}, final states. We will briefly consider dijet production in this subsection.
In general, the only variable needed to describe the kinematics of a $2\to2$ scattering process in the parton frame is the scattering angle $\theta$, or, equivalently, the Mandelstam variable $t$ (for massless particles, $t=-s(1-\cos\theta)/2$). In the case of hadron collisions, there are two additional variables, $x_1$ and $x_2$, which determine the parton c.o.m. energy as well as the motion of the parton frame with respect to the lab frame. To compare with data, it is convenient to change variables from $(\hat{t}, x_1, x_2)$ to the directly observable $(p_\perp, \eta_1, \eta_2)$. In terms of these variables, the triple-differential cross section has the form
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^3\sigma}{dp_\perp d\eta_1 d\eta_2} \,=\, 2p_\perp x_1 x_2 \, \sum_{i_1,i_2} f_{i_1}(x_1) f_{i_2}(x_2)\,\frac{d\sigma}{d\hat{t}} (i_1+i_2\to 1+2)\,,
\eeq{triple_dif}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
x_1 &=& \frac{2p_\perp}{\sqrt{s}}\,\cosh \eta_- \,e^{\eta_+}\,,\nonumber \\
x_2 &=& \frac{2p_\perp}{\sqrt{s}}\,\cosh \eta_- \,e^{-\eta_+}\,,\nonumber \\
\hat{t} &=& -2p_\perp^2\,\cosh \eta_- e^{-\eta_-}\,,
\eeqa{var_change}
with $\eta_\pm = (\eta_1\pm\eta_2)/2$.
~\\
{\bf Homework Problem 4:} Derive the relations~\leqn{var_change} and the triple-differential distribution~\leqn{triple_dif}.
~\\
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(90,65)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-55)
\ArrowLine(1,109)(31,109)
\ArrowLine(1,65)(31,65)
\Gluon(31,109)(31,65){2}{6}
\ArrowLine(31,109)(61,109)
\ArrowLine(31,65)(61,65)
\Vertex(31,109){2}
\Vertex(31,65){2}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$d$}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$u$}
\Text(63,65)[cl]{$d$}
\Text(63,109)[cl]{$u$}
\Text(35,87)[cl]{$g$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{The Feynman diagram for the process $ud\to ud$ at the tree level.}
\label{fig:udud}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=CDF_dijet.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Jet cross sections in five rapidity regions, as a function of jet $p_\perp$, measured by the CDF collaboration at the Tevatron and compared with the NLO-QCD calculation. The cross sections for the five regions are scaled by a factor of $10^3$ from each other for presentation purposes. From Ref.~\cite{CDF_dijet}.}
\label{fig:CDF_dijet}
\end{figure}
To compute the dijet rates, we need to know parton-level differential cross sections $d\sigma/d\hat{t}$ for each possible reaction with two strongly interacting particles in the final state. There is a large number of such reactions. Here is a partial list: $q\bar{q}\to q\bar{q}$, where $q$ can be any of the quark flavors; $q\bar{q}\to gg$; $q\bar{q}\to q^\prime\bar{q}^\prime$ with $q^\prime\not=q$; $qq\to qq$; $qq^\prime\to qq^\prime$; $gq\to gq$; $qq\to gg$; etc. As an illustrative example, consider the subprocess $ud\to ud$. The single Feynman diagram that contributes to this process at leading order in $\alpha_s$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:udud}. The cross section is
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\hat{t}} \,=\, \frac{4\pi \alpha_s^2}{9\hat{s}^2} \,\Bigl[ \frac{\hat{s}^2+\hat{u}^2}{\hat{t}^2} \Bigr]\,.
\eeq{udud_xsec}
Using $\hat{s}=x_1x_2s$ and $\hat{s}+\hat{t}+\hat{u}=0$, together with Eqs.~\leqn{var_change}, it is easy to show that
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{d\hat{t}}\,\propto\, \frac{1}{p_\perp^4},~~~{\rm as}~p_\perp\to 0\,.
\eeq{udud_limit}
At the hadron level, the triple-differential cross section (for fixed jet rapidities) behaves as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^3\sigma}{dp_\perp d\eta_1 d\eta_2} \propto p_\perp^3 \cdot f_u (c_up_\perp) f_d(c_d p_\perp) \cdot \frac{1}{p_\perp^4}+ \ldots\,,
\eeq{triple_limit}
where $c_u$ and $c_d$ are constants independent of $p_\perp$, and dots indicate contributions from other subprocesses. Since the pdf's grow faster than $1/x$ as $x\to 0$, the right-hand side of Eq.~\leqn{triple_limit} grows faster than $1/p_\perp^3$, and the hadron-level cross section diverges strongly as $p_\perp\to 0$. This singularity is of a different nature than the soft and collinear singularities encountered so far: It is due to an exchange of a massless particle in the $t$-channel, and is exactly analogous to the Rutherford singularity in the elastic scattering by Coulomb interaction in QED. The singularity (and similar divergences that occur in other subprocesses involving $t$ or $u$-channel exchanges) is effectively regulated by the IR divergence of the strong coupling constant: When the momentum exchanged in the $t$ channel is of order $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, perturbation theory breaks down and the leading-order result is no longer valid. As a result, the total rate for pure-QCD events is simply given by the geometric cross section
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm QCD} \sim \frac{4\pi}{\Lambda_{\rm QCD}^2}\,\approx 0.1~{\rm bn}.
\eeq{allQCD}
This cross section is huge: at current luminosity, there are over $10^7$ pure-QCD events per second at the Tevatron. This rate is far too high for the experiments to be able to record all events on tape, let alone analyze them. However, the vast majority of pure-QCD events involve only hadrons with $p_\perp\sim \Lambda_{\rm QCD}$, whereas events of interest for probing the SM at high energy scales and searching for new physics involve much higher transverse momenta. This leads to a strategy called {\it triggering}: only events with at least one jet above some minimal $p_\perp$ value are recorded and analyzed. (Events with non-strongly-interacting objects, such as leptons or photons, are far less numerous than pure-QCD, and most of them are also recorded.) Thus, the experimentally relevant cross section is that for producing jets with $p_\perp$ above the threshold required by the trigger (or a larger value set by analysis cuts). For example, for $p_\perp\geq 100$ GeV, a typical value for the LHC analyses, the total jet cross section at the LHC is about 1 mb, about a factor of 20 larger than the inclusive $Z$ production cross section.
Comparing dijet differential cross sections with data provides a valuable test of QCD at high energy scales, as well as the most accurate determination of gluon pdf at high $x$. Within limitations due to theoretical and experimental uncertainties in jet definitions, uncalculated higher-order perturbative corrections, pdf uncertainties, and other systematic errors, all available data is in agreement with the SM. An example is provided by a recent CDF measurement of dijet rates at the Tevatron, see Fig.~\ref{fig:CDF_dijet}.
\subsection{Hadron Collider Cross Section Summary}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=xsec_all.eps,width=10cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Cross sections for a variety of SM reactions, as a function of center-of-mass energies, in $p\bar{p}$ collisions (for $\sqrt{s}<4$ TeV) and $pp$ collisions (for $\sqrt{s}>4$ TeV).}
\label{fig:xsec_all}
\end{figure}
A useful summary of cross sections for the most important SM processes in hadron collisions is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:xsec_all}. The total scattering cross section $\sigma_{\rm tot}\sim 0.1$ bn is completely dominated by low-$p_\perp$ pure-QCD scattering, and depends only weakly (logarithmically) on $\sqrt{s}$. The inclusive cross section for $b$ quark production is 2-3 orders of magnitude lower, reflecting the effective $p_\perp$ cutoff provided by the $b$ mass. The strongest electroweak processes, inclusive $W$ and $Z$ production, have cross sections of order 10-100 nb: in other words, there is 1 electroweak boson produced per 1-10 million pure-QCD events. Of course, as discussed above, the vast majority of pure-QCD events are not recorded on tape, and experimentally relevant QCD events are those with at least one jet with $p_\perp$ above a trigger threshold. While specific thresholds depend on the experiment and the analysis, the figure shows the total jet cross sections for a few representative values: $\sqrt{s}/20$, $\sqrt{s}/4$, and 100 GeV. As a rough guidance, it is useful to remember that at the Tevatron, the jet rate with $p_\perp\geq 100$ GeV is roughly comparable to the electroweak boson production rates, while at the LHC it is larger by 1-2 orders of magnitude. Going further down the cross section scale, the top pair-production cross section is in the few-pb range at the Tevatron, and close to a nb at the LHC. The sharp rise with $\sqrt{s}$ is due to the fact that top pairs are typically produced by partons with $x\sim 0.2$ at the Tevatron and $x\sim 0.02$ at the LHC; the higher parton density at low $x$, especially for gluons, increases the cross section. At design luminosity, the LHC will produce about 10$^7$ top pairs a year, allowing for detailed studies of top properties (but also providing an important background for many new physics searches). New physics cross sections are generally further suppressed: as an example, cross sections for the SM Higgs production, for two representative values of the Higgs mass, are shown in the figure. The main challenge in new physics searches at hadron colliders is to distinguish the rare new physics events from the much more common SM processes. To do this, one must identify specific observable features, or {\it signatures}, of the new physics events that distinguish them from the SM.
\section{Searches for New Physics}
\label{sec:newphys}
In this Lecture, I will first outline the general strategy for new physics searches in collider experiments. I will then consider two specific examples: searches for the Higgs boson, and supersymmetry.
\subsection{General Strategy}
Suppose that you are given a model that extends the SM and predicts new particles at energy scales potentially within reach of current or near-future colliders. Your task is to plan a search for this model: You need to identify its experimental signatures, devise a data analysis strategy in order to maximize sensitivity to new physics, and evaluate how much data would be required to convincingly establish, or rule out, the theory. (Parenthetically, note that these tasks fall right on the boundary of what theorists and experimentalists do. Typically, a first-round study would be done by theorists. If the results look promising, a more detailed analysis, taking account of experimental conditions, would be conducted by experimentalists, who will then implement the designed search with real data.) Of course, the detailed strategy would depend on the precise nature of the predicted new particles and their interactions, as well as on the experiment. However, most studies of this kind roughly follow the ``twelve-step" blueprint outlined below.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that our model predicts a particle $X$, and we would like to design a search for this particle. Start with the Lagrangian of the model. Identify all couplings of $X$ to the SM. There is no need to derive precise Feynman rules yet; simply list the vertices involving $X$ and SM states.
\item Given the vertices, identify $X$ production mechanisms at the collider of interest. Draw Feynman diagrams with $X$ in the final state. Remember that cross sections generally decrease with the number of interaction vertices and with the number of particles in the final state, so focus on drawing diagrams as simple as possible. If considering a hadron collider, remember that pdf's drop fast with $x$, and therefore cross sections decrease with the invariant mass of the final state. This implies that the final states with highest cross sections will involve as few heavy particles as possible. If the new particle can be singly produced, this will be the dominant process; if single production is forbidden by symmetries (e.g. R-parity in supersymmetric models), pair-production will dominate.
\item Based on the above considerations, identify the most promising production processes for $X$. You can also order diagrams according to the strength of couplings that enter: for example, $\alpha_s>\alpha_w$, so, everything else being equal, QCD-mediated processes will have higher cross sections than electroweak reactions.
\item Carefully derive the Feynman rules for all vertices that enter the promising production processes.
\item Compute the total cross section for each of the promising processes. Do not impose cuts, unless necessary to avoid singularities; if necessary, impose very loose cuts roughly consistent with experimental conditions (if unsure, consult your experimental colleagues). Given the integrated luminosity (actual or expected) of your collider, compute the number of events $N_{\rm ev}$ expected in your data set for each of the processes. (See Table~\ref{tab:colliders} for luminosity values.)
\item If $N_{\rm ev}<10$ for a given process, the process is probably uninteresting -- do not consider it further. Note that $N_{\rm ev}$ typically depends on {\it a priori} unknown model parameters, such as the $X$ mass. As long as there is a range of parameter values, consistent with theoretical considerations and with constraints from prior experiments, where the $N_{\rm ev}>10$ condition is satisfied, it is worthwhile to continue with the analysis.
\item Identify all vertices through which $X$ can decay (both to SM particles and to other exotics). For each possible decay channel, check whether it is kinematically allowed. If there are no viable decays, $X$ is a stable particle. If $X$ is stable, is it charged under strong and/or electromagnetic interactions?
\begin{enumerate}
\item If yes, you need to think carefully about the signature of $X$ in the detector. If only EM charge is present, $X$ would behave like a heavy muon, and will leave a trace in the muon detector. If $X$ is strongly coupled, it will quickly hadronize, and the resulting hadrons with interact in the hadron calorimeter, as well as in the tracker if electrically charged. (As an aside, note that there are significant cosmological constraints on charged and/or strongly-interacting stable or long-lived massive particles.) See K.~Zurek's lectures at this school for more details.
\item If no, $X$ can at best interact with matter in the detector via weak interactions, or possibly even weaker. In this case, $X$ escapes the detector without interacting, like the SM neutrino, and is ``invisible". Invisible particles can be detected as an apparent missing momentum (transverse momentum in the case of hadron collisions) recoiling against visible particles. So, in this case, make sure that there is at least one observable ``tag" particle in the final state of your process. A jet or a photon, which can always be emitted as ISR, can serve as tags.
\end{enumerate}
\item If $X$ is unstable (as is usually the case for heavy new particles), list all $X$ decay channels, and compute their branching ratios. (Again, focus on the simplest possible decays since those with more interaction vertices are suppressed.) If some of the $X$ decay products are themselves unstable, repeat this step for those particles, and iterate until you only have stable particles left. List all final states in terms of ``detector objects" - jets, SM leptons, photons, invisible particles (neutrinos and possibly exotic stable invisibles), and possibly exotic charged/colored states. For each final state, compute the probability to obtain it from $X$ decay, multiplying the relevant branching ratios. Multiply by $N_{\rm ev}$ to obtain the expected signal rate in each channel, $N_{\rm sig}$.
\item For each detector-level final state with a sizable expected signal rate, list all SM processes that can give rise to this final state - the {\it Standard Model background}. (Again, focus on the simplest possible processes. You can use Fig.~\ref{fig:xsec_all} as a guide to the most common processes and their cross sections, but remember that it is incomplete.)
\item Compute the cross section for each SM background process, and multiply by the luminosity to get $N_{\rm SM}$.
\item A meaningful search ({\it i.e.} one that can lead to a discovery or a publishable constraint on new physics) must satisfy three conditions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Events: $N_{\rm sig}>$~a few. Detector efficiency should be taken into account when evaluating $N_{\rm sig}$; for a first-round, ``theory-level" analysis, a rough estimate of the efficiency would suffice. Note that $N_{\rm sig}\propto L_{\rm int}$, so this condition can at least in principle always be satisfied by running the experiment long enough.
\item Statistics: $N_{\rm sig}/\sqrt{N_{\rm SM}}>$~a few. ``A few" is typically 3 or 5, depending on how confident one wants to be. In case of an actual discovery, 5 would probably be required before most people are convinced, given the long history of ``3-sigma" effects disappearing with increased statistics. In this case, $N_{\rm sig}/\sqrt{N_{\rm SM}} \propto L_{\rm int}^{1/2}$, so this condition in principle can also be always fulfilled by increasing the data sample size, although the improvement is slower than for (a).
\item Systematics: $N_{\rm sig}/N_{\rm SM}>$~(a few)$\,\times\,\sigma_{\rm sys}$, where $\sigma_{\rm sys}$ is the fractional systematic uncertainty of the SM prediction. In the case of hadron collisions, this uncertainty includes residual scale dependence from uncalculated higher-order corrections, pdf uncertainties, as well as experimental errors, e.g. uncertainty in the detector efficiency. (Talk to your experimental colleagues to get a reasonable estimate for the latter.) Note that $N_{\rm sig}/N_{\rm SM}\propto L_{\rm int}^0$, so no amount of luminosity will help if this condition is not satisfied. Thus, it is crucially important to understand all sources of systematic uncertainty, and to eliminate them as far as possible.
\end{enumerate}
\item If the three conditions are {\it not} satisfied, one can usually improve the situation by imposing {\it selection cuts}: Look for differences in signal and background kinematic distributions, and devise criteria to select only events in the signal-rich and/or background-poor part of the phase space. This improves signal/background ratio, making conditions (b) and (c) easier to satisfy.(However, one must be careful since (a) can fail if the selection cuts are too tight!)
\end{enumerate}
Once the three conditions are satisfied, the proposed search strategy can be studied in more detail by experimentalists, and, if the conclusions hold up, implemented with real data. You have succeeded!
\subsection{Higgs Searches}
The remainder of this Lecture is a brief overview of some of the most important searches for new physics which are the focus of the current experimental program at the Tevatron, as well as the upcoming one at the LHC.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(310,90)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-40)
\DashLine(1,87)(21,87){3}
\Vertex(21,87){2}
\ArrowLine(21,87)(51,109)
\ArrowLine(51,109)(51,65)
\Gluon(51,109)(76,109){2}{4}
\Gluon(51,65)(76,65){2}{4}
\ArrowLine(51,65)(21,87)
\Vertex(51,109){2}
\Vertex(51,65){2}
\Text(78,109)[cl]{$g$}
\Text(78,65)[cl]{$g$}
\Text(-1,87)[cr]{$h$}
\Text(34,100)[br]{$f$}
\Text(38,54)[cc]{(a)}
\DashLine(101,87)(121,87){3}
\Vertex(121,87){2}
\ArrowLine(121,87)(151,109)
\ArrowLine(151,109)(151,65)
\Photon(151,109)(176,109){2}{4}
\Photon(151,65)(176,65){2}{4}
\ArrowLine(151,65)(121,87)
\Vertex(151,109){2}
\Vertex(151,65){2}
\Text(178,109)[cl]{$\gamma$}
\Text(178,65)[cl]{$\gamma$}
\Text(99,87)[cr]{$h$}
\Text(134,100)[br]{$f$}
\Text(138,54)[cc]{(b)}
\DashLine(201,87)(221,87){3}
\Vertex(221,87){2}
\Photon(221,87)(251,109){2}{6}
\Photon(251,109)(251,65){2}{6}
\Photon(251,109)(276,109){2}{4}
\Photon(251,65)(276,65){2}{4}
\Photon(251,65)(221,87){2}{6}
\Vertex(251,109){2}
\Vertex(251,65){2}
\Text(278,109)[cl]{$\gamma$}
\Text(278,65)[cl]{$\gamma$}
\Text(199,87)[cr]{$h$}
\Text(234,100)[br]{$W$}
\Text(238,54)[cc]{(c)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{One-loop Feynman diagrams which induce the Higgs coupling to gluons (a) and photons (b, c). In diagrams (a) and (b) contributions of all quarks and leptons in the loop must be summed over, but in practice the top quark contribution dominates due to its large Yukawa coupling.}
\label{fig:hgg}
\end{figure}
We begin with the search for the Higgs. I will focus on the simplest scenario incorporated in the SM, a single Higgs doublet field yielding one physical Higgs boson $h$. The Higgs potential has two free parameters, the mass parameter $\mu^2$ and the quartic coupling $\lambda$; these can be traded for the Higgs vacuum expectation value (vev) $v=246$ GeV and the physical Higgs mass $m_h$. The Higgs is coupled to SM fermions via Yukawa couplings $y_f h \bar{\psi}\psi$, where $y_f=\sqrt{2}m_f/v$, and to electroweak gauge bosons via the usual gauge vertices. Note that tree-level triple-boson couplings of the form $hVV$ exist for massive vector bosons, $V=W/Z$, but not for the photon. The vertices $h\gamma\gamma$ and $hgg$ arise from the one-loop diagrams in Fig.~\ref{fig:hgg}; while loop-suppressed, these couplings play an important role in Higgs phenomenology. Note that all Higgs couplings can be expressed in terms of known SM parameters; the only unknown parameter in this model is $m_h$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(270,85)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-40)
\ArrowLine(1,109)(31,87)
\ArrowLine(31,87)(1,65)
\DashLine(31,87)(56,87){3}
\Vertex(31,87){2}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(58,87)[cl]{$h$}
\Text(30,55)[cc]{(a)}
\ArrowLine(121,109)(151,87)
\ArrowLine(151,87)(121,65)
\Photon(151,87)(196,87){2}{6}
\Photon(196,87)(226,109){2}{4}
\DashLine(226,65)(196,87){3}
\Vertex(151,87){2}
\Vertex(196,87){2}
\Text(119,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(119,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(228,109)[cl]{$Z$}
\Text(228,65)[cl]{$h$}
\Text(174,100)[tc]{$Z^*$}
\Text(175,55)[cc]{(b)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Leading-order diagrams for Higgs production in $e^+e^-$ collisions.}
\label{fig:eeHprod}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=br_log.eps,width=7.5cm}
\vskip-1.6cm
\psfig{file=br_100_600.eps,width=6.3cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Branching ratios of the SM Higgs. From the web site~\cite{Higgs_Web}.}
\label{fig:Higgs_BR}
\end{figure}
Having listed the vertices, we can now identify Higgs production processes at colliders. First, consider $e^+e^-$ collisions. The simplest reaction would be $s$-channel resonant production, $e^+e^-\to h$, shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eeHprod} (a) ; however, the cross section of this process is tiny due to suppression by $y_e^2\sim 10^{-12}$. The strongest production channel is the so-called {\it Bjorken process} shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eeHprod} (b), which utilizes the gauge coupling of the Higgs. This reaction is kinematically allowed if $\sqrt{s} > m_h + m_Z$. At LEP-2, this implies that the maximum Higgs mass that can in principle be probed is about 118 GeV. In practice, the Higgs mass must be a bit lower to get a sizable production cross section: LEP-2 expected to produce 10 or more Higgs events for $m_h\leq 115$ GeV. To identify the Higgs signature, we next need to
consider Higgs decays. The SM Higgs branching ratios, as a function of its mass, are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:Higgs_BR}. Throughout the parameter space accessible at LEP, the dominant Higgs decay mode is $b\bar{b}$, with a sizable (order few-\%) contribution from $\tau^+\tau^-$. Thus, the interesting final states include $b\bar{b}$ or $\tau^+\tau^-$ pairs in association with lepton or jet pairs from $Z$ decays\footnote{Such pairs can be identified in the data by the fact that their invariant mass is close to $m_Z$.}, or missing momentum from invisible $Z$ decays $Z\to\nu\bar{\nu}$. SM backgrounds for all these channels primarily come from $WW$ and $ZZ$ final states, and can be accurately computed. Combining the channels, LEP-2 experiments place the lower bound on the Higgs mass~\cite{PDG}:
\begin{equation}
m_h \geq 114.4~{\rm GeV,~~~95\%~c.l.}
\eeq{LEP2_hbound}
Interestingly, the ALEPH collaboration reported 5 candidate events that may be viewed as a hint for the Higgs boson at about 115 GeV~\cite{ALEPH_Higgs}; however, low statistics, and lack of confirmation by other LEP experiments, make the situation inconclusive.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(450,90)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-35)
\ArrowLine(1,109)(31,87)
\ArrowLine(31,87)(1,65)
\DashLine(31,87)(56,87){3}
\Vertex(31,87){2}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$q$}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$\bar{q}$}
\Text(58,87)[cl]{$h$}
\Text(30,50)[cc]{(a)}
\Gluon(101,109)(131,109){2}{4}
\Gluon(131,65)(101,65){2}{4}
\ArrowLine(131,65)(131,109)
\ArrowLine(131,109)(151,89)
\ArrowLine(151,89)(131,65)
\DashLine(151,89)(176,89){3}
\Vertex(131,109){2}
\Vertex(131,65){2}
\Vertex(151,89){2}
\Text(99,109)[cr]{$g$}
\Text(99,65)[cr]{$g$}
\Text(178,89)[cl]{$h$}
\Text(138,50)[cc]{(b)}
\ArrowLine(221,109)(241,87)
\ArrowLine(241,87)(221,65)
\Photon(241,87)(276,87){2}{6}
\Photon(276,87)(296,109){2}{4}
\DashLine(296,65)(276,87){3}
\Vertex(241,87){2}
\Vertex(276,87){2}
\Text(219,109)[cr]{$q$}
\Text(219,65)[cr]{$\bar{q}/\bar{q}^\prime$}
\Text(298,109)[cl]{$W/Z$}
\Text(298,65)[cl]{$h$}
\Text(259,100)[tc]{$W/Z$}
\Text(260,50)[cc]{(c)}
\ArrowLine(351,109)(371,109)
\ArrowLine(351,65)(371,65)
\Vertex(371,109){2}
\Vertex(371,65){2}
\Photon(371,109)(391,87){2}{4}
\Photon(371,65)(391,87){2}{4}
\Vertex(391,87){2}
\DashLine(411,87)(391,87){3}
\ArrowLine(371,109)(411,114)
\ArrowLine(371,65)(411,60)
\Text(349,109)[cr]{$q$}
\Text(349,65)[cr]{$q$}
\Text(379,96)[tr]{$W$}
\Text(413,87)[cl]{$h$}
\Text(381,50)[cc]{(d)}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Higgs production processes in hadron collisions: (a) $s$-channel resonant production (suppressed by small Yukawas); (b) gluon fusion; (c) associated production with a vector boson; and (d) vector boson fusion.}
\label{fig:ppHprod}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=TeV_Hxsec.eps,width=7.0cm}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\vskip-0.5cm
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=LHC_Hxsec.eps,width=5.5cm,angle=-90}
\end{center}
\caption{SM Higgs production cross section at the Tevatron, in pb (top) and the LHC, in fb (bottom), as a function of the Higgs mass. The VBF cross section at the Tevatron is very small, and is not shown here. The Tevatron plot is from the web site~\cite{conway}, and the LHC plot is from Ref.~\cite{LHC_Higgs}.}
\label{fig:Hxsec}
\end{figure}
The Higgs searches at hadron colliders are somewhat more complicated. Resonant production by quark-antiquark pairs, Fig.~\ref{fig:ppHprod} (a), is again strongly suppressed by weak Yukawas. The dominant process, at both the Tevatron and the LHC, is the one-loop {\it gluon fusion} process shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ppHprod} (b). However, several other processes also lead to useful signatures: the most important ones are the {\it associated production} with an electroweak gauge boson, Fig.~\ref{fig:ppHprod} (c), and the {\it vector boson fusion (VBF)} reaction, Fig.~\ref{fig:ppHprod} (d). The cross sections for these processes at the Tevatron and the LHC are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Hxsec}. The Tevatron should expect to collect a sizable sample of Higgs bosons for $m_h\stacksymbols{<}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 200$ GeV, whereas the LHC at design luminosity should produce plenty of Higgses throughout the theoretically sensible range, $m_h\stacksymbols{<}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 1$ TeV. The signature of the Higgs depends crucially on its mass. Roughly speaking, one can divide the parameter space into two regions: the {\it low-mass} region, below about 140 GeV, and the {\it high-mass} region, from 140 GeV to 1 TeV. In the low-mass region, the dominant decay mode is $b\bar{b}$. The problem is that this mode, combined with gluon fusion production, gives a signature of 2 jets, at a rate tiny compared to the SM pure-QCD dijet rate. It is impossible to identify the Higgs events on top of this huge background, and one is forced to focus on either subleading production processes, or subdominant decay modes. At the Tevatron, the most promising strategy is to focus on $h\to b\bar{b}$ but look for associated production events, $Zh$ and $Wh$, with leptonic vector boson decays. The SM backgrounds in these channels, predominantly $Z/W+2$ jets, are much more manageable. At the LHC, where the expected Higgs production rate is much higher, one can concentrate instead on a rare but very clean decay $h\to\gamma\gamma$. In the high-mass region, on the other hand, the dominant decay mode is $h\to WW$ (with one of the $W$s off-shell for $m_h\stacksymbols{<}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 160$ GeV), and $h\to ZZ$ also makes a significant contribution for $m_h\stacksymbols{>}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 180$ GeV. If the vector boson decays leptonically, these modes do not suffer from large QCD backgrounds, and provide a clean signature. The ``golden" $h\to ZZ \to 4\ell$ mode is especially advantageous since it contains no invisible particles, so the Higgs boson shows up as a clear peak in the 4-lepton invariant mass distribution. Combined with the strong gluon fusion production channel, the vector boson decays make the search in the high-mass region relatively straightforward, giving the Tevatron and especially the LHC sensitivity to high Higgs masses in spite of the decreasing production cross section.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=TeV_Hbound.eps,width=13cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Tevatron bounds on the SM Higgs production cross section, as a function of the Higgs mass. The bound combines searches for a variety of signatues (see text for details), at both CDF and D{\O}. From Ref.~\cite{TeV_Hbound}.}
\label{fig:TeV_Hbound}
\end{figure}
The latest published results of the SM Higgs searches at the Tevatron are summarized in Fig.~\ref{fig:TeV_Hbound}. To present the negative results of the searches, the experiments assume that the Higgs production cross section in each channel is a free parameter, and put an upper bound on this cross section. (If several production channels are used in a search, the {\it ratios} of their cross sections are assumed to be the same as in the SM.) This bound, expressed in units of the SM production cross section for each Higgs mass, is plotted on the figure. The SM Higgs can be said to be ruled out if the cross section bound in these units is below 1. Currently, the Tevatron experiments only exclude the SM Higgs at the 95\% c.l. in a narrow mass window just above the $h\to WW$ decay threshold, between 163 and 166 GeV. As the integrated luminosity increases, the Tevatron is expected to expand this window, unless a deviation from the SM is seen.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=CMS_Hsens.eps,width=10cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Expected sensitivity of the CMS detector at the LHC to the SM Higgs, as a function of the Higgs mass. From Ref.~\cite{CMS_TDR}.}
\label{fig:LHC_Hsens}
\end{figure}
LHC experiments are expected to be sensitive to the entire theoretically consistent range of the Higgs masses at the 5-sigma level with about 30 fb$^{-1}$ of data, see Fig.~\ref{fig:LHC_Hsens}. This corresponds to 3 years of running at design luminosity, although of course depending on the Higgs mass such sensitivity may be achieved much sooner. Note that, just as at the Tevatron, the LHC sensitivity is not a monotonic function of the mass: in fact, a 300-GeV Higgs is substantially easier to discover, via the $h\to ZZ \to 4\ell$ mode, than a 115-GeV Higgs where one must rely on the rare decay $h\to\gamma\gamma$.
\subsection{Searches for Supersymmetry}
As every TASI student knows, the discovery of the Higgs would mark the beginning, not the end, of the hunt for new physics at the TeV scale. Strong theoretical arguments indicate that the SM Higgs cannot live in isolation, requiring other new particles to stabilize its mass and complete the electroweak symmetry breaking sector. The nature of these new particles can at present only be guessed at. One popular guess is that physics at the TeV scale is {\it supersymmetric}: for each particle in the SM, a new ``superpartner" particle appears at this scale, with the same quantum numbers but spin different by $\hbar/2$. Appearing in loops, these particles would cancel the notorious quadratic divergence of the Higgs mass parameter present in the SM, restoring naturalness to the Higgs sector. I will not have the opportunity for a thorough review of the model here; a reader in need of such a review is referred to the set of lectures by P.~Fox at this school, as well to the excellent review article by Martin~\cite{Martin} and the comprehensive book by Baer and Tata~\cite{BT}. Instead, I will simply very briefly mention the features of the model crucial for collider searches.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.4}
\begin{table}
\tbl{The undiscovered particles in the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model. From Ref.~\cite{Martin}.}
{\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
Names & Spin & $P_R$ & Gauge Eigenstates & Mass Eigenstates \\
\hline\hline
Higgs bosons & 0 & $+1$ &
$H_u^0\>\> H_d^0\>\> H_u^+ \>\> H_d^-$
&
$h^0\>\> H^0\>\> A^0 \>\> H^\pm$
\\ \hline
& & &${\widetilde u}_L\>\> {\widetilde u}_R\>\> \widetilde d_L\>\> \widetilde d_R$&(same)
\\
squarks& 0&$-1$& ${\widetilde s}_L\>\> {\widetilde s}_R\>\> \widetilde c_L\>\>
\widetilde c_R$& (same) \\
& & &
$\widetilde t_L \>\>\widetilde t_R \>\>\widetilde b_L\>\> \widetilde b_R$
&
${\widetilde t}_1\>\> {\widetilde t}_2\>\> \widetilde b_1\>\> \widetilde b_2$
\\ \hline
& & &${\widetilde e}_L\>\> {\widetilde e}_R \>\>\widetilde \nu_e$&(same)
\\
sleptons& 0&$-1$&${\widetilde \mu}_L\>\>{\widetilde \mu}_R\>\>\widetilde\nu_\mu$&(same)
\\
& & &
$\widetilde \tau_L\>\> \widetilde \tau_R \>\>\widetilde \nu_\tau$
&
${\widetilde \tau}_1 \>\>{\widetilde \tau}_2 \>\>\widetilde \nu_\tau$
\\
\hline
neutralinos & $1/2$&$-1$ &
$\widetilde B^0 \>\>\>\widetilde W^0\>\>\> \widetilde H_u^0\>\>\> \widetilde H_d^0$
&
$\widetilde N_1\>\> \widetilde N_2 \>\>\widetilde N_3\>\> \widetilde N_4$
\\
\hline
charginos & $1/2$&$-1$ &
$\widetilde W^\pm\>\>\> \widetilde H_u^+ \>\>\>\widetilde H_d^-$
&
$\widetilde C_1^\pm\>\>\>\widetilde C_2^\pm $
\\
\hline
gluino & $1/2$&$-1$ &$\widetilde g$ &(same) \\
\hline
$\frac{{\rm goldstino}}{{\rm (gravitino)}}$ & $\frac{1/2}{(3/2)}$&$-1$&$\widetilde
G$ &(same) \\
\hline
\end{tabular} }
\label{tab:MSSM_particles}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.0}
The particle content at the TeV scale predicted by the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) is summarized in Table~\ref{tab:MSSM_particles}. There are 34 new particles waiting to be discovered! Notice the appearance of 3 additional Higgs boson states not present in the SM; this is due to the presence of a second Higgs doublet field, required in the MSSM for theoretical consistency. All other listed particles are simply superpartners of known SM states. If supersymmetry were an exact symmetry of nature, all superpartners would have exactly the same mass as their SM counterparts; of course, this possibility is already completely ruled out by data. Thus, SUSY must be broken, lifting the superpartner masses into the TeV domain. (Larger masses would render SUSY irrelevant for solving the hierarchy problem.) Many models have been proposed to describe SUSY breaking (some promising directions were described by P.~Meade and D.~Shih at this school). However, despite over two decades of intense theoretical work, no completely compelling model has yet emerged. In the absence of clear theoretical predictions, a conservative approach is to simply consider a completely general SUSY breaking Lagrangian, imposing only the restriction that SUSY breaking must be ``soft", to not interfere with the SUSY solution to the gauge hierarchy problem. Such general soft Lagrangian contains about 100 free parameters, including all superpartner masses, as well as certain trilinear couplings among scalar superpartners (so-called ``A-terms"). The superabundance of free parameters is a curse on the study of SUSY signatures at colliders: Search strategies should ideally be designed that cover as much of the huge parameter space as possible, and, equally daunting, the results of each search should be presented as exclusion regions in this space. In practice, this challenge has not been met: most searches are planned and executed in terms of simplified models that impose relations among parameters, with the 5-parameter {\it ``minimal supergravity",} or mSUGRA, model being the most common choice.
In spite of the many free parameters, it is possible to identify generic qualitative features of collider events with superparticles. To avoid rapid proton decay, the MSSM postulates an additional discrete symmetry, the R-parity. This is a $Z_2$ symmetry, {\it i.e.} any physical particle is either odd or even under it. Every term in the Lagrangian must be even, so that an even number of R-odd particles must appear in each interaction vertex predicted by the theory. All known SM particles, as well as all Higgs scalars, are postulated to be R-even. The R-parity is embedded in the SUSY algebra in such a way that superpartners must have opposite R-charges; in other words, all superpartners of the SM particles are odd. This has two consequences, both crucial for collider searches:
\begin{itemize}
\item Superpartners must be {\it pair-produced} in collisions of SM particles.
\item The lightest superpartner (LSP) must be {\it stable}, and any other superpartner must decay to the LSP plus (any number of) R-even particles, either SM or extra Higgses.
\end{itemize}
Strong cosmological bounds on electrically charged and colored stable particles indicate that, if the MSSM is indeed realized in nature, the LSP should be one of the uncharged, uncolored particles of the model. There are three possibilities: the lightest neutralino $\tilde{N}_1$, the lightest sneutrino $\tilde{\nu}$, or the gravitino $\tilde{G}$. Of the three, the neutralino is an especially interesting possibility, since it can easily have the correct relic abundance to explain the observed dark matter, without conflict with direct dark matter search experiments. (The neutralino also naturally emerges as the LSP in several popular models of SUSY breaking, including mSUGRA.)
All these particles interact with ordinary matter too weakly to leave a trace in collider detectors, and so they would appear invisible, like the SM neutrino. Thus, the generic signature of SUSY at colliders is the excess of events with ``missing momentum", accompanied by the SM particles from decays of the originally produced superpartners to the LSP\footnote{One should keep in mind that if the LSP is the gravitino, the next-to-lightest superpartner (nLSP) may be sufficiently long-lived to decay outside the detector. If the nLSP is charged or colored, in this scenario one would look for exotic heavy particles leaving traces in the detector, instead of the usual missing energy signature.}. This qualitative prediction depends only on two basic assumptions --exactly conserved R-parity and neutral LSP -- and is independent of the precise values of the model parameters. Thus, quite generally, an inclusive search for events with missing energy in association with jets and/or charged leptons is the best model-independent search strategy.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{picture}(265,70)(0,0)
\SetOffset(20,-55)
\ArrowLine(1,109)(31,109)
\ArrowLine(31,65)(1,65)
\Line(31,65)(31,109)
\DashLine(31,109)(61,109){3}
\Vertex(31,109){2}
\DashLine(31,65)(61,65){3}
\Vertex(31,65){2}
\Text(-1,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(-1,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(63,65)[cl]{$\tilde{e}^*$}
\Text(63,109)[cl]{$\tilde{e}$}
\Text(33,87)[cl]{$\tilde{N}$}
\ArrowLine(121,109)(151,87)
\ArrowLine(151,87)(121,65)
\Photon(151,87)(196,87){2}{6}
\DashLine(196,87)(226,109){3}
\DashLine(226,65)(196,87){3}
\Vertex(151,87){2}
\Vertex(196,87){2}
\Text(119,109)[cr]{$e^-$}
\Text(119,65)[cr]{$e^+$}
\Text(228,109)[cl]{$\tilde{e}$}
\Text(228,65)[cl]{$\tilde{e}^*$}
\Text(174,100)[tc]{$\gamma/Z$}
\end{picture}
\end{center}
\caption{Leading-order diagrams for the MSSM scalar electron production in $e^+e^-$ collisions.}
\label{fig:FD_sel}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=LEP_sel.eps,width=7cm}
\psfig{file=LEP_sbot.eps,width=7cm}
\end{center}
\caption{LEP-2 bounds on the selectron mass (left) and the sbottom mass (right), plotted vs. the neutralino LSP mass. From the LEP2 Joint SUSY Working Group web site~\cite{LEP2_SUSY}.}
\label{fig:LEP2_susy_mind}
\end{figure}
In $e^+e^-$ collisions, sleptons, squarks and charginos can be produced via $s$-channel $\gamma^*/Z$ exchanges. In addition, selectrons, charginos and netralinos can be produced via $t$-channel exchange of neutralinos, sneutrinos and selectrons, respectively. As an example, consider the selectron search. The Feynman diagrams for selectron production are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:FD_sel}. Produced selectrons can decay directly to electrons and the lightest neutralino, assumed to be the LSP. This leads to the $e^+e^-+$missing energy final state, which can be easily identified at LEP. The SM backgrounds in this channel are not large, and the search is sensitive as long as the selectron production cross section is significant. Kinematically, selectron pair production is possible if $2m(\tilde{e})< \sqrt{s}$; this means that LEP-2 could in principle search for selectrons up to about 104 GeV. In practice, as usual, the bound is somewhat lower:
\begin{equation}
m(\tilde{e})\geq 100~{\rm GeV}\,.
\eeq{LEP_sel_bound}
However, there is a small caveat.
The search requires that the electrons and positrons from selectron decays be identified in the detector. If the selectron mass is close to the LSP mass, these particles are very soft and cannot be registered, so the search sensitivity is lost for $m(\tilde{e})-m(\tilde{N}_1)\stacksymbols{<}{\sim}{2.5}{.2} 1$ GeV. The region of the $m(\tilde{e})/m(\tilde{N}_1)$ plane excluded by the LEP-2 experiments is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LEP2_susy_mind}. Note that this plot is quite robust with respect to variations of the other MSSM parameters, since the bound is primarily determined by the kinematics of selectron production and decay. The searches for all other electrically charged superpartners (sleptons, squarks, and charginos) proceed in a similar way, and all yield bounds close to 100 GeV. For example, the LEP-2 bound on the sbottom mass (along with, for comparison, the CDF bound on the same parameter) is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LEP2_susy_mind}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=TeV_susy_xsec1.eps,width=8cm}
\psfig{file=TeV_susy_xsec2.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Yellow (shaded) bands: Theoretical cross section for total squark/gluino production at the Tevatron, as a function of the gluino mass, assuming squark mass of 460 GeV (left panel), or equal squark and gluino masses (right panel). Triangles: the upper bound on the cross section observed by the CDF collaboration at the Tevatron. The bound assumes that squark/gluino decays follow the pattern predicted by the mSUGRA model. From the web page~\cite{TeV_susy_web} (see also Ref.~\cite{TeV_susy}).}
\label{fig:TeV_susy_xsec}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=TeV_susy_MET.eps,width=10cm}
\end{center}
\caption{The MET distribution of events with $\geq 2$ jets and MET. Solid line: SM prediction. Dashed line: SM+SUSY (mSUGRA) prediction for 349 GeV gluino and 385 GeV squark. Data points: measurement by the CDF collaboration at the Tevatron. From the web page~\cite{TeV_susy_web} (see also Ref.~\cite{TeV_susy}).}
\label{fig:TeV_susy_MET}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=TeV_susy_massbound.eps,width=10cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Exclusion plane at 95\% c.l. as a function of squark and gluino masses in an mSUGRA scenario, reported by the CDF collaboration at the Tevatron. From the web page~\cite{TeV_susy_web} (see also Ref.~\cite{TeV_susy}).}
\label{fig:TeV_susy_massbound}
\end{figure}
At a hadron collider, the dominant superpartner production process is the production of squarks and gluinos via strong interactions: $\tilde{q}\tilde{q}^*, \tilde{q}\tilde{q}, \tilde{q}^*\tilde{q}^*, \tilde{q}\tilde{g}, \tilde{q}^*\tilde{g}$, and $\tilde{g}\tilde{g}$ final states are all possible. The cross sections for these reactions depend only on squark and gluino masses, and thus can be robustly predicted. The combined cross section for all squark/gluino production channels at the Tevatron is shown by the yellow bands in Fig.~\ref{fig:TeV_susy_xsec}. A large sample of squark and gluinos could in principle be produced at the Tevatron: for example, for $m(\tilde{g})=200$ GeV, the current data sample would contain of order $10^5$ such particles. As usual, the produced squarks and gluinos would decay promptly; the simplest decays are $\tilde{q}\to q\tilde{N}$ and $\tilde{g}\to q\tilde{q}\tilde{N}$, resulting in 2-jet, 3-jet, and 4-jet final states associated with missing transverse momentum. (In this context, missing transverse momentum is often referred to, somewhat misleadingly, as ``missing transverse energy", or MET. I will reluctantly follow this practice.) The SM background to this signature primarily comes from the reaction $Z+n$ jets, with invisible $Z$ decays, $Z\to\nu\bar{\nu}$. In addition, instrumental backgrounds, from pure-QCD multi-jet events where apparent MET results from mis-measurement of one or more of the jets, is also important due to very large pure-QCD event rates. All backgrounds, however, fall much faster than the expected SUSY signal with increased MET, as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:TeV_susy_MET}. (The amount of MET in SUSY events is controlled by the squark-neutralino or gluino-neutralino mass difference, of order few hundred GeV; the backgrounds peak at 0.) Imposing a lower cut on MET in the analysis improves sensitivity to the SUSY signal. Optimizing this cut, the CDF collaboration~\cite{TeV_susy} obtained the bounds on the squark/gluino production cross section shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:TeV_susy_xsec}. This was translated into a bound on squark and gluino masses, Fig.~\ref{fig:TeV_susy_massbound}.
Roughly speaking, gluinos below 300 GeV, and squarks below 350 GeV, are excluded in this scenario. However, note that while the squark and gluino production cross sections are rather robust, their decay chains, and the kinematics of the decay products, depend on numerous MSSM parameters beyond their masses: most notably, the LSP mass is important, since it controls both the amount of MET and the typical jet momenta in SUSY events. The CDF analysis~\cite{TeV_susy} assumed mSUGRA relations between the MSSM parameters; this implies, among other things, the ratio of the LSP and gluino masses of about 1:7. The cuts were optimized with this assumption. It should be noted that, if the MSSM is correct but the mSUGRA is not, such optimization could result in a loss of sensitivity: in other words, it is possible that the data contains a hint for SUSY that would be missed by this analysis~\cite{Jay}. Such considerations should be taken into account when designing future SUSY searches.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\psfig{file=LHC_susy.eps,width=8cm}
\end{center}
\caption{Discovery reach for SUSY projected by the ATLAS collaboration at the LHC. The mSUGRA model is assumed, and the reach is shown in terms of the $m_0$ and $m_{1/2}$ parameters, with the other parameters fixed: $\tan\beta=10$, $A_0=0$, $\mu>0$. The reach is shown for $n$-jet+MET signatures. Integrated luminosity of 200 pb$^{-1}$ (1/50 of a year at design luminosity) is assumed. From Ref.~\cite{LHC_susy}.}
\label{fig:LHC_susy}
\end{figure}
The same search can be repeated at the LHC. It will benefit from a much larger production cross section: inclusive SUSY cross sections in the tens of pb range (or 100,000's events/year at design luminosity) are possible in parameter regions not already ruled out by the Tevatron. The sensitivity of the search projected by the ATLAS collaboration is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:LHC_susy}. Even with only 200 pb$^{-1}$ of data, the LHC will dramatically increase the reach of the Tevatron, so very early discoveries are possible. (It should be kept in mind, however, that unambiguous measurement of MET requires that all potential instrumental sources of MET, {\it e.g.} cracks in the detector, mis-calibrated calorimeter cells, etc., must be identified first. This task may require substantial additional amount of data.)
Eventually, the LHC is expected to cover the entire range where SUSY provides an attractive solution to the hierarchy problem: If it is not discovered, then either electroweak symmetry breaking is severely fine-tuned, or some other mechanism for stabilizing the Higgs mass must be found.
\section{Further Reading}
\label{readings}
Collider physics is a vast subject, and in four lectures it is only possible to touch the tip of the iceberg. Luckily, a variety of excellent resources is available to students wishing to delve deeper into the subject. The popular Quantum Field Theory textbook by Peskin and Shroeder~\cite{PS}, which I referred to throughout these lectures, contains an insightful discussion of the key theoretical concepts crucial to the field. Sadly, some of these concepts are often not given sufficient emphasis in a typical one-year QFT course: Infrared divergences (chapter 6) and evolution equations (section 17.5) are two examples that come to mind. I tried to give a flavor of these topics in these lectures, but interested students are strongly encouraged to study them further. At a slightly more advanced level, the text by Ellis, Stirling and Webber~\cite{ESW} contains a wealth of material on applications of QCD to $e^+e^-$ and hadron collisions, as well as on electroweak processes and Higgs searches at hadron colliders. The text by Barger and Philips~\cite{BP} covers similar subjects, in addition to collider phenomenology of a few extensions of the SM. For readers primarily interested in physics beyond the SM, the book by Baer and Tata~\cite{BT} provides a comprehensive discussion of SUSY searches. Another useful source is the recent review article by Feng {\it et. al.}~\cite{Feng}. Pedagogical introduction to collider phenomenology of non-SUSY extensions of the SM is harder to find, although there are useful review articles on at least some of the popular models (e.g.~models of dynamical electroweak symmetry breaking~\cite{DEWSB_review}, Little Higgs~\cite{LH_review}, and Randall-Sundrum and Higgsless models~\cite{RS_review}).
In addition to theoretical work, anyone interested in the subject ought to pay attention to results coming out of the currently running Tevatron experiments. Both CDF and D{\O} collaborations maintain web pages~\cite{CDF_web,D0_web} that provide easy and convenient access to both published and preliminary public results, grouped by subject. For the LHC, ATLAS and CMS collaborations have published Technical Design Reports (TDRs)~\cite{ATLAS_TDR,CMS_TDR}, which describe detailed physics studies performed by the collaborations to assess their potential for a large number of measurements and searches. For a theory student, studying these Reports is an excellent preparation for understanding the LHC data.
{\it Note Added:}~~In the Fall semester of 2009, I taught a class on Collider Physics at Cornell, which covered many of the topics discussed here in much more detail. All (handwritten) lecture notes can be downloaded from the course web page~\cite{P7661_web}.
|
\section{Introduction}
The structure of light nuclei near the neutron drip-line is very interesting
for a good number of exotic phenomena. Nuclei in this region
are very different in collectivity and clustering features than the stable
counterpart in the nuclear chart. For example, the neutron magicity
is lost for the N=8 nucleus for $^{12}$Be \cite{navin00} and N=20 for $^{32}$Mg
\cite{motobayashi95}.
The discovery of large collectivity of $^{34}$Mg by Iwasaki et al.
\cite{iwasaki01} is
another example of such properties. The deformed structures and core
excitations of Mg and neighboring nuclei and location of drip-line in
this mass region is an important matter \cite{patra91}.
On the other hand,
the appearance of N=16 magic number for $^{24}$O is well established
\cite{ozawa00}. The
discovery of the two isotopes $^{40}$Mg and $^{42}$Al, once predicted
to be drip-line nuclei \cite{baumann07,moller95} gives indication that the
neutron drip-line is
located towards the heavier mass region.
The existence of neutron halo in
$^{11}$Li is well established and the possibility of proton halo in $^{8}$B
and the neutron halo in $^{14}$Be and $^{17}$B are very interesting
phenomena for the drip-line nuclei. In addition to these above exciting
properties, the cluster structure of entire light mass nuclei and the
skin formation in neutron-drip nuclei provide us features for the study of light mass
drip-line nuclei. Also, the exotic neutron drip-line nuclei play a role in
many astrophysical studies.
In this paper, our aim is
to study the neutron drip-line for Ne-S isotopic chain in the frame-work
of a relativistic mean field (RMF) and nonrelativistic Skyrme Hartree-Fock
formalism and analyse the large deformation of
these isotopes.
The paper is organised as follows: The relativistic and
non-relativistic mean field formalisms are described very briefly
in Section II. The results obtained from the relativistic mean field
(RMF) and Skyrme-Hartree-Fock (SHF) formalisms, and a discussion of
these results, are presented in Section III. Finally summary
and concluding remarks are given in Section IV.
\section{Theoretical framework}
Mean field methods have been widely used in the study of binding
energies and other properties of nuclei \cite{vautherin72,reinhard89}.
Although the older version of the SHF and RMF models have some
limitation to reproduce some of the observables, the recent formalisms
are quite efficient to predict the
bulk properties of nuclei not only near the stability valley, but
also for the nuclei near the proton and neutron drip-lines.
We use here two of the successful mean field models \cite{vautherin72,
rei95,cha97,cha98,stone07,stone03,sero86,ring90}
(Skyrme Hartree-Fock and the Relativistic Mean
Field ) to learn about the properties of drip-line nuclei $Ne-S$.
\subsection{The Skyrme Hartree-Fock (SHF) Method}
There are many known parametrizations of Skyrme interaction which reproduce the
experimental data for ground-state properties of finite nuclei and for the
observables of infinite nuclear matter at saturation densities, giving more or
less comparable agreements with the experimental or expected empirical
data. The general form of the Skyrme effective interaction, used in the
mean-field models, can be expressed as a density functional $\cal H$
\cite{cha97,stone07}, given as a function of some empirical parameters, as
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal H}={\mathcal K}+{\mathcal H}_0+{\mathcal H}_3+ {\mathcal H}_{eff}+\cdots \label{eq:1}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal K}$ is the kinetic energy term, ${\cal H}_0$ the zero range, ${\cal H}_3$ the
density dependent and ${\cal H}_{eff}$ the effective-mass dependent terms, which are
relevant for calculating the properties of nuclear matter. These are functions of 9 parameters
$t_i$, $x_i$ ($i=0,1,2,3$) and $\eta$, and are given as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal H}_0&=&\frac{1}{4}t_0\left[(2+x_0)\rho^2 - (2x_0+1)(\rho_p^2+\rho_n^2)\right],
\label{eq:2}
\\
{\mathcal H}_3&=&\frac{1}{24}t_3\rho^\eta \left[(2+x_3)\rho^2 - (2x_3+1)(\rho_p^2+\rho_n^2)\right],
\label{eq:3}
\\
{\mathcal H}_{eff}&=&\frac{1}{8}\left[t_1(2+x_1)+t_2(2+x_2)\right]\tau \rho \nonumber \\
&&+\frac{1}{8}\left[t_2(2x_2+1)-t_1(2x_1+1)\right](\tau_p \rho_p+\tau_n \rho_n). \nonumber \\
\label{eq:4}
\end{eqnarray}
The kinetic energy ${\cal K}=\frac{\hbar^2}{2m}\tau$, a form used in the Fermi gas model for
non-interacting fermions. The other terms, representing the surface contributions of a
finite nucleus with $b_4$ and $b^{\prime}_4$ as additional parameters, are
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathcal H}_{S\rho}&=&\frac{1}{16}\left[3t_1(1+\frac{1}{2}x_1)-t_2(1+\frac{1}{2}x_2)\right](\vec{\nabla}\rho)^2 \nonumber\\
&&-\frac{1}{16}\left[3t_1(x_1+\frac{1}{2})+t_2(x_2+\frac{1}{2})\right] \nonumber\\
&&\times\left[(\vec{\nabla}\rho_n)^2+(\vec{\nabla}\rho_p)^2\right],
\text{ and}
\label{eq:5}
\\
{\mathcal H}_{S\vec{J}}&=&-\frac{1}{2}\left[{b_4}\rho\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{J}+{b^{\prime}_4}(\rho_n\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{J_n}
+\rho_p\vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{J_p})\right].
\label{eq:6}
\end{eqnarray}
Here, the total nucleon number density $\rho=\rho_n+\rho_p$, the kinetic energy density
$\tau=\tau_n+\tau_p$, and the spin-orbit density $\vec{J}=\vec{J}_n+\vec{J}_p$. The
subscripts $n$ and $p$ refer to neutron and proton, respectively, and $m$ is the nucleon
mass. The $\vec{J}_q=0$, $q=n$ or $p$, for spin-saturated nuclei, i.e., for nuclei
with major oscillator shells completely filled. The total binding energy (BE) of a
nucleus is the integral of the density functional $\cal H$.
At least eighty-seven parametrizations of the Skyrme interaction are published since 1972
\cite{stone03} where $b_4=b^{\prime}_4=W_0$, we have used here the Skyrme SkI4 set with $b_4\ne b^{\prime}_4$
\cite{rei95}. This parameter set is designed for considerations of proper spin-orbit interaction in finite nuclei,
related to the isotope shifts in Pb region and is better suited for the
study of exotic nuclei. Several more recent Skyrme parameters such as
SLy1-10, SkX, SkI5 and SkI6 are obtained by fitting the Hartree-Fock (HF) results with experimental
data for nuclei starting from the valley of stability to neutron and
proton drip-lines \cite{cha97,rei95,cha98,brown98}.
\subsection{The Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) Method}
The relativistic mean field approach is well-known and the theory is well documented
\cite{sero86,ring90}. Here we start with the relativistic Lagrangian
density for a nucleon-meson many-body system, as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal L}&=&\overline{\psi_{i}}\{i\gamma^{\mu}
\partial_{\mu}-M\}\psi_{i}
+{\frac12}\partial^{\mu}\sigma\partial_{\mu}\sigma
-{\frac12}m_{\sigma}^{2}\sigma^{2}\nonumber\\
&& -{\frac13}g_{2}\sigma^{3} -{\frac14}g_{3}\sigma^{4}
-g_{s}\overline{\psi_{i}}\psi_{i}\sigma-{\frac14}\Omega^{\mu\nu}
\Omega_{\mu\nu}\nonumber\\
&&+{\frac12}m_{w}^{2}V^{\mu}V_{\mu}
+{\frac14}c_{3}(V_{\mu}V^{\mu})^{2} -g_{w}\overline\psi_{i}
\gamma^{\mu}\psi_{i}
V_{\mu}\nonumber\\
&&-{\frac14}\vec{B}^{\mu\nu}.\vec{B}_{\mu\nu}+{\frac12}m_{\rho}^{2}{\vec
R^{\mu}} .{\vec{R}_{\mu}}
-g_{\rho}\overline\psi_{i}\gamma^{\mu}\vec{\tau}\psi_{i}.\vec
{R^{\mu}}\nonumber\\
&&-{\frac14}F^{\mu\nu}F_{\mu\nu}-e\overline\psi_{i}
\gamma^{\mu}\frac{\left(1-\tau_{3i}\right)}{2}\psi_{i}A_{\mu} .
\end{eqnarray}
All the quantities have their usual well known meanings. From the relativistic
Lagrangian we obtain the field equations for the nucleons and mesons. These
equations are solved by expanding the upper and lower components of the Dirac
spinors and the boson fields in an axially deformed harmonic oscillator basis
with an initial deformation. The set of coupled equations is solved numerically
by a self-consistent iteration method.
The centre-of-mass motion energy correction is estimated by the usual harmonic
oscillator formula $E_{c.m.}=\frac{3}{4}(41A^{-1/3})$. The constant gap
BCS pairing is used to add the pairing effects for the open shell nuclei.
It is to be noted that in the present work only intrinsic state solutions
are presented. Each of these deformed intrinsic states is a superposition
of various angular momenta states. To obtain the good angular momentum states
and spectroscopic predictions for these nuclei near neutron drip-line
we need to project out states of good angular momenta.
Such calculation will be considered as a future extension of this work.
The quadrupole moment deformation parameter $\beta_2$ is evaluated from the resulting proton
and neutron quadrupole moments, as $Q=Q_n+Q_p=\sqrt{\frac{16\pi}5} (\frac3{4\pi} AR^2\beta_2)$.
The root mean square (rms) matter radius is defined as $\langle r_m^2\rangle={1\over{A}}\int\rho(r_{\perp},z) r^2d\tau$;
here $A$ is the mass number, and $\rho(r_{\perp},z)$ is the deformed density.
The total binding energy and other observables are also
obtained by using the standard relations, given in \cite{ring90}. We use the well
known NL3 parameter set \cite{lala97}. This set not only reproduces the properties
of stable nuclei but also well predicts for those far from the
$\beta$-stability valley. Also, the isoscalar monopole energy agrees excellently with
the experimental values for different regions of the Periodic Table. The measured
superdeformed minimum in $^{194}$Hg is 6.02 MeV above the ground state,
whereas in RMF calculation with NL3 set, this number is 5.99 MeV \cite{lala97}. All
these facts give us confidence to use this older, though very much still in use, NL3
set for the present investigation.
\section{Results and Discussion}
\subsection{Ground state properties from the SHF and RMF models}
There exists a number of parameter sets for the standard SHF and RMF
Hamiltonians and Lagrangians. In some of our previous papers and of
other authors
\cite{ring90,lala97,patra1,patra2,patra3}
the ground state properties, like the binding energies (BE),
quadrupole moment deformation parameters $\beta_2$, charge radii ($r_c$)
and other bulk properties are evaluated
by using the various non-relativistic and relativistic parameter sets.
It is found that, more or less, most of the recent parameters reproduce well the
ground state properties, not only of stable normal nuclei but also
of exotic nuclei which are away from the valley of beta-stability.
So, if one uses a reasonably acceptable parameter set the prediction
of the results will remain nearly force independent. This is valid both
for SHF and RMF formalisms. However, with a
careful inspection of these parametrizations, some of the SHF and RMF
sets can not reproduce the empirical data. In this
context we can cite the deviation of isotopic shifts than the
experimental data \cite{sharma93} for Pb nuclei while
using SHF forces like, SkM* values \cite{tajima93}. However, the
RMF sets reproduce the kink quite nicely \cite{sharma93a}. On the
other hand, most of the RMF sets over estimate the nuclear matter
incompressibility. In general, the predictive power of both the
formalisms are reasonably well and can be comparable to each other,
which can be seen in the subsequent subsections. In addition to this,
the general results SHF (SkI4) and RMF (NL3) forces are similar for
the considered region. Thus in the subsequent results during our
discussion we will refer the results of RMF (NL3) calculations,
except some specific cases. Thus the result of SHF (SkI4) are
not displayed in Tables.
\subsection{Binding energy and neutron drip-line}
The ground state binding energy (BE) are calculated for
Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si and S isotopes near the neutron drip-line.
This is done by comparing the prolate, oblate and spherical solution
of binding energy for a particular nucleus. For a given nucleus, the
maximum binding energy corresponds to the ground state and other
solutions are obtained as various excited intrinsic states.
In Table I, the ground state binding energy for the heaviest
isotopes for the nuclei discussed are compared with the experimental
data \cite{audi03}. From the Table it is observed that the calculated binding
energies are comparable with SHF and RMF results.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table1}{\it The calculated ground state binding energy
obtained from SHF and RMF theory are compared with the experimentally
known heaviest isotope for Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si and S \cite{audi03}.}
}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
nucleus &RMF&SHF&Expt.&nucleus&RMF&SHF&Expt.\\
\hline
$^{30}$Ne& 215.1 & 210.6 & 211.2& $^{33}$Na & 237.9&234.5 &232.8 \\
$^{34}$Mg&257.7& 255.1 & 256.2&$^{39}$Al &285.2 &281.9&283.1 \\
$^{41}$Si&310.1&305.1&306.6 & $^{45}$S &353.5 &350.2&354.2 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
We have listed the neutron drip-lines in Table II, which are obtained from the
ground state binding energy for neutron rich Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si and S nuclei.
The nuclei with the largest neutron numbers so far experimentally
detected in an isotopic chain till date, known as experimental
neutron drip-line are also displayed in this Table for comparison.
The numbers given in the parenthesis are the experimentally extrapolated
values\cite{audi03}. To get a qualitative understanding of the prediction
of neutron drip-line, we have compared our results with the infinite
nuclear matter (INM) \cite{sn} and finite range droplet model (FRDM)
\cite{frdm} mass estimation. From the table, it is clear that all the predictions
for neutron drip-line are comparable to each other.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table1}{\it The predicted neutron drip-line for Ne,
Na, Mg, Al, Si and S in RMF (NL3) and SHF (SKI4) parameter sets are
compared with prediction of infinite nuclear matter (INM) mass model \cite{sn},
finite range droplet model (FRDM) \cite{frdm} and experimental
data \cite{audi03} along with the number shown in parenthesis are the
experimentally extrapolated values. }}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
nucleus &RMF&SHF&INM&FRDM&Expt.\\
\hline
Ne& 34 & 34 &36&32&30 (34) \\
Na &40 &37 &40&36&33 (37) \\
Mg& 40 & 40 &46&40&34 (40) \\
Al &48 &48 &48&45&39 (42) \\
Si& 54 & 48 &50&48&41 (44) \\
S &55 &55 &53&50&45 (49) \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table3}{\it The calculated value of charge radius ($r_{ch}$),
quadrupole moment deformation parameter $\beta_2$ and binding energy (BE) for
Ne, Na and Mg nuclei in RMF (NL3) formalism. The maximum binding energy is the
ground state solution and all other values are the intrinsic excited state
solution. The radius $r_{ch}$ is in fm and the binding energy is in MeV.
}}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
nucleus &$r_{ch}$&$\beta_2$&BE(MeV)&nucleus &$r_{ch}$&$\beta_2$&BE(MeV)\\
\hline
$^{20}$Ne & 2.970 & 0.535 & 156.7 & $^{20}$Ne & 2.901 &-0.244 & 152.0 \\
$^{21}$Ne & 2.953 & 0.516 & 165.9 & $^{21}$Ne & 2.889 &-0.241 & 161.1 \\
$^{22}$Ne & 2.940 & 0.502 & 175.7 & $^{22}$Ne & 2.881 &-0.242 & 170.5 \\
$^{23}$Ne & 2.913 & 0.386 & 181.8 & $^{23}$Ne & 2.880 &-0.249 & 179.7\\
$^{24}$Ne & 2.890 & 0.278 & 188.9 & $^{24}$Ne & 2.881 & -0.259 & 188.9\\
$^{25}$Ne & 2.907 & 0.272 & 194.2 & $^{25}$Ne & 2.886 & -0.206 & 194.2\\
$^{26}$Ne & 2.926 & 0.277 & 199.9 & $^{26}$Ne & 2.893 & -0.159 & 199.9\\
$^{27}$Ne & 2.945 & 0.247 & 203.9 & $^{27}$Ne & 2.925 & -0.183 & 203.9\\
$^{28}$Ne & 2.965 & 0.225 & 208.2 & $^{28}$Ne & 2.957 & -0.203 & 208.2\\
$^{29}$Ne & 2.981 & 0.161 & 211.2 & $^{29}$Ne & 2.974 & -0.133 & 211.2\\
$^{30}$Ne & 2.998 & 0.100 & 215.0 & $^{30}$Ne & 2.995 & -0.081 & 215.0\\
$^{31}$Ne & 3.031 & 0.244 & 216.0 & $^{31}$Ne & 3.013 & -0.133 & 216.0\\
$^{32}$Ne & 3.071 & 0.373 & 218.6 & $^{32}$Ne & 3.033 & -0.180 & 218.6\\
$^{33}$Ne & 3.095 & 0.424 & 219.5 & $^{33}$Ne & 3.044 & -0.230 & 219.5\\
$^{34}$Ne & 3.119 & 0.473 & 220.9 & $^{34}$Ne & 3.054 & -0.275 & 220.9\\
$^{35}$Ne & 3.132 & 0.505 & 220.4 & $^{35}$Ne & 3.064 & -0.315 & 215.7\\
$^{36}$Ne & 3.146 & 0.539 & 220.3 & $^{36}$Ne & 3.075 & -0.352 & 220.4\\
$^{24}$Na & 2.939 &- 0.250 & 189.4 & $^{24}$Na & 2.964 & 0.379 & 192.3\\
$^{25}$Na & 2.938 & -0.258 & 200.3 & $^{25}$Na & 2.937 & 0.273 & 200.6\\
$^{26}$Na & 2.940 & -0.202 & 206.3 & $^{26}$Na & 2.965 & 0.295 & 207.1\\
$^{27}$Na & 2.946 & -0.157 & 212.5 & $^{27}$Na & 2.993 & 0.323 & 214.2\\
$^{28}$Na & 2.980 & -0.184 & 217.7 & $^{28}$Na & 2.993 & 0.272 & 219.0\\
$^{29}$Na & 3.012 & -0.205 & 223.4 & $^{29}$Na & 3.004 & 0.232 & 224.3\\
$^{30}$Na & 3.025 & -0.131 & 227.5 & $^{30}$Na & 3.031 & 0.169 & 228.1\\
$^{31}$Na & 3.043 & -0.074 & 232.5 & $^{31}$Na & 3.047 & 0.108 & 232.7\\
$^{32}$Na & 3.061 & -0.129 & 233.0 & $^{32}$Na & 3.077 & 0.237 & 234.5\\
$^{33}$Na & 3.082 & -0.179 & 234.3 & $^{33}$Na & 3.113 & 0.356 & 237.9\\
$^{34}$Na & 3.095 & -0.226 & 234.8 & $^{34}$Na & 3.137 & 0.404 & 239.8\\
$^{35}$Na & 3.108 & -0.270 & 235.9 & $^{35}$Na & 3.161 & 0.450 & 242.3\\
$^{36}$Na & 3.121 & -0.308 & 236.9 & $^{36}$Na & 3.175 & 0.481 & 242.5\\
$^{37}$Na & 3.135 & -0.345 & 238.4 & $^{37}$Na & 3.190 & 0.512 & 243.1\\
$^{38}$Na & 3.156 & -0.359 & 240.0 & $^{38}$Na & 3.199 & 0.491 & 243.4\\
$^{39}$Na & 3.180 & -0.375 & 241.8 & $^{39}$Na & 3.209 & 0.472 & 244.1\\
$^{40}$Na & 3.184 & -0.358 & 241.3 & $^{40}$Na & 3.228 & 0.477 & 243.4\\
$^{24}$Mg & 3.043 & 0.487 & 194.3 & $^{24}$Mg & 3.001 & -0.256 & 186.8\\
$^{25}$Mg & 3.009 & 0.376 & 202.9 & $^{25}$Mg & 2.993 & -0.261 & 199.1\\
$^{26}$Mg & 2.978 & 0.273 & 212.5 & $^{26}$Mg & 2.990 & -0.268 & 211.6\\
$^{27}$Mg & 3.015 & 0.310 & 220.2 & $^{27}$Mg & 2.988 & -0.204 & 218.2\\
$^{28}$Mg & 3.048 & 0.345 & 228.7 & $^{28}$Mg & 2.992 & -0.154 & 225.6\\
$^{29}$Mg & 3.055 & 0.289 & 234.3 & $^{29}$Mg & 3.027 & -0.186 & 232.0\\
$^{30}$Mg & 3.062 & 0.241 & 240.5 & $^{30}$Mg & 3.059 & -0.207 & 239.0\\
$^{30}$Mg & 3.131 & 0.599 & 237.7 & & & & \\
$^{31}$Mg & 3.075 & 0.179 & 245.1 & $^{31}$Mg & 3.068 & -0.128 & 244.0\\
$^{32}$Mg & 3.090 & 0.119 & 250.5 & $^{32}$Mg & 3.085 & -0.067 & 249.9\\
$^{32}$Mg & 3.131 & 0.471 & 248.8 & & & & \\
$^{33}$Mg & 3.117 & 0.233 & 253.1 & $^{33}$Mg & 3.102 & -0.126 & 251.5\\
$^{34}$Mg & 3.150 & 0.343 & 257.3 & $^{34}$Mg & 3.124 & -0.181 & 253.9\\
$^{34}$Mg & 3.184 & 0.588 & 254.1 & & & & \\
$^{35}$Mg & 3.173 & 0.388 & 260.5 & $^{35}$Mg & 3.141 & -0.196 & 255.3\\
$^{36}$Mg & 3.198 & 0.432 & 263.9 & $^{36}$Mg & 3.160 & -0.213 & 257.0\\
$^{37}$Mg & 3.212 & 0.462 & 264.9 & $^{37}$Mg & 3.179 & -0.258 & 258.8\\
$^{38}$Mg & 3.227 & 0.492 & 266.3 & $^{38}$Mg & 3.198 & -0.300 & 261.1\\
$^{39}$Mg & 3.237 & 0.473 & 267.8 & $^{39}$Mg & 3.216 & -0.338 & 263.4\\
$^{40}$Mg & 3.247 & 0.456 & 269.7 & $^{40}$Mg & 3.234 & -0.374 & 266.4\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table4}{\it Same as Table III, but for
Al, Si and S. }}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
nucleus &$r_{ch}$&$\beta_2$&BE(MeV)&nucleus &$r_{ch}$&$\beta_2$&BE(MeV)&\\
\hline
$^{24}$Al & 3.097 & 0.388 & 182.3 & $^{24}$Al & 3.077 & -0.258 & 179.4\\
$^{25}$Al & 3.072 & 0.381 & 197.7 & $^{25}$Al & 3.060 & -0.266 & 193.9\\
$^{26}$Al & 3.191 & 0.550 & 206.6 & $^{26}$Al & 3.052 & -0.275 & 207.8\\
$^{27}$Al & 3.215 & 0.572 & 217.0 & $^{27}$Al & 3.053 & -0.292 & 221.9\\
$^{28}$Al & 3.178 & 0.471 & 226.7 & $^{28}$Al & 3.037 & -0.208 & 238.6\\
$^{29}$Al & 3.061 & 0.251 & 239.3 & $^{29}$Al & 3.033 & -0.141 & 245.6\\
$^{30}$Al & 3.073 & 0.207 & 246.2 & $^{30}$Al & 3.070 & -0.184 & 253.8\\
$^{31}$Al & 3.085 & 0.170 & 253.6 & $^{31}$Al & 3.101 & -0.205 & 259.8\\
$^{32}$Al & 3.101 & 0.113 & 260.0 & $^{32}$Al & 3.103 & -0.111 & 261.2\\
$^{33}$Al & 3.118 & 0.057 & 267.2 & $^{33}$Al & 3.165 & -0.333 & 269.4\\
$^{34}$Al & 3.139 & 0.159 & 269.9 & $^{34}$Al & 3.134 & -0.108 & 275.1\\
$^{35}$Al & 3.167 & 0.268 & 274.1 & $^{35}$Al & 3.157 & -0.172 & 272.8\\
$^{36}$Al & 3.187 & 0.313 & 277.6 & $^{36}$Al & 3.173 & -0.189 & 277.7\\
$^{37}$Al & 3.208 & 0.355 & 281.5 & $^{37}$Al & 3.191 & -0.208 & 280.3\\
$^{38}$Al & 3.275 & 0.418 & 282.7 & $^{38}$Al & 3.214 & -0.254 & 283.5\\
$^{39}$Al & 3.285 & 0.406 & 285.1 & $^{39}$Al & 3.236 & -0.299 & 286.7\\
$^{40}$Al & 3.304 & 0.441 & 287.6 & $^{40}$Al & 3.257 & -0.336 & 290.4\\
$^{41}$Al & 3.325 & 0.474 & 290.5 & $^{41}$Al & 3.278 & -0.370 & 290.6\\
$^{42}$Al & 3.348 & 0.483 & 290.7 & $^{42}$Al & 3.281 & -0.355 & 291.2\\
$^{43}$Al & 3.371 & 0.491 & 291.3 & $^{43}$Al & 3.282 & -0.338 & 292.2\\
$^{44}$Al & 3.375 & 0.456 & 291.0 & $^{44}$Al & 3.274 & -0.288 & 293.6\\
$^{45}$Al & 3.378 & 0.420 & 291.0 & $^{45}$Al & 3.271 & -0.263 & 293.5\\
$^{46}$Al & 3.359 & 0.341 & 294.5 & $^{46}$Al & 3.346 & -0.296 & 294.0\\
$^{46}$Al & 3.246 & 0.125 & 293.6 & $^{46}$Al & 3.432 & 0.660 & 290.8\\
$^{47}$Al & 3.246 & 0.090 & 294.8 & $^{47}$Al & 3.335 & -0.319 & 293.6\\
$^{47}$Al & 3.447 & 0.653 & 290.4 & & & & \\
$^{48}$Al & 3.276 & 0.117 & 293.8 & $^{48}$Al & 3.319 & -0.252 & 294.0\\
$^{24}$Si & 3.162 & 0.294 & 169.1 & $^{24}$Si & 3.170 & -0.278 & 169.3\\
$^{25}$Si & 3.127 & 0.286 & 185.1 & $^{25}$Si & 3.139 & -0.274 & 184.8\\
$^{26}$Si & 3.099 & 0.282 & 201.8 & $^{26}$Si & 3.118 & -0.280 & 200.9\\
$^{27}$Si & 3.054 & 0.168 & 215.8 & $^{27}$Si & 3.114 & -0.299 & 216.4\\
$^{28}$Si & 3.017 & 0.001 & 231.4 & $^{28}$Si & 3.122 & -0.331 & 232.1\\
$^{29}$Si & 3.035 & 0.001 & 240.7 & $^{29}$Si & 3.093 & -0.237 & 240.7\\
$^{30}$Si & 3.070 & 0.148 & 250.6 & $^{30}$Si & 3.054 & -0.060 & 250.4\\
$^{31}$Si & 3.089 & 0.120 & 258.7 & $^{31}$Si & 3.108 & -0.180 & 259.1\\
$^{32}$Si & 3.109 & 0.104 & 267.2 & $^{32}$Si & 3.137 & -0.201 & 268.5\\
$^{33}$Si & 3.126 & 0.050 & 275.4 & $^{33}$Si & 3.131 & -0.084 & 275.6\\
$^{34}$Si & 3.148 & 0.000 & 284.4 & $^{34}$Si & 3.204 & -0.336 & 278.5\\
$^{35}$Si & 3.160 & 0.085 & 287.3 & $^{35}$Si & 3.161 & -0.083 & 287.4\\
$^{36}$Si & 3.184 & 0.193 & 291.4 & $^{36}$Si & 3.186 & -0.162 & 291.5\\
$^{37}$Si & 3.200 & 0.238 & 295.4 & $^{37}$Si & 3.201 & -0.181 & 294.8\\
$^{38}$Si & 3.218 & 0.281 & 299.8 & $^{38}$Si & 3.219 & -0.204 & 298.8\\
$^{39}$Si & 3.224 & 0.263 & 302.4 & $^{39}$Si & 3.245 & -0.254 & 301.9\\
$^{40}$Si & 3.232 & 0.244 & 305.4 & $^{40}$Si & 3.272 & -0.301 & 306.0\\
$^{41}$Si & 3.230 & 0.167 & 307.1 & $^{41}$Si & 3.295 & -0.336 & 310.1\\
$^{42}$Si & 3.228 & 0.013 & 309.8 & $^{42}$Si & 3.318 & -0.369 & 314.6\\
$^{43}$Si & 3.240 & 0.123 & 311.8 & $^{43}$Si & 3.320 & -0.356 & 315.2\\
$^{44}$Si & 3.252 & 0.172 & 314.3 & $^{44}$Si & 3.322 & -0.342 & 316.2\\
$^{45}$Si & 3.252 & 0.117 & 315.8 & $^{45}$Si & 3.316 & -0.308 & 317.5\\
$^{46}$Si & 3.253 & 0.053 & 317.9 & $^{46}$Si & 3.303 & -0.262 & 319.3\\
$^{47}$Si & 3.258 & 0.005 & 319.7 & $^{47}$Si & 3.345 & -0.298 & 319.8\\
$^{48}$Si & 3.263 & 0.001 & 321.8 & $^{48}$Si & 3.381 & -0.321 & 320.8\\
$^{49}$Si & 3.290 & 0.045 & 321.1 & $^{49}$Si & 3.366 & -0.251 & 320.7\\
$^{50}$Si & 3.319 & 0.074 & 321.1 & $^{50}$Si & 3.341 & -0.159 & 321.5\\
$^{51}$Si & 3.345 & 0.078 & 321.1 & $^{51}$Si & 3.358 & -0.135 & 321.2\\
$^{52}$Si & 3.371 & 0.082 & 321.4 & $^{52}$Si & 3.377 & -0.112 & 321.2\\
$^{53}$Si & 3.391 & 0.042 & 321.6 & $^{53}$Si & 3.391 & -0.052 & 321.3 \\
$^{54}$Si & 3.415 & 0.000 & 322.3 & $^{54}$Si & 3.415 & -0.010 & 322.0\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table5}{\it Same as Table III, but for S.
}}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
nucleus &$r_{ch}$&$\beta_2$&BE(MeV)&nucleus &$r_{ch}$&$\beta_2$&BE(MeV)\\
\hline
$^{33}$S & 3.241 & 0.197 & 275.5 & $^{33}$S & 3.233 & -0.116 & 275.1\\
$^{34}$S & 3.248 & 0.140 & 285.8 & $^{34}$S & 3.257 & -0.168 & 286.5\\
$^{35}$S & 3.260 & 0.077 & 295.6 & $^{35}$S & 3.260 & -0.078 & 295.7\\
$^{36}$S & 3.273 & 0.002 & 306.2 & $^{36}$S & 3.309 & -0.308 & 299.7\\
$^{37}$S & 3.285 & 0.152 & 311.6 & $^{37}$S & 3.287 & -0.116 & 310.1\\
$^{38}$S & 3.300 & 0.228 & 318.6 & $^{38}$S & 3.300 & -0.164 & 316.9\\
$^{39}$S & 3.312 & 0.264 & 325.3 & $^{39}$S & 3.307 & -0.173 & 322.6\\
$^{40}$S & 3.325 & 0.299 & 332.4 & $^{40}$S & 3.316 & -0.181 & 328.5\\
$^{41}$S & 3.331 & 0.287 & 337.7 & $^{41}$S & 3.324 & -0.189 & 333.6\\
$^{42}$S & 3.338 & 0.277 & 343.2 & $^{42}$S & 3.335 & -0.207 & 339.2 \\
$^{43}$S & 3.359 & 0.318 & 347.2 & $^{43}$S & 3.348 & -0.229 & 344.1\\
$^{44}$S & 3.381 & 0.367 & 351.0 & $^{44}$S & 3.366 & -0.263 & 349.5\\
$^{45}$S & 3.375 & 0.312 & 353.4 & $^{45}$S & 3.367 & -0.240 & 351.8\\
$^{46}$S & 3.371 & 0.258 & 356.6 & $^{46}$S & 3.375 & -0.237 & 355.1\\
$^{47}$S & 3.385 & 0.257 & 358.5 & $^{47}$S & 3.380 & -0.230 & 358.0\\
$^{48}$S & 3.400 & 0.259 & 360.8 & $^{48}$S & 3.389 & -0.230 & 360.8\\
$^{49}$S & 3.403 & 0.227 & 362.9 & $^{49}$S & 3.420 & -0.257 & 362.9\\
$^{50}$S & 3.403 & 0.189 & 365.5 & $^{50}$S & 3.451 & -0.277 & 365.0\\
$^{51}$S & 3.427 & 0.188 & 366.4 & $^{51}$S & 3.451 & -0.231 & 365.9\\
$^{52}$S & 3.451 & 0.183 & 367.6 & $^{52}$S & 3.447 & -0.178 & 367.6\\
$^{53}$S & 3.463 & 0.158 & 369.1 & $^{53}$S & 3.466 & -0.172 & 368.4\\
$^{54}$S & 3.477 & 0.139 & 371.0 & $^{54}$S & 3.486 & -0.142 & 369.8\\
$^{55}$S & 3.494 & 0.105 & 371.4 & $^{55}$S & 3.497 & -0.090 & 370.5\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{tab:table6}{\it
The calculated value of charge radii ($r_{ch}$),
quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta_2$ and binding energy (BE) for
Ne, Mg, Si and S even-even nuclei in SHF (SkI4) formalism. The maximum
binding energy is the
ground state solution and all other values are the intrinsic excited state
solution. The radius $r_{ch}$ is in fm and the binding energy is in MeV.
}}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\hline
nucleus & $r_{ch}$& $\beta_2$ & BE(MeV)& $r_{ch}$ & $\beta_2$ &BE(MeV) \\
\hline
$^{20}$Ne & 3.029 & 0.5481 & 156.817 & 2.950 &-0.1356 & 154.474 \\
$^{22}$Ne & 3.005 & 0.5223 & 175.758 & 2.943 & -0.1989 & 172.758 \\
$^{24}$Ne & 2.952 & 0.2546 & 188.354 & 2.951 & -0.2541 & 188.538 \\
$^{26}$Ne & 2.953 & 0.1233 & 199.380 & 2.944 & 0.0060 & 199.389 \\
$^{28}$Ne & 3.013 & 0.1623 & 206.524 & 3.010 & -0.1334 & 206.433 \\
$^{30}$Ne & 3.054 & 0.0030 & 213.721 & & & \\
$^{32}$Ne & 3.103 & 0.3808 & 213.118 & 3.118 & 0.3716 & 213.215 \\
$^{34}$Ne & 3.179 & 0.4880 & 213.483 & 3.108 & -0.1462 & 209.695 \\
$^{36}$Ne & 3.203 & 0.6015 & 212.230 & 3.147 & -0.2789 & 208.770 \\
$^{24}$Mg & 3.128 & 0.5248 & 195.174 & 3.077 & -0.252 & 189.946 \\
$^{26}$Mg & 3.090 & 0.3623 & 212.885 & 3.079 & -0.2988 & 213.153 \\
$^{28}$Mg & 3.111 & 0.3419 & 228.997 & 3.056 & -0.1076 & 227.899 \\
$^{30}$Mg & 3.119 & 0.2022 & 240.328 & 3.117 & -0.1835 & 240.514 \\
$^{32}$Mg & 3.145 & 0.0000 & 252.033 & 3.145 & 0.0000 & 252.033 \\
$^{34}$Mg & 3.209 & 0.3263 & 255.067 & 3.175 & -0.1196 & 253.455 \\
$^{35}$Mg & 3.295 & 0.4884 & 201.512 & 3.252 & -0.289 & 257.634 \\
$^{36}$Mg & 3.265 & 0.4413 & 259.899 & 3.213 & -0.2124 & 255.368 \\
$^{40}$Mg & 3.321 & 0.4741 & 262.796 & 3.299 & -0.3538 & 260.200 \\
$^{28}$Si & 3.117 & 0.009 & 231.037 & 3.194 & -0.3494 & 233.590 \\
$^{30}$Si & 3.145 & 0.1477 & 252.146 & 3.168 & -0.2102 & 252.625 \\
$^{32}$Si & 3.179 & 0.007 & 269.479 & 3.199 & -0.1990 & 270.483 \\
$^{34}$Si & 3.216 & 0.000 & 286.332 & & & \\
$^{36}$Si & 3.146 & 0.1549 & 292.418 & 3.241 & -0.009 & 292.425 \\
$^{38}$Si & 3.291 & 0.3051 & 298.173 & 3.279 & -0.1978& 298.173 \\
$^{40}$Si & 3.325 & 0.2990 & 230.450 & 3.309 & -0.2817 & 303.969 \\
$^{42}$Si & 3.349 & 0.3592 & 307.399 & 3.334 & -0.3508 & 310.023 \\
$^{44}$Si & 3.334 & 0.2119 & 309.712 & 3.377 & -0.3031 & 311.601 \\
$^{46}$Si & 3.337 & 0.009 & 312.451 & 3.372 & -0.2405 & 313.508 \\
$^{48}$Si & 3.348 & 0.002 & 315.425 & 3.438 & -0.2893 & 313.995 \\
$^{30}$S & 3.262 & 0.1491 & 241.434 & 3.178 & -0.1856 & 241.385 \\
$^{32}$S & 3.271 & 0.200 & 208.173 & 3.256 & -0.1700 & 267.975 \\
$^{34}$S & 3.288 & 0.1212 & 288.804 & 3.295 & -0.1566 & 289.304 \\
$^{36}$S & & & & 3.314 & -0.003 & 309.619 \\
$^{38}$S & 3.341 & 0.2144 & 320.168 & 3.331 & -0.1289 & 318.951 \\
$^{40}$S & 3.374 & 0.3042 & 332.097 & 3.350 & -0.1529 & 327.809 \\
$^{42}$S & 3.392 & 0.2898 & 341.033 & 3.379 & -0.2195 & 337.031 \\
$^{44}$S & 3.436 & 0.3677 & 348.266 & 3.410 & -0.2714 & 346.445 \\
$^{46}$S & 3.423 & 0.2517 & 352.486 & 3.413 & -0.2090 & 351.578 \\
$^{48}$S & 3.450 & 0.2379 & 356.188 & 3.430 & -0.2032 & 356.589 \\
$^{50}$S & 3.441 & 0.1229 & 360.815 & 3.498 & -0.2673 & 359.011 \\
$^{52}$S & 3.482 & 0.1099 & 362.347 & 3.487 & -0.1356 & 362.531 \\
$^{54}$S & 3.528 & 0.003 & 364.650 & 3.524 & -0.1023 & 363.926 \\
$^{56}$S & 3.558 & 0.1105 & 366.031 & 3.556 & -0.0100 & 366.033\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The drip-lines are very important after discovery of
the two isotopes $^{40}$Mg and $^{42}$Al \cite{baumann07} that here once
predicted
to be beyond the drip-line \cite{moller95,samyn04}. This suggests that the
drip-line is somewhere in the heavier side
of the mass prediction which are beyond the scope of the present mass models
\cite{moller95,samyn04}. In this calculations the newly discovered
nuclei $^{40}$Mg and $^{42}$Al are well within the prediction both
in the SHF and RMF formalisms.
Again a further comparison of the drip-line with RMF and SHF prediction,
we find the drip-line predictions in both calculations are well comparable,
except for a few exceptions in Na and Si as shown in Table II.
\subsection{Neutron configuration}
Analysing the neutron configuration for these exotic nuclei, we notice
that, for lighter isotopes
of Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si and S the oscillator shell $N_{osc}=3$ is empty.
However, the $N_{osc}=3$ shell gets occupied gradually with increase of
neutron number. In case of Na, $N_{osc}=3$ starts filling up at $^{33}$Na with quadrupole
moment deformation parameter $\beta_2=0.356$ and $-0.179$ with occupied orbits
$[330]1/2^{-}$ and $[303]7/2^{-}$, respectively. The filling of $N_{osc}=3$
goes on
increasing for Na with neutron number and it is $[330]1/2^{-}$,
$[310]1/2^{-}$, $[321]3/2^{-}$ and $[312]5/2^{-}$ at $\beta_2=0.472$ for
$^{39}$Na.
Again for the oblate solution the occupation is $[301]1/2^{-}$,
$[301]3/2^{-}$, $[303]5/2^{-}$ and $[303]7/2^{-}$ for $\beta_2=-0.375$
for $^{39}$Na.
In the case of Mg isotopes, even for $^{30,32}$Mg, the $N_{osc}=3$ shell have
some occupation for the low-lying excited states near the Fermi surface for $^{30}Mg$ (at
$\beta$= 0.599 with Be = 237.721 MeV the $N_{osc}$=3 orbit is $[330]7/2^{-}$ and for $^{32}Mg$:
$\beta_2=[330]1/2^{-}$, BE=248.804 MeV at $\beta_2=0.471$). With the increase
of neutron number in Mg and Si isotopic chain, the oscillator
shell with $N_{osc}=3$ gets occupied more and more. For most of the
Si isotopes, the oblate solutions are the dominating ones than the low-lying
prolate superdeformed states, i.e. mass of the oblate solutions are the ground state
solutions and the prolate and some superdefomed are the excited configurations. Again, in
S-isotopes, the prolate are the ground state and the oblate are the extreme excited states.
Note that in many cases, there exist low laying superdeformed states and some of them are
listed in the Tables.
\subsection{Quadrupole deformation}
The ground and low-lying excited state deformation systematics for some
of the representative nuclei for Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si and S are analysed.
In Fig. 1, the ground state quadrupole deformation parameter $\beta_2$
is shown as a function of mass number for Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si and S.
The $\beta_2$ value goes on increasing with mass number for Ne, Na and Mg
isotopes near the drip-line.
The calculated quadrupole deformation parameter
$\beta_2$ for $^{34}$Mg is 0.59 which compares well with the recent
experimental measurement of Iwasaki et al \cite{iwasaki01}
($\beta_2=0.58\pm 6$). Note that this superdeformed states in 3.2 MeV
above than the ground band. Again, the magnitude of $\beta_2$ for
the drip-line nuclei reduces with neutron number N and again increases.
A region of maximum deformation is found for almost all the nuclei
as shown in the figure. It so happens in cases like, Ne, Na, Mg and
Al that the isotopes are maximum deformed which may be comparabled to
superdeformed near the drip-line. For Si isotopes,
in general, we find oblate solution in the ground configurations. In many
of the cases, the low-lying superdeformed configuration are clearly
visible and some of them are available in the Tables.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:epsart}{\it The ground state quadrupole deformation
parameter $\beta_2$ versus mass number A for Ne, Na, Mg, Al, Si and S isotopes
near the drip-line with NL3 parameter set.
}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Shape coexistence}
One of the most interesting phenomena in nuclear structure physics is the
shape coexistence \cite{maharana92,sarazin00,egido04}. In many of the cases
for the nuclei considered here near the drip-line isotopes, the ground state
configuration accompanies a low-lying excited state. In few cases, it so
happens that these two solutions
are almost degenerate. That means we predict almost similar binding energy
for two different configurations. For example, in the RMF calculation,
the ground state binding energy
of $^{24}$Ne is 189.093 MeV with $\beta_2=-0.259$ and the binding energy of
the excited low-lying configuration at $\beta_2=0.278$ is 188.914 MeV.
The difference
in BE of these two solutions is only 0.179 MeV. Similarly the
solution of prolate-oblate binding energy difference in SkI4 is 0.186 MeV
for $^{30}$Mg with $\beta_2=-0.183$ and 0.202. This phenomenon is
clearly available in most of the isotopes near the drip-line.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig2.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:epsart}{\it The difference in binding energy
between the prolate-oblate solutions is shown for even-even Ne, Mg, Si and S
isotopes near the neutron drip-line with NL3 and SkI4 parameter sets.
}}
\end{figure}
To show it in a more quantitative way, we have plotted the prolate-oblate
binding energy difference in Figure 2. The left hand side of the figure
is for relativistic and the right side is the nonrelativistic SkI4 results.
From the figure, it is clear that an island of shape coexistence
isotopes are available for Mg and Si isotopes. These shape coexistence
solutions are predicted taking into account the intrinsic binding energy.
However the actual quantitative energy difference of ground and excited
configuration can be given by performing
the angular momentum projection, which is be an interesting problem for
future.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig3.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:epsart}{\it The two-neutron separation $S_{2n}$ energy
versus neutron number N for neutron-rich Ne, Mg, Si and S isotopes.
}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two neutron separation energy and new magic number}
The appearance of new and the disappearance of known
magic number near the neutron drip-line is a well discussed topic
currently in nuclear structure physics \cite{ozawa00,jha03}. Some of the
calculations in recent past predicted the disappearance of the known magic
number N=28 for the drip-line isotopes of Mg and S \cite{ren01,werner94}.
However, magic number 20 retains its magic properties even for the drip-line
region.
In one of our earlier publications, \cite{patra} we analysed the spherical shell gap
at N=28 in $^{44}$S and its neighboring $^{40}$Mg and $^{42}$Si using NL-SH
\cite{sharma93} and TM2 parameter sets \cite{toki94}. The spherical shell
gap at N=28 in $^{44}$S was found to be intact for the TM2 and is broken for
NL-SH parametrization.
Here, we plot the two-neutron separation energy $S_{2n}$ of Ne,
Mg, Si and S for the even-even nuclei near the drip-line (fig 3). The
known magic number N=28 is noticed to be absent in $^{44}$S. On the
other hand the appearance of steep 2n-separation energy at N=34 both
in RMF and SHF calculation
looks quite prominent, and this is just two units ahead than the experimental
shell closure N=32 \cite{kanungo02}.
\subsection{ Superdeformation and Low $\Omega$ parity doublets}
The deformation-driving $m=1/2-$orbits come down in energy
in superdeformed solutions from the shell above, in contrast to
the normal deformed solutions. The occurrence of approximate
$1/2^+$ $1/2^-$ parity dobulets (degeneracy of $|m|^{\pi}$=
$1/2^+$ $1/2^-$ states) for the superdeformed solutions are clearly
seen in Figs. 4 and 5 where excited superdeformed configurations
for $^{32}$Mg and $^{34}$Mg and for $^{46}$Al and $^{47}$Al are given.
For each nucleus we have compared the normal deformed
$(\beta_{2} \sim 0.1-0.3)$ and the superdeformed configurations and
analysed the deformed orbits.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig4.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:epsart}{\it The $1/2^+ and 1/2^-$ intrinsic
single-particle states for
the normal and superdeformed state for $^{32}$Mg and $^{34}$Mg. A few of the
lowest energy parity-doublet states of the superdeformed (SD) solutions are
shown by asterisk for the SD configuration. More such doublets are noticed
for the SD intrinsic states. The ${\pm 1/2^-}$ states are denoted by shorter
(and green) lines and the ${\pm 1/2^+}$ states are denoted by longer (
and black).
}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig5.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:epsart}{\it Same as Fig. 4 for $^{46}$Al
and $^{47}$Al.
}}
\end{figure}
The $1/2^+$ and $1/2^-$ states for the single particle levels are
shown in Fig. 4 (for $^{32}$Mg and $^{34}$Mg). From the analysis of
the results of this calculation,
we have found a systematic
behaviour of the low $\Omega$ (particularly $1/2^+$ and $1/2^-$) prolate
deformed orbits for the superdeformed solutions. As representive cases,
we present here results
for ($^{34}$Mg $-$ $^{32}$Mg) and ($^{47}$Al $-$ $^{46}$Al)
and plot the $1/2^+$ and $1/2^-$ orbits for
the superdeformed and normal deformed shapes of these nuclei. We notice
from the plot of the orbits that there is occurrence of $1/2^+$ and $1/2^-$
orbits very closeby in energy for the superdeformed (SD) shape.
Two such $1/2^+$ and $1/2^-$ doublet structures, marked in asterisk
are shown in Figs. 4 and 5 for the SD solutions.
Such $1/2^+$ $1/2^-$ degenerate orbits occur not only for the
well-bound orbits but also for the unbound continuum states. As example,
the doublet neutrons $[220]1/2^+$ and $[101]1/2^-$ states is 4 MeV apart
in energy in the normal deformed prolate
solutions tend to become degenerate in the SD solution $[220]1/2^+$
and $[101]1/2^-$ states (prolate) belonging to two different major shells,
so close to each other in the superdeformed solution (shown in
Figs. 4 for $^{34}$Mg). More such doublets are easily identified
(Figs. 4 and 5) for superdeformed solutions of $^{32,34}$Mg and $^{46,47}$Al.
In fact it is noticed that the $\Omega=1/2$ states of unique parity, seen
clearly well separated in the normal deformed solutions, get quite
close to each other for the SD states, suggesting degenerate parity
doublet structure. This can lead
to parity mixing and octupole deformed shapes for the SD structures
\cite{crp07}. Parity doublets and octupole deformation for superdeformed
solutions have been discussed for neutron-rich Ba and Zr nuclei
\cite{crp86,crp99}.
There is much interest for the experimental study of the spectra of
neutron-rich nuclei in this mass region \cite{miller}. The highly deformed
structures for the neutron-rich $Ne-Na-Mg-Al$ nuclei are interesting
and signature of such superdeformed configurations should be looked for.
\section{Summary and Conclusion}
In summary, we calculate the ground and low-lying excited state properties,
like binding energy and quadrupole deformation $\beta_2$ using NL3 parameter
set for Ne, Na, Mg, Si and S isotopes, near the neutron drip-line region.
In general, we find large deformed solutions for the neutron-drip
nuclei which agree well with the experimental measurement. We have
done the calculation using the nonrelativistic Hartree-Fock formalism with
Skyrme
interaction SkI4. Both the relativistic and non-relativistic results were found
comparable to each other for the considered mass region. In the
present calculations a large number of low-lying intrinsic superdeformed
excited states are observed for many of the isotopes and some of them are reported.
The breaking of N=28 magic number and the appearance of a new magic number at
N=34 appears in our calculations. A proper angular momentum projection
may tell us the exact lowering of binding energy and it may happen that
the superdeformed would be the ground band of some of the neutron-rich
nuclei. Work
in this direction is worth doing because of the present interest in
the topic of the drip-line nuclei.
In this study we find that, for the SD shape, the low $\Omega$ orbits (particularly $\Omega=1/2$)
become more bound and show a parity doublet structure.
Closelying parity-doublet band structures and enhanced electromagnetic
transition rates are a clear possibility for the
superdeformed shapes.
\section{Acknowledgments}
This work has been supported in part by Council of Scientific $\&$ Industrial
Research (No. 03(1060)06/EMR-II) as well as projects No. SR/S2/HEP-16/2005 and
SR/S2/HEP-037/2008,
Department of Science and Technology, Govt. of India.
|
\section{Introduction}
In the lattice dynamics of a polar crystal, there are two characteristic features,
which give evidence that the interaction of electrons with the polar long-wavelength
optical modes should be necessarily taken into account.
The first feature is related to the existence of dipole moments associated with optical
vibrational modes. The second one concerns with the difference in long-range fields
given by longitudinal and transverse optical modes at the zone center~\cite{BornM}.
In general, the long-wavelength optical vibrations in polar crystals are responsible
for the presence of an electric field~\cite{BornM}.
As it is well-known, the generation of this field results from the displacement
of the ions and is modified by electronic polarizabilities.
This modifies the forces and affects the optical phonon frequencies.
On the other hand, the anomalously large Born effective charges,
which give giant LO-TO splittings in ferroelectric compounds~\cite{Zhong},
are associated with the existence of an anomalously large
dipole-dipole interaction~\cite{Ghosez}.
The long-wavelength optical phonons, therefore, appear to be a key factor
for relating electronic and lattice (structural) properties.
It is important to emphasize that electron-phonon coupling has the fundamental
significance in the understanding of various physical properties of polar
compounds (e.g.,~\cite{Mechelen,Devreese}).
However, to the best of our knowledge, most comprehensive information
regarding the interactions between electrons and optical phonons is primarily concerned
with the theoretical and experimental studies related to longitudinal optical (LO) phonons
(e.g.,~\cite{Mechelen,Devreese,Harrison,Cardona2,Licari,Alexandrov} and references therein).
As regards transverse optical (TO) vibrations, with only a few
exceptions~\cite{Vinecki,Kristoffel6}, no attempts have been made to consider
consistently the problem of determining the electron-TO-phonon (el-TO-ph) interactions
in polar crystals with due account for their particular polar properties.
This question is of considerable practical
importance for the vibronic theory (e.g.,~\cite{Kristoffel1,Kristoffel2,Bersuker1,Bersuker2}
and references therein) in which the coupling between electrons and the zone-center TO vibrations
is the driving force of a ferroelectric instability, and where the strength of this coupling
should be especially strong~\cite{Pishtshev1}. Moreover, the new developments of
the vibronic theory concerning different properties of oxide ferroelectrics and
multiferroics~\cite{Kristoffel2,Bersuker2,Girshberg1,Konsin3,Konsin4} increased
the interest in the understanding of the nature of~the~el-TO-ph~interactions.
Thus, this raises the issue of very little theoretical knowledge about
the el-TO-ph interaction constants in polar compounds, and the present paper
is aimed at filling this gap.
In this paper, using characteristic parameters of a polar crystal in an explicit way,
we study the main features of the el-TO-ph interaction.
The novel aspects of our work are based on a first-principles treatment of the role
of the el-TO-ph interaction.
In particular, we demonstrate that, in polar materials, the el-TO-ph coupling
is essentially influenced by the features of the Coulomb interaction between electrons
and the lattice ions.
We also give a microscopic justification of a significant enhancement
of the el-TO-ph interaction strength in ferroelectrics compounds.
Within a first-principles methodology, we show how to link the interaction of electrons
with the polar long-wavelength TO phonons to the long-range dipole-dipole interaction.
This, in turn, provides a nontrivial relationship between the el-TO-ph interaction constants
and the macroscopic material parameters, such as dipole oscillator strengths
and the forbidden gap. The relationship gives us
a practical framework for estimations of the values of the el-TO-ph interaction constants
in a polar material for which no data have been available so far.
In the more general context of understanding displacive structural instabilities
our results can be used to probe deeper into the nature of the ferroelectric phase transition,
and, in particular, to discover what factors related to material properties
may be responsible for the strength of the el-TO-ph interaction in polar insulators.
\section{Theoretical modeling}
\subsection{Basic set-up of physical model and the main features}
As our focus is the el-TO-ph interaction, we shall be interested in
finding the change in the electronic charge density induced by a polar TO vibration
of a long wavelength.
In order to consider the problem at the atomic level, we represent a polar crystal by
a model based on classical potentials and contributions of the electronic polarization
effects through the relative displacements of the electronic shells~\cite{Vinecki}
(see also~\cite{Sepliarsky1,Wilson}).
Within the standard procedure of the dipole approximation
(expanding to first order in the ionic and electronic displacements,
entering into the~${\bf q}$-representation, and going to the normal coordinates
$u_{{\bf q}j}$), the perturbation of the host crystal due to interactions
with the polar lattice TO vibrations (${\bf q}j$) is given by:
\begin{equation}\label{ei potential1}
\delta U_{ext}^{tr}({\bf r}) =
N^{-1/2} \sum_{ {\bf q},j } V_{{\bf q}j}({\bf r})\,
u_{{\bf q}j}
\end{equation}
where
$V_{{\bf q}j}({\bf r})= v \, {\bf P}({\bf q}j)\cdot{\bf F}_{{\bf q}}({\bf r})\,$,
\begin{equation}\label{ei potential1B}
{\bf F}_{{\bf q}}({\bf r}) =
\,-\, ie \, \frac{4\pi}{v} \, {\sum_{{\bf G}\neq0}} \,
{\frac{{\bf G}}{{\vert{\bf q}+{\bf G}\vert}^2}} \,
{ e^{i\,({\bf q}+{\bf G})\,{\bf r}} } \, ,
\end{equation}
${\bf P}({\bf q}j)$ is an amplitude of the dipole polarization
(dipole moment per unit volume) associated with the polar TO mode~\cite{BornM},
${\bf G}$ denotes the reciprocal lattice vector,
$v$ is the volume of the unit cell, and $N$ is their number.
The derivation of Eq.~(\ref{ei potential1}) accounts also for the fact
that in the long-wavelength limit one can take the corresponding Fourier transformation
of the Coulomb potential to be independent of ion's position in the unit cell.
The accuracy of this approximation was investigated previously in~\cite{Vinecki,Kristoffel6}.
Equation~(\ref{ei potential1}) is exactly the one that we shall use
to study the interaction of electrons with the polar TO lattice vibrations
in the long-wavelength limit. Before presenting the results themselves,
let us emphasize the most important key points which
characterize the model as a consistent, systematic and workable framework.
The first is that Eq.~(\ref{ei potential1}) accounts for the changes in ion properties
that are caused by changes
in its environment, and, hence, in accordance with~\cite{Wilson} includes not only pairwise
electron-ion interactions but also many-body effects.
This follows from the accounting for an electronic contribution (${\bf P}^{(e)}({\bf q}j)$)
in the dipole polarization:
${\bf P}({\bf q}j) = {\bf P}^{(i)}({\bf q}j) + {\bf P}^{(e)}({\bf q}j)$.
This contribution is connected with the the distortion of the electronic
charge distribution (e.g.,~\cite{Hardy}).
The corresponding ionic contribution (${\bf P}^{(i)}({\bf q}j)$) is related with
the displacements of the ions participating in the TO vibrations~\cite{BornM}:
${\bf P}^{(i)}({\bf q}j)= v^{-1}
{\sum}_{s} ({ Z_s }e/{ \sqrt{{M_s}} } \,) {\bf w}(s,{\bf q}j)$
where ${Z_s}e$ denotes the effective charge~\cite{Cochran} of an ion with the mass ${M_s}$
placed in the cite $s$, and ${\bf w}(s,{\bf q}j)$ is the polarization vector of the normal
TO vibration.
At ${\bf q}=0$, the both polarization components satisfy the following
relations~\cite{BornM,Vinecki}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{polvector2}
{\bf P}^{(i)}(0j) =\,
\frac{3}{{\epsilon}_{\infty}+2}\, {\bf P}(0j) \, , \,\,
{\bf P}^{(e)}(0j) =\,
\frac{{\epsilon}_{\infty}-1}{{\epsilon}_{\infty}+2}\, {\bf P}(0j)
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\epsilon}_{\infty}$ is the electronic (static-high-frequency) dielectric permittivity.
Attention should next be directed to the long-wavelength nature of the quantity
${\bf F}_{{\bf q}}({\bf r})$ standing in Eq.~(\ref{ei potential1}).
On the one hand, in a polar crystal it defines the electric field at a point ${\bf r}$
inside the bulk as a part of the internal field associated with
the TO phonon displacement~\cite{Vinecki} (we recall that the microscopic
electric field excited in the crystal has components ${\bf q}+{\bf G}$
for all reciprocal-lattice vectors). On the other hand,
at ${\bf q}=0$,
$\left.{\bf F}_{{\bf q}}({\bf r})\right|_{{\bf q}=0}={\bf F}_{0}({\bf r})$
can be represented as (${\bf l}$ denotes lattice vectors):
\begin{equation}\label{transversefield1}
{\bf F}_{0}({\bf r})\,=\,-\,
{\bf \nabla}\left({ {\sum_{\bf l}}\,
\frac{e}{\left|{\bf r}-{\bf l}\right|} }\right) \,=\,-\,
{\bf \nabla} \phi_{e}({\bf r}) \, .
\end{equation}
It is seen from Eq.~(\ref{transversefield1}) that, in accordance
with~\cite{Kholopov1,Rozzi}, the quantity ${\bf F}_{0}$
is a field generated by the Coulomb electrostatic potential
$\phi_{e}({\bf r})$ which is connected (at given boundary conditions)
through the Poisson equation with a charge distribution
${\delta}{\rho}_e({\bf r})=e{\sum}_{\bf l}{\delta}({\bf r}-{\bf l})$.
This result, in turn, suggests a macroscopic characterization for the quantity
$V_{{\bf q}j}({\bf r})$ given in Eq.~(\ref{ei potential1}) as follows:
it comes in the form of
an electrostatic contribution which interrelates the dipole polarization
associated with the polar long-wavelength TO mode
and
the electric field caused by the reaction of the electron subsystem
to the relevant {\textquotedblleft}external{\textquotedblright} perturbation.
In this connection, we also note that both the resulting shift of the electron density and
the effect of the dipole polarization appear to be clear signatures of the strength of
the el-TO-ph interaction.
The third important point is that interaction in the form~(\ref{ei potential1})
may be responsible for the softening of the lattice subsystem.
Clearly, this is the case of the vibronic theory~\cite{Kristoffel1,Bersuker1}.
Following closely Ref.~\cite{Hargittai}, we observe that local change in the electron
density distribution will generate an imbalance with respect to the corresponding density
of the positive background. As a result, there will be a restoring force
that will tend to compensate this density imbalance.
As it argued in~\cite{Hargittai}, such asymmetry effect will initiate distortions
of the ions and the redistribution of charge, eventually leading to a decrease
in the total energy, and to a match between the symmetry of the ionic arrangement and
that of the electron density distribution.
\subsection{Model for electron-TO phonon interaction}
The starting point is a generic model of an insulator
consisting of the occupied valence and empty conduction bands
separated by a forbidden gap.
Keeping in mind correctness in the description of an insulated state,
we assume that the wave functions ($\psi_{{\sigma}\bf k}$)
and energies ($E_{\sigma}({\bf k})$) are the set of one-particle Bloch eigenfunctions
and eigenvalues corresponding to the band structure,
which are determined within the framework of DFT-LDA methods
with the correct accounting for the quasiparticle effects
by means of many-body perturbation theory~\cite{Aryasetiawan1}.
Equation~(\ref{ei potential1}), providing a basis for studying
the el-TO-ph interaction, corresponds in the second-quantization
formalism to the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{hamiltonian_el-ph}
H_{el-ph} =
{N}^{-1/2} \,
{\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{'}\,j}}\,{\sum_{\bf k,\bf q}}\,
g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k},{\bf q}j) \,
a^+_{\sigma{\bf k}}a_{\sigma^{'}{\bf k-q}} \, u_{{\bf q}j} \,
\end{equation}
which characterizes the dynamic mixing of an electron state
$\vert\,{\sigma}\,{\bf k}\,${\textgreater}
with another state $|\,{{\sigma}^{'}\bf (\bf{k}-\bf{q})}\,${\textgreater}
caused by the TO phonon.
Here $a^+$ ($a$) are the creation (annihilation) operators
for electronic states
in the valence and conduction bands ($\sigma, \sigma^{'}$),
$g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k},{\bf q}j)$~denotes
the matrix elements of the el-TO-ph interaction defined
at the equilibrium high-symmetry configuration of the lattice by
\begin{equation}\label{integral_el-ph0}
g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k},{\bf q}j) \,=\,
<{\sigma}{\bf k}|\,
V_{{\bf q}j}({\bf r})
|{\sigma}^{'}({\bf k}-{\bf q})>\, .
\end{equation}
Expression~(\ref{integral_el-ph0}) involves both
interband (${{\sigma}\neq{\sigma}^{'}}$) and intraband (${{\sigma}={\sigma}^{'}}$)
matrix elements.
In the long-wavelength limit, the intraband matrix elements vanish due to inversion symmetry
and, correspondingly, the coupling of electrons and TO lattice vibrations
is completely characterized by the interband matrix elements.
In the context of first-principles features/attributes belonging to the model,
it is worth to emphasize the following aspects:
(i) The electronic states are periodic in space and delocalized over
the entire unit cell; in systems with a gap
infinitesimal displacements affect all the states uniformly~\cite{Stechel},
(ii) the valence and conduction (excited) states can mix under these
displacements~\cite{Bersuker2},
(iii) the energetics of the interaction of electrons with the long-wavelength
polar TO lattice vibrations
is strongly affected by energetics of the lattice electronic distribution,
(iv) the effect of the dipole polarization is to change the
center of force between a "shell" of an ion's electrons and
the other force centers in the crystal~\cite{Hardy2},
(v) like the electron-gas model of Gordon and Kim~\cite{GKmodel}, the corresponding
interaction energy is a function of changes in the electron charge densities, and
(vi) as seen from Eq.~(\ref{transversefield1}), these changes are represented
by distortions of charge density owing to electric field gradients at certain lattice sites
of a polar crystal.
Our intermediate goal here has been to offer a detailed, microscopically realistic
framework that could be used for quantitative investigations of the el-TO-ph
interaction in a polar crystal. In order to achieve the objectives of the present work
further study in this direction is divided into two main steps:
The first is a comparative first-principles analysis of the contribution
of Eq.~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph}) into the lattice dynamics of TO lattice vibrations;
the second handles the interband matrix elements, and develops formulas
allowing us to estimate el-TO-ph interaction strengths in terms of macroscopic material
parameters for a wide range of polar dielectrics.
\section{Electron-phonon interaction and TO lattice vibrations}
\subsection{On the dynamics of TO lattice vibrations}
We begin the present section by reviewing the main properties of
the electronic contribution into the dynamics of lattice vibrations.
Then we calculate the relevant electronic contribution given by Eq.~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph}).
Our task is to compare this contribution with the corresponding results of microscopic
lattice dynamics~\cite{Sham2,Kvyatkovskii2,Kvyatkovskii3} with regard to the long-wavelength
polar TO phonons. For this purpose, within the adiabatic approximation, we consider the dynamics
of the TO vibrations in terms of the matrix elements of the el-TO-ph interaction
determined by Eq.~(\ref{integral_el-ph0}).
A key feature of the electron subsystem is that it provides a link between an electronic energy
and an equilibrium geometry of a crystalline structure (this link in turn depends upon the
electronic contributions to the total energy).
The electronic contributions to the dynamical matrix of a nonmagnetic crystal arise from changes
in the electronic charge density due to the presence of the electron-ion potential in
a system (e.g.,~\cite{Kristoffel1,Bersuker1,Sham2,Baroni2,Baroni1}).
This implies that, by studying the lattice dynamics, one can acquire fundamental information on
the role of the electron-phonon interactions in a given material.
Since the real part of the self-energy of the TO vibrational mode
specifies the deviation of the unperturbed phonon states upon adiabatic variation
of the potential connected with external perturbation,
we represent the square of the TO phonon frequency $\Omega_{{\bf q}j}^{2}$
as a sum of the unperturbed term $\widetilde{\omega}^{2}_{{\bf q}j}$ and
the additional term $\Delta\omega^{2}_{{\bf q}j}$ which accounts for el-TO-ph coupling
governed by Hamiltonian~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph}):
$$
\Omega^{2}_{{\bf q}j} = \widetilde{\omega}^{2}_{{\bf q}j} + \Delta\omega^{2}_{{\bf q}j} \,.
$$
We expect the {\textquotedblleft}normal{\textquotedblright}
part $\widetilde{\omega}^{2}_{{\bf q}j}$,
which may be regarded as the bare TO phonon frequency
with respect to the el-TO-ph coupling, to be free of softening anomalies.
As usual (e.g.,~\cite{Kristoffel1,Cowley}), it is assumed that
$\widetilde{\omega}^{2}_{{\bf q}j}$ also involves contributions from the phonon-phonon
interactions, which are needed to describe the dependence of the TO phonon frequency
on temperature.
We can obtain the corresponding electronic contribution $\Delta\omega^{2}_{{\bf q}j}$ in
the following way. The first step is to employ
the linear density response function matrix (the dielectric susceptibility) $\hat{\chi}$
that relates a variation of the electronic density (the charge response) $\delta\hat{{\rho}}$
to the perturbation potential $\delta\hat{v}_{ext}$ as follows~\cite{Dolgov,Louie2}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{linear-resp1}
\delta\hat{{\rho}}=\hat{\chi}\delta\hat{v}_{ext} \, , \quad
{\hat{\epsilon}}^{-1}=\hat{I}+\hat{v}_{c}\hat{\chi}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\hat{\epsilon}}^{-1}$ denotes the inverse dielectric matrix,
$\hat{I}$ is the identity matrix, and $\hat{v}_{c}$ is the bare Coulomb interaction.
Note that perturbation~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph}) modifies the ground-state values
and therefore induces $\delta\hat{{\rho}}$.
As stated by the DFT formalism,
both $\hat{\chi}$ and the potential $\delta\hat{v}_{ext}$ itself are unique functionals
of the electronic density.
Since the Coulomb and electron-phonon interactions cause the phonon propagator
to be fully renormalized (e.g.,~\cite{Allen}),
the second step is to represent the real part of the TO phonon self-energy
to the lowest-order in $g^2$ as the corresponding harmonic term,
and to account for the contributions of the Coulomb interaction
among electrons. Using microscopic expressions for matrix elements
$g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k},{\bf q}j)$ given by Eq.~(\ref{integral_el-ph0}),
by the last step, we write the equation for $\Delta\omega^{2}_{{\bf q}j}$
in the following form:
\begin{equation}\label{softmode-eq2}
\Delta\omega^{2}_{{\bf q}j} =
4\pi v \, {\sum_{\alpha,\beta}}\,B_{\alpha \beta}({\bf q})
\,P_{{\alpha}}({\bf q}j)\,P_{{\beta}}({\bf q}j)
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation} \label{softmode-eq2-B}
B_{\alpha \beta}({\bf q}) = \frac{ v } {4\pi e^{2}}
{\sum_{{\bf G,G^{'}}{\neq0}}}
G_{\alpha} \, v_{c}({\bf q+G})\,
\chi_{el}({\bf q+G}, {\bf q+G^{'}})\,
v_{c}({\bf q+G^{'}}) \, G^{'}_{\beta} \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{eqnarray}\label{hi-eq1}
{\hat{\chi}}_{el} =
\frac{\hat{\Pi}_{0}}{\hat{I}-\hat{v}_{c}\hat{\Pi}_{0}} \, , \,\,
v_{c}({\bf q+G}) = \frac{4\pi e^{2}}{v\left|{\bf q+G}\right|^{2}} \, ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{multline}\label{pol-operator-eq1}
\Pi_{0}({\bf q}+{\bf G}, {\bf q}+{\bf G^{'}}) =
\,-\, \frac{1}{N} \, {\sum_{\sigma,\sigma^{'}}} {\sum_{\bf k}}\,
\frac{f_{\sigma}({\bf k})-f_{\sigma^{'}}({\bf k+q})}
{E_{\sigma^{'}}({\bf k+q})-E_{\sigma}({\bf k})} \\
{\times} \,
\int \psi^*_{\sigma{\bf k}}\,
e^{i({\bf q}+{\bf G})\,{\bf r}}
\psi_{\sigma^{'}{\bf k-q}}\,d\tau
\int \psi^*_{\sigma^{'}{\bf k-q}}\,
e^{-i({\bf q}+{\bf G^{'}})\,{\bf r^{'}}}
\psi_{\sigma{\bf k}}\,d\tau^{'}\, .
\end{multline}
Here the matrix elements of the microscopical dielectric susceptibility
of the electron subsystem $\chi_{el}({\bf q+G}, {\bf q+G^{'}})$
are expressed in the random phase approximation
in terms of polarization operator $\hat{\Pi}_{0}$~\cite{Dolgov,Adler,Wiser,Mazin2},
and $f$ are the occupation numbers.
\subsection{Consistency with first-principles considerations}
In this and next section, we shall show that our results
given by Eqs.~(\ref{softmode-eq2})-(\ref{pol-operator-eq1})
are consistent with first-principles considerations.
This will allow us to establish a bridge that relates the interaction of electrons
with the polar long-wavelength TO modes of the lattice vibrations
to the long-range dipole-dipole interaction.
Within the framework of our comparative analysis, it seems to be useful
to take into account three important points:\\
(i) We deal with the long-wavelength TO phonons, i.e., in fact,
with the analytical part of the harmonic force constants.
The remaining non-analytic part only affects the LO phonon frequencies,
and therefore determines the LO-TO splitting at the $\Gamma$ point.\\
(ii) The unique feature of the force constants is that they
can be decomposed into a sum of two independent terms~\cite{Sham2,Baroni2,Baroni1}:
the direct ionic and electronic contributions.
The electronic contribution, which represents indirect interactions via the electron subsystem,
is the focus of our discussion because involves the detailed information
on the el-TO-ph interaction.\\
(iii) The long-wavelength behavior of the force constants can also be represented in terms of
the balance between the short-range repulsive and long-range Coulomb forces associated
with the short-range and long-range dipole-dipole interactions,
respectively~\cite{Ghosez,Kvyatkovskii2,Kvyatkovskii3,Gonze}.
The long-range contribution is represented by the interplay of the Born transverse effective
charge tensors. It is a key quantity in polar compounds because favors the ferroelectric
distortion, while its direct competitor (the short-range contribution) tends to suppress
the ionic displacements and to provide the stability of the high-symmetry configuration.
Note that, in the context of the present work,
the above pair-wise separabilities of the force constants will be particularly instructive
for comparison purposes. For instance,
by matching different pieces of information contained in the dynamical matrix,
we could recognize relevant aspects of the el-TO-ph interaction.
We start our comparison procedure by noting that within the microscopic
theory of lattice vibrations the Fourier transforms of the harmonic force constants
are expressed through the matrix elements of the susceptibility function
$\chi_{el}({\bf q+G}, {\bf q+G^{'}})$ (e.g.,~\cite{Sham2,Keating,Pick}).
By performing a comparison of Eqs.~(\ref{softmode-eq2}) and~(\ref{softmode-eq2-B})
with those from~\cite{Sham2}, we can ensure that
the expression for $B_{\alpha \beta}({\bf q})$, which is written in terms of
the microscopic electronic dielectric susceptibilities and the Coulomb potentials,
describes the corresponding electronic
contribution to the square of the TO phonon frequency $\Omega^{2}_{{\bf q}j}$
(i.e., the contribution which uniquely involves the $\chi_{el}({\bf q+G}, {\bf q+G^{'}})$
matrix elements with both ${\bf G}$ and ${\bf G^{'}}$ different from zero).
Due to the microscopic formulation of the el-TO-ph interaction given by~(\ref{integral_el-ph0}),
this result is general and independent on the particular details of
the interaction of electrons with the polar long-wavelength TO vibrations.
This implies that fundamental property of $B_{\alpha \beta}({\bf q})$ is that it represents,
in accordance with~\cite{Sham2,Allen,Pick},
the electron mediated part of the long-range Coulomb interaction.
\subsection{Relevance to the long-range dipole-dipole interaction}
As the second step of the comparison procedure, it is appropriate to compare
equations~(\ref{softmode-eq2}) and~(\ref{softmode-eq2-B})
with the corresponding results of lattice dynamics
theories~\cite{BornM,Cochran,Sham2,Kvyatkovskii2,Kvyatkovskii3}
related to polar insulators.
For this purpose let us inspect the long-wavelength limit of Eqs.~(\ref{softmode-eq2})
and~(\ref{softmode-eq2-B}) in more detail.
Observe that one of the characteristic features of Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq2})
represents the interplay of the polarization amplitudes
$P_{{\alpha}}(0j)$ and $P_{{\beta}}(0j)$
which, as in~\cite{Kvyatkovskii3}, can be characterized by the second rank tensor
$S_{\alpha \beta}(j) =
4\pi v\, P_{{\alpha}}(0j)P_{{\beta}}(0j)$.
The quantities $S_{\alpha \beta}(j)$
are defined as dipole oscillator strengths for the given zone-centre TO vibration
and correspond to the contributions
of the TO vibrational modes in the infrared (IR) part of the Lorentz model of
the dielectric matrix
${\epsilon}_{\alpha \beta}$ (e.g.,~\cite{Vinecki,Sham2,Cowley2}):
\begin{equation}\label{dm-eq1}
({\epsilon}_{\omega})_{\alpha \beta} \,=\,
({\epsilon}_{\infty})_{\alpha \beta} \,+\,
{\sum_{j}}\,
\frac{S_{\alpha \beta}(j)}{\, \Omega^{2}_{0j}{\,-\,}\omega^{2} \,} \, .
\end{equation}
It is easy to show, using the definition of $P_{{\alpha}}^{(i)}(0j)$ together
with~(\ref{polvector2}), that the dipole oscillator strengths
$S_{\alpha \beta}(j)$ can be represented in terms of the TO mode effective charge:
\begin{equation}\label{dm-eq1A}
S_{\alpha \beta}(j) =\, \frac{4{\pi}e^{2}}{v} \, \left(
\sum_{s} Z_s^{*} \, \frac {w_{\alpha}(s,0j)}{ \sqrt{ {M_s} } } \, \right)
\left(
\sum_{t} Z_t^{*} \, \frac {w_{\beta}(t,0j)}{ \sqrt{ {M_t} } } \, \right) \, .
\end{equation}
Here the result of each such summation in the round brackets
is called the TO mode effective charge~\cite{Zhong}
(which corresponds to the dipolar activity of the zone-center TO phonons
and is a measure of the intensities of IR-active modes),
$Z_s^{*}$ are the Born transverse dynamical effective charges
defined as~\cite{BornM,Kvyatkovskii2,Ghosez2,Xu}
$Z_s^{*}=\left[({{\epsilon}_{\infty}+2})/3\right]{Z_s}\,$.
After substituting for the product
$P_{{\alpha}}(0j)P_{{\beta}}(0j)$, Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq2}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{softmode-eq3}
\Delta\omega^{2}_{0j} \,=\,
{\sum_{\alpha,\beta}}\, B_{\alpha \beta}(0)\,S_{\alpha \beta}(j) \,
\end{equation}
where the tensor $B_{\alpha \beta}(0)$ is defined from Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq2-B})
at ${\bf q}=0$ by
\begin{equation}\label{softmode-eq3-B}
B_{\alpha \beta}(0) = \frac{ v } {4\pi e^{2}}
{\sum_{{\bf G,G^{'}}{\neq0}}}
G_{\alpha} \, v_{c}({\bf G})\,
\chi_{el}({\bf G}, {\bf G^{'}})\,
v_{c}({\bf G^{'}}) \, G^{'}_{\beta}
\end{equation}
and~$\chi_{el}({\bf G}, {\bf G^{'}})=
{\lim}_{{\bf q}\rightarrow0}\,\chi_{el}({\bf q+G}, {\bf q+G^{'}})$.
By using the representation of the susceptibility
function~$\chi_{el}({\bf G}, {\bf G^{'}})$~in
terms of matrix elements of the microscopic polarizability
tensor~$a_{{\gamma}{\eta}}({\bf G}, {\bf G^{'}})$~\cite{Sinha2},
$$
\chi_{el}({\bf G}, {\bf G^{'}})= - \sum_{\gamma \, \eta}\,
G_{\gamma}\,a_{{\gamma}{\eta}}({\bf G}, {\bf G^{'}})\,G^{'}_{\eta} \, ,
$$
Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3-B}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{softmode-eq3-C}
B_{\alpha \beta}(0) = \,-\, \frac {4\pi e^{2}} { v }
{\sum_{{\bf G,G^{'}}{\neq0}}} \, \sum_{\gamma , \eta}\,
\frac {G_{\alpha} \, G_{\gamma}} { \left|{\bf G}\right|^{2} } \,
a_{{\gamma}{\eta}}({\bf G}, {\bf G^{'}})\,
\frac { G^{'}_{\eta} \, G^{'}_{\beta} } { \left|{\bf G^{'}}\right|^{2} } \, .
\end{equation}
The set of equations~(\ref{softmode-eq3})-(\ref{softmode-eq3-C}),
which we have rigorously derived, allows us to analyse
the relevance of our model to long-range dipole forces.
We shall now prove this relevance by comparing with
the results of the previous theoretical studies of lattice dynamical models
(e.g.,~\cite{BornM,Cochran,Kvyatkovskii3}).
Note first that, in polar insulators, in the limit of zero wave-vector
the displacement of charges from their equilibrium positions creates
dipoles, which interact with long-range forces~\cite{BornM}.
The associated long-range dipole-dipole interaction can be characterized by
the coupling of the Born transverse dynamical effective
charges~$Z_s^{*}\,Z_t^{*}$, i.e., by the product
$P_{{\alpha}}(0j)\,P_{{\beta}}(0j)\,$.
Secondly, this interaction can be characterized by
assigning the dipole polarization an external moment~\cite{Mahan}
${\bf P}(0j)=[({{\epsilon}_{\infty}+2})/{3}]\,{\bf P}^{(i)}(0j)$
with the proportionality coefficient given by the local-field factor
(see Eqs.~(\ref{polvector2})).
Thirdly, following Ref.~\cite{Iishi}, Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) with the help of
Eqs.~(\ref{dm-eq1A}) and~(\ref{softmode-eq3-C}) can at once be identified
as the long-range Coulomb contribution resulting from the induced dipole interactions
through the electronic polarizability.
Therefore, our comparative analysis shows that
the set of equations~(\ref{softmode-eq3})-(\ref{softmode-eq3-C})
are directly related to the contribution of the long-range Coulomb interaction.
Furthermore, from comparison of our result given by Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3})
with the corresponding equations for the TO vibrational modes derived within
the macroscopical formalism~\cite{BornM}, we can find the evaluation of
the tensor $B_{\alpha \beta}(0)$.
Let us show that $B_{\alpha \beta}(0)$ is expressed as
\begin{equation}\label{softmode-eq3-B1}
B_{\alpha \beta}(0) =
-\,{\delta}_{\alpha\beta}/{({\epsilon}_{\infty}+2)} \, .
\end{equation}
As a comparison parameter, it is reasonable to choose the product
$P_{{\alpha}}(0j)\,P_{{\beta}}(0j)$
that measures the long-range dipole-dipole interaction~\cite{Mahan}.
With the use of results of~\cite{BornM,Vinecki},
for the case of the cubic (or tetrahedral) lattice symmetry, in dipole approximations,
the counterpart of Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) can be represented
in terms of the product $P_{{\alpha}}(0j)\,P_{{\beta}}(0j)$ (or $S_{\alpha \beta}(j)$)
as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{softmode-eqDD1}
\Delta\omega^{2}_{0j} =\,-\,
4\pi v \, {\sum_{\alpha,\beta}}\,
\frac{ {\delta}_{\alpha\beta} }{ {\epsilon}_{\infty}+2 } \,
P_{{\alpha}}(0j)\,P_{{\beta}}(0j)
=\,
- \, {\sum_{\alpha,\beta}}\,
\frac{ {\delta}_{\alpha\beta} }{ {\epsilon}_{\infty}+2 } \,
S_{\alpha \beta}(j) \,.
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3-B1}) is obtained by a direct comparison of Eqs.~(\ref{softmode-eq3})
and~(\ref{softmode-eqDD1}).
In the last step of our comparison analysis, we find that
equations~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) and~(\ref{softmode-eq3-B1}) are identical
to the results derived within the exact accounting of the dipole-dipole interaction
in lattice dynamics~\cite{Kvyatkovskii3}. This identity directly implies that
the product $B_{\alpha \beta}(0) P_{{\alpha}}(0j)P_{{\beta}}(0j)$
represents the regular at the $q = 0$ contribution of the long-range dipole forces.
This allows us to conclude that, within the framework
of TO vibration mode dynamics, the model originally specified by
Eqs.~(\ref{ei potential1}),~(\ref{ei potential1B}),~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph})
and~(\ref{integral_el-ph0}) matches the microscopic approach
proposed and developed for polar crystals in~\cite{Kvyatkovskii2,Kvyatkovskii3}.
This is a novel result of principal importance:
we showed and confirmed the correspondence between two descriptions
of dynamics of the zone-centre TO vibrational mode - one in terms
of the el-TO-ph interaction and the other in terms
of the long-range regular at the $q = 0$ part of the dipole-dipole
interaction~\cite{Kvyatkovskii2,Kvyatkovskii3}.
Moreover, Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) clearly demonstrates the equivalence
of the interpreting power of both descriptions, and therefore can serve as a link
between the two approaches.
Thus, we have shown above that microscopic formulation of the el-TO-ph interaction
given by~(\ref{integral_el-ph0}) provides results consistent with first-principles
considerations. We finish this section with a few important remarks.
Firstly, it should be noted that, as follows from the foregoing analysis,
the interaction of electrons with the polar zone-centre TO phonons
is directly associated with the long-range Coulomb interaction.
Secondly, the magnitude of the destabilizing contribution ($B_{\alpha \beta}(0)<0$)
determined by Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) will rise steeply in polar materials.
This will lead to significant softening of the zone-centre TO vibrational mode
frequency $\Omega_{0j}$.
The third remark is concerned with strong sensitivity
of calculated (at ${\bf q}=0$) frequencies~(\ref{softmode-eq3})
to the dipole oscillator strengths:
this is the manifestation of the fact that the zone-centre TO vibrational modes
exceptionally strongly can be coupled to valence band electrons.
Our findings give a clear understanding of the role of the el-TO-ph interaction
in the conversion of $\Omega_{0j}$ to the ferroelectric soft-mode.
Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) shows how changes in the electron density
(or the changes in the electronic states) induced by the local displacements
are sufficient to yield a considerable softening of the TO phonons around the $\Gamma$ point.
In the context of structural dynamical instability the dipole oscillator strengths
$S_{\alpha \beta}(j)$ as enhancement factors in Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3})
can serve as an important macroscopic measure for
probing how close the system may be to the ferroelectric instability.
In the next section, we specify our treatment of the el-TO-ph interaction to the
case of ferroelectric crystals, and derive the corresponding effective Hamiltonian,
which would characterize the interband scatterings of the bond electrons
due to the zone-center TO phonons.
\section{On electron-TO-phonon coupling in ferroelectrics }
\subsection{Parametrization of electron-TO phonon coupling at $q=0$ }
The microscopic approach considered above is quite general; in the present section, we show
how simplifications allow us to deduce a reduced model of el-TO-ph interaction.
The starting point is Eqs.~(\ref{softmode-eq2})-(\ref{pol-operator-eq1}) in which
we set ${\bf q}=0$.
The main complication in executing the limit ${\bf q}\rightarrow0$ in the matrix elements
of $\hat{\chi}_{el}$ is that one needs to exclude the relevant contributions associated with
the electronic displacements (these contributions are included in the definition of
$g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}^{2}$).
This problem is solved in two steps:
(i) by finding a change of the electronic charge density
associated with interaction~(\ref{ei potential1}) and
(ii) by applying Eqs.~(\ref{linear-resp1})
in a similar way as was described in~\cite{Kvyatkovskii2}
regarding the analysis on the internal electric field
effects. Acting in this manner, and taking into account Eqs.~(\ref{polvector2}),
we obtain that in the long-wavelength limit,
the reduced susceptibility $\hat{{\chi}}_{el}^{0}$ turns out to be related
to $\hat{\chi}_{el}$ by the following equation:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{linear-resp2}
{\bf q}\rightarrow0 : \quad
\hat{\chi}_{el} \,=\,
{\frac{3}{{\epsilon}_{\infty}+2}} \, \hat{{\chi}}_{el}^{0} \,.
\end{eqnarray}
With all of these considerations and assuming that in insulators
$(f_{\sigma}({\bf k})-f_{\sigma^{'}}({\bf k}))=1$,
we can write the long-wavelength limit of
Eqs.~(\ref{softmode-eq2}) in terms of the el-TO-ph interaction
$g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k},0j){\equiv}g^{j}_{{\sigma}{\sigma^{'}}}({\bf k})$
as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{softmode-fr}
\Delta\omega^{2}_{0j} = \,-\,
{\frac{3}{{\epsilon}_{\infty}+2}} \, \frac{1}{N}
{{\sum_{\sigma{\neq}\,\sigma^{'}}} \, {\sum_{\bf k}}} \,
\frac{{\vert \, g^{j}_{{\sigma}{\sigma^{'}}}({\bf k}) \vert}^2}
{ \,\left|\,{E_{\sigma^{'}}({\bf k})-E_{\sigma}({\bf k})} \right|\, } \, ,
\end{equation}
\begin{multline}\label{softmode-frA}
{\vert \, g^{j}_{{\sigma}{\sigma^{'}}}({\bf k}) \vert}^2 =
\frac{v^{2}}{e^{2}} \,
{\sum_{\alpha,\beta}}\,P_{{\alpha}}(0j)\,P_{{\beta}}(0j)
{\sum_{\bf G,G^{'}{\neq0}}} G_{\alpha} \, v_{c}({\bf G})\,
v_{c}({\bf G^{'}}) \, G^{'}_{\beta} \\
{\times} \,
\int\,\psi^*_{\sigma{\bf k}}\,e^{i{\bf G}{\bf r}}\,
\psi_{\sigma^{'}{\bf k}}\,d\tau\,
\int\,\psi^*_{\sigma^{'}{\bf k}}\,e^{-i{\bf G^{'}}{\bf r^{'}}}\,
\psi_{\sigma{\bf k}}\,d\tau^{'}\, .
\end{multline}
The remarkable property of Eq.~(\ref{softmode-fr}) is that
it can be represented as a product of two independent factors,
${({\lambda}^{j})^{2}}\,\times\,\bar{{\Pi}}_{0}(0)$, one of which,
$({\lambda}^{j})^{2}=
{{\vert\,{g}^{j}\,\vert}^{2}\,[({\epsilon}_{\infty}+2)/3\,]^{-1}}\,$,
characterizes an effective interaction of electrons with polar zone-centre TO vibrations.
The other, $\bar{{\Pi}}_{0}(0)$, is the so-called non-interacting susceptibility.
Following the vibronic theory prescription (e.g., \cite{Kristoffel1}),
this allows us to constitute a reduced one-parameter version
of the el-TO-ph Hamiltonian~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph}) in the following model form:
\begin{equation}\label{hamiltonian_el-ph-fr1}
H_{el-ph}^{(red)} =
{N^{-1/2}} {\sum_{\sigma \neq \sigma^{'} }}\,{\sum_{\bf k}}\,
{{\lambda}^{j}_{{\sigma}{\sigma^{'}}}({\bf k})} \,
a^+_{\sigma{\bf k}}a_{\sigma^{'}{\bf k}} \, u_{0j} \,.
\end{equation}
First-principles justification of Eq.~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph-fr1})
is an important result of the present work.
We refer to this equation as a vibronic-type model since it involves
the interband coupling between electrons and the zone-centre TO phonons.
According to~\cite{Kristoffel1,Kristoffel2}, such coupling forms the basis
of the vibronic theory.
Due to the successful mapping of the original microscopic model~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph})
onto the effective model given by~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph-fr1}),
it became clear
why, by introducing the constants ${\lambda}^{j}$ as model parameters,
it is, in principle, possible within the framework of the vibronic theory
to study the lattice and electronic properties of polar materials.
Besides, Eq.~(\ref{softmode-fr}) shows the new meaning of the el-TO-ph coupling
constant, the square of which is inversely related to
the local field factor $({\epsilon}_{\infty}+2)/3\,$.
Since local fields and their effects become more prominent in compounds with
a mixed ionic-covalent character of chemical bonds~(e.g.,~\cite{Dolgov,Resta,Katarzyna}),
this would certainly imply the important improvement in the applicability
of the standard vibronic Hamiltonian.
Note that a similar renormalization occurs
in the theory of surface polarization modes~\cite{Licari}.
From a physical point of view, Eq.~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph-fr1})
represents the Fr\"{o}hlich-type long-range electron-lattice dynamic hybridization
of the electronic bands of opposite parities, which takes into account the relevant
$s$-, $p$- and $d$-channels (e.g.,~\cite{Kristoffel1,Kristoffel2,Bersuker1,Bersuker2}
and references therein).
For instance, as applied to a family of high polar crystals such as
the ferroelectric $\rm ABO_{3}$ perovskite oxides, hybridization~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph-fr1})
involves significant mixing between the filled $\rm O$ $\rm 2p$ and the empty ${\rm d}^{0}$
(${\rm Ti}^{4+}$, ${\rm Nb}^{5+}$, ${\rm Zr}^{4+}$, ${\rm Ta}^{5+}$, ${\rm Mo}^{6+}$,
${\rm W}^{6+}$, etc.) electronic states caused by the IR-active TO ${\rm F}_{1u}$ soft
vibrations~\cite{Kristoffel2,Konsin3,Konsin1}.
For the last several decades, the model of type (\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph-fr1})
was a useful prototype for intensive studies of various properties of both typical insulating
perovskites~\cite{Kristoffel2,Girshberg1,Konsin1,Ohnishi,Hidaka,Bussmann-Holder2}
and the $\rm A^{IV}B^{VI}$ narrow-gap semiconductors and their
alloys~\cite{Kawamura,Murase,Konsin2,Sakai,Maksimenko}. It was recently demonstrated
to be applicable to give a theoretical description of the ferroelectricity found in
$\rm BiFeO_{3}$-type multiferroics~\cite{Konsin3,Konsin4}.
\subsection{Evaluation of electron-TO-phonon coupling at $q=0$}
In order to evaluate the el-TO-ph coupling in the long wavelength limit,
we first examine the Fr\"{o}hlich-type expression
for the amplitude of the interband el-TO-ph interaction
$g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k},{\bf q}j)$.
This can be accomplished
in a similar way as in the case of the scattering of an electron
due to LO phonons~\cite{Vinecki}.
Let us fix~$j$. Denoting the amplitude by
$
\vert \, g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k}) \vert =\,
(\lim_{{\bf q}\rightarrow0}\,{\vert \, g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k},{\bf q}j) \vert}^2 )^{1/2}
$
and using the evaluation of the dipole oscillator strengths of the TO modes
$S_{\alpha \beta}(j)$, we can obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{el-TO phonon1}
\vert \, g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k}) \vert
\,\cong\,
{\Delta{\Omega}}_{LT}\
\sqrt{\, \frac{ v \, {{\epsilon}_{\infty}} }
{4\pi} \, } \,
\left| <{\sigma}{}{\bf k} |
{\bf F}_{0}({\bf r})
| {\sigma}^{'}{\bf k}> \right|
\end{equation}
where, according to~\cite{Pickett}, we introduced for the given polarization
a difference between the longitudinal (${\Omega}_{LO}$) and
the transverse (${\Omega}_{TO}$) frequencies (the LO-TO splitting)
provided in terms of
${\Delta{\Omega}}_{LT} = ( {\Omega}^{2}_{LO} - {\Omega}^{2}_{TO} )^{1/2} $
(i.e., the difference in long-range fields given by
longitudinal and transverse modes as ${\bf q}\rightarrow0$).
From Eq.~(\ref{el-TO phonon1}), one can draw the following important inferences:
First of all, note that dynamic hybridization described by~(\ref{hamiltonian_el-ph})
leads to an asymmetric charge distribution,
which corresponds to the internal electric field ${\bf F}_{0}({\bf r})$. This field,
in turn, provides, due to Eq.~(\ref{transversefield1}), the long-range character
of the el-TO-ph coupling at the $\Gamma$ point.
Secondly, the magnitude of the splitting ${\Delta{\Omega}}_{LT}$
serves as an enhancement factor of the matrix elements of ${\bf F}_{0}({\bf r})$.
Therefore, in the long-wavelength limit, the el-TO-ph interaction in polar crystals
is distinguished from that of most other dielectrics by the following features:
(i) it is long-range, (ii) it is controlled by the internal electric field
and (iii) it is essentially sensitive to values of the LO-TO difference
(i.e., the polar strength of long-wavelength optical vibrational modes).
Eq.~(\ref{el-TO phonon1}) can serve as indicative of the strength
of the el-TO-ph coupling in polar materials. In particular,
large values of $\vert \, g_{{\sigma}{\sigma}^{'}}({\bf k}) \vert$
occur when ${\Delta{\Omega}}_{LT}$ is large:
for example, the experimental difference
between the corresponding LO and TO modes in the ferroelectric
$\rm BaTiO_3$ is about 530 $\rm cm^{-1}$~\cite{Kuo}
to be compared with the values of 100, 69, and 48 $\rm cm^{-1}$
obtained for the differences in the compounds
$\rm NaCl$, $\rm KCl$, and $\rm RbCl$, respectively~\cite{Raunio}.
In a polar lattice, the LO-TO splitting depends generally on Born{\textquoteright}s
transverse dynamical effective charge $Z^{*}$ of the lattice ions and
the screening of the Coulomb interaction, which depends on the electronic
dielectric permittivity ${\epsilon}_{\infty}$~\cite{Zhong}:
${\Delta{\Omega}}_{LT}^{2} \propto \left|Z^{*}\right|^{2}/{\epsilon}_{\infty}\,$.
Thus, one can conclude that the presence of anomalously large Born{\textquoteright}s
effective charges is the key signature that the interband el-TO-ph coupling is
essentially strong in a ferroelectric material.
This result corresponds to the main assumption of the vibronic
theory~\cite{Kristoffel1,Kristoffel2,Bersuker1,Bersuker2} regarding the existence of
sufficiently strong interband el-TO-ph coupling in displacive ferroelectrics.
The strength of the interband el-TO-ph interaction
can therefore serve as a direct indicator of the extent to which a crystal lattice is close
to a possible ferroelectric instability.
Further details concerned with the quantitative characteristics of
the electron-TO-phonon coupling are given in our separate paper~\cite{Pishtshev1}.
\subsection{Electron-TO-phonon coupling via macroscopic parameters}
As shown in the present work, one can associate the interaction between electrons
and the polar long-wavelength TO phonons with the long-range dipole-dipole interaction.
This link, which was not anticipated by previous theoretical considerations,
helps us to express the strength of the el-TO-ph interaction
via macroscopic parameters of a polar crystal.
Let us introduce the bare constant $g_{0j}$ which represents
the effective ${\bf k}$-independent interband
el-TO-ph interaction defined by a proper average of the squared el-TO-ph matrix
elements over the given electronic states:
\begin{equation}\label{bare_el-TO-ph}
g_{0j}^{2}=
{{\sum_{\sigma^{'}{>}\,\sigma}} \,
\frac{1}{2N}
{\sum_{\bf k}}} \,
{\vert \, g^{j}_{{\sigma}{\sigma^{'}}}({\bf k}) \vert}^2\,
\frac{{E}_g}{ \,\left|\,{E_{\sigma^{'}}({\bf k})-E_{\sigma}({\bf k})} \right|\, }
\end{equation}
where ${E}_g$ is a bond-gap energy. Accounting for local-fields effects-induced
partial screening of the bare el-TO-ph interaction is described by the renormalization:
\begin{equation}\label{renorm}
{g}_{0j}^{2}\,\longrightarrow\,{\bar{g}}_{j}^{2}\,=\,
{3{g}_{0j}^{2}}/{({\epsilon}_{\infty}+2)}\,.
\end{equation}
As follows from Eqs.~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) and (\ref{softmode-eq3-B1}),
the contribution of the linear el-TO-ph interaction
to the square of the zone-centre TO vibrational mode frequency $\Omega_{0j}^{2}$
can be represented as the product of two macroscopic quantities:
the quantity $ B_{\alpha \beta}(0)$ which accounts for the corresponding
electronic contribution,
and the dipole oscillator strengths $S_{\alpha \beta}(j)$ associated with
the given TO vibration.
The bare constant of the el-TO-ph interaction $g_{0j}$
can thus be determined from matching Eq.~(\ref{softmode-fr})
and Eq.~(\ref{softmode-eq3}) together.
As a result, we obtain the following relationship
($S(j)={\sum}_{\alpha}\,S_{\alpha \alpha}(j)\,$):
\begin{equation}\label{ephto0}
g_{0j}^{2} \,=\, \frac{1}{12} {{E}_g} \, M_{j} \, S(j) \, .
\end{equation}
Eq.~(\ref{ephto0}) is an important result of the present work.
It relates, for each zone-center TO vibration
of the branch $j$ and of the reduced mass $M_j$,
the bare constant of the el-TO-ph coupling at the $\Gamma$ point,
$g_{0j}$, with the macroscopic material constants, the values of which
can be obtained from experiment.
Employing the relevant information from the IR spectra
concerning the IR-active optical phonons and the dielectric function behavior
in the far-IR spectral range, and using Eqs.~(\ref{ephto0}) and~(\ref{renorm})
in combination with
the experimental data for ${\epsilon}_{\infty}$ and ${E}_g$, we can directly evaluate
the el-TO-ph coupling constants for polar materials of interest.
A more detailed demonstration of the practical usefulness of Eq.~(\ref{ephto0}),
together with numerical results for a wide number of selected polar insulators
and semiconductors, can be found in our separate publication~\cite{Pishtshev1}.
In particular, calculations of the interband el-TO-ph interaction constants
and the further comparative analysis showed
that the large interband el-TO-ph interaction is a special microscopic feature
of the ferroelectric materials. In contrast, in non-ferroelectrics, as it was
demonstrated, the strength
of the el-TO-ph interaction is not necessarily high enough due to their lower polar nature.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper, focusing mostly on the fundamental contribution of electron subsystem
to the dynamics of polar long-wavelength TO vibrations and using a first-principles methodology,
we provided a systematic description of the el-TO-ph interaction in a polar insulator.
The study is based on the model of a polar crystal with classical potentials,
which takes into account the electronic polarizability effects.
By analyzing the electronic contribution to the TO vibrational mode in terms of the el-TO-ph
coupling, we established a bridge which allowed us
a) to link the model under consideration to the microscopic lattice dynamics and
b) in the long wavelength limit, to relate the interaction of electrons
with polar TO vibrations to the long-range dipole-dipole interaction.
Our results highlight the importance of the el-TO-ph interaction
for the genesis of the long-wavelength TO vibrations in ferroelectrics,
thereby giving fundamental support at the microscopic level
for the applicability of the vibronic theory.
Within a first-principles methodology, we found and explained the significant increase
of the constants of the el-TO-ph coupling in ferroelectric materials,
showed how the el-TO-ph interaction constants might be dependent on macroscopic material
parameters, and obtained analytical equations allowing us to estimate el-TO-ph interaction
strengths in a wide range of polar dielectrics.
In particular, it was proved that the zone-center TO vibrational mode effective charge $Z^{*}$
can be considered to be the key macroscopic parameter of the el-TO-ph coupling strength.
In materials where the el-TO-ph coupling is operative,
it can be verified by spectroscopy measurements of the IR-active TO mode.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The author would like to thank N.~Kristoffel for helpful discussions,
A.~Sherman for attention to this work.
The work was supported by the Estonian Science Foundation grants No. 6918
and No. 7296.
|
\section{Introduction}
\normalsize
\hspace*{1em}
Hadronization is a process that leads from partons produced in an initial
hard interaction to the final hadrons observed experimentally.
Two aspects of hadronization: (i) the spectra of hadrons produced and
their kinematical dependences;
(ii) the space-time evolution of the process, at present
investigated not equally well. First
of them has been studied extensively in $e^{+}e^{-}$ annihilation and lepton-nucleon
DIS both experimentally and theoretically. As a result the spectra of hadrons and
their kinematical dependences are rather well known. There are a few successful
theoretical models, which give transition from initial partons to final hadrons
through sets of fragmentation functions. The second aspect of hadronization, the
space-time evolution of the process, despite on its importance, was investigated
relatively little. Although the string model allows to study the space-time scale
of the hadronization process, only a few works were performed in this
direction~\cite{chmaj,Bi_Gyul}.
In~\cite{Bi_Gyul} it was claimed, that for hadrons (as composite particles) the
very notion of formation length is ambiguous because different constituents of a
hadron can be produced at different lengths. It is then an open and model-dependent
question which of the two length scales plays more important role in hadronization
process: (i) constituent formation length $l_c$ which is the distance between DIS
point and the point where first constituent parton of the final hadron arises; (ii)
the yo-yo formation length $l_y$ which is the distance between DIS point and point
where two constituent partons of the final hadron meet first time and form particle
with quantum numbers of final hadron but without its "sea". It is worth to note
that these two length scales connected by simple way.\\
\hspace*{1em}
The string model can give information about space-time scale of hadronization, but
it gives nothing about development of hadronic properties of string during
hadronization process. At present it is supposed, that the unique way to get
information about latter is the experimental and phenomenological study of
hadronization process in atomic nuclei, where string interacts with nuclear medium.
It is assumed that constituent formation length plays more important role in the
hadronization process, because beginning with this scale the piece of string with
a constituent parton on the slow end interacts with hadronic cross section. As was
pointed out in Ref.~\cite{Bi_Gyul} this result follows from the comparison with the
data on fragmentation of $30 GeV$ pions into $p$ and $\bar{p}$~\cite{abreu}.
In~\cite{akopov} the formation lengths of pions were presented in form
$l = (1 - w)l_{c} + wl_{y}$, where $w$ is the probability that formation length is
$l_{y}$. Comparison with experimental data~\cite{airap2} showed, in case when $l_{c}$
and $l_{y}$ were calculated in the framework of standard Lund model, that
$w = 0.1 - 0.17$.
This result confirmed conclusion of Ref.~\cite{Bi_Gyul} about importance of
constituent formation length. Further we will consider it as a formation length. It is
a function of variables $\nu$ and $z$ (the energy of virtual photon and the fraction
of this energy carried away by the final hadron with energy $E_h$ ($z=E_h/\nu$))
and can change, as we will see below, in wide region from zero to tens (may be even
hundreds) femtometers.\\
\hspace*{1em}
In Refs.~\cite{akopov2,akopov3,grig} it was shown that a ratio of multiplicities
for the nucleus and deuterium can be presented in the form of a function of a
single variable which has the physical meaning of the formation length (time)
of the hadron. This scaling was verified for the case of charged pions by
HERMES experiment~\cite{airap3}. Now HERMES experiment prepares two-dimensional
analysis of nuclear attenuation data using more precise definition of the
formation length of hadron presented in this work.\\
\hspace*{1em}
In the string model, for the construction of fragmentation functions, the scaling
function $f(z)$ is introduced (see, for instance, Refs.~\cite{andersson,field,lund}).
It is defined by the condition that $f(z)dz$ is the probability that the first
hierarchy (rank 1) primary meson carries away the fraction of energy $z$ of the
initial string. We use three different scaling functions for calculations:\\
(i) standard Lund scaling function~\cite{lund}
\begin{eqnarray}
f(z) = (1 + C)(1 - z)^{C} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $C$ is the parameter which controls the steepness of the standard Lund
fragmentation function;\\
(ii) symmetric Lund scaling function~\cite{lund,seostrand}
\begin{eqnarray}
f(z) = Nz^{-1}(1 - z)^{a}exp(-bm_{\perp}^{2}/z) ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ and $b$ are parameters of model, $m_{\perp}=\sqrt{m_{h}^{2}+p_{\perp}^{2}}$
is the transverse mass of final hadron, $N$ is normalization factor;\\
(iii) Field-Feynman scaling function~\cite{field}:
\begin{eqnarray}
f(z) = 1 - a + 3a(1 - z)^{2} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where a is parameter of model. We will specify parameters below, when will discuss
the details of calculations.\\
\hspace*{1em}
In the further study we will use the average value of the formation length defined
as $L_{c}^{h} = <l_c>$.\\
\hspace*{1em}
The consideration is convenient to begin from $L_{c}^{h}$ direct, $L_{c}^{h(dir)}$,
which takes into account the direct production of hadrons:
\begin{eqnarray}
{L_{c}^{h(dir)} = \int_0^{\infty} ldlD_{c}^{h}(L,z,l)/\int_0^{\infty}
dlD_{c}^{h}(L,z,l)}
\hspace{0.3cm},
\end{eqnarray}
where $L = \nu/\kappa$ is the full hadronization length, $\kappa$ is the string tension
(string constant), $D_{c}^{h}(L, z, l)$ is the distribution of the constituent formation
length $l$ of hadrons carrying fractional energy $z$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
D_{c}^{h}(L,z,l) = \Big(C_{p1}^{h}f(z)\delta(l-L+zL)+
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
C_{p2}^{h}\sum_{i=2}^{n}D_{ci}^{h}(L,z,l)\Big)\theta(l)\theta(L-zL-l)
\hspace{0.3cm}.
\end{eqnarray}
The functions $C_{p1}^{h}$ and $C_{p2}^{h}$ are the probabilities that in
electroproduction process on proton target the valence quark compositions for leading
(rank 1) and subleading (rank 2) hadrons will be obtained. Similar functions were
obtained in~\cite{akopov1} for more general case of nuclear targets.
In eq.(5) $\delta$- and $\theta$-functions arise as a consequence of energy conservation
law. The functions $D_{ci}^{h}(L,z,l)$ are distributions of the constituent formation
length $l$ of the rank $i$ hadrons carrying fractional energy $z$. For calculation of
distribution functions we used recursion equation from Ref.~\cite{Bi_Gyul}.\\
\hspace*{1em}
The simple form of $f(z)$ for standard Lund model (eq.(1)) allows to sum the sequence of
produced hadrons over all ranks ($n=\infty$). The analytic expression for the
distribution function in this case is:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
D_{c}^{h}(L,z,l) = L(1+C)\frac{l^C}{(l+zL)^{C+1}}\times
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Big(C_{p1}^{h}\delta(l-L+zL)+C_{p2}^{h}\frac{1+C}{l+zL}\Big)\theta(l)\theta(L-zL-l)
\hspace{0.3cm}.
\end{eqnarray}
In~\cite{chmaj,Bi_Gyul} (see also~\cite{czyzewski}) eq.(6) was obtained for the special
case $C_{p1}^{h} = C_{p2}^{h} = 1$. Another special case was considered in
Ref.~\cite{accardi}. It was supposed, that in electroproduction process only the $u$
quarks are knocked out, which then turn into observed hadrons. It is clear, that this
approximation is more or less valid for proton target in region of large enough values
of Bjorken scaling variable. For positively charged mesons it does not differ from the
first special case, for negatively charged ones it corresponds to special case
$C_{p1}^{h} = 0, C_{p2}^{h} = 1$. Nevertheless, in this rough approximation it was obtained,
that the average formation lengths for positively charged hadrons are
larger than for negatively charged ones.\\
\hspace*{1em}
Unfortunately, in case of more complicated scaling functions presented in
eqs.(2) and (3) the analytic summation of the sequence of produced hadrons over all
ranks is impossible. In these cases we limited ourself by $n=10$ in eq.(5).\\
\hspace*{1em}
As it is well known, essential contributions in the spectra of pions and kaons
from the decays of vector mesons are expected. But so far, the formation lengths of
pseudoscalar mesons were considered without taking into account this possibility.\\
\hspace*{1em}
We build the distributions for daughter mesons from the ones for parent resonances
followed the method used in ~\cite{andersson,field} for the construction of fragmentation
functions for daughter mesons.\\
\hspace*{1em}
The distribution function of the constituent formation length $l$ of the daughter
hadron $h$ which arises in result of decay of parent resonance $R$ and carries away the
fractional energy $z$ is denoted $D_c^{R/h}(L, z, l)$. It can be computed from the convolution
integral:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
D_c^{R/h}(L, z, l) = d^{R/h}
\int_{z_{down}^{R/h}}^{z_{up}^{R/h}} \frac{dz'}{z'}D_{c}^{R}(L,z',l)\times
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
f^{R/h}\Big(\frac{z}{z'}\Big)
\hspace{0.3cm},
\end{eqnarray}
where $z_{up}^{R/h} = min(1,z/z_{min}^{R/h})$ and $z_{down}^{R/h} = min(1,z/z_{max}^{R/h})$,
$z_{max}^{R/h}$ ($z_{min}^{R/h}$) is maximal (minimal) fraction of the energy of parent
resonance, which can be carried away by the daughter meson.\\
\hspace*{1em}
Let us consider the two-body isotropic decay of resonance $R$, $R \to h_{1}h_{2}$, and
denote the energy and momentum of the daughter hadron $h$ ($h = h_{1}$ or $h_{2}$), in
the rest system of resonance, $E_{h}^{(0)}$ and $p_{h}^{(0)}$, respectively.
In the coordinate system where resonance has energy and momentum equal $E_R$ and $p_R$,
\begin{eqnarray}
z_{max}^{R/h} = \frac{1}{m_{R}}\Big(E_{h}^{(0)} +
\frac{p_R}{E_R}p_{h}^{(0)}\Big)
\hspace{0.3cm},
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
z_{min}^{R/h} = \frac{1}{m_{R}}\Big(E_{h}^{(0)} -
\frac{p_R}{E_R}p_{h}^{(0)}\Big)
\hspace{0.3cm},
\end{eqnarray}
where $m_R$ is the mass of resonance $R$. In the laboratory (fixed target) system the
resonance usually fastly moves, i.e. $p_R/E_R \to 1$.\\
\hspace*{1em}
The constants $d^{R/h}$ can be found from the branching ratios in the decay process
$R \to h$. We will present their values for interesting for us cases below.\\
\hspace*{1em}
The distributions $f^{R/h}(z)$ are determined from the decay process of the resonance
R, with momentum $p$ into the hadron $h$ with momentum $zp$. We assume that the momentum
$p$ is much larger than the masses and the transverse momenta involved.\\
\hspace*{1em}
In analogy with eq.(4) we can write the expression for the average value of the
formation length $L_{c}^{R/h}$ for the daughter meson $h$ produced in result of decay
of the parent resonance $R$ in form:
\begin{eqnarray}
{L_{c}^{R/h} = \int_0^{\infty} ldlD_{c}^{R/h}(L,z,l)/
\int_0^{\infty} dlD_{c}^{R/h}(L,z,l)}
\hspace{0.3cm}.
\end{eqnarray}\\
Here it is need to give some explanations. We can formally consider $L_{c}^{R/h}$ as the
formation length of daughter meson $h$ for two reasons: (i) the parent resonance and
daughter hadron are the hadrons of the same rank~\cite{field}, which have common
constituent quark; (ii) according to above discussions, beginning from this distance the
chain consisting from prehadron, resonance and final meson $h$ interacts (in nuclear
medium) with hadronic cross sections.\\
\hspace*{1em}
The general formula for $L_{c}^{h}$ for the case when a few resonances
contribute can be written in form:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
L_{c}^{h} = \int_0^{\infty} ldl\Big(\alpha_{ps}D_c^{h}(L,z,l) +
\alpha_{v}\sum_{R}D_c^{R/h}(L,z,l)\Big)/
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_0^{\infty} dl\Big(\alpha_{ps}D_c^{h}(L,z,l) +
\alpha_{v}\sum_{R}D_c^{R/h}(L,z,l)\Big)
\hspace{0.15cm},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{ps}$ ($\alpha_{v}$) is the probability that $q\bar{q}$ pair
turns into pseudoscalar (vector) meson.
Following Refs.~\cite{lund,field} we use condition
$\alpha_{ps} = \alpha_{v} = \frac{1}{2}$.\\
\hspace*{1em}
Let us now discuss the details of model, which are necessary for
calculations. We will cosider four kinds of pseudoscalar mesons $\pi^{+}$,
$\pi^{-}$, $K^{+}$ and $K^{-}$ electroproduced on proton, neutron and nuclear
targets. The scaling function $f(z)$ in eq.(1) has single free parameter $C$.
It is known~\cite{lund} that comparison with experimental data gives limitation
on its possible values $C = 0.3 - 0.5$. Our calculations showed that changing
of parameter $C$ from the minimal value $C = 0.3$ to the maximal value
$C = 0.5$ leads to the small increasing of the average formation
lengths. Therefore further we will present
results for standard Lund model obtained for $C = 0.3$ only.
For symmetric Lund scaling function we use parameters~\cite{seostrand}
$a=0.3$, $b=0.58 GeV^{-2}$, and for Field-Feynman scaling function~\cite{field} the
value $a=0.77$ for the single parameter $a$.
Next parameter, which is necessary for the calculations in the
framework of string model is the string tension. It was fixed at a static value
determined by the Regge trajectory slope~\cite{kappa,seostrand}
\begin{eqnarray}
\kappa = 1/(2\pi\alpha'_R) = 1 GeV/fm \hspace{0.3cm}.
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{1em}
Now let us turn to the functions $C_{p1}^{h}$ and $C_{p2}^{h}$.
For pseudoscalar mesons they have form.:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
C_{p1}^{\pi^{+}} = \frac{\frac{4}{9}u(x_{Bj},Q^2) + \frac{1}{9}\bar{d}(x_{Bj},Q^2)}
{\sum_{q=u,d,s} e_{q}^{2}(q(x_{Bj},Q^2) + \bar{q}(x_{Bj},Q^2))} \gamma_{q} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
C_{p1}^{\pi^{-}} = \frac{\frac{4}{9}\bar{u}(x_{Bj},Q^2) + \frac{1}{9}d(x_{Bj},Q^2)}
{\sum_{q=u,d,s} e_{q}^{2}(q(x_{Bj},Q^2) + \bar{q}(x_{Bj},Q^2))} \gamma_{q} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
C_{p2}^{\pi^{+}} = C_{p2}^{\pi^{-}} = \gamma_{q}^{2} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
C_{p1}^{K^{+}} = \frac{\frac{4}{9}u(x_{Bj},Q^2)\gamma_{s} +
\frac{1}{9}\bar{s}(x_{Bj},Q^2)\gamma_{q}}
{\sum_{q=u,d,s} e_{q}^{2}(q(x_{Bj},Q^2) + \bar{q}(x_{Bj},Q^2))} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
C_{p1}^{K^{-}} = \frac{\frac{4}{9}\bar{u}(x_{Bj},Q^2)\gamma_{s} +
\frac{1}{9}s(x_{Bj},Q^2)\gamma_{q}}
{\sum_{q=u,d,s} e_{q}^{2}(q(x_{Bj},Q^2) + \bar{q}(x_{Bj},Q^2))} ,
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
C_{p2}^{K^{+}} = C_{p2}^{K^{-}} = \gamma_{q} \gamma_{s} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $x_{Bj} = \frac{Q^{2}}{2m_{p}\nu}$ is the Bjorken's scaling variable;
$Q^{2} = -q^{2}$, where $q$ is the 4-momentum of virtual photon; $m_{p}$ is
proton mass; $q(x_{Bj},Q^2) (\bar{q}(x_{Bj},Q^2))$, where $q=u,d,s$ are quark
(antiquark) distribution functions for proton. Easily to see, that functions
$C_{pn}^{h}$ for hadrons of higher rank ($n > 2$) coincide with ones for
second rank hadron $C_{pn}^{h} \equiv C_{p2}^{h}$. This fact was already used
for construction of eq.(5). For neutron and nuclear targets more general
functions $C_{fi}^{h} (i = 1,2)$ from~\cite{akopov1} are used.
Functions for resonances can be built in analogy with the above equations.
For example, $C_{pi}^{\rho^{+}} = C_{pi}^{\pi^{+}}$, where $i=1,2$.\\
\hspace*{1em}
All calculations were performed at fixed value of $\nu$ equal $10 GeV$.
Calculations of $z$ - dependence were performed at fixed value of
$Q^{2}$ equal $2.5 GeV^{2}$, which give $x_{Bj} \approx 0.133$. For quark (antiquark)
distributions in proton the parameterization for leading order parton distribution
functions from~\cite{grv} was used. We assume, that new $q\bar{q}$ pairs are
$u\bar{u}$ with probability $\gamma_{u}$, $d\bar{d}$ with probability $\gamma_{d}$
and $s\bar{s}$ with probability $\gamma_{s}$. It is followed from isospin symmetry
that $\gamma_{u} = \gamma_{d} = \gamma_{q}$.
We use two sets of values for $\gamma$: for Lund model~\cite{seostrand}
$\gamma_{u} : \gamma_{d} : \gamma_{s} = 1 : 1 : 0.3$; and for Field-Feynman
model $\gamma_{u} : \gamma_{d} : \gamma_{s} = 1 : 1 : 0.5$.\\
\hspace*{1em}
We take into account that part of pseudoscalar mesons can be produced from decays
of resonances. As possible sources of $\pi^{+}$, $\pi^{-}$, $K^{+}$ and $K^{-}$
mesons we consider $\rho^+$, $\rho^0$, $\omega$, $K^{*+}$ and $\bar{K}^{*0}$;
$\rho^-$, $\rho^0$, $\omega$, $K^{*-}$ and $K^{*0}$; $K^{*+}$, $K^{*0}$ and $\phi$;
$K^{*-}$, $\bar{K}^{*0}$ and $\phi$ mesons, respectively.
The contributions of other resonances are neglected.\\
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=8.cm
\epsfbox{fig1.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{xx1}
{\it Average formation lengths for electroproduction of hadrons on proton,
normalized on $L$, are presented as a function of $z$. The contributions of direct
hadrons as well as of the sum of direct and produced from decay of resonances
hadrons are presented. Upper curves represent formation lengths of positively
charged hadrons and lower curves of negatively charged ones.
Results for standard Lund model are presented on panels a, b; for symmetric
Lund model on panels c, d; for Field-Feynman model on panels e, f, respectively.
}}
\end{figure}
\hspace*{1em}
In Ref.~\cite{andersson} were presented simple expressions for $f^{R/h}$ which
are close enough to the experimental data. In case of pions we interested in
$f^{\rho/\pi}$, $f^{\omega/\pi}$ and $f^{K^{*}/\pi}$, in case of kaons
in $f^{K^{*}/K}$ and $f^{\phi/K}$. (Sometimes we omit the charge symbols in our
expressions, but everywhere it is imply that the different necessary charge
states for parent and daughter hadrons are taken into account.) The function
$f^{\omega/\pi}$ has form $f^{\omega/\pi}(z) = 2(1 - z)$. For the other functions
common expression $f^{R/h}(z) = 1/(z_{max}^{R/h}-z_{min}^{R/h})$ is used.
The values of $z_{max}^{R/h}$ and $z_{min}^{R/h}$ it is easily to obtain from
eqs.(8) and (9). For instance, for the $\rho$ meson decay into pions we receive
$z_{max}^{\rho/\pi} \approx 0.965$ and $z_{min}^{\rho/\pi} \approx 0.035$.\\
\hspace*{1em}
For $\pi^{+}$ and $\pi^{-}$ mesons we have $d^{\rho/\pi} = \frac{1}{2}$,
$d^{\omega/\pi} = 0.3$ and $d^{K^{*}/\pi} = \frac{1}{3}$.
For $K^{+}$ and $K^{-}$ mesons we have $d^{K^{*+}/K^{+}} = d^{K^{*-}/K^{-}} = \frac{1}{6}$;
$d^{K^{*0}/K^{+}} = d^{\bar{K}^{*0}/K^{-}} = \frac{1}{3}$; $d^{\phi/K} \approx \frac{1}{4}$.\\
\hspace*{1em}
In Fig.1 the average formation lengths for electroproduction of different
pseudoscalar mesons on proton,
normalized on $L$, are presented as a function of $z$.
The formation lengths for pions (panels a, c and e) and kaons (b, d, f) are presented.
The contributions of direct
hadrons as well as of the sum of direct and produced from decay of resonances
hadrons are presented. Upper curves represent formation lengths of positively
charged hadrons and lower curves of negatively charged ones.
Results for standard Lund model are presented on panels a, b; for symmetric
Lund model on panels c, d; for Field-Feynman model on panels e, f, respectively.
The values of parameters using in calculations are presented also.
Of course results of different models are quantitatively differ, but qualitatively
they have the same behavior as functions of $z$. Therefore further, for illustration,
we will use the results of symmetric Lund model only.\\
\hspace*{1em}
Let us briefly discuss why the average formation lengths of positively charged hadrons are
larger than of negatively charged ones. It happens due to the large probability to knock
out $u$ quark in result of DIS (even in case of neutron target). The knocked out quark
enter
in the composition of leading hadron, which has maximal formation length.
The $K^{+}$ meson has average formation length larger than $\pi^{+}$ meson, because
in first case the influence of resonances is smaller. The $K^{-}$ meson has average
formation length smaller than $\pi^{-}$ meson, because it is constructed from "sea"
quarks and practically can not be leading hadron, whereas $\pi^{-}$ meson can be leading
hadron due to $d$ quark entering in its composition.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=8.cm
\epsfbox{fig2.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{xx2}
{\it Average formation lengths for electroproduction of $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$, $K^+$
and $K^-$ mesons on different targets in symmetric Lund model, normalized on $L$,
as a function of $z$.
}}
\end{figure}
\hspace*{1em}
In Fig.2 the average formation lengths for electroproduction of $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$,
$K^+$ and $K^-$ mesons on different targets in symmetric Lund model, normalized on $L$,
as a function of $z$ are presented. It is taken into account, that mesons can be
produced directly or from decay of resonances. Easily to see, that positively
charged hadrons have larger $L_{c}^{h}$ than negatively charged ones. This statement
is right even for neutron target. At large enough $z$ (for instance $z > 0.2$)
$K^+$ meson has maximal average formation length and $K^-$ meson minimal. Difference
between $L_{c}^{h}$ of positively and negatively charged hadrons is maximal on
proton target and minimal on neutron one.
It is worth to note, that results for deuteron coincide, in our approach,
with results for any nuclei with $Z = N$, where $Z$ ($N$) is number of protons (neutrons).
Average formation lengths of hadrons on krypton nucleus, which has essential excess of
neutrons, do not differ considerably from the ones on nuclei with $Z = N$.
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\begin{center}
\epsfxsize=8.cm
\epsfbox{fig3.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{xx3}
{\it Average formation lengths for electroproduction of $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$, $K^+$ and
$K^-$ mesons on proton target in symmetric Lund model, normalized on $L$, as a function
of $x_{Bj}$.
}}
\end{figure}
\hspace*{1em}
In Fig.3 the average formation lengths for electroproduction of $\pi^+$, $\pi^-$,
$K^+$ and $K^-$ mesons on proton in symmetric Lund model, normalized on $L$, as a
function of $x_{Bj}$ are presented. It is taken into account, that mesons can be
produced directly or from decay of resonances.\\
\hspace*{1em}
We obtained, for the first time, the average formation lengths for different
pseudoscalar mesons in the eletroproduction process on proton, neutron, deuteron and
krypton.
Main conclusions are: (i) positively charged pseudoscalar mesons ($\pi^{+}$ and $K^{+}$)
have the formation lengths larger than negatively charged ones ($\pi^{-}$ and $K^{-}$) on
all targets; (ii) contribution from the decay of resonances is maximal for $\pi^{+}$
mesons (reach $\sim 20\%$ in case of symmetric Lund model),
for $\pi^{-}$ and $K^{+}$ mesons it reaches a few percents,
the formation length of $K^{-}$ mesons practically does not feel contribution from
resonances; as it was expected, in case of pions maximal contribution gives $\rho$ meson,
in case of kaons $K^{*}$ meson.\\
It is worth to note that in string
model the formation length of the leading (rank 1) hadron $l_{c1} = (1 - z)\nu/\kappa$
does not depend from type of process, kinds of hadron and target.
We want to stress, that obtained result depends from the type
of process, kinds of targets and observed hadrons mainly due to presence of higher rank
hadrons. Including in consideration hadrons
produced from decay of resonances diminishes constituent formation length. It happens
because for producing of hadron with fractional energy $z$ we must have resonance with
$z^{'}$ larger than $z$. The larger is the fractional energy, the shorter is the
formation length.
Of course this statement is right for the large enough $z$ (for instance $z > 0.2$).\\
\hspace*{1em}
Calculations performed with different scaling functions: standard Lund~\cite{lund},
Field-Feynman~\cite{field} and symmetric Lund~\cite{lund}
showed, that although the numerical values of
average formation lengths slightly shift, qualitatively they have the same behavior
(see Fig.1).\\
\hspace*{1em}
Which sizes can reach the average formation length?
At fixed $x_{Bj}$ it is proportional to $\nu$. Consequently it will rise with $\nu$ and can
reach sizes much larger than nuclear sizes at very high energies. Naturally, this
conclusion is true if the formalism of string model will continue to work at such high
energies.\\
\hspace*{1em}
At present the hadronization in nuclear medium is widely studied both experimentally and
theoretically. It is well known, that there is nuclear attenuation of final hadrons.
Unfortunately it does not clear, which is the true mechanism of such attenuation: (i)
final state interactions of prehadrons and hadrons in nucleus (absorption mechanism); or
(ii) gluon bremmstrahlung of partons (produced in DIS) in nuclear medium, whereas
hadronization takes place far beyond nucleus (energy loss mechanism). We hope, that
results obtained in this letter can be useful for the understanding of this problem.\\
\vspace{0.3cm}\\
{\bf Acknowledgements}
\vspace{0.3cm}\\
\hspace*{1em}
I am grateful for stimulating discussions to N.Akopov, H.P.Blok, G.Elbakian and
I.Lehmann who read the paper and made many useful comments.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Yang-Baxter equation is the sufficient condition for the
integrability of the one-dimensional quantum systems (or
the two-dimensional classical statistical systems), i.e.,
it ensures the commutativity of the transfer matrices.
Based on the Yang-Baxter equation, the quantum inverse scattering method
was developed, which enables us to calculate bulk quantities and correlation
functions.
Under the open boundary condition, besides the Yang-Baxter equation,
the reflection equation guarantees the existence of the commutative
family of transfer matrices \cite{Sklyanin}.
Up to now, there are many works about the reflection equation
\cite{Sklyanin,KS,DG,BFKZ,IOZ,LS1,LS2,Y2,N,BS,DN,BB,Y1,AACDFG,LM,DK,DFIL}.
Taking the XXZ chain for example, the diagonal solution was obtained in
\cite{Sklyanin,KS}, the general solution in \cite{DG}.
For $N \ge 3$-state models, most of the solutions are obtained by imposing
initial conditions. There is also an approach from the quantum group
\cite{N,BS,DN,BB}.
In \cite{N}, some nondiagonal solutions of the refelction equation for the
$U_q(\widehat{sl_2})$ $R$-matrix were obtained from the intertwining condition.
Moreover, a complete description
in terms of current algebra has been accomplished in \cite{BS}.
In this paper, we consider the reflection equation of the $N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais
$R$-matrix. This $R$-matrix originally appeared in the context of the
Toda field theory \cite{CG} as a constant $R$-matrix.
Recently, the Baxterized $R$-matrix was derived \cite{EH} by
taking approriate trigonometric degeneration of the
Shibukawa-Ueno $R$-operator \cite{SU}.
We determine the full solution space without imposing
any condition such as the initial condition.
The main result is that we found the solution
space is the union of two types of spaces, which are parametzied by
algebraic varieties.
The first type is parametrized by
$\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$, and the solution
can be explicitly expressed as
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{I}}(z,(B_1, B_2) \times (D_1, D_2) \times (E_1, E_2, E_3))=&
K_{\mathrm{I},0}(z,D_1,D_2,E_1)-z^6 T K_{\mathrm{I},0}(z^{-1},D_2,D_1,E_3)T \nn \\
&+K_{\mathrm{I},1}(z,B_1,B_2,D_1,E_2)-z^6 T K_{\mathrm{I},1}(z^{-1},B_2,B_1,D_2,E_2)T, \nn
\end{align}
where $(B_1, B_2) \times (D_1, D_2) \times (E_1, E_2, E_3) \in
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$ and
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{I},0}(z,D_1,D_2,E_1)
=&E_1^2 \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
D_2^2z^2 & D_1 D_2(z^4-1) &D_1^2 z^2(z^4-1) \\
0 &D_2^2 z^2 & D_1 D_2(z^4-1) \\
0 & 0 & D_2^2 z^2
\end{array}
\right), \nn \\
K_{\mathrm{I},1}(z,B_1,B_2,D_1,E_2)
=&-D_1 E_2 z^2 \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
B_1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & B_1 & B_2(1-z^4) \\
0 & 0 & B_1 z^4
\end{array}
\right), \nn \\
T=& \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
0 & 0 & 1 \\
0 & 1 & 0 \\
1 & 0 & 0
\end{array}
\right). \nn
\end{align}
The second type is parametrized by $
\mathbb{C} \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$,
and the explicit expression is
\begin{align}
&K_{\mathrm{II}}(z, (b) \times (F_1, F_2) \times (G_1, G_2, G_3))
\nn \\
&=bz^2 \mathrm{Id}+ K_{\mathrm{II},0}(z,F_1,G_1,G_2,G_3)
-z^4 T K_{\mathrm{II},0}(z^{-1},F_2,G_3,-G_2,G_1)T, \nn
\end{align}
where $(b) \times (F_1, F_2) \times (G_1, G_2, G_3) \in
\mathbb{C} \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$ and
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{II},0}(z,F_1,G_1,G_2,G_3)
=&-F_1 \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
G_3 & 0 & G_1(1-z^4) \\
0 &G_3 & G_2(1-z^4) \\
0 & 0 & G_3 z^4
\end{array}
\right). \nn
\end{align}
In the next section, we define the Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix
and state again the main theorem, which is about the full solution
space of the reflection equation.
We also derive some properties of the reflection equation
coming from the symmetries of the Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix,
which we use for the proof of the main theorem Th \ref{maintheorem},
given in sections 3 and 4.
Section 5 is devoted to the conclusion.
\section{The $N$=3 Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix and the reflection equation}
\subsection{The Cremmer-Gervias $R$-matrix}
We denote the standard orthonormal basis of $\mathbb{C}^3$ by
$\{ e_{0}, e_{1}, e_{2} \}$.
The matrix element $A_{j}^{i}$ of
$A \in \textrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^3)$
with respect to this basis is defined as
\begin{equation}
A e_{j}=\sum_{i=0}^{2}e_{i} A_{j}^{i}. \nonumber
\end{equation}
We also define $G$ and $T$ as
\begin{equation}
G e_{j}=\omega^j e_{j}, \ \ \ \ \ Te_{j}=e_{2-j}, \label{GT}
\end{equation}
where $\omega^3=1$. \\
The original Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix has two parameters
besides the spectral parameter \cite{CG,EH}. As a solution to
the Yang-Baxter equation, it is equivalent to the
$R$-matrix with one spectral parameter and
one nonspectral parameter which is defined below.
\begin{definition} $\mathrm{\cite{CG,EH}}$
The $N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix
$R^{CG}(z,q) \in \mathrm{End}( \mathbb{C}^3 \otimes
\mathbb{C}^3)$ is defined as
$ \[ R^{CG}(z,q) \]_{kl}^{ij} $
\begin{eqnarray}
=
\left\{
\begin{array}{cc}
(q z^{-1}-q^{-1} z) \slash (q-q^{-1})(z-z^{-1}), & \mathrm{for} \ i=j=k=l, \\
-q^{\mathrm{sgn}(k-l)} \slash (q-q^{-1}), & \mathrm{for} \ i=k \neq j=l, \\
z^{\mathrm{sgn}(l-k)} \slash (z-z^{-1}), & \mathrm{for} \ l=i \neq k=j, \\
\mathrm{sgn}(l-k), & \mathrm{for} \ \mathrm{min}(k,l) < i < \mathrm{max}(k,l), \
i+j=k+l, \\
0, & \mathrm{otherwise}. \label{cremmer-gervais}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
The Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix $R^{CG}(z,q)$ satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation
\begin{equation}
R_{12}(z_{1})R_{13}(z_{1} z_{2})R_{23}(z_{2})=
R_{23}(z_{2})R_{13}(z_{1} z_{2})R_{12}(z_{1})
\in \mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^3 \otimes \mathbb{C}^3 \otimes
\mathbb{C}^3). \label{yang-baxter}
\end{equation}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{theorem}
We can immediately see from the defintion that the
Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix $R^{CG}(z,q)$ has the following properties.
\begin{proposition}
The Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix $R^{CG}(z,q)$ has the following properties.
\begin{align}
Unitarity: & \ R_{12}^{CG}(z)R_{21}^{CG}(z^{-1})=
\frac{(q^2-z^2)(1-q^2 z^2)}{(q^2-1)^2 (z^2-1)^2}\mathrm{Id},
\label{unitarity} \\
Conservation \ law: & \ R^{CG}(z)(G \otimes G)=(G \otimes G)R^{CG}(z),
\label{conservation} \\
T\textrm{-}invariance: & \ R^{CG}(z,q)=
-(T \otimes T)R^{CG}(z^{-1}, q^{-1})(T \otimes T), \label{t-invariance}
\end{align}
where
$R_{21}(z)=PR_{12}(z)P, P(x \otimes y)=y \otimes x,$ for any $x, y \in
\mathbb{C}^3$.
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
\eqref{unitarity} is used to show that
$R^{CG}(z,q)$ satisfies the Yang-Baxter equation \eqref{yang-baxter}.
\eqref{conservation} means that
$\[ R^{CG}(z) \]_{kl}^{ij} \equiv 0$ unless $i+j=k+l \pmod 3$,
which the Belavin $R$-matrix also satisfies.
On the other hand, \eqref{t-invariance} is the symmetry peculiar to the
Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix.
\begin{definition}
The reflection equation is
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{12}(z_{1}/z_{2})K_{1}(z_{1})R_{21}(z_{1} z_{2})K_{2}(z_{2})
=K_{2}(z_{2})R_{12}(z_{1} z_{2})K_{1}(z_{1})R_{21}(z_{1}/ z_{2})
\in \mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^3 \otimes \mathbb{C}^3), \label{re}
\end{eqnarray}
where $R_{12}(z)=R(z)$ is the Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix
\eqref{cremmer-gervais}, and \\
$K_{1}(z)=K(z) \otimes \mathrm{Id},
K_{2}(z)=\mathrm{Id} \otimes K(z)$. \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
We obtained all the meromorphic solutions to the reflection equation
of the
Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix $R^{CG}(z,q)$ which are not identically zero,
i.e, we determined the full solution space
\begin{align}
\mathcal{K}=\{K(z,q) \in \mathcal{M}^9 \ | \
K(z) \not\equiv 0, \ K(z) \ \textrm{satisfies \ the \ reflection \
equation} \ \eqref{re} \},
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{M}=\{ f(z,q) \ | \ f(z,q) \ \textrm{is meromorphic in}
\ z,q \}.
\end{align}
We regard two solutions to be equivalent if they coincide up to
an overall factor.
We found two solution spaces
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$
which can be parametrized by the following algebraic varieties,
$\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{II}}$.
\begin{definition}
Let $\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}, \mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{II}}$
be the following algebraic varieties.
\begin{align}
\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}&=
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C}), \\
\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{II}}&=
\mathbb{C} \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C}).
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{algebraicvariety}
\end{definition}
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$
is the space of $3 \times 3$ matrices which is parametrized by
$\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{II}}$
respectively as follows.
\begin{definition}
We define two spaces of $3 \times 3$ matrices
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$
as follows.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}=\left\{ K_{\mathrm{I}}(z ,
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}=
(B_1, B_2) \times (D_1, D_2) \times (E_1, E_2, E_3)
\in \mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}
\end{array}
\right\}, \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{I}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}})=&
K_{\mathrm{I},0}(z,D_1,D_2,E_1)-z^6 T K_{\mathrm{I},0}(z^{-1},D_2,D_1,E_3)T \nn \\
&+K_{\mathrm{I},1}(z,B_1,B_2,D_1,E_2)-z^6 T K_{\mathrm{I},1}(z^{-1},B_2,B_1,D_2,E_2)T,
\end{align}
where $K_{\mathrm{I},0}(z,D_1,D_2,E_1)$ and $K_{\mathrm{I},1}(z,B_1,B_2,D_1,E_2)$ are
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{I},0}(z,D_1,D_2,E_1)
=&E_1^2 \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
D_2^2z^2 & D_1 D_2(z^4-1) &D_1^2 z^2(z^4-1) \\
0 &D_2^2 z^2 & D_1 D_2(z^4-1) \\
0 & 0 & D_2^2 z^2
\end{array}
\right), \\
K_{\mathrm{I},1}(z,B_1,B_2,D_1,E_2)
=&-D_1 E_2 z^2 \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
B_1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & B_1 & B_2(1-z^4) \\
0 & 0 & B_1 z^4
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}=\left\{ K_{\mathrm{II}}(z ,
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{c}
\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}=
(b) \times (F_1, F_2) \times (G_1, G_2, G_3)
\in \mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{II}}
\end{array}
\right\}, \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{II}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}})=&
bz^2 \mathrm{Id}+ K_{\mathrm{II},0}(z,F_1,G_1,G_2,G_3)
-z^4 T K_{\mathrm{II},0}(z^{-1},F_2,G_3,-G_2,G_1)T,
\end{align}
where $K_{\mathrm{II},0}(z,F_1,G_1,G_2,G_3)$ is
\begin{align}
K_{\mathrm{II},0}(z,F_1,G_1,G_2,G_3)
=&-F_1 \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
G_3 & 0 & G_1(1-z^4) \\
0 &G_3 & G_2(1-z^4) \\
0 & 0 & G_3 z^4
\end{array}
\right).
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{defspace}
\end{definition}
The solutions to the reflection equation of the
$N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix can be expressed using the
spaces of $3 \times 3$ matrices
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$
defined in Def \ref{defspace}.
\begin{theorem}{(Main Result)}
The solution space $\mathcal{K}$ of the
$N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix \eqref{cremmer-gervais}
is the union of $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$,
and does not depend on the
parameters of the
$R$-matrix, $q$.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}} \cup \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}. \nn
\end{equation}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{maintheorem}
\end{theorem}
The following Proposition can be checked by a direct calculation.
\begin{proposition}
$K_{\mathrm{I}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}})
\in \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $
K_{\mathrm{II}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}) \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$
satisfy unitarity.
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{i}(z, \mathcal{P}_{i})K_{i}(z^{-1}, \mathcal{P}_{i})=\rho_{i}(z)
\mathrm{Id}, \ \ \ i=\mathrm{I}, \mathrm{II},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align}
\rho_{\mathrm{I}}(z)=& D_1^2(B_1^2+D_1^2)+D_2^2(B_2^2+D_2^2)+
(B_1 D_1^3+B_2 D_2^3-B_1 B_2 D_1 D_2)(z^2+z^{-2}) \nn \\
&-D_1 D_2(B_1 D_2+B_2 D_1)(z^4+z^{-4})
-D_1^2 D_2^2(z^6+z^{-6}), \nn \\
\rho_{\mathrm{II}}(z)=& b^2+F_2^2 G_1^2+F_1^2 G_3^2+b(F_2 G_1-F_1 G_3)(z^2+z^{-2})
+F_1 F_2 G_1 G_3(z^4+z^{-4}). \nn
\end{align} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
We can also see that the solutions have the following
transformation properties.
\begin{lemma}
We define the action $\mathrm{ad}$ as
$\mathrm{ad} \, X(Y)=XYX^{-1}$ for two $3\times3$ matrices $X$ and $Y$.
$K_{\mathrm{I}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}) \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and
$K_{\mathrm{II}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}) \in \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$
transform with respect to
the action of $G$ and $T$ \eqref{GT} as,
\begin{align}
\mathrm{ad} \, G(K_{i}(z, \mathcal{P}_{i}))&
=K_{i}(z,G \mathcal{P}_{i}), \ \ \ i=\mathrm{I}, \mathrm{II}, \\
\mathrm{ad} \, T(K_{\mathrm{I}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}))
&=z^{6} K_{\mathrm{I}}(z^{-1},T \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}), \\
\mathrm{ad} \, T(K_{\mathrm{II}}(z ,\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}))
&=z^{4} K_{\mathrm{II}}(z^{-1},T \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}),
\end{align}
where the action of
$G$ and $T$ on $\mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}$ is defined by
\begin{align}
&G \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}
=(B_1, \omega^2 B_2) \times (\omega^2 D_1, D_2) \times
(E_1, \omega E_2, \omega E_3), \nn \\
&T \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}}
=-(B_2, B_1) \times (D_2, D_1) \times (E_3, E_2, E_1), \nn \\
&G \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}
=(b) \times (\omega F_1, F_2) \times
(G_1, \omega G_2, \omega^2 G_3), \nn \\
&T \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{II}}
=(b) \times (F_2, F_1) \times (-G_3, G_2, -G_1). \nn
\end{align} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{lemma}
$G$ and $T$ act on the algebraic varieties
$\mathcal{U}_{\textrm{I}}$ and $ \mathcal{U}_{\textrm{II}}$,
and satisfy $G^3=\textrm{Id}$, $T^2=\textrm{Id}$ and $(GT)^2=\textrm{Id}$.
\\
The common part of $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}} $ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$ is
\begin{lemma}
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}} \cap \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$,
which is the common part of
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $ \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$,
is
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}} \cap \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}
= \mathcal{C} \cup \mathrm{ad} \, T
(\mathcal{C}), \ \ \ \mathcal{C} \cap \mathrm{ad} \, T
(\mathcal{C})= \{\mathrm{Id} \},
\\
&& \mathcal{C}=\left\{\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{3}+c_{4}z^2 & 0 & 0 \\
c_{2}(z^4-1) & c_{4}z^2+c_{3}z^4 & 0 \\
c_{1}(z^4-1) & 0 & c_{4}z^2+c_{3}z^4
\end{array}
\right) \right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $(c_{1}, c_{2}) \times( c_{3}, c_{4})
\in \mathbb{C}^2 \times \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C})$.
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Properties of the Reflection equation of the
$N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix}
Utilizing the symmetries of the Cremmer-Gervais
$R$-matrix \eqref{conservation} and \eqref{t-invariance},
one can show that the solutions to the Reflection equation
has the following properties.
\begin{proposition}
$K(z,q)$ has the following properties.
\begin{align}
K(z,q) \in \mathcal{K}& \Rightarrow \mathrm{ad} \, G(K(z,q)) \in \mathcal{K},
\label{Kcon} \\
K(z,q) \in \mathcal{K}& \Rightarrow
\mathrm{ad} \, T(K(z^{-1},q^{-1})) \in \mathcal{K}. \label{KT-inv1}
\end{align} \label{Kprop} \hspace{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
[ \textit{Proof of Prop \ref{Kprop}} ] \\
\eqref{Kcon} and \eqref{KT-inv1} follow from the symmetries of
$R^{CG}(z,q)$, \eqref{conservation} and \eqref{t-invariance},
respectively.
Since they can be proved similarly, we show \eqref{KT-inv1}.
Multiplying $T \otimes T$ from the left and right on both
sides of the reflection equation
\begin{align}
&R_{12}(z_{1}/z_{2},q)K_{1}(z_{1},q)R_{21}(z_{1} z_{2},q)K_{2}(z_{2},q) \nn \\
&=K_{2}(z_{2},q)R_{12}(z_{1} z_{2},q)K_{1}(z_{1},q)R_{21}(z_{1}/z_{2},q),
\label{refdef0}
\end{align}
and using \eqref{t-invariance}, one gets
\begin{align}
&R_{12}(z_{2}/z_{1},q^{-1})(T_{1}K_{1}(z_{1},q)T_{1})
R_{21}(z_{1}^{-1} z_{2}^{-1},q^{-1})(T_{2}K_{2}(z_{2},q)T_{2}) \nn \\
&=(T_{2}K_{2}(z_{2},q)T_{2})R_{12}(z_{1}^{-1} z_{2}^{-1},q^{-1})
(T_{1}K_{1}(z_{1},q)T_{1})R_{21}(z_{2}/z_{1},q^{-1}).
\label{refdef1}
\end{align}
Changing $z_{i} \to z_{i}^{-1}, q \to q^{-1}$ in
\eqref{refdef1}, we have
\begin{align}
&R_{12}(z_{1}/z_{2},q)(T_{1}K_{1}(z_{1}^{-1},q^{-1})T_{1})
R_{21}(z_{1} z_{2},q)(T_{2}K_{2}(z_{2}^{-1},q^{-1})T_{2}) \nn \\
&=(T_{2}K_{2}(z_{2}^{-1},q^{-1})T_{2})R_{12}(z_{1} z_{2},q)
(T_{1}K_{1}(z_{1}^{-1},q^{-1})T_{1})R_{21}(z_{1}/z_{2},q),
\label{refdef2}
\end{align}
which means that \eqref{KT-inv1} holds. \hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Let us investigate in more detail
the general properties of the reflection equation which comes from
the symmetries of the Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix \eqref{t-invariance}.
From now on, we prepare some notations.
\begin{definition} \hspace*{\fill} \\
$(1)$
We express the matrix elements of
$K(z) \in \mathrm{End}(\mathbb{C}^3)$
using $c_{j}^i(z,q)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
K(z)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{0}^{0}(z,q) & c_{1}^{0}(z,q) & c_{2}^{0}(z,q) \\
c_{0}^{1}(z,q) & c_{1}^{1}(z,q) & c_{2}^{1}(z,q) \\
c_{0}^{2}(z,q) & c_{1}^{2}(z,q) & c_{2}^{2}(z,q)
\end{array}
\right). \label{kexpress}
\end{eqnarray}
\\
$(2)$
We express the matrix elements of the matrix,
which is the left hand side of the reflection equation
subtracted by the right hand side, as
\begin{align}
(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2}):=&{[}
R_{12}(z_{1}/z_{2},q)K_{1}(z_{1},q)R_{21}(z_{1} z_{2},q)K_{2}(z_{2},q)
{]}_{j_{1} j_{2}}^{i_{1} i_{2}} \nn \\
&-{[}
K_{2}(z_{2},q)R_{12}(z_{1} z_{2},q)
K_{1}(z_{1},q)R_{21}(z_{1}/z_{2},q) {]}_{j_{1} j_{2}}^{i_{1} i_{2}},
\end{align}
for $i_{1}, i_{2}, j_{1}, j_{2}=0,1,2$. \\
$(3)$
$T$ was defined as the matrix which acts on the vector space
$\mathbb{C}^3$, i.e., $T e_{j}=e_{2-j}$ $\mathrm{\eqref{GT}}$.
We also define the action of $T$ on the index $0,1,2$ of the
orthonormal basis $\{ e_{0}, e_{1}, e_{2} \}$ of
$\mathbb{C}^3$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
T(j):=2-j,
\end{eqnarray}
for $j=0,1,2$. \hspace*{\fill} \sq \label{firstdef}
\end{definition}
Using the notations defined in
Def \ref{firstdef}, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
Te_j=e_{T(j)}, \ \ \
(\textrm{ad} \, T(K(z)))_{j}^i=K(z)_{T(j)}^{T(i)}, \ \ \
(\textrm{ad} \, T(R(z)))_{kl}^{ij}=R(z)_{T(k)T(l)}^{T(i)T(j)}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{definition}
We define the space of meromorphic functions of
$z, q$ as $\mathcal{M}$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{M}:=\left\{ f(z,q) \ \Big| \
f(z,q) \mathrm{\ is \
meromorphic \ in} \ z,q \right\}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
$\mathcal{N}$ is defined as the
space of homogeneous polynomials
of degree 1 with respect to $c_{j}^i(z_{1},q), i,j=0,1,2$,
with respect to $c_{j}^i(z_{2},q), i,j=0,1,2$, and the coefficients
belong to $\mathcal{M}$.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{N}=\left\{
g(c(z_{1}), c(z_{2}) |
z_{1}, z_{2}, q) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{l}
g \ \mathrm{is \ a \ homogeneous \ polynomial \ of \ degree \ 1
\ with \ respect \ to } \\
c_{j}^i(z_{1},q), i,j=0,1,2, \ \mathrm{with \ respect \ to \ }
c_{j}^i(z_{2},q), i,j=0,1,2 \\
\mathrm{and \ the \ coefficients \ belong \ to \ }
\mathcal{M}
\end{array}
\right\}. \nn
\end{eqnarray} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
Expressing the matrix elements of
$K(z,q)$ as $c_{j}^i(z,q)$,
every element of the reflection equation
$(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2})$
belongs to $\mathcal{N}$, and can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{k,l,m,n=0}^{2}f_{kl, mn}(z_{1},z_{2},q)
c_{l}^{k}(z_{1},q)c_{n}^{m}(z_{2},q), \nn
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{kl, mn}(z_{1},z_{2},q) \in \mathcal{M}$.
Comparing the reflection equation
\eqref{refdef0} with \eqref{refdef1},
we find the following holds.
\begin{lemma}
If an element of the reflection equation
$(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2})$
can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
(i_1 i_2|j_1 j_2)=\sum_{k,l,m,n=0}^{2}f_{kl, mn}(z_{1},z_{2},q)
c_{l}^{k}(z_{1},q)c_{n}^{m}(z_{2},q), \nn \label{ex1}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c_{j}^{i}(z,q)$ are the matrix elements of $K(z,q)$
and $f_{kl, mn}(z_{1},z_{2},q) \in \mathcal{M}$, \\
$(T(i_{1}) T(i_{2})|T(j_{1}) T(j_{2}))$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
\displaystyle (T(i_{1}) T(i_{2})|T(j_{1}) T(j_{2}))=
\sum_{k,l,m,n=0}^{2}f_{kl, mn}(z_{1}^{-1},z_{2}^{-1},q^{-1})
c_{T(l)}^{T(k)}(z_{1},q)
c_{T(n)}^{T(m)}(z_{2},q). \nn \label{ex2}
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq \label{close}
\end{lemma}
We define the $T$-transformation of an element of
$\mathcal{N}$ as follows.
\begin{definition}
For an element of $\mathcal{N}$
\begin{eqnarray}
\sum_{k,l,m,n=0}^{2}f_{kl, mn}(z_{1},z_{2},q)
c_{l}^{k}(z_{1},q)c_{n}^{m}(z_{2},q), \nn
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{kl, mn}(z_{1},z_{2},q) \in \mathcal{M}$,
we define its $T$-transformation as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&T \left(
\sum_{k,l,m,n=0}^{2}f_{kl, mn}(z_{1},z_{2},q)
c_{l}^{k}(z_{1},q)c_{n}^{m}(z_{2},q)
\right)
\nn \\
&& \ \ \ \ \ :=
\sum_{k,l,m,n=0}^{2}f_{kl, mn}(z_{1}^{-1},z_{2}^{-1},q^{-1})
c_{T(l)}^{T(k)}(z_{1},q)
c_{T(n)}^{T(m)}(z_{2},q). \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace{\fill} \sq
\label{tdef}
\end{definition}
Defining the
$T$-transformation as above, Lemma \ref{close}
can be simply expressed as
\begin{corollary}
\begin{equation}
T(i_1 i_2|j_1 j_2)=(T(i_1)T(i_2)|T(j_1)T(j_2)). \label{closecor}
\end{equation}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{corollary}
We also use the following Proposition
to prove Th \ref{maintheorem}, which is
about the subgroup of $\mathcal{N}$
invariant under the $T$-transformation.
\begin{proposition}
A subgroup $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}$ of $\mathcal{N}$
is called a {\it $T$-invariant subgroup}
if it is invariant under the $T$-transformation, i.e.,
if $T(g) \in \tilde{\mathcal{N}}$ holds for any
$g \in \tilde{\mathcal{N}}$,
If an element $g \in \mathcal{N}$
can be expressed as the linear combination
of elements of $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}$ with
$\mathcal{M}$-coefficients, i.e.,
can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
g=
\sum_{\beta}h_{\beta}(z_{1}, z_{2}, q)
g_{\beta}(c(z_{1}), c(z_{2})
|z_{1}, z_{2}, q), \ \
g_{\beta} \in \tilde{\mathcal{N}}, \
h_{\beta} \in \mathcal{M},
\label{beforeT2}
\end{eqnarray}
$T(g) \in \mathcal{N}$ can also be expressed as
the linear combination of elements of $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}$
with $\mathcal{M}$-coefficients.
\begin{eqnarray}
T(g)=
\sum_{\beta}h_{\beta}(z_{1}^{-1}, z_{2}^{-1}, q^{-1})
T(g_{\beta}(c(z_{1}), c(z_{2})
|z_{1}, z_{2}, q)), \ \
T(g_{\beta})
\in \tilde{\mathcal{N}}.
\label{afterT}
\end{eqnarray} \label{KT-inv2} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
We use \eqref{KT-inv1}, Lemma \ref{close},
the properties of the reflection equation coming
from the symmetry of the Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix
\eqref{t-invariance},
and Prop \ref{KT-inv2},
the property which holds for the
$T$-invariant subgroup of
$\mathcal{N}$, to prove
Th \ref{maintheorem}.
\section{38 equations equivalent to the Reflection equation}
Solving the reflection equation is to solve
81 equations $(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2})=0$,
$i_{1},i_{2},j_{1},j_{2}=0,1,2$ for $c_{j}^i(z,q), i,j=0,1,2$.
Directly solving the 81 equations is the most straightforward way,
which is a tiresome task. Instead,
carefully observing these 81 equations, one finds they
are equivalent to another set of 38 equations (Def \ref{38def}),
which is easier to handle.
This equivalence (Th \ref{38})
is shown in this section. We briefly outline the procedure.
First, we divide the 81 elements of the reflection equation
into several subgroups. Such is also done for the set of 38 equations.
Then we show 3 relations (Prop \ref{step0}, \ref{123123prime}, \ref{123ABC})
among the subgroups of the
reflection equation and the set of 38 equations.
Combining the relations and Prop \ref{KT-inv2}, we prove
the equivalence between the 81 equations $(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2})=0$,
$i_{1},i_{2},j_{1},j_{2}=0,1,2$ and another set of 38 equations.
\begin{theorem}
$\{(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2}) \ | \ i_{1},i_{2},j_{1},j_{2}=0,1,2 \}$,
which are the $81$ elements of the reflection equation of the
$N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix $R^{CG}(z,q)$,
are equivalent to $38$ equations which consist of
$20$ equations
$\{ A_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 8 \}
\cup \{ B_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 7 \} \cup
\{ C_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 5 \}$
defined in $\mathrm{Def} \ \ref{38def} $,
and their $T$-transformed $(\mathrm{Def} \ \ref{tdef})$
equations
$\{T\!A_j=0 \ | \ j=2,3,4,5,7,8 \} \cup
\{T\!B_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 7 \} \cup
\{T\!C_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 5 \}$.
\label{38} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{theorem}
$A_{1}$ and $A_6$ are essentially self-dual
with respect to the
$T$-transformtion, i.e.,
$T\!A_{1}=-z_1^{-2} z_2^{-2} A_{1},
T\!A_{6}=z_{1}^{-4} z_{2}^{-4} A_{6}|_{z_{1} \leftrightarrow z_{2}}$.
\begin{definition}
We define
$\{A_j,j=1, \cdots, 8 \}$,
$\{B_j,j=1, \cdots, 7 \}$,
$\{C_j, j=1, \cdots, 5 \}$
as the polynomials of $c_{j}^i(z,q)$,
the matrix elements of the
$K(z)$, $c_{j}^i(z,q)$, as follows.
For simplicity, we denote $c_{j}^i(z)=c_{j}^i(z,q)$.
\begin{align}
A_1:=& z_1^2 c_{1}^0(z_1) c_{1}^2(z_2)-
c_{1}^2(z_1) z_2^2 c_1^0(z_{2}), \nn \\
A_2:=& c_{2}^0(z_1) z_{2}^2 c_{1}^0(z_2)-
z_{1}^2 c_1^0(z_1) c_2^0(z_2), \nn \\
A_3:=& c_{1}^2(z_1) c_{2}^0(z_2)
-c_2^0(z_1) c_1^2(z_2), \nn \\
A_4:=& z_1^2 c_{1}^0(z_1) (c_{1}^0(z_2)-c_{2}^1(z_2))
-(c_{1}^0(z_1)-c_{2}^1(z_1)) z_2^2 c_1^0(z_2), \nn \\
A_5:=& c_{1}^0(z_{1})c_{0}^1(z_{2})-c_{0}^1(z_{1})c_{1}^0(z_{2})
+c_{2}^0(z_{1})c_{0}^2(z_{2})-c_{0}^2(z_{1})c_{2}^0(z_{2}), \nn \\
A_6:=&(z_2^2-z_1^2)(z_1^2 z_2^2 c_1^0(z_1)(c_1^2(z_2)-c_0^1(z_2))-
c_1^2(z_2)(c_1^0(z_1)-c_2^1(z_1))) \nn \\
&+(z_1^4 c_0^0(z_1)-c_2^2(z_1))z_2^2(c_0^0(z_2)-c_2^2(z_2))
-z_1^2(c_0^0(z_1)-c_2^2(z_1))(z_2^4 c_0^0(z_2)-c_2^2(z_2)),
\nn \\
A_7:=& c_{2}^1(z_{1})c_{1}^0(z_{2})-c_{1}^0(z_{1})c_{2}^1(z_{2})
+c_{2}^0(z_{1})(c_{0}^0(z_{2})-c_{2}^2(z_{2}))
-(c_{0}^0(z_{1})-c_{2}^2(z_{1}))c_{2}^0(z_{2}), \nn \\
A_8:=&z_1^4 c_{1}^0(z_{1}) z_{2}^2 c_{2}^1(z_{2})
-z_{1}^2 c_{2}^1(z_{1}) z_2^4c_{1}^0(z_{2})
\nn \\
&+z_{2}^2 c_{2}^0(z_{2}) (z_1^4 c_{0}^0(z_{1})-c_{2}^2(z_{1}))
-(z_2^4 c_{0}^0(z_{2})-c_{2}^2(z_{2})) z_{1}^2 c_{2}^0(z_{1}), \nn \\
B_1:=& c_{1}^0(z_1) (c_{1}^1(z_2)-c_{0}^0(z_2))
-(c_{1}^1(z_1)-c_{0}^0(z_1)) c_1^0(z_2), \nn \\
B_2:=& c_{2}^0(z_1) (c_{1}^0(z_2)-c_{2}^1(z_2))
-(c_{1}^0(z_1)-c_{2}^1(z_1))c_2^0(z_2), \nn \\
B_3:=& c_{2}^0(z_1) (c_{1}^1(z_2)-c_{2}^2(z_2))
-(c_{1}^1(z_1)-c_{2}^2(z_1)) c_2^0(z_2), \nn \\
B_4:=& c_{1}^0(z_1) (c_{1}^2(z_2)-c_{0}^1(z_2))
-(c_{0}^1(z_1)-c_{1}^2(z_1)) c_1^0(z_2), \nn \\
B_5:=& z_{1}^2 c_{2}^0(z_{1})z_2^4 c_{0}^2(z_{2})
-z_1^4 c_{0}^2(z_{1}) z_{2}^2 c_{2}^0(z_{2})
+z_1^4 c_1^0(z_1) z_2^2 c_0^1(z_2)-z_1^2 c_0^1(z_1) z_2^4 c_1^0(z_2) \nn \\
&+(z_1^4 c_{1}^1(z_{1})- c_{2}^2(z_{1}))z_{2}^2(c_{1}^1(z_{2})-c_{2}^2(z_{2}))
-z_{1}^2(c_{1}^1(z_{1})-c_{2}^2(z_{1}))(z_2^4 c_{1}^1(z_{2})-c_{2}^2(z_{2})), \nn \\
B_6:=& c_2^0(z_1)c_0^1(z_2)-c_0^1(z_1) c_2^0(z_2)
+c_{2}^1(z_{1})(c_{1}^1(z_{2})-c_{2}^2(z_{2}))
-(c_{1}^1(z_{1})-c_{2}^2(z_{1})) c_{2}^1(z_{2}), \nn \\
B_7:=&z_{1}^2 c_{2}^1(z_{1})(z_2^4 c_{1}^1(z_{2})- c_{2}^2(z_{2}))
-(z_1^4 c_{1}^1(z_{1})-c_{2}^2(z_{1}))z_{2}^2 c_{2}^1(z_{2}) \nn \\
&+z_{1}^2 c_{2}^0(z_{1})(z_2^4 c_{0}^1(z_{2})-(z_{2}^4+1)c_{1}^2(z_{2}))
-(z_1^4 c_{0}^1(z_{1})-(z_{1}^4+1)c_{1}^2(z_{1})) z_{2}^2 c_{2}^0(z_{2}), \nn
\end{align}
\begin{align}
C_1:=& z_{1}^2 c_{1}^2(z_{1}) c_{2}^0(z_{2})
-c_{2}^0(z_{1}) z_{2}^2 c_{1}^2(z_{2}) \nn \\
&+z_{1}^2 c_{1}^0(z_{1}) (c_{1}^1(z_{2})-z_2^4 c_{0}^0(z_{2}))
-(c_{1}^1(z_{1})-z_1^4 c_{0}^0(z_{1})) z_{2}^2 c_{1}^0(z_{2}), \nn \\
C_2:=&z_1^2 c_{1}^0(z_1) (c_{1}^1(z_2)-c_{2}^2(z_2))
-(c_{1}^1(z_1)-c_{2}^2(z_1))z_2^2 c_1^0(z_2), \nn \\
C_3:=& c_{2}^0(z_{1}) z_2^2(c_{1}^2(z_{2})-c_{0}^1(z_{2}))
-z_1^2 (c_{1}^2(z_{1})-c_{0}^1(z_{1})) c_{2}^0(z_{2}) \nn \\
&+z_1^2(c_{1}^1(z_{1})-c_{0}^0(z_{1}))(c_{2}^1(z_{2})-c_{1}^0(z_{2}))
-(c_{2}^1(z_{1})-c_{1}^0(z_{1}))z_2^2 (c_{1}^1(z_{2})-c_{0}^0(z_{2})), \nn \\
C_4:=&
c_{2}^0(z_{1})c_{0}^1(z_{2})-c_{0}^1(z_{1})c_{2}^0(z_{2})
+c_{1}^0(z_{1})(c_{1}^1(z_{2})-c_{2}^2(z_{2}))
-(c_{1}^1(z_{1})-c_{2}^2(z_{1}))c_{1}^0(z_{2}), \nn \\
C_5:=& z_1^2 z_2^4(c_0^1(z_1)c_2^1(z_2)-c_2^1(z_1)c_0^1(z_2)
+c_1^1(z_1)c_2^2(z_2)-c_2^2(z_1)c_1^1(z_2))
\nn \\
&+z_1^2 z_2^2(z_2^2-z_1^2)(c_1^0(z_1)c_0^1(z_2)+c_0^0(z_1)(c_1^1(z_2)-c_2^2(z_2)))
\nn \\
&+c_2^2(z_1)z_2^2(c_1^1(z_2)-c_2^2(z_2))-z_1^2(c_1^1(z_1)-c_2^2(z_1))c_2^2(z_2). \nn
\end{align} \label{38def} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
Since the coefficents of all the 38 equations
$\{ A_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 8\}
\cup \{ B_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 7 \} \cup
\{ C_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 5 \}$,
$\{T\!A_j=0 \ | \ j=2, \cdots ,5,7, 8 \} \cup
\{T\!B_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots ,7 \} \cup
\{T\!C_j=0 \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 5 \} \cup$
do not depend on the parameter of the
Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix, $q$,
$c_{j}^i(z,q)$ do not depend on $q$.
Thus, we notice the following from $\mathrm{Th} \ \ref{38}$.
\begin{corollary}
The solution to the reflection equation of the
$N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix
does not depend on $q$.
\label{38close}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{corollary}
Let us make some definitions
and prepare propositions to prove Th \ref{38}.
We first define the groups of polynomials.
\begin{definition}
We define
${\bf A}$, ${\bf B}$ and ${\bf C}$
as the following groups of polynomials.
\begin{align}
&{\bf A}:=\{A_{j} \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 8 \}, \nn \\
&{\bf B}:= \{B_{j} \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 7 \}, \nn \\
&{\bf C}:= \{C_{j} \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 5 \}. \nn
\end{align}
For a group of polynomials $J$,
let $T\! J$ be groups consisting of
polynomials which are the $T$-transformed polynomials
belonging to $J$.
\begin{align}
T\!J=\{ T\!X \ | \ X \in J \}.
\end{align}
For a group of polynomials $J$,
we also denote the groups of equations
$\{X=0 \ | \ X \in J \}$ by $J$
as long as it does not make a confusion.
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
We define
${\bf 0}$,
${\bf 1}$,
${\bf 1^{\prime}}$,
${\bf 2}$,
${\bf 2^{\prime}}$,
${\bf 3}$ and
${\bf 3^{\prime}}$ as the following groups
of elements of the reflection equation.
\begin{align}
& {\bf 0}:=
\{(00|22), (00|11) \}, \nn \\
& {\bf 1}:=
\{(02|11), (00|21), (02|12), (01|21),
(00|00), (02|20), (02|22), (20|22) \}, \nn \\
&{\bf 1^{\prime}}:=\{
(00|12),(10|12),(00|20),(00|02)
\}, \nn \\
&
{\bf 2}:=
\{
(20|21), (01|22), (01|12), (10|10),
(12|21), (21|22), (12|22) \}, \nn \\
&{\bf 2^{\prime}}:=\{
(10|22), (20|20), (21|12), (11|11), (21|21), (11|22), (10|21) \}, \nn \\
&{\bf 3}:=\{
(00|10), (20|12), (01|20), (01|02), (11|02) \}, \nn \\
&{\bf 3^{\prime}}:= \{
(01|11),(00|01),(10|11),(02|21),(10|02), (10|20), (11|12), (11|21) \}. \nn
\end{align}
For
$J={\bf 0, 1, 2, 3, 1^{\prime}, 2^{\prime}, 3^{\prime}}$,
let $T\! J$ be groups of the elements of the reflection equation
as follows.
\begin{align}
T\!J=\{ (T(i_1) T(i_2)|T(j_1) T(j_2)) \ | \ (i_1 i_2|j_1 j_2) \in J \}.
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{eqnarray}
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccccccc}
{\bf 1} &{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 1^{\prime} }&{\bf 3 }&{\bf 0 }&{\bf 1^{\prime} }
&{\bf 1^{\prime} }&{\bf 1 }&{\bf 0} \\
T{\bf 2} &T{\bf 2^{\prime}} &{\bf 3} &T{\bf 2^{\prime} }&{\bf 3^{\prime}}&{\bf 2 }
&{\bf 3 }&{\bf 1 }&{\bf 2} \\
T{\bf 1} &T{\bf 2 }&T{\bf 2^{\prime}} &T{\bf 3 }&{\bf 1 }&{\bf 1} &{\bf 1}
&{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 1 }\\
T{\bf 2 }&T{\bf 2 }&{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 2 }&{\bf 3^{\prime} }
&{\bf 1^{\prime} }&{\bf 3^{\prime} }
&{\bf 2^{\prime} }&{\bf 2^{\prime} }\\
T{\bf 2^{\prime} }&T{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 3 }&T{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 2^{\prime} }
&{\bf 3^{\prime} }&T{\bf 3 }
&{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 2^{\prime} } \\
T{\bf 2^{\prime}} &T{\bf 2^{\prime} }&T{\bf 3^{\prime} }&T{\bf 1^{\prime} }
&T{\bf 3^{\prime} }
&T{\bf 2 }&T{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 2} &{\bf 2 }\\
T{\bf 1} &T{\bf 3^{\prime} }&T{\bf 1 }&T{\bf 1 }&T{\bf 1 }&{\bf 3 }
&{\bf 2^{\prime} }&{\bf 2 }&{\bf 1 } \\
T{\bf 2 }&T{\bf 1 }&T{\bf 3 }&T{\bf 2 }&T{\bf 3^{\prime} }&{\bf 2^{\prime} }
&T{\bf 3 }&{\bf 2^{\prime} }&{\bf 2} \\
{\bf 0} &T{\bf 1 }&T{\bf 1^{\prime} }&T{\bf 1^{\prime} }&{\bf 0 }&T{\bf 3 }
&T{\bf 1^{\prime} }&T{\bf 3^{\prime}}&T{\bf 1}
\end{array}
\right) \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\end{center}
\caption{The elements of the reflection equation
$(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2})$ and their associated groups.
The matrix element $(3i_1+i_2+1, 3j_1+j_2+1)$ is
assigned to $(i_{1} i_{2}|j_{1} j_{2})$.}
\end{table}
For these groups of polynomials, we note the following.
\begin{lemma}
$(\mathrm{i})$ \ $J \cup T\!J$
is invariant under the $T$-transformation for each
$J={\bf A}, {\bf B}, {\bf C}$. \\
$(\mathrm{ii})$ \
$J \cup T\!J$
is invariant under the $T$-transformation for each
$J={\bf 0, 1, 2, 3, 1^{\prime}, 2^{\prime}, 3^{\prime}}$.
\label{01234inv}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{lemma}
$(\mathrm{i})$ is obvious from the definition.
We also note $(\mathrm{ii})$
from the fact that $T(i_1 i_2|j_1 j_2)$, which is the
$T$-transformation of $(i_1 i_2|j_1 j_2)$, is $(T(i_1)T( i_2)|T(j_1)T( j_2))$
\eqref{closecor}. \\
We introduce the following notations for simplicity.
\begin{definition}
Let {\bf Reflection}, {\bf Reduced} be the following groups of polynomials.
\begin{align}
&{\bf Reflection}=\{(i_1 i_2|j_1 j_2) \ | \ i_1, i_2, j_1, j_2=0,1,2 \}, \nn \\
&{\bf Reduced}= {\bf A \cup B \cup C} \cup T\!{\bf A} \cup T\! {\bf B} \cup T\! {\bf C}.
\nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
By definition, we obviously have
\begin{align}
{\bf Reflection}=\bigcup_{J=0,1,2,3,1^{\prime}, 2^{\prime}, 3^{\prime}} \{ J \cup T\!J \}. \nn
\end{align}
For two groups of polynomials $P$ and $Q$,
let us denote $P \Rightarrow Q$
if all the polynomials in
$Q$ can be expressed as linear combinations of
the polynomials in $P$
with $\mathcal{M}$-coefficients.
In order to prove Th \ref{38},
we prepare three Propositions about the relations between the
groups of polynomials which have been just defined.
The proof of these Propositions is given in Appendix A.
\begin{proposition}
The $4$ elements which belong to
${\bf 0} \cup T\!{\bf 0}$ are all $0$.
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{step0}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3 \cup} T\!{\bf 2}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1^{\prime} \cup 2^{\prime} \cup 3^{\prime}}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq \label{123123prime}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proposition}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}
\Longleftrightarrow {\bf A \cup B \cup C}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq \label{123ABC}
\end{proposition}
[ \textit{Proof of Th \ref{38}} ] \\
Th \ref{38} means
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reflection} \Longleftrightarrow {\bf Reduced}, \label{simplify}
\end{eqnarray}
which can be decomposed into
\begin{eqnarray}
&(\mathrm{i}) \ {\bf Reflection} \Longrightarrow {\bf Reduced}, \nn \\
&(\mathrm{ii}) \ {\bf Reduced} \Longrightarrow {\bf Reflection}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
We can prove $(\mathrm{i})$ and $(\mathrm{ii})$ by utilizing
Prop \ref{123123prime}, \ref{123ABC} and \ref{KT-inv2}. \\
$(\mathrm{i})$
From Prop \ref{123ABC}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}
\Longrightarrow {\bf A \cup B \cup C}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with the obvious relation
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reflection}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}, \nn
\end{eqnarray}
one has
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reflection}
\Longrightarrow {\bf A \cup B \cup C}. \label{refabc}
\end{eqnarray}
Setting $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}={\bf Reflection}$ in
Prop \ref{KT-inv2}, \eqref{refabc} gives
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reflection}
\Longrightarrow T\!{\bf A} \cup T\!{\bf B} \cup T\!{\bf C}. \label{reftabc}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{refabc} and \eqref{reftabc} together, one has
$(\mathrm{i})$. \\
$(\mathrm{ii})$
From Prop \ref{123ABC}, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf A \cup B \cup C}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reduced}
\Longrightarrow {\bf A \cup B \cup C}, \nn
\end{eqnarray}
which is an obvious relation, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reduced}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}. \label{red123}
\end{eqnarray}
Setting $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}={\bf Reduced}$ in
Prop \ref{KT-inv2}, one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reduced}
\Longrightarrow T\!{\bf 1} \cup T\!{\bf 2} \cup T\!{\bf 3}, \label{redt123}
\end{eqnarray}
from \eqref{red123}.
Combining
\eqref{red123} and \eqref{redt123} gives
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reduced}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}\cup
T\!{\bf 1} \cup T\!{\bf 2} \cup T\!{\bf 3}. \label{red123t123}
\end{eqnarray}
We combine
Prop \ref{123123prime}, \eqref{red123t123} and
$
{\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}\cup
T\!{\bf 1} \cup T\!{\bf 2} \cup T\!{\bf 3}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup 3}\cup T\!{\bf 2}
$
to get
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reduced}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1^{\prime} \cup 2^{\prime} \cup 3^{\prime}}. \label{red123prime}
\end{eqnarray}
Setting $\tilde{\mathcal{N}}={\bf Reduced}$ in
Prop \ref{KT-inv2}, \eqref{red123prime} leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reduced}
\Longrightarrow
T\!{\bf 1^{\prime}} \cup T\!{\bf 2^{\prime}} \cup T\!{\bf 3^{\prime}}.
\label{redt123prime}
\end{eqnarray}
From \eqref{red123prime} and \eqref{redt123prime}, we have
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf Reduced}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1^{\prime} \cup 2^{\prime} \cup 3^{\prime}}\cup
T\!{\bf 1^{\prime}} \cup T\!{\bf 2^{\prime}} \cup T\!{\bf 3^{\prime}}.
\label{red123t123prime}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{red123t123} and \eqref{red123t123prime}, one gets
$(\mathrm{ii})$.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
To determine the solution space,
we use the following 38 equations ${\bf Reduced^{\prime}}$
instead of ${\bf Reduced}$ since they are easier to treat.
\begin{definition}
Let
$A_5^{\prime}, A_6^{\prime}$ and $C_5^{\prime}$ be the following polynomials.
\begin{align}
A_5^{\prime}:=&A_5+B_4, \nn \\
A_6^{\prime}:=&z_1^4 c_1^0(z_1) z_2^2 c_0^1(z_2)-z_1^2 c_0^1(z_1) z_2^4 c_1^0(z_2)
+c_1^2(z_1) z_2^2 c_2^1(z_2)-z_1^2 c_2^1(z_1) c_1^2(z_2), \nn \\
&+(z_1^4 c_0^0(z_1)-c_2^2(z_1))z_2^2(c_0^0(z_2)-c_2^2(z_2))
-z_1^2(c_0^0(z_1)-c_2^2(z_1))z_2^4 c_0^0(z_2)-c_2^2(z_2)), \nn \\
C_5^{\prime}:=&c_0^1(z_1)(c_1^0(z_2)-c_2^1(z_2))-(c_1^0(z_1)-c_2^1(z_1))c_0^1(z_2) \nn \\
&+(c_0^0(z_1)-c_1^1(z_1))(c_2^2(z_2)-c_1^1(z_2))
-(c_2^2(z_1)-c_1^1(z_1))(c_0^0(z_2)-c_1^1(z_2)). \nn
\end{align}
Let
${\bf A^{\prime}, C^{\prime}}$ be the following groups of polynomials.
\begin{align}
{\bf A^{\prime}}&:=\{ A_j \ | \ j=1, \cdots,7,8 \} \cup \{A_5^{\prime},
A_6^{\prime} \}, \nn \\
{\bf C^{\prime}}&:=\{ C_j \ | \ j=1, \cdots , 4 \} \cup \{ C_5^{\prime} \}. \nn
\end{align}
Let
${\bf Reduced^{\prime}}$ be a group consisting of the following
$38$ polynomials.
\begin{align}
{\bf Reduced^{\prime}}= {\bf A^{\prime} \cup B \cup C^{\prime}} \cup
T\!{\bf A^{\prime}} \cup T\! {\bf B} \cup T\! {\bf C^{\prime}}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
$A_6^{\prime}$ is essentially self-dual
with respect to the $T$-transformation, i.e.,
$T\!A_6^{\prime}=z_1^{-4} z_2^{-4} A_6^{\prime}$.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
{\bf Reduced} \Longleftrightarrow {\bf Reduced^{\prime}}.
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq \label{redredprime}
\end{proposition}
{[} \textit{Proof of Prop \ref{redredprime}} {]} \\
This follows from
\begin{align}
A_5, B_4 &\Longleftrightarrow
A_5^{\prime}, B_4, \\
T\!A_5, T\!B_4 &\Longleftrightarrow
T\!A_5^{\prime}, T\!B_4, \\
A_1, B_4, T\!B_4, A_6 &\Longleftrightarrow
A_1, B_4, T\!B_4, A_6^{\prime}, \label{a6a6prime} \\
A_6, B_5, T\!B_5, C_5 &\Longleftrightarrow
A_6, B_5, T\!B_5, C_5^{\prime}, \\
T\!A_1, B_4, T\!B_4, T\!A_6 &\Longleftrightarrow
T\!A_1, B_4, T\!B_4, T\!A_6^{\prime}, \\
T\!A_6, B_5, T\!B_5, T\!C_5 &\Longleftrightarrow
T\!A_6, B_5, T\!B_5, T\!C_5^{\prime}.
\end{align}
For example, \eqref{a6a6prime} holds since $A_6^{\prime}$ can be expressed
using $A_1, B_4, T\!B_4$ and $A_6$ as
\begin{align}
A_6^{\prime}=A_6+(z_1^2 z_2^2-1)A_1-z_1^2 z_2^4 B_4-z_2^2 T\!B_4. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
\section{Solving the Reflection equation}
In this section, we prove Th \ref{maintheorem}, i.e.,
determine the solution space $\mathcal{K}$
of the reflection equation by solving the 38 equations
${\bf Reduced^{\prime}}$.
The ouline is as follows.
We introduce 9 solution subspaces
$\mathcal{K}_j^i, i,j=0,1,2$, where
$\mathcal{K}_j^i(\subset \mathcal{M}^9 \setminus \{ \mathbf{0} \},
\mathcal{M}:$
space of meromorphic functions of $z,q$) is an open space
whose matrix element
$c_j^i(z)$ is not identically 0.
In order to determine the full solution space $\mathcal{K}$,
we construct the union of 9 open solution
subspaces $\mathcal{K}_j^i, i,j=0,1,2$,
which is a cover of $\mathcal{K}$.
As a result, the solution space is shown (Th \ref{subtheorem})
to be the union of two subspaces $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and
$\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}$ (Def \ref{spacedef3}),
which can be parametrized by
algebraic varieties $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{II}}$
(Def \ref{spacedef2}). Analyzing these varieties,
we find (Th \ref{maintheorem}) the solution space is the union of two subspaces
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$ (Def \ref{defspace}), each of which
can be parametrized by $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$
and
$
\mathbb{C} \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$.
\begin{definition}
We define
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{II}}$
as the following algebraic variety in
$\mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C})$ and $\mathbb{P}^6(\mathbb{C})$,
respectively.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}=\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{0} & a_{1} & a_{2} & a_{3} & a_{4} \\
\bar{a}_{0} & \bar{a}_{1} & \bar{a}_{2} & \bar{a}_{3} & \bar{a}_{4}
\end{array}
\right) \in \mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{l}
a_{j}, \ \bar{a}_{j}, \ j=0 \sim 4
\
\textrm{satisfy} \ 14 \ \textrm{relations in} \
\eqref{relation1}
\\
(\mathrm{I}_j, \ j=1, \cdots , 8), \
(T\mathrm{I}_j, \ j=3, \cdots , 8 )
\end{array}
\right\},
\label{space1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\mathrm{I}_1: \ a_{0} \bar{a}_{0}-a_{1} \bar{a}_{1}=0, &
\mathrm{I}_2: \ a_{2} \bar{a}_{2}-a_{3} \bar{a}_{3}=0, &
\mathrm{I}_3: \ a_{0}^2-a_{1} a_{4}=0, \\
T \mathrm{I}_3: \ \bar{a}_{0}^2-\bar{a}_{1} \bar{a}_{4}=0, &
\mathrm{I}_4: \ a_{1} \bar{a}_{0}-a_{0} \bar{a}_{4}=0, &
T \mathrm{I}_4: \ \bar{a}_{1} a_{0}-\bar{a}_{0} a_{4}=0, \\
\mathrm{I}_5: \ a_{0} a_{3}-a_{1} \bar{a}_{2}=0, &
T \mathrm{I}_5: \ \bar{a}_{0} \bar{a}_{3}-\bar{a}_{1} a_{2}=0, &
\mathrm{I}_6: \ a_{0} a_{2}-\bar{a}_{3} a_{1}=0, \\
T \mathrm{I}_6: \ \bar{a}_{0} \bar{a}_{2}-a_{3} \bar{a}_{1}=0, &
\mathrm{I}_7: \ a_{2} \bar{a}_{0}-\bar{a}_{3} \bar{a}_{4}=0, &
T \mathrm{I}_7: \ \bar{a}_{2} a_{0}-a_{3} a_{4}=0, \\
\mathrm{I}_8: \ a_{2} a_{4}-a_{0} \bar{a}_{3}=0, &
T \mathrm{I}_8: \ \bar{a}_{2} \bar{a}_{4}-\bar{a}_{0} a_{3}=0.
\end{array}
\label{relation1}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{II}}=\left\{
(b, b_{0}, b_{1}, b_{2}, b_{3}, b_{4}, b_{5})
\in \mathbb{P}^6 (\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{l}
b, \ b_{j}, \ j=0 \sim 5
\ \textrm{satisfy} \ 3 \ \textrm{relations in}
\ \eqref{relation2}
\\
\mathrm{II}_1, \mathrm{II}_2, \mathrm{II}_3
\end{array}
\right\},
\label{space2}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\mathrm{II}_1: \ b_{0} b_{1}-b_{3} b_{4}=0, &
\mathrm{II}_2: \ b_{1} b_{2}-b_{4} b_{5}=0, &
\mathrm{II}_3: \ b_{2} b_{3}-b_{5} b_{0}=0.
\end{array}
\label{relation2}
\end{eqnarray} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{spacedef2}
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}
Let
$\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}$
be the following spaces of $3 \times 3$ matrices.
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}=\left\{ K_{\mathrm{I}}(z , \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{I}})
\ \Big| \
\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{I}}=
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_{0} & a_{1} & a_{2} & a_{3} & a_{4} \\
\bar{a}_{0} & \bar{a}_{1} & \bar{a}_{2} & \bar{a}_{3} & \bar{a}_{4}
\end{array}
\right)
\in \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}} \ \eqref{space1}
\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where \\
$K_{\mathrm{I}}(z,\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{I}}) $
\begin{eqnarray}
=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\bar{a}_{3}+(a_{4}-a_{3})z^2 -\bar{a}_{4} z^4 & a_{0}(z^4-1) & a_{1}z^2(z^4-1)
\\
(\bar{a}_{2}+\bar{a}_{0}z^2)(z^4-1) &
(a_{4}-a_{3})z^2-(\bar{a}_{4}-\bar{a}_{3})z^4 &
(a_{0}+a_{2}z^2)(z^4-1) \\
\bar{a}_{1}(z^4-1) & \bar{a}_{0}z^2(z^4-1) &
a_{4}z^2-(\bar{a}_{4}-\bar{a}_{3})z^4-a_{3}z^6
\end{array}
\right). \label{first}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}=\left\{ K_{\mathrm{II}}(z , \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{II}})
\ \Big| \
\mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{II}}=(b, b_{0}, b_{1}, b_{2}, b_{3}, b_{4}, b_{5})
\in \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{II}} \
\eqref{space2}
\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
K_{\mathrm{II}}(z, \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{II}})
=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
b_{3}-b_{4}+b z^2 & 0 & b_{0}(z^4-1) \\
-b_{5}(z^4-1) & -b_{4}+b z^2 +b_{3} z^4 & b_{2}(z^4-1) \\
b_{1}(z^4-1) & 0 & b z^2+(b_{3}-b_{4})z^4
\end{array}
\right). \label{second}
\end{eqnarray}
\label{spacedef3}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
In order to prove Th \ref{maintheorem},
we first prove the following Theorem.
\begin{theorem}
The solution space $\mathcal{K}$ of the
$N=3$ Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix \eqref{cremmer-gervais}
is the union of $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$, $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}$,
and does not depend on the parameter of the
$R$-matrix, $q$.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}} \cup \mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}. \nn
\end{equation}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{subtheorem}
\end{theorem}
{[} \textit{Proof of Th \ref{subtheorem}} {]} \\
From
Th \ref{38} and Prop \ref{redredprime},
it is enough to solve the 38 equations ${\bf Reduced^{\prime}}$
to determine the solution space of the reflection equation.
One notices $K(z,q)=K(z)$ from
Cor \ref{38close}.
Since we are considering solutions which are not identically 0,
at least one of the matrix elements of the relection equation
is not identically 0. Then we have
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}= \bigcup_{i,j=0}^{2} \mathcal{K}_{j}^i, \label{setprop}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{K}_{j}^i&:=\mathcal{K} \cap U_{j}^i, \nn \\
U_{j}^i&:=\{ K(z)=(c_{l}^k(z))_{k,l=0,1,2} \in \mathcal{M}^9
\ | \ c_{j}^i(z)
\not\equiv 0 \} \subset \mathcal{M}^9 \setminus \{ \mathbf{0} \}. \nn
\end{align}
Thus, if we determine
9 subspaces
$\mathcal{K}_{j}^i, i,j=0,1,2$,
one can get
$\mathcal{K}$
as their union. \\
For a solution space $\mathcal{K}_{l}^k$,
we define its $T$-transformed space
$T(\mathcal{K}_{l}^k)$ as follows.
\begin{definition}
\begin{eqnarray}
T(\mathcal{K}_l^k)=\{ K^{\prime}(z)=TK(z^{-1})T \ | \ K(z) \in \mathcal{K}_{l}^k \}.
\nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
From \eqref{KT-inv1}, it is easy to see
\begin{eqnarray}
T(\mathcal{K}_{l}^k)=\mathcal{K}_{T(l)}^{T(k)}. \label{solutionspaceT}
\end{eqnarray}
From \eqref{solutionspaceT},
the solution space $\mathcal{K}_{T(l)}^{T(k)}=\mathcal{K}_{2-l}^{2-k}$
can be obtained from $\mathcal{K}_{l}^k$.
Thus, in order to obtain $\mathcal{K}$,
it is enough to determine 6 spaces
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}_{0}^0, \mathcal{K}_{1}^0, \mathcal{K}_{2}^0,
\mathcal{K}_{1}^1, \mathcal{K}_{2}^1, \mathcal{K}_{2}^2, \label{6eq}
\end{equation}
out of 9 spaces $\mathcal{K}_{j}^i,i,j=0,1,2$, and
$\mathcal{K}_1^2, \mathcal{K}_0^2$ and $\mathcal{K}_0^1$
can be easily obtained from $\mathcal{K}_1^0, \mathcal{K}_2^0$ and $\mathcal{K}_2^1$
respectively.
Let us further consider solution spaces
$\mathcal{K}_0^0 \cup \mathcal{K}_1^1 \cup \mathcal{K}_2^2$
whose diagonal elements are not identically 0.
Since several equations in ${\bf Reduced^{\prime}}$
have terms
$c_{1}^1(z)-c_{0}^0(z),c_{1}^1(z)-z^4 c_{0}^0(z),c_{1}^1(z)-c_{2}^2(z)$,
it is easier to handle the solution spaces
in which these terms are not identically 0.
Such solution spaces are equivalent to $\mathcal{K}_0^0 \cup \mathcal{K}_1^1
\cup \mathcal{K}_2^2$.
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{K}_0^0 \bigcup \mathcal{K}_1^1 \bigcup \mathcal{K}_2^2=
\mathcal{D}^0 \bigcup \mathcal{D}^1 \bigcup \mathcal{D}^2, \nn
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{D}^j&:=\mathcal{K} \cap V^j, j=0,1,2, \nn \\
V^0&:=\{ K(z)=(c_{l}^k(z))_{k,l=0,1,2} \in \mathcal{M}^9 \setminus \{ \mathbf{0} \}
\ | \ c_{1}^1(z)-c_{0}^0(z)
\not \equiv 0 \}, \nn \\
V^1&:=\{ K(z)=(c_{l}^k(z))_{k,l=0,1,2} \in
\mathcal{M}^9 \setminus \{ \mathbf{0} \}
\ | \ c_{1}^1(z)-z^4 c_{0}^0(z)
\not \equiv 0 \}, \nn \\
V^2&:=
\{ K(z)=(c_{l}^k(z))_{k,l=0,1,2} \in \mathcal{M}^9 \setminus \{ \mathbf{0} \}
\ | \ c_{1}^1(z)-c_{2}^2(z)
\not \equiv 0 \}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq \label{diagonaleq}
\end{lemma}
{[}\textit{Proof of Lemma \ref{diagonaleq}} {]}\\
This follows from
\begin{eqnarray}
U_0^0 \bigcup U_1^1 \bigcup U_2^2=
V^0 \bigcup V^1 \bigcup V^2. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
From
\eqref{solutionspaceT} and Lemma \ref{diagonaleq}, one has
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{K}=&\mathcal{K}_{1}^0 \bigcup T(\mathcal{K}_{1}^0) \bigcup
\mathcal{K}_{2}^0 \bigcup T(\mathcal{K}_{2}^{0})
\bigcup \mathcal{K}_{2}^{1} \bigcup
T(\mathcal{K}_{2}^{1}) \bigcup \mathcal{D}, \nn
\end{align}
where $\mathcal{D}=\mathcal{D}^{0} \cup \mathcal{D}^{1} \cup \mathcal{D}^{2}$.
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
Thus, one can obtain the solution space $\mathcal{K}$ by determining
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}_{1}^0, \mathcal{K}_{2}^0, \mathcal{K}_{2}^1, \mathcal{D}, \nn
\end{equation}
instead of \eqref{6eq}.
Among
$\mathcal{K}_{1}^0, \mathcal{K}_{2}^0, \mathcal{K}_{2}^1, \mathcal{D}$,
we first determine $\mathcal{K}_{1}^0$ and $\mathcal{K}_{2}^0$.
The results, together with those for $\mathcal{K}_{1}^2$ and $\mathcal{K}_{0}^2$
can be stated as
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
& (\mathrm{i}) \ \mathcal{K}_{1}^0=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0 \neq 0}. \nn \\
& (\mathrm{ii}) \ \mathcal{K}_{2}^0=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_1 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0 \neq 0}. \nn \\
& (\mathrm{iii}) \ \mathcal{K}_{1}^2=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{\bar{a}_0 \neq 0}. \nn \\
& (\mathrm{iv}) \ \mathcal{K}_{0}^2=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{\bar{a}_1 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_1 \neq 0}. \nn
\end{align}
Here, for example, $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0 \neq 0}$ is the
subspace of $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$
which satisfies $a_0 \neq 0$.
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{det02}
\end{proposition}
Utilizing \eqref{solutionspaceT},
one can obtain $\mathcal{K}_1^2$ and $\mathcal{K}_0^2$ from
$\mathcal{K}_1^0$ and $\mathcal{K}_2^0$ respectively.
Thus, to prove Prop \ref{det02}, it is enough to compute
$\mathcal{K}_{1}^0$ and $\mathcal{K}_{2}^0$.
Prop \ref{det02} (ii) is proved in Appendix B. \\
Next, we determine $\mathcal{K}_2^1$ and $\mathcal{K}_0^1$.
Among $\mathcal{K}_2^1$ and $\mathcal{K}_0^1$,
solutions which satisfy
$c_1^0(z) \not\equiv 0$ or $c_2^0(z) \not\equiv 0$ or
$c_1^2(z) \not\equiv 0$ or $c_0^2(z) \not\equiv 0$
are included in
$\mathcal{K}_{1}^0, \mathcal{K}_{2}^0,
\mathcal{K}_{1}^2$ or $\mathcal{K}_{0}^2$,
which have already been determined in Prop \ref{det02}.
Thus, we only need to obtain
$\bar{\mathcal{K}}_2^1:=\mathcal{K}_2^1
\cap \{ c_1^0(z)=c_2^0(z)=c_1^2(z)=c_0^2(z)\equiv 0 \}$,
$\bar{\mathcal{K}}_0^1:=\mathcal{K}_0^1
\cap \{ c_1^0(z)=c_2^0(z)=c_1^2(z)=c_0^2(z)\equiv 0 \}$
to determine $\mathcal{K}_2^1, \mathcal{K}_0^1$.
It is easy to show
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
&(\mathrm{i}) \ \bar{\mathcal{K}}_{2}^1=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{
a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, a_2 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=0, b_2 \neq 0}. \nn \\
&(\mathrm{ii}) \ \bar{\mathcal{K}}_{0}^1=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{
a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, \bar{a}_2 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=0, b_5 \neq 0}. \nn
\end{align}
\label{det2101}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
It is enough to compute $\bar{\mathcal{K}}_2^1$ since
$\bar{\mathcal{K}}_0^1$ can be obtained from
$\bar{\mathcal{K}}_2^1$ using \eqref{solutionspaceT}.
At last, we consider $\mathcal{D}=
\mathcal{D}^0 \cup \mathcal{D}^1 \cup \mathcal{D}^2$,
solutions whose diagonal elements
are not identically 0. \\
Among $K(z) \in \mathcal{D}$,
any solution with some off-diagonal element
which is not identically 0 is included in
$\mathcal{K}_1^0, \mathcal{K}_2^0, \mathcal{K}_2^1,
\mathcal{K}_1^2, \mathcal{K}_0^2$ or $\mathcal{K}_0^1$,
which have already been determined.
To obtain $\mathcal{D}$, what remains to be determined is
the solution space $\bar{\mathcal{D}}$, whose off-diagonal elements are all 0.
\begin{eqnarray}
\bar{\mathcal{D}}=\bar{\mathcal{D}^0} \cup
\bar{\mathcal{D}^1} \cup \bar{\mathcal{D}^2}, \ \ \bar{\mathcal{D}^k}:=\mathcal{D}^k \cup \{ c_j^i(z) \not\equiv 0 \ \textrm{for} \ i \neq j \},
\ \ k=0,1,2. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
By a direct calculation, it is easy to show
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
\bar{\mathcal{D}}=
&\left\{
K(z)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{1}+c_{2}z^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{2}z^2+c_{1}z^4 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & c_{2}z^2 +c_{1}z^4
\end{array}
\right)c(z) \ \Big| \
(c_{1}, c_{2}) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C})
\right\}
\nn \\
&\bigcup \left\{
K(z)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
c_{1}+c_{2}z^2 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & c_{1}+c_{2}z^2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & c_{2}z^2 +c_{1}z^4
\end{array}
\right)c(z) \ \Big| \
(c_{1}, c_{2}) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C})
\right\}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{detdiagonal}
\end{proposition}
From
Prop \ref{det02}, \ref{det2101}
and \ref{detdiagonal}, $\mathcal{K}$ becomes
\\
\begin{align}
\mathcal{K}=&
\mathcal{K}_{1}^0 \bigcup \mathcal{K}_{1}^2 \bigcup
\mathcal{K}_{2}^0 \bigcup \mathcal{K}_{0}^{2}
\bigcup \mathcal{K}_{2}^{1} \bigcup
\mathcal{K}_{0}^{1} \bigcup \mathcal{D} \nn \\
=&
\mathcal{K}_{1}^0 \bigcup \mathcal{K}_{1}^2 \bigcup
\mathcal{K}_{2}^0 \bigcup \mathcal{K}_{0}^{2}
\bigcup \bar{\mathcal{K}}_{2}^{1} \bigcup
\bar{\mathcal{K}}_{0}^{1} \bigcup \bar{\mathcal{D}} \nn \\
=&
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{\bar{a}_0 \neq 0}
\bigcup
\left\{\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_1 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0 \neq 0} \right\}
\bigcup
\left\{\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{\bar{a}_1 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_1 \neq 0} \right\}
\nn \\
&\bigcup
\left\{\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1=0,
a_2 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=0, b_2 \neq 0} \right\}
\nn \\
&\bigcup
\left\{\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1=0,
\bar{a}_2 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=0, b_5 \neq 0} \right\}
\bigcup \bar{\mathcal{D}} \nn \\
=&
\left\{\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \
\bar{a}_0 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \ a_1 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \
\bar{a}_1 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1=0,
a_2 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \ \bar{a}_2 \neq 0}
\bigcup \bar{\mathcal{D}}
\right\}
\nn \\
&\bigcup
\left\{\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \
b_1 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=0,
b_2 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \ b_5 \neq 0}
\bigcup \bar{\mathcal{D}}
\right\}. \label{comp1}
\end{align}
One can easily show the following Lemma about
$\bar{\mathcal{D}}$.
\begin{lemma}
\begin{align}
&(\mathrm{i}) \ \mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1
=a_2=\bar{a}_2=0}=\bar{\mathcal{D}}, \nn \\
&(\mathrm{ii}) \ \mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=b_2=b_5=0}=\bar{\mathcal{D}}.
\nn
\end{align}
\label{identification}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{lemma}
Thus, from \eqref{comp1}, Lemma \ref{identification}
and
\begin{align}
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}=&
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \
\bar{a}_0 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \ a_1 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \
\bar{a}_1 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1=0,
a_2 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \ \bar{a}_2 \neq 0} \nn \\
&\bigcup \mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_0=\bar{a}_0=a_1=\bar{a}_1=
a_2=\bar{a}_2=0}, \nn \\
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}=&
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \
b_1 \neq 0} \bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=0,
b_2 \neq 0 \ \textrm{or} \ b_5 \neq 0}
\bigcup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0=b_1=
b_2=b_5=0}, \nn
\end{align}
which obviously hold, one gets
\begin{align}
\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}} \cup
\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}},
\end{align}
which proves Th \ref{subtheorem}.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Investigating the algebraic varieties
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{II}}$
which parametrize
$\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}$,
one can show that
$\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}$
can be described by spaces
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}$ (Def \ref{defspace}),
which are parametrized by simpler algebraic varieties
$\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}$ and $\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{II}}$ (Def \ref{algebraicvariety}).
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
&(\mathrm{i}) \ \mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}=\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}. \nn \\
&(\mathrm{ii}) \ \mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}
=\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}} \cup \{ K(z)=\mathrm{Id} \}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{spaceidentification}
\end{proposition}
The proof of Prop \ref{spaceidentification} (i) is given in Appendix C.
Combining Th \ref{subtheorem}, Prop \ref{spaceidentification} and
\begin{align}
\{K(z)= \textrm{Id} \}=A_{\mathrm{I}}|_{D_2=E_1=E_2=0}, \nn
\end{align}
one has
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{K}=\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}} \cup \mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{II}}. \nn
\end{equation}
Thus, the proof of Th \ref{maintheorem} is completed.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq
\section{Discussion}
In this paper, we considered the reflection equation of the
$N$=3 Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix.
The reflection equation is shown to be equivalent to
38 equations which do not depend on the parameters of the
$R$-matrix, $q$.
The solution space is determined by solving those 38 equations.
We found there are two types, each of which is parametrized by
the algebraic variety
$\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$
and
$
\mathbb{C} \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$.
The Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix satisfies the
conservation law \eqref{conservation}
and $T$-invariance \eqref{t-invariance}.
On the other hand, the critical $\mathbb{Z}_{n}$
vertex model satisfies the conservation law
and the $\mathbb{Z}_n$-invariance.
Since there does not exist a simple gauge tranformation
between these two $R$-matrices, we don't know the relation
between the $K$-matrices.
However, unexpectedly, the latter variety also appears in the solution of the
critical $\mathbb{Z}_{3}$
vertex model \cite{Y2}.
We mention that
one can also formulate and solve the dual reflection equation
\cite{Sklyanin}
for $R$-matrices not satisfying crossing unitarity \cite{DFIL}.
It is interesting to extend the analysis to
determine the full solution space
for the general $N$-state Cremmer-Gervais $R$-matrix.
Also interesting is to study the integrable model
associated with this $R$-matrix
under the periodic or open boundary condition.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors thank A. Kuniba for helpful comment.
This work was supported in part by Global COE Program
(Global Center of Excellence for Physical Sciences Frontier),
MEXT, Japan.
\rnc{\theequation}{A.\arabic{equation}}\setcounter{equation}{0}
\rnc{\thesubsection}{A.\arabic{subsection}}\setcounter{subsection}{0}
\rnc{\thelemma}{A.\arabic{lemma}}\setcounter{lemma}{0}
\rnc{\theproposition}{A.\arabic{proposition}}\setcounter{proposition}{0}
\rnc{\thedefinition}{A.\arabic{definition}}\setcounter{definition}{0}
\section*{Appendix A. Proof of Prop \ref{step0}, Prop \ref{123123prime}
and \ref{123ABC}}
\subsection{Proof of Prop \ref{step0}}
We show
Prop \ref{step0} by showing 2 Lemmas.
\begin{lemma}
\begin{equation}(00|11)=0, \ (00|22)=0.
\end{equation} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{step0no1}
\end{lemma}
{[} \textit{Proof of Lemma \ref{step0no1}} {]} \\
Directly calculating $(00|ii)$ which is
an element of the reflection equation, one has
\begin{align}
(00|ii)=& \displaystyle \sum_{k_{1}, k_{2}, k_{3}, k_{4}=0}^{2}
{[} R_{12}(z_{1}/z_{2}) {]}_{k_{1} k_{2}}^{0 \ 0} {[}K_{1}(z_{1}) {]}_{k_{3}}^{k_{1}}
{[} R_{21}(z_{1} z_{2}) {]}_{i \ k_{4}}^{k_{3} k_{2}} {[} K_{2}(z_{2}) {]}_{i}^{k_{4}}
\nn \\
&- \displaystyle \sum_{k_{1}, k_{2}, k_{3}, k_{4}=0}^{2}
{[} K_{2}(z_{2}) {]}_{k_{1}}^{0}
{[}R_{12}(z_{1} z_{2}) {]}_{k_{2} k_{3}}^{0 \ k_{1}}
{[}K_{1}(z_{1}) {]}_{k_{4}}^{k_{2}}
{[} R_{21}(z_{1}/z_{2}) {]}_{i \ i}^{k_{4} k_{3}}
\nn \\
=&{[}R_{12}(z_{1}/z_{2}){]}_{00}^{00} {[} K_{1}(z_{1}) {]}_{i}^0
{[} R_{21}(z_{1} z_{2}) {]}_{i0}^{i0} {[}K_{2}(z_{2}) {]}_{i}^0 \nn \\
&-{[} K_{2}(z_{2}) {]}_{i}^0 {[} R_{12}(z_{1} z_{2}) {]}_{0i}^{0i}
{[} K_{1}(z_{1}) {]}_{i}^0 {[} R_{21}(z_{1}/z_{2}) {]}_{ii}^{ii} \nn \\
=&\{ (q z_{2}/z_{1}-q^{-1}z_{1}/z_{2})/(q-q^{-1})(z_{1}/z_{2}-z_{2}/z_{1}) \}
c_{i}^0(z_{1}) \{ - q^{-1}/(q-q^{-1}) \} c_{i}^0(z_{2})
\nn \\
&-c_{i}^0(z_{2})\{ - q^{-1}/(q-q^{-1}) \} c_{i}^0(z_{1})
\{ (q z_{2}/z_{1}-q^{-1}z_{1}/z_{2})/(q-q^{-1})(z_{1}/z_{2}-z_{2}/z_{1}) \}
\nn \\
=&0. \nn
\end{align}
In the second equality, we picked up the terms which involve
$\[R(z) \]_{kl}^{ij} \not\equiv 0$.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq
\\
\begin{lemma}
\begin{equation}(22|11)=0, \ (22|00)=0.
\end{equation} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{step0no2}
\end{lemma}
{[} \textit{Proof of Lemma \ref{step0no2}} {]} \\
Applying Lemma $ \ref{close}$ to
$(00|11)=0$ and $(00|22)=0$ shown in Lemma \ref{step0no1},
one has $T(00|11)=(22|11)=0$ and $T(00|22)=(22|00)=0$ respectively.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Combining Lemma \ref{step0no1} and \ref{step0no2},
we have Prop \ref{step0}.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq
\subsection{Proof of Prop \ref{123123prime}}
We prove Prop \ref{123123prime} by several steps.
First, we show
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 1}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1^{\prime}}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{11prime}
\end{lemma}
{[} \textit{Proof of Lemma \ref{11prime}} {]} \\
This follows from
\begin{eqnarray}
(00|21) &\Leftrightarrow& (00|12), \\
(01|21), \ (02|22), \ (20|22) &\Rightarrow&
(10|12), \ (00|20), \ (00|02).
\end{eqnarray}
Let us show
$(01|21), \ (02|22), \ (20|22) \Rightarrow (10|12)$ for example.
Calculating $(10|12)$, we find that it can be expressed using
$(01|21), (02|22)$ and $(20|22)$ as
\begin{align}
(10|12)=-q^2 (01|21)+(q^2-1)(q^2 z_2^2-z_1^2)^{-1}
(z_1^2(02|22)+ z_2^2(20|22)).
\end{align}
Since every element of
${\bf 1^{\prime}}$ can be expressed as combinations of elements of
${\bf 1}$, we have Lemma \ref{11prime}. \hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Next we show
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 1 \cup 2 \cup} T\!{\bf 2}
\Longrightarrow {\bf 1^{\prime} \cup 2^{\prime}}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{1212prime}
\end{lemma}
{[} \textit{Proof of Lemma \ref{1212prime}} {]} \\
We first prove the following relations.
\begin{eqnarray}
(00|21), \ (01|22) &\Rightarrow& (10|22), \\
(02|11), \ (00|00), \ (12|12) &\Rightarrow&
(21|21), \ (01|10), \\
(02|11), \ (00|00), \ (12|12), \ (10|10) &\Rightarrow& (11|11), \\
(02|11), \ (00|00), \ (10|10) &\Rightarrow& (20|20), \\
(01|12), \ (02|22), \ (20|22) &\Rightarrow& (11|22), (10|21).
\end{eqnarray}
For example,
$(02|11), \ (00|00), \ (12|12) \Rightarrow (21|21)$
holds since $(21|21)$ can be expressed using
$(02|11)$, $(00|00)$ and $(12|12)$ as
\begin{align}
(21|21)=q^2(z_1^2-z_2^2)z_2^{-2} (02|11)
+z_1^4 z_2^2(q^2-1)(z_1^2-q^2 z_2^2)^{-1} (00|00)
-z_1 z_2^{-2}(12|12).
\end{align}
From these relations, one has
\begin{align}
{\bf 1} \cup {\bf 2} \cup (12|12) \Rightarrow {\bf 2^{\prime}},
\end{align}
which, combined with Lemma \ref{11prime}, shows Lemma \ref{1212prime}.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Finally, let us show Prop \ref{123123prime}.
Let us notice the following relations holds.
\begin{eqnarray}
(00|10), \ (20|21), \ (02|12) &\Rightarrow&
(01|11), \ (00|01), \ (10|11) \\
(00|10), \ (20|21), \ (20|12) &\Rightarrow&
(02|21), \label{exampleeq} \\
\begin{array}{l} (00|10), \ (20|21), \ (02|12), \ (20|12) \\
(01|20), \ (21|22), \ (12|22)
\end{array}
&\Rightarrow& (10|02), \\
\begin{array}{l} (01|02), \ (21|22), \ (12|22), \ (02|12) \\
(20|12), \ (00|10), \ (20|21)
\end{array}
&\Rightarrow& (10|20), \ (11|12), \ (11|21).
\end{eqnarray}
For example, one can show \eqref{exampleeq} by noting the following equality
\begin{align}
(02|21)=-q^{-2}(20|12)+z_1^{-2}(z_2^2-z_1^2)(q^2-1)^{-1}(20|21)
+ z_2^{-2}(z_2^2-z_1^2)(q^2-1)^{-1}(02|12).
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
The above relations mean
\begin{align}
{\bf 1} \cup {\bf 2} \cup {\bf 3} \Rightarrow {\bf 3^{\prime}}.
\end{align}
Combining this with Lemma \ref{1212prime},
one has Prop \ref{123123prime}.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq
\subsection{Proof of Prop \ref{123ABC}}
As is the case with Prop \ref{123123prime},
we show Prop \ref{123ABC} by several steps.
First, we have
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 1}
\Longleftrightarrow {\bf A}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{1A}
\end{lemma}
{[} \textit{Proof of Lemma \ref{1A}} {]} \\
This follows from the relations below.
\begin{eqnarray}
(02|11) &\Leftrightarrow& A_1, \\
(00|21) &\Leftrightarrow& A_2, \\
(02|12) &\Leftrightarrow& A_3, \\
(01|21) &\Leftrightarrow& A_4, \\
(00|00) &\Leftrightarrow& A_5, \label{exampleequiv} \\
(02|20) &\Leftrightarrow& A_6. \\
(02|22), \ (20|22) & \Leftrightarrow & A_7, \ A_8.
\label{exampleequivalence}
\end{eqnarray}
For example, calculating $(00|00)$, one has
\begin{align}
(00|00)=(q^2 z_2^2-z_1^2)(q^2-1)^{-1}(z_2^2-z_1^2)^{-1}(1-z_1^2 z_2^2)^{-1}A_5,
\end{align}
which shows \eqref{exampleequiv}. \\
Let us next show \eqref{exampleequivalence}.
We find by calculation that $(02|22)$ and $(20|22)$ can be expressed by
$A_7$ and $A_8$ as
\begin{align}
(02|22)=(q^2-1)^{-1}(z_1^2-z_2^2)^{-1}(1-z_1^2 z_2^2)^{-1}(z_1^2 z_2^4 A_7+A_8),
\label{part1} \\
(20|22)=(q^2-1)^{-1}(z_1^2-z_2^2)^{-1}(z_1^2 z_2^2-1)^{-1}(z_1^4 z_2^2 A_7+q^2 A_8),
\label{part2}
\end{align}
from which we find
\begin{eqnarray}
(02|22), \ (20|22) & \Leftarrow & A_7, \ A_8. \label{part3}
\end{eqnarray}
Solving \eqref{part1} and \eqref{part2} for $A_7$ and $A_8$, one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
(02|22), \ (20|22) & \Rightarrow & A_7, \ A_8,
\end{eqnarray}
together with \eqref{part3}, shows \eqref{exampleequivalence}.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
The above relations imply the equivalence between
the elements of the reflection equation in ${\bf 1}$ and
the relations among the matrix elements of $K(z)$ in
${\bf A}$, which is exactly
Lemma \ref{1A}. \hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Next we prove
\begin{lemma}
\begin{eqnarray}
{\bf 1 \cup 2}
\Longleftrightarrow {\bf A \cup B}. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{12AB}
\end{lemma}
{[} \textit{Proof of Lemma \ref{12AB}} {]} \\
The following relations can be shown.
\begin{eqnarray}
(20|21), \ (02|12) &\Rightarrow& B_1, \\
(01|22), \ (00|21) &\Rightarrow & B_2, \\
(01|12), \ (02|22), \ (20|22) &\Rightarrow& B_3, \\
(10|10), \ (00|00), \ (02|11) &\Rightarrow & B_4, \\
(12|21), \ (00|00), \ (02|11) &\Rightarrow & B_5, \\
(21|22), \ (12|22), \ (02|12) & \Rightarrow& B_6, \ B_7, \\
A_3, \ B_1 &\Rightarrow & (20|21), \\
A_2, \ B_2 &\Rightarrow & (01|22), \\
A_7, \ A_8, \ B_3 &\Rightarrow& (01|12), \label{exampleshow} \\
A_1, \ A_5, \ B_4 & \Rightarrow & (10|10), \\
A_1, \ A_5, \ B_5 & \Rightarrow & (12|21), \\
A_3, \ B_6, \ B_7 &\Rightarrow &(21|22), \ (12|22).
\end{eqnarray}
For example, \eqref{exampleshow} can be shown by
noting that $(01|12)$ can be expressed by
$A_7, A_8$ and $B_3$ as
\begin{align}
(01|12)=(q^2-1)^{-1}(z_2^2-z_1^2)^{-1}(z_1^2 z_2^2)^{-1}
(A_8+z_1^2 z_2^4 A_7+z_2^2 (1-z_1^2 z_2^2) B_3).
\end{align}
From these relations, one has
\begin{align}
{\bf 1} \cup {\bf 2} \Longrightarrow {\bf B}, \\
{\bf A} \cup {\bf B} \Longrightarrow {\bf 2}.
\end{align}
Combining these with Lemma \ref{1A}, we get
Lemma \ref{12AB}.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Now let us finally prove Prop \ref{123ABC}.
One can show the following relations among the polynomials.
\begin{eqnarray}
(00|10), \ (20|21), \ (02|12) &\Rightarrow& C_1, \\
(20|12), \ (00|10), \ (20|21), \ (02|12) &\Rightarrow& C_2,
\\
(01|20), \ (02|12), \ (20|21), \ (21|22), \ (12|22)
&\Rightarrow & C_3, \\
\begin{array}{l}
(01|02), \ (21|22), \ (12|22), \ (02|12) \\
(20|12), \ (00|10), \ (20|21)
\end{array}
& \Rightarrow & C_4, \\
(11|02), \ (12|21), \ (02|11), \ (00|00)
& \Rightarrow & C_5, \\
A_3, \ B_1, \ C_1 &\Rightarrow& (00|10), \\
A_3, \ B_1, \ C_1, \ C_2 &\Rightarrow& (20|12), \\
A_3, \ B_1, \ B_6, \ B_7, \ C_3 &\Rightarrow& (01|20), \label{complex} \\
B_6, \ C_2, \ C_4 & \Rightarrow& (01|02), \\
A_5, \ B_5, \ C_5 & \Rightarrow& (11|02).
\end{eqnarray}
For example, one can show \eqref{complex} since $(01|20)$ can be expressed as
combinations of $A_3, B_1, B_6, B_7$ and $C_3$ as
\begin{align}
(01|20)=&(q^2-1)^{-1}(z_2^2-z_1^2)^{-1}(1-z_1^2 z_2^2)^{-1} \nn \\
&\times ((z_1^2+z_2^2)A_3-z_1^2(1-z_1^2 z_2^2)B_1+z_1^2 B_6-B_7+(1-z_1^2 z_2^2)C_3).
\end{align}
The above relations mean
\begin{align}
{\bf 1} \cup {\bf 2} \cup {\bf 3} \Longrightarrow {\bf C}, \\
{\bf A} \cup {\bf B} \cup {\bf C} \Longrightarrow {\bf 3},
\end{align}
which, combined with Lemma \ref{12AB}, shows Prop \ref{123ABC}.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq
\rnc{\theequation}{B.\arabic{equation}}\setcounter{equation}{0}
\rnc{\thesubsection}{B.\arabic{subsection}}\setcounter{subsection}{0}
\rnc{\thelemma}{B.\arabic{lemma}}\setcounter{lemma}{0}
\rnc{\theproposition}{B.\arabic{proposition}}\setcounter{proposition}{0}
\rnc{\thedefinition}{B.\arabic{definition}}\setcounter{definition}{0}
\section*{Appendix B. Proof of Prop \ref{det02} (ii)}
We use the following simple Lemma
to calculate the solution to the reflection equation.
\begin{lemma}
If two meromorphic functions $X(z),Y(z) \in \mathcal{M}$
satisfy
\begin{equation}
X(z_{1})Y(z_{2})=X(z_{2})Y(z_{1}), \nn
\end{equation}
there exist constants $C_{1}, C_{2}$
and a meromorphic function $f(z) \in \mathcal{M}$
satisfying
\begin{equation}
X(z)=C_{1} f(z), \ Y(z)=C_{2} f(z). \nn
\end{equation}
\label{lemma3}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{lemma}
We first use 8 equations
$A_2=0, A_3=0, A_5^{\prime}=0, A_7=0,
A_8=0, B_2=0, B_3=0$ and $C_4=0$
out of 38 equations ${\bf Reduced^{\prime}}$
to prove the following.
\begin{proposition}
If $K(z) \in \mathcal{K}_{2}^0$, $K(z)$
must be expressed in the following form.
\begin{eqnarray}
&K(z)=((\alpha_4-\alpha_3)z^2-(\bar{\alpha}_4-\bar{\alpha}_3)z^4
+\alpha_7 z^6) \mathrm{Id} \, c(z) \nn \\
&+\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
-\bar{\alpha}_{3} -\alpha_{7} z^2
& \alpha_{0} & \alpha_{1}z^2 \\
\bar{\alpha}_{2}+\alpha_{5}z^2 & 0
&\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{2}z^2 \\
\bar{\alpha}_{1}+\alpha_{6}z^2 & \bar{\alpha}_{0}z^2 &
-\alpha_{3}z^2
\end{array}
\right)(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)Kmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{i}, i=0, \cdots ,7, \bar{\alpha}_{i}, i=0, \cdots ,4$
are constants, $\alpha_{1} \neq 0$, $c(z) \not\equiv 0$ is a meromorphic function,
and $\alpha_{i}, \bar{\alpha}_{i}$ satisfy 4 relations,
\begin{align}
\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{1}=0,
\ \alpha_{0} \alpha_{3}-\alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{2}=0,
\ \alpha_{0} \alpha_{2}-\bar{\alpha}_{3} \alpha_{1}=0, \
\alpha_{0}^2-\alpha_{1} \alpha_{4}=0.
\label{4relationstosatisfy}
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{8equationsdet}
\end{proposition}
{[}\textit{Proof of Prop \ref{8equationsdet}} {]} \\
Since we are considering $K(z) \in \mathcal{K}_2^0$,
$c_2^0(z)$ can be expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{2}^0(z)= \alpha_{1} z^2(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)02}
\end{eqnarray}
where $c(z) \not \equiv 0$ is a meromorphic function of $z$,
and $\alpha_{1} \neq 0 $ is a constant. \\
From $A_2=0$ and Lemma \ref{lemma3},
one can express $c_{1}^0(z)$ as
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{1}^0(z)= \alpha_{0} (z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)01}
\end{eqnarray}
where $\alpha_{0}$ is a constant. \\
Similary, Utilizing $A_3=0, B_2=0, B_3=0$ and Lemma \ref{lemma3},
we get
\begin{align}
&c_{1}^2(z)= \bar{\alpha}_{0}z^2(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)21} \\
&c_{2}^1(z)=(\alpha_{0}+ \alpha_{2} z^2)(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)12} \\
&c_{2}^2(z)=c_{1}^1(z)-\alpha_{3}z^2(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)2211}
\end{align}
where $\bar{\alpha}_{0}, \alpha_{2}, \alpha_{3}$ are constants. \\
Next, we substitute \eqref{(2)02} $\sim$ \eqref{(2)2211} into
$A_7=0, A_5^{\prime}=0, C_4=0$ and use Lemma \ref{lemma3} to obtain
\begin{align}
& c_{0}^0(z)=c_{1}^1(z)-\Big( \frac{\alpha_{0} \alpha_{2}}{\alpha_{1}}
+\alpha_{7}z^2 \Big)(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)0011} \\
& c_{0}^1(z)= \Big( \frac{\alpha_{0} \alpha_{3}}{\alpha_{1}}+\alpha_{5}z^2 \Big)
(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)10} \\
& c_{0}^2(z)=\Big( \frac{\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{0}}{\alpha_{1}}
+\alpha_{6}z^2 \Big)
(z^4-1)c(z), \label{(2)20}
\end{align}
where $\alpha_{5}, \alpha_{6}, \alpha_{7}$ are constants.
We set
$\bar{\alpha}_{1}:=\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{0}/\alpha_{1},
\bar{\alpha}_{2}:=\alpha_{0} \alpha_{3}/\alpha_{1},
\bar{\alpha}_{3}:=\alpha_{0} \alpha_{2}/\alpha_{1}$. \\
Furthermore, we substitute \eqref{(2)02} $\sim$ \eqref{(2)20}
in $A_8=0$. The result is
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(z_{1}^4-1)(z_{2}^4-1)(z_{2}^4 c(z_{2})
( \alpha_{1} c_{1}^1(z_{1})+(( \alpha_{1} \alpha_{3}-\alpha_{0}^2)z_{1}^2
-\alpha_{1} \alpha_{7} z_{1}^6)c(z_{1})) \nn \\
&&-( \alpha_{1} c_{1}^1(z_{2})+(( \alpha_{1} \alpha_{3}-\alpha_{0}^2)z_{2}^2
-\alpha_{1} \alpha_{7} z_{2}^6)c(z_{2}))z_{1}^4 c(z_{1}))=0. \nn
\end{eqnarray}
Using Lemma \ref{lemma3}, one has
\begin{equation}
c_{1}^1(z)=\Big( \Big( \frac{\alpha_{0}^2}{\alpha_{1}}-\alpha_{3} \Big)z^2
+\bar{\alpha}_{4}^{\prime}z^4 +\alpha_{7}z^6 \Big)c(z), \label{(2)11first}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\alpha}_{4}^{\prime}$ is a constant.
Setting
$\alpha_{4}:= \alpha_{0}^2/\alpha_{1}$,
$\bar{\alpha}_{4}:=-\bar{\alpha}_{4}^{\prime}
+\bar{\alpha}_{3}$, \eqref{(2)11first} becomes
\begin{equation}
c_{1}^1(z)=((\alpha_{4}-\alpha_{3})z^2-(\bar{\alpha}_{4}-\bar{\alpha}_{3})z^4
+\alpha_{7} z^6)c(z). \label{(2)11}
\end{equation}
Substituting
\eqref{(2)11} into \eqref{(2)2211}, \eqref{(2)0011},
one sees $c_{2}^2(z)$ and $c_{0}^0(z)$
are expressed as
\begin{eqnarray}
&& c_{2}^2(z)=(\alpha_{4}z^2-(\bar{\alpha}_{4}-\bar{\alpha}_{3})z^4
+(\alpha_{7}-\alpha_{3})z^6 )c(z), \label{(2)22} \\
&& c_{0}^0(z)=(\bar{\alpha}_{3}+(\alpha_{4}+\alpha_{7}-\alpha_{3})z^2
-\bar{\alpha}_{4} z^4)c(z). \label{(2)00}
\end{eqnarray}
From
\eqref{(2)02}, \eqref{(2)01},
\eqref{(2)21}, \eqref{(2)12},
\eqref{(2)10}, \eqref{(2)20},
\eqref{(2)11}, \eqref{(2)22}, \eqref{(2)00}
and
$\bar{\alpha}_{1}:=\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{0}/\alpha_{1}$,
$\bar{\alpha}_{2}:=\alpha_{0} \alpha_{3}/\alpha_{1},
\bar{\alpha}_{3}:=\alpha_{0} \alpha_{2}/\alpha_{1}$,
$\alpha_{4}:=\alpha_{0}^2/\alpha_{1}$,
one sees that if
$K(z) \in \mathcal{K}_2^0$,
the matrix elements $c_j^i(z), i,j=0,1,2$
of $K(z)$ must be expressed as \eqref{(2)Kmatrix},
and $\alpha_i, \bar{\alpha}_i$ should satisfy
\eqref{4relationstosatisfy}.
Thus, Proposition \ref{8equationsdet} is proved.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
Proposition \ref{8equationsdet} is just a necessary condition
to be a solution since we only used 8 equations of the
38 equations ${\bf Reduced^{\prime}}$.
For \eqref{(2)Kmatrix} to be a solution,
the rest of the 30 equations, into which
\eqref{(2)Kmatrix} have been substituted,
must hold for any $z$.
These condtitions are
relations between the coefficients.
For example,
$T\!A_2=0$ becomes
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{6} \bar{\alpha}_{0}z_{1}^2 z_{2}^2(z_{1}^2-z_{2}^2)
(z_{1}^4-1)(z_{2}^4-1)c(z_{1})c(z_{2})=0. \label{need2}
\end{equation}
One must have
\begin{equation}
\alpha_{6} \bar{\alpha}_{0}=0, \label{(2)no1}
\end{equation}
for \eqref{need2} to hold for any $z$.
Similarly, the following relations must be fulfilled.
We denote the equations which yield the relations
to the right of them.
\begin{align}
\alpha_{6} \alpha_{0}=0, & \ T\!A_3=0, T\!C_1=0, \label{(2)no2} \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{5}) \bar{\alpha}_{0}=0, & \ T\!A_4=0,
\label{(2)no3} \\
\bar{\alpha}_{2} \alpha_{0}-\alpha_{3} \alpha_{4}
-(\alpha_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{4})
+\alpha_{7} \alpha_{4}=0, & \ A_6^{\prime}=0, \label{(2)no22} \\
\bar{\alpha}_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{2}-\alpha_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{1}
+\alpha_{7} \bar{\alpha}_{1}-\alpha_{6} \bar{\alpha}_{3}=0,
& \ T\!A_7=0, \label{(2)no5} \\
\bar{\alpha}_{0} \alpha_{5}-\bar{\alpha}_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{4}
-\alpha_{6} \alpha_{4}=0, & \ T\!A_8=0, \label{(2)no6} \\
\alpha_{7} \alpha_{0}=0, & \ B_1=0, T\!B_7=0,
\label{(2)no7} \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{5}) \bar{\alpha}_{1}+\alpha_{6} \bar{\alpha}_{2}=0,
& \ T\!B_2=0, \label{(2)no8} \\
\alpha_{7} \bar{\alpha}_{1}- \alpha_{6} \bar{\alpha}_{3}=0, & \
T\!B_3=0, \label{(2)no9} \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{5}) \alpha_{0}=0, & \ B_4=0,
\label{(2)no13} \\
\bar{\alpha}_{2} \alpha_{0}-\alpha_{3} \alpha_{4}=0, & \
B_5=0, \label{(2)no11} \\
\alpha_{7} \alpha_{3}-\alpha_{6} \alpha_{1}=0, & \
B_5=0, \label{(2)no12} \\
\alpha_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{4}
+\alpha_{7}(\alpha_{3}-\alpha_{4})-\alpha_{6} \alpha_{1}=0, & \
T\!B_5=0, \label{(2)no10} \\
\alpha_{5} \bar{\alpha}_{3}-\bar{\alpha}_{1} \alpha_{2}
+\alpha_{6} \alpha_{0}-\alpha_{7} \bar{\alpha}_{2}=0,
& \ T\!B_6=0, \label{(2)no14} \\
\alpha_{2} \alpha_{4}-\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{3}-
( \alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{4})=0,
& \ B_7=0, \label{(2)no16} \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{5}) \alpha_{1}-\alpha_{7} \alpha_{2}=0,
& \ B_7=0, C_3=0, \label{(2)no17} \\
\bar{\alpha}_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{4}- \bar{\alpha}_{0} \alpha_{3}
-( \bar{\alpha}_{1} \alpha_{0}-\alpha_{5} \alpha_{4}
)+\alpha_{6} \alpha_{2}=0, & \ T\!B_7=0, \label{(2)no15} \\
\alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{4}=0,
& \ C_1=0, \label{(2)no20} \\
\bar{\alpha}_{1} \alpha_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{0} \alpha_{4}=0, & \
T\!C_1=0, \label{(2)no18} \\
\alpha_{7} \bar{\alpha}_{0}=0, & \
T\!C_1=0, T\!C_2=0, \label{(2)no19} \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{5}) \alpha_{3} - \alpha_{6} \alpha_{2}=0, & \
T\!C_3=0, \label{(2)no21} \\
\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{3}- \alpha_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{1}+\alpha_{6} \alpha_{0}=0,
& \ T\!C_4=0, \label{(2)no23} \\
\alpha_2 \bar{\alpha}_{2}-\alpha_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{3}=0,
& \ C_5^{\prime}=0, \label{(2)no25} \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{5})
\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{2}-\alpha_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{3}=0,
& \ T\!C_5^{\prime}=0. \label{(2)no24}
\end{align}
From Prop \ref{8equationsdet}, we also have
\begin{align}
\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{0}- \alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{1}&=0,
\label{(2)no26} \\
\alpha_{0} \alpha_{3}- \alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{2}&=0,
\label{(2)no27} \\
\alpha_{0} \alpha_{2}-\bar{\alpha}_{3} \alpha_{1}&=0,
\label{(2)no28} \\
\alpha_{0}^2- \alpha_{1} \alpha_{4}&=0. \label{(2)no29}
\end{align}
Among
\eqref{(2)no1}$\sim$ \eqref{(2)no29}, we first
consider the following 6 relations.
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\{
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_{6} \bar{\alpha}_{0}=0 \ \eqref{(2)no1}, & \alpha_{6} \alpha_{0}=0
\ \eqref{(2)no2}, & (\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{5}) \bar{\alpha}_{0}=0 \
\eqref{(2)no3}, \nn \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{5}) \alpha_{0}=0 \ \eqref{(2)no13},
& \alpha_{7} \bar{\alpha}_{0}=0 \ \eqref{(2)no19},
& \alpha_{7} \alpha_{0}=0 \ \eqref{(2)no7}
\end{array}
\right\}.
\end{eqnarray}
These 6 relations are equivalent to
\begin{equation}
(A) \{ \alpha_{6}=\alpha_{7}=0, \alpha_{5}= \bar{\alpha}_{0} \} \ \
\textrm{or} \ \
(B) \{ \alpha_{0}= \bar{\alpha}_{0}=0 \}. \nn
\end{equation}
Let us investigate the case
$(A)$ and $(B)$, separately.
\\
$(A) \ \alpha_{6}= \alpha_{7}=0, \alpha_{5}= \bar{\alpha}_{0}$ \\
Substituting
$\alpha_{6}= \alpha_{7}=0, \alpha_{5}= \bar{\alpha}_{0}$,
the matrix elements of $K(z)$ \eqref{(2)Kmatrix} become
\begin{align}
&K(z) \nn \\
&=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\bar{\alpha}_{3}+(\alpha_{4}-\alpha_{3})z^2 -\bar{\alpha}_{4} z^4 & \alpha_{0}(z^4-1)
& \alpha_{1}z^2(z^4-1) \\
(\bar{\alpha}_{2}+\bar{\alpha}_{0}z^2)(z^4-1) &
(\alpha_{4}-\alpha_{3})z^2-(\bar{\alpha}_{4}-\bar{\alpha}_{3})z^4 &
(\alpha_{0}+\alpha_{2}z^2)(z^4-1) \\
\bar{\alpha}_{1}(z^4-1) & \bar{\alpha}_{0}z^2(z^4-1) &
\alpha_{4}z^2-(\bar{\alpha}_{4}-\bar{\alpha}_{3})z^4-\alpha_{3}z^6
\end{array}
\right)c(z), \label{(1)Kmatrix}
\end{align}
and the relations \eqref{(2)no1} $\sim$ \eqref{(2)no29} are reduced to
\begin{align}
&\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{1}=0, \label{(1)no1} \\
&\bar{\alpha}_{2} \alpha_{0}-\alpha_{3} \alpha_{4}
-(\alpha_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{4})=0,
\label{(1)no13} \\
&\alpha_{0} \alpha_{2}-\bar{\alpha}_{3} \alpha_{1}=0,
\label{(1)no3} \\
&\bar{\alpha}_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{2}-\alpha_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{1}=0,
\label{(1)no2} \\
&\alpha_{0}^2-\alpha_{1} \alpha_{4}=0, \label{(1)no5} \\
&\bar{\alpha}_{0}^2-\bar{\alpha}_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{4}=0,
\label{(1)no4} \\
&\bar{\alpha}_{2} \alpha_{0}-\alpha_{3} \alpha_{4}=0,
\label{(1)no7} \\
&\alpha_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{4}=0, \label{(1)no6} \\
&\alpha_{0} \alpha_{3}-\alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{2}=0,
\label{(1)no9} \\
&\bar{\alpha}_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{3}-\bar{\alpha}_{1} \alpha_{2}=0, \label{(1)no8} \\
&\alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{4}
-(\alpha_{2} \alpha_{4}-\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{3})=0,
\label{(1)no11} \\
&\bar{\alpha}_{1} \alpha_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{0} \alpha_{4}
-(\bar{\alpha}_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{4}-\bar{\alpha}_{0} \alpha_{3})=0, \label{(1)no10} \\
&\bar{\alpha}_{1} \alpha_{0}-\bar{\alpha}_{0} \alpha_{4}=0, \label{(1)no12} \\
&\alpha_{1} \bar{\alpha}_{0}-\alpha_{0} \bar{\alpha}_{4}=0, \label{(1)no15} \\
&\alpha_{2} \bar{\alpha}_{2}-\alpha_{3} \bar{\alpha}_{3}=0.
\label{(1)no14}
\end{align}
Noting that
\eqref{(1)no13} can be obtained by subtracting the both hand sides of
\eqref{(1)no7} by those of \eqref{(1)no6}, the 15 relations
\eqref{(1)no1}$ \sim $ \eqref{(1)no15} are equivalent to 14 relations
\eqref{relation1} $(\mathrm{I}_j,j=1, \cdots , 8),
(T\mathrm{I}_j, j=3, \cdots , 8)$.
Thus, in the case $(A)$,
the matrix elements of the solution
$K(z)$ is given by \eqref{(1)Kmatrix},
and the coefficients must satisfy the relations
$(\mathrm{I}_j,j=1, \cdots , 8), (T\mathrm{I}_j,j=3, \cdots , 8)$.
This corresponds to $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$ in
Def \ref{spacedef3} with $a_1 \neq 0$.
\\
$(B) \ \alpha_{0}=\bar{\alpha}_{0}=0$ \\
From
\eqref{(2)no26}, \eqref{(2)no27}, \eqref{(2)no28}, \eqref{(2)no29}
and $\alpha_{1} \neq 0$, one must have
$\bar{\alpha}_{1}=\bar{\alpha}_{2}=\bar{\alpha}_{3}=\alpha_{4}=0$.
Thus the matrix elements of $K(z)$ \eqref{(2)Kmatrix} become
\begin{eqnarray}
K(z)=\left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_{7}-\alpha_{3} -\bar{\alpha}_{4} z^2
& 0 & \alpha_{1}(z^4-1) \\
\alpha_{5}(z^4-1) &
-\alpha_{3}-\bar{\alpha}_{4}z^2+\alpha_{7} z^4
&\alpha_{2}(z^4-1) \\
\alpha_{6}(z^4-1) & 0 &
-\bar{\alpha}_{4}z^2+(\alpha_{7}-\alpha_{3})z^4
\end{array}
\right)z^2c(z), \label{secondKmatrix}
\end{eqnarray}
and the relations
\eqref{(2)no1}$\sim$ \eqref{(2)no29} are reduced to 3 relations
\begin{align}
\alpha_{1} \alpha_{6}-\alpha_{7} \alpha_{3} &=0, \label{equation2-1} \\
\alpha_{6} \alpha_{2}+\alpha_{3} \alpha_{5} &=0, \label{equation2-2} \\
\alpha_{2} \alpha_{7}+\alpha_{5} \alpha_{1} &=0. \label{equation2-3}
\end{align}
In the case $(B)$,
the matrix elements of the solution
$K(z)$ is given by \eqref{secondKmatrix},
and the coefficients must satisfy the relations
\eqref{equation2-1}, \eqref{equation2-2}, \eqref{equation2-3}.
This corresponds to $\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}$ in
Def \ref{spacedef3} with $b_0 \neq 0$. \\
Investigating the two cases $(A)$ and $(B)$,
one has
$\mathcal{K}_{2}^0=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}|_{a_1 \neq 0} \cup \mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{II}}|_{b_0 \neq 0}$.
Thus, Prop \ref{det02} (ii) is proved.
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq
\rnc{\theequation}{C.\arabic{equation}}\setcounter{equation}{0}
\rnc{\thesubsection}{C.\arabic{subsection}}\setcounter{subsection}{0}
\rnc{\thelemma}{C.\arabic{lemma}}\setcounter{lemma}{0}
\rnc{\theproposition}{C.\arabic{proposition}}\setcounter{proposition}{0}
\rnc{\thedefinition}{C.\arabic{definition}}\setcounter{definition}{0}
\section*{Appendix C. Proof of Prop \ref{spaceidentification} (i)}
Observing the algebraic variety $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}$ which parametrizes
$\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}$,
one notices the following Lemma holds.
\begin{lemma}
The points in $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}$
fulfill the equation
\begin{align}
\mathrm{I}_0: \ a_0 \bar{a}_0-a_4 \bar{a}_4=0,
\end{align}
if any one of
$a_0, \bar{a}_0, a_1, \bar{a}_1, a_2, \bar{a}_2, a_3$ or $\bar{a}_3$
is nonzero.
\label{lemmacondition}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{lemma}
The 15 equations
$(\mathrm{I}_j, j=1, \cdots 8), (T \mathrm{I}_j, j=3, \cdots 8)$
and $\mathrm{I}_0$
can be conveniently expressed as
\begin{align}
\textrm{rank} \left|
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_0 & a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & \bar{a}_0 & \bar{a}_4 \\
a_4 & a_0 & \bar{a}_3 & \bar{a}_2 & \bar{a}_1 & \bar{a}_0
\end{array}
\right| =1. \nn
\end{align}
By utilizing Lemma \ref{lemmacondition}, the following holds.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{eqnarray}
&\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}=
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^0
\sqcup
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1, \nn
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^0&=\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & a_4 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & \bar{a}_4
\end{array}
\right) \in \mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
(a_4, \bar{a}_4) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}), \
a_4 \bar{a}_4 \neq 0 \right\}, \nn \\
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1&=\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
a_0 & a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & a_4 \\
\bar{a}_0 & \bar{a}_1 &
\bar{a}_2 & \bar{a}_{3} & \bar{a}_4
\end{array}
\right) \in \mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
\mathrm{rank} \left|
\begin{array}{cccccc}
a_0 & a_1 & a_2 & a_3 & \bar{a}_0 & \bar{a}_4 \\
a_4 & a_0 & \bar{a}_3 & \bar{a}_2 & \bar{a}_1 & \bar{a}_0
\end{array}
\right| =1 \right\}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
Studying $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1$ which is the main part of
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}$,
we find that the following variety is included.
\begin{definition}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{S}=\left\{
(c_{0}, c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3}, c_{4}, c_{5})
\in \mathbb{P}^5 (\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{l}
c_{j}, \ j=0 \sim 5
\ \textrm{satisfy} \ 3 \ \textrm{relations in}
\ \eqref{segrerelation}
\\
\mathcal{S}_1, \mathcal{S}_2, \mathcal{S}_3
\end{array}
\right\},
\label{segre}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\begin{array}{cccccc}
\mathcal{S}_1: \ c_{0} c_{1}-c_{3} c_{4}=0, &
\mathcal{S}_2: \ c_{1} c_{2}-c_{4} c_{5}=0, &
\mathcal{S}_3: \ c_{2} c_{3}-c_{5} c_{0}=0.
\end{array}
\label{segrerelation}
\end{eqnarray} \hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{threefold}
\end{definition}
The coordinates of points of $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1$
can be parametrized using the projective varieties $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C})$
and $\mathcal{S}$.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1=\mathcal{W}, \nn
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{align}
\mathcal{W}&=\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
A_1 A_2 & A_1^2 & B_2 \bar{B}_2 & B_1 \bar{B}_2 & A_2^2 \\
\bar{A}_{1} \bar{A}_2 & \bar{A}_1^2 &
B_{1} \bar{B}_1 & \bar{B}_{1} B_2 & \bar{A}_{2}^2
\end{array}
\right) \in \mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{l}
(B_1, B_2) \cong \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}), \\
(A_1, \bar{A}_1, \bar{B}_2, A_2, \bar{A}_2, \bar{B}_1) \in
\mathcal{S}
\end{array}
\right\}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{point}
\end{proposition}
{[} \textit{Proof of Prop \ref{point}} {]} \\
Let us first take a look at 3 equations $\mathrm{I}_2, \mathrm{I}_3, T\!\mathrm{I}_3$
out of the 15 ones
$(\mathrm{I}_j, \ j=0, \cdots , 8), \
(T\mathrm{I}_j, \ j=3, \cdots , 8 ) $.
From $\mathrm{I}_2$, $\mathrm{I}_3$ and $T\!\mathrm{I}_3$,
we see that $a_j, \bar{a}_j, j=0, \cdots ,4$
can be parametrized as
\begin{align}
a_2=B_2 \bar{B}_2, \ \bar{a}_2=B_1 \bar{B}_1, \ a_3=B_1 \bar{B}_2, \
\bar{a}_3=\bar{B}_1 B_2, \nn
\end{align}
\begin{align}
a_0=A_1 A_2, \ a_1=A_1^2, \ a_4=A_2^2, \nn
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\bar{a}_0=\bar{A}_1 \bar{A}_2, \ \bar{a}_1=\bar{A}_1^2, \ \bar{a}_4=\bar{A}_2^2, \nn
\end{align}
where $A_1, A_2, B_1, B_2, \bar{A}_1, \bar{A}_2, \bar{B}_1, \bar{B}_2 \in
\mathbb{C}$. \\
Substituting these parametrization into the remaining 12 equations among
$(\mathrm{I}_j, \ j=0, \cdots , 8), \
(T\mathrm{I}_j, \ j=3, \cdots , 8 ) $ and calculating
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1 \neq 0},
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{\bar{a}_1 \neq 0},
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, a_4 \neq 0},
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, \bar{a}_4 \neq 0}
$ and
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=a_4=\bar{a}_4=0}$,
one finds
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1 \neq 0}=&\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
A_1 A_2 & A_1^2 & B_2 \bar{B}_2 & B_1 \bar{B}_2 & A_2^2 \\
\bar{A}_{1} \bar{A}_2 & \bar{A}_1^2 &
B_{1} \bar{B}_1 & \bar{B}_{1} B_2 & \bar{A}_{2}^2
\end{array}
\right) \in \mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{l}
A_1 \in \mathbb{C}^{\times}, \ (B_1, B_2) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}),
\\
(A_1, \bar{A}_1, \bar{B}_2, A_2, \bar{A}_2, \bar{B}_1) \in
\mathcal{S}
\end{array}
\right\} \nn \\
=&\mathcal{W}|_{A_1 \neq 0}, \label{solutioncase1} \\
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{\bar{a}_1 \neq 0}
=&\mathcal{W}|_{\bar{A}_1 \neq 0}, \label{solutioncase2} \\
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, a_4 \neq 0}=&
\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & A_2^2 \\
0 & 0 &
B_{1} \bar{B}_1 & \bar{B}_{1} B_2 & 0
\end{array}
\right) \in \mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
A_2 \in \mathbb{C}^{\times}, \ \bar{B}_1 \in \mathbb{C}, \
(B_1, B_2) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C})
\right\} \nn \\
=&\mathcal{W}|_{A_1=\bar{A}_1=0, A_2 \neq 0},
\label{solutioncase3} \\
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, \bar{a}_4 \neq 0}
=&\mathcal{W}|_{A_1=\bar{A}_1=0, \bar{A}_2 \neq 0},
\label{solutioncase4} \\
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=a_4=\bar{a}_4=0}=&\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
0 & 0 & B_2 \bar{B}_2 & B_1 \bar{B}_2 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & B_{1} \bar{B}_1 & \bar{B}_{1} B_2 & 0
\end{array}
\right) \in \mathbb{P}^9(\mathbb{C}) \ \Big| \
(B_1, B_2) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}), \
(\bar{B}_1, \bar{B}_2) \in \mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C})
\right\} \nn \\
=&\mathcal{W}|_{A_1=\bar{A}_1=A_2=\bar{A}_2=0}.
\label{solutioncase5}
\end{align}
From
\eqref{solutioncase1}, \eqref{solutioncase2}, \eqref{solutioncase3},
\eqref{solutioncase4}, \eqref{solutioncase5} and the following
obvious relations
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1&=\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{\bar{a}_1 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, a_4 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=0, \bar{a}_4 \neq 0} \cup
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{a_1=\bar{a}_1=a_4=\bar{a}_4=0}, \nn \\
\mathcal{W}&=
\mathcal{W}|_{A_1 \neq 0}
\cup
\mathcal{W}|_{\bar{A}_1 \neq 0}
\cup
\mathcal{W}|_{A_1=\bar{A}_1=0, A_2 \neq 0}
\cup
\mathcal{W}|_{A_1=\bar{A}_1=0, \bar{A}_2 \neq 0}
\cup
\mathcal{W}|_{A_1=\bar{A}_1=A_2=\bar{A}_2=0}, \nn
\end{align}
one has
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1=\mathcal{W}, \nn
\end{align}
which proves Prop \ref{point}. \hspace*{\fill} \wsq \\
The algebraic variety $\mathcal{S}$
is isomorphic with the
Segre threefold $\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times \mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$.
\begin{proposition}
\begin{align}
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times \mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C}) \cong \mathcal{S}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{proposition}
The map $\psi$
\begin{align}
&\psi:\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times \mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C}) \longrightarrow
\mathcal{S}, \nn \\
&\psi((D_1, D_2) \times (E_1, E_2, E_3) )=(D_1 E_1, D_2 E_3, D_1 E_2,
D_2 E_1, D_1 E_3, D_2 E_2), \label{shazou}
\end{align}
parametrizes the points in
$\mathcal{S}$ by
$\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times \mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$.
Combining this map with Prop \ref{point}, one sees that
the points in
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1$
can be parametrized by the projective variety
$\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}=\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^1(\mathbb{C}) \times
\mathbb{P}^2(\mathbb{C})$ (Def \ref{algebraicvariety}).
\begin{proposition}
Any point in $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1$ can be parametrized by
$\mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}$ as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1&=\left\{
\left(
\begin{array}{ccccc}
D_1 D_2 E_1^2 & D_1^2 E_1^2 & D_1 E_2 B_2 & D_1 E_2 B_1 & D_2^2 E_1^2 \\
D_1 D_2 E_3^2 & D_2^2 E_3^2 & D_2 E_2 B_1 & D_2 E_2 B_2 & D_1^2 E_3^2
\end{array}
\right) \ \Big| \
\begin{array}{l}
(B_1, B_2) \times (D_1, D_2) \times (E_1, E_2, E_3) \\
\in \mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}}
\end{array}
\right\}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\label{parametrizationofvariety}
\end{proposition}
Let us denote the solution space corresponding to
$\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^0$ and $\mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1$ as
$\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^0$ and $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^1$ respectively.
\begin{definition}
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^0&=\{ K_{\mathrm{I}}(z, \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{I}})
\ | \ \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{I}} \in \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^0 \}, \nn \\
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^1&=\{ K_{\mathrm{I}}(z, \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{I}})
\ | \ \mathcal{Q}_{\mathrm{I}} \in \mathcal{V}_{\mathrm{I}}^1 \}. \nn
\end{align}
\hspace*{\fill} \sq
\end{definition}
Noting that $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^0$ is
included in $\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^1$ as
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^0=\{K(z)= \textrm{Id} \}
=A_{\mathrm{I}}^1|_{D_2=E_1=E_2=0}, \nn
\end{align}
and utilizing Prop \ref{parametrizationofvariety}, one has
\begin{align}
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}=\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^0 \cup
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^1
=
\mathcal{A}_{\mathrm{I}}^1=
\{ K_{\mathrm{I}}(z, \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}})
\ | \ \mathcal{P}_{\mathrm{I}} \in \mathcal{U}_{\mathrm{I}} \}
=\mathcal{B}_{\mathrm{I}}, \nn
\end{align}
which proves Prop \ref{spaceidentification} (i).
\hspace*{\fill} \wsq
|
\section{}
A number of new physical phenomena have been discovered in the last few years at the
interfaces between very different materials. The electronic reconstruction induced at
these boundaries can give rise to metallic states\cite{Hwang}, magnetism\cite{Brinkman},
or even superconductivity\cite{Mannhart}, although the parent compounds were originally
insulating oxides. But not only boundaries of bulk materials are important: in two
dimensional graphene nanoribbons (GNR) edges have become relevant, with peculiar
electronic states localized at the boundary of the ribbons\cite{Fujita}.
Since its first experimental realization\cite{Novoselov}, graphene has emerged as
a prominent candidate to replace silicon in the development of high performance
electronic devices. However, the extremely high mobility of charge carriers in
graphene (ten times higher than that in silicon wafers used in microprocessors)
poses a difficulty for the fabrication of nanodevices based on this material.
A possible route to harness the conducting charges in graphene transistors is
the fabrication of graphene nanoribbons, where the lateral confinement of charge
induces the opening of a gap that depends on the orientation of the GNR, and is
inversely proportional to its width\cite{Han,Son-gap}. Interestingly, ribbons
with zigzag shaped border (ZGNR) show a local ferrimagnetic structure at the edge\cite{Fujita},
and upon application of an in-plane external electric field can be tuned into a
half-metallic state, with a gap opening for one spin component, and a metallic
behaviour for the other, hence giving a full spin polarization of the conducting
electrons\cite{Son-halfmetal}. Theoretical calculations have shown that similar
magnetic edge states exist in zigzag edged BN nanoribbons (ZBNNR)\cite{Barone, Zheng}.
The recent experimental realization of BN nanosheets\cite{Pacile,Iijima}, opens new
prospects for the combination of these two isostructural materials. Hence, a proper
characterization of these hypothetical semimetal-insulator junctions is much needed.
Different C/BN heterostructures have been proposed in the past, and substantial efforts
have been devoted to the growth of composite sheets and nanotubes\cite{reviewCBN}.
Laser vaporization grown C-BN single walled nanotubes show traces of the patterning of
segregated BN nanodomains embedded in the carbon network sequentially along the tube
axis\cite{Enouz}. Recently, Du {\it et. al.} used first principles Molecular Dynamics
calculations to show that hybrid C-BN nanotubes can be spontaneously formed via the
connection of BNNR and GNR at room temperature\cite{Du}, and Ding {\it et. al.}
investigated the stability of C doped BNNR, showing that, under suitable conditions,
GNR can be grown embedded in BN sheets\cite{Ding}. Furthermore, it is reported that
half-metallicity originates for sufficiently wide ZGNRs\cite{Ding}. Tuning
half-metallicity by edge modification in ZGNR and ZBNNR has been shown by
others\cite{Zheng,Kan,Dutta,Wu}, and understood in terms of a potential difference
between the two edges through chemical modification with electron accepting or donating
groups. If this was the explanation for the half-metallicity in GNR embedded in BNNR,
then there should be half-metallicity independently of the BNNR width. This doesn't seem
to be the case, as the results in reference \cite{Dutta} suggest that there is a critical
thickness for the BNNR to induce half-metallicity in GNRs.
Here, I argue that the electronic properties of C+BN heterostructures can be
described in terms of the 1D equivalence of bidimensional oxide heterojunctions made
of a metal (semimetal graphene) and an insulator (BN sheet). In particular, it will be
shown that the polarity discontinuity in BN nanoribbon and the screening by the mobile
GNR electrons are behind the electronic reconstruction at the interface. Hence, a
dependence with the BNNR width (polarity) and GNR width (number of available screening
carriers) is expected.
Ab initio pseudopotential density functional calculations are performed in zigzag
edged Graphene-BN superlattices, within the spin-polarized generalized-gradient
approximation as implemented in the SIESTA method\cite{siesta}. Troullier-Martin
type pseudopotentials\cite{pseudos} and numerical atomic orbitals with double-$\zeta$
plus polarization are used to describe the electronic valence states. The atomic
positions are determined with a structural relaxation until the forces are smaller
than 0.02eV/Å. A total of 67 k-points are used to sample the Brillouin zone.
Following the conventional nomenclature $n$-ZGNR and $m$-ZBNNR combine to give a
$(n,m)$-superlattice with $n$ zigzag chains of graphene and $m$ zigzag chains of BN (Fig. 1a).
A set of systems with $2\le n\le12$ and $2\le m\le11$ are considered, with
superlattice's periodicities in the range 1.7-4.7nm. The smaller systems ($n+m=8$)
show non-magnetic (NM) semiconducting properties, with a direct energy gap that
decreases with the width of the graphene ribbon. For wider systems however the
behavior becomes semimetallic, with edge states that give rise to a narrow band
near the Fermi level, enabling the possibility of magnetic orderings induced by
the electron-electron interaction\cite{Fujita}. Indeed, spin-polarized edge
states are obtained in the calculations, that correspond to antiferromagnetic
(AF) alignments of the spin moments at opposite edges of the heterostructure
(Fig. \ref{bands}, and Supporting Information), with the AF state being a few meV
lower than NM, in agreement with calculations of magnetic edge states in isolated
ZGNR, and ZGNR embedded in ZBNNR\cite{Ding}.
Double periodicity unit cells were used to explore other magnetic orderings
but this AF-phase remained as the ground state. Notice that hybrid exchange-DFT
functionals predict a further stabilization of the AF alignment in isolated ZGNR
\cite{Pisani}. Notice also the half-semimetallic character of the AF state in
Fig. 2, with an apparent gap for $\alpha$ spin, and two bands that seem to cross
the Fermi level for $\beta$ spin. The crossing is not allowed by symmetry because
each sublattice of C atoms is linked either to B or N breaking the sublattice's
equivalency and giving a tiny gap also for the $\beta$-spin bands. Hence, the term
{\it half-semimetal} is more appropriate than {\it half-metal} commonly used in
the literature.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-1.eps}
\caption{\label{structure}(a) Diagram of a (5,9) C-BN superlattice with 5 and 9 zigzag
chains for the C-ribbon and BN-ribbon, respectively. White, black, and dark gray circles
represent C, N and B atoms. The dashed line box shows the cell of repetition under periodic
boundary conditions. Calculated C-C, B-N, C-B and C-N bond lengths are also shown.
(b) Profile of the macroscopic electronic effective potential averaged over the graphene
plane. The origin of the potential was shifted to the N-edge of the superlattice.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-2.eps}
\caption{\label{bands} (color online) Electronic bandstructure of C-BN superlattices
in the antiferromagnetic (AF) groundstate and non-magnetic (NM) state for the
(5,9)-superlattice. Dashed (blue) and solid (red) lines correspond to $\alpha$ and
$\beta$ spins. The presence of an energy gap, $\Delta$, for the $\alpha$ spin is
apparent in the AF state. }
\end{figure}
The nature of these edge bands near the Brillouin zone boundary (X-point at k=$\pi$)
deserves further clarification. Zigzag GNRs have insulating magnetic edge states with
parallel ordering at each edge, and antiparallel alignment between the two edges.
On the other hand, zigzag BNNRs have insulating, nonmagnetic edge states with
unoccupied state localized at the B site and occupied valence state localized at the
N side. These states can be dramatically affected by edge passivation\cite{Zheng}.
When GNR and BNNR are attached the mixing of $\pi$ orbitals of C, B and N at each
edge gives rise to four sets of bands that correspond to the bonding and antibonding
states between C-N and C-B (Fig. 3a). The relevant bands, close to the Fermi level,
are the occupied bonding C-B ($\pi_B$), and unoccupied antibonding C-N ($\pi_{N}^*$),
each of them being a localized state at carbon atoms close to the B or N edge,
respectively. Figure 3.b-e presents evidences of the highly localized states at
X by showing a color contour plots for the energy bands near the Fermi level projected
on the C atomic orbitals at the atoms close to the N and B edges. The localization
gradually decreases as we depart from the X-point. The bonding C-N and antibonding C-B
lay $\sim$5eV below and above the Fermi level respectively. Ab initio calculations
have shown that the bandgaps in both C and BN zigzag nanoribbons are inversely
proportional to their width, and consequently the energy separation between $\pi_B$
and $\pi_{N}^*$ in C-BN superlattices will depend on the width of each strip.
Hence, a dependence of the half-semimetallic gap on the widths of the strips is
anticipated, and will be discussed later.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-3.eps}
\caption{\label{Elevels}(color online) (a) Energy diagram for localized states close
to the C-N (left) and C-B (right) edges, for $\alpha$ (blue) and $\beta$ (red) spins.
GNR edge states have opposite spin character at each side of the ribbon, and couple
to the B and N orbitals. Near the Fermi level (dashed horizontal line), the relevant
states are occupied $\pi_B$ and unoccupied $\pi_{N}^*$, with some spin asymmetry coming
from the original GNR spin edge polarization. The weights on the relevant bands of
the C atomic orbitals at the N and B edges are shown in b, c, d and e for each spin,
with red/blue being a high/negligible contribution to the electronic wavefunction.
The Fermi level is taken at 0 and the bands are plotted along the $\Gamma$-X direction.}
\end{figure}
The different electronegativities of B and N make bare ZBNNR the two-dimensional
equivalent to a polar slab, with a type 3 termination, where alternating charges are
ordered perpendicularly to the edge, as opposed to armchair BNNR which have type 1
boundaries and alternating charges parallel to the interface\cite{Tasker}.
Polarization lowers the potential felt by electrons at the nitrogen edge relative
to the boron edge. Charge redistributions near the interface partially compensate
this edge instability, particularly for wider ribbons, where the number of electrons
that can participate in the screening is higher\cite{Park-Louie}. It is then expected
that mobile electrons coming from semimetallic graphene in contact with these ZBNNR
will increase the screening. But this also means that there is a charge asymmetry in
the GNR in contact with BN with the interface C-N being lower in energy than the C-B
interface, and hence inducing a charge transfer to the N side. This charge
transfer is confirmed by Mulliken population analysis, with a slightly larger
charge for C atoms close to the N interface, than for C atoms
close to the B edge. There is also a minor charge increase for the B atom close
to the B-edge\cite{Dutta}, but its role in origin of half-metallicity is only partial.
The situation very much resembles that of a GNR under the presence of a transverse
electric field, except that the nature of the edge states is different, with occupied bands
near the Fermi level localized at the same edge (B-side) for both spin polarizations.
Atomic relaxations also contribute to the screening, with bonds becoming shorter
at the N-side and longer at the B-side.
Figure 1b shows the macroscopic average\cite{Baldereschi} of the electronic effective
potential in the plane of the (5,9)-superlattice. This potential profile shows a drop
of $\sim$2.3eV between B and N edges, inducing an effective electric field of
$\sim$0.27V/\AA, which is at the brink of the critical electric field needed to induce
half-metallicity in the isolated ZGNR\cite{Son-halfmetal}. The potential drop increases
slightly with the BN widths studied here but the decrease of the effective polarization
charge density ensures that it will saturate for sheets wide enough. For wider graphene
strips, the screening is asymmetric and mainly localized a few (4 or 5) zigzag chains
from the B-edge, so that the effective electric field inside the graphene ribbon will
be substantially screened far from this edge. This means that the relative widths of
the GNR and BNNR strips can be used to tune the electronic and magnetic properties of
these systems. The most important result of this work is
shown in Fig. 4 where the band gaps for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ spins are plotted as a
function of the strip widths. In the limit of broad GNR, the semimetallic behavior is
recovered, with zero gap for both spins. If the GNR is too thin, the AF state is unstable
and the systems becomes NM and insulating. However, lattices with sufficiently wide BN strips
($m\ge6$) and sufficiently narrow C ribbons ($n\le8$) can show half-semimetallic
properties with a gap for $\alpha$-spin states significantly larger (above 0.1eV)
than for $\beta$-spin (below 0.03eV). It is important to notice that the origin of this effect
is not simply the chemical modification of the ZGNR by B or N doping, as the spin polarization
disappears for narrow BN strips (inset in Fig. 4).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-4.eps}
\caption{\label{gaps} (color online) Direct band gaps for $\alpha$- (blue up triangles)
and $\beta$-spins (red down triangles) as a function of the GNR width in the
antiferromagnetic ground state for C+BN superlattices. The (green) arrow shows the
dependence of the $\alpha$-spin gap on the BNNR width (also displayed in the inset).
Superlattices made from GNR thinner than 15Å and BNNR thicker than 10Å present a marked
half-semimetallicity with a ≥0.1eV gap for $\alpha$-spins and a tiny gap for $\beta$-spins.}
\end{figure}
As mentioned before, hybrid C-BN nanotubes have already been synthesized experimentally\cite{Enouz},
and predictions have been made for the spontaneous formation of single-walled armchair
nanotubes from the hybrid connection of BNNR and GNR\cite{Du}. Unzipping these hybrid
nanotubes would be a route to fabricate C-BN superlattices as the ones reported in this work.
However, it can be shown\cite{EPAPS} that even in the tubular geometry the electronic
and magnetic properties described above can be obtained, as long as there is a zigzag
edge and the relative width of BN and C regions are conveniently tuned, following the
gap width-dependence sketched in Fig. 4.
In addition to the demonstration that unconventional interfacial effects are not limited
only to planar junctions in epitaxial complex oxides heterostructures but are present in
lower dimensions, synthesis of these C-BN nanostructure offers an interesting avenue for
the design of carbon-based nanospintronic devices. A zigzag-edged nanostriction of C-BN in
a graphene ribbon, for example, would open a gap and induce a high spin-polarization for
the transmitted electrons without the need for applied external electric fields, paving
the way to efficient spin-injection in carbon structures.
Surely different combination of materials can be conceived to fabricate bidimensional
heterostructures and take advantage of these unusual physical phenomena that result from
the combination of spin-polarized edge states and polarization induced charge dipoles at
the edges. Further work on growing bidimensional superlattices that combine the exiting
possibilities of nanosheets is encouraged.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the CSIC through a JAE-Doc fellowship and P.I.E. 200960I025. Computational resources from the Theory and Simulation group are acknowledged. The author is thankful to P. Ordej\'on, E. Artacho and E. Canadell for fruitful discussions and comments.
\end{acknowledgments}
\section{}
A number of new physical phenomena have been discovered in the last few years at the
interfaces between very different materials. The electronic reconstruction induced at
these boundaries can give rise to metallic states\cite{Hwang}, magnetism\cite{Brinkman},
or even superconductivity\cite{Mannhart}, although the parent compounds were originally
insulating oxides. But not only boundaries of bulk materials are important: in two
dimensional graphene nanoribbons (GNR) edges have become relevant, with peculiar
electronic states localized at the boundary of the ribbons\cite{Fujita}.
Since its first experimental realization\cite{Novoselov}, graphene has emerged as
a prominent candidate to replace silicon in the development of high performance
electronic devices. However, the extremely high mobility of charge carriers in
graphene (ten times higher than that in silicon wafers used in microprocessors)
poses a difficulty for the fabrication of nanodevices based on this material.
A possible route to harness the conducting charges in graphene transistors is
the fabrication of graphene nanoribbons, where the lateral confinement of charge
induces the opening of a gap that depends on the orientation of the GNR, and is
inversely proportional to its width\cite{Han,Son-gap}. Interestingly, ribbons
with zigzag shaped border (ZGNR) present a local ferrimagnetic structure at the edge\cite{Fujita},
and upon application of an in-plane external electric field can be tuned into a
half-metallic state, with a gap opening for one spin component, and a metallic
behavior for the other, hence giving a full spin polarization of the conducting
electrons\cite{Son-halfmetal}. Theoretical calculations have shown that similar
magnetic edge states exist in zigzag edged BN nanoribbons (ZBNNR)\cite{Barone, Zheng}.
The recent experimental realization of BN nanosheets\cite{Pacile,Iijima}, opens new
prospects for the combination of these two isostructural materials. Hence, a proper
characterization of these hypothetical semimetal-insulator junctions is much needed.
Different C/BN heterostructures have been proposed in the past, and substantial efforts
have been devoted to the growth of composite sheets and nanotubes\cite{reviewCBN}.
Laser vaporization grown C-BN single walled nanotubes show traces of the patterning of
segregated BN nanodomains embedded in the carbon network sequentially along the tube
axis\cite{Enouz}. Recently, Du {\it et. al.} used first principles Molecular Dynamics
calculations to prove that hybrid C-BN nanotubes can be spontaneously formed via the
connection of BNNR and GNR at room temperature\cite{Du}, and Ding {\it et. al.}
investigated the stability of C doped BNNR, showing that, under suitable conditions,
GNR can be grown embedded in BN sheets\cite{Ding}. Furthermore, it is reported that
half-metallicity originates for sufficiently wide ZGNRs\cite{Ding}. Tuning
half-metallicity by edge modification in ZGNR and ZBNNR has been demonstrated by
others\cite{Zheng,Kan,Dutta,Wu}, and understood in terms of a potential difference
between the two edges through chemical modification with electron accepting or donating
groups. If this was the explanation for the half-metallicity in GNR embedded in BNNR,
then there should be half-metallicity independently of the BNNR width. This doesn't seem
to be the case, as the results in reference \onlinecite{Dutta} suggest that there is a critical
thickness for the BNNR to induce half-metallicity in GNRs.
Here, I argue that the electronic properties of C+BN heterostructures can be
described in terms of the 1D equivalence of bidimensional oxide heterojunctions made
of a metal (semimetal graphene) and an insulator (BN sheet). In particular, it will be
shown that the polarity discontinuity in BN nanoribbon and the screening by the mobile
electrons in graphene are behind the electronic reconstruction at the interface. Hence, a
dependence with the BNNR width (polarity) and GNR width (number of available screening
carriers) is expected.
Ab initio pseudopotential density functional calculations are performed in zigzag
edged Graphene-BN superlattices, within the spin-polarized generalized-gradient
approximation as implemented in the SIESTA method\cite{siesta}. Troullier-Martin
type pseudopotentials\cite{pseudos} and numerical atomic orbitals with double-$\zeta$
plus polarization are used to describe the electronic valence states. The atomic
positions are determined with a structural relaxation until the forces are smaller
than 0.02eV/Å. A total of 67 k-points are used to sample the Brillouin zone.
Following the conventional nomenclature $n$-ZGNR and $m$-ZBNNR combine to give a
$(n,m)$-superlattice with $n$ zigzag chains of graphene and $m$ zigzag chains of BN (Fig. 1a).
A set of systems with $2\le n\le12$ and $2\le m\le11$ are considered, with
superlattice's periodicities in the range 1.7-4.7nm. The smaller systems ($n+m=8$)
show non-magnetic (NM) semiconducting properties, with a direct energy gap that
decreases with the increase in the width of the graphene ribbon. For wider systems however the
gap is reduced and the system semimetallic, with edge states that give rise to a narrow band
near the Fermi level, enabling the possibility of magnetic orderings induced by
the electron-electron interaction\cite{Fujita}. Indeed, spin-polarized edge
states are obtained in the calculations, that correspond to antiferromagnetic
(AF) alignments of the spin moments at opposite edges of the heterostructure
(Fig. \ref{bands}), with the AF state being a few meV
lower than NM, in agreement with calculations of magnetic edge states in isolated
ZGNR, and ZGNR embedded in ZBNNR\cite{Ding}.
Double periodicity unit cells were used to explore other magnetic orderings observed
for isolated BNNR\cite{Barone},
but the AF-phase remained as the ground state. Notice that hybrid exchange-DFT
functionals predict a further stabilization of the AF alignment in isolated ZGNR
\cite{Pisani}. Notice also the half-semimetallic character of the AF state in
Fig. 2, with an apparent gap for $\alpha$ spin, and two bands that seem to cross
the Fermi level for $\beta$ spin. The crossing is not allowed by symmetry because
each sublattice of C atoms is linked either to B or N, breaking the sublattice's
equivalency and giving a tiny gap also for the $\beta$-spin bands. Hence, the term
{\it half-semimetal} is more appropriate than {\it half-metal} commonly used in
the literature.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-1.eps}
\caption{\label{structure}(a) Diagram of a (5,9) C-BN superlattice with 5 and 9 zigzag
chains for the C-ribbon and BN-ribbon, respectively. White, black, and dark gray circles
represent C, N and B atoms. The dashed line box shows the cell of repetition under periodic
boundary conditions. Calculated C-C, B-N, C-B and C-N bond lengths are also shown.
(b) Profile of the macroscopic electronic effective potential averaged over the graphene
plane. The origin of the potential was shifted to the N-edge of the superlattice.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[b]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-2.eps}
\caption{\label{bands} (color online) Electronic bandstructure of C-BN superlattices
in the antiferromagnetic (AF) groundstate and non-magnetic (NM) state for the
(5,9)-superlattice. Dashed (blue) and solid (red) lines correspond to $\alpha$ and
$\beta$ spins. The presence of an energy gap, $\Delta$, for the $\alpha$ spin is
apparent in the AF state. }
\end{figure}
The nature of these edge bands near the Brillouin zone boundary (X-point at k=$\pi$)
deserves further clarification. Hydrogen passivated zigzag GNRs have insulating magnetic
edge states with parallel ordering at each edge, and antiparallel alignment between the
two edges. On the other hand, zigzag BNNRs have insulating, non-magnetic edge states
with unoccupied state localized at the B site and occupied valence state localized at
the N side. These states can be dramatically affected by edge passivation\cite{Lee,Zheng}.
When GNR and BNNR are attached the mixing of $\pi$ orbitals of C, B and N at each
edge gives rise to four sets of bands that correspond to the bonding and antibonding
states between C-N and C-B (Fig. 3a). The relevant bands, close to the Fermi level,
are the occupied bonding C-B ($\pi_B$), and unoccupied antibonding C-N ($\pi_{N}^*$),
each of them being a localized state at carbon atoms close to the B or N edge,
respectively. Figure 3.b-e presents evidences of the highly localized states at
X by showing a color contour plots for the energy bands near the Fermi level projected
on the C atomic orbitals at the atoms close to the N and B edges. The localization
gradually decreases as we depart from the X-point. The bonding C-N and antibonding C-B
lay $\sim$5eV below and above the Fermi level respectively. Ab initio calculations
have shown that the bandgaps in both C and BN zigzag nanoribbons are inversely
proportional to their width, and consequently the energy separation between $\pi_B$
and $\pi_{N}^*$ in C-BN superlattices will depend on the width of each strip.
Hence, a dependence of the half-semimetallic gap on the widths of the strips is
anticipated, and will be discussed later.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-3.eps}
\caption{\label{Elevels}(color online) (a) Energy diagram for localized states close
to the C-N (left) and C-B (right) edges, for $\alpha$ (blue) and $\beta$ (red) spins.
GNR edge states have opposite spin character at each side of the ribbon, and couple
to the B and N orbitals. Near the Fermi level (dashed horizontal line), the relevant
states are occupied $\pi_B$ and unoccupied $\pi_{N}^*$, with some spin asymmetry coming
from the original GNR spin edge polarization. The weights on the relevant bands of
the C atomic orbitals at the N and B edges are shown in b, c, d and e for each spin,
with red/blue being a high/negligible contribution to the electronic wavefunction.
The Fermi level is taken at 0 and the bands are plotted along the $\Gamma$-X direction.}
\end{figure}
The different electronegativities of B and N make bare ZBNNR the two-dimensional
equivalent to a polar slab, with a type 3 termination, where alternating charges are
ordered perpendicularly to the edge, as opposed to armchair BNNR which have type 1
boundaries and alternating charges parallel to the interface\cite{Tasker}.
Polarization lowers the potential felt by electrons at the nitrogen edge relative
to the boron edge. Charge redistributions near the interface partially compensate
this edge instability, particularly for wider ribbons, where the number of electrons
that can participate in the screening is higher\cite{Park-Louie}.
Atomic relaxations also contribute to the screening, with bonds becoming shorter
at the N-side and longer at the B-side. It is then expected
that mobile electrons coming from semimetallic graphene in contact with these ZBNNR
will increase the screening. But this also means that there is a charge asymmetry in
the GNR in contact with BN with the interface C-N being lower in energy than the C-B
interface, and hence inducing a charge transfer to the N side. This charge
transfer is confirmed by Mulliken population analysis, with a slightly larger
charge for C atoms close to the N interface, than for C atoms
close to the B edge. This result is at odds with the hypothesis that the origin of the
half-metallicity in the GNR is the charge transfer from the carbon to boron atoms\cite{Dutta}.
Although the occupied states close to the Fermi level are mainly localized at the atoms
close to this side (Fig. 3), the fact that for very narrow ZGNR half-semimetallicity
is not observed\cite{Ding} proves that this postulate is incorrect.
The situation very much resembles that of a GNR under the presence of a transverse
electric field, except that the nature of the edge states is different, with occupied bands
near the Fermi level localized at the same edge (B-side) for both spin polarizations.
Figure 1b shows the macroscopic average\cite{Baldereschi} of the electronic effective
potential in the plane of the (5,9)-superlattice. This potential profile shows a drop
of $\sim$2.3eV between B and N edges, inducing an effective electric field of
$\sim$0.27V/\AA, which is at the brink of the critical electric field needed to induce
half-metallicity in the isolated ZGNR\cite{Son-halfmetal}. The potential drop increases
slightly with the BN widths studied here but the decrease of the effective polarization
charge density ensures that it will saturate for sheets wide enough. For wider graphene
strips, the screening is asymmetric and mainly localized a few (4 or 5) zigzag chains
from the B-edge, so that the effective electric field inside the graphene ribbon will
be substantially screened far from this edge. This means that the widths of
the GNR and BNNR strips can be used to tune the electronic and magnetic properties of
these systems.
The most important result of this work is
shown in Fig. 4 where the band gaps for $\alpha$ and $\beta$ spins are plotted as a
function of the strip widths. In the limit of broad GNR, the semimetallic behavior is
recovered, with zero gap for both spins. If the GNR is too thin, the AF state is unstable
and the systems becomes NM and insulating. However, lattices with sufficiently wide BN strips
($m\ge6$) and sufficiently narrow C ribbons ($n\le8$) can show half-semimetallic
properties with a gap for $\alpha$-spin states significantly larger (above 0.1eV)
than for $\beta$-spin (below 0.03eV). It is important to notice that the origin of this effect
is not simply the chemical modification of the ZGNR by B or N doping, as the spin polarization
disappears for narrow BN strips (inset in Fig. 4).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Figure-4.eps}
\caption{\label{gaps} (color online) Direct band gaps for $\alpha$- (blue up triangles)
and $\beta$-spins (red down triangles) as a function of the GNR width in the
antiferromagnetic ground state for C+BN superlattices. The (green) arrow shows the
dependence of the $\alpha$-spin gap on the BNNR width (also displayed in the inset).
Superlattices made from GNR thinner than 15Å and BNNR thicker than 10Å present a marked
half-semimetallicity with a ≥0.1eV gap for $\alpha$-spins and a tiny gap for $\beta$-spins.}
\end{figure}
As mentioned before, hybrid C-BN nanotubes have already been synthesized experimentally\cite{Enouz},
and predictions have been made for the spontaneous formation of single-walled armchair
nanotubes from the hybrid connection of BNNR and GNR\cite{Du}. Unzipping these hybrid
nanotubes would be a route to fabricate C-BN superlattices as the ones reported in this work.
However, it can be shown that even in the tubular geometry the electronic
and magnetic properties described above can be obtained, as long as there is a zigzag
edge and the widths of BN and C ribbons are conveniently tuned, following the
gap width-dependence sketched in Fig. 4. Curvature does not play an essential role, and
$(n,n)$ zigzag nanotubes with $n\ge 5$ can show these half-metallic properties. Details will
be presented elsewhere\cite{EPAPS}.
In addition to the demonstration that unconventional interfacial effects are not limited
only to planar junctions in epitaxial complex oxides heterostructures but are present in
lower dimensions, synthesis of these C-BN nanostructure offers an interesting avenue for
the design of carbon-based nanospintronic devices. A zigzag-edged nanostriction of C-BN in
a graphene ribbon, for example, would open a gap and induce a high spin-polarization for
the transmitted electrons without the need for applied external electric fields, paving
the way to efficient spin-injection in carbon structures.
Surely different combination of materials can be conceived to fabricate bidimensional
heterostructures and take advantage of these unusual physical phenomena that result from
the combination of spin-polarized edge states and polarization induced charge dipoles at
the edges. Further work on growing bidimensional superlattices that combine the exiting
possibilities of nanosheets is encouraged.
\begin{acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the CSIC through a JAE-Doc fellowship and P.I.E. 200960I025.
Computational resources from the Theory and Simulation group are acknowledged.
The author is thankful to P. Ordej\'on, E. Artacho and E. Canadell for fruitful
discussions and comments.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
Thermal radiation at equilibrium was studied by Planck \cite{Planck} by
using equilibrium thermodynamic concepts. The thermal properties of the gas
of photons are well-known. One of them, the Stefan-Boltzmann law \cite%
{pathria} gives the value of the energy flux in terms of the temperature of
the emitter through a power law $\sigma T^4$.
However, in many instances frequently found in nano-systems, the radiation
is not in equilibrium due to the presence of thermal sources or temperature
gradients. This is what happens in nanostructures such as solar cells and
thermophotovoltaic devices \cite{zhang,vos}, even in cancer therapies \cite%
{rabin,fortin}, just to cite some exemples. In these situations, the
classical scheme is no longer applicable and it then becomes necessary to
employ a nonequilibrium theory. A first attempt to describe non-equilibrium
radiation could be performed via nonequilibrium thermodynamics \cite{deGroot}%
. Nevertheless, some of the laws governing the behavior of thermal radiation
are non-linear laws whose derivation is beyond the scope of this theory
which provides only linear relationships between fluxes and forces.
In this article, we will show that this limitation can be overcome if
mesoscopic nonequilibrium thermodynamics \cite{reguera,rubi} is used. This
can be done by performing a description in terms of an internal variable
\cite{agusti,rubi2} --the momenta of the photons-- and by assuming local
equilibrium in phase--space. In this way it is possible to analyze the
underlying activated process for which photons are emitted. The photon
energy current does obtained leads to the nonequilibrium
Stefan-Boltzmann law.
This article is organized as follows. In Section 2, we study the photon gas
outside equilibrium. Starting from the Gibbs entropy postulate, we derive
the entropy production and from this the current of photons. In Section 3,
we analyze the steady state obtained when photons are emitted by two bodies
at two different temperatures. By using mesoscopic nonequilibrium
thermodynamics we derive the equivalent to the Stefan-Boltzmann law in this
nonequilibrium situation. In the conclusion, we discuss some perspectives of
the results obtained.
\section{The nonequilibrium photon gas}
Let us consider a gas of photons distributed through the law $n(\mathbf{%
\Gamma ,}t)$ which is the probability density defined in the single-particle
phase-space $\mathbf{\Gamma }=(\mathbf{p}$,$\mathbf{x})$, where $\mathbf{p}$%
, $\mathbf{x}$ are the momentum and position of a photon, respectively.
According to the principle of the conservation of probability, we assume
that $n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)$ satisfy the continuity equation%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial }{\partial t}n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)=-\frac{\partial }{\partial
\mathbf{\Gamma }}\cdot \mathbf{J}\left( \mathbf{\Gamma ,}t\right)
\label{continuity}
\end{equation}%
where $\partial /\partial \mathbf{\Gamma }=(\partial /\partial p,\nabla )$, $%
\nabla =\partial /\partial x$. The continuity equation (\ref{continuity})
defines the probability current $\mathbf{J}\left( \mathbf{\Gamma ,}t\right)
=(J_{x},J_{p})$ which must be determined by means of the methods of
nonequilibrium thermodynamics.
According to the Gibbs entropy postulate, our thermodynamic analysis of the
nonequilibrium gas is based in the assumption of the density functional
\begin{equation}
S(t)=-k_{B}\int n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)\ln \frac{n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)}{n_{eq}(%
\mathbf{\Gamma })}d\mathbf{\Gamma +}S_{0} \label{entropy}
\end{equation}%
as the nonequilibrium entropy of the system \cite{deGroot,reguera,rubi}.
Here, $S_{0}$ is the equilibrium entropy of the gas plus the thermal bath
and $n_{eq}(\mathbf{\Gamma })$ is the equilibrium probability density
function.
By taking variations of Eq.\ (\ref{entropy}) we obtain
\begin{equation}
\delta S=-k_{B}\int \delta n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)\ln \frac{n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}%
t)}{n_{eq}(\mathbf{\Gamma })}d\mathbf{\Gamma }\text{ \ ,} \label{gibbs_eq}
\end{equation}%
where once one introduces the nonequilibrium chemical potential
\begin{equation}
\mu (\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)=k_{B}T\ln \frac{n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)}{n_{eq}(%
\mathbf{\Gamma })}\text{, } \label{chem_pot}
\end{equation}%
Eq.\ (\ref{gibbs_eq}) can be written
\begin{equation}
\delta S=-\int \frac{\mu (\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)}{T}\delta n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}%
t)d\mathbf{\Gamma }\text{ \ .} \label{variation}
\end{equation}%
Here, Eq. (\ref{variation}) which is the Gibb's equation of thermodynamics
formulated in the phase-space, illustrates the physical meaning of
the nonequilibrium chemical potential (\ref{chem_pot}). Since $-T\delta
S=\delta F$, with $F$ the nonequilibrium free energy, Eq. (\ref{variation}) leads to
\begin{equation}
\delta F=\int \mu (\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)\delta n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}%
t)d\mathbf{\Gamma }\text{ \ .} \label{variation2}
\end{equation}
On the other hand, the equilibrium chemical potential of photons is zero, thus no reference value $\mu_0$ is needed in Eq. (\ref{chem_pot}). From Eqs. (\ref{continuity}) and (\ref{variation}) we obtain the entropy
production%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}=-\int \mathbf{J}\left( \mathbf{\Gamma ,}%
t\right) \cdot \frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{\Gamma }}\frac{\mu (\mathbf{%
\Gamma ,}t)}{T}d\mathbf{\Gamma }\text{ \ ,} \label{entropy_prod}
\end{equation}%
as the product of a thermodynamics current and the conjugated thermodynamic
force $\partial /\partial \mathbf{\Gamma (}\mu (\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)/T)$ \cite%
{deGroot}. As usual in nonequilibrium thermodynamic \cite{deGroot}, from Eq.
(\ref{entropy_prod}) we derive the phenomenological law%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{J}\left( \mathbf{\Gamma ,}t\right) =-\mathbf{L}(\mathbf{\Gamma }%
)\cdot \frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{\Gamma }}\frac{\mu (\mathbf{\Gamma ,%
}t)}{T}\text{ \ ,} \label{pheno_1}
\end{equation}%
where $\mathbf{L}(\mathbf{\Gamma })$ is the matrix of phenomenological
coefficients. Hence, Eq. (\ref{pheno_1}) enables us to write the entropy
production Eq. (\ref{entropy_prod}) as a bilinear form%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial S}{\partial t}=\int \frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{\Gamma }%
}\frac{\mu (\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)}{T}\cdot \mathbf{L}(\mathbf{\Gamma })\cdot
\frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{\Gamma }}\frac{\mu (\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)}{T}%
d\mathbf{\Gamma }\text{ .} \label{entropy_prod_2}
\end{equation}%
In terms of the diffusion matrix $\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\Gamma })=k_{B}\mathbf{M%
}$, where $\mathbf{M}(\mathbf{\Gamma })=\mathbf{L}/n$ is the mobility, Eq. (%
\ref{pheno_1}) can be written in a more convenient form%
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{J}\left( \mathbf{\Gamma ,}t\right) =-\mathbf{D}(\mathbf{\Gamma }%
)\cdot \frac{\partial }{\partial \mathbf{\Gamma }}n(\mathbf{\Gamma ,}t)\text{%
,} \label{pheno_2}
\end{equation}%
which constitutes the Fick's law of diffusion \cite{landau} formulated in
the single-particle phase-space.
\section{Stationary state and the nonequilibrium Stefan-Boltzmann law}
In this section we will study the heat exchange by thermal radiation between
two bodies at different temperatures. This process comes into play in
nanostructures such as solar cells and thermophotovoltaic devices, just to
cite some exemples. Applications of thermophotovoltaic devices range from
hybrid electric vehicles to power sources for microelectronic systems \cite%
{zhang}. Therefore, as mentioned, the recent developments of nanotechnology
made the study of heat exchange by thermal radiation an object of growing
interest \cite{abramson}.
Hence, to undertake this study, we assume that the dynamics of the photons
is the result of two simultaneous processes: emission and absortion of cold
photons at $T_{C}$ and emission and absorption of hot photons at $T_{H}$,
this is illustrated by the Figure (see Fig. (1))
\begin{figure}[h]
\includegraphics[scale=1.3]{radiation_2}
\caption{(Color online) Schematic illustration of the radiation exchanged
between two materials maintained at different temperatures, $T_{H}$ and $%
T_{C}$, separated by a distance $L$.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
Since the photons do not interact among themselves we assume that the system
is homogeneous, $\mathbf{\Gamma \longrightarrow p}$, \ and the diffusion
matrix reduces to a scalar $D(\mathbf{\Gamma })$, the diffusion coefficient.
Additionally, if there are only hot and cold photons
\begin{equation}
\mathbf{J}\left( \mathbf{p,}t\right) =\widehat{\mathbf{J}}_{C}(t)\delta (%
\mathbf{p}-\mathbf{p}_{C})+\widehat{\mathbf{J}}_{H}(t)\delta (\mathbf{p}-%
\mathbf{p}_{H})\text{ ,} \label{current_pre}
\end{equation}%
\textit{i.e. }the system reaches a state of quasi equilibrium. Thus,
integration of Eq. (\ref{pheno_2}) taking into account Eq. (\ref{current_pre}%
) leads to%
\begin{equation}
\frac{\widehat{J}_{C}(t)}{D_{C}}+\frac{\widehat{J}_{H}(t)}{D_{H}}=-\left[ n(%
\mathbf{p}_{C}\mathbf{,}t)-n(\mathbf{p}_{H}\mathbf{,}t)\right] \text{ \ ,}
\label{current}
\end{equation}%
with $J(t)=\mathbf{u}\cdot \mathbf{J}(t)$ and $\mathbf{u}$ is the unit
vector normal to the walls. Whence, introducing the net current $J(t)$
defined through%
\begin{equation}
\frac{J(t)}{aD_{C}D_{H}}=\frac{\widehat{J}_{C}(t)}{D_{C}}+\frac{\widehat{J}%
_{H}(t)}{D_{H}}\text{ \ ,} \label{current_3}
\end{equation}%
or equivalently
\begin{equation}
J(t)=aD_{H}\widehat{J}_{C}(t)+aD_{C}\widehat{J}_{H}(t)\text{ ,}
\label{current_6}
\end{equation}%
we can rewrite Eq. (\ref{current})%
\begin{equation}
J(t)=-aD_{C}D_{H}\left[ n(\mathbf{p}_{C}\mathbf{,}t)-n(\mathbf{p}_{H}\mathbf{%
,}t)\right] \text{ ,} \label{current_4}
\end{equation}%
\newline
where $a$ is an effective parameter accounting for the dimensionality. Here, term by term comparison of \ Eqs. (\ref{current_6}) and (\ref%
{current_4}) leads to the identification
\begin{align}
\widehat{J}_{C}(t)& =-aD_{C}n(\mathbf{p}_{C}\mathbf{,}t), \label{flow_1} \\
\widehat{J}_{H}(t)& =aD_{H}n(\mathbf{p}_{H}\mathbf{,}t)\text{ \ .}
\label{flow_2}
\end{align}%
Therefore,
\begin{equation}
-D_{H}\widehat{J}_{C}(t)=D_{H}D_{C}n(\mathbf{p}_{C}\mathbf{,}t) \label{one}
\end{equation}%
represents the fraction of photons absorved at the hot wall from the
fraction $J_{C}(t)$ of \ photons emited at the cold wall. In the same way,
\begin{equation}
D_{C}\widehat{J}_{H}(t)=D_{C}D_{H}n(\mathbf{p}_{H}\mathbf{,}t) \label{two}
\end{equation}%
represents the fraction of photons absorved at the cold wall from the
fraction $J_{H}(t)$ of photons emited at the hot wall. \newline
To better illustrate the physics under the nonequilibrium process involving
the photons, we introduce the affinity%
\begin{equation}
A=\mu _{C}-\mu _{H}, \label{affinity}
\end{equation}%
where $\mu _{C}=$ $\mu (\mathbf{p}_{C}\mathbf{,}t)$ and $\mu _{H}=\mu (%
\mathbf{p}_{H}\mathbf{,}t)$, which with the help of Eq. (\ref{chem_pot}),
enables us to rewrite Eq. (\ref{current_4}) as \cite{agusti}
\begin{equation}
J(t)=aD_{C}D_{H}\exp \left( \frac{\mu _{H}}{k_{B}T_{H}}\right) \left( 1-\exp
\left( \frac{A}{k_{B}T_{H}}\right) \exp \left[ \frac{\mu _{H}}{k_{B}}\left(
\frac{1}{T_{C}}-\frac{1}{T_{H}}\right) \right] \right) . \label{current_7}
\end{equation}%
This result shows the nonlinearity inherent to the process involving the radiation since this corresponds to a heat current which does not satisfies the Fourier law.
In general, the diffusion coefficient might depend on the frequency.
However, one can introduce a cut-off \ limit, $\lambda _{T}=c\hslash /k_{B}T$%
, the thermal wavelength of a photon, which marks this dependence. So, for
length scales $L\gg \lambda _{T}$ (\textit{i.e. }high frequencies) we can
treat the photons as point particles, hence in this case we deal with the
free diffusion of point particles for which the diffusion coefficient is
constant. On the other hand, when $L\lesssim \lambda _{T}$ (\textit{i.e. }%
low frequencies) we deal with the problem of cage-diffusion \cite{pusey},
therefore the diffusion coefficient must depend on the ratio $\lambda _{T}/L$
or equivalently on the frequency \cite{agusti3,greffet}.
In the stationary state, the current of photons per unit of volume in phase-space is given by %
\begin{equation}
J_{st}(\omega )=aD_{C}(\omega )D_{H}(\omega )\left[ n(\omega
,T_{H})-n(\omega ,T_{C})\right] \text{ ,} \label{current_2}
\end{equation}%
where%
\begin{equation}
n(\omega ,T)=2\frac{N(\omega ,T)}{h^{3}}, \label{current_21}
\end{equation}%
with $h$ being the Planck constant and $N(\omega ,T)$ the averaged number of
particles in a elementary cell of the phase-space given by the Planck
distribution \cite{pathria}
\begin{equation}
N(\omega ,T)=\frac{1}{\exp \left( \hslash \omega /kT\right) -1}.
\label{planck}
\end{equation}%
In Eq. (\ref{current_21}) the factor 2 comes from the polarization of the
photons. Here, the diffusion constant plays the role of the effective cross
section.
By multiplying Eq. (\ref{current_2}) by $\hslash \omega $ --the energy of a
photon-- and integrating in momentum space we obtain the heat current
\begin{equation}
Q=\int \hslash \omega J_{st}(\omega )d\mathbf{p}, \label{heat_curr}
\end{equation}%
where $\mathbf{p}=\left( \hslash \omega /c\right) \mathbf{\Omega }_{p}$. In
the case $L\gg \lambda _{T}$ , and in an ideal situation, \ we can take $%
D_{C}=D_{H}=D=1$. Thus, with Eq. (\ref{current_21}), Eq. (\ref{heat_curr})
leads to
\begin{equation}
Q=\frac{\hslash }{4\pi ^{3}c^{3}}\int d\omega d\mathbf{\Omega }_{p}\omega
^{3}J_{st}(\omega )=\sigma \left( T_{H}^{4}-T_{C}^{4}\right) \text{ ,}
\label{integra}
\end{equation}%
where we have taken $a=c/4$, with $c$ the velocity of the radiation and $\sigma =\pi ^{2}k_{B}^{4}/60\hslash
^{3}c^{2}$ being the Stefan constantn \cite{pathria}. At equilibrium $T_{H}=T_{C}$, therefore $Q=0$.
For a s-dimensional system, the phase-space is made up of s coordinates and
s conjugated momenta. Hence, the volume of an elementary cell of this
phase-space is $h^{s}$ and now
\begin{equation}
n(\omega ,T)=2\frac{N(\omega ,T)}{h^{s}}. \label{A1}
\end{equation}%
In this case, by integrating over a hypersphere in momentum-space
and assuming that now $a$ is a function of $s$, $a(s)$, it this possible to
obtain%
\begin{equation}
Q=\sigma (s)\left( T_{H}^{s+1}-T_{C}^{s+1}\right) \label{A2}
\end{equation}%
which generalizes results previously derived in Ref. \cite{landsberg}
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have performed a thermodynamic analysis of the radiative
heat exchange between two bodies at different temperatures separated by a
certain distance $L$. We have shown how the Stefan-Bolztmann law can be
generalized to nonequilibrium situations as those in which thermal radiation
is composed by photons emitted at two different temperatures and thus having
different momenta. In the framework of mesoscopic nonequilibrium
thermodynamics based on the Gibb's entropy postulate, we have obtained the
Gibb's equation of thermodynamics which here, describes the local
equilibrium in the phase-space. Then, by means of the usual procedure of
nonequilibrium thermodynamics, from the Gibb's equation we have derived the
Fick's law for the diffusion of photons valid at short time scales.
The exchange of energy is assumed to be due to activated processes related
to reaction rate currents which are derivable in the framework of our
thermodynamic theory. These currents provide us with the rate of absortion
and emission of photons. Since in the stationary state both hot and cold
photons are in local equilibrium, their rates are proportional to the Planck
distribution. Finally, the net current of heat is given through a balance of
these rate currents after integration over frequencies, constituting the
nonequilibrium Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Systems outside equilibrium exhibit peculiar features not observed in an
equilibrium state \cite{dufty}. The results obtained show how
non-equilibirum phenomena taking place in gases composed of quasi-particles,
governed by non-linear laws, can be analyzed by means of the methods of
nonequilibrium thermodynamics applied to the mesoscale. These methods have
been shown to be very useful in the study of activated processes of
different natures \cite{agusti2,lapas2}.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported by the DGiCYT of Spanish Government under Grant No.
FIS2008-04386, and by Brazilian Research Foundation: CNPQ.
|
\section{Introduction}
The wetting behavior of molecular smectic (S) liquid crystals in contact
with a solid substrate \cite{Ocko1,Lucht,Moses,Jin,Lau} or at their vapor-liquid
crystal interfaces \cite{Ocko2,Pershan,Lucht1,Lucht2,Fukuto} has been an active
research area since the 80's. Partial or complete wetting behaviors of the S phase
have been found when the isotropic (I) or nematic (N) phases are stable at bulk.
Some liquid crystals exhibit a sequence of first-order layering transitions
on decreasing the temperature slightly above the IS or NS bulk transition
temperatures \cite{Ocko1,Lucht,Moses,Jin,Lau,Ocko2,Pershan,Lucht1,Lucht2,Fukuto},
indicating that the partial and complete wetting r\'egimes can be mediated by a
finite (or infinite) sequence of stepwise layer-adsorption transitions.
Usually the wetting behavior depends on specific interactions between the
surface and the liquid crystal molecules, and molecular characteristics such as
dipoles or length of alkyl chains. Depending on the strength of the interactions,
solid substrates inducing orientational ordering of molecules may favor partial or
complete wetting of the substrate by the N or S phases when the I phase is stable at
bulk, while those substrates promoting orientational disorder favor partial wetting
behavior.
Freely-suspended smectic films, consisting of a few smectic layers surrounded
by vapor (V), are formed by some liquid crystals and constitute
another example of phase transitions induced by the presence of a surface.
These films exhibit the so-called thinning transitions whereby
the film thickness decreases stepwise as one or several layers (depending
on the film heating rate) melt \cite{Stoebe,Jin2,Demikhov}.
As usual in statistical mechanics, lattice models were the first to be
applied to the study of the surface phase behavior of smectic liquid crystals.
For example, a version of the Lebwohl-Lasher model, extended to include the smectic
phase, was used to study the systematics of layering phenomena
\cite{Pawlowska}.
Density-functional theory (DFT) has been also
successfully applied to the study of the surface phase behavior in
liquid crystals adsorbed on solid substrates.
The extension of the MacMillan theory to non-uniform phases with the inclusion
of surface interaction potentials accounted for layering
and thinning transitions \cite{Selinger,Mirantsev}. However, DFT models
that incorporate repulsive interactions (reflecting molecular volume and shape)
using either the Local- (LDA) \cite{Margarida} of Weighted-Density Approximation
(WDA) \cite{Mederos}, plus anisotropic attractive interactions via a mean-field
approximation, turned out to be more realistic models for the calculation of
surface phase diagrams. This is due to the fact that (i) the liquid
crystal bulk phase behavior (e.g. values of coexistence densities and
orientational order parameters) is better calculated from DFT,
and (ii) interfacial properties, such as the width of the interface or the
oscillatory behavior of the density profiles, are much better accounted
for, due to the proper inclusion of pair correlations between particles.
For example, the wetting behavior of a smectic film in contact with an attractive
wall has been successfully studied in Ref. \cite{Somoza}, where the authors found
complete or partial wetting by smectic depending on the strength of the external potential.
A infinite (complete wetting) or finite (partial wetting) sequence of
layering transitions was found, some of them ending in a prewetting line.
Layering transitions at the V-I interface near the V-I-S triple
point, and thinning transitions in freely-suspended smectic films,
have been successfully studied using similar versions of DFT based on WDA
and perturbation theory \cite{M-R0}.
{Finally, recent theoretical works have applied related models for hard rods
in contact with a wall and/or confined between two walls. These studies were
based on different approximations: Onsager with restricted orientations
\cite{Evans1,Evans2}, Onsager with Parsons-Lee rescaling and free
orientations \cite{Dani0,Dani0a} and also a WDA functional approximation
\cite{Dani1,Dani2}. The surface phase diagram of a fluid of hard
spherocylinders in contact with a single wall promoting different surface
anchoring was analysed in Ref. \cite{Dani0}. In Refs. \cite{Dani1,Dani2}
the surface phase diagram obtained for the confined fluid
includes capillary nematization and
smectization of the fluid, and a sequence of layering transitions of the
confined smectic as the width of the slit pore is changed.}
Practically all the experimental work on the wetting behavior
of liquid crystals has been focused on one-component systems,
the extension to mixtures being a pending issue. Adsorption phenomena in
liquid crystal mixtures have a fundamental interest since bulk
demixing transitions between two phases, at least one of them being smectic,
would add much more complexity to the surface phase behavior.
A recent theoretical work, based on Onsager theory, has analysed the
phase behavior of the I-N interface of binary mixtures of hard spherocylinders
\cite{Shundyak}. Also, the substrate-isotropic interface of a mixture of hard
parallelepipeds has been studied within the Zwanzig approximation \cite{Harnau}. However,
it would be interesting to extend these studies to the high-pressure r\'egime,
where the smectic phase is stable.
One of the aims of the present work is to elucidate the role of the smectic phase
in the interfacial phase behavior of binary mixtures. Recent theoretical
models of mixtures of colloids (spherical or rod-like) and polymers
\cite{Brader,Evans,Roth,Bryk} (based on the model proposed
in Ref. \cite{Bolhuis} or on the recent fundamental-measure
functional for hard-sphere/hard-needle mixtures \cite{Schmidt})
have shown that the entropic character of particle interactions, together
with the coupling between species generated by the external surface potential,
results in a rich phase behavior. For high polymer fugacities, partial wetting
of the interface between the substrate and the fluid poor in colloidal
particles by the fluid rich in colloidal particles was obtained.
In the partial wetting r\'egime, a sequence of up to four
layering transitions was found. At lower fugacities complete wetting is reached
via a first-order wetting transition (located below the critical point). These
results were confirmed by Monte Carlo (MC) simulations \cite{Dijkstra}.
Colloidal rod-like fluids and their mixtures are paradigmatic systems
exhibiting liquid-crystal textures similar to those of molecular fluids,
but the interaction between their components have an entropic origin
due to short-ranged repulsive forces. Intense experimental work on pure
and mixed suspensions has been done in the last two decades, demonstrating
this analogy \cite{Lekker}. Also, recent work has shown the
importance of smectic layering in the kinetics of the NS phase transition in
colloidal rods \cite{Dogic}, confirming the analogy between molecular and
colloidal fluids as regards the surface-enhanced smectic ordering near a bulk
phase transition.
The aim of the present article is to theoretically analyse the surface
phase diagram of a colloidal binary mixture of rods with the same breath
but different lengths $L_i$ ($i=1,2$); in the following we use a length ratio
$s=L_2/L_1=3$, with short species being labelled as 1 and the long species as 2.
Particles interact through a hard repulsive potential and are
constrained to be perfectly aligned along a nematic director, with their main
axes perpendicular to a hard wall (W), thus simulating perfect homeotropic anchoring.
This restriction, which considerably simplifies the model, is valid as long as
one is only interested in the surface phase behavior of particles exhibiting a high
degree of orientational order. The study concerns the
wetting properties of these mixtures when a smectic film partially or
completely wets the WN interface. Our theoretical tool is based on density-functional
theory, more specifically on a recently proposed Fundamental-Measure Functional (FMF)
for binary mixtures of parallel hard cylinders \cite{M-R1}.
{The impact of restricted orientations was analysed by
Shundyak and van Roij in the context of the Onsager theory \cite{SvR}, using the
Zwanzig model (discrete orientations). It
was found to lead to spurious nematic phases with very high orientational
order. Smectic phases were not analysed by Shundyak and van Roij but spurious
smectic phases might well exist in Onsager theory. The parallel particle
approximation implicit in the FMF approach is not expected to lead to any such
anomalous phases, since the FMF theory
contains a much better treatment of correlations, hence
of the ordered phases.}
As we will see later, the surface phase diagram of the model
exhibits three different wetting behaviors depending on
the value of pressure: (i) At high pressure $p$ we find complete wetting by smectic
via an infinite sequence of layering transitions as the nematic binodal of the
bulk NS transition is approached. These layering transitions end in
corresponding surface critical points characterised by values of critical
pressure $p_c^{(n)}$, $n=1,2,...$. (ii) For sufficiently low pressure such that
$p<p_c^{(n)}$, $\forall n$, wetting by the smectic film becomes continuous, with
adsorption coefficients diverging
logarithmically. And (iii) for pressures below the tricritical point,
where the bulk NS transition changes from first to second order,
we find critical adsorption by smectic. In this case a modified adsorption
coefficient diverges logarithmically on approaching the second-order bulk
NS transition. This divergence is a direct consequence of the
NS bulk correlation length diverging at the transition.
The article is organized as follows. Sec. \ref{theory} is devoted to the
presentation of the theoretical model and the numerical details
relevant for the calculation of the bulk (Sec. \ref{bulk0})
and surface phase diagrams (Sec. \ref{w-f}).
In Sec. \ref{results} we present the results obtained from
numerical functional minimization. This section is
divided into Sec. \ref{bulk}, where the phase behavior of this particular mixture
is described, Sec. \ref{layering}, which contains a description of the
layering transitions, and Sec. \ref{wetting}, devoted to the study of the
wetting behavior. Finally some conclusions are drawn in Sec.
\ref{conclusions}. Two appendices are included which contain
mathematical details on the bifurcation analysis (Appendix \ref{bifurca}) and
the derivation of the interfacial Gibbs-Duhem relation with
composition and pressure as independent variables (Appendix \ref{G-D}).
\section{Theoretical Model}
\label{theory}
Our particle model consists of a binary mixture of parallel hard cylinders, with both
species having the same diameter, $D_1=D_2=D$, chosen so as to set the ratio
of transverse particle area and cylinder length squared of the short species
to unity, i.e. $\pi D^2/4L_1^2=1$. This implies a particle aspect ratio of
$L_1/D_1=0.89$. Since we choose a length ratio $s\equiv L_2/L_1=3$, the aspect
ratio of the other particle is $L_2/D_2=2.66$.
As density-functional theory and simulations show, a one-component fluid
of parallel hard cylinders presents a phase sequence nematic-smectic-crystal,
which is independent of the aspect ratio. The smectic phase of freely rotating hard
spherocylinders is known to begin for aspect ratios $\agt 4.1$, and we should expect
a similar behavior for freely rotating hard cylinders. Since the phase behavior of
a binary mixture of parallel particles with identical diameters but different lengths
depends only on the ratio $L_2/L_1$, our model might describe a freely rotating
binary mixture of cylinders with aspect ratios $L_1/D_1>4.1$ and $L_2/L_1=3$,
both of which would have a smectic phase. Therefore, our choice guarantees that, in the
one-component limits, the mixture would possess stable smectic phases at high enough
pressure in the freely-rotating case.
\subsection{Bulk smectic phase}
\label{bulk0}
A fundamental-measure density-functional theory for binary mixtures, in the version
proposed in \cite{M-R1} and tested against MC simulations in \cite{M-R2},
will be used in all calculations.
We will consider a mixture which presents a non-uniform structure along
the $z$ direction. The excess free-energy density reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi L_1^3=n\left\{-\ln\left(1-\eta\right)
+\frac{3\eta}{1-\eta}+\frac{\eta^2}{\left(1-\eta\right)^2}
\right\},
\label{fmt}
\end{eqnarray}
where we drop the $z$-dependence for the sake of convenience and have defined
the weighted densities
\begin{eqnarray}
n(z)&=&\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i}\left[\rho_i^*(z-\kappa_i/2)+\rho_i^*(z+\kappa_i/2)\right],
\label{n0}\\
\eta(z)&=&\sum_{i}\int_{z-\kappa_i/2}^{z+\kappa_i/2}\rho_i^*(z')dz',
\label{n3}
\end{eqnarray}
with $\eta(z)$ the local packing fraction of the mixture. Index $i$ in all sums is
assumed to run for $i=1,2$. We have defined the dimensionless densities
$\rho^*_i(z)=\rho_i(z)L_1^3$, and $z$ coordinates are also in units of $L_1$.
The $\kappa_i$ parameter is the particle length of species $i$ in the same
units. Our choice for $L_i$ gives $\kappa_1=1$ and $\kappa_2=s=3$.
The free-energy functional per unit area can be
calculated as $\beta {\cal F}/A=\int dz \left[\Phi_{\rm{id}}(z)+\Phi(z)\right]$,
with $\beta^{-1}=k_BT$ the inverse thermal energy and
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi_{\rm{id}}(z)=\sum_i \rho_i(z)\left[\ln {\cal V}_i\rho_i(z)-1\right],
\end{eqnarray}
the ideal part of the free-energy density, where ${\cal V}_i$ is the
thermal volume of species $i$. Now we specify for the smectic phase, which is
the lowest symmetry phase considered in this work and has the property
$\rho_i(z+kd)=\rho_i(z)$ (with $d$ the smectic period and $k\in\mathbb{Z}$). The
pressure of the mixture can be calculated as
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\beta pL_1^3=d^{-1}\int_0^d\left\{
\frac{n(z)}{1-\eta(z)}+\frac{3n(z)\eta(z)}{\left[1-\eta(z)\right]^2}
\right.\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{3.8cm}\left.+\frac{2n(z)\eta(z)^2}{\left[1-\eta(z)\right]^3}\right\}dz.
\label{pp}
\end{eqnarray}
During the numerical minimization we have used the following constraints:
(i) the value of the pressure $p$ is fixed, and (ii) the composition of the
mixture, $x\equiv x_1=\rho_1/\rho$, is also set in advance. Here $\rho=\rho_1+\rho_2$ is
the total mean density (calculated from the constant-pressure constraint),
while $\rho_i=d^{-1}\int_0^d \rho_i(z)dz$ is the mean
density of the $i$-th species. The Gibbs free-energy functional
per particle, defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta g[\rho_1,\rho_2]=\rho^{-1}\left\{
d^{-1}\int_0^d\left[\Phi_{\rm{id}}(z)+\Phi(z)\right]dz +
\beta p\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
has been minimized with respect to the densities $\rho_i(z)$. We do this
numerically by first discretising the densities, defining a grid with points
$z_k=z_0+k\Delta$ ($k=0,...,N$), and then minimising the function
$g(\boldsymbol{\rho}_1,\boldsymbol{\rho}_2)$ with respect to the components
of the vectors
$\boldsymbol{\rho}_i=\left[\rho_i(z_0),\cdots,\rho_i(z_N)\right]$, and
also with respect to $d$, using a conjugate-gradient algorithm. $N$ is
the number of grid intervals. The width of the intervals
was taken to be $\Delta/L_1=0.01$, and $N\Delta=md$, where $m$ is the number
of smectic periods within the minimization box. Varying $x$ between 0 and 1 and using
the common-tangent construction for the function $\beta g(x)$, we have
calculated the coexistence values for $x$ and $\rho$. Repeating the above
procedure for different pressures, we obtained the demixing binodals.
When the NS transition is of the second order, one can use a bifurcation
analysis to find the total packing fraction $\eta=\sum_i\rho_i^* \kappa_i$
and the smectic period $d$ at bifurcation {(the local and total packing
fractions are equal in the nematic phase. In the smectic
phase the average of the local fraction $\eta(z)$ over one period gives the
total packing fraction $\eta$)}. Also, with
the aim to check the relative stability of the S with respect
to the columnar (C) phase, we extended the bifurcation analysis
to include the columnar symmetry. For this purpose we need
to solve the following set of equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}({\bf q},\eta)=0, \quad \boldsymbol{\nabla} {\cal H}({\bf q},\eta)=0,
\label{set}
\end{eqnarray}
where the wave vectors ${\bf q}=({\bf 0},q)$ and ${\bf q}=({\bf q}_{\perp},0)$
are appropriate for the S and C symmetries, respectively. These equations have
to be solved for the absolute minimum of ${\cal H}({\bf q},\eta)\equiv
\text{det}[H({\bf q},\eta)]$ as a function of ${\bf q}$, with
$H({\bf q},\eta)$ a $2\times 2$ matrix defined by the elements
\begin{eqnarray}
H({\bf q},\eta)=
\left(
\begin{matrix}
1-\rho_1\hat{c}_{11}({\bf q},\eta) & -\rho_1\hat{c}_{12}({\bf q},\eta)\\\\
-\rho_2\hat{c}_{12}({\bf q},\eta) & 1-\rho_2\hat{c}_{22}({\bf q},\eta)
\end{matrix}
\right),
\end{eqnarray}
with $\hat{c}_{ij}({\bf q},\eta)$ the Fourier transforms of the direct
correlation functions calculated from the second functional derivatives
of the free energy functional $\beta {\cal F}[\{\rho_i\}]$ with respect to
$\rho_i({\bf r})$ and $\rho_j({\bf r}')$. Expressions for
these functions and explicit results for the NS and NC spinodals can be found
in Appendix \ref{bifurca}.
\subsection{Wall-fluid interface}
\label{w-f}
The aim is to calculate the equilibrium density profiles of the two species
in the presence of a hard wall. The wall is located at $z=0$
{and the long axes of cylinders are perpendicular to the
wall. Thus, perfect homeotropic alignment of the nematic director is assumed.
This model may apply to experimental systems where homeotropic anchoring is
forced by surface treatment \cite{Vaughn,Yi,Zhao,Beica} or by the application of an external field
(see \cite{Chaikin} for an example on colloidal discs).
The values of the chemical potentials of the two components, $\mu_i$, will be fixed,
which means that the conditions of the bulk fluid, far from the wall,
will be specified in advance
and maintained fixed during the minimisation. We minimise
the grand potential functional per unit area,
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Omega[\{\rho_i\}]}{A}=\frac{{\cal F}[\{\rho_i\}]}{A}+
\sum_i\int\left[v_i(z)-\mu_i\right]\rho_i(z) dz,
\end{eqnarray}
with respect to the density profiles $\rho_i(z)$. The external potentials are
defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta v_i(z)=\left\{
\begin{matrix}
\infty, & z\leq L_i/2,\\\\
0, & z>L_i/2,
\end{matrix}
\right.\hspace{0.4cm}i=1,2.
\end{eqnarray}
To numerically implement the minimization we proceed
by first choosing values for the pressure $p$ and the composition of the mixture at
bulk, $x$, and from here calculating the chemical potentials $\mu_i$ and the
dimensionless total density $\rho^*=\rho L_1^3$ at an infinite distance from the wall,
using the following expressions, which apply to the bulk nematic phase:
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta pL_1^3&=&\frac{\rho^*(1+\eta)}{(1-\eta)^3},
\label{press}
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta \mu_i&=&\ln x_i+\ln\left(\frac{\rho^*}{1-\eta}\right)
+\frac{\eta(3-2\eta)}{(1-\eta)^2}\nonumber\\\nonumber\\
&+&\frac{\rho^*(4-3\eta+\eta^2)}{(1-\eta)^3}\kappa_i,
\quad i=1,2.\label{chepo}
\end{eqnarray}
The implicit Eqn. (\ref{press}) has to be solved iteratively to obtain $\rho^*$.
In the minimisation the usual boundary conditions at a large distance $H$ from
the wall, $\rho_i(H)=x_i \rho$, have to be imposed. $H$, the width
of the minimization box, is chosen in such a way as to guarantee
that the structure of the WN interface can be accommodated within the box
and at the same time the boundary conditions are satisfied.
Finally, the surface tension of the interface is calculated as
$\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WN}}=\Omega[\{\rho_i^{(e)}\}]/A+pH$,
with $\rho_i^{(e)}$ the equilibrium density profiles.
One of our aims is to obtain the wetting behaviour of the mixture when
nematic conditions are fixed at bulk and the NS demixing transition is
approached. This means that we need to calculate the surface tension of the
WS interface for values of the chemical potentials $\mu_i$ corresponding to
NS coexistence. Therefore $\mu_i$ can be calculated from Eqn. (\ref{chepo}).
However, if the bulk phase is a smectic, and consequently the density profiles
are not uniform in bulk, the boundary conditions depend on the particular
value of $H$ chosen, which considerably complicates the numerical minimization.
To avoid this problem, we choose to define a symmetric box by using the following
external potentials:
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta v_i(z)=
\left\{
\begin{matrix}
\infty, & z\leq L_i/2,\\\\
0, & L_i/2<z<H-L_i/2,\\\\
\infty, & z\geq H-L_i/2.
\end{matrix}
\right.
\end{eqnarray}
We minimize $\Omega[\{\rho_i\}]$ with respect to $\rho_i(z)$ by choosing $H$ large
enough to accommodate two WS interfaces. However, due to long-ranged
commensuration effects generated by the confinement of a layered phase with
period $d$ in a slit of width $H$, the minimized grand potential
exhibits an oscillatory behavior as a function of $H$, with an asymptotically
decaying amplitude. To overcome this problem, we defined the curve obtained from
the local minima of $\Omega[\{\rho_i^{(e)}\}]/A$ and extrapolated to $H\to\infty$
to obtain the value of $2\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WS}}$
(i.e. two times the surface tension of the WS interface).
To find the surface tension of the NS interface we followed a similar
procedure: we defined a box of width $H$ with boundary conditions
$\rho_i(0)=\rho_i(H)=\rho_i^{(\hbox{\tiny N})}$ (the densities of the bulk nematic phase
coexisting with smectic) at both ends of the box. Choosing an initial guess for
$\rho_i(z)$, $0<z<H$ (close to the profiles of the coexisting bulk smectic phase),
we minimized the grand potential to obtain $2\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny NS}}$ (i.e. two times the
surface tension of the NS interface). Again the value of $H$ has to be large enough
to accommodate two NS interfaces. Having the surface tensions of all the three
different interfaces, one can study the wetting behavior of the system, which is
discussed in Sec. \ref{wetting}.
Adsorption coefficients will also be used as a convenient measure of the wetting
and adsorption properties of the WN interface. The adsorption coefficients of both
species are defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_i=\int_0^H\left[\rho_i(z)-\rho_i^{(\hbox{\tiny N})}
\right]dz,\hspace{0.4cm}i=1,2.
\label{Ads}
\end{eqnarray}
In Appendix \ref{G-D} a derivation is presented of the interfacial Gibbs-Duhem
relation expressed in terms of the independent variables $x$ and $p$.
Using this equation, a relation between the derivative of
$\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WN}}$ with respect to the composition
variable $x$ and the adsorption coefficients can be obtained:
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta\frac{d\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WN}}}{dx}={\cal U}(x,p)\left(\frac{\Gamma_2}{1-x}
-\frac{\Gamma_1}{x}\right),
\label{relation}
\end{eqnarray}
where ${\cal U}(x,p)$, a function of bulk composition and pressure, is always
positive if the binary mixture is stable against NN demixing. This relation has
been tested (see Appendix \ref{G-D}) to check for consistency of our numerical
minimization procedure. Also, the sum rule relating the bulk pressure with the
densities at the wall (contact theorem), $\beta p=\rho_1(L_1/2)+\rho_2(L_2/2)$, which
is automatically satisfied by the functional, provides another
check for numerical accuracy. For example, for a mixture with bulk pressure
$\beta pL_1^3=1$ and composition $x=0.82$, we obtain
$(\rho_1(L_1/2)+\rho_2(L_2/2))L_1^3=0.994$, $0.997$ and $0.999$ for values of the
discretisation interval along the $z$ axis of $\Delta L_1^{-1}=0.0100$, $0.0050$
and $0.0025$, respectively (obviously, in the limit where $\Delta z\to 0$, the sum
rule becomes exact).
\section{Results}
\label{results}
This section is devoted to the presentation of the results obtained from
our theoretical model. It is divided into three different sections.
In Sec. \ref{bulk} we present and describe the main features of
the bulk phase diagram. Secs. \ref{layering} and \ref{wetting} are
devoted to the layering transitions and to the wetting behavior, respectively.
\subsection{Bulk phase diagram}
\label{bulk}
The bulk phase diagram of the binary mixture, shown in Fig. \ref{fig1},
has been calculated using bifurcation analysis and density-functional minimization,
as described in Sec. \ref{bulk0}. Two NS spinodals (dashed curves in
Fig. \ref{fig1}), calculated from the bifurcation analysis, depart from the
one-component limits $x=0$ and $x=1$ (where, as defined above, $x$ is
the composition of the mixture as given by the fraction of short particles).
The values of pressure in both
spinodals increase as the composition of the mixture becomes farther from these
limits, indicating that the two species cannot be easily accommodated into a smectic
arrangement. The spinodal lines end in a tricritical point (filled circle) and a
critical end point (filled square), respectively.
Functional minimization indicates that the Gibbs free energy
of the smectic phase is always a convex function of composition $x$ in
the neighbourhood of (and above) these lines, which proves that the NS
transition is of second order, with
the smectic order parameter increasing from zero at the bifurcation. For pressures
above the tricritical point but below the critical end point,
the mixture segregates into a smectic phase rich in the
long species and a nematic phase rich in the short species.
Two different smectic phases occur in the region of smectic stability.
These phases are distinguished by the relative location of the density peaks of the
two species. In the smectic phase labelled as S$_1$ the profiles are in phase,
with density peaks of the two species
located at the same positions, which define the location of
the smectic layers. In the phase called S$_2$ the density profiles are out of
phase, forming alternating smectic layers: this phase exhibits
microfractionation \cite{Koda,Giorgio1,Giorgio2}.
The smectic mixtures with a higher fraction of species 1 (the short component)
are denoted with a prime in Fig. \ref{fig1}. Examples of density profiles
corresponding to these two smectic phases are shown in Figs. \ref{fig2}(a)-(d).
Several regions of smectic coexistence exist in the mixture: S$_1$-S$_2$ in a
narrow pressure interval between a critical and a triple point,
S$_1^{\prime}$-S$_2^{\prime}$ in a corresponding interval between critical and
triple points, and S$_1$-S$_1^{\prime}$ and S$_1$-S$_2^{\prime}$ coexistences
at high pressure (triple points have been indicated by horizontal dashed lines
in the figure).
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig1.eps,width=3.in}
\caption{(Colour online).
Bulk phase diagram of the binary mixture of parallel hard cylinders
in the reduced
pressure $\beta pL_1^3$--composition $x$ plane (with $x=x_1$, the fraction
of short particles). Dashed curves represent second-order NS
transitions, while solid lines are the binodals of the NS or SS demixing
transitions. The shaded area is the region of instability. Stability regions
of nematic and different smectic phases are denoted by letters (see text).
Colour lines indicate the conjectured wetting behaviour along the
NS lines: critical adsorption
(red), complete wetting by S$_2$ smectic phase without layering transitions (blue),
and complete wetting by S$_1$ phase mediated by layering transitions (green).
{Circles: critical points. Square: critical end-point. Triangle: tricritical point.}}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
{We now comment on the possible stability of the columnar
phase. A complete calculation of the stability of the columnar phase
by free-energy minimisation is, at present, a highly difficult task.
The difficulties stem from the computation of two-particle weighted
densities \cite{M-R1}. Therefore, we have implemented a bifurcation
analysis, which gives the conditions under which the nematic phase
becomes unstable with respect to columnar-like fluctuations.}
As shown in Appendix \ref{bifurca}, the NC spinodal, signalling the instability
of the nematic phase against columnar-like fluctuations, is always
located above the NS spinodal for all values of composition. This is an
indication that at least part of the phases depicted in the phase diagram
of Fig. \ref{fig1} could be stable, {and that the surface
behaviour to be described below could represent the real surface behaviour of
the model. However, one has to be cautious, since a first-order
nematic-columnar and/or smectic-columnar phase transition could be
greatly displaced with respect to the spinodal lines.
Experimentally, rod-like colloidal particles always have some degree of
polydispersity. Diameter polydispersity would tend to destabilise the
columnar phase against the smectic phase, while breadth polydispersity
would have the opposite effect \cite{Poly}. The final balance may
depend on several effects in a delicate manner.
Therefore, one has to be cautious until the following aspects are considered:
(i) particle polydispersity in length and breadth, and (ii) full
minimization of the density
functional with respect to density profiles having columnar symmetry.
We do not pursue this analysis here, which is left for future work.}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig2a.eps,width=1.65in}
\epsfig{file=Fig2b.eps,width=1.65in}
\caption{Density profiles of (a) S$_1$, (b) S$_2$, (c) S$_2^{\prime}$ (c), and (d)
S$_1^{\prime}$ phases in one smectic period. Values of smectic period
are: (a) $d/L_1=3.495$, (b) 3.835, (c) 1.433, and (d)
1.237. In all figures solid and dashed curves correspond to species 2 and 1,
respectively. Values of reduced pressure and composition, $(\beta pL_1^3,x)$, are:
(a) $(1.20,0.06)$, (b) $(1.04,0.28)$, (c) $(1.75,0.83)$, and (d) $(1.75,0.88)$.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Layering transitions}
\label{layering}
In this section, which constitutes the cornerstone of the present work, we
present a detailed study of the layering transitions in the mixture. The stable
bulk phase (in the region infinitely away from the wall) will be chosen to
be a nematic phase, characterised by particular values of pressure and composition.
We first consider the case where the pressure is given a value $\beta pL_1^3=1.30$
and the bulk composition $x$ is decreased from a high value close to unity.
As the nematic branch of the NS$_1$ binodal is approached, a sequence of layering
transitions is found. At each of these transitions a new smectic layer, mostly
composed of particles
of the long species, appears through a first-order (interfacial) phase transition.
This is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig3}, where four equilibrium WN interfaces
containing 0, 1, 2 and 3 smectic layers composed (essentially) of particles of
species 2 are shown. These structures will be denoted by WN$_i$, with $i$ the number
of adsorbed layers.
The structure of the WN$_0$ interface is interesting. Right at the wall
there is a mixture of highly localised long and short particles with
similar densities. For increasing distance from the wall
the density structure becomes much weaker
[see Fig. \ref{fig3}(a)]. At the first (WN$_0$-WN$_1$) layering transition,
the wall becomes fully covered by long particles and a single very high density
peak appears [Fig. \ref{fig3}(b)]. On further decreasing $x$, the system exhibits
a sequence of phase transitions, WN$_i$-WN$_{i+1}$,
each involving the addition of a further highly
localised peak of the long particles. At $x=x_{\rm{coex}}=0.6115$
(the composition of
the bulk nematic phase coexisting with the S$_1$ phase at bulk), the wall is
completely wet by the S$_1$ phase, which means that a macroscopically thick
smectic film (consisting of an essentially infinite number of smectic layers) is
interposed between the wall and the nematic phase. We have found up to 12
layering
transitions as $x\to x_{\rm{coex}}$ with $x>x_{\rm{coex}}$.
Access to higher-order layering transitions was not possible within the
accuracy of our numerical procedure.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig3.eps,width=3.4in}
\caption{Density profiles of species 1 (dashed line) and 2 (solid line) for
$\beta pL_1^3=1.30$ and (a) $x=0.6800$, (b) $0.6400$, (c) $0.61400$
and (d) $0.6120$ (coexistence value of composition is $x_{\rm coex}=0.6115$).
The symbol WN$_i$ ($i=1,2,3...$) denotes the interfacial structure
containing $i$ adsorbed layers.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
In Fig. \ref{fig4} the behavior of the WN surface tension
$\gamma=\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WN}}$,
as a function of composition, is shown. The location of the WN$_{i-1}$--WN$_i$
layering transition is obtained from the intersection of the surface tensions
corresponding to the two structures. The surface tension of the
WN$_0$ structure, shown in the inset, is somewhat peculiar: just before
the WN$_0$--WN$_1$ layering transition, the surface tension exhibits a maximum.
This behavior can be explained by resorting to Eqn. (\ref{relation})
and noting that the surface tension slope is exactly zero
at $x^*=\Gamma_1/(\Gamma_1+\Gamma_2)
=\overline{\rho}_1/(\overline{\rho}_1+\overline{\rho}_2)$, where
$\overline{\rho}_i=H^{-1}\int_0^H\rho_i(z)dz$, i.e. when the composition
of the mixture at bulk coincides with its interfacial value.
If $x>x^*$, i.e. when the interfacial composition is lower than the bulk
value, the slope of the surface tension is positive, while the opposite
occurs for $x<x^*$.
The adsorption coefficients $\Gamma_i$, defined in (\ref{Ads}),
are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig5} as a function of $x$. As can be seen, $\Gamma_2$ abruptly increases at the layering
transitions while $\Gamma_1$ abruptly decreases, i.e. the WN interface
exhibits adsorption of the long species and desorption of the small species.
This is the natural interfacial path that connects a nematic phase located
far from the wall, and rich in short particles, with a smectic film located
next to the wall, and rich in long species, as $x\to x_{\rm{coex}}$.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig4.eps,width=3.in}
\caption{Surface tension of the wall-nematic interface
versus composition $x-x_{\rm{coex}}$ for reduced pressure $\beta pL_1^3=1.3$.
Symbols WN$_i$ denote the different
branches corresponding to wall-nematic interfaces containing $i$ adsorbed
smectic layers. The inset shows the surface tensions for the
WN$_0$-WN$_1$ surface phase transition.}
\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
Repeating the same calculations, but at a lower value of pressure,
$\beta pL_1^3=1.15$, we find that the first two layering transitions
disappear, while the higher-order transitions WN$_{i-1}$--WN$_i$, with $i>2$,
remain. Fig. \ref{fig6}(b)
shows that, although the WN$_0$--WN$_1$ and WN$_1$--WN$_2$
transitions are absent, the adsorption coefficients significantly increase
in the neighborhood of the transition points corresponding to a higher
pressure. This behavior is consistent with the occurrence of critical
points for the WN$_0$--WN$_1$ and WN$_1$--WN$_2$ transitions at critical
pressures in the interval $1.15<\beta pL_1^3<1.30$.
Fig. \ref{fig6}(a) shows a partial sequence of layering transitions
involving up to 12 surface layers (the maximum number that our
numerical scheme can deal with). It is reasonable to think that the
layering transitions will continue up to the bulk transition in
infinite number (complete wetting scenario).
A surface
phase diagram that includes the first four layering transitions is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig7}. The following trends can be extracted from the figure:
(i) all layering transition curves approach the nematic binodal as
the pressure is increased (for a number of layers $>5$ the curves are
too close to the nematic binodal and are not visible in the figure);
(ii) the critical points, where layering transitions terminate,
move to lower pressures as the number of layers increases for $i\ge 2$.
It is interesting to note that the critical point of the WN$_0$--WN$_1$
transition is located below that of the WN$_1$--WN$_2$ transition; this
feature is related to the strong ordering of the WN interface
just before the WN$_0$--WN$_1$ transition. In any case, layering
transitions terminate at pressures where the bulk NS demixing transition
becomes weak or disappears, i.e. when $\beta pL_1^2\simeq 1$.
We note that, depending on the wetting scenario for the WS$_2^{\prime}$
interface, the layering transition curves could or could not continue
above the NS$_2^{\prime}$ spinodal; for example, the wetting r\'egime
could change to a partial wetting r\'egime, similar to that
found in Ref. \cite{Somoza}. Since interfacial calculations with
a bulk smectic phase are difficult, we have not carried out this
programme in the present work.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig5a.eps,width=1.65in}
\epsfig{file=Fig5b.eps,width=1.65in}
\caption{Adsorption coefficients of (a) species 1, (b) species 2,
as a function of composition $x-x_{\rm{coex}}$ (in logarithmic scale). Dotted lines
indicate the transition points between two equilibrium interfaces.
The value of the reduced pressure is $\beta pL_1^3=1.3$. Labels indicate
the number of layers of the structures involved in each layering
transition.}
\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig6.eps,width=3.25in}
\caption{(a) Adsorption coefficient of species 2 as a function of
$x-x_{\rm{coex}}$ (in logarithmic scale). Equilibrium structures are
represented by continuous curves, while dashed vertical lines
indicate layering transitions (metastability branches
are not meant to be complete). (b) A zoom showing the first two layering
transitions (in this case adsorption of the first two layers does not proceed
via surface phase transitions). The pressure is fixed at $\beta pL_1^3=1.15$.
Labels indicate the number of layers of the structures involved in each layering
transition.}
\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
Next we briefly discuss the transition strength along
the layering transition curves. In Fig. \ref{fig8} the gap in the adsorption
coefficient of species 2 at coexistence of the WN$_{i-1}$ and WN$_{i}$
structures, $\Delta\Gamma_2^{(i)}
=\Gamma_2^{(\hbox{\tiny WN}_{i})}-\Gamma_2^{(\hbox{\tiny WN}_{i-1})}$, is plotted
as a function of composition along the layering
transition curves and for various indices $i$.
The general trend observed is that, as more layers get
involved, the transition becomes stronger (i.e. the
gap at coexistence is larger). As the index $i$ of the layering
transition increases, the gap $\Delta\Gamma_2^{(i)}$ tends to saturate,
corresponding to the fact that the additional layers adsorbed do not
feel the effect of the wall and therefore contribute to the adsorption
coefficient with a constant quantity.
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig7.eps,width=2.75in}
\caption{Layering transitions (solid curves)
between WN$_{i-1}$ and WN$_i$ interfacial structures (with $i$ the number of
adsorbed layers) in the reduced pressure--composition plane.
The critical points of the transitions
are shown with open circles. Dashed line is the NS$_2^{\prime}$
second order transition.}
\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig8.eps,width=3.0in}
\caption{Coexistence gap of the adsorption coefficient of the
second species, $\Delta\Gamma_2^{(i)}$, at the WN$_{i-1}$--WN$_{i}$
layering transitions as a function of composition and for various
indices $i$. Symbols refer to layering transitions WN$_0$--WN$_1$ (circles),
WN$_1$--WN$_2$ (stars), WN$_2$--WN$_3$ (squares) and
WN$_3$--WN$_4$ (triangles).}
\label{fig8}
\end{figure}
We end this section with a comment on the origin of the layering
transitions. As shown in \cite{M-R3}, two-dimensional
one-component hard-rod fluids in contact with a hard wall do not exhibit
layering transitions even though the bulk transition is of first order \cite{M-R2}.
This is also probably the case in the corresponding three-dimensional fluid,
although we have not performed explicit calculations for the current model.
Therefore, one tentative explanation for the phenomenology found in the mixture
is that layering transitions are due to the entropic coupling between the two
species mediated by the hard wall: next to the wall, where particle densities are
high, both species compete for the gain in entropic volume. Just above the layering
transition, a mixed layer packs less efficiently, and short particles are
abruptly depleted from that region, with the subsequent abrupt increase in
long particles. This conclusion would not be affected by the discovery of layering
transitions in the calculations of Somoza et al. \cite{Somoza}, who use
particles with additional soft, temperature-driven interactions; in this fluid
the mechanism behind the layering transitions would be completely different.
A look at the structure of the density profiles of the
WN$_0$ interface [Fig. \ref{fig3}(a)] can help us understand this effect
from a different perspective.
The density maxima of the two species are clearly separated, due to the
different lengths of the particles (density is maximum exactly at contact
with the wall). However, the maxima of the bulk smectic phase are in phase
(S$_1$ smectic). It is only because a sharp change in the interfacial
structure occurs, via a first-order layering transition, that the
interface can relax to a structure compatible with that in the bulk, i.e.
with the correct relative phase. This mechanism operates even for structures
WN$_i$ with large $i$, when the effect of the wall is not crucial,
because the density maxima of the two species, in the region between
the already-formed
smectic layers and the nematic, are always displaced one with respect
to the other. At lower pressures, such that the bulk smectic phase is
S$_2$, there is no such incompatibility between the bulk structure and
the structure imposed by the wall, and the layering transitions vanish.
\subsection{Wetting behavior}
\label{wetting}
To obtain a global picture of the wetting behavior of the mixture, we have
concentrated on four different values of reduced pressure: $\beta pL_1^3=1.25$
and $1.30$ (located above the bulk triple point, see Fig. \ref{fig1}), $1.00$
(below the triple point and above the tricritical point), and $0.495$
(below the tricritical point). In the first two cases we have found the
phenomenology described in Sec. \ref{layering}, i.e. an infinite sequence of
layering transitions leading to complete wetting of the WN interface by the S$_1$ phase.
Using the procedures described in Sec. \ref{w-f}, we have calculated
the surface tensions of the WN, WS$_1$ and NS$_1$ interfaces for
$x=x_{\rm{coex}}$, which are necessary to
discuss the wetting behaviour. Their values are collected in Table \ref{tab1}.
As corresponds to complete wetting by the S$_1$ phase, the surface
tensions fulfill Young's law
$\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WS$_1$}}=\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WN}}+
\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny NS$_1$}}$ (the value of $\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WN}}$
at $x=x_{\rm{coex}}$ can be computed by extrapolation
of $\gamma_{\hbox{\tiny WN}_i}$ with $i\to\infty$. In
practice $i=32$ already gives enough accuracy to assess the wetting
behaviour. Note that, in these cases, all the WN$_i$ structures are
metastable and can be stabilised, even at coexistence, under conditions
of complete wetting, i.e. when the absolute free-energy minimum actually
corresponds to $i=\infty$).
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{||cccccc||}
\hline
\hline
$\beta pL_1^3$ & $x_{\rm coex}$ & $\gamma_{\rm{WS_j}}^*$ &
$\gamma_{\rm{NS_j}}^*$ &
$\gamma_{\rm{WN}}^*$ & $\gamma_{\rm{WS_j}}^*+\gamma_{\rm{NS_j}}^*$\\
\hline
1.300 & 0.61150 & 0.121166 & 0.061370 & 0.182535 & 0.182536\\
1.250 & 0.58231 & 0.122408 & 0.055451 & 0.177859 & 0.177859\\
1.000 & 0.43815 & 0.155570 & 0.001243 & 0.156822 & 0.156813\\
0.495 & 0.10000$^{*}$ & 0.181061& -- & 0.181061 & --\\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Reduced surface tensions $\gamma^*=\beta\gamma L_1^2$
of the WS$_j$, WN and NS$_j$ interfaces for different values of the reduced
pressure. Here $j=1,2$ depending on the nature of the smectic phase.
$^*$ indicates value at spinodal.}
\label{tab1}
\end{table}
The wetting behavior for $\beta pL_1^3=1.00$ is similar to that found
in \cite{Dani2} and \cite{M-R3} for one-component hard-rod systems:
the thickness of the smectic film adsorbed at the WN interface grows
continuously as $x\to x_{\rm{coex}}$ and diverges at the bulk transition.
This behavior is illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig9}, where four density
profiles for values of composition very close to the bulk transition
are shown. In this case layering transitions are completely absent;
adsorption coefficients $\Gamma_i$ as a function of $x$ do not exhibit
any discontinuity (Fig. \ref{fig10}), but diverge logarithmically as
$x\to x_{\rm{coex}}$. Young's law for complete wetting is also fulfilled
within the numerical accuracy that could be achieved in this case
(see Table \ref{tab1}). In this case the surface tension
$\gamma_{\rm{NS_1}}$ is very small and is subject to higher uncertainties
(the value of $\gamma_{\rm{WN}}$ was obtained by extrapolation to
coexistence, $x\to x_{\rm coex}$).
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig9.eps,width=3.4in}
\caption{Density profiles of species 1 (solid line) and 2 (dashed line)
of the WN interface at bulk pressure $\beta pL_1^3=1.00$ and values
of composition (a)
$\Delta x=x-x_{\rm{coex}}=3.2\times 10^{-2}$, (b) $1.3\times 10^{-3}$,
(c) $3.2\times 10^{-4}$ and (d) $6.4\times 10^{-5}$. The first and,
except in (a), the second density peaks are truncated due to the
small scale of the vertical axis.}
\label{fig9}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig10.eps,width=2.7in}
\caption{ Adsorption coefficients of species 2 (a) and 1 (b) as a
function of composition (in logarithmic scale) near the wetting transition.
The reduced bulk pressure is $\beta pL_1^3=1.0$.}
\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
Next we discuss the equilibrium density profiles of
the WN interface at a pressure $\beta pL_1^3=0.495$ (i.e. below the
tricritical point) and, more specifically,
the behavior of the adsorption coefficients as the
bulk NS spinodal is approached. Let $x^*$ be the composition of the
spinodal at a given pressure. Since the NS transition is of second order,
we should find critical adsorption, similar to that
occurring at the liquid-vapour critical point where the adsorption
diverges logarithmically as dictated by mean-field theory.
Far from the wall and close to the bulk spinodal, the WN interface
exhibits oscillations with a period $d^*$ (the smectic period at bifurcation).
Thus, the deviation of density profiles from their bulk values is better
accounted for by the quantity $|\rho_i(z)-\rho_i|$ (the analogue of the
order parameter in the anti-ferromagnetic Ising model), and it is
convenient to define modified adsorption coefficients as
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_i^*=\int_0^H|\rho_i(z)-\rho_i|dz.
\end{eqnarray}
The behaviors of $\Gamma_2$ and $\Gamma_2^*$ as a function of $x-x^*$
are illustrated in Fig. \ref{fig11}. It can be seen from the figure
that, while $\Gamma_2$ seems to reach a plateau as $x\to x^*$,
the modified coefficient $\Gamma_2^*$ diverges logarithmically as
predicted by mean-field theory for a critical adsorption phenomenon \cite{comment}.
The value of the plateau is difficult to determine due to the huge values of $H$
required to accommodate the weakly damped interfacial oscillations that
extend very far from the wall when $x\sim x^*$. The range of these oscillations
is of the order of the smectic bulk correlation length, which diverges at
$x=x^*$. Finally, we have checked that the system also exhibits
critical adsorption in the neighbourhood of the NS$^{\prime}$
spinodal curve (at higher pressure and composition).
\begin{figure}
\epsfig{file=Fig11a.eps,width=1.6in}
\epsfig{file=Fig11b.eps,width=1.5in}
\caption{The original (a) and modified (b) adsorption coefficients of
second species as a function of bulk composition near the NS second order
transition at $\beta pL_1^3=0.495$. In (a) the curve is a guide to the eye.
In (b) the line is a {logarithmic fit.}}
\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
We end this section with a discussion on the impact of the parallel-particle
approximation on the wetting behaviour. Complete wetting (either continuous
or via a sequence of layering transitions) of a hard wall by a binary mixture
of hard particles is governed by two factors: (i) the effective entropic
interactions between particles and the wall, and (ii) the distance of the bulk
state point from the demixing binodal. Since both the free- and
restricted-orientations models contain these two features, we only expect quantitative
deviations between the two as far as the wetting behaviour is concerned.
The situation with respect to the critical adsorption phenomenon is different, because
this is due to the second-order character of the nematic-smectic transition, which may
become weakly first order for small perturbations of particle orientations with respect
to perfect alignment. In a model with free orientations the critical adsorption
behaviour could be superseded by complete (continuous) wetting.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclusions}
In this work we have studied the surface adsorption phenomena of a
liquid-crystal colloidal mixture that has a stable smectic phase at
moderate pressures. The mixture is described by means of a very simple model
consisting of perfectly aligned hard particles, while the substrate
is a hard wall inducing perfect homeotropic anchoring and nematic boundary
conditions far from the wall are chosen. Even with these simple
assumptions, the bulk and surface phase diagrams are so rich that
we have concentrated only on the analysis of a single mixture with
length ratio $s=L_2/L_1=3$. The theoretical tool used is a recently
developed fundamental-measure density functional for mixtures of
parallel cylinders \cite{M-R1}.
We have found a bulk phase diagram with second order NS transitions
at low pressures, followed by NS demixing above a tricritical point.
In the low and high composition regions of the phase diagram two
critical points exist, above which two smectic phases, one of them
micro-fractionated, coexist. Coexistence is ended by corresponding
triple points at higher pressures. At the highest pressures investigated
smectic demixing is found, with each smectic rich in
one of the species. A bifurcation analysis corroborates that the NC
spinodal is always above the NS spinodal, but does not completely
clarify the question about the absolute stability of the smectic
against the columnar phases. In any case, we do not expect the
NS, and possibly also the SS, demixing transitions to be preempted by the
columnar phase at low pressures.
The surface phase diagram has three different wetting r\'egimes.
The first one, located below the tricritical point, exhibits critical
adsorption as the composition of the bulk nematic phase approaches the
NS spinodal. In the second r\'egime, located approximately
above the tricritical point and below the triple point
(the exact boundaries would require further analysis), there exists
complete wetting of the
substrate by a smectic film whose thickness diverges logarithmically as
$x\to x_{\rm{coex}}$. Finally, the third r\'egime is located above the
triple point and is characterized by the presence of layering transitions
that ultimately lead to complete wetting. A previous
theoretical study of one-component hard-rod fluids using a density
functional model
\cite{Somoza} found layering phenomena in the semi-infinite system due
to strong attractive interactions between the wall and the fluid particles.
By contrast, layering transitions in hard-rod liquid-crystal mixtures adsorbed on
a hard wall, as shown in the present study, is a direct consequence of the
wall-mediated entropic interaction between the two species.
We expect that the present work serves as a starting point to initiate
experimental studies on the surface phase behavior of liquid-crystal
colloidal mixtures consisting of particles that interact through
short-ranged repulsive forces, and having a stable bulk smectic phase.
These experiments could be guided by the phenomenology
found in the present study. Our future theoretical studies will analyse
the adsorption phenomenology of films in the neighbourhood of
the bulk triple point, a challenging problem that could provide
further interesting phenomena.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We gratefully acknowledge financial support from Comunidad
Aut\'onoma de Madrid (Spain)
under grants NANOFLUID, MOSAICO and
S-0505/ESP-0299. This work is partly financed by grants
FIS2005-05243-C02-01, FIS2007-65869-C03-01, FIS2008-05865-C02-02
and FIS2007-65869-C03-C01 from Ministerio de Educaci\'on y
Ciencia (SPAIN).
|
\section*{Figure Captions\markboth
{FIGURECAPTIONS}{FIGURECAPTIONS}}\list
{Figure \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Figure
999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endfigcap\endlist \relax
\def\tablecap{\section*{Table Captions\markboth
{TABLECAPTIONS}{TABLECAPTIONS}}\list
{Table \arabic{enumi}:\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{Table
999:}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endtablecap\endlist \relax
\def\reflist{\section*{References\markboth
{REFLIST}{REFLIST}}\list
{[\arabic{enumi}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep\usecounter{enumi}}}
\let\endreflist\endlist \relax
\def\list{}{\rightmargin\leftmargin}\item[]{\list{}{\rightmargin\leftmargin}\item[]}
\let\endquote=\endlist
\makeatletter
\newcounter{pubctr}
\def\@ifnextchar[{\@publist}{\@@publist}{\@ifnextchar[{\@publist}{\@@publist}}
\def\@publist[#1]{\list
{[\arabic{pubctr}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\@nmbrlisttrue\def\@listctr{pubctr}
\setcounter{pubctr}{#1}\addtocounter{pubctr}{-1}}}
\def\@@publist{\list
{[\arabic{pubctr}]\hfill}{\settowidth\labelwidth{[999]}
\leftmargin\labelwidth
\advance\leftmargin\labelsep
\@nmbrlisttrue\def\@listctr{pubctr}}}
\let\endpublist\endlist \relax
\makeatother
\newskip\humongous \humongous=0pt plus 1000pt minus 1000pt
\def\mathsurround=0pt{\mathsurround=0pt}
\def\eqalign#1{\,\vcenter{\openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\ialign{\strut \hfil$\displaystyle{##}$&$
\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil\crcr#1\crcr}}\,}
\newif\ifdtup
\def\panorama{\global\dtuptrue \openup1\jot \mathsurround=0pt
\everycr{\noalign{\ifdtup \global\dtupfalse
\vskip-\lineskiplimit \vskip\normallineskiplimit
\else \penalty\interdisplaylinepenalty \fi}}}
\def\eqalignno#1{\panorama \tabskip=\humongous
\halign to\displaywidth{\hfil$\displaystyle{##}$
\tabskip=0pt&$\displaystyle{{}##}$\hfil
\tabskip=\humongous&\llap{$##$}\tabskip=0pt
\crcr#1\crcr}}
\relax
\def\begin{equation}{\begin{equation}}
\def\end{equation}{\end{equation}}
\def\begin{eqnarray}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\def\end{eqnarray}{\end{eqnarray}}
\renewcommand{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}}{\thesection.\arabic{equation}}
\author{
\begin{minipage}{.97\linewidth}
\vspace{0cm}
\begin{center}
\begin{small}
\textbf{Ioannis Bakas}\footnote{<EMAIL>} ${\ }^1$,
\textbf{Fran\c{c}ois Bourliot}\footnote{<EMAIL>} ${\ }^2$,
\textbf{Dieter L\"ust}\footnote{<EMAIL>} ${\ }^{3,4}$ and
\textbf{Marios Petropoulos}\footnote{<EMAIL>} ${\ }^2$
\end{small}
\end{center}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\hspace{2cm}\begin{minipage}{.7\linewidth}
{\it \begin{footnotesize}
\begin{itemize}
\item[${}^1$] Department of Physics, University of Patras\\
26500 Patras, Greece
\item[${}^2$] Centre de Physique Th\'eorique\\
Ecole Polytechnique, CNRS UMR 7644\\
91128 Palaiseau Cedex, France
\item[${}^3$] Max-Planck-Institut f\"ur Physik\\
F\"ohringer Ring 6, 80805 M\"unchen, Germany
\item[${}^4$] Arnold-Sommerfeld-Center f\"ur Theoretische Physik\\
Department f\"ur Physik, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit\"at M\"unchen\\
Theresienstra\ss e 37, 80333 M\"unchen, Germany
\end{itemize}
\end{footnotesize}}
\end{minipage}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\end{minipage}
}
\date{\today}
\title{\vspace{0.1cm}
\boldmath \begin{large}
\textbf{
GEOMETRIC FLOWS IN HO\v{R}AVA--LIFSHITZ GRAVITY
}
\end{large} \unboldmath
}
\begin{document}
\renewcommand{\thepage}{\arabic{page}}
\setcounter{page}{1}
\begin{titlepage}
\maketitle
\thispagestyle{empty}
\vspace{-14.5cm}
\begin{flushright}
CPHT-RR078.0709\\
MPP-2009-179\\
LMU-ASC 47/09
\end{flushright}
\vspace{11cm}
\begin{center}
\textsc{Abstract}\\
\end{center}
We consider instanton solutions of Euclidean Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity in
four dimensions satisfying the detailed balance condition. They are described
by geometric flows in three dimensions driven by certain combinations of the
Cotton and Ricci tensors as well as the cosmological-constant term. The deformation
curvature terms can have competing behavior leading to a variety of fixed points.
The instantons interpolate between any two fixed points, which are vacua of
topologically massive gravity with $\Lambda > 0$, and their
action is finite. Special emphasis is placed on configurations with $SU(2)$
isometry associated with homogeneous but generally non-isotropic Bianchi IX model
geometries. In this case, the combined Ricci--Cotton flow reduces
to an autonomous system of ordinary differential equations whose properties are
studied in detail for different couplings. The occurrence and stability of
isotropic and anisotropic fixed points are investigated analytically
and some exact solutions are obtained. The corresponding instantons are classified
and they are all globally $\mathbb{R} \times S^3$ and complete spaces. Generalizations
to higher-dimensional gravities are also briefly discussed.
\end{titlepage}
\vskip1cm
\tableofcontents
\section{Introduction}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Based on ideas that were originally developed in condensed matter physics \cite{lifshitz:1941}
and later applied to the description of aspects of particle interactions
\cite{Chadha:1982qq, Iliopoulos:1980zd, Antoniadis:1983ek, Petrini:1997kk}, a modification
of general relativity was recently proposed in \cite{Horava:2008ih, Horava:2009uw}
and further studied under the name of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity. In this theory, which
includes higher-order curvature terms on spatial slices,
the diffeomorphism invariance of general relativity is broken explicitly setting a
privileged time direction. This affects the ultra-violet behavior of the quantum theory,
which, hence, looks power-counting renormalizable. Some efforts have been made to prove
consistency of the quantum theory \cite{Orlando:2009en, wu},
but the number of propagating degrees of freedom seems to invalidate the matching
with Einstein's gravity in the infrared regime, and hence seems to disprove this theory
as a viable alternative to general relativity \cite{Charmousis:2009tc, pang, blas, koyama}.
The investigation of these issues is still going on. Despite the difficulties and
reservations, the Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity still provides an interesting classical and
quantum field theory framework, where one can address some interesting
questions and explore several connections to ordinary gravity or string theory. These
also include the appearance and relevance of geometric flows, which is the main subject
of the present work.
Geometric flows, and, in particular, Ricci flows are interesting in their own right. In
mathematics they turned out to play a crucial role in implementing Hamilton's program for
proving Poincar\'e's and Thurston's conjectures \cite{hamilt, perel} (but see also
\cite{yau} and \cite{tian} and references therein). In physics they originally appeared in
off-critical string theory via the renormalization-group equations of two-dimensional
non-linear sigma models, where the evolution of the metric under the Ricci flow equations
provides the running of the bulk coupling to lowest order in perturbation theory
(see \cite{Friedan:1980jm} for the original result). In this context,
the renormalization-group time is provided by the logarithmic length scale of the world-sheet,
but in some cases it can also assume the role of genuine time, describing real-time evolution in
string theory in regimes where the friction due to the motion of the dilaton effectively
reduces the second-order evolution equations to the first-order renormalization-group flow
equations \cite{Schmidhuber:1994bv, Bakas:2006bz}.
Ricci flow models also appear in the framework of four-dimensional gravitational instantons
of general relativity. Solving Einstein's equations is, in general, an impossible task. It is
substantially simplified under the assumption of self-duality as a sufficient condition to find
vacuum solutions in the Euclidean sector of the theory. Homogeneity of spatial sections is
often a further simplification to find explicit solutions.
Although what we call space is somewhat arbitrary in Euclidean gravity,
the latter statement can be made precise by assuming a foliation in three-dimensional leaves
that are invariant under an isometry group of motions. For these particular vacuum solutions,
it turns out that the Euclidean time evolution of the homogeneous leaves inside the gravitational
instanton can be recast as Ricci flow equations for the corresponding geometry on the homogeneous
model spaces \cite{Sfetsos:2006,Bakas:2006bz,Bourliot:2009fr}.
The modification of gravity proposed by Ho\v{r}ava in \cite{Horava:2008ih, Horava:2009uw}
shares some features with the previous setting that allow to define the analogue of
gravitational-instanton configurations. In particular, a foliation
of the four-dimensional space is assumed from the very beginning with a privileged time direction
at the level of the action. Furthermore, a condition called \emph{detailed balance}, which is
borrowed from non-equilibrium thermodynamics, requires that the dynamics follows from an
appropriately chosen three-dimensional superpotential action. In the Euclidean version of the theory,
this resembles the self-duality condition with similar consequences: for a class of configurations
that minimize the action, the time evolution becomes first-order and describes a geometric flow
on the leaves of the foliation. Unlike general relativity, where Ricci flow is equivalent to self-duality
only for
configurations with homogeneous leaves, the description of instanton-like solutions by geometric
flows is generic in Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity. The nature of the corresponding flow depends
on the choice of the three-dimensional action used for detailed balance and it is
driven, in general, by a certain combination of Ricci and Cotton tensors as well as the
cosmological constant term. It is not our concern, and it will not be pursued here at all,
to find whether such combinations of curvature tensors can also arise from the renormalization-
group equations of some quantum field theory.
Our aim in this paper is to investigate aspects of the Euclidean dynamics of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz
gravity with detailed balance. Our motivations are diverse. First, classical instanton-like
solutions are important for the determination of transition amplitudes in quantum gravity. They
are also useful in the Hartle--Hawking formulation of quantum cosmology \cite{harhaw},
even though classical
cosmology per se requires the analysis of real-time equations. The geometric flows that
emerge in this framework involve tensors with higher-order spatial derivatives terms, and, as
such, they are new in the literature; they reduce to previously studied examples only for some
special values of their parameters. Thus, it is instructive to formulate the flow equations
in all generality, determine the nature of the fixed points and their stability properties,
obtain explicit solutions, as well as study general questions such as the monotonicity of the
evolution, the possible formation of singularities, the occurrence of bounces and so on.
These questions arise naturally in the
general theory of geometric flows and they are bound to be relevant for the space--time
interpretation of the analogue of gravitational instantons in Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory.
The answer to these questions will be accomplished partially using some ansatz
for the underlying
three-dimensional spaces, leading to mini-superspace truncation of the flow equations.
Otherwise, it does not be seem possible to draw general conclusions for the general
system of equations, at least at the current level of our understanding of this problem.
Still, the results that will be described are indicative of what should be expected
in general. More systematic investigation of the
infinite-dimensional dynamical system at hand requires substantial mathematical work that
is not contained in this paper. Following the paradigm of gravitational instantons
with isometry groups in Euclidean Einstein gravity, we will consider homogeneous geometries
on the three-dimensional spatial slices of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity and focus,
in particular, to the case of Bianchi IX geometry as a class of homogeneous
but generally non-isotropic deformation of $S^3$; this model is often referred to as
mixmaster universe in the Lorentzian (real-time) approach to cosmology
\cite{Misner:1969, bkl, Barrow:1981sx}, and was recently discussed in the framework of
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity \cite{Bakas:2009ku, Myung:2009if}.
Other Bianchi classes as well as more general inhomogeneous deformations of the three-sphere
(under appropriate ansatz) can also be studied along similar lines, but they will not be
discussed.
We set up the general problem using the Bianchi IX model geometry and study in detail
some specific examples of the flow for different couplings in Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity.
Even in this
case the resulting equations in mini-superspace are not easily tractable for generic values
of the couplings. First, we will consider the Ricci flow and some of its variants that
describe solutions of the modified theory of gravity with anisotropy scaling
parameter $z=2$ (see next section for this and other definitions) and compare them to
instantons with $SU(2)$ isometry in ordinary gravity. We will also consider the Cotton flow,
separately, and use it to construct solutions of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory with anisotropy
scaling parameter $z=3$ by ignoring all Ricci curvature terms that become subdominant
when the volume of $S^3$ is very small. We will also consider the combined Ricci--Cotton flow
and explore the equations in detail first in the limit that the speed of light vanishes
or equivalently Newton's constant becomes infinite (it is often called Carroll limit after \cite{Carroll}) .
The normalized Ricci--Cotton flow and the unnormalized
variant of it with vanishing cosmological constant provide the relevant equations in this
limit. Finally, we will consider the general Ricci--Cotton flow with arbitrary couplings and
obtain several qualitative results for its solutions.
In all cases it is assumed that the parameter of the superspace metric of the theory is
restricted to values $\lambda < 1/3$ (in which case the cosmological constant will also be
taken non-negative) so that the flow equations extremize the classical action, up to
important boundary terms. Proper account of the boundary terms leads to the definition of
instanton solutions as finite-action trajectories that interpolate between fixed points. Our
analysis shows that the Ricci and the Cotton tensor terms can compete with each other, and,
depending on the relative sign between the two, the flow equations can exhibit symmetric as well
as anisotropic fixed points. The nature of these fixed points and their stability properties
also have implications for the space--time interpretation of the corresponding gravitational
instanton solutions. Axisymmetric solutions are associated with spaces with
$SU(2) \times U(1)$ isometries, and, hence they are easier to describe in closed form.
Instanton solutions of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity, as they are defined, are rather
special configurations that rely on the existence of multiple-degenerate vacua and correspond
to special flow lines, which guarantee finiteness of their action. As it will turn out, they
are also free of singularities and their space--time metrics are regular and complete.
Note, however, that other flow lines, possibly with infinite action, also describe solutions
of the second-order equations of motion, but they may have singularities. Although we are
primarily interested in the class of instanton solutions, one should be open-minded for other
more general possibilities too. For this
reason, as well as for mathematical completeness, we will investigate the phase portraits
of the flow equations in all generality. The selection of special trajectories that
correspond to instantons will be made much later together with their space--time
interpretation.
In section 2, we first briefly review the formulation of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity with
detailed balance condition putting emphasis on the structure of the potential term and its
associated superpotential. This analysis is then carried to the Euclidean regime where
``zero-energy'' (i.e., self-dual-like) configurations exist satisfying the flow equations.
Restrictions on the parameter $\lambda$ are also obtained together with an entropy
functional that changes monotonically along the flow lines. The results are then used to
define instanton solutions as in ordinary point particle systems. The Bianchi IX model
geometry is introduced in section 3 where the truncation of the Ricci and Cotton flows are
studied separately in detail. Section 4 is entirely devoted to the analysis of the
normalized Ricci--Cotton flow and the explicit construction of its axisymmetric solutions.
Section 5 discusses the case of unnormalized Ricci--Cotton flow obtained for general
couplings. It contains the case study of positive and zero cosmological constant for
axisymmetric configurations with $\lambda < 1/3$.
Section 6 is devoted to the space--time interpretation of the flow line, as gravitational
instantons, making comparisons with the analogous instanton solutions arising in
general relativity. Complete classification of all gravitational-instanton metrics
with $SU(2)$ isometry is also obtained. In section 7 we outline generalizations of the
framework to higher-dimensional Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravities, which, for instance, in $4+1$
dimensions give rise to a new system of flow equations on four-manifolds driven by the Bach
tensor. Finally, section 8 contains our conclusions and poses several questions for future work.
\section{Non-relativistic gravity, detailed balance and flows}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
\subsection{Non-relativistic gravity: a reminder}
The theory of non-relativistic gravity developed in \cite{Horava:2008ih, Horava:2009uw} is
valid for general space--time dimension $D+1$. It has three main features:
\begin{itemize}
\item Space-time is assumed to be topologically $\mathcal{M}_{D+1}=\mathbb{R} \times\mathcal{M}_D$,
leading to a natural codimension-one foliation. Diffeormorphism invariance is broken down to the
subgroup of foliation-preserving transformations. This breaking is controlled by a parameter $\lambda$.
\item Scaling properties of space and time are different and captured by an integer $z$. Power
counting renormalizability of the theory requires $z=D$.
\item The interactions are determined by a detailed balance condition following from a Euclidean
$D$-dimensional diffeomorphism-invariant action, which gives rise to marginal and relevant terms
in $D+1$ dimensions.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
The last item above is not generic in Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity and it can be relaxed by allowing
more arbitrary coefficients for the various marginal and relevant terms. However, it is a necessary
ingredient in our study to connect it naturally with the theory of geometric flows. Thus, detailed
balance will be assumed in the following.
Let us adopt the ADM (Arnowitt--Deser--Misner) decomposition of the metric (see, for instance,
\cite{misner6}), which
is suitable for the $D+1$ foliation of space--time,
\begin{equation}
\label{genmet}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = -N^2 \mathrm{d}t^2 +g_{ij}\left(\mathrm{d}x^i +N^i \mathrm{d}t\right)
\left(\mathrm{d}x^j +N^j \mathrm{d}t\right) ,
\end{equation}
where $N^i$ and $N$ are the shift and lapse functions respectively. Here, $i,j,\ldots$ run in $D$
dimensions and all tensors that will appear in the following are $D$-dimensional.
Using this decomposition, the Einstein--Hilbert action in $D+1$ dimensions (up to total derivative
terms that may contribute in topologically non-trivial spaces) reads as follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{SEH}
S_{\mathrm{EH}}=\frac{1}{16 \pi G_{\mathrm{N}}}\int\mathrm{d}^{D+1} x\,\sqrt{g}N\left(K_{ij}K^{ij}
-K^2+R-2\Lambda\right) ,
\end{equation}
where $\Lambda$ is the genuine cosmological constant in $D+1$ dimensions. In this expression,
$K_{ij}$ is the second fundamental form that measures the extrinsic curvature of the leaves at
constant $t$,
\begin{equation}
\label{kext}
K_{ij}=\frac{1}{2N}\left(\partial _t g_{ij}-\nabla_iN_j-\nabla_jN_i\right) ,
\end{equation}
and its trace $K = g^{ij}K_{ij}$ is the mean curvature. The first two terms in equation (\ref{SEH})
provide the kinetic energy, since they include time derivatives of the field $g_{ij}$. Their specific
combination can be recast in the form
\begin{equation}
\label{EHkin}
K_{ij}G^{ijk\ell}_{\mathrm{DW}}
K_{k\ell} =K_{ij}K^{ij}
-K^2
\end{equation}
using the DeWitt metric in superspace
\begin{equation}
\label{dwm-orig}
G^{ijk\ell}_{\mathrm{DW}}=\frac{1}{2}\left(g^{ik}g^{j\ell}+g^{i\ell}g^{jk}\right)-
g^{ij}g^{k\ell} .
\end{equation}
The potential term in Einstein gravity is provided by the three-dimensional Ricci scalar
curvature $R$ and the four-dimensional cosmological constant term $\Lambda$ (when it is
present), as shown in (\ref{SEH}).
In non-relativistic gravity, space and time scale as $[t]=-z$, $[x]=-1$ and it is further
assumed\footnote{Proper restoration of the speed of light, which scales as
$[c]=z-1$, explains the various dimensions, as described in detail in the original works
\cite{Horava:2008ih, Horava:2009uw}.} that $[N_i]=z-1$, $[N]=0$ and $[g_{ij}] = 0$
so that $[K^2]=2z$; it should be contrasted to general
relativity where space and time scale the same with $z=1$. This asymmetry is further
implemented in the action, both in the kinetic and the potential terms by requiring
foliation preserving covariance. The kinetic term is generalized as
\begin{equation}
\label{GENkin}
S_{\mathrm{K}}=\frac{2}{\kappa^2}\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^D x\,\sqrt{g}N K_{ij}G^{ijk\ell}
K_{k\ell} = \frac{2}{\kappa^2}\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^D x\,\sqrt{g}N\left(K_{ij}K^{ij}
-\lambda K^2\right),
\end{equation}
where
$\left[\kappa^2\right]=z-D$ and $\lambda$ is a dimensionless coupling measuring the breaking of the
full diffeomorphism group. Here, $G^{ijk\ell}$ is the generalized metric in superspace
\begin{equation}
\label{dwm}
G^{ijk\ell}=\frac{1}{2}\left(g^{ik}g^{j\ell}+g^{i\ell}g^{jk}\right)-\lambda
g^{ij}g^{k\ell}.
\end{equation}
that coincides with the DeWitt metric when $\lambda=1$.
It is worth stressing that this metric can be positive-definite or indefinite depending on
$\lambda$.
Indeed, $g_{k\ell}$ is an ``eigenvector'',
\begin{equation}
G^{ijk\ell}g_{k\ell} = (1-\lambda D)g^{ij} ~,
\end{equation}
with eigenvalue $1-\lambda D$. The sign of the latter changes at $\lambda =1/D$ where the
inverse no longer exists. Thus, for $\lambda < 1/D$ the metric is positive-definite and it
becomes indefinite for all $\lambda > 1/D$ that include, in particular, $\lambda = 1$.
This behavior and the fact that $\lambda$ is ultimately an unprotected parameter of the theory,
which, in principle can take any real value, should be kept in mind when considering quantum
corrections.
The potential term of the theory has the general form
\begin{equation}
\label{pot}
S_V=-\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^Dx\,\sqrt{g}N\,V[g]
\end{equation}
and can also contribute in various ways to the breaking of diffeomorphism invariance.
Note that $[V]=z+D$ and there is a large freedom to choose $V$ so that it includes operators of
dimension less than or equal to $z+D$ (called relevant and marginal operators, respectively).
In order to reduce this freedom and take advantage of the renormalization properties of a
$D$-dimensional system, it was proposed in \cite{Horava:2008ih, Horava:2009uw} to introduce a
detailed balance condition that allows to express the potential in terms of a ``superpotential''
as follows:
\begin{equation}
\label{Vdbc}
V=\frac{\kappa^2}{2} E^{ij}\mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell}
E^{k\ell},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\label{eom}
E^{ij}=-\frac{1}{2 \sqrt{g}}\frac{\delta W[g]}{\delta g_{ij}}
\end{equation}
and $W$ a $D$-dimensional action so that $[E^{ij}]=D$. The tensor $\mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell}$ is
defined as
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell}=\frac{1}{2}\left(g_{ik}g_{j\ell}+g_{i\ell}g_{jk}\right)-
\frac{\lambda}{D\lambda-1} g_{ij}g_{k\ell}
\end{equation}
and coincides with the inverse of the metric in superspace with generic $\lambda$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
G^{ijk\ell}\mathcal{G}_{k\ell mn}= \frac{1}{2}(\delta^i_m \delta^j_n +\delta^i_n
\delta^j_m ) ~.
\end{equation}
The resulting theory is not invariant under general coordinate transformations of space--time.
Indeed, since $\mathcal{M}_{D+1}$ is topologically $\mathbb{R} \times\mathcal{M}_D$, it is
only appropriate to consider invariance of the action under the restricted class of
foliation-preserving diffeomorphisms,
\begin{equation}
\tilde{t} = \tilde{t} (t) ~, \quad {\tilde{x}}^i = {\tilde{x}}^i (t, x) ~.
\end{equation}
Then, the lapse function $N$ associated with the freedom of time reparametrization is
restricted to be a function of $t$ alone, whereas the shift functions $N_i$
associated with diffeomorphisms of $\mathcal{M}_D$ can depend on all space--time
coordinates. This is often called the {\em projectable case} of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz
gravity and it will be assumed in the following. The non-projectable version of the
theory leads to dynamical inconsistencies \cite{henneaux}.
The choice of $W$ depends on the dimension $D$. Here, we recall the choice for $D=3$ with
$z=3$ that ensures power-counting renormalizability of the four-dimensional theory;
generalization to higher dimensions will be discussed later in section 7. Then, the
marginal operators in question are obtained from the three-dimensional gravitational
Chern--Simons action, which is familiar from topologically massive gravity \cite{cs},
\begin{equation}
\label{gcs}
W_{\mathrm{CS}}=\frac{1}{w_{\mathrm{CS}}}
\int \omega_3(\omega) ~,
\end{equation}
with density given in terms of the connection one-form $\omega$ by
\begin{equation}
\omega_3(\omega)= {1 \over 2} \mathrm{Tr}\left(\omega\wedge \mathrm{d}\omega+
\frac{2}{3}\omega\wedge\omega\wedge\omega\right) .
\end{equation}
The corresponding variation gives
\begin{equation}
\label{cotton}
E^{k\ell}_{\mathrm{CS}}=-\frac{1}{w_{\mathrm{CS}}} \frac{\varepsilon^{ijk}}{\sqrt{g}}
\nabla_i\left(R^{\ell}_j-\frac{1}{4}R\delta^{\ell}_j \right)
\equiv-\frac{1}{w_{\mathrm{CS}}} C^{k\ell},
\end{equation}
where $C^{k\ell}$ is the Cotton tensor and $\epsilon^{123} =1$. The Cotton tensor is traceless,
conserved and it vanishes identically for conformally flat metrics.
Relevant operators in four dimensions are generated by the Einstein--Hilbert three-dimensional
action
\begin{equation}
W_{\mathrm{EH}}=\frac{2}{\kappa_W^2}\int \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} (R-2\Lambda_W).
\end{equation}
Note that neither $\kappa_W^2$ is the four-dimensional Newton's constant nor $\Lambda_W$ is the
four-dimensional cosmological constant, but they will be identified shortly. The variation of this
action leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{riccion}
E^{k\ell}_{\mathrm{EH}}=
\frac{1}{\kappa_W^2}\left(
R^{k\ell} -\frac{R}{2}g^{k\ell}+\Lambda_Wg^{k\ell}\right) .
\end{equation}
Combining the Chern--Simons and Einstein--Hilbert contributions to $E^{k\ell}$, with their
respective couplings, the full potential of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{potCSEH}
V&=&
\frac{\kappa^2}{2w_{\mathrm{CS}}^2}
C^{ij}C_{ij} -\frac{\kappa^2}{w_{\mathrm{CS}}\kappa_W^2}
C^{ij}R_{ij}+ \nonumber\\
& & \frac{\kappa^2}{2\kappa_W^4}\left(
R^{ij}R_{ij}-\frac{4\lambda-1}{4(3\lambda-1)}
R^2 \right) +
\nonumber\\
&& \frac{\kappa^2\Lambda_W}{2(3\lambda -1)\kappa_W^4}\left(
R-3\Lambda_W \right).
\end{eqnarray}
The ultra-violet behavior of the resulting theory is dictated by the quadratic Cotton curvature
term, which is marginal with dimension $2z = 6$, and corresponds to $z=3$. It improves a lot
the ultra-violet behavior of ordinary Einstein gravity at the expense of breaking general
covariance of the theory at short distances. When the Cotton term is absent, the resulting
theory has a potential with quadratic Ricci curvature terms that become dominant in the
ultra-violet regime and so $z=2$.
In either case, in the infrared limit one expects to flow by the most
relevant operators (of dimension 2 and zero), which correspond to the last terms in equation
(\ref{potCSEH}), and recover general relativity provided that $\lambda$ also flows to 1.
However, no rigorous proof of any of these statements is yet available in the literature.
Also, the counting of physical degrees of freedom of the theory, which is crucial for viewing
it as viable modification of general
relativity, is obscured by the outcome of local invariances and their potential restoration.
We also recall for completeness, using the relativistic coordinate $x^0 = ct$, that the
effective speed of light for general $\lambda$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{c}
c={\kappa^2\over 2\kappa_W^2}\sqrt{{\Lambda_W\over 1-3\lambda}}
\end{equation}
with $[c] = z-1$.
This shows that $\Lambda_W$ must be negative when $\lambda>1/3$ to ensure reality of $c$;
likewise, $\Lambda_W$ must be positive when $\lambda<1/3$. Also, the four-dimensional
effective cosmological constant is given by
\begin{equation}
\Lambda ={3 \over 2}\Lambda_W
\end{equation}
and, therefore, the range $\lambda>1/3$ does not allow for de Sitter-like backgrounds in
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity. These identifications are necessary in order to compare the
infrared limit of the deformed theory to ordinary gravity so that the effective Newton
constant reads as
\begin{equation}\label{gn}
G_N={\kappa^2\over 32\pi c}\, .
\end{equation}
Furthermore, $\lambda$ should approach (flow to) $1$ in the infrared limit in order to
recover the full reparametrization invariance of general relativity, but this particular
problem will not concern us at all here.
The search for classical solutions requires the use of the potential (\ref{potCSEH}) and it
is impossible to solve in full generality. Symmetry ansatz such as spatial homogeneity makes the
problem more tractable, but still not exactly solvable. This includes, for example, the case of
Bianchi IX geometry leading to the mixmaster universe model in four space--time dimensions with
Lorentzian signature. We will not pursue this line of investigation here (see \cite{Bakas:2009ku}
for a detailed analysis and comparison with the mixmaster universe in general relativity
\cite{Misner:1969, bkl}), but elaborate on the Euclidean version of
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity and then analyze its instanton solutions for Bianchi IX spatial
geometries.
\subsection{Euclidean action and flow equations }
Besides the various physical motivations pertaining to the analysis of the Euclidean version
of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory, there is also a technical advantage for constructing solutions
that satisfy first-order equations in time. This possibility is also encountered in general
relativity when self-duality on the Riemann (and more generally on the Weyl) tensor is imposed
leading to gravitational-instanton solutions in the Euclidean regime\footnote{Self-duality is
best described in terms of the curvature two-form, as $\mathcal{R}_{ab}=
\pm\tilde{\mathcal{R}}_{ab}$ in an orthonormal frame \cite{Eguchi:1980jx}.
These equations are second-order in time,
but they can be integrated once to yield first-order equations \cite{Gibbons:1979xn}
that will be paralleled to the instanton solutions of
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity; for further details see also \cite{Bourliot:2009fr}, where this
analogy is made even sharper for gravitational instantons with homogeneous spatial sections.}.
Although there is no
direct analogue of self-duality in gravitational theories with anisotropic scaling, the detailed
balance condition offers the appropriate replacement for defining instanton-like configurations.
This is in fact possible in all dimensions unlike gravitational instantons of ordinary gravity
that are only defined in four space--time dimensions.
The Euclidean action is obtained by setting $t\to -it$, $N^j \to iN^j$, whereas $iS$ is traded
for $-S$. Using equations (\ref{GENkin}) and (\ref{pot}) one obtains
\begin{equation}
\label{EucS}
S=\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^Dx\,\sqrt{g}N\left(\frac{2}{\kappa^2}\left( K_{ij}K^{ij}
-\lambda K^2\right)+V\right).
\end{equation}
The expression for the potential (\ref{Vdbc}) allows to rewrite the Euclidean action (\ref{EucS})
in the form $S=S'+S''$, where
\begin{equation}
\label{EucStd}
S^{\prime} =\frac{2}{\kappa^2}\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^Dx\,\sqrt{g}N
\left(K_{ij}\pm \frac{\kappa^2}{2}\mathcal{G}_{ijmn} E^{mn}\right){G}^{ijk\ell}
\left(K_{k\ell}\pm \frac{\kappa^2}{2}\mathcal{G}_{k\ell rs} E^{rs}\right)
\end{equation}
and $S''$ is a total-derivative contribution to the action \cite{Horava:2008ih}.
This boundary term will be considered later in detail (see equation (\ref{sprssec})).
The different signs correspond to the choice of time direction.
The action \eqn{EucStd} is bounded below by zero provided that the superspace metric
${G}^{ijk\ell}$ is positive-definite. Then, configurations that obey the first-order
differential equations
\begin{equation}
\label{foeq}
K_{ij}=\mp \frac{\kappa^2}{2}\mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell} E^{k\ell},
\end{equation}
are extrema of the action and as such they provide solutions of the Euclidean theory
$S^{\prime}$; the leaves of the corresponding space--time foliations have prescribed
extrinsic curvature.
This possibility arises only when $\lambda < 1/D$, in which case we must also demand that
$\Lambda_W$ is non-negative so that the speed of light in the Lorentzian version of the
theory is real. Otherwise, for $\lambda > 1/D$, the action is non-bounded below by zero and
the first-order equations are not guaranteed to provide classical solutions. Thus, from
now on, we restrict ourselves to $\lambda < 1/D$ and $\Lambda_W \geq 0$, where the first-order
equations (\ref{foeq}) provide extrema of $S'$. They are also extrema of the action $S$
provided that the boundary term $S''$ is properly accounted. This problem will be treated
carefully in section \ref{sec23} and lead to the precise definition of instantons.
The solutions that we will investigate can be expressed in the form of geometric gradient
flow equations for
the metric $g_{ij}$ modulo reparametrizations generated by the shift functions,
\begin{equation}
\label{first}
\partial _t g_{ij}=
\mp \kappa^2 N\mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell} E^{k\ell}
+ \nabla_iN_j+\nabla_jN_i ~.
\end{equation}
Since we are only considering the projectable case of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity, $N$ is
only a function of $t$ and can be absorbed by redefining time, as
$N(t) \mathrm{d}t \rightarrow \mathrm{d}t$.
It is also natural to define vector fields with components $\xi_i = N_i / N$ that generally
depend on space and time coordinates. Then, the geometric-flow equations assume the more
standard form that will be used in the following,
\begin{equation}
{1 \over N(t)} \partial _t g_{ij}=
\pm \frac{\kappa^2}{2\sqrt{g}}\mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell}
\frac{\delta W[g]}{\delta g_{k\ell}}
+ \nabla_i\xi_j+\nabla_j\xi_i ~.
\end{equation}
Specializing to $D=3$, we write down explicitly the flow equations obtained by combining the
variation of the Chern--Simons and Einstein--Hilbert actions,
\begin{equation}
\label{fullflow}
{1 \over N} \partial_t g_{ij}= -
\frac{\kappa^2}{\kappa_W^2}\left(
R_{ij} - {2\lambda - 1 \over 2(3\lambda -1)} R g_{ij} +\frac{\Lambda_W}{1-3\lambda} g_{ij}
\right)+
\frac{\kappa^2 }{w_{\mathrm{CS}}} C_{ij} +
\nabla_i\xi_j+\nabla_j\xi_i
\end{equation}
choosing for definiteness one of the two sign options; the other follows by time reversal.
These equations describe the parametric evolution of a family of three-dimensional geometries
\begin{equation}
\label{m3dgen}
\mathrm{d}s^2_{\rm t} = g_{ij}(x; t) \mathrm{d}x^i \mathrm{d}x^j
\end{equation}
driven by the Ricci and Cotton tensors and the cosmological constant term, and, as such,
they will be called {\em Ricci--Cotton flow} equations\footnote{Perhaps a more appropriate
name is Ricci--Yamabe--Cotton flow, since $Rg_{ij}$ is the driving term of the so called
Yamabe flow, $\partial_t g_{ij} = - R g_{ij}$. The latter was introduced in the literature
\cite{Hamilton} to solve Yamabe's conjecture stating that any metric is conformally equivalent
to a metric of constant curvature. Its effect is complementary to the Cotton term of the flow,
which changes the conformal class of the metric. Thus, the combined flow equations we have
obtained contain several competing deformations of the metric.}.
The fixed points are determined
(modulo reparametrization terms) by the solutions of three-dimensional topologically
massive gravity:
\begin{equation}
{\kappa_W^2 \over w_{\mathrm CS}} C_{ij} = R_{ij} - 2 \Lambda_W g_{ij} ~, \quad
{\rm with} ~~ R = 6 \Lambda_W ~.
\end{equation}
They include Einstein metrics with vanishing Cotton tensor, like the round sphere metric
on $S^3$ (for $\Lambda_W > 0$), which is homogeneous and isotropic. There are other
fixed points, however, with
constant scalar curvature but with non-vanishing Cotton tensor. We will see later, as
example, that they correspond to particular homogeneous but non-isotropic metrics on $S^3$.
The coexistence of fixed points from different conformal classes of the metric make this
flow particularly complex.
The driving terms of the Ricci--Cotton flow involve, in general, third-order derivatives in
space coordinates (originating from the Cotton tensor), and, therefore, it is not possible
to apply standard results from the mathematics literature to prove even the short-time
existence of solutions. Nevertheless, the mini-superspace models that will be studied later
show that these flow equations are well-behaved and the trajectories converge to fixed points
after sufficiently long time.
Some special cases are worth noting, since they have already appeared in the literature
for different reasons:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$w_{\mathrm CS} \rightarrow \infty$: the Cotton tensor contribution drops out
and one obtains a variant of the Ricci flow on three-manifolds, which is second-order and
well studied in the literature. Its trajectories describe solutions of $z=2$
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity in $3+1$ dimensions, whereas the fixed points are Einstein
metrics $R_{ij} = 2 \Lambda_W g_{ij}$.
\item
$\kappa_W^2 \rightarrow \infty$: the Ricci and cosmological constant terms
drop out and one obtains the pure Cotton flow that was recently introduced in the
literature \cite{Kisisel:2008jx}. Its trajectories describe solutions of $z=3$
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity in $3+1$ dimensions,
in the limit under consideration. The fixed points are conformally flat metrics,
$C_{ij} = 0$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent
Even these simpler cases are impossible to solve in all generality. Mini-superspace
models have been used to study the long time behavior of the Ricci and
Cotton flows for homogeneous geometries \cite{Isenberg:1992, Kisisel:2008jx}.
Apart from the Ricci and Cotton flows that will studied separately in the next section,
there are also some other special cases of the combined Ricci--Cotton flow that are
relatively easier to study. First, by considering that limiting case $\lambda \rightarrow
- \infty$, which lies in the allowed range $\lambda < 1/3$, one obtains the normalized
Ricci--Cotton flow, which is driven by a traceless tensor, and, thus, preserves the
volume of space; the cosmological constant decouples in this case. It becomes relevant
in the Carroll limit of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity, where the effective speed of light
vanishes\footnote{When
$\lambda \rightarrow -\infty$, the metric in superspace becomes singular as its inverse
has zero eigenvalues. Yet the flow equations are well-defined and so is the potential
term $S_{V}$ of the gravity action. It is opposite to the case $\lambda = 1/3$ for
which the metric in superspace has zero eigenvalues and its inverse becomes
singular; the latter case corresponds to the limit of infinite speed of light, where
the theory develops anisotropic Weyl invariance.}. The effective speed of light
vanishes also when $\Lambda_W = 0$, irrespective of $\lambda$, and the corresponding
flow equations will be studied separately. The general case, with arbitrary coefficients,
is much more complex. The pattern of fixed points and specific trajectories will
only be discussed for axially symmetric deformations of $S^3$, which correspond to
solutions with $SU(2) \times U(1)$ isometry.
\subsection{Entropy functional and action bound} \label{sec23}
From now on, and in all examples that will be studied later, we consider flows
without the effect of space reparametrizations, setting $N_i = 0$. Also, we will take
advantage of time reparametrizations to set $N(t) =1$ for convenience. We will
also assume that the spatial slices are compact spaces without boundary. Here, we
provide an entropy functional for the geometric flows arising in Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz
gravity in arbitrary dimensions. This functional is also be related to the lower
bound of the Euclidean action $S$ (rather than $S^{\prime}$) when boundary terms $S''$
are properly taken into account.
When the metric in superspace is positive-definite (choosing $\lambda < 1/D$ in $D$
spatial dimensions), the superpotential functional $W$ changes monotonically along
the flow. This follows easily by considering
\begin{equation}
\label{bpsb}
{\mathrm{d}W \over \mathrm{d}t} = -2 \int \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} E^{ij}
\partial_t g_{ij} = \pm 2 \kappa^2
\int \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} E^{ij} \mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell} E^{k\ell} ~,
\end{equation}
which is the integral of a quadratic quantity, and, therefore, increases or
decreases monotonically depending on the overall sign. Thus, $W$ is an entropy
functional for the flows under consideration.
With this in mind, let us revisit the original Euclidean action $S$ of the theory
and its lower bound taking into proper account the boundary terms. Equations
\eqn{EucS} and (\ref{Vdbc}) yield
\begin{eqnarray}
S & = & {2 \over \kappa^2} \int \mathrm{d}t \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} K_{ij} G^{ijk\ell} K_{k\ell} +
{\kappa^2 \over 2} \int \mathrm{d}t \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} E^{ij} \mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell} E^{k\ell}
\nonumber\\
& = & \frac{2}{\kappa^2}\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^Dx\,\sqrt{g}
\left(K_{ij}\pm \frac{\kappa^2}{2}\mathcal{G}_{ijmn} E^{mn}\right){G}^{ijk\ell}
\left(K_{k\ell}\pm \frac{\kappa^2}{2}\mathcal{G}_{k\ell rs} E^{rs}\right) \nonumber\\
& & \mp 2 \int \mathrm{d}t \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} K_{ij} E^{ij}. \label{sprssec}
\end{eqnarray}
The first term in (\ref{sprssec}) is $S'$, given in equation (\ref{EucStd}), and the last term
is the advertised boundary contribution $S''$.
For positive-definite superspace metric, the Euclidean action $S$ is bounded from
below by the boundary term $S''$, because $S' \geq 0$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
S \ge \mp 2 \int \mathrm{d}t \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} K_{ij} E^{ij} =
\mp \int \mathrm{d}t \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} E^{ij}
\partial_t g_{ij} = \pm {1 \over 2} \int \mathrm{d}t {\mathrm{d}W \over \mathrm{d}t},
\end{equation}
having set $N(t)=1$. The time integral of equation (\ref{bpsb}) shows that the lower bound of $S$ is
always positive, as expected.
The flow equations (\ref{foeq}) provide time-dependent extrema of the action $S'$. They are
actually its ground states, since they make $S'$ vanish. Since $S''$ is a boundary term, these
ground states are also extrema of $S$ under appropriate boundary conditions that make the variational
problem well-posed. This can be easily verified for the class of flows with finite action (i.e.
finite $S''$). Note for this purpose that the fixed points of the flow are
static solutions of both $S$ and $S^{\prime}$, since they are, by construction, critical points
of the $D$-dimensional action functional $W$ sitting at the minima of the
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz potential. If different minima exist, they will be all degenerate with zero
potential energy. Hence, time-dependent solutions that
interpolate between any two fixed points are guaranteed to satisfy the equations
of motion following from the Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz action $S$.
These solutions have finite action, given by the value of the boundary
term, and is natural to call them instantons as they interpolate between two different
static minima, which are connected by
trajectories of the geometric flow. Their action is simply given by
\begin{equation}
\label{finitac}
S_{\rm instanton} = {1 \over 2} |\Delta W| ~,
\end{equation}
where $\Delta W$ is the difference of the corresponding values of $W$ at the
two critical points. Note that $\Delta W \neq 0$, in general, since $W$ changes
monotonically along the flow lines and the instanton action is finite. Then,
this yields the standard description of instanton solutions of a point particle
moving in Euclidean time, but the number of degrees of freedom is infinite now,
as the evolution takes place in superspace.
Finally, let us consider the evolution of the volume of spatial slices under the
flow. In general, it takes the form
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d}t} {\rm vol}(\mathcal{M}_D) = {1 \over 2} \int
\mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} g^{ij}
\partial_t g_{ij} = \mp {\kappa^2 \over 2 (1-3\lambda)} \int \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g}
g_{ij} E^{ij}
\end{equation}
and, therefore, the trace-free part of the driving curvature terms do not
contribute to the evolution. Otherwise, the volume changes without definite
sign. Thus, in principle, the volume can bounce along the flow. At the fixed
points, where $g_{ij} E^{ij} = 0$, the volume reaches a local maximum or
minimum depending on circumstances.
As an example, let us consider the Ricci--Cotton flow described by equation
(\ref{fullflow}). Then, since the Cotton tensor is traceless, the volume of
space changes as
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d}t} {\rm vol}(\mathcal{M}_3) = {\kappa^2 \over 4(1-3\lambda)
\kappa_W^2} \int \mathrm{d}^Dx \sqrt{g} (R-6 \Lambda_W)
\end{equation}
and it can have either sign. Of course, it is possible to normalize this
(or any other flow that arises in this context) by rescaling the metric with a
function of time followed by a suitably chosen time reparametrization
$t \rightarrow \tilde{t}(t)$ so that the volume is preserved in time $\tilde{t}$.
This does not resolve the problem, however, since $\tilde{t}(t)$ is not
a monotonic function of $t$ in general. Thus, the volume does not provide
an entropy functional.
Other entropy functionals might also exist for these flows, generalizing
Perelman's functional for the Ricci flow \cite{perel}, but we have not
been able to find them.
\section{Bianchi IX model geometry}\label{mixmas}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
All homogeneous space geometries in three dimensions provide consistent ansatz for the
mini-superspace truncation of the Ricci and Cotton flows and their combination thereof.
Such spaces follow the Bianchi classification, but for practical reasons we will only
consider the case of Bianchi IX model geometries that describe homogeneous but generally
non-isotropic metrics on $S^3$. The corresponding gravitational instantons of the
four-dimensional Euclidean theory are special in that they admit an $SU(2)$ isometry group
and they provide the simplest examples in our study. In this section, we set up the notation
and present some useful formulas that will enable us to formulate the problem as an
autonomous system of ordinary differential equations. The Ricci and Cotton flows are
studied separately here for Bianchi IX geometries. Comparison with the gravitational
instantons of ordinary gravity will also be made at the appropriate places.
\subsection{Some basic facts}
We consider four-dimensional Riemannian manifolds that are foliated by homogeneous
three-dimensional spaces of the form
\begin{equation}
\label{m4dHL}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = \mathrm{d}t^2 +\sum_i \gamma_i(t) \left(\sigma^i\right)^2 ~,
\end{equation}
setting $N=1$ and $N_i = 0$. The coefficients $\gamma_i$ are taken to depend only on $t$
and $\sigma^i$ are the left-invariant Maurer--Cartan one-forms of $SU(2)$
\begin{eqnarray}
\sigma^1 & = &\sin\vartheta \sin\psi \, \mathrm{d}\varphi+\cos \psi \,
\mathrm{d}\vartheta \nonumber\\
\sigma^2 &=& \sin\vartheta\cos\psi\, \mathrm{d}\varphi-\sin\psi\, \mathrm{d}\vartheta\\
\sigma^3 &=& \cos\vartheta\, \mathrm{d}\varphi+\mathrm{d}\psi \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
with Euler angles ranging as $0\leq\vartheta\leq \pi$, $0\leq\varphi\leq 2\pi$, $
0\leq\psi\leq {4\pi}$, which satisfy
\begin{equation}
\mathrm{d}\sigma^i + \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^i_{\hphantom{i}jk}\sigma^j \wedge \sigma^k=0.
\end{equation}
The three-dimensional leaves are, in general, homogeneous but non-isotropic three-spheres.
The isometry group is enhanced to $SU(2) \times U(1)$ when any two $\gamma_i$'s coincide by
imposing axial symmetry. Full isotropy requires all $\gamma_i$'s to be equal, in which case
the symmetry of the model is promoted to $SU(2)\times SU(2)$. The volume of the three-sphere
is
\begin{equation}
\label{V3d}
V=16\pi^2 \sqrt{\gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3}
\end{equation}
and when all coefficients $\gamma_i$ are equal to $L^2/4$ the volume is expressed in terms
of the radius $L$ as $V=2\pi^2L^3$.
The Ricci and Cotton tensors are diagonal for all homogeneous geometries and this ensures
consistency of the reduced models. They take the following form for the Bianchi IX class,
\begin{eqnarray}
R_{11}&=& \frac{1}{2\gamma_2 \gamma_3} \left[
\gamma_1^2 -(\gamma_2 - \gamma_3)^2 \right]\label{ric} ~, \label{R11} \\
C_{11}&=& -\frac{\gamma_1}{2( \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}}}
\left[\gamma^2_1\left(2\gamma_1-\gamma_2-\gamma_3\right)
-\left(\gamma_2+\gamma_3\right)\left(\gamma_2-\gamma_3\right)^2 \right] ~,\label{C11}
\label{cot}
\end{eqnarray}
and similarly for the other two components that follow by cyclic permutation of the indices.
Also, the Ricci scalar curvature is given by
\begin{equation}
R = \frac{1}{2\gamma_1\gamma_2 \gamma_3} \left[
2\gamma_1\gamma_2 +2\gamma_2 \gamma_3+2\gamma_3 \gamma_1-\gamma_1^2 -\gamma_2^2-\gamma_3^2
\right]\label{Rsc} ~,
\end{equation}
whereas the trace of the Cotton tensor vanishes, as it can be readily checked.
With these explanations in mind, we arrive at the following system of ordinary
differential equations for the metric coefficients $\gamma_i (t)$
\begin{equation}
\label{m4dHLfullflow}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma_i}{\mathrm{d}t}=-\frac{\kappa^2}{\kappa_W^2}\left(R_{ii}
-\frac{2\lambda-1}{2(3\lambda-1)}R \gamma_{i} +\frac{\Lambda_W}{1-3\lambda} \gamma_{i}
\right) + \frac{\kappa^2}{w_{\rm CS}}C_{ii}
\end{equation}
as the Bianchi IX mini-superspace model of the combined Ricci--Cotton flow with
general couplings.
\subsection{Ricci flow}
When $w_{\rm CS} \rightarrow \infty$ the Cotton term decouples and one arrives at a
variant of the Ricci flow as the relevant equation for Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity
with anisotropy scaling parameter $z=2$. In this case, the system becomes
\begin{equation}
\label{halfi}
\frac{\mathrm{d}\gamma_i}{\mathrm{d}t}=-\frac{\kappa^2}{\kappa_W^2}\left(R_{ii}
-\frac{2\lambda-1}{2(3\lambda-1)}R \gamma_{i} +\frac{\Lambda_W}{1-3\lambda} \gamma_{i}
\right)
\end{equation}
and its properties resemble the ordinary Ricci flow on $S^3$
\begin{equation}
\label{ordiricci}
\frac{\mathrm{d} \gamma_i}{\mathrm{d} t}=- R_{ii} (\gamma) ~.
\end{equation}
Formally, one follows from the other by rescaling the metric with a function of time
and changing time variable by suitable reparametrization; in such case, the
components of the Ricci tensor remain invariant and they assume the
same form for the rescaled components of the metric.
The Ricci flow equations \eqn{ordiricci} for homogeneous geometries are well
studied in the literature following the original work \cite{Isenberg:1992}.
For Bianchi IX geometries they take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{halphen}
{2 \over \gamma_1} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_1 \over \mathrm{d}t} & = &
{1 \over \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3}
\left[\left(\gamma_2 - \gamma_3 \right)^2 - \gamma_1^2 \right] ~,\nonumber\\
{2 \over \gamma_2} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_2 \over \mathrm{d}t} & = &
{1 \over \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3}
\left[\left(\gamma_3 - \gamma_1 \right)^2 - \gamma_2^2 \right] ~,\\
{2 \over \gamma_3} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_3 \over \mathrm{d}t} & = &
{1 \over \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3}
\left[\left(\gamma_1 - \gamma_2 \right)^2 - \gamma_3^2 \right] \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and coincide with the celebrated \emph{Darboux--Halphen} system that was introduced by
Darboux in the nineteenth century \cite{Darboux} and subsequently solved by Halphen
\cite{halph}\footnote{For the comparison one must consider the variables
$\omega_1=\gamma_2\gamma_3$, $\omega_2 = \gamma_1 \gamma_3$, $\omega_3 = \gamma_1
\gamma_2$ and change the time coordinate to $\mathrm{d}T = \mathrm{d}t/\gamma_1 \gamma_2
\gamma_3$. Then, the equations take the equivalent form
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d} \omega_1 \over \mathrm{d}T} = \omega_2 \omega_3 - \omega_1
(\omega_2 + \omega_3) \nonumber
\end{equation}
with cyclic permutations for $\omega_2$ and $\omega_3$. The identification of the
Ricci flow equations for Bianchi IX geometry with the Darboux--Halphen system has
escaped attention in the mathematics literature.}. In principle, solutions
of these equations can be translated into solutions of the original system
\eqn{halfi}.
It can be shown quite generally that for given initial data $\gamma_i^{(0)}$ the
metric will evolve towards the configuration $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \gamma_3 = 0$
by making $S^3$ rounder and rounder until the whole space collapses to a
point. A particularly simple solution that exhibits this behavior is provided by
\begin{equation}
\label{triviasola}
\gamma_1 (t) = \gamma_2 (t) = \gamma_3 (t) = {1 \over 2} (t_0 - t)
\end{equation}
and describes an isotropic metric on $S^3$ whose radius evolves from infinitely
large size to zero as $t$ varies from $-\infty$ to $t_0$.
Actually, following the literature \cite{Isenberg:1992}, the convergence of the flow
lines is best described in terms of the normalized Ricci flow equation on $S^3$
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d} \gamma_i \over \mathrm{d}t} = - R_{ii} + {1 \over 3} R \gamma_i ~,
\end{equation}
which follows directly from equation (\ref{halfi}) in the limit $\lambda\rightarrow
-\infty$, and
which can be obtained from the ordinary Ricci flow by (yet another) suitable rescaling
of the metric and time reparametrization. Then, the volume is preserved along the flow
and the round metric (fully isotropic model with finite radius) arises as fixed point
that is exponentially reached after infinitely long time, regardless of initial
conditions. The normalized Ricci flow will also be in focus later in section 4 for
different reasons.
The Darboux--Halphen system is not algebraically integrable when $\gamma_1 \neq
\gamma_2 \neq \gamma_3$. All its solutions, however, can be expressed in terms of
modular forms (see, for instance, \cite{Takhtajan:1992qb}).
The system becomes algebraically integrable when two $\gamma_i$'s are equal. Then,
the corresponding three-dimensional space is a three-sphere with axially symmetric
metric. Setting $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 \geq \gamma_3$, the system \eqn{halphen}
simplifies and exhibits a first integral
\begin{equation}
{1 \over \gamma_3^2} - {1 \over \gamma_1 \gamma_3} = {1 \over 4m^2}
\end{equation}
with arbitrary parameter $m$. The solution is subsequently described as
\begin{equation}
\label{spezisol}
{\gamma_1 \over m} + {\rm arcsinh} {\gamma_1 \over m} = {-t + t_0 \over m} =
{\rm log} {2m + \gamma_3\over 2m - \gamma_3} - 2m \left({1 \over 2m + \gamma_3}
- {1 \over 2m - \gamma_3} \right) ~,
\end{equation}
using another integration constant $t_0$. The fully isotropic solution with
$SU(2) \times SU(2)$ isometry is obtained by taking the limit
$m \rightarrow \infty$.
Remarkably, the same system of equations arises in the description of a class of
self-dual instantons with $SU(2)$ isometry in ordinary gravity \cite{Gibbons:1979xn},
as well as in the description of the moduli space of $SU(2)$ BPS monopoles with
magnetic charge 2 \cite{Atiyah1, Atiyah2}. In these two cases,
which share many features with each other, the ansatz for the Bianchi IX
geometries takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{GRgravinst}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = \mathrm{d}t^2 + a^2 (t) \left(\sigma^1\right)^2 + b^2 (t)
\left(\sigma^2\right)^2 + c^2(t) \left(\sigma^3\right)^2
\end{equation}
with $a(t) = \gamma_1 (t)$, $b(t) = \gamma_2 (t)$ and $c(t) = \gamma_3 (t)$
satisfying the same system of equations \eqn{halphen} above. Then, the
corresponding axially symmetric gravitational instanton with $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2$
is the self-dual Taub--NUT metric with NUT parameter $m$. It can be brought into
standard form using a radial coordinate $r \geq m$ with $m ~ {\rm arcosh}(r/m) +
\sqrt{(r-m)(r+m)} = -t + t_0$ so that the solution \eqn{spezisol} becomes
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \sqrt{(r-m)(r+m)} ~, \quad \gamma_3 = 2m
\sqrt{{r-m \over r+m}} ~.
\end{equation}
The fully anisotropic instantons of Einstein gravity with $SU(2)$ isometry
correspond to the so called Atiyah--Hitchin metric \cite{Atiyah1, Atiyah2}, which
is also the metric on the moduli space of charge 2 BPS $SU(2)$ monopoles in general
position. These metrics will be discussed further in section 6 while comparing
instanton solutions of general relativity with those of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory.
\subsection{Cotton flow}
Next, we consider the pure Cotton flow equations\footnote{The Cotton flow was
originally introduced in the literature \cite{Kisisel:2008jx} as an alternative
to the Ricci flow for studying the existence of constant curvature metrics on
three-manifolds. So far it has only been applied to homogeneous geometries and its
general utility for proving the Poincar\'e conjecture remains questionable.}
that arise in the limit $\kappa_W \rightarrow \infty$. They describe solutions of
$z=3$ Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory when the volume of space is very small, i.e., in
the deep ultra-violet regime where the Cotton term dominates and all subleading
relevant operators can be safely dropped from the potential. Then, the equations
for Bianchi IX geometries take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{thecottfle}
{2 w_{\rm CS} \over \kappa^2 \gamma_1} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_1 \over \mathrm{d}t} & = &
-\frac{1}{( \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}}}
\left[\gamma^2_1\left(2\gamma_1-\gamma_2-\gamma_3\right)
-\left(\gamma_2+\gamma_3\right)\left(\gamma_2-\gamma_3\right)^2 \right] , \nonumber\\
{2 w_{\rm CS} \over \kappa^2 \gamma_2} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_2 \over \mathrm{d}t} & = &
-\frac{1}{( \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}}}
\left[\gamma^2_2\left(2\gamma_2-\gamma_3-\gamma_1\right)
-\left(\gamma_3+\gamma_1\right)\left(\gamma_3-\gamma_1\right)^2 \right] , \\
{2 w_{\rm CS} \over \kappa^2 \gamma_3} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_3 \over \mathrm{d}t} & = &
-\frac{1}{( \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}}}
\left[\gamma^2_3\left(2\gamma_3-\gamma_1-\gamma_2\right)
-\left(\gamma_1+\gamma_2\right)\left(\gamma_1-\gamma_2\right)^2 \right] , \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and clearly they are much more complicated than the Darboux--Halphen system. It is
not known whether they are algebraically integrable when $\gamma_1 \neq \gamma_2 \neq \gamma_3$,
but it can be easily shown that, under any initial data $\gamma_i^{(0)}$, they flow exponentially
fast towards the fixed point which is the round metric on $S^3$ and it is conformally flat
\cite{Kisisel:2008jx}.
Since the Cotton tensor is odd under parity (because of the fully antisymmetric epsilon
symbol appearing in its definition), there is always an ambiguity in the overall sign of
the flow equations. Here, we have chosen the sign that takes any metric towards
the fixed point rather than away from it when $w_{\rm CS} > 0$.
The behavior of the Cotton flow is similar to the normalized Ricci flow, as they both preserve
the volume of space $V= 2\pi^2 L^3$, but the convergence rate is different. To compare the
two it is sufficient to linearize the corresponding equations around the fixed point
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \gamma_3 = {L^2 \over 4}
\end{equation}
by considering small perturbations of the metric coefficients
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 (t) = {L^2 \over 4} \left(1 + \delta x (t) \right) , \quad
\gamma_2 (t) = {L^2 \over 4} \left(1 + \delta y (t) \right) ,
\end{equation}
whereas $\gamma_3(t)$ changes accordingly,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_3 (t) = {L^2 \over 4} \left(1 - \delta x (t) - \delta y (t) \right) ,
\end{equation}
so that the volume of space is preserved. Then, the autonomous system of Cotton flow
equations \eqn{thecottfle} becomes to linear order
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d}t} \begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\delta y \end{pmatrix}= -{12 \kappa^2\over w_{\rm CS} \ L^3}
\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\delta y \end{pmatrix}
\end{equation}
and the two eigenvalues are equal and negative for $w_{\rm CS} > 0$,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1 = \zeta_2 = -{12 \kappa^2 \over w_{\rm CS} L^3} ~,
\end{equation}
ensuring stability in all directions around the fixed point.
The perturbations diminish exponentially fast, as
\begin{equation}
\delta x (t) = A \mathrm{e}^{\nicefrac{-t }{ \tau_{\rm C}}} ~,\quad
\delta y(t) = B \mathrm{e}^{\nicefrac{-t }{ \tau_{\rm C}}} ~,
\end{equation}
using arbitrary integration constants $A$, $B$ and the characteristic time scale of
dissipation
\begin{equation}
\tau_{\rm C} = {w_{\rm CS} L^3 \over 12 \kappa^2} ~.
\end{equation}
Thus, when $w_{\rm CS}$ is very small compared to
$\kappa_{\rm W}^2$ so that the Cotton tensor dominates the flow over the Ricci curvature
and the cosmological constant terms, or equivalently when $L$ is very small so that
the volume of space is tiny, $\tau_{\rm C}$ is very small and the metric
perturbations dissipate very fast at late times\footnote{We note here for completeness,
and it will be used in the next section, that the normalized Ricci flow
$\mathrm{d}\gamma_i /\mathrm{d}t = -R_{ii} + R\gamma_i/3$ can be similarly analyzed by
considering small perturbations around the fully isotropic fixed point.
The two eigenvalues also turn out to be equal and negative, but the corresponding
characteristic time scale for dissipation depends quadratically on $L$ as
$\tau_{\rm R} = L^2/4$ with respect to the appropriate time coordinate.
Comparison with the dissipation rate of the Cotton flow will become relevant in section 4.}.
There is an additional fixed point, which is unique, up to permutation of the axes,
that arises when $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \infty$ and
$\gamma_3 = 0$ (correlated limit with $V$ held fixed). It corresponds to a squashed
$S^3$ that is completely flattened and has zero Cotton tensor, as it can be explicitly
checked. Although this configuration is degenerate in one principal direction, it has no
curvature singularities and it is legitimate to consider.
Axisymmetric solutions of the Cotton flow can be constructed in closed form, as for the
Ricci flow. Assuming
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 \equiv x {L^2 \over 4} ~, \quad \gamma_3 = {L^2 \over 4x^2} ~,
\end{equation}
so that the volume of space is held fixed to $V=2\pi^2 L^3$, the Cotton flow equations
\eqn{thecottfle} reduce to a single equation
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d}x \over \mathrm{d}t} = {4 \kappa^2 \over w_{\rm CS} L^3} {1 - x^3 \over x^5}\ ,
\end{equation}
which is solved as follows,
\begin{equation}
\label{mourira}
{-t + t_{\star} \over \tau_{\rm C}} = x^3 -1 + {\rm log}\left|x^3 - 1\right|
\end{equation}
with integration constant $t_{\star}$.
This solution has two branches. For $x \geq 1$, $x(t)$ changes from $+\infty$ to $1$ as
$t$ varies from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$; the three-sphere deforms starting from the
singular configuration $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \infty$, $\gamma_3 = 0$ and gradually
becomes rounder until it reaches the isotropic fixed point after infinitely long time.
For $x \leq 1$, $x(t)$
changes from $0$ to $1$ as $t$ varies from $t_0 = t_{\star} + \tau_{\rm C}$ to $+\infty$;
in this case, the three-sphere evolves from the
singular configuration $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = 0$, $\gamma_3 = \infty$ towards the
isotropic fixed point.
Finally, we point out that there is no known solution for the fully anisotropic
model geometry that is analogous to the general solution of the Darboux--Halphen
system. It remains an open question whether the system is algebraically
integrable and find its solution.
\section{Normalized Ricci--Cotton flow}\label{norma}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We will now investigate the combined Ricci--Cotton flow when the effective speed of light
vanishes by letting $\lambda \rightarrow -\infty$. In this case, the flow equations take
the following general form,
\begin{equation}
\partial_t g_{ij}= - \frac{\kappa^2}{\kappa_W^2}\left(R_{ij} - {1 \over 3} R g_{ij}
\right)+\frac{\kappa^2 }{w_{\mathrm{CS}}} C_{ij}
\end{equation}
and they become independent of $\Lambda_W$. The driving curvature term is traceless and
the deformations preserve the volume of space. Thus, the resulting normalized Ricci--Cotton
flow is a superposition of the Cotton and the normalized Ricci flow with competing effects,
in general, that depend on the sign of $w_{\mathrm{CS}}$.
\subsection{The general system of Bianchi IX equations}
Using the Bianchi IX ansatz for the three-dimensional geometry, the normalized
Ricci--Cotton flow equations form an autonomous system of equations for the
coefficients $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$,
$\gamma_3$. Since the volume $V=2\pi^2 L^3$ is conserved, it is convenient to
use two independent variables $x(t)$ and $y(t)$,
\begin{equation}
\label{red}
\gamma_1=\frac{xL^2}{4}, \quad \gamma_2=\frac{yL^2}{4}, \quad \gamma_3=\frac{L^2}{4xy} ~,
\end{equation}
and also set
\begin{equation}
\tau = {4 \kappa^2 \over \kappa_W^2 L^2} t ~, \quad \mu = {w_{\rm CS} L \over
\kappa_W^2} ~.
\end{equation}
Then, the general system of Bianchi IX equations takes the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau}&=&\frac{1}{\mu x^2y^3}
\bigg\{
\left(1+\frac{\mu}{3}xy +xy^2\right)\left(1-xy^2\right)^2\nonumber\\
&&+\left(\frac{\mu}{3}+x\right)\left(1+xy^2-2x^2y\right)x^3y^2
\bigg\}, \label{RCNx}
\\
\frac{\mathrm{d}y}{\mathrm{d}\tau}&=&\frac{1}{\mu x^3y^2}
\bigg\{
\left(1+\frac{\mu}{3}xy +x^2y\right)\left(1-x^2y\right)^2\nonumber\\
&&+\left(\frac{\mu}{3}+y\right)\left(1+x^2y-2xy^2\right)x^2y^3
\bigg\}.\label{RCNy}
\end{eqnarray}
It is not known whether this system of equations is integrable, in general.
However, we will be able to characterize its fixed points and study their stability
on general grounds in order to infer the qualitative behavior of the flow
lines. Note that the individual components of our system, the normalized Ricci flow
and the Cotton flow, can compete with each other. When $\mu > 0$ ($w_{\rm CS} > 0$),
they both work in the same direction, but when $\mu < 0$ ($w_{\rm CS} < 0$) they
work against each other and can affect the form and stability properties of the fixed
points.
It will also be seen later that these equations can be solved exactly in the
axially symmetric case $x=y$.
Actually, there are three curves of axial symmetry in the problem, but, in practice,
it is sufficient to consider only one of these axially
symmetric cases, since the other two follow by permutation of the principal axes of
$S^3$. Thus, apart from $x=y$, we also have $x^2y=1$ and
$xy^2=1$, depending on the pair of $\gamma_i$'s that become equal and reduce the
flow equations to a single one. They correspond to
metrics on $S^3$ with enhanced symmetry $SU(2) \times U(1)$ and they all intersect at the
fully isotropic point $x=y=1$. These curves are by themselves flow lines, which, however,
cannot be crossed by other flow lines; if any two
$\gamma_i$'s become equal at a given (finite) time they will remain equal for ever.
Therefore, these three curves provide the barriers for six regions in the
$(x,y)$ plane where the generic flow lines are confined depending on initial conditions.
The maximal time range of any given flow line also depends on the region in which the
flow is confined. Finally, the flow lines along the three curves of axial symmetry can
reach the fully isotropic point but cannot continue running beyond it. The three curves
of axial symmetry are depicted in figure \ref{xyplane}, which is
restricted to the first quadrant of the $(x, y)$ plane so that the metric has
physical signature, and they intersect at $(1,1)$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{Fig1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The lines of enhanced $SU(2)\times U(1)$ symmetry in the $(x,y)$ plane.}
\label{xyplane}
\end{figure}
These general
qualitative remarks are sufficient to illustrate the evolution of any given initial
data on the $(x,y)$ plane, provided that all fixed points are found and the
arrows of flow lines around them are correctly identified by stability analysis.
The same remarks apply equally well to the normalized Ricci and Cotton flows
which can arise separately as special cases.
\subsection{Classification of the fixed points} \label{normadyn}
We are going now to classify all fixed points of the system \eqn{RCNx} and
\eqn{RCNy} and find the critical values of $\mu$ that separate
their behavior into different phases of stability.
\paragraph{The isotropic fixed point.}
The metric on the round sphere is a fixed point of the normalized Ricci--Cotton flow
for all values of $\mu$ (positive and negative) and corresponds to the point
\begin{equation}
\label{isofp}
x_{\star}= y_{\star}=1
\end{equation}
on the $(x,y)$ plane. Its stability, however, depends on the values of the parameter $\mu$.
By considering small perturbations around this fixed point, as
\begin{equation}
x(t) = x_{\star} + \delta x(t) ~, \quad
y(t) = y_{\star} + \delta y(t) ~,
\end{equation}
we find that the linearized system of equations takes the form
\begin{equation}
\label{linam}
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d} \tau} \begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\delta y \end{pmatrix} = -\left(1 + {3 \over \mu} \right)
\begin{pmatrix}
1&0 \\
0&1
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\delta y \end{pmatrix} .
\end{equation}
The two eigenvalues are equal
\begin{equation}
\label{lam}
\zeta_1 = \zeta_2 =
-\left(1 + \frac{3}{\mu} \right)
\end{equation}
and follow by linear superposition of the corresponding eigenvalues of the
normalized Ricci and Cotton flows discussed in the previous section.
The fixed point is absolutely stable when $\mu$ satisfies the bound
$3/\mu > -1$, i.e., $\mu > 0$ or $\mu <-3$. In these cases, the flow line converge
towards the fixed point from all directions. Otherwise,
for $-3 < \mu < 0$, the isotropic point is absolutely unstable and the flow lines
diverge away from it in all directions. Finally, when $\mu = -3$, the eigenvalues are zero
and all points in the vicinity of the fixed point are at equilibrium. Thus,
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mu > 0$ or $\mu < -3$: \quad absolutely stable fixed point,
\item $-3 < \mu < 0$: \quad absolutely unstable fixed point.
\end{itemize}
These results are in
exact agreement with the competition between the Ricci and Cotton components of the flow and
can be understood by comparing the characteristic time scales $\tau_{\rm R}$ and
$\tau_{\rm C}$ that govern metric perturbations at late times\footnote{According to
definitions we have the following relations
\begin{equation}
\mu = {w_{\rm CS} L \over \kappa_W^2} = 3 {\tau_{\rm C} \over \tau_{\rm R}} \quad
{\rm with} \quad
\tau_{\rm C} = {w_{\rm CS} L^3 \over 12 \kappa^2} ~, \quad
\tau_{\rm R} = {\kappa_W^2 L^2 \over 4 \kappa^2} ~.
\nonumber
\end{equation}
The characteristic time scales $\tau_{\rm R}$ and $\tau_{\rm C}$ refer to the original
time coordinate $t$ but their ratio is the same in the time coordinate $\tau$.}.
For $\mu > 0$ both components
dissipate all metric perturbations exponentially fast, but for $\mu < 0$ the Cotton flow
contributes differently leading to exponential growth of the perturbations.
For the critical value $\mu = -3$, the dissipation of the normalized Ricci flow is canceled
by the exponential growth of the Cotton flow, making zero the characteristic matrix of metric
perturbations.
\paragraph{Anisotropic fixed points.}
For negative $\mu$ there are additional fixed points that correspond to particular
axisymmetric metrics. As such, they appear in three copies related by permutation of
the axes of $S^3$ and they are located on the lines of axial symmetry in the $(x,y)$ plane.
In particular, they arise
\begin{itemize}
\item on the diagonal $x=y$ with $x_{\star} = \sqrt{-3/ \mu}$ ~,
\item on the branch $x^2 y=1$ with $x_{\star} = \sqrt{-3 / \mu}$~,
\item on the branch $x y^2=1$ with $y_{\star} = \sqrt{-3 / \mu}$~.
\end{itemize}
Note that all these points coalesce with the fully isotropic point when $\mu$ assumes the
critical value $\mu= -3$.
It suffices to perform stability analysis around one of these fixed points, say the one
located on the diagonal line, since the results will be identical for all of them by the
symmetry of the problem. Using small fluctuations around the fixed point
\begin{equation}
x_{\star} = y_{\star} = \sqrt{-{3 \over \mu}} ~,
\end{equation}
so that $x(t) = x_{\star} + \delta x(t)$ and $y(t) = y_{\star} + \delta y(t)$, the
linearized system takes the form,
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d} \tau} \begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\delta y \end{pmatrix}={1 \over 2}
\begin{pmatrix}
\zeta_1 + \zeta_2 & \zeta_1 - \zeta_2 \\
\zeta_1 - \zeta_2 & \zeta_1 + \zeta_2
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\delta y \end{pmatrix} ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\zeta_1 & = & {2 \over 3} \sqrt{-{\mu \over 3}} \left[
\left({-{\mu \over 3}} \right)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}} - 1 \right] , \label{lam1}
\\
\zeta_2 & = & {2 \over 3 } \sqrt{-{\mu \over 3}} \left[
\left({-{3 \over \mu}} \right)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}} - 1 \right] \left[
4 \left({-{3 \over \mu }} \right)^{\nicefrac{3}{2}} - 1 \right] \label{lam2}.
\end{eqnarray}
The two eigenvalues are $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ and they are unequal offering various
possibilities in general. They both vanish for $\mu = -3$. Otherwise, we have the
following cases depending on the sign of the eigenvalues:
\begin{itemize}
\item $-3<\mu<0$: \quad saddle fixed point with $\zeta_1<0<\zeta_2$~,
\item $-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}<\mu<-3$: \quad saddle fixed point with $\zeta_2<0< \zeta_1$~,
\item $\mu<-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$: \quad absolutely unstable fixed point with
$\zeta_i > 0$~.
\end{itemize}
Thus, the axisymmetric fixed points are never absolutely stable. They are saddle or
unstable depending on $\mu$.
\paragraph{Totally anisotropic fixed points.}
It is not obvious from the beginning whether there are any fixed points
with $\gamma_1 \neq \gamma_2 \neq \gamma_3$. Close inspection of the equations,
assisted by numerical scanning, reveals the presence of two totally anisotropic
fixed points that coexist with the axially symmetric anisotropic fixed
point\footnote{We thank Christos Sourdis for pointing out the presence
of these additional fixed points and thoroughly investigating their properties.
This analysis was missed in a previous version of our paper and we are indebted
to him for providing all the details. Similar results also appeared in \cite{nutku}.}
when $\mu<-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$. In fact, by the $\mathbb{Z}_3$ symmetry of the
problem, there are six such additional fixed points, but we only focus attention
on two of them appearing symmetrically left and right of the diagonal line $x=y$
in the lower two (out of the six disconnected) regions shown in figure 1; their
presence should not be confused with the mirror images of the axially symmetric
anisotropic fixed point discussed earlier.
The characteristic property of the totally anisotropic fixed points is that
their Ricci scalar curvature vanishes and their location on the $(x, y)$ plane
is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{zericc}
x + {1 \over \sqrt{x}} = -{\mu \over 4} = y + {1 \over \sqrt{y}} \quad
{\rm with} \quad x \neq y ~.
\end{equation}
Of course, one can always find Bianchi IX metrics with zero scalar curvature
by imposing the appropriate algebraic condition on the metric coefficients, but
these are not fixed points of the
flow lines for general values of $\mu$. Remarkably, they are real solutions of
$\mathrm{d}x / \mathrm{d} \tau = 0 = \mathrm{d}y / \mathrm{d} \tau$ with $x \neq y$,
which coexist with the axially symmetric anisotropic fixed point when
$\mu<-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$. They are not present when $\mu > -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$, since
there are no real solutions to equation \eqn{zericc} in that case.
We also note that when $\mu = -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$ the totally anisotropic fixed
points coalesce with the axially symmetric anisotropic fixed point. Furthermore,
there are no other fixed points in the problem.
The location of these fixed points is depicted in figure \ref{totani}.
Here, we plot the ratio $x/y$ of the anisotropic fixed points as function of $\mu$
(actually $-\mu$). The horizontal line represents the axially symmetric anisotropic
fixed point that exists below and above the critical value of $\mu$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=8cm]{Fig2b.pdf}
\put(-106,-20){${\mathbf{\mbox{\boldmath${-\mu}$}}}$}
\put(-351,-4){\small{$0$}}
\put(-380,130){${\mathbf{\frac{x}{y}}}$}
\end{center}
\caption{Relative location of all anisotropic fixed points for $\mu < 0$. }
\label{totani}
\end{figure}
At this point, it is instructive to consider the Ricci scalar curvature of the
axially symmetric anisotropic fixed point $x_{\star} = y_{\star} = \sqrt{-3/ \mu}$,
which turns out to be
\begin{equation}
R = -{2 \mu \over 9L^2} \left(\mu + 12 \sqrt{-{3 \over \mu}} \right) ~.
\end{equation}
When $\mu = 0$ this point is at infinity and the curvature is zero.
As $\mu$ varies from $0$ to $-3$ the axially symmetric anisotropic fixed point
is approaching the isotropic fixed point and the curvature increases monotonically.
The curvature becomes maximal when these two points coincide at the critical value
$\mu = -3$, and, then it decreases monotonically as $\mu$ varies from $-3$ to
$-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$. It becomes zero at the other critical value
$\mu = -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$, and, then, it turns negative for
$\mu < -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$. The value $\mu = -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$ is also critical for the
creation of the totally anisotropic fixed points, which pop out symmetrically from
the diagonal and have zero curvature for all lower values of the parameter $\mu$.
These additional fixed points appear to be saddle points, as can be verified by
numerical investigation for different values of $\mu$. It is not easy to obtain
closed formulas for the eigenvalues of the characteristic matrix describing small
perturbations around them. However, their stability properties are important for
constructing instanton solutions of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity, as will be seen
in detail later in section 6. Another characteristic property of these points that
will also be used later is the universal value of the gravitational Chern--Simons
functional. Explicit calculation shows that $W_{\rm CS}$ for the fully anisotropic
fixed points is
\begin{equation}
W_{\rm CS} = {80 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} ~,
\end{equation}
which is independent of $\mu$! It actually coincides with the value of $W_{\rm CS}$
for the axially symmetric anisotropic fixed point when $\mu = -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$ and
it is ten times larger than the value of $W_{\rm CS}$ evaluated at the totally
isotropic fixed point.
An important remark is in order at this point. The equations that determine the fixed
points of the normalized Ricci--Cotton flow provide only the traceless part of the
classical equations of motion of topologically massive gravity, leaving the trace
undetermined. Then, depending on the value of their Ricci scalar curvature, these points
also satisfy the trace equation $R = 6 \Lambda_{\rm W}$ for appropriately chosen
effective value of $\Lambda_{\rm W}$. Fixed points with positive, negative or zero
Ricci scalar curvature are vacua of topologically massive gravity with positive, negative
or zero cosmological constant, respectively. As a result, the fixed points of the
Ricci--Cotton flow with general couplings, which are the vacua of topologically
massive gravity, are expected to be less than the fixed points of the normalized flow,
and, in fact, they can be obtained from them in certain ways\footnote{The mathematical
problem one has to solve to determine the set of fixed points of massive gravity for given
$\Lambda_{\rm W}$ is to fix $R$ instead of the volume of the normalized fixed points,
as functions of $\mu$ and $L$, and deduce from it the allowed range of $\mu$ for the
selected set of fewer points.}. This, however, does not make
our analysis in section 5 redundant since their location, volume and stability properties
also depend crucially on the flow equations we are considering in each case.
Summarizing the results for the normalized Ricci--Cotton flow, we note that the fully
isotropic metric on $S^3$ is the unique fixed point for $\mu > 0$ that attracts all
trajectories starting from any point in the first quadrant of the $(x,y)$ plane.
For $\mu < 0$, there are various
possibilities that result to attractive or repelling directions around the fixed points.
Note that the isotropic point becomes absolutely unstable when $-3 < \mu < 0$, in which
case the anisotropic fixed point is a saddle that attracts partially the flow lines.
For $-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2} \leq \mu < 0$ there are four in total fixed points, including
their $\mathbb{Z}_3$ mirrors, whereas for $\mu < -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$ the total number
of fixed points is ten.
\subsection{Phase portraits of the flow}
The qualitative behavior of the flow lines is illustrated by the phase portraits
shown below for all possible values of $\mu$.
For positive $\mu$, which is qualitatively the same as for the
normalized Ricci flow and the Cotton flow, the phase portrait is given in figure
\ref{xy0}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $\mu>0$; here, $\mu=2$.}\label{xy0}
\end{figure}
For negative $\mu$ the stability properties of the fixed points is different in the
intervals $-3 <\mu < 0$, $-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}<\mu<-3$ and $\mu<-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$ and all
these possibilities are represented in figures \ref{xy1}, \ref{xy2} and \ref{xy3},
respectively. For later reference, it is important to realize
the existence of trajectories interpolating between different fixed points. In
figure \ref{xy1} there is only one such flow line since one fixed point is unstable
and the other a saddle. The same applies to figure \ref{xy2} where the interpolating
flow line connects a stable fixed point with a saddle. The picture changes drastically
in figure \ref{xy3} since there are infinitely many flow lines interpolating
between an unstable and a stable fixed point. Also, in this case, there are additional
fixed points away from the diagonal, which are saddle points.
Figure \ref{xy3} contains two such totally anisotropic fixed points located at
$x \simeq 0.19$, $y \simeq 1.75$ (and $x \simeq 1.75$, $y \simeq 0.19$) for
$\mu = -10 < -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2} \simeq -7.56$. There are flow lines
connecting these fixed points with the other two lying on the diagonal, but they
are not easily seen on the phase portrait due to numerical deficiency.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $-3<\mu<0$; here, $\mu=-2$.}\label{xy1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig4.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}<\mu<-3$; here, $\mu=-5$.}\label{xy2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $\mu<-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$; here, $\mu=-10$.}\label{xy3}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Axisymmetric solutions}
Here, we present the exact axially symmetric solution of the normalized
Ricci--Cotton flow, setting $x=y$. As such, it generalizes the axially
symmetric solutions of the normalized Ricci and the Cotton flows discussed
in the previous section.
The system (\ref{RCNx}) and (\ref{RCNy}) reduces to a single equation
\begin{equation}
\label{axieqRC}
\frac{\mathrm{d}x}{\mathrm{d}\tau}= \frac{1}{\mu}\left(\frac{1}{x^3}-1\right)
\left(\frac{1}{x^2}+\frac{\mu}{3}\right),
\end{equation}
and the flow takes place on the diagonal line of the $(x,y)$ plane. The flow
connects either the origin or infinity with a fixed point or it can extend
between two different fixed points.
These regions do not communicate with each other and the time interval that
supports the solutions depends on $\mu$ and the choice of trajectory.
The behavior around $x=0$ and $x\to\infty$ is universal and can be extracted directly
from equation (\ref{axieqRC}),
\begin{itemize}
\item $x\approx \left({6 \over \mu}(\tau-\tau_0)\right)^{\nicefrac{1}{6}}$, \quad as
$x \to 0$,
\item $x\approx -{1 \over 3}\tau$, \quad as $x \to \infty$.
\end{itemize}
Around the fixed points the time dependence is exponential and determined by the eigenvalues
$\zeta$ as $x-x_{\star} \approx {\rm exp} (\zeta\tau)$. The relevant eigenvalue for the
isotropic point is given by (\ref{lam}) and for the anisotropic by (\ref{lam1}).
\paragraph{Case I: $\mu > 0$.}
The solution behaves similarly for all positive values of $\mu$, but it
looks different on the two sides of the isotropic fixed point $x_{\star}=1$. We find that
\begin{description}
\item[\underline{$x>1$}]: \quad $-\infty <\tau <+\infty$ as $x$ decreases
from $+\infty$ to $1$~,
\item[\underline{$x<1$}]: \quad $\tau_0<\tau<+\infty$ as $x$ increases from $x(\tau_0)=0$
to $1$~.
\end{description}
The exact solution reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau-\tau_{\star}&= &-3x + \frac{\mu\left(\mu-6\right)}{2\left(\mu^2-3\mu+9\right)}
\log \left(x^2+x+1\right)+\frac{\sqrt{3}\mu^2}{\mu^2-3\mu+9}\arctan\frac{2x+1}{\sqrt{3}}
\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\mu}{\mu+3}\log\vert x-1\vert +\frac{27 \mu}{2\left(\mu^3+27\right)}\log
\left(\mu x^2+3\right)\nonumber\\
&&+\frac{81}{\mu^3+27} \sqrt{{3 \over \mu}} \arctan \left(x\sqrt{\frac{\mu}{3}}
\right)
\label{eq:mpos}
\end{eqnarray}
and it is represented by figure \ref{mupos} with appropriately chosen
integration constant $\tau_{\star}$.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{Fig6.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The dependence $\tau(x)$ for positive $\mu$; here, $\mu=1$.}\label{mupos}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Case II: $\mu<0$.}
In this case the solution depends on the particular value of $\mu$.
First, we present the result for the critical value $\mu=-3$, which is simpler,
\begin{eqnarray}
\tau-\tau_{\star} & = & - 3x + \frac{1}{2(x-1)}+{1 \over \sqrt{3}} \arctan
\frac{2x+ 1}{\sqrt{3}} -\frac{7}{4}\log |x-1| \nonumber\\
& & + \frac{3}{4}\log (x+1) + {1 \over 2} \log\left(x^2 + x + 1\right) ~.
\label{eq:mucrit}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{Fig7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The dependence $\tau(x)$ for the critical value critical $\mu=-3$.}\label{mucrit}
\end{figure}
All fixed points coalesce to the isotropic and the eigenvalues vanish, so that there are
no arrows infinitesimally close to this point. However, this behavior is lifted at second
order in perturbation theory and there are arrows pointing from large to small values of
$\tau$. This particular case is depicted in figure \ref{mucrit}, which also shows
the range of $\tau$ in the two branches.
For $\mu\neq -3$ the expression becomes much more involved and reads
\begin{eqnarray} \label{formulamuneg}
\tau-\tau_{\star}&= &-3x + \frac{\mu\left(\mu-6\right)}{2(\mu^2-3\mu+9)}
\log \left(x^2+x+1\right)+\frac{\sqrt{3}\mu^2}{\mu^2-3\mu+9}\arctan\frac{2x+1}{\sqrt{3}}
\nonumber\\
&&-\frac{\mu}{\mu+3}\log\vert x-1\vert +\frac{27 \mu}{2(\mu^3+27)}\log
\left|\mu x^2+3\right|\nonumber\\
& &- {81 \over 2 ({\mu}^3+27)}
\sqrt{-{3 \over \mu}} \left[\log \left| 1- x\sqrt{-{\mu \over 3}} \right|
-\log \left|1+ x\sqrt{-{\mu \over 3}} \right| \right].
\end{eqnarray}
Then, depending on whether $-3<\mu<0$ or $\mu<-3$, the function $\tau(x)$ looks
different. In all these cases the solution has three branches but
the range of time is not the same. We have, in particular, the following behavior
depending on $\mu$:
\begin{itemize}
\item For $-3<\mu<0$ the two fixed points are ordered as $x_{\star}^{\mathrm{iso}}
=1<x_{\star}^{\mathrm{aniso}}=\sqrt{-3/\mu}$ with the isotropic being repulsive and
the anisotropic attractive. The exact solution is represented by figure \ref{mugm3}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{Fig8.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The dependence $\tau(x)$ for $-3<\mu<0$; here, $\mu=-1$.}\label{mugm3}
\end{figure}
\item For $\mu<-3$ the two fixed points are ordered differently,
as $x_{\star}^{\mathrm{aniso}}=\sqrt{-3/\mu}<x_{\star}^{\mathrm{iso}}=1$. The
isotropic point is now attractive whereas the anisotropic is repulsive. Then, the exact
solution along the diagonal is represented by figure \ref{mulm3} and there is no
essential difference for $\mu$ below or above the value $-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$~.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=6.5cm]{Fig9.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The dependence $\tau(x)$ for $\mu<-3$; here, $\mu=-5$.}\label{mulm3}
\end{figure}
Note that the three branches shown in figures 9 and 10 range differently:
the first has support on a semi-infinite time interval, whereas the second and third to
the right are eternal solutions that exist for all time $-\infty < \tau < + \infty$.
(Despite appearances, caused by numerical deficiency, the spike at $x=1$ extends to
infinity in figure 9).
\end{itemize}
\section{Ricci--Cotton flow with general couplings} \label{nonormalisedsol}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
Let us now examine the Ricci--Cotton flow equations for Bianchi IX model geometries
with arbitrary couplings by letting $\lambda$ and $\Lambda_W$ take arbitrary values.
The system of equations that needs to be studied is provided by (\ref{m4dHLfullflow})
\begin{equation}
\label{miromesnil}
{\mathrm{d} \gamma_i \over \mathrm{d} \tau} = -R_{ii} + {2 \lambda -1 \over 2(3\lambda -1)}
R \gamma_i + {\Lambda_W \over 3 \lambda -1} \gamma_i + {1 \over \mu} C_{ii}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\tau = {\kappa^2 \over \kappa_W^2} t ~, ~~~~~~ \mu = {w_{\rm CS} \over \kappa_W^2} ~.
\end{equation}
The definition of $\tau$ and $\mu$ resembles that for the normalized flow in section 4,
but it does not include the rescaling by the characteristic length of space.
Since $\lambda < 1/3$, we will confine our discussion to the case of
non-negative cosmological constant, $\Lambda_W \geq 0$, so that the effective speed of
light is real,
and investigate the structure of the fixed points and their stability properties.
The choices $\Lambda_W > 0$ and $\Lambda_W = 0$ will be discussed separately, although the
latter can be obtained as limiting case of the former.
Mathematically it is also interesting to consider the more general situation, without
imposing any restrictions on $\lambda$ and $\Lambda_W$, but these cases will not be included
here\footnote{The nature of the corresponding fixed points
changes drastically compared to the cases that are discussed in this paper. However, when
$\Lambda_W < 0$ it is more appropriate to consider Bianchi type VIII model geometries
rather than Bianchi IX.}.
\subsection{The axisymmetric Bianchi IX model}\label{negcos}
The flow of the metric coefficients $\gamma_i (t)$ does not preserve the volume of $S^3$ in
this case, and, therefore, the three coupled equations are rather difficult to
investigate in all generality with $\gamma_1 \neq \gamma_2 \neq \gamma_3$.
Restricting attention to axially symmetric configurations
simplifies matters without shadowing too much the rich structure of the
system. Our analysis will be based on the qualitative theory of dynamical systems, as in
previous sections, but because of the mathematical complexity of the equations it is not
possible to obtain explicit solutions in closed form, apart from the isotropic solution.
Also, the reader should be aware of the limitations: the fixed points can become unstable
in other directions, when axial symmetry is relaxed, and the conclusions drawn here may
be altered and not be as general. Of course,
this is part of a more general criticism for mini-superspace models compared to metric
deformations with an infinite number of moduli taking place in the entire superspace.
With these explanations in mind, we are going to study the system of two equations
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{totiral}
{1 \over \gamma_1} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_1 \over \mathrm{d} \tau} & = & - {\sqrt{\gamma_1}
\over \mu ~ \gamma_2^3}
(\gamma_1 - \gamma_2) - {8 \lambda -3 \over 4(3 \lambda - 1)} {\gamma_1 \over \gamma_2^2}
+ {2 \lambda -1 \over 3 \lambda - 1} {1 \over \gamma_2} + {\Lambda_W \over 3 \lambda - 1} ~, \\
{1 \over \gamma_2} {\mathrm{d} \gamma_2 \over \mathrm{d} \tau} & = & {\sqrt{\gamma_1}
\over 2 \mu ~ \gamma_2^3}
(\gamma_1 - \gamma_2) + {4 \lambda -1 \over 4(3 \lambda - 1)} {\gamma_1 \over \gamma_2^2}
- {\lambda \over 3 \lambda - 1} {1 \over \gamma_2} + {\Lambda_W \over 3 \lambda - 1} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
which is obtained from (\ref{miromesnil}) by setting $\gamma_2 = \gamma_3$.
The existence and properties of the fixed points depends crucially on the values of $\mu$,
as in other examples considered so far. In particular, for $\mu < 0$, an anisotropic
fixed point will coexist with the isotropic one.
There is an exact solution of these equations which is available for all $\Lambda_W \geq 0$
and describes the evolution of the isotropic metric on $S^3$. This possibility does not
arise for the normalized Ricci--Cotton flow, since the isotropic metric is a fixed point.
In particular, setting all $\gamma_i \equiv \gamma$, we have the following result:
\begin{equation}
\label{exactama}
\gamma (t) = A ~ {\rm exp} \left({\Lambda_W \over 3\lambda -1} \tau \right) +
{1 \over 4\Lambda_W} \quad {\rm for}\ \Lambda_W > 0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{exactama2}
\gamma (t) = -{1 \over 4(3\lambda -1)} (\tau- \tau_0) \quad {\rm for} \ \Lambda_W = 0
\end{equation}
with $A$ and $\tau_0$ being arbitrary integration constant. Since $\lambda < 1/3$,
the metric flows to the isotropic fixed point (to be
discussed next in detail for more general trajectories) as $\tau \rightarrow + \infty$.
The difference between $\Lambda_W >0$ and $\Lambda_W = 0$ is reflected in the
life-time of the solutions. When $\Lambda_W > 0$ the solution has two branches: on the
first branch $A>0$ and the solution is
eternal existing for all $-\infty < \tau < + \infty$; it describes a round sphere with
infinite radius in the infinite past flowing towards a round sphere with radius
set by $\Lambda_W$ in the infinite future. The second branch corresponds to $A<0$ in
which case the solution exists for $\tau_{\star} \leq t < + \infty$, with appropriately
chosen $\tau_{\star}$, so that the sphere starts from zero radius and reaches the fixed
point as $t \rightarrow + \infty$. On the other hand, when $\Lambda_W = 0$, there is
only one branch as the solution exists for $\tau_0 \leq \tau < +\infty$, interpolating
between a fully collapsed configuration at $\tau=\tau_0$ to a sphere of infinite radius
in the infinite future.
\subsection{Classification of the fixed points}
First, we consider the case of non-vanishing cosmological constant and reserve the
last subsection to study $\Lambda_W = 0$ separately.
\paragraph{The isotropic fixed point.}
For $\Lambda_W > 0$, there is a natural length scale in the problem that gives rise to the
isotropic fixed point of the flow, irrespective of the sign of $\mu$,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \gamma_3 = {1 \over 4\Lambda_W} ~.
\end{equation}
This follows easily from the system of equations without assuming any restrictions on
$\gamma_1$ and $\gamma_2$; it can also be shown that it is a fixed point of the more
general system of equations with $\gamma_1 \neq \gamma_2 \neq \gamma_3$.
Linearizing around it as
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 (t) = {1 \over 4\Lambda_W} ~ \left(1 + \delta x(t) \right) , \quad
\gamma_2 (t) = {1 \over 4\Lambda_W} ~ \left(1 + \delta y(t) \right) ,
\end{equation}
we find that the small perturbations satisfy the characteristic matrix
equation
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d} \tau} \begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\\
\delta y \end{pmatrix}
=\Lambda_W
\begin{pmatrix}
\displaystyle{-\frac{8}{\mu} \sqrt{\Lambda_W} - \frac{8 \lambda -3}{3 \lambda -1}}
& \displaystyle{ \frac{8}{\mu} \sqrt{\Lambda_W} + 2 \frac{4 \lambda -1}{ 3 \lambda -1}} \\
&\\
\displaystyle{\frac{4}{\mu} \sqrt{\Lambda_W} + \frac{4 \lambda -1}{3 \lambda -1} }&
\displaystyle{-\frac{4}{\mu} \sqrt{\Lambda_W} - 2 \frac{2 \lambda -1}{ 3 \lambda -1}}
\end{pmatrix}
\begin{pmatrix}
\delta x \\
\\
\delta y \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues are
\begin{equation}
\zeta_1 = {\Lambda_W \over 3 \lambda - 1} ,\quad
\zeta_2 = -4\Lambda_W \left(1 + {3 \over \mu} \sqrt{\Lambda_W} \right)
\end{equation}
and so $\zeta_1 < 0$ whereas $\zeta_2$ can take all values, positive or negative,
depending on $\mu$.
Keeping $\Lambda_W$ fixed and varying $\mu$ we obtain the following characterization
of the isotropic fixed point:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mu > 0$ \ or \ $\mu < -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$: \quad absolutely stable,
\item $-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} < \mu < 0$: \quad saddle point.
\end{itemize}
Note the emergence of a critical value, $\mu = -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$,
where the two eigenvalues $\zeta_1$ and $\zeta_2$ vanish, separating
stability from instability along the corresponding eigen-directions\footnote{The
critical value of $\mu$ is similar to that found for the normalized Ricci--Cotton
flow; direct comparison can be made by replacing $\sqrt{\Lambda_W}$ with $1/L$ and
rescaling $\mu$ with the characteristic length of space.
In both cases, the critical value of $\mu$ occurs when the competing
effects of the Ricci and Cotton deformations are balanced exactly.}.
Also note for completeness that if we were allowing $\lambda > 1/3$, the
isotropic point would never be absolutely stable (it would be absolutely unstable or
a saddle point in the respective intervals of the $\mu$-line.).
Actually, one can go further and investigate whether the exact isotropic running
solution $\gamma(t)$, given by \eqn{exactama}, is stable against small fluctuations,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_i (t) = \gamma(t) + \delta \gamma_i (t) ~,
\end{equation}
acting as {\em attractor} of nearby trajectories. Thus, given a small tube around
the trajectory $\gamma (t)$, one is interested to know if any other trajectory with
initial conditions inside this tube will remain there after some time and what is
the size of tube that guarantees this attractor property. The differential equations
for $\delta \gamma_i (t)$ are most conveniently stated using $\gamma (t)$ rather
that $t$ as flow time. Then, within the axially symmetric ansatz \eqn{totiral}, the
linearized equations take the following form,
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d} \gamma (t)} \delta \gamma_1 (t) & = & -{2 (\delta \gamma_1
- \delta \gamma_2) \over \gamma (4 \Lambda_W \gamma -1)}
\left[{2(3\lambda -1) \over \mu \sqrt{\gamma}} + 4\lambda -1\right]
+ {4\Lambda_W \delta \gamma_1 \over 4\Lambda_W \gamma - 1} ~, \\
{\mathrm{d} \over \mathrm{d} \gamma (t)} \delta \gamma_2 (t) & = & {\delta \gamma_1
- \delta \gamma_2 \over \gamma (4 \Lambda_W \gamma -1)}
\left[{2(3\lambda -1) \over \mu \sqrt{\gamma}} + 4\lambda -1\right]
+ {4\Lambda_W \delta \gamma_2 \over 4\Lambda_W \gamma - 1} ~,
\end{eqnarray}
generalizing the characteristic matrix equations of small perturbations around the
isotropic fixed point. These equations apply for all $\Lambda_W$ including the
special case $\Lambda_W =0$ that will be discussed separately.
Solutions of this system can be expressed as functions of $t$ through $\gamma (t)$.
Since $\delta \gamma_i$ are required to be small, for validity of the linearized
analysis, the attractor property of the isotropic trajectory appears to be very
limited. This behavior can be seen schematically in the phase portraits of the
flow that will appear in the next two subsections.
\paragraph{Anisotropic fixed point.}
When $\mu <0$, there is an additional fixed point associated with the axially
symmetric metric with coefficients
\begin{equation}\label{Lamaxifp}
\gamma_1 = {36 \mu^2 \over \left(\mu^2 + 27 \Lambda_W \right)^2} ,\quad
\gamma_2 = \gamma_3 = {9 \over \mu^2 + 27 \Lambda_W} .
\end{equation}
There are no other restrictions on the values of $\mu$ for the existence of this
second fixed point.
Notice that this new fixed point and the isotropic one will coalesce if $\mu =
-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$. For $-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} < \mu < 0$, the anisotropic
fixed point has $\gamma_1 < \gamma_2$, whereas for $\mu < -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$
it has $\gamma_1 > \gamma_2$. Thus, $-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$ appears as a critical
value of $\mu$.
By considering small perturbations around the anisotropic fixed point, as
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 (t) = {36 \mu^2 \over \left(\mu^2 + 27 \Lambda_W \right)^2}
\left(1 + \delta x(t)\right) , \quad
\gamma_2 (t) = {9 \over \mu^2 + 27 \Lambda_W} \left(1 + \delta y(t) \right),
\end{equation}
we find the characteristic matrix of the linearized system with respect to $\tau$
\begin{equation}
{1 \over 27 (3\lambda -1)}
\begin{pmatrix}
(9\lambda - 2)\mu^2 - 27\Lambda_W (3\lambda - 1) & -(18\lambda - 5) \mu^2
+ 27 \Lambda_W (6\lambda -1) \\
-{1 \over 2} (9\lambda - 5) \mu^2 + {27 \over 2} \Lambda_W (3\lambda -1) &
(9\lambda - 4)\mu^2 - 27\Lambda_W (3\lambda - 2)
\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
The corresponding eigenvalues are
\begin{equation}
\zeta_{\pm} = {1 \over 18 (3\lambda -1)} \left[2(3\lambda -1) \mu^2 - 27 \Lambda_W
(2\lambda -1) \pm \sqrt{\Delta} \right] ,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\Delta = 6(3\lambda -1) (2 \lambda -1) \mu^4 - 72 \Lambda_W \mu^2 (3\lambda -1)^2
+ 243 \Lambda_W^2 \left(12\lambda^2 -6\lambda +1\right) ~ .
\label{descrim}
\end{equation}
The eigenvalues $\zeta_{\pm}$ are real\footnote{It follows by noting that the two roots
of $\Delta$ occur at
\begin{equation}
\mu_{\pm}^2 = {3 \Lambda_W \over 2 (3\lambda -1) (2\lambda -1)} \left[4(3\lambda -1)^2
\pm \sqrt{2(3\lambda -1)} \right] \nonumber
\end{equation}
and they are complex for $\lambda < 1/3$. Thus, $\Delta$ has the same sign as the
coefficient of its $\mu^4$-term, which is positive.}. Since their product is given by
\begin{equation}\label{eigepro}
\zeta_+ \zeta_- = {\left(\mu^2 - 9 \Lambda_W\right)\left (\mu^2 + 27 \Lambda_W\right) \over
162 (3\lambda -1)} ,
\end{equation}
we note the appearance of a critical value $\mu$, which is the same as for the isotropic
fixed point, $\mu = -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$. Then, for $\mu < -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$ the
anisotropic point is saddle. On the other hand, in order to
examine the stability of this fixed point for $-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} < \mu < 0$, we consider
the sum of the two eigenvalues,
\begin{equation}
\zeta_+ + \zeta_- = {1 \over 9 (3\lambda -1)} \left[2 (3\lambda -1) \mu^2 -
27 \Lambda (2\lambda -1) \right] ~,
\label{eigencha}
\end{equation}
which is now negative. Therefore, for $-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} < \mu < 0$, the anisotropic
fixed point is absolutely stable.
Summarizing all results obtained above, we have the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item An isotropic fixed point exists for all $\mu$ and it is absolute stable when $\mu > 0$
or $\mu < -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$. For $-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} < \mu < 0$ it is a saddle point.
\item An anisotropic fixed point exists for all $\mu<0$. It is absolutely stable for
$-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} < \mu < 0$ and saddle for $\mu < -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$, which
is reverse to the behavior of the isotropic fixed point.
\end{itemize}
As can be seen there are similarities as well as some differences with the classification
of fixed points of the normalized Ricci--Cotton flow.
\subsection{Phase portraits of the flow}
A qualitative picture of the flow lines is provided by three consecutive phase
portraits for different values of the parameter $\mu$.
In all drawings we choose
$\Lambda_W = 0.25$ and $\lambda = 0.1$, and so the three regimes are $\mu > 0$ or
$-1.5 < \mu <0$ or $\mu < -1.5$. The isotropic fixed point appears at $\gamma_1
= \gamma_2 = 1/4\Lambda_W = 1$.
First, we consider the case $\mu >0$ that exhibits only one (isotropic) fixed point,
as shown in figure \ref{fig10}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig11.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $\mu>0$; here, $\mu=1$.}\label{fig10}
\end{figure}
Next, we consider the case $\mu <0$ that exhibits an additional (anisotropic) fixed
point and make the following choices for the plots shown in figures \ref{fig11} and
\ref{fig12}:
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig12.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $-1.5 = -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} <\mu<0$; here, $\mu=-1$.}\label{fig11}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig13.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $\mu<-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} =-1.5$; here, $\mu=-2$.}\label{fig12}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mu = -1$: the anisotropic fixed point occurs at $\gamma_1 \simeq 0.60$, $\gamma_2 =
\gamma_3 \simeq 1.16$.
\item $\mu = -2$: the anisotropic fixed point occurs at $\gamma_1 \simeq 1.24$, $\gamma_2 =
\gamma_3 \simeq 0.84$.
\end{itemize}
\boldmath
\subsection{The special case $\Lambda_W = 0$}
\unboldmath
Setting $\Lambda_W = 0$ corresponds to taking the effective speed of light equal to zero,
while keeping $\lambda < 1/3$ arbitrary. It should be contrasted with the normalized
Ricci--Cotton flow, which is independent of $\Lambda_W$ and has also zero effective speed
of light.
The isotropic fixed point is now pushed to infinity and corresponds to a round $S^3$
with infinite radius. This is also apparent from the exact isotropic solution
\eqn{exactama2} that converges to it after infinitely long time. However, it is not
strictly speaking a fixed point of the flow lines, since $\mathrm{d}\gamma_1/\mathrm{d}t$ and
$\mathrm{d}\gamma_2/\mathrm{d}t$ do not vanish there when $\Lambda_W = 0$.
When $\mu < 0$ there is an anisotropic fixed point of the axially symmetric
flow for
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = {36 \over \mu^2} = 4\gamma_2 = 4\gamma_3 ~.
\end{equation}
This is always a saddle point because the corresponding eigenvalues of the characteristic
matrix of small perturbations are
real for $\lambda <1/3$ and their product is negative. The results follow setting
$\Lambda_W = 0$ in the expressions we had before (see e.g. (\ref{eigepro})).
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=9cm]{Fig14.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $\mu > 0$; here, $\mu=1$.}\label{fig13}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=10cm]{Fig15.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{The flow lines for $\mu < 0$; here, $\mu=-5$.}\label{fig14}
\end{figure}
We include two phase portraits of the flow lines that are characteristic for
$\mu >0$ and $\mu <0$, respectively, choosing $\lambda = 0.1$.
The case $\mu >0$ is shown first in figure \ref{fig13}.
Next, we consider
the case $\mu <0$ that exhibits an additional (anisotropic) fixed
point and make the choice $\mu = -5$. The anisotropic fixed point occurs at $\gamma_1
\simeq 1.44$, $\gamma_2 = \gamma_3 \simeq 0.36$ as shown in figure \ref{fig14}.
Finally, concluding this section, we end up with an interesting observation that
arose in our study of the flow lines. Along these lines, the volume of space changes, but
the dependence on $t$ is not monotonic in general. It is therefore
interesting to inquire in this context for the existence of bouncing solutions for which the
volume reaches a minimum and then increases in time. Although this behavior is not
generic, it seems to arise along particular flow lines that can be found by
numerical scanning. An example of this kind is provided in figure \ref{bounces}
for an appropriate choice of initial data and couplings.
Cases with full anisotropy, but with initial conditions close to axial symmetry, also
seem to lead to bounces, including minima with very small volume.
Similar conclusions hold when $\Lambda_W > 0$, with or without axial symmetry, but we have
not been able to obtain any quantitative characterization of the phenomenon so far.
The bouncing solutions
can be regarded (in some sense) as the Euclidean space analogue of bouncing
models in standard cosmology, which provide a viable alternative to inflation.
Matter bounces have already appeared in studies of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz cosmology
(see, for instance, \cite{calca1, calca2, calca3}), but they are also
non-generic. It remains to be seen whether they have any special meaning and
implications for the models we study here, although their occurrence
does not require any matter couplings, as they are purely geometric, and, hence,
different from those arising in cosmology.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=1]{Fig10.pdf}
\caption{Bouncing solution with initial data $\gamma_1^{(0)}=28$, $\gamma_2^{(0)} =
\gamma_3^{(0)} =4$ for $\lambda =0.26$, $\Lambda_W = 0$ and $\mu=-5$.\label{bounces}}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Space-time interpretation of the flow lines}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
The solutions of geometric flows are shown as flow lines in the
various phase portraits that have been drawn. Explicit solutions were
obtained in special cases, whereas more general solutions can only be described
pictorially. The problems that will be addressed in this section are the selection
of flow lines that can qualify as regular gravitational-instanton solutions in four
dimensions and the completeness of the corresponding space-time metrics. It
will also be useful in this context to compare $SU(2)$ instanton solutions
of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory with those of ordinary Einstein gravity.
According to the analysis of section \ref{sec23}, only the flow lines that
interpolate between two fixed points (when more than
one fixed point is present in our models) qualify as instantons. They are indeed
finite-action solutions, and this property is sufficient
to determine the global structure of space--time and its asymptotic behavior,
and render the corresponding metrics complete. Our main result in a nut-shell
is that all gravitational instantons with $SU(2)$ isometry
are globally $\mathbb{R} \times S^3$ describing a smooth deformation of $S^3$ as
$t$ runs from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$, without ever encountering a singularity.
The details are given below together with the {\em complete classification} of
gravitational instantons with $SU(2)$ isometry in Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity
with anisotropy parameter $z=3$.
We will also compute their Euclidean action and determine their moduli spaces.
In most cases we have explicit solutions. There are also a few other solutions
that are shown to exist, but we have not (yet) been able to obtain expressions
for their metric in closed form.
The variant of the theory with anisotropy parameter $z=2$ will not be especially
discussed, since it is clear that it exhibits no instanton solutions (of the type
we are considering here) with $SU(2)$ isometry. Recall in this case that the relevant
equations are provided by the Ricci flow on $S^3$, which takes the form \eqn{halfi}
in proper time with arbitrary parameters $\lambda < 1/3$ and $\Lambda_W > 0$. Its
fixed points are determined by the equations
\begin{equation}
R_{ii} -\frac{2\lambda-1}{2(3\lambda-1)}R \gamma_{i} +\frac{\Lambda_W}{1-3\lambda}
\gamma_{i} = 0 \ , \quad i = 1, 2, 3
\end{equation}
and clearly there is a unique solution given by the constant-curvature metric with
$R = 6 \Lambda_W$. The absence of other fixed points, which is also implied on more
general grounds by Poincar\'e's conjecture for $S^3$, shows that there can be no
finite-action instanton solutions in this case.
Thus, in the following, we focus on instanton solutions of the $z=3$ theory and
explain their properties, as outlined above.
\subsection{Global structure and completeness of the metrics}
First of all we examine the occurrence of singularities that can appear at finite
proper time $t$ (or $\tau$, since the two are simply related by rescaling) and
render the Euclidean space--time manifold incomplete. Singularities
arise when some or all of the metric coefficients of the Bianchi IX
model geometry vanish and they are classified, in general, as {\em nuts} and
{\em bolts}. Such singularities are intimately related to the fixed points of
Killing vector fields by geometrical reasoning and they are independent of the
gravitational equations. Following \cite{nuts, Eguchi:1980jx} we recall that the
structure of the fixed point set of a Killing vector field $\xi_{\mu}$ acting on any
four-dimensional Riemannian manifold with metric $g_{\mu \nu}$ is determined
by the rank of the $4 \times 4$ matrix $\nabla_{\mu} \xi_{\nu}$. This is an
anti-symmetric matrix (since its symmetric part vanishes identically by definition
of a Killing vector) which can have rank $4$ or $2$; rank $0$ is excluded for,
otherwise, the vector field vanishes everywhere.
In the former case there are no directions left invariant at the tangent space
of the fixed point, which, thus, appears to be isolated
and it is called nut. In the latter case only a two-dimensional subspace of
the tangent space at the fixed point remains invariant under the action of the
Killing vector field, whereas the
two-dimensional orthogonal complement rotates into itself. Then, the fixed point
set is provided by this invariant two-dimensional subspace and it is naturally
called bolt (it is typically a two-sphere, as in Bianchi IX geometries).
Nuts and bolts lead to incomplete manifolds, in general, but in certain cases the
apparent singularities can be removed and provide regular and complete metrics with
no curvature singularities. It all depends on the form of the metric as these
singularities are approached. A removable nut singularity contributes one unit to
the Euler number $\chi$ of the four--manifold and a removable $S^2$ bolt singularity
contributes two units \cite{nuts}, following the theorems on fixed points.
This counting applies to compact four--manifolds without boundary,
but it also generalizes to non-compact spaces when the Killing vector field is
either everywhere tangential to the boundary (as in space--times with homogeneous
spatial sections that we are considering here) or is everywhere transverse.
Thus, if $\chi \neq 0$, any Killing vector field will have at least one fixed
point. No fixed points imply that $\chi = 0$. Instanton solutions of Einstein
and Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity are quite different in this respect, as will be
seen shortly, having important implications for their global topological structure.
Let us briefly review when such singularities can be removed from a
Riemannian four-manifold without referring to any specific theory or any solutions
at the moment. Using locally the Bianchi IX form of the metric (\ref{GRgravinst})
\begin{equation}
\label{mirmigki}
\mathrm{d}s^2 = \mathrm{d}t^2 + a^2 (t) \left(\sigma^1\right)^2 + b^2 (t) \left(\sigma^2\right)^2
+ c^2 (t) \left(\sigma^3\right)^2 ,
\end{equation}
we suppose that a singularity (nut or bolt) occurs at some finite proper
distance, say $t=0$. It is well known that the metric has a {\em removable nut
singularity} provided that near $t=0$ all metric coefficients vanish as
\begin{equation}
a^2(t) = b^2(t) = c^2(t) = {1 \over 4} t^2 \quad {\rm as} \quad t \rightarrow 0 ~.
\end{equation}
In this case we have a coordinate singularity of the polar coordinate system in
$\mathbb{R}^4$ centered at $t=0$, which is simply removed by changing to a local
Cartesian coordinate system near the point $t=0$ and adding it to the manifold.
Also, it is well known that the metric has a {\em removable bolt singularity}
provided that near $t=0$ two of the metric coefficients (say $a^2$ and $b^2$)
become equal and the third vanishes as
\begin{equation}
a^2(t) = b^2(t) = {\rm finite} ~, \quad c^2(t) = {1 \over 4} n^2 t^2 \quad
{\rm as} \quad t \rightarrow 0 \quad \mathrm{with} \quad n \in \mathbb{Z} ~.
\end{equation}
Then, $a^2 = b^2 = R_0^2$ implies $a^2 (\sigma^1)^2 + b^2 (\sigma^2)^2 = R_0^2
(\mathrm{d}\vartheta^2 + \sin^2 \vartheta \mathrm{d} \varphi^2)$, which is the canonical $S^2$ metric,
while the $\mathrm{d}t^2 + c^2 (\sigma^3)^2$ part of the four-dimensional metric becomes
$\mathrm{d}t^2 + (n^2 t^2 / 4) \mathrm{d}\psi^2$ near $t=0$, keeping $\vartheta$ and $\varphi$ constant.
In this case, the topology of the manifold is locally $\mathbb{R}^2 \times S^2$
and the $\mathbb{R}^2$ factor shrinks to a point on $S^2$ as $t \rightarrow 0$.
By adjusting the range of $\psi$ so that $n\psi /2$ runs from $0$ to $2\pi$,
the apparent singularity at $t=0$ becomes a coordinate singularity of the polar
system in $\mathbb{R}^2$ and can be removed as before. In all other cases the
singularities cannot be removed and the manifold is incomplete.
The above reasoning is purely geometrical without reference to any field
equations. Thus, different gravitational theories for Euclidean space--times of the
form \eqn{mirmigki} may or may not lead to removable singularities at the fixed points
of a Killing vector field. This depends on the way that the metric coefficients
approach zero in the vicinity of a singularity and it is sensitive to the dynamics.
The space--time singularities of Euclidean Einstein and Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity
(if they are present) will follow different power-law behavior, which, in turn, will
affect the completeness of the corresponding metrics. Thus, the absence of non-removable
singularities provides a natural selection for the physically admissible solutions
in those theories.
In Euclidean Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity, a singularity can only arise if an
eligible flow line reaches the boundaries -- including the origin -- of the physical
parameter space, namely the two wedges of the first quadrant in the $(x, y)$ (or
$(\gamma_1, \gamma_2)$) plane used in the phase portraits. Then, the flow becomes
extinct as it cannot be continued beyond that point. Such singularities, if
they are present, will arise at finite proper time (say $t=t_0$, but we can always
set $t_0 = 0$ without loss of generality). This is obviously so because such
singular points can also act as initial data for the time-reversed flow at a given
finite instance of (proper) time\footnote{Proving finiteness of extinction time for
the solutions of geometric flow on certain three-manifolds is an intricate mathematical
problem that will not be addressed in all generality, since we are only considering
homogeneous geometries on $S^3$. It is a key point in Perelman's proof of the Poincar\'e
conjecture based on Ricci flow \cite{perel} and it is not yet clear how it may generalize
to the Ricci--Cotton flow.}. Such possibilities should be ruled out by the theory, unless
the singularities are removable nuts or bolts, for, otherwise, the space--time metric
will be singular. Using the Bianchi IX form of the metric \eqn{mirmigki} with
$a^2 = \gamma_1$, $b^2 = \gamma_2$ and $c^2 = \gamma_3$ (like in \eqn{m4dHL}), which is the appropriate
choice in this case, we may set (as in nuts)
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = \beta_1 t^{p_1} ~, \quad \gamma_2 = \beta_2 t^{p_2} ~, \quad
\gamma_3 = \beta_3 t^{p_3}
\end{equation}
or alternatively (as in bolts)
\begin{equation}
\gamma_1 = \beta_1 ~, \quad \gamma_2 = \beta_2 ~, \quad
\gamma_3 = \beta_3 t^{p_3}
\end{equation}
and determine the allowed values of the coefficients $\beta_i$ and the exponents
$p_i$ as $t \rightarrow 0$.
In all cases we find that the first-order system of Bianchi IX equations for
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity with general couplings does not lead to removable
nuts or bolts. Only non-removable singularities can arise along the
flow lines and they seem troublesome\footnote{The power-law behavior of solutions as
the flow lines approach the origin can also be read off from the exact solutions we have
presented in various cases.}. Recall, however, that instanton solutions are
rather restrictive, since they are described only by those trajectories that
interpolate between two fixed points. Therefore, their metrics would be singular if
any one of the fixed points were singular.
But this is a contradiction of terms and cannot happen, since a fixed point,
unlike a singularity, is
only reached at infinite proper time, $t \rightarrow \pm \infty$ (with sign that
depends on the direction of the flow), and not at
at finite time\footnote{This is also implied by the stability analysis around the
fixed points, which shows that the time dependence of small fluctuations varies
exponentially as $t$ goes to infinity.}. Thus, the instanton solutions protect
themselves from the singularities that may otherwise arise by moving along generic
flow lines. Whenever instanton solutions exist, their spaces will be always complete
without any singularities.
In Euclidean Einstein gravity nuts and bolts are important
elements in the theory of gravitational instantons, since all known solutions exist
thanks to their presence. In this case, there is a certain class of gravitational instantons
\eqn{mirmigki} that follows from the Ricci flow equations \eqn{halphen} in proper time
$t$ with $\gamma_1 = a$, $\gamma_2 = b$ and $\gamma_3 = c$, as explained in section 3.2.
They include the trivial flat--space metric associated with the isotropic solution
\eqn{triviasola}, having $a^2 = b^2 = c^2 = t^2/4$ everywhere (with $t_0 = 0$),
as well as the Taub--NUT metric
as the next non-trivial example with an additional axial symmetry
$a(t) = b(t)$ and a removable nut singularity at the origin\footnote{The
gravitational field equations determine the Taub--NUT metric in the form shown in
section 3.2,
\begin{equation}
{a(t) \over m} + {\rm arcsinh} {a(t) \over m} = {-t + t_0 \over m} =
{\rm log} {2m + c(t) \over 2m - c(t)} - 2m \left({1 \over 2m + c(t)}
- {1 \over 2m - c(t)} \right) ~. \nonumber
\end{equation}
Setting $t_0 = 0$ for convenience, the power-law behavior of the coefficients
close to the origin $t=0$ turns out to be $a^2(t) = b^2(t) = c^2(t) = t^2 /4$
and describes a removable nut singularity.}. The Atiyah--Hitchin metric provides
an even more complicated solution, which is fully anisotropic and complete
\cite{Atiyah1, Atiyah2}. It exhibits a removable bolt singularity at the origin,
where $b=-c$ and it comes asymptotically close to Taub--NUT metric with $a=b$ as
$t \rightarrow \infty$; we skip the details as they are not important for the
present work. It turns out that these are the only complete gravitational
instantons with $SU(2)$ isometry that satisfy the Ricci flow equations
\eqn{halphen}; there is another complete metric with $SU(2)$ isometry, the
Eguchi--Hanson instanton, which has $a=b$ everywhere and a removable bolt
singularity at the origin, but its coefficients satisfy a different system of
first-order equations. Finally, we note for completeness, that exactly the
same reasoning applies to gravitational instantons of Einstein gravity
with cosmological constant \cite{nuts, Eguchi:1980jx} that have removable nut
and bolt singularities (e.g., $\mathbb{C}P^2$ as a gravitational instanton).
Thus, on the one hand, in Euclidean Einstein gravity the instanton spaces have non-vanishing
Euler number and, in many cases, they also have non-vanishing signature (given
roughly, but without any further explanation here, by the number of nuts minus
the number of anti-nuts \cite{nuts} that may be present). On the other hand,
the instanton solutions of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity are globally
$\mathbb{R} \times S^3$ having zero Euler number and signature.
They simply describe the evolution of a three-sphere from $t = -\infty$ to
$t = + \infty$ which deforms geometrically by the flow without ever becoming
singular along the way; as such they resemble closer the behavior of ordinary
instantons in particle theories rather than the instantons of Einstein
gravity. This is not surprising in retrospect, since consistency of the
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity is not questionable in the projectable case
for space--times with global cross-product foliation structure.
In either case, the corresponding metrics are regular everywhere and complete
and their Euclidean gravitational action is finite -- though the reasoning is
different for each theory. The finiteness of the action, which will be
discussed more extensively shortly, makes these solutions mostly relevant in
the quantum theory using, for instance, the path integral approach.
Let us also discuss the asymptotic structure of the solutions and compare them
to those of ordinary gravity, since there are also important differences between
the two theories. In Einstein gravity, the physical boundary conditions are
largely determined by the positive-action conjecture that requires that the action
of any asymptotically Euclidean four-metric be positive, vanishing if and only if
the space is flat \cite{perry,Eguchi:1980jx, Gibbons:1979xn}.
Then, using the Bianchi IX form of the metric \eqn{mirmigki},
the following possibilities arise at infinite proper distance $t$: either there
is a Euclidean infinity
\begin{equation}
a^2(t) = b^2(t) = c^2(t) = {1 \over 4} t^2 \quad {\rm as} \quad t \rightarrow \pm \infty
\end{equation}
when $0 \leq \psi \leq 4\pi$ (it is a conical infinity when $0 \leq \psi \leq 2\pi$)
or a Taubian infinity
\begin{equation}
a^2(t) = b^2(t) = t^2 ~, \quad c^2 = {\rm finite} \quad {\rm as} \quad t \rightarrow \pm
\infty
\end{equation}
that encompasses the Taub--NUT metric. Combining all distinct boundary conditions
that are available at $t = 0$ and $t = \pm \infty$, one ends up with a few viable
solutions that provide the list of all complete gravitational instanton metrics
with $SU(2)$ isometry. Similar considerations may apply to solutions with cosmological
constant.
In Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory the situation is different. The Euclidean action is
always positive-definite (at least for $\lambda < 1/3$ that we are considering here)
and vanishes when the three-dimensional metrics are vacua of topologically massive
gravity without any time dependence. Thus, there are no a priori conditions on the
asymptotic structure of instantons other than the mere existence of multiple vacua
in three dimensions that serve as fixed points of the flow.
Then, the asymptotic structure of space--time as $t \rightarrow \pm \infty$ is simply
determined by the specific form of the metric coefficients $\gamma_1$, $\gamma_2$
and $\gamma_3$ at the initial and final fixed points, respectively. Their time
dependence is exponential and it is completely determined by the eigenvalues of the
characteristic matrix of small fluctuations around these fixed points. The departure
from usual asymptotics (with zero or positive cosmological constant) is inherited to
the solutions from the detailed balance condition and seems to be rather universal.
It inflicts other classes of solutions, such as the construction
of black-hole solutions whose right asymptotic structure requires departure from
detailed balance using more general couplings \cite{black1, black2, black3} (otherwise
there is no match with observations at large distances).
This is also closely related to the
problem of obtaining ordinary gravity by arguing (naively) that all higher-order
curvature terms are suppressed in the infrared regime of the theory\footnote{For
the same reason we cannot obtain the instantons of Einstein gravity from
those of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory. The first arise by dropping all higher-curvature
terms and setting $\lambda = 1$, whereas the latter exist in the full
theory only for $\lambda < 1/3$. Bianchi type IX models may offer a glimpse at
this problem since the gravitational potential is derived from a superpotential
in both cases (see, for instance, \cite{Gibbons:1979xn} for the derivation of
the superpotential that governs $SU(2)$ instantons in ordinary gravity; this
reference also provides a neat qualitative picture for the completeness of their
metrics using Hamiltonian methods). It should be easier to explore the
renormalization of the coefficients of the superpotential and the
parameter $\lambda$ for this class of mini-superspace models, as the theory is
taken from the ultra-violet to the infrared domain.}. However, it
is not necessarily a big problem in the ultra-violet regime relevant to early time
cosmology, where our discussion
is applicable keeping $\lambda < 1/3$. Abandoning detailed balance will ruin our
general construction of instanton solutions.
\boldmath
\subsection{The action and moduli of $SU(2)$ instanton metrics}
\unboldmath
Let us now give some examples of instantons, based on the results described in previous
sections, and compute their action $S_{\rm instanton} = |\Delta W|/2$ in each case
separately (see \eqn{finitac}). In general, the superpotential consists of two terms
$W = W_{\rm CS} + W_{\rm EH}$,
which are given by the following expressions for Bianchi IX model geometries,
\begin{equation}
W_{\rm CS} = {16 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} \left[1 + {1 \over 2 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3}
(\gamma_1 + \gamma_2 - \gamma_3) (\gamma_1 - \gamma_2 + \gamma_3) (\gamma_1 - \gamma_2
- \gamma_3) \right]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
W_{\rm EH} = - {16 \pi^2 \over \kappa_W^2} \left[{1 \over \sqrt{\gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3}}
(\gamma_1^2 + \gamma_2^2 + \gamma_3^2 - 2 \gamma_1 \gamma_2 - 2 \gamma_2 \gamma_3 -
2 \gamma_3 \gamma_1) + 4 \Lambda_W \sqrt{\gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3} \right]
\end{equation}
and will be used next to evaluate the instanton action.
The cases below refer to instantons constructed from interpolating trajectories of the
Ricci--Cotton flow for different couplings, changing as the complexity of the equations
increases.
\paragraph{Cotton flow.}
For the pure Cotton flow treated in section 3.3 there are two
fixed points: the isotropic point with $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \gamma_3 = L^2/4$ and the
anisotropic fixed point with $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = xL^2/4$, and $\gamma_3 = L^2/4x^2$
that arises for $x = \infty$; two more anisotropic fixed points are obtained from it by
permuting the three principal axes of $S^3$. The
corresponding instanton, which is given in closed form by \eqn{mourira}, describes the
evolution of a fully squashed (flattened) sphere towards the round sphere as $t$ varies
from $-\infty$ to $+\infty$; the anti-instanton follows by reversing the time direction.
Note that a natural entropy function associated with the volume-preserving deformation of
$S^3$ (other than $W$) can be defined in this case\footnote{For Bianchi IX
model geometries one can define in general an additional function (other than
$W$) that changes monotonically under the Cotton flow. We consider
\begin{equation}
F(t) = {1 \over \gamma_1^2} + {1 \over \gamma_2^2} + {1 \over \gamma_3^2} ~,
\nonumber
\end{equation}
which is bounded from below by $3/(\gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3)^{\nicefrac{2}{3}} =
3 (16 \pi^2 / V)^{\nicefrac{4}{3}}$ for a three-sphere with volume $V$. The lower
bound is attained in the fully isotropic case $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = \gamma_3$.
$F(t)$ becomes infinite when the sphere is completely squashed in one or more
directions; as such, it is a measure of the ``shape entropy'' of $S^3$.
Using the Cotton flow \eqn{thecottfle}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
{\mathrm{d}F \over \mathrm{d}t} = -{\kappa^2 \over w_{\rm CS} (\gamma_1 \gamma_2 \gamma_3)^{3/2}}
\left[{(\gamma_2 + \gamma_3) (\gamma_2 - \gamma_3)^2 \over \gamma_1^2}
+ {(\gamma_3 + \gamma_1) (\gamma_3 - \gamma_1)^2 \over \gamma_2^2} +
{(\gamma_1 + \gamma_2) (\gamma_1 - \gamma_2)^2 \over \gamma_3^2} \right]
\nonumber
\end{equation}
and, therefore, $F(t)$ changes monotonically. For $w_{\rm CS} > 0$, these
properties of $F(t)$ suffice to prove the convergence of the flow lines to the fully
isotropic fixed point regardless of initial conditions \cite{Kisisel:2008jx}.}. It
is important for the mathematics of the Cotton flow, but, unlike $W$ that determines
the action of the instanton, this entropy has no deeper meaning in space--time (as far
as we can tell now). Also, there is no (yet) known analogue of it for the combined
Ricci--Cotton flow.
The instanton solution has enhanced isometry $SU(2) \times U(1)$, since the deformation
line possesses axial symmetry. Also, since the interpolating trajectory is unique, the
instanton has no moduli other than the radius of the sphere at the fixed point.
In this case, $W = W_{\rm CS}$ and one finds that the superpotential takes the following
values at the two fixed points,
\begin{equation}
W^{\rm iso} = {8 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} ~, ~~~~~~
W^{\rm aniso} = {16 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} ~.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the action is
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm instanton} = {4 \pi^2 \over |w_{\rm CS}|}
\end{equation}
and it is independent of the modulus $L$. Obviously, there are no other instantons
derived from the Cotton flow equations.
\paragraph{Normalized Ricci--Cotton flow.}
The normalized Ricci--Cotton flow has more than one fixed points when $\mu < 0$,
in which case there are instantons with $SU(2)$
isometry interpolating between them as $t$ varies for $-\infty$ to $+\infty$.
Let us first consider the instantons connecting the two axially symmetric
fixed points. Recall that the isotropic fixed point appears at $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2
= \gamma_3 = L^2/4$ and the anisotropic point at $\gamma_1 = \gamma_2 = L^2/4a$ and
$\gamma_3 = a^2 L^2/4$ (up to permutations of the axes of $S^3$), setting for
notational convenience
\begin{equation}
a = \sqrt{-{\mu \over 3}} ~.
\end{equation}
Then, explicit calculation shows that $W = W_{\rm CS} + W_{\rm EH}$ (with $\mu =
w_{\rm CS} L / \kappa_W^2$) takes the following form at the two fixed points,
\begin{equation}
W^{\rm iso} = {8 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} \left(1 - 9a^2 + 3a^2 \Lambda_W L^2\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
W^{\rm aniso} = {8 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} \left(2 + 4a^6 -14a^3 + 3a^2 \Lambda_W L^2\right) ~.
\end{equation}
Although $\Lambda_W$ does not appear in the normalized Ricci--Cotton flow equations,
it enters into $W$ by contributing the same at all points (recall that the volume $V$ is
preserved in this case). Consequently, the instanton action takes the value
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm instanton} = {4 \pi^2 \over |w_{\rm CS}|} (a-1)^2 \left(4a^4 + 8a^3 + 12a^2 + 2a +1\right)
\end{equation}
and it is independent of $L$, as expected. Notice that it vanishes when $a=1$ ($\mu = -3$),
as required, since the two fixed point coalesce and there is no instanton in this case.
The action is non-zero and positive for all other values $\mu < 0$.
The axisymmetric solutions of the normalized Ricci--Cotton flow have been constructed
explicitly in section 4.4, but one should only use those branches that interpolate
between the two fixed points. The stability analysis performed in section 4.2
shows that for $-3 < \mu < 0$ the isotropic fixed point is absolutely unstable and the
anisotropic is a saddle point. Therefore, there can be only one flow line interpolating
between the two fixed points (corresponding to the axisymmetric solution we obtained)
and the instanton has no moduli other than $L$. Exactly the same conclusion holds for
$-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}<\mu<-3$, since the isotropic fixed point is now absolutely stable and
the anisotropic is a saddle point. The absence of moduli in these cases can also be seen
schematically
in figures 4 and 5, respectively. Thus, for all $-6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}<\mu<0$ the instantons
have enhanced $SU(2) \times U(1)$ isometry. The situation changes drastically when
$\mu < -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$, since the isotropic fixed point is absolutely stable and
the anisotropic is absolutely unstable. In this case, we have several flow lines
interpolating between the two fixed points, as can also be seen schematically in figure 6,
and the instantons have an additional (real) modulus that labels these trajectories.
The physical interpretation of this modulus is nothing else but the geometric shape of
$S^3$ (there is only one shape modulus, since the volume of space is held fixed by
specifying $L$). Of course, the instanton action is independent of all moduli.
The axisymmetric solution we have obtained in this case has enhanced $SU(2) \times U(1)$
isometry, whereas the other ones should only have an $SU(2)$ isometry group. They all
correspond to regular and complete metrics on $\mathbb{R} \times S^3$, but we have not
been able to find them in closed form. They should be the analogue
of the Atiyah--Hitchin metric for Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity when $\lambda =
- \infty$. Their explicit construction is an interesting open mathematical problem.
Finally, we turn to instantons that owe their existence to the presence of
totally anisotropic fixed points in the problem when $\mu < -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$.
They have no moduli (other than their volume) since they connect a saddle point with
a stable or an unstable fixed point. These instantons also have $SU(2)$ isometry
but no higher symmetry.
The value of the superpotential for the totally anisotropic fixed points (see also
section 4.2) turns out to be
\begin{equation}
W^{\rm total ~ aniso} = {8 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} (10 + 3a^2 \Lambda_W L^2) ~.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the instanton that interpolates between these points and the totally
isotropic fixed point has action
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm instanton} = {72 \pi^2 \over |w_{\rm CS}|} (a^2 + 1) ~.
\end{equation}
It never becomes zero because these points cease to exist before they have the
chance to meet with the isotropic point.
Similarly, the instanton that interpolates between the totally anisotropic and the
axially symmetric anisotropic fixed points has action
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm instanton} = {16 \pi^2 \over |w_{\rm CS}|} (a^3-4) (2a^3 + 1) ~.
\end{equation}
The latter vanishes when $a^3 = 4$ ($\mu = -6 \, \sqrt[3]{2}$), as the end-points
coalesce in this case, and it is positive definite otherwise.
\paragraph{General Ricci--Cotton flow.}
The Ricci--Cotton flow with general couplings
(provided that $\lambda < 1/3$ and $\Lambda_W$ is non-negative) was found to exhibit
two fixed points when $\mu < 0$, in which case there are instanton solutions in
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity. Recall that the isotropic point appears at $\gamma_1 =
\gamma_2 = \gamma_3 = 1/4\Lambda_W$ and the anisotropic point at $\gamma_1 = 36 \mu^2
/\left(\mu^2 + 27 \Lambda_W\right)^2$ and $\gamma_2 = \gamma_3 = 9/\left(\mu^2 + 27 \Lambda_W\right)$,
assuming the presence of an axial symmetry $\gamma_2 = \gamma_3$ for all time.
Taking $\mu < 0$, we define, for notational convenience, the non-negative number
\begin{equation}
a = - {\mu \over 3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}}
\end{equation}
and evaluate the superpotential $W = W_{\rm CS} + W_{\rm EH}$ at the two fixed points.
Using $\mu = w_{\rm CS}/\kappa_W^2$, as defined in section 5, we obtain the following
results
\begin{equation}
W^{\rm iso} = {8 \pi^2 \over w_{\rm CS}} (1 - 6a) ~, \quad
W^{\rm aniso} = {16 \pi^2 \left(5a^4 - 54a^2 + 9\right) \over w_{\rm CS} \left(a^2 + 3\right)^2} ~.
\end{equation}
Therefore, the instanton action turns out to be
\begin{equation}
S_{\rm instanton} = {12 \pi^2 \over |w_{\rm CS}|} {(a-1)^2 \over \left(a^2 + 3\right)^2}
\left(2a^3 + 7a^2 + 24a + 3\right) ~.
\end{equation}
Note that the action is manifestly positive-definite, as required, and vanishes
when $a=1$ ($\mu = -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$), in which case the two fixed points
coalesce and there is no instanton.
Even in the presence of axial symmetry, which was used to simplify the analysis
of the general Ricci--Cotton flow equations, we have not been able to obtain the
interpolating
solutions in closed form. Nevertheless, it is clear that a unique solution exists in
this case, for all $\mu <0$, which interpolates between the two fixed points.
For $0 < a < 1$ ($-3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W} < \mu < 0$) the isotropic fixed point is
saddle and the anisotropic is absolutely stable, and, therefore, there is a single
flow line that connects the two. For $a>1$ ($\mu < -3 \sqrt{\Lambda_W}$)
the isotropic fixed point is now absolutely stable and the anisotropic is a saddle
point and, therefore, the interpolating flow line is again unique. This can also be seen
by inspecting figures 12 and 13.
The solutions at hand have no moduli at all\footnote{Even the
size of $S^3$ at the isotropic fixed point is not free, as $L$ was free to vary
in the normalized flow, but it is determined by the parameters of the differential
equations. Thus, it is not surprising that the instanton action depends on $\Lambda_W$
(through $a$) in this case.}. They correspond
to instantons with $SU(2) \times U(1)$ isometry. It will be very interesting to
construct them explicitly. Also, other more general solutions with strict $SU(2)$ isometry
are expected to exist in the general case, with $\gamma_1 \neq \gamma_2 \neq \gamma_3$,
but their investigation will not be pursued in the present work. We only note here that
all anisotropic fixed points of the Ricci--Cotton flow equations with general couplings
seem to be axially symmetric even when $\gamma_1 \neq \gamma_2 \neq \gamma_3$ at generic
points. Thus, we expect to have instanton solutions without axial symmetry that
interpolate between these fixed points, serving as the Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz analogue
of the Atiyah--Hitchin metric. They should depend only on one free parameter.
\paragraph{The special case $\Lambda_W = 0$.}
Finally, note that as $\Lambda_W$ is
taken to zero, while keeping $\mu$ fixed in the general system of Ricci--Cotton flow equations,
$W^{\rm iso}$ blows up to infinity, whereas $W^{\rm aniso}$ remains finite, tending to
the value $80 \pi^2/w_{\rm CS}$. Consequently, $S_{\rm instanton}$ becomes infinite
and one may consider it a problem, since instantons must have finite action.
However, in this case, there is no contradiction, since the isotropic configuration
ceases to be (strictly speaking) a fixed point when it is pushed away to infinity
by setting $\Lambda_W = 0$ and, therefore, the flow line that interpolates between
the two points (see figure 15) does not qualify as instanton solution of the theory.
In conclusion, there are no instanton solutions when $\Lambda_W = 0$.
This completes our analysis of $SU(2)$ gravitational instantons of
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory with anisotropy scaling parameter $z=3$.
We have obtained complete classification of all
explicit and implicit solutions that exist for all different couplings of the theory
satisfying the detailed balance condition, provided that $\lambda < 1/3$ and
$\Lambda_W > 0$. By the same token, the variant of the theory with scaling parameter
$z=2$ does not exhibit any such instanton solutions. The results are on par with
the classification of instantons with $SU(2)$ isometry in Einstein gravity. The only
missing technical part is the explicit construction of some of these instanton metrics.
We end this section with some general remarks concerning the existence and description
of instanton metrics in Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity without relying on isometry groups,
such as $SU(2)$.
According to definition, they should be trajectories of the Ricci--Cotton flow equations
interpolating between any two solutions of three-dimensional topologically massive gravity
that provide the fixed points. The landscape of vacua of topologically massive gravity
is not known completely\footnote{Note, however, the recent work \cite{gurses}
that develops techniques to solve the field equations of topologically massive
gravity (and other massive-gravity models) for three-dimensional geometries admitting
a Killing vector field. Older results in this direction are neatly summarized in
\cite{classif} although most of them focus on vacua with negative cosmological
constant.} and, therefore, it is difficult to make explicit general constructions. Also,
it is rather difficult to investigate the general behavior of the flow equations by
standard mathematical techniques, since they are third-order in space derivatives and
even the short-time existence of solutions is difficult to establish in all generality.
The formation and characterization of singularities is another related general open problem
for these flow equations. Addressing these issues successfully will lead to further advances.
\section{Generalization to higher dimensions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
In this section we make a few remarks concerning higher-dimensional generalizations
of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz theory and the correspondence of its instanton solutions
to the theory of higher-order geometric flows.
\boldmath
\subsection{Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity in $4+1$ dimensions}
\unboldmath
The general aspects have been reviewed in section 2 for all space--time dimensions.
The theory is power-counting renormalizable when $z=D$ using the appropriate
superpotential $W$. Let us concentrate on $D=4$ for definiteness, so that $W$ is
the action of four-dimensional gravity with higher-order corrections of the
general form \cite{Horava:2009uw}
\begin{equation}
\label{kokorikos}
W[g] = \int \mathrm{d}^4x \sqrt{g} \left(\alpha C_{ijk\ell} C^{ijk\ell} + \beta R^2 +
\gamma (R-2\Lambda_W) \right) .
\end{equation}
Here, $C_{ijk\ell}$ is the Weyl tensor and $R$ is the Ricci scalar curvature
of a four-dimensional Riemannian metric $g$ that describes the geometry of
spatial slices in a five-dimensional space--time with topology
$\mathcal{M}_5 = \mathbb{R} \times \mathcal{M}_4$. Here, there is no need to include the
term $R_{ij}R^{ij}$ because it can be removed by a Gauss--Bonnet topological
term, adjusting the coefficients $\alpha$ and $\beta$.
Thus, Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity in $4+1$ dimensions with anisotropic scaling
$z=4$ is defined by the action
\begin{equation}
S=\frac{2}{\kappa^2}\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^4 x\,\sqrt{g}N K_{ij}G^{ijk\ell}
K_{k\ell} - \frac{\kappa^2}{8}\int \mathrm{d}t\,\mathrm{d}^4 x\,\sqrt{g}N
\left({1 \over \sqrt{g}} {\delta W \over \delta g_{ij}}\right) \mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell}
\left({1 \over \sqrt{g}} {\delta W \over \delta g_{k\ell}}\right)
\end{equation}
using the extrinsic curvature $K_{ij}$ of $\mathcal{M}_4$ and the metric
$G^{ijk\ell}$ of superspace with parameter $\lambda$. Also, following the
general discussion of section 2, we will also take $\lambda < 1/4$ so that the
Euclidean counterpart of this action is manifestly bounded from below.
The theory with detailed balance is completely specified by the choice of $W[g]$.
It is given by the general expression \eqn{kokorikos} in $D=4$; other appropriate
choices of $W$ should be made in higher dimensions to render the theory power-counting
renormalizable. We also note for completeness that if higher-order curvature functionals are
chosen in $D$ spatial dimensions so that $z>D$, the resulting gravitational theory
will be power-counting superenormalizable \cite{Horava:2009uw}. Such generalizations
will not be considered at all in the present work.
Next, we illustrate the structure of the resulting equations by considering the
simplest higher-dimensional case with $z=D=4$.
\subsection{Bach flow and its variants}
Solutions of the Euclidean five-dimensional Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz
gravity can be obtained from the geometric-flow equation
\begin{equation}
{1 \over N(t)} \partial _t g_{ij}=\pm \frac{\kappa^2}{2\sqrt{g}}\mathcal{G}_{ijk\ell}
\frac{\delta W[g]}{\delta g_{k\ell}} + \nabla_i\xi_j+\nabla_j\xi_i
\end{equation}
that describes deformations of the four-dimensional Riemannian metric $g_{ij}$.
The lapse function $N(t)$ can be set equal to $1$ by time redefinition.
The details can be worked out using the following identity, which is well known among
people working in conformal Weyl gravity,
\begin{equation}
B^{ij} = - {1 \over \sqrt{ g}} {\delta W_{\rm Weyl} \over
\delta g_{ij}} ~,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
W_{\rm Weyl} = \int \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{ g} ~ C_{ijk\ell}
C^{ijk\ell}
\end{equation}
is the quadratic Weyl tensor action functional and
\begin{equation}
B^{ij} = \nabla_{k} \nabla_{\ell} C^{ikj\ell}
+ {1 \over 2} R_{k \ell} C^{ikj\ell}
\end{equation}
is the so called {\em Bach tensor} \cite{bach}. It is a fourth-order symmetric
and traceless tensor that clearly vanishes when the four-dimensional metric is
conformally flat. The Bach tensor provides the analogue of the Einstein
tensor in the field equations of conformal Weyl gravity, and, as such, it is
also covariantly conserved.
Thus, for this particular choice of superpotential $W$, the corresponding
geometric flow takes the form
\begin{equation}
\partial _t g_{ij}=\mp \frac{\kappa^2}{2} B_{ij} + \nabla_i\xi_j+\nabla_j\xi_i ~,
\end{equation}
and it can be naturally called Bach flow. Its fixed points (modulo reparametrizations)
are the vacuum solutions of conformal Weyl gravity and include the isotropic (constant
curvature) metric on $S^4$. It is mathematically more interesting to pick the sign
that drives the evolution towards the fixed points rather that away from them.
Although this is a higher-order flow, it is
better behaved mathematically than the third-order Cotton flow. Thus, one should
investigate it in detail and attempt to construct solutions. It is a new geometric
flow that has not appeared in the mathematics literature before, to the best of our
knowledge. By restricting it to K\"ahler manifolds, it might be also interesting to
compare it (and the variants which are discussed below) with other well known geometric
flows of fourth-order, such as the Calabi flow \cite{calabi}.
If there is an additional contribution to $W$ given by the quadratic Ricci scalar
curvature action,
\begin{equation}
W_{R^2} = \int \mathrm{d}^4 x \sqrt{g} ~ R^2 ~,
\end{equation}
it will account for the gradient term
\begin{equation}
H^{ij} = - {1 \over \sqrt{g}} {\delta W_{R^2} \over
\delta g_{ij}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
H^{ij} = 2 g^{ij} \nabla_{k} \nabla^{k} R - 2 \nabla^{i}
\nabla^{j} R - 2 R R^{ij} + {1 \over 2} g^{ij} R^2 ~.
\end{equation}
This tensor is symmetric but not traceless. Then, the complete flow equation will
be a variant of the Bach flow receiving contributions from $B^{ij}$ and $H^{ij}$,
which are both fourth-order. Of course, in the general case, there will also be
subleading curvature terms associated with the Einstein tensor $G^{ij}$ by adding
the four-dimensional Einstein--Hilbert action (possibly with a cosmological constant)
to the superpotential $W$.
Instanton solutions will correspond to flow lines interpolating between different
vacua of four-dimensional conformal Weyl gravity (and its deformations thereof),
but again it seems rather difficult to derive explicit general results. Using
four-dimensional model geometries may provide some simple and tractable
mini-superspace models that are worth studying in the future.
Similar considerations apply to all higher-dimensional generalizations of
Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity. In $D+1$ dimensions, the non-relativistic gravitational
theory becomes power-counting renormalizable when the anisotropic scaling parameter
is $z=D$. Then, for the appropriate choice of $W$, we obtain geometric flows of
order $D$ that describe instanton-like configurations of the Euclidean
($D+1$)-dimensional theory when $\lambda < 1/D$. This framework hosts very
naturally a whole hierarchy of geometric flows and provides a reason to study them.
\section{Conclusions and discussion}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
We examined the Euclidean version of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity satisfying the
detailed balance condition and described its instanton solutions as flow lines
interpolating between different fixed points of
a new class of geometric evolution equations, which are first-order in time.
Although the specific couplings implied by detailed balance are rather restrictive
(and sometimes appear to be problematic), the general connection between instanton
solutions and geometric flows is rather interesting in many respects. Focusing
to $3+1$ dimensions, where the potential term is derived from a superpotential
$W$ given by the action functional of three-dimensional topologically massive gravity
and the anisotropy scaling parameter of the theory is $z=3$, the driving curvature
terms are provided by a certain combination of the Cotton and Ricci tensors as well as
the cosmological constant term. The geometric-flow equations, called Ricci--Cotton flow,
were shown to exhibit an entropy functional that is given by $W$ and can be used to
put a lower bound on the Euclidean Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravitational action.
Our construction requires $\lambda < 1/3$ and $\Lambda_W > 0$, but otherwise the
parameters of the theory can be arbitrary within the class of detailed balance couplings.
Fixed points of the flow are provided by classical solutions of the three-dimensional
topologically massive gravity and they correspond to static solutions of the
($3+1$)-dimensional theory. As such, they include constant-curvature isotropic metrics in three
dimensions as well as anisotropic configurations obtained by balancing the deformation
effect of the Cotton and Ricci tensors. Since there is no general classification of these
metrics, the landscape of fixed points remains largely unexplored
to the best of our knowledge. Running solutions represent genuine time-dependent
configurations, but they are even more difficult to investigate in exact terms.
Thus, the Ricci--Cotton flow appears to be a rather complex system of equations
that deserves proper mathematical study on general grounds. Addressing these
problems in all generality remains out of reach at the moment, but some simple
mini-superspace truncations of the equations help to obtain concrete results in
simple cases that are interesting both physically and mathematically.
We found that the homogeneous model geometries on three-manifolds provide consistent
truncation of the Ricci--Cotton flow equations. In particular, focusing on the
Bianchi IX model geometries on $S^3$, so that the corresponding gravitational
instantons exhibit $SU(2)$ group of isometries, we were able to classify the
fixed points of the flow (isotropic as well as anisotropic) and study their
stability properties for a variety of different couplings. Some special solutions
with axial symmetry (associated with $SU(2) \times U(1)$ isometry group) were
constructed explicitly and their space--time interpretation was discussed in analogy
with the gravitational instanton solutions of ordinary gravity. In particular, we
have arrived at complete classification of the instanton solutions with $SU(2)$
isometry. It remains to be
seen whether more general running solutions can be constructed explicitly beyond
their qualitative description based on the phase portraits of the flow. Also, it
will be interesting to find other consistent reductions of the flow equations
beyond the class of homogeneous geometries, but we have not yet been able to obtain
any concrete results in this direction.
Another possibility that has not been discussed at all in this paper is to consider
super-renormalizable versions of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity in $3+1$ dimensions
with anisotropic scaling $z=4$. These are generated by a superpotential $W$
-- other than the action functional of topologically massive gravity -- which
contains higher-order Ricci curvature terms such as $R_{ij} R^{ij}$ and $R^2$
on top of the cosmological Einstein--Hilbert action in three dimensions
\cite{Horava:2009uw}. In this case, the instanton solutions will be described
by geometric flows in three dimensions with fourth-order derivatives in their
driving curvature terms. The resulting equations appear to have some nice
mathematical properties (compared to the third-order Ricci--Cotton flow) and they
also seem to admit consistent reduction to an autonomous system of ordinary differential
equations for homogeneous model geometries. A particular choice of such $W$ is
provided by the action of the so called ``new massive gravity'' in three dimensions
that contains both terms $R_{ij} R^{ij}$ and $R^2$ with relative coefficient
$-3/8$ \cite{townsend}. We intend to investigate elsewhere the corresponding
fourth-order flows \cite{sourd}, together with the associated instanton solutions,
and examine the privileged role (if any) of new massive gravity in this context.
Higher-dimensional generalizations were also briefly discussed. It was pointed out
that instanton solutions exist in all dimensions and their defining equations
provide new classes of geometric-flow equations, such as the Bach flow in four
dimensions. In general, the driving curvature terms of such flows contain
spatial derivatives of order $z$ (equal to the anisotropy scale parameter that
renders the higher-dimensional Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity power-counting
renormalizable) and they describe metric deformations on spatial slices of
dimension $D=z$. The hierarchy of such flows has not been considered in the
literature before and they certainly pose several interesting questions that are
worth studying in the details. They should also be of interest to the mathematics
community working on geometric analysis. In all cases,
the non-relativistic theory of gravity
provides a general framework to embed geometric evolution equations. The situation
should be compared to general relativity and string theory, where such embedding
is only possible in some very special cases, such as the Ricci flow on homogeneous
three-geometries that can be interpreted as self-dual gravitational instantons in four
dimensions or using some appropriately chosen higher-dimensional plane-wave
gravitational backgrounds.
The off-shell formulation of string theory based on the world-sheet renormalization
group equations provides a natural framework for the appearance of the Ricci flow
(and other closely related geometric-flow equations) in gravitational physics. In this
context, closed string tachyon condensation is described by transitions from one
fixed point to another more stable fixed point. Thus, the lines of the Ricci
flow resemble instanton transitions among different vacua of the string
landscape. In Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity, on the other hand, the Ricci flow
(and its variants) describe the instantons of the theory when the anisotropic
scaling is $z=2$. Therefore, it seems interesting to investigate further this
aspect while searching for possible embedding of the non-relativistic theory of
gravity into a more fundamental theory. Likewise, non-relativistic theories
of gravity with higher anisotropic scaling, in particular $z=D$, and their
instanton solutions may admit a similar description and interpretation in terms
of a more fundamental theory. It is not yet known, however, whether the geometric
evolution equations we are considering here can also arise as renormalization-group
equations in a class of quantum field theories.
Finally, another interesting problem is the use of instantons for the quantization
of Ho\v{r}ava--Lifshitz gravity. One possible line of work in this direction is the
path integral approach over Euclidean space--times with applications to quantum
cosmology in the spirit of Hartle--Hawking proposal. The quantization of
mini-superspace models appears to be tractable, at least for homogeneous
(but generally non-isotropic) geometries, and requires special attention. They
can also provide some non-perturbative information about the quantum theory and
a testing bed for comparison with the quantization of ordinary gravity.
It remains to be seen whether the non-relativistic theory of gravity is a
viable alternative to Einstein gravity at very short distances. However, the
simplified version of the theory with detailed balance can also play another
role in physics, serving as landscape explorer of the vacuum structure of
relativistic field
theories determined by $W$ (with topologically massive gravity being just an
example). It provides an effective particle model to describe transitions
among different vacua through instantons. It also
offers a dynamical principle for vacuum selection that is worth exploring
further in all generality using the powerful tools of geometric flows and
associated entropy functions. Advocating this point of view introduces a new
twist to the subject and departs from the idea (and the problems that seem to
accompany it) that Ho\v{r}ava-Lifshitz gravity is the ultra-violet completion
of a fundamental theory. It could have also been used from the very beginning
as an alternative motivation for the present work.
We hope to return to these topics elsewhere in the near future.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors would like to thank G. Huisken, A. Petkou, C. Sourdis and M. Taylor for
stimulating discussions. Many of the ideas developed in the present work were triggered
during the 2009 GGI workshop \textsl{New Perspectives in String Theory}. I. Bakas,
F. Bourliot and M. Petropoulos would like to thank the LMU for kind
hospitality. This research was supported by the Cluster of Excellence
\textsl{Origin and the Structure of the Universe} in Munich, Germany, the
French Agence Nationale pour la Recherche, contract 05-BLAN-NT09-573739
\textsl{String Cosmology}, the ERC Advanced Grant 226371
\textsl{Mass Hierarchy and Particle Physics at the TeV Scale},
the ITN programme PITN-GA-2009-237920 \textsl{Unification in the LHC Era}, the IFCPAR
programme 4104-2 and the GRC APIC PICS-Gr\`ece 3747.
\vskip1cm
|
\section{Introduction}
It is commonly accepted that the Pauli exclusion principle
plays a key role in superconductivity. None the less, the
precise way Pauli blocking transforms a collection of single Cooper pairs into a superconducting
condensate, still is an open problem. This precise understanding goes through
the study of Cooper pairs not within the grand canonical ensemble as done in the
standard theory proposed by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer (BCS), but within the canonical ensemble. To handle the
Pauli exclusion principle between a fixed number of interacting fermions is however known to be quite difficult when these fermions are paired.
Turning to the grand canonical ensemble makes the task far easier. This is why superconductivity has been tackled this way, the two procedures being equally valid in the thermodynamical limit. Yet, adding fermion pairs one by
one constitutes the one and only way to fully control the increasing effect of Pauli
blocking from the dilute to the dense regime of pairs.
Five years after the BCS milestone paper\cite{BCS} on superconductivity, Richardson succeeded to solve this N-body problem formally\cite{Richardson1,Richardson2,Richardson1968,Richardson3} (see also reference \cite{gaudin,Ushveridze}) . He showed that
the exact eigenstates of the Schr\"{o}dinger equation for an arbitrary number $N$ of pairs can be expressed in terms
of $N$ parameters, $R_{1}$,... $R_{N}$ which are solutions of $N$ coupled
non-linear equations, the energy of these $N$ pairs reading as $E
_{N}=R_{1}+...+R_{N}$. Although this exact form is definitely very smart, to
use it in practice is not that easy: Except in the infinite $N$ limit for which the BCS energy has been recovered \cite{Richardson3}, the equations giving $R_{1}$,... $R_{N}$ have not been, up to now, analytically solved for arbitrary $N$ and arbitrary interaction strength. The only approaches are numerical\cite{Duk,ortiz,delft}. This probably is why Richardson's solution has not had so far the
attention it deserves. Nowadays, these equations
are commonly addressed numerically to study superconducting granules having small number of pairs\cite{Duk,delft2001,sierra2000,schechter2001}.
Last year, we decided to tackle again these Richardson's equations because we wanted to reveal the deep connection which has to exist between two well-known problems, namely the
one-pair problem solved by Cooper and the many-pair problem considered by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer.
These two problems have intrinsic similarities: In
both cases, there is a ``frozen'' core of non-interacting electrons. Above this core, there is
a potential layer with attraction between up and
down spin electrons having opposite momenta. In the one-pair problem, this layer contains one electron pair
only, while in the standard BCS configuration, the potential
layer is half-filled - a symmetrical potential
on both sides of the Fermi level just corresponds to fill half the layer.
It is clear that, by adding more and more pairs to the frozen Fermi sea, we must go from the one-pair problem studied by Cooper to the dense regime studied by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer.
Although, at the present time, such a continuous pair increase
does not seem easy to experimentally achieve, this increase can at least be seen as a
gedanken experiment to study the evolution of the energy spectrum when
the filling of the potential layer is changed, in order to understand the exact role of the Pauli
exclusion principle in superconductivity.
This procedure can also be
seen as a simple but well-defined toy model to tackle the BEC-BCS crossover
since, by changing the number of pairs, we change their overlap.
An overlap change has already been considered by Eagles \cite{Eagle},
and also by Leggett \cite{LeggettCrossover}, through the change of the interaction strength between pairs. In their approach, the number of pairs is fixed, so that Pauli blocking does not change when the overlap changes while it increases when the pair number increases. Consequently, the two types of overlap change do not involve the same physics. This is why to change the overlap by changing the pair number at constant potential is a fully relevant problem, complementary to the one studied in the past by Eagles and by Leggett. We wish to mention that Ortiz and Dukelsky have applied Richardson's approach to the BEC-BCS crossover problem with a different perspective, the overlap being varied by changing the interaction strength\cite{crossoverRich}, along Eagles' and Leggett's idea. Some interesting comparisons between the BCS ansatz and Richardson's solution also follow from their work.
Since the Richardson's procedure allows one to fix the pair number and vary
this number at will from one to half filling, we seriously reconsidered
solving these equations analytically in order to better understand how superconductivity develops from a collection of single pairs through the $N$ dependence of their ground state energy. By turning to the dimensionless form of Richardson's equations, we succeeded to solve these equations analytically at lowest order of density in the dilute limit on the single pair scale\cite{paper1}.
Indeed, these equations do have a small dimensionless parameter which is the inverse of the number of pairs $N_{c}$ from which overlap between noninteracting single pairs would start.
This allowed us to demonstrate that, for $N$ arbitrary large but $N/N_{c}$ still small,
the energy of $N$ Cooper pairs reads, at lowest order in $1/ N_{c}$, as
\begin{equation}
E_{N}= N\left[ \left( 2\epsilon _{F_{0}}+\frac{N-1}{\rho _{0}}%
\right)-\epsilon _{c}\left( 1-\frac{N-1}{N_{\Omega }}\right) \right]
\label{eq:eN}
\end{equation}%
$\epsilon _{F_{0}}$ is the Fermi level energy of the frozen sea. \\$\epsilon _{c}\approx
2\Omega \exp \left( -2/\rho _{0}V\right) $ is the single pair binding
energy for a small potential amplitude $V$ (weak-coupling limit). $\rho
_{0} $ is the density of states within the potential
layer, taken as constant. It linearly increases with sample size. $N_{c }=\rho _{0}\epsilon _{c} $ while $N_{\Omega }=\rho _{0}\Omega $ is the number of free pair states in the potential
layer, $\Omega $ being the layer extension.
A $N(N-1)$ dependence in the energy of $N$ pairs suggests interaction treated at lowest order in density. In spite of it, the above result fully agrees with the textbook energy obtained in the dense BCS configuration. In other words, all higher order terms in the $N$ dependence of the energy cancel exactly, even under strong overlap. Indeed, the first term of Eq.\eqref{eq:eN} is
the exact energy of $N$ pairs in the normal state whatever this pair is. For a constant density of states $\rho _{0}$, the kinetic energy of $N$ free pairs above the frozen Fermi sea, is given by
\begin{multline}
{E}_{N}^{\text{(}normal)}= \\
2\left[\epsilon _{F_{0}}+\left( \epsilon _{F_{0}}+1/\rho _{0}\right) +\cdots
\;+\left( \epsilon _{F_{0}}+(N-1)/\rho _{0}\right)\right]
\end{multline}%
which is exactly equal to the first term of Eq. \eqref{eq:eN}.
If we now turn to the condensation energy in the BCS configuration, obtained, for a number of pairs corresponding to fill half the potential layer, we find, according to Eq.\eqref{eq:eN}
\begin{equation}
{E}_{N}^{\text{(}normal)}-{E}_{N}=\frac{N_{\Omega }}{2}\frac{%
\epsilon _{c}}{2}=\frac{1}{2}\rho _{0}\Omega ^{2}e^{-2/\rho _{0}V}
\end{equation}%
This result exactly matches the energy $\rho _{0}\Delta ^{2}/2$ obtained by Bardeen, Cooper, Schrieffer within the grand canonical
ensemble using their wave function ansatz, since the gap $\Delta $ reads as $%
2\omega _{c}\exp \left( -1/\rho _{0}V\right) $ where $2\omega _{c}$ is just the
potential layer extension $\Omega $.
The validity of a $N(N-1)$ interaction term over the whole density range seems to indicate that either Cooper pairs are not involved in many-body effects higher than 2x2, or some magic cancellation takes place even in the dilute limit on the single pair scale. This strongly indicates that some unrevealed physics must hide behind such a surprising $N$-dependence, hard to accept at first.
As the Pauli exclusion principle is said to play a key role in superconductivity while Pauli blocking between $N$ paired fermions is commonly known to be difficult to handle properly, it can appear of interest to approach many-body effects with Cooper pairs through a composite boson formalism similar to the one we have successfully developed for the many-body physics of excitons in semiconductors\cite
{CobosonPhysicsReports}.
The main purpose of the present work is to settle such a formalism. The physics being fully determined by the Hamiltonian, the major difference between an exciton gas and a set of Cooper pairs of course lies in the potential. Excitons interact via the Coulomb potential between its carriers. For Cooper pairs, we here take the usual ``reduced" BCS potential without questioning it. While its relevance has been proved in many physical effects, its main advantage surely is its simplicity which makes it ``solvable'' - even more than originally thought by Bardeen, Cooper and Schrieffer, as seen from Richardson's works and the quite recent analytical solution we found to his equations.
Coulomb potential is long-range, the BCS potential, taken as separable, is short range. This can be a reason for Cooper pairs to stay bound at large densities while excitons break through a Mott transition when the density increases. However, to our opinion, the crucial difference between excitons and Cooper pairs lies in the fact that usual excitons are made of fermion pairs having two degrees of freedom while the electrons which interact by the BCS potential have opposite momenta, so that electron pairs have one degree of freedom only. Actually, there also are excitons made of pairs with one degree of freedom: Frenkel excitons. Those exist in organic materials while Wannier excitons are found in inorganic materials. The latter are made from a free electron and a free hole, attracted by intraband Coulomb processes. By contrast, Frenkel excitons are made of atomic excitations on ion sites which are delocalized into exciton by Coulomb processes between atomic levels. It is worth noting that we have found the same $N(N-1)$ dependence for the hamiltonian mean value taken between $N$ ground state Frenkel excitons \cite{frenkel}, while Wannier excitons have been shown to have terms in $N(N-1)(N-2)$ and higher\cite{monicOdil}.
Another important difference between excitons and \\Cooper pairs is that Cooper pairs are said to stay bound in the dense regime, i.e., under strong overlap, while excitons dissociate through a Mott transition. As a result, excitons when they exist, always are in the dilute limit while the relevant regime for superconductivity is the dense regime. Due to this, creation operators for single exciton eigenstates are relevant operators to tackle the exciton many-body physics while the single Cooper pair operator is probably not a relevant operator in the dense regime. We can nevertheless develop a composite boson many-body formalism not for correlated pairs but for the free pairs out of which the BCS condensate is made. This is what we here do.
As a first interesting outcome of this formalism, we clearly see that, due to the very peculiar form of the reduced BCS potential, two pairs of free electrons with opposite spins and opposite momenta have an interaction scattering which is a succession of a fermion exchange between pairs followed by a fermion interaction \textit{inside} one pair. Since fermion exchange physically comes from the Pauli exclusion principle, this formalism evidences that two electron pairs interact, within the BCS potential, due to Pauli blocking only. However, as the Pauli exclusion principle acts between any number of pairs, exchange interaction scatterings - which originate from this Pauli exclusion - should a priori exist between more than two pairs. This strongly questions the $N(N-1)$ dependence of the $N$-pair energy we found: Why Pauli-induced $N$x$N$ exchanges do not show up through higher order terms in the energy?
The coboson formalism is capable of exactly handling Pauli blocking between an arbitrary number of composite bosons. Since the exact eigenstates of $N$ pairs have been shown to follow from Richardson's equations, a relevant first application of this formalism is to address to the eigenenergies of $N$ pairs in order to show how Richardson's equations follow from this formalism, and to possibly understand the origin of the eigenenergy $N$ dependency we found. In doing so, we see that $N-2$ pairs stay unchanged when the Hamiltonian $H$ acts on $N$ pairs. Since these pairs have one degree of freedom only, they cannot exchange their fermions in order to generate higeher order exchange Coulomb scattering as in the case of Wannier excitons. This can be the physical reason for the ground state energy of $N$ pairs to depend on $N$ as $N(N-1)$ only, with no higer order term, whatever $N$, a result hard to accept, especially when pairs strongly overlap.
The paper is organized as follow:
In section \ref{sec:beta}, we present the coboson formalism appropriate to many-body effects between the free
electron pairs on which Cooper pairs are constructed. We derive the Pauli and interaction scatterings for these free pairs.
In section
\ref{sec:rich}, we use this formalism to rederive Richardson's form of the
exact eigenstates for $N=1,2,3,\cdots$ pairs interacting through the reduced
BCS potential, in order to see how the solution for general $N$ develops. We then derive this general $N$ solution explicitly.
In section III, we physically analyze the role of the Pauli exclusion principle in a collection of Cooper pairs. We, in particular, show that the $1/(R_i-R_j)$ terms in Richardson's equations readily follow
from Pauli scatterings for fermion exchanges
between electron pairs. The Richardson's parameters $R_i$ do have $N$ \emph{different} values just because
of Pauli blocking between Cooper pair components. As a direct consequence, the $N$-pair ground state must be fundamentally different from the BCS ansatz. We then question this ansatz in the light of our general understanding of the many-body physics of composite bosons. In this section, we also briefly discuss the major difference between Cooper pairs and Wannier excitons which could possibly explain why the energy of $N$ Wannier excitons has terms in $N(N-1)(N-2)$ and higher while they do not exist for Cooper pairs.
In the last section, we conclude.
\section{Commutation technique for free fermion pairs making Cooper pairs\label{sec:beta}}
In our recent works on the many-body physics of composite bosons - essentially concentrated on semiconductor excitons - we have
proposed a ``commutation technique'' which allows an exact treatment of Pauli blocking between the fermionic components of these composite
bosons (cobosons in short). They appear through dimensionless ``Pauli scatterings'' which describe fermion
exchanges in the absence of fermion interaction. These dimensionless
scatterings, when mixed with energy-like scatterings coming from interactions
between the coboson fermionic components, allow us to deal with fermion exchanges
between any number of composite particles in an exact way. For a review on
this formalism and its applications to the many-body physics of
semiconductor excitons, see Refs. \cite%
{CobosonPhysicsReports}.
We here construct a similar formalism for the free electron pairs on which Cooper pairs are made.
\subsection{Exchange scattering}
We consider free fermion pairs with zero total
momentum
\begin{equation}
\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}=a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} }b^{\dagger}_{-\mathbf{k} }
\end{equation}
In the case of Cooper pairs, $a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} }$ creates a up-spin electron with momentum $\mathbf{k}$ while $b^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{-k} }$ creates a down-spin electron with momentum $\mathbf{-k}$. These $\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ pairs have one degree of freedom
only, namely $\mathbf{k}$. This has to be contrasted to the
most general fermion pairs $a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}b^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k%
} _2}$, such as Wannier exciton pairs, which have two. $\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ pairs actually have some similarity to Frenkel exciton pairs \cite{frenkel}, the index $\mathbf{k}$ being then replaced by the excited ion site $n$.
It is straightforward to show that the creation operators of these free fermion pairs commute
\begin{equation} \label{eq:bCom}
\left[\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} }%
\right] =0
\end{equation}
These free pairs thus are boson-like particles. It however is worth noting that while ${(a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}})} ^2=0$
simply follows from the anticommutation of $a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} }$
operators, the cancellation of ${(\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}})} ^2$ does not follow from Eq.\eqref{eq:bCom}, but from the fact that ${(\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}})} ^2$ contains ${(a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}})} ^2$. The ${(\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}})} ^2$ cancellation which comes from Pauli blocking, may appear to be lost
when working with pair operators instead of single fermion operators. We will see that this Pauli blocking is yet preserved in the commutation algebra for
free fermion pairs we develop.
If we now turn to creation and annihilation operators, their commutator reads
\begin{equation} \label{eq:betacom}
\left[\beta_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} }\right]
=\delta_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}\mathbf{k} }-\mathit{D} _{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}%
\mathbf{k} }
\end{equation}
where the ``deviation-from-boson operator'' of two zero-momentum free fermion pairs $\mathit{D} _{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}\mathbf{k%
} }$ reduces to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:D}
\mathit{D} _{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}\mathbf{k} }=\delta_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}%
\mathbf{k} }\left(a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}}a^{}_{\mathbf{k}
}+b^{\dagger}_{-\mathbf{k} }b^{}_{-\mathbf{k}
}\right)
\end{equation}
This operator which would be zero for fermion pairs taken as
elementary bosons, allows us to generate the dimensionless Pauli scatterings for fermion
exchanges between composite bosons in the absence of fermion interaction. Following our works on excitons\cite%
{CobosonPhysicsReports}, these are formally defined through
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dbeta}
\left[\mathit{D} _{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_1\mathbf{k} ^{}_1},\beta^{\dagger}_{%
\mathbf{k} _2}\right] =\sum_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_2}\left\{\lambda\left(%
\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1\end{smallmatrix}\right)
+\left(\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_1\leftrightarrow\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_2\right)
\right\} \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_2}
\end{equation}
By noting that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:aBeta}
\left[a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} }a^{}_{\mathbf{k} },\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p}
}\right] =\delta_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{p} }\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} }=%
\left[b^{\dagger}_{-\mathbf{k} }b^{}_{-\mathbf{k} },\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{%
p} }\right]
\end{equation}
it is then easy to show that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Dcom}
\left[\mathit{D} _{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_1\mathbf{k} ^{}_1},\beta^{\dagger}_{%
\mathbf{k} _2}\right] =2\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} ^{}_2}\delta_{\mathbf{k} _1%
\mathbf{k} _2}\delta_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_1,\mathbf{k} ^{}_2}
\end{equation}
This leads us to identify the Pauli scattering of two zero-momentum free fermion pairs appearing in Eq.(\ref{eq:dbeta}), with a
product of Kronecker symbols
\begin{equation} \label{eq:pauliscattering}
\lambda\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1\end{smallmatrix}%
\right) =\delta_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_1\mathbf{k} ^{}_1}\delta_{\mathbf{k}
^{\prime}_2\mathbf{k} ^{}_2}\delta_{\mathbf{k} ^{}_1\mathbf{k} ^{}_2}
\end{equation}
Such a simple expression results from the fact that these pairs are made of two free fermions, but also from the fact that they have one degree of freedom only.
Actually, this Pauli scattering is just the one we expect for fermion exchanges between $\left(\mathbf{k} _1,\mathbf{k} _2\right) $ pairs in the absence of fermion interaction,
as visualized by the Shiva diagram of Fig.(1a). Indeed, from this
diagram, it is clear that we must have $\left(\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_1=\mathbf{%
k} ^{}_1,\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_2=\mathbf{k} ^{}_2\right) $ and $\left(-\mathbf{k}
^{\prime}_2=-\mathbf{k} ^{}_1,-\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_1=-\mathbf{k} ^{}_2\right) $ which just gives the delta
factors of Eq.\eqref{eq:pauliscattering}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\centering
\par
\subfloat[][]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{lambda1.eps}\label{fig:lambda}}\qquad
\subfloat[][]{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth]{direct1.eps}\label{fig:direct}}\\
\subfloat[][]{\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{chi1.eps}\label{fig:chi}}
\par
\caption{Shiva diagram of free pairs }
\normalsize
\begin{flushleft}
\subref{fig:lambda} Pauli scattering $\lambda\left(%
\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1\end{smallmatrix}\right) $ for
electron exchange between two free pairs $\left(\mathbf{k} _1,\mathbf{k}
_2\right) $, as given by Eq.\eqref{eq:pauliscattering}. Up spin electrons
are represented by solid lines, down spin electrons by dashed lines.
\par\subref{fig:direct} The BCS potential given in Eq.\eqref{eq:vbcs}
transforms a $\mathbf{k} $ pair into a $\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}$ pair, with a
constant scattering $-V$, in the case of a separable potential $v_{\mathbf{k}
^{\prime}\mathbf{k} }=-V\,w_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}}w_{\mathbf{k} }$.
\par
\subref{fig:chi} Interaction scattering $\chi\left(%
\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_1\end{smallmatrix}\right) $
between two free pairs, as given in Eq.\eqref{eq:interactSc}. Since the BCS
potential acts within one pair only, scattering between two pairs can
only come from exchange induced by the Pauli exclusion principle.
\end{flushleft}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Interaction scattering}
We now turn to the interaction scatterings resulting from fermion-fermion interaction. For a free fermion hamiltonian
\begin{equation} \label{eq:h0}
H_0=\sum{\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left(a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} } a^{}_{\mathbf{k}
}+b^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} } b^{}_{\mathbf{k} }\right) }
\end{equation}
Eq.\eqref{eq:aBeta} readily gives
\begin{equation} \label{eq:betaH}
\left[H_0,\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\right] =2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}
\end{equation}
In standard BCS superconductivity, these fermion pairs interact through the reduced potential
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vbcs}
V_{BCS}=\sum{v_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}\mathbf{k} }\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
^{\prime}}\beta^{}_{\mathbf{k} }}
\end{equation}
We will show below that this potential must be taken as separable $v_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}\mathbf{k}}=-Vw_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime} }w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ with moreover $w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}^2=w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ in order to possibly find the $N$-pair eigenstates of $H_0+V_{BCS}$ analytically.
It is of importance to note that this potential fundamentally is a (1x1) potential in the fermion pair subspace since fermion $\mathbf{k}$
interacts with one fermion only of the other
species, namely fermion $\left(-\mathbf{k} \right)$(see Fig.(1b)). As a crucial consequence, this prevents direct interaction between two zero-momentum pairs. The only way these pairs feel each other, i.e., interact in the most general sense, is through the Pauli exclusion principle.
For this (1x1)
potential, we do have
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vbeta}
\left[V_{BCS},\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\right]
=\gamma^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}+V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}
\end{equation}
where $\gamma^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}=\sum_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}{}v_{%
\mathbf{k} \mathbf{p} }$ while $V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}$, that we will call ``creation potential'' of the free fermion pair
$\mathbf{p} $, is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:betaV}
V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}=-{\gamma^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}}\left(a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} }a^{}_{%
\mathbf{p} }+b^{\dagger}_{-\mathbf{p} }b^{}_{-\mathbf{p} }\right)
\end{equation}
The general property of creation potentials is that they give zero when acting on vacuum. As now shown, this operator allows us to generate the interactions of the $\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}$ pair with the rest of the system.
While the $\gamma^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}$ part of Eq.\eqref{eq:vbeta}
commutes with $%
\beta^{\dagger}_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}} ^\prime}$,
this is not so for the creation potential $%
V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}$. Using Eq. (\ref{eq:aBeta}), its commutator precisely reads
\begin{equation}\begin{split} \label{eq:vpotbeta}
\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} _1},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} _2}\right]
&=-2\delta_{\mathbf{p} _1\mathbf{p} _2}\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p}
_1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} _1}\\
&=-2\delta_{\mathbf{p} _1\mathbf{p} _2}\sum_\mathbf{k}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} _1}v_{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{p} _1}
\end{split}\end{equation}
This allows us to identify the interaction scattering for zero-momentum free pairs,
formally defined as \cite{CobosonPhysicsReports}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vBeta}
\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} _1},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} _2}\right]
=\sum\chi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_1\end{smallmatrix}%
\right) \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p}
^{\prime}_2}
\end{equation}
with a sequence of one (2x2) fermion exchange between two pairs and one (1x1) fermion interaction inside one pair. Indeed, this sequence leads to
\begin{equation} \label{eq:interactSc}
\begin{split}
\chi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_1\end{smallmatrix}%
\right) &=-\sum_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left\{v_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_1\mathbf{k} }\lambda\left(%
\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_1\end{smallmatrix}\right) +\left(%
\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_1\leftrightarrow\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_2\right) \right\}
\\
&=-\left(v_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_1,\mathbf{p} _1}\delta_{\mathbf{p}
^{\prime}_2,\mathbf{p} _2}+v_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_2,\mathbf{p} _2}\delta_{%
\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_1,\mathbf{p} _1}\right) \delta_{\mathbf{p} _2,\mathbf{p}
_1}
\end{split}%
\end{equation}
When inserted into Eq. (\ref{eq:vBeta}), this readily gives Eq. (\ref{eq:vpotbeta}).
This interaction scattering is visualized by the diagram of Fig.(1c): the free pairs $\mathbf{p}_1$ and $\mathbf{p}_2$ first
exchange an electron. As for any exchange, this brings a minus sign. In a
second step, the electrons of one of the two pairs, $\mathbf{p}' _1$ or ${\mathbf{p}}' _2$, interact via the BCS
potential. It is clear that, since the BCS potential has a (1x1)
structure within the pair subspace, the scattering between two pairs can only result, as ahead said, from
electron exchange between pairs, i.e., Pauli blocking. This diagram evidences it.
It is worth noting that electron exchange and electron interaction do not play a symmetrical role in this interaction scattering. Indeed, process in which the interaction takes place before the exchange - instead of after as in Fig.1c - would lead to
\begin{equation}
-\sum_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}} \lambda\left(%
\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_1&\mathbf{k}\end{smallmatrix}\right)v_{\mathbf{k}\mathbf{p} _1 } =-\delta_{\mathbf{p}
^{\prime}_1,\mathbf{p}^{\prime} _2}\delta_{\mathbf{p}
^{\prime}_2,\mathbf{p} _2}v_{\mathbf{p} _2\mathbf{p} _1}
\end{equation}
which is definitely different from the first term of Eq.(19).
In the next section, we use this commutation formalism to rederive the equations that Richardson has obtained for the eigenstates of $N$ Cooper pairs through a totally different route. The new derivation we have proposed, through its diagrammatic support, enlightens some important physical aspects of this exactly solvable problem.
\section{Richardson's equations for N Cooper pairs\label{sec:rich}}
In order to better grasp how these equations develop, we are going to increase the number of pairs in the potential layer one by one, starting from a single pair.
\subsection{One pair}
We first consider a state in which one free pair $(\mathbf{k} ,-\mathbf{k} )$ is added to a
``frozen'' Fermi sea $\left|F_0\right> $, i.e., a sea which does not feel the BCS potential.
This means that the $v_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}\mathbf{k} }$ prefactors in Eq.%
\eqref{eq:vbcs} cancel for all $\mathbf{k} $ belonging to $\left|F_0\right> $ in order to have $V_{BCS} \left|F_0\right>=0$.
Note that this ``one-pair'' state actually contains $N_0+1$ electron pairs,
$N_0$ being the number of pairs in the frozen sea, so that this state is a many-body state already, but in the most simple sense since the Fermi sea $%
\left|F_0\right> $ is just there to block states by the Pauli exclusion
principle. This Fermi sea mainly brings a finite density of state for all
states above it, a crucial point to have a bound state in 3D whatever the weakness of the attracting BCS potential.
By choosing the zero energy such
that $H_0\left|F_0\right> =0$, Eqs.(\ref{eq:betaH},\ref{eq:vbeta}) gives the hamiltonian $H=H_0+V_{BCS}$
acting on a one-free-pair state as
\begin{equation}
H\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left|F_0\right> =\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\right]
\left|F_0\right>
=\left(2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}+\gamma^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}+V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}%
\right) \left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
We then note that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Vk0}
V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left|F_0\right> =0
\end{equation}
since the $v_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{p} }$ factor included
in the $\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} }$ part of $V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$, brings
$v_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{p} }a^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} }a^{}_{%
\mathbf{p} }\left|F_0\right>=v_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{p} }b^{\dagger}_{-\mathbf{p} }b^{}_{-\mathbf{p} }\left|F_0\right>=0$;
Next, we subtract $E _1\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left|F_0\right> $ to
the two sides of the above equation, with $E_1$ yet undefined, but assumed to be different from any $2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}$. We then divide the resulting equation by $%
\left(2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-E _1\right) $. This gives
\begin{equation} \label{eq:HE1}
(H-E_1)\frac{1}{2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-E _1} \beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}%
\left|F_0\right> =\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left|F_0\right> +\frac{1}{%
2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-E _1} \gamma^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
To go further and possibly obtain the one-pair eigenstate of the hamiltonian $H$
in a compact analytical form, it is necessary to approximate the BCS potential by a separable potential $v_{\mathbf{k} \mathbf{p} }=-V\,w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}{}w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}$.
The operator $\gamma^\dagger_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ in Eq. \eqref{eq:vbeta} then reduces to
\begin{equation}\gamma^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}=-V\,w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\beta^{\dagger}
\end{equation}
where $\beta^\dagger$ is given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:gammaBeta}
\beta^{\dagger}=\sum_%
\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}{}w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}
\end{equation}
If we now multiply Eq.\eqref{eq:HE1} by $w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ and sum over $\mathbf{k} $,
we end with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1pair}
(H-E _1)B^{\dagger}(E _1)\left|F_0\right> =\left[1-V\sum_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}{%
\frac{w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-E _1}}\right]
\beta^{\dagger}\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
where the operator $B^{\dagger}(E)$ is defined as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:B}
B^{\dagger}(E)=\sum_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}{B_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger}(E)}\quad\quad B_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}^{\dagger}(E)=\frac{w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}{2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-E}\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}
\end{equation}
Eq.(\ref{eq:1pair}) readily shows that $B^{\dagger}(%
E _1)\left|F_0\right> $ is one-pair eigenstate of the hamiltonian $H$ with energy $%
E _1$, provided that the bracket in the RHS is zero, i.e., $E_1$ fulfills
\begin{equation} \label{eq:SchOne}
1=V\sum_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}{\frac{w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}^2}{2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-E _1}}
\end{equation}
This is just the well-known equation for the single pair energy
derived by Cooper.
\subsection{Two pairs}
We now add two pairs to the frozen sea $\left|F_0\right>$. Eqs.(\ref{eq:betaH},\ref{eq:vbeta}) yield
\begin{equation} \label{eq:SchTwo}
\begin{split}
H\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\left|F_0\right> &=\left(\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\right]
\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\left[%
H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\right] \right) \left|F_0\right> \\
&=\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}+2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _2}\right)
\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\left|F_0\right>\\
&\quad\: +\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>+\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>
\end{split}%
\end{equation}
The last two terms come from interactions between the four electrons of the two pairs. The first term of Eq. (\ref{eq:vbeta}) readily gives $\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right> $ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>& =\left(\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{%
k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}+\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\right) \left|F_0\right> \\
&=-V\left(w_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}+\omega^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\right)\beta^\dagger \left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The second term of Eq. (\ref{eq:vbeta}) yields
\begin{equation}
\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right> =\left(V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{%
k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_1}V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\right) \left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
To calculate it, we again use commutators. Since $V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}}$ acting on the frozen sea $\left|F_0\right>$ gives zero (see Eq. (\ref{eq:Vk0})), we find from Eqs. (\ref{eq:vBeta},\ref{eq:interactSc})
\begin{equation}\label{eq:omega2}
\begin{split}
\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>&=\sum_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_1\mathbf{p}
^{\prime}_2}\chi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1%
\end{smallmatrix}\right) \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_1}\beta^{%
\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_2}\left|F_0\right> \\
&=2V\delta_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}w_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{
\mathbf{k} _1} \beta^{\dagger}\left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The interaction part of $H$ acting on two free pairs is visualized by
the diagram of Fig. \ref{fig:twoP}. In $\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>$, one pair stays unchanged while the other pair suffers a BCS interaction. In $\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>$, the two pairs exchange an electron and then one pair interacts. These diagrams evidence the fact that,
due to the (1x1) structure of the BCS potential, two pairs
can interact by fermion exchange only as a result of the
Pauli exclusion principle.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{twoPair.eps}
\caption{Shiva diagram for the interaction part $\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>+\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>$ of the Hamiltonian $H$ acting on two free pairs, as given in Eqs.(30)and (32)}
\label{fig:twoP}
\end{figure}
To go further, we subtract $E _2\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\left|F_0\right> $ to the two sides of Eq.%
\eqref{eq:SchTwo}, with $E _2$ yet undefined. We split $E _2$ as $R_1+R_2$ and we multiply
the resulting equation by \\$w_{\mathbf{k} _1}w_{\mathbf{k} _2}/\left(2%
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1\right) \left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}
_2}-R_2\right) $. This yields
\begin{multline} \label{eq:SchTwo2}
(H-E _2)B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}(R_1)B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}(R_2)\left|F_0\right> = \\
\left\{B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}(R_1)\left[w_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}-\frac{Vw_{\mathbf{k} _2}^2}{2\epsilon_{%
\mathbf{k} _2}-R_2}\beta^{\dagger}\right]+(1\leftrightarrow2)\right\}
\left|F_0\right> \\
+2V\left[\delta_{{\mathbf{k} _1}{\mathbf{k} _2}}\frac{w^3_{{\mathbf{k} _1}}}{\left(2%
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1\right) \left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}
_1}-R_2\right)}\beta^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k} _1}}\right]\beta^\dagger\left|F_0\right>
\end{multline}
the last term coming from the exchange interaction term $\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right>$
As a last step, we sum over $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1,\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2)$. The sum over $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2)$ in the first bracket readily gives
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1-v}
\left(1-V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} }-R_2}\right)\beta^\dagger
\end{equation}
To calculate the sum over $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1,\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2)$ in the second bracket, we first note that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inverse}
\begin{split}
&\frac{1}{\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1\right)
\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_2\right)}\\&=\left[
\frac{1}{\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1\right)}-\frac{1}{\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}
_1}-R_2\right) }\right]\frac1{\left(R_1-R_2\right) }
\end{split}
\end{equation}
which is valid, provided that $R_1\neq{}R_2$,
a condition that we can always enforce since the unique requirement is to have $R_1+R_2=E_2$. For $w^2_{{\mathbf{k} }}=w_{{\mathbf{k} }}$, we then find
\begin{multline}\label{eq:deltakk}
\sum_{{\mathbf{k} _1}{\mathbf{k} _2}}\delta_{{\mathbf{k} _1}{\mathbf{k} _2}}\frac{w^3_{{\mathbf{k} _1}}}{\left(2%
\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1\right) \left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}
_1}-R_2\right)}\beta^\dagger_{{\mathbf{k} _1}}\\=\frac1{\left(R_1-R_2\right) }[B^\dagger(R_1)-B^\dagger(R_2)]
\end{multline}
Summation over $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1,\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2)$ of Eq. \eqref{eq:SchTwo2} then yields
\begin{multline} \label{eq:SchTwo3}
(H-E_2)B^{\dagger}(R_1)B^{\dagger}(R_2)\left|F_0\right> = \\
\left\{B^{\dagger}(R_1)\left[1-V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{%
\mathbf{k} }-R_2}+\frac{2V}{R_1-R_2}\right] +(1\leftrightarrow2)\right\} \\
\beta^{\dagger}\left|F_0\right>
\end{multline}
The above equation evidences that $B^{\dagger}(R_1)B^{\dagger}(R_2)%
\left|F_0\right> $ is two-pair eigenstate of the hamiltonian $H$ with energy $%
E _2=R_1+R_2$ provided that the bracket in the above equations is zero, i.e., $\left(R_1,R_2\right) $ fulfill two
equations, known as Richardson's equations for two pairs
\begin{equation}
1=V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} }-R_1}+\frac{2V}{R_1-R_2}%
=(1\leftrightarrow2)
\end{equation}
\subsection{Three pairs}
We now turn to three pairs in order to see how these equations develop for an
increasing number of pairs. Two usually is not generic, while three most often is. We will here see that when $H$ acts on three pairs, one at least among the three pairs stays unchanged. This is a step toward understanding why the $N$ dependence of the $N$-pair ground state energy is in $N(N-1)$ only, with no term in $N(N-1)(N-2)$ and higher, as the validity of our low density result extrapolated to the high density BCS regime, seems to indicate.
We start with
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:SchThree}
&&H\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\left|F_0\right> \hspace{5cm}
\nonumber\\
&=&\left\{\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\right] \beta^{\dagger}_{%
\mathbf{k} _2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}%
\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\right] \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_3}\right.
\nonumber\\ &&\left.
+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\left[%
H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\right] \right\}
\left|F_0\right>
\end{eqnarray}%
Using Eqs.(\ref{eq:betaH},\ref{eq:vbeta}), we again split the above equation into a kinetic part and two interaction parts
\begin{equation} \label{eq:SchThree2}
\begin{split}
H\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\left|F_0\right> &=\left(2\epsilon_{%
\mathbf{k} _1}+2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _2}+2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _3}\right)
\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\left|F_0\right> \\
&+\left|{V}_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right> +\left|{W}_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right>
\end{split}%
\end{equation}
As in the case of two pairs, the BCS potential generates direct processes which are given by
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vThree}
\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right> =
\left(\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}+\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_1}+\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\right) \left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
since $\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}}$ and $\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}'}$ commute. It also generates exchange processes, which appear as
\begin{equation}
\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right> =\left(V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_1}V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}+\beta^{%
\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k%
} _3}\right) \left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
To calculate them, we again use commutators and the fact that $V^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\left|F_0\right> =0$.
Eq. \eqref{eq:vBeta} allows us to rewrite $\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right>$ in a more symmetrical form as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:vThree2}
\begin{split}
&\left\{\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}%
\right] \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}%
\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\right]
+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\right] \right\} \left|F_0\right> \\
=&\sum_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}^{\prime}_1\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
^{\prime}_1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} ^{\prime}_2} \\
&\left\{\chi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1%
\end{smallmatrix}\right) \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}+\chi\left(%
\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_3\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2\end{smallmatrix}\right)
\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}+\chi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1\
\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_3\end{smallmatrix}\right) \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\right\} \left|F_0\right>
\end{split}%
\end{equation}
The interaction part of Eq. (\ref{eq:SchThree2}), namely $\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2%
\mathbf{k} _3}\right>+\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right> $, is represented by the diagrams of Fig.\ref{fig:threeP}. \\$\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2
\mathbf{k} _3}\right>$ has interactions inside a single pair, two pairs
staying unchanged. $\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right> $ contains processes in which the pair suffering the potential exchanges one of its electrons with a second pair, the third pair staying unchanged. There are three similar contributions, obtained by circular permutations.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{threePair.eps}
\caption{Shiva diagram for the interaction part $\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2
\mathbf{k} _3}\right> +\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2
\mathbf{k} _3}\right>$ of the Hamiltonian $H$ acting on three pairs }\label{fig:threeP}
\end{figure}
Using Eq.\eqref{eq:interactSc} for the interaction scattering, we end with
\begin{equation}\label{eq:omega3}
\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right>= 2V(\delta_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}w_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}+ \text{2 perm.})\beta^{\dagger}\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
which has close similarity with $\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2}\right> $ given in Eq. (\ref{eq:omega2}).
To go further, we insert Eq.(\ref{eq:vThree}) for $\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right>$ and Eq.(\ref{eq:omega3}) for $\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{k} _2\mathbf{k} _3}\right> $ into \eqref{eq:SchThree2}; we subtract $E
_3\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}\left|F_0\right> $ to both sides, with $%
E _3$ written as $R_1+R_2+R_3$, and we multiply the resulting equation
by \\$w_{\mathbf{k} _1}w_{\mathbf{k} _2}w_{\mathbf{k} _3}/\left(2\epsilon_{%
\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1\right) \left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _2}-R_2\right)
\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _3}-R_3\right) $. This \\yields
\begin{eqnarray} \label{eq:SchThree3}
&&(H-E _3)B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}(R_1)B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}(R_2)B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}(R_3)\left|F_0\right> \nonumber\\
&=& \Bigl\{B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}(R_1)B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_2}(R_2)\left[w_{\mathbf{k} _3}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}-\frac{Vw_{%
\mathbf{k} _3}^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _2}-R_3}\beta^{\dagger}\right] \nonumber\\
&&+\text{2 perm.} \Bigr\}\left|F_0\right> \nonumber\\
&&+2V\Bigl\{B^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _3}(R_3)\left[\frac{\delta_{\mathbf{k} _1\mathbf{%
k} _2}w^3_{\mathbf{k} _1}}{\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1\right)
\left(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_2\right) }\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\right]\nonumber\\
&&\qquad+\text{2 perm.}\Bigr\}
\beta^{\dagger}\left|F_0\right>
\end{eqnarray}
We then sum over $\left(\mathbf{k} _1,\mathbf{k} _2,\mathbf{k} _3\right) $. By calculating the sums of the two brackets as for two pairs, Eqs. (\ref{eq:1-v}) and (\ref{eq:deltakk}) then yield
\begin{multline} \label{eq:SchThree4}
(H-E _3)B^{\dagger}(R_1)B^{\dagger}(R_2)B^{\dagger}(R_3)\left|F_0%
\right> = \\
\{B^{\dagger}(R_2)B^{\dagger}(R_3) \\
\left[1-V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} _1}^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1}-\frac{2V%
}{R_1-R_2}+\frac{2V}{R_3-R_1}\right] \\
+\text{2 perm.}\}\beta^{\dagger}\left|F_0\right>
\end{multline}
This leads us to conclude that the three-pair state $%
B^{\dagger}(R_1)B^{\dagger}(R_2)B^{\dagger}(R_3)\left|F_0\right> $ is
eigenstate of the hamiltonian $H$ with the energy $E _3=R_1+R_2+R_3$,
provided that $\left(R_1,R_2, R_3\right) $ fulfill the three equations,
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
1&=V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} }-R_1}+\frac{2V}{R_1-R_2%
}+\frac{2V}{R_1-R_3} \\
1&=V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} }-R_2}+\frac{2V}{R_2-R_3%
}+\frac{2V}{R_2-R_1} \\
1&=V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} }-R_3}+\frac{2V}{R_3-R_1%
}+\frac{2V}{R_3-R_2}
\end{split}%
\end{equation}
\subsection{$N$ pairs}
The above commutation technique can be easily extended to $N$ pairs. As nicely
visualized by the diagrams of Figs.\ref{fig:twoP} and \ref{fig:threeP}, the
effect of the BCS potential on these $N$ pairs splits into direct and exchange processes:
In the direct set, one pair is affected by the (1x1) scattering while the other $N-1
$ pairs stay unchanged. In the exchange set, this pair, before interaction, also
exchanges one of its electrons with another pair, the remaining $N-2$
pairs staying unchanged. This understanding shows that an increase of pair number above two, does not really change the structure of the equations
since $N-2$ pairs stay unchanged, the pair which exchanges its fermions with the
pair suffering the interaction being just one among $(N-1)$ pairs.
The procedure is rather straightforward once we have understood
that either $(N-1)$ or $(N-2)$ pairs stay unaffected in the BCS interaction process. The
general form of the $N$-pair eigenstates ultimately appears as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:SchThreeN}
(H-E _N)B^{\dagger}(R_1)\cdots{}B^{\dagger}(R_N)\left|F_0\right> =0
\end{equation}
with $E _N=R_1+\cdots+R_N$, these $R_N$'s being solutions of $N$ coupled
equations
\begin{equation}
1=V\sum\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} }-R_i}+\sum_{j\neq{i}}%
\frac{2V}{R_i-R_j}\quad\qquad \text{for}\; i=\left(1,...,N\right)
\end{equation}
Let us explicitly derive these $N$ equations following the procedure we have used for three pairs.
The hamiltonian acting on $N$ pairs can be written in terms of commutators with any of these $N$ pairs as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HN}
\begin{split}
&H\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_N}\left|F_0\right> \\
&=\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\right] \beta^{\dagger}_{%
\mathbf{k} _2}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _N}\left|F_0\right> \\
&\quad+\cdots+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i-1}}
\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _i}\right] \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_{i+1}}\cdots \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}_{N}}\left|F_0\right>\\
&\quad+\cdots+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{N-1}}
\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _N}\right] \left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We then use Eqs. (\ref{eq:betaH},\ref{eq:vbeta}) to replace $\left[H,\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _i}\right]$ by $2\epsilon_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i}\beta^{\dagger}_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i}+\gamma^{\dagger}_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i}+V^{\dagger}_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i}$. The first two contributions commute with the other $\beta^\dagger_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$'s, so that, when inserted into the above equation, they yield
\begin{equation}
2\left(\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}+\cdots+\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _N}\right)
\prod^N_{i=1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _i}\left|F_0\right>+\left|{V}_{\mathbf{k} _1\cdots\mathbf{k} _N}\right>
\end{equation}
where the direct interaction part is given by
\begin{equation}
\left|V_{\mathbf{k} _1\cdots\mathbf{k} _N}\right> =\sum^N_{i=1}\gamma^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}_i}\prod_{m\neq{i}}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _m}\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
which is similar to Eq. (\ref{eq:vThree}).
The part with the creation potential $V^\dagger_{\mathbf{k}_i}$ is more cumbersome. We again calculate it through commutators. Let us consider one term. We start as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i}}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i+1}}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_N}\left|F_0\right> \\
&=\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i}},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i+1}}\right] \beta^{\dagger}_{%
\mathbf{k} _{i+2}}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _N}\left|F_0\right> \\
&\quad+\cdots+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i+1}}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{j-1}}
\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i}},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _j}\right] \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_{j+1}}\cdots \beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}_{N}}\left|F_0\right>\\
&\quad+\cdots+\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i+1}}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{N-1}}
\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i}},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _N}\right] \left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
$\left[V^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _{i}},\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _j}\right]$ makes appear the exchange interaction scattering between the $\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j$ pairs, so that the above term generate the exchange interaction scatterings between the $\mathbf{k} _{i}$ pair and all the $\mathbf{k} _{j}$ pairs with $i<j\leq{N}$. When inserted into Eq. (\ref{eq:HN}), we find all possible exchange interactions between fermion pairs, so that the set of terms with creation potential ultimately gives
\begin{equation}
\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\cdots\mathbf{k} _N}\right>=\sum_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}^{\prime}_1\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p}
^{\prime}_1}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_2} \sum_{i<j}\chi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}'_1&\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i%
\end{smallmatrix}\right) \prod_{m\neq(i,j)}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _m} \left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
which is similar to Eq. (\ref{eq:vThree2}). If we now use Eq. (\ref{eq:omega2}) for the sum over $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}^{\prime}_1,\mathbf{p} ^{\prime}_2)$, we end with
\begin{equation}
\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\cdots\mathbf{k} _N}\right>=2V\beta^\dagger[ \delta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2}w_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _2}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _N}+\cdots ]\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
which also reads in a compact form as
\begin{equation}
\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\cdots\mathbf{k} _N}\right>=2V\beta^\dagger\left[ \sum_{i<j}\delta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j}w_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j}\beta^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j}\prod_{m\neq(i,j)}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _m} \right]\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
All this leads for $E_N$ written as $R_1+...+R_N$ to
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HN2}
\begin{split}
&(H-E_N)\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _1}\cdots\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k}
_N}\left|F_0\right> \\
&=[(2\epsilon_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1}-R_1)+\cdots+(2\epsilon_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2}-R_N)]\beta^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1}\cdots\beta^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_N}\left|F_0\right> \\
&\quad-V\beta^\dagger \sum_{i}w_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i}\beta^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j}\prod_{m\neq{}i}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _m} \left|F_0\right> \\
&\quad+2V\beta^\dagger\sum_{i<j}\delta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j}w_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j}\beta^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_j}\prod_{m\neq(i,j)}\beta^{\dagger}_{\mathbf{k} _m} \left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To go further, we do as before: we multiply both sides of the equation by $w_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1}\cdots{}w_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_N}/(2\epsilon_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1}-R_1)\cdots(2\epsilon_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_N}-R_N)$ and we sum over $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1,\cdots,\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_N)$.
The LHS readily gives
\begin{equation}
(H-E _N)B^{\dagger} (R_1)\cdots{}B^{\dagger}(R_N)\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
The first term in the RHS, which comes from the free pair kinetic energy, yields
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&[(\sum{}w_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1}\beta^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1})B^\dagger(R_2)\cdots{}B^\dagger(R_N)+\cdots]\left|F_0\right>\\
&=\beta^\dagger\sum_{i=1}^N\prod_{m\neq{i}}B^\dagger(R_m)\left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The first interaction term, induced by direct processes within one pair, readily leads to
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\beta^\dagger\sum_{i=1}^N(-V\sum_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_i}\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} _i}^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _i}-R_i})\prod_{m\neq{i}}B^\dagger(R_m)\left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
while contributions coming from exchange interaction processes appear as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
2V\beta^\dagger\left[\sum_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2}\delta_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2}\frac{w^3_{\mathbf{k} _1}}{(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _1}-R_1)(2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k} _2}-R_2)}\beta^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1}\right]\\B^\dagger(R_3)\cdots{}B^\dagger(R_N)\left|F_0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
By using Eq. (\ref{eq:deltakk}) for the above bracket, we end with
\begin{multline}
(H-E _N)B^{\dagger}(R_1)\cdots{}B^{\dagger}(R_N)\left|F_0%
\right> = \\
\beta^\dagger\sum_{i=1}^N\left[1-V\sum_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}\frac{w_{\mathbf{k} }^2}{2\epsilon_{\mathbf{k}}-R_i}-\sum_{j\neq{}i}\frac{2V%
}{R_i-R_j}\right]\\
\sum_{m\neq{i}}B^{\dagger}(R_m)\left|F_0\right>
\end{multline}
This evidences that $B^{\dagger}(R_1)\cdots{}B^{\dagger}(R_N)\left|F_0\right> $ is $N$-pair eigenstate of the hamiltonian $H$, with energy $E_N=R_1+\cdots+R_N$ provided that all the brackets in the above equation cancel. These just are the $N$ Richardson's equations written in Eq.(49).
\section{Physical understanding}
\subsection{Richardson equations and the Pauli exclusion principle}
The above derivation of Richardson's equations makes crystal clear the parts in these equations which are directly linked
to the Pauli exclusion principle between fermion pairs through electron exchanges.
From a mathematical point of view, the link is rather obvious: In the
absence of terms in $V/(R_i-R_j)$, the $N$ equations for $R_i$ would reduce to
the same equation \eqref{eq:SchOne}, so that the solution would be $R^{(0)}_i=%
E _1$ for all $i$. The fact that the energy of $N$ pairs differs
from $N$ times the single pair energy $E_1$ entirely comes from the set of $(R_i-R_j)$'s
different from zero.
Physically, the fact that $E _N$ differs from $NE _1$
comes from interactions between Cooper pairs. Due to the (1x1) structure of the BCS
potential within the pair subspace, interaction between pairs can only be mediated by fermion
exchanges as evidenced from the diagram of Fig. (\ref{fig:chi}).
Consequently, interactions between pairs
are solely the result of the Pauli exclusion principle. This
Pauli blocking mathematically appears through the various $\delta_{\mathbf{p}
^{\prime}\mathbf{p} }$ factors in the Pauli scatterings $\lambda(%
\begin{smallmatrix}\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}^\prime_2&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_2\\\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_1'&\ensuremath{\mathbf{p}}_1\end{smallmatrix}) $. These $\delta$ factors are the ones of the $\left|W_{\mathbf{k} _1\cdots\mathbf{k} _N}\right>$ term. They ultimately lead to the various $(R_i-R_j)$ differences
in the Richardson's equations, as easy to follow from our procedure.
In short, the Kronecker symbols in the Pauli scatterings of fermion pairs
take care of states which are excluded by the Pauli exclusion principle. They induce the $2V/(R_i-R_j)$ terms
of the Richardson's equations which ultimately makes the energy of $N$ pairs different
from the energy of $N$ independent pairs.
\subsection{Excitons versus Cooper pairs}
An important feature of the ground state energy $E _N$ for $N$ pairs that
this derivation possibly explains, is the fact that the
part of $E_N$ coming from interaction, namely $E _N-N%
E _1$ depends on $N$ as $N(N-1)$ only, with no higher order dependence. Indeed, Eq.(1) also reads
\begin{equation} \label{eq:en}
E _N=NE _1+N(N-1)\left(\frac{1}{\rho_0} +\frac{\epsilon_c}{%
N_\Omega}\right)
\end{equation}
In order to have terms in the energy in $N(N-1)(N-2)$, we need topologically connected
diagrams between 3 pairs. The diagram of Fig.\ref{fig:threeP} shows that, when $H$ acts on three pairs, one out of them do not participate to the scattering, so that the three pairs are not connected. In the case of $N$ pairs, this is $(N-2)$ out of the $N$ pairs which are not connected. Connections thus seem to exist between two pairs only.
This however is not enough to explain that higher order terms do not exist in the energy because the energy of $N$ Wannier excitons has terms in $N(N-1)(N-2)$ and higher\cite{monicOdil} while the hamiltonian acting on $N$ Wannier excitons also leaves $N-2$ excitons unchanged. Indeed, let $B_i^\dagger$ be the creation operator of the $i$ exciton with energy $E_i$, i.e., $(H-E_i)B^\dagger_i\left|0\right>=0$. We do have, as in Eq. (\ref{eq:SchThree}),
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HB3}
\begin{split}
&HB^{\dagger}_{i_1}B^{\dagger}_{i_2}B^{\dagger}_{i_3}\left|0\right>=\\
&\left\{\left[H,B^{\dagger}_{i_1}\right] B^{\dagger}_{i _2}B^{\dagger}_{i_3}+B^{\dagger}_{i_1}%
\left[H,B^{\dagger}_{i_2}\right] B^{\dagger}_{i_3}\right.\\
&\left.+B^{\dagger}_{i_1}B^{\dagger}_{i_2}\left[H,B^{\dagger}_{i_3}\right] \right\}\left|0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
To calculate it, we introduce the $i$ exciton creation operator $V^\dagger_i$ defined as
\begin{equation}
\left[H,B^{\dagger}_{i}\right]=E_iB^\dagger_i+V^\dagger_i
\end{equation}
which has similarity with Eqs. (\ref{eq:betaH},\ref{eq:vbeta}). This operator is such that $V^{\dagger}_{i}\left|0\right>=0$, as readily seen from the above equation acting on vacuum. From it, we construct the interaction scatterings of two excitons through
\begin{equation}
\left[V^{\dagger}_{i},B^{\dagger}_{j}\right]
=\sum\xi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&j\\m&i\end{smallmatrix}%
\right) B^{\dagger}_{m}B^{\dagger}_{n}
\end{equation}
which is similar to Eq.(\ref{eq:vBeta}). When used into Eq.(\ref{eq:HB3}), this yields
\begin{equation}\label{eq:HEEE}
\begin{split}
&(H-E_{i_1}-E_{i_2}-E_{i_3})B^{\dagger}_{i_1}B^{\dagger}_{i_2}B^{\dagger}_{i_3}\left|0\right>\\
=&\sum{}B^\dagger_mB^\dagger_n\left\{
\xi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&i_2\\m&i_1\end{smallmatrix}\right)B^{\dagger}_{i_3}\right.\\
&\left. +\xi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&i_3\\m&i_2\end{smallmatrix}\right)B^{\dagger}_{i_1} +\xi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&i_1\\m&i_3\end{smallmatrix}\right)B^{\dagger}_{i_2}\right\}\left|0\right>
\end{split}
\end{equation}
As in Eq.(\ref{eq:vThree2}), one out of the three excitons seems to stay outside in the scattering process.
Here comes the crucial difference between Wannier excitons and Cooper pairs. Wannier exciton, made of $a^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_1}b^\dagger_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_2}$ pairs, have two degrees of freedom. As a direct consequence, two electrons and two holes can be associated in two different ways to form two excitons. It is possible to show \cite{CobosonPhysicsReports} that
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BB}
B^\dagger_iB^\dagger_j=-\sum\lambda\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&j\\m&i\end{smallmatrix}%
\right) B^{\dagger}_{m}B^{\dagger}_{n}
\end{equation}
where $\lambda\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&j\\m&i\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ is the Pauli scattering of two excitons, defined, as for $\beta^\dagger_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ pairs, through
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\left[B_m,B^{\dagger}_{i}\right]&=\delta_{mi}-D_{mi}\\
\left[D_{mi},B^{\dagger}_{j}\right]&=\sum\left\{\lambda\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&j\\m&i\end{smallmatrix}\right)
+\lambda\left(\begin{smallmatrix}m&j\\n&i\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right\} B^{\dagger}_{n}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The fact that, in the first term of the RHS of Eq.(67), the $B^\dagger_{i_3}$ exciton does not participate to the scattering, is in fact somewhat artificial because, using Eq.(\ref{eq:BB}), we could as well write this first term as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:3BLambdaXi}
\sum{}B^\dagger_mB^\dagger_pB^\dagger_q\left\{\lambda\left(\begin{smallmatrix}q&n\\p&i_3\end{smallmatrix}\right)
+\lambda\left(\begin{smallmatrix}p&n\\q&i_3\end{smallmatrix}\right)\right\} \xi\left(\begin{smallmatrix}n&i_3\\m&i_1\end{smallmatrix}\right)
\end{equation}
This shows that the $(i_1,i_2,i_3)$ excitons can actually be involved in $3\times3$ connected diagram, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:threeExciton}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{threeExciton.eps}
\caption{Shiva diagram for energy-like exchange interaction between three excitons\label{fig:threeExciton} }
\end{figure}
Let us return to the $\beta^\dagger_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ pairs making Cooper pairs. We see that, since the $\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ electron with up spin is associated to the $-\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}$ electron with down spin only, an equation similar to Eq.(\ref{eq:BB}) does not exist. As a result the $\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}_3$ pair in Eq.(\ref{eq:vThree2}) cannot be mixed with the $\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}'_2$ pair as in Eq.(\ref{eq:3BLambdaXi}) to generate $3\times3$ connected diagram, as the one of Fig. \ref{fig:threeExciton}.
\subsection{Richardson's exact eigenstate versus BCS ansatz}
The Richardson's procedure we have here rederived, gives the
\emph{exact} form of the $H_0+V_{BCS}$ eigenstates as
\begin{equation}
B^{\dagger}(R_1)\cdots{}B^{\dagger}(R_N)\left|F_0\right>
\end{equation}
with $B^{\dagger}(R)$ given by Eq.\eqref{eq:B}. The fact that, by
construction, all the $R_i$'s are different in order for the $1/(R_i-R_j)$ factors in the Richardson's equations not to diverge, strongly questions the standard
BCS ansatz for the $N$-pair wave function since this ansatz reduces to $\left(B^{\dagger}\right)
^N\left|F_0\right> $ when projected into the $N$-pair subspace. In this ansatz, \emph{all} the pairs are taken as condensed into the same state. This is physically hard to accept for composite bosons due to Pauli blocking between pairs which makes each added pair necessarily different from the previous ones, due to the fact that more and more states are occupied already.
There were in past several discussions about differences and similarities between BCS ansatz and Richardson's exact solution, or more generally a Bethe ansatz like $\prod_iB^\dagger_i\left|0\right>$ from various perspectives and physical situation \cite{bang,hasegawa}. However, the discussions essentially focus on recovering the correct energy or some other physical quantities, not the wave function itself, more difficult to experimentally evidence. This wave function actually is attached to the picture people commonly have of superconductivity. This is why a correct wave function is importance for physical understanding, at least.
To discuss this problem, let us again start with two pairs. In
a previous work\cite{combescotBCS}, we have shown, that the Richardson's parameters for two pairs read as $R_1=R+iR^{\prime}$ and $R_2=R-i{}R^{\prime}$ with $R$
and $R^{\prime}$ real. In the
large sample limit, i.e. for $1/\rho_0$ small, the dominant terms of $R$ and $R'$ are given by $R\approx\epsilon_c+1/%
\rho_0+\epsilon_c/\rho_0\Omega$ and $R^{\prime}\approx\sqrt{2\epsilon_c/\rho_0}$. By writing $B^{\dagger}(R_1)$ as $\left[B^{\dagger}(R)+B^{\dagger}(R_1)-B^{\dagger}(R)\right]$ and similarly for $B^{\dagger}(R_2)$,
we get, from eq \eqref{eq:B},
\begin{equation}\label{eq:BBB2}
B^{\dagger}(R_1)B^{\dagger}(R_2)-\left[B^{\dagger}(R)\right]
^2={R^{\prime}}^2\left\{C^{\dagger}_+C^{\dagger}_--2B^{\dagger}(R)D^{\dagger}%
\right\}
\end{equation}
where we have set
\begin{align}
C^{\dagger}_{\pm}&=\sum\frac{w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}{\left(2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-R\right)
\left(2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-R\pm{}iR^{\prime}\right) }\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}} \\
D^{\dagger}&=\sum\frac{w_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}}{\left(2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-R\right) \left[%
\left(2\epsilon_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}-R\right) ^2+{}{R^{\prime}}^2\right] }\beta^{\dagger}_\ensuremath{\mathbf{k}}
\end{align}
Eq.(\ref{eq:BBB2}) shows that, in order to possibly replace \\$B^{\dagger}(R_1)B^{\dagger}(R_2)$ by $\left[B^{\dagger}(R)\right]
^2$ as in the BCS ansatz, we must neglect terms in $R'^2$, i.e., in $1/\rho_0$. However, these $1/\rho_0$ terms are precisely those which make $E _1$ different from $E _2/2\approx E_1+1/\rho_0+\epsilon_c/\rho_0\Omega$; so that the replacement of $B^{\dagger}(R_1)B^{%
\dagger}(R_2)$ by a ``condensed two-pair state'' $\left(B^{\dagger}(E _2/2)\right) ^2$ with $E_2$ \emph{different }from $E_1$ is fully inconsistent because, in this two-pair
operator, we would keep contributions in $1/\rho_0$ which are as large as the ones we drop
by neglecting the RHS of Eq.(\ref{eq:BBB2}) : two pairs do not condense into the same state.
Actually, it is claimed that the BCS ansatz is valid in the thermodynamical
limit when $N$ is very large. It is possible to show that, for $N$ large but still in the dilute regime on the single pair scale, the $R_i$'s stay two by two complex conjugate, the imaginary part of $R_i $'s getting larger and larger as $\sqrt{N\epsilon_c/\rho_0}$ when $N$ increases. By using a similar procedure as the one we used for $N=2$, we hardly see how,
starting from the exact form of the $N$-pair eigenstate $B^{\dagger}(R_1)\cdots{}B^{\dagger}(R_N)\left|F_0\right> $, we can possibly recover the BCS ansatz with the \emph{same}
creation operator for all pairs when $N$ ventures outside the dilute limit because nothing special happens in the behavior of the $R_i$'s when $N$ crosses $N_c$.
In a recent work, Ortiz and Dukelsky\cite{crossoverRich} have also considered Richardson's equations in the thermodynamical limit. While they do recover the energy obtained from the ansatz, they conclude, like us, that Richardson's exact wave function is substantially different from the BCS ansatz in many ways.
We wish to stress that,
to the best of our knowledge, derivations of the validity of the BCS ansatz for the ground state of $N$ pairs
mainly concentrate on the energy it provides
(see, e.g., \cite{Schrieffer} and references therein).
We of course agree that the BCS
ansatz gives the correct ground state energy for $N$ pairs because the energy obtained using this ansatz
is just the one we derived from the exact Richardson's procedure, extrapolated outside the dilute limit. However,
agreement on the energy by no mean proves agreement on the wave function.
Many examples have been given in the past with wave functions very different
from the exact one, although giving correct energy. Direct
experiments supporting the form of the ground state wave function however seems to be even harder to achieve than the ones possibly checking the $N$ dependence of the ground state energy given in Eq.(1).
Nevertheless, it seems to us highly desirable to carefully reconsider ``agreement
with experiments'' in the light of the exact Richardson's wave function. It is still a rather intriguing question to understand why the minimization of the hamiltonian mean value calculated with this ansatz, leads to \emph{exactly} the same energy as the one we derived by analytically solving Richardson's equations in the dilute limit.
It is worth noting that the reduced potential used in standard BCS superconductivity has the great advantage to allow an analytical resolution of the $N$-body Schr\"{o}dinger equation - which is quite infrequent. It however is clear that this potential is highly simplified. A certain amount of corrections are necessary to make this potential more realistic. These are going to destroy the possibility to get the eigenstates analytically. However, since the BCS ansatz for the wave function with all the pairs condensed into the \emph{same} state - which is commonly considered as one of the essential features of superconductivity - has been worked out within this reduced BCS potential, a precise comparison between this conventional ansatz and the exact solution of the model in the canonical ensemble, is definitely quite relevant to better understand the deep physics hidden in this ansatz.
Finally, we wish to stress that the possible replacement of $B^{\dagger}(R_1)\cdots{}B^{\dagger}(R_N)%
\left|F_0\right> $ by $\left(B^{\dagger}\right) ^N\left|F_0\right> $ is
crucial to support the overall picture of
superconductivity commonly in mind, with all the pairs in the same state, ``as an army of
little soldiers, all walking similarly''. This picture actually seems a rather naive extrapolation to composite bosons, of the standard Bose-Einstein condensation demonstrated in the case of \emph{elementary} bosons. It is hard for us to accept that, in the case of composite bosons, Pauli blocking between fermionic components is not going to destroy nice harmony in this ``army''.
More work on the validity of the BCS
ansatz in the thermodynamical limit in the context of the coboson nature of Cooper pairs, seems a necessity to more deeply understand some unrevealed aspects of basic superconductivity as the ones at the origin of Eq.(1) for the $N$-pair ground state energy. The coboson many-body formalism we have here constructed, should appear as quite valuable because it gives a fresh view to this famous field, its Shiva diagram representation helping to support physical understanding.
\section{Conclusion}
We have constructed a coboson formalism for the electron pairs on which Cooper pairs are made. It has similarity with the one we have constructed for composite boson excitons. This formalism evidences that the scatterings of two zero-momentum electron pairs in the BCS potential, are mediated by the Pauli exclusion principle. No direct process exists
As a first application, we here rederive Richardson's equations for the exact eigenstates of $N$ Cooper pairs. This
derivation allows us to trace back
the physical origin of the various terms. In
particular, we clearly see that $N$ pairs differ from $N$ independent
pairs, due to Pauli blocking only. This Pauli blocking
enforces the $R_i$ parameters of Richardson's equations to be all different.
As a direct consequence, the exact wave function for $N$ interacting pairs is
definitely different from the BCS ansatz, although the $N$-pair energy this ansatz provides, is the correct one in the large sample limit.
The diagrammatic
representation of our derivation also shows that, because electron pairs
with zero total momentum have one degree of freedom instead of two, they scatter within the BCS potential through
$(2\times2)$ exchange interaction scatterings only. This possibly explains
why the $N$-pair ground state energy that we have recently found in the dilute limit, has interaction terms in $N(N-1)$ but not in $N(N-1)(N-2)
$ and higher, as expected for $N$-body problems.
One of us (M.C.) wishes to thank the University of Illinois at
Urbana-Champaign, and Tony Leggett in particular, for enlightening discussions during her invitation at
the Institute for Condensed Matter Physics where most of the present work has been
performed. We also wish to thank Walter Pogosov for his constructive comments on the manuscript.
\bibliographystyle{epj}
|
\section{INTRODUCTION}
\label{sec:intro}
Quantifying the total energetics and the time evolution of the dust
properties of high-redshift galaxies requires an understanding of the
extent to which the locally calibrated relations between mid-infrared
(rest-frame $8$~$\mu$m) and bolometric luminosity apply at high
redshift. The {\it Spitzer} Space Telescope allows for a direct
measure of the mid-IR dust emission from typical ($L^{\ast}$) galaxies
at $z>1.5$ and has motivated a number of investigations of the
correlation between mid-IR and bolometric luminosity. The mid-IR
emission from $5-8.5$~$\mu$m (rest-frame) arises from the stochastic
UV photo-heating of small dust grains and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (PAHs; e.g., \citealt{puget89, tielens99}). As such,
this emission is found to correlate with the UV radiation from OB
stars and hence the global star formation rate in nearby galaxies
(e.g., \citealt{forster04b, roussel01}), albeit with some variation
depending on metallicity and ionizing hardness (e.g.,
\citealt{engelbracht05, hogg05, helou01, normand95}. More recently,
\citet{kennicutt09} demonstrate for the local {\em SINGSs} sample of
galaxies the general agreement between Balmer-decrement dust-corrected
H$\alpha$ star formation rates and those derived by combining tracers
of obscured star formation, including IR and $8$~$\mu$m luminosity,
and tracers of unobscured star formation (observed H$\alpha$
luminosity).
At high redshift, several studies suggest that on average the ratios
of mid to total infrared luminosity for luminous $24$~$\mu$m-selected
star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 2$ are larger than those found for
local galaxies with similar bolometric luminosities \citep{papovich07,
rigby08}. On the other hand, X-ray and radio stacking analyses
suggest that the correlation between mid-IR and infrared luminosity
for the less luminous but more typical galaxies at $z\sim 2$ (i.e.,
those with luminosities comparable to $L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$ or
$L^{\ast}_{\rm bol}$ at $z\sim 2$; \citealt{reddy08, reddy09}) is
consistent with the local relations \citep{reddy06a, reddy04}. Taken
together, these results imply a luminosity-dependence in the
correlation between mid-IR and bolometric luminosity.
While progress in connecting the dust emission of high-redshift
galaxies to their bolometric luminosities can be informative, most
$z>3$ galaxies are selected via the efficient UV-dropout technique
\citep{steidel95} and tend to be too faint and at too high redshift to
be detected directly via their dust emission. Thus, it has become
common to rely on UV-based inferences of the dust attenuation and
bolometric star formation rates of $z>3$ galaxies that require some
assumption of how the rest-frame UV slope varies with extinction. The
highest redshift where the correlation between UV-slope and dust
extinction has been tested for large numbers of
spectroscopically-confirmed galaxies is at $z\sim 2$. The results
suggest that the local relation between UV-slope and extinction
remains valid at $z\sim 2$ for galaxies with moderate bolometric
luminosities similar to those of luminous infrared galaxies, or LIRGs
(\citealt{reddy06a}; hereafter R06).
Access to a third tracer of star formation, independent of the UV and
IR emission, is required to establish a more secure footing for (1)
the scaling between mid-IR emission and star formation rate and (2)
the dependence of UV-slope on dust extinction. The most direct probe
of young massive star formation is from HII recombination nebular
emission. In particular, the H$\alpha$ line has been used
traditionally as a star formation rate indicator given its
accessibility in the optical window and the fact that it traces star
formation on very short timescales ($\sim 10$~Myr) and is less
sensitive to extinction than UV emission (e.g., \citealt{kennicutt98,
brinchmann04}). Fortunately, H$\alpha$ is still accessible with
ground-based near-IR spectrographs for galaxies at $z\sim 2$. Using a
sample of $114$ UV-selected galaxies at $z\sim 2$ with H$\alpha$
spectroscopy, \citet{erb06c} demonstrate that the H$\alpha$ inferred
star formation rates agree well with those obtained from the UV after
correcting both the H$\alpha$ line and the UV continuum magnitude for
extinction, and assuming that $E(B-V)_{\rm stellar} \approx E(B-V)_{\rm
nebular}$. In this paper, we use this H$\alpha$ spectroscopic
sample as the basis for quantifying independently the scaling between
mid-IR emission and star formation rate for moderately-luminous
galaxies at $z\sim 2$. This scaling relation is then used to infer
bolometric luminosities and dust obscuration and determine how the UV
slope varies with extinction for typical high-redshift galaxies.
We begin by discussing in \S~\ref{sec:selection} the rest-UV
selection, followup optical and near-IR spectroscopy, and the MIPS
observations, data reduction and photometry. The stellar population
modeling of galaxies in our final samples is discussed in
\S~\ref{sec:sedfit}. We then present the correlations between
H$\alpha$, X-ray, and $8$~$\mu$m luminosity (and the connection
between these quantities and the star formation rate) and comparison
with other local and high-redshift relations (\S~\ref{sec:ha24}). The
variation of UV slope with dust attenuation is addressed in
\S~\ref{sec:meurer}. The correlation between bolometric luminosity
and dust attenuation and the implications of this relationship for the
observed UV luminosity are presented in \S~\ref{sec:bol}. Finally, in
\S~\ref{sec:metals} we present the results of a comparison between
extinction and gas-phase metallicities of star-forming galaxies at
$z\sim 2$ and demonstrate a close relationship between the two. We
assume a \citet{chabrier03} IMF unless stated otherwise and adopt a
cosmology with $H_{0}=70$~km~s$^{-1}$~Mpc$^{-1}$,
$\Omega_{\Lambda}=0.7$, and $\Omega_{\rm m}=0.3$.
\section{SAMPLE}
\label{sec:selection}
\subsection{Optical and H$\alpha$ Observations and Spectroscopy}
The photometry and spectroscopic followup for the Lyman Break Galaxy
(LBG) survey at redshifts $1.4\la z\la 3.4$ are described in
\citet{steidel03, steidel04, adelberger04}. Briefly, galaxies were
photometrically-selected using either the ``BM,'' ``BX,'' or LBG
rest-UV color criteria. A subset of ${\cal R}<25.5$ candidates that were
spectroscopically-confirmed with Keck/LRIS observations
\citep{steidel04} were targeted with NIRSPEC H or K-band spectroscopy
to trace H$\alpha$ \citep{erb06b}. In addition to the longslit
H$\alpha$ spectroscopy, we targeted the $z=2.300$ redshift overdensity
in the HS1700+64 (``Q1700'') field \citep{steidel05} with narrowband
Br$\gamma$ ($2.17$~$\mu$m/$0.04$~$\mu$m) observations that trace
H$\alpha$ at that redshift. These images, along with $K_{\rm s}$-band
observations, were obtained with the Wide-Field Infrared Camera (WIRC)
on the Palomar $5$~m telescope. Details on the Br$\gamma$ imaging
reductions, continuum subtraction, and H$\alpha$ flux determinations
will be provided in a forthcoming paper (Steidel et~al., in prep.).
Briefly, we calibrated the Br$\gamma$ image by adjusting its zeropoint
until the difference between $K_{\rm s}$ and Br$\gamma$ magnitude was zero
for objects of similar faintness in $K_{\rm s}$. Colors were measured in
matched isophotal apertures with detection done at $K_{\rm s}$-band. We
then measured the narrowband fluxes and subtracted the continuum based
on the Br$\gamma$-$K_{\rm s}$ colors and knowledge of the Br$\gamma$ filter
bandwidth and shape. Photometric and zeropoint uncertainties result
in an $\simeq 20\%$ error in the derived line fluxes.
This procedure resulted in 21 objects with $>5$~$\sigma$ flux limits
in H$\alpha$, ranging in flux from $\sim 5\times 10^{-17}$ to $\sim
3\times 10^{-16}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$. Eleven of these 21 objects also have
longslit H$\alpha$ observations. Combining the longslit and
narrowband H$\alpha$ samples yields a total number of 116 galaxies in
6 fields that have $24$~$\mu$m coverage and are spectroscopically
confirmed to lie at $1.5\le z\le 2.6$, where the $24$~$\mu$m data are
sensitive to the rest-frame $8$~$\mu$m flux (\S~\ref{sec:mips}).
\subsection{Correction for Slit Loss}
\label{sec:slitloss}
The primary uncertainty in the spectroscopically-derived H$\alpha$
fluxes is slit loss. The overlap of 11 objects between the H$\alpha$
longslit and narrowband samples in the Q1700 field allows us to
quantify this source of error. To assess the degree of [NII]
contamination of the narrowband fluxes, we constructed a composite
spectrum of the 11 objects with both longslit and narrowband
observations. From this composite, we determine a mean ratio of the
[NII]-to-H$\alpha$ flux of $\approx 0.09$ for these 11 objects. At
the redshift of these galaxies ($z=2.300$), the Br$\gamma$
transmission curve will suppress the [NII] line by a factor of 0.88
relative to H$\alpha$. Therefore, we expect the average [NII] line
contamination of the narrowband flux to be $\approx 8\%$, translating
to a $0.03$~dex correction in log flux. After taking into account
this $8\%$ correction, the ratio of the narrowband H$\alpha$ flux to
the spectroscopic H$\alpha$ flux for these 11 objects varies from
$1.14$ to $4.21$, with a median value of $1.87$ and a $1$~$\sigma$
dispersion around this median value of $\sim 0.8$ (i.e., a scatter of
$\approx 40\%$). This median value is similar to the average slit
loss correction factor of $2.0$ suggested by \citet{erb06c}. For
galaxies with near-IR spectroscopic observations only, we correct the
H$\alpha$ flux for slit losses by multiplying by the median value
found above, $1.87$.
The sample of 11 galaxies with both longslit and narrowband
observations have an H$\alpha$ flux distribution that is
undistinguished from the distribution for the 90 galaxies that are
used to measure the relation between 8 micron luminosity ($L_{\rm 8} =
\nu L_{\nu}(8\mu m)$) and $L(H\alpha)$. Over this flux range, we find no
dependence of the slit loss correction factor with the spectroscopic
flux. The absence of any spectroscopic flux-dependent systematic in
the slit loss correction, combined with the expectation that the
amount of H$\alpha$ flux lost in the spectroscopic observations
depends sensitively on the relative placement and position angle of
the slit on the galaxy, leads us to the conclusion that the slit loss
correction must be dominated by random error.
\subsection{MIPS Observations}
\label{sec:mips}
There are 6 fields in the LBG survey that have {\it Spitzer} MIPS
$24$~$\mu$m coverage, including the publicly available data in the
GOODS-N and Westphal fields (Dickinson et~al., in prep.; Chary et~al.,
in prep.). We obtained observations in 4 additional LBG fields:
Q1623, Q1700, Q2343, and Q1549 (see \citealt{reddy09}). Observations
in these 4 fields consisted of 30~sec frame times with 2 mapping
cycles, where each cycle consists of a $3\times 3$ dither pattern with
a step size of $1/8$ the size of the MIPS array. The total exposure
time in 3 of the 4 fields is $\approx 11.4$~hours, sufficient to
detect $\approx 15$~$\mu$Jy sources at $>3$~$\sigma$ (in the absence
of confusion) within the inner $4\arcmin$ of each field. This is
comparable to the depth of the $24$~$\mu$m data in the GOODS-N and
Westphal fields. The Q1700 MIPS data consist of $\approx 20$~hrs of
observations and reach a $3$~$\sigma$ depth of $\approx 10$~$\mu$Jy in
the absence of confusion.
The $24$~$\mu$m images are processed using a procedure similar to that
described in R06. Briefly, the data are flatfielded and then combined
using MOPEX \citep{makovoz05}. Photometry is extracted using PSF
photometry with priors determined by the locations of objects detected
in the IRAC images (IRAC data exist in all 6 fields). There are three
sources of uncertainty in the $24$~$\mu$m fluxes. The first is
background noise, which we determine by fitting PSFs simultaneously to
random positions around the target of interest and any other known
sources. The dispersion in measurements of the background level
obtained in this way is similar to the dispersion we would estimate by
comparing the simulated and recovered fluxes of artificial objects
added to the $24$~$\mu$m images. The second source of uncertainty is
Poisson error and is generally negligible compared to the background
dispersion. The third source of uncertainty is confusion, which is
reflected by the degeneracy between the PSF fit to the object of
interest and the fits to any nearby sources. The uncertainty in the
fit is computed simply from the covariance matrix for the $N$ number
of objects that are being fit simultaneously. The total (normalized)
covariance in the fit ($\sigma_{\rm cov}$) is a number between 0 and
1, where the former indicates no covariance with nearby objects and
the latter indicates total covariance (e.g., such as the covariance
between the fit of an object and itself). For most galaxies in the
sample of $116$, $\sigma_{\rm cov}<<1$. There are 17 out of 116
galaxies that have $\sigma_{\rm cov}>0.3$. We consider these sources
to be confused and remove them from our sample; this results in 99
galaxies with secure PSF fits.
\subsection{Identification of AGN}
\label{sec:agn}
Because we are interested primarily in the star-forming galaxies, we
have removed AGN from the sample based on (1) the presence of
prominent emission lines including Ly$\alpha$, CIV, and NV, or (2) an
SED that behaves as a power-law between rest-frame $\sim 2$~$\mu$m and
$8$~$\mu$m (\S~\ref{sec:sedfit}). Among the 99 unconfused galaxies in
our sample, 9 are identified as AGN. Roughly half of these AGN also
exhibited high ratios of [NII]/H$\alpha \ga 0.5$. The fraction of AGN
($\approx 9\%$) is somewhat larger than the $\sim 5\%$ found among
typical LBGs to ${\cal R}=25.5$ \citep{reddy06b}; the H$\alpha$
spectroscopic sample is biased towards more K-bright galaxies relative
to the typical LBG \citep{erb06c}, and the frequency of AGN increases
rapidly with increasing {\em K}-band brightness at $z\sim 2$
\citep{reddy05a}.
\subsection{Final Samples}
\label{sec:finalsample}
The sample used to measure the relationship between mid-IR luminosity
and star formation rate consists of 90 galaxies in the H$\alpha$
sample (including spectroscopic and narrowband selected objects) that
satisfy the following criteria: (1) $1.5\le z_{\rm spec}\le 2.6$, (2)
$\sigma_{\rm cov}<0.3$, and (3) do not show AGN signatures based on
optical emission lines or a power-law SED. Of these 90 galaxies, 29
are undetected at $24$~$\mu$m to $3$~$\sigma$. We use a larger sample
of 158 UV-selected galaxies in the GOODS-N field that satisfy the
three criteria specified above and have corresponding X-ray data that
allow us to perform an X-ray stacking analysis (\S~\ref{sec:stack}).
Finally, the relationship between dustiness and UV spectral slope is
investigated with a sample of 392 galaxies (from 5 of the 6 LBG fields
with MIPS data) that satisfy the three criteria above and have had
their photometry modeled using a stellar population analysis
(\S~\ref{sec:sedfit}).
\section{Stellar Population Modeling}
\label{sec:sedfit}
To provide a broader context for interpreting the extinction
properties, we have derived ages and stellar masses by modeling the
broadband photometry of galaxies in our sample. All of the galaxies
with MIPS data have been imaged with IRAC, enabling us to use the full
rest-frame UV through near-IR photometry to fit for their stellar
populations. Previous efforts in this regard are described in
\citet{shapley05}, \citet{erb06b}, and \citet{reddy06b}. Here, we
update these results using the latest models of Charlot \& Bruzual (in
prep; CB08) that include the \citet{marigo07} prescription for the
thermally-pulsating AGB (TP-AGB) evolution of low- and
intermediate-mass stars. The effect of this evolution on the inferred
ages and stellar masses is then determined by comparing with our
previous results that employed the \citet{bruzual03} (BC03) models.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f1a.eps}{f1b.eps}
\caption{Comparison of the best-fit ages ({\em left}) and stellar
masses ({\em right}) of 95 galaxies with H$\alpha$ measurements
before and after correcting the $K_{\rm s}$-band flux for H$\alpha$ line
contamination. Points are color-coded according to observed
H$\alpha$ equivalent width.}
\label{fig:sedcomp}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Modeling Procedure}
For each galaxy, we considered a constant star-formation (CSF) model
and exponentially-declining star formation histories with
characteristic time-scales $\tau =$ 10, 20, 50, 100, 200, 500, 1000,
2000, and 5000 Myr. We further considered a range of ages spaced
roughly logarithmically between 1 and 5000 Myr, excluding ages older
than the age of the universe at the redshift of each galaxy. In
addition, allowed ages were restricted to be longer than the dynamical
time-scale of $\simeq 70$~Myr, as inferred from velocity dispersion
and size measurements of $z\sim 2$ LBGs \citep{erb06c, law07}.
Reddening is taken into account by employing the Calzetti extinction
curve and allowing $E(B-V)$ to range between 0.0$-$0.6. In
S~\ref{sec:ebmvyoung} we also consider the effects of adopting the SMC
extinction curve on the model results for the youngest galaxies in our
sample. The model SED at each $\tau$ and age combination is reddened,
redshifted, and attenuated blueward of rest-frame $1216$~\AA\, for the
opacity of the IGM using the \citet{madau95} prescription. The
best-fit normalization of this model is determined by minimizing its
$\chi^2$ with respect to the observed $U_{\rm n}G\rs+JK_{\rm s}$+IRAC
(3.6$-$8.0~$\mu$m) photometry. This normalization then determines the
star formation rate and stellar mass. The model (and normalization)
that gives the lowest $\chi^2$ is taken to be the best-fit SED. We
note the inherent degeneracy in this type of modeling. Typically
there are several best-fit models that may adequately describe the
observed photometry, even when the redshift is fixed to the
spectroscopic value, though there is generally less variation in
stellar mass than in the other parameters ($\tau$, age, $E(B-V)$) among
these best-fit models \citep{shapley05, shapley01, papovich01,
sawicki98}.
In the subsequent analysis, we have adopted the best-fit parameters
obtained with a CSF model for several reasons. This model generally
yields $\chi^{2}$ values similar to those obtained when $\tau$ is
allowed to vary freely. Additionally, some of the more extreme star
formation histories are ruled out because the youngest galaxies in our
sample cannot realistically have ages much less than the dynamical
time-scale of $\simeq 70$~Myr. Such extreme models are also unlikely
based on the presence of O star and Wolf-Rayet stellar features in the
composite UV spectra of $z\sim 2$ galaxies, irrespective of age (e.g.,
\citealt{shapley05}). For simplicity, we do not consider more complex
multi-component or stochastic star formation histories as the data
would not allow for discrimination between them as compared to simpler
star formation histories. Finally, we do not use the SFRs from the
SED fitting in the subsequent analysis, opting instead to use the
direct tracers examined here, including UV, H$\alpha$, X-ray, and
$8$~$\mu$m luminosity.
\subsection{Effect of H$\alpha$ Emission on the SEDs}
The parameters of most interest are the age and stellar mass, both of
which are determined primarily by the strength of the Balmer and
4000~\AA\, breaks and the stellar continuum flux as traced by the
near-IR and IRAC photometry at $z\sim 2$. Because the H$\alpha$
emission line falls in the $K_{\rm s}$-band at $z\sim 2.0-2.6$, it is
prudent to determine what effect, if any, the line has on biasing our
estimates of the ages and stellar masses. Figure~\ref{fig:sedcomp}
summarizes the comparison of the best-fit ages and stellar masses
(assuming constant star formation) obtained with and without
correcting for the H$\alpha$ contribution to the $K_{\rm s}$-band flux for
95 galaxies with H$\alpha$ measurements. Roughly two-thirds of the
sample of 95 galaxies show no change in best-fit age or stellar mass
after correcting the $K_{\rm s}$-band flux for H$\alpha$ line contamination,
and not surprisingly these galaxies generally have small H$\alpha$
equivalent widths ($W_{\rm obs}\la 300$~\AA). Even for those galaxies
with larger H$\alpha$ equivalent widths, the mean difference in age
and stellar mass is relatively small compared to the uncertainty in
these parameters as a result of the significant degeneracies inherent
in SED fitting.
The small differences in the ages and stellar masses before and after
correcting for H$\alpha$ emission partly reflect the fact that these
parameters are not solely constrained by the near-IR data: 89 of the
95 galaxies also have higher $S/N$ IRAC data that are unaffected by
line contamination at these redshifts. Also note that the age
distribution for galaxies with the largest H$\alpha$ equivalent widths
($W_{\rm obs}\ga 1000$~\AA), including many of those selected from the
narrowband data of the Q1700 field (\S~\ref{sec:selection}), is not
significantly different from that of galaxies with smaller equivalent
widths. The lack of a significant trend between H$\alpha$ equivalent
width and age for this sample has been noted by \citet{erb06c}, and
may be due to the stochasticity of the instantaneous SFR. In any
case, given that the age and SFR distribution of galaxies with
H$\alpha$ measurements span roughly the entire range probed by
UV-selected galaxies in general \citep{erb06b}, and that the
correction for the H$\alpha$ flux does not significantly alter the
best-fit ages and stellar masses for the majority of the sample, we
are confident in our ability to constrain the SED fits of galaxies at
$z\sim 2.0-2.6$ even in the absence of direct measurements of the
H$\alpha$ line contamination in the $K_{\rm s}$-band.
\subsection{Comparison between CB08 and BC03}
Figure~\ref{fig:bc03cb07} compares the BC03 and CB08 derived stellar
masses for 1156 UV-selected galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts
$1.40<z<3.50$, color coded by the BC03-derived stellar age. The
TP-AGB phase will become important $\simeq 200$~Myr after the onset of
star formation. Anywhere from $50-60\%$ of galaxies older than this
have CB08 derived stellar masses that deviate by more than $20\%$ from
their BC03 derived stellar mass, with a median CB08 stellar mass that
is a factor of $\sim 1.5$ times lower than the BC03 stellar mass. The
CB08 models also imply ages that are on average $100$~Myr younger than
BC03-derived ages. We will make use of the CB08 derived ages, stellar
masses, and color excesses in the subsequent analysis.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f2.eps}
\caption{Ratio of BC03 to CB08 derived stellar masses as a function of
BC03 derived stellar mass for 1156 UV-selected galaxies with
spectroscopic redshifts $1.40<z<3.50$. Fractions indicate the
percentage of objects in each age range that have CB08 masses that
deviate more than $20\%$ from the BC03 mass. }
\label{fig:bc03cb07}
\end{figure}
\section{DEPENDENCE OF $8$~$\mu$\MakeLowercase{m} LUMINOSITY ON STAR FORMATION
RATE}
\label{sec:ha24}
\subsection{Computing the Mid-IR and H$\alpha$ Luminosities}
The $8$~$\mu$m luminosity, $L_{\rm 8}$, is computed by {\em
k}-correcting the $24$~$\mu$m flux using the average mid-IR spectral
shape of local starburst galaxies, as discussed in R06. All 90
galaxies have {\em spectroscopic} redshifts and therefore are immune
to the additional $0.3$~dex uncertainty introduced by photometric
redshift errors typical of $z\sim 2$ star-forming galaxies, owing to
the complicated mid-IR spectral shape and the redshift-sensitivity of
the {\em k}-correction (R06).
H$\alpha$ luminosities are corrected for extinction based on the
$E(B-V)$ color excess as derived from the SED fitting
(\S~\ref{sec:sedfit}). The average color excess is $\langle
E(B-V)\rangle = 0.15 \pm 0.10$, implying an average UV attenuation of a
factor of $\sim 4-5$ \citep{reddy04, reddy06a}. Similar average dust
obscurations have been obtained based on stacked X-ray analyses of
LBGs at $z\sim 3$ (e.g., \citealt{seibert02, nandra02, reddy04}).
Adopting the conversion $E(B-V)_{\rm stellar} = 0.4E(B-V)_{\rm nebular}$
advocated by \citet{calzetti00} results in H$\alpha$-inferred SFRs
that notably overpredict those derived from the X-ray and
dust-corrected UV for the sample presented here\citep{erb06c}.
Therefore, the same value of $E(B-V)$ is assumed for both the UV
continuum and nebular emission lines.\footnote{\citet{forster09} find
evidence in their sample of $z\sim 2$ galaxies targeted with {\em
VLT}/SINFONI observations that the extinction of the nebular
regions may be larger than that for the stellar continuum, though
their sample includes galaxies with somewhat larger SFRs and larger
stellar masses than those typical of galaxies in our sample. It is
possible that the nebular reddening may on average be larger for
galaxies that are forming stars at a higher rate and/or hosting an
older (less attenuated) stellar population (e.g.,
\citealt{epinat09}). While we note that some small amount of
additional nebular extinction may be allowable by our data after
correcting for slit losses (given the $\approx 40\%$ random scatter
in such losses), this systematic difference in attenuation is likely
to be small relative to the scatter in the slit loss correction and
the scatter in correlation between dust-corrected H$\alpha$ and
dust-corrected UV SFRs of $\approx 0.3$~dex. Given that the
galaxies (with H$\alpha$ observations) analyzed here are drawn from
the same sample presented in \citet{erb06c}, and the fact that these
authors found no significant evidence for a larger obscuration
towards the nebular regions in these galaxies, we proceed under the
assumption that $E(B-V)_{\rm stellar}=E(B-V)_{\rm nebular}$.} The
\citet{calzetti00} extinction curve then implies a mean H$\alpha$
extinction correction of $1.71\pm 0.40$. The uncertainty in the
observed H$\alpha$ luminosity is dominated by random error in the slit
loss correction factor and is taken to be $\approx 40\%$
(\S~\ref{sec:slitloss}).
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Stacked X-ray and H$\alpha$ and UV Luminosities}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Sample} &
\colhead{N~\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{$F_{\rm 0.5-2.0~keV}$~\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{$L_{\rm 2.0-10.0~keV}$~\tablenotemark{c}} &
\colhead{$L_{\rm H\alpha}^{obs}$~\tablenotemark{d}} &
\colhead{$L_{\rm H\alpha}^{cor}$~\tablenotemark{e}} &
\colhead{$L_{\rm UV}^{obs}$~\tablenotemark{f}} &
\colhead{$L_{\rm UV}^{cor}$~\tablenotemark{g}} \\ \\
\colhead{(1)} &
\colhead{(2)} &
\colhead{(3)} &
\colhead{(4)} &
\colhead{(5)} &
\colhead{(6)} &
\colhead{(7)} &
\colhead{(8)}}
\startdata
H$\alpha$ (All) & 18 & $6.6\pm2.4$ & $3.4\pm1.3$ & $4.3\pm2.6$ & $7.4\pm4.4$ & $11.5\pm6.3$ & $54.4\pm30.0$ \\
H$\alpha$ (Undet)~\tablenotemark{h} & 8 & $3.3\pm1.5$ & $1.8\pm0.8$ & $3.5\pm2.2$ & $4.9\pm3.1$ & $12.2\pm5.9$ & $32.4\pm15.8$ \\
\\
UV (All) & 158 & $5.1\pm1.8$ & $1.8\pm0.6$ & ... & ... & $7.6\pm4.1$ & $41.0\pm22.3$ \\
UV (Undet)~\tablenotemark{h} & 116 & $2.8\pm1.7$ & $1.0\pm0.6$ & ... & ... & $7.4\pm3.9$ & $29.3\pm15.4$ \\
\\
UV ($0<{\rm SFR}<20$)~\tablenotemark{i} & 58 & $2.4\pm1.5$ & $0.9\pm0.6$ & ... & ... & $5.9\pm2.6$ & $15.7\pm7.0$ \\
UV ($20<{\rm SFR}<40$)~\tablenotemark{i} & 43 & $9.6\pm4.6$ & $3.3\pm1.6$ & ... & ... & $7.9\pm3.3$ & $42.9\pm17.9$ \\
UV ($40<{\rm SFR}<80$)~\tablenotemark{i} & 32 & $12.2\pm5.0$ & $4.6\pm1.9$ & ... & ... & $8.4\pm5.3$ & $81.4\pm31.1$ \\
\\
UV ($0<{\rm SFR}<20$; Undet)~\tablenotemark{h,i} & 56 & $2.0\pm1.7$ & $0.7\pm0.6$ & ... & ... & $5.9\pm2.7$ & $15.7\pm7.1$ \\
UV ($20<{\rm SFR}<40$; Undet)~\tablenotemark{h,i} & 28 & $5.8\pm3.1$ & $2.3\pm1.2$ & ... & ... & $8.7\pm3.5$ & $46.9\pm18.7$ \\
UV ($40<{\rm SFR}<80$; Undet)~\tablenotemark{h,i} & 16 & $8.4\pm4.4$ & $3.9\pm2.1$ & ... & ... & $8.9\pm5.6$ & $78.2\pm29.5$ \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Number of galaxies in sample.}
\tablenotetext{b}{Average soft-band X-ray flux, in units of
$10^{-18}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$~cm$^{-2}$.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Average X-ray luminosity in units of
$10^{41}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$, assuming an
X-ray photon index of $\Gamma = 2.0$ and Galactic absorption
column density of $1.6\times 10^{20}$~cm$^{-2}$ \citep{stark92}.}
\tablenotetext{d}{Observed H$\alpha$ luminosity in units of
$10^{42}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$, uncorrected for dust.}
\tablenotetext{e}{Dust-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity in units
of $10^{42}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$.}
\tablenotetext{f}{Observed UV luminosity in units of
$10^{28}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$, uncorrected for dust.}
\tablenotetext{g}{Dust-corrected UV luminosity in units
of $10^{28}$~ergs~s$^{-1}$~Hz$^{-1}$.}
\tablenotetext{h}{Stack of galaxies not detected at $24$~$\mu$m.}
\tablenotetext{i}{Stack of galaxies with dust-corrected UV-inferred
SFRs in M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$ as specified, assuming a Chabrier IMF.}
\label{tab:lum}
\end{deluxetable*}
\begin{deluxetable*}{lccccccccc}
\tabletypesize{\footnotesize}
\tablewidth{0pc}
\tablecaption{Star Formation Rates and Attenuation from X-ray, H$\alpha$, and UV}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Sample~\tablenotemark{a}} &
\colhead{SFR$_{\rm X}$~\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{SFR$_{\rm H\alpha}^{obs}$~\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{SFR$_{\rm H\alpha}^{cor}$~\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{{\sc A}$_{\rm H\alpha}^{\rm E(B-V)}$~\tablenotemark{c}} &
\colhead{{\sc A}$_{\rm H\alpha}^{\rm X-ray}$~\tablenotemark{d}} &
\colhead{SFR$_{\rm UV}^{obs}$~\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{SFR$_{\rm UV}^{cor}$~\tablenotemark{b}} &
\colhead{{\sc A}$_{\rm UV}^{\rm E(B-V)}$~\tablenotemark{c}} &
\colhead{{\sc A}$_{\rm UV}^{\rm X-ray}$~\tablenotemark{d}} \\ \\
\colhead{(1)} &
\colhead{(2)} &
\colhead{(3)} &
\colhead{(4)} &
\colhead{(5)} &
\colhead{(6)} &
\colhead{(7)} &
\colhead{(8)} &
\colhead{(9)} &
\colhead{(10)}}
\startdata
H$\alpha$ (All) & $37\pm14$ & $19\pm11$ & $32\pm19$ & $\sim1.7$ & $\sim1.9$ & $9\pm5$ & $42\pm23$ & $\sim4.7$ & $\sim4.1$ \\
H$\alpha$ (Undet) & $20\pm9$ & $15\pm10$ & $22\pm13$ & $\sim1.5$ & $\sim1.3$ & $9\pm5$ & $25\pm12$ & $\sim2.8$ & $\sim2.2$ \\
\\
UV (All) & $20\pm7$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $6\pm3$ & $32\pm17$ & $\sim5.3$ & $\sim3.3$ \\
UV (Undet) & $12\pm7$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $6\pm3$ & $23\pm12$ & $\sim3.8$ & $\sim2.0$ \\
\\
UV ($0<{\rm SFR}<20$) & $10\pm6$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $5\pm2$ & $12\pm5$ & $\sim2.4$ & $\sim2.0$ \\
UV ($20<{\rm SFR}<40$) & $37\pm18$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $6\pm3$ & $33\pm14$ & $\sim5.5$ & $\sim 6.2$ \\
UV ($40<{\rm SFR}<80$) & $51\pm21$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $7\pm4$ & $63\pm24$ & $\sim9.0$ & $\sim 7.3$ \\
\\
UV ($0<{\rm SFR}<20$; Undet) & $8\pm7$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $5\pm2$ & $12\pm6$ & $\sim 2.4$ & $\sim1.6$ \\
UV ($20<{\rm SFR}<40$; Undet) & $25\pm13$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $7\pm3$ & $36\pm15$ & $\sim5.1$ & $\sim3.6$ \\
UV ($40<{\rm SFR}<80$; Undet) & $44\pm23$ & ... & ... & ... & ... & $7\pm4$ & $61\pm23$ & $\sim8.7$ & $\sim6.3$ \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{Samples are the same as in Table~\ref{tab:lum}.}
\tablenotetext{b}{In M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$, assuming a Chabrier IMF, based on the conversion
relations of \citet{ranalli03} and \citet{kennicutt98}.}
\tablenotetext{c}{Attenuation factor corresponding to $E(B-V)$ assuming the \citet{calzetti00} relation.}
\tablenotetext{d}{Attenuation factor from the ratio of the X-ray-inferred SFR to the observed H$\alpha$
and UV SFRs.}
\label{tab:sfr}
\end{deluxetable*}
\subsection{X-ray Stacking Analysis}
\label{sec:stack}
Recall that our main goal is to determine how mid-IR luminosity scales
with SFR by cross-correlating the {\em Spitzer} data with
dust-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity. We have two independent measures
of how well the dust-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity scales with SFR.
For instance, \citet{erb06c} and \citet{reddy04} demonstrate the
agreement between dust-corrected UV, dust-corrected H$\alpha$, and
stacked X-ray estimates of the SFRs of the same types of galaxies at
$z\sim 2$ that are examined in this study. To provide better
constraints, and to take advantage of the new spectroscopy done after
these initial studies, we revisited the use of X-ray emission as a
proxy for SFR in our larger UV spectroscopic sample. To accomplish
this, we made several stacks of the deep {\em Chandra} 2 Ms X-ray data
in the GOODS-North field \citep{alexander03} for galaxies in both the
H$\alpha$ and larger UV samples, restricting the analysis to those
galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts. The X-ray stacking analysis is
performed in a manner identical to that specified in \citet{reddy04}.
The errors on the H$\alpha$ and UV luminosities and SFRs reflect the
object-to-object dispersion in H$\alpha$/UV luminosity among the
stacked galaxies. Examination of both the mean and median stacks of
the X-ray data suggests that there are no galaxies that dominate the
X-ray signal and bias the mean stacked results. The results of the
stacking analysis are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:lum}, along with
conversions to SFRs listed in Table~\ref{tab:sfr}. We will refer to
these results throughout the paper. For the time being, we point out
that the SFRs inferred from X-ray emission are broadly consistent with
those derived from both the UV and H$\alpha$ emission once the latter
two are corrected for dust assuming the Calzetti extinction curve.
Consequently, the mean dust correction derived using the Calzetti
prescription is similar to the mean dust correction obtained by
comparing the X-ray SFRs with those derived from the observed UV and
H$\alpha$ SFRs, even when restricting the sample to those galaxies
within a specific range of SFR (Figure~\ref{fig:ha_uv}). We will
revisit the correlation between UV slope and dust attenuation in
\S~\ref{sec:meurer}. Based on the agreement between X-ray and
dust-corrected H$\alpha$ and UV inferences of the star formation
rates, we adopt the dust-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity as a proxy for
the bolometric star formation rate.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f3.eps}
\caption{Dust-corrected H$\alpha$ SFR versus UV SFR ({\em blue
symbols}; data from \citealt{erb06c}) compared to X-ray determined
SFRs ({\em red symbols}).}
\label{fig:ha_uv}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Correlation Between H$\alpha$ and $8$~$\mu$m
Luminosity}
\label{sec:correlations}
Figure~\ref{fig:ha_l8} shows $L_{\rm 8}$ versus dust-corrected H$\alpha$
luminosity for the 90 galaxies in our sample.\footnote{For simplicity,
we did not consider the small fraction ($\approx 15\%$) of objects
at $z\simeq 2.0-2.6$ targeted with NIRSPEC that did not yield
H$\alpha$ detections. Roughly half of the galaxies with H$\alpha$
non-detections are also undetected at $24$~$\mu$m. Including these
in our analysis does little to alter the correlation between
$L_{\rm 8}$ and dust-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity. Most of the
remaining H$\alpha$ non-detected sources had inaccurate astrometry
which may have contributed to the lack of detection.} Focusing on
the 61 detected galaxies, we find a probability $P\simeq 0.00001$ that
the $L_{\rm 8}$ and H$\alpha$ luminosities are uncorrelated, implying a
4.4~$\sigma$ significance of the correlation. A linear fit to the
data yields a slope consistent with unity and rms dispersion of
$0.23$~dex. In principle, stacking the $24$~$\mu$m data for the
$24$~$\mu$m-undetected galaxies should provide additional constraints
for them. However, unlike the Poisson-limited X-ray data, there are
additional difficulties with stacking $24$~$\mu$m data. The first is
that the MIPS observations are typically background-limited, requiring
larger samples for a reliable stack. The second is that owing to the
beamsize of the MIPS observations, we must ensure that we include only
well-isolated galaxies in the stack to avoid contamination from nearby
galaxies, irrespective of whether the contaminants are detected at
$24$~$\mu$m. Unfortunately, there are not enough well-isolated
$24$~$\mu$m-undetected galaxies to obtain a reliable estimate of their
stacked flux. Of the $29$ undetected galaxies, $16$ are at least
$3$~$\arcsec$ away from any IRAC sources. Stacking the data for these
$16$ galaxies results in an upper limit only to their median
$8$~$\mu$m luminosity (Figure~\ref{fig:ha_l8}). In spite of these
difficulties, we can use a survival analysis to take advantage of the
censored data (upper limits in $L_{\rm 8}$) for the undetected galaxies
to make a more robust measurement of the overall correlation between
H$\alpha$ and mid-IR luminosity.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f4.eps}
\caption{$8$~$\mu$m versus dust-corrected H$\alpha$ luminosity for the
90 galaxies with both $24$~$\mu$m observations and either longslit
or narrowband measurements of the H$\alpha$ flux. The best-fit
linear relation for the 61 detected objects ({\em circles}) is shown
by the dashed line. The solid line shows the fit for all galaxies,
including the 29 undetected galaxies ({\em downward-pointing
arrows}). A stack of the $24$~$\mu$m data for $16$ well-isolated
undetected galaxies yields a $3$~$\sigma$ upper limit ({\em large
arrow}), which is measured from the background dispersion in the
stacked image. The width of the upper limit is determined from the
dispersion of H$\alpha$ luminosities of these 16 galaxies. The
typical error on individual points is indicated in the panel.}
\label{fig:ha_l8}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f5a.eps}{f5b.eps}
\caption{({\em Left}): Comparison between $L_{\rm IR}$-$L_{\rm 8}$ relations
in the optically thick case and in the case where the emission is
both optically-thin and thick. $L_{\rm IR}$ is computed by subtracting the
observed UV-derived SFR from the dust-corrected H$\alpha$ SFR (see
text). ({\em Right}): Comparison of several published calibrations
between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$, with most data taken from
\citet{caputi07}, including those of \citet{reddy06a, wu05,
caputi07, bavouzet08, chary01, rigby08}. The calibration and rms
(random) dispersion derived in our work are denoted by the thick
blue line and shaded light blue region. We have plotted these
relations over only the approximate luminosity range for which they
are calibrated.}
\label{fig:l8comp}
\end{figure*}
There are several well-documented statistical techniques available for
performing linear regression in the presence of censored data,
including the Buckley-James (BJ) and expectation-maximization (EM)
algorithms, both of which are implemented in the ASURV statistical
software package \citep{isobe86}. Survival analysis assumes that the
presence of an upper limit in a parameter (e.g., flux) is independent
of the true value of the quantity being correlated (e.g., luminosity).
This is usually satisfied in flux-limited surveys where the
fundamental parameter is luminosity. Moreover, in our case, the
$8$~$\mu$m luminosities depend on distance in a highly non-linear way
because of the strong redshift dependence of the $k$-correction.
Finally, the upper limits are determined by the depths of the
$24$~$\mu$m images which are independent of the luminosity
distribution (i.e., we did not integrate for a longer period of time
on fainter objects). Therefore, we assume that the $24$~$\mu$m upper
limits are roughly randomized with respect to the underlying
$8$~$\mu$m luminosity distribution.
In the EM algorithm, an inital guess is made for $L_{\rm 8}$ for the
$24$~$\mu$m-undetected galaxies based on the sample of detections and
assuming a normal distribution of residuals about the linear fit.
These guesses are then combined with the detected sample to produce a
new linear fit between $8$~$\mu$m and H$\alpha$ luminosity. This new
fit is then used to revise the initial guesses for the luminosities of
the undetected galaxies, and the procedure is repeated until
convergence. The BJ method works in a similar way, but makes no
assumption for the distribution of points around the regression line,
instead employing the Kaplan-Meier distribution derived from the
sample (e.g., the $24$~$\mu$m detection probability as a function of
H$\alpha$ luminosity). Both methods were used to quantify the
relation between $L(H\alpha)$ and $L_{\rm 8}$ using information for all 90
galaxies, and both methods yielded similar results. Including both
the detections and non-detections, we find a probability $P\simeq
0.00001$ that $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L(H\alpha)$ are uncorrelated, implying a
$4.4$~$\sigma$ significance of the correlation. A linear fit to the
data yields an rms dispersion of $0.24$~dex:
\begin{eqnarray}
\log[L_{\rm 8}/L_\odot] = \nonumber \\
(1.05\pm0.11)\times\log[L(H\alpha)/{\rm ergs~s^{-1}}] - (34.48\pm 4.26) \nonumber \\
{\rm for}~10^{42}\la L(H\alpha) \la 4\times10^{43}~{\rm ergs~s^{-1}}.
\label{eq:l8vlh}
\end{eqnarray}
Within the errors of the fitted parameters, the linear regressions
with and without incorporating the upper limits are identical over the
range of luminosity considered here. Note that the correlation between
$L_{\rm 8}$ and dust-corrected $L(H\alpha)$ is not solely due to any
systematic change in the extinction correction with $L_{\rm 8}$ because
we still find a significant $4.0$~$\sigma$ correlation between
$L_{\rm 8}$ and observed $L(H\alpha)$ (uncorrected for extinction).
Aside from the statistical analysis, it is worth examining further how
the $24$~$\mu$m-undetected galaxies affect the overall fit between
$L_{\rm 8}$ and $L(H\alpha)$ based on physical grounds. We discussed already
the limitations in stacking the $24$~$\mu$m data for these galaxies.
Therefore, we took advantage of the X-ray data for
$24$~$\mu$m-undetected galaxies in the GOODS-N field. An X-ray stack
points to an average SFR of $\sim 20\pm 9$~M$_{\odot}$~yr$^{-1}$, very
similar to that derived from the dust-corrected H$\alpha$
(Table~\ref{tab:sfr}). Examination of the mean attenuation factors
suggests also that while such $24$~$\mu$m-undetected galaxies are less
dusty than the detected galaxies --- as expected from the fact that
$24$~$\mu$m emission traces the dust emission in galaxies --- the
former are not completely dust-free given their relatively large SFRs
and mean attenuation of $\sim 1.3-1.5$. Hence, the undetected
galaxies {\em cannot} have true mid-IR luminosities that fall
substantially and systematically below the correlation defined in
Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vlh}, and therefore they must be described adequately by
this correlation.
Combining the linear fit of Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vlh} with the relation
between star formation rate and H$\alpha$ luminosity
\citep{kennicutt98}, which assumes solar metallicity and does not
include the effects of stellar rotation (e.g., \citealt{leitherer08}),
we obtain the following:
\begin{eqnarray}
\log[{\rm SFR/M_\odot ~yr^{-1}}] = \nonumber \\
(0.95\pm0.10)\times\log[L_{\rm 8}/L_\odot] - (8.52\pm0.87) \nonumber \\
{\rm for}~4\times 10^9 \la L_{\rm 8} \la 2\times 10^{11}~{\rm L_\odot}.
\label{eq:l8vsfr}
\end{eqnarray}
The SFR in Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vsfr} is a {\em total} dust-corrected SFR.
In order to relate the mid-IR luminosity to total ($8-1000$~$\mu$m)
infrared luminosity, $L_{\rm IR}$, we cannot simply combine
Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vsfr} with the Kennicutt relation between $L_{\rm IR}$ and
SFR. This is due to the fact that the latter is derived under the
optically-thick limit in which a vast majority of the bolometric
luminosity is obscured and emerges in the IR. While this is true for
most of the galaxies in our sample, it will not be the case for
fainter ones (e.g., such as those undetected at $24$~$\mu$m) where a
large fraction of the luminosity may be unobscured (\S~\ref{sec:bol}).
The dust-corrected H$\alpha$-inferred SFR is equivalent to the sum of
the obscured (IR) and unobscured, or observed, (UV) SFRs. Therefore,
we subtracted the observed UV SFR from the dust-corrected H$\alpha$
SFR to determine the obscured SFR and IR luminosity. Taking the
observed UV component of the SFRs into account, we arrive at the
following relation between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\log[L_{\rm IR}/L_\odot] = \nonumber \\
(1.37\pm0.16)\times\log[L_{\rm 8}/L_\odot] - (3.01\pm1.34)\nonumber \\
{\rm for}~4\times 10^9 \la L_{\rm 8} \la 2\times 10^{11}~{\rm L_\odot}.
\label{eq:l8vir}
\end{eqnarray}
The importance of the correction for the unobscured SFR is illustrated
in Figure~\ref{fig:l8comp} where we compare Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vir} with
that obtained assuming optically-thick star formation. Galaxies with
large $8$~$\mu$m dust luminosities have a smaller fraction of their
luminosity escaping in the UV, thus Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vir} approaches what
we would expect in the case where all of the star formation is
optically-thick. Alternatively, galaxies with small dust luminosities
have a substantial fraction of luminosity emergent in the UV. In this
case, the obscured SFR is lower than what we would have guessed in the
optically-thick case. The result is that the correlation between
$L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ predicts a factor of 4 lower $L_{\rm IR}$ than the
optically-thick case at $L_{\rm 8} \sim 3\times 10^{9}$~L$_{\odot}$.
The equations above summarize the relationship between mid-IR
luminosity, infrared luminosity, and total SFR over the ranges
specified above, as derived from the correlation between $8$~$\mu$m
and H$\alpha$ luminosity.
\subsection{Comparison with Other High-Redshift and Local Correlations}
Figure~\ref{fig:l8comp} summarizes several published determinations of
the relationship between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$, compared with our
determination at $z\sim 2$ (Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vir}). There is a general
agreement to a factor of $\approx 2$ between the conversions over the
luminosity range where they overlap ($10^{11}\la L_{\rm IR} \la
10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$). Excepting our present determination and that
of \citet{rigby08}, all the relations shown in Figure~\ref{fig:l8comp}
were calibrated on galaxies at $z<0.7$.\footnote{\citet{bavouzet08}
test the validity of their results for higher redshift galaxies by
comparing with stacked $24$, $70$, and $160$~$\mu$m measurements
(from the 3 MIPS bands) for galaxies at $z\approx 1.7$, and they
find a mean $L_{\rm 8}$ to $L_{\rm IR}$ ratio similar to that of $z<0.7$
galaxies. Both of their fits with and without the stacked data are
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:l8comp}.} The calibration presented by
\citet{caputi07} is in rough agreement with our relationship within
the rms dispersion of the latter. The \citet{wu05} relations are
calibrated on radio and H$\alpha$ data for local galaxies ($z<0.2$)
drawn from the {\em Spitzer} First Look Survey (FLS; e.g.,
\citealt{frayer06}). Finally, the R06 calibration is derived based on
the median $L_{\rm 8}$ to $L_{\rm IR}$ ratio of local galaxies in the
\citet{elbaz02} sample. Focusing on the relations calibrated with
$z\sim 2$ data, \citet{rigby08} report on the correlation between
$L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ based partly on a sample of 4 lensed galaxies
with intrinsic $L_{\rm IR}$ between $10^{11}$ and $10^{12}$~L$_\odot$.
Their best-fit relation agrees broadly with ours over the luminosity
range where the two are calibrated. The value of our analysis is that
it incorporates the largest sample of its kind with H$\alpha$, UV,
X-ray, and $24$~$\mu$m observations of {\em spectroscopically}
confirmed typical galaxies at $z\sim 2$. We proceed by adopting
Eqs.~\ref{eq:l8vlh}, \ref{eq:l8vsfr}, and \ref{eq:l8vir}.
\section{RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN REST-FRAME UV SLOPE AND
DUST ATTENUATION}
\label{sec:meurer}
While the previously derived calibrations are useful, most
high-redshift galaxies are too faint or lie at too high redshift to be
detected directly at $24$~$\mu$m, thus suggesting the need for some
other proxy for dust extinction. \citet{meurer99} demonstrated a
tight correlation between dust attenuation and rest-frame UV slope,
$\beta$, for a sample of nearby starburst galaxies. An advantage of
using the UV slope as a proxy for dust obscuration is the ability to
quantify it for galaxies that are up to two orders of magnitude
fainter in bolometric luminosity, yet are several thousand times more
numerous, than the dustiest ultraluminous galaxies (ULIRGs) at high
redshift. Thus, it enables us to quantify the contribution of such
galaxies to the bolometric luminosity density (e.g., \citealt{reddy08,
reddy09}). The Meurer relation is widely used to recover the dust
attenuation and bolometric luminosities of high-redshift galaxies,
however its validity had not been tested directly for such galaxies
until recently. Based on a UV-selected sample of spectroscopically
confirmed $24$~$\mu$m detected galaxies and stacked X-ray analysis in
the GOODS-N field, R06 demonstrated that the local relation appears to
hold for galaxies with bolometric luminosities (sum of the IR and UV
luminosities) between $10^{11}$ and $10^{12.3}$~L$_{\odot}$ at $z\sim
2$, luminosities typical of $L^{\ast}$ galaxies at these redshifts.
Here, we re-evaluate the sensitivity of $\beta$ to dust attenuation
using the full UV-selected sample of 392 galaxies with $24$~$\mu$m
data and SED modeling.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f6a.eps}{f6b.eps}
\caption{({\em Left}): Dust attenuation, parameterized as the ratio
between infrared and UV luminosity, versus rest-frame UV slope,
$\beta$, for typical galaxies at $z\sim 2$ (see text). The typical
error in the $24$~$\mu$m detected points is indicated at the lower
right. The filled pentagons show our inferences from stacked X-ray
data, where the error bars reflect the $1$~$\sigma$ dispersion in
the relevant quantity for the stacked galaxies, which is typically
larger than the formal uncertainty in the stacked X-ray flux.
Similarly, the upper limit and open pentagons denote results from
the $24$~$\mu$m stacks. The arbitrarily normalized red and blue
histograms show the $\beta$ distribution for galaxies undetected and
detected, respectively, at $24$~$\mu$m. ({\em Right}): Same as left
panel for bolometrically luminous galaxies (ULIRGs). Upper limits are
shown for $24$~$\mu$m undetected galaxies. }
\label{fig:ebmv}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\plotone{f7.eps}
\caption{$24$~$\mu$m detection fraction as a function of UV spectral
slope $\beta$ for typical galaxies with ages $>100$~Myr and young
galaxies with ages $\la 100$~Myr in the case of ages derived
assuming a Calzetti extinction curve (open squares and solid
circles) . Errors assume Poisson statistics. The dashed lines show
the same when we assume an SMC extinction curve in deriving the
ages. The histograms show the arbitrarily normalized $\beta$
distributions (in the case of Calzetti-derived ages) for the two
subsamples, and a two-sided K-S test indicates a probability $P\la
0.01$ that the two are drawn from the same parent distribution (see
text).}
\label{fig:detfrac}
\end{figure}
In the subsequent discussion the dust attenuation, IRX, is
parameterized by the ratio of the infrared luminosity (computed using
Eq.~\ref{eq:l8vir}) to UV luminosity (uncorrected for dust). The
intrinsic UV spectral slope $\beta$ is determined from the $G-\rs$
color as follows. We generated power laws in $f(\lambda)\propto
\lambda^\beta$ for $-2.5\le \beta \le 1.0$ with $\Delta\beta = 0.01$.
These are attenuated for the Ly$\alpha$ forest opacity assuming the
\citet{madau95} prescription and multiplied by the $G$ and ${\cal R}$
transmission filters. The UV slope is taken to be the one which gives
a $G-\rs$ color closest to the observed value. In the present
analysis, $\beta$ is simply an observed quantity and is immune to the
uncertainties associated with SED-fitting (e.g., as would be the case
with a SED-derived value of $E(B-V)$). The error in UV slope is
related directly to the error in color, and is typically $\sigma_\beta
\simeq 0.11$.\footnote{The $G$-band is affected by the Ly$\alpha$
forest only for redshifts $z\ga 2.5$. Therefore, statistical
fluctuations in the forest will not affect our determination of
$\beta$ as most of the galaxies in the samples considered here are
at $z\la 2.5$. For the same reason, Ly$\alpha$ contamination of the
$G$-band flux is not a concern in our determination of $\beta$.}
\subsection{Results for Typical Star-Forming Galaxies at $z\sim 2$}
To aid our discussion, we focus first on the correlation between UV
slope and attenuation for typical star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 2$,
which we define formally as those galaxies with bolometric
luminosities, $L_{\rm bol} = L_{\rm IR} + L_{\rm UV} < 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$, and ages
older than $100$~Myr as determined from the broadband SED fitting.
These limits are adopted to reflect the characteristics of the vast
majority of star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 2$. Constraints on the
bolometric luminosity function imply that a typical galaxy at $z\sim
2$ will have a characteristic luminosity $L^{\ast}_{\rm bol}\sim
2\times 10^{11}$~L$_{\odot}$ \citep{reddy08}. Further, our SED
modeling implies a median age of $360$~Myr with a dispersion of
$\approx 810$~Myr, where $\approx 13\%$ have ages younger than
$100$~Myr. There are 311 galaxies that under this definition are
classified as ``typical,'' and 109 of these ($35\%$) are detected at
$24$~$\mu$m. These detected galaxies exhibit UV slopes that are
correlated with attenuation ($3.8$~$\sigma$ significance) with a
formal scatter of $0.38$~dex about a linear fit
(Figure~\ref{fig:ebmv}). The normalization of this correlation will
depend of course on the depth of the $24$~$\mu$m data, as we might
expect that the detected galaxies have dust attenuations that are
larger than those for undetected galaxies for a fixed $\beta$. For a
fairer representation that is robust to the mid-IR observational depth
limitations, we have stacked the X-ray data for galaxies in the
GOODS-N field in three bins of $\beta$, irrespective of whether they
are detected at $24$~$\mu$m. We convert the mean X-ray determined SFR
to an IR luminosity after taking into account the fraction of light
emerging in the UV (see discussion in \S~\ref{sec:correlations}), and
we find mean attenuation factors that exhibit the same trend with
$\beta$ as the $24$~$\mu$m-detected galaxies (Figure~\ref{fig:ebmv}).
These results are in broad agreement with those obtained by stacking
the $24$~$\mu$m data in bins of $\beta$.
More generally, the mid-IR non-detections exhibit a $\beta$
distribution that is statistically unlikely to be drawn from the same
parent distribution as the mid-IR detected galaxies. A two-sided K-S
test indicates a probability of $0.01$ that the distribution in
$\beta$ for 24~$\mu$m detections is drawn from the same distribution
as that for the $24$~$\mu$m undetected galaxies. While both samples
include galaxies over approximately the full range of $\beta$, those
that are undetected at $24$~$\mu$m have UV slopes that are
systematically bluer on average by $\Delta\beta\sim -0.1$ than the
detected ones.
The IRX-$\beta$ trend combined with our observations of the $\beta$
distributions for the detected versus undetected galaxies implies then
that the $24$~$\mu$m-undetected galaxies are on average less dusty
than the detected galaxies, in accord with expectations. Further, we
find that the $24$~$\mu$m detection fraction increases steadily with
$\beta$ for typical star-forming galaxies, implying that galaxies with
redder spectral slopes are on average more infrared luminous
(Figure~\ref{fig:detfrac}). In the next section we show that the
relationship between $\beta$ and luminosity fails for the most
luminous galaxies at $z\sim 2$.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f8a.eps}{f8b.eps}
\caption{({\em Left}): Dust-corrected UV estimate of the star
formation rate (assuming the Meurer relation) versus the SED-derived
star formation rates. All SFRs assume a Chabrier IMF. ({\em
Right}): Bolometric SFR, defined as the sum of the IR and
UV-derived SFRs, versus the SED-derived star formation rates.
Orange and red points indicate galaxies with bolometric luminosities
$L_{\rm bol}\ge 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$.}
\label{fig:compsfr}
\end{figure*}
The correlation between attenuation and UV-slope for typical
$L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$ is not necessarily surprising
considering our expectations given the correlation between mid-IR
luminosity and the H$\alpha$ luminosity corrected for dust based on
the UV slope (Figure~\ref{fig:ha_l8}). Perhaps more importantly, the
IRX-$\beta$ relation at $z\sim 2$ is indistinguishable from that
established for local UV-starburst galaxies \citep{meurer99}, the same
relation that is almost always used to determine dust-corrected
luminosities at high redshift.\footnote{Note that \citet{meurer99} use
a different definition of IRX than used here. They define IRX as
the ratio of FIR-to-UV flux density, where $L_{\rm IR} \approx 1.75\times
L_{\rm FIR}$ based on the calibration of \citet{calzetti00}. We
have applied this correction to the Meurer relation before comparing
to our data.} This agreement has been noted previously for galaxies
selected using other techniques (e.g., the $BzK$-selected sample of
\citealt{daddi07a}) as well as UV-selected spectroscopic samples of
$L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$ (R06; \citealt{adel00}). Further,
the star formation rates derived by correcting the observed UV
luminosity for dust using the Meurer relation agree well with the star
formation rates inferred from the SED-fitting (left panel of
Figure~\ref{fig:compsfr}). This result is of course not surprising
since the Calzetti extinction curve (which is essentially coincident
with the Meurer relation) is used in the SED-fitting to estimate
reddening and SFRs, both of which are driven primarily by the UV
slope. The practical utility demonstrated here is that the UV-slope
can be used to recover the dust attenuation of typical high-redshift
star-forming galaxies to within a $1$~$\sigma$ scatter of $\approx
0.4$~dex. This strengthens our confidence in using the Meurer
relation to recover dust attenuation from the UV SED of $L^{\ast}$
galaxies in the absence of longer wavelength data.
\subsection{Bolometrically-Luminous Galaxies}
\label{sec:ebmvbol}
Turning now to bolometrically-luminous galaxies with
$L_{\rm bol}>10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$, we find that they have systematically
larger IRX ratios than we would have inferred from the Meurer
relation. This bias is roughly $4-5$ times larger than the random
error in the IRX ratio and is generally attributed to the fact that
significant amounts of star formation are completely obscured in the
UV (e.g., \citealt{reddy06a, papovich06, chapman05, goldader02}).
Hence, the reddening deduced from the UV SED tends to be lower than
that inferred from more direct tracers of the obscured star formation.
A pertinent question to address is whether our conversion from
$24$~$\mu$m flux to infrared luminosity is applicable for such
luminous galaxies because, as the reader will recall, our calibration
is based primarily on galaxies with $L_{\rm bol} \la 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$.
An examination of the empirically-derived fits shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:l8comp} illustrates that, with the exception of the
Bavouzet relation, our estimate of $L_{\rm IR}$ for these luminous objects
is similar to what we would have predicted from the other relations.
Adopting the Bavouzet prediction would lower the IRX ratio by $\approx
0.3$~dex, an amount which is not enough to account for the mean
$1$~dex offset of $>10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ galaxies from the Meurer
relation. Further, as we show in \S~\ref{sec:bol}, the relationship
between bolometric luminosity and dust attenuation implies that
ultraluminous infrared galaxies (ULIRGs) with $L_{\rm bol} \ga
10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ on average will have fainter observed UV
luminosities, and thus IRX ratios that are boosted, relative to LIRGs.
Consequently, the bias of galaxies with $L_{\rm bol} > 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$
to have UV slopes that systematically underestimate their attenuation
is likely to be a physical effect, as opposed to one driven by
luminosity-dependent biases in the calibrations between mid-IR and
total IR luminosity.
\begin{figure}[hbt]
\plotone{f9.eps}
\caption{Comparison between the direct tracer of bolometric luminosity
($L_{\rm bol} = L_{\rm IR} + L_{\rm UV}$) and that obtained by combining $L_{\rm UV}$ with the
Meurer prediction of the dust attenuation.}
\label{fig:bolcomp}
\end{figure}
Deviation of the these ultraluminous galaxies from the Meurer relation
can be seen more clearly in Figure~\ref{fig:bolcomp}, where we compare
the direct tracer of bolometric luminosity (sum of infrared and UV
luminosities) with that obtained when we combine the UV luminosity
with the Meurer prediction for the dust attenuation. Over the
luminosity range probed by the data, the Meurer relation successfully
predicts the bolometric luminosity for LIRGs, but significantly
underpredicts the luminosity of ULIRGs. This naturally translates to
a disagreement between the SED-derived SFRs and those derived from
summing the IR and UV-based SFRs for ultraluminous galaxies at these
redshifts, since the SED-derived SFRs assume the Calzetti extinction
curve (right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:compsfr}). The critical point
is that the Meurer relation can be used reliably up to $L_{\rm bol} \simeq
10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ at $z\sim 2$, and thus is valid for typical
star-forming galaxies at these redshifts.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f10a.eps}{f10b.eps}
\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:ebmv} for galaxies younger than
$100$~Myr, where ages are determined from stellar population
modeling assuming the Calzetti ({\em left panel}) and SMC ({\em
right panel}) extinction curves. The open squares and small
downward pointing arrows denote galaxies detected and undetected,
respectively, at $24$~$\mu$m. The large light blue and yellow
downward pointing arrows denote the $5$~$\sigma$ limits from stacks
of the $24$~$\mu$m and X-ray data, respectively, for the $<100$~Myr
galaxies. Also shown are direct measurements based on CO and {\em
Spitzer} IRS observations of the two lensed LBGs, MS1512$-$cB58
and the Cosmic Eye, and the form of the SMC extinction curve
presented in \citet{pettini98}. There are fewer points in the right
panel since ages determined with the SMC curve are generally older
than those derived with the Calzetti curve. Thus, the fraction of
galaxies considered ``young'' ($<100$~Myr) is significantly smaller
for the SMC case relative to the Calzetti case (see text).}
\label{fig:ebmvyoung}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Young Galaxies with Inferred Star-Formation Ages of $\la 100$~Myr}
\label{sec:ebmvyoung}
We now turn to the 49 galaxies with ages $\la 100$~Myr; this young
sample constitutes $\approx 13\%$ of the sample of 392 galaxies. Only
4 of the 49 galaxies are detected directly at $24$~$\mu$m
(Figure~\ref{fig:ebmvyoung}). About three fourths of the young
galaxies undetected at $24$~$\mu$m have limits in IRX that imply that
they lie below the Meurer relation. Stacking the $24$~$\mu$m data
results in a conservative $5$~$\sigma$ limit in IRX that suggests that
these young galaxies are in general less attenuated than their older
counterparts at a fixed value of $\beta$. This result is further
supported by a stack of the X-ray data for the 31 young galaxies in
the GOODS-N field that places a $5$~$\sigma$ upper limit in IRX that
is still 0.5~dex lower than the Meurer expectation.
These observations suggest that an SMC-like (as opposed to a Calzetti)
extinction curve may be more appropriate in describing young galaxies
in our sample. Because the ages are derived from the stellar
population modeling (\S~\ref{sec:sedfit}) and are therefore degenerate
with respect to the assumed extinction curve (Calzetti), it seems
prudent to determine how the inferred ages are perturbed under the
assumption of an SMC extinction curve. Adopting an SMC curve will
generally yield older ages relative to the Calzetti assumption because
in the SMC case a smaller fraction of the optical minus near-infrared
color is attributed to dust and a larger fraction is attributed to an
older stellar population (e.g., \citealt{shapley01}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\plotone{f11.eps}
\caption{UV luminosity distribution of galaxies with ages less than
and older than 100 Myr.}
\label{fig:luvdist}
\end{figure}
The results obtained by adopting an SMC curve are summarized in
Figure~\ref{fig:ebmvyoung}. As expected, the fraction of galaxies
considered ``young'' ($\la 100$~Myr) is a factor of 5 times lower
($9/392$) than that obtained with a Calzetti curve. More relevant to
our discussion here is that even when considering an SMC curve, we
note a significant departure of the youngest galaxies from the locus
of points that are characteristic of older galaxies in the IRX-$\beta$
plane that lie on the Meurer relation. At face value, these arguments
may seem a bit circular given the degeneracy between the assumed
extinction law and inferred ages. However, both IRX and $\beta$ are
determined {\em independently} of the stellar population modeling and
Figure~\ref{fig:ebmvyoung} demonstrates clearly that irrespective of
the choice of extinction curve, the IRX-$\beta$ properties of the
youngest galaxies deviate from those of older, more typical ones at
$z\sim 2$ (c.f., Figure~\ref{fig:ebmv}).
\subsubsection{$24$~$\mu$m Detection Fraction and $\beta$ Distribution}
The differences between the young and old populations are demonstrated
more clearly in Figure~\ref{fig:detfrac} where we show the $24$~$\mu$m
detection fraction for the young galaxies versus older more typical
star-forming galaxies. While the detection fraction for typical
star-forming galaxies increases steadily with $\beta$, that same
fraction for the young galaxies stays essentially flat (with no
detected objects). The only young galaxies detected directly at
$24$~$\mu$m are those with the reddest spectral slopes. Because the
redshift and UV luminosity distributions of galaxies in the young and
typical subsamples are not substantially different
(Figure~\ref{fig:luvdist}), the trend between detection frequency and
UV slope implies that the youngest galaxies are less infrared-luminous
and less dusty on average than typical galaxies at a fixed $\beta$.
Note further that the distribution of spectral slopes for the older
and younger subsamples are unlikely to have been drawn from the same
parent distribution. A K-S test implies a probability $P\simeq 0.005$
that the $\beta$ distribution of young galaxies is drawn from the same
parent distribution as that of the older galaxies. Thus, our analysis
implies that the youngest galaxies are not only less infrared-luminous
and less dusty on average than older galaxies with the same range in
$\beta$, but they also tend to have redder spectral slopes than older
galaxies. The difference in mean $\beta$ between galaxies with ages
$\le 100$~Myr and $>100$~Myr is $\langle \beta\rangle_{\rm \le
100~Myr} - \langle \beta\rangle_{\rm > 100~Myr} = 0.26$. The
apparently contradictory results that the young galaxies have both
redder spectral slopes {\em and} are on average less dusty than
typical galaxies may be understood if the reddening curve of the young
galaxies is ``steeper'' (i.e., less dust is required to redden the
continuum) in the UV than the typically assumed Meurer/Calzetti
relations, as alluded to above. To rule out any biases that may
underlie the offset of these galaxies from the Meurer relation, we
must scrutinize the validity of the measures of attenuation for such
young galaxies, as we discuss next.
\subsubsection{Measures of $L_{\rm IR}$ in Young Galaxies}
There are several independent reasons to suspect that the $L_{\rm IR}$ we
compute for these young galaxies are not biased by the way in which we
are measuring them. We consider first the possibility that galaxies
with ages $\la 100$~Myr have systematically lower $L_{\rm 8}/L_{\rm IR}$
ratios than their older counterparts. Specifically, it is thought
that much of the carbon dust in the ISM is ejected from AGB stars on
timescales of $\simeq 200$~Myr, whereas the larger dust grains
responsible for the bulk of the IR emission are produced on the much
shorter timescale of Type II supernovae. Local observations appear to
support this scenario in the sense that PAH metallicity (Z$_{\rm
PAH}$) is observed to be significantly lower relative to the IR dust
grain metallicity (Z$_{\rm dust}$) for metal poor galaxies, but that
the ratio of the metallicities increases rapidly until an equilibrium
is reached for gas phase metallicities (Z$_{\rm gas}$) in excess of
$\approx 0.3$~Z$_{\odot}$, owing to increased carbon ejection by AGBs
\citep{galliano08}. This delayed injection of carbon grains results
in a depressed ratio of mid-IR to total-IR flux for galaxies younger
than $200$~Myr. However, direct measurements of the mid-IR spectral
features from {\em Spitzer} IRS spectra and long wavelength ($\ga
70$~$\mu$m) constraints on the infrared luminosities of two young
($\la 300$~Myr) lensed LBGs at $z\sim 3$ (MS1512$-$cB58 and the
``Cosmic Eye'') imply $L_{\rm 8}/L_{\rm IR}$ ratios that are similar to those
of local star-forming galaxies and high-redshift submillimeter
galaxies \citep{siana08, siana09}, and older LBGs at $z\sim 2-3$
\citep{reddy06b}. In addition, an independent deduction based on CO
observations of MS1512$-$cB58 \citep{baker01} points to an $L_{\rm IR}$ that
is not significantly different than what we would have predicted from
our calibration between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$. Further, if we restrict
the local correlation between Z$_{\rm PAH}$, Z$_{\rm dust}$, and
Z$_{\rm gas}$ to the same dynamic range in gas-phase metallicity as
observed among LBGs at $z\sim 2$, $0.3\la$ Z$_{\rm gas} \la$
Z$_{\odot}$ \citep{erb06a}, we would find a PAH to dust grain
metallicity ratio that is roughly constant. The limited dynamic range
in gas-phase metallicity probed by the current sample, as well as the
direct measurements of the PAH to IR ratio in lensed LBGs at $z\sim
3$, suggests that our conversion between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$
(calibrated primarily on galaxies older than $100$~Myr) should be a
reasonable approximation for the younger galaxies as well. In this
case, the mid-IR emission observed in the young galaxies may be due to
some combination of silicate and amorphous carbon dust produced in
Type II supernovae \citep{todini01}.
Finally, the X-ray data provide an independent confirmation of our
results. The X-ray emission in starburst galaxies arises primarily
from shock-heated outflowing gas \citep{strickland04, grimes05,
grimes06} and high-mass X-ray binaries \citep{ghosh01}, both of
which should be sensitive to star formation on relatively short
timescales ($\simeq 70$~Myr) that are comparable to the dynamical
timescale noted above. Consequently, if the true infrared
luminosities of the young galaxies were larger than what we infer from
$L_{\rm 8}$ (and if $L_{\rm IR}$ was consistent with the Meurer prediction),
then the X-ray stack of the 49 young galaxies should have yielded a
significant detection. Yet, we are able to place a firm $5$~$\sigma$
upper limit on the the X-ray-inferred IRX of $\log(L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}) < 0.35$.
In summary, galaxies with ages $\la 100$~Myr appear to have lower
attenuation on average than their UV slopes would imply from the
Meurer relation (note that the Meurer and Calzetti relations track
each other closely for $\beta>-2.0$). This inference is based on the
limited dynamic range in metallicity probed by UV-bright (${\cal R} \la
25.5$) LBGs, direct measurements of $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ in at least a
couple of young lensed LBGs, stacked X-ray measurements, and the
$24$~$\mu$m detection fraction as a function of UV slope. Similar
conclusions are reached by R06 and \citet{siana08, siana09}. We have
shown here that this result appears to apply generically to most young
$\la 100$~Myr galaxies at $z\sim 2$. The small fraction of young
galaxies that have red $\beta$ and are detected at $24$~$\mu$m points
to a scatter in IRX for young galaxies that may be larger than for
their older counterparts.\footnote{For example, applying the Meurer
relation to one young LBG at $z=2.83$ (``Westphal-MM8'') results in
a bolometric luminosity similar to that inferred from its detection
at $850$~$\mu$m \citep{chapman09}.} Direct detection of the dust
emission of a statistical sample of young high-redshift galaxies is
required to accurately constrain their scatter in attenuation.
We conclude by noting the following. First, only 10 of the 90
galaxies used to constrain the relation between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L(H\alpha)$
have (Calzetti-derived) ages $<100$~Myr, and redetermining the
relation excluding these 10 sources does little to affect the overall
fit between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L(H\alpha)$. In other words, our assumption of
the Calzetti relation in dust correcting the $H\alpha$ luminosities
for these sources minimally affects our conversion between $L_{\rm 8}$
and $L_{\rm IR}$. Second, when computing bolometric SFRs, the
overestimation of attenuation by applying the Meurer/Calzetti
relations may be partly compensated for by the fact that the UV
luminosities in young galaxies will {\em underpredict} the star
formation rate. The latter effect is due to the fact that for a
constant star formation history the ratio of O and B stars
contributing to the UV continuum will stabilize only after the main
sequence lifetime of B stars of $\simeq 100$~Myr. This underscores
the need to correct for both a different attenuation and a different
conversion between UV luminosity and SFR when inferring the total star
formation rates of young galaxies (ages $\la 100$~Myr) at high
redshift.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f12a.eps}{f12b.eps}
\caption{({\em Left}): Bolometric luminosity versus dust attenuation
for the sample of 392 galaxies with spectroscopic redshifts between
$1.5<z<2.6$. ({\em Right}): Same as {\em left} panel but color
coded by UV slope $\beta$ and restricted to galaxies with ages
$>100$~Myr.}
\label{fig:bolfig}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Summary}
We have used the relationship between $L_{\rm 8}$, SFR, and $L_{\rm IR}$ to
examine the variation of UV slope with dust attenuation for typical
galaxies, bolometrically-luminous ones, and the youngest galaxies at
$z\sim 2$. We find a significant correlation between UV slope and
attenuation for the vast majority of typical star-forming galaxies at
$z\sim 2$. In this case, the UV slope can be used to recover dust
attenuation to within a scatter of 0.4~dex. Those galaxies with
bolometric luminosities in excess of $10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ have dust
obscurations that exceed by almost a decade those predicted from the
UV slope, owing to the larger fraction of obscured luminosity in these
galaxies and, as we show in \S~\ref{sec:bol}, a decrease in observed
UV luminosity relative to galaxies with moderate bolometric
luminosities.
Finally, for the $\la 13\%$ of our sample (exact fraction depends on
the extinction law used to model the galaxies' photometry; see
discussion above) that consists of young galaxies with ages $\la
100$~Myr, the local correlation overpredicts dust attenuations at a
given $\beta$. This implies that such young galaxies may on average
follow an extinction curve that deviates from the usually assumed
Meurer/Calzetti. These results are similar to what we found
previously based on a smaller sample of galaxies in the GOODS-North
field (R06). Here, we have expanded these initial results by
exploring in more detail some of the systematics that may give rise to
such an offset. We find that the undetected young galaxies and the
two lensed LBGs from the literature exhibit $\beta$ and IRX that are
consistent with an SMC dust extinction curve (e.g.,
\citealt{pettini98}). This behavior may be due to a difference in
covering fraction of dust, where the younger galaxies have larger
covering fractions consistent with a foreground screen of dust as
described by an SMC-like extinction curve. Alternatively, we cannot
rule out the possibility that the dissimilar extinction curve for
young galaxies may arise from differences in the dust grain size
distribution. This may be the case if the dust giving rise to the
mid-IR emission in young galaxies is produced primarily in Type II SNe
and contrasts in size and composition from dust produced in lower mass
stars (e.g., \citealt{maiolino04, todini01}; see also discussion in
\citealt{siana09}).
\section{Relationship between Bolometric Luminosity and Dust Attenuation}
\label{sec:bol}
Employing our measures of the dust obscuration and bolometric
luminosities for typical star-forming galaxies at $z\sim2$, we proceed
to examine the relationship between these two quantities, its
implication for the correlation between UV and bolometric luminosity,
and its redshift evolution.
\begin{figure*}[hbt]
\plotone{f13.eps}
\caption{Bolometric luminosity ($L_{\rm bol}$) versus observed UV luminosity
($L_{\rm UV}$). Small points and arrows indicate galaxies detected and
undetected, respectively, at $24$~$\mu$m. The $24$~$\mu$m stacked
results are shown by the open squares and large arrows ({\em
purple}). The shaded region denotes $\pm 1$~$\sigma$ about the
mean relation implied by the correlation between $L_{\rm bol}$ and dust
attenuation (Eq.~\ref{eq:boleq}). The hashed region indicates the
area excluded by the fact that $L_{\rm bol}$ must be greater than $L_{\rm UV}$.
The dashed horizontal and vertical lines delineate the values of
$L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$ and $L^{\ast}_{\rm bol}$ at $z\sim 2$
\citep{reddy09, reddy08}, and the thicked dashed line shows the
extrapolation of the relation to UV-faint galaxies (see text).}
\label{fig:bolvuv}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Functional Form and $\beta$ Dependence}
Based on the sample of 392 galaxies with MIPS observations, we find a
strong correlation between $L_{\rm bol}$ and dust attenuation with a formal
scatter of 0.23 dex about a linear fit (Figure~\ref{fig:bolfig}). The
fit to the present data is essentially identical to the linear fit to
a smaller sample in the GOODS-N field (R06), despite the differences
in the conversion between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ used in the current
versus previous (R06) study. This similarity (and the small scatter)
is due to the fact that $L_{\rm bol} = L_{\rm IR} + L_{\rm UV}$ is highly correlated
with dust attenuation, $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$, according to our definitions.
Nonetheless, we are confident of our calibration between bolometric
luminosity and dust attenuation given that $L_{\rm bol}$ estimated from the
sum of the IR and UV luminosities is consistent with $L_{\rm bol}$ (or SFR)
estimated from X-ray data and from the dust-corrected H$\alpha$ and UV
luminosities (\S~\ref{sec:stack}). Further, R06 showed
that the relationship between $L_{\rm bol}$ and $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ for UV-selected
samples remains valid for star-forming galaxies selected on their
rest-frame optical colors and/or submillimeter emission. More
recently, \citet{huang09} find that IRAC-selected ULIRGs at $z\sim
1.9$ lie on the same relation as defined by the typically less
luminous UV-selected galaxies (LIRGs). These results imply that for
the observationally-accessible area of the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ plane,
the relationship defined by UV-selected galaxies is not substantially
different or biased with respect to that defined by galaxies selected
by other means (e.g., optical and IR selections). Formally, our
best-fit relation between $L_{\rm bol}$ and dust obscuration is
\begin{eqnarray}
\log[L_{\rm bol}/L_{\odot}] = \nonumber \\
(0.69\pm0.03)\log[L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}] + (10.91\pm0.04) \nonumber \\
{\rm for}~L_{\rm UV} \ga 10^{10}~{\rm L_\odot}.
\label{eq:boleq}
\end{eqnarray}
Similar relations between bolometric luminosity, or SFR, and dust
attenuation have been found at low and high redshifts \citep{wang96,
adel00, reddy06a, buat07, burgarella08, buat09}.
The variation of spectral slope with attenuation and $L_{\rm bol}$ can be
seen in the right panel of Figure~\ref{fig:bolfig} where points are
color coded by $\beta$. Galaxies with red $\beta>-1.00$ are on
average more attenuated and more bolometrically luminous than galaxies
with bluer $\beta$. Galaxies with $-1.50<\beta \le -1.00$ span a
relatively larger range of attenuation and $L_{\rm bol}$, reflecting the
fact that many bolometrically luminous galaxies have a similar range
in $\beta$ (but much larger attenuation) than less luminous galaxies
(\S~\ref{sec:ebmvbol}). Galaxies with the bluest $\beta$ span a
narrower range in attenuation and $L_{\rm bol}$, both being on average lower
for these galaxies.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f14.eps}
\caption{$24$~$\mu$m non-detected fraction as a function of unobscured
UV luminosity ($L_{\rm UV}$). Error bars assume Poisson statistics.}
\label{fig:luvundet}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Variation of Observed UV Luminosity with Bolometric Luminosity}
\label{sec:bolvuv}
\subsubsection{Bolometric Luminosities of UV-Faint Galaxies}
\label{sec:bolfaint}
For further insight, we have recast the correlation between bolometric
luminosity and dust attenuation (Eq.~\ref{eq:boleq}) in terms of the
observed UV luminosity ($L_{\rm UV}$),
\begin{eqnarray}
\log[L_{\rm UV}/L_{\odot}] = \nonumber \\
\log[L_{\rm bol}/L_{\odot}] - \log\left[10^{(\log[L_{\rm bol}/L_{\odot}]-b)/a} + 1 \right],
\end{eqnarray}
where $a=0.69\pm0.03$ and $b=10.91\pm0.04$, as shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:bolvuv}. The relationship between $L_{\rm bol}$ and $L_{\rm UV}$
implies that galaxies with faint UV luminosities are less attenuated
than their UV-bright counterparts. A recent study based on deep GOODS
and UDF ACS finds that UV-faint galaxies at $z\sim 2.5$ have
systematically bluer UV slopes ($\beta$) relative to UV-bright ones,
implying that the former may be less dusty \citep{bouwens09}. Further, \citet{reddy08} and \citet{reddy09} argue based
on physical reasons that such UV-faint galaxies are unlikely to be as
attenuated on average as their UV-bright counterparts. For example,
significant amounts of dust in these galaxies, combined with their
large number densities as inferred from the steep faint-end slope of
the UV LF, would result in stellar mass densities and an infrared
background significantly in excess of those measured \citep{reddy09}.
Taking this luminosity-dependent dust correction into account,
\citet{reddy08} and \citet{reddy09} demonstrate that such UV faint
galaxies dominate the bolometric luminosity density at $z\sim 2-3$.
Our present (larger) data set suggests a significant dependence
between bolometric and UV luminosity, as evidenced by the trend
between $24$~$\mu$m nondetection fraction and UV luminosity
(Figure~\ref{fig:luvundet}). Specifically, this trend implies that
galaxies with faint $L_{\rm UV}$ are also on average less IR-luminous, in
turn suggesting that they are less bolometrically-luminous, than their
UV-bright counterparts. The trend between $24$~$\mu$m nondetection
fraction and $L_{\rm UV}$ is further supported by a stacking analysis.
Specifically, we stacked the $24$~$\mu$m data in bins of $L_{\rm UV}$,
including both detections and nondetections, and limited the stack to
galaxies with $L_{\rm bol} < 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$. The latter restriction
is imposed because we are interested in determining whether a trend
exists between dustiness and UV luminosity for {\em typical} galaxies
at $z\sim 2$ (i.e., excluding bolometrically-luminous galaxies with
values of $L_{\rm UV}$ similar to those of galaxies with lower $L_{\rm bol}$).
These stacked results yield average $L_{\rm bol}$ consistent with the
prediction from combining the Meurer relation with the trend between
UV slope and continuum magnitude (e.g., \citealt{bouwens09}), as
illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:bolvuv}. Thus, our present sample
provides the first direct evidence (independent of the UV slope) for a
trend between UV luminosity on the one hand, and bolometric luminosity
and dust obscuration on the other.
At first glance, these results run counter to our previous analysis
that indicated no correlation between dustiness and UV magnitude for
UV-bright (${\cal R} < 25.5$) galaxies \citep{reddy08}. More specifically,
in the previous analysis of the GOODS-North field, the stacked values
of $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ as a function of UV magnitude had uncertainties that
were sufficiently large that we could not rule out the possibility of
no trend between dustiness and UV-magnitude (see Figure~11 of
\citealt{reddy08}; see also discussion in \S~\ref{sec:irxprev}). Note
that despite this lack of trend observed with the smaller sample, we
investigated in detail the systematics introduced by assuming various
relations between dustiness and UV luminosity extending from UV-bright
galaxies (for which empircal constraints on the dust obscuration
factors exist) to UV-faint galaxies (see \citealt{reddy08, reddy09}).
The variation of IR and bolometric luminosity with UV luminosity
becomes more apparent with our larger sample
(Figures~\ref{fig:bolvuv},\ref{fig:luvundet}, \S~\ref{sec:irxprev}).
\subsubsection{Saturation of UV Luminosity}
The shallower-than-unity slope of the relationship between $L_{\rm bol}$ and
dust obscuration implies that the UV luminosity turns over or
``saturates,'' at which point any additional star formation will be
optically-thick (Figure~\ref{fig:bolvuv}). As we discuss below, this
saturation of the UV luminosity with increasing SFR likely explains
why no correlation was found previously between $L_{\rm bol}$ and $L_{\rm UV}$
(e.g., as can also be seen by the scatter of the points in
Figure~\ref{fig:bolvuv}) since these spectroscopic samples probe a
relatively narrow range of UV luminosity around the value of
$L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$. The saturation point can only be ascertained
from the functional fit to the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation and should
become more apparent with future measurements of the dust attenuation
of galaxies fainter than our spectroscopic limit. In any case,
galaxies routinely found in {\em Spitzer} surveys at high redshift
(e.g., ULIRGs) are typically fainter in the UV than moderately
luminous galaxies found in optical surveys (e.g., LIRGs). As noted
above, such ULIRGs appear to follow the same $L_{\rm bol}$-dustiness
relation as UV-selected galaxies. These results can be understood if
the dust obscuration, $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$, increases more rapidly than the
increase of {\em total} UV luminosity as the bolometric luminosity
increases. This may largely explain why ULIRGs have IRX ratios far in
excess of the values predicted by their UV spectral slopes based on
the Meurer relation (\S~\ref{sec:meurer}, Figure~\ref{fig:bolcomp}).
The turnover in $L_{\rm UV}$ implies that even in the presence of galaxies
with very large SFRs at $z\sim 2$, the observed UV luminosity will
never be brighter than a certain value which, at $z\sim 2$,
corresponds to $L_{\rm UV} \approx 10^{11}$~L$_{\odot}$.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f15a.eps}{f15b.eps}
\caption{({\em Left}): Bolometric luminosity versus dust attenuation
for our $z\sim 2$ sample compared with that of local galaxies from
\citet{bell03}, \citet{brandl06}, and \citet{huang09}. Also shown
are lines of constant UV luminosity at the value of $L^{\ast}_{\rm
UV}$ at $z=2$ and $z=0$ (solid lines), and the UV spectroscopic
limit at $z\sim 2$ (dashed line). ({\em Right}): Same as left
panel, in addition to the best-fit relation between bolometric
luminosity and dust attenuation for $L_{\rm UV}\ga 10^{10}$~L$_\odot$ at
$z\sim 2$ (thick solid line) and its extension to UV-faint galaxies
(thick dashed line). Also shown are lines of constant UV luminosity
for $L_{\rm UV} = 10^{8.8} - 10^{10.8}$~L$_\odot$.}
\label{fig:luvbol}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Implications for the Shape of the UV LF}
The connection between UV and bolometric luminosity has important
implications for the shape of the UV luminosity function. In
particular, the saturation point for the observed UV luminosity occurs
approximately at the values of $L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$ and $L^{\ast}_{\rm
bol}$ at $z\sim 2$. This is not surprising because, by definition,
$L^{\ast}$ is the point brighter than which the number density of
sources decreases exponentially. This effect can also be seen by
comparing our previous determinations of the UV LF, which is
well-described by a Schechter function, with the bolometric LF, which
has a more power-law like shape and not as well defined of a ``knee''
\citep{reddy08, reddy09}. The important point is that the saturation
effect is a direct result of the increasing extinction with $L_{\rm bol}$.
Consequently, dust obscuration must be the dominant effect in
modulating the bright-end of the UV LF, and thus dictating the value
of $L^{\ast}$, at $z\sim 2$.
\subsection{Redshift Evolution}
Comparison with the relation derived locally (e.g., \citealt{buat06})
shows that $L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$ exhibit $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ ratios
that are a factor of 5 times lower than those of local galaxies with a
similar $L_{\rm bol}$ \citep{reddy06a, reddy08}, implying a redshift
evolution in the extinction per unit star formation rate (or per unit
$L_{\rm bol}$). R06 suggested that this may reflect either an
evolution in the dust-to-gas ratios as galaxies age or a change in the
average sizes of the infrared and UV emitting regions of galaxies with
redshift. In the following, we discuss the importance of the $L_{\rm UV}$
limit in accurately assessing this evolution, a consideration of the
$L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation for UV-faint galaxies at high redshift,
and the implications of these results for the evolution of individual
galaxies.
\subsubsection{Dependence on $L_{\rm UV}$ Limit}
Quantifying properly the evolution in the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation
requires a careful consideration of the $L_{\rm UV}$ limit used to compare
samples at different redshifts (see also the discussion in
\citealt{buat09}). The strong redshift evolution in $L^{\ast}_{\rm
UV}$ \citep{reddy09} implies that a relatively shallow UV luminosity
limit will exclude the parameter space in the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$
plane where most normal galaxies in the local universe lie
(Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol}), causing one to infer a milder redshift
evolution in the extinction per unit SFR. It is clear that an
accurate comparison of these relations for typical galaxies requires a
$L_{\rm UV}$ limit that is sufficiently faint to detect these average
($L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$) galaxies at all redshifts in question. A
sufficiently faint $L_{\rm UV}$ limit reveals that $L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$
galaxies at $z\sim 2$ are a factor of $\approx 10$ times less
attenuated than local galaxies of the same $L_{\rm bol}$
(Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol}).
\subsubsection{Consideration of UV-faint Galaxies at High Redshift}
Clearly the $L_{\rm UV}$ limit is also an important consideration in our
interpretation of the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation at $z\sim 2$. This
limit is defined by the magnitude cut of our spectroscopic sample
(${\cal R}=25.5$) and corresponds to $L_{\rm UV}\approx 10^{10}$~L$_{\odot}$
(Figures~\ref{fig:luvdist}, \ref{fig:luvbol}). This limit is faint
enough to detect $L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$, where
$L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}$ is determined not from the present sample alone,
but from a consideration of the UV luminosity function measured using
data extending $1.5$~mag fainter than our spectroscopic limit
\citep{reddy09}. Therefore, the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation derived
here is not just valid for the sample analyzed here, but valid for
$L^{\ast}_{\rm UV}(z=2)$ galaxies in general. The saturation of
$L_{\rm UV}$ discussed above can also be seen in Figures~\ref{fig:luvbol}
and \ref{fig:luvbol3} where the relation between $L_{\rm bol}$ and
$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ at $z\sim 2$ crosses the same line of constant $L_{\rm UV}$ more
than once.
Let us now consider how the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation may change
for galaxies fainter than the $L_{\rm UV}\approx 10^{10}$~L$_{\odot}$
threshold. Our finding of lower bolometric luminosities for UV-faint
galaxies (\S~\ref{sec:bolvuv}) suggests that extending the
$L_{\rm UV}\approx 10^{10}$~L$_{\odot}$ limit to fainter luminosities is
unlikely to reveal a very large population of UV-faint galaxies with
$L_{\rm bol}$ similar to those of UV-bright ones. Therefore the
$L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation is unlikely to be significantly broader
at $L_{\rm bol}\sim 10^{11}-10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ than what we have measured
from the spectroscopic sample.
We have illustrated this point by using the relation between UV
luminosity and $\beta$ \citep{bouwens09} to infer the dust attenuation
and bolometric luminosities using the Meurer relation, thus extending
our measurement of the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation to UV-faint
galaxies (Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol}). Examined over a wider range in UV
luminosity, it becomes clear that the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation at
$z\sim 2$ is defined by a sequence of galaxies with increasing $L_{\rm bol}$
and $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ with increasing UV luminosity.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f16.eps}
\caption{Same as Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol} showing lines of constant
$L_{\rm UV}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ luminosity.}
\label{fig:luvbol3}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Evolution of Individual Galaxies}
Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol3} highlights another important issue. While
the dustiness of galaxies of a given $L_{\rm bol}$ increases with decreasing
redshift, this should not be miscontrued to suggest that a typical
$z\sim 2$ galaxy will evolve to become dustier but retain the same
$L_{\rm bol}$. Clustering analyses of $L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$
imply that they evolve to reside in the bulges of spirals and low mass
ellipticals by $z\sim 0$ \citep{conroy08}. Therefore, the
evolutionary track of any {\em single} galaxy in the
$L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ plane is unlikely to be perpendicular to either
axis. As galaxies on average fade between $z\sim 2$ and the present
day, reflecting the global decline of the star formation rate density
(e.g., \citealt{reddy09, reddy08, madau96, giavalisco96, steidel99}),
there will be a corresponding decrease in their $L_{\rm UV}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$, and
hence $L_{\rm bol}$. The critical point is that without taking into account
the offset between the $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 0$ relations, one would
wrongly conclude that the dustiness observed in local $L^{\ast}_{\rm
bol}$ galaxies is similar to that observed for galaxies of the same
bolometric luminosity at $z\sim 2$, when in fact the dustiness is
lower at a fixed $L_{\rm bol}$ at higher redshift.
\begin{figure}[!t]
\plotone{f17.eps}
\caption{Bolometric luminosity versus dust obscuration of the $z\sim
2$ sample, compared to that of the local {\em IUE} sample that was
used in large part to calibrate the \citet{meurer99} relation.}
\label{fig:iuecomp}
\end{figure}
The correlation between bolometric luminosity and dust attenuation
simply reflects the relationship between star formation rate and gas
surface density, i.e., the Schmidt law \citep{zoran06}. An increase
in the dust-to-gas ratio with galaxy age would simply shift this
relationship with redshift, as is observed \citep{reddy06a, buat07,
zoran06}. In \S~\ref{sec:metals} we revisit the variation of
bolometric luminosity with dust attenuation in the context of the
oxygen abundances of starburst galaxies. Geometrical effects are also
likely to play an important role in the offset between the $z\sim 2$
and $z\sim 0$ relations. For instance, in Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol3},
many of the $z\sim 0$ galaxies with $L_{\rm bol}\sim 10^{10}$~L$_\odot$ are
bulge-dominated spirals with star formation extending on scales of
several tens of kpc. If most of the star formation occurs in the more
metal-poor parts of the galactic disks \citep{pilyugin04, zaritsky94,
vila-costas92}, then the measured $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ ratios would be
significantly lower than what we would infer based on the
globally-averaged dust-to-gas ratio, including the metal-rich
component associated with the bulge.
\subsubsection{Comparison with the Local {\em IUE} Sample}
The conclusion from the above observations is that some combination of
dust-to-gas ratio and size evolution will drive the observed
progression of the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ relation with redshift. A
consequence of this evolution is that we expect to see an offset in
the metallicity-luminosity relation with redshift, which we discuss in
\S~\ref{sec:metals}. In practice, this redshift evolution in the
extinction per unit SFR implies that rest-UV selection allows one to
access galaxies with an increasingly larger range in $L_{\rm bol}$ with
increasing redshift. The increasing UV transparency with redshift was
noted by \citet{adel00, reddy06a} for UV-selected samples and shown to
be true for galaxies selected using other rest-optical and submm flux
criteria as discussed in \citet{reddy06a}. \citet{daddi07a} also
discuss this issue in the context of the differences between local and
high-redshift ULIRGs. The increasing dynamic range in bolometric
luminosity probed by UV selection is demonstrated more directly in
Figure~\ref{fig:iuecomp} where we compare typical galaxies at $z\sim
2$, for which the Meurer relation is found to be valid, with many of
the same galaxies that were used to calibrate the \citet{meurer99}
relation locally; the latter sample is drawn from observations with
the {\em International Ultraviolet Explorer} ({\em IUE};
\citealt{kinney93, heckman98, meurer99}). Galaxies that were used to
calibrate the Meurer relation locally span the same range of IRX
($L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$) as $L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$, yet the local
sample spans luminosities that are anywhere from one to two decades
less luminous at a fixed $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$. The Meurer relation appears to
hold for typical galaxies at $z\sim 2$ despite the fact that the
relation was calibrated on local galaxies that were significantly less
luminous. This suggests that the UV SED alone can be used to recover
the total dust attenuation in galaxies with progressively larger
$L_{\rm bol}$ at higher redshift, given that, at higher redshift, galaxies
are more transparent in the UV at a fixed $L_{\rm bol}$
(Figures~\ref{fig:bolcomp}, \ref{fig:iuecomp}).
\subsection{Variations in $L_{\rm IR}$ and $L_{\rm UV}$ at a Given $L_{\rm bol}$}
The contours of fixed $L_{\rm UV}$ and $L_{\rm IR}$ shown in
Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol3} emphasize the relative change in these
quantities as the dustiness is varied at a fixed $L_{\rm bol}$ at $z\sim 2$.
At $L_{\rm bol} \ga 2\times 10^{11}$~$L_{\odot}$, stochastic changes in the
dust obscuration (e.g., such as might be expected if the extinction is
patchy) results in $L_{\rm UV}$ to vary much more than $L_{\rm IR}$, simply
because a larger fraction of the total luminosity is obscured (e.g.,
see also \citealt{adel00}). For faint galaxies with $L_{\rm bol} \la
10^{10}$~L$_{\odot}$, an adjustment in the dust attenuation will do
little to alter the UV luminosity while $L_{\rm IR}$ changes more
dramatically. Of course, none of these observations are particularly
surprising, given that as we adjust $L_{\rm UV}$ there must be a
corresponding change in $L_{\rm IR}$ to keep $L_{\rm bol}$ constant.
\subsection{Comparison with Previous Results}
\label{sec:irxprev}
Several times throughout the discussion above we have mentioned the
correlation between UV luminosity on the one hand, and bolometric
luminosity and dust attenuation on the other. At face value, these
results contrast with previous investigations that have found no
correlation between UV luminosity and dustiness \citep{reddy06a,
adel00}, as discussed briefly in \S~\ref{sec:bolfaint}. Of course,
a constant average dust correction with UV luminosity naturally leads
to lower bolometric luminosities with decreasing UV luminosity. It is
clear, however, that if UV-faint galaxies are significantly bluer than
their brighter counterparts \citep{reddy08, reddy09, bouwens09}, and
their bolometric luminosities are consistent with the Meurer
prediction (stacked points in Figure~\ref{fig:bolvuv}), then their
average dust obscuration must also be lower (dashed line in
Figure~\ref{fig:luvbol}). Hence, their bolometric luminosities will
be correspondingly lower. We find direct evidence of this from the
trend between $24$~$\mu$m detection fraction and UV luminosity
(Figure~\ref{fig:luvundet}), even for the present sample which is
larger but covers the same dynamic range in $L_{\rm UV}$ as previous studies
\citep{reddy06a, adel00}. The trend between UV luminosity and UV
slope was found over a slightly larger dynamic range in $L_{\rm UV}$ than is
usually represented in spectroscopic samples \citep{bouwens09}.
The limited dynamic range and/or smaller samples may have contributed
to the apparent lack of correlation between UV luminosity and
dustiness observed before. There are a couple of other reasons why
such a correlation may have been difficult to discern in previous
studies. The first is that the saturation of $L_{\rm UV}$ occurs at a value
that lies in the range of $L_{\rm UV}$ that is typically probed in
spectroscopic surveys. In other words, the non-monotonic behavior of
$L_{\rm UV}$ with bolometric luminosity for $L_{\rm UV}\ga 10^{11}$~L$_\odot$,
folded in with measurement errors, washes out the underlying trend
between $L_{\rm UV}$ and $L_{\rm bol}$. The trend between dustiness and UV
luminosity becomes more apparent once galaxies above the saturation
point are removed from the analysis (\S~\ref{sec:bolfaint}). Second,
as seen in the previous section, the lack of correlation may be due to
the strong variance of $L_{\rm UV}$ with stochastic changes in the dust
obscuration for galaxies of moderate (or higher) luminosities (e.g.,
\citealt{adel00}). It is clear that with larger samples, superior
(direct) tracers of dust emission, and a larger dynamic range, one can
obtain a more complete picture of how dust obscuration varies with
other galaxy properties.
\subsection{Summary}
In this section we have considered the functional form of the
correlation between bolometric luminosity and dust obscuration, its
consequence for the shape of the UV luminosity function at $z\sim 2$,
and its redshift evolution. For galaxies brighter than our
spectroscopic limit of $L_{\rm UV} \approx 10^{10}$~L$_{\odot}$, we find a
tight positive correlation between bolometric luminosity and dust
obscuration ($L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$). Our sample provides the first
direct evidence for the decrease of infrared luminosity with
decreasing UV luminosity. Our results suggest that dust obscuration
is likely the dominant effect in modulating the bright-end of the UV
LF as evidenced by the saturation of UV luminosity with increasing
star formation rate. We demonstrate the importance of the $L_{\rm UV}$
limit in quantifying the redshift evolution of the $L_{\rm bol}$-$L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$
relation. Using a sufficiently faint limit, we find that $L^{\ast}$
galaxies at $z\sim 2$ have dust obscuration ratios ($L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$) that
are roughly a factor of $10$ times lower than those of local galaxies
of the same bolometric luminosity. We examine this offset in the
context of metallicity in the next section.
\section{Relationship between Dust Attenuation and Metallicity at $z\sim 2$}
\label{sec:metals}
It is clear from the discussion above that an increase in the
dust-to-gas ratios with age plays an important role in the observed
evolution of the correlation between bolometric luminosity and dust
attenuation. More generally, because most of the metals in the ISM
will be contained in (or depleted onto) the same dust grains that
attenuate starlight, we expect that the dust attenuation should
correlate directly with metallicity and hence stellar mass. The
near-IR spectroscopic data for LBGs at $z\sim 2$ have been used to
constrain their gas-phase metallicities using the [NII]/H$\alpha$
ratio. \citet{erb06a} compute the stellar mass-metallicity relation
at $z\sim 2$ in this manner and find that the relation is offset from
the local one \citep{tremonti04} such that at a fixed stellar mass
galaxies at $z\sim 2$ are $\approx 2$ times less metal-rich than
present-day galaxies. This offset likely reflects the larger gas
fractions at a given stellar mass with increasing redshift (see
discussion in \citealt{erb06a}).
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f18a.eps}{f18b.eps}
\caption{({\em Left}): Dust attenuation, parameterized as $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$,
as a function of stellar mass for 392 galaxies observed with MIPS.
Galaxies detected and undetected at $24$~$\mu$m are indicated by the
circles and downward pointing arrows, respectively. The average
stacked values of the attenuation are indicated by the red points.
The mass-metallicity relation from \citet{erb06a} is denoted by the
orange points with the metallity scale indicated on the right-hand
axis. The mass-metallicity relation is scaled to match the stacked
estimates for the attenuation according to Eq.~\ref{eq:attmet}. The
dashed horizontal line indicates solar metallicity
\citep{asplund04}. ({\em Right}): Measurements of attenuation and
oxygen abundance (derived from the N2 index; \citet{pettini04}) for
individual star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 2$. Points are color
coded to reflect whether they have upper limits in attenuation
and/or metallicity. The vertical black error bar denotes the random
scatter between the [NII]/H$\alpha$ ratio and oxygen abundance. The
solid red line indicates the relation found by normalizing the
mass-attenuation relation to match the mass-metallicity relation
({\em left} panel). The dashed horizontal line indicates solar
metallicity \citep{asplund04}.}
\label{fig:metals}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Correlation at $z\sim 2$}
To test our expectation of a correlation between metallicity and dust
attenuation, we have investigated the variation of $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ with
stellar mass for the sample of 392 galaxies (Figure~\ref{fig:metals}).
Assuming that the $24$~$\mu$m undetected galaxies have a similar
scatter in $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ at a given mass as the $24$~$\mu$m detected
galaxies, we find a scatter between attenuation and stellar mass of
$\approx 0.46$~dex about a linear fit between the two. The trend
between attenuation and mass can be visualized more easily by
examining the mean attenuation in bins of stellar mass as inferred
from a stacking analysis. To compute the average $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$, we
first stacked the 24~$\mu$m emission for galaxies in each bin of
stellar mass to find their average $L_{\rm IR}$ luminosity. The average
$L_{\rm IR}$ luminosity is then combined with the average $L_{\rm UV}$ luminosity
for galaxies in each bin of stellar mass to compute the $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$
ratio. The error in the ratio takes into account the error in the
stacked estimate of the $L_{\rm IR}$ luminosity and the error in the mean of
the $L_{\rm UV}$ luminosity. Doing this, we find that galaxies with stellar
masses $\ga 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ are roughly 100 times more attenuated
on average than those with stellar masses $\la 10^{9.5}$~M$_{\odot}$.
Because the gas-phase metallicity also appears to be significantly
correlated with stellar mass (and in the same direction as that
observed for the mass-attenuation relation), it suggests a close
connection between dust attenuation and gas-phase metallicity, in
accord with expectations. Relating the mean obscuration in a given
bin of stellar mass with the metallicity expected for that stellar
mass from the mass-metallicity relation, we obtain the following
empirical relation between obscuration and gas-phase metallicity as
measured via the oxygen abundance:
\begin{eqnarray}
12 + \log (O/H) = \nonumber \\
(0.18\pm0.03) \log(L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}) + (8.28\pm0.03) \nonumber \\
{\rm for}~1\la L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV} \la 40.
\label{eq:attmet}
\end{eqnarray}
The upper limit to which the calibration is valid ($L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV} \approx
40$) corresponds to the point at which [NII]/H$\alpha$ begins to
saturate for galaxies with close to solar metallicity (see next
section). This conversion allows one to estimate to within $0.54$~dex
random scatter the gas-phase metallicity expected for a given dust
attenuation for $L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$. This scatter
includes both the scatter in the mass-metallicity relation
\citep{erb06a} and that in the relation between the [NII]/H$\alpha$
ratio and oxygen abundance. This relation can be useful in practice
because measuring the dust obscuration for large numbers of individual
galaxies is observationally more feasible than measuring gas-phase
metallicities; the latter requires near-IR spectroscopy at these
redshifts. Nonetheless, we caution against the use of this relation
for dust obscurations that are dissimilar to the ones used in the
calibration, given the very limited dynamic range in metallicity
probed by the current sample. Figure~\ref{fig:metals} shows the
comparison between dust attenuation, stellar mass, and metallicity.
Recall that Eq.~\ref{eq:attmet} is derived from the average
attenuation and metallicity of galaxies with a given stellar mass. To
better gauge how well this relationship holds for individual galaxies,
we examined sources in our sample that also have published individual
metallicity determinations (see Table~9 of \citealt{law09}). To
remove any potential systematics between metallicity calibrations, we
considered only galaxies where oxygen abudances were inferred from the
N2 index \citep{pettini04}. While there were only 10 galaxies in our
sample that met these requirements, their dust attenuations and
metallicities are consistent with our conversion between the two
within the measurement errors ($\approx 0.12$~dex scatter between the
individual measurements and the relationship determined from stacking;
Figure~\ref{fig:metals}). Obviously, larger samples of galaxies with
individual metallicity measurements, such as those made possible with
multi-object near-IR spectrographs (e.g., MOSFIRE;
\citealt{mclean08}), will enable more detailed investigations of the
connection between dust attenuation and gas-phase metallicity.
\begin{figure*}[!t]
\plottwo{f19a.eps}{f19b.eps}
\caption{({\em Left}): Oxygen abundance versus UV slope, $\beta$, for
galaxies at $z\sim 2$. For comparison, data for local starburst
galaxies from \citet{heckman98} are provided, both using the
original metallicity calibrations of that study ({\em open circles})
and updating their results for the [NII]/H$\alpha$-derived
metallicity ({\em filled circles}). Their best-fit linear relation
(for the original data) is indicated by the short-dashed line. The
long-dashed line denotes solar metallicity \citep{asplund04}. ({\em
Right}): Same as left panel for oxygen abundance versus dust
obscuration, $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$.}
\label{fig:metloc}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Comparison with the Local Relations}
We can gain a broader perspective on the $z\sim 2$ results by
comparing them to the local trend between metallicity and dust
obscuration, where locally the galaxy metallicities are more robustly
measured using a variety of calibrations and observations cover a
larger dynamic range in metallicity. \citet{heckman98} find strong
positive trends of oxygen abundance (O/H) with $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$ and $\beta$
for a sample of local starburst galaxies (Figure~\ref{fig:metloc}).
They interpret these trends as a reflection of the increasing
extinction of UV emission (and reddening of the UV slope) as the
dust-to-gas ratio increases with gas-phase metallicity.
Before comparing with the $z\sim 2$ results, we must first account for
the systematic differences in the way that oxygen abundances are
inferred locally versus at high redshift \citep{kewley08}. As
discussed above, the abundances for the $z\sim 2$ sample are derived
based on the calibration of [NII]/H$\alpha$ with O/H
\citep{pettini04}. Alternatively, the abundances tabulated in
\citet{heckman98} are based primarily on either direct
temperature-sensitive ($T_{\rm e}$) methods or the R23 calibration.
For a robust comparison with the $z\sim 2$ sample, we searched the
literature to find [NII]/H$\alpha$ measurements for all of the
\citet{heckman98} galaxies. The comparison between the metallicities
tabulated in \citet{heckman98} and those derived from the N2 index is
shown in Figure~\ref{fig:metloc}. The two sets of metallicity
measurements agree well up to solar metallicity, at which point the
[NII]/H$\alpha$ indicator saturates due to nitrogen becoming the
dominant coolant, an effect that has been noted elsewhere
\citep{pettini04, kewley02, baldwin81}.
Having remeasured the metallicities for the local sample using the
same abundance indicator adopted at high redshift, we find that the
variations in O/H with $\beta$ and IRX for $L^{\ast}$ galaxies at
$z\sim 2$ are in general agreement with the local relations
(Figure~\ref{fig:metloc}). The implication of this agreement is that
for a fixed metallicity, the $z\sim 2$ and $z\sim 0$ galaxies have similar
dust-to-gas ratios, despite the fact that the high-redshift ones are $10-20$
times more bolometrically luminous. It is here that we see another
manifestation of the redshift evolution of the correlation between
bolometric luminosity and dustiness. As discussed in
\S~\ref{sec:bol}, $z\sim 2$ galaxies are significantly more luminous
at a fixed dust obscuration than local galaxies. We see a similar
effect in the context of metallicity, in the sense that galaxies with
a fixed metallicity (or dust-to-gas ratio) are significantly more
luminous at high redshift. This result is a natural expectation given
the positive correlation between dust attenuation and metallicity
(Figure~\ref{fig:metloc}).
\subsection{Bolometric Luminosity - Metallicity Relation at $z\sim 2$}
The progression of metallicity with increasing obscuration
(Figures~\ref{fig:metals}) and the strong correlation between
bolometric luminosity and dust attenuation (\S~\ref{sec:bol}) imply
the existence of a luminosity-metallicity relation at $z\sim 2$ (e.g.,
see also \citealt{erb06a, shapley04}). Further, the similarity in
dust-to-gas ratio and difference in luminosity suggests a significant
redshift evolution in the optical luminosity - metallicity relation,
as has been noted by \citet{erb06a, shapley04} in the context of
$z\sim 2$ galaxies, and noted elsewhere for samples primarily at lower
redshift (e.g., \citealt{kobulnicky04, kobulnicky03, maier06, maier04,
salzer05, lara09}). Quantitatively, a LIRG with $L_{\rm bol} \sim
10^{11}$~L$_{\odot}$ at $z\sim 2$ is on average a third less
metal-enriched than a galaxy with the same (LIRG) bolometric
luminosity locally. Similarly, the results suggest that high-redshift
galaxies are scaled up versions of local starbursts where, for a fixed
metallicity, the high-redshift ones are significantly more luminous
than the local ones.
These observations can be understood if high-redshift galaxies are on
average less-evolved than local galaxies, where the high-redshift ones
have larger gas fractions and are forming stars in a less metal-rich
environment (e.g., \citealt{erb06a, reddy06a}). The redshift
evolution of both the luminosity-metallicity and the
luminosity-obscuration relations is then largely reflective of the
underlying chemical evolution of galaxies as they age. As we have
seen (\S~\ref{sec:bol}), this evolution has important implications for
the relative transparency (or ``optical-depth'') of galaxies and their
amenability to UV-selection at ever-increasing redshifts.
\section{CONCLUSIONS}
\label{sec:conclusions}
We use ground-based UV imaging, near-IR spectroscopy, and {\em
Spitzer} MIPS $24$~$\mu$m imaging of a large sample of Lyman Break
galaxies to investigate how the 8~$\mu$m luminosity ($L_{\rm 8}$) is
related to the H$\alpha$ luminosity ($L(H\alpha)$), infrared luminosity
($L_{\rm IR}$), and star formation rate of $L^{\ast}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$.
{\em Chandra} X-ray data are used to provide an independent check of
the average star formation rates derived in this manner. We then use
the derived relationships to estimate the bolometric luminosities
($L_{\rm bol}$) and dust attenuation of typical galaxies at $z\sim 2$. Our
main conclusions are as follows:
1. Using a sample of 90 Lyman Break Galaxies with H$\alpha$
spectroscopic and narrowband observations and MIPS $24$~$\mu$m
imaging, we find a tight correlation between $L_{\rm 8}$ and $L(H\alpha)$ with
0.24 dex scatter. We combine this result with the Kennicutt
relations, taking care to account for the unobscured component of the
star formation rate, to derive relations between $L_{\rm 8}$ and
$L_{\rm IR}$/SFR.
2. Based on a larger sample of 392 galaxies with MIPS observations,
we find that the rest-frame UV slopes ($\beta$) of typical
star-forming galaxies at $z\sim 2$ with ages $\ga 100$~Myr correlate
significantly with dust attenuation, parameterized by the ratio of
infrared-to-UV luminosity, $L_{\rm IR}/L_{\rm UV}$. Galaxies with flatter (bluer)
$\beta$ are less dusty on average than those with redder $\beta$.
Further, the correlation between $\beta$ and dust attenuation is
indistinguishable from that established for local UV-starburst
galaxies \citep{meurer99, calzetti00}, the latter of which is almost
always used to infer the dust attenuation of UV-selected galaxies at
high redshift. We demonstrate here that the local correlation can be
used to infer the extinction and bolometric luminosities of
$10^{10}\la L_{\rm IR} \la 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ galaxies at $z\sim 2$ to
within a scatter of $0.4$~dex. Galaxies with the largest bolometric
luminosities of $L_{\rm bol} \ga 10^{12}$~L$_{\odot}$ have bluer $\beta$
than their dust attenuations would imply based on the local
correlation, or the correlation for the vast majority of star-forming
galaxies at $z\sim 2$. This effect is likely due to the fact the
majority of the star formation in these bolometrically luminous and
heavily attenuated galaxies is optically-thick at UV wavelengths (see
also point 5 below).
3. Separately, $\la 13\%$ of our $z\sim 2$ sample consists of young
galaxies with inferred ages of $\la 100$~Myr. Unlike their older and
more typical counterparts, these young galaxies are significantly less
attenuated at a given $\beta$, as evidenced by their larger
non-detection rate at $24$~$\mu$m and their non-detections in the
stacked $24$~$\mu$m and X-ray images. These observations suggest that
young galaxies may follow an extinction curve that is different than
the usually assumed Meurer/Calzetti; the data for the young galaxies
are consistent with an SMC-like extinction curve. If this is the
case, then their dust obscuration may be up to a factor of 2-3 lower
than the values obtained by assuming the local correlation between
$\beta$ and dust attenuation.
4. We verify our previous result that galaxies with larger bolometric
luminosities are more heavily attenuated by dust, and galaxies with
redder $\beta$ are also more bolometrically luminous on average than
those with bluer $\beta$. Comparison with the local correlation
between $L_{\rm bol}$ and dust attenuation implies that $L^{\ast}$ galaxies
at $z\sim 2$ with $L_{\rm bol} \sim 10^{11}$~L$_{\odot}$ are an order of
magnitude less dusty than local galaxies with a similar $L_{\rm bol}$. Such
an effect may be related to an increase of dust-to-gas ratio as
galaxies age. The redshift evolution in the extinction per unit SFR
implies that in practice UV selection gives access to galaxies with an
increasingly larger range in $L_{\rm bol}$ at increasing redshift. It also
implies that the UV SED alone can be used to recover the total dust
attenuation in galaxies with progressively larger $L_{\rm bol}$ at higher
redshift, given that, at higher redshift, galaxies are more
transparent in the UV at a fixed $L_{\rm bol}$.
5. We recast the correlation between bolometric luminosity and dust
attenuation at $z\sim 2$ in terms of observed UV luminosity to come to
the following conclusions. First, galaxies with faint UV luminosities
are expected to be less attenuated than their UV-bright counterparts.
This result is supported by our data that indicate that UV-faint
galaxies are less IR luminous (and less bolometrically luminous) than
UV-bright ones. Second, we observe that galaxies with very large star
formation rates (e.g., ULIRGs) are less UV luminous per unit SFR than
galaxies with lower SFRs (e.g., LIRGs), implying that the dust
covering fraction is likely increasing more rapidly with SFR than the
intrinsic UV luminosity. This effect results in a saturation of the
UV luminosity. This saturation occurs at the value of $L^{\ast}$ at
these redshifts, implying that the bright-end of the UV LF at $z\sim
2$ is likely modulated by dust obscuration.
6. Motivated by the expectation of a direct correspondence between
extinction and metallicity, we have examined the relationship between
dust attenuation and stellar mass. Galaxies with stellar mass $\ga
10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ are almost 100 times more dusty on average than
those with masses $\la 10^{9.5}$~M$_{\odot}$. The monotonically
increasing mass-attenuation and mass-metallicity relations imply a
close connection between attenuation and metallicity, allowing us to
provide an empirical calibration between the two. This calibration is
verified with a small sample of $z\sim 2$ galaxies with individual
metallicity determinations. Comparison with the local relationship
between metal abundance and dust obscuration suggests that $L^{\ast}$
galaxies at $z\sim 2$ have a similar ratio of dust-to-metals as local
starbursts, despite the high-redshift galaxies' bolometric
luminosities being a factor of 10 to 20 times larger than local
galaxies. Our results imply a redshift evolution in the
luminosity-metallicity and luminosity-obscuration relations that
reflects the underlying chemical evolution of galaxies as they age.
We have utilized all the data at our disposal, including UV imaging,
H$\alpha$ narrowband and spectroscopic observations, and {\em Spitzer}
MIPS $24$~$\mu$m imaging, to investigate the viability of rest-frame
$8$~$\mu$m luminosity as a star formation rate and dust indicator. We
go on to show how these data indicate that the UV slopes of
high-redshift galaxies are sensitive to dust in the same way as they
are in the local universe; thus the UV slope is an important proxy for
inferring the bolometric luminosities of high-redshift galaxies in the
absence of longer wavelength data. Further analysis will benefit from
observations with near-IR multi-object spectrographs allowing
simultaneous coverage of at least two near-IR bands, which will allow
for direct measurements of the nebular reddening via the Balmer
decrement for $z\sim 2$ galaxies. Future observations with the {\em
Herschel} Space Telescope will no doubt greatly extend our results.
These new observations will directly sample the longer wavelength
(rest-frame $30$~$\mu$m) dust emission of at least luminous LIRGs at
$z\sim 2$, and will yield more robust measurements of the bolometric
luminosities of more typical galaxies at $z\sim 2$.
\acknowledgements
We thank the staff of the Keck and Palomar Observatories for their
help in obtaining the data presented here. Support for N. A. R. was
provided by NASA through Hubble Fellowship grant HST-HF-01223.01
awarded by the Space Telescope Science Institute, which is operated by
the Association of Universities for Research in Astronomy, Inc., for
NASA, under contract NAS 5-26555. Additional support has been
provided by research funding for the {\em Spitzer} Space Telescope
Legacy Science Program, provided by NASA through contracts 1224666 and
1287778, issued by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute
of Technology. C. C. S. has been supported by grants AST 03-07263 and
AST 06-06912 from the National Science Foundation and by the David and
Lucile Packard Foundation.
|
\section{Introduction}
Many physical and economic systems should be and in fact have been
successfully modeled by discontinuous Markov processes; see for
example, \cite{JW, KSZ, OS} and the references therein.
Discontinuous Markov processes are also very important from a
theoretical point of view, since they contain stable processes,
relativistic stable processes and jump diffusions as special cases.
Due to their importance both in theory and in applications,
discontinuous Markov processes have been receiving intensive study
in recent years.
In general, Markov processes may have both diffusion and jump
components. A Markov process having continuous sample paths is
called a diffusion. Diffusion processes in $\bR^d$ and second order
elliptic differential operators on $\bR^d$ are closely related in
the following sense. For a large class of second order elliptic
differential operators $\sL$ on $\bR^d$, there is a diffusion
process $X$ in $\bR^d$ associated with it so that $\sL$ is the
infinitesimal generator of $X$, and vice versa. The connection
between $\sL$ and $X$ can also be seen as follows. The fundamental
solution $p(t, x, y)$ of $\partial _t u =\sL u$ (also called the
heat kernel of $\sL$) is the transition density of $X$. Thus
obtaining sharp two-sided estimates for $p(t, x, y)$ is a
fundamental problem in both analysis and probability theory. In
fact, two-sided heat kernel estimates for diffusions in $\bR^d$ have
a long history and many beautiful results have been established. See
\cite{D1, D3} and the references therein. But, due to the
complication near the boundary, two-sided estimates on the
transition density of killed diffusions in a domain $D$
(equivalently, the Dirichlet heat kernel) have been established only
recently. See \cite{D2, D3, DS} for upper bound estimates and
\cite{Zq3} for the lower bound estimate of the Dirichlet heat
kernels in bounded $C^{1,1}$ domains.
The infinitesimal generator of a discontinuous Markov process in
$\bR^d$ is no longer a differential operator but rather a non-local
(or integro-differential) operator $\sL$. For instance, the
infinitesimal generator of a rotationally symmetric $\alpha$-stable
process in $\bR^d$ with $\alpha \in (0, 2)$ is a fractional
Laplacian operator $ \Delta^{\alpha /2}:=- (-\Delta)^{\alpha/2}$.
Most of the recent studies concentrate on pure jump Markov
processes, like the rotationally symmetric $\alpha$-stable
processes, that do not have a diffusion component. For a summary of
some of these recent results from the probability literature, one
can see \cite{BBKRSV, C0} and the references therein. We refer the
readers to \cite{CSS, CaS, CV} for a sample of recent progresses in
the PDE literature.
Recently in \cite{CKS}, we obtained sharp two-sided estimates for
the heat kernel of the fractional Laplacian $\Delta^{\alpha /2}$ in
$D$ with zero exterior condition (or equivalently, the transition
density function of the symmetric $\alpha$-stable process killed
upon exiting $D$) for any $C^{1, 1}$ open set $D\subset \bR^d$ with
$d\geq 1$. As far as we know, this was the first time
sharp two-sided estimates were established for Dirichlet heat
kernels of non-local operators. Since then, studies on this topic
have been growing rapidly. In \cite{CKS1, CKS2, CKS3}, the ideas of
\cite{CKS} were adapted to establish two-sided heat kernel estimates
of other pure jump Markov processes in open subsets of $\bR^d$. In
\cite{CT}, the large time behaviors of heat kernels for symmetric
$\alpha$-stable processes and censored stable processes in unbounded
open sets were studied. Very recently in \cite{BG, BGR}, the heat
kernel of the fractional Laplacian in non-smooth open set was
discussed. We refer the readers to \cite{C} for a survey on the
recent progresses in the heat kernel estimates of jump Markov
processes.
However until now, two-sided heat kernel estimates of Markov
processes with both diffusion and jump components in proper open
subsets of $\bR^d$ have not been studied. The fact that such a
process $X$ has both diffusion and jump components is the source of
many difficulties. The main difficulty stems from the fact that such
a process $X$ runs on two different scales: on the small scale the
diffusion part dominates, while on the large scale the jumps take
over. Another difficulty is encountered at the exit of $X$ from an
open set: for diffusions, the exit is through the boundary, while
for the pure jump processes, typically the exit happens by jumping
across the boundary. For a process $X$ that has both diffusion and
jump components, both cases will occur, which makes the process $X$
much more difficult to study.
In this paper, we consider L\'evy processes that are independent
sums of Brownian motions and (rotationally) symmetric stable processes
in $\bR^d$ with $d\geq 1$. We establish two-sided heat
kernel estimates for such L\'evy processes killed upon exiting a
$C^{1,1}$ open set. The processes studied in this paper serve as a
test case for more general processes with both diffusion and jump
components, just like Brownian motions do for more general
diffusions. We hope that our study will help to shed new light on
the understanding of the heat kernel behavior of more general Markov
processes. Although two-sided heat kernel estimates for Markov
processes with both diffusion and jump components in $\bR^d$ have
been studied recently in \cite{CK08, SV07}, as far as we know, this
is the first time that sharp two-sided estimates on the Dirichlet
heat kernels for Markov processes with both diffusion and jump
components in proper open subsets are established.
Let us now describe the main result of this paper and at the same
time fix the notations. Throughout this paper, we assume that $d\ge
1$ is an integer and $\alpha\in (0, 2)$. Let $X^0=(X^0_t,\, t\ge 0)$
be a Brownian motion in $\bR^d$ with generator $\Delta=\sum_{i=1}^d
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial x_i^2}$. Let $Y=(Y_t,\, t\ge 0)$ be a
(rotationally) symmetric $\alpha$-stable process in $\bR^d$, that
is, a L\'evy process such that
$$
{\mathbb E}_x \left[ e^{i\xi\cdot(Y_t-Y_0)} \right]\,=\,e^{-t|\xi|^{\alpha}}
\qquad \hbox{for every } x\in \bR^d \hbox{ and } \xi\in \bR^d.
$$
The infinitesimal generator of a symmetric $\alpha$-stable process
$Y$ in $\bR^d$ is the fractional Laplacian $\Delta^{\alpha /2} $,
which is a prototype of non-local operators. The fractional
Laplacian can be written in the form
\begin{equation}\label{e:1.1}
\Delta^{\alpha /2} u(x)\, =\, \lim_{\varepsilon \downarrow 0}\int_{\{y\in
\bR^d: \, |y-x|>\varepsilon\}} (u(y)-u(x)) \frac{{\cal A}} \def\sB {{\cal B}} \def\sC {{\cal C} (d, \alpha)
}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}}\, dy,
\end{equation}
where $ {\cal A}(d, \alpha):= \alpha2^{\alpha-1}\pi^{-d/2}
\Gamma(\frac{d+\alpha}2) \Gamma(1-\frac{\alpha}2)^{-1}. $ Here
$\Gamma$ is the Gamma function defined by $\Gamma(\lambda):=
\int^{\infty}_0 t^{\lambda-1} e^{-t}dt$ for every $\lambda > 0$.
Assume that $X^0$ and $Y$ are independent. For any $a>0$, we define
$X^a$ by $X_t^a:=X^0_t+ a Y_t$. We will call the process $X^a$ the
independent sum of the Brownian motion $X^0$ and the symmetric
$\alpha$-stable process $Y$ with weight $a>0$. The infinitesimal
generator of $X^a$ is $\Delta+ a^\alpha \Delta^{\alpha/2}$ and
$$
{\mathbb E}_x \left[ e^{i\xi\cdot(X^a_t-X^a_0)} \right]\,=\,e^{-t(|\xi|^{2}+a^{\alpha}|\xi|^{\alpha})}
\qquad \hbox{for every } x\in \bR^d \hbox{ and } \xi\in \bR^d.
$$
Since
$$
a^{\alpha}|\xi|^{\alpha}= \int_{\bR^d}(1-\cos(\xi\cdot y))\,
\frac{ a^{\alpha} {\cal A}(d, \alpha)}{|y|^{d+\alpha}}dy,
$$
the density of the L\'evy measure of $X^a$ with respect
to the Lebesgue measure on $\bR^d$ is
$$
J^a(x, y)=j^a(|x-y|)
:=a^{\alpha}{\cal A}(d,
\alpha)|x-y|^{-(d+\alpha)}.
$$
The function $J^a (x, y)$ determines a L\'evy system for $X^a$,
which describes the jumps of the process $X^a$: for any non-negative
measurable function $f$ on $\bR_+ \times \bR^d\times \bR^d$ with
$f(s, y, y)=0$ for all $y\in \bR^d$, any stopping time $T$ (with
respect to the filtration of $X^a$) and any $x\in \bR^d$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:levy}
{\mathbb E}_x \left[\sum_{s\le T} f(s,X^a_{s-}, X^a_s)
\right]= {\mathbb E}_x \left[
\int_0^T \left( \int_{\bR^d} f(s,X^a_s, y) J^a(X^a_s,y) dy \right)
ds \right]
\end{equation}
(see, for example, \cite[Proof of Lemma 4.7]{CK} and \cite[Appendix
A]{CK2}). Let $p^a(t, x, y)$ be the transition density of the
process $X^a$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure on $\bR^d$, which
is known to exist and is jointly continuous on $(0, \infty)\times
\bR^d\times \bR^d$. For any $\lambda>0$, the process $(\lambda
X^{a}_{\lambda^{-2} t}, t\geq 0)$ has the same distribution as
$(X^{a \lambda^{(\alpha-2)/\alpha}}_t, t\ge 0)$ (see the second
paragraph of Section \ref{s:lb}), so we have
\begin{equation}\label{scalingrd}
p^{a\lambda^{(\alpha-2)/\alpha}} ( t, x, y)= \lambda^{-d} p^{a}
(\lambda^{-2}t, \lambda^{-1} x, \lambda^{-1} y) \qquad \hbox{for }
t>0 \hbox{ and } x, y \in \bR^d.
\end{equation}
The following sharp two-sided estimates on $p^a(t, x, y)$ follows
from \eqref{scalingrd} and the main results in
\cite{CK08, SV07}
that give the sharp estimates on $p^1(t, x, y)$.
\begin{thm}\label{T:1.1}
There are constants $C_i\geq 1$, $i=1, 2$, such that, for all $a\in
[0, \infty)$ and $(t, x, y)\in (0, \infty]\times \bR^d\times \bR^d$
\begin{align*}
&C_1^{-1} \,\left(t^{-d/2} \wedge (a^\alpha t)^{-d/\alpha} \right)
\wedge \left(t^{-d/2} e^{-C_2|x-y|^2/t}+ (a^{\alpha}
t)^{-d/\alpha}\, \wedge
\frac{a^{\alpha}t}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}} \right) \\
&\le \,p^a(t, x, y)\,\le\, C_1\, \,\left(t^{-d/2} \wedge
(a^{\alpha}t)^{-d/\alpha}\right) \wedge \left(t^{-d/2}
e^{-|x-y|^2/C_2t}+ (a^{\alpha} t)^{-d/\alpha}\, \wedge
\frac{a^{\alpha}t}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}} \right) .
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
Here for $a, b\in \bR$, $a\wedge b:=\min \{a, b\}$ and $a\vee
b:=\max\{a, b\}$. In particular, we have
\begin{cor}\label{C:1.2}
For any $M>0$ and $T>0$, there is a constant $C_3\geq 1$ depending
only on $M$ and $T$ such that, for all $a\in (0, M]$ and $(t, x,
y)\in (0, T]\times \bR^d\times \bR^d$
\begin{align*}
&C_3^{-1} \, \left(t^{-d/2} e^{-C_2|x-y|^2/t}+ t^{-d/2}\, \wedge
\frac{a^{\alpha}t}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}} \right) \\
&\le \,p^a(t, x, y)\,\le\,C_3\, \left( t^{-d/2}
e^{-|x-y|^2/C_2t}+ t^{-d/2}\, \wedge
\frac{a^{\alpha}t}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}} \right),
\end{align*}
where $C_2\geq 1$ is the constant in Theorem \ref{T:1.1}.
\end{cor}
Recall that an open set $D$ in $\bR^d$ (when $d\ge 2$) is said to be
$C^{1,1}$ if there exist a localization radius $ R>0 $ and a
constant $\Lambda>0$ such that for every $z\in\partial D$, there is
a $C^{1,1}$-function $\phi=\phi_z: \bR^{d-1}\to \bR$ satisfying
$\phi(0)=0$, $ \nabla\phi (0)=(0, \dots, 0)$, $\| \nabla \phi
\|_\infty \leq \Lambda$, $| \nabla \phi (x)-\nabla \phi (z)| \leq
\Lambda |x-z|$, and an orthonormal coordinate system $CS_z$:
$y=(y_1, \cdots, y_{d-1}, y_d):=(\widetilde y, \, y_d)$ with origin at $z$
such that $B(z, R )\cap D= \{y=({\tilde y}, y_d) \in B(0, R) \mbox{
in } CS_z: y_d > \phi (\widetilde y) \}$. The pair $( R, \Lambda)$ will be
called the $C^{1,1}$ characteristics of the open set $D$. By a
$C^{1, 1}$ open set in $\bR$ we mean an open set which can be
written as the union of disjoint intervals so that the minimum of
the lengths of all these intervals is positive and the minimum of
the distances between these intervals is positive. Note that a
$C^{1,1}$ open set can be unbounded and disconnected, and that a
bounded $C^{1,1}$ open set have only finitely many connected
components.
For an open set $D\subset \bR^d$ and $x\in D$, we will use
$\delta_D(x)$ to denote the Euclidean distance between $x$ and
$D^c$. For an open set $D\subset \bR^d$ and $(r_0, \lambda_0)\in
(0, \infty)\times [1, \infty)$, we say {\it the path distance in
each connected component of $D$ is comparable to the Euclidean
distance with characteristics $(r_0, \lambda_0)$} if the following
holds for any $r\in (0, r_0)$: for every $x, y$ in the same
component of $D$ with $\delta_D(x) \wedge \delta_D(y)\geq r$, there
is a rectifiable curve $l$ in $D$ connecting $x$ to $y$ so that the
length of $l$ is no larger than $\lambda_0|x-y|$. Clearly, such a
property holds for all bounded $C^{1,1}$ open sets, $C^{1,1}$ open
sets with compact complements and domains above graphs of $C^{1,1}$
functions.
For any open subset $D\subset \bR^d$, we use $\tau^a_D$ to denote
the first time the process $X^a$ exits $D$. We define the process
$X^{a,D}$ by $X^{a,D}_t=X^a_t$ for $t<\tau^a_D$ and
$X^{a,D}_t=\partial$ for $t\ge \tau^a_D$, where $\partial$ is a
cemetery point. $X^{a,D}$ is called the subprocess of $X^a$ killed
upon exiting $D$. The infinitesimal generator of $X^{a,D}$ is
$(\Delta+ a^\alpha \Delta^{\alpha/2})|_D$. It follows from
\cite{CK08} that $X^{a,D}$ has a continuous transition density
$p^a_D(t, x, y)$ with respect to the Lebesgue measure.
The goal of this paper is to get the following sharp two-sided
estimates on $p^a_D(t, x, y)$ for any $C^{1,1}$ open set $D$ in
which the path distance in each connected component of $D$ is
comparable to the Euclidean distance.
Let
\begin{equation}\label{eq:qd}
h^a_C(t, x, y):
=\begin{cases} &\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}}
\right)\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right) \left(
t^{-d/2} e^{-C|x-y|^2/t}+
\frac{a^\alpha t}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}} \wedge t^{-d/2})\right)\\
&\qquad \qquad\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{ are in the same component of } D, \\
&\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}}
\right)\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right) \left (
\frac{a^\alpha t}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}}
\wedge t^{-d/2}\right)\\
&\qquad \qquad\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{ are
in different components of } D.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
One can easily show that, when $D$ is bounded, the operator
$-(\Delta + a^\alpha \Delta^{\alpha/2})|_D$ has discrete spectrum
(see, for instance, the first paragraph of the proof of Theorem
\ref{t:main} (ii) and (iii) in Section 4).
In this case, we use $\lambda^{a, D}_1>0$ to denote the smallest
eigenvalue of $-(\Delta + a^\alpha \Delta^{\alpha/2})|_D$. Denote by
$D(x)$ the connected component of $D$ that contains $x$ and let $
\lambda^{a, D(x)}_1>0$ be the smallest eigenvalue of $-(\Delta +
a^\alpha \Delta^{\alpha/2})|_{D(x)}$.
\begin{thm}\label{t:main}
Let $d\geq 1$. Suppose that $D$ is a $C^{1,1}$
open set
in $\bR^d$
with characteristic $( R, \Lambda)$
such that the path distance
in each connected component of $D$
is comparable to the
Euclidean distance
with characteristics $(r_0, \lambda_0)$.
\begin{description}
\item{\rm (i)}
For every $M>0$ and $T>0$, there are positive constants $C_i=C_i(
R, \Lambda, r_0, \lambda_0, M, \alpha, T)\geq 1$, $i=4, 5$, such
that for all
$a \in (0, M]$ and $(t, x, y)\in (0, T]\times D\times
D$,
\begin{align*}
C_4^{-1}\, h^a_{C_5}(t, x, y) \le p^a_D(t, x, y)
\leq C_4 h^a_{1/C_5}(t, x, y).
\end{align*}
\item{\rm (ii)}
Suppose in addition that $D$ is
bounded and connected.
For every $M>0$ and $T>0$,
there is a constant $C_6=C_6(D, M, \alpha, T)\geq 1$ so that for
all $a \in (0, M]$ and $(t, x, y)\in [T, \infty)\times D\times D$,
$$
C_6^{-1}\, e^{- t \, \lambda^{a, D}_1 }\, \delta_D (x)\, \delta_D (y)
\,\leq\, p^a_D(t, x, y) \,\leq\, C_6\,
e^{- t\, \lambda^{a, D}_1}\, \delta_D (x) \,\delta_D (y).
$$
\item{\rm (iii)} Suppose that $D$ is
bounded but disconnected. Then for every $M>0$ and $T>0$, there are
constants $C_i=C_i(D, M, \alpha, T)\geq 1$. $i=7,8$, such that for
all $a \in (0, M]$, $t\in [T, \infty)$, the following hold.
\noindent{\rm (a)}
If $x, y$ are in the same component $D(x)$ of $D$,
$$
C_7^{-1}\,
e^{- t \, \lambda^{a, D(x)}_1 }
\, \delta_D (x)\, \delta_D (y)
\,\leq\, p^a_D(t, x, y) \,\leq\,
C_7\left(e^{- t\, \lambda^{a, D(x)}_1 }+ \big(1\wedge (a^\alpha \, t)\big)
e^{- t\, \lambda^{a, D}_1 } \right) \delta_D (x) \,\delta_D (y).
$$
\noindent{\rm (b)}
If $x, y$ are in different components of $D$,
$$
C_8^{-1}\, a^\alpha \, t \,
e^{- t \, (\lambda^{a, D(x)}_1 \vee \lambda^{a, D(y)}_1) }\, \delta_D (x)\, \delta_D (y)
\,\leq\, p^a_D(t, x, y) \,\leq\, C_8\,
(1 \wedge (a^\alpha t) )\,
e^{- t\,\lambda^{a, D}_1 } \,
\delta_D (x) \,\delta_D (y).
$$
\end{description}
\end{thm}
\begin{remark}\label{R:1.4} \rm \begin{description}
\item{(i)}
Unlike the Brownian motion case, even though $D$ may be
disconnected, the process $X^{a, D}$ is always irreducible when
$a>0$ because $X^{a, D}$ can jump from one component of $D$ to
another. When $a>0$ is smaller, the connection between different
components of $D$ by $X^a$ becomes weaker. The estimates given in
Theorem \ref{t:main} present a precise quantitative description of
such a phenomenon. Letting $a\to 0$, Theorem \ref{t:main} recovers
the Dirichlet heat kernel estimates for Brownian motion in
$D$ (even when $D$ is disconnected);
see
\cite{Ch, Zq3} and the reference therein for the latter. In
particular, for $x$ and $y$ in different components of $D$, we
have $\lim_{a\to 0+}p^a_D(t, x, y)=0$ for all $x, y>0$, which is the
case for Brownian motion.
\item{(ii)}
In fact, the estimates in Theorem \ref{t:main}(i) will be
established under a weaker assumption on $D$: the lower bounded
estimate is proved under the uniform interior ball condition and the
condition that the path distance in each connected component of $D$
is comparable to the Euclidean distance (see Theorem \ref{t:low}),
while the upper bound estimate is proved under a weaker version of
the uniform exterior ball condition (see Theorem \ref{t:ub1}). Here
an open set $D\subset \bR^d$ is said to satisfy the {\it uniform
interior ball condition} with radius $R_1>0$ if for every $x\in D$
with $\delta_D(x)< R_1$, there is $z_x\in \partial D$ so that
$|x-z_x|=\delta_D(x)$ and $B(x_0, R_1)\subset D$ for
$x_0:=z_x+R_1(x-z_x)/|x-z_x|$. We say $D$ satisfies {\it a weaker
version of the uniform exterior ball condition} with radius $R_1>0$
if for every $z\in \partial D$, there is a ball $B^z$ of radius
$R_1$ such that $B^z\subset (\overline D)^c$ and $\partial B^z \cap
\partial D=\{z\}$.
\end{description}
\end{remark}
Integrating the heat kernel estimates in Theorem \ref{t:main} over
time $t$ yields the following two-sided sharp estimates of the Green
function of $X^a$ in bounded $C^{1,1}$ open sets, which were first
obtained in \cite{CKSV2} by a different method. We will not give the
details in this paper on how these estimates can be obtained by
integrating the estimates in Theorem \ref{t:main}. Interested
readers are referred to the proof of \cite[Corollary 1.2]{CKS},
where the sharp estimates for the Green functions of symmetric
stable processes in bounded $C^{1,1}$ open sets are obtained from
the sharp heat kernel estimates for the heat kernels by integration
over time $t$.
\medskip
Define for $d\geq 3$ and $a>0$,
$$
g_D^a (x, y) := \begin{cases} \frac{1} {|x-y|^{d-2}} \left(1\wedge
\frac{ \delta_D(x) \delta_D(y)}{ |x-y|^{2}}\right)
\quad &\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{ are in the same component of } D, \\
\frac{a^\alpha} {|x-y|^{d-2}} \left(1\wedge \frac{ \delta_D(x)
\delta_D(y)}{ |x-y|^{2}}\right) \quad &\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{ are
in different components of } D;
\end{cases}
$$
for $d=2$ and $a>0$,
$$
g_D^a (x, y): = \begin{cases} \log\left(1+\frac{ \delta_D(x)
\delta_D(y)}{ |x-y|^{2}}\right)
\quad &\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{ are in the same component of } D, \\
a^\alpha \log\left(1+\frac{ \delta_D(x) \delta_D(y)}{
|x-y|^{2}}\right) \quad &\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{ are in different
components of } D;
\end{cases}
$$
and for $d=1$ and $a>0$,
$$
g_D^a (x, y): =
\begin{cases} \left(\delta_D(x)
\delta_D(y)\right)^{1/2}\wedge\frac{ \delta_D(x) \delta_D(y)}{|x-y|}
\quad &\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{ are in the same component of } D, \\
a^\alpha \big(\left(\delta_D(x) \delta_D(y)\right)^{1/2}\wedge\frac{
\delta_D(x) \delta_D(y)}{|x-y|}\big)\quad &\hbox{when } x, y \hbox{
are in different components of } D.
\end{cases}
$$
\begin{cor}\label{C:1.5}
Let $M>0$. Suppose that $D$ is a bounded $C^{1,1}$
open set in $\bR^d$. There exists
$C_9=C_9(D, M, \alpha)>1$ such that for
all $x, y \in D$ and all $a \in (0,M]$
$$
C_9^{-1} \, g_D^a(x, y) \leq G_D^a(x, y) \leq C_9\, g_D^a(x, y) .
$$
\end{cor}
This paper is a natural continuation of
\cite{CKS}, where sharp two-sided heat kernel estimates for symmetric
$\alpha$-stable processes in $C^{1,1}$ open sets are first derived,
as well as \cite{CKSV1}, where the boundary Harnack principle for $X^a$ is
established. Some ideas of the approach in this paper can be traced
back to \cite{CKS} but a number of new ideas are needed to handle
the combined effects of Brownian motion
and discontinuous
stable process. A
comparison with subordination of killed Brownian motion is used for
the lower bound
short time heat kernel estimates for $X^{a, D}$.
We would like to point out that, unlike
\cite{CKS}, the boundary Harnack principle for $X^a$ is not used
directly in this paper. Instead we use one of the key lemmas
established in \cite{CKSV1} to obtain the upper bound of the heat
kernel (see Lemma \ref{L:2.0_1}). Theorem \ref{t:main}(i) will be
established through Theorem \ref{t:low} and Theorem \ref{t:ub1},
which give the lower bound and upper bound estimates, respectively.
In contrast to that in \cite{CKS, CKS1, CKS2, CKS3}, the proof of
large time heat kernel estimates in Theorem \ref{t:main}(ii)-(iii)
does not use intrinsic ultracontractivity of
$X^{a,D}$.
The proof presented here is more direct, and uses only the continuity of
$\lambda^{a, D}_1$ and its corresponding first eigenfunction in
$a\in (0, M]$, which is established in \cite{CS8}. Lastly, we point
out that the approach of \cite{BGR} relies critically on the fact
the symmetric stable processes do not have diffusion component and
so it is not directly applicable to the processes considered in this
paper.
\medskip
We will use capital letters $C_1, C_2, \dots$ to denote constants in
the statements of results, and their labeling will be fixed. The
lower case constants $c_1, c_2, \dots$ will denote generic constants
used in proofs, whose exact values are not important and can change
from one appearance to another. The labeling of the lower case
constants starts anew in each proof. The dependence of the constant
$c$ on the dimension $d$ will not be mentioned explicitly. We will
use ``$:=$" to denote a definition, which is read as ``is defined to
be". We will use $\partial$ to denote a cemetery point and for every
function $f$, we extend its definition to $\partial$ by setting
$f(\partial )=0$. We will use $dx$ to denote the Lebesgue measure in
$\bR^d$. The Lebesgue measure of a Borel set $A\subset \bR^d$ will
be denoted by $|A|$.
\section{Lower bound estimate}\label{s:lb}
In this section, we assume that $D$ is an open set in $\bR^d$
satisfying the {\it uniform interior ball condition} with radius
$R_1>0$ and that the path distance in each connected component of
$D$ is comparable to the Euclidean distance with characteristics
$(r_0, \lambda_0)$. Observe that under the uniform interior ball
condition, the condition that the path distance for each connected
component in $D$ is comparable to the Euclidean distance is
equivalent to the following: there exist $r_2, \lambda >0$ such that
for all $r\in (0, r_2]$ and all $x,y$ in the same connected
component of $D$ with $\delta_D(x) \wedge \delta_D(y)\geq r$, there
is a rectifiable curve $l$ in $D$ connecting $x$ to $y$ so that the
length of $l$ is no larger than $ \lambda |x-y|$ and $\delta_D(z)
\geq r$ for every $z\in l$. The latter is also equivalent to the
following, which is called the connected ball condition in
\cite{Ch}: For all $r\in (0, r_2]$ and $x,y$ in the same connected
component of $D$ with $\delta_D(x) \wedge \delta_D(y)>r$, there
exist $ m $ and $x_k$, $k= 1, 2, \ldots , m$ such that $x_0 = x, $
$x_m = y ,$ $ x_{k-1} \in B(x_k, \frac{r}{2}) \subset B( x_k , r)
\subset D$ and $r \cdot m \leq \lambda_0 |x-y|$.
Observe for all $\lambda, a>0$ and $\xi, x \in \bR^d$,
\begin{align*}
{\mathbb E}_x\left[e^{i\xi\cdot(\lambda (X_{t/\lambda^{2}}^{a}-
X_0^{a}))}\right] = e^{-t|\xi|^2} \, {\mathbb E}_x\left[e^{i(a\lambda\xi)
\cdot(Y_{t/\lambda^{2}}- Y_0)}\right]
=e^{-t(|\xi|^2+(a\lambda^{(\alpha-2)/\alpha})^\alpha|\xi|^\alpha)}.
\end{align*}
It follows that
if $\{X^{a, D}_t, t\geq 0\}$ is the subprocess in $D$ of the
independent sum of a Brownian motion and a symmetric $\alpha$-stable
process on $\bR^d$ with weight $a$, then $\big\{\lambda X^{a,
D}_{\lambda^{-2} t}, t\geq 0\big\}$ is the subprocess in $\lambda D$ of
the independent sum of a Brownian motion and a symmetric
$\alpha$-stable process on $\bR^d$ with weight $a
\lambda^{(\alpha-2)/\alpha}$. So for any $\lambda>0$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:scaling}
p^{a\lambda^{(\alpha-2)/\alpha}}_{\lambda D} ( t, x, y)=
\lambda^{-d} p^{a}_D (\lambda^{-2}t, \lambda^{-1} x, \lambda^{-1} y)
\qquad \hbox{for } t>0 \hbox{ and } x, y \in \lambda D.
\end{equation}
The above scaling property of $X^{a}$ will be used throughout this
paper. For $t >0$, we define
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.2}
a_t:= a t^{(2-\alpha)/(2\alpha)}.
\end{equation}
This
notation will be used in this paper when we scale an open $D$ by
$s^{-1/2}$ to $s^{-1/2}D$.
We first recall the definition of subordinate killed Brownian
motion: Assume that $U$ is an open subset in $\bR^d$ and $T_t$ is an
$\alpha/2$-stable subordinator independent of the killed Brownian
motion $X^{0, U}$. For each $a\ge0$, let $T^a$ be the subordinator
defined by $T^a_t:=t+a^2T_t$. Then the process $\{Z^{a, U}_t: t\ge
0\}$ defined by $Z^{a, U}_t=X^{0, U}_{T^a_t}$ is called a
subordinate killed Brownian motion in $U$. Let $q^{a}_U(t, x, y)$ be
the transition density of $Z^{a, U}$. Then it follows from
\cite[Proposition 3.1]{SV08} that
\begin{equation}\label{e:pq}
p^{a}_{U}(t, z, w)\ge q^{a}_{U}(t, z, w), \quad (t, z, w)\in (0,
\infty)\times U\times U.
\end{equation}
We will use this fact in the next result.
\begin{lemma}\label{lbbyskbm}
Suppose that $M$ and $T$ are positive constants. Then there exist
positive constants
$C_i= C_i( R_1, r_0, \lambda_0,
\alpha, T, M)$, $i=10, 11$,
such that for all $a\in (0, M]$, $t \in (0, T]$ and
$x, y$ in the same connected component of $D$,
$$
p^a_D(t, x, y)\ge C_{10} t^{-d/2}
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}}
\right)\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}}
\right)e^{-C_{11}|x-y|^2/t} .
$$
\end{lemma}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }} Suppose that $x$ and $y$ are in the same component, say $U$, of
$D$. Let $p_U(t, x, y)$ be the transition density of the killed
Brownian motion in $U$. It follows from \cite[Theorem 3.3]{Ch} (see
also \cite[Theorem 1.2]{Zq3}) that there exist positive constants
$c_1=c_1(R_1, r_0, \lambda_0, \alpha, T)$ and $c_2=c_2(R_1, r_0,
\lambda_0, \alpha)$
such that for any $(s, x, y)\in (0, 2T]
\times U\times
U$,
$$
p_U(s, x, y)\ge c_1\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(x)}{\sqrt{s}}
\right)\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(y)}{\sqrt{s}}
\right)s^{-d/2}e^{-c_2|x-y|^2/s}.
$$
(Although not
explicitly mentioned in \cite{Ch}, a careful exam of the proofs in
\cite{Ch} reveals that the constants $c_1$ and $c_2$ in above lower
bound estimate can be chosen to depend only on $(R_1, r_0,
\lambda_0, \alpha, T)$ and $(R_1, r_0, \lambda_0,
\alpha)$, respectively.)
Since $p_{t^{-1/2}U}(u, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y)=t^{d/2}p_U(ut, x, y)$,
we have for $t \le T$
and $(u, x, y)\in (0, 2]\times U\times U$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:2.4}
p_{t^{-1/2}U}(u, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y) \geq
c_1\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(x)}{\sqrt{tu}}
\right)\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(y)}{\sqrt{tu}}
\right)u^{-d/2}e^{-c_2|x-y|^2/(tu)}.
\end{equation}
Let $\mu^{a_t}(u, s)$ be the
density of ${a_t}^2T_u$,
where $a_t$ is defined in \eqref{e:2.2}.
Then it follows from the definition of
the subordinate killed Brownian motion
(for example, see \cite[page 149]{BBKRSV})
that
for every $1/3 \le b \le 1$ and $0 < t \le T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
q^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}U}(b, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y)
&=&\int^{\infty}_bp_{t^{-1/2}U}(s, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y){\mathbb P}(b+a_t^2T_b \in ds)\\
&=&\int^{\infty}_bp_{t^{-1/2}U}(s, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y)\mu^{a_t}(b, s-b)ds\\
&=&\int^{\infty}_0p_{t^{-1/2}U}(s+b, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y)\mu^{a_t}(b, s)ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, by \eqref{e:pq} and \eqref{e:2.4},
for every $1/3 \le b \le 1$ and $0 < t \le T$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&& p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(b, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y) \nonumber \\
& \ge &
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}U}(b, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y) \nonumber\\
& \ge \, & q^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}U}
(b, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y) \nonumber\\
&\ge& \int^1_0p_{t^{-1/2}U}(s+b, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y)
\mu^{a_t}(b, s)ds\nonumber\\
& \ge & \frac{c_1}{2}
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right) e^{-3c_2|x-y|^2/t}
\int^1_0\mu^{a_t}(b, s)ds\nonumber\\
& =& \frac{c_1}{2}\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
e^{-3c_2|x-y|^2/t} \,
{\mathbb P}({a_t}^2T_b\le 1)\nonumber\\
& \ge &
\frac{c_1}{2}\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
e^{-3c_2|x-y|^2/t}\,
{\mathbb P}(T_{1/3}\le M^{-2}T^{-(2-\alpha)/\alpha})\nonumber\\
& \ge & c_3\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_U(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
e^{-3c_2|x-y|^2/t}\nonumber\\
&=& c_3\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
e^{-3c_2|x-y|^2/t}. \label{e:direct}
\end{eqnarray}
We now conclude from
\eqref{e:scaling}, \eqref{e:2.2}
and \eqref{e:direct} with $b=1$
that
$$
p^a_D(t, x, y)=t^{-d/2}p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y)
\ge
c_3t^{-d/2}\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
\left(1\wedge \frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \right)
e^{-3c_2|x-y|^2/t}.
$$
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
The inequality
\eqref{e:direct} above with $b=1/3$ will be used later.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:2.2}
For all $M, r, b >0$, there exists $C_{12}=C_{12}(M,r,b)>0$ such that
$$
{\mathbb P}_0(\tau^{a}_{B(0,r)}>b) \ge C_{12} >0 \qquad \hbox{for all } a \in
(0, M].
$$
\end{lemma}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }} It follows from Lemma \ref{lbbyskbm} that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\inf_{a\in (0, M]}{\mathbb P}_0(\tau^{a}_{B(0,r)}>b)
&=&\inf_{a\in (0, M]}\int_{B(0,r)} p^a_{B(0,r)} (b,0,y) dy \\
&\ge& c \, b^{-d/2}\left(\frac{r}{\sqrt{b}} \wedge 1
\right)\int_{B(0,r)} \left(\frac{|y|}{\sqrt{b}} \wedge 1 \right)
e^{-c_1|y|^2/b} dy.\end{eqnarray*} {\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\begin{lemma}\label{lower bound12}
Suppose that $M$ and $r$ are
positive constants. Then there is a
constant $C_{13} = C_{13} (M, \alpha, d, r)\in (0, 1/3]$ such that
for all $a \in (0, M]$ and $u, v\in \bR^d$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^{a}_{B(u,r)\cup B(v,r)}(1/3, u, v)&\ge& C_{13}(J^a(u, v)\wedge 1).
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{lemma}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }}
If $|u-v|\le r/2$, by Lemma \ref{lbbyskbm}
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^{a}_{B(u,r)\cup B(v,r)}(1/3, u, v) \ge \inf_{ |z|<r/2}
p^{a}_{B(0,r)}(1/3, 0, z) \ge c_1\left(r\wedge 1 \right)^2 e^{-c_2
r^2} \ge c_3\ge c_3(J^a(u, v)\wedge 1).
\end{eqnarray*}
Let $E= B(u,r)\cup B(v,r)$. If $|u-v|\ge r/2$, with $E_1= B(u,r/8)$
and $E_3=B(v,r/8)$, we have by the strong Markov property and the
L\'evy system \eqref{e:levy} of $X^a$ that
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^{a}_{E}(1/3, u, v) &\ge&
{\mathbb E}_u
\left[p^{a}_{E}(1/3-\tau^{a}_{E_1},
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}, v):\tau^{a}_{E_1}<1/3,
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in E_3 \right]\\
&=& \int_0^{1/3} \left(\int_{E_1} p^a_{E_1}(s, u, w)
\left(\int_{E_3} J^a(w, z) p^a_E (1/3-s, z, v) dz\right) dw \right) ds \\
&\ge&\left(\inf_{w\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}J^{a}(w,z) \right)
\int_0^{1/3} {\mathbb P}_u \left(\tau^{a}_{E_1}>s \right) \left(\int_{E_3}
p^{a}_{E}(1/3-s, z, v) dz \right) ds\\
&\ge& {\mathbb P}_u(\tau^{a}_{E_1}>1/3) \left(\inf_{w\in E_1,\, z\in
E_3}J^{a}(w,z) \right)\int_0^{1/3}\int_{E_3}p^{a}_{E_3}(1/3-s, z, v)dz ds\\
&=& {\mathbb P}_u(\tau^{a}_{E_1}>1/3)\left( \inf_{w\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}
j^{a}(|w-z|)\right)
\int_0^{1/3}{\mathbb P}_v(\tau^{a}_{E_3} > s) ds\\
&\ge& \frac13 {\mathbb P}_u(\tau^{a}_{E_1}>1/3)\left( \inf_{w\in E_1,\, z\in
E_3} j^{a}(|w-z|)\right) {\mathbb P}_v(\tau^{a}_{E_3} > 1/3) \,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus by Lemma \ref{L:2.2},
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^{a}_{B(u,r)\cup B(v,r)}(1/3, u, v)&\ge&
\frac13\left({\mathbb P}_0(\tau^{a}_{B(0,r/8)}>1/3)\right)^2 \left(\inf_{
w\in E_1,\,
z\in E_3}
j^{a}(|w-z|)\right)\\
&\ge& c_4 j^a(|u- v|) \ge c_4 (J^a(u, v) \wedge 1)\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
Recall that the function
$h^a_C(t,x,y)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:qd}.
\begin{thm}\label{t:low}
Suppose that $M$ and $T$ are positive constants. There are positive constants
$C_i=C_i(M, R_1, r_0, \lambda_0, \lambda, T, \alpha)$, $i=14, 15$,
such that for all $a\in (0, M]$ and $(t, x, y)\in (0, T] \times
D\times D$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ppl2}
p^a_D(t, x, y)\ge C_{14}h^a_{C_{15}}(t,x,y).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }}
Since $t^{-1/2}D$ satisfies the uniform interior ball condition
with radius $R_1(T)^{-1/2}$ for every $0<t \le T$, there exist
$\delta=\delta(R_1, T) \in (0, R_1(T)^{-1/2})$ and $L=L(R_1, T)>1$ such
that for all $t \in (0, T]$ and $x,y \in D$, we can choose
$\xi_x \in (t^{-1/2}D)\cap B(t^{-1/2}x, L\delta)$ and $\xi_y \in
(t^{-1/2}D) \cap B(t^{-1/2}y, L\delta)$ with $ B(\xi_x, 2\delta)
\cap B(\xi_y, 2\delta)= \emptyset$ and $ B(\xi_x, 2\delta) \cup
B(\xi_y, 2\delta) \subset t^{-1/2}D$.
Let $x_t:=t^{-1/2}x$ and $y_t:=t^{-1/2}y$. Note that by
\eqref{e:direct} with $b=1/3$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{B(\xi_x, \delta)} p^{a_t}_{{t^{-1/2}D}}(1/3,x_t,u)du &\ge& c_1
\left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right) \int_{B(\xi_x,
\delta)} \left(\delta_{t^{-1/2}D}(u) \wedge 1 \right)
e^{-c_2|x_t-u|^2} du \nonumber\\
&\ge & c_1 \left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right)
\, e^{-c_2 (L+1)^2 \delta^2}\, |B(\xi_x, \delta)|
\nonumber \\
&\ge& c_3 \left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right).
\label{e:loww_0}
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly
\begin{eqnarray}
\int_{B(\xi_y, \delta)} p^{a_t}_{{t^{-1/2}D}}(1/3,y_t,u)du \ge c_3
\left(\frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right).
\label{e:loww_01}
\end{eqnarray}
Now we deal with the cases $|x_t-y_t| \ge \delta/8$ and $|x_t-y_t| <
\delta/8$ separately.
Recall the definition of $a_t$ from \eqref{e:2.2}.
\medskip
\noindent
{\it Case 1}: Suppose $|x_t-y_t| \ge \delta/8$. Note that by the semigroup
property and Lemma~\ref{lower bound12},
\begin{align*}
&p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1,x_t,y_t)\nonumber\\
\geq& \int_{B(\xi_y, \delta)}\int_{B(\xi_x, \delta)}
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,x_t,u)
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,u,v)p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}
(1/3,v,y_t)dudv \nonumber\\
\geq& \int_{B(\xi_y, \delta)}\int_{B(\xi_x, \delta)}
p^{a_t}_{{t^{-1/2}D}}(1/3,x_t,u)p^{a_t}_{B(u, \delta/2) \cup
B(v,\delta/2)}(1/3,u,v)p^{a_t}_
{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,v,y_t)dudv\nonumber\\
\geq& c_4\int_{B(\xi_y, \delta)}\int_{B(\xi_x, \delta)}
p^{a_t}_{{t^{-1/2}D}}(1/3,x_t,u)(J^{a_t}(u,v)\wedge
1)p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,v,y_t)dudv\nonumber\\
\geq& c_5 \left(\inf_{(u,v) \in B(\xi_x, \delta) \times
B(\xi_y,\delta)} (J^{a_t}(u,v)\wedge 1) \right)
\int_{B(\xi_y, \delta)}\int_{B(\xi_x, \delta)}
p^{a_t}_{{t^{-1/2}D}}(1/3,x_t,u)p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,v,y_t)dudv.
\end{align*}
It then follows from \eqref{e:loww_0}--\eqref{e:loww_01} that
\begin{equation}\label{e:loww1}
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1,x_t,
y_t) \ge c_6 \left(\inf_{(u,v) \in
B(\xi_x, \delta) \times B(\xi_y,\delta)} (J^{a_t}(u,v)\wedge 1) \right)
\left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right)
\left(\frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right).
\end{equation}
Using the fact that
\begin{equation}\label{e:jjj}
J^{a_t}(x_t, y_t) =a^{\alpha} t^{1+d/2}{\cal A}(d,
\alpha)|x-y|^{-(d+\alpha)}=t^{1+d/2}J^{a}(x,y)
\end{equation}
and the assumption $|x_t-y_t| \ge \delta/8$ which implies that
$|u-v| \le 2(1+L)\delta +|x_t-y_t| \le (17 +16L)|x_t-y_t|$,
we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:loww2}
\inf_{(u,v) \in B(\xi_x, \delta) \times B(\xi_y,\delta)}
(J^{a_t}(u,v)\wedge 1)\ge c_7\, (J^{a_t}(x_t,y_t)\wedge 1)=
c_7 \, ( t^{1+d/2} J^a(x,y)\wedge 1).
\end{equation}
Thus combining \eqref{e:loww1} and \eqref{e:loww2} with
\eqref{e:scaling}, we conclude that for $|x_t-y_t| \ge \delta/8$
\begin{eqnarray}
p^a_D(t, x, y)&=&t^{-d/2}p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2}y) \nonumber\\
&\ge& c_8t^{-d/2}\left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1
\right)\left(\frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right)
( t^{1+d/2} J^a(x,y)\wedge 1)\nonumber\\
&=& c_8\left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right)
\left(\frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right) (
tJ^{a}(x,y)\wedge t^{-d/2}). \label{e:w2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
{\it Case 2}: Suppose $|x_t-y_t| <\delta/8 $.
By the semigroup property,
\begin{align}
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1,x_t,y_t) \geq \int_{B(\xi_y,
\delta)}\int_{B(\xi_x, \delta)} p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,x_t,u)
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,u,v)p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,v,y_t)dudv
\label{e:sg11}.
\end{align}
By \eqref{e:direct} with $b=1/3$, we have for every $(u,v) \in
B(\xi_y, \delta) \times B(\xi_x, \delta)$,
$$
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1/3,u, v) \ge c_9\left(\delta_{t^{-1/2}D}(u)
\wedge 1 \right)\left (\delta_{t^{-1/2}D}(v)\wedge 1 \right)
e^{-c_{10}|u-v|^2} \ge c_{11} (\delta\wedge 1)^2.
$$
Thus by \eqref{e:loww_0}-\eqref{e:loww_01}
and \eqref{e:sg11},
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D}(1,x_t,
y_t) &\ge& c_{12}
\left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}}
\wedge 1 \right)\left(\frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right)\nonumber\\
&\ge& c_{12} \left(\frac{\delta_D(x)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right)
\left(\frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}} \wedge 1 \right) ( t^{1+d/2}
J^a(x,y)\wedge 1).\label{e:w1}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining \eqref{e:w2} and \eqref{e:w1} with Lemma \ref{lbbyskbm},
we have proved the theorem. {\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\section{Upper bound estimate} \label{s:ub}
In this section, we will establish upper bound estimate for
$X^a$ in any open set $D$ (not necessarily connected) satisfying
a weaker version of the uniform exterior ball condition.
Suppose that $U$ is a $C^{1,1}$ open set with $C^{1,1}$
characteristics $(R, \Lambda)$. Without loss of generality, we can
always assume that $R\leq 1$ and $\Lambda \geq 1$. By definition,
for every $Q\in \partial U$, there is a $C^{1,1}$-function $\phi_Q:
\bR^{d-1}\to \bR$ satisfying $\phi_Q(0)=0$, $ \nabla\phi_Q (0)=(0,
\dots, 0)$, $\| \nabla \phi_Q \|_\infty \leq \Lambda$, $| \nabla
\phi_Q (x)-\nabla \phi_Q (z)| \leq \Lambda |x-z|$, and an
orthonormal coordinate system $CS_Q$ $y=(\widetilde y, \, y_d)$ with origin
at $Q$ such that $B(Q, R )\cap U=\{ y=(\widetilde y, \, y_d)\in B(0, R)
\mbox{ in } CS_Q: y_d > \phi (\widetilde y) \}$. Define
$$
\rho_Q (x) := x_d - \phi_Q (\widetilde x),
$$
where $(\widetilde x, x_d)$ is the coordinates of $x$ in $CS_Q$. Note that
for every $Q \in \partial U$ and $ x \in B(Q, R)\cap U$, we have
$(1+\Lambda^2)^{-1/2} \rho_Q (x) \le \delta_U(x) \le \rho_Q(x).$ We
define for $r_1, r_2>0$
$$
U_Q( r_1, r_2) :=\left\{ y\in U: r_1 >\rho_Q(y) >0,\, |\widetilde y | < r_2
\right\}.
$$
We recall the following key estimates from \cite[Lemma 3.5]{CKSV1}.
\begin{lemma}\label{L:2.0_1}
Suppose $R\in (0, 1]$, $M\in (0, \infty)$ and $\Lambda \in [1,
\infty)$ are constants, and let $r_0:=R/(4\sqrt{1+\Lambda^2})$.
There are constants $\delta_0 = \delta_0( R, M, \Lambda, \alpha)\in
(0, r_0)$, $C_{16}=C_{16} (R, M,\Lambda, \alpha)>0$
such that
for all $a \in (0, M]$, $ \lambda\ge 1$, $C^{1,1}$ open set $U$
with characteristics $(R, \Lambda)$, $Q \in \partial U$ and $x \in
U_Q( \lambda^{-1} \delta_0 , \lambda^{-1} r_0 )$ with $\widetilde x =0$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:L:2.0_2}
{\mathbb P}_{x}\left(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{ U_Q( \lambda^{-1} \delta_0,
\lambda^{-1} r_0)}} \in U\right)\le {C_{16}}{\lambda} \delta_U (x)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e:L:2.0_3} {\mathbb E}_x\left[\tau^a_{ U_Q(
\lambda^{-1} \delta_0, \lambda^{-1} r_0)}\right]\,\le\,
{C_{16}}{\lambda^{-1}} \delta_U (x).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
We note that
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb P}_x(\tau^{a}_{U}>1/4)& \leq&
{\mathbb P}_x \left(\tau^{a}_{ U_Q( \delta_0 , r_0)}>1/4 \right)+{\mathbb P}_{x}
\left(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{ U_Q( \delta_0, r_0)}}
\in U \hbox{ and } \tau^{a}_{ U_Q( \delta_0, r_0)} \leq 1/4\right)\\
&\le &4 \, {\mathbb E}_x\left[\tau^a_{ U_Q( \delta_0, r_0)}\right]+
{\mathbb P}_{x}\left(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{ U_Q( \delta_0, r_0)}} \in U\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus, by \eqref{e:L:2.0_2}-(\ref{e:L:2.0_3}) with $\lambda=1$ and a simple geometric consideration,
we obtain the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:etd1r_2}
Suppose that $M> 0$ and $U$ is a $C^{1, 1}$ open set with the
characteristics $(R, \Lambda)$.
There exists $C_{17}=C_{17}
(\Lambda, R, M, \alpha)>0$
such that for all
$a\in (0, M]$ and $x\in U$,
$$
{\mathbb P}_x(\tau^{a}_{U}>1/4) \le C_{17}\delta_U(x)
.
$$
\end{lemma}
In particular, we have the following.
\begin{cor}\label{C:3.3}
Suppose that $M$ and $r_1$ are positive constants and $E := \{x\in
\bR^d: \, |x-x_0| >r_1\}$.
There exists $C_{18}=C_{18}
(r_1, M, \alpha)>0$
independent of $x_0$ such
that for all $a\in (0, M]$ and $x\in E$,
$$
{\mathbb P}_x(\tau^{a}_{E}>1/4) \le C_{18}\delta_E(x)
.
$$
\end{cor}
The proof of the next lemma is similar to that of \cite[Lemma
2]{BGR}, which is a variation of the proof of \cite[Lemma 2.2]{CKS}.
We give the proof here for the sake of completeness.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:gen}
Suppose that $E_1,E_3, E$ are open subsets of $\bR^d$ with $E_1,
E_3\subset E$ and ${\rm dist}(E_1,E_3)>0$.
For any $n\ge 1$, let $E_{2,i}$, $i=1, \dots, n$, be disjoint Borel subsets with
$\cup_{i=1}^nE_{2,i} =E\setminus
(E_1\cup E_3)$. If $x\in E_1$ and $y \in E_3$, then for
all $a > 0$ and $t >0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ub}
p^{a}_{E}(t, x, y) \le \sum_{i=1}^n{\mathbb P}_x(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in E_{2,i})
\left(\sup_{s<t,\, z\in E_{2,i}}
p_E^a(s, z, y)\right)+
(t \wedge {\mathbb E}_x [\tau^{a}_{E_1}])
\left(\sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}J^{a}(u,z)\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }} Using the strong Markov property, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^{a}_{E}(t, x, y) &=&{\mathbb E}_x\left[p^{a}_{E}\big(t-\tau^{a}_{E_1},
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}, y\big)
: \tau^{a}_{E_1}<t \right]\\
&=&\sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb E}_x\left[p^{a}_{E}\big(t-\tau^{a}_{E_1},
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}},
y\big):\tau^{a}_{E_1}<t, X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in E_{2,i} \right] \\
&&~~+ {\mathbb E}_x\left[p^{a}_{E}\big(t-\tau^{a}_{E_1},
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}, y\big):\tau^{a}_{E_1}<t,
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in E_3\right] \,=:\, I\,+\,II\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
Clearly
\begin{eqnarray*}
I &\le& \sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb P}_x\left(\tau^{a}_{E_1}<t, X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in
E_{2,i}\right) \left( \sup_{s<t,\, z\in E_{2,i}} p_E^a(s, z, y)\right) \\
&\le& \sum_{i=1}^n {\mathbb P}_x\left( X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in
E_{2,i}\right) \left( \sup_{s<t,\, z\in E_{2,i}} p_E^a(s, z,
y)\right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
On the other hand,
by \eqref{e:levy},
\begin{eqnarray*}
II&=& \int_0^{t} \left( \int_{E_1} p^{a}_{{E_1}}(s, x, u) \left(
\int_{E_3} J^{a}(u,z) p^{a}_{E}(t-s, z, y) dz\right)
du\right) ds\\
&\le& \left(\sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}J^{a}(u,z)\right)
\int_0^{t} {\mathbb P}_x(\tau^{a}_{E_1}>s) \left(\int_{E_3}p^{a}_{E}(t-s, z,
y)dz
\right) ds\\
&\le& \int_0^{t}{\mathbb P}_x(\tau^{a}_{E_1}>s) ds \sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in
E_3}J^{a}(u,z) \le
(t \wedge {\mathbb E}_x [\tau^{a}_{E_1}])
\sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in
E_3}J^{a}(u,z)\,.
\end{eqnarray*}
This completes the proof of the lemma. {\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\begin{thm}\label{ub11}
Suppose that $M>0$ is a constant and that
$D$ is an open set satisfying a weaker
version of the uniform exterior ball condition with radius $R_1>0$.
There exists a positive constant $C_{19}=C_{19}(M, R_1)$ such that for
all $a \in (0, M]$ and $x, y\in D$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ppu}
p^{a}_{D}(1/2,x,y)\leq C_{19}\,
(\delta_D(x) \wedge 1)\,
\left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)} +\left(
j^a(|x-y|)\wedge 1\right) \right)\, .
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }}
First note that for every $x_0\in \bR^d$, $\{z \in \bR^d:
|x-x_0|> R_1 \}$ is
a $C^{1,1}$ open set with characteristics
$(R, \Lambda)$ depending only on $R_1$ and $d$. Let $r_0$ and $\delta_0$
be the positive constants in Lemma \ref{L:2.0_1} for $U=\{z \in
\bR^d: |x-x_0|> R_1\}$.
It follows from Corollary \ref{C:1.2} that
$$
p^a_{D} (1/2, x, y) \, \leq \, p^a (1/2, x, y)\,\le
c_1\left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)}+
\left(j^a(|x-y|)\wedge 1\right)
\right),
$$
so it suffices to prove the theorem for $x\in D$ with
$\delta_{D} (x) <\delta_0/(32)$.
Now fix $x \in D$ with $\delta_{D} (x) <\delta_0/(32)$ and let $Q\in
\partial D$ be such that $|x-Q|=\delta_{D} (x)$. Let $B_Q\subset
D^c$ be the ball with radius
$R_1$ so that
$\partial B_Q \cap \partial D=\{Q\}$
and $E:=(\overline{B_Q})^c$.
Observe that $\delta_E(x)=\delta_D(x)=|x-Q|$.
When
$|x-y|\le \sqrt{dC_2} \vee
((\delta_0+r_0)/2)$, we have from Corollary \ref{C:1.2} that
$$
p^a(1/2,x,y) \ge c_2e^{-c_3|x-y|^2} \ge c_4 >0 \quad
\text{and}\quad \sup_{z\in \bR^d} p^a(1/4,z,y) \le c_5.
$$
Thus, by the semigroup property and Corollary \ref{C:3.3},
\begin{eqnarray}
p^{a}_{D}(1/2,x,y)&=&
\int_D p^a_D(1/4,x,z)p^a_D(1/4,z,y)dz \nonumber\\
& \leq&
\sup_{z\in D} p_D^a(1/4,z,y) {\mathbb P}_x(\tau^{a}_{D}>1/4)\nonumber\\
& \leq& \sup_{z\in \bR^d} p^a(1/4,z,y) {\mathbb P}_x(\tau^{a}_{E}>1/4)\nonumber\\
&\leq& c_6 \delta_{E}(x)=c_6 \delta_{D}(x)\le
c_7\,\delta_{D}(x)p^a(1/2,x,y)\,.\label{eq:ppun2}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally we consider the case that
$|x-y|>\sqrt{dC_2} \vee ((\delta_0+r_0)/2)$
(and $\delta_{D} (x) <\delta_0/(32)$).
There is a $C^{1,1}$-function $\phi: \bR^{d-1}\to \bR$ satisfying
$\phi(0)=0$, $ \nabla\phi (0)=(0, \dots, 0)$,
$\| \nabla \phi \|_\infty \leq
\Lambda$, $| \nabla \phi (w)-\nabla \phi (z)| \leq \Lambda |w-z|$,
and an orthonormal coordinate system $CS$ with its origin at $Q$
such that
$$
B(Q, R)\cap E=\{ z=(\widetilde z, z_d) \in B(0, R) \mbox{ in } CS: z_d >
\phi (\widetilde z) \}
$$
and that $x$ has coordinate $(\widetilde 0, \delta_D(x))$ in this $CS$.
Let
$$
E_1:=\left\{ z=(\widetilde z, z_d) \mbox{ in } CS: 0<z_d-\phi(\widetilde
z)<\delta_0/8, \ |\widetilde z| < r_0/8\right\},
$$
$E_3:=
\{z\in E: |z-x|>|x-y|/2\}$
and $E_2:=E\setminus (E_1\cup E_3)$. Note that
$|z-x| >(\delta_0+r_0)/4 $ for $z\in E_3$. So,
if $u\in E_1$ and $z\in E_3$,
then
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e:n00}
|u-z| \ge |z-x|-|x-u| \ge |z-x|-(\delta_0+r_0)/8 \ge
\frac{1}{2}|z-x| \ge \frac{1}{4}|x-y|.
\end{eqnarray}
Thus
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}J^{a}(u,z)
&\le& \sup_{(u,z):|u-z| \ge
\frac{1}{4}|x-y|}J^{a}(u,z) \nonumber \\
&\le&
j^{a}(|x-y|/4) = \left(j^{a}(|x-y|/4)\wedge j^M( (\delta_0+r_0)/8 )
\right). \label{e:n0}
\end{eqnarray}
If $z \in E_2$, then $|z-y| \ge |x-y| -|x-z| \ge |x-y|/2$.
We also observe that for every $\beta \ge d/4$,
$\sup_{s <1/2} s^{-d/2} e^{-\beta/s} =2^{d/2}e^{-2\beta}$.
By Corollary \ref{C:1.2} and these observations,
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_2} p^a(s, z, y)&\le& C_3 \sup_{s<1/2,\, z \in
E_2}\left(s^{-d/2}e^{-|z-y|^2/(C_2s)}+ \big(s^{-d/2}
\wedge s J^a(z,y)\big)\right)
\nonumber\\
&=& C_3 2^{d/2} e^{-|x-y|^2/C_2}+ \frac{C_3}2 j^a(|x-y|/2)
\nonumber\\
&=&
C_3 2^{d/2}e^{-|x-y|^2/C_2} +\frac{C_3}2 \left(
j^a(|x-y|/2) \wedge j^M( (\delta_0+r_0)/4 ) \right)\nonumber\\
&\le& c_8 \left(e^{-|x-y|^2/C_2} + \big( j^a(|x-y|) \wedge 1\big)
\right) \label{e:n1}
\end{eqnarray}
for some $c_8>0$. Applying Lemmas \ref{L:2.0_1} and \ref{l:gen}, we
obtain,
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^{a}_{E}(1/2, x, y)
&\le& c_9 \left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)} +\big(
j^a(|x-y|)\wedge 1\big)\right)\left({\mathbb P}_x(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in
E)+
{\mathbb E}_x[\tau^{a}_{E_1}]\right)\\
&\leq& c_{10}\, \delta_E(x)\left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)} +
\big( j^a(|x-y|)\wedge 1 \big) \right)\\
&=& c_{10} \,\delta_D(x)\left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)} +
\big( j^a(|x-y|)\wedge 1 \big) \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore
$$
p^{a}_{D}(1/2, x, y) \le p^{a}_{E}(1/2, x, y)\le c_{10}
\delta_D(x)\left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)} +\big( j^a(|x-y|)\wedge
1\big)\right).
$$
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\begin{thm}\label{t:ub}
Assume that $M>0$ is a constant and
that $D$ is an open set satisfying a weaker
version of the uniform exterior ball condition with radius $R_1>0$.
For every $T>0$, there exists a positive constant $C_{20}=C_{20}(T,
R_1, \alpha, M)$ such that for all $a \in [0, M]$
and $(t, x, y)\in (0, T]\times D \times D$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:1} p^a_D(t, x, y) \leq C_{20} \left( 1\wedge
\frac{\delta_D (x)}{\sqrt{t}}\right) \left( 1\wedge
\frac{\delta_D(y)}{\sqrt{t}}\right)
\left( t^{-d/2}
e^{-|x-y|^2/(4C^3_2t)}+ \big(t^{-d/2} \wedge tJ^a(x, y)\big) \right).
\end{equation}
\end{thm}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }} Fix $T, M>0$ and recall that
$a_t:=
a t^{(2-\alpha)/(2\alpha)} \le
M T^{(2-\alpha)/(2\alpha)}$. Note that $t^{-1/2}D$ is an open set
satisfying a weaker version of the uniform exterior ball condition
with radius $T^{-1/2}R_1>0$ for every $t \in (0, T]$. Thus, by
Theorem \ref{ub11}, there exists a positive constant $c_1=c_1(T,
R_1, \alpha, M)$ such that for all $ t \in (0, T]$ and $a \in (0,
M]$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:4}
p^{a_t }_{t^{-1/2}D}
(1/2,x,y)
\leq c_1 (e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)} +(
j^{a_t}(|x-y|)\wedge 1))
\delta_{t^{-1/2}D}(x).
\end{equation}
Thus
by \eqref{e:scaling}, \eqref{e:jjj} and \eqref{e:4}, for every
$t \le T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^a_D(t/2, x, y) &=& t^{-d/2} p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D} (1/2, t^{-1/2}x, t^{-1/2} y)\\
&\leq & c_1 \, t^{-d/2} \left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2t)} +(
j^{a_t}(|x-y|/t^{1/2})\wedge 1)\right) \delta_{t^{-1/2} D}(t^{-1/2}
x)\\
&=& c_1 \left( t^{-d/2} e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2t)}+ (t^{-d/2}
\wedge tJ^a(x, y)) \right)
\frac{\delta_{D}( x)}{\sqrt{t}} .
\end{eqnarray*}
By symmetry, the above inequality holds with the roles of $x$
and $y$ interchanged.
Using the semigroup property
and Corollary \ref{C:1.2} (twice),
for $t\leq T$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^a_D(t, x, y) &=& \int_D p^a_D(t/2, x, z) p^a_D (t/2, z, y) dz\\
&\leq & c_3\, \frac{\delta_{D}( x)\delta_{D}(
y)}{t } \int_D p^a(2C^2_2t , x, z) p^a (2C^2_2 t, z, y) dz \\
&\leq & c_3\, \frac{\delta_{D}( x)\delta_{D}(
y)}{t } p^a(4C^2_2t , x, y)\\
&\leq & c _4\, \frac{\delta_{D}( x) \delta_{D}( y)}{t } \left(
t^{-d/2} e^{-|x-y|^2/(4C^3_2t)}+ (t^{-d/2} \wedge tJ^a(x, y))
\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
This with Corollary \ref{C:1.2} proves the upper bound \eqref{e:1}
by noting that
$$
(1\wedge u)(1\wedge v) = \min\{1, u, v, uv\} \qquad \hbox{for } u,
v>0.
$$
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
We point out that,
in view of Theorem \ref{t:low}, the above upper bound estimate \eqref{e:1}
is sharp when $x$ and $y$ are in the same component of $D$.
However it is not sharp when $x$ and $y$ are
in
different components of $D$, since in this case
when $a\to 0$, it does not go to zero and thus does not
give the sharp upper bound
for the Dirichlet heat kernel $p_D^0(t, x, y)$ of Brownian motion in $D$.
Next we improve the above estimate to get the sharp estimate stated in
Theorem \ref{t:ub1} below.
For the remainder of this section, we continue assume $D$ is an open set satisfying a weaker
version of the uniform exterior ball condition with radius $R_1>0$.
It is easy to see that
the distance between any two distinct
connected components of $D$ is at least $R^*$ for some $R^*>0$
that depends only on $R_1$. Without
loss of generality, we assume that $R^*=R_1$.
Observe that for
$c_0>0$, $r\geq r_0$ and $t>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:3.11}
t^{-d/2}e^{-c_0 r^2/t} \leq c_1 t^{-d/2} (t/r^2)^{d/2+1} = c_1 \frac{t}{r^{d+2}}
\leq c_1 r_0^{\alpha -2} \, \frac{t}{r^{d+\alpha}},
\end{equation}
where $c_1>0$ depends only on $c_0$, $r_0$ and
and $d$.
This implies that for $x$ and $y$ in different components of $D$,
the jumping kernel component
$tJ^1(x, y)$ dominates the Gaussian component $t^{-d/2} e^{-|x-y|^2/C_2t}$.
This fact will be used several times in the rest of this section.
By Theorem \ref{t:ub}, we only need to consider the case when $x$
and $y$ are in different components of $D$.
Recall that , for any $x\in D$, $D(x)$ denotes the connected
component of $D$ that contains $x$.
First we give an interior upper bound of $p^{a}_{D}(t, x, y)$ when
$x$ and $y$ are in different components of $D$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l:gen1}
Assume that $M>0$ is a constant and
that $D$ is an open set satisfying a weaker
version of the uniform exterior ball condition with radius $R_1>0$.
For every $T>0$, there exists a positive constant $C_{21}=C_{21}(T,
R_1, \alpha, M)$ such that for
all $a \in (0, M]$, $t \in (0, T]$ and $x, y$ in different components of $D$,
$$p^{a}_{D}(t, x, y) \le C_{21}
a^\alpha t |x-y|^{-d-\alpha}.
$$
\end{lemma}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }} Using the strong Markov property and \eqref{e:levy}, we have for $t \le T$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&p^{a}_{D}(t, x, y) \nonumber\\
&=&
{\mathbb E}_x\left[p^{a}_{D}\big(t-\tau^{a}_{D(x)},
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{D(x)}}, y\big):\tau^{a}_{D(x)}<t,
X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{D(x)}}\in D\setminus D(x)\right]\nonumber\\
&=& \int_0^{t} \left( \int_{D(x)} p^{a}_{{D(x)}}(s, x, u) \left(
\int_{D\setminus D(x)} J^{a}(u,z) p^{a}_{D}(t-s, z, y) dz\right)
du\right) ds\nonumber\\
&\le&
c_1\frac{a^\alpha }{t M^\alpha} \int_0^{t} \left( \int_{D(x)} p^{a}(s, x, u) \left(
\int_{D\setminus D(x)} \left(t^{-d/2} \wedge (tJ^{M}(u,z))\right) p^{a}(t-s, z, y) dz
\right) du\right) ds\nonumber\\
&\le& c_1\frac{a^\alpha }{tM^\alpha} \int_0^{t} \left( \int_{\bR^d}
p^{a}(s, x, u) \left( \int_{\bR^d} \left( t^{-d/2} \wedge (tJ^{M}(u,z))
\right) p^{a}(t-s, z, y) dz\right) du\right) ds . \label{e:ew1}
\end{eqnarray}
In the second to the last inequality above,
we have used the facts that
$J^{M}(u,z) \le j^M(R_1)$ and $t \le T$. By Corollary \ref{C:1.2},
$p^{a}(s, x, u) \le c_2 p^{M} (C_2^2s,x,u)$, $p^{a}(t-s, z, y) \le
c_2 p^M (C_2^2(t-s), z,y)$ and $ t^{-d/2} \wedge (tJ^{M}(u,z)) \le
c_2 p^{M} (t,u,z).$
Thus, using the semigroup property and Corollary \ref{C:1.2}, from
\eqref{e:ew1} we obtain that
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^{a}_{D}(t, x, y)
&\le& c_3
\frac{a^\alpha }{t M^\alpha} \int_0^{t} \left( \int_{\bR^d} p^{M} (C_2^2s,x,u)\left(
\int_{\bR^d} p^{M} (t,u,z) p^M (C_2^2(t-s), z,y) dz\right)
du\right) ds\\
&=& c_3 \frac{a^\alpha }{t M^\alpha}
\int_0^t p^M ((C_2^2+1)t, x,y) ds \\
&\le&
c_4 a^\alpha \left( t^{-d/2}
e^{-|x-y|^2/(C_2(C_2^2+1)t)}+ t^{-d/2}\, \wedge
\frac{t}{|x-y|^{d+\alpha}} \right)\\
&\le& c_5 \,
a^\alpha \,t \,|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}.
\end{eqnarray*}
In the last inequality above,
we have used the fact that
$|x-y| \ge R_1$.
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\begin{thm}\label{ub111}
Assume that $M>0$ is a constant and
that $D$ is an open set satisfying a weaker
version of the uniform exterior ball condition with radius $R_1>0$.
There exists a positive constant
$C_{22}=C_{22}(M, R_1 )$
such that for all $a \in (0, M]$ and $x, y$ in different components of $D$.
$$
p^{a}_{D}(1 , x, y)
\leq C_{22}\,(\delta_D(x) \wedge 1)(\delta_D(y) \wedge 1)
\left(
j^a(|x-y|)\wedge 1\right)\, .
$$
\end{thm}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }}
We first claim that
\begin{equation}\label{e:dfd1}
p^{a}_{D}(1/2, x, y) \le
c_{1}a^\alpha (\delta_D(x) \wedge 1)\left(
|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}\wedge 1\right).
\end{equation}
Recall that for every $x_0\in \bR^d$, $\{z \in \bR^d:
|x-x_0|> R_1/4 \}$
is a $C^{1,1}$ open set with characteristics
$(R, \Lambda)$ depending only on $R_1$ and $d$. Let $r_0$ and $\delta_0$
be the positive constants in Lemma \ref{L:2.0_1} for $U=\{z \in
\bR^d: |x-x_0|> R_1/4\}$.
It follows from Lemma \ref{l:gen1} that
$$
p^a_{D} (1/2, x, y) \le
c_1 \left(j^a(|x-y|)\wedge 1\right).
$$
So it suffices to prove \eqref{e:dfd1} for $x\in D$ with
$\delta_{D} (x) <\delta_0/(32)$.
Now fix $x \in D$ with $\delta_{D} (x) <\delta_0/(32)$ and let $Q\in
\partial D$ be such that $|x-Q|=\delta_{D} (x)$. Let $B_Q:=B(
Q, R_1/4)\subset D^c$ be the ball with radius $R_1/4$ so that
$\partial B_Q \cap \partial D=\{Q\}$.
There is a $C^{1,1}$-function $\phi: \bR^{d-1}\to \bR$ satisfying
$\phi(0)=0$, $ \nabla\phi (0)=(0, \dots, 0)$,
$\| \nabla \phi \|_\infty \leq
\Lambda$, $| \nabla \phi (w)-\nabla \phi (z)| \leq \Lambda |w-z|$,
and an orthonormal coordinate system $CS$ with its origin at $Q$
such that
$$
B(Q, R)\cap (\overline{B_Q})^c=\{ z=(\widetilde z, z_d) \in B(0, R) \mbox{ in } CS: z_d >
\phi (\widetilde z) \}
$$
and that $x$ has coordinate $(\widetilde 0, \delta_D(x))$ in this $CS$.
Let
$$
E:=D \cup ( B(
Q, R_1/2) \setminus \overline{B_Q}),$$
$$
E_1:=\left\{ z=(\widetilde z, z_d) \mbox{ in } CS: 0<z_d-\phi(\widetilde
z)<\delta_0/8, \ |\widetilde z| < r_0/8\right\},
$$
$E_3:=
\{z\in E: |z-x|>|x-y|/2\}$, $E_{2,1}:=(E\setminus (E_1\cup E_3)) \cap D(y)$ and
$E_{2,2}:= E\setminus (E_1\cup E_3 \cup D(y))$.
Observe that $\delta_{(\overline{B_Q})^c}(x)=\delta_{E}(x)=\delta_D(x)=|x-Q|$ and
$|x-y| \ge R_1 > R >
((\delta_0+r_0)/2)$.
So, by \eqref{e:n00}--\eqref{e:n0}, dist$(E_1, E_3) \ge R_1/4$ and
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}J^{a}(u,z) \le c_2 \left(j^{a}(|x-y|)\wedge 1 \right). \label{e:f1}
\end{eqnarray}
If $z \in E_{2,i}, i=1,2$, then $|z-y| \ge |x-y| -|x-z| \ge |x-y|/2$. Thus
by the same argument as the one in \eqref{e:n1}, if
$|x-y|>\sqrt{dC_2}$,
we have by \eqref{e:3.11}
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,1}} p^a(s, z, y)\le c_3 \left(e^{-|x-y|^2/C_2} +\big( j^a(|x-y|) \wedge 1\big)
\right)\le c_4 \left( j^M(|x-y|) \wedge 1 \right).\label{e:f2}
\end{eqnarray}
If
$|x-y| \le\sqrt{dC_2} $, since $R_1 \le |x-y|$, we also have
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,1}} p^a(s, z, y)&\le& C_3 \sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,1}}
\left(s^{-d/2}e^{-|z-y|^2/(C_2s)}+ \big(s^{-d/2}
\wedge s J^a(z,y)\big)\right)\nonumber\\
&\le & c_5\sup_{s<1/2}\left(s^{-d/2}e^{-R_1^2/(2C_2s)}+ \big(s^{-d/2}
\wedge s J^a(R_1)\big)\right)\nonumber\\
&\le & c_6 \,\le\, c_7\, j^M(|x-y|).\label{e:f2-1}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand, since $D(y) \subset E_{2,2}^c $, by Lemma \ref{l:gen1},
\begin{eqnarray}
\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,2}} p_E^a(s, z, y)\le
C_{21} \sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,2}} s J^a(|z-y|) \le c_8 \big( j^a(|x-y|) \wedge 1\big).\label{e:f3}
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, since ${\rm dist} (E_1, D(y))\ge R_1/2$,
by the L\'evy system \eqref{e:levy},
\begin{eqnarray}
{\mathbb P}_x(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in
{E_{2,1}}) &\le&
{\mathbb P}_x(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in
{D(y)}) \nonumber\\
&=&
\int_0^{\infty} \left( \int_{E_1} p^{a}_{{E_1}}(s, x, u) \left(
\int_{D(y)} J^{a}(u,z) dz\right)
du\right) ds\nonumber\\
&=& a^\alpha
\int_0^{\infty} \left( \int_{E_1} p^{a}_{{E_1}}(s, x, u) \left(
\int_{D(y)} J^{1}(u,z) dz\right)
du\right) ds\nonumber\\
&\le & a^\alpha \left(
\int_{\{|z|>
R_1/2\}} J^{1}(z) dz\right)
\int_0^{\infty} \left( \int_{E_1} p^{a}_{{E_1}}(s, x, u) du\right)ds \nonumber \\
&\le& c_9 a^\alpha {\mathbb E}_x[\tau^{a}_{E_1}] .\label{e:f4}
\end{eqnarray}
Applying Lemmas \ref{L:2.0_1} and \ref{l:gen}, and combining \eqref{e:f1}--\eqref{e:f4}, we
obtain,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&p^{a}_{E}(1/2, x, y)\\
&\le&
{\mathbb P}_x(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in E_{2,1})
\left(\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,1}}
p_E^a(s, z, y)\right)+ {\mathbb P}_x(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in E_{2,2})
\left(\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,2}}
p_E^a(s, z, y)\right)\\
&&\quad+
{\mathbb E}_x [\tau^{a}_{E_1}]
\left(\sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}J^{a}(u,z)\right)\\
&\le&
c_9 a^\alpha {\mathbb E}_x [\tau^{a}_{E_1}]
\left(\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,1}}
p^a(s, z, y)\right)+ {\mathbb P}_x(X^{a}_{\tau^{a}_{E_1}}\in (\overline{B_Q})^c)
\left(\sup_{s<1/2,\, z\in E_{2,2}}
p_E^a(s, z, y)\right)\\
&&\quad+
{\mathbb E}_x [\tau^{a}_{E_1}]
\left(\sup_{u\in E_1,\, z\in E_3}J^{a}(u,z)\right)\\
&\leq& c_{10}\, a^\alpha(\delta_D(x) \wedge 1)\left(
|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}\wedge 1\right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Therefore we have proved the claim \eqref{e:dfd1}.
In particular, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:dfd}
p^{a}_{D}(1/2, x, y) \le c_{10}
a^\alpha(\delta_D(x) \wedge 1)\left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(2C_2)} + \left(
|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}\wedge 1\right)\right).
\end{equation}
By symmetry, the above inequality holds with the roles of $x$
and $y$ interchanged.
It follows from the semigroup property that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&p^a_D(1, x, y)\\
&=& \int_D p^a_D(1/2, x, z) p^a_D (1/2, z, y) dz\\
&=&\int_{D(x)} p^a_D(1/2, x, z) p^a_D (1/2, z, y) dz+ \int_{D \setminus D(x)}
p^a_D(1/2, x, z) p^a_D (1/2, z, y) dz.
\end{eqnarray*}
By applying Theorem \ref{ub11} and
\eqref{e:dfd}, and then applying Corollary \ref{C:1.2} (twice), we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^a_D(1, x, y)
&\leq & c_{11}\,a^{\alpha} (\delta_D(x) \wedge 1) (\delta_D(y) \wedge 1)\int_D p^1(2C_2^2, x, z) p^1 (2C_2^2, z, y) dz \\
&\leq & c_{11} \, a^{\alpha}(\delta_D(x) \wedge 1) (\delta_D(y) \wedge 1) p^1(4C_2^2,x,y)\\
&\leq & c_{12} \, a^{\alpha}(\delta_D(x) \wedge 1) (\delta_D(y) \wedge 1) \left(e^{-|x-y|^2/(4C^3_2)} + \left(
|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}\wedge 1\right)\right)\\
&\leq & c_{13} \, a^{\alpha}(\delta_D(x) \wedge 1) (\delta_D(y) \wedge 1)
|x-y|^{-d-\alpha}
\\
&\leq & c_{14} \, (\delta_D(x) \wedge 1) (\delta_D(y) \wedge 1)\left(
J^a(x, y) \wedge 1 \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
Recall that $h^a_C(t,x,y)$ is defined in \eqref{eq:qd}.
\begin{thm}\label{t:ub1}
Assume that $M>0$ is a constant and
that $D$ is an open set satisfying a weaker
version of the uniform exterior ball condition with radius $R_1>0$.
For every $T>0$, there exists a positive constant $C_{23}=C_{23}(T,
R_1, \alpha, M)$ such that for all $a \in [0, M]$
and $(t,x,y)\in (0, T] \times D \times D$,
$$ p^a_D(t, x, y) \,\leq \,C_{23} \,
h^a_{ (2C_2)^{-1}}(t,x,y).
$$
\end{thm}
{\medskip\noindent {\bf Proof. }} Fix $T, M>0$ and recall that $a_t=a t^{(2-\alpha)/(2\alpha)} \le
M T^{(2-\alpha)/(2\alpha)}$. Note that $t^{-1/2}D$ is an open set
satisfying a weaker version of the uniform exterior ball condition
with radius $T^{-1/2}R_1>0$ for every $t \in (0, T]$. Thus, by
Theorem \ref{ub111}, there exists a positive constant $c_1=c_1(T,
R_1, \alpha, M)$ such that for all $ t \in (0, T]$, $a \in (0,
M]$ and
$x, y$ in different components of $D$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:3.20}
p^{a_t }_{t^{-1/2}D} (1, x, y)
\leq c_1 \left( j^{a_t}(|x-y|)\wedge 1 \right)
\left(\delta_{t^{-1/2}D}(x) \wedge 1\right) \left(\delta_{t^{-1/2}D}(y) \wedge 1\right).
\end{equation}
Thus
by \eqref{e:scaling}, \eqref{e:jjj} and
\eqref{e:3.20},
for every $t \le T$, $a \in (0, M]$ and
$x, y$ in different components of $D$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
p^a_D(t, x, y) &=& t^{-d/2} p^{a_t}_{t^{-1/2}D} (1, t^{-1/2}x,
t^{-1/2} y)\\
&\leq & c_1 \, t^{-d/2} \left(
j^{a_t}(|x-y|/t^{1/2})\wedge 1\right) \left(\delta_{t^{-1/2} D}(t^{-1/2}
x)\wedge 1 \right) \left(\delta_{t^{-1/2} D}(t^{-1/2}
y)\wedge 1 \right)\\
&=& c_1 \left( t^{-d/2}
\wedge tJ^a(x, y) \right)
\left(\frac{\delta_{D}( x)}{\sqrt{t}}\wedge 1 \right)
\left( \frac{\delta_{D}( y)}{\sqrt{t}}\wedge 1 \right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Combining this result
with Theorem \ref{t:ub}, we have proved the theorem.
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\section{Large time estimates} \label{s:l}
In this section we assume that $D$ is a bounded $C^{1,1}$ open set
in $\bR^d$ which may be disconnected, and we give the proof of
Theorem \ref{t:main} (ii) and (iii).
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Proof of Theorem \ref{t:main} (ii) and (iii).}
Let $D$ be a bounded $C^{1,1}$ open set in $\bR^d$ with $d\geq 1$.
For each $a\geq 0$, the semigroup of $X^{a, D}$ is Hilbert-Schmidt
as, by Theorem \ref{T:1.1}
$$\int_{D\times D} p^a_D (t, x, y)^2 dx dy= \int_D p^a_D(2t, x, x) dx
\le C_1\, \,\left((2t)^{-d/2} \wedge
(a^{\alpha}2t)^{-d/\alpha}\right) |D|
<\infty,
$$
and hence is compact.
For $a\geq 0$, let
$ \{\lambda^{a, D}_k
: k=1, 2 \dots \}$ be the eigenvalues of $-(\Delta +a^\alpha
\Delta^{\alpha/2})|_D$, arranged in increasing order and repeated
according to multiplicity, and $\{\phi^{a, D}_k :k=1, 2, \dots\} $
be the corresponding eigenfunctions normalized to have unit
$L^2$-norm on $D$. Note that $\{\phi^{a, D}_k :k=1, 2, \dots\} $
forms an orthonormal basis of $L^2(D; dx)$. It is well known that
when $a>0$, $\lambda^{a, D}_1$ is strictly positive and simple,
and that $\phi^{a, D}_1 $ can be chosen to be
strictly positive on $D$. It follows from \cite[Theorem
1.1(ii)]{CS8} that the function $a\mapsto \lambda^{a, D}_1$ is
continuous
on $(0, M]$, and $\lim_{a\to 0+} \lambda^{a, D}_1 =
\lambda^{0, D}_1:= \min_{1\leq j\leq k} \lambda^{0, D_j}_1$,
where $D_1, \cdots, D_k$ are the connected components of $D$
and $\lambda^{0,D_j}_1$ is the first Dirichlet eigenvalue of
$-\Delta|_{D_j}$. Hence there is a constant $c_1=c_1(D, \alpha, M)\geq 1$
so that
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.1}
1/c_1 \leq \lambda^{a, D}_1 \leq c_1
\qquad \hbox{for every } a\in (0, M].
\end{equation}
Using Sobolev embedding (see \cite[Example 5.1]{CS8}), it can be
shown that $\{\phi^{a, D}_1, \, a\in (0, M]\}$ is relatively compact
in $L^2(D; dx)$. Hence by \cite[Theorem 1.1(ii)]{CS8} and the fact
that each $\lambda^{a, D}_1$ is simple for $a>0$, $a\to \phi^{a,
D}_1$ is continuous in $L^2(D; dx)$ in $a\in (0, M]$. Furthermore,
as $a\to 0+$, any weak limit $\phi$ of $\phi^{a, D}_1$ is a unit
non-negative eigenfunction of $-\Delta|_D$ with eigenvalue
$\lambda^{0, D}_1$. Note that such $\phi$ may not be strictly
positive everywhere on $D$ when $D$ is disconnected; it is strictly
positive on least one component $D_j$ of $D$ where $\lambda^{0,
D_j}_1=\lambda^{0, D}_1$.
It follows that there is a constant
$c_2=c_2(D, \alpha, M)>0 $ so that
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.2}
\sup_{a\in (0, M]} \int_D \delta_D(x) \phi^{a, D}_1 (x) dx \leq c_2.
\end{equation}
Recall that $p^a_D (t, x, y)$ admits the following eigenfunction
expansion
$$
p^a_D (t, x, y) =\sum_{k=1}^\infty e^{-t \lambda^{a, D}_k} \phi^{a,
D}_k (x) \phi^{a, D}_k(y)
\qquad \hbox{for } t>0 \hbox{ and } x, y \in D.
$$
This implies that
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.3}
\int_{D\times D} \delta_D(x) p^a_D(t, x, y) \delta_D(y) \, dx dy =
\sum_{k=1}^\infty e^{-t \lambda^{a, D}_k} \left( \int_D \delta_D(x)
\phi^{a, D}_k (x) dx\right)^2.
\end{equation}
Consequently, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.4}
\int_{D\times D} \delta_D(x) p^a_D(t, x, y) \delta_D(y) \, dx dy
\leq e^{-t \lambda^{a, D}_1} \, \int_D \delta_D(x)^2 dx
\end{equation}
for all $a>0$ and $t>0$.
On the other hand, since
$$\phi^{a, D}_1 (x) = e^{\lambda^{a, D}_1} \int_D p^a_D (1, x, y)
\phi^{a, D}_1 (y) dy,
$$
by the upper bound estimate in Theorem \ref{t:main}(i) and
\eqref{e:4.1}-\eqref{e:4.2} that there is a constant $c_3=c_3(D,
\alpha, M)>0 $ so that for every $a\in (0, M]$ and $x\in D$,
$$ \phi^{a, D}_1 (x)\leq c_3 \delta_D(x) \int_D \delta_D(y)
\phi^{a, D}_1 (y) dy \leq c_2 c_3 \, \delta_D(x) .
$$
It now follows from \eqref{e:4.3} that for every that for every
$a\in (0, M]$ and $t>0$
\begin{eqnarray}\label{e:4.5}
&& \int_{D\times D} \delta_D(x) p^a_D(t, x, y) \delta_D(y) \, dx
dy
\geq e^{-t \lambda^{a, D}_1} \, \left(\int_D \delta_D(x) \phi^{a,D}_1(x) dx
\right)^2 \nonumber \\
&&\geq e^{-t \lambda^{a, D}_1} \, \left(\int_D (c_2c_3)^{-1}
\phi^{a,D}_1(x)^2 dx\right)^2 = (c_2c_3)^{-2} \, e^{-t \lambda^{a,
D}_1} .
\end{eqnarray}
\medskip
It suffices to prove (ii)-(iii) of Theorem \ref{t:main} for $T\geq
3$. For $t\geq T$ and $x, y\in D$, observe that
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.6}
p^a_D (t, x, y)=\int_{D\times D}
p^a_D (1, x, z) p^a_D(t-2, z, w)
p^a_D(1, w, y) dz dw .
\end{equation}
Since $D$ is bounded, we have by the upper bound estimate in
Theorem \ref{t:main}(i) and \eqref{e:4.4} that there are constants
$c_i=c_i(D, \alpha, M)>0$, $i=4, 5$ so that for every $a\in (0, M]$,
$t\geq T$ and $x, y\in D$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.7}
p^a_D(t, x, y) \leq c_4 \delta_D (x)\delta_D(y) \int_{D\times D}
\delta_D(z) p^a_D (t-2, z, w) \delta_D(w) dz dw
\leq c_5 \, \delta_D(x) \delta_D (y) e^{-t\lambda^{a, D}_1}.
\end{equation}
(ii) Assume first that $D$ is connected. Since $D$ is bounded and
connected, we have by the lower bound estimate in Theorem
\ref{t:main}(i) and \eqref{e:4.5} that there are constants
$c_i=c_i(D, \alpha, M)>0$, $i=6, 7$,
so that for every $a\in (0, M]$, $t\geq T$ and $x, y\in D$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.8}
p^a_D(t, x, y) \geq c_6\, \delta_D (x)\delta_D(y)
\int_{D\times D} \delta_D(z) p^a_D (t-2, z, w) \delta_D(w) dz dw
\geq c_7 \, \delta_D(x) \delta_D (y) e^{-t\lambda^{a, D}_1}.
\end{equation}
This combined with \eqref{e:4.7} proves Theorem \ref{t:main}(ii).
\medskip
(iii) Now let consider the case that $D$ is disconnected.
Note that it follows from (ii) that for every $t\geq 1$, $x\in D$
and $y\in D(x)$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.8-2} p^a_D(t,x, y) \geq p^a_{D(x)}(t, x, y)
\geq c_{8} e^{-t \lambda_1^{a, D(x)}} \delta_D(x) \delta_D(y).
\end{equation}
Moreover, the above inequality, \eqref{e:4.7} and the two-sided
estimate in Theorem \ref{t:main}(i) yield that there are a constant
$c_{9}:=c_{9} (D, \alpha, M)\geq 1$ such that for every $a\in (0,
M]$, $t>0$ and $x\in D$,
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.9}
c_{9}^{-1} \, e^{-t \lambda_1^{a, D(x)}}\delta_D(x)
\leq {\mathbb P}_x \left(
\tau_{D(x)}^a >t\right) \leq c_{9} \, e^{-t \lambda_1^{a, D(x)}}\delta_D(x)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e:4.10}
{\mathbb P}_x (\tau_D^a >t) \leq c_{9} \, e^{-t \lambda_1^{a,
D}}\delta_D(x).
\end{equation}
For $t\geq T$, $x\in D$ and $y\in D\setminus D(x)$, we have
by the boundedness of $D$,
\eqref{e:4.9} and the lower bound estimate in Theorem
\ref{t:main}(i) that
\begin{eqnarray}
p^a_D(t, x, y) &=& {\mathbb E}_x \left[ p^a_D\big(t-\tau^a_{D(x)},
X^a_{\tau^a_{D(x)}}, y\big); \,
\tau^a_{D(x)}<t \right] \nonumber \\
&=& \int_0^t \left( \int_{D(x)} p^a_{D(x)}(s, x, z)\left( \int_{D\setminus D(x)} J^a(z, w) p^a_D(t-s, w, y) dw \right)dz \right) ds \label{e:4.111} \\
&\ge & c_{10} \, a^\alpha \int_0^t \left( \int_{D(x)} p^a_{D(x)}(s,
x, z) dz \right) \left(
\int_{D(y)} p^a_{D(y)}(t-s, w, y) dw \right) ds \nonumber \\
&= & c_{10} \, a^\alpha \int_0^t {\mathbb P}_x \big(\tau^a_{D(x)}> s\big)
\, {\mathbb P}_y \big( \tau^a_{D(y)}>t-s \big) \, ds \nonumber \\
&\ge& c_{10}c^{-2}_{9}\, a^\alpha \int_0^t e^{-s\, \lambda_1^{a,
D(x)}} \,
\delta_{D}(x) \, e^{-(t-s) \lambda_1^{a, D(y)}}\,
\delta_D(y) \, ds
\label{e:4new1} \\
&\geq &
c_{10}c^{-2}_{9}\, a^\alpha t \, e^{-t (\lambda_1^{a, D(x)}
\vee \lambda_1^{a, D(y)})} \, \delta_D(x) \delta_D(y).
\label{e:4new2}
\end{eqnarray}
On the other hand,
using \eqref{e:4.9}-\eqref{e:4.10},
we have from \eqref{e:4.111}
that for $t\geq T$, $x\in D$ and $y\in D\setminus D(x)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
p^a_D(t, x, y) &\leq & c_{11} \, a^\alpha \int_0^t \left(
\int_{D(x)} p^a_{D(x)}(s, x, z) dz \right) \left(
\int_{D\setminus D(x)} p^a_D(t-s, w, y) dw \right) ds \nonumber \\
&\leq & c_{11} \, a^\alpha \int_0^t {\mathbb P}_x (\tau^a_{D(x)}> s)
\, {\mathbb P}_y ( \tau^a_D>t-s) ds \nonumber \\
&\leq & c_{11}c^{2}_{9}\, a^\alpha \int_0^t e^{-s\, \lambda_1^{a,
D(x)}} \, \delta_{D}(x) \, e^{-(t-s) \lambda_1^{a, D}}\,
\delta_D(y) ds
\nonumber \\
&= & c_{11}c^{2}_{9}\, a^\alpha \delta_D(x) \delta_D(y) e^{-t \,
\lambda_1^{a, D} }
\int_0^t e^{-s \left(\lambda_1^{a, D(x)}-\lambda_1^{a, D}\right) } ds \label{e:4.15} \\
&\leq &
c_{11}c^{2}_{9}\, a^\alpha t\, e^{-t \lambda_1^{a, D }} \,
\delta_D(x) \delta_D(y). \label{e:4.16}
\end{eqnarray}
Finally, by \eqref{e:4.7} and the same argument
that leads to
\eqref{e:4.15}, we have that for $t\geq T$, $x, y\in D(x)$,
\begin{eqnarray}
&&p^a_D(t, x, y) \nonumber \\
&=& p^a_{D(x)}(t, x, y) + {\mathbb E}_x \left[ p^a_D\big(t-\tau^a_{D(x)},
X^a_{\tau^a_{D(x)}}, y\big); \,
\tau^a_{D(x)}<t \right] \nonumber \\
&\leq & c_{12} \delta_D(x) \delta_D (y) e^{-t\lambda^{a, D(x)}_1} +
c_{12} \, a^\alpha \delta_D(x) \delta_D(y) e^{-t \, \lambda_1^{a, D}}
\int_0^t e^{-s \left(\lambda_1^{a, D(x)}-\lambda_1^{a, D}\right) } ds
\label{e:4.17}\\
&\le & c_{12} \delta_D(x) \delta_D (y) e^{-t\lambda^{a, D(x)}_1} +
c_{12} \, a^\alpha\, t \, \delta_D(x)\delta_D(y) e^{-t \, \lambda_1^{a,
D} }.
\label{e:4.18}
\end{eqnarray}
Combining this with
\eqref{e:4.7}--\eqref{e:4.8-2},
\eqref{e:4new2} and \eqref{e:4.16}
completes the proof of Theorem \ref{t:main}(iii).
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\medskip
\begin{remark}\label{R:4.1} \rm
In general, when passing from \eqref{e:4new1} to \eqref{e:4new2},
from \eqref{e:4.15} to \eqref{e:4.16} and from \eqref{e:4.17}
to \eqref{e:4.18},
a factor $t$ is needed in order to have the lower estimate and the upper
estimate
that is uniform in $a\in (0, M]$.
Note that for $D$ having at least two connected components,
$\lambda_1^{a, D(x)}>\lambda_1^{a, D}$ for every $a>0$. Since $D$ is
a bounded $C^{1,1}$ open set, it has only finite many connected
components $D_1, \cdots, D_k$. According to \cite[Theorem 1.1]{CS8},
as $a\to 0$, $\lambda_1^{a, D}$ converges to $\min_{1\leq j\leq k}
\lambda_1^{0, D_j}$, where $ \lambda_1^{0, D_j}$ is the first
Dirichlet eigenvalue of $-\Delta|_{D_j}$ on domain $D_j$. Let $j_0$
be such that $\lambda_1^{0, D_{j_0}}= \min_{1\leq j\leq k}
\lambda_1^{0, D_j}$. Then for every $x\in D_{j_0}$, we have
$\displaystyle \inf_{a\in (0, M]} \left( \lambda_1^{a, D(x)}-
\lambda_1^{a, D}\right) =\lim_{a\to 0+} \lambda_1^{a, D(x)}-
\lambda_1^{a, D}=0$. Moreover, if $D$ has two connected components
$D_1$ and $D_2$ that are isometric to each other, then by
\cite[Theorem 1.1]{CS8}, for $x\in D_1$ and $y\in D_2$,
$$ \lim_{a\to 0+} \lambda^{a, D(x)}_1=\lambda^{0, D_1}_1
=\lambda^{0, D_2}_1=\lim_{a\to 0+} \lambda^{a, D(y)}_1.
$$
{\hfill $\Box$ \bigskip}
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec1}
We start by recalling that the classical set of Maxwell equations in vacuum has the
form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rotb}
\frac{\partial {\bf E}}{ \partial t}~=~ c^2 {\rm curl} {\bf B}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:dive}
{\rm div}{\bf E} ~=~0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:rote}
\frac{\partial {\bf B}}{\partial t}~=~ -{\rm curl} {\bf E}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:divb}
{\rm div}{\bf B} ~=~0
\end{equation}
where $c$ is the speed of light and the two fields ${\bf E}$ and $c{\bf B}$ have the same dimensions.
\par\smallskip
It is customary to introduce the potentials ${\bf A}$ and $\Phi$ such that:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:potenz}
{\bf B}~=~\frac {1}{c}~{\rm curl}{\bf A}~~~~~~~~~{\bf E}~=~-\frac {1}{c} \frac {\partial {\bf A}}
{\partial t}~-~\nabla \Phi
\end{equation}
By this assumption, equations (\ref{eq:rote}) and (\ref{eq:divb}) are automatically satisfied. In
addition, we require that the vector and the scalar potentials are related by the following Lorenz
gauge condition:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:color}
{\rm div}{\bf A}~+~\frac {1}{c} \frac {\partial \Phi}{\partial t}~=~0
\end{equation}
Furthermore, one can deduce the two wave equations:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ondea}
\frac {\partial^2 {\bf A}} {\partial t^2}~-~c^2\Delta {\bf A}~=~0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ondea1}
\frac {\partial^2\Phi} {\partial t^2}~-~c^2\Delta \Phi~=~0
\end{equation}
\par\smallskip
We are concerned with studying, from the numerical viewpoint, the
development of a solitary electromagnetic wave, trapped in a
bounded region of space having a toroid shape. In the cylindrical
case (equivalent to a 2-D problem), and partly for 3-D problems,
this analysis was proposed and carried out in Ref.~\cite{funaro}.
There, the goal was to simulate stable elementary subatomic
particles by means of rotating photons. Here, we would like to
continue the discussion of the 3-D case, because the subject might be
of more general interest. Since exact solutions are only available
in special situations, we shall make use of finite
element techniques to approximate the model equations. In order to
determine solutions of the vector wave equation, confined in
appropriate steady domains, we will perform an in-depth analysis
of the lower spectrum of a suitable elliptic operator, in
dependance of the shape and magnitude of the regions. In
particular, we will be concerned with those domains realizing the
coincidence of the fourth and the fifth eigenvalues of the
differential operator. The reasons for this choice will become
clear to the reader as we proceed with the investigation.
\par\smallskip
The structures we consider in this paper display a strong analogy
with fluid dynamics vortex rings (see for instance Ref.~\cite{batchelor},
\cite{lim}, \cite{shariff}). For this reason,
the techniques we apply here may be useful to get additional
results in the study of the development of fluid vortices. As a
matter of fact, peculiar configurations are going to be presented
and discussed, opening the path to an interesting scenario for
future extensions.
\section{The Cylindrical Case}
Let us quickly review the results obtained in Ref.~\cite{funaro},
concerning waves rotating around the axis of a cylinder. The
magnetic field is oriented in the same direction as the $z$-axis,
so that the electric field lays on the orthogonal plane. The
variables are expressed in cylindrical coordinates $(r, z, \phi)$.
The solutions, however, will not depend on $z$.
\par\smallskip
Several options are examined in Ref.~\cite{funaro}, here we show the
most significant one, that will be used later to construct the
toroid case. We denote by $\omega$ a positive parameter which
characterizes the frequency of rotation of the wave: $\nu
=c\omega /\pi$. Up to multiplicative constant, the two vector
fields are given by:
$${\bf E}=\left(
\frac {2 J_2(\omega r)} {\omega r}\cos (c\omega t-2\phi) ,~~0,~~ J_2^\prime (\omega r)\sin (c\omega
t-2\phi)\right)$$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cbdisk}
{\bf B}~=~\frac {1} {c}\Big( 0,~~ J_2(\omega r) \cos (c\omega t-2\phi),~~0\Big)
\end{equation}
for $0\leq \phi < 2\pi$, $0\leq r\leq \delta_0 /\omega ~$ and any
$z$. The fields in (\ref{eq:cbdisk}) are defined on a disk
of radius $\delta_0 /\omega$, whose size is inversely proportional
to the angular speed of rotation. In Ref.~\cite{funaro} , figure 5.7,
the reader can see the displacement of the electric field for
$t=0$ (some on-line animations can be viewed in Ref.~\cite{funweb}, {\it rotating photons}).
\par\smallskip
In (\ref{eq:cbdisk}) we find the Bessel function $J_k$ (see, e.g., Ref.~\cite{watson}) that solves the
following differential equation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:bes4}
J_k^{\prime\prime}(x)~+~\frac {J_k^\prime (x)} { x}~-~\frac{k^2J_k(x)} {x^2}~+~ J_k(x)~=~0
\end{equation}
It is also useful to recall that Bessel functions are connected by the relations:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:besre}
J_k^\prime (x) ~+~\frac {k J_k(x)} {x}~=~ J_{k-1}(x)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:besre2}
J_{k+1}(x) ~=~\frac {2k J_k(x)} {x}~-~ J_{k-1}(x)
\end{equation}
The quantity $~\delta_0\approx
5.135622~$ turns out to be the first zero of $J_2$. In this way,
for $r=\delta_0 /\omega $, the components $E_1$ and $B_2$ are
zero. Note also that ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$ vanish for $r=0$,
since $J_k(x)$ decays as $x^k$ for $x\rightarrow 0$. The choice
$k=1$ is not permitted because it does not allow to prolong with
continuity the fields up to $r=0$, although, one could take into
consideration solutions for $k$ integer greater than 2:
$${\bf E}=\left(
\frac {k J_k(\omega r)} {\omega r}\cos (c\omega t-k\phi) ,~~0,~~ J_k^\prime (\omega r)\sin (c\omega
t-k\phi)\right)$$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:cbdiskk}
{\bf B}~=~\frac {1} {c}\Big( 0,~~ J_k(\omega r) \cos (c\omega t-k\phi),~~0\Big)
\end{equation}
The idea is to simulate a $k$-body rotating system in equilibrium.
This somehow explains why the case $k=1$ is not going to produce
meaningful solutions.
\par\smallskip
For $k=2$, the electromagnetic fields in (\ref{eq:cbdisk}) are
generated by the following potentials:
$${\bf A}~=~ -\frac {1} {\omega} \Big(J_3(\omega r)\sin (c\omega t-2\phi), ~~0~,
~~ J_3(\omega r)\cos (c\omega t-2\phi)\Big)$$
$$ \Phi ~=~-\frac {1} {\omega}
J_2(\omega r)\cos (c\omega t-2\phi)$$
satisfying the Lorenz condition (\ref{eq:color}) and the equations
(\ref{eq:ondea})-(\ref{eq:ondea1}). The reader can check this by
direct differentiation. We observe that $A_1$ and $A_3$ have a
phase difference of 45 degrees, since: $~\sin (c\omega t-2\phi )=
\cos (c\omega t-2(\phi +\pi /4))$.
Denoting by $a(r)=J_3(\omega r)$
the term depending only on the radial variable, we easily discover
that (see (\ref{eq:bes4}) for $k=3$):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eqlap}
-\left(\frac {d^2} {dr^2}+\frac {1} {r}\frac {d} {dr}-\frac {9} {r^2}\right) a~=~\omega^2 a
\end{equation}
We can introduce a new function $w=\frac {d} {dr}a+\frac {3}
{r}a$. A straightforward computation, using relation (\ref{eq:eqlap})
and its derivative, brings to:
$$
-\left(\frac {d^2} {dr^2}+\frac {1} {r}\frac {d} {dr}-\frac {4} {r^2}\right) w~=~
-\left( a^{\prime\prime\prime}+\frac{a^{\prime\prime}}{r}-\frac{10a^\prime}{r^2}
+\frac{18a}{r^3}\right)
$$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eqlapp}
-~\frac{3}{r}\left(a^{\prime\prime}+\frac {a^\prime}{r}-\frac{9a}{r^2}
\right)~=~\omega^2\left( a^\prime +\frac{3a}{r}\right)~=~\omega^2 w
\end{equation}
By scaling the interval in order to impose the boundary
conditions $w(0)=0$ and $w(1)=0$, the eigenvalue problem
(\ref{eq:eqlapp}) takes the form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:eqlap2}
Lw~=~-\left(\frac {d^2} {dr^2}+\frac {1} {r}\frac {d} {dr}-\frac {4} {r^2}\right) w~=~\delta_0^2 w
\end{equation}
where $L$ is a positive-definite differential operator. Such an
operator is the same as the one we would obtain from the
Laplacian, after separation of variables in polar coordinates, by
imposing homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions on a disk
$\Omega$ (on the plane $(r,\phi )$) of radius equal to 1. In this
circumstance, the eigenvalue:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:auto2d}
\lambda ~=~\delta_0^2~\approx~26.37461
\end{equation}
has double multiplicity. The corresponding eigenfunctions are
orthogonal in $L^2(\Omega )$ and show a phase difference of 45
degrees (see figures 1 and 2).
\vspace{.6cm}
\begin{table}[h!]
\label{tab1} \noindent\[
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
~~~~~~~\lambda~~~~~~~ & {\it multiplicity} \\
\hline
~~5.78318 & 1 \\
14.68197 & 2 \\
26.37461 & 2 \\
30.47126 & 1 \\
40.70646 & 2 \\
49.21845 & 2 \\
57.58294 & 2 \\
70.84999 & 2 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\]
\caption{\small Eigenvalues counted with their
multiplicity of the Laplacian on a disk of radius 1, with
homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.}
\end{table}
\vspace{.2cm}
In other words, by computing the spectrum of the
Laplacian on a disk of radius 1 (see table 1), the one given in
(\ref{eq:auto2d}) is the common eigenvalue of the fourth and the
fifth eigenfunctions. Note that there are no eigenvalues with
multiplicity greater than 2. We also note that $\Phi =0$ at the boundary
of $\Omega$. These simple observations will be of primary
importance in the discussion to follow.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\vspace{.6cm}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=13.3cm,height=2.28cm]{eig1.eps}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\caption{\small Signature of the first 8 eigenfunctions of the Laplace's equation on a disk.
The first eigenfunction ($w_1$) does not change sign. The two successive ones ($w_2$ and $w_3$)
display a phase difference of 90 degrees. Then, we have $w_4$ and $w_5$ with
a phase difference of 45 degrees. The next one ($w_6$) is a single multiplicity
eigenfunction, while the last ones ($w_7$ and $w_8$) have a phase difference
of 30 degrees.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=13.3cm,height=2.28cm]{eig2.eps}}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\caption{\small Solutions of the wave equation on a disk are obtained by linearly combining
independent eigenfunction having the same eigenvalue. For example, a complete rotation
is simulated through the sequence: $w_4, w_5, -w_4, -w_5, w_4, w_5, -w_4, -w_5$.
Intermediate situations are obtained by taking $w_4\cos ct\sqrt{\lambda} +w_5\sin ct
\sqrt{\lambda}$, with $0\leq ct\sqrt{\lambda}\leq 2\pi$, where $\lambda$ is the common eigenvalue.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{The Toroid Case}
We are ready to study the 3-D case. In cylindrical coordinates
$(r,z,\phi)$, we consider the potentials:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpot}
{\bf A}~=~\frac {1} {c}\Big( a(t,r,z),~b(t,r,z),~0\Big)~~~~~~\Phi~=~-\left( \frac {\partial A}
{\partial r}+\frac {A} {r}+\frac {\partial B} {\partial z} \right)
\end{equation}
where $a$ and $b$ are functions to be computed, while $A$ and $B$
are their primitives with respect to the time variable. In this
context, the Lorenz condition (\ref{eq:color}) turns out to be
automatically satisfied. The functions $a$ and $b$ will describe
the time evolution, in a certain region $\Omega$ of the plane
$(r,z)$, of a rotating wave similar to the one studied in the
previous section (differently from the previous case, $\Omega$ is
now vertically oriented). Since there is no dependance on $\phi$,
the solution is automatically extended to a toroid $\Sigma$,
having section $\Omega$, with the axis parallel to the $z$-axis.
\par\smallskip
From the potentials we deduce the electromagnetic fields (see (\ref{eq:potenz})):
\begin{equation}\label{eq:capneu}
{\bf E}~=~\Big( -\frac {\partial \Phi} {\partial r}-\frac {1} {c^2} \frac {\partial a} {\partial t},~
-\frac {\partial \Phi} {\partial z}-\frac {1} {c^2} \frac {\partial b} {\partial t},~0\Big)~~~~~~~~~
{\bf B}~=~\frac {1} {c^2}\Big(0,~0,~\frac {\partial b} {\partial r}-\frac {\partial a} {\partial
z}\Big)
\end{equation}
We now require ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$ to satisfy the whole set of Maxwell equations (in alternative,
we get the same conclusions by imposing (\ref{eq:ondea}) and (\ref{eq:ondea1})). The result is the
following system:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torsysa}
\frac {1} {c^2}\frac {\partial^2 a} {\partial t^2}~=~\frac{\partial^2 a}{\partial z^2} ~+~\frac
{\partial} {\partial r}\left(\frac {\partial a} {\partial r}~+~ \frac {a} {r}\right)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torsysb}
\frac {1} {c^2}\frac {\partial^2 b} {\partial t^2}~=~\frac{\partial^2 b}{\partial z^2} ~+~\frac
{\partial^2 b} {\partial r^2}~+~\frac {1} {r} \frac{\partial b} {\partial r}
\end{equation}
We can couple $a$ and $b$ through the boundary condition:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torbc}
\frac {\partial a} {\partial z}~=~\frac {\partial b} {\partial r}
\end{equation}
which amounts to ask $~{\bf B}=c^{-1}{\rm curl}{\bf A}=0~$ at the contour of $\Omega$. The field
${\bf E}$ is tangential to the same boundary. As a matter of fact, thanks to
(\ref{eq:torpot})-(\ref{eq:torsysa})-(\ref{eq:torsysb}), one can write:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torsysbm}
{\bf E}~=~\left( \frac {\partial}{\partial z}\Big(\frac {\partial A}{\partial z} -\frac {\partial
B}{\partial r}\Big),~-\frac{1}{r} \frac {\partial}{\partial r} \Big( r \frac {\partial A}{\partial z}
-r\frac{\partial B}{\partial r}\Big) ,~0\right)
\end{equation}
which means that ${\bf E}$ is orthogonal to the gradient of $~r\Big(
\frac {\partial}{\partial z}A-\frac {\partial} {\partial r}B \Big)$.
Since (\ref{eq:torbc}) is valid for any $t$, such a gradient is
orthogonal to the boundary of $\Omega$, showing that ${\bf E}$ is
tangential.
\par\smallskip
Note that now the set $\Omega$ is not going to be a circle. As done
in Ref.~\cite{funaro}, section 5.4, we set $~y=r-\eta$. The domain
$\Omega$ will be centered at the point $(\eta ,0)$, where $\eta
>0$ is large enough to avoid intersection of $\Omega$ with the
$z$-axis. The quantity $2\eta$ is related to the major diameter of
the toroid.
\par\smallskip
By differentiating the first equation with respect to $z$ and the
second one with respect to $y$, one gets:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpa1}
\begin{cases}\displaystyle \frac {1} {c^2} \frac {\partial^2 u}{\partial
t^2}~=~\frac {\partial^2 u}{\partial z^2} ~+~\frac {\partial} {\partial
y}\left(\frac {\partial u} {\partial y}+ \frac {u} {y+\eta}\right) \\ \\
\displaystyle \frac {1} {c^2} \frac {\partial^2 v}{\partial t^2}~=~\frac {\partial^2 v}{\partial z^2}
~+~\frac {\partial} {\partial y}\left(\frac {\partial v} {\partial y}+ \frac {v} {y+\eta}\right)
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where we took $u=\frac {\partial}{\partial z}a~$ and $~v=\frac {\partial}{\partial r}b =\frac
{\partial}{\partial y}b$, with $u-v=0~$ on $\partial\Omega$. Furthermore, with the substitutions
$~\tilde u=u\sqrt{y+\eta}$,
$\tilde v=v\sqrt{y+\eta}$, one obtains:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpa2}
\begin{cases}\displaystyle \frac{1} {c^2}\frac {\partial^2 \tilde
u} {\partial t^2}~=~ \frac{\partial^2 \tilde u}{\partial z^2}~+~\frac {\partial^2 \tilde u}{\partial
y^2} ~-~\frac {3}{4}\frac {\tilde u} {(y+\eta)^2}
\\ \\ \displaystyle \frac{1} {c^2}\frac {\partial^2 \tilde
v} {\partial t^2}~=~ \frac{\partial^2 \tilde v}{\partial z^2}~+~\frac {\partial^2 \tilde v}{\partial
y^2} ~-~\frac {3}{4}\frac {\tilde v} {(y+\eta)^2}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
to be solved in $\Omega$, with the boundary condition: $~\tilde u-\tilde v=0$.
\par\smallskip
Similarly to the case examined in section 2, we look for solutions
associated to the second mode ($k=2$ in (\ref{eq:cbdiskk})) with
respect to the angle of rotation. According to the captions
of figures 1 and 2, the functions $\tilde u$ and
$\tilde v$ should have a phase difference of 45 degrees (this property is
now qualitative, since $\Omega$ is not a perfect disk). We fix
the area of $\Omega$ to be equal to $\pi$. For $\eta$ tending to
infinity, the set $\Omega$ converges to a circle of radius 1 and
the electromagnetic fields coincide with those given in
(\ref{eq:cbdisk}) for $\omega =\delta_0$.
\par\smallskip
We proceed by introducing a new unknown $w=\tilde u-\tilde v$ and
by taking the difference of the two equations in
(\ref{eq:torpa2}). Then, we can get rid of the time variable and
pass to the stationary eigenvalue problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpa3}
\begin{cases}\displaystyle Lw~=~-~\frac {\partial^2 w}{\partial z^2}~-~
\frac {\partial^2 w}{\partial y^2}~+~\frac {3} {4}\frac {w}{(y+\eta)^2}~= ~\lambda w~~~~{\rm
in}~\Omega \\ \displaystyle w~=~0~~~~~~~{\rm on}~\partial\Omega \end{cases}
\end{equation}
Thus, we would like $\lambda >0$ to be an eigenvalue of the
positive-definite differential operator: $L=-\frac {\partial^2}
{\partial z^2}- \frac {\partial^2} {\partial y^2}+\frac {3}
{4}(y+\eta )^{-2}$, with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary
conditions. In addition, since we want two independent
eigenfunctions with a difference of phase of 45 degrees, the
multiplicity of $\lambda$ must be equal to 2. This implicitly
defines $\Omega$. More precisely, we require that $\lambda
=\lambda_4=\lambda_5$, where $\lambda_4$ and $\lambda_5$ are the
eigenvalues of the fourth and the fifth eigenfunctions, $w_4$ and
$w_5$, of $L$ on $\Omega$. In order to preserve energy, these
eigenfunctions will be normalized in $L^2(\Omega )$. In this way,
by setting:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:solon}
\tilde u (t,y,z)-\tilde v (t,y,z)~=~w_4(y,z)\sin (ct\sqrt{\lambda })~+~w_5(y,z)\cos (ct\sqrt{\lambda
})
\end{equation}
one gets a full solution of the system (\ref{eq:torpa2}). We can finally recover the electromagnetic
fields by the expressions (see (\ref{eq:torsysbm})):
$$
{\bf E}=\frac {1} {c\sqrt{\lambda}}\left( \frac {\partial} {\partial z}\Big(\frac {-w_4\cos \zeta
+w_5\sin \zeta}{\sqrt{y+\eta}}\Big), ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ \right.
$$
$$ \left. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~ \frac{-1}{\sqrt{y+\eta}}\frac {\partial} {\partial y}\Big( (-w_4\cos \zeta
+w_5\sin \zeta )\sqrt{y+\eta}\Big),~0\right)$$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:camp}
{\bf B}~=~\frac {1}{c^2}\left( 0,~~0,~~\frac {w_4\sin \zeta +w_5\cos \zeta} {\sqrt{y+\eta}}\right)
\end{equation}
with $\zeta =ct\sqrt{\lambda }$. As in figure 2, by varying the parameter $t$, we
can simulate a rotating object.
\par\smallskip
Of course, we could also take
into consideration the case $k>2$ (see the 2-D analog
(\ref{eq:cbdiskk})) by studying the behavior of eigenvalues with
higher magnitude. The search, in this case, should be addressed
to the determination of couples of independent eigenfunctions
sharing the same eigenvalue. We think this is a viable option,
although, in order to maintain the discussion at a simple
level, we will not analyze this extension.
\par\smallskip
We now define $\Sigma =\Omega\times [0,2\pi [$, in order to get a
3-D solution not depending on $\phi$. In fluid dynamics this
structure is known as {\sl vortex ring} (see for instance Ref.~\cite
{batchelor}, section 7.2, or ~\cite{lim}). On the surface of
$\Sigma$, field ${\bf E}$ is tangential and ${\bf B}$ is zero. At
every point inside $\Sigma$, the time average during a period of
oscillation, of both ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$, is zero (see the
animations in Ref.~\cite{funweb}).
\par\smallskip
We would like to know more about the shape of $\Sigma$.
Considering that not all the sets $\Omega$ are such that
$\lambda_4$ and $\lambda_5$ are equal, we can use this property in
order to determine the right domain. This problem admits however
infinite solutions. In the next section we discuss how to find
numerically some suitable configurations.
\section{On the Optimal Shape of $\Omega$}
We first observe that, among the sets with fixed area equal to
$\pi$, the circle of radius 1, minimizes the eigenvalues of the
Laplacian with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions (see for
instance Ref.~\cite{henrot}). Due to symmetry arguments, all the
eigenvalues related to the angular modes have multiplicity 2 (see
table 1 and figure 1). The eigenfunctions are supposed to be orthogonal and
normalized in $L^2(\Omega) $. Then, the normal derivative of the
eigenfunction related to the lowest eigenvalue, has constant value
on the boundary of the disk. Similarly, the sum of the squares of
the normal derivatives of the eigenfunctions related to the second
and the third eigenvalues, is constant along the boundary. The
same is true for all the couples of eigenfunctions relative to
other eigenvalues with double multiplicity (the fourth and the
fifth, for example).
\par\smallskip
We now replace the Laplacian by the new elliptic operator
$L=-\frac {\partial^2} {\partial z^2}- \frac {\partial^2}
{\partial y^2}+\frac {3} {4}(y+\eta )^{-2}$ (see
(\ref{eq:torpa3})), with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary
conditions. We are concerned with finding a set $\Omega$, with
area equal to $\pi$, such that the fourth and the fifth
eigenvalues, $\lambda_4$ and $\lambda_5$, of $L$ are coincident.
Thanks to (\ref{eq:solon}), this allows us to determine solutions
of a wave-type equation, rotating inside $\Omega$ with an angular
velocity proportional to $\sqrt{\lambda}$, where $\lambda
=\lambda_4=\lambda_5$. In table 2, we report the eigenvalues of
$L$ on the disk centered in $(y,z)=(0,0)$ and radius equal to 1.
If $~0<\eta <1~$ the differential operator is singular inside
$\Omega$ (the corresponding toroid region $\Sigma$ has no central
hole). Therefore, we take $\eta \geq 1$. The case $\eta =1$, where
the axis $y=-\eta$ (or, equivalently, $r=0$) touches $\Omega$ at
the boundary, is still admissible. The table shows the results for
different values of $\eta$. For $\eta$ large, the fourth and the
fifth eigenvalues are quite similar, due to the fact that the term
$~\frac {3} {4}(y+\eta )^{-2}~$ becomes small. For $\eta$ close to
1, the situation is not too bad, anyway. This is especially true
for the highest eigenvalues, since the corresponding
eigenfunctions, due to the boundary constraints, decay faster near
the border of $\Omega$. Therefore, they do not ``feel'' too much the
presence of the term $~\frac {3} {4}(y+\eta )^{-2}$.
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\label{tab2} \noindent\[
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& ~~~~\eta=1 ~~~~~ & ~~~~\eta=1.2 ~~~~ & ~~~~\eta=1.5 ~~~~ & ~~~~\eta=2 ~~~~~ \\
\hline
\lambda_1 & ~~ 6.90 & ~~ 6.46 & ~~6.18 & ~~5.99 \\
\lambda_2 & 15.71 & 15.33 & 15.08 & 14.90 \\
\lambda_3 & 16.75 & 15.68 & 15.19 & 14.93 \\
\lambda_4 & 28.06 & 27.27 & 26.86 & 26.63 \\
\lambda_5 & 28.36 & 27.35 & 26.88 & 26.64 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\]
\caption{\small The first 5 eigenvalues of the operator $L$ on a disk of radius 1, for different values of
$\eta$.}
\end{table}
\par\smallskip
For any fixed $\eta$, we would like to adjust the shape of
$\Omega$ with the help of some iterative procedure. The idea is to
correct the boundary in order to fulfill a certain condition at
the limit. Before getting some interesting answers (see later), we
tried unsuccessfully different approaches. Let us discuss the one
that looked more promising. We consider the substitution:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:subs}
\hat w(y,z)~=~\frac {w(s,z)}{\sqrt{y+\eta }}~~~~~{\rm where}~~s=(y+\eta )^2
\end{equation}
In this way (\ref{eq:torpa3}) becomes:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpa5}
\begin{cases}\displaystyle -\Big(4s~\frac {\partial^2 \hat w}{\partial s^2}~+~
\frac {\partial^2 \hat w}{\partial z^2}\Big)~=~\lambda \hat w~~~~{\rm in}~\Omega \\ \\ \displaystyle
\hat w~=~0~~~~~~~{\rm on}~\partial\Omega
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where now the operator is a Laplacian with a variable coefficient.
Concerning the operator $L_\beta =-\beta \frac
{\partial^2}{\partial s^2}-\frac {\partial^2}{\partial z^2}$, for
$\beta >0$ constant, the domain $\Omega$ of fixed area equal to
$\pi$, optimizing the set of eigenvalues, is an ellipse. As in the
case of the circle ($\beta =1$), we have infinite eigenvalues with
double multiplicity. In addition, if $\hat w$ is the first
eigenfunction of $L_\beta$, the following relation is easily
checked:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpa6b}
\beta \Big(\frac {\partial \hat w}{\partial s}\Big)^2~+~ \Big(\frac {\partial \hat w}{\partial
z}\Big)^2~=~{\rm constant}~{\rm on}~\partial\Omega
\end{equation}
The idea is to generalize the above relation in the case of variable coefficients. Hence, let us
suppose that $\hat w$ is an eigenfunction corresponding to the first eigenvalue in (\ref{eq:torpa5}),
we may require that:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpa6}
4s \Big(\frac {\partial \hat w}{\partial s}\Big)^2~+~ \Big(\frac {\partial \hat w}{\partial
z}\Big)^2~=~{\rm constant}~{\rm on}~\partial\Omega
\end{equation}
For points where $s$ is large, we expect the curvature of the boundary of $\Omega$ to be high, and
viceversa. The resulting $\Sigma$ is a kind of doughnut, a bit flattened on the internal side. Due to
(\ref{eq:subs}), in terms of $w$ one has:
$$(y+\eta ) \left[\Big(\frac {w}{2\sqrt{y+\eta}}+\frac {\partial w} {\partial y}\Big)^2+
\Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}\Big)^2\right]$$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:torpa7}
=~(y+\eta ) \left[\Big(\frac {\partial w}{\partial
y}\Big)^2+ \Big(\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}\Big)^2\right]~ =~ {\rm constant}
\end{equation}
where we used that $w=0$ on $\partial \Omega$.
\par\smallskip
Relation (\ref{eq:torpa7}) is the ``target'' we would like to reach
by implementing our iterative method. To this end, starting from
the circle of radius 1, we compute the eigenfunction (normalized
in $L^2(\Omega )$) corresponding to the lowest eigenvalue in
(\ref{eq:torpa3}). We then compute its normal derivatives on
$\partial\Omega$ and correct $\Omega$ in order to enforce
condition (\ref{eq:torpa7}). For points belonging to the boundary,
the updating procedure is performed as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:itera}
{\bf P}_{\it new}~=~{\bf P}_{\it old}~+~\theta {\cal E}{\bf N}
\end{equation}
where ${\bf N}$ is the outer normal derivative, $\theta$ is a
relaxation parameter and ${\cal E}$ is the difference between the
normal derivative evaluated in ${\bf P}_{\it old}$ and the average
of the normal derivatives computed on the boundary of the current
$\Omega$. After every correction, the area of $\Omega$ is set to
$\pi$, with the help of a linear transformation. At the limit, we
would like to have ${\cal E}=0$.
\par\smallskip
In order to compute eigenvalues and eigenfunctions we used a
finite element code. In particular, we implemented MODULEF (see
Ref.~\cite{modulef} and ~\cite{george}) with $P_2$ elements. The grid
was fine enough to have reliable results up to the second decimal
digit (at least for the first eigenvalue). The solver is based on
a QR algorithm. The points to be updated through the iterative
method (\ref{eq:itera}) are the vertices of the triangles
belonging to $\partial \Omega$. The normal derivative at these
points is the average of the normal derivatives at the mid-points
of the two sides of the contiguous triangles. After the entire
boundary has been modified, a brand-new grid is generated in
$\Omega$. The performances of this technique are far from being
optimal, but their improvement is not in the scopes of the present
paper.
\par\smallskip
Unfortunately, despite all the efforts, the method did not want
to converge. A possible explanation is that relation
(\ref{eq:torpa7}) cannot be realized, because it is wrong from the
theoretical viewpoint. The iterative technique (\ref{eq:itera})
was however a good starting point to try successive variants, and,
finally, we had success with the following scheme:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:itera2}
{\bf P}_{\it new}~=~{\bf P}_{\it old}~+~\theta ~\vert \lambda_4-\lambda_5\vert~\Big( n^{(y)},~~
(y_{\it old}+\eta )n^{(z)}\Big)~~~~~{\rm on}~\partial\Omega
\end{equation}
where ${\bf N}=(n^{(y)},n^{(z)})$ is again the outer normal
derivative. This time, the fourth and the fifth eigenvalues of $L$
explicitly appear in the correcting term. Inspired by
(\ref{eq:torpa7}), the updating on the boundary is not uniform in
the variable $y$, but the second component is weighted by the
function $y+\eta $.
\par\smallskip
After suitably adjusting $\theta$, convergence is obtained in a
few iterations. The result is a domain $\Omega$ yielding
$\lambda_4=\lambda_5$. However, as anticipated, there are infinite
other domains with this property. The most interesting ones should
be those having a distribution of the eigenvalues as lower as
possible, and making the shape of $\Omega$ as rounded as possible.
We do not know if what we got by iterating (\ref{eq:itera2}) can
be considered optimal with this respect. Nevertheless, it is
important to have shown that the condition $\lambda_4=\lambda_5$
can be actually achieved (at least numerically). In table 3, one
finds the modified eigenvalues for various $\eta$ (compare with
table 2). Note instead that, for $\eta$ close to 1, $\lambda_2$
and $\lambda_3$ are not in good agreement.
\par\smallskip
For $\eta =1$ and $\eta =1.2$, the corresponding domains are
displayed in figure 3. Even for $\eta$ close to 1, they are not
too far from a circle. In figure 4, for $\eta =1$, we provide the
plot of the fourth and the fifth eigenfunctions, actually showing
a phase difference of 45 degrees (see also figures 1 and 2). For $\eta\geq 2$,
$\Omega$ is practically a circle.
\par\smallskip
The analysis carried out in this section may help to understand
the structure of fluid dynamics vortex rings. These are incredibly
stable configurations, that have been widely studied, under
different aspects. Among the vast literature we just mention for
instance the papers: ~\cite{maxworthy}, \cite{pullin},
\cite{shariff}, \cite{wakelin}. In addition, in Ref.~\cite{linden},
``optimal'' sections of vortex rings are discussed. However, in the
fluid dynamics case, the situations where the major diameter is
relatively small, bring to more pronounced deformations of the
sections.
\vspace{.5cm}
\begin{table}[ht]
\label{tab3} \noindent\[
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& ~~~~\eta=1 ~~~~~ & ~~~\eta=1.2 ~~~~~ & ~~~\eta=1.5 ~~~~~ & ~~~~\eta=2 ~~~~~ \\
\hline
\lambda_1 &~~6.85 & ~~6.44 & ~~6.17 & 5.98 \\
\lambda_2 & 15.76 & 15.32 & 15.04 & 14.89\\
\lambda_3 & 16.59 & 15.64 & 15.18 & 14.90 \\
\lambda_4 & 28.08 & 27.24 & 26.83 & 26.60 \\
\lambda_5 & 28.08 & 27.24 & 26.83 & 26.60 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\]
\caption{\small The first 5 eigenvalues of the operator $L$ on the modified domain, for different values of
$\eta$.}
\end{table}
\par\smallskip
We are not able to discuss the stability of our electromagnetic
vortices. Theoretically, using the newfound 3-D solutions, one
should build the corresponding electromagnetic stress tensor and
put it on the right-hand side of Einstein's equation, as
illustrated in Ref.~\cite{funaro}. Then, one has to solve this
nonlinear system in order to determine the metric tensor. Finally,
one should check that the quasi-circular orbits ($\Omega$ is not a
perfect circle) followed by the light rays are actually geodesics
of such a space-time environment. Note that this study depends on
the parameter $\omega$, connected to the speed of rotation of the
wave. For $\omega$ large, the size of $\Omega$ is small and the
frequency is high. We expect one or more situations of
equilibrium, where the gravitational setting and the centrifugal
effect of the spinning solitons are compensated. This would mean
that only particular geometries are admitted, specifying exactly
the shape and the size of the toroid regions.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.5cm,height=5.3cm]{fig1_1.ps}\hspace{1.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=5.2cm,height=5.3cm]{fig1_12.ps}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace*{8pt}
\caption{\small Toroid sections (solid line) compared to the circle of radius 1
(dashed-dotted line), for $\eta =1$ and $\eta =1.2$. The vertical line is the toroid axis of
symmetry.}
\vspace{-.2cm}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=5.cm,height=5.cm]{fig2_4_10.ps}\hspace{1.1cm}
\includegraphics[width=5.cm,height=5.cm]{fig2_5_10.ps}}
\vspace{-.1cm}
\vspace*{8pt}
\caption {\small The forth and the fifth normalized eigenfunctions corresponding to
the case $\eta =1$. Even if $\Omega$ is not a perfect circle, they actually display a phase
difference of 45 degrees. Each eigenfunction has two positive (white) and two negative (black)
bumps.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\par\smallskip
Of course, what we just said above turns out to be very hard to
prove, both theoretically and computationally. Note that we are
also omitting a stationary component of the electromagnetic
fields, introduced in Ref.~\cite{funaro}, which should provide charge
and mass to the particle model. We do not insist further on this
topic and we address the reader to Ref.~\cite{funaro} for additional
information.
\section{Hill's Type Vortices}
The next step is to examine what happens outside the spinning
toroid. If we were dealing with a fluid vortex, due to viscosity,
we might expect the formation of other external vortices
developing at lower frequency. This circumstance can be observed
in tornados or typhoons (see for instance Ref.~\cite{kuo}). In the
theory presented in Ref.~\cite{funaro}, an electromagnetic vortex,
through a mechanism still to be clarified, captures the
surrounding electromagnetic signals and generates a series of
encapsulated shells vibrating with decreasing frequencies. These
shells could be responsible for the quantum properties of matter.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.9cm,height=5.4cm]{toroid.eps}\hspace{1.2cm}
\includegraphics[width=4.9cm,height=5.4cm]{hill.eps}} \vspace{.1cm}
\caption{\small Successive layers of encapsulated vortex rings. In the first
picture, the toroid regions have a common central hole. In the second one, the central hole is
reduced to a vertical segment (Hill's vortex). Of course, intermediate situations combining some
shells of the first type, successively embedded in spherical vortices, could be taken into
consideration.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
Basically, there are two possible ways in which external ring
vortices may develop. As the first picture of figure 5 shows, we
may have a series of successive toroid structures, where all the
fluid stream-lines pass through a common central hole. This
situation is difficult to analyze, since we have no idea of the
shape of these regions and the location of the primary vortex
inside them. In practice, there are too many degrees of freedom to
work with.
\par\smallskip
The other situation (second picture of figure 5) is more
affordable. It represents an Hill's spherical vortex (see
Ref.~\cite{batchelor}, section 7.2, and Ref.~\cite{elcrat} for some
computational results), successively surrounded by other spherical
layers. Thus, we now know exactly the shape of these structures.
We just have to find the location (and the relative size) of the
primary toroid vortex inside the most internal sphere. This
research will lead us to interesting conclusions.
\par\smallskip
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=13.cm,height=6.5cm]{domini.eps}}\vspace{-.3cm}
\vspace*{8pt}
\caption{\small Sections of spherical vortices.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}\vspace{-.5cm}
We start by considering the domain $A$ in figure 6. We set the
radius equal to 1, so that the area is $\pi /2$. We solve in
$\Omega =A$ the eigenvalue problem (\ref{eq:torpa3}), involving
the operator $L=-\frac {\partial^2}{\partial
z^2}-\frac{\partial^2}{\partial r^2} +\frac{3} {4r^2}$ ($r=y+\eta$
with $\eta =0$). In the first column of table 4, we report the
approximated eigenvalues, obtained by discretization with the
finite element method. As the reader can notice, the fourth and
the fifth eigenvalues are not coincident. Therefore, for a perfect
spherical vortex, we have no chances to obtain solutions of the
time-dependent wave equation. In alternative, we could modify a
bit the shape of the domain $A$ or accept solutions whose
stream-lines are not stationary. This is not however the path we
would like to follow. If the rotation inside $\Omega$ is generated
by an internal spinning toroid, we may cut out a hole (as in the
domains $B$ and $C$) and see what happens to the spectrum of $L$.
For simplicity, the hole will be a circle of a certain radius,
suitably placed in a specific spot (although we know from section
4 that such a hole is slightly deformed). Playing with the size
and the location of the circle, we look for situations in which
the fourth and the fifth eigenvalues ($\lambda_4$ and
$\lambda_5$) of $L$ are the same.
\par\smallskip
Surprisingly, this research seems to have a finite number of
solutions. According to table 4 (columns 2 and 3), we have
coincidence of $\lambda_4$ and $\lambda_5$ in two particular
cases. In the first one, the center of the small circle is placed
at point $(\frac{1} {2},0)$ and the radius is approximately equal
to $r_B=.0505$. In the second one, the center is at $(\frac {1}
{4},0)$ and the radius is approximately equal to $r_C=.00520$.
With the exception of these cases, by varying the magnitude and
the position of the internal circles, we always found
$\lambda_4\not = \lambda_5$. In our experiments we did not try
anyway all the possible configurations, thus we do not exclude the
existence of other significant settings.
\begin{table}[!h]\vspace{.5cm}
\label{tab4} \noindent\[
\begin{array}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& ~{domain}~A ~ & ~{domain}~B ~ & ~{domain}~ C~ & ~{domain}~D ~ \\
\hline
\lambda_1 & 20.24 & 30.23 & 21.64 & 0.63 \\
\lambda_2 & 33.29 & 34.16 & 33.32 & 0.99 \\
\lambda_3 & 48.94 & 54.82 & 49.09 & 1.45 \\
\lambda_4 & 59.82 & 68.15 & 67.17 & 1.99 \\
\lambda_5 & 67.11 & 68.15 & 67.17 & 1.99 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\]
\caption{\small The first 5 eigenvalues of the operator $L$, based on the four domains given in figure 6,
with homogeneous Dirichlet boundary conditions.}
\end{table}
We provide in figure 7 the discretization grids. We show in
figures 8 and 9, the time evolution of the rotating waves,
obtained from expression (\ref{eq:solon}) for equispaced values of
$t$ with $c\sqrt{\lambda}t\in [0,\pi]$ (half-cycle). In the first
case, the spherical flow is chained to the inner toroid. In the
second case, the flow avoids the toroid, still remaining inside
the spherical region. The sequence looks rather complicated. With
the help of some imagination, one can see two anti-clockwise
rotating waves, circulating independently in the lower and the
upper quarters. They have different phases, so that the positive
(white) bumps and the negative (black) ones, alternately merge to
form a single protuberance situated near the center. The pictures
only show half of the cycle. Then, the sequence restarts with the
two colors interchanged. The corresponding animations can be found in
Ref.~\cite{funweb} (click {\it related papers}).
\par\smallskip
We point out once again that we are dealing with electromagnetic
waves. Therefore, we should ask ourselves what happens to the
vector fields. Our plots actually show the evolution of the
function $~\frac{\partial}{\partial r}b -\frac{\partial}{\partial
z}a$, where ${\bf A}=c^{-1}(a,b,0)$ is the vector potential. Using
(\ref{eq:capneu}), (\ref{eq:torsysbm}) and (\ref{eq:camp}), one
then computes ${\bf E}$ and ${\bf B}$. We discover that, at each
point, when time passes, the tips of the arrows of the electric
field turn around, describing elliptic orbits (see the animations
in Ref.~\cite{funweb} in the case of a circle). The average of ${\bf
E}$ during a cycle is zero. The frequency of rotation is globally
the same, but, depending on the point, it is associated with a
different phase, so that the general framework seems quite
unorganized.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\vspace{.2cm}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=4.8cm,height=8.cm]{gri1.ps}
\hspace{1.5cm}\includegraphics[width=4.8cm,height=8.cm]{gri2.ps} }
\caption{\small Discretization grids for the domains $B$ and $C$. The mesh is finer
near the vertical axis since the differential operator $L$ is singular there. The degrees of freedom
(internal and boundary nodes) are 2324 and 1968, respectively. In the right-hand side picture, the
hole is very small.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!ph]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db1.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db2.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db3.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db4.eps}} \vspace{.07cm}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db5.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db6.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db7.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db8.eps}} \vspace{.07cm}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db9.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db10.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db11.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{db12.eps}}\vspace{.2cm}
\vspace*{8pt}
\caption{\small Rotating wave in a Hill's spherical vortex: case of the domain $B$.
The sequence is referred to half cycle and terminates with the colors inverted. The small inner
circle is spinning at a frequency more than 12 times greater, dragging the spherical wave along
circulating paths.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!ph]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc1.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc2.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc3.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc4.eps}} \vspace{.07cm}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc5.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc6.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc7.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc8.eps}} \vspace{.07cm}
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc9.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc10.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc11.eps}
\hspace{.06cm}\includegraphics[width=3.1cm,height=4.4cm]{dc12.eps}}\vspace{.2cm}
\vspace*{8pt}
\caption{\small Rotating wave in a Hill's spherical vortex: case of the domain $C$. The tiny
inner circle (hardly visible in the pictures) is spinning at a frequency about 120 times greater. The
behavior is qualitatively the same as in figure 8, but now the wave do not pass between the circle
and the vertical axis.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\newpage
From the size of the hole, we can estimate the frequency of
rotation of the internal toroid regions. Such a frequency is
proportional to the square root of a suitable eigenvalue. We take
the value $\sqrt{26.37}\approx 5.135$, that, according to table 1,
is the square root of the eigenvalue corresponding to the fourth
and the fifth eigenfunctions, for a circle of radius 1.
Afterwards, by scaling, we get the frequencies on the reduced
circles: $5.135/ r_B\approx 101.68$ and $5.135/ r_C\approx 987.5$.
Thus, the ratio between the frequencies of the inner spinning
rings and the spherical vortices are given by (see table 4, the
last line of the second and the third columns):
$101.68/\sqrt{68.15}\approx 12.31$ and $987.5/\sqrt{67.17}\approx
120.48$, respectively. Note that these numbers may be affected by
rounding errors (in particular, we expect an error bound of $\pm
0.005$ in the computation of the eigenvalues), therefore they
should be taken with a little caution. Of course, more trustable
results can be obtained with a finer mesh.
\par\smallskip
Finally, considering the second picture of figure 5, we can study
the next external spherical shell, whose section is given by the
set $D$ of figure 6. Let us suppose that the radius of the inner
circumference is equal to 1, and let us find the outer radius
$r_D$ in order to have $\lambda_4 = \lambda_5$. From the
experiments we deduce $r_D\approx 5.80$. This gives $\lambda_4 =
\lambda_5\approx 1.99$ (see the last column of table 4). The
number of degrees of freedom, including internal and boundary
points, is 1857. The two corresponding eigenfunctions are shown in
figure 10. Their time evolution is very similar to the one of
figure 9.
\par\smallskip
We can confirm and improve these last results by explicitly
determining, in terms of classical orthogonal basis, the solutions
of the wave equation. Due to the simplicity of the domain $D$, we can
actually use separation of variables in spherical coordinates
$(r,\theta ,\phi)$. Note that here the variable $r$ has a
different meaning: before it was the distance from the axis
$(0,z,0)$, now it is the distance from the center $(0,0,0)$.
According to Ref.~\cite{watson} and Ref.~\cite{funaro}, p. 15, we can get
solutions to the spherical vector wave equation by linear
combination of the functions:
$$
\sqrt{r}~J_{n+1/2}(r \sqrt{\lambda})~\sin\theta~P^\prime_n(\cos\theta )~\cos(ct\sqrt{\lambda})
$$
\begin{equation}\label{eq:besselb}
\sqrt{r}~Y_{n+1/2}(r \sqrt{\lambda})~\sin\theta~P^\prime_n(\cos\theta )~\cos(ct\sqrt{\lambda})
\end{equation}
where $P_n$ is the $n$-degree Legendre polynomial and $J_{n+1/2}$ and $Y_{n+1/2}$ are the Bessel
functions of the first and the second kind, respectively.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centerline{\includegraphics[width=6.cm,height=8.5cm]{deig5.ps}
\hspace{.2cm}\includegraphics[width=6.cm,height=8.5cm]{deig4.ps} }
\vspace*{8pt}
\caption{\small Two independent eigenfunctions in the case of the domain
$D$, for $\lambda_4 = \lambda_5\approx 1.9639$.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
We are concerned with the cases $n=1$ and $n=4$. For these values,
the functions in (\ref{eq:besselb}) have, with respect to the
azimuthal variable $\theta$, one single bump or 4 consecutive
bumps, respectively (see figure 10). As a matter of fact, we have:
$\sin\theta P^\prime_1(\cos\theta )=\sin\theta~$ and $~\sin\theta
P^\prime_4(\cos\theta )=\frac{5}{2}\sin\theta\cos\theta
(7\cos^2\theta-3)$. Regarding instead the radial variable $r$, we
would like to find suitable linear combinations of the functions
in (\ref{eq:besselb}), in order to impose homogeneous Dirichlet
boundary conditions at $r=1$ and $r=r_D$. In agreement with the
results obtained by implementing the finite element method,
playing with the zeros of Bessel functions, yields:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ribes}
\lambda =\lambda_4 =\lambda_5~\approx~1.9639~~~~~~~~{\rm and}~~~~~~~~~~r_D~\approx~5.839
\end{equation}
These data are now more accurate. The correct assemblage of the
radial basis functions can be seen in figure 11. The first picture
shows a linear combination of $J_{3/2}$ and $Y_{3/2}$ ($n=1$), the
second one a linear combination of $J_{9/2}$ and $Y_{9/2}$
($n=4$). Up to multiplicative constants, this setting is unique if
we impose the boundary conditions at the endpoints of the same
interval $[1,r_D]$. In a similar way, we can also update the
values of table 4 (fourth column), namely: $\lambda_1\approx
.626$, $\lambda_2\approx .980$, $\lambda_3\approx 1.432$.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[h]
\vspace{-2.cm}
\hspace{-.4cm}
\centerline{
\includegraphics[width=4.2cm,height=6cm]{bes1.eps}
\hspace{2.truecm}
\includegraphics[width=4.2cm,height=6cm]{bes2.eps}
}
\vspace{1.cm}
\caption{\small Plots of combinations of Bessel functions of first and
second kind, vanishing at $r=1$ and $r=r_D$.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
Further external shells are obtained by linearly amplifying the
domain $D$. In this way, the size of the successive nested shells
grows geometrically by a factor $5.839$, and the corresponding
frequencies are progressively reduced by the same factor. Like
gears of increasing magnitude connected together, the shells
transmit their signals far away from the source, through a
quantized process, causing a decay of the frequency at each step
(see Ref.~\cite{funaro}, section 6.1).
\par\smallskip
As a last example, we examine the case of figure 12, where the
curved part of the domain $E$ is an ellipse. We recall that when
the Hill's vortex is perfectly spherical (domain $A$ in figure 6)
there is no chance to get coincident eigenvalues (see the first
column of table 4). However, by reducing the vertical axis, the
situation improves without the help of internal holes. We found
out that $\lambda_4=\lambda_5$ when the ratio between the vertical
and the horizontal axis is equal to .6035 (see table 5). The
evolution of the solution is expected to be similar to that of
figures 8 and 9.
\par\smallskip
In Ref.~\cite{sullivan}, predictions and experimental verifications
about the formation of stable configurations consisting of an
elliptic-shaped Hill's type vortex, generated by an internal thin
vortex ring, are discussed. Further indications might come from
our approach, based on the study of $\lambda_4$ and $\lambda_5$,
by simultaneously arranging the eccentricity of the ellipse and
the location and the size of the internal vortex. The
configuration is going to be similar to the one of figure 4 in
Ref.~\cite{sullivan}. We tried a few qualitative experiments in this
direction, but, having too many degrees of freedom, a careful
analysis is a technical exercise that we would prefer to avoid at
the moment. Therefore, we do not anticipate any result.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centerline{\hspace{1.cm}{\includegraphics[width=6cm,height=6cm]{dominioe.eps}}}
\vspace*{8pt}
\caption{\small Elliptic section with semi-axis equal to 1 and .6035.}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}\vspace{.5cm}
\label{tab1} \noindent \[
\begin{array}{|c|c|}
\hline
& ~~{domain}~E ~~ \\
\hline
\lambda_1 & ~~26.96 \\
\lambda_2 & ~~56.97 \\
\lambda_3 & ~~64.53 \\
\lambda_4 & 101.95 \\
\lambda_5 & 101.99 \\
\hline
\end{array}
\]
\begin{caption}{\small Eigenvalues corresponding to the domain E of figure 12.}
\end{caption}
\end{table}
\medskip
\section{Conclusions}
With the help of numerical simulations, we demonstrated the
possibility of building electromagnetic waves trapped in bounded
3-D regions of space. We did not insist too much on issues related to
the performances of the algorithms. We are conscious of the fact
that the methods used can be certainly ameliorated, in terms
of costs versus accuracy. Nevertheless, this was not our primary concern.
\par\smallskip
We think that the results we got may have a
general validity independently on the field of applications.
In fact, the approach we followed, based on the determination
of periodic solutions to the wave equation through the analysis of
certain eigenvalues of a suitable differential operator, may
be applied in several circumstances. For example, as an alternative,
this technique may be employed in fluid dynamics (for stable periodic flows),
where computations are usually
carried out by discretizing the equations by some time-advancing
procedure. However, the meaning of the results obtained here is deeper,
since they are related to the approximation of a complete system of hyperbolic
equations (namely the Maxwell's equations) and not just to the detection of
the flow-field. As a matter of fact, the information carried by
our waves is not a scalar density field, but it consists of two separated
vector fields: the electric and the magnetic ones. These can be fully
expressed by the relations in (\ref{eq:camp}).
\par\smallskip
A recent subject of research, that could benefit from our
investigation, is the detection of quantum vortex rings in
superfluid helium (the literature in the field is very rich, see
for instance Ref.~\cite{barenghi} for a general overview). Note that,
in liquid helium, the thickness of these rings is on the order
of a few Angstroms. Other related topics might be the study of
{\sl ball lightning} phenomena (see for instance Ref.~\cite{alana} and
Ref.~\cite{zou}) or {\sl ring nebulae} and their halos (see for
instance Ref.~\cite{bryce}).
\par\smallskip
Our analysis might inspire interesting applications, that
at the moment we are unable to predict. Indeed, we showed that it is
possible to detect 3-D regions of space, where an electromagnetic
wave, suitably supplied through the boundary, can freely travel
without bouncing off the walls. Moreover, we also explained how to build
these regions. We are not enough experienced in the field of applications
to find an employment for such resonant boxes, but this paper may suggest to some
interested reader how to use them to create new tools or improve existing ones.
\par\smallskip
Finally, we recall that the stability of these
structures is a consequence of gravitational modifications of the
space-time generated by the movement of the wave itself, according
to Einstein's equation. In fact, the wave travels like a fluid,
along closed stream-lines, that turn out to be geodesics of such a
modified geometry (see also Ref.~\cite{funaro2}). Thus, in the electrodynamic
framework, a complete analysis of stability depends on the resolution of a
complex relativistic problem. Nevertheless, we hope that the
simple investigation carried out in this paper may represent a
step ahead towards a better comprehension of the mechanism of
vortex formation, whatever the constituents are (fields or real
matter).
\par\smallskip
|
\section{Introduction}
With the advent of the Chandra X-ray Observatory, sub arcsec
resolution became available in the 0.5 to 10 keV band. This
technological advance resulted in an increase in the number of sources
with detections of X-ray jets and hotspots from a few to close to one
hundred. During the last ten years, it became apparent
that the conventional wisdom (that knots in jets were the results of
internal shocks) was only part of the story. We now realize that for
X-ray synchrotron features, any emission region must also be an
acceleration region since the timescales for radiative losses of the
emitting electrons is much shorter than travel times from one part of
the jet to downstream regions. Characteristic loss times for X-ray
synchrotron-emitting electrons is ten times shorter than for those
responsible for the optical emission.
\subsection{Angular resolution vs. physical resolution}
One of the main obstacles in comparing features in FRI jets with those
in quasar and FRII jets is the large change in physical resolution
for a fixed angular resolution. In Table~\ref{tab:res} we give the
physical resolution corresponding to one arcsec for a sample of
sources. Typical angular resolutions for adaptive optics, the VLA,
MERLIN, and HST will be 0.1 arcsec and VLBA can provide resolutions of
1 to 10 milli arcsec.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Physical size corresponding to one arcsec}
\begin{tabular}{llrrl}
\tableline\tableline
Source & redshift & Distance & size & Description\\
& & (Mpc) & (pc) & \\
\tableline
Cen A & & 3.5 & 17 & FRI jet \\
M87 & 0.00427 & 16 & 77 & FRI jet \\
PicA & 0.035 & 152 & 700 & FRII jet and hotspot \\
CygA & 0.056 & 247 & 1070 & FRII hotspots \\
3C273 & 0.158 & 749 & 2700 & CDQ jet \\
3C109 & 0.3056 & 3338 & 4500 & FRII hotspot \\
3C263 & 0.656 & 3934 & 7000 & LDQ hotspot \\
3C280 & 1 & 6600 & 8000 & FRII hotspots \\
3C9 & 2 & 15850 & 8500 & LDQ jet \\
1508 & 4.3 & 39809 & 6900 & CDQ knot \\
\tableline
\end{tabular} \label{tab:res}
\end{center}
\end{table}
When we make our calculations for physical parameters of jet knots, we
are most likely making gross errors because of this limitation. In
fig.~\ref{fig:cena} we can understand that measuring the size,
brightness, intensity, and spectrum of a knot in the M87 jet, or in
the jet of Cen A (if it were at the distance of M87), will not provide the
data necessary to derive the correct physical parameters for the features we
can actually discern in the full resolution X-ray map (bottom panel).
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{0.8}
\plotone{Harris_fig1.eps}
\caption{Chandra images of the M87 jet (top) and the Cen A jet (middle
and bottom). All images have been rotated and contours increase by
factors of two. The scale bars are 1 kpc long. The M87 image has
been regridded to one tenth of a native ACIS pixel and smoothed with a
Gaussian of FWHM=0.25$^{\prime\prime}$. The center image is how the
Cen A jet would appear if it were at the distance of M87. The bottom
image shows the event file which demonstrates that the lower resolution
image misses the fine scale structures. \label{fig:cena}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Is the X-ray emission from quasar jets synchrotron or inverse
Compton emission ?}
While no definitive answer to this question has been demonstrated, we
are reasonably confident that X-ray emission from FRI jets is
dominated by synchrotron emission. The remaining contentious issue is
the nature of the X-ray emission from quasar jets. If it is
synchrotron, then the electrons responsible for the radiation will
have energies of $\gamma\geq~10^7$ ($\gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of
the electrons). However, since the energy density of the cosmic
microwave background (CMB) in the jet frame will be augmented by
$\Gamma^2$ ($\Gamma$ is the bulk Lorentz factor of the jet) if
$\Gamma\geq$5, the resulting inverse Compton (IC) emission comes from
electrons with $\gamma\approx$100. In the former case $E^2$ losses
(i.e. synchrotron and IC) result in halflives of order a year, whereas
in the latter case, it would be $\geq~10^5$ years, and even longer for
regions with magnetic field strengths significantly less than 1
mG~\citep{hk02}. Knot morphology and intensity ratios between radio and
X-ray might be quite different depending on which process dominates
the X-ray emission.
Synchrotron self-Compton (SSC) emission (for which the target photons
are the synchrotron photons) has been found to provide reasonable
fits to the spectra of some FRII hotspots, but has generally not been
able to explain knot emission~\citep{hard04}.
\section{Multiband Aspects of Knots}
For almost all X-ray detections of knots and hotspots, there is a very good
correspondence between the X-ray and radio morphologies, but the intensity
ratio (X-ray flux divided by the radio flux) varies considerably.
\subsection{The X-ray to radio intensity ratio, $R_{\rm{xr}}$}
From a study of over a hundred knots and hotspots with both radio and
X-ray detections, it has been found that $R_{\rm{xr}}$ lies in the range 1 to
100 for knots of both FRI radio galaxies and quasars whereas most hotspots (both
FRII and quasar) have ratios in the range 0.03 to 3~\citep{harr10}. In
that work we did not sample the much larger number of radio knots with
only upper limits of X-ray intensity, so it is quite likely that there
are many knots and hotspots with smaller $R_{\rm{xr}}$ values. {\it A
priori}, if quasar knots were all dominated by IC/CMB X-ray emission,
we might have expected to see a clear difference in $R_{\rm{xr}}$ between
quasars and FRI knots; instead we find essentially the same range for
both classes of sources.
\subsection{Offsets and progressions}
``Offsets'' is a term we use to describe a common (but not universal)
property of individual X-ray knots. In many cases, when observed with
similar angular resolutions, the brightness of the X-ray image peaks
upstream of the lower frequency emissions. This behavior is seen also
when comparing optical and radio morphologies, and to the best of our
knowledge, always occurs in the sense that the higher frequency peaks
upstream of lower frequencies. This subject is discussed in section
3.2.1.1 of \citet{hk06}, and several examples are shown.
The term ``progressions'' is used to describe a systematic change in the
overall spectral properties of knots as a function of distance from
the nucleus. This has also been covered in \citet{hk06}
(section 3.2.1.2). The systematic change is best seen in the ratio of
X-ray flux to radio flux and occurs in the sense that the ratio is
larger closer to the nucleus. In the case of 3C~273, the ratio
changes by two orders of magnitude, whereas for 4C~19.44, the effect
is essentially absent.
It is not difficult to see that if a jet segment that behaved like
3C~273 were observed with a single resolution element, it would
show a marked offset between the peak of the X-ray compared
to the peak of the radio distribution.
Since this sort of effect has been observed over many physical scales,
it is likely that synchrotron loss time compared to travel time down
the jet is not the only cause of offsets. Rather some other mechanism
is at work such as a progressively larger field strength moving down
stream. That would produce higher radio intensities as well as
perhaps curtailing the production of the very high energy electrons
required to produce X-ray synchrotron emission.
\section{Mechanisms for Knot Production}
Our basic assumption is that a knot is a region of enhanced emissivity
which is produced by the jet. It is moving relativistically, but not
necessarily at the same velocity as ``the jet'' (i.e. the velocity of
the power flow)~\citep{hk07}. One can imagine several mechanisms for
modulating the emissivity along a jet. We consider several
possibilities, and suggest a few diagnostics. We do not consider the
underlying reasons for the existence of any particular knot at any
particular location (i.e. instabilities, interactions with stars,
molecular clouds, etc).
\subsection{The classical shock scenario}
Perhaps the most intuitive explanation for knotty jets is the common
notion of a series of shocks. Each would create a new supply of
relativistic electrons with a power law distribution determined by the
local conditions. The eventual dimming as the shocked plasma is
advected down stream can be caused by $E^2$ losses or expansion (first
power of energy). For $E^2$ losses, we expect the lower frequency
emissions to last longer, leading to offsets in peak brightness as we
move downstream. This is often seen in synchrotron jets; for IC/CMB
models, the X-rays come from low energy electrons and should last
longer. This behavior is almost never seen, although the end of the
jet in 4C19.44 could be an example.
\subsection{Adiabatic expansion/contraction}
Although quite similar to the shock scenario, there is no shock
acceleration as such. The only changes to the electron energy
distribution comes from the change in volume of the emitting region.
In both the shock case and the change in volume, compression augments
the magnetic field and boosts the energy of electrons; expansion reduces
synchrotron emission both from the lowering of electron energies, but
also by the drop in field strength and moreover, for a fixed observing
band, a lower field means you are observing higher energy electrons
than previously so you are sampling a segment of the electron spectrum
that has many fewer electrons. In the case of IC/CMB X-rays, the
emissivity drops only because the normalization factor of the power
law distribution of electron energy drops; the change in magnetic field has
no effect. Therefore, if expansion were to be the dominent operator
for separating adjacent knots, it would mean that the contrast from
knot to inter-knot should be greater in the radio/optical than in the
X-rays for the IC/CMB model whereas if synchrotron emission dominates
the X-ray emissivity, the contrast should be sensibly the same at
all frequencies.
\subsection{Episodic activity/ejection - power flow is not constant}
If kpc jets are similar to pc scale jets, an episodic supply of power
to the jet by the SMBH could produce a series of moving knots: knots
represent high power intervals of activity, gaps are when the power is
low or absent (c.f. the ``flip-flop'' model of jet formation). If
such a mechanism were to be the only formative one, there would have
to be two timescales: one for pc scale jets and the other for kpc
scale jet knots. Current evidence does not favor this scenario,
e.g. the upstream edge of HST-1 (a jet knot close to the nucleus of
M87) was thought to have an apparent velocity close to c (downstream
blobs were estimated at 6c~\citep{bir99}) from HST data in the 1990's.
More recently, we measured comparable values at 1.7 GHz~\citep{che07}.
However, the upstream edge of HST-1 has not moved during the
intervening 10 years, consistent with an interpretation in terms of a
stationery shock. We suspect that both estimates for the motion of the
upstream edge were centroid shifts caused by the ejection of new
components.
\subsection{Doppler boosting along a curved trajectory}
If the path of a jet changes direction compared to the line of sight,
either by thrashing or by a regular (e.g. helical) path, apparent
knots can be produced even though the jet itself has a steady power
flow. Once the jet has $\Gamma~\geq$ a few, moving in and out of the
beaming cone can produce the required brightness fluctuations.
The simple expectation is that the radio and X-ray emissions will be
coincident: each knot will have the same location and morphology for
all wavelengths, i.e. no offsets are expected in the brightness
distributions. If the X-rays come from IC/CMB, for most jets the
contrast should be higher for the X-rays because of the extra beaming
factor of IC/CMB ~\citep{hk02,mas09}.
\subsection{Variable Beaming Factor}
If it were possible to ``store'' jet energy in some other form than in
the bulk Lorentz factor, it might be conceivable to envisage a jet
with an oscillating value of $\Gamma$. However, if the total energy
flow is proportional to $\Gamma$, it would seem difficult to allow
$\Gamma$ to drop substantially and then to increase again. If we
separate the emitting region from the underlying jet, then the knot's
emission might well decay from a drop in $\Gamma$, and the subsequent
knot would have to rely on one of the other possible explanations to
generate a new emitting volume.
\section{Summary}
What we observe is not necessarily ``the jet''. ``The jet'' is whatever
it is that carries the energy from the environs of the SMBH to
distances of hundreds of kpc. There are a number of possibilities:
magnetic field/ Poynting flux, hot or cold protons, or cold pairs.
What we see are hot electrons/positrons, but these cannot be the agent
that transports the energy since there are inescapable IC losses for
electrons with $\gamma\geq$2000~\citep{hk07}. The larger the $\Gamma$ of
the jet (to minimize the local flow of time for $E^2$ losses), the
larger the IC losses since the effective energy density of the CMB
increases as $\Gamma^2$. Thus we have the river analogy: ``the jet''
is a river with smoothly flowing water; the emission we see is like
white water produced by turbulence around rocks in the river or
waterfalls. The white water is a product of the river and may well be
carried along by the river's flow, but not necessarily with the
underlying velocity of the water. All our observations describe the
product, not the jet itself. When we see a knot, we see a location
where energy is transferred from the jet to produce hot (radiating)
electrons. For many knots, the energy transferred is a small fraction
of the total power of the jet, whereas for terminal hotspots in FRII
radio galaxies, the transfer is complete.
If IC/CMB dominates the X-ray emission, it seems that creating knot
structure is a non-trivial problem. Curved trajectories and episodic
ejection from the SMBH may be amongst the few viable options, since
once a substantial population of low energy electrons is generated, it
is difficult to reduce the emissivity and then increase it again.
We suggest a diagnostic of comparing the brightness contrast between
the peak intensity of a knot and the preceding and following minimum
brightness (the gap between knots). If expansion and contraction is
the dominant mechanism for knot production, the synchrotron emission
should have a much larger contrast than IC/CMB emission. If however a
change in direction of the beaming cone is the principal operative,
then the IC/CMB emission should (statistically) display the higher
contrast.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
It is a pleasure to acknowledge collaborators C. C. Cheung,
F. Massaro, and L. Stawarz. Partial support for this work was
provided by NASA grants AR6-7013X and G09-0108X.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{s1}
Since a considerable part of W.\ Plessas' research focuses on various aspects of nonlocal (in particular, separable) interactions, we thought it would be appropriate to derive some of our recent results on Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps and Fredholm determinants in \cite{GMZ07} in the context of nonlocal interactions.
To illustrate the principle ideas underlying this paper, we briefly recall a
celebrated result of Jost and Pais \cite{JP51}, who proved in 1951 a spectacular
reduction of the Fredholm determinant associated with the Birman--Schwinger kernel of a one-dimensional Schr\"odinger operator on a half-line, to a simple Wronski determinant of distributional solutions of the underlying
Schr\"odinger equation. This Wronski determinant also equals the so-called Jost function of the corresponding half-line Schr\"odinger operator. In this paper we prove a certain multi-dimensional variant of this result in the presence of nonlocal (in fact, trace class) interactions.
To describe the result due to Jost and Pais \cite{JP51}, we need a few preparations (we refer to our list of notations at the end of the introduction).
Denoting by $H_{0,+}^D$ and $H_{0,+}^N$ the one-dimensional Dirichlet and Neumann Laplacians in $L^2((0,\infty);dx)$, and assuming
\begin{equation}
\widehat V\in L^1((0,\infty);dx), \label{1.1}
\end{equation}
we introduce the perturbed Schr\"odinger operators
$\widehat H_{+}^D$ and $\widehat H_{+}^N$ in $L^2((0,\infty);dx)$ by
\begin{align}
&\widehat H_{+}^Df=-f''+ \widehat Vf, \notag \\
&f\in \text{\rm{dom}}\big(\widehat H_{+}^D\big)= \big\{g\in L^2((0,\infty); dx) \,\big|\, g,g'
\in AC([0,R])
\text{ for all $R>0$}, \\
& \hspace*{4.6cm} g(0)=0, \, \big(-g''+ \widehat Vg\big)\in L^2((0,\infty); dx)\big\}, \notag \\
&\widehat H_{+}^Nf=-f''+ \widehat Vf, \notag \\
&f\in \text{\rm{dom}}\big(\widehat H_{+}^N\big)= \big\{g\in L^2((0,\infty); dx) \,\big|\, g,g'
\in AC([0,R])
\text{ for all $R>0$}, \\
& \hspace*{4.5cm} g'(0)=0, \, \big(-g''+ \widehat Vg\big)\in L^2((0,\infty); dx)\big\}. \notag
\end{align}
(Here $AC([0,R])$ denotes the set of absolutely continuous functions on $[0,R]$.)
Thus, $\widehat H_{+}^D$ and $\widehat H_{+}^N$ are self-adjoint if and only if $\widehat V$ is
real-valued, but the latter restriction plays no special role in our present context.
A fundamental system of solutions $\phi_+^D(z,\cdot)$,
$\theta_+^D(z,\cdot)$, and the Jost solution $f_+(z,\cdot)$ of
\begin{equation}
-\psi''(z,x)+ \widehat V\psi(z,x)=z\psi(z,x), \quad z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash\{0\}, \;
x\geq 0, \label{1.4}
\end{equation}
are then introduced via the standard Volterra integral equations
\begin{align}
\phi_+^D(z,x)&=z^{-1/2}\sin(z^{1/2}x)+\int_0^x dx' \, z^{-1/2}\sin(z^{1/2}(x-x'))
\widehat V(x')\phi_+^D(z,x'), \\
\theta_+^D(z,x)&=\cos(z^{1/2}x)+\int_0^x dx' \, z^{-1/2}\sin(z^{1/2}(x-x'))
\widehat V(x')\theta_+^D (z,x'), \\
f_+(z,x)&=e^{iz^{1/2}x}-\int_x^\infty dx' \,
z^{-1/2}\sin(z^{1/2}(x-x')) \widehat V(x')f_+(z,x'), \label{1.7} \\
&\hspace*{3.85cm} z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash\{0\}, \; \Im(z^{1/2})\geq 0, \;
x\geq 0. \notag
\end{align}
In addition, we introduce
\begin{equation}
\widehat u=\exp\big(i\arg\big(\widehat V\big)\big)\big|\widehat V\big|^{1/2},
\quad \widehat v=\big|\widehat V\big|^{1/2}, \, \text{ so
that } \, \widehat V= \widehat u\, \widehat v,
\end{equation}
and denote by $I_+$ the identity operator in $L^2((0,\infty); dx)$. Moreover,
we denote by
\begin{equation}
W(f,g)(x)=f(x)g'(x)-f'(x)g(x), \quad x \geq 0,
\end{equation}
the Wronskian of $f$ and $g$, where $f,g \in C^1([0,\infty))$.
Then, the following results hold:
\begin{theorem} \label{t1.1}
Assume $\widehat V\in L^1((0,\infty);dx)$ and let $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash [0,\infty)$
with $\Im(z^{1/2})>0$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0,+}^D-z I_+\big)^{-1} \widehat v}, \,
\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0,+}^N-z I_+\big)^{-1} \widehat v} \in {\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2((0,\infty);dx)\big)
\label{1.10}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}
\det\Big(I_+ +\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0, +}^D-z I_+\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big) &=
1+z^{-1/2}\int_0^\infty dx\, \sin(z^{1/2}x) \widehat V(x)f_+(z,x) \notag \\
&= W(f_+(z,\cdot),\phi_+^D(z,\cdot)) = f_+(z,0), \label{1.11} \\
\det\Big(I_+ +\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0, +}^N-z I_+\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big)
&= 1+ i z^{-1/2} \int_0^\infty
dx\, \cos(z^{1/2}x) \widehat V(x)f_+(z,x) \notag \\
&= - \frac{W(f_+(z,\cdot),\theta_+^D (z,\cdot))}{i z^{1/2}} =
\frac{f_+'(z,0)}{i z^{1/2}}. \label{1.12}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Equation \eqref{1.11} is the modern formulation of the classical result due to Jost and
Pais \cite{JP51} (cf.\ also \cite{BF60} and the detailed discussion in \cite{GM03}). Performing calculations similar to Section 4 in \cite{GM03} for the pair of
operators $H_{0,+}^N$ and $\widehat H_+^N$, one obtains the analogous result
\eqref{1.12}.
For an extension of the classical Jost--Pais formula \eqref{1.11} from local
interactions $\widehat V$ to nonlocal interactions we refer to \cite{WB71} (see
also \cite{SW71}).
We emphasize that \eqref{1.11} and \eqref{1.12} exhibit the
remarkable fact that the Fredholm determinant associated with trace
class operators in the infinite-dimensional space $L^2((0,\infty);
dx)$ is reduced to a simple Wronski determinant of ${\mathbb{C}}$-valued
distributional solutions of \eqref{1.4}. This fact goes back to Jost
and Pais \cite{JP51} (see also \cite{BF60}, \cite{GM03}, \cite{Ne72}, \cite{Ne80},
\cite[Sect.\ 12.1.2]{Ne02}, \cite{Si00}, \cite[Proposition 5.7]{Si05},
and the extensive literature cited in these references).
Next, we explore the extent to which
this fact may generalize to higher dimensions $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $n\geq 2$.
While a straightforward generalization of \eqref{1.11}, \eqref{1.12}
appears to be difficult, we will next derive a formula for the ratio
of such determinants which indeed permits a direct extension to
higher dimensions.
For this purpose we introduce the boundary trace operators
$\gamma_D$ (Dirichlet trace) and $\gamma_N$ (Neumann trace) which, in the
current one-dimensional half-line situation, are just the functionals,
\begin{equation}
\gamma_D \colon \begin{cases} C([0,\infty)) \to {\mathbb{C}}, \\
\hspace*{1.3cm} g \mapsto g(0), \end{cases} \quad
\gamma_N \colon \begin{cases}C^1([0,\infty)) \to {\mathbb{C}}, \\
\hspace*{1.43cm} h \mapsto - h'(0). \end{cases}
\end{equation}
In addition, we denote by $m_{0,+}^D$, $m_+^D$, $m_{0,+}^N$, and $m_+^N$
the Weyl--Titchmarsh $m$-functions corresponding to $H_{0,+}^D$,
$\widehat H_{+}^D$, $H_{0,+}^N$, and $\widehat H_{+}^N$, respectively, that is,
\begin{align}
m_{0,+}^D(z) &= i z^{1/2}, \qquad m_{0,+}^N (z)= -\frac{1}{m_{0,+}^D(z)}
= i z^{-1/2}, \label{1.14} \\
m_{+}^D(z) &= \frac{f_+'(z,0)}{f_+(z,0)}, \quad m_{+}^N (z)=
-\frac{1}{m_{+}^D(z)} = -\frac{f_+(z,0)}{f_+'(z,0)}. \label{1.15}
\end{align}
Then we obtain the following result for the ratio of the perturbation determinants in
\eqref{1.11} and \eqref{1.12}:
\begin{theorem} \label{t1.2}
Assume $\widehat V\in L^1((0,\infty);dx)$ and let $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash
\sigma\big(\widehat H_+^D\big)$ with $\Im(z^{1/2})>0$. Then,
\begin{align}
& \frac{\det\Big(I_+ +\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0, +}^N-z I_+\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big)}
{\det\Big(I_+ +\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0, +}^D-z I_+\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big)}
= 1 - \Big(\,\overline{\gamma_N\big(\widehat H_+^D-z I_+\big)^{-1} \widehat V
\big[\gamma_D(H_{0,+}^N-\overline{z}I_+)^{-1}\big]^*}\,\Big) \label{1.16} \\
& \quad = \frac{W(f_+(z),\phi_+^N(z))}{i z^{1/2}W(f_+(z),\phi_+^D(z))} =
\frac{f'_+(z,0)}{i z^{1/2}f_+(z,0)} = \frac{m_+^D(z)}{m_{0,+}^D(z)} =
\frac{m_{0,+}^N(z)}{m_+^N(z)}. \label{1.17}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
The multi-dimensional generalizations to Schr\"odinger operators in $L^2(\Omega;d^n x)$, corresponding to an open set $\Omega \subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$ with compact, nonempty boundary $\partial\Omega$, more precisely, the proper operator-valued generalization of the Weyl--Titchmarsh function $m_+^D(z)$ is then given by the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map, denoted by $M_{\Omega}^D(z)$ in $L^2({\partial\Omega}; d\sigma^{n-1})$. This operator-valued map indeed played a fundamental role in our extension of \eqref{1.17} to the higher-dimensional case in \cite{GMZ07}.
We recall the assumptions on the set $\Omega$ in \cite{GMZ07}:
\begin{hypothesis} \label{h1.3a}
Let $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $n\geq 2$, and assume that $\Omega\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is
an open set with a compact, nonempty boundary
$\partial\Omega$. In addition,
we assume that one of the following three conditions holds: \\
$(i)$ \, $\Omega$ is of class $C^{1,r}$ for some $1/2 < r <1$; \\
$(ii)$ \hspace*{.0001pt} $\Omega$ is convex; \\
$(iii)$ $\Omega$ is a Lipschitz domain satisfying a {\it uniform exterior ball condition} $($UEBC\,$)$.
\end{hypothesis}
We note that while ${\partial\Omega}$ is assumed to be compact, $\Omega$ may be unbounded in connection with conditions $(i)$ or $(iii)$. For more details in the context of the notation used in Hypothesis \ref{h1.3a} we refer to \cite[App.\ A]{GMZ07}.
Given the self-adjoint and nonnegative Dirichlet and
Neumann Laplacians $H_{0,\Omega}^D$ and $H_{0,\Omega}^N$ associated
with the domain $\Omega$ in $L^2(\Omega; d^n x)$ as defined in \eqref{2.39} and
\eqref{2.20}, respectively (although, the latter can be described in additional detail
under the stronger Hypotheses \ref{h1.3a} as compared to Hypothesis \ref{h2.1},
cf.\ \cite{GMZ07}), we now introduce
$\widehat H_{\Omega}^D$ and $\widehat H_{\Omega}^N$, the Dirichlet and Neumann
Schr\"odinger operators in $L^2(\Omega; d^n x)$ associated with the (local)
differential expressions $-\Delta + \widehat V(x)$ and Dirichlet and Neumann
boundary conditions on $\partial\Omega$ as follows:
\begin{align}
& \big(\widehat H^D_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} = \big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \notag \\
& \quad - \overline{\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \widehat v}
\Big[I_\Omega+\overline{\widehat u\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big]^{-1}
\widehat u\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}, \label{1.17a} \\
& \big(\widehat H^N_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} = \big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \notag \\
& \quad - \overline{\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \widehat v}
\Big[I_\Omega+\overline{\widehat u\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big]^{-1}
\widehat u\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}. \label{1.17b}
\end{align}
Then the principal new result proven in \cite{GMZ07} reads as follows:
\begin{theorem} [\cite{GMZ07}] \label{t1.3}
Assume that $\Omega$ satisfies Hypothesis \ref{h1.3a} and suppose that
$\widehat V\in L^p(\Omega;d^nx)$ for some $p$ satisfying $p>4/3$ in the case
$n=2$, and $p>n/2$ in the case $n\geq3$. In addition, let $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $k\geq p$ and
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(\widehat H_{\Omega}^D\big)\cup
\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big) \cup \sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)\big)$. Then,
\begin{align}
&
\frac{\det{}_k\Big(I_{\Omega}+\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big)}
{\det{}_k\Big(I_{\Omega}+\overline{\widehat u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} \widehat v}\,\Big)} \notag \\
& \quad = \det{}_k\Big(I_{{\partial\Omega}} -
\overline{\gamma_N\big(\widehat H_{\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} \widehat V
\big[\gamma_D(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega})^{-1}\big]^*}\,\Big)
e^{\text{\rm{tr}}(T_k(z))} \label{1.18} \\
& \quad = \det{}_k\big(M_{\Omega}^{D}(z)M_{0,\Omega}^{D}(z)^{-1}\big)
e^{\text{\rm{tr}}(T_k(z))}. \label{1.19}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Here, ${\det}_k(\cdot)$ denotes the modified Fredholm determinant in
connection with ${\mathcal B}_k$ perturbations of the identity and $T_k(z)$ is
some trace class operator (cf.\ \cite{GMZ07} for more details). In particular,
$T_2(z)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
T_2(z)=\overline{\gamma_N\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} V
\big(\widehat H_{\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} \widehat V
\big[\gamma_D \big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\big]^*},
\end{equation}
where $I_{\Omega}$ and $I_{\partial\Omega}$ represent the identity operators
in $L^2(\Omega; d^n x)$ and $L^2(\partial\Omega; d^{n-1} \sigma)$,
respectively (with $d^{n-1}\sigma$ denoting the surface measure on
$\partial\Omega$). For a detailed discussion of the Dirichlet-to-Neumann map
$M_{\Omega}^D(z)$ in $L^2({\partial\Omega}; d\sigma^{n-1})$ in connection with local
interactions $V$ we refer to \cite{GMZ07}. For an extensive list of references
relevant to the material in \eqref{1.10}--\eqref{1.19} we also refer to \cite{GMZ07}.
Lack of space prevents us from describing a detailed list of papers emphasizing the
mathematical aspects (and peculiarities) of Schr\"odinger operators with nonlocal interactions (i.e., potentials). Hence, we refer, for instance, to \cite{Al80},
\cite{BTV67}, \cite{BTV69}, \cite{BGNS86}, \cite[Ch.\ VIII]{CS89}, \cite{Dr76}, \cite{Dr78},
\cite{GR64}, \cite{GR65}, \cite{Ne77}, \cite[Ch.\ 9]{Ne02}, \cite{SWW64},
and the list of references cited therein.
Finally, we briefly list most of the notational conventions used
throughout this paper. Let ${\mathcal H}$ be a separable complex Hilbert
space, $(\cdot,\cdot)_{{\mathcal H}}$ the scalar product in ${\mathcal H}$ (linear in
the second factor), and $I_{{\mathcal H}}$ the identity operator in ${\mathcal H}$.
Next, let $T$ be a linear operator mapping (a subspace of) a
Banach space into another, with $\text{\rm{dom}}(T)$ denoting the
domain of $T$. The closure of a closable operator $S$ is
denoted by $\overline S$. The spectrum of a closed linear operator
in ${\mathcal H}$ will be denoted by $\sigma(\cdot)$. The
Banach spaces of bounded and compact linear operators in ${\mathcal H}$ are
denoted by ${\mathcal B}({\mathcal H})$ and ${\mathcal B}_\infty({\mathcal H})$, respectively. Similarly,
the Schatten--von Neumann (trace) ideals will subsequently be denoted
by ${\mathcal B}_k({\mathcal H})$, $k\in{\mathbb{N}}$. Analogous notation ${\mathcal B}({\mathcal H}_1,{\mathcal H}_2)$,
${\mathcal B}_\infty ({\mathcal H}_1,{\mathcal H}_2)$, etc., will be used for bounded, compact,
etc., operators between two Hilbert spaces ${\mathcal H}_1$ and ${\mathcal H}_2$. In
addition, $\text{\rm{tr}}(T)$ denotes the trace of a trace class operator
$T\in{\mathcal B}_1({\mathcal H})$ and $\det_{k}(I_{{\mathcal H}}+S)$ represents the (modified)
Fredholm determinant associated with an operator $S\in{\mathcal B}_k({\mathcal H})$,
$k\in{\mathbb{N}}$ (for $k=1$ we omit the subscript $1$). Moreover, ${\mathcal X}_1
\hookrightarrow {\mathcal X}_2$ denotes the continuous embedding of the Banach
space ${\mathcal X}_1$ into the Banach space ${\mathcal X}_2$.
\section{Schr\"odinger Operators with Dirichlet and Neumann boundary conditions and Nonlocal Interactions}
\label{s2}
In this section we recall various properties of Dirichlet,
$H^D_{0,\Omega}$, and Neumann, $H^N_{0,\Omega}$, Laplacians in
$L^2(\Omega;d^n x)$ associated with open sets $\Omega\subset {\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $n\geq 2$, introduced in Hypothesis \ref{h2.1} below. These results have been discussed in detail in \cite{GM08} (see also \cite{GM09}, \cite{GMZ07}). In addition, we introduce the nonlocal Dirichlet and Neumann
Schr\"odinger operators $H^D_{\Omega}$ and $H^N_{\Omega}$ in
$L^2(\Omega;d^n x)$, that is, perturbations of the Dirichlet and Neumann Laplacians
$H^D_{0,\Omega}$ and $H^N_{0,\Omega}$ by a (generally, nonlocal) potential $V$ satisfying
Hypothesis \ref{h2.8}.
We start with introducing our assumptions on the set $\Omega$:
\begin{hypothesis}\label{h2.1}
Let $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $n\geq 2$, and assume that $\Omega\subset{{\mathbb{R}}}^n$ is
an open, bounded, nonempty Lipschitz domain.
\end{hypothesis}
For more details in the context of the notation used in Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}, and for our notation in connection with Sobolev spaces in the remainder of this paper we refer to \cite[App.\ A]{GM08}.
We introduce the boundary trace operator $\gamma_D^0$ (the Dirichlet trace) by
\begin{equation}
\gamma_D^0\colon C(\overline{\Omega})\to C({\partial\Omega}), \quad \gamma_D^0 u = u|_{\partial\Omega}. \label{2.5}
\end{equation}
Then there exists a bounded, linear operator $\gamma_D$ (cf., e.g.,
\cite[Theorem 3.38]{Mc00}),
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& \gamma_D\colon H^{s}(\Omega)\to H^{s-(1/2)}({\partial\Omega}) \hookrightarrow L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si),
\quad 1/2<s<3/2, \label{2.6} \\
& \gamma_D\colon H^{3/2}(\Omega)\to H^{1-\varepsilon}({\partial\Omega}) \hookrightarrow L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si),
\quad \varepsilon \in (0,1),
\end{split}
\end{align}
whose action is compatible with that of $\gamma_D^0$. That is, the two
Dirichlet trace operators coincide on the intersection of their
domains. We recall that $d^{n-1}\sigma$ denotes the surface measure on
${\partial\Omega}$.
Moreover, we recall that
\begin{equation}
\gamma_D\colon H^{s}(\Omega)\to H^{s-(1/2)}({\partial\Omega}) \, \text{ is onto for
$1/2<s<3/2$.} \label{2.6a}
\end{equation}
While, in the class of bounded Lipschitz subdomains in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$,
the end-point cases $s=1/2$ and $s=3/2$ of
$\gamma_D\in{\mathcal B}\bigl(H^{s}(\Omega),H^{s-(1/2)}({\partial\Omega})\bigr)$ fail, we nonetheless
have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{A.62x}
\gamma_D\in {\mathcal B}\big(H^{(3/2)+\varepsilon}(\Omega), H^{1}({\partial\Omega})\big), \quad \varepsilon>0.
\end{eqnarray}
See \cite[Lemma\ A.4]{GM08} for a proof. Below we augment this with the following
result:
\begin{lemma} [\cite{GM08}] \label{Gam-L1}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}. Then for each $s>-3/2$, the restriction
to the boundary operator \eqref{2.5} extends to a linear operator
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Mam-1}
\gamma_D:\bigl\{u\in H^{1/2}(\Omega)\,\big|\,\Delta u\in H^{s}(\Omega)\bigr\}
\to L^2(\partial\Omega;d^{n-1}\omega),
\end{eqnarray}
is compatible with \eqref{2.6}, and is bounded when
$\{u\in H^{1/2}(\Omega)\,|\,\Delta u\in H^{s}(\Omega)\bigr\}$ is equipped
with the natural graph norm $u\mapsto \|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Omega)}
+\|\Delta u\|_{H^{s}(\Omega)}$. In addition, this operator has a
linear, bounded right-inverse $($hence, in particular, it is onto$)$.
Furthermore, for each $s>-3/2$, the restriction
to the boundary operator \eqref{2.5} also extends to a linear operator
\begin{eqnarray}\label{Mam-2}
\gamma_D:\bigl\{u\in H^{3/2}(\Omega)\,\big|\,\Delta u\in H^{1+s}(\Omega)\bigr\}
\to H^1(\partial\Omega),
\end{eqnarray}
which is compatible with \eqref{2.6}, and is bounded when the set
$\{u\in H^{3/2}(\Omega)\,|\,\Delta u\in H^{1+s}(\Omega)\bigr\}$ is equipped
with the natural graph norm $u\mapsto \|u\|_{H^{3/2}(\Omega)}
+\|\Delta u\|_{H^{1+s}(\Omega)}$. Once again, this operator has a
linear, bounded right-inverse $($hence, in particular, it is onto$)$.
\end{lemma}
Next, we introduce the operator $\gamma_N$ (the strong Neumann trace) by
\begin{align}\label{2.7}
\gamma_N = \nu\cdot\gamma_D\nabla \colon H^{s+1}(\Omega)\to L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si), \quad 1/2<s<3/2,
\end{align}
where $\nu$ denotes the outward pointing normal unit vector to
$\partial\Omega$. It follows from \eqref{2.6} that $\gamma_N$ is also a
bounded operator. We seek to extend the action of the Neumann trace
operator \eqref{2.7} to other (related) settings. To set the stage,
assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1} and recall that the inclusion
\begin{equation}\label{inc-1}
\iota:H^s(\Omega)\hookrightarrow \bigl(H^1(\Omega)\bigr)^*,\quad s>-1/2,
\end{equation}
is well-defined and bounded. We then introduce the weak Neumann trace
operator
\begin{equation}\label{2.8}
\widetilde\gamma_N\colon\big\{u\in H^1(\Omega)\,\big|\,\Delta u\in H^s(\Omega)\big\}
\to H^{-1/2}({\partial\Omega}),\quad s>-1/2,
\end{equation}
as follows: Given $u\in H^1(\Omega)$ with $\Delta u \in H^s(\Omega)$
for some $s>-1/2$, we set (with $\iota$ as in \eqref{inc-1})
\begin{align} \label{2.9}
\langle \phi, \widetilde\gamma_N u \rangle_{1/2}
=\int_\Omega d^n x\,\overline{\nabla \Phi(x)} \cdot \nabla u(x)
+ {}_{H^1(\Omega)}\langle \Phi, \iota(\Delta u)\rangle_{(H^1(\Omega))^*},
\end{align}
for all $\phi\in H^{1/2}({\partial\Omega})$ and $\Phi\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that
$\gamma_D\Phi = \phi$. We note that this definition is
independent of the particular extension $\Phi$ of $\phi$, and that
$\widetilde\gamma_N$ is a bounded extension of the Neumann trace operator
$\gamma_N$ defined in \eqref{2.7}.
The end-point case $s=1/2$ of \eqref{2.7} is discussed separately below.
\begin{lemma} [\cite{GM08}] \label{Neu-tr}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}.
Then the Neumann trace operator \eqref{2.7} also extends to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MaX-1}
\widetilde\gamma_N:\bigl\{u\in H^{3/2}(\Omega)\,\big|\,\Delta u\in L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\bigr\}
\to L^2(\partial\Omega;d^{n-1}\omega)
\end{eqnarray}
in a bounded fashion when the space
$\{u\in H^{3/2}(\Omega)\,|\,\Delta u\in L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\bigr\}$ is equipped
with the natural graph norm $u\mapsto \|u\|_{H^{3/2}(\Omega)}
+\|\Delta u\|_{L^2(\Omega;d^nx)}$. This extension is compatible
with \eqref{2.8} and has a linear, bounded, right-inverse $($hence,
as a consequence, it is onto$)$.
Moreover, the Neumann trace operator \eqref{2.7} further extends to
\begin{eqnarray}\label{MaX-1U}
\widetilde\gamma_N:\bigl\{u\in H^{1/2}(\Omega)\,\big|\,\Delta u\in L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\bigr\}
\to H^{-1}({\partial\Omega})
\end{eqnarray}
in a bounded fashion when the space
$\{u\in H^{1/2}(\Omega)\,|\,\Delta u\in L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\bigr\}$ is equipped
with the natural graph norm $u\mapsto \|u\|_{H^{1/2}(\Omega)}
+\|\Delta u\|_{L^2(\Omega;d^nx)}$. Once again, this extension is compatible
with \eqref{2.8} and has a linear, bounded, right-inverse $($thus, in particular,
it is onto$)$.
\end{lemma}
Next we describe the Dirichlet Laplacian $H_{0,\Omega}^D$ in $L^2(\Omega;d^nx)$:
\begin{theorem} [\cite{GM08}] \label{t2.5}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}. Then the Dirichlet Laplacian,
$H_{0,\Omega}^D$, defined by
\begin{align}
& H_{0,\Omega}^D = -\Delta, \label{2.39} \\
& \text{\rm{dom}}(H_{0,\Omega}^D) =
\big\{u\in H^1(\Omega)\,\big|\, \Delta u \in L^2(\Omega;d^n x); \,
\gamma_D u =0 \text{ in $H^{1/2}({\partial\Omega})$}\big\} \notag \\
& \hspace*{1.67cm} = \big\{u\in H_0^1(\Omega)\,\big|\, \Delta u \in L^2(\Omega;d^n x)\big\}, \notag
\end{align}
is self-adjoint and nonnegative $($in fact, strictly positive since $\Omega$ is bounded\,$)$
in $L^2(\Omega;d^nx)$. Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\text{\rm{dom}}\big((H_{0,\Omega}^D)^{1/2}\big) = H^1_0(\Omega). \label{2.40}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
The case of the Neumann Laplacian $H_{0,\Omega}^N$ in $L^2(\Omega;d^nx)$ is isolated
next:
\begin{theorem} [\cite{GM08}] \label{t2.3}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}.\ Then the Neumann Laplacian,
$H_{0,\Omega}^N$, defined by
\begin{align}
& H_{0,\Omega}^N = -\Delta, \label{2.20} \\
& \text{\rm{dom}}\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big) =
\big\{u\in H^1(\Omega)\,\big|\, \Delta u \in L^2(\Omega;d^nx); \,
\widetilde\gamma_N u =0
\text{ in $H^{-1/2}({\partial\Omega})$}\big\}, \notag
\end{align}
is self-adjoint and nonnegative in $L^2(\Omega;d^nx)$. Moreover,
\begin{equation}
\text{\rm{dom}}\big(|H_{0,\Omega}^N|^{1/2}\big) = H^1(\Omega). \label{2.21}
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Continuing, we discuss certain regularity results for fractional powers of
the resolvents of the Dirichlet and Neumann Laplacians in Lipschitz
domains.
\begin{lemma} [\cite{GM08}] \label{l2.6}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}. In addition, let $q\in [0,1]$ and
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash[0,\infty)$. Then,
\begin{align}
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-q/2},\, \big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-q/2}
\in{\mathcal B}\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx),H^{q}(\Omega)\big). \label{2.41i}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
The fractional powers in \eqref{2.41i} (and in subsequent analogous cases)
are defined via the functional calculus implied by the spectral theorem
for self-adjoint operators. As discussed in \cite[Lemma A.2]{GLMZ05} in a
similar context, the key ingredients in proving Lemma \ref{l2.6} are the inclusions
\begin{equation}
\text{\rm{dom}}\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big) \subset H^1(\Omega), \quad
\text{\rm{dom}}\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big) \subset H^1(\Omega)
\end{equation}
and real interpolation methods.
Moving on, we now consider mapping properties of powers of the
resolvents of Neumann Laplacians multiplied (to the left)
by the Dirichlet boundary trace operator:
\begin{lemma} [\cite{GM08}] \label{l2.7}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}. In addition, let $\varepsilon > 0$ and suppose that
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash[0,\infty)$. Then,
\begin{align}
\gamma_D \big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-(1+\varepsilon)/4} \in
{\mathcal B}\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx),L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)\big). \label{2.42}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
As in \cite[Lemma 6.9]{GLMZ05}, Lemma \ref{l2.7} follows from Lemma \ref{l2.6}
and \eqref{2.6}. We note in passing that \eqref{2.41i} and \eqref{2.42}, extend of course to all $z$ in the resolvent sets of the corresponding operators involved.
Finally, we turn to our assumptions on the (in general, nonlocal) potential $V$ and the
corresponding definition of Dirichlet and Neumann Schr\"odinger operators
$H^D_{\Omega}$ and $H^N_{\Omega}$ in $L^2(\Omega; d^n x)$:
\begin{hypothesis} \label{h2.8}
Suppose that $\Omega$ satisfies Hypothesis \ref{h2.1} and assume that
$V \in {\mathcal B}\big(L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\big)$.
\end{hypothesis}
Assuming Hypothesis \ref{h2.8}, we introduce the perturbed operators
$H_{\Omega}^D$ and $H_{\Omega}^N$ in $L^2(\Om;d^nx)$ by
\begin{align}
H_{\Omega}^D = H_{0,\Omega}^D + V, \quad
\text{\rm{dom}}\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big) = \text{\rm{dom}}\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big), \label{2.29} \\
H_{\Omega}^N = H_{0,\Omega}^N + V, \quad
\text{\rm{dom}}\big(H_{\Omega}^N\big) = \text{\rm{dom}}\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big). \label{2.30}
\end{align}
$H_{\Omega}^D$ and $H_{\Omega}^N$ are self-adjoint in $L^2(\Om;d^nx)$ if and only if
$V$ is, but self-adjointness will play no role in the remainder of this paper.
As will be made clear in Remark \ref{r3.2}, it is possible to remove the boundedness assumption on $\Omega$ in Hypotheses \ref{h2.1} and \ref{h2.8} and assume that ${\partial\Omega}$ is compact instead.
\section{Dirichlet and Neumann boundary value problems \\
and Dirichlet-to-Neumann maps} \label{s3}
In this section we review the Dirichlet and Neumann boundary value problems associated with the Helmholtz differential expression $-\Delta - z$ as well as the corresponding differential expression $-\Delta + V - z$ in the presence of a nonlocal potential $V$, both in connection with the open set $\Omega$. In addition, we provide a discussion of Dirichlet-to-Neumann, $M^D_{0,\Omega}$, $M^D_{\Omega}$, and Neumann-to-Dirichlet maps, $M^N_{0,\Omega}$, $M^N_{\Omega}$, in $L^2(\partial\Omega; d^{n-1}\sigma)$.
We start with the Helmholtz Dirichlet and Neumann boundary value problems:
\begin{theorem} [\cite{GM08}] \label{t3.1}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}. Then for every
$f \in H^1({\partial\Omega})$ and $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)$ the
following Dirichlet boundary value problem,
\begin{align} \label{3.1a}
\begin{cases}
(-\Delta - z)u = 0 \text{ on }\, \Omega, \quad u \in H^{3/2}(\Omega), \\
\gamma_D u = f \text{ on }\, {\partial\Omega},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
has a unique solution $u=u_0^D$. This solution satisfies
$\widetilde\gamma_N u_0^D \in L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)$ and there exist constants $C_0^D=C_0^D(\Omega,z)>0$
such that
\begin{equation}\label{MM.xxx}
\|\widetilde \gamma_N u_0^D\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)} \leq C_0^D \|f\|_{H^1({\partial\Omega})}
\end{equation}
as well as
\begin{equation}
\|u_0^D\|_{H^{3/2}(\Omega)} \leq C_0^D \|f\|_{H^1(\partial\Omega)}. \label{3.3aa}
\end{equation}
Similarly, for every $g\inL^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)$ and
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)$ the following Neumann
boundary value problem,
\begin{align} \label{3.2a}
\begin{cases}
(-\Delta - z)u = 0 \text{ on }\,\Omega,\quad u \in H^{3/2}(\Omega), \\
\widetilde\gamma_N u = g\text{ on }\,{\partial\Omega},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
has a unique solution $u=u_0^N$. This solution satisfies
$\gamma_D u^N_0 \in H^1({\partial\Omega})$
and there exist constants $C_0^N=C_0^N(\Omega,z)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\|\gamma_D u_0^N\|_{H^1({\partial\Omega})} + \|\widetilde \gamma_N u_0^N\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)} \leq
C_0^N \|g\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)}
\end{equation}
as well as
\begin{equation}
\|u_0^N\|_{H^{3/2}(\Omega)} \leq C_0^N \|g\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)}. \label{3.4aa}
\end{equation}
In addition, \eqref{3.1a}--\eqref{3.4aa} imply that the following maps are bounded
\begin{align}
& \big[\widetilde \gamma_N\big(\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^* \in
{\mathcal B}\big(H^1({\partial\Omega}), H^{3/2}(\Omega)\big), \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}\big), \label{3.4ba}
\\
& \big[\gamma_D \big(\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^* \in
{\mathcal B}\big(L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si), H^{3/2}(\Omega)\big), \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}\big). \label{3.4ca}
\end{align}
Finally, the solutions $u_0^D$ and $u_0^N$ are given by the formulas
\begin{align}
u_0^D (z) &= -\big(\widetilde \gamma_N \big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-\overline{z}I_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*f,
\label{3.9a}
\\
u_0^N (z) &= \big(\gamma_D \big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*g.
\label{3.10a}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} \label{r3.2}
It is possible to remove the boundedness assumption on $\Omega$ in
Hypotheses \ref{h2.1} and \ref{h2.8} and assume that ${\partial\Omega}$ is compact instead.
Consider, for example, the case of the Dirichlet boundary value problem \eqref{3.1a},
this time formulated for an unbounded Lipschitz domain
$\Omega\subset{\mathbb{R}}^n$
with a compact boundary. We claim that the same type of well-posedness statement
as in Theorem~\ref{t3.1} holds in this setting as well. To see this, consider first
the auxiliary problem
\begin{align} \label{3.1aX}
\begin{cases}
(-\Delta - z)u = 0 \text{ on }\, \Omega, \quad u \in H^{1}(\Omega), \\
\gamma_D u = f \, \text{ on } \, {\partial\Omega},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
which we claim has a unique solution whenever
$f \in H^{1/2}({\partial\Omega})$ and $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)$.
In addition, there exists a constant $C_0^D=C_0^D(\Omega,z)>0$ such that the solution
$u=u_0^D$ of \eqref{3.1aX} satisfies
\begin{equation}
\|u_0^D\|_{H^{1}(\Omega)} \leq C_0^D \|f\|_{H^{1/2}(\partial\Omega)}. \label{3.3aaX}
\end{equation}
To justify this claim, one first observes that there exists a constant $C=C(\Omega)>0$
with the property that, given any $f \in H^{1/2}({\partial\Omega})$, it is possible to select a
function $w\in H^1(\Omega)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{MM.1}
\gamma_Dw=f \, \text{ and } \, \|w\|_{H^1(\Omega)}\leq C\|f\|_{H^{1/2}({\partial\Omega})}.
\end{equation}
Granted this and having fixed $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)$,
a solution $u$ for \eqref{3.1aX} can be found in the form
\begin{equation}\label{MM.2}
u=u^D_0:=w+ \Big(\widetilde{H_{0,\Omega}^D} -zI_{\Omega}\Big)^{-1}[(\Delta+z)w],
\end{equation}
where $\Big(\widetilde{H_{0,\Omega}^D} - zI_{\Omega}\Big)^{-1}
\in{\mathcal B}\bigl(H^{-1}(\Omega),H^1(\Omega)\bigr)$.
It is then clear that the function $u^D_0$ constructed in \eqref{MM.2} solves
\eqref{3.1aX}
and satisfies \eqref{3.3aaX}. The uniqueness of such a solution is then a consequence
of the fact that $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)$. Here
$\widetilde{H_{0,\Omega}^D}$ denotes an extension of the self-adjoint operator
$H_{0,\Omega}^D$ in $L^2(\Omega; d^n x)$ familiar from the theory of densely defined, closed sesquilinear forms bounded from below and their associated self-adjoint operators as discussed in detail in \cite{GM08} (cf.\ App.\ B, in particular, (B.11)--(B.19)).
Having settled the issue of the well-posedness of \eqref{3.1aX}, we now proceed to
show that, in the case of an unbounded Lipschitz domain with a compact boundary,
one has the regularity statement
\begin{equation}\label{MM.3}
f\in H^1({\partial\Omega})\hookrightarrow H^{1/2}({\partial\Omega}) \, \text{ implies } \, u^D_0\in H^{3/2}(\Omega).
\end{equation}
To see this, in addition to $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)$,
pick a complex number $z_0\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash{\mathbb{R}}$. Then for every $f\in H^1({\partial\Omega})$
we know that $u=u^D_0$ belongs to $H^1(\Omega)$ and our goal is to show that, in fact,
$u=u^D_0\in H^{3/2}(\Omega)$. This is done using a suitable representation for $u$,
namely
\begin{equation}\label{MM.4}
u=v+w
\end{equation}
where we have set
\begin{equation}\label{MM.5}
v:={\mathcal S}_{z_0}\big[S_{z_0}^{-1}(f-\gamma_Dw)\big],\quad
w:=(z-z_0)\bigl(E_n (z_0;\cdot)\ast u).
\end{equation}
Here $E_n(z_0;x)$ is the fundamental solution of the Helmholtz differential expression
$(-\Delta -z_0)$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, $n\in{\mathbb{N}}$, $n\geq 2$, that is,
\begin{align}
& E_n(z_0;x) = \begin{cases}
(i/4) \big(2\pi |x|/z_0^{1/2}\big)^{(2-n)/2} H^{(1)}_{(n-2)/2}
\big(z_0^{1/2}|x|\big), & n\geq 2, \; z_0\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash \{0\}, \\
\frac{-1}{2\pi} \ln(|x|), & n=2, \; z_0=0, \\
\frac{1}{(n-2)\omega_{n-1}}|x|^{2-n}, & n\geq 3, \; z_0=0,
\end{cases} \notag \\
& \hspace*{6.8cm} \Im\big(z_0^{1/2}\big)\geq 0,\; x\in{\mathbb{R}}^n\backslash\{0\},
\label{3.18}
\end{align}
with $H^{(1)}_{\nu}(\,\cdot\,)$ denoting the Hankel function of the first kind
with index $\nu\geq 0$ (cf.\ \cite[Sect.\ 9.1]{AS72}), and
\begin{equation}\label{MM.6}
({\mathcal S}_{z_0})h(x):=\int_{{\partial\Omega}}d^{n-1}\sigma(y)\,E_n (z_0;(x-y)h(y),
\quad x\in\Omega,
\end{equation}
is the so-called single layer potential operator for
$(-\Delta-z_0)$ in ${\mathbb{R}}^n$, and finally,
\begin{equation}
S_{z_0}:=\gamma_D \, {\mathcal S}_{z_0}.
\end{equation}
From \cite{GM08} we know that
$S_{z_0}\in{\mathcal B}\bigl(L^2({\partial\Omega};d^{n-1}\sigma),H^1({\partial\Omega})\bigr)$ is an isomorphism
with $S_{z_0}^{-1}\in{\mathcal B}\bigl(H^1({\partial\Omega}),L^2({\partial\Omega};d^{n-1}\sigma)\bigr)$ and, if
$\psi\in C^\infty_0({\mathbb{R}}^n)$ is identically one in an open neighborhood of
$\overline{\Omega}$, and $M_\psi$ denotes the operator of multiplication by $\psi$, then
\begin{equation}
M_\psi \, {\mathcal S}_{z_0}\in{\mathcal B}\bigl(L^2({\partial\Omega};d^{n-1}\sigma),H^{3/2}(\Omega)\bigr).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, it has been observed in \cite{GM08} that for any multi-index $\alpha$, the
function $\partial^\alpha E_{n,z_0}(x)$ decays exponentially at infinity (here, the fact that
$\Im(z_0)\neq 0$ is used). In turn, this readily yields that $w\in H^2(\Omega)$ (hence, in
particular, $\gamma_Dw\in H^1({\partial\Omega})$), and $v\in H^{3/2}(\Omega)$. Consequently, one concludes that $u$ belongs to $H^{3/2}(\Omega)$ and its norm in this space is majorized by a fixed multiple of $\|f\|_{H^1({\partial\Omega})}$.
Having establish the existence of a unique solution $u$ for \eqref{3.1a} in the case when
$\Omega$ is an unbounded Lipschitz domain with compact boundary, then
\eqref{MM.xxx} follows from this as in the case of bounded domains.
The reasoning for the Neumann problem \eqref{3.2a} is very similar, and we omit it.
\end{remark}
By employing a perturbative approach, one extends Theorem \ref{t3.1} in connection with the Helmholtz differential expression $-\Delta - z$ on $\Omega$ to the case of a
Schr\"odinger operator corresponding to $-\Delta + V - z$ on $\Omega$, with $V$ a
generally nonlocal interaction.
\begin{theorem} \label{t3.3}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.8}. Then for every
$f \in H^1({\partial\Omega})$ and $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big)$ the
following Dirichlet boundary value problem,
\begin{align} \label{3.1}
\begin{cases}
(-\Delta + V - z)u = 0 \text{ on }\, \Omega, \quad u \in H^{3/2}(\Omega), \\
\gamma_D u = f \text{ on }\, {\partial\Omega},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
has a unique solution $u=u^D$. This solution satisfies
$\widetilde\gamma_N u^D \in L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)$ and there exist constants $C^D=C^D(\Omega,z)>0$
such that
\begin{equation}
\|\widetilde \gamma_N u^D\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)} \leq C^D \|f\|_{H^1({\partial\Omega})}
\end{equation}
as well as
\begin{equation}
\|u^D\|_{H^{3/2}(\Omega)} \leq C^D \|f\|_{H^1(\partial\Omega)}. \label{3.3a}
\end{equation}
Similarly, for every $g\inL^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)$ and
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^N\big)$ the following Neumann
boundary value problem,
\begin{align} \label{3.2}
\begin{cases}
(-\Delta + V - z)u = 0 \text{ on }\,\Omega,\quad u \in H^{3/2}(\Omega), \\
\widetilde\gamma_N u = g\text{ on }\,{\partial\Omega},
\end{cases}
\end{align}
has a unique solution $u=u^N$. This solution satisfies
$\gamma_D u^N \in H^1({\partial\Omega})$
and there exist constants $C^N=C^N(\Omega,z)>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\|\gamma_D u^N\|_{H^1({\partial\Omega})} + \|\widetilde \gamma_N u^N\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)} \leq
C^N \|g\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)}
\end{equation}
as well as
\begin{equation}
\|u^N\|_{H^{3/2}(\Omega)} \leq C^N \|g\|_{L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)}. \label{3.4a}
\end{equation}
In addition, \eqref{3.1}--\eqref{3.4a} imply that the following maps are bounded
\begin{align}
& \big[\widetilde \gamma_N\big(\big(H^D_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^* \in
{\mathcal B}\big(H^1({\partial\Omega}), H^{3/2}(\Omega)\big), \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H^D_{\Omega}\big), \label{3.4b}
\\
& \big[\gamma_D \big(\big(H^N_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^* \in
{\mathcal B}\big(L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si), H^{3/2}(\Omega)\big), \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H^N_{\Omega}\big). \label{3.4c}
\end{align}
Finally, the solutions $u^D$ and $u^N$ are given by the formulas
\begin{align}
u^D (z) &= -\big(\widetilde \gamma_N \big(H_{\Omega}^D-\overline{z}I_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*f,
\label{3.3}
\\
u^N (z) &= \big(\gamma_D \big(H_{\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*g.
\label{3.4}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
One can follow the proof of \cite[Theorems\ 3.2 and 3.6]{GM08}, using the fact that
the functions
\begin{align}
u^D (z) &= u_0^D (z) - \big(H_\Omega^D-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} V u_0^D (z), \label{3.13}
\\
u^N (z)&= u_0^N (z) - \big(H_\Omega^N-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} V u_0^N (z), \label{3.14}
\end{align}
with $u_0^D, u_0^N$ given by Theorem \ref{t3.1}, satisfy \eqref{3.9a}
and \eqref{3.10a}, respectively.
\end{proof}
Assuming Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}, we now introduce the
Dirichlet-to-Neumann map $M_{0,\Omega}^{D}(z)$
associated with $(-\Delta-z)$ on $\Omega$, following \cite{GMZ07},
\begin{align}
M_{0,\Omega}^{D}(z) \colon
\begin{cases}
H^1({\partial\Omega}) \to L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si),
\\
\hspace*{10mm} f \mapsto -\widetilde\gamma_N u_0^D,
\end{cases} \quad z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big), \label{3.20}
\end{align}
where $u_0^D$ is the unique solution of
\begin{align}
(-\Delta-z)u_0^D = 0 \,\text{ on }\Omega, \quad u_0^D\in
H^{3/2}(\Omega), \quad \gamma_D u_0^D = f \,\text{ on }{\partial\Omega}.
\end{align}
Similarly, assuming Hypothesis \ref{h2.8}, we introduce the
Dirichlet-to-Neumann map $M_\Omega^{D}(z)$,
associated with $(-\Delta+V-z)$ on $\Omega$, by
\begin{align}
M_\Omega^{D}(z) \colon
\begin{cases}
H^1({\partial\Omega}) \to L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si),
\\
\hspace*{10mm} f \mapsto -\widetilde\gamma_N u^D,
\end{cases} \quad z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big), \label{3.22}
\end{align}
where $u^D$ is the unique solution of
\begin{align}
(-\Delta+V-z)u^D = 0 \,\text{ on }\Omega, \quad u^D \in
H^{3/2}(\Omega), \quad \gamma_D u^D= f \,\text{ on }{\partial\Omega}.
\end{align}
By Theorems \ref{t3.1} and \ref{t3.3} one obtains
\begin{equation}
M_{0,\Omega}^{D}(z), M_\Omega^{D}(z) \in {\mathcal B}\big(H^1(\partial\Omega), L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si) \big).
\end{equation}
In addition, assuming Hypothesis \ref{h2.1}, we introduce the Neumann-to-Dirichlet map $M_{0,\Omega}^{N}(z)$ associated with $(-\Delta-z)$ on $\Omega$, as follows,
\begin{align}
M_{0,\Omega}^{N}(z) \colon \begin{cases} L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si) \to H^1({\partial\Omega}),
\\
\hspace*{20.5mm} g \mapsto \gamma_D u_0^N, \end{cases} \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big), \label{3.24}
\end{align}
where $u_0^N$ is the unique solution of
\begin{align}
(-\Delta-z)u_0^N = 0 \,\text{ on }\Omega, \quad u_0^N\in
H^{3/2}(\Omega), \quad \widetilde\gamma_N u_0^N = g \,\text{ on }{\partial\Omega}.
\end{align}
Similarly, assuming Hypothesis \ref{h2.8}, we introduce the Neumann-to-Dirichlet map
$M_\Omega^{N}(z)$ associated with $(-\Delta+V-z)$ on $\Omega$ by
\begin{align}
M_\Omega^{N}(z) \colon \begin{cases}
L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si) \to H^1({\partial\Omega}),
\\
\hspace*{20.5mm} g \mapsto \gamma_D u^N,
\end{cases} \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^N\big), \label{3.26}
\end{align}
where $u^N$ is the unique solution of
\begin{align}
(-\Delta+V-z)u^N = 0 \,\text{ on }\Omega, \quad u^N \in
H^{3/2}(\Omega), \quad \widetilde\gamma_N u^N= g \,\text{ on }{\partial\Omega}.
\end{align}
Again, by Theorems \ref{t3.1} and \ref{t3.3} one obtains
\begin{equation}
M_{0,\Omega}^{N}(z), M_\Omega^{N}(z) \in {\mathcal B}\big(L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si), H^1(\partial\Omega) \big).
\end{equation}
In particular, $M^{N}_{\Omega}(z)$, $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^N\big)$, are compact operators in $L^2(\partial\Omega; d^{n-1}\sigma)$ since
$H^1(\partial\Omega)$ embeds compactly into $L^2(\partial\Omega; d^{n-1}\sigma)$
(cf.\ \cite[Proposition\ 2.4]{MM07}).
Moreover, under the assumption of Hypothesis \ref{h2.1} for $M_{0,\Omega}^D(z)$ and
$M_{0,\Omega}^N(z)$, and under the assumption of Hypothesis \ref{h2.8} for
$M_{\Omega}^D(z)$ and $M_{\Omega}^N(z)$, one infers the following equalities:
\begin{align}
M_{0,\Omega}^{N}(z) &= - M_{0,\Omega}^{D}(z)^{-1}, \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)\cup\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)\big),
\label{3.28}
\\
M_{\Omega}^{N}(z) &= - M_{\Omega}^{D}(z)^{-1}, \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big)\cup\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^N\big)\big),
\label{3.29}
\intertext{and}
M^{D}_{0,\Omega}(z) &= \widetilde\gamma_N\big[\widetilde \gamma_N
\big(\big(H^D_{0,\Omega} - zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^*, \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big), \label{3.30}
\\
M^{D}_{\Omega}(z) &= \widetilde\gamma_N\big[\widetilde \gamma_N \big(\big(H^D_{\Omega} -
zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^*, \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big),
\label{3.31}
\\
M^{N}_{0,\Omega}(z) &= \gamma_D\big[\gamma_D
\big(\big(H^N_{0,\Omega} - zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}
\big)^*\big]^*, \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big), \label{3.32}
\\
M^{N}_{\Omega}(z) &= \gamma_D\big[\gamma_D
\big(\big(H^N_{\Omega} - zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^*, \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^N\big).
\label{3.33}
\end{align}
Next, we note the following auxiliary result, which will play a
crucial role in Theorem \ref{t4.2}, the principal result of this
paper:
\begin{lemma} \label{l3.5}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h2.8}. Then the following
identities hold,
\begin{align}
M_{0,\Omega}^D(z) - M_\Omega^D(z) &= \widetilde\gamma_N
\big(H^D_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} V \big[\widetilde \gamma_N
\big(\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^*, \notag
\\
&\hspace*{3.1cm}
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)\cup\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big)\big),
\label{3.35}
\\
M_\Omega^D(z) M_{0,\Omega}^D(z)^{-1} &= I_{\partial\Omega} - \widetilde\gamma_N
\big(H^D_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} V \big[\gamma_D
\big(\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}\big)^*\big]^*, \notag
\\
&\hspace*{2.45cm}
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)\cup\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big)
\cup\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)\big). \label{3.36}
\end{align}
\end{lemma}
For the proof of Lemma \ref{l3.5} one can follow the corresponding proof of
Lemma\ 3.6 in \cite{GMZ07} step by step.
We note that the right-hand sides (and hence the left-hand sides) of \eqref{3.35}
and \eqref{3.36} permit of course an analytic continuation with respect to $z$
as long as $z$ varies in the resolvent sets of the corresponding operators involved.
Again we note that due to the reasoning in Remark \ref{r3.2} it is possible to remove the boundedness assumption on $\Omega$ in Hypotheses \ref{h2.1} and \ref{h2.8} and assume that ${\partial\Omega}$ is compact throughout this section.
\section{A Multi-Dimensional Variant of a Formula due to Jost and Pais in the
Presence of Nonlocal Interactions}
\label{s4}
In this final section we prove our principal new result, a variant of a multi-dimensional Jost--Pais formula in the presence of nonlocal interactions as discussed in the introduction.
We start by providing an elementary comment on determinants which, however, lies at the heart of the matter of our principal result, Theorem \ref{t4.2}: Suppose $A \in {\mathcal B}({\mathcal H}_1, {\mathcal H}_2)$, $B \in {\mathcal B}({\mathcal H}_2, {\mathcal H}_1)$ with $A B \in {\mathcal B}_1({\mathcal H}_2)$ and $B A \in {\mathcal B}_1({\mathcal H}_1)$. Then,
\begin{equation}
\det (I_{{\mathcal H}_2}-AB) = \det (I_{{\mathcal H}_1}-BA). \label{4.0}
\end{equation}
Equation \eqref{4.0} follows from the fact that all nonzero eigenvalues of $AB$ and $BA$ coincide including their algebraic multiplicities.
In particular, ${\mathcal H}_1$ and ${\mathcal H}_2$ may have different dimensions.
Especially, one of them may be infinite and the other finite, in
which case one of the two determinants in \eqref{4.0} reduces to a
finite determinant. This case indeed occurs in the original
one-dimensional case studied by Jost and Pais \cite{JP51} as
described in detail in \cite{GM03} and the references therein.
In the proof of Theorem \ref{t4.1} below, the role of ${\mathcal H}_1$ and
${\mathcal H}_2$ will be played by $L^2(\Omega; d^n x)$ and
$L^2(\partial\Omega;d^{n-1} \sigma)$, respectively.
Next, we introduce the appropriate additional trace class assumption on the nonlocal potential $V$:
\begin{hypothesis} \label{h4.0}
Suppose that $\Omega$ satisfies Hypothesis \ref{h2.1} and assume that
$V \in {\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\big)$.
\end{hypothesis}
Since $V\in {\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\big)$ we may assume (without loss of generality) that
\begin{equation}
V = v u, \, \text{ where } \, u, v \in {\mathcal B}_2\big(L^2(\Omega;d^nx)\big)
\end{equation}
and we fix the pair $(u,v)$ associated with $V$ in the following. Thus, one infers
(for $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash [0,\infty)$)
\begin{align}
& u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1/2}, \,
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1/2}v \in{\mathcal B}_{2}\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx)\big), \label{2.31} \\
& u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1/2}, \,
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1/2}v \in{\mathcal B}_{2}\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx)\big), \label{2.32} \\
& u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v, \,
u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \in{\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx)\big), \label{2.35}
\end{align}
and hence obtains the resolvent identities (still for $z\in{\mathbb{C}}\backslash [0,\infty)$)
\begin{align}
& \big(H^D_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} = \big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \notag \\
& \quad - \big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}v
\Big[I_\Omega+ u\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}v\,\Big]^{-1}
u\big(H^D_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}, \label{3.47a} \\
& \big(H^N_{\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} = \big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1} \notag \\
& \quad - \big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}v
\Big[I_\Omega+ u\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}v \,\Big]^{-1}
u\big(H^N_{0,\Omega}-zI_\Omega\big)^{-1}. \label{3.48a}
\end{align}
We note in passing that \eqref{2.31}--\eqref{3.47a}, \eqref{3.48a} extend
of course to all $z$ in the resolvent sets of the corresponding operators involved.
We continue by proving an extension of a result in \cite{GLMZ05} to arbitrary space dimensions:
\begin{theorem} \label{t4.1}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h4.0} and
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big)\cup
\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big) \cup \sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)\big)$. Then,
\begin{align}
\widetilde \gamma_N\big(H_{\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}V \Big[\gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\Big]^*
\in{\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)\big) \label{4.2}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&
\frac{\det{}\Big(I_{\Omega}+u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)}
{\det{}\Big(I_{\Omega}+u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)} \\
&\quad = \det{}\Big(I_{{\partial\Omega}} -
\widetilde \gamma_N\big(H_{\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}V \Big[\gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\Big]^* \, \Big). \label{4.3}
\end{split}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From the outset we note that the left-hand side of \eqref{4.3} is
well-defined by \eqref{2.35}. Let
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big) \cup
\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big) \cup \sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)\big)$.
Next, we introduce
\begin{equation} \label{4.7}
K_D(z)=- u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v, \quad
K_N(z)=- u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v
\end{equation}
and note that
\begin{align}
[I_{\Omega}-K_D(z)]^{-1} \in{\mathcal B}\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx)\big), \quad
z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big)\cup\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big)\big).
\label{4.8}
\end{align}
Hence one concludes that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\frac{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)}
{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)}
=
\frac{\det\big(I_{\Omega}-K_N(z)\big)}{\det\big(I_{\Omega}-K_D(z)\big)} \\
&\quad =
\det\big(I_{\Omega}-(K_N(z)-K_D(z))[I_{\Omega}-K_D(z)]^{-1}\big). \label{4.12}
\end{split}
\end{align}
Using \cite[Lemma\ A.3]{GMZ07} (an extension of a
result of Nakamura \cite[Lemma\ 6]{Na01}) and \cite[Remark\ A.5]{GMZ07},
one finds
\begin{align}
K_N(z)-K_D(z) &= u\big[\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}-
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N -zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\big]v \notag
\\ &=
u\Big[\gamma_D \big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\Big]^* \,
\widetilde \gamma_N \big(H_{0,\Omega}^D -zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \notag
\\ &=
\Big[\,\gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} u^* \,\Big]^* \,
\widetilde \gamma_N \big(H_{0,\Omega}^D -zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v. \label{4.13}
\end{align}
Insertion of \eqref{4.13} into \eqref{4.12} then yields
\begin{align} \label{4.14}
&\frac{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)}
{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)}
\notag
\\
&\quad = \det\Big(I_{\Omega} - \Big[\, \gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} u^*\,\Big]^* \widetilde \gamma_N
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \notag \\
& \hspace*{1.6cm} \times
\Big[I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \,\Big]^{-1}\Big).
\end{align}
Since
\begin{align}
\gamma_D \big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} u^*
&\in{\mathcal B}_{2}\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx),L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)\big),
\\
\widetilde \gamma_N\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v
&\in{\mathcal B}_{2}\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx),L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)\big),
\end{align}
one concludes that
\begin{align}
\Big[\, \gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} u^* \,\Big]^* \widetilde \gamma_N
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v &\in {\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\Om;d^nx)\big),
\\
\widetilde \gamma_N \big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \Big[\, \gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} u^* \,\Big]^* &\in
{\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\dOm;d^{n-1}\si)\big).
\end{align}
Then, using \eqref{4.8},
one applies the idea expressed in formula \eqref{4.0} and rearranges
the terms in \eqref{4.14} as follows:
\begin{align} \label{4.20}
&\frac{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \,\Big)}
{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \,\Big)} \notag
\\
&\quad = \det\Big(I_{{\partial\Omega}} - \widetilde \gamma_N
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v
\Big[I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \,\Big]^{-1} \notag \\
& \hspace*{1.5cm} \times \Big[\, \gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} u^* \,\Big]^*\Big) \notag \\
&\quad = \det\Big(I_{{\partial\Omega}} - \widetilde \gamma_N
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v
\Big[I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \,\Big]^{-1} \notag \\
& \hspace*{1.5cm} \times u \Big[\, \gamma_D
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\Big]^*\Big).
\end{align}
Finally, using
\begin{align}
\big(H_{\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} v =
\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} v \Big[I_{\Omega}+
u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} v \,\Big]^{-1}, \label{4.29a}
\end{align}
proves \eqref{4.3}.
\end{proof}
Given these preparations, we are ready for the principal result of this paper, the multi-dimensional analog of Theorem \ref{t1.2} in the context of nonlocal interactions:
\begin{theorem} \label{t4.2}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h4.0} and
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^D\big)\cup
\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big) \cup \sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)\big)$. Then,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& M_{\Omega}^{D}(z)M_{0,\Omega}^{D}(z)^{-1} - I_{\partial\Omega} \\
& \quad = - \widetilde \gamma_N\big(H_{\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} V
\Big[\gamma_D \big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\Big]^* \in
{\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\partial\Omega; d^{n-1}\sigma)\big)
\end{split}
\end{align}
and
\begin{align}
&
\frac{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)}
{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v\,\Big)} \notag \\
& \quad = \det\Big(I_{{\partial\Omega}} -
\widetilde \gamma_N\big(H_{\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1} V
\Big[\gamma_D\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-\overline{z}I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\Big]^* \,\Big) \label{4.30} \\
& \quad = \det\big(M_{\Omega}^{D}(z)M_{0,\Omega}^{D}(z)^{-1}\big). \label{4.31}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from combining Lemma \ref{l3.5} and Theorem \ref{t4.1}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} \label{r4.3}
Assume Hypothesis \ref{h4.0} and
$z\in{\mathbb{C}}\big\backslash\big(\sigma\big(H_{\Omega}^N\big)\cup
\sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D\big) \cup \sigma\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N\big)\big)$. Then,
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
& M_{0,\Omega}^{N}(z)^{-1}M_{\Omega}^{N}(z) - I_{\partial\Omega} \\
& \quad =
\widetilde \gamma_N \big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}V \Big[\gamma_D \big(\big(H_{\Omega}^N-z
I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\big)^*\Big]^* \in
{\mathcal B}_1\big(L^2(\partial\Omega; d^{n-1}\sigma)\big) \label{4.32}
\end{split}
\end{align}
and one can also prove the following analog of \eqref{4.30} and \eqref{4.31}:
\begin{align}
&\frac{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \,\Big)}
{\det\Big(I_{\Omega}+ u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^N-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v \,\Big)} \notag \\
&\quad = \det\Big(I_{{\partial\Omega}} +
\widetilde \gamma_N \big(H_{0,\Omega}^D-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}V \Big[\gamma_D \big(\big(H_{\Omega}^N-z
I_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}\big)^*\Big]^* \,\Big), \label{4.33} \\
& \quad = \det\big(M_{0,\Omega}^{N}(z)^{-1} M_{\Omega}^{N}(z)\big). \label{4.34}
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\begin{remark} \label{r4.4}
$(i)$ For simplicity we focused on trace class nonlocal interactions
$V\in {\mathcal B}_1 \big(L^2(\Omega; d^n x)\big)$ and Fredholm determinants only.
Following our use of modified Fredholm determinants $\det_{p}(\cdot)$,
$p\in{\mathbb{N}}$, in \cite{GMZ07}, one can develop
all the results presented in this paper under the hypothesis
$V\in {\mathcal B}_k \big(L^2(\Omega; d^n x)\big)$ for some $k \in {\mathbb{N}}$. \\
$(ii)$ We closely followed \cite{GMZ07} and used the formalism based on the
factorization of $V$ into $v u$ and symmetrized resolvent equations, etc. It is
possible to avoid this factorization replacing the basic operator
$u\big(H_{0,\Omega}^{D,N}-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}v$ by
$V\big(H_{0,\Omega}^{D,N}-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}$
(resp., by $\big(H_{0,\Omega}^{D,N}-zI_{\Omega}\big)^{-1}V$), etc. This applies, in
particular, to the left-hand sides of \eqref{4.3}, \eqref{4.30}, and \eqref{4.33}.
Of course, the latter observation also directly follows from identity \eqref{4.0}. \\
$(iii)$ Once more we emphasize that it is possible to remove the boundedness
assumption on $\Omega$ in Hypothesis \ref{h4.0} and assume that ${\partial\Omega}$ is
compact instead.
\end{remark}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{introduction}
In his Autobiographical Notes \cite{einstein}, Einstein relates
how important Machian empiricist ideas were for his discovery of a
theory that could reconcile the idea that all inertial frames are
equivalent with the principle that the velocity of light has a
fixed value that is independent of the velocity of the emitting
source. It was essential, he states, to realize what the meaning
of \emph{coordinates} in physics is: they are nothing but the
outcomes of length and time measurements by means of rods, clocks
and light signals. This idea led Einstein to his famous critique
of the classical notion of simultaneity, one of the cornerstones
of the special theory of relativity.
It soon turned out, however, that the special theory of relativity
was not able to accommodate gravitation, and the principle of
equivalence, in a natural way. Einstein fully recognized this
problem in 1908, but it took him another seven years before he
succeeded in constructing the general theory. As he explains in
his Autobiographical Notes, the main reason for the slowness of
his progress in this period was the difficulty of
\emph{abandoning} again, in the context of the general theory, the
idea that coordinates should possess immediate metrical meaning.
From a systematical (as opposed to a historical or psychological)
point of view this emphasis on the different meaning of
coordinates, in the context of the two theories, is very odd. For
the practice of physics before, during and after Einstein's days,
even if governed by the severest empiricist norms, does not at all
indicate that coordinates should possess a metrical significance,
relating to the indications of rods and clocks. Think, for
example, of the way coordinates are used in observational
astronomy: the essential thing is that the coordinates are
assigned to celestial objects in an objective and reproducible
way; how the coordinates relate to distances is a matter to be
found out subsequently. Coordinates are even routinely attributed
to regions of the universe in which rods and clocks could not
possibly exist. This is obviously unobjectionable from an
empiricist point of view, as long as the method by which the
coordinates are assigned is operationally specified. So, even
within the framework of special relativity general coordinate
systems that do not reflect the indications of rods and clocks are
entirely permissible.
What finally led Einstein to abandon his special relativistic
analysis of the meaning of coordinates, he tells us, was the lack
of metrical significance of coordinates in accelerating frames of
reference; the consideration of coordinates on a rotating disc
played an important role in reaching this conclusion
\cite{stachel}. But, as we will see, there is confusion here: the
metrical significance of coordinates in accelerating frames can be
determined completely through application of the principles of
\textit{special} relativity, so there can be no need to revise the
meaning of the notion of coordinates, or to invoke a new
epistemological analysis.
As it turns out, the difference between inertial and non-inertial
frames of reference, and between special and general relativity,
is not in the epistemological status of the coordinates. Rather,
the difference is that chronogeometric characteristics become
globally different. This is a physical rather than a philosophical
difference, and has nothing to do with the meaning or
permissibility of coordinate systems.
The rotating frame of reference nicely illustrates these points.
There is no problem in defining operationally meaningful
coordinates in a rotating (and therefore accelerating) frame.
Furthermore, relating these coordinates to distances and time
intervals, and the behavior of moving objects, can be done by the
means provided by special relativity. However, the spatial
geometry becomes non-Euclidean, and local Einstein synchrony does
not lead to a global notion of time. These latter features
constitute the essential differences from the situation in an
inertial frame.
In the course of our discussion we will have occasion to comment
on a number of related issues, such as the status of rods and
clocks, the behavior of accelerating measuring devices, the
conventionality of simultaneity, and the Ehrenfest paradox.
\section{The rotating frame of reference}\label{frame}
Let us start from Minkowski space-time, coordinatized by inertial
coordinates $r$, $\varphi$, $z$ and $t$: $r$ and $\varphi$ are
polar coordinates in a plane, $z$ is a Cartesian coordinate
orthogonal to this plane, and $t$ is the standard time coordinate.
It so happens that $r$, $z$, and $t$ can be thought of as
representing the indications of rods and clocks, but that is not
important for their role as coordinates, which is just to pinpoint
events unequivocally. The choice of coordinates is conventional
and pragmatic. In this case we choose polar coordinates because we
are going to describe a system that possesses axial symmetry:
polar coordinates simplify the description.
Once we have laid down coordinates, the metrical aspects should be
introduced via further stipulations. This is ordinarily done
through the introduction of the `line element' $ds^2 = c^2 dt^2
-dr^2 - r^2 d\varphi^2-dz^2$, plus a specification of what this
mathematical expression represents physically. The traditional
approach is to invoke standard rods and clocks: $ds/c$ is the time
measured by a standard clock whose $r$, $\varphi$ and $z$
coordinates are constant. Furthermore, $\sqrt{-ds^2}$ is the
length of a rod with a stationary position in the coordinates and
with constant coordinates and differences $dr$, $d\varphi$, $dz$
between its endpoints, taken at one instant according to standard
simultaneity ($dt=0$). However, it would be a mistake to think
that rods and clocks are indispensable to relate the coordinates
to metrical concepts. In section \ref{without} below we will
discuss an approach that does not make use of rods and material
clocks.
We now introduce alternative coordinates for the events in this
Minkowski world: $t^\prime = t$, $r^\prime = r$, $\varphi^\prime =
\varphi - \omega t$ and $z^\prime = z$, with $\omega$ a constant.
Since rest in the new coordinates obviously means uniform rotation
with respect to the old frame, we call the frame of reference
defined by these new coordinates the \textit{rotating frame of
reference}.
It is clear that if operational methods are at hand to fix the old
coordinates, the same methods can be used to assign values to the
new coordinates (we assume $\omega$ to be known). So from an
empiricist or operational point of view the new coordinates are
impeccable. However, from the special theory of relativity we know
that material bodies at rest in the new coordinates may not exist
($\omega r$ may be greater than $c$, the velocity of light). It is
true, therefore, that the new coordinates will not always have a
direct interpretation in terms of co-moving bodies---but this is
something to be distinguished sharply from the more general
question of whether they have adequate empirical significance at
all.
Substitution of the rotating coordinates into the expression for
the line element yields $ds^2 = (c^2 - {r^\prime}^2 \omega^2)
{dt^\prime}^2 -{dr^\prime}^2 - {r^\prime}^2
{d\varphi^\prime}^2-{dz^\prime}^2 - 2\omega {r^\prime}^2
d\varphi^\prime dt^\prime $. As we already mentioned, it is a
basic principle of the special theory of relativity that the line
element supplies all information about the physics of the
situation, as described in the given coordinates. It was also
mentioned above that the traditional link between $ds$ and
physical concepts makes use of clocks and measuring rods. However,
there is another and more fundamental physical interpretation
available that only makes use of the basic laws of motion: as long
as no disturbing forces act, point particles follow time-like
geodesics and light follows null-geodesics in the metric defined
by $ds^2$. The relation between these dynamical aspects (how
particles and light move) and the metrical aspects (rods and
clocks) will be the subject of comments in section \ref{without}.
\section{Rods and clocks}\label{rods}
Let us for the moment stay with the physical interpretation of
$ds$ in terms of measurements performed with rods and clocks.
Concerning time, the coordinating principle is that $ds/c$
represents proper time, measured by a clock whose world line
connects the events between which $ds$ is calculated. This
principle entails that a clock at rest in the rotating frame will
indicate the proper time
\begin{equation}\label{time}
ds/c= \sqrt{(1 - {r^\prime}^2
\omega^2 /c^2 )} dt^\prime.
\end{equation}
Because $t^\prime = t$ and $t$ has the physical meaning of the
time indicated by a clock at rest in the old frame, this implies
that clocks at rest in the rotating frame are slow compared to
clocks in the original (``laboratory'') frame.
With regard to spatial distances, the interpretative principle is
that $\sqrt{-ds^2}$ gives the length of an infinitesimal rod whose
endpoints are simultaneous according to standard simultaneity in
the rod's rest frame (\cite{reichenbach}, p.187). (A rod is a
three-dimensional object, so we need a stipulation about the
instants at which its endpoints should be considered in order to
get a four-dimensional interval for which $ds$ can be calculated.)
When we apply this rule to rods that are at rest in the rotating
frame of reference, we encounter the complication that $dt^\prime
=0$ does not automatically correspond to standard simultaneity in
the rotating frame. The definition of standard synchrony of two
(infinitesimally near) clocks A and B is that a light signal sent
from A to B and immediately reflected to A, reaches B when B
indicates a time that is halfway between the instants of emission
and reception, respectively, as measured by A. Suppose that A and
B, both at rest in the rotating frame, have positions with
coordinate differences $dr$, $d\varphi$ and $dz$---from now on we
drop the primes of the rotating coordinates. A light signal
between A and B follows a null-geodesic:
\begin{equation}\label{null}ds^2=(c^2 - {r}^2 \omega^2) {dt}^2 -{dr}^2 -
{r}^2 {d\varphi}^2-{dz}^2 - 2\omega {r}^2 d\varphi dt =
0.\end{equation} This equation gives the following solutions for
$dt$ when it is applied to the signals from A to B and back,
respectively:
\begin{equation}\label{roundtrip}
dt_{1,2}= \frac{\pm \omega r^2 d\varphi + \sqrt{(c^2-\omega^2 r^2)
(dz^2 + dr^2) + c^2 r^2 d\varphi^2}}{c^2 -\omega^2
r^2}.\end{equation} If $t_0$ is the time coordinate of the
emission event at A, the event at A with time coordinate $t_0 +
1/2(dt_1 + dt_2)$ is standard-simultaneous with the event at B
with time coordinate $t_0 + dt_1$. It follows that standard
synchrony between infinitesimally close events corresponds to the
following difference in $t$-coordinate:
\begin{equation}\label{synchrony}
dt= (t_0 + dt_1) - (t_0 + 1/2dt_1 + 1/2dt_2)=(\omega r^2 d\varphi)/(c^2-\omega^2 r^2).\end{equation} As was to
be expected, it is only for events that differ in their
$\varphi$-coordinates that $dt=0$ is not equivalent to standard
simultaneity; indeed, the instantaneous velocity of the rotating
frame is tangentially directed, and the relativistic dilation and
contraction effects only take place in the direction of the
velocity.
The spatial distance between two infinitesimally near points, as
measured by a rod resting in the rotating frame, is found by
substituting the just-derived value of $dt$, (\ref{synchrony}), in
the expression for $ds$. The result is the following expression
for the 3-dimensional spatial line element:
\begin{equation}\label{space}
dl^2 = dr^2 + \frac{r^2d\varphi^2}{1-\omega^2 r^2/c^2} + dz^2.
\end{equation}
We could have found (\ref{time}) and (\ref{space}) in a simpler
way by making use of the standard expressions for the time
dilation and Lorentz contraction undergone by clocks and rods,
respectively, that possess the instantaneous velocity $\omega r$.
However, the use of the line element as the central theoretical
quantity provides us with a unifying framework that makes it
easier to discuss the relation between metrical and dynamical
concepts.
\section{Space and time without rods and clocks}\label{without}
In his Autobiographical Notes, Einstein already points out that
from a fundamental point of view it is unsatisfactory to interpret
$ds$ via measuring procedures with complicated macroscopic
instruments. Indeed, this could create the false impression that
rods and clocks are basic entities without which the theory would
have no physical content. However, it is clear that rods and
clocks themselves consist of more fundamental entities, like atoms
and molecules. In principle it would therefore be better to base
the interpretation of the theory directly on what it says about
the fundamental constituents of matter. It is only because no
complete theory of matter was available, Einstein explains, that
it was expedient to introduce the theory through measurements by
rods and clocks. In principle they should be eliminated at a later
stage.
This desideratum, to do without rods and clocks, becomes even more
urgent when accelerated frames of reference are considered, as in
the case of our rotating world. Obviously the motions of clocks
and rods that are stationary in the rotating frame are not
inertial. Centrifugal and Coriolis forces will therefore arise,
which will distort the rotating instruments. It is not a priori
clear that such deformed instruments will keep on functioning as
indicators of $ds$. Indeed, one could easily think of rods or
clocks that would be torn apart by centrifugal forces and would
therefore certainly not indicate any length or time intervals.
Fortunately, it \textit{is} possible to found the space-time
description of our rotating world on a more fundamental level than
that of macroscopic measuring devices. In fact, in general
space-times one can use the basic principles that time-like
geodesics are physically realized by inertially moving
point-particles and that null-geodesics represent light rays, to
define space-time distances between neighboring events
(\cite{wheeler}, section 16.4). In our case, Minkowski space-time,
we can start by constructing a set of elementary `light clocks' by
letting light signals bounce back and forth between neighboring
parallel particle geodesics. If we confine our attention to the
plane $z=0$, we can take the geodesics defined in the laboratory
frame (the inertial system we started with) by constant $r$,
$\varphi$ and $r+dr$, $\varphi$, respectively. The thus
constructed clock has a constant period (the $dt$ between two
`ticks') of $2dr/c$. In other words, we have here an elementary
process that provides a physical realization of $t$; and we have
come to this conclusion on the basis of the dynamical postulates
alone (the only ingredient is that light follows null-geodesics).
Length can be determined in a similar way: let a light signal
depart from A, with fixed $r$ and $\varphi$ and go to a
neighboring position B with $r+dr$ and $\varphi + d\varphi$ from
which it returns immediately to A. Let the round trip time
measured at A be $dt$. We can now define the spatial distance $dl$
between A and B as $c dt/2$. From the postulate that light follows
null-geodesics it follows that $dl^2 = dr^2 + r^2 d\varphi^2$. In
this way the laboratory coordinates obtain metrical significance,
without reliance on macroscopic clocks and rigid rods. When such
(complicated) systems are introduced at a later stage, we can
study their workings on the basis of the fundamental laws of
physics governing their constituents and see, on that basis,
whether they are indeed suitable to measure the just-defined
intervals.
We now turn our attention to measurements performed within the
rotating system, i.e.\ with instruments resting in the rotating
coordinates. From Eq.\ (\ref{roundtrip}) we see that the round
trip time $dt$ needed by a light signal between two neighboring
points that are stationary in the rotating frame of reference is
given by
\[ dt= dt_1 +dt_2= 2 \frac{\sqrt{(c^2-\omega^2 r^2)dr^2 + c^2 r^2
d\varphi^2}}{c^2 -\omega^2 r^2}.\] If the laboratory coordinate
$t$ is used as the measure of time, and if the definition
$dl=cdt/2$ is used to fix spatial distances, we arrive at the
metric \[dl^2= \frac{(1-\omega^2 r^2/c^2)dr^2 +
r^2d\varphi^2}{(1-\omega^2 r^2/c^2)^2}.\] However, it is more
natural to link the measure of time intervals in the rotating
system to the indications furnished by light clocks that are
co-moving, i.e.\ stationary in the rotating coordinates instead of
stationary in the laboratory frame. So let a light ray bounce back
and forth between two points that only differ in their
$r$-coordinate, by the amount $dr$, in the rotating frame. It
follows from the expression (\ref{null}) that the period of the
thus defined clock is $2dr/\sqrt{c^2-\omega^2r^2}$, whereas the
period of the similar and instantaneously coinciding clock in the
laboratory frame is $2dr/c$. The period of the rotating light
clock is therefore longer, by a factor
$1/\sqrt{1-\omega^2r^2/c^2}$, than the period of the laboratory
clock. When we now define distances as $cd\tau/2$, with $\tau$
measured in the new `co-moving' time units, we have to multiply
the distances we found a moment ago by $\sqrt{1-\omega^2
r^2/c^2}$. The final result is \[dl^2= dr^2 +
r^2d\varphi^2/(1-\omega^2 r^2/c^2).\] This is the same result as
we found in Eq.\ (\ref{space}).
\section{Accelerating measuring devices}\label{accelerating}
The above sketch shows how we can achieve a physical
implementation of the two systems of coordinates, and give them
metrical meaning, by the sole use of point-particles and light.
The thus defined space-time distances can be used to calibrate
macroscopic measuring rods and clocks. Indeed, it is clear that in
general such instruments will be deformed by the rotational
motion, and that this will introduce inaccuracies in their
readings.
The general effect of accelerations can be illustrated by the
consideration of a light-clock of the kind mentioned above: a
light signal bouncing back and forth between two particle
world-lines. Light travelling to and fro between two mirrors
resting in an inertial system, with mutual distance $L$, defines a
clock with half period $T=L/c$. When the two mirrors move
uniformly with the same velocity $\overrightarrow{v}$, in a
direction parallel to their planes, a simple application of the
Pythagorean theorem shows that the half period of the moving clock
becomes $L/(c\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2})=T/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$. This
demonstrates the presence of time dilation in the case of a moving
light-clock (by means of the relativity principle this result can
be extended to other time-keeping devices). Consider now what
happens if the velocity is not uniform but the system starts
accelerating when the light leaves the first mirror, with a small
acceleration $\overrightarrow{a}$ in the direction of
$\overrightarrow{v}$. As judged from the inertial frame, the light
now needs a time $T^\prime$ to reach the second mirror; during
this time the accelerating mirror system has covered a distance $s
\approx vT^\prime + 1/2a{T^\prime}^2$. Application of Pythagoras
now yields $c^2 {T^\prime}^2 = L^2 + s^2$. It follows that
\begin{equation}\label{period}
c^2 {T^\prime}^2 = L^2 + v^2 {T^\prime}^2 +av {T^\prime}^3 + 1/4
a^2 {T^\prime}^4.
\end{equation}
The half period ${T^\prime}$ that follows from this equation
obviously depends on $a$. However, it is also obvious that the
extent of the change in the period caused by $a$ depends on the
magnitude of ${T^\prime}$ itself. If we make $T^\prime$ in Eq.\
(\ref{period}) very small, by reducing $L$, we find in the
limiting situation $T^\prime = T/\sqrt{1-v^2/c^2}$, just as in the
case of the uniformly moving clock. In other words, the
acceleration has an effect, but the magnitude of this effect
depends on the peculiarities of the specific clock we are
considering (in this case on $L$). This acceleration-dependent
effect can be made as small as we wish, by using suitably
constructed clocks (in the example: by reducing $L$). What remains
in all cases is the universal effect caused by the velocity.
This shows in what sense velocities have a universal effect on
length and time determinations, but accelerations not. There is no
independent postulate involved here; everything can be derived
from the dynamical principles of special relativity theory, by
considering the inner workings of the measuring devices. It turns
out that acceleration-dependent effects are there, but can be
varied, and corrected for, by varying the characteristics of the
devices. This is the real content of the textbook statement that
acceleration has no metrical effects. It should be stressed again
that this does not constitute a new hypothesis that has to be
\textit{added} to the dynamical principles of the theory of
relativity. Quite to the contrary, the effects of accelerations on
any given clock or measuring rod can be computed from the
dynamical principles applied to these devices.
Of course, that the magnitudes of distortions will depend on the
specific constitutions of the rods or clocks in question is only
to be expected. Robust rods and clocks will be less affected
accelerations than fragile ones. One way of correcting for the
deformations is to gauge the accelerating instruments against the
light measurements results described in section (\ref{without}).
The expressions (\ref{time}) and (\ref{space}) should be
understood as applying to the results of space-time measurements
performed with thus corrected measuring devices.
\section{Space and time in the rotating frame}\label{rotspacetime}
The spatial geometry defined by the line element (\ref{space}) is
non-Euclidean, with a negative $r$-dependent curvature (see
\cite{tonnelat}, pp.\ 330-337). One of the notorious
characteristics of this geometry is that the circumference of a
circle with radius $r$ (in the plane $z =0$) is $2\pi r
/(1-\omega^2 r^2/c^2)$, which is greater than $2\pi r$. The
recognition that the geometry in accelerated frames of reference
will in general be non-Euclidean, which through the equivalence
principle suggests that the presence of gravitation will also
cause deviations from Euclidean geometry, played an important role
in Einstein's route to General Relativity. We will restrict
ourselves to the special theory, however.
The properties of time in the rotating frame are perhaps even more
interesting than the spatial characteristics. Expression
(\ref{synchrony}) demonstrates that standard simultaneity between
neighboring events in the rotating frame corresponds to a non-zero
difference $dt$. It follows that if we go along a circle with
radius $r$, in the positive $\phi$-direction, while establishing
standard simultaneity along the way, we create a `time gap'
$\triangle t = {2\pi \omega r^2}/(c^2-\omega^2 r^2)$ upon
completion of the circle. Doing the same thing in the opposite
direction results in a time gap of the same absolute value but
with opposite sign. So the total time difference generated by
synchronizing over a complete circle in one direction, and
comparing the result with doing the same thing in the other
direction is $\triangle t = {4\pi \omega r^2}/(c^2-\omega^2 r^2).$
Now suppose that two light signals are emitted from a source fixed
in the rotating frame and start travelling, in opposite
directions, along the same circle of constant $r$. We follow the
two signals while locally using standard synchrony; this has the
advantage that locally the standard constant velocity $c$ can be
attributed to the signals. We therefore conclude that the two
signals use the same amount of time in order to complete their
circles and return to their source, as calculated by integrating
the elapsed time intervals measured in the successive local
comoving inertial frames (the signals cover the same distances,
with the same velocity $c$, as judged from these frames). However,
because of the just-mentioned time gaps the two signals do not
complete their circles simultaneously, in one event. There is a
time difference $\triangle t = {4\pi \omega r^2}/(c^2-\omega^2
r^2)$ between their arrival times, as measured in the coordinate
$t$. This is the celebrated Sagnac effect (see \cite{nienhuis},
p.\ 652 for a related derivation).
The Sagnac effect directly reflects the space-time geometry of the
rotating frame; it does not depend on the specific nature of the
signals that propagate in the two directions. Indeed, as long as
the two signals have the same velocities in the locally defined
inertial frames with standard synchrony, the difference in arrival
times is given by the above time gap. So the same Sagnac time
difference is there not only for light, but for any two identical
signals running into two directions. The Sagnac experiment
directly probes the space-time relations in the rotating frame.
Because of the difference in arrival times of the two light
signals, the velocity of light obviously cannot be everywhere the
same in the rotating coordinates. This is a consequence of the
fact that in the rotating frame events with equal time coordinate
$t$ are not standard simultaneous. So $t$ may appear as an
unnatural time coordinate for the rotating frame: it would be
desirable to have a time coordinate that \textit{would} reflect
standard simultaneity everywhere. The question can therefore be
asked whether we could define a coordinate $\tilde{t}$ in such a
way that $d\tilde{t}=0$ would imply standard synchrony in the
local inertial frame. Suppose that
$\tilde{t}=\tilde{t}(t,r,\varphi)$, then we should have that
$d\tilde{t}=0$ if Eq.\ (\ref{synchrony}) holds. This implies that
${\omega^2 r^2/(c^2 - \omega^2 r^2)}
\partial\tilde{t}/{\partial t} +
\partial\tilde{t}/\partial\varphi = 0$ and
$\partial\tilde{t}/\partial r = 0.$ In view of the axial symmetry
in our frame we may assume that $\partial\tilde{t}/\partial\varphi
= 0. $ The only solution of our partial differential equations is
therefore that $\tilde{t}$ is independent of $r$, $\varphi$ and
$t$, which clearly is unacceptable. Therefore, it turns out to be
a basic characteristic of the rotating frame that the locally
defined Lorentz frames do not mesh: they cannot be combined into
one frame with a globally defined standard simultaneity. Evidently
it \textit{is} possible to define global time coordinates, like
$t$; but the description of physical processes in terms of these
coordinates must necessarily differ from the standard description
in inertial systems. The non-constancy of the velocity of light in
the rotating system furnishes an example. It should be noted that
this peculiarity of the description of physical processes in the
rotating system is not a consequence of the presence of
centrifugal and Coriolis forces: indeed, in our space-time
determinations we have compensated for the effects of such forces.
It is the space-time geometry itself that is at issue.
\section{Simultaneity, slow clock transport and conventionality}
As we saw in the previous section, the Sagnac effect is
independent of the nature of the signals that propagate into the
two directions on the rotating disc. So, if we transport two
clocks along a circle with radius $r$ around the center of the
disk, one clockwise and one counter-clockwise, while keeping their
velocities the same in the locally co-moving inertial frames,
there will be a difference $\triangle t = {4\pi \omega
r^2}/(c^2-\omega^2 r^2)$ between their return times (measured in
the laboratory time $t$). It is well known that the indications of
the clocks will conform to standard simultaneity in the limiting
situation of vanishing velocities. That is, if the clocks are
transported very slowly with respect to the rotating disc, they
will remain synchronized according to standard simultaneity in the
local inertial frames. It follows that slow clock transport cannot
be used to define an unambiguous global time coordinate on the
rotating disc: in the just-mentioned case the result will depend
on whether a clockwise or counter-clockwise path is chosen. In
general, the result of synchronization by slow clock transport
will be path dependent.
With regard to time in inertial frames, there has been a
long-standing and notorious debate about whether standard
simultaneity ($\varepsilon=1/2$ according to Reichenbach's
formulation) is conventional or not. One of the arguments often
put forward against the conventionality thesis is that the natural
procedure of slow clock transport leads to $\varepsilon=1/2$, thus
showing its privileged status. In the case of the rotating world,
this argument can only be applied locally. Neither the Einstein
light signal procedure, nor the slow transport of clocks can be
used to establish a global notion of simultaneity on the rotating
disc.
More generally, it cannot be denied that in inertial frames
standard simultaneity has a special status: it allows a simple
formulation of the laws, conforms to slow clock transport and
other physically plausible synchronization procedures, and agrees
with Minkowski-orthogonality with respect to world lines
representing the state of rest \cite{malament}. So time
coordinates $t$ that correspond to this notion of simultaneity (in
the sense that $dt = 0$ expresses simultaneity) may be said to be
privileged. In non-inertial frames this still is so, though now
the argument applies only locally. The rotating system illustrates
the situation very well: in each point on the disc standard
simultaneity can be defined just as in an inertial system, but
this does not result in a global time coordinate. This supports
the general conclusion of this paper, namely that the difference
between the status of coordinates in inertial and non-inertial
frames of reference, or special and general relativity, is not so
much a matter of epistemology---or philosophical analysis of the
meaning of coordinates---but rather a matter of physical facts. In
global inertial systems privileged coordinates can be chosen that
have a global metrical interpretation. In reference frames that
are not globally inertial such privileged coordinates do not exist
in general. This is not a matter of a different philosophical
status of coordinates, but rather a reflection of different global
space-time symmetry properties---a factual physical difference
rather than a philosophical distinction.
The purpose of \emph{coordinates} is to label events
unambiguously, which can be done in infinitely many different
ways. The choice between these different possibilities is a matter
of pragmatics; though there may be very good reasons to prefer one
choice over another. Thus, in inertial frames of reference time
coordinates that reflect standard simultaneity lead for many
purposes to an especially simple description. In this case there
exists a physically significant global temporal relation between
events, and coordinates that are adapted to this relation inherit
its special status. But in the general case no physically
significant simultaneity relation exists. Global "simultaneity"
can then
only refer to some global time coordinate, which is
chosen conventionally. This is true in non-inertial frames of
reference, like the rotating disc, and in generally relativistic
space-times in which there are no global temporal symmetries.
These non-inertial frames of reference, and general relativistic
space-times, seem an arena where the thesis that (global)
simultaneity is conventional can be defended without controversy.
\section{The rotating Ehrenfest cylinder}\label{ehrenfest}
Not only in its temporal aspects, but also in its spatial physical
properties the rotating frame differs globally from an inertial
frame. Until now we spoke about a rotating frame of reference as
defined by a set of rotating \emph{coordinates}, without
discussing a possible material realization of this frame. It is
clear from the outset that the special theory of relativity sets
limits to such a realization: objects at rest in the rotating
frame should not move faster than light as judged from the
inertial laboratory frame. This implies that $\omega r < c$ should
hold for such an object. In other words, there is an upper bound
to the value of $r$ that can be realized materially.
However, even if this condition is satisfied there remain
interesting questions, as made clear by Ehrenfest in his famous
note on the subject \cite{paradox}. Suppose that a solid cylinder
of radius $R$ is gradually put into rotation about its axis;
finally it reaches a state of uniform rotation with angular
velocity $\omega$. It would seem that in the final state the
cylinder has to satisfy contradictory requirements: on the one
hand the Lorentz contraction should make the circumference
shorter, on the other hand the radial elements should not contract
because their motion is normal to their lengths. From symmetry it
is clear that the form of a cross section of the moving cylinder
remains a circle, as judged from the laboratory frame; but this
would apparently mean that the circumference of the circle has
become smaller while the radius has stayed the same. This is
inconsistent (remember that Euclidean geometry holds in the
laboratory frame).
The solution of this paradox is that the various parts of the
cylinder, being fastened to each other, cannot move freely and
therefore cannot Lorentz contract as freely moving infinitesimal
measuring rods would do. What will happen to the cylinder during
its acceleration depends on the elastic properties of the
material: tensions will develop because the tangential elements
want to shrink, whereas the radial elements do not. A possible
scenario is that the tangential elements will be stretched as
compared to their natural (i.e.\ Lorentz contracted) lengths.
Another possibility, if the material is sufficiently strong, is
that the radius will contract, allowing the circumference to
contract too. However, if $\omega$ becomes big enough one would
have to expect that the tensions and strains grow to such an
extent that they cause the cylinder to explode. This makes it
clear that the Lorentz contraction can be responsible for clearly
dynamical effects---the contractions are not just a matter of
``perspective'' (see \cite{dieks1} and \cite{dieks2}). (Of course,
this whole discussion is rather academical because centrifugal
forces will tear the cylinder apart before the relativistic
effects become noticeable.)
As long as the cylinder survives, and keeps its cylindrical shape
(as judged from the laboratory frame), not all its elements will
be free from deformations, tensions or strains. However, the
length determinations by measuring rods at rest in the rotating
frame, as discussed in section \ref{rods}, were supposed to be
carried out with freely movable rods that are not hampered in
their Lorentz contractions. So measuring rods laid out along the
circumference of the circle will have undergone a Lorentz
contraction, whereas rods laid out along a radius will have
retained their rest length (as judged from the laboratory system).
The measurement would reveal that the circumference is longer than
$2\pi$ times the radius, in conformity with equation
(\ref{space}).
The spatial geometry of the disc is therefore non-Euclidean. That
means that distance relations must be represented by a metrical
tensor that cannot be put into the Euclidean diagonal form
everywhere. It remains possible, of course, to choose coordinates
locally in such a way that the Euclidean form results at the point
in question. The difference from the inertial system concerns
global aspects, not local ones. The impossibility to define a
global coordinate system in which the metrical tensor reduces to
its Euclidean standard form implies that there cannot be
coordinates whose differences correspond to distances everywhere.
The situation is analogous to the one we discussed in the context
of time coordinates: nothing changes in the status and meaning of
coordinates when we go from inertial to non-inertial systems. The
things that do change are the global characteristics of the
physical geometry, which are coordinate-independent.
\section*{Conclusion}
The transition from inertial to non-inertial frames of reference,
and the transition from special to general relativity, does not
imply a change in the status and meaning of coordinate systems. It
is therefore a misunderstanding to think that general relativity
allows a wider class of coordinate systems than classical physics
or special relativity. In classical physics and in relativity
theory, both in inertial systems and non-inertial systems,
coordinates just serve to label events. The choice for a
particular coordinate system from the infinity of possible ones is
dictated by pragmatic considerations.
What \emph{does} change in the transition from inertial to
non-inertial systems, and from special to general relativity, are
the global aspects of the physical spatial and temporal relations.
Pragmatic arguments for choosing one coordinate system over
another may therefore lead to different choices in the different
situations: if geometrical relations have become different,
coordinate systems with different characteristics, adapted to the
new geometry, may lead to a simpler description. But this does not
change the conventional nature of the coordinates.
|
\section*{Program Summary}
{\bf Manuscript Title}: Automatic Calculation of supersymmetric Renormalization Group Equations and Self Energies \\
{\bf Author}: Florian Staub \\
{\bf Program title}: SARAH \\
{\bf Programming language}: Mathematica \\
{\bf Computers for which the program has been designed}: All Mathematica
is available for \\
{\bf Operating systems}: All Mathematica is available for \\
{\bf Keywords}: Supersymmetry, model boodling, Lagrangian, Renormalization Group
Equations, mass matrices, Feynman rules, one loop calculations \\
{\bf CPC Library Classification}: 11.1, 11.6 \\
{\bf Nature of problem}: A supersymmetric model is usually characterized by the particle
content, the gauge sector and the superpotential. It is a time consuming way to obtain
all necessary information for phenomenological studies from this basic ingredients. \\
{\bf Solution method}: SARAH calculates the complete Lagrangian for a given model whose gauge sector can be any direct product of SU(N) gauge groups. The chiral superfields can transform as any, irreducible representation with respect to these gauge groups and it is possible to handle an arbitrary number of symmetry breakings or particle rotations. Also
the gauge fixing terms can be specified. Using this information, SARAH derives the mass matrices and Feynman rules at tree-level and generates model files for CalcHep/CompHep and FeynArts/FormCalc. In addition, it can calculate the
renormalization group equations at one- and two-loop level and the one-loop corrections to the one- and two-point functions. \\
{\bf Unusual features}: SARAH just needs the superpotential and gauge sector as input and not the complete Lagrangian. Therefore, the complete implementation of new models is done in some minutes. \\
{\bf Running time}: Measured CPU time for the evaluation of the MSSM on an Intel Q8200 with
2.33GHz. Calculating the complete Lagrangian: 12 seconds. Calculating all vertices: 75 seconds. Calculating the one- and two-loop RGEs: 50 seconds. Calculating the one-loop corrections: 7 seconds. Writing a FeynArts file: 1 second. Writing a CalcHep/CompHep file: 6 seconds. Writing the LaTeX output: 1 second.
\section{Introduction}
The LHC has started its work and will hopefully find soon the first clues for physics beyond the standard model (SM). Supersymmetry (SUSY) is the most prominent and well studied extension of the SM. However, most studies were done in the context of the Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM) \cite{susy1,susy2,susy3,susy4,susy5,susy6}. Therefore, many computer tools can handle the MSSM out of the box but it demands some effort to implement new models. Also the analytical expressions for all possible interactions, renormalization group equations or self-energies for the MSSM are nicely presented in literature (see e.g. \cite{Rosiek:1995kg,Kuroda:1999ks,Martin:1993zk,Pierce:1996zz}). Of course, this is not the case for all possible extensions of the MSSM. The Mathematica package \SARAH is supposed to close this gap. The first version \cite{sarah1} already allowed a comprehensive analysis of supersymmetric models by calculating the tree-level masses and tadpole equations as well as all interactions of the model. The obtained information can either be written in \LaTeX{} files or used to generate model files for \CalcHep/\CompHep \cite{CHep} and \FeynArts/\FormCalc \cite{FeynArts}. To calculate all of these results, only the minimal amount of information about a model is needed: the gauge sector, the particle content, the superpotential and the field rotations. \\
The new version of \SARAH goes one step further. First, the set of possible models which can be handled has been significantly extended. \SARAH is no longer restricted to chiral superfields in the fundamental representation, but can work with any irreducible representation of \(SU(N)\). Second, \SARAH provides now functions for the calculation of the one-loop masses and the renormalization group equations (RGEs) at one- and two-loop level: it calculates the anomalous dimensions for all chiral superfields and the \(\beta\)-functions for all gauge couplings, superpotential parameters, soft-breaking parameters and vacuum expectation values (VEVs). Furthermore, it calculates the one-loop self-energies of all fields as well as for the one-loop corrections to the tadpoles. This information can be easily used to get the radiative corrections to the masses at one-loop level. \\
Before we discuss the new features of \SARAH 2, we give a brief, general introduction to \SARAH: in sec.~\ref{sec:down} we explain the installation and the first evaluation of a model. Afterwards, in sec.~\ref{sec:tree} we show the main features for obtaining tree-level results and producing model files for \CalcHep/\CompHep or \FeynArts/\FormCalc. In sec.~\ref{sec:rge}, we discuss the possibilities to derive one- and two-loop RGEs, before we show in sec.~\ref{sec:loop} how to calculate the one-loop corrections to one- and two-point functions. Finally, we explain how to implement new models in \SARAH in sec.~\ref{sec:model}.\\
The appendix contains supplementary information about the check for gauge anomalies (\ref{sec:GaugeAnomaly}), the calculation of the Lagrangian in component fields (\ref{sec:Lagrangian}) and the derivation of gauge group factors (\ref{sec:irrep}). In addition, we list all formulas used for the calculation of the RGEs and self-energies in \ref{app:formulas}, show our conventions for the MSSM in \ref{sec:MSSM} and \ref{sec:SARAH_MSSM}, before we summarize the changes in comparison to the first version of \SARAH in \ref{app:changes}.
\section{Download, installation and first evaluation}
\label{sec:down}
\SARAH can be downloaded from
\begin{verbatim}
http://theorie.physik.uni-wuerzburg.de/~fnstaub/sarah.html
\end{verbatim}
The package should be extracted to the application directory of Mathematica. This directory under Linux in
\begin{verbatim}
home/user/.Mathematica/Applications/
\end{verbatim}
and
\begin{verbatim}
Mathematica-Directory\AddOns\Applications\
\end{verbatim}
in Windows. \\
Initially, the package itself consists of two directories: the directory \verb"Package" contains all Mathematica package files, while in the directory \verb"Models" the definitions of the different models are located. During the work, a third directory called \verb"Output" is generated by \SARAH. The results of different calculations as well as the model files for the diagram calculators are written to this directory. A fourth directory \verb"LaTeX" contains \LaTeX{} packages which are needed for the appropriate output. \\
A comprehensive manual ({\tt sarah.pdf}) is included in the package archive and can also be found on the web page and on arXiv \cite{sarah}. In addition, a file ({\tt models.pdf}) with information about all models delivered with the package is part of the archive. Furthermore, a file with a short introduction to the main commands is included ({\tt Readme.txt}) as well as an example for the usage ({\tt Example.nb}). \\
After the installation, the package is loaded in Mathematica via
\begin{verbatim}
<<"sarah-2.0/SARAH.m"
\end{verbatim}
and a supersymmetric model is initialized by
\begin{verbatim}
Start["Modelname"];
\end{verbatim}
Here, \verb"Modelname" is the name of the corresponding model file, e.g. for the minimal supersymmetric standard model the command would read
\begin{verbatim}
Start["MSSM"];
\end{verbatim}
or for the next-to-minimal supersymmetric model in CKM basis
\begin{verbatim}
Start["NMSSM","CKM"];
\end{verbatim}
is used. In the following, we refer for all given examples the model file of the MSSM. Our conventions concerning the fields definitions and rotations in the MSSM are given in \ref{sec:MSSM}. Even if the meaning of most symbols used in the examples should be intuitively clear, we list the internal names for parameters and particles in \ref{sec:SARAH_MSSM}. In addition, we give in \ref{app:changes} an overview about the main changes happened in the second version of \SARAH in comparison to the first version presented in \cite{sarah1}.
\section{Tree-level calculations}
\label{sec:tree}
When a model is initialized using the {\tt Start} command, this model is first checked for gauge anomalies and charge conservation. If not all checks are fulfilled, a warning is printed. More information about the different checks is given in \ref{sec:GaugeAnomaly}. Afterwards, the calculation of the complete Lagrangian at tree-level starts. The performed steps are presented in \ref{sec:Lagrangian}. When this calculation is finished, several tree-level results can easily be obtained.
\subsection{Particle content}
To get an overview of all particles of the different eigenstates,
\begin{verbatim}
Particles[Eigenstates]
\end{verbatim}
is used. This can be, for instance, \verb"Particles[GaugeES]" or \verb"Particles[EWSB]" for the gauge eigenstates or the eigenstates after electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB), respectively. The output is a list with the following information about each particle: (i) name of the particle, (ii) type of the particle (\verb"F" for fermion, \verb"S" for scalar, \verb"V" for vector boson, \verb"G" for ghosts, \verb"A" for auxiliary field), (iii) number of first generation, (iv) number of last generation, (v) indices of the particle. Fermions are listed using Weyl and not Dirac spinors. For instance, the entry for the gauge eigenstates of the left-down quark reads
\begin{verbatim}
{FdL, 1, 3, F, {generation, color}}
\end{verbatim}
\subsection{Masses and tadpole equations}
The masses and tadpole equations are derived automatically during the evaluation of a model. In this regard, the masses or the entries of a mass matrix are calculated as second derivative of the Lagrangian
\begin{equation}
m_{i j} = - \frac{\partial^2 \La}{\partial \phi_i \partial \phi_j^*}
\end{equation}
with respect to the considered fields \(\phi_{i}\). The tadpoles \(T_i\) are the first derivative of the scalar potential with respect to the different VEVs \(v_i\)
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial V}{\partial v_i} \equiv T_i \thickspace .
\end{equation}
The user has access to both information by using the command {\tt MassMatrix[Particle]} for the mass matrix of \verb"Particle" and
{\tt TadpoleEquation[VEV]} for the tadpole equation corresponding to the vacuum expectation value \verb"VEV".
\paragraph*{Examples}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Higgs mass matrix}. The \((1,2)\)-entry of the mass matrix of the scalar Higgs in the MSSM is saved in
{\tt MassMatrix[hh][[1,2]]}. This returns
\begin{verbatim}
-(g1^2*vd*vu)/4 - (g2^2*vd*vu)/4 - B[\[Mu]]/2 -conj[B[\[Mu]]]/2
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Squark mass matrix}. In the same way, the (1,1)-entry of the \(6 \times 6\) down squark mass matrix is obtained by
{\tt MassMatrix[Sd][[1,1]]}. The output is
\begin{verbatim}
(-3*g2^2*(vd^2 + vu^2) + g1^2*(vu^2 - vd^2) + 24*mq2[1,1] +
12*vd^2*sum[j1, 1, 3,conj[Yd[j1, 1]]*Yd[j1, 1]])/24
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Squark mass matrix with generation indices as variable}. To get the result for the \(2 \times 2\) down squark matrix without the explicit insertion of generation indices, {\tt MassMatrixUnexpanded[Sd][[1,1]]} is used. The output is
\begin{verbatim}
(Delta[cm1,cn1]*(-((g1^2+3*g2^2)*(vd^2-vu^2)*Delta[gm1,gn1])
+ vd^2*sum[j1,1,3,conj[Yd[j1,gn1]]*Yd[j1,gm1]] + 12*(2*mq2[gm1,gn1] )))/24
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Tadpole equation}. The tadpole equation corresponding to \(\frac{\partial V}{\partial v_d}=0\) is obtained by
{\tt TadpoleEquation[vd] } and reads
\begin{verbatim}
(8*mHd2*vd + g1^2*vd^3 + g2^2*vd^3 - g1^2*vd*vu^2 - g2^2*vd*vu^2 - 4*vu*B[\[Mu]] +
( 8*vd*\[Mu]*conj[\[Mu]] - 4*vu*conj[B[\[Mu]]])/8 == 0
\end{verbatim}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Vertices}
The vertices are calculated as partial derivatives of the Lagrangian with respect to the involved fields and applying afterwards the vacuum conditions. The vertices can be calculated in two ways. Either it is possible to calculate the vertices for a specific choice of external particles or to calculate all vertices of the complete model at once. The former task is evolved by
\begin{verbatim}
Vertex[{Particles},Options];
\end{verbatim}
The argument of this function is a list with the external particles. The options define the set of eigenstates ({\tt Eigenstates}\ \(\rightarrow\) name) and usage of relations among the parameters ({\tt UseDependences \(\rightarrow\) True/False}). In the result, the coefficients corresponding to different Lorentz structures are separately listed. If possible, the expressions are simplified by using the unitarity of rotation matrices, the properties of generators and, if defined, simplifying assumptions about parameters.\\
All vertices for a set of eigenstates are calculated at once by
\begin{verbatim}
MakeVertexList[Eigenstates, Options];
\end{verbatim}
This searches for all possible interactions present in the Lagrangian and creates lists for the generic subclasses of interactions, e.g. {\tt VertexList[FFS]} or {\tt VertexList[SSVV]} for all two-fermion-one-scalar interactions and all two-scalar-two-vector-boson interactions, respectively. If effective theories are considered, six-particle interaction ({\tt SixParticleInteractions \(\rightarrow\) False}) or all higher-dimensional operators ({\tt effectiveOperators \(\rightarrow\) False}) can be switched off during this calculation. Those interactions slow down the computation and they are sometimes not needed.
\paragraph*{Examples}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf One possible Lorentz structure}. {\tt Vertex[\{hh,Ah,Z\}] } leads to the vertex of scalar and a pseudo scalar Higgs with a Z-boson
\begin{verbatim}
{{hh[{gt1}], Ah[{gt2}], VZ[{lt3}]},
{((ZA[gt2,1]*ZH[gt1,1] - ZA[gt2,2]*ZH[gt1,2])*(g2*Cos[ThetaW]+g1*Sin[ThetaW]))/2,
Mom[Ah[{gt2}], lt3] - Mom[hh[{gt1}],lt3]}}
\end{verbatim}
The output is divided in two parts. First, the involved particles are given, second, the value of the vertex is given. This second part is again split in two parts: one is the Lorentz independent part and the second part defines the transformation under the Lorentz group.
\item {\bf Several possible Lorentz structures}. {\tt Vertex[\{bar[Fd],Fd,hh\}]} is the interaction between two d-quarks and a Higgs:
\begin{verbatim}
{{bar[Fd[{gt1, ct1}]], Fd[{gt2, ct2}], hh[{gt3}]},
{((-I)*Delta[ct1,ct2]*Delta[gt1,gt2]*ZH[gt3,2]*Yd[gt2,gt1])/Sqrt[2],PL},
{((-I)*Delta[ct1,ct2]*Delta[gt1,gt2]*ZH[gt3,2]*Yd[gt1,gt2])/Sqrt[2],PR}}
\end{verbatim}
Obviously, there are three parts: one for the involved particles and two for the different Lorentz structures. \verb"PL" and \verb"PR" are the polarization projectors \(P_L = \frac{1}{2} (1 - \gamma_5), P_R = \frac{1}{2} (1 + \gamma_5)\).
\item {\bf Changing the considered eigenstates and using Weyl fermions} It is also possible to calculate the vertices for Weyl fermions and/or to consider the gauge eigenstates. For instance,
\begin{verbatim}
Vertex[{fB, FdL, conj[SdL]}, Eigenstates -> GaugeES]
\end{verbatim}
gives
\begin{verbatim}
{{fB, FdL[{gt2, ct2}], conj[SdL[{gt3, ct3}]]},
{((-I/3)*g1*Delta[ct2, ct3]*Delta[gt2, gt3])/Sqrt[2],1}}
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Using dependences}. With {\tt Vertex[\{conj[Se], Se, VP\}, UseDependences -> True]} \(g_1\) and \(g_2\) are replaced by the electric charge \(e\). This and similar relations can be defined in the parameter file (see sec.~\ref{sec:ParametersFile}).
\begin{verbatim}
{{conj[Se[{gt1}]], Se[{gt2}], VP[{lt3}]},
{(-I)*e*Delta[gt1,gt2],-Mom[conj[Se[{gt1}]],lt3]+Mom[Se[{gt2}],lt3]}}
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Fixing the generations}. It is possible to give the indices of the particles already as input
\begin{verbatim}
Vertex[{hh[{1}], hh[{1}], Ah[{2}], Ah[{2}]}]
\end{verbatim}
leads to
\begin{verbatim}
{{hh[{1}], hh[{1}], Ah[{2}], Ah[{2}]},
{(-I/4)*(g1^2 + g2^2)*Cos[2*\[Alpha]]*Cos[2*\[Beta]], 1}}
\end{verbatim}
Obviously, the given definition of the mixing matrices for the Higgs fields was automatically inserted.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Output for diagram calculators and \LaTeX}
\paragraph*{\CalcHep/\CompHep} \CalcHep and \CompHep are well known and widely used programs for calculating cross sections and decay widths via a diagrammatic approach at tree-level. The model files produced by \SARAH support both Feynman gauge and unitarity gauge. Furthermore, \SARAH can split interactions between four colored particles in a way that they can be handled by \CalcHep/\CompHep and also models with CP violation are possible. The model files for \CalcHep/\CompHep are created by
\begin{verbatim}
MakeCHep[Options];
\end{verbatim}
The options define, whether the Feynman gauge should be included ({\tt FeynmanGauge \(\rightarrow\) True/False}) and if CP violation should be considered ({\tt CPViolation \(\rightarrow\) True}). Also the splitting of specific four-scalar interactions can be suppressed as long as they are not colored ({\tt NoSplitting} \(\rightarrow\) list of fields). In addition, the running of the strong coupling constant can be included as it is usually done in the standard \CalcHep files ({\tt UseRunningCoupling \(\rightarrow\) True}).
\paragraph*{\FeynArts/\FormCalc} \FeynArts is a Mathematica package for creating Feynman diagrams and the corresponding amplitudes. This information is afterwards used by \FormCalc to simplify the amplitudes and square them by using {\tt FORM}. In contrast to \CalcHep/\CompHep{} \FeynArts/\FormCalc can deal also with loop diagrams. Beside the standard model file for \FeynArts, \SARAH writes a second file including supplementary information about the model: all defined dependences, the numerical values for the parameters and masses, if they are available, and special abbreviations to speed up the calculations with \FormCalc. The model files are generated via
\begin{verbatim}
MakeFeynArts;
\end{verbatim}
\paragraph*{\LaTeX}
The generated \LaTeX\xspace files include all information about a model for one set of eigenstates: particle content, mixing matrices, tadpole equations, RGEs, one-loop self-energies and one-loop corrections to the tadpoles as well as all interactions. The \LaTeX\xspace output using the standard functions of Mathematica is not really readable when dealing with long expressions. Therefore, special functions were developed for a better typesetting. For each vertex, the corresponding Feynman diagram is automatically drawn using \verb"FeynMF" \cite{Ohl:1995kr}. In addition, a batch file for Linux and for Windows are written by \SARAH to simplify the compilation of the different \LaTeX{} files including all Feynman diagrams. The command for producing the \LaTeX{} output is
\begin{verbatim}
MakeTeX[Options];
\end{verbatim}
One option is to disable the output of the Feynman diagrams ({\tt FeynmanDiagrams \(\rightarrow\) False}), another to use a shorter notation for the interactions ({\tt ShortForm \(\rightarrow\) True}).
\section{Renormalization Group Equations}
\label{sec:rge}
\label{RGEs}
SARAH calculates the RGEs for the parameters of the superpotential, the soft-breaking terms, the gauge couplings at one- and two-loop level and the VEVs. This is done by using the generic formulas of \cite{Martin:1993zk,Yamada:1993ga,Yamada:1993uh, Yamada:1994id} which we have summarized in \ref{app:RGE_con}. \\
The calculation of the RGEs can be started after the initialization of a model via
\begin{verbatim}
CalcRGEs[Options];
\end{verbatim}
\paragraph*{Options}
The options offer a possibility to disable the calculation of the two-loop RGEs (\verb"TwoLoop" \(\rightarrow\) \verb"False"). Another option is to handle the number of generations of specific chiral superfields as variable ({\tt VariableGenerations} \(\rightarrow\) list of fields). This might be used for models which include chiral superfields much heavier than the SUSY scale to make the dependence on these fields obvious. Normally, the \(\beta\)-function are written in a compact form using matrix multiplication, as explained below. This can be switched off by the option \verb"NoMatrixMultiplication" \(\rightarrow\) \verb"True". The last option offers the possibility to read the results of former calculations (\verb"ReadLists" \(\rightarrow\) \verb"True")\\
\paragraph*{GUT normalization}
The gauge couplings of abelian gauge groups are often normalized at the GUT scale. Therefore, it is possible to define for each \(U(1)\) gauge coupling the GUT-normalization by the corresponding entry in the parameters file. See sec.~\ref{sec:ParametersFile} for more information.
\paragraph*{Results}
The RGEs are saved in different arrays in Mathematica whose names are given in brackets: anomalous dimensions of all superfields (\verb"Gij"), trilinear superpotential parameters (\verb"BetaYijk"), bilinear superpotential parameters (\verb"BetaMuij"), linear superpotential parameters (\verb"BetaLi"), trilinear soft-breaking parameters (\verb"BetaTijk"), bilinear soft-breaking parameters (\verb"BetaBij"), linear soft-breaking parameters (\verb"BetaLSi"), scalar soft-breaking masses (\verb"Betam2ij"), gaugino soft-breaking masses (\verb"BetaMi"), gauge couplings (\verb"BetaGauge") and VEVs (\verb"BetaVEVs").\\
All entries of these arrays are three-dimensional: the first entry gives the name of the parameter, the second one the one-loop \(\beta\)-function and the third one the two-loop \(\beta\)-function. Furthermore, the results for the RGEs of the scalar masses are simplified by using abbreviations for often appearing traces (see also \cite{Martin:1993zk}). The definition of the traces is saved in the array \verb"TraceAbbr". In \verb"TraceAbbr[[1]]" all abbreviations needed for the one-loop RGEs are given, and in \verb"TraceAbbr[[2]]" those are for the two-loop.\\
The results are also saved as text files in the directory
\begin{verbatim}
PackageDirectory/Output/Modelname/RGEs/
\end{verbatim}
\paragraph*{Matrix Multiplication}
Generally, the results contain sums over the generation indices of the particles in the loop. \SARAH always tries to write them as matrix multiplications, in order to shorten the expressions. Therefore, new symbols are introduced:
\begin{itemize}
\item \verb"MatMul[A,B,C,...][i,j]": \((A B C \dots)_{i,j}\). Matrix multiplication, also used for vector-matrix and vector-vector multiplication.
\item \verb"trace[A,B,C,...]": \(\mbox{Tr}(A B C \dots)\). Trace of a matrix or product of matrices.
\item \verb"Adj[M]": \(M^\dagger\). Adjoint of a matrix.
\item \verb"Tp[M]": \(M^T\). Transposed of a matrix.
\end{itemize}
As already mentioned, the usage of matrix multiplication can be switched off with the corresponding option. In addition, it is automatically switched off, if the model contains a parameter with three generation indices.
\paragraph*{Examples}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf \(\beta\)-function of Yukawa couplings}. The Yukawa couplings of the MSSM are saved in \verb"BetaYijk". The first entry consists of
\begin{verbatim}
BetaYijk[[1,1]]: Ye[i1,i2] ,
\end{verbatim}
i.e. this entry contains the \(\beta\)-functions for the electron Yukawa coupling. The corresponding one-loop \(\beta\)-function is
\begin{verbatim}
BetaYijk[[1,2]]:
(-9*g1^2*Ye[i1,i2])/5-3*g2^2*Ye[i1,i2]+3*trace[Yd,Adj[Yd]]*Ye[i1,i2]+
trace[Ye,Adj[Ye]]*Ye[i1, i2]+3*MatMul[Ye,Adj[Ye],Ye][i1, i2]
\end{verbatim}
The two-loop \(\beta\)-function is saved in \verb"BetaYijk[[1,3]]" but we skip it here because of its length.
\item {\bf \(\beta\)-function of soft-breaking masses and abbreviations for traces}. The first entry of \verb"Betam2ij" corresponds to the soft-breaking mass of the selectron
\begin{verbatim}
Betam2ij[[1,1]]: me2[i1,i2]
\end{verbatim}
and the one-loop \(\beta\)-function is saved in \verb"Betam2ij[[1,2]]":
\begin{verbatim}
(-24*g1^2*MassB*conj[MassB]+10*g1^2*Tr1[1])*Kronecker[i1,i2]/5 +
4*mHd2*MatMul[Ye,Adj[Ye]][i1,i2]+4*MatMul[T[Ye],Adj[T[Ye]]][i1,i2] +
2*MatMul[me2,Ye,Adj[Ye]][i1,i2]+4*MatMul[Ye, ml2, Adj[Ye]][i1,i2] +
2*MatMul[Ye,Adj[Ye],me2][i1,i2]
\end{verbatim}
The definition of the element \verb"Tr1[1]" is saved in \verb"TraceAbbr[[1,1]]":
\begin{verbatim}
{Tr1[1], -mHd2 + mHu2 + trace[md2] + trace[me2] - trace[ml2] +
trace[mq2] - 2*trace[mu2]}
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Number of generations as variable}. With
\begin{verbatim}
CalcRGEs[VariableGenerations -> {q}]
\end{verbatim}
the number of generations of the left-quark superfield is handled as variable. Therefore, the one-loop \(\beta\)-function of the hypercharge couplings reads
\begin{verbatim}
(63*g1^3)/10 + (g1^3*NumberGenerations[q])/10
\end{verbatim}
\item{\bf No matrix multiplication}. Using matrix multiplication can be switched off by
\begin{verbatim}
CalcRGEs[NoMatrixMultiplication -> True]
\end{verbatim}
The one-loop \(\beta\)-function for the electron Yukawa coupling is now written as
\begin{verbatim}
sum[j2,1,3,sum[j1,1,3,conj[Yd[j2,j1]]*Yu[i1,j1]]*Yd[j2,i2]] +
2*sum[j2,1,3,sum[j1,1,3,conj[Yu[j1,j2]]*Yu[j1,i2]]*Yu[i1,j2]] +
sum[j2,1,3,sum[j1,1,3,conj[Yu[j2,j1]]*Yu[i1,j1]]*Yu[j2,i2]] +
(3*sum[j2,1,3,sum[j1,1,3,conj[Yu[j1,j2]]*Yu[j1,j2]]]*Yu[i1,i2])/2 +
(3*sum[j2,1,3,sum[j1,1,3,conj[Yu[j2,j1]]*Yu[j2,j1]]]*Yu[i1,i2])/2 -
(13*g1^2*Yu[i1,i2])/15-3*g2^2*Yu[i1,i2]-(16*g3^2*Yu[i1,i2])/3
\end{verbatim}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Loop Corrections}
\label{sec:loop}
\SARAH calculates the analytical expressions for the one-loop corrections to the tadpoles and the self energy of all particles. These calculations are performed in \(\overline{\mbox{DR}}\)-scheme and in the 't Hooft gauge. In principle, this is a generalization of the calculations for the MSSM presented in \cite{Pierce:1996zz}. The command to start the calculation is
\begin{verbatim}
CalcLoopCorrections[Eigenstates];
\end{verbatim}
As usual, \verb"Eigenstates" can in the case of the MSSM either be \verb"GaugeES" for the gauge eigenstates or \verb"EWSB" for the eigenstates after EWSB. If the vertices for the given set of eigenstates were not calculated before, this is done before the calculation of the loop contributions begins. \\
\paragraph*{Conventions} Using the conventions of \cite{Pierce:1996zz}, the results will contain the Passarino Veltman integrals listed in \ref{sec:Integrals}. The involved couplings are abbreviated by
\begin{itemize}
\item \verb"Cp[p1,p2,p3]" and \verb"Cp[p1,p2,p3,p4]" for non-chiral, three- and four-point interactions involving the particles \verb"p1" - \verb"p4".
\item \verb"Cp[p1,p2,p3][PL]" and \verb"Cp[p1,p2,p3][PR]" for chiral, three-point interactions involving the fields \verb"p1" - \verb"p3".
\end{itemize}
The self-energies can be used for calculating the radiative corrections to masses and mass matrices, respectively. We have summarized the needed formulas for this purpose in \ref{sec:OneLoopMass}. For calculating the loop corrections to a mass matrix, it is convenient to use unrotated, external fields, while the fields in the loop are rotated. Therefore, \SARAH adds to the symbols of the external particle in the interaction an \verb"U" for 'unrotated', e.g. \verb"Sd" \(\rightarrow\) \verb"USd". The mixing matrix associated to this field in the vertex has to be replaced by the identity matrix when calculating the correction to the mass matrix.
\paragraph*{Results} The results for the loop corrections are saved in two different ways. First as list containing the different loop contribution for each particle. Every entry includes the following information: internal particles, generic type of the diagram, numerical factors coming from symmetry considerations and possible charges in the loop. The second output is a sum of all contributions, where the generic results of \ref{sec:Integrals} have already been inserted. This can afterwards be written as pdf file using the \LaTeX{} output of \SARAH.\\
The results for the self-energies are saved in \verb"SelfEnergy1LoopList" as list of the contributions and in \verb"SelfEnergy1LoopSum" written as sums. The last one is a two-dimensional array. The first column gives the name of the external particle, the entry in the second column depends on the type of the field. For scalars the one-loop self energy \(\Pi(p^2)\) is given, for fermions the one-loop self-energies for the different polarizations (\(\Sigma^L(p^2)\),\(\Sigma^R(p^2)\), \(\Sigma^S(p^2)\)) are written in a three-dimensional array, while for vector bosons the transversal part of the self energy \(\Pi^T(p^2)\) is shown. \\
Also the results for corrections to the tadpoles are saved twice: in \verb"Tadpoles1LoopSum[Eigenstates]" explicitly written as sum and in \verb"Tadpoles1LoopList[Eigenstates]" as list of the different contributions.
\paragraph*{Examples}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf One-loop tadpoles}. The radiative correction of the tadpoles due to a chargino loop is saved in
\begin{verbatim}
Tadpoles1LoopList[EWSB][[1]];
\end{verbatim}
and reads
\begin{verbatim}
{bar[Cha],Cp[Uhh[{gO1}],bar[Cha[{gI1}]],Cha[{gI1}]],FFS,1,1/2}
\end{verbatim}
The meaning of the different entries is: (i) a chargino (\verb"Cha") is in the loop, (ii) the vertex with an external, unrotated Higgs (\verb"Uhh") with generation index \verb"gO1" and two charginos with index \verb"gI1" is needed, (iii) the generic type of the diagram is \verb"FFS", (iv) the charge factor is 1, (v) the diagram is weighted by a factor \(\frac{1}{2}\) with respect to the generic expression (see \ref{sec:Integrals}).\\
The corresponding term in \verb"Tadpoles1LoopSum[EWSB]" is
\begin{verbatim}
4*sum[gI1,1,2, A0[Mass[bar[Cha[{gI1}]]]^2]*
Cp[phid,bar[Cha[{gI1}]],Cha[{gI1}]]*Mass[Cha[{gI1}]]]
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf One-loop self-energies}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The correction to the down squark matrix due to a four-point interaction with a pseudo scalar Higgs is saved in
{\tt SelfEnergy1LoopList[EWSB][[1, 12]]} and reads
\begin{verbatim}
{Ah,Cp[conj[USd[{gO1}]],USd[{gO2}],Ah[{gI1}],Ah[{gI1}]],SSSS,1,1/2}
\end{verbatim}
This has the same meaning as the term
\begin{verbatim}
-sum[gI1,1,2,A0[Mass[Ah[{gI1}]]^2]*
Cp[conj[USd[{gO1}]],USd[{gO2}],Ah[{gI1}],Ah[{gI1}]]]/2
\end{verbatim}
in \verb"SelfEnergy1LoopSum[EWSB]".
\item Corrections to the Z boson are saved in {\tt SelfEnergy1LoopList[EWSB][[15]]}. An arbitrary entry looks like
\begin{verbatim}
{bar[Fd], Fd, Cp[VZ, bar[Fd[{gI1}]], Fd[{gI2}]], FFV, 3, 1/2}
\end{verbatim}
and corresponds to
\begin{verbatim}
(3*sum[gI1, 1, 3, sum[gI2, 1, 3,
H0[p^2, Mass[bar[Fd[{gI1}]]]^2, Mass[Fd[{gI2}]]^2]*
(conj[Cp[VZ,bar[Fd[{gI1}]],Fd[{gI2}]][PL]]*
Cp[VZ,bar[Fd[{gI1}]],Fd[{gI2}]][PL] +
conj[Cp[VZ,bar[Fd[{gI1}]],Fd[{gI2}]][PR]]*
Cp[VZ,bar[Fd[{gI1}]],Fd[{gI2}]][PR]) +
2*B0[p^2,Mass[bar[Fd[{gI1}]]]^2,Mass[Fd[{gI2}]]^2]*
Mass[bar[Fd[{gI1}]]]*Mass[Fd[{gI2}]]*
Re[Cp[VZ,bar[Fd[{gI1}]],Fd[{gI2}]][PL]*
Cp[VZ,bar[Fd[{gI1}]],Fd[{gI2}]][PR])]])/2
\end{verbatim}
in \verb"SelfEnergy1LoopListSum[EWSB]".
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Definition of models}
\label{sec:model}
All information of the different models is saved in three different files, which have to be in one directory
\begin{verbatim}
PackageDirectory/Models/ModelName/
\end{verbatim}
The three files are: one model file with the same name as the directory (\verb"ModelName.m"), a file containing additional information about the particles of the model (\verb"particles.m") and a file containing additional information about the parameters of the model (\verb"parameters.m"). Only the first file is really necessary for calculating the Lagrangian and to get a first impression of a model. However, the other two files are needed for defining properties of parameters and particles and for producing an appropriate output. \\
In addition, it is possible to include LesHouches spectrum files in the model directory \cite{Allanach:2008qq}. These can be read with the command {\tt ReadSpectrum["Filename"]}. If spectrum files are located in another directory, the complete path has to be added to the filename to read them.
\subsection{The model file}
The model file contains the following parts: first, the gauge structure and the particle content are given. Afterwards, the matter interactions are defined by the superpotential. These are general information which must always be apparent. \\
This part is followed by the definition of the names for all eigenstates ({\tt NameOfStates}). For these eigenstates, several properties can be defined using the corresponding {\tt DEFINITION} statement: decomposition of complex scalars in scalar, pseudo scalar and VEV ({\tt DEFINITION[States][VEVs]}), rotations in the matter ({\tt DEFINITION[States][MatterSector]}) and gauge sector ({\tt DEFINITION[States][GaugeSector]}), the corresponding gauge fixing terms ({\tt DEFINITION[States][GaugeFixing]}), the flavor decomposition of fields ({\tt DEFINITION[States][Flavors]}) and possible phases of fields ({\tt DEFINITION[States][Phases]}). New couplings can be added and existing couplings can be changed by hand ({\tt DEFINITION[States][Additional]}). \\
Afterwards, optionally the particles are states, which should be integrated out or deleted. At the end, the Dirac spinors have to be built out of Weyl spinors, a spectrum file can be defined and a choice for an automatic output can be made.
\subsubsection{Vector and chiral superfields}
\SARAH supports all \(SU(N)\) gauge groups. The gauge sector in \SARAH is defined by adding a vector superfield for each gauge group to the list {\tt Gauge} in the model file, e.g.
\begin{verbatim}
Gauge[[3]]={G, SU[3], color, g3, False};
\end{verbatim}
The different parts define the names of the superfield, of the gauge group and of the gauge coupling. In addition, the dimension of the gauge group is given. The last entry states, if the gauge indices should be implicit or explicit. The name of the gaugino component of the vector superfield starts with \verb"f" and the vector boson with \verb"V", i.e. based on the above definition, the gluino is called \verb"fG" and the gluon \verb"VG". The ghost field is named using \verb"g", i.e. \verb"gG". \\
Chiral superfields are defined by using the list {\tt Fields}, e.g.
\begin{verbatim}
Fields[[1]] = {{uL, dL}, 3, q, 1/6, 2, 3};
...
Fields[[5]] = {conj[dR], 3, d, 1/3, 1, -3};
\end{verbatim}
The first entry defines the names used for the component fields, then the number of generation and the name for the superfield follows. The automatically created name of the fermionic component starts with \verb"F" and the scalar one with \verb"S": the squarks are named \verb"SuL", \verb"SdL" or \verb"SdR", while the quarks are \verb"FuL", \verb"FdL" and \verb"FdR".\\
After the superfield name, the representation with respect to the gauge groups defined by {\tt Gauge} is assigned. The transformation of an irreducible representation \(r\) under a given gauge group is in most cases fixed by its dimension \(D\). Therefore, it is sufficient to assign only \(D\) if it is unique. Otherwise, the Dynkin labels of \(r\) have to be given as additional input. \\
For all gauge groups, the generators of all appearing representations are needed in order to write the kinetic part of the Lagrangian and the D-terms. In this context, all generators for non-fundamental representations are written as tensor products in \SARAH. Furthermore, the eigenvalues \(C_2(r)\) of the quadratic Casimir as well as the Dynkin index \(I(r)\) are needed. The performed steps to obtain these results are given in \ref{sec:irrep}.
\subsubsection{Superpotential}
The superpotential is defined in a compact form using the variable {\tt SuperPotential}:
\begin{verbatim}
SuperPotential = {{{Coefficient,Parameter,(Contraction)},
{Particle 1, Particle 2, Particle 3} }, ...}
\end{verbatim}
Each term of the superpotential is defined by two lists. The second list assigns all involved fields by using the superfield names. The first list is two- or three-dimensional. It defines a numerical coefficient and the name of the coupling. The gauge and generation indices of the involved superfields are automatically contracted by \SARAH. The used contraction can be displayed via
\begin{verbatim}
ShowSuperpotentialContractions;
\end{verbatim}
Sometimes, there are more possibilities to contract all indices. Thus, it is possible to fix the contraction of each term using the third entry of the first list. \\
\subsubsection{Symmetry breaking and rotations}
Rotations for all matter and gauge fields as well as the decomposition of scalar fields into their scalar component, pseudo scalar components and VEVs can be performed. All appearing coefficients as well as the names of the rotation matrices to parametrize this change of the basis can be chosen individually. Besides, it is possible to decompose a field carrying a generation index into its different flavors in order to treat them separately. Afterwards, the complete Lagrangian for the new set of eigenstates is calculated. \\
We give here again only the generic syntax for the different tasks and refer to \ref{sec:MSSM_modelfile} for a discussion of the MSSM. The definition of rotations in the matter sector has either the form
\begin{verbatim}
{Old Basis, {New Basis, Mixing Matrix}}
\end{verbatim}
or
\begin{verbatim}
{{1.Old Basis,2.Old Basis},
{{1.New Basis,1.Matrix},{2.New basis,2.Matrix}}}
\end{verbatim}
depending on whether the mass matrix is hermitian or not. The decomposition of scalar fields is done via
\begin{verbatim}
{Scalar, {{VEV, 1.Coeff.}, {Pseudoscalar, 2.Coeff.},{Scalar,3.Coeff.}};
\end{verbatim}
Finally, the syntax for the flavor decomposition of fields is
\begin{verbatim}
{Field, {Name for 1.Generation, Name for 2.Generation, ...}};
\end{verbatim}
In principle, these steps can be repeated as often as needed. Therefore, it is no problem to go first to the SCKM basis and afterwards to the mass eigenbasis. GUT theories involving several symmetry breakings can be treated in the same way. The information of all intermediate steps is saved. Hence, it is possible to calculate the vertices or masses of all eigenstates without the necessity of a new model file or a new evaluation of the model.
\subsubsection{Effective or non-supersymmetric theories}
It is easy in \SARAH to integrate particles out of the spectrum to get an effective theory, or just to delete some particles to get a non-supersymmetric limit of the model. Integrating out particles happens by adding them to the list {\tt IntegrateOut}
\begin{verbatim}
IntegrateOut = {Particle 1, Particle 2, ...}
\end{verbatim}
If particles are integrated out, all higher dimensional operators up to dimension 6 are calculated. Deleting particles can be done in the same way as integrating them out. The corresponding list is called {\tt DeleteParticle}. The difference is that there are no effective operators calculated. Deleting is therefore, of course, faster and should be used if the higher dimensional operators are not needed.
\subsubsection{Example: Model file for the MSSM}
\label{sec:MSSM_modelfile}
We show in the following the implementation of the MSSM in \SARAH. Our conventions are discussed in \ref{sec:MSSM}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The gauge sector is \(U(1)\times SU(2)\times SU(3)\) and is just defined by adding the corresponding vector superfields.
\begin{verbatim}
Gauge[[1]]={B, U[1], hypercharge, g1, False};
Gauge[[2]]={WB, SU[2], left, g2, True};
Gauge[[3]]={G, SU[3], color, g3, False};
\end{verbatim}
\item The doublet superfields \(\hat{q},\hat{l}, \hat{H}_d, \hat{H}_u\) are added by
\begin{verbatim}
Fields[[1]] = {{uL, dL}, 3, q, 1/6, 2, 3};
Fields[[2]] = {{vL, eL}, 3, l, -1/2, 2, 1};
Fields[[3]] = {{Hd0, Hdm}, 1, Hd, -1/2, 2, 1};
Fields[[4]] = {{Hup, Hu0}, 1, Hu, 1/2, 2, 1};
\end{verbatim}
\item The singlet superfields \(\hat{d}, \hat{u}, \hat{e}\) are added by
\begin{verbatim}
Fields[[5]] = {conj[dR], 3, d, 1/3, 1, -3};
Fields[[6]] = {conj[uR], 3, u, -2/3, 1, -3};
Fields[[7]] = {conj[eR], 3, e, 1, 1, 1};
\end{verbatim}
\item The superpotential of the MSSM is
\begin{equation}
\label{superpotential_MSSM}
W = \hat{q} Y_u \hat{u} \hat{H}_u - \hat{q} Y_d \hat{d} \hat{H}_d - \hat{l} Y_e \hat{e} \hat{H}_d +\mu \hat{H}_u \hat{H}_d
\end{equation}
and given in \SARAH by
\begin{verbatim}
SuperPotential = { {{1, Yu},{u,q,Hu}}, {{-1,Yd},{d,q,Hd}},
{{-1,Ye},{e,l,Hd}}, {{1,\[Mu]},{Hu,Hd}} };
\end{verbatim}
\item There are two different sets of eigenstates: the gauge eigenstates before EWSB and the mass eigenstates after EWSB. The internal names are
\begin{verbatim}
NameOfStates={GaugeES, EWSB};
\end{verbatim}
\item The gauge fixing terms for the unbroken gauge groups are
\begin{verbatim}
DEFINITION[GaugeES][GaugeFixing]=
{ {Der[VWB], -1/(2 RXi[W])},
{Der[VG], -1/(2 RXi[G]) }};
\end{verbatim}
This has the same meaning as
\begin{equation}
\La_{GF} = -\frac{1}{2 \xi_W}|\partial_\mu W^{\mu,i}|^2 -\frac{1}{2 \xi_g}|\partial_\mu g^{\mu,i}|^2
\end{equation}
\item The vector bosons and gauginos rotate after EWSB as follows
\begin{verbatim}
DEFINITION[EWSB][GaugeSector]=
{ {VWB, {1,{VWm, 1/Sqrt[2]}, {conj[VWm],1/Sqrt[2]}},
{2,{VWm,-I/Sqrt[2]}, {conj[VWm],I/Sqrt[2]}},
{3,{VP,Sin[ThetaW]}, {VZ, Cos[ThetaW]}}},
{VB, {1,{VP,Cos[ThetaW]}, {VZ, -Sin[ThetaW]}}},
{fWB, {1,{fWm, 1/Sqrt[2]}, {fWp 1/Sqrt[2]}},
{2,{fWm,-I/Sqrt[2]}, {fWp, I/Sqrt[2]}},
{3,{fW0, 1}}}
};
\end{verbatim}
This is the common mixing of vector bosons and gauginos after EWSB, see \ref{sec:RotGaugeMSSM}.
\item The neutral components of the scalar Higgs receive VEVs \(v_d\)/\(v_u\) and split in scalar and pseudo scalar components according to \ref{sec:VEVsMSSM}. This is added to \SARAH by
\begin{verbatim}
DEFINITION[EWSB][VEVs]=
{{SHd0, {vd, 1/Sqrt[2]}, {sigmad, I/Sqrt[2]},{phid, 1/Sqrt[2]}},
{SHu0, {vu, 1/Sqrt[2]}, {sigmau, I/Sqrt[2]},{phiu, 1/Sqrt[2]}}};
\end{verbatim}
\item The particles mix after EWSB to new mass eigenstates
\begin{verbatim}
DEFINITION[EWSB][MatterSector]=
{{{SdL, SdR }, {Sd, ZD}},
{{SuL, SuR }, {Su, ZU}},
{{SeL, SeR }, {Se, ZE}},
{{SvL }, {Sv, ZV}},
{{phid, phiu }, {hh, ZH}},
{{sigmad, sigmau }, {Ah, ZA}},
{{SHdm, conj[SHup] }, {Hpm,ZP}},
{{fB, fW0, FHd0, FHu0}, {L0, ZN}},
{{{fWm, FHdm}, {fWp, FHup}}, {{Lm,Um}, {Lp,Up}}},
{{{FeL}, {conj[FeR]}}, {{FEL,ZEL},{FER,ZER}}},
{{{FdL}, {conj[FdR]}}, {{FDL,ZDL},{FDR,ZDR}}},
{{{FuL}, {conj[FuR]}}, {{FUL,ZUL},{FUR,ZUR}}} };
\end{verbatim}
This defines the mixings to the mass eigenstates described in \ref{sec:RotMatterMSSM}.
\item The new gauge fixing terms after EWSB are
\begin{verbatim}
DEFINITION[EWSB][GaugeFixing]=
{{Der[VP], - 1/(2 RXi[P])},
{Der[VWm]+ I Mass[VWm] RXi[W] Hpm[{1}], - 1/(RXi[W])},
{Der[VZ] - Mass[VZ] RXi[Z] Ah[{1}], - 1/(2 RXi[Z])},
{Der[VG], - 1/(2 RXi[G])}};
\end{verbatim}
Based on this definition, \(A^0_1\) and \(H^\pm_1\) are recognized in all calculations as Goldstone bosons.
\item No particles should be integrated out or deleted
\begin{verbatim}
IntegrateOut={};
DeleteParticles={};
\end{verbatim}
\item The Dirac spinors for the mass eigenstates are
\begin{verbatim}
dirac[[1]] = {Fd, FdL, FdR};
dirac[[2]] = {Fe, FeL, FeR};
dirac[[3]] = {Fu, FuL, FuR};
dirac[[4]] = {Fv, FvL, 0};
dirac[[5]] = {Chi, L0, conj[L0]};
dirac[[6]] = {Cha, Lm, conj[Lp]};
dirac[[7]] = {Glu, fG, conj[fG]};
\end{verbatim}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Parameter and particle files}
\subsubsection{Parameter file}
Additional properties and information about the parameters and particles of a model are saved in the files \verb"parameters.m" and \verb"particles.m". An entry in the parameter file looks like
\begin{verbatim}
{Yu, { LaTeX -> "Y^u",
Real -> True,
Form -> Diagonal,
Dependence -> None,
Value -> None,
LesHouches -> Yu
}}
\end{verbatim}
and contains information about the numerical value ({\tt Value} \(\rightarrow\) number), the position in a LesHouches accord file ({\tt LesHouches} \(\rightarrow\) position) or the dependence on other parameters ({\tt Dependence} \(\rightarrow\) equation). Also simplifying assumptions can be made: it can be defined that parameters contain only real entries ({\tt Real \(\rightarrow\) True}) or that the parameter is diagonal ({\tt Form \(\rightarrow\) Diagonal}). Also a \LaTeX{} name can be given ({\tt LaTeX} \(\rightarrow\) name). Furthermore, the GUT normalization can be assigned ({\tt GUTnormalization} \(\rightarrow\) value) for the gauge couplings of an \(U(1)\) gauge groups.
\subsubsection{Particle file}
\label{sec:ParametersFile}
The particles file contains entries like
\begin{verbatim}
{Su , { RParity -> -1,
PDG -> {1000002,2000002,1000004,2000004,1000006,2000006},
Width -> Automatic,
Mass -> Automatic,
FeynArtsNr -> 13,
LaTeX -> "\\tilde{u}",
OutputName -> "um" }},
\end{verbatim}
and defines properties of all particles such as the $R$-parity ({\tt RParity} \(\rightarrow\) number) or the mass ({\tt Mass} \(\rightarrow\) value or {\tt Automatic}). {\tt Automatic} means that for the output for \FeynArts or \CalcHep not a fixed numerical value is used, but that the masses are calculated using tree-level relations. In addition, the PDG code is given ({\tt PDG} \(\rightarrow\) number), the number for the particle class used in the \FeynArts model file can be fixed ({\tt FeynArts} \(\rightarrow\) number) and the name in \LaTeX{} form is given ({\tt LaTeX} \(\rightarrow\) name). If a \CalcHep or \CompHep model file should be written, it is also helpful to define an appropriate name in this context ({\tt OutputName} \(\rightarrow\) name).
\subsubsection{Global definitions}
It is also possible to define global properties for parameters or particles which are present in more than one model file. These properties are afterwards used for all models. The global definitions are saved in the files \verb"particles.m" and \verb"parametes.m" directly in the main model directory. For each parameter or particle, an entry like
\begin{verbatim}
{{ Descriptions -> "Up Squark",
RParity -> -1,
PDG -> {1000002,2000002,1000004,2000004,1000006,2000006},
Width -> Automatic,
Mass -> Automatic,
FeynArtsNr -> 13,
LaTeX -> "\\tilde{u}",
OutputName -> "um" }},
\end{verbatim}
can be added. In particular, the entry \verb"Description" is important. This should be an unique identifier for each particle or parameter. This identifier can later on be used in the different files of the different models, e.g.
\begin{verbatim}
{Su , { Descriptions -> "Up Squark"}},
\end{verbatim}
Of course, it is also possible to overwrite some of the global definitions by defining them locally, too. For instance, to use \verb"u" instead of \verb"um" as output name in a specific model, the entry should be changed to
\begin{verbatim}
{Su , { Descriptions -> "Up Squark",
OutputName -> "u" }},
\end{verbatim}
in the corresponding particle file of the model.
\section{Verification}
\paragraph*{Tree-level results} We have checked the model files generated with \SARAH for the MSSM against the existing files of \FeynArts and \CalcHep. The checks happened as well at vertex level as for complete processes. We have compared the numerical value of each vertex for different sets of parameters and all possible combinations of generations (more than 5000). In addition we have calculated several \(1\rightarrow 2\) and \(2\rightarrow 2\) processes with the old and new model files. Similar checks have been done for the vertices of the NMSSM against the model file of \CalcHep. More information about the verification of the tree-level results is given \cite{sarah1}.
\paragraph*{One-loop self-energies and tadpole equations} We have compared the analytical expressions of the self-energies calculated by \SARAH for the MSSM with the results of \cite{Pierce:1996zz}. In addition, we have compared the numerical values for the one-loop corrected masses with the results of {\tt SPheno} \cite{SPheno}. Furthermore, the results for the NMSSM were numerically checked against the routines provided by the authors of \cite{Degrassi:2009yq}. Both results were in complete agreement. A detailed discussion about the results for the NMSSM obtained by \SARAH is also given in \cite{Staub:2010ty}.
\paragraph*{Verification of the calculated RGEs}
We have compared the analytical results for the one- and two-loop RGEs calculated by \SARAH for the MSSM with \cite{Martin:1993zk} and for the NMSSM with \cite{Ellwanger}. The only difference has been in the NMSSM the two-loop RGE of \(A_\lambda\). A second calculation by authors of \cite{Ellwanger} have confirmed the first result of \SARAH. \\
In addition, we have checked a model containing non-fundamental representations: the \(SU(5)\) inspired Seesaw II model of \cite{Borzumati} and \cite{Rossi}. It is known that there are discrepancies of the RGEs given in these two papers. Our result fully agrees with \cite{Borzumati}. \\
Also numerically checks have been done by comparing the RGEs for the MSSM with the RGEs implemented in {\tt SPheno} \cite{SPheno}. Both sets of RGEs are in full agreement.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work is supported by the DFG Graduiertenkolleg GRK-1147 and by the DAAD, project number D/07/13468. We thank Bj\"orn Hermann and Avelino Vincente for their checks of the output and useful suggestions, Ritesh Singh for proof-reading the manuscript and Werner Porod for fruitful discussions. In addition, we thank Nicole Schatz for her support during all the work.
\begin{appendix}
\section{Gauge anomalies}
\label{sec:GaugeAnomaly}
Before \SARAH starts the calculation of the Lagrangian it checks the model for the different triangle anomalies. These anomalies can involve diagrams with three external gauge bosons belonging to the same \(U(1)\) or \(SU(N)\) gauge group. To be anomaly free, the sum over all internal fermions has to vanish
\begin{eqnarray}
U(1)^3_i &:& \sum_n {Y^i_n}^3 = 0 \thickspace , \\
SU(N)^3_i &:& \sum_n \mbox{Tr}(T^i_n T^i_n T^i_n) = 0 \thickspace .
\end{eqnarray}
We label the different gauge groups with the indices \(i,j,k\). \(Y^i_n\) is the charge of particle \(n\) under the abelian gauge group \(i\) while \(T^i_n\) is the generator with respect to a non-abelian gauge group.\\
Combinations of two different gauge groups are possible, if one group is an \(U(1)\). Hence, another condition for the absence of anomalies is
\begin{equation}
U(1)_i\times SU(N)^2_j : \sum_n Y^i_n\, \mbox{Tr}(T^j_n T^j_n) = 0 \thickspace .
\end{equation}
If more than one \(U(1)\) gauge group are present, anomalies can be generated by two or three different \(U(1)\) gauge bosons as external fields, too. Therefore, it has to be checked, that
\begin{eqnarray}
U(1)_i\times U(1)_j^2 &:& \thinspace \sum_n Y^i_n {Y^j_n}^2 = 0 \thickspace , \\
U(1)_i\times U(1)_j\times U(1)_k &:& \thinspace \sum_n Y^i_n Y^j_n Y^k_n= 0
\end{eqnarray}
holds. In addition, it has to be checked that there is an even number of \(SU(2)\) doublets. This is necessary for a model in order to be free of the Witten anomaly \cite{Witten:1982fp}. If one condition is not fulfilled, a warning is given by \SARAH but the model can be evaluated anyway.
\section{Calculation of the Lagrangian of supersymmetric models}
\label{sec:Lagrangian}
We describe in this section the calculation of the complete Lagrangian for a supersymmetric model based on the superpotential and the gauge structure.
\paragraph*{Interactions of chiral superfields}
If we call the superpotential for a given theory \(W\) and use \(\phi_i\) for the scalar and \(\psi_i\) for the fermionic component of a chiral supermultiplet, the matter interactions can by derived by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:MatterInteractions}
\La_Y = - \frac{1}{2} W^{ij} \psi_i \psi_j + \mbox{h.c.} \thickspace, \hspace{1cm} \La_F = F^{* i} F_i + \mbox{h.c.}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FTerms}
W^{ij} = \frac{\delta^2}{\delta \phi_i \delta \phi_j} W \hspace{1cm} \mbox{and} \hspace{1cm} F^i = - W^{* i} = \frac{\delta W}{\delta \phi_i} \thickspace .
\end{equation}
The first term of eq. (\ref{eq:MatterInteractions}) describes the interaction of two fermions with one scalar, while the second term forms the so called F-terms which describe four-scalar interactions.
\paragraph*{Interactions of vector superfields}
We name the spin-\(\frac{1}{2}\) component of a vector supermultiplet \(\lambda\) and the spin-1 component \(A^\mu\). The most general Lagrangian only involving these fields is
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:LagVS}
\La = - \frac{1}{4} F^a_{\mu\nu} F^{\mu\nu a} - i \lambda^{\dagger a } \bar{\sigma}^\mu D_\mu \lambda^a
\end{equation}
with the field strength
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:FieldStrength}
F_{\mu\nu}^a = \partial_\mu A_\nu^a - \partial_\nu A_\mu^a + g f^{abc} A_\mu^b A_\nu^c \thickspace ,
\end{equation}
and the covariant derivative
\begin{equation}
D_\mu \lambda^a = \partial_\mu \lambda^a + g f^{abc} A_\mu^b \lambda^c \thickspace .
\end{equation}
Here, \(f^{abc}\) is the structure constant of the gauge group. Plugging eq.~(\ref{eq:FieldStrength}) in the first term of eq.~(\ref{eq:LagVS}) leads to self-interactions of three and four gauge bosons
\begin{equation}
\La_{V} = - \frac{1}{4} (\partial_\mu A_\nu^a - \partial_\nu A_\mu^a) g f^{abc} A^{\mu,b} A^{\nu,c} - \frac{1}{4} g^2 (f_{abc} A_\mu^b A_\nu^c) (f^{ade} A^{\mu,e} A^{\nu,e}) \thickspace .
\end{equation}
The second term of eq.~(\ref{eq:LagVS}) describes the interactions between vector bosons and gauginos.
\paragraph*{Supersymmetric gauge interactions}
The parts of the Lagrangian with both chiral and vector superfields are the kinetic terms for the fermions and scalars
\begin{equation}
\La_{kin} = - D^\mu \phi^{*i} D_\mu \phi_i - i \psi^{\dagger i } \bar{\sigma}^\mu D_\mu \psi_i
\end{equation}
as well as the interaction between a gaugino and a matter fermion and scalar
\begin{equation}
\La_{GFS} = - \sqrt{2} g (\phi^* T^a \psi) \lambda^a + \mbox{h.c.} \thickspace .
\end{equation}
Here, \(T^a\) are the fundamental generators of the gauge group. Furthermore, the covariant derivatives are
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\mu \phi_i &=& \partial_\mu \phi_i - ig A^a_\mu (T^a \phi)_i \thickspace ,\\
D_\mu \phi^{*i} &=& \partial_\mu \phi^{*i} + ig A^a_\mu (\phi^* T^a)^i \thickspace , \\
D_\mu \psi_i &=& \partial_\mu \psi_i - i g A^a_\mu (T^a \psi)_i \thickspace,
\end{eqnarray}
In addition, the D-terms are defined by
\begin{equation}
\La_D = \frac{1}{2} D^a D^a \thickspace .
\end{equation}
The solution of the equations of motion for the auxiliary fields leads to
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DTerms}
D^a = - g (\phi^* T^a \phi) \thickspace .
\end{equation}
\paragraph*{Soft-breaking terms} SUSY must be a broken. This can be parametrized by adding soft-breaking terms to the Lagrangian. The possible terms are the mass terms for all scalar matter fields and gauginos
\begin{equation}
\La_{SB} = - m_{\phi_i}^2 \phi_i \phi_i^* - \frac{1}{2} M_{\lambda_i} \lambda_i \lambda_i
\end{equation}
as well as soft-breaking interaction corresponding to the superpotential terms
\begin{equation}
\La_{Soft,W} = T \phi_i \phi_j \phi_k + B \phi_i \phi_j + S \phi_i \thickspace .
\end{equation}
\paragraph*{Gauge fixing terms and ghost interactions}
\label{GaugeFixing}
The Lagrangian of a theory without further restrictions is invariant under a general gauge transformation. This invariance leads to severe problems in the quantization of the theory as can be seen in the divergence of functional integrals. Therefore, it is in necessary to add gauge fixing terms to break this gauge invariance. \\
The general form of the gauge fixing Lagrangian is
\begin{equation}
\La_{GF} = - \frac{1}{2} \sum_a|f(x)^a|^2 \thickspace .
\end{equation}
\(f_a\) can be a function of partial derivatives of a gauge boson and a Goldstone boson. The corresponding ghost terms of the ghost fields \(\bar{\eta}\) and \(\eta\) are
\begin{equation}
\La_{Ghost} = - \bar{\eta}_a (\delta f^a) \thickspace.
\end{equation}
Here, \(\delta\) assigns the operator for a BRST transformation. For an unbroken gauge symmetry, the gauge fixing terms in the often chosen \(R_\xi\)-gauge are
\begin{equation}
\La_{GF} = - \frac{1}{2 R_\xi} \sum_a \left(\partial^\mu V_\mu^a \right)^2 \thickspace.
\end{equation}
Here, \(V_\mu\) are the gauge boson of the unbroken gauge group. It is often common to choose a distinct value for \(R_\xi\). The most popular gauges are the unitary gauge \(R_\xi \rightarrow \infty\) and the Feynman-'t Hooft-gauge \(R_\xi = 1\). For broken symmetries, the gauge fixings terms are chosen in a way that the mixing terms between vector bosons and scalars disappear from the Lagrangian. Therefore, the common choice for the gauge fixing Lagrangian for theories with the standard model gauge sector after EWSB is
\begin{equation}
\label{GFewsb}
\La_{GF, R_\xi} = - \frac{1}{2 \xi_\gamma} \left( \partial^\mu \gamma_\mu\right)^2 - \frac{1}{2 \xi_Z} \left( \partial^\mu Z_\mu + \xi_Z M_Z G^0 \right)^2 + - \frac{1}{\xi_{W^+}} \left( \partial^\mu W^+_\mu + \xi_{W^+} M_W G^+\right)^2 \thickspace .
\end{equation}
Here, \(G^0\) and \(G^+\) are the Goldstone bosons, which build the longitudinal component of the massive vector bosons. \\
\section{Calculation of Group Factors}
\label{sec:irrep}
SARAH supports not only chiral superfields in the fundamental representation but in any irreducible representation of \(SU(N)\). In most cases, it is possible to fix the transformation properties of the chiral superfield by stating the corresponding dimension \(D\). If the dimension is not unique, also the Dynkin labels are needed. For calculating kinetic terms and D-terms, it is necessary to derive from the representation the corresponding generators. Furthermore, the eigenvalues \(C_2\) of the quadratic Casimir for any irreducible representation \(r\)
\begin{equation}
T^a T^a \phi(r) = C_2(r) \phi(r)
\end{equation}
as well as the Dynkin index \(I\)
\begin{equation}
Tr(T^a T^b) \phi(r) = I \delta_{a b} \phi(r)
\end{equation}
are needed for the calculation of the RGEs. All of that is derived by \SARAH due to the technique of Young tableaux. The following steps are evolved:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The corresponding Young tableau fitting to the dimension \(D\) is calculated using the hook formula:
\begin{equation}
D = \Pi_i \frac{N + d_i}{h_i} \thickspace,
\end{equation}
\(d_i\) is the distance of the \(i.\) box to the left upper corner and \(h_i\) is the hook of that box. \\
\item The vector for the highest weight \(\Lambda\) in Dynkin basis is extracted from the tableau.
\item The fundamental weights for the given gauge group are calculated.
\item The value of \(C_2(r)\) is calculated using the Weyl formula
\begin{equation}
C_2(r) = ( \Lambda, \Lambda + \rho) \thickspace ,
\end{equation}
\(\rho\) is the Weyl vector.
\item The Dynkin index \(I(r)\) is calculated from \(C_2(r)\). For this step, the value for the fundamental representation is normalized to \(\frac{1}{2}\).
\begin{equation}
I(r) = C_2(r) \frac{D(r)}{D(G)} \thickspace ,
\end{equation}
with \(D(G)\) as dimension of the adjoint representation.
\item The number of co- and contra-variant indices is extracted from the Young tableau. With this information, the generators are written as tensor product.
\end{enumerate}
The user can calculate this information independently from the model using the new command
\begin{verbatim}
CheckIrrepSUN[Dim,N]
\end{verbatim}
\verb"Dim" is the dimension of the irreducible representation and \verb"N" is the dimension of the \(SU(N)\) gauge group.
The result is a vector containing the following information: (i) repeating the dimension of the field, (ii) number of covariant indices, (iii) number of contravariant indices, (iv) value of the quadratic Casimir \(C_2(r)\), (v) value of the Dynkin index \(I(r)\), (vi) Dynkin labels for the highest weight.
\paragraph*{Examples}
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Fundamental representation}. The properties of a particle, transforming under the fundamental representation of \(SU(3)\) are calculated via {\tt CheckIrrepSUN[3,3]}. The output is the well known result
\begin{verbatim}
{3, 1, 0, 4/3, 1/2, {1, 0}}
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Adjoint representation}. The properties of a field transforming as {\bf 24} of \(SU(5)\) are calculated by
{\tt CheckIrrepSUN[24,5] }. The output will be
\begin{verbatim}
{24, 1, 1, 5, 5, {1, 0, 0, 1}}
\end{verbatim}
\item {\bf Different representations with the same dimension}.
The {\bf{70}} under \(SU(5)\) is not unique. Therefore, {\tt CheckIrrepSUN[\{70, \{0, 0, 0, 4\}\}, 5] } returns
\begin{verbatim}
{70, 0, 4, 72/5, 42, {0, 0, 0, 4}}
\end{verbatim}
while {\tt CheckIrrepSUN[\{70, \{2, 0, 0, 1\}\}, 5] } leads to
\begin{verbatim}
{70, 2, 1, 42/5, 49/2, {2, 0, 0, 1}}
\end{verbatim}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Conventions and generic expressions}
\label{app:formulas}
\subsection{Renormalization group equations}
\label{app:RGE_con}
We summarize in this section the used equations for the calculation of the one- and two-loop RGEs in \SARAH. These equations are extensively discussed in literature, see e.g. \cite{Martin:1993zk,Jack:1998iy, Jack:1994rk, Jones:1984cx, West:1984dg, Jack:1997eh, Yamada:1993uh, Yamada:1993ga, Yamada:1994id}. \\
For a general $N=1$ supersymmetric gauge theory with superpotential
\begin{equation}
W (\phi) = L_i \phi_i + \frac{1}{2}{\mu}^{ij}\phi_i\phi_j + \frac{1}{6}Y^{ijk}
\phi_i\phi_j\phi_k \thickspace ,
\end{equation}
the soft SUSY-breaking scalar terms are given by
\begin{equation}
V_{\hbox{soft}} = \left(S^i \phi_i + \frac{1}{2}b^{ij}\phi_i\phi_j
+ \frac{1}{6}h^{ijk}\phi_i\phi_j\phi_k +\hbox{c.c.}\right)
+(m^2)^i{}_j\phi_i\phi_j^* + \frac{1}{2} M_\lambda \lambda_a \lambda_a \thickspace.
\end{equation}
The anomalous dimensions are given by
\begin{align}
\gamma_i^{(1)j} = & \frac{1}{2} Y_{ipq} Y^{jpq} - 2 \delta_i^j g^2 C(i) \thickspace ,\\
\gamma_i^{(2)j} = & -\frac{1}{2} Y_{imn} Y^{npq} Y_{pqr} Y^{mrj} + g^2 Y_{ipq} Y^{jpq} [2C(p)- C(i)] \nonumber \\
& \; \; + 2 \delta_i^j g^4 [ C(i) S(R)+ 2 C(i)^2 - 3 C(G) C(i)] \thickspace ,
\end{align}
and the \(\beta\)-functions for the gauge couplings are given by
\begin{align}
\beta_g^{(1)} = & g^3 \left[S(R) - 3 C(G) \right] \thickspace , \\
\beta_g^{(2)} = & g^5 \left\{ - 6[C(G)]^2 + 2 C(G) S(R) + 4 S(R) C(R) \right\}
- g^3 Y^{ijk} Y_{ijk}C(k)/D(G) \thickspace .
\end{align}
Here, \(C(i)\) is the quadratic Casimir for a specific superfield and $C(R),C(G)$ are the quadratic Casimirs for the matter and adjoint representations, respectively. \(D(G)\) is the dimension of the adjoint representation. \\
The corresponding RGEs are defined as
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt} g = \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \beta_g^{(1)} + \frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \beta_g^{(2)} \thickspace.
\end{equation}
Here, we used \(t=\ln Q\), where \(Q\) is the renormalization scale. The $\beta$-functions for the superpotential parameters can be obtained by using superfield technique. The obtained expressions are
\begin{eqnarray}
\beta_Y^{ijk} &= & Y^{ijp} \left [
\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\gamma_p^{(1)k} +
\frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \gamma_p^{(2)k} \right ]
+ (k \leftrightarrow i) + (k\leftrightarrow j) \thickspace , \\
\beta_{\mu}^{ij} &= & \mu^{ip} \left [
\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\gamma_p^{(1)j} +
\frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \gamma_p^{(2)j} \right ]
+ (j \leftrightarrow i) \thickspace , \\
\beta_L^i & = & L^{p} \left [
\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\gamma_p^{(1)i} +
\frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \gamma_p^{(2)i} \right ] \thickspace .
\end{eqnarray}
The expressions for trilinear, soft-breaking terms are
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt} h^{ijk} = & \frac{1}{16\pi^2} \left [\beta^{(1)}_h\right ]^{ijk} + \frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \left [\beta^{(2)}_h\right ]^{ijk} \thickspace ,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\left [\beta^{(1)}_h\right ]^{ijk} =
& \frac{1}{2} h^{ijl} Y_{lmn} Y^{mnk}
+ Y^{ijl} Y_{lmn} h^{mnk} - 2 \left (h^{ijk} - 2 M Y^{ijk} \right )
g^2 C(k) \nonumber \\
& + (k \leftrightarrow i) + (k \leftrightarrow j) \thickspace , \\
\left [\beta^{(2)}_h\right ]^{ijk} =
&
-\frac{1}{2} h^{ijl} Y_{lmn} Y^{npq} Y_{pqr} Y^{mrk} \nonumber \\
& - Y^{ijl} Y_{lmn} Y^{npq} Y_{pqr} h^{mrk}
- Y^{ijl} Y_{lmn} h^{npq} Y_{pqr} Y^{mrk} \nonumber \\
& + \left ( h^{ijl} Y_{lpq} Y^{pqk} + 2 Y^{ijl} Y_{lpq} h^{pqk}
- 2 M Y^{ijl} Y_{lpq} Y^{pqk} \right ) g^2\left[ 2 C(p) - C(k) \right ] \nonumber \\
& + \left (2h^{ijk} - 8 M Y^{ijk} \right )
g^4 \left [ C(k)S(R)+ 2 C(k)^2 - 3 C(G)C(k)\right ]\nonumber \\
&+ (k \leftrightarrow i) + (k \leftrightarrow j) \thickspace .
\end{align}
For the bilinear soft-breaking parameters, the expressions read
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt} b^{ij} = &
\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left [\beta^{(1)}_b \right ]^{ij} +
\frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \left [\beta^{(2)}_b \right ]^{ij} \thickspace ,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\left [\beta^{(1)}_b \right ]^{ij} =
&\frac{1}{2} b^{il} Y_{lmn} Y^{mnj} +\frac{1}{2}Y^{ijl} Y_{lmn} b^{mn}
+ \mu^{il} Y_{lmn} h^{mnj}
- 2 \left (b^{ij} - 2 M \mu^{ij} \right )g^2 C(i) \nonumber \\
& + (i \leftrightarrow j) \thickspace , \\
\left [\beta^{(2)}_b \right ]^{ij} =
& -\frac{1}{2} b^{il} Y_{lmn} Y^{pqn} Y_{pqr} Y^{mrj}
-\frac{1}{2} Y^{ijl} Y_{lmn} b^{mr} Y_{pqr} Y^{pqn} \nonumber \\
&-\frac{1}{2} Y^{ijl} Y_{lmn} \mu^{mr} Y_{pqr} h^{pqn}
- \mu^{il} Y_{lmn} h^{npq} Y_{pqr} Y^{mrj} \nonumber \\
& - \mu^{il} Y_{lmn} Y^{npq} Y_{pqr} h^{mrj}
+ 2 Y^{ijl} Y_{lpq} \left ( b^{pq} - \mu^{pq} M \right ) g^2 C(p)
\nonumber \\
& + \left ( b^{il} Y_{lpq} Y^{pqj} + 2 \mu^{il} Y_{lpq} h^{pqj}
- 2 \mu^{il} Y_{lpq} Y^{pqj} M \right )
g^2 \left[ 2 C(p) - C(i) \right ] \nonumber \\
& + \left ( 2 b^{ij} - 8 \mu^{ij} M\right )
g^4 \left [ C(i)S(R)+ 2 C(i)^2- 3 C(G)C(i) \right ] \nonumber \\
&+ (i \leftrightarrow j) \thickspace ,
\end{align}
Finally, the RGEs for the linear soft-breaking parameters are
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt} S^{i} = &
\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\left [\beta^{(1)}_S \right ]^{i} +
\frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \left [\beta^{(2)}_S \right ]^{i} \thickspace ,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\left [\beta^{(1)}_S \right]^i =&
\frac{1}{2}Y^{iln}Y_{pln}S^{p}
+L^{p}Y_{pln}h^{iln}
+\mu^{ik}Y_{kln}B^{ln}+2Y^{ikp}(m^2)_{p}^l\mu_{kl}
+h^{ikl}B_{kl} \thickspace ,\\
\left [\beta^{(2)}_S \right]^i = &
2g^2C(l)Y^{ikl}Y_{pkl}S^{p} -\frac{1}{2}Y^{ikq}Y_{qst}Y^{lst}Y_{pkl}S^{p}
-4g^2C(l)(Y^{ikl}M-h^{ikl}) Y_{pkl}L^{p} \nonumber \\
& -\big[Y^{ikq}Y_{qst}h^{lst}Y_{pkl} +h^{ikq}Y_{qst}Y^{lst}Y_{pkl}\big]L^{p}
-4g^2C(l)Y_{jnl} (\mu^{nl}M-B^{nl})\mu^{ij}
\nonumber \\
& -\big[Y_{jnq}h^{qst}Y_{lst}\mu^{nl} +Y_{jnq}Y^{qst}Y_{lst}B^{nl}\big]\mu^{ij}
+4g^2C(l)(2Y^{ikl}\mu_{kl}|M|^2-Y^{ikl}B_{kl}M
\nonumber \\
&-h^{ikl}\mu_{kl} M^* +h^{ikl}B_{kl}+Y^{ipl}(m^2)_{p}^k\mu_{kl}
+Y^{ikp}(m^2)_{p}^l\mu_{kl})
\nonumber \\
&-\Big[Y^{ikq}Y_{qst}h^{lst}B_{kl}+h^{ikq}Y_{qst}Y^{lst}B_{kl}
+Y^{ikq}h_{qst}h^{lst}\mu_{kl} +h^{ikq}h_{qst}Y^{lst}\mu_{kl} \nonumber \\
\nonumber &
+Y^{ipq}(m^2)_{p}^kY_{qst}Y^{lst}\mu_{kl}
+Y^{ikq}Y_{qst}Y^{pst}(m^2)_{p}^l\mu_{kl}
+Y^{ikp}(m^2)_{p}^qY_{qst}Y^{lst}\mu_{kl}
\\ & +2Y^{ikq}Y_{qsp}(m^2)_t^{p}Y^{lst}\mu_{kl} \Big] \thickspace .
\end{align}
With these results, the list of the \(\beta\)-functions for all couplings is complete. Now, we turn to the RGEs for the gaugino masses, squared masses of scalars and vacuum expectation values. The result for the gaugino masses is
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt} M = & \frac{1}{16 \pi^2} \beta_M^{(1)}
+ \frac{1}{(16 \pi^2)^2 } \beta_M^{(2)} \thickspace ,
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\beta_M^{(1)} = & g^2 \left[ 2 S(R) - 6 C(G) \right] M \thickspace ,
\\
\beta_M^{(2)}
= & g^4\left\{ -24[C(G)]^2 + 8 C(G) S(R) + 16 S(R)C(R)\right\} M\cr
&\hbox{\hskip 110pt} + 2 g^2 \left [h^{ijk} - M Y^{ijk}\right] Y_{ijk}
C(k)/D(G) \thickspace .
\end{align}
The one- and two-loop RGEs for the scalar mass parameters read
\begin{align}
\frac{d}{dt} m_{ij} = &
\frac{1}{16\pi^2} \left [\beta^{(1)}_{m^2} \right ]_i^j +
\frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \left [\beta^{(2)}_{m^2} \right ]_i^j \thickspace , \\
\end{align}
with
\begin{align}
\left [\beta^{(1)}_{m^2} \right ]_i^j = &
\frac{1}{2} Y_{ipq} Y^{pqn} {(m^2)}_n^j
+ \frac{1}{2} Y^{jpq} Y_{pqn} {(m^2)}_i^n + 2 Y_{ipq} Y^{jpr} {(m^2)}_r^q
\nonumber \\
& + h_{ipq} h^{jpq} - 8 \delta_i^j M M^\dagger g^2 C(i) +
2 g^2 {\bf t}^{Aj}_i {\rm Tr} [ {\bf t}^A m^2 ] \thickspace , \\
\left [\beta^{(2)}_{m^2} \right ]_i^j = &
-\frac{1}{2} {(m^2)}_i^l Y_{lmn} Y^{mrj} Y_{pqr} Y^{pqn}
-\frac{1}{2} {(m^2)}^j_l Y^{lmn} Y_{mri} Y^{pqr} Y_{pqn} \nonumber \\
& - Y_{ilm} Y^{jnm} {(m^2)}_r^l Y_{npq} Y^{rpq}
- Y_{ilm} Y^{jnm} {(m^2)}_n^r Y_{rpq} Y^{lpq} \nonumber \\
& - Y_{ilm} Y^{jnr} {(m^2)}_n^l Y_{pqr} Y^{pqm}
- 2 Y_{ilm} Y^{jln} Y_{npq} Y^{mpr} {(m^2)}_r^q \nonumber \\
& - Y_{ilm} Y^{jln} h_{npq} h^{mpq} - h_{ilm} h^{jln} Y_{npq} Y^{mpq} \nonumber\\
& - h_{ilm} Y^{jln} Y_{npq} h^{mpq} - Y_{ilm} h^{jln} h_{npq} Y^{mpq} \nonumber\\
& + \biggl [{(m^2)}_i^l Y_{lpq} Y^{jpq}
+ Y_{ipq} Y^{lpq} {(m^2)}_l^j + 4 Y_{ipq} Y^{jpl} {(m^2)}_l^q
+ 2 h_{ipq} h^{jpq}
\nonumber \\
& - 2 h_{ipq} Y^{jpq} M -2 Y_{ipq} h^{jpq} M^\dagger
+ 4Y_{ipq} Y^{jpq} M M^\dagger
\biggr ]
g^2 \left [C(p) + C(q)- C(i) \right ] \nonumber \\
& -2 g^2 {\bf t}^{Aj}_i ({\bf t}^A m^2)_r^l Y_{lpq} Y^{rpq}
+ 8 g^4 {\bf t}^{Aj}_i {\rm Tr} [ {\bf t}^A C(r) m^2 ] \nonumber \\
& + \delta_i^j g^4 M M^\dagger \left [
24C(i) S(R) + 48 C(i)^2 - 72 C(G) C(i) \right ]
\nonumber \\
& + 8 \delta_i^j g^4 C(i) ( {\rm Tr} [S(r) m^2] - C(G) M M^\dagger ) \thickspace .
\end{align}
The RGEs for a VEV \(v^i\) are proportional to the anomalous dimension of the chiral superfield whose scalar component receives the VEV
\begin{equation}
\frac{d}{dt }v^i = v^{p} \left [
\frac{1}{16\pi^2}\gamma_p^{(1)i} +
\frac{1}{(16\pi^2)^2} \gamma_p^{(2)i} \right ]
\end{equation}
\subsection{One-loop amplitudes for one- and two-point functions}
\label{sec:Integrals}
We used for the calculation of the one-loop self-energies and the one-loop corrections to the tadpoles in \(\DR\)-scheme the scalar functions defined in \cite{Pierce:1996zz}. The basis integrals are
\begin{eqnarray}
A_0(m) &=& 16\pi^2Q^{4-n}\int{\frac{d^nq}{ i\,(2\pi)^n}}{\frac{1}{ q^2-m^2+i\varepsilon}} \thickspace ,\\
B_0(p, m_1, m_2) &=& 16\pi^2Q^{4-n}\int{\frac{d^nq}{ i\,(2\pi)^n}} {\frac{1}{\biggl[q^2-m^2_1+i\varepsilon\biggr]\biggl[
(q-p)^2-m_2^2+i\varepsilon\biggr]}} \thickspace ,
\label{B0 def}
\end{eqnarray}
with the renormalization scale \(Q\). The integrals are regularized by integrating in $n=4-2\epsilon$ dimensions. The result for \(A_0\) is
\begin{equation}
A_0(m)\ =\ m^2\left({\frac{1}{\hat\epsilon}} + 1 - \ln{\frac{m^2}{Q^2}}\right)~,\label{A}
\end{equation}
where $1/\hat\epsilon =1/\epsilon-\gamma_E+\ln 4\pi$. The function $B_0$ has the analytic expression
\begin{equation}
B_0(p, m_1, m_2) \ =\ {\frac{1}{\hat\epsilon}} - \ln\left(\frac{p^2}{Q^2}\right) - f_B(x_+) - f_B(x_-)~,
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation}
x_{\pm}\ =\ \frac{s \pm \sqrt{s^2 - 4p^2(m_1^2-i\varepsilon)}}{2p^2}~,
\qquad f_B(x) \ =\ \ln(1-x) - x\ln(1-x^{-1})-1~,
\end{equation}
and $s=p^2-m_2^2+m_1^2$. All the other, necessary functions can be expressed by $A_0$ and $B_0$. For instance,
\begin{equation}
B_1(p, m_1,m_2) \ =\ {\frac{1}{2p^2}}\biggl[ A_0(m_2) - A_0(m_1) + (p^2
+m_1^2 -m_2^2) B_0(p, m_1, m_2)\biggr]~,
\end{equation}
and
\begin{eqnarray}
B_{22}(p, m_1,m_2) &=& \frac{1}{6}\ \Bigg\{\,
\frac{1}{2}\biggl(A_0(m_1)+A_0(m_2)\biggr)
+\left(m_1^2+m_2^2-\frac{1}{2}p^2\right)B_0(p,m_1,m_2)\nonumber \\ &&+ \frac{m_2^2-m_1^2}{2p^2}\ \biggl[\,A_0(m_2)-A_0(m_1)-(m_2^2-m_1^2)
B_0(p,m_1,m_2)\,\biggr] \nonumber\\ && + m_1^2 + m_2^2
-\frac{1}{3}p^2\,\Bigg\}~.
\end{eqnarray}
Furthermore, for the self-energies of vector bosons, it is useful to define
\begin{align}
F_0(p,m_1,m_2) =& A_0(m_1)-2A_0(m_2)- (2p^2+2m^2_1-m^2_2)B_0(p,m_1,m_2)
\ , \\
G_0(p,m_1,m_2) =&
(p^2-m_1^2-m_2^2)B_0(p,m_1,m_2)-A_0(m_1)-A_0(m_2)\ ,\\
H_0 (p,m_1,m_2) =& 4B_{22}(p,m_1,m_2) + G(p,m_1,m_2)\ ,\\
\tilde{B}_{22}(p,m_1,m_2) =& B_{22}(p,m_1,m_2) - \frac{1}{4}A_0(m_1) -
\frac{1}{4}A_0(m_2)
\end{align}
In addition, several coefficients are involved:
\begin{itemize}
\item \(c_S\) is the symmetry factor: if the particles in the loop are indistinguishable, the weight of the contribution is only half of the weight in the case of distinguishable particles. If two different charge flows are possible in the loop, the weight of the diagram is doubled.
\item \(c_C\) is a charge factor: for corrections due to vector bosons in the adjoint representation this is the Casimir of the corresponding group. For corrections due to matter fields this can be, for instance, a color factor for quarks/squarks. For corrections of vector bosons in the adjoint representation this is normally the Dynkin index of the gauge group.
\item \(c_R\) is 2 for real fields and Majorana fermions in the loop and 1 otherwise. \\
\end{itemize}
We use in the following \(\Gamma\) for non-chiral interactions and \(\Gamma_L\)/\(\Gamma_R\) for chiral interactions. If two vertices are involved, the interaction of the incoming particle has an upper index 1 and for the outgoing field an upper index 2 is used.
\subsubsection{One-loop tadpoles}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fermion loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"FFS"):
\begin{equation}
T = 8 c_S c_C m_F \Gamma A_0(m_F^2)
\end{equation}
\item Scalar loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SSS"):
\begin{equation}
T = - 2 c_S c_C \Gamma A_0(m_S^2)
\end{equation}
\item Vector boson loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SVV"):
\begin{equation}
T = 6 c_S c_C \Gamma A_0(m_V^2)
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{One-loop self-energies}
\paragraph{Corrections to fermion}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fermion-scalar loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"FFS"):
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Sigma^S(p^2) &=& m_F c_S c_C c_R \Gamma^1_R \Gamma^{2,*}_L B_0(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2) \\
\Sigma^R(p^2) &=& - c_S c_C c_R \frac{1}{2} \Gamma^1_R \Gamma^{2,*}_R B_1(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2) \\
\Sigma^L(p^2) &=& - c_S c_C c_R \frac{1}{2} \Gamma^1_L \Gamma^{2,*}_L B_1(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2)
\end{eqnarray*}
\item Fermion-vector boson loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"FFV"):
\begin{eqnarray*}
\Sigma^S(p^2) &=& - 4 c_S c_C c_R m_F \Gamma^1_L \Gamma^{2,*}_R B_0(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2) \\
\Sigma^R(p^2) &=& - c_S c_C c_R \Gamma^1_L \Gamma^{2,*}_L B_1(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2) \\
\Sigma^L(p^2) &=& - c_S c_C c_R \Gamma^1_R \Gamma^{2,*}_R B_1(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2)
\end{eqnarray*}
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Corrections to scalar}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fermion loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"FFS"):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SE_FFS}
\Pi(p^2) = c_S c_C c_R \left((\Gamma^1_L \Gamma^{2,*}_L + \Gamma^1_R \Gamma^{2,*}_R) G_0(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2) + (\Gamma^1_L \Gamma^{2,*}_R + \Gamma^1_R \Gamma^{2,*}_L) B_0(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2) \right)
\end{equation}
\item Scalar loop (two 3-point interactions, generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SSS"):
\begin{equation}
\Pi(p^2) = c_S c_C c_R \Gamma^1 \Gamma^{2,*} B_0(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2)
\end{equation}
\item Scalar loop (4-point interaction, generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SSSS"):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SE_SSSS}
\Pi(p^2) = - c_S c_C \Gamma A_0(m_S^2)
\end{equation}
\item Vector boson-scalar loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SSV"):
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:SE_SSV}
\Pi(p^2) = c_S c_C c_R \Gamma^1 \Gamma^{2,*} F_0(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2)
\end{equation}
\item Vector boson loop (two 3-point interactions, generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SVV"):
\begin{equation}
\Pi(p^2) = c_S c_C c_R \frac{7}{2} \Gamma^1 \Gamma^{2,*} B_0(p^2,m_F^2,m_S^2)
\end{equation}
\item Vector boson loop (4-point interaction, generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SSVV"):
\begin{equation}
\Pi(p^2) = c_S c_C \Gamma A_0(m_V^2)
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Corrections to vector boson}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fermion loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"FFV"):
\begin{equation}
\Pi^T(p^2) = c_S c_C c_R \left((|\Gamma^1_L|^2+|\Gamma^1_R|^2) H_0(p^2,m_V^2,m_F^2)+ 4 \Re(\Gamma^1_L \Gamma^2_R)B_0(p^2,m_V^2,m_F^2) \right)
\end{equation}
\item Scalar loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SSV"):
\begin{equation}
\Pi^T(p^2) = -4 c_S c_C c_R |\Gamma|^2 B_{22}(p^2,m_{S_1}^2,m_{S_2}^2)
\end{equation}
\item Vector boson loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"VVV"):
\begin{equation}
\Pi^T(p^2) = |\Gamma|^2 c_S c_C c_R \left(-(4 p^2 + m_{V_1}^2 + m_{V_2}^2 ) B_0(p^2,m_{V_1}^2,m_{V_1}^2) - 8 B_{22}(p^2,m_{S_1}^2,m_{S_2}^2) \right)
\end{equation}
\item Vector-scalar loop (generic name in \SARAH: \verb"SVV"):
\begin{equation}
\Pi^T(p^2) = |\Gamma|^2 c_S c_C c_R B_0(p^2,m_V^2,m_S^2)
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
We need here only the diagrams involving three-point interactions because the four-point interactions are related to them due to gauge invariance.
\subsubsection{One-loop corrections to masses}
\label{sec:OneLoopMass}
The one-loop self-energies can be used to calculate the one-loop masses and mass matrices. For the one-loop corrections of scalars, the radiatively corrected mass matrix is
\begin{equation}
m^{2,S}_{1L}(p^2_i) = m^{2,S}_{T} - \Pi_{S S}(p^2_i) ,
\end{equation}
while the one-loop mass of a vector boson \(V\) is given by
\begin{equation}
m^{2,V}_{1L}(Q) = m^{2,V}_T + \mathrm{Re}\big\{ \Pi^T_{VV}(m^{2,V}_T) \big\}.
\end{equation}
According to the conventions of the counter terms of \cite{Pierce:1996zz}, the one-loop mass matrices \(M^{\tilde\chi^0}_{1L}\) of Majorana fermions are connected to the one-loop self-energies and tree-level mass matrix \(M^{\tilde\chi^0}_T\) by
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{\tilde\chi^0}_{1L} (p^2_i) &=& M^{\tilde\chi^0}_T -
\frac{1}{2} \bigg[ \Sigma^0_S(p^2_i) + \Sigma^{0,T}_S(p^2_i)
+ \left(\Sigma^{0,T}_L(p^2_i)+ \Sigma^0_R(p^2_i)\right) M^{\tilde\chi^0}_T
\nonumber \\
&& \hspace{16mm}
+ M^{\tilde\chi^0}_T \left(\Sigma^{0,T}_R(p^2_i) + \Sigma^0_L(p^2_i) \right) \bigg] .
\end{eqnarray}
In the case of Dirac fermions, the one-loop corrected mass matrix is
\begin{eqnarray}
M^{\tilde\chi^+}_{1L}(p^2_i) = M^{\tilde\chi^+}_T - \Sigma^+_S(p^2_i)
- \Sigma^+_R(p^2_i) M^{\tilde \chi^+}_T - M^{\tilde \chi^+}_T \Sigma^+_L(p^2_i) .
\end{eqnarray}
\section{The minimal supersymmetric standard model}
\label{sec:MSSM}
\subsection{Vector superfields}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hline
SF & Spin \(\frac{1}{2}\) & Spin 1 & \(SU(N)\) & Coupling & Name \\
\hline
\(\hat{B}\) & \(\lambda_{\tilde{B}}\) & \(B\) & \(U(1)\) & \(g_1\) &\text{hypercharge}\\
\(\hat{W}\) & \(\lambda_{\tilde{W}}\) & \(W\) & \(\text{SU}(2)\) & \(g_2\) &\text{left}\\
\(\hat{g}\) & \(\lambda_{\tilde{g}}\) & \(g\) & \(\text{SU}(3)\) & \(g_3\) &\text{color}\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\subsection{Chiral superfields}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline \hline
SF & Spin 0 & Spin \(\frac{1}{2}\) & Generations & \((U(1)\otimes\, \text{SU}(2)\otimes\, \text{SU}(3))\) \\
\hline
\(\hat{q}\) & \(\tilde{q}\) & \(q\) & 3 & \((\frac{1}{6},{\bf 2},{\bf 3}) \) \\
\(\hat{l}\) & \(\tilde{l}\) & \(l\) & 3 & \((-\frac{1}{2},{\bf 2},{\bf 1}) \) \\
\(\hat{H}_d\) & \(H_d\) & \(\tilde{H}_d\) & 1 & \((-\frac{1}{2},{\bf 2},{\bf 1}) \) \\
\(\hat{H}_u\) & \(H_u\) & \(\tilde{H}_u\) & 1 & \((\frac{1}{2},{\bf 2},{\bf 1}) \) \\
\(\hat{d}\) & \(\tilde{d}_R^*\) & \(d_R^*\) & 3 & \((\frac{1}{3},{\bf 1},{\bf \overline{3}}) \) \\
\(\hat{u}\) & \(\tilde{u}_R^*\) & \(u_R^*\) & 3 & \((-\frac{2}{3},{\bf 1},{\bf \overline{3}}) \) \\
\(\hat{e}\) & \(\tilde{e}_R^*\) & \(e_R^*\) & 3 & \((1,{\bf 1},{\bf 1}) \) \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\subsection{Superpotential and Lagrangian}
\paragraph{Superpotential}
\begin{align}
W = & \, Y_u\,\hat{u}\,\hat{q}\,\hat{H}_u\,- Y_d \,\hat{d}\,\hat{q}\,\hat{H}_d\,- Y_e \,\hat{e}\,\hat{l}\,\hat{H}_d\,+\mu\,\hat{H}_u\,\hat{H}_d\,\end{align}
\paragraph{Soft-breaking terms}
\begin{align}
- L_{SB,W} = \, & - H_d^0 H_u^0 B_{\mu} +H_d^- H_u^+ B_{\mu} +H_d^0 \tilde{d}^*_{R,{i \alpha}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} \tilde{d}_{L,{j \beta}} T_{d,{i j}} - H_d^- \tilde{d}^*_{R,{i \alpha}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} \tilde{u}_{L,{j \beta}} T_{d,{i j}} \nonumber \\
&+H_d^0 \tilde{e}^*_{R,{i}} \tilde{e}_{L,{j}} T_{e,{i j}} - H_d^- \tilde{e}^*_{R,{i}} \tilde{\nu}_{L,{j}} T_{e,{i j}} - H_u^+ \tilde{u}^*_{R,{i \alpha}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} \tilde{d}_{L,{j \beta}} T_{u,{i j}} +H_u^0 \tilde{u}^*_{R,{i \alpha}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} \tilde{u}_{L,{j \beta}} T_{u,{i j}} + \mbox{h.c.} \\
- L_{SB,\phi} = \, & +m_{H_d}^2 |H_d^0|^2 +m_{H_d}^2 |H_d^-|^2 +m_{H_u}^2 |H_u^0|^2 +m_{H_u}^2 |H_u^+|^2 +\tilde{d}^*_{L,{j \beta}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} m_{q,{i j}}^{2} \tilde{d}_{L,{i \alpha}} \nonumber \\
&+\tilde{d}^*_{R,{i \alpha}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} m_{d,{i j}}^{2} \tilde{d}_{R,{j \beta}} +\tilde{e}^*_{L,{j}} m_{l,{i j}}^{2} \tilde{e}_{L,{i}} +\tilde{e}^*_{R,{i}} m_{e,{i j}}^{2} \tilde{e}_{R,{j}} +\tilde{u}^*_{L,{j \beta}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} m_{q,{i j}}^{2} \tilde{u}_{L,{i \alpha}} \nonumber \\
&+\tilde{u}^*_{R,{i \alpha}} \delta_{\alpha\beta} m_{u,{i j}}^{2} \tilde{u}_{R,{j \beta}} +\tilde{\nu}^*_{L,{j}} m_{l,{i j}}^{2} \tilde{\nu}_{L,{i}} \\
- L_{SB,\lambda} = \, & \frac{1}{2} \left( \lambda_{\tilde{B}}^{2} M_1 + M_2 \lambda_{{\tilde{W}},{i}}^{2} + M_3 \lambda_{{\tilde{g}},{i}}^{2} + \mbox{h.c.} \right)
\end{align}
\subsubsection{Gauge fixing terms}
\paragraph{Gauge fixing terms for gauge eigenstates }
\begin{align}
L_{GF} = \, &-\frac{1}{2 \xi_{G}} \partial_{\mu}g_\alpha -\frac{1}{2 \xi_{W}} \partial_{\mu}W^i
\end{align}
\paragraph{Gauge fixing terms for mass eigenstates after EWSB }
\begin{align}
L_{GF} = \, &-\frac{1}{2 \xi_{P}} \partial_{\mu}\gamma -\frac{1}{2 \xi_{G}} \partial_{\mu}g_\alpha -\frac{1}{2 \xi_{Z}} \Big(- A^0_{{1}} m_{Z} \xi_{Z} + \partial_{\mu}Z\Big) - \frac{1}{\xi_{W}} \Big(i H^-_{{1}} m_{W^-} \xi_{W} + \partial_{\mu}W^-\Big)
\end{align}
\subsection{Vacuum expectation values}
\label{sec:VEVsMSSM}
\begin{align}
H_d^0 = \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \phi_{d} + i \sigma_{d} + v_d \right) \, , \hspace{1cm}
H_u^0 = \, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \phi_{u} + i \sigma_{u} + v_u \right)
\end{align}
\subsection{Rotations of vector bosons and gauginos after EWSB}
\label{sec:RotGaugeMSSM}
\begin{align}
W^-_{{1 \rho}} = & \,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} W^-_{{\rho}} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} W^+_{{\rho}} \, , \hspace{1cm}
W^-_{{2 \rho}} = \,-i \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} W^-_{{\rho}} + i \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} W^+_{{\rho}} \\
W^-_{{3 \rho}} = & \,\cos\Theta_W Z_{{\rho}} + \sin\Theta_W \gamma_{{\rho}} \, , \hspace{1cm}
B_{{\rho}} = \,\cos\Theta_W \gamma_{{\rho}} - \sin\Theta_W Z_{{\rho}} \\
\lambda_{{\tilde{W}},{1}} = & \,\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde{W}^- + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde{W}^+ \, , \hspace{1cm}
\lambda_{{\tilde{W}},{2}} = \,-i \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde{W}^- + i \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \tilde{W}^+ \, , \hspace{1cm}
\lambda_{{\tilde{W}},{3}} = \,\tilde{W}^0
\end{align}
\subsection{Rotations in matter sector to mass eigenstates after EWSB}
\label{sec:RotMatterMSSM}
In the following, Greek letters \(\alpha_i,\beta_i\) refer to color indices and \(o_i, p_i\) to generations indices.
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for neutralinos}, basis: \( \left(\lambda_{\tilde{B}}, \tilde{W}^0, \tilde{H}_d^0, \tilde{H}_u^0\right)\)
\begin{equation}
m_{\tilde{\chi}^0} = \left(
\begin{array}{cccc}
M_1 &0 &-\frac{1}{2} g_1 v_d &\frac{1}{2} g_1 v_u \\
0 &M_2 &\frac{1}{2} g_2 v_d &-\frac{1}{2} g_2 v_u \\
-\frac{1}{2} g_1 v_d &\frac{1}{2} g_2 v_d &0 &- \mu \\
\frac{1}{2} g_1 v_u &-\frac{1}{2} g_2 v_u &- \mu &0\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(N\):
\begin{equation}
N m_{\tilde{\chi}^0} N^{\dagger} = m^{dia}_{\tilde{\chi}^0}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\lambda_{\tilde{B}} = \sum_{t_2}N^*_{j 1}\lambda^0_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{W}^0 = \sum_{t_2}N^*_{j 2}\lambda^0_{{j}} \,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{H}_d^0 = \sum_{t_2}N^*_{j 3}\lambda^0_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{H}_u^0 = \sum_{t_2}N^*_{j 4}\lambda^0_{{j}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for charginos}, basis: \( \left(\tilde{W}^-, \tilde{H}_d^-\right)/\left(\tilde{W}^+, \tilde{H}_u^+\right) \)
\begin{equation}
m_{\tilde{\chi}^-} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
M_2 &\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} g_2 v_u \\
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} g_2 v_d &\mu\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(U\) and \(V\)
\begin{equation}
U^* m_{\tilde{\chi}^-} V^{\dagger} = m^{dia}_{\tilde{\chi}^-}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\tilde{W}^- = \sum_{t_2}U^*_{j 1}\lambda^-_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{H}_d^- = \sum_{t_2}U^*_{j 2}\lambda^-_{{j}} \,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{W}^+ = \sum_{t_2}V^*_{1 j}\lambda^+_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{H}_u^+ = \sum_{t_2}V^*_{2 j}\lambda^+_{{j}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for leptons}, basis: \( \left(e_{L,{{o_1}}}\right)/\left(e^*_{R,{{p_1}}}\right) \)
\begin{equation}
m_{e} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} v_d Y_{e,{{p_1} {o_1}}} \end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(U^e_L\) and \(U^e_R\)
\begin{equation}
U^{e,*}_L m_{e} U_{R}^{e,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{e}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
e_{L,{i}} = \sum_{t_2}U^{e,*}_{L,{j i}}E_{L,{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
e_{R,{i}} = \sum_{t_2}U_{R,{i j}}^{e}E^*_{R,{j}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for down-quarks}, basis: \( \left(d_{L,{{o_1} {\alpha_1}}}\right)/\left(d^*_{R,{{p_1} {\beta_1}}}\right) \)
\begin{equation}
m_{d} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} v_d \delta_{{\alpha_1}{\beta_1}} Y_{d,{{p_1} {o_1}}} \end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(U^d_L\) and \(U^d_R\)
\begin{equation}
U^{d,*}_L m_{d} U_{R}^{d,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{d}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
d_{L,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}U^{d,*}_{L,{j i}}D_{L,{j \alpha}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
d_{R,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}U_{R,{i j}}^{d}D^*_{R,{j \alpha}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for up-quarks}, basis: \( \left(u_{L,{{o_1} {\alpha_1}}}\right)/\left(u^*_{R,{{p_1} {\beta_1}}}\right) \)
\begin{equation}
m_{u} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} v_u \delta_{{\alpha_1}{\beta_1}} Y_{u,{{p_1} {o_1}}} \end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(U^u_L\) and \(U^u_R\)
\begin{equation}
U^{u,*}_L m_{u} U_{R}^{u,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{u}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
u_{L,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}U^{u,*}_{L,{j i}}U_{L,{j \alpha}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
u_{R,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}U_{R,{i j}}^{u}U^*_{R,{j \alpha}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for down-squarks}, basis: \( \left(\tilde{d}_{L,{{o_1} {\alpha_1}}}/\tilde{d}_{R,{{o_2} {\alpha_2}}}\right), \left(\tilde{d}^*_{L,{{p_1} {\beta_1}}}, \tilde{d}^*_{R,{{p_2} {\beta_2}}}\right) \)
\begin{align}
m_{11} &= \frac{1}{24} \delta_{{\alpha_1}{\beta_1}} \Big(12 \Big(2 m_{q,{{o_1} {p_1}}}^{2} + v_{d}^{2} \sum_{a=1}^{3}Y^*_{d,{a {p_1}}} Y_{d,{a {o_1}}} \Big) - \Big(3 g_{2}^{2} + g_{1}^{2}\Big)\Big(- v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big)\delta_{{o_1}{p_1}} \Big)\\
m_{12} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \delta_{{\alpha_1}{\beta_2}} \Big(v_d T_{d,{{p_2} {o_1}}} - v_u \mu^* Y_{d,{{p_2} {o_1}}} \Big) \\
m_{22} &= \frac{1}{12} \delta_{{\alpha_2}{\beta_2}} \Big(6 \Big(2 m_{d,{{p_2} {o_2}}}^{2} + v_{d}^{2} \sum_{a=1}^{3}Y^*_{d,{{o_2} a}} Y_{d,{{p_2} a}} \Big) + g_{1}^{2} \Big(- v_{d}^{2} + v_{u}^{2}\Big)\delta_{{o_2}{p_2}} \Big)
\end{align}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(Z^D\):
\begin{equation}
Z^D m^2_{\tilde{d}} Z^{D,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{2,\tilde{d}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\tilde{d}_{L,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}Z^{D,*}_{j i}\tilde{d}_{{j \alpha}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{d}_{R,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}Z^{D,*}_{j i}\tilde{d}_{{j \alpha}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for sneutrinos}, basis: \( \left(\tilde{\nu}_{L,{{o_1}}}\right)/ \left(\tilde{\nu}^*_{L,{{p_1}}}\right) \)
\begin{equation}
m^2_{\tilde{\nu}} = \left(
\begin{array}{c}
\frac{1}{8} \Big(8 m_{l,{{o_1} {p_1}}}^{2} + \Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_{2}^{2}\Big)\Big(- v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big)\delta_{{o_1}{p_1}} \Big)\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(Z^V\):
\begin{equation}
Z^V m^2_{\tilde{\nu}} Z^{V,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{2,\tilde{\nu}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\tilde{\nu}_{L,{i}} = \sum_{t_2}Z^{V,*}_{j i}\tilde{\nu}_{{j}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for up-squarks}, basis: \( \left(\tilde{u}_{L,{{o_1} {\alpha_1}}}, \tilde{u}_{R,{{o_2} {\alpha_2}}}\right)/ \left(\tilde{u}^*_{L,{{p_1} {\beta_1}}}, \tilde{u}^*_{R,{{p_2} {\beta_2}}}\right) \)
\begin{align}
m_{11} &= \frac{1}{24} \delta_{{\alpha_1}{\beta_1}} \Big(12 \Big(2 m_{q,{{o_1} {p_1}}}^{2} + v_{u}^{2} \sum_{a=1}^{3}Y^*_{u,{a {p_1}}} Y_{u,{a {o_1}}} \Big) - \Big(-3 g_{2}^{2} + g_{1}^{2}\Big)\Big(- v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big)\delta_{{o_1}{p_1}} \Big)\\
m_{12} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \delta_{{\alpha_1}{\beta_2}} \Big(- v_d \mu^* Y_{u,{{p_2} {o_1}}} + v_u T_{u,{{p_2} {o_1}}} \Big) \\
m_{22} &= \frac{1}{6} \delta_{{\alpha_2}{\beta_2}} \Big(3 v_{u}^{2} \sum_{a=1}^{3}Y^*_{u,{{o_2} a}} Y_{u,{{p_2} a}} + 6 m_{u,{{p_2} {o_2}}}^{2} + g_{1}^{2} \Big(- v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big)\delta_{{o_2}{p_2}} \Big)
\end{align}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(Z^U\):
\begin{equation}
Z^U m^2_{\tilde{u}} Z^{U,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{2,\tilde{u}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\tilde{u}_{L,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}Z^{U,*}_{j i}\tilde{u}_{{j \alpha}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{u}_{R,{i \alpha}} = \sum_{t_2}Z^{U,*}_{j i}\tilde{u}_{{j \alpha}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for sleptons}, basis: \( \left(\tilde{e}_{L,{{o_1}}}, \tilde{e}_{R,{{o_2}}}\right)/\left(\tilde{e}^*_{L,{{p_1}}}, \tilde{e}^*_{R,{{p_2}}}\right) \)
\begin{align}
m_{11} &= \frac{1}{8} \Big(4 v_{d}^{2} \sum_{a=1}^{3}Y^*_{e,{a {p_1}}} Y_{e,{a {o_1}}} + 8 m_{l,{{o_1} {p_1}}}^{2} + \Big(- g_{2}^{2} + g_{1}^{2}\Big)\Big(- v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big)\delta_{{o_1}{p_1}} \Big)\\
m_{12} &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big(v_d T_{e,{{p_2} {o_1}}} - v_u \mu^* Y_{e,{{p_2} {o_1}}} \Big) \\
m_{22} &= \frac{1}{4} \Big(2 v_{d}^{2} \sum_{a=1}^{3}Y^*_{e,{{o_2} a}} Y_{e,{{p_2} a}} + 4 m_{e,{{p_2} {o_2}}}^{2} + g_{1}^{2} \Big(- v_{d}^{2} + v_{u}^{2}\Big)\delta_{{o_2}{p_2}} \Big)
\end{align}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(Z^E\):
\begin{equation}
Z^E m^2_{\tilde{e}} Z^{E,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{2,\tilde{e}}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\tilde{e}_{L,{i}} = \sum_{t_2}Z^{E,*}_{j i}\tilde{e}_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\tilde{e}_{R,{i}} = \sum_{t_2}Z^{E,*}_{j i}\tilde{e}_{{j}}
\end{align}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for scalar Higgs}, basis: \( \left(\phi_{d}, \phi_{u}\right)\)
\begin{equation}
m^2_{h} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_{H_d}^2 + |\mu|^2 +\frac{1}{8} \Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_{2}^{2}\Big)\Big(3 v_{d}^{2} - v_{u}^{2} \Big) & -{\Re\Big(B_{\mu}\Big)} - \frac{1}{4}\Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_{2}^{2}\Big)v_d v_u \\
-{\Re\Big(B_{\mu}\Big)} - \frac{1}{4}\Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_{2}^{2}\Big)v_d v_u &m_{H_u}^2 + |\mu|^2 - \frac{1}{8}\Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_{2}^{2}\Big)\Big(-3 v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big)\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(Z^H\):
\begin{equation}
Z^H m^2_{h} Z^{H,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{2,h}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\phi_{d} = \sum_{t_2}Z_{{j 1}}^{H}h_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\phi_{u} = \sum_{t_2}Z_{{j 2}}^{H}h_{{j}}
\end{align}
The mixing matrix can be parametrized by
\begin{equation}
Z^H= \, \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
- \sin\alpha & \cos\alpha \\
\cos\alpha & \sin\alpha \end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for pseudo scalar Higgs}, basis: \( \left(\sigma_{d}, \sigma_{u}\right)\)
\begin{equation}
m^2_{A^0} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_{H_d}^2 + |\mu|^2 + \frac{1}{8} \Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_{2}^{2}\Big)\Big(- v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big) &{\Re\Big(B_{\mu}\Big)}\\
{\Re\Big(B_{\mu}\Big)} & m_{H_u}^2 + |\mu|^2 -\frac{1}{8} \Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_{2}^{2}\Big)\Big(- v_{u}^{2} + v_{d}^{2}\Big)\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(Z^A\):
\begin{equation}
Z^A m^2_{A^0} Z^{A,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{2,A^0}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
\sigma_{d} = \sum_{t_2}Z_{{j 1}}^{A}A^0_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
\sigma_{u} = \sum_{t_2}Z_{{j 2}}^{A}A^0_{{j}}
\end{align}
The mixing matrix can be parametrized by
\begin{equation}
Z^A= \, \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
- \cos\beta & \sin\beta \\
\sin\beta & \cos\beta \end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\item {\bf Mass matrix for charged Higgs}, basis: \( \left(H_d^-, H_u^{+,*}\right)\)
\begin{equation}
m^2_{H^-} = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m_{H_d}^2 + |\mu|^2 + \frac{1}{8} \Big(g_{1}^{2} + g_2^2\Big)\Big(v_{d}^{2} - v_{u}^{2}\Big) &\frac{1}{4} g_{2}^{2} v_d v_u + B_{\mu}\\
\frac{1}{4} g_{2}^{2} v_d v_u + B_{\mu}^* & m_{H_u}^2 + |\mu|^2 + \frac{1}{8} \Big(g_2^2 - g_{1}^{2}\Big)\Big(v_{d}^{2} - v_{u}^{2}\Big)\end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
This matrix is diagonalized by \(Z^+\):
\begin{equation}
Z^+ m^2_{H^-} Z^{+,\dagger} = m^{dia}_{2,H^-}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{align}
H_d^- = \sum_{t_2}Z^{+,*}_{j 1}H^-_{{j}}\,, \hspace{1cm}
H_u^+ = \sum_{t_2}Z_{{j 2}}^{+}H^+_{{j}}
\end{align}
The mixing matrix can be parametrized by
\begin{equation}
Z^+= \, \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
- \cos\beta & \sin\beta \\
\sin\beta & \cos\beta \end{array}
\right)
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Tadpole equations}
\begin{align}
\frac{\partial V}{\partial v_d} &= \frac{1}{8} \Big(8 v_d |\mu|^2 -8 v_u {\Re\Big(B_{\mu}\Big)} + v_d \Big(8 m_{H_d}^2 + g_{1}^{2} v_{d}^{2} - g_{1}^{2} v_{u}^{2} + g_{2}^{2} v_{d}^{2} - g_{2}^{2} v_{u}^{2} \Big)\Big)\\
\frac{\partial V}{\partial v_u} &= \frac{1}{8} \Big(-8 v_d {\Re\Big(B_{\mu}\Big)} + 8 v_u |\mu|^2 + v_u \Big(8 m_{H_u}^2 - g_{1}^{2} v_{d}^{2} + g_{1}^{2} v_{u}^{2} - g_{2}^{2} v_{d}^{2} + g_{2}^{2} v_{u}^{2} \Big)\Big)
\end{align}
\section{Particles and parameters of the MSSM in \SARAH}
\label{sec:SARAH_MSSM}
\subsection*{Particles}
We show here only the eigenstates after EWSB
\begin{enumerate}
\item Fermions \\
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
\hline
\(\tilde{\chi}^-_{{i}} \) & \( \verb"Cha[{generation}]" \) &
\(\tilde{\chi}^0_{{i}} \) & \( \verb"Chi[{generation}]" \) \\
\(d_{{i \alpha}} \) & \( \verb"Fd[{generation, color}]" \) &
\(e_{{i}} \) & \( \verb"Fe[{generation}]" \) \\
\(u_{{i \alpha}} \) & \( \verb"Fu[{generation, color}]" \) &
\(\nu_{{i}} \) & \( \verb"Fv[{generation}]" \) \\
\(\tilde{g}_{{i}} \) & \( \verb"Glu[{generation}]" \) & {} & {} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\item Scalars \\
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
\hline
\(\tilde{d}_{{i \alpha}}\) & \verb"Sd[{generation, color}]" & \(\tilde{\nu}_{{i}}\) & \verb"Sv[{generation}]" \\
\(\tilde{u}_{{i \alpha}}\) & \verb"Su[{generation, color}]" & \(\tilde{e}_{{i}}\) & \verb"Se[{generation}]" \\
\(h_{{i}}\) & \verb"hh[{generation}]" & \(A^0_{{i}}\) & \verb"Ah[{generation}]" \\
\(H^-_{{i}}\) & \verb"Hpm[{generation}]" & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\item Vector bosons \\
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
\hline
\(g_{{i \rho}}\) & \verb"VG[{generation, lorentz}]" & \(W^-_{{\rho}}\) & \verb"VWm[{lorentz}]" \\
\(\gamma_{{\rho}}\) & \verb"VP[{lorentz}]" & \(Z_{{\rho}}\) & \verb"VZ[{lorentz}]" \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\item Ghosts \\
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|}
\hline
\(\eta^G_{{i}}\) & \verb"gG[{generation}]" & \(\eta^-\) & \verb"gWm" \\
\(\eta^+\) & \verb"gWmC" & \(\eta^{\gamma}\) & \verb"gP" \\
\(\eta^Z\) & \verb"gZ" & & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection*{Parameters}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|cc|cc|cc|}
\hline
\(g_1\) & \verb"g1" & \(g_2\) & \verb"g2" & \(g_3\) & \verb"g3" \\
\(Y_u\) & \verb"Yu" & \(T_u\) & \verb"T[Yu]" & \(Y_d\) & \verb"Yd" \\
\(T_d\) & \verb"T[Yd]" & \(Y_e\) & \verb"Ye" & \(T_e\) & \verb"T[Ye]" \\
\(\mu\) & \verb"\[Mu]" & \(B_{\mu}\) & \verb"B[\[Mu]]" & \(m_q^2\) & \verb"mq2" \\
\(m_l^2\) & \verb"ml2" & \(m_{H_d}^2\) & \verb"mHd2" & \(m_{H_u}^2\) & \verb"mHu2" \\
\(m_d^2\) & \verb"md2" & \(m_u^2\) & \verb"mu2" & \(m_e^2\) & \verb"me2" \\
\(M_1\) & \verb"MassB" & \(M_2\) & \verb"MassWB" & \(M_3\) & \verb"MassG" \\
\(v_d\) & \verb"vd" & \(v_u\) & \verb"vu" & \(\Theta_W\) & \verb"ThetaW" \\
\(\phi_{\tilde{g}}\) & \verb"PhaseGlu" & \(Z^D\) & \verb"ZD" & \(Z^V\) & \verb"ZV" \\
\(Z^U\) & \verb"ZU" & \(Z^E\) & \verb"ZE" & \(Z^H\) & \verb"ZH" \\
\(Z^A\) & \verb"ZA" & \(Z^+\) & \verb"ZP" & \(N\) & \verb"ZN" \\
\(U\) & \verb"UM" & \(V\) & \verb"UP" & \(U^e_L\) & \verb"ZEL" \\
\(U^e_R\) & \verb"ZER" & \(U^d_L\) & \verb"ZDL" & \(U^d_R\) & \verb"ZDR" \\
\(U^u_L\) & \verb"ZUL" & \(U^u_R\) & \verb"ZUR" & \(\alpha\) & \verb"\[Alpha]" \\
\(\beta\) & \verb"\[Beta]" & && & \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\section{Changes in comparison to version 1 of \SARAH}
\label{app:changes}
We want shortly give an overview to the user about the main changes in the new version of \SARAH.
\begin{enumerate}
\item New physical output:
\begin{enumerate}
\item One- and two-loop renormalization group equations.
\item One-loop self-energies and one-loop corrected tadpoles.
\item All irreducible representations of chiral superfields possible .
\item Some representation theory with regard to \(SU(N)\) gauge groups.
\item Implicit charge indices are no longer restricted to \(SU(2)_L\).
\item Check for charge conservation of a model.
\end{enumerate}
\item Changes in definition of models:
\begin{enumerate}
\item {\tt DEFINITION} statements to structure the model file.
\item Definition of global properties of parameters and particles.
\item Additional interactions added to the Lagrangian also rotated to new basis.
\item Possibility to add phases to particles.
\item Possibility to decompose one field with several generations in flavor eigenstates.
\item Soft-breaking terms are named to SLHA 2 conventions.
\item Improved routines to read LesHouches files.
\end{enumerate}
\item Changes in output
\begin{enumerate}
\item Speed of \CalcHep/\CompHep and \LaTeX output significantly improved.
\item Adding of running coupling in \CalcHep model file.
\item Possible suppression of splitting of four-scalar interactions in \CalcHep.
\item Typesetting in \LaTeX{} output improved.
\item Overview of superfields, important terms of the Lagrangian, mass matrices, tadpole equations, RGEs and self-energies also added to the \LaTeX output.
\item New commands {\tt MassMatrix} and {\tt TadpoleEquation} to have easier access to information.
\end{enumerate}
\item New models
\begin{enumerate}
\item MSSM with trilinear R-parity violation.
\item Singlet Extended Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (MSSM).
\item The $U(1)$-Extended Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (UMSSM).
\item The Secluded $U(1)$-Extended Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (sMSSM).
\item The near-to-Minimal Supersymmetric Standard Model (nMSSM).
\end{enumerate}
\end{enumerate}
\end{appendix}
|
\section{Introduction}
Observing the co-evolution of active galactic nuclei (AGN) and
their hosts is key to understanding the similar
cosmic evolution of the space density of luminous AGN and of the
star formation rate density. This co-evolution also has to lead to today's
fossil relations between
remnant supermassive black hole mass and the properties of the host spheroid.
Directly measuring the star formation rate of a high redshift galaxy is
however particularly difficult for AGN hosts, since the AGN proper will
disturb and overwhelm the rest frame UV and optical spectral and
photometric star formation tracers already at modest
luminosities,
unless the AGN is obscured. Furthermore, star formation in the host may be
noticeably obscured in particular at high star formation rates approaching
that of high-redshift ultraluminous infrared and submillimeter galaxies.
Infrared observations can thus play an important role for these studies. One
approach that has been
successfully applied to high redshift AGN is to use the mid-infrared
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (`PAH')
emission features which can be separated from the strong AGN mid-IR
continuum emission by means of low resolution spectroscopy
\citep[e.g.,][]{houck05,lutz05}. However, even with the superb
spectroscopic sensitivity of the {\it Spitzer}\ Space Telescope, this approach
is limited for high redshifts to modest sample sizes.
Alternatively, observations of
the rest frame far-infrared/submm continuum have been used since the advent
of the first sensitive submm photometers to measure star formation via the
far-infrared/submm continuum from the associated cool (T$\sim$35K) dust.
This rests on the submm continuum being due to star
formation in the host galaxy, with star formation dominating over the AGN
heated dust emission at these wavelengths for all but
the highest ratios of AGN luminosity to star formation in the host. Such a
star formation dominance in the submm is
possible because of the steep decline of AGN dust emission towards
far-infrared and submm wavelengths
\citep[e.g.,][and later torus models]{pier92}, while
the SEDs of star forming galaxies have a pronounced far-infrared (FIR) peak.
The assumption of star formation dominating the submm emission
is supported by several types of observations. For NGC 1068, the
AGN in the local universe for which current spatial resolution is sufficent to
separate the
AGN from the host in the far-infrared/submillimeter range, this assumption is
directly supported by observations \citep{pier93,papadopoulos99,lefloch01}.
Note that NGC 1068 falls well into the range of AGN luminosities
\citep[intrinsic $L_{2-10keV}\sim 10^{43.5}\,\ergs$,]
[]{colbert02} and far-infrared luminosities ($L_{IR}\sim 10^{11.3}\,\ifmmode L_{\odot} \else $L_{\odot}$\fi$) of
the AGN found in deep X-ray surveys, such as the (E)CDFS AGN that are
discussed below.
Recent {\it Spitzer}\ spectroscopic studies using the polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbon (PAH) emission features in comparison to the far-infrared/submm
emission lend further support to this assumption, indicating that,
at $L_{AGN}/L_{FIR}\sim 10$, the far-infrared emission
of local QSOs as well as of mm-bright high redshift QSOs is
dominated by star formation in the host \citep{schweitzer06,netzer07,lutz08},
plausibly fed by large reservoirs of molecular gas
\citep[e.g.,][]{evans01,solomon05}.
Here, we study a sample that is at or below this ratio
of AGN and star forming luminosities
(\S3.2). Our sample does not reach the extreme values as some of the most
luminous
but mm-faint high-z QSOs, for which the assignment of far-infrared emission to
star formation is more uncertain \citep[see discussion in][]{lutz08}.
Our sample is X-ray selected and thus not biased towards extremely
obscured infrared
objects as, e.g., some local ULIRGs or high redshift dust-obscured galaxies
\citep[e.g.,][]{houck05}, for which the AGN contribution to the far-infrared
emission may be significant.
Measuring the submm emission and on its basis the star formation rate of
AGN hosts thus plays an important role in constraining the evolution of AGNs.
Such studies directly benefit from the improving depth and
areal coverage of current submm surveys. Both, the study of local AGN and
of the AGN/galaxy (co)evolution
have lead to the suggestion of models in which intense star formation events
and powerful AGN activity are physically linked and sequentially occur in a
single object \citep[e.g.,][]{sanders88,fabian99,granato04,hopkins06}, in a
process closely linked to the hierarchical
merging of galaxies in the universe. In a nutshell, galaxy interaction followed
by merging with associated gas inflow may trigger a powerful burst of star
formation
and subsequently feed the central black hole(s) of the merger, to produce a
luminous AGN.
The AGN may then quench the star formation event and shed the obscuring dust,
and finally emerge as an optically visible
QSO. In this evolutionary picture, an obscured AGN would sample the
earlier phases of the AGN activity and would be associated with more
powerful star formation in the AGN host, and thus stronger submm emission.
As already implied by the typically non-merger morphology of local
moderate-luminosity AGN (Seyferts), such an evolutionary picture may not
always apply and its applicability needs to be studied as a function of
AGN luminosity and redshift.
A different behaviour would be expected in the context of the successful
unified picture of active galactic nuclei proper, in which the differences
between obscured and unobscured
types of AGN are the consequences of different viewing directions on
intrinsically identically structured systems. In fact, for the AGN and its
immediate dusty surroundings, for example in the form of a `torus',
emission would be expected
to be equally strong or stronger in the face-on/unobscured direction compared
to the edge-on direction, even at long far-infrared or submm
wavelengths \citep[e.g.,][]{pier92,nenkova08}. However, because of the
intrinsically weaker AGN/torus emission at far-infrared and submm wavelengths,
such differences will be easily washed out by even a
modest amount of star formation in the host galaxy. This would lead to the
expectation
of little dependency of submm emission to obscuration in the unified AGN
picture. This `unified' view is by no means contradictory to the
evolutionary picture.
Considering both these perspectives only stresses that differences in submm
emission found between
different AGN types will to a large extent reflect
evolutionary coupling of periods of AGN activity and host star formation,
rather than AGN physics and orientation alone. If evolutionary signatures
are found in the submm, the underlying mechanisms like merging have to be
clarified from
additional information like morphology or dynamics. Combining evolutionary
and unified perspectives
also emphasizes the need to separately test for possible evolutionary
effects in populations of high redshift AGN of different luminosities, that
may follow different paths of AGN and host evolution.
First looks at the submm emission of X-ray selected AGN have
compared deep X-ray surveys to the first
generation of (sub)mm surveys \citep[e.g.,][]{fabian00, severgnini00,
hornschemeier00,barger01,almaini03,waskett03}. In
general, no straightforward correspondence
between typical sources from these X-ray surveys and bright
submm sources detected with SCUBA
\citep{holland99} was
established, and the average flux from submm stacking experiments of X-ray AGN
was found to be low, e.g.,
S$_{850\mu m}=1.21\pm 0.27$mJy for the Chandra Deep field North (CDFN)
\citep{barger01} and
S$_{850\mu m}=0.48\pm 0.27$mJy from the Canada-UK deep SCUBA survey (CUDSS)
\citep{waskett03}, with insufficient S/N of the stacks
for an in-depth analysis as a function of AGN properties. Pointed
submm followup of selected, e.g., hard/luminous sources from the deep
X-ray surveys resulted in a few detections
\citep[e.g.,][]{mainieri05,rigopoulou09} but also some upper limits.
Conversely, SCUBA sources were often found to be associated with
X-ray faint AGN in the very deepest X-ray surveys
\citep{alexander05a,alexander05b}. These faint AGN do not dominate the
energetics of the SCUBA sources and were undetectable in earlier analyses
that were not based on the ultradeep 2Ms {\it Chandra}\ data. Their black hole
masses appear modest compared to similarly massive galaxies and to more
powerful AGN \citep{borys05,alexander08}.
The study that has been perhaps most successful so far in establishing
bright submm
emission for an X-ray selected AGN population and finding trends with AGN
properties used a different approach. Selecting
luminous X-ray absorbed but optically bright AGN not from deep field {\it Chandra}\
or {\it XMM}\ X-ray survey data but from
identification of X-ray brighter sources from the {\it ROSAT}\ survey,
\citet{page01} were able to detect 4 of 8
X-ray absorbed QSOs at S$_{850\mu m}>5$mJy. Later comparisons with matched
X-ray unabsorbed samples \citep{page04,stevens05} provided evidence for a
lower submm detection rate of the X-ray unabsorbed objects. This difference
in submm brightness between obscured and unobscured objects
supports the evolutionary view, but questions remain in particular when
comparing the large submm fluxes for some of the \citet{page01} objects with
the more modest success of submm follow up observations of luminous hard
sources from deep fields. If submm emission follows the emission at
other wavelengths, this might simply
reflect the brighter observed fluxes and larger AGN luminosities of the
\citet{page01} sources. However, it should be noted that these are selected as
moderately X-ray obscured ($N_H\sim 10^{22}\cmsq$) but optically
unobscured (optical broad emission line = Type 1) AGN, unlike many of the
heavily obscured AGN from deep X-ray fields, which show Type 2 optical
spectra lacking broad lines. Like the broad lines, their bright optical
magnitudes \citep{page01b} argue against a significant obscuration of the AGN
in the rest frame optical/UV. Extending such studies to include more typical
obscured AGN is clearly important and a main motivation of this paper.
We here present a study of the submm properties of X-ray selected AGN
in the (extended) Chandra Deep Field South (E)CDFS. Making use of a new submm
map provided by LABOCA at the APEX facility \citep{weiss09} as well as
current X-ray data with substantially improved identification
status and characterisation of the AGN, we can study the submm properties
and hence host star formation rates as a function of AGN properties.
Throughout the paper, we adopt an $\Omega_m =0.3$, $\Omega_\Lambda =0.7$ and
$H_0=70$ km\,s$^{-1}$\,Mpc$^{-1}$ cosmology. When distinguishing between
moderate luminosity (Seyfert) and high luminosity (QSO) AGN we refer to
an intrinsic luminosity limit of $L_{2-10keV}=10^{44}\ergs$ unless stated
otherwise.
\section{Results from submillimeter mapping of the Extended Chandra Deep
Field South}
The excellent X-ray and multiwavelength coverage of the 0.1 square degree
Chandra Deep Field
South (CDFS) and the surrounding 0.3 square degree Extended Chandra Deep
Field South (ECDFS),
in combination
with the powerful mapping capabilities of the LABOCA submm camera
\citep{siringo09} at the APEX telescope \citep{guesten06}, enables us
to take a fresh look
at the issues discussed in the introduction, making use of the improved
observational resources. We use the
LABOCA 870$\mu$m map obtained by the LESS (LABOCA ECDFS Submm Survey)
consortium as described by
\citet{weiss09}. We use the beam-convolved v2.2 final map which includes a
total of about 350 hours of observing time over an area of about
$40\arcmin\times 40\arcmin$ with an rms noise level of
about 1.2\,mJy\,beam$^{-1}$ in the inner $30\arcmin\times 30\arcmin$.
This map and the catalog of 126 sources detected at $>3.7\sigma$ is
presented in \citet{weiss09}. We also make use of the residual
map obtained by subtracting these 126 sources, using fluxes that consider
in a statistical sense the boosting by instrument and confusion noise
\citep{weiss09,coppin05}.
\subsection{Samples of X-ray AGN}
To maximise the statistics and to allow us to draw meaningful conclusions
for physically
selected subgroups of X-ray selected AGN, we use X-ray based AGN samples
from {\it Chandra}\
observations for both the ECDFS and the deeper but smaller CDFS, for
a total of 895 X-ray sources.
For the CDFS, we mainly use X-ray spectral properties
of \citet{tozzi06} which are related to and based on the original CDFS
observations of \citet{giacconi02}. Recently, the deeper 2~Msec {\it Chandra}\
data and catalog for the CDFS have become available \citep{luo08} but
physical modelling comparable to the level of \citet{tozzi06} is not yet
completed (Bauer et al., in preparation). We therefore use the updated
2~Msec observational data
(observed fluxes, hardness ratios etc.), from \citet{luo08} where available
but stick to the \citet{tozzi06} results for physical properties derived
from X-ray spectral fitting (intrinsic luminosities, X-ray obscuring column
density $N_H$, etc.). We have also added 94 CDFS sources that are new from
\citet{luo08}. Lacking X-ray spectral fitting, these were used only for the
combined stack and when analysing properties as a function of redshift, no
modelled properties are available for those.
To reduce contamination by non-AGN sources we exclude here objects
that are likely nearby normal/star forming galaxies. Discrimination
between such objects and AGN is approximately possible by comparing their
X-ray to their
optical properties; specifically we have adopted a cutoff
$log(f_X/f_R)\geq -1$ \citep[e.g.,][]{bauer04}, for the ratio of the X-ray
flux to the
optical R-band flux. Here we use as X-ray flux the observed full
band flux if available, otherwise the larger of hard and soft band flux.
For similar reasons, we exclude 14 sources from \citet{tozzi06} with
intrinsic rest frame $L_{0.5-10keV}<10^{41}\ergs$. Sources with such
low X-ray luminosities will mostly not be AGN \citep[e.g.,][]{bauer04}.
We have furthermore excluded 20 sources from
\citet{tozzi06} that are not re-detected in the deeper 2Msec data of
\citet{luo08}. In
particular, this cut includes the \citet{giacconi02} XID 618. While this
source, indicated in only one of two source extraction methods used by
\citet{giacconi02}, is coincident with an
interesting z=4.76 submillimeter galaxy (SMG) \citep{coppin09}, its nature
as an X-ray source is
not confirmed by the deeper X-ray data of \citet{luo08}. Including it in
our analysis as a luminous obscured X-ray source as inferred by
\citet{tozzi06} would increase the differences between luminous unobscured
and obscured AGN that we discuss in Section 2.2.
The overall CDFS list has 396 X-ray sources out of which 302 have X-ray
spectral fitting from \citet{tozzi06}.
For ECDFS sources outside of the CDFS, we use the X-ray catalog of
\citet{lehmer05}, supplemented with currently available identification and
redshift information (Silverman et al. 2009, in preparation), but not yet
including results of \citet{treister09}. Again, we
have imposed a $log(f_X/f_R)\geq -1$ cutoff
to reduce contamination by non-AGN. We avoid double counting objects
in the \citet{lehmer05} ECDFS catalog that are also CDFS sources.
Objects in the \citet{giacconi02} CDFS main catalog are identified
by a flag
in \citet{lehmer05}. For these we use the CDFS data and spectral fitting only.
The \citet{luo08} data detect more sources at the edge of the CDFS
that are in the \citet{lehmer05} catalog but not flagged as also detected in
the CDFS. We avoid
double counting those by eliminating them via a 5\arcsec\ radius
match and using the ECDFS X-ray data.
For the CDFS sources of \citet{tozzi06} we adopt the positions
provided in that paper. For the additional sources from \citet{luo08}
we use their optical positions where given and X-ray positions otherwise.
In the ECDFS, we use optical positions from identifications by Mainieri et al.
(in preparation) when available and X-ray positions elsewhere.
Note that the 27\arcsec\ FWHM beam of the LABOCA map, obtained after
convolution of the raw map with its own beamsize of 19.2\arcsec\
\citep{weiss09}, is large
compared to the {\it Chandra}\ X-ray positional uncertainities even for the least
favourable case of modest S/N faint sources at large off-axis angles,
reducing the need for optical identifications for the stacking
process. Typically, {\it Chandra}\ X-ray positions are accurate to well
below an arcsec \citep[e.g., Fig. 5 of][]{luo08}.
We adopt as redshifts for all the CDFS sources of
\citet{tozzi06} the values given in that paper. About
half of these are spectroscopic
redshifts from \citet{szokoly04} and other references, while the rest are
photometric
redshifts which benefit from the excellent multiwavelength
coverage of the CDFS.
For the ECDFS area and the identifications of Mainieri et al., we have used
in order of preference (1) secure (e.g., two or more emission lines or clear
spectral features, Ca H\&K) spectroscopic redshifts from Silverman et al.
(2009, in preparation), (2) other spectroscopic redshifts from the
compilation of Rafferty et al. (2009, in preparation), (3) photometric
redshifts derived by Rafferty et al. (2009, in preparation) from a
comprehensive compilation of multi-band UV to {\it Spitzer}\/-IRAC photometry using
the ZEBRA photo-z code and finally in a remaining 28 cases (4) photometric
redshifts from the COMBO-17 survey which provides accurate photometric
redshifts using photometry in 17 pass-bands from 350 to 930 nm. Here we
have used the
latest version of the COMBO-17 CDFS catalogue, following a calibration update
\citep{wolf08}. We use this dataset with two limitations. We
consider only COMBO-17 sources with R$<24$ (Vega): at these magnitudes
the errors on the photometric redshift estimates are expected to be
less than $|z_{\rm phot}-z_{\rm spec}|/(1+z_{\rm spec})\approx
0.06$. The COMBO-17 data for galaxies fainter than R$=24$ (Vega) are
too shallow for accurate photo-z determination of AGN. Further, we limit
the use of COMBO-17 photometric
redshifts to z$<1.2$ because at higher redshifts the COMBO-17
estimates become increasingly inaccurate due to the lack of NIR
coverage (see Sec. 4.6 of \citet{wolf04}). We have waived this last
constraint for objects
best fitted with a QSO templates ( MC$_{class} = {\rm 'QSO'}$ in
\citet{wolf04}) for which the photometric redshifts are accurate
at least to z$\approx 4$ (see Fig. 18 of \citet{wolf04}).
In total, we thus have redshifts for about three quarters of the X-ray targets
outside
the CDFS. For the new \citet{luo08} sources we use redshifts from Rafferty
et al. (2009, in preparation) where available.
The combined CDFS+ECDFS X-ray based catalog has 895 sources with a median
X-ray flux of $3\times 10^{-16}\ergcms$ in the observed soft and
$10^{-15}\ergcms$ in the hard band. 748 sources have spectroscopic or
reliable photometric redshifts
in the range up to z$\sim$5 (median z=1.17), the median observed X-ray
luminosity of those sources is $10^{43} \ergs$. In the following we call
this the `combined' sample, while with `CDFS' sample we designate the 302
sources from \citet{tozzi06} with X-ray spectral fits, remaining after the cuts
described above (median z=1.04).
\subsection{Stacking procedure}
We derive average submm fluxes for a given source population by extracting both
the map flux (in Jy\,beam$^{-1}$) and the map rms noise, using bilinear
interpolation
to the source position in the beam-convolved LABOCA flux map and noise map.
We then use the inverse variance weighted average of the fluxes measured over
the stack.
Stacking procedures for data from large-beam deep submillimeter maps that are
approaching the confusion limit at these wavelengths have to consider two
effects. First, blank background and thus the `zero point' of a sky image
is hard to identify. At the RMS noise of $\sim$1.2mJy of our data, integral
number
counts approach 10$^4$\,deg$^{-2}$ \citep[e.g.,][]{coppin06}, which is
only a modest factor away from the LABOCA beam density ($2\times
10^4$\,deg$^{-2}$ for an area of $\pi\,HWHM^2$ of the convolved beam);
see also the discussion in \citet{weiss09} on the contribution of confusion
noise in the LABOCA map. This means there is effectively no
clean background sky. Second, for the large submm beam an elevated signal
at the position of a stacked source may originate from the wings of the beam of
a nearby unrelated bright submm source. Chopped beam patterns would cause
additional complications but do not apply to the scanned LABOCA data that were
obtained in total power mode.
We have addressed this situation with simple Monte Carlo simulations,
randomly placing $\sim 10^6$ Gaussian beams over a 1000$\times$1000 pixel
blank image and assuming a beam width (in pixels) equal to the LABOCA beam
width. Input fluxes were distributed according to a simplified integral
number count
distribution with a power law slope -2 \citep[approximating measurements of,
e.g.,][]{coppin06,weiss09} and extending 3 orders of magnitude down
from the brightest source in the map, deep into confusion. If the simulated
image is offset
to a mean value 0 and stacking experiments are done using the positions of
subsets of the input list, mean fluxes from stacks
agree with the mean of the input fluxes within an error estimated from the
standard
deviation of the image, divided by the square root of the stacked sample size.
The noise level of current submm maps and the fact that they do not reach
below the knee of the integral counts implies a dynamic range
between noise and brightest source of typically about an order of magnitude
only. This reduces the effects of individual bright outliers on such error
estimates. With a proper image zero point, the effects of the difficulty to
define the background and of confusion thus cancel, and
stacked fluxes can be used directly. In the
LABOCA data, instrument noise is still (just) dominant over confusion noise
\citep{weiss09}, its presence is again consistent with this stacking
procedure. Fig.~\ref{fig:zero} shows the pixel flux
histograms for the part of the LABOCA flux map that is within a factor 1.5
from the minimum RMS of 1.07\,mJy\,beam$^{-1}$ and for
the residual map after subtraction of detected sources \citep{weiss09}.
In stacking experiments we subtracted the respective means
(0.154\,mJy\,beam$^{-1}$ and
0.072\,mJy\,beam$^{-1}$ for this part of the flux and residual map,
respectively). This
also ensures that zero average flux is returned from stacking random
positions in the map. In deriving
the stacked fluxes, we also calculate an inverse variance weighted stacked
submap which, for stacks with significant detections, can
be used to verify that the stacked beam is centered and reproduces the
original beam of the map.
Spatial clustering of the stacked population can in principle significantly
affect source counts and stacking results. The effect on the stacks can be
very important for instruments at similar wavelengths with much larger
beams than that of APEX, like Planck-HFI
\citep[e.g.,][]{negrello05}. It is negligible for the LABOCA beam
at this wavelength \citep{bavouzet09}, and hence not considered
in our stacking.
We base our discussion on stacking the flux map but also provide stacking
results
for the residual map for comparison. In a few cases with poor statistics we
explicitly discuss the effects of significant detections for the stacked
population. Given the noticeable overlap between the submillimeter population
and weak X-ray sources representing moderate luminosity AGN
\citep[e.g.,][]{alexander03,alexander05b}, exclusion of individually
detected submm sources would bias our results. Future detailed identification
campaigns and high spatial resolution submm followup of the LABOCA survey
will allow supplementation of
this statistical approach with one based on the confirmed nature of individual
sources.
We quote below the stacked fluxes for various samples of ECDFS AGN. In
assigning errors we consider that, while the instrument noise
is gaussian to good approximation \citep{weiss09}, the pixel histogram of
the LABOCA map is somewhat non-gaussian due to the effect of individually
detected, as well as fainter, sources (Fig.~\ref{fig:zero}). Positive
detections in stacks are hence more likely than for purely gaussian noise.
We provide in Tables~\ref{tab:stackcombo} and \ref{tab:stacktozzi} two error
measures for the mean flux of each stack. For a sample with N sources, the
error $\sigma_{map}$ provides the standard deviation from comparing the mean
fluxes of many ($>$1000) samples of N sources each, drawn at random spatial
positions in the map. The value of $\sigma_{map}$ allows assessment of the
significance of a stack's detection. The error $\sigma_{subsample}$ provides
the standard deviation
from comparing the mean fluxes of many subsamples of N sources each, drawn
randomly from the fluxes measured at the positions of our combined
sample of 895 AGN.
This error is larger than $\sigma_{map}$ since it also includes the
spread in the properties of the AGN population. For that reason, we use it
when assessing the significance
of differences between subsamples of our overall AGN sample.
We have also compared $\sigma_{subsample}$ to error estimates from
bootstrapping into each subsample proper and found the latter estimates
broadly consistent, but with large fluctuations due to the sometimes small
subsamples that are used below.
\subsection{Stacking results for different AGN samples}
The stacked flux for the 895 X-ray sources from the combined CDFS+ECDFS
sample is detected clearly at S$_{870\mu m}$=0.49$\pm$0.044mJy (11.1$\sigma$).
The stacked image is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:stamp}. A
2-dimensional gaussian fit to the stacked beam is centered at
$2.2\arcsec\pm 1.7\arcsec$
from the expected position
and has a gaussian fit FWHM of $27\arcsec\times 34\arcsec$
($\pm$3\arcsec). These parameters support the correctness
of the map reduction and the stacking procedure, given the nominal convolved
beam of 27\arcsec. Stacking the residual map after removal of all
$>3.7\sigma$ LABOCA point sources again provides a clear detection at
$\sim$70\%\ of this
flux (Fig.~\ref{fig:stamp}, Table~\ref{tab:stackcombo}). Use of the residual
map will lower the average flux of a stacked X-ray population by excluding
members of that X-ray population that are individually detected SMGs.
It can also lower the average flux if a subtracted point source is dominated
by an unrelated object but includes a weaker submm flux that is originating
from the blended X-ray source proper. Then, the flux at the position
of the nearby X-ray source will be oversubtracted by
removing a point source with the combined flux. This is related to one part
of the `boosting' effect on the fluxes of low S/N source detections from
such a map. This is avoided for our residual map in a statistical sense
because `deboosted'
\citep{coppin05} fluxes for the detections have been used when deriving the
residue \citep[see also][]{weiss09}.
For redshift z$\sim$1, close to the median redshift of (E)CDFS AGN, and
adopting a T=35K, $\beta$=1.5 greybody far-infrared continuum
shape for the star formation powered part of the SED, the total infrared
luminosity corresponding to our 0.49\,mJy LABOCA
detection is $\sim 2.6\times 10^{11}\ifmmode L_{\odot} \else $L_{\odot}$\fi$. The inferred mean star
formation rate is $\sim 27\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\fi$\,yr$^{-1}$, assuming star formation
dominated submm emission, the
conversion of \citet{kennicutt98} and then
multiplying by 0.6 to convert to a \citet{chabrier03} initial mass function.
Note that for z$>$0.5 and given the negative K correction for submm emission
\citep[e.g., Fig. 4 of ][]{blain02}, the considerable uncertainty
of this estimate is mostly in the adopted temperature of dust heated by
star formation (Factor $\lesssim$2 in luminosity for a 5\,K difference),
rather than in the difference between individual source redshifts and the
redshift z=1 adopted for the conversion. The average deep X-ray
field AGN is thus residing in a moderately actively star-forming object,
its luminosity placing it in the category usually called luminous
infrared galaxies (LIRGs). This result
certainly averages over a range of far-infrared luminosities but the LABOCA
detection also in the stacked residual map argues that it is not only due
to a few luminous outliers. Better characterizing this spread will be a
task for the {\it Herschel}\ Space Observatory, the $\sim$10mJy
far-infrared SED peak expected for the adopted greybody is well
within its capabilities. Given the $>11\sigma$ detection of the combined
sample, stacks for subgroups can still be detectable at good significance.
We use such substacks in the following to probe for trends with AGN
properties.
We start with a simple splitting of the combined sample by redshift
(see Table~\ref{tab:stackcombo}
for results of this and subsequent splittings of the combined sample). More
than 80\% of the
sample have redshifts and are split into about equal groups below and
above redshift z$=$1.2. There appears to be a trend towards higher
star formation rates at
higher redshift. A difference in mean submm flux between z$<$1.2 and z$>$1.2
sources is found at the 3.0$\sigma$ level. As for other comparisons of AGN
subsamples, we have adopted here the $\sigma_{subsample}$ errors from
Tables~\ref{tab:stackcombo} and \ref{tab:stacktozzi}.
Comparing z$<$1.2 to z$>2$ sources gives a similar difference but only at
the 2.1$\sigma$ level, due to the
smaller size of the latter group. The sources without redshift assignment
on average have slightly higher submm flux than any of these groups,
consistent with the notion that a significant fraction of them are
located at high redshift and remain more difficult to identify
\citep{alexander01,mainieri05a}.
We can also scrutinize this trend with redshift via a Spearman rank
correlation test of the 746 individual submm fluxes with redshift
measurements,
rather than looking at binned averages. The correlation coefficient is a
modest 0.108, not surprising given the significant noise on each individual
flux measurement, but the probability of exceeding this coefficient in the
null hypothesis of uncorrelated data is only 0.003. Interpreting trends of
submm flux with redshift in terms of total infrared luminosity assumes their
proportionality due to the negative K-correction. This assumption starts to
fail at z$\lesssim$0.5. However, changes in the ratio of submm flux and
inferred infrared luminosity are small at the median redshifts of the
bins discussed here
(Fig.~\ref{fig:ztrend}). Deviations at z$<0.5$ act in the direction of
strengthening the trend of luminosity with redshift compared to the trend
for submm flux. We illustrate this by reporting for those
samples in Table~\ref{tab:stackcombo} with complete redshifts also stacked
IR luminosities, obtained from the luminosities of fiducial T=35K, $\beta$=1.5
greybodies matched to redshift and submm flux of each source. These stacked
luminosities (see also lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:ztrend}) thus capture
the effect of the redshift distribution of the samples, and confirm its
impact to be small. Results from analysing redshift subgroups for
the CDFS sample only, with its more complete identification status
(see Table~\ref{tab:stacktozzi} for this and other
results for this sample), agree with results for the combined sample in
showing higher
flux at higher redshift but with $<2\sigma$ significance of the trends
at the given sample sizes. Of course, the trends
with redshift (see also Fig.~\ref{fig:ztrend}) do not immediately imply
evolution, because of the luminosity vs. redshift selection effects of
the underlying X-ray surveys which are effectively flux limited.
To test this further, trends with X-ray luminosity need to be explored.
Roughly half of those sources in the combined sample with redshifts are not
used here, because of the lack of X-ray spectral modelling for many of the
ECDFS-only sources. For them, only a simple
observed X-ray luminosity can be computed from the distance and observed
X-ray fluxes. No significant trends of average submm flux can be observed
with this observed X-ray luminosity, but this could also be due to the effect
of variations in the obscuring column density erasing trends with
intrinsic AGN luminosity.
This aspect is better addressed using only the CDFS sample, for which the
spectral fits of \citet{tozzi06} assign an intrinsic rest frame
hard X-ray (2-10\,keV)
luminosity for all sources including hard/obscured ones. We find no
noticeable differences between groups or with respect to the total sample
when dividing at $L_{2-10keV}=10^{43}\ergs$ into
a more and a less luminous group with about half of the sample each
(Table~\ref{tab:stacktozzi}, Fig.~\ref{fig:lumtrend}). This changes at
the most luminous
end: Sources with $L_{2-10keV}>10^{44}\ergs$ have more than twice
the average submm flux, and differ from the average of the CDFS sample
at 2.2$\sigma$ and
from the sources with $L_{2-10keV}<10^{44}\ergs$ at 2.6$\sigma$.
We further discuss this stronger star formation around the most luminous
X-ray AGN below. Again the behaviour implied by the analysis of
the stacks can be tested via a rank
correlation of individual submm fluxes with log($L_{2-10keV}$). Given
the upturn in submm only at the high X-ray luminosity end
(Fig.~\ref{fig:lumtrend})
it is not suprising that no significant correlation is seen over the
full range (N=302, C.C.=0.059, Significance 0.30), but correlation between
submm flux and luminosity is found above $L_{2-10keV}>10^{43.5}\ergs$
(N=98, C.C.=0.26, Significance 0.01).
One of the most interesting parameters that is potentially linked by evolution
to the level of star
formation is the X-ray obscuring column density. Simple tests that
can be done on the combined sample show no trend: Binning
directly by X-ray hardness ratio as well as by crude estimates of the
obscuring column density from the location in the redshift vs. hardness ratio
diagram \citep[e.g., Fig.~8 of][]{szokoly04} does not show any noteworthy
changes. We hence focus again on the CDFS sample using the modelled
X-ray obscuring column densities $N_H$ from \citet{tozzi06}. As
Table~\ref{tab:stacktozzi} and Fig.~\ref{fig:nhtrend} show, there is no
significant variation with obscuring column density even for this
well-characterized sample and comparing subsamples that are individually
detected at 3--5$\sigma$. We here split the sample at two different column
densities. First, $N_{H}=10^{22}\cmsq$ is often used as the limit
distinguishing unobscured AGN from the larger number of obscured AGN
\citep[e.g.,][]{tozzi06}. As a second test we
broke the sample at $N_{H}=10^{23}\cmsq$ which would help identifying
changes for the highest column density objects. These two cuts, as well as an
intermediate one at $N_{H}=3\times 10^{22}\cmsq$ that gives roughly
equally populated bins above and below the threshold, do not reveal any
significant trends with X-ray obscuring column density. For the
$N_{H}=3\times 10^{22}\cmsq$ cut which has the most equally distributed
statistics, the ratio of stacked submm fluxes for sources more/less
obscured than the cut is $1.1\pm 0.5$, well below high ratios like
the factor 4.4 found in the \citet{stevens05} comparison of obscured
and unobscured very luminous QSOs. Using submm emission as star formation
indicator, there hence seems to be no clear trend of host star formation with
nuclear obscuration for the typical $L_{2-10keV}\sim 10^{43}\ergs$ AGN.
Recent attempts using radio continuum emission \citep{rovilos07} and the
[O{\sc II}]$\lambda$3727 emission line \citep{silverman09} to trace star
formation agree in not finding such trends.
\subsection{Results for the most luminous CDFS X-ray AGN}
In the previous section, we have found for the full population of (E)CDFS X-ray
AGN a trend of submm flux and star formation rate with redshift, a change
with intrinsic X-ray luminosity only at the highest
$L_{2-10keV}\geq 10^{44}\ergs$
AGN luminosities, the border that is conventionally adopted between
`AGN' and `QSO', and no significant change with X-ray
obscuring column density. We will discuss the implications below but first
specifically repeat the check for possible trends with obscuration at the
highest AGN luminosities. This is motivated by the large range of luminosities
covered, combined with the possibility that evolutionary paths may
significantly differ between luminous QSOs and lower luminosity AGN.
We first restrict the stacks which are formed via the \citet{tozzi06}
obscuring column densities to AGN with high intrinsic luminosity
$L_{2-10keV}\geq 3\times 10^{43}\ergs$. A column density
$N_{H}=10^{23}\cmsq$ divides the sample roughly into half, but we also
explore the traditional $N_{H}=10^{22}\cmsq$ separation.
In both cases the more obscured sources appear brighter in the submm
(Table~\ref{tab:stacktozzi}),
but the difference stays well below 2$\sigma$ significance in either case.
As a next step toward the most luminous and reliable sources we
further restrict to $L_{2-10keV}\geq 10^{44}\ergs$
and sources with spectroscopic redshifts (redshift quality $\geq$1 in
\citet{tozzi06}). Again we find the more obscured sources to be submm
brighter (Table~\ref{tab:stacktozzi}, Fig.~\ref{fig:nhtrend}) with again a
larger difference in submm flux if separating at $N_{H}=10^{22}\cmsq$, but low
significance. Such a change in mean star forming rate with
obscuring column density
occuring at roughly $N_{H}=10^{22}\cmsq$ might indicate that the
small variations with column density for the full CDFS sample
may be dominated by the contribution of luminous AGN. Consistent with this
interpretation, a test splitting the
less luminous $L_{2-10keV}< 3\times 10^{43}\ergs$ AGN at
$N_{H}=10^{22}\cmsq$ further reduces the difference in submm flux
between the two bins, compared to the full sample
(Table~\ref{tab:stacktozzi}).
An independent way of distinguishing unobscured from obscured AGN is the
optical spectral classification. We use the highest luminosity AGN from
\citet{tozzi06}, for which either $L_{0.5-2keV}$ or $L_{2-10keV}$ is at least
$10^{44}\ergs$. Among those, we restrict ourselves to sources with
spectroscopic redshift (redshift quality flag $\geq$1 in \citet{tozzi06})
and group them into optical Type 1 (BLAGN in the scheme of
\citet{szokoly04}, 10 sources\footnote{\citet{giacconi02} XIDs 11, 22, 24,
42, 60, 62, 67, 68, 91, 206})
or Type 2 (HEX, LEX or ABS classifications in the scheme of
\citet{szokoly04}, 17 sources\footnote{\citet{giacconi02} XIDs 18, 27,
31, 35, 45, 51, 57, 76, 112, 153,
156, 202, 253 (changed redshift from \citet{szokoly04} in \citet{tozzi06},
see also \citet{roche06}), 263, 268, 547, 601}). Here we included XID 35
that was not classified by \citet{szokoly04} but for which an optical
spectrum from the VVDS survey \citep{lefevre04} is lacking obvious
broad lines.
Consistent with the analysis where obscuration was defined via the
X-ray obscuring column density, the obscured optical Type 2 AGN
are again submm brighter (Table~\ref{tab:stacktozzi}) than the unobscured
Type 1 AGN, but the significance of the difference is low at just 1$\sigma$.
For both methods, the difference between submm fluxes of
luminous unobscured and obscured AGN is stronger when stacking the flux
map compared to stacking the residual map, suggesting a contribution of
individually detected submm galaxies.
Inspection shows that the `hard' group defined by $N_{H}>10^{22}\cmsq$ or
by optical Type 2 in both cases includes two X-ray sources with S/N in the
submm map above 3 at their position, because they are close to
submm sources that are detected at $>3.7\sigma$. Both have extracted submm
fluxes of $\gtrsim$6mJy. The `soft' group in contrast has no such sources.
These two
SMGs are near the X-ray sources with \citet{giacconi02} XIDs 51 (z=1.097)
and 112 (z=2.940). We have investigated these associations on the LABOCA
map, the VLA data of \citet{miller08} and the FIDEL 24$\mu$m image
(M. Dickinson et al., in preparation). For XID 112,
the position of the optical identification for which \citet{szokoly04}
determined the redshift agrees within 1\arcsec\ with a weak
S$_{1.4GHz}$=48$\mu$Jy radio source and a 24$\mu$m source, and
is only 2.4\arcsec\ from SMG
LESS J33152.0-275329 \citep{weiss09}. This supports the association
despite the fact this is a relatively complex region of the LABOCA map
with two more submm sources within less than 1 arcmin.
For XID 52, again the optical position agrees with a (93$\mu$Jy) radio source
and a 24$\mu$m source, but the offset to LESS J33217.6-275230 is 10.8\arcsec,
large ($\gtrsim 2\sigma$) for identifications of such a $\sim$5$\sigma$ submm
detection and the 27\arcsec\ convolved LABOCA beam
(e.g., equation B22 of \citet{ivison07} and the 6\arcsec\ positional accuracy
estimated for the LABOCA map in \citet{weiss09}). We maintain this source in
our stacks given that there is no nearby alternative radio identification
for the SMG,
and the region is again complex with the next SMG detection almost blended,
but this association is clearly uncertain.
In our comparison of obscured and unobscured
$L_{2-10keV}>10^{44}\ergs$ AGN we have found brighter submm
fluxes by a factor $\sim$3 comparing X-ray column densities above to below
$N_{H}=10^{22}\cmsq$ and by a factor $\sim$2 comparing optical Type 2
to Type 1. This is intriguing but the significance of the differences is
too low in either case to claim a detection from our sample.
The next steps in sample and field size and/or errors on the
individual star forming rates will be needed for robustly confirming
whether the stronger star formation reported
at higher AGN luminosity in X-ray obscured vs. unobscured broad-line AGN
\citep[][and subsequent work]{page01} also holds in the regime
of the brightest X-ray sources found in deep surveys like the (E)CDFS.
\subsection{Results on individual literature X-ray sources}
CXOCDFS J033229.9-275106 \citep[also called CDFS-202;][]{norman02} at
redshift of z=3.70 has been considered a prototype of a luminous radio-quiet
X-ray selected type 2 QSO. \citet{sturm06} have obtained a deep {\it Spitzer}\
mid-infrared spectrum of this source, detecting AGN continuum but not the
6.2$\mu$m rest wavelength PAH emission feature that could be detectable at
this depth
if the source were also hosting an extremely luminous SMG-like starburst. In
accordance with this result, the LABOCA map does not show a detection
at the position of CDF-S 202 (S$_{870}=-1.01\pm 1.10$mJy).
From deep SCUBA follow up of four heavily
X-ray absorbed and X-ray luminous AGN in the CDFS, \citet{mainieri05} report a
S$_{850}=4.8\pm 1.1$mJy detection for the z=3.66 object CDFS-263.
The LABOCA map gives a flux of S$_{870}=1.88\pm 1.16$mJy for this source.
While we cannot support the \citet{mainieri05} result by an independent
significant detection, the two measurements are still consistent within
2$\sigma$ given the errors, and the
source is likely among the submm brighter part of the X-ray AGN population.
\citet{rigopoulou09} publish results from an extension of this project to 8
sources. They do not detect at 850$\mu$m CXOCDFS J033229.9-275106, consistent
with the LABOCA and Spitzer results reported for this source above.
Stacking their 8 targets in the LABOCA map we find
S$_{870}=1.55\pm 0.41$mJy, consistent with results for
$L_{2-10keV}>10^{44}\ergs$ Type 2 AGN reported above but somewhat lower than
the S$_{870}=4.0\pm 0.5$mJy obtained from scaling the variance-weighted
mean of the \citet{rigopoulou09} SCUBA results to 870$\mu$m.
\citet{koekemoer04} report the detection in the GOODS-S region of 7
`extreme X-ray/optical ratio sources' (EXOs) characterized by robust
{\it Chandra}\ X-ray detections but optical nondetections to extremely low limits.
All of these fall on the LABOCA map, none of them is individually detected and
the stacked flux is 0.07$\pm$0.43mJy. While this nondetection at submm
wavelengths excludes an explanation of EXOs by obscured AGN that are
coexistent with extreme star formation, it is
compatible with other possible spectral energy distributions of AGN at
moderate to extremely high redshifts.
\section{Discussion}
Our data put strong limits on possible trends in submm brightness with
obscuration for AGN with moderate luminosities, but are consistent with such
a trend for luminous AGN. This result can be compared to previous
studies. The first comparisons of deep X-ray and submm surveys mentioned
in the introduction had too limited statistics to reliably address this issue.
\citet{page01} used a different approach of selecting very luminous
hard X-ray sources from the {\it ROSAT}\ survey and
obtained significant submm detections in 4 out of 8 z=1--2.8 obscured AGN,
the weighted mean submm flux for all eight is S$_{850}=4.4\pm 0.5$mJy.
Subsequent papers
\citep{page04,stevens05} supported this result by matching to
unobscured AGN of similar luminosity and redshift, and by extension of sample
size, overall finding a ratio 4.4 in submm flux
between X-ray unobscured and obscured AGN,
and with the difference between submm detection rates of individual
objects in the two groups significant at the 3-4$\sigma$ level.
Our LABOCA results grouping luminous ($L_{2-10keV}>10^{44}\ergs$)
CDFS X-ray AGN
by obscuration provide a ratio 2--3 in submm flux between obscured and
unobscured objects, using separations by either $N_{H}=10^{22}\cmsq$ or
by optical spectral type. However, due to the low significance we can not rule
out neither absence of a difference nor trends as reported by
\citet{page01} and subsequent papers. One should note that, considering
the $\sim$8\%\ correction from 870$\mu$m to 850$\mu$m flux densities
for $\beta$=1.5 optically thin dust at z=1--4, our average
submm fluxes of obscured sources are a factor $\sim$2-3 lower than reported by
\citet{page01} and \citet{stevens05} for their samples. Assuming that the
increase of submm
flux with X-ray luminosity at highest luminosities (Fig.~\ref{fig:lumtrend})
continues beyond the range up to $L_{2-10keV}\sim 8\times 10^{44}\ergs$
covered by our
sample, this difference may be due to the typically higher
$L_{2-10KeV}\sim 10^{45}\ergs$ luminosities of the \citet{stevens05} sample
(see also Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot}). Observations with better statistics
at $L_{2-10keV}\gtrsim 10^{44}\ergs$ will be needed to firmly establish
whether in this regime not only the observed increase in submm flux occurs,
but also a gap starts to open between submm properties of unobscured and
obscured AGN.
An important point to note is that the \citet{stevens05} obscured QSOs are
X-ray absorbed (though with typical $N_{H}$ just above $10^{22}\cmsq$ not
Compton thick) but optical broad line region (Type 1) objects. Stevens et al.
are comparing optical Type 1 QSOs having low X-ray absorbing column density
with Type 1 but higher X-ray absorbing column density. In contrast, we were
first comparing groups defined by X-ray column density only, and in the
second test comparing optical
Type 1 to optical Type 2. Splitting our very small sample of 10
X-ray luminous BLAGN further by X-ray column density to fully reproduce the
\citet{stevens05} approach did not show significant differences of subgroups in
this group. While our result is consistent with
the \citet{stevens05} finding of
increased submm flux for obscured luminous AGN, the detailed role of different
definitions of AGN obscuration remains to be investigated with better
sensitivity and statistics.
\citet{sturm06} used {\it Spitzer}\ mid-infrared spectroscopy to detect or put
limits on star formation in a sample of eight optical type 2 QSOs selected
from deep X-ray surveys. These objects span a range of
intrinsic luminosities $L_{0.5-10keV}=10^{43.1}$ to $10^{45}\ergs$ and
X-ray obscuring column densities
$N_{H}=10^{21.3}$ to $>10^{24}\cmsq$, with all but one above 10$^{22}\cmsq$.
We discussed the consistent LABOCA results for the z$\sim$3.7 source CDFS-202
above. For the major part of their sample, six sources at redshifts
0.205 to 1.38 (median $\sim$0.5), \citet{sturm06} report one detection and five
limits on mid-infrared PAH emission with inferred star forming
luminosities of the order $2\times 10^{10}$\ifmmode L_{\odot} \else $L_{\odot}$\fi. This is
lower than the $\sim1.1\times 10^{11}$\ifmmode L_{\odot} \else $L_{\odot}$\fi\ obtained from the
mean LABOCA flux for the z$<$1.2 redshift bin, averaging over all X-ray
luminosities (Fig.~\ref{fig:ztrend}), converting via
our adoted T=35K, $\beta$=1.5 SED and assuming z=0.6. The \citet{sturm06}
sample is small and may have missed star forming objects, but another factor
likely contributing to the difference is the extrapolation from the
PAH measurements to total star forming luminosity which is a function of
interstellar medium conditions. \citet{sturm06} adopted a
scaling factor based on the star forming galaxy M82. A scaling factor more
similar to the one for high radiation field intensity environments, as
suggested for star formation in hosts of local type 1 QSOs by
\citet{schweitzer06}, would increase the inferred star formation
rates/limits of \citet{sturm06} by a factor $\sim$4 and
bring them close to the typical z$<$1 star formation rate inferred from the
LABOCA submm fluxes.
Another modestly sized z$\sim$0.5 QSO2 sample studied spectroscopically
with {\it Spitzer}\
was presented by \citet{zakamska08}. They observed 12 type 2 QSOs, 10 of which
were selected from a large area SDSS sample primarily based on their optical
Type 2
spectra, large [OIII] luminosities and bright mid-infrared continua. Two
sources of their sample of 12 entered the sample
from different far-infrared selected programs. Compared to the Sturm et al.
QSO2s they exhibit larger AGN mid-IR luminosities and, on the basis of X-ray
to [OIII] ratios, possibly higher X-ray obscuring column densities.
Zakamska et al. report PAH detections in 6 of 12 objects and infer a typical
star formation luminosity of $\sim 5\times 10^{11}$\ifmmode L_{\odot} \else $L_{\odot}$\fi from the median of
detections and limits. Both of these {\it Spitzer}\ spectroscopic studies are
broadly consistent with the LIRG-like star forming luminosities of luminous
type 2 AGN found in our LABOCA study. The overlap in luminosity, redshift
and other properties is not large enough for a direct comparison of methods.
A combination into a single analysis is not straightforward, given the
different uncertainties that are involved in extrapolation to far-infrared
luminosity from either the mid-infrared or submm side.
\subsection{The co-evolution of X-ray survey AGN with their hosts:
Two paths?}
The differences expected in the merger evolution scenario between star
formation around obscured and unobscured AGN may be present only at
the high luminosity end of our sample and have been reported by
\citet{page01} at yet higher luminosities. For the
bulk of lower luminosity $L_{2-10keV}\sim 10^{43}\ergs$ sources
we do not observe any significant trend with obscuration. This is likely
indicating a different evolutionary path for these AGN and their hosts.
The host properties of high-redshift Type 1 and luminous Type 2 AGN are
difficult to constrain via common optical/near-infrared techniques, as
the AGN often outshines the host. For the more accessible intermediate
luminosity and Type 2 part of the population, several studies have concluded
that z$\lesssim$1 X-ray AGN are hosted by massive galaxies spanning the
region from around the top of the `blue cloud' via the `green valley' to
the `red sequence' in a color - absolute magnitude diagram
\citep{nandra07,silverman08,treister09}. These are luminous host galaxies,
with few of them fainter than rest frame absolute magnitude
$M_B=-20.5$ and typically brighter than $M_B=-21$ \citep[see also][]{barger03}.
Photometric stellar mass analyses for z$\sim$1 X-ray AGN hosts
\citep{alonso08,bundy08,lehmer08,silverman09} and analogy to the
$M_B$ -- stellar mass relation for the general z=0.7-1 population
\citep[e.g.,][]{cooper08} suggests log(M*)$\gtrsim$10.5\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\fi\ massive hosts.
It is plausible from these results as well as from the local evidence
\citep{kauffmann03} to assume that also the bulk of the z$\sim$1
unobscured/luminous X-ray AGN population resides in massive host galaxies.
Several studies have recently used mainly mid-infrared star formation
indicators to conclude that typical massive galaxies at redshifts 0.7--2 are
almost constantly forming stars at considerable star formation rates,
with the stellar mass normalized `specific star formation rate' (SSFR)
increasing with redshift. This is concluded from the presence of a fairly
tight mass -- SFR relation which shifts towards higher SSFR with redshift
\citep{noeske07,elbaz07,daddi07}. The tightness of this relation suggests a
high duty cycle of star formation. For massive z$\sim$ 2 galaxies, a strong
role of secular evolutionary
processes compared to individual brief merger events is independently
suggested by dynamical studies of rest frame optical/UV selected high
redshift galaxies
\citep[e.g.,][]{foerster06,genzel08,shapiro08}.
This developing picture of z$\sim$1--2 galaxy evolution is naturally
complemented by our results for the bulk of the X-ray sample: Strong
trends of host star formation rate with AGN obscuration are lacking
because such star formation rates are pervasive in galaxies of
similar mass
and redshift. The hosts are evolving secularly and star formation is not
linked to a specific state of the AGN. The typical $\sim$30\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\fi\,yr$^{-1}$
estimated above for AGN hosts assuming star formation dominated submm emission
compares well with typical star formation rates in z$\sim$1
log(M*)$\sim$10.5\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\fi\ galaxies \citep{noeske07,daddi07}. A further
comparative interpretation is currently not warranted given the
uncertainty in the stellar masses
of the AGN hosts and the fact that the comparison of star formation rates
is subject to different extrapolation effects.
Star formation rates in these studies are based on extrapolation from the
optical/mid-infrared while we extrapolate from the submm. This mismatch
can be partly remedied by a comparison to submm fluxes (measuring the rest
frame far-infrared and indirectly star
formation rates) that were estimated for optically
selected galaxies from the LESS LABOCA survey. \citet{greve09} find for a
K-selected K$_{Vega}\leq 20$ sample stacked 870$\mu$m fluxes of
0.17$\pm$0.01\,mJy
(z$<$1.4) and 0.47$\pm$0.03\,mJy (z$>$1.4), similar but slightly below our
trend for the AGN hosts, and again with a positive trend with redshift.
The increase in AGN host star formation rate with redshift
(Fig.~\ref{fig:ztrend}) is combined with a relation SFR to AGN luminosity
that is flat over a wide range of moderate AGN luminosities
(Fig.~\ref{fig:lumtrend}), i.e. SFR does not depend on AGN luminosity.
This is consistent with the moderate luminosity AGN hosts
indeed following the increase of SSFR with redshift of the general galaxy
population. Firmly establishing this behaviour will require studies with better
SFR sensitivity for individual objects, removing the need to average over
large stacks and better breaking redshift-luminosity correlations in the parent
X-ray sample. \citet{silverman09} use the AGN-subtracted
[O{\sc II}]$\lambda$3727 emission line to compare star formation rates
in $0.48<z<1.02$ AGN and inactive galaxies of same stellar mass at same
redshift. For moderate luminosity $42<log(L_{0.5-10keV})<43.7$ they find
indistinguishable SFR distributions in full agreement with the submm result.
When including larger AGN luminosities a SFR excess is indicated in their
data. If robust to the increasing technical difficulties of measuring mass
and [O{\sc II}] SFR for luminous AGN, this could indicate the onset of star
formation enhancement due to e.g. merging.
Our interpretation that most of the moderate luminosity X-ray survey AGN are
hosted by massive secularly evolving galaxies is consistent with morphological
analyses. {\it HST}\ studies of z$\sim$1 X-ray AGN hosts \citep{grogin05, pierce07}
find the hosts to typically be bulge-dominated galaxies with only a modest
fraction of hosts showing clear morphological evidence for recent major
mergers, such as strong asymmetries.
Analysis of deep X-ray surveys has clearly shown a difference in the redshift
evolution of high and lower luminosity AGN, with the comoving density of
lower luminosity AGN peaking at lower redshift than the z$\sim$2 `Quasar
epoch'. Since cosmic halo merger evolution can be roughly matched to
the evolution of quasars but not to the evolution of lower luminosity AGN,
this has been interpreted in terms of a difference between
merger driven accretion at high AGN luminosities and more secular evolution
at lower luminosities \citep[e.g.,][and references therein]
{hasinger08, hopkins09}.
All these lines of evidence place the bulk of the AGN population detected
in deep X-ray surveys on
a relatively gentle and secular evolutionary path. In these sources, X-ray
obscuration may vary through orientation of the immediate AGN environment
in a classical unified/torus picture, and possibly also with an additional
contribution by obscuration on larger host scales, but obscuration is not
intimately linked to the
global star formation rate of the host. Only for the
$L_{2-10keV}\gtrsim 10^{44}\ergs$ QSO-like AGN, obscuration may coincide
with high star formation, consistent with a classical merger evolutionary path.
\subsection{Star formation and AGN accretion rates}
Over cosmic time, the growth and merger rates of black holes and their hosts
have to establish the local black hole -- bulge mass relation
\citep[e.g.,][]{marconi03,haering04}. In this context, it
is interesting to compare for high redshift AGN populations the current
accretion rate onto the black hole and the host growth via star formation
with a relation that would establish on average the local ratio of black hole
and bulge mass. Our results permit steps in this direction for X-ray selected
AGN, within the constraints of results that are based on
averaging over sizeable samples.
In Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot} we show the location of the CDFS stacks, grouped
by intrinsic 2--10keV X-ray luminosity as in Fig.~\ref{fig:lumtrend}, now in
a diagram comparing star forming and AGN
luminosity. To obtain the AGN luminosities we have converted from median
2-10keV X-ray luminosity for each luminosity bin, assumed to be AGN dominated,
to monochromatic 5100\AA\ luminosity using the luminosity-dependent
$\alpha_{OX}$ relation of \citet{steffen06} as cast into units suitable for
our purpose by \citet{maiolino07}. We have then converted to AGN bolometric
luminosity adopting $L_{Bol}$=7$\nu L_\nu$(5100\AA)
\citep[e.g.,][]{netzertr07}.
The star forming luminosities are based on the stacked greybody luminosities
for an adopted T=35K, $\beta$=1.5 SED at the individual redshift of each
source. For comparison, we add samples of low and high redshift QSOs
\citep{netzer07,lutz08,page04,stevens05,priddey03,omont03}. The local universe ratio of black hole to bulge mass ratio of 0.14\% \citep{haering04} can
be converted into a
formal `steady growth luminosity ratio' for star formation and AGN
$L_{SF}$/$L_{AGN}$=4.7$(0.1/\eta)$ that is shown
in Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot} for a black hole accretion efficiency $\eta$=0.1.
The points shown for the CDFS X-ray AGN reflect the stack averages, i.e., the
individual objects may scatter noticeably towards higher and lower star
formation rates. Nevertheless, their location around the `continuous growth'
line is compatible with the picture of secular evolution outlined in the
previous section.
AGN accretion rates or star formation rates may here fluctuate to some extent
with time, moving individual sources around this line in
Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot}
in left/right and up/down direction, respectively, but
the location of the population overall does not require to place them
in any special evolutionary state that would be deviating from a long
term growth. Only the highest luminosity
$L_{2-10keV}>10^{44}\ergs$ CDFS AGN approach the location of the
local and high redshift QSO in the comparison samples. Compared to the
continuous growth ratio,
these most luminous X-ray AGN as well as the QSOs are growing their black
holes at a much faster rate, indicating that
the matching star formation is most likely spread over longer timescales.
Again, we find that only the most luminous CDFS AGN match the possibly merger
related evolutionary pattern of QSOs.
The combination in Fig~\ref{fig:growthplot} of the CDFS AGN with the more
luminous high redshift AGN observed in the (sub)mm by \citet{priddey03},
\citet{omont03}, \citet{page04} and \citet{stevens05} confirms the behaviour
discussed in Sect. 2.1. Star formation in the hosts of modest
luminosity high-z AGN seems to depend little on the exact AGN luminosity -
reflecting the 'secular path'.
These external samples, however, extend the increase in star formation
above $L_{2-10keV}\sim 10^{44}$\ergs ($L_{AGN}\sim 3\times10^{45}$\ergs)
that was already indicated in the CDFS data - reflecting the connection
between star formation and AGN on the `evolutionary connection/merger path'.
The combined results for these samples and the CDFS AGN can be approximated
by a simple relation $L_{SF} = 10^{44.56}+10^{27.7}\times L_{AGN}^{0.38}$
(dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot}).
Here, the smaller slope for the power law at
high AGN luminosities compared to the slope 1 implied by the `steady growth
ratio' plausibly reflects that at the highest AGN luminosities the AGN growth
(at the time of observation) is increasingly faster compared to the host
growth. While this simple two component --
constant plus power law -- parametrization is a plausible reflection of
the two growth modes, it should be considered illustrative and
detailed parameters viewed with caution, given the
sample selections and the fact that we here compare z$\sim$1 AGN at
moderate luminosities and z$\sim$2 AGN at the highest luminosities.
\subsection{Comparison to the local AGN population}
The two evolutionary paths outlined above for high redshift AGN from deep
X-ray fields imply a straightforward consistency check with the local AGN
population. If the hosts of moderate luminosity AGN at z$\sim$1 have star
formation rates similar to nonactive massive galaxies at the same redshift,
the star formation rates in the host of moderate luminosity AGN should
follow the decrease of star formation on the general massive galaxy
population towards redshift zero.
To perform this check in a methodology as consistent with the LABOCA analysis
of (E)CDFS X-ray AGN as possible, we have used a local unbiased 14-150keV
extremely hard X-ray selected AGN sample from the 39 month Palermo
{\it Swift}\/-BAT catalog \citep[PSB,][see also
Tueller et al. (2008) for an earlier BAT AGN catalog]{cusumano09} in
conjunction with the {\it IRAS}\ all-sky far-infrared survey. We selected
(Shao et al., in preparation) from the
PSB survey sources classified as Seyferts, LINERs, quasars, and other AGN,
explicitly omitting blazars. We excluded remaining objects with the
possibility of a strong nonthermal contribution to the far-infrared on the
basis of the NED SED, objects at galactic latitude $|b|<15$ and objects at
redshift z$>$0.3 for which the {\it IRAS}\ 60$\mu$m band no longer probes the
rest-frame far-infrared. For the remaining 293 AGN we used the
{\it IRAS}\ Faint Source Catalog 60$\mu$m detections where available, otherwise
we used Scanpi\footnote{http://scanpi.ipac.caltech.edu:9000/applications/Scanpi/index.html}
to obtain 60$\mu$m measurements for faint or individually nondetected objects.
We calculated rest frame 2--10keV luminosities extrapolating from the BAT
fluxes and the redshift, assuming an AGN photon index of 1.8, and infrared
luminosities $\nu L_\nu$(60$\mu$m) in the observed frame. Because about 20\%
of the sample are individually undetected at 60$\mu$m and for consistency with
the LABOCA stacking, we stacked the luminosities in seven 2--10keV luminosity
bins spanning the PSB luminosity range with sufficient statistics in each bin.
Star forming and AGN luminosities for these local AGN stacks are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot} in direct comparison to the (E)CDFS results.
At moderate AGN luminosities ($L_{AGN}< 3\times10^{44}$\ergs), the star
forming luminosities of local hosts are about an order of magnitude lower
than in z$\sim$1 (E)CDFS AGN hosts. On the other hand, these local AGN appear
to follow down to lower AGN luminosities the diagonal correlation of star
forming and AGN luminosity that is reflecting the `merger path'.
This is in full agreement with previous local work, for example the
infrared-based results of \citet{roro95} and \citet{netzer07} covering
the regime of local QSOs, and modelling based on SDSS
spectroscopy by \citet{netzer09}. The latter traces a
correlation down to even lower AGN luminosities $\lesssim 10^{43}$\ergs\ where
star formation rates in our BAT stacks flatten out. We speculate this might
relate to a more difficult disentanglement of weak AGN and moderately
star forming galaxies galaxies in optical spectra than in very hard-X vs.
far-infrared.
\citet{mullaney10} use {\it Spitzer}\ 70$\mu$m data to trace the evolution of
the far-infrared to X-ray luminosity ratio of AGN to redshift z$\sim$2.
They find no significant change of IR luminosity with redshift for
luminous $L_{2-10keV}=10^{43-44}\ergs$ X-ray AGN but an
increase for more modest $L_{2-10keV}=10^{42-43}\ergs$ AGN. While an
observed wavelength of 70$\mu$m makes for a difficult AGN/host diagnostic
at the high-z/high-l end of that range, where AGN heated dust will enter
strongly the observed band, these results agree with our submm-based
finding that an increase of host SFR from local towards z$\sim$1 occurs
for modest luminosity AGN only. We note that the FIR luminosity increase by
about an order of magnitude to z$\sim$1 would be difficult to reconcile
with the
alternative explanation of an AGN covering factor increase \citep{mullaney10},
since covering factors $<$0.1 would be required for local AGN.
Another recent study \citep{trichas09} addresses the starburst/AGN
connection in luminous z$\sim$1 SWIRE AGN. Being based on rare 70$\mu$m
detections only it is not directly comparable to our work but consistent
with the presence of elevated star formation in
$L_{2-10keV}\sim 10^{43}\ergs$ z$\sim$ AGN.
Our finding of elevated star formation in modest luminosity high z AGN
is consistent with the change of typical
star formation rates from z$\sim$1 to z=0 in the non-active massive galaxy
population \citep{noeske07,elbaz07,daddi07}. In Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot},
both local and z$\sim$1 AGN are consistent with a `secular' path
with star forming luminosity independent of AGN luminosity, and an
`evolutionary connection' path with increasing star forming luminosity at
high AGN luminosity. The evolutionary path, possibly linked to merging,
appears to emerge locally at lower AGN luminosities from the locally
lower level of general star formation.
We have previously discussed the location of local and high redshift
X-ray selected AGN and optical QSOs in the L$_{SF}$ vs. L$_{AGN}$
diagram of Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot}. In the merger evolutionary picture
and in a sequence where the strongest star formation occurs
before strongest AGN activity, galaxies should follow a loop path moving up
in the L$_{SF}$ vs. L$_{AGN}$ diagram with the rise of star formation and
then to the right and perhaps down towards the most intense AGN phase (see
discussion in \citet{netzer09}). We have placed SMGs {\em with weak X-ray AGN}
from \citet{alexander05a} in Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot} to show that their
location in comparison to QSOs is consistent with such a path. SMGs without
detected AGN would be found yet further to the left in
Fig.~\ref{fig:growthplot}. Comparing the location of individual submm-selected
SMGs hosting weak AGN to the X-ray selected CDFS stacks has to be done with
caution since the CDFS stacks themselves
will contain similar SMGs contributing to the upturn in mm emission at high
X-ray luminosity. A thorough analysis of possible evolutionary loops in such
a L$_{SF}$ vs. L$_{AGN}$ diagram will thus have to be done on the basis of
future individual measurements for sources in all the relevant parts of the
diagram.
\section{Conclusions}
We have used the combination of the LESS 870$\mu$m survey and deep X-ray
surveys of the (E)CDFS region to study star formation in the hosts of AGN
covering a wide range of redshifts and luminosities centered around z$\sim$1
and $L_{2-10keV}\sim 10^{43}\ergs$. Stacking LESS data at the positions of
all 895 AGN we detect at high
significance submm emission at S$_{870\mu m}$=0.49$\pm0.04$mJy
corresponding to
average star formation rates of about 30\ifmmode M_{\odot} \else $M_{\odot}$\fi\,yr$^{-1}$. Using the good
statistics to break down the sample according to AGN properties, we find an
increase with redshift and little change with AGN luminosity, except for
indications for an upturn in host star formation at $L_{2-10keV}>10^{44}\ergs$.
The bulk of the X-ray AGN do not show changes with AGN obscuration as
expected from the merger evolutionary scenario, but such a behaviour may
emerge at $L_{2-10keV}\gtrsim 10^{44}\ergs$.
Combined with results for higher luminosity AGN not properly sampled in
the 0.25 square degree ECDFS, we conclude that the bulk of deep survey
X-ray AGN seem to be hosted by galaxies evolving secularly, with star
formation
rates similar to comparably massive non-active galaxies and no close link
between AGN and global host star formation. In contrast, the most luminous
$L_{2-10keV}>10^{44}\ergs$ AGN seem to follow a path where AGN activity and
obscuration appear to be more closely linked to host star formation, likely via
merger evolution.
The properties of local {\it Swift}\/-BAT selected AGN with {\it IRAS}\/-based
far-infrared star forming luminosities are consistent with these two paths.
The host star formation rates of moderate luminosity AGN are decreasing from
z$\sim$1 to z=0 similar to the decrease of SFR in non-active massive galaxies
over this redshift interval.
\acknowledgements
We acknowledge helpful comments by an anonymous referee.
We thank Hagai Netzer and Sylvain Veilleux for discussions. D.L. thanks the
Aspen Physics Center for hospitality during part of the
preparation of this paper. I.R.S., K.E.K.C. R.J.I and J.W. acknowledge support
from STFC.
W.N.B, D.A.R. and Y.Q.C acknowledge support from CXC grant SP8-9003A.
Based on data obtained with the APEX telescope, with programme IDs
078.F-9028(A), 079.F-9500(A), 080.A-3023(A) and 081.F-9500(A).
|
\section{Biological sequences}
Methods to study over- or under-representation of particular motifs in a complete genome
\cite{trifonov86,caselle} or in a proteome \cite{nicodeme}, have
already been proposed, and the results have been used to make
functional deductions. Although the information contained in strings
deviating from expectancy is useful for the analysis of many
biological mechanisms \cite{giansanti}, it turns out to be not
sufficient for a complete and exhaustive interpretation of the genomic
and proteomic message. A fundamental key to its comprehension is in
fact hidden in the correlations among recurrent patterns of
strings. The spatial structure of proteins provides an example: when a
protein folds, segments distant on the sequence come to be close to
each others in the space. This can happen because two (or more)
segments need to physically interact in order to perform the
biological function the protein is supposed to go through. Such a
mechanism translates into a statistical correlation between short
motifs of aminoacids, which is well captured by an analysis in terms
of $k$-motif networks.
\begin{table}[!hb]
\caption{\label{table_community}
List of communities in the 3-motif network of the human
proteome. Community labels as in Fig.~1 of the main text,
number of nodes, total internal weight,
associated domain, and the domain specificity are reported.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c | c c c c}
\hline
\hline
\hspace{1pt} \hspace{1pt} & \hspace{1pt} \# nodes \hspace{1pt}& \hspace{1pt} Internal \hspace{1pt} & \hspace{1pt} Domain \hspace{1pt} & Domain \\
\hspace{1pt} \hspace{1pt} & \hspace{1pt} \hspace{1pt}& \hspace{1pt} weight \hspace{1pt} & \hspace{1pt} \hspace{1pt} & recognition \\
\hline
1 & 6 & 83,30\% & Olfactory & 171/175 \\
& & & receptor & \\
\hline
2 & 25 & 74,91\% & --- &\\
\hline
3 & 43 & 94,13\% & Zinc Finger & 1345/1364 \\
\hline
4 & 6 & 55,42\% & G-protein and & 9/11 \\
& & & CUB-Sushi & \\
\hline
5 & 3 & 100\% & Cadherin & 330/347\\
\hline
6 & 4 & 100\% & Lipoproteins & 16/19\\
\hline
7 & 2 & 100\% & Homeobox & 65/84 \\
\hline
8 & 4 & 100\% & --- & \\
\hline
9 & 4 & 100\% & Collagen & 271/482 \\
\hline
10 & 2 & 100\% & Serine & 22/51 \\
& & & protease & \\
\hline
11 & 2 & 100\% & --- & \\
\hline
12 & 3 & 60,30\% & C-type & 3/4\\
& & & proteins & \\
\hline
13 & 5 & 100\% & --- & \\
\hline
14 & 2 & 100\% & --- & \\
\hline
15 & 2 & 100\% & --- & \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\epsfig{file=twitter_communities_modified_v2.eps, width=0.7\textwidth,angle=0,clip=1}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{motifs_election} Components of the $4$-motifs network of the twitter dataset. Each component and its associated topic are described in table \ref{table_tweets}.}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{Human proteome}
In our application, we have considered the ensemble of sequences
relative to the human proteome \cite{CCDS}. It consists of 34180
aminoacidic sequences of variable size, with an average length of 481
letters. For this dataset, we have computed the probabilities
$p^{obs}$ and $p^{exp}$ for each of the $20^3=8000$ possible strings
of three aminoacids, and we have selected as $3$-motifs the strings
satisfying $\frac{p^{obs}}{p^{exp}}>\left\langle
\frac{p^{obs}}{p^{exp}} \right\rangle +2\sigma$, hence creating the
dictionary $Z_3$ \cite{average}. The entries of the dictionary are the nodes
of the 3-motif network. The node $X$ is then linked to $Y$ with a
directed arc if the number of times that motif $Y$ follows motif $X$
within the same protein is statistically significant, according to the
relation: $\frac{p^{obs}(Y|X)}{p^{exp}(Y|X)}> \left\langle
\frac{p^{obs}(Y|X)}{p^{exp}(Y|X)} \right\rangle + 2 \sigma$. The
statistical significance $\frac{p^{obs}(Y|X)}{p^{exp}(Y|X)}$ is also
the weight of the arc. In this way we obtain the 3-motif graph of 199
nodes and 1302 directed links, shown in Fig. 1 of the main
article. The graph has 86 isolated nodes (not displayed in Figure),
while the remaining 113 nodes are organized into 10 weak components.
The largest component of the graph contains 5 clusters, detected by
means of the MCl algorithm \cite{vandongen}. Therefore, 15 different
communities are present in the graph. In Table \ref{table_community}
we report, for each community, the number of nodes and its total
internal weight, defined as the sum of the weights of links between
nodes of the communities normalized by the sum of the weights of links
incident in nodes of the community. By submitting a query to the
Prosite database \cite{prosite} we have obtained, for each couple of
connected motifs belonging to the same community, the list of all
proteins, classified by domain, where the two motifs co-occur. The
results show that linked couples of motifs belonging to the same
community, all co-occur in the same kind of domains. In addition to
this, one can associate 9 of these 15 communities just to one protein
domain, since the majority of co-occurrences emerge in proteins
matching a well-defined function. In Table \ref{table_community} we
report, when possible, the association to a single protein domain,
together with the ratio between the number of times the couple of
motifs with the highest weight occurred in that specific domain, and
the total number of co--occurrences in the database.
Analogous results were also found for the 4-motif graph \cite{article_preparation},
while it is not possible to derive the same kind of information by using
lower order Markov models to construct dictionaries. For example, the 3-motif
network constructed with a dictionary based on a lower order approximation rather than
on a 2-bodies Markov chain, exhibits a community structure with just four communities,
none of which could be identified with a functional protein domain.
\section{Social networks and microblogging}
By means of $k$-motif networks, information can also be retrieved from
datasets of social dialogs and microblogging websites. Although in
these cases, in principle, a dictionary is a-priori known, not all
terms used in the Internet language are always listed in a dictionary:
abbreviations, puns, leet language words \cite{leet}, names of websites or names
of public figures, are just some examples. Moreover, some expressions
or combinations of terms appear more frequently in some periods or
contexts due to the interest to some hot topics. In addition to this,
the method of $k$-motif networks turns to be very useful in all those
contexts where it is necessary to process and compact information from
large amount of symbolic data. This is the case of Internet, where the
amount of text data provided by blogs, dialogs in social networks,
forums, etc. is growing and growing.
In the following, we provide details on how network of motifs are able
to deduce information about hot topics and cascades
\cite{twitter_cascades, flicker_cascades} in a dataset extracted from
Twitter, a well-know platform for social networking and microblogging.
\subsection*{Twitter}
\emph{Twitter} \cite{twitter} is a social networking and microblogging
service which allows users to send short messages known as
\emph{tweets}. Tweets are composed only of text, with a strict limit
of 140 characters: they are displayed on the author's profile page and
delivered to the author’s subscribers, who are also known as
``followers''. The dataset we have analyzed is a collection of 28143
tweets, crawled on two days, from the 23rd to 24th April 2010, and
selected through the Twitter Streaming API \cite{API} if they
contained the string \emph{\#leadersdebate}. The choice of such a
keyword, called in Twitter also \emph{hashtag}, was aimed to select
all those tweets concerning electoral campaign in UK, where general
election to elect the members of the House of Commons would have taken
place two weeks later. We have analyzed the dataset removing all
blank spaces between words and all symbols that where not numbers or
letters (punctuation, symbols like \$, @, *, etc.) and not
distinguishing between lower- and upper-case
letters.
From these sequences, dictionaries of motifs $ {\cal Z}_3$ and ${\cal
Z}_4$ have been extracted, selecting respectively the 10\% and 1\%
of most significant strings of $3$ and $4$ letters. As described in
the main text, we have constructed networks whose nodes represent the
entries of a dictionary, and an arc is drawn from the node
representing string X to the node standing for string Y, if
$p^{obs}(Y|X)/p^{exp}(Y|X)$ is greater than a certain threshold. In
Fig.~\ref{motifs_election}, we show the $4$-motifs network when the
threshold is set equal to 400 (isolated nodes not reported). Such a
high threshold is chosen to have a small network that can be easily
visualized and studied. More information can be obtained by setting
the threshold to lower values or analyzing networks made up of motifs
of different length $k$. Searching in the original dataset the
connected motifs, it is possible to associate each component to a
particular tweet which generated a cascade or with a specific
expression, related to a specific hot topic discussed by users of the
microblogging platform. For all components of
Fig.~\ref{motifs_election}, we report in Table~\ref{table_tweets} the
tweet or expression associated and its meaning. For example, component
1 and 4 can be associated to two exit polls disclosed on those days by
two different journals, or component 6 to the name ``Gillian Duffy'',
a 65-years old pensioner involved in a political scandal with British
PM Gordon Brown during the election tour (Brown's remarks of her as a
``bigoted woman'' were accidentally recorded and broadcast).
\section{Symbolic dynamics}
Symbolic dynamics is a general method to transform trajectories of
dynamical systems into sequences of symbols. The distinct feature in
symbolic dynamics is that time is measured in discrete intervals. So
at each time interval the system is in a particular state. Each state
is associated with a symbol and the evolution of the system is then
described by a sequence of symbols. The method turns to be very useful
in all those cases where system states and time are inherently
discrete. In case the time scale of the system or its states are not
discrete, one has to set a coarse-grained description of the system.
Different initial conditions usually generate different trajectories
in the phase space, which map onto different sequences of symbols. A
large number of initial conditions produces an ensemble of sequences
whose analysis can be addressed with the method based on networks of
motifs, as described in the main article.
In the following, we will describe the application of the method to the
standard map, and we will show how the related networks of
motifs shape according to its chaotic behavior.
\begin{table}[!ht]\footnotesize
\caption{\label{table_tweets} In relation to Fig. \ref{motifs_election}, we report the number of nodes, links, the tweet or the expression containing the motifs and the topic associated to each of the 13 communities }
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ c | c | c | p{3cm} |p{2.5cm} }
\hline
\hline
\hspace{1pt} Comm.\hspace{1pt} & \hspace{1pt} Nodes \hspace{1pt} & Links & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{Expression or Tweet} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Topic}\\
\hline
1 & 25 & 33 &\emph{Brown wins on 44\%, Clegg is second on 42\%, Cameron 13\% None of them 1\%} & poll results from various websites, journals, tv channels, etc \\
\hline
2 & 12 & 14 & Benjamin Cohen & Journalist of Channel 4 News \cite{cohen} \\
\hline
3 & 10 & 11 & \emph{hey Dave, Gordon and Nick : how about a 4th debate on Channel 4 this wednesday night without the rules?!} & Proposal for a 4th debate among leaders, made by a journalist on his Twitter page\\
\hline
4 & 9 & 13 & \emph{GUARDIAN ICM POLL Cameron 35\% Brown 29\% Clegg 27\%} & poll results from various websites, journals, tv channels, etc\\
\hline
5 & 6 & 5 & \emph{Very funny screengrab from the LeadersDebate} & About a funny picture of the leaders debate on BBC \cite{screengrab} \\
\hline
6 & 3 & 2 & Gillian Duffy & Woman branded a 'bigot' by Gordon Brown in general election campaign \cite{duffy} \\
\hline
7 & 6 & 5 & \emph{Cameron: I believe that if you've inherited hard all your life you should pass it on to your children} & Electoral campaign from David Cameron \\
\hline
8 & 6 & 3 & \#disobeymurdoch & Twitter hashtag \\
\hline
9 & 4 & 2 & \#citizensuk & Twitter hashtag \\
\hline
10 & 2 & 1 & http:// ... .ly & Format of shortened weblinks in twitter\\
\hline
11 & 2 & 1 & Tactical voting & \emph{Strategy that when a voter misrepresents his or her sincere preferences in order to gain a more favorable outcome \cite{tactical}}\\
\hline
12 & 2 & 1 & Henry Macrory & Head of press for the Conservatives, owner of a twitter account \\
\hline
13 & 2 & 1 & www.slapometer.com & A funny website on the election \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection*{Standard Map}
The standard map, also known as Chirikov map, is a bidimensional area-preserving
chaotic map. It maps a square with side $2\pi$ onto itself
\cite{chirikov}. It is described by the equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{l}
x_{t+1}=p_t+a\sin{x_t} \; \mod{2\pi}\\
p_{t+1}=p_t+x_{t+1} \; \; \; \;\mod{2\pi}
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eq:standard_map}
\end{eqnarray}
where $t$ represents time iteration and $a$ is a parameter assuming
real values. The map is increasingly chaotic as $a$ increases (see
inset of Fig. 2 in the main article to see a plot of the Lyapunov
exponent as a function of the parameter $a$). For $a = 0$, the map is
linear and only periodic and quasiperiodic orbits are allowed. When
evolution of trajectories are plotted in the phase space (the
\emph{xp} plane), periodic orbits appear as closed curves, and
quasiperiodic orbits as necklaces of closed curves whose centers lie
in another larger closed curve. Which type of orbit is observed
depends on the map's initial conditions. When the nonlinearity of the
map increases, for appropriate initial conditions it is possible to
observe chaotic dynamics.
In order to obtain sequences from the standard map (\ref{eq:standard_map}) by means of the symbolic dynamic approach \cite{aleksev}, one needs to make a coarse graining of the phase space, defining a discrete and finite number of possible states the trajectory can occupy. This way it is possible to associate a symbol to each of the possible states and derive a sequence according to the trajectory originating from an initial condition. We have coarse-grained the phase space into 25 ($5\times 5$) squares of equal size and we have derived for different values of the parameter $a$, $10^4$ sequences of $10^3$ symbols. In other words, this means to follow for $10^3$ time steps the trajectories originating from $10^4$ different initial conditions.
The idea is that closed orbits or quasi periodic-ones correspond to correlations between motifs and therefore in links of the graph of motifs. When the map becomes more and more chaotic, closed orbits disappear and, correspondingly, the networks break in many components. In the extreme limit of map highly chaotic ($a>3$), the network of motifs are completly disconnected, with all nodes isolated. Nevertheless, this scenario is different from the one generated by stochastic sequences, since in this case motifs would not be detected, while this still happens in the chaotic map, although only for small values of $k$. This result is well depicted in Fig. 3 of the main article, where the number of components of the $3$-motif graphs is plotted as a function of the value $a$ of the map generating the ensemble. This curve is shown to have the same behavior of the Lyapunov exponent, as reported in the inset of the same figure.
\medskip
|
\section{Introduction}
Recently AlN, GaN and InN trigger a lot of interest in optoelectronics,
mostly because of their electronic structure, which makes them very promising
materials for application in blue/green and UV active devices. Emitters and
detectors operating in these spectral range can be used in many important areas
such as optical data storage, biosensors, multimedia etc. Nitride alloys allow
for continuous tuning of physical quantities such as band gap, lattice
parameters, mobility etc., to reach the suitable values for desired
applications.
Despite both theoretical and experimental efforts, many basic properties of
nitride alloys are not yet sufficiently well understood. In this work, we
focus on calculations of structural and elastic properties of quaternary
$\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys, since they offer the largest possibility of tuning. In
particular, we examine the morphology of alloys concentrating on atomic
distance distribution between the nearest and the next nearest neighbours.
They have important influence on the electronic structure of alloys (see e.g.
\cite{Gorczyca2009,Gorczyca2009a}). This knowledge is crucial for application
purposes. In the case of simpler ternary alloys AlGaN \cite{Miyano1997,Yu1999},
AlInN \cite{Katsikini2008}, GaInN
\cite{Jeffs1998,Katsikini2003,Kachkanov2006,Katsikini2008,Miyanaga2007}, the
bond lengths distribution has been obtained by extended X-ray absorption fine
structure spectroscopy (EXAFS), however, for quaternary $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace there are no
available experimental data. As far as elastic properties of alloys are
concerned, their correct description is also very important issue in modelling
lasing from quantum wells, e.g. within $\bm{k} \cdot \bm{p} $ or similar
continuous models. The nonlinear effects in elasticity of nitrides and their
influence on properties of devices have recently attracted considerable
attention {\cite{Lepkowski2004,Lepkowski2005,Lopuszynski2007,Lepkowski2007}.
However, there is not much known about the detailed dependence of elastic
properties on composition. In this paper, we present a computational study of
the second-order elastic constants, $c_{ij}$, for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace quaternary alloys
within the whole concentration range. This could provide very useful insight
from viewpoint of device modelling.
In the present study of quaternary nitride alloys, our main computational tool
is valence force field approach (VFF) developed by Keating \cite{Keating1966}.
Even though it was developed over forty years ago, it is still important
ingredient of multiscale models, particularly where large number of alloy
configurations needs to be handled. For nitrides, the Keating VFF model has
been recently used to examine a plethora of physical phenomena, such as phonon
spectra in bulk and in superlattices \cite{Zi1996,Zi1996a,Wei1997}, structural
properties of ternary bulk alloys
\cite{Bellaiche1997,Mattila1999,Saito1999,Grosse2001, Chen2008} and their
nanowires \cite{Xiang2008}, stability of different alloy phases
\cite{Chen2008} and also in numerous studies of thermodynamics of ternary
\cite{Ho1996, Takayama2000, Takayama2001, Adhikari2004, Karpov2004, Biswas2008}
and quaternary \cite{Adhikari2004a} nitride alloys. Generally, the Keating VFF
model is also a method of choice, where the atomic positions are needed as
external input for electronic structure modelling. This is the case for methods
atomistic in nature, but not entirely based on first principles, such as
semiempirical tight-binding or empirical pseudopotential methods, that are
commonly used for studies of low dimensional semiconductor structures.
Therefore, to contribute to further development and validation of the model, we
also pay attention to practical aspects of VFF usage. We compare the
distribution of the nearest neighbour and next nearest neighbour distances
resulting from Keating VFF model with those obtained from accurate quantum
mechanical formalism, which is a good test of VFF model reliability. We also
examine the influence of so called mixing rule used to obtain VFF parameters
for alloys, which shows how strongly this could influence prediction of
this model.
The paper is organized as follows. In section \ref{Sec:KeatingModelParam} we
briefly recall basic facts about Keating model and present the employed set of
parameters. Section \ref{Sec:StrucProps} provides detailed overview of
structural properties for quaternary nitride alloys, it includes lattice
constants as well as the distribution of the nearest neighbour and the next
nearest neighbour distances. In this part we also compare the results of
Keating VFF with DFT findings. In section \ref{Sec:ElasticConstants}, the VFF
results for elastic constants of $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys in the whole concentration
range are presented. Section \ref{Sec:MixingInfluence} deals with the
computational procedures, so-called mixing rule used to obtain VFF parameters of
alloys and the effect of finite supercell size. Finally, the paper is
summarized in section \ref{Sec:Summary}.
\section{Keating valence force field model and its parametrization
\label{Sec:KeatingModelParam}}
Keating \cite{Keating1966}, on the basis of general symmetry considerations,
derived potential energy model for zinc-blende type crystals
in the following form
\begin{eqnarray}
V(\bm{r}_{1}, \bm{r}_{2}, \dots) &=&
\sum_{i} \sum_{j \in NN(i)}
\frac{3\alpha_{ij}}{16 d_{ij}^2}
\left ( \bm{r}_{ij}^2 - d_{ij}^2 \right)^2 + \\
&&
\sum_{i}
\sum_{ { j,k \, \in NN(i)} \atop {j \neq k }}
\frac{3 \beta_{ijk}}{16 d_{ij} d_{ik}}
\left( \bm{r}_{ij} \cdot \bm{r}_{ik} -
d_{ij} d_{ik} \cos{\theta_0} \right)^2. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\bm{r}_{ij}=\bm{r}_i-\bm{r}_j$, where $\bm{r}_i$, $\bm{r}_j$ denote the
position of i-th and j-th atoms respectively, $d_{ij}$ denotes equilibrium
distance between atom i and j, $NN(i)$ represents the set of four nearest
neighbours of i-th atom, $\alpha_{ij}$ and $\beta_{ijk}$ stand for force
constants.
In the studies applying VFF to nitrides, very often a set of parameters
proposed by Kim \etal \cite{Kim1996} is used. However, during the last years
theoretical suggestions appeared, that propose refined procedure for
determination of the force constants in VFF model \cite{Grosse2001}. On the
other hand, the overall improvement of accuracy of the first-principles
computational methods has been also achieved. Therefore, we have decided to
recalculate the force constants and bring them to the state-of-the-art.
The parametrization of the Keating VFF model starts from determination of the
force constants $\alpha$ and $\beta$ for bulk zinc-blende compounds. This can
be done knowing the elastic constants of the bulks. As shown by Keating
\cite{Keating1966}, the $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are given by analytic formula as a
function of the elastic constants $c_{11}$ and $c_{12}$. In the Keating model,
the third elastic constant, i.e., $c_{44}$, is related to $c_{11}$ and $c_{12}$
as follows
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:KeatingRelation}
\frac{2 c_{44} (c_{11}+c_{12})}{(c_{11}-c_{12})(c_{11}+3c_{12})}=1.
\end{equation}
Therefore, in the standard procedure to determine the $\alpha$ and $\beta$,
$c_{44}$ is not taken into account. However, the equation
(\ref{Eq:KeatingRelation}) for elastic constants resulting from Keating model
is not very well satisfied for nitrides. To improve this approach, Grosse and
Neugebauer \cite{Grosse2001} proposed an alternative method. They suggested to
determine $\alpha$ and $\beta$ by the least-squares fit to all three elastic
constants. It turns out that such fitting approach ensures more uniform
spreading of error and generally leads to better results. Therefore, we follow
this approach in our work. Since the values of elastic constants for
zinc-blende nitrides have not been measured so far, we relay on theoretical
predictions from the DFT based calculations. In our study, we take arithmetic
average of elastic constants obtained in the calculations within the
DFT LDA and DFT GGA approximations to determine the force constants $\alpha$ and
$\beta$. The elastic constants obtained through the averaging over these two
theoretical schemes should be closer in value to experimental ones. It follows
from the DFT LDA and DFT GGA tendencies to, respectively, overestimate and
underestimate the stiffness of a material. The values of $c_{ij}$ calculated
within GGA formalism have been taken from our previous work
\cite{Lopuszynski2007}, and the $c_{ij}$ values have been calculated
within DFT LDA approximation using VASP package
\cite{Kresse1994,Kresse1996,Kresse1996a} and the projector augmented wave
method \cite{Kresse1999}. The energy cutoff was set to 800 eV and the
11$\times$11$\times$11 Monkhorst-Pack mesh \cite{Monkhorst1976} has been
employed for the Brillouin zone integrals. The values of elastic constants
used for the fitting procedure are summarized in the table
\ref{Tab:ElasticConstants}, whereas the final set of employed parameters is
shown in the table \ref{Tab:KeatingParameters}.
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{\label{Tab:ElasticConstants}
Elastic constants used to parametrize Keating model.}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{indented}
\item[] \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|l}
& $c_{11}$ & $c_{12}$ & $c_{44}$ & \\
\hline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}
AlN & 301 & 167 & 188 & LDA \\
& 282 & 149 & 179 & GGA, see \cite{Lopuszynski2007} \\
GaN & 288 & 159 & 161 & LDA \\
& 252 & 129 & 147 & GGA, see \cite{Lopuszynski2007} \\
InN & 184 & 127 & 84 & LDA \\
& 159 & 102 & 78 & GGA, see \cite{Lopuszynski2007}
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
Now we are in the position to determine parameters $\alpha_{ij}$ and
$\beta_{ijk}$ for calculation of $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace quaternary alloys. The values of the
force constants $\alpha_{ij}$ are directly taken as force constants $\alpha$ of
binary compound consisting of atomic species $i$ and $j$. In the case of
$\beta_{ijk}$ three types of atoms can be involved, and obviously the
parametrization, carried out for binary materials cannot determine these
constants. In such cases we employ arithmetic mixing rule, i.e., take
arithmetic average of suitable binary parameters, as it has been applied in
many previous works, e.g. \cite{Mattila1999,Takayama2000,Takayama2001}.
Specifically, this means that $\beta_{\rm{Ga},{N},{In}} =
(\beta_{\rm{Ga},{N},{Ga}} + \beta_{\rm{In},{N},{In}} )/2$, and so on. However,
there is also possibility to use geometric average instead (see e.g. Schabel
and Martins \cite{Schabel1991} or Saito and coworkers \cite{Saito1999}). We
investigate the role of employed mixing rule later on (see section
\ref{Sec:MixingInfluence} for details).
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{\label{Tab:KeatingParameters}
Set of parameters for Keating VFF model employed in the present study.}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{indented}
\item[] \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
& d $[\rm{\AA}] $ &
$\alpha$ $[\rm{N}/\rm{m}]$ &
$\beta$ $[\rm{N}/\rm{m}]$ \\
\hline
\rule{0pt}{3ex}
AlN & 1.894 & 79.91 & 19.73 \\
GaN & 1.950 & 76.25 & 17.80 \\
InN & 2.165 & 62.07 & 9.68 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
\section{Structural properties from VFF model and their comparison with
DFT calculations \label{Sec:StrucProps} }
In this section, we analyze composition dependence of structural properties and
geometry of $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys (i.e., lattice constants, the nearest and next
nearest neighbour distances). The distribution of bond lengths in an alloy can
be also extracted from EXAFS experiments, which is a useful crosscheck for
the theory.
The local geometry of alloy is an important issue, since it
influences the electronic structure, see e.g. recent calculations of
Gorczyca \etal \cite{Gorczyca2009,Gorczyca2009a} for nitride alloys. The
Keating VFF model is particularly suitable for the task of establishing local
environment of random alloys. It enables calculations with large supercells,
which in turn guarantee reasonably good sampling and randomness of alloys.
There is fairly long history of employing VFF models to determine alloy
geometry for various types of materials. For example, Cai and Thorpe studied
relaxation patterns in general ternary $A_{1-x}B_x C$ \cite{Cai1992} and
quaternary $A_{1-x}B_x C_{1-y}D_y$ alloys \cite{Cai1992a} using Kirkwood model
very similar to Keating VFF approach. Schabel and Martins \cite{Schabel1991}
gave detailed overview of structure for very broad range of semiconducting
alloys within Keating VFF. Their work, however, does not include nitrides. The
structure of ternary nitride alloys has been also studied by many other authors
\cite{Bellaiche1997,Mattila1999, Saito1999}. In this work, we present the
first VFF study of structure for quaternary nitride alloys. We compare our
results for bond length distribution with recent calculations of Marques \etal
\cite{Marques2006} carried out within generalized quasichemical approximation
(GQCA). Where possible we also compare our findings with experimental data,
obtained using EXAFS approach. To shed some light on accuracy of Keating VFF,
we also compare the structural properties of this force field model with
accurate DFT calculations. The latter treatment allows only for calculations
with moderate sizes of supercells. On the other hand DFT description of
interactions between atoms is otherwise very complete. Therefore, such
comparison can reveal potential weak points of fully local classical
description. Since VFF model is widely used to provide geometry to
semi-empirical calculations of electronic structure handling large systems
(e.g. tight-binding or empirical pseudopotential schemes), the question of its
accuracy is vivid. Obviously, the quality of such multiscale approach depends
on accuracy of input structures, however, to the best of our knowledge, no
detailed comparison of VFF with more accurate models (e.g. DFT) has been so far
presented in the literature.
\subsection{Computational details}
For VFF simulations, we used $18\times18\times18$ zinc-blende cubic supercells
containing 46656 atoms with random distribution of cations. We optimized both
the atomic positions and the lattice constant of the cubic cell. For the DFT
simulations, we employed VASP package \cite{Kresse1994,Kresse1996,Kresse1996a}.
We used local density approximation for exchange and correlation functional
according to Ceperley and Alder \cite{Ceperley1980}. The projector augmented
wave method was used in its variant available in the VASP code
\cite{Kresse1999}. The calculations were performed for $3\times3\times3$
zinc-blende cubic cells containing 216 atoms. Also in this case cation
distribution among sites was random. The energy cutoff was set to 550 eV. For
Brillouin zone sampling, only $\Gamma$ point was used due to the large supercell
size.
\subsection{Lattice constant}
In the early 20th century Vegard noticed that lattice constant for alloys can
be calculated using linear interpolation between lattice constants of
constituents \cite{Vegard1921}. Nitride alloys follow this so-called Vegard's
law, which has been confirmed by a series of experimental findings, see e.g.
recent experiment for GaInN nanowires, where the linear dependence of lattice
constant was observed in the whole concentration range \cite{Kuykendall2007}.
The results of our simulations for lattice constant are presented in figure
\ref{Fig:LatticeConstants}. One can easily observe that DFT LDA formalism
reproduces very well the linear Vegard-like behaviour, even though the LDA
approximation is well known to systematically underestimate the values of
lattice constants. On the other hand the Keating VFF predicts some bowing in
the dependence of lattice constant on concentration. This is in accordance
with the work of Thorpe and coworkers \cite{Thorpe1991}, who analyzed the
Vegard's law for a simple VFF-like model. In their case they showed that
Vegard's law is obtained when force constants disorder is neglected.
Therefore, since in our calculations force constant disorder is included (i.e.,
$\alpha$ and $\beta$ depend on the types of atoms considered), it is possible
to expect deviations from linearity. This is a feature of the Keating VFF
method, however, as can be seen from figure \ref{Fig:LatticeConstants}, its
magnitude is not very large.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{lattice_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{lattice_lda.eps}
\caption{
\label{Fig:LatticeConstants}
Comparison of lattice constants dependence on the alloy composition for
$\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace obtained using Keating VFF (left panel) and DFT LDA (right panel).
Points correspond to results of calculations, solid lines are only to guide
the eye. Dashed lines denote prediction of Vegard's law. Note that for
convenient comparison the scale on both graphs is the same. }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Nearest neighbours distance}
Results of calculations of the nearest neighbour distance dependence on
concentration of alloy constituents for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace are presented in figure
\ref{Fig:BondLengths}. It is well known that even though lattice constants
obey Vegard's law, the individual bond lengths do not follow this simple rule.
The dependence of bond lengths on concentration is usually also linear,
however, bond lengths remain much closer to their original bond length in bulk
binary material, rather then to the average bond length predicted by
Vegard-like law (see e.g. \cite{Martins1984,Chen1995}). This linear dependence
of the bond lengths in the alloy on the concentration of Al and Ga cations,
$x$ and $y$ respectively, can be described by the linear form
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:LinearFit} d(x,y)=d_0+Ax+By.
\end{equation}
The coefficients $A$ and $B$ in equation (\ref{Eq:LinearFit}) have been
determined by fitting the bond lengths obtained from both Keating and LDA
schemes. These linear fits are represented by dashed lines in figure
\ref{Fig:BondLengths}. The small values of coefficients A and B (see table
\ref{Tab:BondLengthsFits} gathering results of fitting procedure for all types
of bonds) allow even for rough approximation of $d(x,y)$ by $d_0$, just
confirming the statement about bond lengths made above.
On the basis of the presented plots (figure \ref{Fig:BondLengths}) for bond
lengths in $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloy, one can compare findings of Keating VFF model with
DFT LDA approach. Results of both computational methods can be reasonably well
described by linear dependence of bond lengths on cation concentrations given
by equation (\ref{Eq:LinearFit}). Naturally, since the DFT LDA calculations
have been performed for much smaller cell sizes (histograms were generated on
the basis of two 216 atoms supercell calculations) the data have larger
statistical error than the Keating VFF computations. This effect is
particularly pronounced in these parts of the graphs where low concentration of
considered cation is present in the sample. Second evident observation is that
DFT LDA bond lengths are systematically shifted towards the lower values than
Keating VFF. This is related to well known LDA flaw to underestimate the
lattice constants. It is also worth noticing that results of previous
computations by Marques \etal \cite{Marques2006}, which have been carried out
within generalized quasichemical approximation (GQCA), are in particularly
good agreement with findings of Keating VFF model (see table
\ref{Tab:BondLengthsFits} for details).
Another interesting aspect is to compare the probability distribution profiles
predicted by both DFT LDA and Keating VFF models. Two sample histograms
generated by both models are depicted in figure \ref{Fig:BondHistograms}. One
can see that both schemes lead to results that are in satisfactory agreement
with each other. It is again visible that DFT LDA systematically
underestimates the bond lengths, so the peaks corresponding to each bond type
are shifted towards lower values. One can also notice that Keating VFF model
predicts larger peak widths than the DFT LDA approach does. Particularly
interesting are cases of high In concentration. There, one can observe rather
large lattice deformations caused mostly by the considerable lattice mismatch
between InN and GaN or AlN. This can be considered as a test of the Keating VFF
which has been parametrized on the basis of elastic constants $c_{ij}$, i.e.,
taking into account effects of second-order in deformation strain, which, in
principle, describe the material behaviour in the regime of small deformations.
However, also for these cases, the agreement is reasonable, in spite of
neglecting higher order contributions to the elastic energy (see e.g. results
for Al$_{0.17}$Ga$_{0.17}$In$_{0.66}$N presented in figure
\ref{Fig:BondHistograms}).
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{\label{Tab:BondLengthsFits}
Results of the linear fits to average nearest neighbours distances
for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace quaternary alloys.}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{indented}
\item[] \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c|c}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Bond} & Model & Fit Function & Error [\%]
& Ref.\\
\hline
Al-N
& VFF & $ 1.9496 -0.05496\,x -0.03893\,y$ & 0.10
& This work \\
& DFT LDA & $1.9279 - 0.04419\,x - 0.04314\,y$ & 0.26
& This work \\
& GQCA & $1.9435 - 0.05090\,x - 0.05455\,y$ & 0.19
& \cite{Marques2006} \\
\hline
Ga-N
& VFF & $1.9959 - 0.06322\,x - 0.04573\,y$ & 0.10
& This work \\
& DFT LDA & $1.9762 - 0.04367\,x - 0.04470\,y$ & 0.27
& This work \\
& GQCA & $1.9919 - 0.05985\,x - 0.06050\,y$ & 0.35
& \cite{Marques2006} \\
\hline
In-N
& VFF & $ 2.1676 -0.09899\,x -0.07485\,y$ & 0.12
& This work\\
& DFT LDA & $2.1461 - 0.05276\,x - 0.05088\,y$ & 0.21
& This work \\
& GQCA & $2.1573 - 0.08292\,x - 0.07570\,y$ & 0.55 &
\cite{Marques2006}
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[p]
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondLen_Al__N_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondLen_Al__N_lda.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondLen_Ga__N_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondLen_Ga__N_lda.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondLen_In__N_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondLen_In__N_lda.eps}
\caption{
\label{Fig:BondLengths}
The dependence of the average bond length on alloy composition for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace
obtained using Keating VFF and DFT LDA schemes. Points correspond to
results of calculations, solid lines are only to guide the eye. Dashed
lines denote linear fits presented in the table \ref{Tab:BondLengthsFits}.
Note that for convenient comparison the scale on Keating VFF and DFT LDA
graphs is the same. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[height=0.50\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondHis_50_33_17.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.50\textwidth,angle=270]
{bondHis_17_17_66.eps}
\caption{\label{Fig:BondHistograms}
The nearest neighbour distance distribution resulting from Keating VFF and
DFT LDA for Al$_{0.50}$Ga$_{0.33}$In$_{0.17}$N and
Al$_{0.17}$Ga$_{0.17}$In$_{0.66}$N random alloys. Vertical dashed lines
denote nearest neighbour distance in pure AlN, GaN and InN respectively as
predicted by both presented models. }
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[height=0.50\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_AlGaN_AlInN.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.50\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_GaInN.eps}
\caption{\label{Fig:ComparisonWithExpt} Comparison of our theoretical results
obtained within both DFT LDA and Keating VFF models with various experimental
data. There are used data from the following experimental:
for $\rm{Al}_x\rm{Ga}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace
Expt. 1 - Miyano \etal \cite{Miyano1997},
Expt. 2 - Yu \etal \cite{Yu1999},
for $\rm{Al}_x\rm{In}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace
Expt. 3 - Katsikini \etal \cite{Katsikini2008},
for $\rm{Ga}_x\rm{In}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace
Expt. 4 - MBE samples of Kachkanov \etal \cite{Kachkanov2006},
Expt. 5 - MOCVD samples of Kachkanov \etal \cite{Kachkanov2006},
Expt. 6 - Katsikini \etal \cite{Katsikini2003},
Expt. 7 - Katsikini \etal\cite{Katsikini2008}.
The results of previous theoretical predictions within GQCA \cite{Marques2006}
are presented for completeness. }
\end{figure}
Finally, it is interesting to examine, how the presented theoretical results
agree with experiments. We are not aware of any experimental results for bond
length distribution in $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys, however, there is a significant body of
experimental data for ternaries $\rm{Al}_x\rm{Ga}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace, $\rm{Al}_x\rm{In}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace, and $\rm{Ga}_x\rm{In}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace. Comparison of the
experimental bond lengths in ternary alloys with predictions of the Keating VFF
model is presented in figure \ref{Fig:ComparisonWithExpt}. Even though
measurements are performed for wurtzite samples, the comparison with the
theoretical predictions for cubic phases is reasonable, owing to the local
similarity of both crystallographic phases. In wurtzite structures, the
nearest neighbours bond elongations in the direction of crystallographic
$c$-axis are typically of the order of 0.01 $\AA$
\cite{Gorczyca2009a,Ambacher2002}. This is very similar to a typical
experimental error bars or bond length spread resulting from disorder in alloy
(compare histogram in figure \ref{Fig:BondHistograms}). As can be seen in
figure \ref{Fig:ComparisonWithExpt}, the comparison of available data with our
theoretical results reveals good agreement. It could be, of course, interesting
to see how this relates to the structural properties of cubic $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace which
growth using molecular beam epitaxy was recently reported \cite{As2007}. For
completeness, in figure \ref{Fig:ComparisonWithExpt} we have also included the
DFT findings which again show the well known systematic tendency to
underestimate the bond lengths.
\clearpage
\subsection{Next nearest neighbour distance}
Here we analyse the closest distances between the atoms of the same (cationic
or anionic) sublattice, i.e., the next nearest neighbour distance of an anion
or cation. The results obtained within both VFF and DFT models for a
nitrogen-nitrogen pairs are presented in figure \ref{Fig:DistNNNSummary}.
Qualitatively, the results for the smallest distances of cationic pairs are
very similar, exhibiting dominantly linear dependence on concentration of
constituents. The coefficients $A$ and $B$ that determine this linear
dependence (see equation (\ref{Eq:LinearFit})) are presented in the table
\ref{Tab:DistNNNSummaryFits} for both cation-cation and nitrogen-nitrogen
average distance. The maximum error of the fit is also included there. Since in
modern EXAFS experiments it is possible to measure the cation-cation distances
for every distinct pair separately, we have also performed the fits for all
possible combinations of cation-cation distances, namely Al-Al, Al-Ga, Al-In,
Ga-Ga, Ga-In, In-In (see table \ref{Tab:DistNNNCationsFits}). Again, in all
cases linear model provides satisfactory description.
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{\label{Tab:DistNNNSummaryFits}
Results of linear fit to the average next nearest neighbour
cation-cation (CT - CT) and nitrogen-nitrogen (N - N) distances for
$\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace quaternary alloys.}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{indented}
\item[] \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Distance} & Model & Fit Function & Max. Error [\%] \\
\hline
CT-CT
& VFF & $3.5147 - 0.43234\,x -0.33500\,y$ & 0.59\\
& DFT LDA & $3.4934 - 0.42243\,x -0.34107\,y$ & 0.18 \\
\hline
N-N
& VFF & $3.5200 - 0.43517\,x -0.33931\,y$ & 0.44 \\
& DFT LDA & $3.4991 - 0.42487\,x -0.34562\,y$ & 0.07 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h!]
\caption{\label{Tab:DistNNNCationsFits}
Results of linear fits to the average next nearest neighbour distances
between various pairs of cations for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace quaternary alloys.}
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{indented}
\item[] \begin{tabular}{l|c|c|c}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{Distance} & Model & Fit Function & Max. Error [\%] \\
\hline
Al-Al & VFF & $3.3660 - 0.27416\,x - 0.20666\,y$ & 0.15 \\
& DFT LDA & $3.3663 - 0.29078\,x - 0.23771\,y$ & 0.78 \\
\hline
Al-Ga & VFF & $3.3865 - 0.28385\,x - 0.21459\,y$ & 0.07 \\
& DFT LDA & $3.3798 - 0.29593\,x - 0.23651\,y$ & 0.24 \\
\hline
Al-In & VFF & $3.4599 - 0.32354\,x - 0.24685\,y$ & 0.05 \\
& DFT LDA & $3.4286 - 0.30625\,x - 0.23513\,y$ & 0.31 \\
\hline
Ga-Ga & VFF & $3.4057 - 0.29338\,x - 0.22179\,y$ & 0.18 \\
& DFT LDA & $3.3922 - 0.29127\,x - 0.23931\,y$ & 0.43 \\
\hline
Ga-In & VFF & $3.4771 - 0.33479\,x - 0.25554\,y$ & 0.06 \\
& DFT LDA & $3.4474 - 0.30469\,x - 0.24991\,y$ & 0.26 \\
\hline
In-In & VFF & $3.5362 - 0.38725\,x - 0.29734\,y$ & 0.11 \\
& DFT LDA & $3.4983 - 0.31251\,x - 0.26031\,y$ & 0.53 \\
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
In addition to the dependence of average cation-cation and anion-anion distance
on concentration, we have also analyzed the shape of distribution. Sample
histograms are depicted in figure \ref{Fig:DistNNNHistogram}. When inspecting
presented graphs, one can notice that cationic and nitrogen sublattices relax
in a different manner. The behaviour of cation-cation distribution is similar
to virtual crystal exhibiting unimodal shape. At the same time
nitrogen-nitrogen distance is much more distorted with respect to single-peaked
virtual crystal picture. The shape of the distribution is multimodal. The peaks
correspond to three possible combinations of N-N pair joined by Al, Ga or In
atom respectively. Since the equilibrium distances of Al-N and Ga-N are very
similar the pairs of N-N joined by Al and Ga form common maximum on the
presented plot. These findings agree very well with the same behaviour
reported for ternaries \cite{Schabel1991,Mattila1999}.
Comparing bond length histograms obtained within the VFF and DFT schemes (see
figure \ref{Fig:DistNNNHistogram}), it is interesting to note that the
agreement in the predicted next nearest neighbour distances is in this case
even better than for the nearest neighbours histograms. To some extent it is
caused by the fact that the larger peak widths than in the case of the nearest
neighbour distance distributions cause that systematic differences between bond
length predicted by DFT and VFF are less pronounced. Since the VFF model
includes explicit interactions only between the nearest neighbours, one could
think that the description of second coordination shell would be less accurate.
However, it turns out that the VFF model provides also very reliable
predictions for cation-cation and anion-anion distances (see figure
\ref{Fig:DistNNNHistogram}).
Even though the experimental data for quaternaries are unavailable, similarly
like in the nearest neighbour case, there is a considerable number of results
for ternaries. The comparison of experimental findings with our theoretical
results are presented in figure \ref{Fig:ComparisonWithExptNNN}. Generally, the
agreement is very good, however, a few things are worth pointing out here. One
can notice that quite often the results measured by different groups exhibit
significant spread and, in addition, some of the experimental data exhibit
large error bars. This underlines the fact that such measurements are on the
verge of available experimental technique. The largest discrepancies between
theory and experiment we observe for $\rm{Al}_x\rm{In}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace alloy (see the middle column of the
graph \ref{Fig:ComparisonWithExptNNN}), however, there is only one recent
report \cite{Katsikini2008} known to us, which deals with the structure of this
material. To elucidate the matter, more experimental data would be very
helpful. One has also to bear in mind that our calculation assume random
cation distribution in the sample. If some kind of clustering for particular
type of cations occurs, it could lead to modification of the presented results.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{distNNN__N__N_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{distNNN__N__N_lda.eps}
\caption{
\label{Fig:DistNNNSummary}
The nitrogen-nitrogen average next nearest neighbour distances as a
function of composition for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace obtained using Keating VFF and
DFT LDA, for the case of nitrogen-nitrogen. Points correspond to
results of calculations, solid lines are only to guide the eye. Dashed
lines denote linear fits presented in the table
\ref{Tab:DistNNNSummaryFits}. Note that for convenient comparison the
scale on all graphs is the same.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{distHis_CT_17_17_66.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{distHis__N_17_17_66.eps}
\caption{
\label{Fig:DistNNNHistogram}
Comparison of the next nearest neighbour distance distribution
resulting from the Keating VFF and DFT LDA for
Al$_{0.17}$Ga$_{0.17}$In$_{0.66}$N.
Vertical dashed lines denote next nearest neighbour distance in
pure AlN, GaN and InN respectively as predicted by both presented
models.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[p]
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_NNN_AlGaN_AlGa.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_NNN_AlInN_AlIn.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_NNN_GaInN_GaGa.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_NNN_AlGaN_GaGa.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_NNN_AlInN_InIn.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.33\textwidth,angle=270]
{exptCmp_NNN_GaInN_InIn.eps}
\caption{
\label{Fig:ComparisonWithExptNNN}
Comparison of our theoretical results for average next nearest neighbours
distances with various experimental findings:
for $\rm{Al}_x\rm{Ga}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace
Expt. 1 - Miyano \etal \cite{Miyano1997},
Expt. 2 - Yu \etal \cite{Yu1999},
for $\rm{Al}_x\rm{In}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace
Expt. 3 - Katsikini \etal \cite{Katsikini2008},
for $\rm{Ga}_x\rm{In}_{1-x}\rm{N}$\xspace
Expt. 4 - MBE samples of Kachkanov \etal \cite{Kachkanov2006},
Expt. 5 - MOCVD samples of Kachkanov \etal \cite{Kachkanov2006},
Expt. 6 - Katsikini \etal \cite{Katsikini2003},
Expt. 7 - Katsikini \etal\cite{Katsikini2008}.
All distances are in Angstroms.
}
\end{figure}
\clearpage
\section{Elastic constants for alloys calculated using Keating model
\label{Sec:ElasticConstants}}
In this section we present results of calculations of elastic constants
$c_{ij}$ for random $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys. Calculations were carried out using
Keating VFF and cover the whole concentration range. To extract the values of
the alloy elastic constants, we have applied three types of strains to every
alloy supercell:
\begin{eqnarray}
\bm{\epsilon}_A &=& [ \epsilon, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0 ], \nonumber \\
\bm{\epsilon}_B &=& [ \epsilon, -\epsilon, 0, 0, 0, 0 ], \\
\bm{\epsilon}_C &=& [ 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, \epsilon ]. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
For each type of the deformation, $\epsilon$ was varied within the range of
values $\{ - 1.0 \%, -0.5 \%, 0.5 \%, 1\% \}$ and the elastic energy has been
calculated. Then, on the basis of strain energy relation
\begin{equation}
E = \frac{1}{V_0} \sum_{i,j=1}^6 c_{ij} \epsilon_i \epsilon_j,
\end{equation}
three elastic constants $c_{11}$, $c_{12}$ and $c_{44}$ have been determined
from parabolic fits to the energy for deformations $\bm{\epsilon}_A$,
$\bm{\epsilon}_B$, $\bm{\epsilon}_C$ .
The results are presented in figure \ref{Fig:ElasticConstants}. We also
included there the prediction of Vegard-like law for elastic constants:
\begin{equation}
c_{ij}^{\rm{Vegard}}(x,y)=x\, c_{ij}^{\rm{AlN}} +
y\, c_{ij}^{\rm{GaN}} +
(1-x-y) \, c_{ij}^{\rm{InN}}.
\end{equation}
Exact functional forms of this equation for $c_{11}$, $c_{12}$ and $c_{44}$
are explicitly given in the table \ref{Tab:ElasticConstantsAlloys}. However,
after a brief analysis of graph \ref{Fig:ElasticConstants}, one notices that
Keating VFF results are not very well described by the above Vegard's law. This
is particularly pronounced for elastic constants $c_{11}$ and $c_{44}$. The
deviation for $c_{12}$ is very weak, but this elastic constant has also the
lowest discrepancy between materials AlN, GaN and InN. To fully describe the
dependence of $c_{ij}$ on composition one has to include bowing term $\Delta
c_{ij}(x,y)$, which is defined as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
c_{ij}&=&c_{ij}^{\rm{Vegard}}(x,y) + \Delta\, c_{ij}(x,y), \\
\Delta\, c_{ij}(x,y) &=& P\,x(1-x) + Q\, x y + R\,y(1-y). \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
After including this additional function and performing fitting procedure for
$P$, $Q$ and $R$, the VFF results are reproduced with accuracy much better than
1 GPa. The coefficients $P$, $Q$, and $R$ for cubic elastic constants are
provided in the table \ref{Tab:ElasticConstantsAlloys}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=0.49\textwidth,angle=270]
{elasC11_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.49\textwidth,angle=270]
{elasC12_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.49\textwidth,angle=270]
{elasC44_kea.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{
\label{Fig:ElasticConstants}
Elastic constants dependence on composition
for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys calculated on the basis of Keating VFF.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht!]
\caption{\label{Tab:ElasticConstantsAlloys}
Concentration dependence of the elastic constants $c_{ij}$
for $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys. Accuracy of linear Vegard-like model is
compared with fits including additional bowing term $\Delta c_{ij}$.
All data in GPa. }
\vspace{0.2cm}
\begin{indented}
\item[] \begin{tabular}{l|l|cc}
\rule{0pt}{3ex}
& Result of fit for $c_{ij}$
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{Max. difference:} \\
&
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{[GPa]} \\
\hline
$c_{11}$ & \rule{0pt}{4ex} Vegard's law & & \\
& $182.23 +135.79\,x +105.70\,y$
& 6.2 & (2.6\%) \\
& \rule{0pt}{4ex} Vegard's law + bowing term $ \Delta c_{11}$
& & \\
& $\Delta c_{11}=-24.51\,x(1-x)+39.70\,x y -15.44\,y(1-y)$
& 0.3 & (0.1\%) \\
\hline
$c_{12}$ & \rule{0pt}{4ex} Vegard's law & & \\
& $104.78 +32.80\,x +25.02\,y$
& 0.7 & (0.6\%) \\
& \rule{0pt}{4ex} Vegard's law + bowing term $\Delta c_{12}$
& & \\
& $\Delta c_{12}=-2.22\,x(1-x) +3.10\,x y -1.00\,y(1-y)$
& 0.1 & (0.1\%) \\
\hline
$c_{44}$ & \rule{0pt}{4ex} Vegard's law & & \\
& $67.00 +77.71\,x +61.20\,y$
& 5.3 & (5\%) \\
& \rule{0pt}{4ex} Vegard's law + bowing term $\Delta c_{44}$
& & \\
& $\Delta c_{44}=-21.06\,x(1-x) +33.99\,x y -13.68\,y(1-y)$
& 0.1 & (0.1\%) \\
\end{tabular}
\end{indented}
\end{table}
The literature indicates that indeed bowing in the alloy elastic constants
$c_{ij}$ should be expected. Chen and Sher in their book \cite{Chen1995} point
out that the value of $\Delta c_{ij}$ should be always negative, which is the
case in our studies. They argue that since the elastic properties of
semiconductors correlate with inverse power of lattice constant and lattice
constants for alloys follows Vegard's law, then the $c_{ij}$ dependence on
composition should be sublinear. They also perform simple analysis within the
framework of Keating VFF model showing that for simple ordered structures
sublinear bowing in bulk modulus is present. Also our preliminary calculations
within virtual crystal DFT pseudopotential scheme (VCA DFT, sometimes
referenced as computational alchemy) predict a presence of the bowing term in
$c_{ij}(x,y)$ \cite{Lopuszynski2007a}. However, one has to bear in mind that
VCA DFT works best for alloys, when lattice mismatch of constituents is low.
Larger mismatch, (as in the case of InN with both AlN and GaN) can introduce
considerable inaccuracy to this model.
To summarize this section, we have shown that Keating VFF model predicts
quadratic dependence of the elastic constants $c_{ij}$ on $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloy's
composition. This effect is in agreement with the previous literature studies
\cite{Chen1995,Lopuszynski2007a}. We believe that, even thought the effect is
not very large, the awareness of it could improve description and modelling of
devices based on low dimensional nitride structures, such as quantum dots and
quantum wells. When the elastic constants of more common wurtzite phase of
$\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace are needed, one can obtain desired dependencies using Martin
transformation \cite{Martin1972} to the data gathered in table
\ref{Tab:ElasticConstantsAlloys}. It would be also interesting to compare
presented results with other modelling approaches, since Keating VFF is a
simple tool and does not capture many effects. The accurate experimental
studies would be also of a great value here.
\section{Influence of mixing rule \label{Sec:MixingInfluence}
and finite supercell size}
In this section we give a brief overview of two more technical aspects of
presented calculations. First, we examine to what extent the results of our VFF
alloy simulations are sensitive to the selection of mixing rule. Second, we
analyze how effects of finite supercell size influence the structural
properties.
As already mentioned in section \ref{Sec:KeatingModelParam}, following
e.g. \cite{Mattila1999,Takayama2000,Takayama2001} and many other works,
we have used arithmetic mixing rule to interpolate between three-body
$\beta$ constants of base materials, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
\label{Eq:ArithMixing}
\beta_{\rm{Al},\rm{N},\rm{Ga}}=
\frac{ \beta_{\rm{Al},\rm{N},\rm{Al}} +
\beta_{\rm{Ga},\rm{N},\rm{Ga}} }{2}
\end{equation}
and so on. Obviously this is not the only option.
Therefore, important question arises - to what extent this choice influences
the results presented so far? In order to check this, we carried out a set of
simulations for geometric mixing, used e.g. by Schabel and Martins
\cite{Schabel1991} or Saito \etal \cite{Saito1999}.
This means that instead of equation (\ref{Eq:ArithMixing})
we have:
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\rm{Al},\rm{N},\rm{Ga}}=
\sqrt{\beta_{\rm{Al},\rm{N},\rm{Al}}
\; \beta_{\rm{Ga},\rm{N},\rm{Ga}}}
\end{equation}
and so on. Other Keating VFF parameters are left unchanged.
Sample results of this numerical experiment are presented in figure
\ref{Fig:CompareMixing}. Generally, it turns out that average lengths remain
virtually unaffected by the type of mixing. On the left panel of figure
\ref{Fig:CompareMixing}, where average In-N distance is presented, one can see
that curves for arithmetic and geometric mixing almost cover each other. This
is because the difference there does not exceed 0.05 \%. The behaviour is
similar for both average nearest neighbours and next nearest neighbours
distances. Small differences could be observed in the results for elastic
constants. Maximum deviations were: $\Delta c_{11} = 1.4\; \rm{GPa} \;
(0.6\%)$, $\Delta c_{12}=0.5 \; \rm{GPa} \; (0.4\%)$, $\Delta c_{44}=1.4 \;
\rm{GPa} \; (1.3\%)$. It turns out that $c_{11}$ and $c_{44}$ are always
larger in arithmetic than in geometric mixing model, whereas for $c_{12}$, it
is the other way round. Graphical comparison of $c_{44}$ dependence on
concentration in both approaches is depicted in the right panel of figure
\ref{Fig:CompareMixing}. Even though results for elastic properties depend on
the type of mixing used, differences are really very small, strongly suggesting
that both ways of mixing constants $\beta$ lead to equally valuable
predictions. Detailed verification which rule works better would be rather
difficult, requiring very accurate experimental investigation.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{compTrn_bondLen_In__N.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{compTrn_elasC44.eps}
\caption{\label{Fig:CompareMixing} Comparison of calculations results
using VFF model with different mixing rules -
arithmetic and geometric. Left panel presents $d_{\rm{In-N}}(x,y)$,
the results for arithmetic and geometric mixing are so close to each other that
it is impossible to distinguish them in the figure. The
right panel presents similar comparison for the elastic constant $c_{44}(x,y)$.}
\end{figure}
Another interesting technical aspect of presented simulations is verification
to what extent the finite cell size influences obtained results. Particularly,
one may wonder if results obtained on the basis of two $3 \times 3 \times 3$
supercells per concentration in DFT LDA calculations (section
\ref{Sec:StrucProps}) reproduce sufficiently well the properties of random
alloy. To verify this, we computed geometries of the same small cells used for
DFT LDA calculations by means of VFF model. The comparison of data obtained
for this small cells with our VFF results for $18 \times 18 \times 18$ (46656
atoms) is presented in figure \ref{Fig:CompareFiniteSize}. One can see that on
the sample diagram of nearest neighbour distance $d_{\rm{Al-N}}$, even though
differences are present, they have the form of typical statistical noise
preserving the same linear trends as it has been found for large supercells.
The same behaviour was observed for other pairs of the nearest neighbours. The
analysis of the next nearest neighbour distances reveals even better agreement.
This is because the second coordination shell in zinc-blende (or ideal
wurtzite) contains 12 atoms, whereas the first consists of only 4 nearest
neighbours. This increases the statistics and leads to smaller error for the
next neighbours. On the basis of presented comparison, one can conclude that
$3 \times 3 \times 3$ supercells reproduce correctly the trends observed in the
structural properties for much larger systems.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{compTrn_bondLen_Al__N_small_kea.eps}
\includegraphics[height=0.45\textwidth,angle=270]
{compTrn_distNNN__N__N_small_kea.eps}
\caption{\label{Fig:CompareFiniteSize} Comparison of calculations results using
VFF model with different cell sizes. Small cell size corresponds to data
gathered from two different $ 3 \times 3 \times 3$ cubic cells (216 atoms
each), large cell corresponds to $18 \times 18 \times 18$ cubic cell (46656
atoms). Right panel compares nearest neighbour distance $d_{\rm{Al-N}}(x,y)$
and left panel presents next nearest neighbour distance $D_{N-N}(x,y)$. The
latter results for both considered sizes are so close that they are impossible
to distinguish in the picture.}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary \label{Sec:Summary}}
In this work we have presented computational study of structural and elastic
properties of zinc-blende quaternary $\rm{Al_x}\rm{Ga}_{y}\rm{In}_{1-x-y}\rm{N}$\xspace alloys over the whole
concentration range. Our main computational tool was Keating VFF model. We
have started with presenting new parametrization of this model based on
state-of-the- art quantum-mechanical calculations within DFT formalism. Then
we have shown the VFF results for lattice constant and distributions of the
nearest neighbours and the next nearest neighbour distances. We have compared
these predictions with accurate DFT LDA calculations for supercells of moderate
size. It has turned out that the agreement is reasonable, which shows that
simple nearest-neighbour interaction approximation made in Keating VFF
sufficiently well captures the most important aspects of more accurate DFT
picture. Then we have also used VFF model to examine the elastic constants,
concluding that the composition dependence of $c_{ij}$ exhibits deviation from
Vegard-like model in form of sublinear bowing. This is in accordance with
suggestions already made in the literature \cite{Chen1995,Lopuszynski2007a}.
We have also presented accurate quadratic function fits, which very well
approximate the dependence of $c_{ij}$ on composition including aforementioned
bowing effect. This could be used to improve continuous models of
nanostructures. Finally, we have examined the influence of mixing rules on VFF
results. It has turned out that structural properties remain virtually
unaffected when one uses geometric mixing instead of arithmetic one. The
effect on elastic constants is larger, however still much lower than typical
experimental error.
\ack
This research was supported by the European Union within European Regional
Development Fund, through grant Innovative Economy (POIG.01.01.02-00-008/08).
\bibliographystyle{iopart-num}
|
\section{Introduction}
This document discusses relevance of the techniques employed
in \cite{pustejovsky} to example sentences and ideas presented
in \cite{fongdress}. The document goes beyond just a mechanical
attempt to apply the techniques from one paper to another; it
also discusses the pros, cons, and other findings in the two
papers. A relationship is made to other works in Lexical Semantics
and Lexicon; the sources are cited where appropriate. If there
are no citations, the text is a sole responsibility of the author.
\section{Goal}
The main goal of this work is to illustrate on how to one can
possibly represent semantics of sentences using tools presented
in the papers (\cite{pustejovsky}, \cite{fongdress}) and others
and derive a computational lexicon.
\section{Semantic Analysis}\label{sect:semanalysis}
The below sentence samples have been taken from \cite{fongdress}.
All the follow up discussion will be around these examples.
\begin{enumerate}
\item
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{\bf Cathie mended the {\it torn} dress.}
\item
{\bf Cathie mended the {\it red} dress.}
\end{enumerate}
As Fong herself says in \cite{fongdress}, the both events of the above
fit the same event template (LCS):
(c) [$x$ CAUSE [BECOME [$y$ $<$mended$>$]]]
This is possible for the lexeme mend$^1$ because
1b has implicit {\it torn} adjective in it. I claim that
(b) and the below are equivalent:
(d) Cathie mended the {\it torn red} dress.
The {\it red} is just a bit more specific type of dress
being mended. Otherwise, why would one mend a dress
which is not torn? The {\it torn} state of the dress
changes to become {\it mended}; hence, state transition is
in place. Another part of dress' state, as being {\it red}
is undefined (but is likely to be still the same) at the
event culmination.
We can build the event structure, ES, LCS', and LCS following
the style of Pustejovsky in \cite{pustejovsky} and Fong in \cite{fongdress}.
I have replaced the {\it not} notation to ``!''. For ES and LCS' I use
the notation from Pustejovsky, and LCS is from Fong because it resembles
more conventional use of predicates than that of Pustejovsky.
\clearpage
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(m, dress) & torn(dress) !torn(dress)
|
mended(dress)
LCS: [m CAUSE [BECOME [dress <mended>]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
As for the refined structure for a specific, {\it red},
dress it won't change much, that just a part of state
will remain the same.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(m, dress) & torn(dress) !torn(dress) & red(dress)
& red(dress) |
mended(dress) & red(dress)
LCS: [m CAUSE [BECOME [dress <mended>]]] & [IS [dress <red>]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
One may argue, that the dress might change the color
during the mending process because we can only guess
that it is still red but don't have enough evidence
from the sentence being analyzed that the red property
persists. Then we could adjust the state template
\verb+[IS [dress <red>]]+ to be
\verb+[IS [dress <red>] | IS [dress [NOT <red>]]]+
and assign the first part of the disjunct a higher
likelihood than the second (I use ``\verb+|+'' to indicate OR
and ``\&'' to indicate AND).
In this analysis if we assume {\it red} being a constant
throughout the process we can claim than the original
template (c) holds. Since it is a transition, we could
also write (notational sugar):
(e) $T_{torn}^{mended}$(dress) \& red(dress).
\item
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{\bf The plumber fixed every {\it leaky} faucet.}
\item
{\bf The plumber fixed every {\it blue} faucet.}
\end{enumerate}
These two examples are similar to that of (1).
Both assume the faucets fixed were leaking water,
hence there's a state transition with respect
to the property of every fixed faucet to become
not leaky. Additional semantic bit in here is that
the adjective {\it every} makes it plural and this
fact may shift the event type sometimes.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(p, every(faucet)) !leaky(faucet)
& leaky(faucet) |
fixed(faucet)
LCS (1): [p CAUSE [BECOME [EVERY [faucet <fixed>]]]]
LCS (2): [p CAUSE [BECOME [faucets <fixed>]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
The second case restricts the act of
fixing only to leaky blue faucets (there may be, let say,
leaky red faucets that have not been not fixed).
The {\it blue} property of (b) does
not change since it is not in the opposition
to or in a synnet with {\it leaky}.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(p, every(faucet)) !leaky(faucet) & blue(faucet)
& blue(faucet) |
& leaky(faucet) fixed(faucet) & blue(faucet)
LCS (1): [p CAUSE [BECOME [EVERY [faucet <fixed>]]]] & [IS [faucet <blue>]]
LCS (2): [p CAUSE [BECOME [faucets <fixed>]]] & [ARE [faucets <blue>]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
NOTE: In the above, I (perhaps astonishingly incorrectly) use EVERY as if it were
a predicate to enumerate all the faucet instances that could be replaced
by a normal (``for-all'') symbol (forgot how to spell it in \LaTeX) and
a variable as we do in predicate logic, or as in LCS (2) use plural form
instead (this actually helps understand and encode semantics of an NP). LCS (2),
however, might not indicate the ``for-all'' meaning.
\item
{\bf Mary fixed the flat tire.}
This entails that the deflated tire became
full of air and is no longer flat as cause
by Mary's actions. This would be an achievement.
\clearpage
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(m, tire) & flat(tire) !flat(tire)
|
fixed(tire)
LCS: [m CAUSE [BECOME [tire <fixed>]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
\item
{\bf John mixed the powdered milk into the water.}
This indicates that the milk made it to the water
and the water became {\it milky} vs. {\it milkless} in a sense that
the two substances fused (regardless the quantity), hence the change of state.
Likewise, one can argue that the milk became {\it watery}
vs. {\it dry} (as in powder). Also, since there is an actor,
it is an achievement according to \cite{pustejovsky}.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(j, water) & plain(water) !plain(water) &
& powdered(milk) !powdered(milk)
|
milky(water) &
watery(milk)
LCS: [j CAUSE [BECOME [SUBSTANCE-OF [water <milky>] & [milk <watery>]]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
\item
{\bf The father comforted the crying child.}
The act of comforting does not necessarily
imply the child is no longer crying, so there is no
state transition, but rather a process.
\clearpage
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: P
/ \
/ \
LCS': e1.....en
|
act(f, child) & crying(child) & comfort(child)
LCS: [f [COMFORT [child <crying>]]] & [f CAUSE [BECOME [child <comforted>]]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
\item
{\bf John painted the white house blue.}
This is an accomplishment since the house that has
previously been white became blue in color, so there
is event culmination.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(j, house) & house(white) !house(white)
|
house(blue)
LCS: [j CAUSE [BECOME [house <blue>]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
\clearpage
\item
{\bf Mary rescued the drowning man.}
This is an accomplishment since the man is no
longer drowning and it's an agentive action.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(m, man) & drowning(man) !drowning(man)
|
rescued(man)
LCS: [m CAUSE [BECOME [man <rescued>]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
\item
{\bf Mary cleaned the dirty table.}
This is a process since the table is not
necessarily clean after Mary has finished
the cleaning process.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: P
/ \
/ \
LCS': e1.....en
|
act(m, table) & dirty(table) & clean(table)
LCS: [m CLEAN [table <dirty>]] & [m CAUSE [BECOME [table <cleaned>]]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
Note, as usual, cleaned table does not mean it is entirely clean, hence
the sentence does not convey culmination of the cleaning event.
\item
{\bf The waiter filled every empty glass with water.}
As a result of waiter's actions all empty glasses have
changed their state from {\it empty} to {\it full with water}.
The {\it with water} part, the PP, is an extra bit of information
indicating the exact type of liquid used to fill the
glasses with, but does not affect or shift the event type
in any way, just like (1) or (2). The act of filling for
the waiter is a process, whereas for emty glasses having
become full is a change of state, hence a transition, with
a subtype of accomplishment because the ajective {\it every}
makes the completed.
\clearpage
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(w, every(glass) !empty(glass)
& empty(glass) |
full(glass) & filled-with(water)
LCS (1): [w CAUSE [BECOME [EVERY [glass <filled-with-water>]]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
NOTE: the state \verb+<filled-with-water>+ may be broken into
a finer granularity in LCS predicates like it's done in LCS'.
\item
\begin{enumerate}
\item
{\bf John brushed the dirty carpet.}
\item
{\bf John brushed the dirty carpet {\it clean}.}
\end{enumerate}
These two items are, in fact, quite distinct. (a) is a typical
process which does not entail the final state of the
carpet (it might still remain partially dirty), whereas
(b) is an accomplishment event because it has the transition
with the
culmination point from a process to state being clean as
a result of John's action. Clearly, adverbs may shift the event
type of a verb from one to another.
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES:
T
/ \
/ \
P S
/ \ |
/ \ brushed(carpet)
LCS': e1.....en
|
act(j, carpet) & carpet(dirty) & brush(carpet)
LCS: [j [BRUSH [carpet <dirty>]]] & [j CAUSE [BECOME [carpet <brushed>]]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
There is hidden state change in here of the carpet from {\it not brushed} to
(somewhat) {\it brushed}, but not necessarily clean
(\verb+[carpet <brushed>]+ != \verb+[carpet <clean>]+).
It occurred to me I have
to capture this information.
\clearpage
The below is for (b):
{\shrule}
\begin{verbatim}
ES: T
/ \
/ \
LCS': P S
| |
act(j, carpet) & carpet(dirty) !dirty(carpet)
|
clean(carpet)
LCS: [j CAUSE [BECOME [carpet <clean>]]]
\end{verbatim}
{\ehrule}
\end{enumerate}
\section{Lexicon}
First, let us start off with the lexicon of the given example sentences.
The first type of lexical entries in our lexicon, lexemes, will comply with the
feature structure presented in \cite{mokhov-ppt}, \xf{fig:lexeme-orig}.
The structure was originally derived from \cite{jurafsky} and \cite{arnold}.
For this work
we simplify the lexeme structure by leaving out the phonological form
of the lexeme because it is unused throughout the paper. Likewise, our
lexicon is rather short and we do not deal with polysemy, the SENSE feature
will be a scalar value rather than a set of related senses.
Hence, our lexeme will have the structure presented \xf{fig:lexeme-simplified}.
The new lexeme representation is a 3-tuple of the form: $name\{X,S,T\}$, where $X$
is the word's spelling, $S$ is its sense, $T$ is its POS tag, and
$name$ is a name of the lexeme, an index, uniquely identifying
the lexical entry in the lexicon. The tag $T$ is of a Penn Tagset,
\cite{penntagset}. The word sense has been adapted from the online
Webster's dictionary, \cite{webster}.
Pustejovsky and Fong seem to drift away from the feature-based approach
in their work as being not scalable for a decent computational
lexicon. Yet, some feature-based work is preserved, so I will keep
the lexeme as a set of features in addition to new types of lexical
entries presented afterwards.
\begin{figure}
\hrule
\vspace{6pt}
$lexeme$\\
\{
\tab{20}
SPELLING: $x$
\tab{20}
PRONUNCIATION: $y$
\tab{20}
SENSE: $s : \{s1, s2\}$
\tab{20}
POS: $/tag$
\}
\vspace{6pt}
\hrule
\caption{Original Feature Structure of a Lexeme}
\label{fig:lexeme-orig}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\hrule
\vspace{6pt}
$lexeme$\\
\{
\tab{20}
SPELLING: $x$
\tab{20}
SENSE: $s$
\tab{20}
POS: $/tag$
\}
\vspace{6pt}
\hrule
\caption{Simplified Feature Structure of a Lexeme}
\label{fig:lexeme-simplified}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Lexemes}
\subsubsection{Verbs}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
mend$^1$\{\texttt{to mend}, {\it ``to repair; to fix"}, /VB\}
\item
mend$^2$\{\texttt{mended}, {\it ``repaired; fixed"}, /VBD\}
\item
mend$^3$\{\texttt{mending}, {\it ``repairing; fixing"}, /VBG\}
\item
fix$^3$\{\texttt{fixed}, {\it ``repaired"}, /VBD\}
\item
mix$^1$\{\texttt{mixed}, {\it ``formed by mixing components"}, /VBD\}
\item
comfort$^1$\{\texttt{comforted}, {\it ``eased the grief or trouble of; pleased, calmed down"}, /VBD\}
\item
cry$^1$\{\texttt{crying}, {\it ``shedding tears often noisily"}, /VBG\}
\item
paint$^1$\{\texttt{painted}, {\it ``covered with paint"}, /VBD\}
\item
rescue$^1$\{\texttt{rescued}, {\it ``saved from death"}, /VBD\}
\item
drown$^1$\{\texttt{drowning}, {\it ``becoming pulled under the water or other liquid"}, /VBG\}
\item
clean$^1$\{\texttt{cleaned}, {\it ``rid of dirt"}, /VBD\}
\item
fill$^1$\{\texttt{filled}, {\it ``made full; cancelled emptyness"}, /VBD\}
\item
brush$^1$\{\texttt{brushed}, {\it ``cleaned"}, /VBD\}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Nouns}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
person-cathie\{\texttt{Cathie}, {\it ``first name of a person; agent"}, /NNP\}
\item
person-mary\{\texttt{Mary}, {\it ``first name of a person; agent"}, /NNP\}
\item
person-john\{\texttt{John}, {\it ``first name of a person; agent"}, /NNP\}
\item
dress$^1$\{\texttt{dress}, {\it ``piece of women's clothing; long"}, /NN\}
\item
plumber$^1$\{\texttt{plumber}, {\it ``one who installs, repairs, and maintains piping"}, /NN\}
\item
faucet$^1$\{\texttt{faucet}, {\it ``a fixture for drawing or regulating the flow of liquid especially from a pipe"}, /NN\}
\item
tire$^2$\{\texttt{tire}, {\it ``a rubber cushion that fits around a wheel (as of an automobile) and usually contains compressed air"}, /JJ\}
\item
milk$^1$\{\texttt{milk}, {\it ``a fluid secreted by the mammary glands of females for the nourishment of their young; especially : cow's milk used as a food by humans"}, /NN\}
\item
water$^1$\{\texttt{water}, {\it ``the liquid that descends from the clouds as rain, forms streams, lakes, and seas, and is a
major constituent of all living matter; drinkable consumable''}, /NN\}
\item
father$^1$\{\texttt{father}, {\it ``a man who has begotten a child; agent"}, /NN\}
\item
child$^1$\{\texttt{child}, {\it ``a son or daughter of human parents ; descendant"}, /NN\}
\item
house$^1$\{\texttt{house}, {\it ``a place to live in"}, /NN\}
\item
man$^1$\{\texttt{man}, {\it ``a human being of male gender"}, /NN\}
\item
table$^1$\{\texttt{table}, {\it ``a piece of furniture consisting of a smooth flat slab fixed on legs"}, /NN\}
\item
waiter$^1$\{\texttt{waiter}, {\it ``a person who waits tables (as in a restaurant)"}, /NN\}
\item
glass$^1$\{\texttt{glass}, {\it ``a container made of glass"}, /NN\}
\item
carpet$^1$\{\texttt{carpet}, {\it ``a heavy often tufted fabric used as a floor covering"}, /NN\}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Adverbs}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
blue$^2$\{\texttt{blue}, {\it ``made being of the color blue"}, /RB\}
\item
clean$^2$\{\texttt{clean}, {\it `made clean; i.e. made not dirty`"}, /RB\}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Adjectives}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
mended$^1$\{\texttt{mended}, {\it ``repaired; fixed"}, /JJ\}
\item
torn$^1$\{\texttt{torn}, {\it ``broken, split, ripped, pulled apart, rent"}, /JJ\}
\item
red\{\texttt{red}, {\it ``color of ruby or blood"}, /JJ\}
\item
blue$^1$\{\texttt{blue}, {\it ``of the color blue"}, /JJ\}
\item
white$^1$\{\texttt{blue}, {\it ``of the color white : of the color of new snow or milk"}, /JJ\}
\item
leaky$^1$\{\texttt{leaky}, {\it ``permitting fluid to leak in or out"}, /JJ\}
\item
flat$^1$\{\texttt{flat}, {\it ``lacking air : deflated"}, /JJ\}
\item
powdered$^1$\{\texttt{powdered}, {\it ``dried; made of powder"}, /JJ\}
\item
every$^1$\{\texttt{every}, {\it ``being each individual or part of a group without exception"}, /JJ\}
\item
empty$^1$\{\texttt{empty}, {\it ``not full; containing nothing"}, /JJ\}
\item
dirty$^1$\{\texttt{dirty}, {\it ``not clean"}, /JJ\}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Others}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
the$^1$\{\texttt{the}, {\it ``definite article"}, /DT\}
\item
into$^1$\{\texttt{into}, {\it ``inside of"}, /IN\}
\item
with$^1$\{\texttt{with}, {\it ``used as a function word to indicate the means, cause, agent, or instrumentality"}, /IN\}
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Semantic Bits}
This section presents types of lexical items, other than feature-based lexemes,
that capture lexical semantics of the lexemes and their composition via
lexical and otherwise relations.
\subsubsection{Event Types}
For our event types of verbs in the sentences in this lexicon we have only
transitions $T$ and processes $P$. There is also a $S$ state after transition
that could be reflected on the affected objetcs in the example sentences.
There are two types of $T$'s, achievements and accomplishments, let's name
them explicitly as $T_{achievment}$ and $T_{accomplishment}$.
Thus our event types in the
lexicon:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$T$
\item
$T_{achievment}$
\item
$T_{accomplishment}$
\item
$P$
\item
$S$
\end{itemize}
\subsubsection{Event Templates}
Other type of lexical entries in our lexicon are event templates
that can be derived from the Semantic Analysis (\xs{sect:semanalysis}).
These entries can be linked to the appropriate lexemes and their
compositions. Note, the variables in these templates also have restrictions
of what they can be (i.e. which lexemes they can be assigned to). For example,
for causative verbs there has to be an animate agent (eg. {\it Cathie})
or a subject that can have an animate role (eg. as {Microsoft Corporation}
in {\it ``Microsoft Corporation was not afraid of law suits against it.''}).
This is to say that a carpet cannot mend a dress, for example.
Making an analogy to security in computing world, these facts can be added to
the lexicon
as a data structure similar to an ACL (access-control list) matrix that indicates
which semantic capabilities lexemes posses or do not posses based on their roles.
The below is the list of event templates pertinent to the examples
copied nearly verbatim from the ES, LCS' and LCS analysis. A lexical
entry for the event template would
\begin{enumerate}
\item mended-state1\{$T_{achievment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [y <mended>]]]+\}
\item
mended-state2\{$T_{achievment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [y <mended>]]] & [IS [y <red>]]+\}
This can be reduced to mended-state1 if we reply on compositionality
of mended-state1 and plain-single-state below under NPs. Similar
reduction to the template list entries can be applied to a few items
below.
\item fixed-state1\{$T_{achievment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [EVERY [y <fixed>]]]]+\}
\item fixed-state2\{$T_{achievment}$, \verb+[p CAUSE [BECOME [EVERY [y <fixed>]]]] & [IS [y <blue>]]+\}
\item fixed-state3\{$T_{achievment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [y <fixed>]]]+\}
\item mixed-state1\{$T_{achievment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [SUBSTANCE-OF [y <milky>] & [z <watery>]]]]+\}
\item comforted-state1\{$P$, \verb+[x [COMFORT [y <crying>]]] & [x CAUSE [BECOME [y <comforted>]]]]+\}
\item blue-state1\{$T_{accomplishment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [y <blue>]]]+\}
\item rescued-state2\{$T_{accomplishment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [y <rescued>]]]+\}
\item cleaned-state1\{$P$, \verb+[x CLEAN [y <dirty>]] & [x CAUSE [BECOME [y <cleaned>]]]]+\}
\item filled-water-state1\{$T_{accomplishment}$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [EVERY [y <filled-with-water>]]]]+\}
\item brushed-state1\{$P$, \verb+[x [BRUSH [y <dirty>]]] & [x CAUSE [BECOME [y <brushed>]]]]+\}
\item clean-state1\{$T$, \verb+[x CAUSE [BECOME [y <clean>]]]+\}
\end{enumerate}
\subsubsection{Semantic Capture of NPs and Adverbials}
\paragraph{NPs}
Meaning of the NPs can be derived from the thematic roles
in the sentence as presented in Chapter 16, \cite{jurafsky}
(due to lack of time this area remains unexplored at this moment).
Additionally, we can infer some it from the Semantic Analysis
(\xs{sect:semanalysis}) and make up a template-like structure.
For example,
\verb+[IS [y z]]+ can be used to represent a state of a noun $z$ with
a property of $y$. It can be nested ([IS [IS [dress <red>] <torn>]]) and can be stored in the event
template list. This is roughly equivalent to the below, on
which semantic restriction is
imposed, however (the set of values $z$ and $y$, or JJ and NN, can take):
\begin{verbatim}
NP -> JJ NP
NP -> NN
\end{verbatim}
Thus, for our little lexicon we could write a few entries for the
simple noun phrases we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
plain-single-state: \{$S$, \verb+[IS [y z]]+\}
\item
mixture: \{$S$, \verb+[IS [y z] & IS [a b]]+\}
\item
multi-state: \{$S$, \verb+[IS [IS [x y] z]]+\}
\end{enumerate}
\paragraph{Adverbials}
As it has been shown in the analysis, the adverbs, such as
clean$^2$ and blue$^2$ shift the event type from $P$ to $T$.
[TO BE COMPLETED]
This can be encoded as a set of state rules, where input
would be an /RB lexeme, it's corresponding value in the
referenced by the LET matrix (see below; sorry for jumping
a little), if it yeilds 1, then change the event type of
such a rule from $P$ to $T$. (Again, a matrix??)
[TO BE COMPLETED]
\subsection{Lexicon Analysis}
Compositional and generative properties of our lexicon
would let it scale well as far as lexical semantic concerned.
Using the event templates along with the lexeme's features
we could cover a lot more semantically correct phrases and
sentences without unnecessary lexicon bloat as with pure
feature-based model. This makes the lexicon match the
infinite possibilities of a natural language in capturing
semantics rather than defining it as a finite set of lexemes.
Adding a ``lexeme semantic capabilities'' list (LSCL) could also
restrain the templates the lexemes can be plugged into
w/o cluttering the list of lexemes with pointer to allowed
templates or the reverse. It can also be a lexeme-event-template (LET)
matrix with rows as event templates indexes and columns
are lexemes with a boolean entry indicating which $x$, $y$, and
$z$ (lexeme variables) allowed to be used in which templates.
Also, another observation that I made is when I put down
all the event templates in the lexicon, with the names that
all had ``-state'' in them. I did not do it intentionally
rather more subconciously. After noticing this, I thought
that {\it possibly} we can model all this template structure
as states only and allowed transitions between them. (This
is a strongly personal opinion. I have not looked at the
FrameNet project myself; only the presentation. Maybe the do the
same?).
Thus a new definition, explicitly stated, of a computational lexicon would be:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
A set of lexemes (feature-based).
\item
A set of event templates.
\item
Either LSCL or LET data structures.
\item
Semantic relation matrix (SRM) among lexemes, as
in the examples given by Fong in \cite{fongdress} via
antonym/synonym relationship one can find the semantic
opposition and derive the event type based on that.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Summary, Critique, and Conclusions}
The \cite{fongdress} paper mostly focuses on semantic oppositions
(eg. {\it torn} as opposed to {\it mended} in 1a when related
to dress' final state),
but only briefly touches other types of relations
(eg. {\it red} vs. {\it torn} when related to dress). Both papers
mostly focus on the lexical semantics of verbs as related to events
and almost no credit given to the semantics of NPs and others
in relationship to the work done. None explicitly define what
their lexical items in the lexicon would be and why. The presented
material, however, allows to derive the meaning representation
of the noun phrases, adverbials, and prepositional phrases and
how they can shift event type from one another.
It is my belief that the resulting lexicon is quite comprehensive.
The presented instances of it, however, are not perfect and incomplete
and there's no time left to fix them as this is being written. Thus,
I will briefly summarize the current shortcomings of the above lexicon
instance: the lexemes have the sense feature which is currently presented
as just a dictionary (or my own) definition used for the sense in the
example sentences. It has no event types or links to the templates in them.
Instead, I could remove that feature altogether from the lexeme structure
in favour template approach, but keep the rest. I have not provided a concrete
example of the LCSL or LET structures to restrict lexemes to the templates.
Additionally, these structures may suffer from large data sparseness as in
the example of LET matrix making computational and storage aspect
questionable w/o any optimization steps. I have not explored the semantic relations
issue and the necessity of the SRM matrix, which is also likely to be sparse.
Derivation of the new entries for a general-purpose computational
lexicon could be done through the semantic relations and analysis of
verbs argument structure, categories, PPs, which are not explored
in this work.
If this all is not at all sensible and hurts the beautiful mind,
please forgive me for the pain I caused with my work. A lot more
research, information-digesting, and summarizing time is required
to produce a more quality work. Thus, consider this as a humble draft.
\label{sect:bib}
\bibliographystyle{alpha}
|
\section*{Introduction }
In the framework of the data reduction for Gaia \citep{2005ASPC..338....3P,2009IAU...261.1601L},
the issue of a convenient representation of the instrument response,
i.e. of the detected signal profile, at the micro-arcsec
(hereafter, $\mu as$) level, is crucial to science data modelling,
calibration and analysis.
Since a large fraction of the astrometric data of Gaia is one-dimensional,
obtained by across scan binning during the CCD readout with the purpose
of reducing the sheer amount of data, the investigation and analysis
is referred to single-valued functions of one variable, i.e. intensity
vs. focal plane position. The signal coordinate is basically coincident
with the high resolution direction of the telescope, and with the
scanning direction of the satellite. The one-dimensional signal is
referred to as Line Spread Function (LSF) in the following, for similarity
with the optical signal of an infinite slit, although the term is
only applicable in a loose sense: e.g., the signal from one
source may suffer contamination by other sources at some distance
in the across scan direction, which would not be the case for real
LSFs. Also, the finite readout area implies a small variation of the
detected photon fraction with the across scan position on the detector,
which would not happen for an LSF of negligible across size.
The signal profile from a real instrument differs from the ideal telescope
response because of optical aberrations, instrument operation, detector
characteristics, and a number of environmental aspects influencing
them; also, the signal depends on the individual source spectrum.
The detected signal can evolve during the mission lifetime due to
degradation of both optical and electronic components.
In the analysis described in this document, the case of comparably
small perturbation to the ideal image, represented by small optical
aberrations, is dealt with; the signal model can be extended to larger
image degradation with straightforward
modifications, but the precision can be expected to suffer progressive
degradation as well. The modeling precision could then be retained
by a description based on a larger number of parameters.
The proposed modeling framework is based on a set of functions, described
in Sec. \ref{sec:Signal_model}, derived from the monochromatic, aberration
free LSF of an idealised telescope retaining the basic geometric characteristics
of the Gaia instrument, i.e. the rectangular aperture width $L_{\xi}=1.45\, m$.
The source spectrum is explicitly inserted in the construction of
the polychromatic LSF, again referred to the aberration free telescope.
Some of the additional image degradation effects associated with detector
characteristics and operation are then introduced (Sec. \ref{sub:Detection-effects}).
The signal degradation effects associated to a realistic instrument
and operation, including known effects not explicitly included in
the model, are then described by the expansion of individual signals
in terms of the proposed function set.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{FigR2/Fig01_basis}
\caption{\label{fig:Polychromatic-detected-LSF}Polychromatic basis functions
for a 6000 K source: even terms (left) and odd terms (right)}
\end{figure*}
The implications of the proposed model are evaluated in Sec. \ref{sec:Simulation}
by simulation over a range of aberrations, of sampling offset (meaning
the relative position of the optical image vs. the detector pixel
array), and of source spectral type, modeled as blackbodies at different
effective temperatures. The simulation is implemented in the Matlab
framework.
{\em Remark:
it is assumed that variation of relevant system parameters (e.g.
detector electro-optical characteristics) can be represented, at
first order, by optical aberrations inducing a similar effect on the
detected signal. }
The number of parameters required for proper fit of the detected signal
with adequate precision are derived, and some of the mathematical
and physical characteristics are discussed. In Sec. \ref{sec:Calibration}
the calibration of the model parameters is addressed with respect
to some measurement aspects. In Sec. \ref{sec:Discussion} we discuss
some of the possible developments related to the proposed model, in
terms of improvement of its performance and generality, as well as
usage in other cases, like the photometric and spectroscopic instruments
of Gaia, or other astronomical equipment. Finally, we draw our conclusions
on the effectiveness of the proposed signal expansion model.
\section{Signal model}
\label{sec:Signal_model} The starting point of our derivation is
the monochromatic response of an ideal instrument, i.e. the signal
generated by
an infinite slit, without aberrations. This is the well
known squared sinc function, hereafter called \emph{parent function}
\citep{1999prop.book.....B}, depending on an adimensional argument
related to the focal plane coordinate $x$, the wavelength $\lambda$
and the aperture width $L_{\xi}$, as
\begin{equation}
f_{0}^{m}\left(x\right) = \left[\frac{\sin\rho}{\rho}\right]^{2},\;\rho
= \pi\frac{xL_{\xi}}{\lambda F}\,.
\label{eq:Parent_function}
\end{equation}
Many function families known in mathematics are solutions to differential
equations, are derived from recurrence relations, or from a generating
function. In our case, since there are no clear constraints of this kind,
we decided to adopt a very simple construction rule.
Additional functions are generated by the parent function derivatives,
as
\begin{equation}
f_{n}^{m}\left(x\right)=\frac{d}{dx}f_{n-1}^{m}\left(x\right) =
\left(\frac{d}{dx}\right)^{n}f_{0}^{m}\left(x\right)\,.
\label{eq:Base_Functions}
\end{equation}
The overall set of functions will be addressed in the following as
``basis functions'', although a rigorous mathematical framework
supporting the term will not be implemented. It is thus considered
as just an expedient naming convention.
In the following, the focal plane units will either be micrometers
($\mu m$), pixels (1 pixel = 10 $\mu m$), or milli-arcsec (mas),
taking into account the Gaia aperture $L_{\xi}=1.45\, m$, the \emph{effective
focal length} of the telescope ($EFL=35\, m$) and the corresponding
\emph{optical plate scale} ($s=5.89\, arcsec/mm$).
The rationale leading us to test this particular approach is that
the signals of interest are expected to be reasonably close to the
ideal case, i.e. that they fit a context of small perturbation / small
aberration. Therefore, an expansion in terms of the aberration free
signal and related functions appears to be a promising
tool. Notably, even in case of large aberrations, as images for conventional
ground-based telescopes, the individual speckles are still described
by a superposition of displaced copies of the aberration free telescope
response, and the seeing image derives from integration of subsequent
speckles. The parent function takes advantage of one of the basic
aspects of the Gaia instrument, i.e. the telescope pupil size in the
main measurement direction (hereafter also high resolution
or along scan direction).
Other basic factors of the instrument geometry,
characteristics and operation may be included in the basis functions,
as described below.
One peculiar aspect of the investigated basis functions is that they
are all referred, by construction, to a common ``zero point''
of the coordinates, corresponding (as centre of the aberration free
image) to the ideal position of the source image as provided by the
geometric optics. Also, they have simple symmetry: odd numbered functions,
as odd order derivatives of the even parent function, are odd, whereas
even numbered functions are even. In the numerical implementation,
since standard Matlab arrays or matrices are numbered from one onward,
the parity and function numbering are exchanged, i.e. the parent function
is term no. 1, and so on.
The lowest order
polychromatic functions, including the detection effects, are shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:Polychromatic-detected-LSF}.
\subsection{Polychromatic basis functions }
For any wavelength and position, it is possible to compute the monochromatic
basis functions above.
The parent function is defined by the geometry of the
ideal instrument; it can be computed, with its derivatives, in either
numerical or analytical form, using the trigonometry related expressions
from \ref{eq:Parent_function}, or the corresponding power series
expansion.
The superposition of monochromatic LSF terms at different wavelength
is weighted by the source spectral distribution, composed
with the instrument transmission distribution and the detector response
curve. The monochromatic basis is, by construction, source independent;
the polychromatic LSF construction factors out explicitly the
contributions from astrophysics (source spectrum) and astronomy (e.g.
reddening). The polychromatic LSF, and its derivatives, labelled as
$\{f_{0},\ldots,f_{N}\}$, must be computed numerically because of
the arbitrary weighting function corresponding to the effective
spectrum $S(\lambda)$.
The polychromatic parent function can thus be expressed as \begin{equation}
f_{o}(x)=\int d\lambda\, S(\lambda)\cdot f_{0}(x;\lambda)\,,\label{eq:Poly_Parent}\end{equation}
where the wavelength dependence of the monochromatic parent function
is explicited in Eq. \ref{eq:Parent_function}. The construction of
additional basis functions is straightforward, as from Eq. \ref{eq:Base_Functions}.
We adopt a simple blackbody model for the source spectrum, which is
not a detailed representation of many astrophysical objects, but is
adequate to cover a realistic range of stars with respect to broadband
imaging; a representation of the Gaia spectral response and of the
normalised blackbody curves for three source temperatures
is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Spectral-distr}.%
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig02_spectr_resp}
\caption{\label{fig:Spectral-distr}Spectral distributions of blackbodies
at different temperatures superposed to the
astrometric instrument response }
\end{figure}
\subsection{Detection effects \label{sub:Detection-effects}}
Additional modifications to the signal profile are induced by other
known parts of the detection process, in particular the geometric
effects of finite pixels, inducing a smoothing of the optical profile
through a rectangular filter with width corresponding to the pixel
size; the detector Modulation Transfer Function (MTF); the dynamical
mismatch between optical image and pixel array due to the Time Delay
Integration (TDI) operation. Some of the effects of finite sampling
and pixel size have been discussed, also in terms of the location
algorithm performance, in \citet{1998PASP..110..848G}. In the current
simulation, such contributions have been introduced as a wavelength
independent signal smoothing with realistic equivalent length,
respectively $10\,\mu m$ (geometric pixel size); $5\,\mu m$ (MTF);
$5.1\,\mu m$ (TDI). A more realistic wavelength dependent description
might in future be introduced e.g. for the MTF.
The superposition of wavelength contributions tends to average out
the function oscillations at increasing distance from the central
point. A sort of ``ortho-normalisation'' (depending on the current
sampling, i.e. offset) is applied, so that the integral of the product
of two basis function $f_{p},\, f_{q}$, over the detection interval
$\{x_{m}\}$, vanishes for different terms and is unity for the
``diagonal'' term $p=q$: $\sum_{m}f_{p}\left(x_{m}\right)f_{q}\left(x_{m}\right)=\delta_{pq}$,
using the Kronecker's $\delta$ notation. An example of the resulting
set of functions is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Polychromatic-detected-LSF}
for a $T_{s}=6000\, K$ source.
Remark: only the symmetric detection effects (pixel geometry, MTF
and TDI) have been included in the template, in order to preserve
the function symmetry. The simulated signals can include any kind
of degradation effect, which will appear in terms of distribution
of the fit coefficients.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig03_COG_in_hist}
\caption{\label{fig:COG_hist}Histogram of the detected photo-centre
values over the data set, zero detector offset }
\end{figure}
\section{Simulation}
\label{sec:Simulation} The goal of the fitting process is to reproduce
the aspects of interest of the measured signal $l(x_{k})$, corresponding
to the LSF generated by the optical system and detected by the CCD.
The sampled LSF is computed on a set of pixel centre positions $x_{k}$,
with $1\,\mu m$ resolution, i.e. 1/10 pixel, thus providing a high
resolution representation of the actual signal expected in operation.
The detected LSF $l$ is then fed to the fitting algorithm, deriving
the coefficients $c_{n}$ of a linear expansion referred to the basis
functions centred in a convenient location $\tilde{x}$:
\begin{equation}
l(x_{k})=\sum_{n=1}^{N}c_{n}\cdot f_{n}(x_{k}-\widetilde{x})\,,\label{eq:Fit}\end{equation}
where the equality is intended in the least square sense. The fit
quality can be evaluated in terms of consistency with the input data,
e.g. based on three criteria:
\begin{itemize}
\item root mean square (RMS) discrepancy;
\item integral difference (photometry);
\item photocentre difference (astrometry).
\end{itemize}
The first two items are strictly related, since two functions with
negligible RMS difference also have, at first order and under reasonable
assumptions, the same integral. Hereafter, the results will be discussed
based on the RMS discrepancy and photocentre difference only, using
for the latter the model independent barycentre or centre of gravity
(COG) algorithm. The COG is very simple, but in many respects not
practical for the Gaia data reduction with respect to both random
and systematic errors\citep{1978moas.coll..197L}.
\emph{It is assumed that a good fit, reproducing the input data profile
and position (with a given location algorithm), will also provide
consistent estimates of other parameters of interest, whichever the
selected algorithm.} Verification of performance and robustness of
specific algorithms should be considered in practical cases.
The sample set for the main simulation includes 10000 different instances
of optical aberrations, generated by a random set of coefficients
for the Legendre polynomials of order up to 5 and 15, respectively
on the short (across scan) and long (along scan) side of the main
telescope aperture (respectively $0.5\times1.45\, m$), providing
a representation of wavefront error (WFE) down to the $0.1\, m$ scale.
Below, different signal instances are sometimes referred to by the
RMS WFE, i.e. the RMS value of the WFE over the telescope pupil; the
aberration free image has zero RMS WFE. The pupil is sampled with
resolution $1\, cm$ in both directions. The focal plane image resolution
is $1\,\mu m$ and $3\,\mu m$ respectively in the along and across
direction, corresponding in both cases to 1/10 of the geometric pixel
size. The spectral resolution is 20 nm, in the wavelength range 300
to 1100 nm; a realistic transmission curve is implemented by a Gaussian
distribution with $\sigma=250\, nm$ and peak at 650~nm. The focal
plane image is built by numerical computation of the diffraction integral,
according to the prescriptions in \citet{2007MNRAS.377.1337G}, and
integrated in the low resolution direction to represent the operating
mode of Gaia over a large fraction of the science data. The LSF is
computed with $1\,\mu m$ resolution over a region of $150\,\mu m$
(15 pixels), and the detection effects are included, as for the basis
functions. Representative readout samples corresponding to 12 pixels
(following nominal Gaia operation for intermediate magnitude objects),
with selected offset and $1\,\mu m$ resolution, are then used in
the fitting process described below.
For each instance, a different WFE and source temperature is used,
to cover a realistic range of variation of instrument parameters and
observed target. The source is represented by a simple blackbody distribution,
filtered by the instrument throughput (Fig. \ref{fig:Spectral-distr}).
In practical applications, realistic spectra can be inserted
e.g. by means of data tables (relative intensity vs. wavelength)
or other convenient descriptions.
Remark: the nominal instrument configuration is associated to a limited
range of variation of the aberration coefficients describing the change
in optical response over the limited region of the focal plane used
by the detector. \emph{The simulation adopts a wide range of aberration
coefficients in order to cover not only the nominal values of the
relevant parameters of the optical configuration and of the detector
electro-optical characteristics, but also realistic modifications
of the in-flight system due to the transfer from ground to orbit
and consequent re-alignment. Also, limited degradation of such parameters
during operation, e.g. related to ageing or radiation damage, modifying
the detected signal profile, can described up to a point by an appropriate
change in the aberration coefficients. }
Therefore, our investigation provides indications on the capability
of the proposed fitting approach to follow the instrument response
evolution, of course by update of the coefficients through a convenient
calibration procedure. It is assumed that the system remains stable
over time periods sufficient for determination of the describing parameters
with sufficient precision and reliability.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{FigR2/Fig04_COG_in_plot}
\caption{\label{fig:COG_hist_all} Average COG vs. offset, with RMS spread
shown as an error bar }
\end{figure}
The
distribution of aberration instances generates a range of photocentre
values, evaluated on the zero offset sampled LSF by the COG algorithm,
and shown in Fig. \ref{fig:COG_hist}. Notably, the typical photocentre
displacement is below $1\, mas$, i.e. small with respect to the RMS
size of the LSF ($\sim130\, mas$), but significantly larger than
the measurement precision goal for intermediate magnitude stars (order
of $0.1\, mas$ at the elementary exposure level, and order of $10\,\mu as$
for the final catalogue). The spread in values associated to the statistical
sample has mean 0.446 mas, and RMS 0.619 mas. In this case, the optical
image is set with the coordinate origin coincident with the centre
of the detector pixel array, so that the aberration free image is
centred. The COG variation is due to distortion (in the strictly optical
sense) and to all other aberrations and degradation effects inducing
modifications in the signal profile, i.e. both actual translations
and deformations. Since the signal is sampled over a finite region
of the focal plane, the different truncation of an asymmetric, displaced
distribution affects both the photocentre and the fraction of energy
actually detected, i.e. the photometry.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{FigR2/Fig05a_LSF1_04off} \includegraphics[scale=0.55]{FigR2/Fig05b_LSF1_00off}
\caption{\label{fig:Examp-sampledLSF}Example of 12 pixel sampled LSF (crosses)
and its fit to 6 terms (circles), on top of the 1~$\mu m$ resolution
LSF (solid line), for offset zero (left) and 0.4 pixels (right); the
detected signal, i.e. relative pixel intensity, is a function of the
sampling offset }
\end{figure*}
Throughout the simulation, we apply a set of offsets to the LSF sampling
process, to represent a realistic range of displacement between the
optical image and the detector. A displacement larger than 0.5 pixel
just means that a different central pixel should be selected. The
range $\pm0.5$ pixel is covered with resolution 0.1 pixel. The overall
distribution of the sampled LSF COG, for all cases of offset, is shown
in Fig. \ref{fig:COG_hist_all}, evidencing that the COG spread remains
small for any applied offset, confirming
that the selected readout window is not affected by large signal variations.
The COG estimated on the detected image seems therefore to be a reasonable
first approximation for estimation of the detector offset, or correspondingly
for the actual image position vs. the detector considered as a reference,
and as such it will be used in the following steps of the simulation.
Notably, the correlation between detector offset and average COG,
shown in Fig. \ref{fig:COG_hist_all} (the error bars are the RMS
values of the COG distribution for each offset), is negative, since
a given offset applied to the detector corresponds to an image displacement
in the opposite direction. The estimated COG is not equal (in absolute
value) to the detector offset, because the LSF sampling positions
change: one of the LSF wings is pushed inside the sampling region,
the other outside, thus inducing a residual COG displacement.
Typical residual values are below 10\% of the applied offset, and
comparable with the COG spread among different LSF instances, so that
the COG of sampled data provides a reasonable estimate of the mismatch
between LSF location and pixel array, and might be used as starting
approximation for more advanced algorithms.
\subsection{\label{sub:AstrPhotSim}Astrometric and photometric fit}
For any WFE case, a set of offset values is introduced between the
pixel array and the sampling positions of the LSF, in the range $\pm0.5$
pixel, with resolution 0.1 pixel.
The signal range corresponds to the 12 sample readout region, but with
$1\,\mu m$ resolution, i.e. for the zero offset case the sampling positions
are $[-55;\, -54;\, -53;\, \ldots;\, 53;\, 54;\, 55]\,\mu m$.
The 110 points signal avoids any risk of fit degeneration using up to
11 terms.
The offset cases correspond to displaced sampling positions by
$[\pm 1;\, \pm 2;\, \pm 3; \, \pm 4;\, \pm 5]\,\mu m$.
The COG of the offset, sampled LSF
is selected as reference point (origin)
of the basis functions used for signal fitting.
In Fig. \ref{fig:Examp-sampledLSF},
a selected LSF instance (nr. 1) is shown, superposed to the 12 sample
LSF expected in operation (crosses) and to the corresponding fit result
using 6 terms from the basis function set (circles), respectively
for offset zero (left panel) and 0.4 pixel (right panel); the fitting
error is barely perceivable on this scale on the sides of the central
lobe.
The best fit is computed against an increasing number of basis function
terms, to evaluate the most convenient number of terms required for
proper description of the sampled data derived from the input LSF.
The fit performance is then discussed.
\subsubsection{Fit residuals vs. offset }
The RMS fit discrepancy for a few offset cases are shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:Fit-resid_11_0}, as a function of increasing number
of fitting terms. In particular, the left panel shows the average
over the sample (i.e. for different aberrations) of the RMS discrepancy
between the sampled LSF and the fit, as a function of the number of
basis functions used for the detected signal expansion.
The RMS over the sample is shown on the right.
The fit retrieves most of the input signal with 10 to 11 terms, according
to the progressively decreasing RMS over the
data set of the residuals with increasing number of fitting terms,
describing an increasing capability of the fit in capturing the fine
details of the LSF. The 11 terms case evidences that the fit is not
exact, but it provides a dramatic improvement with respect to
lower dimensionality cases.
Using one or two terms, the fit already accounts for more than 99\%
of the LSF energy, and with three or four terms the RMS discrepancy
decreases to about $10^{-4}$. Using five to eight terms, the RMS
discrepancy further drops to the $10^{-5}$ level, dropping to the
$10^{-6}$ level with 11 terms. %
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig06_T1_Res01}
\caption{\label{fig:Fit-resid_11_0}Fit discrepancy RMS vs. number of
terms up to 11, zero offset; average (left) and RMS (right) over
the data set}
\end{figure*}
The fit RMS discrepancy can be evaluated as a function of the offset
between LSF and pixel array, and the results for 10 (left) and 11
(right) fitting terms are summarised in Fig. \ref{fig:Fit_resid_10_11_off},
where it appears that the residuals increase with the absolute value
of offset, are affected by a significant variation over the LSF sample,
and improve by a factor four by switching from 10 terms
(average $\sim8\times10^{-6}$) to 11 terms (average $\sim2\times10^{-6}$).
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig07_T1_Res02}
\caption{\label{fig:Fit_resid_10_11_off}Fit discrepancy mean and RMS (as
error bar) vs. offset, using 10 (left) and 11 (right) terms}
\end{figure*}
Therefore, photometry and the image profile are basically retrieved
by modeling the LSF with either 10 or 11 terms of the proposed basis
functions. This result is not yet conclusive, since the crucial parameter
under investigation is the astrometric performance, dealt with in
the next section.
\subsubsection{Astrometric residuals vs. offset }
Concerning the astrometric precision of the fit, Fig. \ref{fig:COG-discrepancy_0}
shows that, for the range 8 to 11 fitting terms, the COG of the reconstructed
LSF converges to the COG of the input sampled LSF, both as mean value
(left panel) and as RMS (right panel) over the data set, at increasing
number of terms. This is consistent with the results of the previous
section. %
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig08_T1_COG01b}
\caption{\label{fig:COG-discrepancy_0}COG discrepancy vs. number of
terms from 8 to 11 for three cases of offset: absolute mean value (left)
and RMS (right) over the data set }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig09_T1_COG05}
\caption{\label{fig:COG-RMS-offset}COG discrepancy vs. number of
fitting functions and offset, mean (left) and RMS (right) values}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig10_T1_COG03}
\caption{\label{fig:Mean-COG_10_11}Mean COG discrepancy vs. offset,
for 10 (left) and 11 (right) fitting terms; RMS discrepancy shown
as an error bar }
\end{figure*}
A COG error of few $\mu as$ RMS, around a comparable average error,
is achieved for the zero offset case with 8 terms. For larger offset
values, the discrepancy grows steeply, requiring either 10 or 11 terms
to retrieve $\mu as$ precision.
The COG precision is shown as a function of the selected number of
fitting terms and of the offset between LSF and pixel array in Fig.
\ref{fig:COG-RMS-offset}, as average (left panel) and RMS (right
panel) distributions. The discrepancy is larger at increasing offset,
and decreases with increasing number of terms. Although most offset
cases are associated to larger RMS COG discrepancy than the zero offset,
for a given number of basis functions, convergence to the $\mu as$
level is still achieved when 11 terms are used.
The COG discrepancy is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Mean-COG_10_11} respectively
for the case of 10 (left) and 11 (right) fitting terms, plotting the
mean value with a solid line and evidencing the RMS as an error bar.
The mean COG discrepancy remains within $1\sigma$ from the desired
zero value corresponding to unbiased signal reconstruction, but an
overall trend of the bias as a function of the pixel offset is present.
\\
We remark the dramatic improvement introduced by usage of 11 terms
rather than 10 or less, reducing the RMS and average COG discrepancy
from 15 $\mu as$ to 2 $\mu as$ peak, or from 7 $\mu as$ to 1 $\mu as$
on average vs. pixel offset.
The scaling of centering residual is different from that of fit
discrepancy (Fig. \ref{fig:Fit_resid_10_11_off}) because the location
process is mostly sensitive to the steepest slope regions of the signal,
thus affecting the error propagation
\citep{1998PASP..110..848G}.
\subsubsection{Distribution of the fit coefficients }
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{FigR2/Fig11_T1_coeffs}
\caption{\label{fig:Ave-fit-coef_1}Fit coefficients for the zero offset case;
mean (stars) and RMS (circles) over the data set}
\end{figure}
The relative weight of the fit coefficients, up to 11 terms, for the
zero offset case is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Ave-fit-coef_1}, as statistics
over the data set.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig12_T2_res01}
\caption{\label{fig:col_RMS-fit_10_11}Fit discrepancy vs. source
temperature, 10 (left) and 11 (right) terms, zero offset; mean (solid line)
and RMS (dashed line) over the data set}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig13_T2_COG01}
\caption{\label{fig:col_RMS_off}Average (left) and RMS (right) COG
discrepancy vs. source temperature and offset, 11 terms}
\end{figure*}
The average (stars) is close to zero for even terms
(associated to odd functions), consistently with the expectations
for averaging over a representative random distribution of aberrations.
The RMS of the coefficients over the data set (circles) evidences
that their spread is also very small, i.e. that the individual values
are actually close to zero. The mean and RMS values for odd terms
(even functions) decrease for increasing order of the functions. This
is consistent with the simulation design of small aberration images,
with deviations from the diffraction limit mostly due to symmetric
degradation effects (pixel geometry, MTF, TDI).
\subsection{\label{sub:SourceTDep}Source temperature dependence}
The fit quality is evaluated as a function of the source spectrum
by generating a data sample, for a limited number of WFE instances
(100), with blackbody source temperature spread uniformly, in logarithmic
units, between 3000~K and 25000~K. The sample has thus 10000 instances,
as in the simulation in Sec. \ref{sub:AstrPhotSim}, but the optical
response variation is smaller, whereas the spectral coverage is finer.
The sample is then processed similarly to the case described in Sec.
\ref{sub:AstrPhotSim}, limited to 10 and 11 fitting terms, over a
range $\pm0.5$ pixel, always with resolution 0.1 pixel ($1\,\mu m$).
The zero offset case is first evaluated. The average fit discrepancy
remains consistent with the previous results, as shown in Fig. \ref{fig:col_RMS-fit_10_11},
where the average (solid line) and RMS (dashed line) discrepancy are
shown in logarithmic units vs. the source temperature.
The spread is associated to the different aberration instances.
Using 10 terms, the average discrepancy
is below $10^{-6}$ for near-solar and later spectral types, and it
increases for earlier types to $\sim10^{-5}$. A similar trend is
achieved for the 11 term case (right panel), with values reduced by
roughly a factor five.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig14a_T2_coef_1_2} \includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig14b_T2_coef_3_4}
\caption{\label{fig:Fit_1_4_WFE1}Fit coefficients 1 to 4 vs. offset and source
temperature, WFE instance 1}
\end{figure*}
The dependence of astrometric discrepancy from offset can then be
considered. The average and RMS values vs. source temperature and
offset, 11 terms, are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:col_RMS_off}, left and
right panel respectively. The average discrepancy reaches few $\mu as$
peak values, whereas the RMS remains below $2\,\mu as$ peak; the
fit discrepancy is below $1\,\mu as$ for low temperature cases.
Using 10 terms, the discrepancy is somewhat degraded, respectively
to a few $\mu as$ RMS and a few 10 $\mu as$ on average over the
data set. The error increase with the source temperature, being very
small for near solar and later spectral types, will be further discussed
in Sec. \ref{sec:Calibration}.
\\
The variation of the fit coefficients 1 to 4 for the WFE instance
no. 1, with both source temperature and offset, is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Fit_1_4_WFE1}.
The variation of the fit coefficients over the data set depends on
both source spectral characteristics (e.g. the source temperature
or its logarithm, in the simple blackbody model) and sampling offset.
The dependence is very smooth, as for the COG discrepancy (Fig. \ref{fig:col_RMS_off}),
so that is appears that it could be expanded in the form of a very
simple function, e.g. low order polynomials. Besides, different instances
of aberrated images exhibit, as could have been expected, different
spectral dependence \citep{2006A&A...449..827B}. Therefore, it appears
that the coefficients may be mapped over the field of view by calibration
with comparable ease.
\subsection{\label{sub:Tol_sourceT}Sensitivity to source temperature}
In the simulation described in Sec. \ref{sub:AstrPhotSim}, the random
variation of both aberration and source temperature does not allow
to evidence simple trends as those shown in Sec. \ref{sub:SourceTDep}.
Besides, the simple dependence on source temperature evidenced in
Sec. \ref{sub:SourceTDep} suggests to investigate directly on this
data set the sensitivity to errors in the knowledge of the source
temperature. The same input data is used, again with $1\,\mu m$ resolution
and ranging over $\pm0.5$ pixel offsets; however, in the current
run, a $\pm1\%$ error on the source temperature is applied in the
construction of the basis functions, thus representing an uncertainty
on the knowledge of the source temperature or a spectral distribution
variation either in the source itself (e.g. in case of a variable
star) or in the instrument response. The fit is performed using both
10 and 11 terms.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig15_T2_DT12_COG01_10t}
\caption{\label{fig:DCOG_DT10} Mean (left) and RMS (right) COG
discrepancy vs. offset and source temperature, with temperature
error, 10 terms }
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig16_T2_DT12_COG01}
\caption{\label{fig:DCOG_DT11}Mean (left) and RMS (right) COG
discrepancy vs. offset and source temperature, with temperature
error, 11 terms }
\end{figure*}
The COG estimates for both $+1\%$ and $-1\%$ source temperature
errors are then compared in order to assess the consequences on the
measurements.
The COG difference between the two cases
is shown vs. offset and temperature
in Figs. \ref{fig:DCOG_DT10} and \ref{fig:DCOG_DT11}, respectively
for the case of 10 and 11 fitting terms, evidencing the mean (left)
and RMS (right) values over the data set.
The COG difference of either
$+1\%$ or $-1\%$ error from the nominal source temperature COG result
is smaller (about half as much).
Over a 2\%
variation of the source temperature, using 10 terms, the mean COG
discrepancy remains below $1\,\mu as$, with values much smaller for
either low source temperature or small offset, and some mitigation
also for very high temperature values. Correspondingly, the RMS COG
discrepancy between the two cases is below $0.1\,\mu as$, with peaks
corresponding to intermediate temperatures and large offset. Using
11 basis functions, the COG discrepancy is reduced by nearly one order
of magnitude both in terms of mean and RMS values.
The astrometric error introduced by a $\pm1\%$ error on the knowledge
of the source temperature, therefore, induces a marginal variation
($\sim1\%$) in the photocentre reconstruction, as seen
e.g. by comparison with Fig. \ref{fig:col_RMS_off} or Fig. \ref{fig:Mean-COG_10_11}.
Since the fit error is very small, in spite of the temperature
error, the sensitivity to knowledge of the source temperature,
or to related variations, is small, even for the 10 term case. Assuming
linear scaling, a 10\% error on the source temperature will remain
acceptable to a measurement accuracy of few $\mu as$ for most cases
of optical response, using either 10 or 11 terms for the fit. Additional
simulations may be required to provide better quantitative estimates
of the sensitivity, due to the limited number of aberration instances,
and model limitations at the sub-$\mu as$ level.
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{FigR2/Fig17_T1_COG04_lowT}
\caption{\label{fig:COG-discr_T65k}Mean COG discrepancy vs. offset (RMS as
error bar), for 10 (left) and 11 (right) fitting terms, for instances
associated to source temperature below 6500 K }
\end{figure*}
\section{Calibration aspects}
\label{sec:Calibration} The fit test discussed in Sec. \ref{sub:AstrPhotSim}
is somewhat artificial, since it is not applicable directly to science
data due to simulation dependence on
\begin{enumerate}
\item pixel level sampling of real data, i.e. 10 $\mu m$ resolution rather
than 1 $\mu m$;
\item pixel offset, i.e. relative phase between the currently observed target
and the pixel array;
\item source spectral distribution;
\item photon limited information on individual exposures.
\end{enumerate}
Actually, a model of the effective LSF should be derived from a set
of data corresponding to several objects observed at different pixel
offsets, as provided naturally by the spread of star positions on
the sky.
This procedure must also account for the variation of the coefficients
with the source spectral characteristics; the composition of data also
improves on the photon limit issue.
It is necessary to feed the fit with a sufficiently large astrophysical
sample, since individual exposure data are to be weighted according to
their statistical significance, i.e. SNR and source brightness.
The most convenient approach for practical implementation in the Gaia
data reduction system should be further investigated.
The above simulation approach was adopted for its simplicity, and
is deemed adequate for a first assessment of the relevant properties
of the proposed model, but it does not meet \emph{per se}
all needs for implementation in the data reduction pipeline.
The offset cases are not representative of the complete LSF
reconstruction process: they relate to the case of individual
observations, with the aim of identifying potentially relevant
contributions to the systematic error.
A few instances of bright, hot objects, detected with large offset,
might introduce a comparably large bias in the reconstructed LSF,
significant with respect to their photon limited location precision.
The simulation results suggest that the data reduction system should
monitor the LSF reconstruction against this situation, possibly
introducing corrections.
Still, usage of enough terms in the LSF modelling (up to 11)
significantly reduces the individual bias contribution.
As an idealised case of real data composition, we assume that a large
number of single exposure data are collated to cover the whole offset
range and used to fit a single, zero offset LSF model; the sampling
positions are then set to
$[-60;\, -59;\, -58;\, \ldots;\, 58;\, 59;\, 60]\,\mu m$,
corresponding to 12 pixels (the readout region) $\pm 0.5$ pixels
to account for the offset due to individual object positions.
The issue of correct photocentre determination is neglected at the
moment, as well as possible weighting based on offset, SNR and colour.
The astrometric discrepancy vs. number of fitting terms of such high
resolution LSF model with respect to the parent data set is shown in
Fig. \ref{fig:COG_ext}.
The fit quality is at the $\mu as$ level RMS with 10 terms, and the mean
value is somewhat lower; in practical cases, this suggests that the fit
is expected to have negligible systematic error and noise dominated by
the available amount of photon limited exposures.
The relevance of offset between optical image and detector
may be better appreciated in terms of the equivalent
total distortion, considered as the overall set of optical effects
inducing image displacement. From the point of view of signal profile
fitting, the applied displacement up to $\pm0.5$ pixel, i.e. $\pm29\, mas$,
corresponds to about $\pm1/6$ of the Airy diameter at $\lambda=600\, nm$
(about $30\,\mu m$, or 171~mas). Therefore, it is larger than the
overall optical aberration introduced in the simulation sample, with
average value of the RMS WFE below $\lambda/10$, and much larger
than the astrometric effect induced on the images, below $\lambda/100$
(Fig. \ref{fig:COG_hist}).
As shown in Sec. \ref{sub:SourceTDep}, in case of sources with
simple spectral distribution, known with an acceptable tolerance (Sec.
\ref{sub:Tol_sourceT}), a ``grid'' of calibration instances covering
e.g. 10 to 20 different temperatures over the desired range, and order
of 10 different offsets on the detector, is expected to provide satisfactory
results.
Besides, simple SNR considerations lead to the need of averaging
many individual measurements in order to achieve photon driven
precision comparable with the desired fit precision.
For example,
setting a goal of $10^{-5}$ on the RMS fit discrepancy corresponds
to a requirement on the required cumulative SNR $\sim10^{5}$, independent
of the selected LSF expansion strategy.
This corresponds to matching
the fit precision associated to a given number of terms with the photon
limit on the knowledge of the effective signal profile. Therefore,
a 10 term fitting model, with lower intrinsic precision ($10^{-5}$),
has more relaxed calibration requirements, since it is much easier
(or faster) to accumulate the corresponding amount of photon limited
data ($SNR\simeq10^{5}$).
Model monitoring procedures at the $10^{-5}$ level can then
be applied on a time scale (i.e. data amounts) shorter by a factor
100 with respect to similar procedures aimed at the $10^{-6}$ precision
goal, roughly corresponding to 11 fitting terms.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{FigR2/Fig18_COG_ext}
\caption{\label{fig:COG_ext}Extended range LSF model: astrometric
discrepancy as a function of the number of fitting terms
over $\pm 60 \, \mu m$ }
\end{figure}
Also, taking advantage of the fit quality vs. source temperature (Figs.
\ref{fig:col_RMS-fit_10_11} and \ref{fig:col_RMS_off}), it might
be found convenient to split the model into a part referred to near
solar type objects, and a part with additional chromatic corrections
for other objects. For example, using the data from Sec. \ref{sub:AstrPhotSim}
and restricting the data to lower source temperature ($T_{s}<6500\, K$),
corresponding to about 3000 instances over 10000, the distribution
of COG discrepancy vs. offset is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:COG-discr_T65k}.
By comparison with the corresponding Fig. \ref{fig:Mean-COG_10_11},
referred to the whole data set, a precision improvement by about one
order of magnitude is achieved for both cases of either 10 (left)
and 11 (right) fitting terms.
In this case, $\mu as$ level precision is achieved already with 10 terms.
The better fit quality for near-solar spectral types can be related
to the selected spectral passband of Gaia (Fig. \ref{fig:Spectral-distr}),
which collects a significant fraction of their blackbody distribution
and includes their maximum. Warmer stars have a large fraction of
their blackbody distribution outside the Gaia observing band, so that
a comparably small change in the source temperature induces a significant
displacement in the detected spectrum and its effective wavelength.
A similar consideration holds for colder stars as well, but the image
is in any case less affected by aberrations at longer wavelengths,
due to the WFE scaling in the diffraction
integral as $WFE/\lambda$.
\section{Discussion}
\label{sec:Discussion} The simulation of Sec. \ref{sub:AstrPhotSim}
adopts a fitting strategy in which the basis function center is initially
set to the sampled LSF COG, and never modified; only the function
coefficients are adjusted to achieve the best fit, in the least square
sense, with the input data. Since the goal is an LSF model reproducing
both data profile \emph{and} location, the correct approach would
require that, for a selected number $N$ of fitting terms, a complete
set of $N+1$ parameters were estimated for best fit with the data,
i.e. the $N$ function coefficients and the additional term defining
the new location estimate. \emph{Therefore, the fitting and location
algorithms become entangled.}
Moreover, due to the form
of the basis functions, the model is no longer linear in its parameters,
and the conventional least square approach cannot be considered to
be mathematically correct. However, due to the assumptions of small
deviations from the aberration free signal, the correlation between
photocentre
and fit coefficients may be comparably loose, and
an iterative solution can be expected to converge for all parameters.
In particular, the function coefficients could be approximated by
setting the initial values as $c_{0}=1$; $c_{2}=\ldots=c_{N}=0$.
This approach was not investigated in this stage of development, under
the assumption that the simplest, location independent fitting algorithm
already provides sufficient indications on the achievable fitting
performance of the proposed model. The fit convergence in terms of
rapidly diminishing values of both RMS discrepancy and COG difference
seems to confirm the soundness of the proposed strategy. More complex
fitting approaches will be considered in future investigations. %
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{FigR2/Fig19_LSF_XP_1}
\caption{\label{fig:Spectral-distr-XP}Parent function for the BP (left) and
RP (right) instruments for different source temperatures}
\end{figure*}
The model fitting was implemented over a limited readout region (12
pixels) to match the nominal Gaia operation on intermediate brightness
objects; the extension to faint objects, on which a lower number of
readout samples is extracted, and to a number of other operation modes,
is conceptually straightforward. The bright end must be considered
explicitly, since images (conventionally called PSF, with a loose
extension of the standard optical definition of the Point Spread Function
term) are read as bi-dimensional windows, without binning in the low
resolution direction. The bi-dimensional fit might, in principle,
require different functions or, at least, in the simplest extension,
more parameters to generate ``2D'' basis functions by composition
of their one-dimensional counterparts.
However, the across scan resolution on both pupil and focal plane is
smaller, as well as the goal measurement precision, and for small
aberrations it can be expected that sufficient precision could be
achieved by using a limited number of terms.
The subject will be addressed in future studies.
The LSF fit investigated in this study was focused on the central
lobe of the LSF, addressing the science data modelling performance.
Besides, the basis functions can be computed at arbitrary distance
from their centre, so that they can be used conveniently also for
representation of the LSF wings, e.g. at some distance from bright
objects, to investigate the contamination on other stars. The limitations
on this subject are not imposed by the model, but rather by the limited
knowledge on the related instrument parameters (realistic values of
high spatial frequency manufacturing errors, micro-roughness, dust
contamination etc.).
The basis function definition may be modified, in order to improve
on specific properties, e.g. to reduce the parameter dependence on
astrophysical source variation by adopting different spectral weighting
of the monochromatic functions, or to ease the numerical implementation
from the standpoint of processing, robustness and other relevant aspects.
The range of some aberrations might be restricted, since perturbations
of realistic configurations often do not change the WFE shape in the
same way for all describing parameters (e.g. Legendre or Zernike coefficients).
The reduced range could thus be sampled with higher resolution, thus
providing more reliable and detailed results. Conversely, larger aberrations
may require additional fitting terms in order to retain $\mu as$
level precision. A series of simulations is planned for exploration
of several such options.
The proposed signal model can be applied, with straightforward modifications,
to the photometric and spectroscopic sections of the instrument. In
this case, the polychromatic signal (taking place of the polychromatic
parent function in Sec. \ref{sec:Signal_model}) is still built as
a superposition of the monochromatic terms, and they are no longer
referred to the same focal plane positions, but rather affected by
a displacement related to the appropriate spectral dispersion. In
Fig. \ref{fig:Spectral-distr-XP}, a representation of the parent
function for the two photometric channels of Gaia, labelled Blue and
Red Photometers, resp. BP (left) and RP (right), is shown for three
values of source temperature, using a simple dispersion law. The parent
functions represent the ideal instrument response; the derivatives
build also in this case the additional basis functions which can be
used to fit the realistic signal.
The application of the basis model to conventional circular pupil
telescopes is straightforward, by replacement of the sine
in the parent
function (Eq. \ref{eq:Parent_function}) with the Bessel function
$J_{1}(\rho)$ appropriate to the geometry.
\section*{\label{sec:Conclusions}Conclusions}
The LSF representation for the astrometric field of Gaia is addressed
by means of a set of functions based on the aberration free response
of the ideal telescope and its derivatives, composed according to
the source spectral distribution. The simulation takes into account
the instrument response variation as a function of the relative position
of the detector pixel array with respect to the optical image, evaluating
its effect on the model parameter estimation. The fit quality is evaluated
as a function of the RMS discrepancy and photocentre difference with
the input data; both criteria result in error drops with increasing
number of fitting terms, down to negligible values (respectively below
$10^{-5}$ and $1\,\mu as$ RMS) by using 11 terms.
The calibration of the fit parameters on science data is straightforward,
based on sets of observations spannig a convenient range of different
spectral types and observing offset with respect to the detector geometry,
as implicitly provided by the natural distribution of stars over a
significant fraction of the sky. This approach also provides the necessary
averaging of photon noise.
The requirements on astrophysical parameters of individual sources,
correspond to of order of 10\% on the effective temperature.
Possible improvements on the understanding of the properties of the
proposed fitting model, by more detailed simulation and evolution
of the model, are discussed, also suggesting other applications, basis
function modifications (also to include bi-dimensional signal modelling)
and implementation upgrades. Future investigations are planned on
several of the above issues.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The study presented in this paper benefits from the discussions with
colleagues in the Gaia Data Processing and Analysis Consortium (DPAC),
and in particular with F. Van Leeuwen, L. Lindegren and M.G. Lattanzi.
The activity is partially supported by the contracts COFIS and ASI
I/037/08/0.
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Introduction}
The chromatic approach to computing the $p$-primary stable homotopy groups of spheres relies on analyzing the chromatic tower:
$$ \cdots \rightarrow S_{E(2)} \rightarrow S_{E(1)} \rightarrow S_{E(0)}. $$
By the Hopkins-Ravenel chromatic convergence theorem \cite{HopkinsRavenel}, the homotopy inverse limit of this tower is the $p$-local sphere spectrum. The monochromatic layers are the homotopy fibers given by
$$ M_nS \rightarrow S_{E(n)} \rightarrow S_{E(n-1)}. $$
The associated \emph{chromatic spectral sequence} takes the form
$$ \pi_k M_nS \Rightarrow \pi_{k} S_{(p)}. $$
The quest to understand this spectral sequence was begun by Miller, Ravenel, and Wilson \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}, who observed that the monochromatic layers $M_nS$ could be accessed by the Adams-Novikov spectral sequences
\begin{equation}\label{eq:ANSS}
H^{s,t}(M_0^n) \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s-n}(M_nS)
\end{equation}
which, for $p \gg n$, collapse (e.g. for $n = 2$ this spectral sequence collapses for $p \ge 5$).
The algebraic monochromatic layers $H^{s,t}(M_0^n)$ may furthermore be inductively computed via $v_k$-Bockstein spectral sequences (BSS)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:vkBSS}
H^{s}(M_{k+1}^{n-k-1}) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_k]/(v_k^\infty) \Rightarrow H^s(M^{n-k}_k ).
\end{equation}
The groups $H^*(M_n^0)$, by Morava's change of rings theorem, are isomorphic to the cohomology of the Morava stabilizer algebra. Miller, Ravenel, and Wilson computed $H^*(M_0^n)$ at all primes for $n \le 1$ and computed $H^0(M_0^2)$ for $ p \ge 3$.
Significant computational progress has been made since \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}, most notably by Shimomura and his collaborators. A complete computation of $H^*(M^2_0)$ (and hence of $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$) for $p \ge 5$ was achieved by Shimomura and Yabe in \cite{SY}. Shimomura and Wang computed $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$ at the prime $3$ \cite{ShimomuraWang}, and have computed $H^*(M_0^2)$ at the prime $2$ \cite{ShimomuraWang2}. These computations are remarkable achievements.
It has been fifteen years since Shimomura and Yabe published their computation of $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$ for primes $p \ge 5$ \cite{SY}. Since this computation, many researchers have focused their attention on $v_2$-periodic phenomena at ``harder primes'', most notably at the prime $3$, regarding the generic case of $p \ge 5$ as being solved.
Nevertheless, the author has been troubled by the fact that while the image of the $J$-homomorphism ($\pi_* S_{E(1)}$) is familiar to most homotopy theorists, and the Miller-Ravenel-Wilson $\beta$-family ($H^0(M_0^2)$) is well-understood by specialists, the Shimomura-Yabe calculation of $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$ is understood by essentially \emph{nobody} (except the authors of \cite{SY}). Perhaps even more troubling to the author was that even after careful study, he could not conceptualize the answer in \cite{SY}. In fact, the author in places could not even parse the answer.
The difficulties that the author reports above regarding the Shimomura-Yabe calculation (not to mention the Shimomura-Wang computations) might suggest that a complete understanding of the second chromatic layer is of a level of complexity which exceeds the capabilities of most human minds. However, Shimomura's computation of $H^*(M_1^1)$ (and thus $\pi_*M(p)_{E(2)}$) for $p \ge 5$ \cite{Shimomura} is in fact \emph{very} understandable, and Hopkins-Mahowald-Sadofsky \cite{Sadofsky} and Hovey-Strickland \cite{HoveyStrickland} have even offered compelling schemas to aid in the conceptualization of this computation. It should not be the case that $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$ is so incomprehensible when the computation of $\pi_*M(p)_{E(2)}$ is so intelligible.
Seeking to shed light on the work of Shimomura-Wang at the prime $3$, Goerss, Henn, Karamanov, Mahowald, and Rezk have constructed and computed with a compact resolution of the $K(2)$-local sphere \cite{GHMR}, \cite{HennKaramanovMahowald}. Henn has informed the author of a clever technique involving the \emph{projective Morava stabilizer group} that he has developed with Goerss, Karamanov, and Mahowald. When coupled with the resolution, the projective Morava stabilizer group is giving traction in understanding the computation of $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$ at the prime $3$ for these researchers.
The purpose of this paper is to adapt the projective Morava stabilizer group technique to the case of $p \ge 5$ to analyze the Shimomura-Yabe computation of $\pi_* S_{E(2)}$. In the process, we correct some errors in the results of \cite{SY} (see Remarks~\ref{rmk:error1}, \ref{rmk:error2}, and \ref{rmk:error3}). We also propose a different basis than that used by \cite{SY}. With respect to this basis, $H^*M_0^2$, and consequently $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$ is far easier to understand, and we describe some conceptual graphical representations of the computation inspired by \cite{Sadofsky}. The author must stress that the errors in \cite{SY} are of a ``bookkeeping'' nature. The author has found no problems with the actual BSS differentials computed in \cite{SY}. The computations in this paper are \emph{not} independent of \cite{SY}, as our projective $v_0$-BSS differentials are actually deduced from the $v_0$-BSS differentials of \cite{SY}.
This paper is organized as follows.
In Section~\ref{sec:M02} we review Ravenel's computation of $H^*M_2^0$. In Section~\ref{sec:M11} we review Shimomura's computation of $H^*M_1^1$ using the $v_1$-BSS. In Section~\ref{sec:PG} we summarize the projective Morava stabilizer group method introduced by Goerss, Henn, Karamanov, and Mahowald. This method produces a different $v_0$-BSS for computing $H^*M_0^2$ which we call the \emph{projective $v_0$-BSS}. In Section~\ref{sec:M20} we show that the differentials in the projective $v_0$-BSS may all be lifted from Shimomura-Yabe's $v_0$-BSS differentials. We implement this to compute $H^*M_0^2$. Our computation is therefore not independent of \cite{SY}, but the different basis that the projective $v_0$-BSS presents the answer in makes the computation, and the answer, much easier to understand. In Section~\ref{sec:SY}, we review the presentation of $H^*M_0^2$ discovered in \cite{SY}, and fix some errors in the process. We then give a dictionary between our generators and those of \cite{SY}. In Section~\ref{sec:K(2)S} we review the computation of $\pi_*M(p)_{E(2)}$ and $\pi_*M(p)_{K(2)}$ and give new presentations of $\pi_*S_{E(2)}$ and $\pi_*S_{K(2)}$, using the chromatic spectral sequence. We explain how these computations are consistent with the chromatic splitting conjecture. In Section~\ref{sec:GHD} we review the structure of the $K(2)$-local Picard group, and explain how to $p$-adically interpolate the computations of $\pi_*M(p)_{K(2)}$ and $\pi_*S_{K(2)}$. We explain how Gross-Hopkins duality is visible in $\pi_*M(p)_{K(2)}$. In Section~\ref{sec:M20new} we give yet another basis for $H^*M_0^2$, which, at the cost of abandoning certain theoretical advantages of the presentation of Section~\ref{sec:M20}, gives an even clearer picture of the additive structure of $H^*M_0^2$.
\begin{Ack}
It goes without saying that this paper would not have been possible without the previous work of Shimomura and Yabe.
The author would also like to express his gratitude to Hans-Werner Henn, for explaining the projective Morava stabilizer group method to the author in the first place, to Katsumi Shimomura, for helping the author understand the source of some of the discrepancies found in \cite{SY}, to Tyler Lawson, for pointing out an omission in Lemma~\ref{lem:LHSSS}, and to Paul Goerss and Mark Mahowald, for sharing their $3$-primary knowledge, and helping the author identify a family of errors in $Y^\infty_1$ and $G^\infty$ in a previous version of this paper. The author is also very grateful to the time and effort the referee took to carefully read this paper, and provide numerous suggestions and corrections.
The author benefited from the hospitality of the Pacific Institute for Mathematical Sciences and Northwestern University for portions of this work, and was supported by grants from the Sloan Foundation and the NSF.
\end{Ack}
\begin{conventions}
For the remainder of the paper, $p$ is a prime greater than or equal to $5$. We define $q$ to be the quantity $2(p-1)$. We warn the reader that throughout this paper, the cocycle we denote $h_1$ corresponds to what is traditionally called $v_2^{-1}h_1$ (see Section~\ref{sec:M20}).
We will use the notation
$$ x \doteq y $$
to indicate that $x = ay$ for $a \in \mathbb{F}_p^\times$.
\end{conventions}
\section{$H^*M_2^0$}\label{sec:M02}
The Morava change of rings theorem gives isomorphisms
$$ H^*(M_2^0) \cong H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; \pi_* (E_2)/(p^\infty, v_1^\infty)) \cong H^*(S(2)) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_2^{\pm 1}] $$
Here $\mathbb{G}_2$ is the second extended Morava stabilizer group, and $S(2)$ is the second Morava stabilizer algebra. We refer the reader to \cite{Green} for details.
\begin{thm}[Theorem~3.2 of \cite{Ravenel}]
We have
$$ H^{s,t}(M_2^0) = \mathbb{F}_p[v_2^{\pm 1}]\{1, h_0, h_1, g_0, g_1, h_0g_1\} \otimes E[\zeta] $$
where the generators have bidegrees $(s,t)$ given as follows.
\begin{align*}
\abs{v_2} & = (0, q(p+1)) \\
\abs{h_0} & = (1,q) \\
\abs{h_1} & = (1,-q) \\
\abs{g_0} & = (2,q) \\
\abs{g_1} & = (2, -q) \\
\abs{\zeta} & = (1,0)
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
Figure~\ref{fig:M02} displays a chart of this cohomology.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{M02.pdf}
\caption{$H^* M_2^0$}\label{fig:M02}
\end{figure}
\section{$H^*M_1^1$}\label{sec:M11}
In this section we give a brief account of the structure of the $v_1$-BSS
\begin{equation}\label{eq:v1BSS}
H^{s}(M_{2}^{0}) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_1]/(v_1^\infty) \Rightarrow H^s(M^{1}_1 ).
\end{equation}
We shall use the notation:
\begin{align*}
x_s & := v_2^s x, \quad \text{for} \: x \in H^*M_2^0, \\
G_n & :=
\begin{cases}
v_2^{-p^{n-2}-p^{n-3}- \cdots - 1}g_1, & n \ge 1, \\
g_0, & n = 0,
\end{cases} \\
a_n & := \begin{cases}
p^{n-1}(p+1)-1, & n \ge 1, \\
1, & n = 0,
\end{cases}\\
A_n & := (p^{n-1}+p^{n-2}+\cdots + 1)(p+1).
\end{align*}
Note that $G_1 = g_1$ and $A_0 = 0$.
\begin{thm}[Section~4 of \cite{Shimomura}]
The differentials in the $v_1$-BSS (\ref{eq:v1BSS}) are given as follows:
\begin{align*}
d(1)_{sp^n} & \doteq \begin{cases}
v_1^{a_n} (h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-1}}, & n \ge 1, p \not\vert s, \\
v_1(h_1)_s, & n = 0, p \not\vert s,
\end{cases}\\
d(h_0)_{sp^n} & \doteq v_1^{A_n+2} (G_{n+1})_{sp^n}, \quad n \ge 0, s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p, \\
d(h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}} & \doteq v_1^{p^{n}-p^{n-2}+A_{n-2}+2}(G_{n-1})_{sp^{n}-p^{n-1}}, \quad n \ge 2, \\
d(h_1)_{sp} & \doteq v_1^{p-1}(g_0)_{sp-1}, \\
d(G_n)_{sp^n} & \doteq v_1^{a_n}(h_0G_{n+1})_{sp^n}, \quad
n \ge 0, s \not\equiv -1 \mod p.
\end{align*}
The factors involving $\zeta$ satisfy
$$ d(\zeta x) = \zeta d(x). $$
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=\textwidth, angle=270]{v1BSS.pdf}
\caption{$v_1$-BSS in vicinity of $v_2^sp^n$, $0 \le n \le 4$, $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$, excluding $\zeta$ factor.}\label{fig:v1BSS}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:v1BSS} gives a graphical description of these patterns of differentials (excluding the $\zeta$ factors). In the vicinity of $v_2^{sp^n}$, $s\not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$, the only elements that are coupled are those of the form
$$ x_{sp^n-\epsilon_{n-1}p^{n-1}- \epsilon_{n-2}p^{n-2} - \cdots - \epsilon_0} $$
for $\epsilon_i \in \{0, 1\}$.
For example, in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp}$, Figure~\ref{fig:v1BSS} shows the following pattern of differentials.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{v1BSSex1.pdf}
\end{center}
This depicts the $v_1$-BSS differentials
\begin{align*}
d(1)_{sp} & \doteq v_1^p (h_0)_{sp-1}, \\
d(1)_{sp-1} & \doteq v_1 (h_1)_{sp-1}, \\
d(h_0)_{sp} & \doteq v_1^{p+3} (g_1)_{sp-1}, \\
d(h_1)_{sp} & \doteq v_1^{p-1} (g_0)_{sp-1}, \\
d(g_0)_{sp} & \doteq v_1 (h_0 g_1)_{sp}, \\
d(g_1)_{sp} & \doteq v_1^p (h_0g_1)_{sp-1}.
\end{align*}
The advantage to using this `hook notation' for the $v_1$-BSS differentials is that the groups $H^* M^1_1$ are easily read off of the diagram. For example, the hook connecting $(1)_{sp}$ and $(h_0)_{sp-1}$ indicates that there is a $v_1$-torsion summand
$$ \mathbb{F}_p[v_1]/(v_1^p)\{ \tfrac{v_2^{sp}}{v_1^p} \} \subset H^0 M^1_1 $$
(generated by $\frac{v_2^{sp}}{v_1^p}$).
Also, the short exact sequence
$$ 0 \rightarrow M_2^0 \xrightarrow{1/v_1} \Sigma^{-q}M^1_1 \xrightarrow{v_1} M^1_1 \rightarrow 0 $$
induces a long exact sequence
$$ \cdots \rightarrow H^s M_2^0 \xrightarrow{1/v_1} H^s M_1^1 \xrightarrow{v_1} H^s M^1_1 \xrightarrow{\delta} H^{s+1}M_2^0 \rightarrow \cdots. $$
The fact that the hook hits $(h_0)_{sp-1}$ indicates that $\delta(\tfrac{v_2^{sp}}{v_1^p}) = (h_0)_{sp-1}$.
The hook patterns of Figure~\ref{fig:v1BSS} can be produced in an inductive fashion. We explain this inductive procedure below, with a graphical example in the case of $n = 2$.
{\bf Step 1.} Start with the pattern in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp^{n-1}}$.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{v1BSSex1.pdf}
\end{center}
{\bf Step 2.} Double the pattern.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{v1BSSex2.pdf}
\end{center}
{\bf Step 3.} Delete the following differentials:
\begin{itemize}
\item the rightmost longest differential on the 0-line,
\item both of the longest differentials on the 1-line,
\item the leftmost longest differential on the 2-line.
\end{itemize}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{v1BSSex3.pdf}
\end{center}
{\bf Step 4.} Add the following differentials:
\begin{itemize}
\item a differential of length $a_n$ with source $(1)_{sp^n}$,
\item a differential of length $a_n$ with source $(G_n)_{sp^n}$.
\end{itemize}
There are now four elements on the $1$ and $2$ lines left to be connected by differentials. Couple the closest two, and the farthest two, with differentials.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{v1BSSex4.pdf}
\end{center}
The cohomology groups $H^*M_1^1$ are easily deduced from the differentials above.
A complete computation of the groups $H^s(M_1^1)$ first appeared in \cite{Shimomura}. In that paper, the case of $s=0$ appears as (4.1.5), and is basically a restatement of the work in \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}. The case of $s=1$ appears as (4.1.6), and relies on work in \cite{ShimomuraTamura}. The case of $s > 1$ is covered by Theorem~4.4 of that paper. Another reference for this result is page 78ff of \cite{HoveyStrickland}, where the translation to the $K(2)$-local setting is given.
The cohomology groups $H^*M^1_1$ are given in Theorem~\ref{thm:M11} below, which uses the notation
$$ x_{s/j} := v_1^{-j} v_2^s x, \quad \text{for} \: x \in H^*M_2^0. $$
However, the reader should be warned, this notation can be misleading, as it is the name of an element in the $E_1$-term of spectral sequence~(\ref{eq:v1BSS}) which detects the corresponding element in $H^* M_1^1$. For example (c.f.~\cite[p.~190]{Green}) the element $(1)_{p^2/(p^2+1)} \in H^0 M_1^1$ is actually represented by the primitive element
$$ \frac{v_2^{p^2}}{v_1^{p^2+1}} - \frac{v_2^{p^2-p+1}}{v_1^2}- \frac{v_2^{-p} v_3^p}{v_1} \in M_1^1. $$
\begin{thm}[\cite{Shimomura}]\label{thm:M11} We have
$$ H^*M_1^1 \cong (X \oplus X_\infty \oplus Y_0 \oplus Y_1 \oplus Y \oplus Y_\infty \oplus G) \otimes E[\zeta] $$
where:
\begin{align*}
X & := \mathbb{F}_p\{ 1_{sp^n/j}\}, \quad p \not\vert s, n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_n, \\
Y_0 & := \mathbb{F}_p\{ (h_0)_{sp^n/j}\}, \quad s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p, n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le A_n + 2, \\
Y & := \mathbb{F}_p\{(h_1)_{sp/j}\}, \quad 1 \le j \le p-1, \\
Y_1 & := \mathbb{F}_p\{(h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j}\}, \quad n \ge 2, 1 \le j \le p^{n}-p^{n-2} + A_{n-2}+2, \\
G & := \mathbb{F}_p\{ (G_n)_{sp^n/j} \}, \quad s \not\equiv -1 \mod p, n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_n, \\
X_\infty & := \mathbb{F}_p\{ 1_{0/j} \}, \quad j \ge 1, \\
Y_\infty & := \mathbb{F}_p\{ (h_0)_{0/j} \}, \quad j \ge 1. \\
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=\textwidth, angle=270]{M11.pdf}
\caption{$H^* M_1^1$ in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp^n}$, $0 \le n \le 4$, $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$, excluding the $\zeta$ factor.}\label{fig:M11}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:M11} displays pictures of the patterns in this cohomology in the vicinities of $v_2^{sp^n}, s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$ for $0 \le n \le 4$. The zeta factors are excluded. In this figure, the patterns are organized according to $v_1$-divisibility. Thus a family
$$ \mathbb{F}_p\{ x_{s/j} \}, \quad 1 \le j \le m $$
is represented by:
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{M11ex.pdf}
\end{center}
For example, the pattern in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp}$ depicted in Figure~\ref{fig:M11} is fully labeled below.
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=.9\textwidth]{v1BSSex5.pdf}
\end{center}
\section{The projective Morava stabilizer group}\label{sec:PG}
We let $\mathbb{S}_2$ denote the Morava stabilizer group. Specifically
$$ \mathbb{S}_2 := \Aut(H_2) $$
where $H_2$ is the Honda height $2$ formal group over $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}$. The action of $\mathbb{S}_2$ on
$$ (E_2)_* = W(\mathbb{F}_{p^2}) [[u_1]] [u^{\pm 1}] $$
extends to an action of the extended Morava stabilizer group
$$ \mathbb{G}_2 := \mathbb{S}_2 \rtimes Gal(\mathbb{F}_{p^2}/\mathbb{F}_p). $$
Defining
\begin{align*}
v_1 & := u^{p-1} u_1, \\
v_2 & := u^{p^2-1},
\end{align*}
the Morava change of rings theorem gives isomorphisms:
\begin{align*}
H^*M_2^0 & \cong H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; (E_2)_*/(p, v_1)), \\
H^*M_1^1 & \cong H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; (E_2)_*/(p, v_1^\infty)), \\
H^*M_0^2 & \cong H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; (E_2)_*/(p^\infty, v_1^\infty)).
\end{align*}
We henceforth will use the notation:
\begin{align*}
M_2^0(E_2) & := (E_2)_*/(p, v_1), \\
M_1^1(E_2) & := (E_2)_*/(p, v_1^\infty), \\
M_0^2(E_2) & := (E_2)_*/(p^\infty, v_1^\infty).
\end{align*}
Define the projective (extended) Morava stabilizer group $P\mathbb{G}_2$ to be the quotient of $\mathbb{G}_2$ by the center of $\mathbb{S}_2$.
$$ 1 \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_p^\times \rightarrow \mathbb{G}_2 \rightarrow P\mathbb{G}_2 \rightarrow 1. $$
Consider the Lyndon-Hochschild-Serre spectral sequence (LHSSS)
\begin{equation}\label{eq:LHSSS}
H^{s_1}(P\mathbb{G}_2 ; H^{s_2,t}(\mathbb{Z}_p^\times ; M_0^2(E_2)) \Rightarrow H^{s_1+s_2,t}(\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)).
\end{equation}
The following lemma allow us to analyze (\ref{eq:LHSSS}).
\begin{lem}\label{lem:Zpx}
We have
$$ H^{s,t}(\mathbb{Z}_p^\times; M_0^2(E_2)) \cong
\begin{cases}
[(E_2)_*/(v_1^\infty)]_{t} \otimes \mathbb{Z}/p^k, & t = p^{k-1}t'q, p \not\vert t', s = 0, \\
[(E_2)_*/(v_1^\infty)]_{0} \otimes \mathbb{Z}/p^\infty, & t = 0, s \in \{ 0, 1\}, \\
0, & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The subgroup $\mathbb{Z}_p^\times \subset \mathbb{G}_2$ acts on $(E_2)_*$ by the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:action}
[a] \cdot x = a^m x, \quad a \in \mathbb{Z}_p^\times, x \in M_0^2(E_2)_{2m}.
\end{equation}
The computation is therefore more or less identical to the computation of $H^*M_0^1$.
\end{proof}
For
$$ \frac{x}{v_1^j} \in [(E_2)_*/(v_1^\infty)]_{t} $$
with $t = p^{k-1}t'q$, we have corresponding elements
$$ \frac{x}{v_1^j p^k} \in H^{0,t}(\mathbb{Z}_p^\times; M_0^2(E_2)). $$
For $x/v_1^j$ in $[(E_2)_*/(v_1^\infty)]_0$ we have elements
\begin{align*}
\frac{x}{v_1^j p^k} & \in H^{0,0}(\mathbb{Z}_p^\times; M_0^2(E_2)), \\
\frac{\zeta x}{v_1^j p^k} & \in H^{1,0}(\mathbb{Z}_p^\times; M_0^2(E_2)), \\
\end{align*}
for $k \ge 1$.
For dimensional reasons, we deduce the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:LHSSS}
For $t \ne 0$, the LHSSS (\ref{eq:LHSSS}) collapses. In particular, the edge homomorphism (inflation) given by the composite
$$ H^{*,t}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) \rightarrow H^{*,t}(\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) \rightarrow H^{*,t}(\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)) $$
is an isomorphism for $t \ne 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rmk}
Note that the LHSSS (\ref{eq:LHSSS}) also collapses for $t = 0$, though not for dimensional reasons. See the discussion before Theorem~\ref{thm:M20}.
\end{rmk}
The $p$-adic filtration on $M_0^2(E_2)$ induces a \emph{projective} $v_0$-BSS
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pv0BSS}
H^{s,t}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^{k(t)}) \Rightarrow H^{s,t}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times})
\end{equation}
where
$$ k(t) :=
\begin{cases}
\nu_p(t)+1, & q \vert t, \\
0, & q \not\vert t.
\end{cases}
$$
The $E_2$-term of (\ref{eq:Pv0BSS}) is easy to understand, as we will now demonstrate. Let $\mathbb{G}_2^1$ denote the kernel of the reduced norm, given by the composite
$$ \mathbb{G}_2 \xrightarrow{N} \mathbb{Z}_p^\times \rightarrow \mathbb{Z}_p^\times/\mathbb{F}_p^\times \cong \mathbb{Z}_p. $$
\begin{lem}
The composite
$$ H^*(P\mathbb{G}_2 ; M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) \rightarrow H^*(\mathbb{G}_2 ; M_1^1(E_2)) \rightarrow H^*(\mathbb{G}_2^1 ; M_1^1(E_2)) $$
is an isomorphism.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Observe there is an isomorphism
$$ P\mathbb{G}_2 = \mathbb{G}_2/\mathbb{Z}_p^\times \cong \mathbb{G}^1_2/ (\mathbb{Z}_p^\times \cap \mathbb{G}_2^1) = \mathbb{G}_2^1/\mathbb{F}_p^\times. $$
Since $\abs{\mathbb{F}_p^\times}$ is coprime to $p$, the LHSSS
$$ H^*(P\mathbb{G}_2; H^*(\mathbb{F}_p^\times; M_1^1(E_2))) \Rightarrow H^*(\mathbb{G}_2^1; M_1^1(E_2)) $$
collapses. Therefore the edge homomorphism gives an isomorphism
$$ H^*(P\mathbb{G}_2;M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{F}_p^\times}) \cong H^*(\mathbb{G}_2^1; M_1^1(E_2)). $$
However, it is immediate from (\ref{eq:action}) that the natural inclusion gives an isomorphism
$$ M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times} \xrightarrow{\cong} M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{F}_p^\times}. $$
\end{proof}
The LHSSS
$$ H^*(\mathbb{Z}_p; H^*(\mathbb{G}_2^1; M_1^1(E_2))) \Rightarrow H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)) $$
collapses to give an isomorphism
$$
H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)) \cong H^*(\mathbb{G}_2^1; M_1^1(E_2)) \otimes E[\zeta].
$$
The map
$$ H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)) \rightarrow H^*(\mathbb{G}_2^1; M_1^1(E_2)) $$
is the quotient of $H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2))$ by the zeta factor (see Theorem~\ref{thm:M11}).
We therefore have proven the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:PM11}
We have (in the notation of Theorem~\ref{thm:M11}):
$$ H^*(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) = X \oplus X_\infty \oplus Y_0 \oplus Y_1 \oplus Y \oplus Y_\infty \oplus G. $$
\end{lem}
\section{$H^*M_0^2$}\label{sec:M20}
In this section we compute the projective $v_0$-BSS (\ref{eq:Pv0BSS}). We will deduce our differentials from the differentials of \cite{SY} using the following maps of $v_0$-BSS's.
$$
\xymatrix{
H^{s,t}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^{k(t)}) \ar@{=>}[r] \ar[d] &
H^{s,t}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) \ar[d]
\\
H^{s,t}(\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^{\infty}) \ar@{=>}[r] \ar[d] &
H^{s,t}(\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)) \ar[d]
\\
H^{s,t}(\mathbb{G}^1_2; M_1^1(E_2)) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^{\infty}) \ar@{=>}[r] &
H^{s,t}(\mathbb{G}^1_2; M_0^2(E_2))
}
$$
The results of Section~\ref{sec:PG} imply that the composite of these maps on $E_1$-terms is isomorphic to the inclusion
$$ H^{s,t}(\mathbb{G}^1_2; M_1^1(E_2)) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^{k(t)}) \hookrightarrow H^{s,t}(\mathbb{G}^1_2; M_1^1(E_2)) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^{\infty}).
$$
The differentials in the middle spectral sequence were computed by \cite{SY}. They therefore map down to differentials in the bottom spectral sequence, and then may be lifted to the top spectral sequence by injectivity. \emph{In summary: we can regard the $v_0$-BSS differentials of \cite{SY} to be differentials in the projective $v_0$-BSS after we kill all of the terms involving $\zeta$.}
The differentials in the projective $v_0$-BSS (\ref{eq:Pv0BSS}) are given in the theorem below. Following \cite{SY}, we only list the \emph{leading terms}, which are taken to be the terms of the form $x/v_1^j$ for $j$ maximal. We will explain why this method suffices in Remark~\ref{rmk:leading}.
\begin{ex}
In Lemma~5.1 of \cite{SY}, it is stated that the connecting homomorphism $\delta: H^0 M_0^2 \rightarrow H^1 M_1^1$ is given on a class $x_{2}/p v_1^{2p} \in M_0^2$ (where $[x_{2}/v_1^{2p}]$ represents $1_{p^{2}/2p} \in H^0M_1^1$) by
$$ \delta(x_{2}/p v_1^{2p}) = -2p y_{p^2}/v_1^{2p+1} - p x_2 \zeta /v_1^{2p} + y_{p^2-1}/v_1^p + v_2^{p^2-p-1}V/v_1^{p-2} + \cdots. $$
Here $[y_s/v_1^j] = (h_0)_{s/j} \in H^1 M_1^1$ and $[v_2^s V/v_1^j] = (h_1)_{s/j} \in H^1 M_1^1$.
The first two terms are zero, as they have coefficients which are zero mod $p$, but the $\zeta$ term would be ignored anyways for the purposes of the projective $v_0$-BSS. The leading term is therefore $y_{p^2-1}/v_1^p$, and this corresponds to the projective $v_0$-BSS differential:
$$ d(1_{p^2/2p}) = (h_0)_{(p^2-1)/p}. $$
\end{ex}
We lift the $v_0$-BSS differentials of \cite{SY} to projective $v_0$-BSS differentials in the following sequence of lemmas.
\begin{lem}
For $p \not\vert s$, $n \ge 0$, $1 \le j \le a_n$, we have:
$$
d(1_{sp^n/j}) \doteq
\begin{cases}
v_0 (h_0)_{s/2}, & n = 0, j = 1, s \equiv 1 \mod p, \\
v_0(h_1)_{sp/p-1}+ \cdots , & n = 1, j = p, \\
v_0^k (h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-k-1}/j-a_{n-k}} + \cdots, & n \ge 2, p^k \vert j, a_{n-k} < j \le a_{n-k+1}, \\
0, & \text{in all other cases}.
\end{cases}
$$
We also have
$$ d(1_{0/j}) = 0, \quad j \ge 1. $$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma~5.1 of \cite{SY}. The last assertion is Proposition~6.9(ii) of \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
For $1 \le j \le p-1$ we have
$$ d((h_1)_{sp/j}) = 0. $$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Lemma~7.2 of \cite{SY}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
Let $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$ and $n \ge 1$. For $1 \le k \le n$, $A_{n-k}+2 < j \le A_{n-k+1} + 2$, and $p^k \vert j-1$, we have:
$$
d((h_0)_{sp^n/j}) \doteq v_0^k G_{n-k+1/j-A_{n-k}-2} + \cdots.
$$
We have $d(h_0)_{sp^n/j} = 0$ in all other cases. We also have
$$ d(h_0)_{0/j} = 0,\quad j \ge 1. $$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Propositions~7.3 and 7.5 of \cite{SY}. The last assertion follows from the fact that these elements are actually the targets of (non-projective) $v_0$-BSS differentials in Proposition~6.9(ii) of \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
Let $n \ge 2$. For $1 \le k \le n-2$, $p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-2}+2 < j \le p^{n}-p^{n-2} + A_{n-k-1}+2$, and $p^k \vert j+a_{n-1}$, we have
$$ d((h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j}) \doteq v_0^k(G_{n-k-1})_{sp^n-p^{n-1}/j-p^n+p^{n-2}-A_{n-k-2}-2} + \cdots. $$
We also have
$$ d((h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/p^{p^n-p^{n-2}+1}}) \doteq v_0^{n-1} (G_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-1}/1}. $$
In all other cases $d((h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j}) = 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows from Proposition~7.6 of \cite{SY} in the case of $n = 2$, and Proposition~7.8 of \cite{SY} in the case of $n > 2$. The condition $j > p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-2}+2$ is not present in Proposition~7.8 of \cite{SY}, but it is necessary because otherwise the target of the differential is not present.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=\textwidth, angle=270]{v0BSS.pdf}
\caption{$v_0$-BSS in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp^n}$, $0 \le n \le 4$, $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$.}\label{fig:v0BSS}
\end{figure}
These theorems account for all of the possible differentials in the projective $v_0$-BSS.
Figure~\ref{fig:v0BSS} displays the patterns of differentials in the projective $v_0$-BSS in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp^n}$, $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$, for $n \le 4$. The notation in Figure~\ref{fig:v0BSS} is interpreted as follows. Given a pair of $k$-fold lines and a region bookended on either side with curved lines as below:
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{v0BSSex.pdf}
\end{center}
one has $E_2$-term elements
\begin{align*}
v_0^{-i}x_{s/a+j}, & \quad \text{for} \: 0 \le j \le m, 1 \le i \le \nu_p(\abs{x_{s/a+j}})+1, \\
v_0^{-i}y_{s/b+j}, & \quad \text{for} \: 0 \le j \le m, 1 \le i \le \nu_p(\abs{y_{s/b+j}})+1, \\
\end{align*}
and differentials
$$
d(v_0^{-i}x_{s/a+j}) \doteq v_0^{-i+k} y_{s/b+j} + \cdots, \quad \text{if} \: \nu_p{\abs{x_{s/a+j}}} \ge k.
$$
Figure~\ref{fig:v0BSSex2-3} shows an explicit example of some of these patterns of differentials in the case where $p = 5$ in the vicinity of $v_2^{25}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[height=.25\textwidth, angle=270]{v0BSSex2.pdf}
\hspace{1in}
\includegraphics[height=.25\textwidth, angle=270]{v0BSSex3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Explicit patterns in the case $p = 5$ in the vicinity of $v_2^{25}$: the projective $v_0$-BSS (left) and $H^*M_0^2$ (right).}\label{fig:v0BSSex2-3}
\end{figure}
\begin{rmk}\label{rmk:leading}
The reason it suffices to consider leading terms in the projective $v_0$-BSS differentials is that the differentials are in ``echelon form''. Firstly, observe that there is an ordering of the basis of $H^*(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times})$ of Lemma~\ref{lem:PM11} by $v_1$-valuation. Inspection of the patterns in Figure~\ref{fig:M11} reveal that there are no two basis elements in the same bidegree with identical $v_1$-valuation. Saying that the projective $v_0$-BSS differentials are in \emph{echelon form} with respect to this ordered basis is equivalent to the assertion that for each $k$, and each pair of elements
$$ x_{i/j}, x'_{i'/j'} \in H^{s,t}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) $$
with $j < j'$, and with projective $v_0$-BSS differentials
\begin{align*}
d_k(x_{i/j}) & = v_0^k y_{m/l} + \cdots, \\
d_k(x'_{i'/j'}) & = v_0^k y'_{m'/l'} + \cdots,
\end{align*}
we have $l < l'$. This condition is easily verified to be satisfied by inspecting the patterns in Figure~\ref{fig:v0BSS}.
\end{rmk}
These differentials result in a complete computation of $H^{s,t}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times})$. This gives a computation of $H^{s,t}M_0^2$ \emph{except at $t = 0$}. Using the norm map, one can show that the LHSSS (\ref{eq:LHSSS}) collapses, so that Lemma~\ref{lem:Zpx} implies that we have
$$ H^{*,0} M_0^2\cong H^{*,0}(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_0^2(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times}) \otimes E[\zeta]. $$
In this case the $P\mathbb{G}_2$ approach offers no advantages over the more traditional $v_0$-BSS:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:t0v0BSS}
H^{*,0}M_1^1 \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^\infty) \Rightarrow H^{*,0} M_0^2.
\end{equation}
Moreover Lemma~8.10 of \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}, Corollary~9.9 of \cite{SY}, and Lemma~4.5 of \cite{SY2} imply that there are no non-trivial differentials in (\ref{eq:t0v0BSS}).
We will use the notation
$$ x_{s/j,k} := \frac{v_2^s x}{v_1^j p^k}. $$
Such an element will always have order $p^k$.
The resulting computation of $H^*M_0^2$ is given below.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:M20}
We have
$$ H^*M_0^2 \cong X^\infty \oplus Y_0^\infty \oplus Y^\infty \oplus Y_1^\infty \oplus G^\infty \oplus X^\infty_\infty \oplus Y_{0,\infty}^\infty \oplus \zeta Y_{0,\infty}^\infty \oplus G_\infty^\infty \oplus \zeta G_\infty^\infty $$
where the summands are spanned by the following elements:
\begin{align*}
X^\infty & := \bra{1_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad p \not| s, n \ge 0, 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le a_{n-k+1}, p^{k-1}|j, \\
X_\infty^\infty & := \bra{1_{0/j,k}}, \quad k \ge 1, j \ge 1, p^{k-1}|j, \\
Y_0^\infty & := \bra{(h_0)_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad p \not|s, n \ge 0, 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le A_{n-k+1}+2, p^{k-1}|j-1, \\
Y_{0,\infty}^\infty & := \bra{(h_0)_{0/j,k}}, \quad k \ge 1, j \ge 1, p^{k-1}|j-1, \\
\zeta Y_{0,\infty}^\infty & := \bra{\zeta(h_0)_{0/1,k}}, \quad k \ge 1, \\
Y^\infty & := \bra{(h_1)_{sp/j,k}}, \quad k = 1, 1 \le j \le p-1, \text{and if} \: p|s, k = 2, j = p-1, \\
Y_1^\infty & := \bra{(h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j,k}}, \quad \text{writing} \: s = p^i s', p \not| s', \text{we have:}\\
& \quad 1 \le j \le p^n-p^{n-2}, p^{k-1}|j+a_{n-1}, \: \text{for} \: 1 \le k \le \min(i+1, n+1); \\
& \quad p^n-p^{n-2} < j \le p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-1}+2, p^{k-1} | j+a_{n-1}, \: \text{for} \: 1 \le k \le n-1, \\
G^\infty & := \bra{(G_n)_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_n, \: \text{writing} \: s = p^i t, p \not| t, \: \text{we have}: \\
& \quad \begin{cases}
t \not\equiv -1 \mod p: & i\ge 0,
\begin{cases}
n = 0: & 1 \le k \le i+1, \\
n \ge 1: & 1 \le k \le \min(n+1, i+1), \\
& p^{k-1}|j+A_{n-1}+1,
\end{cases}
\\
t \equiv -1 \mod p: & i \ge 1,
\begin{cases}
n = 0: & 1 \le k \le i, \\
n \ge 1: & 1 \le k \le \min(n+1, i), \\
& p^{k-1}|j+A_{n-1}+1,
\end{cases}
\end{cases} \\
G_\infty^\infty & := \bra{(G_n)_{0/j,k}}, \quad n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_n,
\begin{cases}
n = 0: & k \ge 1, \\
n > 0: & 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le a_n, \\
& p^{k-1}|j+A_{n-1}+1,
\end{cases}\\
\zeta G_\infty^\infty & := \bra{\zeta(G_0)_{0/1,k}},\quad k \ge 1. \\
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
Take note that in the theorem above, we have elected to enumerate \emph{all} of the values of $k$ so that the elements $x_{s/j,k}$ exist, not just the maximal values of $k$, which would give a basis. The author finds that this makes the conditions on the different indices somewhat easier to digest. The presentation above does give a basis for the associated graded of $H^*M_0^2$ with respect to the $p$-adic filtration.
\end{rmk}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=\textwidth, angle=270]{M20.pdf}
\caption{$H^* M_0^2$ in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp^n}$, $0 \le n \le 4$, $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$}\label{fig:M20}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:M20} displays the resulting cohomology $H^*M_0^2$ in the vicinities of $v_2^{sp^n}$, $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$, $n \le 4$. In this figure, a $k$-fold line segment
\begin{center}
\includegraphics{M20ex.pdf}
\end{center}
is spanned by
$$ \bra{x_{s/j,\ell}}, \quad \text{for} \: a \le j \le a+m, 1 \le \ell \le \min(\nu_p(\abs{x_{s/j}})+1, k). $$
Figure~\ref{fig:v0BSSex2-3} shows examples of these patterns in the case where $p=5$ in the vicinity of $v_2^{25}$.
\section{Dictionary with Shimomura-Yabe}\label{sec:SY}
The computation of Shimomura-Yabe uses the $v_0$-BSS
\begin{equation}\label{eq:v0BSS}
H^{s,t}(M_1^1) \otimes \mathbb{F}_p[v_0]/(v_0^{\infty}) \Rightarrow
H^{s,t}(M_0^2)
\end{equation}
where $H^*(M_1^1)$ is computed as in Theorem~\ref{thm:M11}.
Part of the reason that the computation of $H^*M_0^2$ is so complicated when using this spectral sequence is that the families of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20} get split between families involving $\zeta$ and not involving $\zeta$. We recall the result of \cite{SY}, with some corrections to their families. In order to not confuse their generators coming from $H^*(\mathbb{G}_2; M^1_1(E_2))$ with ours coming from $H^*(P\mathbb{G}_2; M_1^1(E_2)^{\mathbb{Z}_p^\times})$, we will write the Shimomura-Yabe generators, as well as the Shimomura-Yabe families, in non-italic typeface. We continue to use our $x_{s/j,k}$ notation from Section~\ref{sec:M20}. We also continue our convention that $\abs{\mr{h}_1} = -q$.
Below we reproduce the main result of \cite{SY}. Our reason for reproducing the whole answer is that the author could not fully parse the conditions as printed in \cite{SY}. Also, the author discovered some errors in the paper: the answer below includes the author's corrections.
\begin{thm}[Theorem~2.3 of \cite{SY}]\label{thm:SY}
The cohomology $H^*M_0^2 $ is isomorphic to
\begin{gather*}(\mr{X}_\infty^\infty \oplus \mr{Y}^\infty_{\infty,C} \oplus \mr{G}_0^\infty) \otimes E[\zeta] \oplus \mr{X}^\infty \oplus \mr{X}\zeta^\infty_C \oplus \mr{Y}^\infty_{0,C} \oplus \mr{Y}^\infty_{1,C} \oplus \mr{Y}^\infty_C \oplus \\
\mr{G}^\infty_C \oplus (\mr{Y}^{\infty,G}_{0,C} \oplus \mr{Y}^{\infty, G}_{1,C}) \otimes \mathbb{Z}_{(p)}\{\zeta\}
\end{gather*}
where the modules above have bases given by:
\begin{align*}
\mr{X}^\infty & := \bra{1_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad p \not|s, n \ge 0, 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le a_{n-k+1}, p^{k-1}|j,\\
& \quad \text{either} \: p^k \not| j \: \text{or} \: j > a_{n-k}, \\
\mr{X}_\infty^\infty & := \bra{1_{0/j,k}}, \quad j \ge 1, k = \nu_p(j)+1, \\
\mr{X}\zeta^\infty_C & := \bra{\zeta_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad p \not| s, n \ge 0: \\
& \quad \begin{cases}
\nu_p(s+1) = 0: & 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le a_{n-k+1}, p^{k-1}|j, \\
& \text{either} \: p^k \not| j \: \text{or} \: j > a_{n-k}, \\
\nu_p(s+1) = i > 0: &
\begin{cases}
1 \le k \le i-1: & 1 \le j \le a_{n-k+1}, p^{k-1}|j, \\
& \text{either} \: p^k \not| j \: \text{or} \: j > a_{n-k}, \\
i \le k \le n: & a_{n-k} < j \le a_{n-k+1}, p^k|j,
\end{cases}
\end{cases}\\
\mr{Y}^\infty_C & := \bra{(\mr{h}_1)_{sp/j,k}}, \quad 1 \le j < p-1, k= 1, \: \text{and} \: j = p-1, k = 2 \: \text{if} \: p|s, \\
\mr{Y}^\infty_{0,C} & := \bra{(\mr{h}_0)_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p, 1 \le k \le n, \\
& \quad A_{n-k}+2 < j \le A_{n-k+1}+2, p^{k-1}|j-1, \: \text{and} \: p^k|j-1 \: \text{if} \: j-1 \le a_{n-k+1}, \\
& \quad \text{as well as} \: j = 1, k = n+1. \\
\mr{Y}_{1,C}^\infty & := \bra{(\mr{h}_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j,k}}, \quad n \ge 2, s = p^ms', p \not| s', 1 \le k \le n+1: \\
& \begin{cases}
\quad p \not| j-1: & k = 1, a_{n-2}+1 < j \le p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-2}+2, \\ \\
\begin{array}{l}
p |j-1 \: \text{and} \\
j > p^{n}-p^{n-2}+1:
\end{array} &
\begin{array}{l}
k \ge 1, j = tp^{k-1}+1, \\
j \le p^n+p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-1}+2, \\
\text{and} \: p \not| t \: \text{or} \: j > p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-2}+2,
\end{array}\\ \\
\begin{array}{l}
p |j-1 \: \text{and} \\
j \le p^{n}-p^{n-2}+1:
\end{array} &
\begin{cases}
2 \le k \le n-2: & k \le m+1, \\
& j = tp^{k-1}+1, p \not| t, \\
& j > a_{n-k-1}+1, \\
k = n-1: & j = p^n-p^{n-2}+1, \: \\
& \text{or} \: j = 1 \: \text{and} \: n \le m+2, \\
k = n: & j = tp^{n-1}-p^{n-2}+1, \\
& n \le m+1, t \not\in \{p, p-1\}, \\
k = n+1: & j = p^n-p^{n-1}-p^{n-2}+1, \\
& n \le m,
\end{cases}
\end{cases} \\
\mr{Y}^\infty_{\infty,C} & := \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \: \text{generated by} \: \{ \mr{h}_{0/1,k} \}, k \ge 1, \\
\mr{G}^\infty_C & := \bra{(\mr{G}_n)_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_n, s = p^{i}s', p \not| s' \\
& \quad \begin{cases}
n = 0, s' \not\equiv -1 \mod p: & k = i+1, \\
n \ge 1, s' \not\equiv -1 \mod p: & k = \nu_p(j+A_{n-1}+1)+1 \le i+1, \\
n \ge 1, s' \equiv -1 \mod p: & k = \nu_p(j+A_{n-1}+1)+1 \le i,
\end{cases}\\
\mr{G}^\infty_0 & := \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \: \text{generated by} \: \{(\mr{G}_0)_{0/1,k}\}, k \ge 1, \\
\mr{Y}^{\infty,G}_{0, C} & := \bra{ (\mr{h}_0)_{sp^n/j,k}}, \quad n \ge 0, s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p, k \ge 1, j = tp^k+1, t \ne 0, \\
& \quad A_{n-k}+2 < j \le A_{n-k+1}+2, \\
\mr{Y}^{\infty, G}_{1,C} & := \bra{ (\mr{h}_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j,k})}, \quad n \ge 2, k \ge 1, p^k|j+a_{n-1}, \\
& \quad p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-2}+2 < j \le p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-1}+2.
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
Unlike in Theorem~\ref{thm:M20}, we have presented the modules in Theorem~\ref{thm:SY} in terms of an integral basis, as in \cite{SY}. This way, the various modules are more easily compared to the corresponding modules in \cite{SY}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}\label{rmk:error1}
The module $\mr{Y}^\infty_{1,C}$ differs from that which appears in Theorem~2.3 of \cite{SY} in two ways. Firstly, the conditions ``$k \le m+1$'', ``$n \le m+2$'', ``$n \le m+1$'', and ``$n \le m$'' in the various subcases are absent from \cite{SY}. These conditions are necessary, because they eliminate targets of differentials in the
$v_0$-BSS (\ref{eq:v0BSS}). The differentials in question are
$$ d(1)_{s'p^{n+m}/j+a_{n-1}} \doteq v_0^{m+1} (h_0)_{s'p^{n+m}-p^{n-2}/j} + \cdots $$
for $p \not| s'$, $j \le p^n-p^{n-2}$, $p^{m+1}| j+a_{n-1}$ (see Theorem~5.1 of \cite{SY}). Secondly, in \cite{SY} the condition ``$j = tp^{k-1}+1$'' above instead reads ``$j = tp^{k}+1$''. The source of this discrepancy is in Proposition~7.8 of \cite{SY}, where it is proven that there are differentials
$$ d((h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j}) \doteq v_0^k(G_{n-k-1})_{sp^n-p^{n-1}/j-p^n+p^{n-2}-A_{n-k-2}-2} + \cdots $$
for $j \le p^{n}-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-1}+2$ and $p^k|j+a_{n-1}$. The issue is that the targets of these differentials are not present for $j \le p^{n}-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-2}+2$. While alternative targets are supplied by Proposition~7.8 of \cite{SY} for $j \le p^{n}-p^{n-2}+1$, the range $p^{n}-p^{n-2}+1 < j \le p^{n}-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-2}+2$ is not addressed. For the purposes of the projective $v_0$-BSS, however, Proposition~7.8 gives enough of a lower bound on the length of the projective $v_0$-BSS differential to deduce the orders of these groups in these missing cases.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}\label{rmk:error2}
The module $\mr{G}^\infty_C$ differs from that which appears in Theorem~2.3 of \cite{SY} in three respects. Firstly, in \cite{SY} there is the condition:
\begin{quote}
``if $s' \not\equiv -1 \mod p$ then $p^{i+1} \not| j+A_{n-i-1}+1$. ''
\end{quote}
However, in light of Propositions~7.2 and 7.5 of \cite{SY}, this condition should instead read:
\begin{quote}
``if $s' \not\equiv -1 \mod p$ then $p^{i+1} \not| j+A_{n-1}+1$. ''
\end{quote}
Secondly, in \cite{SY} there is the condition:
\begin{quote}
``if $s' \equiv -1 \mod p^2$ then $p^{i} \not| j+A_{n-i}+1$. ''
\end{quote}
In light of Propositions~7.6 and 7.8 of \cite{SY}, this condition should instead read:
\begin{quote}
``if $s' \equiv -1 \mod p$ then $p^{i} \not| j+A_{n-1}+1$. ''
\end{quote}
Thirdly, the variable $i$ which appears in the second set of conditions describing $\mr{G}^\infty_C$ in Theorem 2.3 of \cite{SY} (i.e. the set of conditions involving the variable ``$l$'' in their notation) has nothing to do with the variable $i$ appearing in the first set of conditions describing $\mr{G}_C^\infty$. This error arose because the definition of $\mr{G}^\infty_C$ at the top of page 287 of \cite{SY} involves superimposing the conditions of $\mr{G}_C$ on page 284 of \cite{SY}; both sets of conditions involve a variable ``$i$'', but these $i$'s are not the same.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}\label{rmk:error3}
The module $\mr{Y}^{\infty,G}_{1,C}$ differs from that which appears in Theorem~2.3 of \cite{SY}. We have replaced the condition
\begin{quote}
``$ p^k|j-1$''
\end{quote}
in \cite{SY} with the condition
\begin{quote}
``$ p^k|j+a_{n-1}$.''
\end{quote}
This only has the effect of adding the generators
$$ \mr{h}_0\zeta_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/p^n-p^{n-2}+1, n-1}. $$
These generators must be present, in light of Remark~9.10 of \cite{SY}, together with the $v_0$-BSS differential
$$ d (\mr{h}_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/p^{n}-p^{n-2}+1} \doteq v_0^{n-1} (\mr{G}_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-1}/1}+ \cdots $$
implied by Propositions~7.6 and 7.8 of \cite{SY}.
\end{rmk}
We give a dictionary between our presentation of $H^*M_0^2$ (Theorem~\ref{thm:M20}) and the Shimomura-Yabe presentation (Theorem~\ref{thm:SY}) below. As before, our generators are italicized, while the Shimomura-Yabe generators are in non-italic typeface. Family-by-family, we give a \emph{basis} for our families, and then indicate the corresponding Shimomura-Yabe basis elements, broken down into cases.
\begin{align*}
X^\infty & = \mr{X}^\infty, \\
X_\infty^\infty & = \mr{X}^\infty_\infty, \\
Y_0^\infty & \ni (h_0)_{sp^n/j,k}, \quad s \not\equiv 0, -1 \, \mr{mod} \, p, n \ge 0, 1 \le k \le n+1, 2 \le j \le A_{n-k+1}+2, \\
& \quad p^{k-1}|j-1, \text{either} \: p^k \not| j-1 \: \text{or} \: j > A_{n-k}+2, \: \text{as well as} \: j = 1, k = n+1 \\
& = \begin{cases}
\zeta_{sp^n/j-1,k}, & 2 \le j \le a_{n-k+1}+1, \nu_p(j-1) = k-1, \quad (\mr{X}\zeta^\infty_C) \\
(\mr{h}_0)_{sp^n/j,k}, & \text{either} \: a_{n-k+1} < j \le A_{n-k+1}+2, \nu_p(j-1) = k-1 \\
& \text{or} \: j > A_{n-k}+2 \: \text{or} \: j = 1, \quad(\mr{Y}^\infty_{0,C})
\end{cases}\\
Y_{0,\infty}^\infty & \ni (h_0)_{0/j,k}, j \ge 2, k-1 = \nu_p(j-1) \: \text{and} \: \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \: \text{generated by} \: j = 1, k \ge 1, \\
& =
\begin{cases}
\zeta_{0/j-1, k}, & j \ge 2, \quad (\mr{X}_\infty^\infty\{\zeta\}) \\
\mr{h}_{0/1,k}, & j = 1, \quad (\mr{Y}^\infty_{\infty, C})
\end{cases} \\
\zeta Y_{0,\infty}^\infty & = \mr{Y}^\infty_{\infty,C}\{\zeta\}, \\
Y^\infty & \ni (h_1)_{sp/j,k}, \quad k = 1, 1 \le j < p-1, \: \text{and} \: j = p-1, k =
\begin{cases}
1, & p \not| s, \\
2, & p| s
\end{cases} \\
& =
\begin{cases}
(\mr{h}_1)_{sp/j,k}, & j < p-1 \: \text{and} \: j = p-1 \: \text{if} \: p|s, \quad (\mr{Y}^\infty_C) \\
\zeta_{sp/p, 1}, & j = p-1, p \not| s, \quad (\mr{X}\zeta^\infty_C)
\end{cases} \\
Y_1^\infty & \ni (h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j,k}, \quad \text{writing} \: s = p^i s', p \not| s':\\
& \begin{cases}
j \le p^n-p^{n-2}:
&
\begin{array}{l}
1 \le k \le \min(n+1, i+1), p^{k-1}|j+a_{n-1}, \\
\text{either} \: p^k \not| j+a_{n-1} \: \text{or} \: k = i+1,
\end{array}\\ \\
j > p^n-p^{n-2}:
&
\begin{array}{l}
1 \le k \le n-1, j \le p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-1}+2, p^{k-1} | j+a_{n-1}, \\
\text{either} \: p^{k}\not| j+a_{n-1} \: \text{or} j > p^n-p^{n-2}+A_{n-k-2}+2
\end{array}
\end{cases} \\
& =
\begin{cases}
\zeta_{sp^n/j+a_{n-1}, k}, & 1 \le j \le p^n-p^{n-2}, p^{k}|j+a_{n-1}, \quad (\mr{X}\zeta^\infty_C) \\
\zeta_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j-1,k}, & \nu_p(j+a_{n-1}) = k-1, j \le a_{n-k-1} + 1, \quad (\mr{X}\zeta^\infty_C)\\
(\mr{h}_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-2}/j,k}, & \text{otherwise}, \quad (\mr{Y}^\infty_{1,C})
\end{cases} \\
G^\infty & \ni (G_n)_{sp^n/j,k}, \quad n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_n, \: \text{writing} \: s = p^i t, p \not| t, \: \text{we have}: \\
& \quad \begin{cases}
t \not\equiv -1 \mod p: & i\ge 0,
\begin{cases}
n = 0: & k = i+1, \\
n \ge 1: & k = \min(\nu_p(j+A_{n-1}+1)+1, i+1),
\end{cases}
\\
t \equiv -1 \mod p: & i \ge 1,
\begin{cases}
n = 0: & k = i, \\
n \ge 1:
& k = \min(\nu_p(j+A_{n-1}+1)+1, i),
\end{cases}
\end{cases} \\
& =
\begin{cases}
(\mr{G}_0)_{s/1,i+1}, & n = 0, t \not\equiv -1 \mod p, \quad (\rm{G}^\infty_C) \\
\mr{h}_0\zeta_{t'p^{i+1}-p^{i-1}/p^{i+1}-p^{i-1}+1, i}, & n = 0, t = t'p-1, \quad (\mr{Y}^{\infty,G}_{1,C}\{\zeta\}) \\
(\mr{G}_n)_{sp^n/j,k}, & n \ge 1, p^k \not| j+A_{n-1}+1, \quad (\mr{G}^\infty_C) \\
\mr{h}_0\zeta_{tp^{n+i}/j+A_{n-1}+2, k}, & n \ge 1, t \not\equiv -1 \mod p, p^k|j+A_{n-1}+1, \\
& \hfill (\mr{Y}^{\infty,G}_{0,C}\{\zeta\}) \\
\mr{h}_0\zeta_{\frac{t'p^{n+i+1}-p^{n+i-1}}{j+p^{n+i+1}-p^{n+i-1}+A_{n-1}+2,k}}, & n \ge 1, t = t'p-1, p^k|j+A_{n-1}+1, \\
& \hfill (\mr{Y}^{\infty,G}_{1,C} \{\zeta\} )
\end{cases} \\
G_\infty^\infty & \ni (G_n)_{0/j,k}, \quad n \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_n,
\begin{cases}
n = 0: & \text{generates} \: \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}, k \ge 1, \\
n > 0: & 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le a_n, \\
& k = \nu_p(j+A_{n-1}+1)+1
\end{cases}\\
& =
\begin{cases}
(\mr{G}_0)_{0/1,k}, & n = 0, \quad (\mr{G}_0^\infty) \\
(\mr{G}_n)_{0/j,k}, & n \ge 1, \quad (\mr{G}^\infty_C) \\
\end{cases}\\
\zeta G_\infty^\infty & = \mr{G}^\infty_0 \{\zeta\}. \\
\end{align*}
\section{$E(2)$ and $K(2)$-local computations}\label{sec:K(2)S}
The computation of the groups $\pi_*M(p)_{E(2)}$, $\pi_*M(p)_{K(2)}$, $\pi_* S_{E(2)}$ and $\pi_* S_{K(2)}$ follow quickly from $H^*M_1^1$ and $H^*M_0^2$. We briefly review this in this section.
The Morava change of rings theorem, applied in the context of $n = 0$, gives the following well known fact.
\begin{lem}
We have
$$
H^{s,t}M_0^0 \cong \begin{cases}
\mathbb{Q}, & (s,t) = (0,0), \\
0, & \text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{thm}[Theorem~1.2 of \cite{Ravenel}]
We have
$$ H^{s,t}M_1^0 \cong \mathbb{F}_p[v_1^{\pm 1}] \otimes E[h_0] $$
where
\begin{align*}
\abs{v_1} & = (0,q), \\
\abs{h_0} & = (1,q).
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
In the following theorem, we are using the notation
$$ x_{s/k} := p^{-k} v_1^s x, \quad \text{for} \: x \in H^*(M_1^0) $$
to refer to elements in $H^*M_0^1$.
\begin{thm}[Theorem~4.2 of \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}]
The groups $H^*M_0^1$ are spanned by
\begin{align*}
1_{s/k}, & \quad k \ge 1, p^{k-1}|s, \\
(h_0)_{-1/k}, & \quad k \ge 1 \\
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
The ANSS's
\begin{align*}
H^{s,t}M_0^0 & \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s} M_0(S) \\
H^{s,t}M_1^0 & \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s} M_1(M(p)) \\
H^{s,t}M_0^1 & \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s-1} M_1(S) \\
H^{s,t}M_1^1 & \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s-1} M_2(M(p)) \\
H^{s,t}M_0^2 & \Rightarrow \pi_{t-s-2} M_2(S)
\end{align*}
all collapse because of their sparsity.
Consider the chromatic spectral sequence
$$ E_1^{n,k} = \bigoplus_{n = 1}^2 \pi_k M_n(M(p)) \Rightarrow \pi_k M(p)_{E(2)}. $$
The differentials are given by
\begin{align*}
d_1(1_{s}) & =
\begin{cases}
1_{0/-s}, & s < 0, \\
0, & s \ge 0,
\end{cases} \\
d_1((h_0)_s) & =
\begin{cases}
(h_0)_{0/-s}, & s < 0, \\
0, & s \ge 0.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
We therefore get the following well-known consequence of Shimomura's calculation of $H^*M_1^1$. Here, the degrees of the elements are their internal degrees, viewed as elements of $H^*M_i^j$, and the homological grading is to be ignored.
\begin{thm}
We have
\begin{multline*}
\pi_* M(p)_{E(2)} \cong \mathbb{F}_p[v_1]\otimes E[h_0] \oplus
(\Sigma^{-1}X_{\infty} \oplus \Sigma^{-2}Y_\infty)\{\zeta\} \oplus \\
(\Sigma^{-1} X \oplus \Sigma^{-2} (Y_0 \oplus Y \oplus Y_1)
\oplus \Sigma^{-3} G) \otimes E[\zeta]
\end{multline*}
where $\abs{\zeta} = -1$.
\end{thm}
Using the $\lim^i$ sequence associated to
$$ M(p)_{K(2)} \simeq \holim_j M(p, v_1^j)_{E(2)} $$
we get the following theorem (see Section~15.2 of \cite{HoveyStrickland}).
\begin{thm}\label{thm:M(p)K(2)}
We have
\begin{multline*}
\pi_* M(p)_{K(2)} \cong \mathbb{F}_p[v_1]\otimes E[h_0, \zeta] \oplus
(\Sigma^{-1} X \oplus \Sigma^{-2} (Y_0 \oplus Y \oplus Y_1)
\oplus \Sigma^{-3} G) \otimes E[\zeta]
\end{multline*}
where $\abs{\zeta} = -1$.
\end{thm}
Consider the chromatic spectral sequence
$$ E_1^{n,k} = \bigoplus_{n = 0}^2 \pi_k M_n(S) \Rightarrow \pi_k S_{E(2)}. $$
The differential
$$ d_1: \mathbb{Q} = \pi_0 M_0(S) \rightarrow \pi_{-1} M_1(S) = \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \bra{(h_0)_{-1/k}\: : \: k \ge 1} $$
is the canonical surjection.
The differentials
$$ d_1: \pi_k M_1(S) \rightarrow \pi_{k-1} M_2(S) $$
are given by
\begin{align*}
d_1(1_{s/k}) & =
\begin{cases}
1_{0/-s,k}, & s < 0, \\
0, & s \ge 0,
\end{cases}\\
d_1((h_0)_{-1/k}) & = (h_0)_{0/1,k}.
\end{align*}
Write
\begin{align*}
Y^\infty_{0,\infty} & = Y^\infty_{0,\infty}[0] \oplus Y^\infty_{0,\infty}[1], \\
G_\infty^\infty & = G_{\infty}^\infty[0] \oplus G^\infty_{\infty}[1]
\end{align*}
where
\begin{align*}
Y_{0,\infty}^\infty[0] & = \bra{(h_0)_{0/1,k}\: : \: k \ge 1}, \\
Y^\infty_{0,\infty}[1] & = \bra{(h_0)_{0/j,k}\: : \: j \ge 2, p^{k-1}|j-1}, \\
G_\infty^\infty[0] & = \bra{(G_0)_{0/1,k} \: : \: k \ge 1}, \\
G_\infty^\infty[1] & = \bra{(G_n)_{0/j,k} \: : \: n \ge 1, 1 \le j \le a_n, p^{k-1}|j+A_{n-1}+1}.
\end{align*}
We deduce the following main theorem of \cite{SY}.
\begin{thm}[Theorem~2.4 of \cite{SY}]
We have
\begin{align*}
\pi_* S_{E(2)} \cong \: & \mathbb{Z}_{(p)} \oplus \Sigma^{-1} \bra{1_{sp^n/n+1} \: : \: n \ge 0, s > 0, p \not| s} \\
& \Sigma^{-2} X^{\infty} \oplus \Sigma^{-3} (Y_0^\infty \oplus Y^\infty_{0,\infty}[1] \oplus Y^\infty \oplus Y_1^\infty) \oplus \\
& \Sigma^{-4}(\zeta Y^\infty_{0,\infty} \oplus G^\infty \oplus G^\infty_\infty) \oplus \Sigma^{-5} \zeta G_\infty^\infty.
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
Using the $\lim^i$ sequence associated to
$$ S_{K(2)} \simeq \holim_{j,k} M(p^k, v_1^j)_{E(2)} $$
we get the following theorem.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:K(2)S}
We have
\begin{align*}
\pi_* S_{K(2)} \cong \: & \mathbb{Z}_{p}\otimes E[\zeta, \rho] \oplus \Sigma^{-1} \bra{1_{sp^n/n+1} \: : \: n \ge 0, s > 0, p \not| s} \otimes E[\zeta] \oplus \\
& \Sigma^{-2} X^{\infty} \oplus \Sigma^{-3} (Y_0^\infty \oplus Y^\infty \oplus Y_1^\infty) \oplus \Sigma^{-4}(G^\infty \oplus G^\infty_\infty[1])
\end{align*}
where $\abs{\zeta} = -1$ and $\abs{\rho} = -3$.
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}
The existence of the exterior algebra factors involving $\zeta$ and $\rho$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:K(2)S} are closely related to Hopkins' chromatic splitting conjecture (see \cite{Hovey}). In fact, using the fiber sequence
$$ M_2(S) \rightarrow S_{K(2)} \rightarrow S_{K(2),E(1)} $$
one easily deduces
\begin{multline*} \pi_* S_{K(2),E(1)} \cong \\
(\mathbb{Z}_p \oplus \Sigma^{-1}\bra{1_{sp^n/n+1} \: : \: n \ge 0, p \not|s} \oplus \Sigma^{-2} \mathbb{Q}/\mathbb{Z}_{(p)}) \otimes E[\zeta] \oplus \Sigma^{-3} \mathbb{Q}_p \oplus \Sigma^{-4} \mathbb{Q}_p,
\end{multline*}
as predicted by the chromatic splitting conjecture.
\end{rmk}
\section{Gross-Hopkins duality}\label{sec:GHD}
The reader may notice that the patterns which occur in Figure~\ref{fig:M11} are ambigrammic: they are invariant under rotation by $180^\circ$. This is explained by Gross-Hopkins duality.
To proceed, we must work with Picard group graded homotopy.
The following is an unpublished result of Hopkins.
\begin{thm}[Hopkins]
There is an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Pic}
\mr{Pic}_{K(2)} \cong \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}/2(p^2-1).
\end{equation}
The group is topologically generated by $S^1_{K(2)}$ and $S^0_{K(2)}[\det]$. Under the isomorphism (\ref{eq:Pic}) we have
\begin{align}
S^1_{K(2)} & = (1, 0, 1), \label{eq:S1} \\
S^0_{K(2)}[\det] & = (0,1,2(p+1)). \label{eq:Sdet}
\end{align}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}[Overview of the proof]
As this isomorphism is not in print, we give a brief explanation (note that the analogous fact for $p = 3$ is published, see \cite{Karamanov}). Given an object $X \in \mr{Pic}_{K(2)}$, the associated Morava module $(E_2)^\wedge_* X$ is invertible. In particular, as a graded $(E_2)_*$-module, it is free of rank $1$, concentrated either in even or odd degrees. Define $\epsilon(X) \in \mathbb{Z}/2$ to be the degree of a generator of $(E_2)^\wedge_*X$. This gives a short exact sequence
\begin{equation}\label{eq:parity}
0 \rightarrow \mr{Pic}_{K(2)}^0 \xrightarrow{\iota_0} \mr{Pic}_{K(2)} \xrightarrow{\epsilon} \mathbb{Z}/2 \rightarrow 0.
\end{equation}
Since invertible Morava modules are in bijective correspondence with degree $1$ group cohomology classes, taking the degree zero part of the associated Morava module gives a map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:map1}
\mr{Pic}_{K(2)}^0 \xrightarrow{(E_2)^\wedge_0(-)} H^1_c(\mathbb{G}_2; (E_2)_0^\times) \cong H^1_c(\mathbb{S}_2; (E_2)_0^\times)^{\mit{Gal}}.
\end{equation}
(Here, $\mit{Gal}$ denotes the Galois group of $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}/\mathbb{F}_p$.) Since the reduction map
$$ (E_2)_0 \cong \mathbb{W}[[u_1]] \rightarrow \mathbb{W} $$
is equivariant with respect to the subgroup $\mathbb{W}^\times < \mathbb{S}_2$ (where $\mathbb{W}$ denotes the Witt ring of $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}$), there is a map
\begin{equation}\label{eq:map2}
H^1_c(\mathbb{S}_2; (E_2)_0^\times)^{\mit{Gal}} \rightarrow H_c^1(\mathbb{W}^\times; \mathbb{W}^\times)^{\mit{Gal}} \cong \mr{End}^c(\mathbb{W}^\times)^{\mit{Gal}}.
\end{equation}
The crux of Hopkins' argument is that both (\ref{eq:map1}) and (\ref{eq:map2}) are isomorphisms, and there is an isomorphism
$$ \mr{End}^c(\mathbb{W}^\times)^{\mit{Gal}} \underset{(\dag)}{\cong} \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}/(p^2-1). $$
The isomorphism $(\dag)$ follows from the usual Galois-equivariant isomorphism
$$ \mathbb{W} \times \mathbb{F}_{p^2}^\times \xrightarrow[\cong]{\exp(px) \times \tau} \mathbb{W}^\times $$
where $\tau$ is the Teichm\"uller lift.
Since there are no continuous group homomorphisms between $\mathbb{F}^\times_{p^2}$ and $\mathbb{W}$, we get
$$ \mr{End}^c(\mathbb{W}^\times)^{\mit{Gal}} \xrightarrow{\cong} \mr{End}^c(\mathbb{W})^{\mit{Gal}} \times \mr{End}(\mathbb{F}_{p^2}^\times)^{\mit{Gal}}. $$
Every endomorphism of $\mathbb{F}_{p^2}^\times$ is Galois equivariant (since the Galois action is the $p$th power map), and we have
$$ \mr{End}(\mathbb{F}_{p^2}^\times) \cong \mathbb{Z}/(p^2-1). $$
There is an isomorphism
$$ \mr{End}^c(\mathbb{W})^{\mit{Gal}} \cong \mathbb{Z}_p\{\mr{Id}, \mr{Tr}\}. $$
The Galois equivariant endomorphism of $\mathbb{W}^\times$ induced from $[S^2_{K(2)}] \in \mr{Pic}^0_{K(2)}$ (respectively $[S^0_{K(2)}[det]] \in \mr{Pic}^0_{K(2)}$) is the identity (respectively the norm). It follows that under isomorphisms (\ref{eq:map1}), (\ref{eq:map2}), and $(\dag)$ above, we have:
\begin{align*}
S^2_{K(2)} & = (1, 0, 1), \\
S^0_{K(2)}[\det] & = (0,1,p+1).
\end{align*}
Since $\epsilon[S^1_{K(2)}] = 1$ and $2[S^1_{K(2)}] = [S^2_{K(2)}]$ in $\mr{Pic}_{K(2)}$, we deduce from (\ref{eq:parity}) isomorphism (\ref{eq:Pic}), and moreover, the induced map
$$ \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}/(p^2-1) \cong \mr{Pic}^0_{K(2)} \hookrightarrow \mr{Pic}_{K(2)} \cong \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}/2(p^2-1) $$
is given by $(a, b, c) \mapsto (2a, b, 2c)$. The identities (\ref{eq:S1}) and (\ref{eq:Sdet}) follow.
\end{proof}
The isomorphism (\ref{eq:Pic}) implies that we can $K(2)$-locally $p$-adically interpolate the spheres to get
\begin{gather}
S_{K(2)}^{s\abs{v_2}+i} = (s\abs{v_2}+i, 0, i), \quad \text{for} \: s \in \mathbb{Z}_p, 0 \le i < 2(p^2-1), \\
S_{K(2)}^{(1+p+p^2+ \cdots)\abs{v_2}+q+4} = (0, 0, 2(p+1)). \label{eq:2(p+1)}
\end{gather}
For a $K(2)$-local spectrum $X$, we may define $\pi_{*,*}(X)$ by
$$ \pi_{s\abs{v_2}+i, j}(X) := [S_{K(2)}^{s\abs{v_2}+i}[{\det}^{j}], X] $$
for $s,j \in \mathbb{Z}_p$, $0 \le i < \abs{v_2}$.
By extending the families described in Theorems~\ref{thm:M11} and \ref{thm:M20} to allow for $s$ to lie in $\mathbb{Z}_p$ instead of $\mathbb{Z}$, one can regard Theorems~\ref{thm:M(p)K(2)} and \ref{thm:K(2)S} as giving $\pi_{*,0} M(p)_{K(2)}$ and $\pi_{*,0} S_{K(2)}$, where $*$ varies $p$-adically. The author does not know how to compute $\pi_{*,j} S_{K(2)}$ for arbitrary $j \in \mathbb{Z}_p$. However, as the following proposition illustrates, after smashing with the Moore spectrum $M(p)$ the elements $(a,*,b) \in \mr{Pic}_{K(2)}$ (under the isomorphism (\ref{eq:Pic})) are all equivalent for fixed $a$ and $b$ and $*$ ranging through $\mathbb{Z}_p$.
\begin{prop}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:M(p)[det]}
M(p)_{K(2)}[\det] \simeq \Sigma^{(1+p+p^2+ \cdots)\abs{v_2}+q+4}M(p)_{K(2)}.
\end{equation}
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since the mod $p$ determinant takes values in $\mathbb{F}_p^\times$, there is an isomorphism of Morava modules
$$ (E_2)^\wedge_* M(p) [{\det}^{p-1}] \cong (E_2)^\wedge_* M(p). $$
It follows that under isomorphism (\ref{eq:Pic}), the subgroup of $\mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}_p \times \mathbb{Z}/2(p^2-1)$ generated by $(0,p-1,0)$ acts trivially on $M(p)_{K(2)}$. Thus the element in $\mr{Pic}_{K(2)}$ corresponding to $(0,1,0)$ also acts trivially. The proposition follows from (\ref{eq:Sdet}) and (\ref{eq:2(p+1)}).
\end{proof}
Following \cite{GrossHopkins}, we define
$$ I_2X := IM_2(X) $$
where $I$ denotes the Brown-Comenetz dual.
The following proposition explains the self-duality apparent in Figure~\ref{fig:M11}.
\begin{prop}\label{prop:duality}
There is an equivalence
$$ I_2 M(p) \simeq \Sigma^{(1+p+p^2+\cdots)\abs{v_2} + q + 5}M(p)_{K(2)}. $$
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Theorem~6 of \cite{GrossHopkins}, when specialized to our case, states that there is an equivalence:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:GHD}
I_2 S \simeq S_{K(2)}^2[\det].
\end{equation}
Smashing (\ref{eq:GHD}) with $M(p)$ and using (\ref{eq:M(p)[det]}) we get
\begin{align*}
I_2 M(p) & \simeq \Sigma^{-1} M(p) \wedge I_2 S \\
& \simeq \Sigma^{-1} M(p) \wedge S_{K(2)}^2[\det] \\
& \simeq \Sigma^{(1+p+p^2+\cdots)\abs{v_2} + q + 5}M(p)_{K(2)}.
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
Unfortunately, as we have not given a method to compute $\pi_{*,j} S_{K(2)}$ for arbitrary $j$, (\ref{eq:GHD}) gives little insight into the shifted self-duality present in the patterns shown in Figure~\ref{fig:M20}. However, using (\ref{eq:GHD}), one can turn the patterns of Figure~\ref{fig:M20} $180^\circ$ and regard them as being descriptions of the corresponding patterns occurring in the homotopy of $S^0_{K(2)}[\det]$.
\begin{rmk}
One way to compute the portion of $\pi_{*,j} S_{K(2)}$ spanned by elements of Adams-Novikov filtration $2$ is to adapt the method of congruences of modular forms of \cite{Behrens} to the situation: one just needs to twist the operators acting on the modular forms by appropriate powers of the determinants of the corresponding elements of $GL_2(\mathbb{Q}_\ell)$. In fact, this method helped the author correct an additional family of errors in $Y^\infty_1$ and $G^\infty$ which he missed in an earlier version of this paper.
\end{rmk}
\section{A simplified presentation}\label{sec:M20new}
The patterns of Figure~\ref{fig:M20} suggest that we may reorganize the families $X$, $Y$, $Y_0$, $Y_1$, $G$, into four simple families, as explained in the following theorem. In the theorem below, we have
$$ \abs{x(j,k)_{s}} = \abs{x} + s\abs{v_2} - jq. $$
We warn that while such an element $x(j,k)_s$ does have order $p^k$, the $j$ in the notation is not intended to indicate anything about $v_1$-multiplication.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:M20new}
$H^*M_0^2$ admits the following alternate presentation.
$$ H^*M_0^2 \cong X^\infty \oplus Y(0)^\infty \oplus Y(1)^\infty \oplus G^\infty \oplus X_\infty^\infty \oplus Y(0)^\infty_\infty \oplus \zeta Y(0)^\infty_\infty \oplus G_\infty^\infty \oplus \zeta G_\infty^\infty $$
where
\begin{align*}
X^\infty & := \bra{1(j,k)_{sp^n}}, \quad p \not|s, n \ge 0, 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le a_{n-k+1}, p^{k-1}|j, \\
Y(0)^\infty & := \bra{h_0(j,k)_{sp^n}}, \quad p \not| s, \\
& \quad \begin{cases}
s \not\equiv -1 \mod p: & n \ge 0, 1 \le k \le n+1, 1 \le j \le A_{n-k+1}+2, \\
& p^{k-1}|j-1, \\
s \equiv -1 \mod p: & n \ge 1, 1 \le k \le n, 1 \le j \le A_{n-k}+2, \\
& p^{k-1} | j-1,
\end{cases}\\
Y(1)^\infty & := \bra{h_1(j,k)_{sp^n}}, \quad p \not| s, n \ge 1, 1 \le k \le n, 2 \le j+1 \le a_{n-k+1}, p^{k-1}|j+1, \\
G^\infty & := \bra{G_i(j,k)_{sp^n}}, \quad p\not| s, \\
& \quad \begin{cases}
s \not\equiv -1 \mod p: & n \ge 0, 0 \le i \le n, 1 \le j \le a_i, \\
& 1 \le k \le \min (i+1, n-i+1), p^{k-1}|j+A_{i-1}+1, \\
& (1 \le k \le n+1 \: \text{if} \: i = 0), \\
s \equiv -1 \mod p: & n \ge 1, 0 \le i \le n-1, 1 \le j \le a_i, \\
& 1 \le k \le \min (i+1, n-i), \: p^{k-1}|j+A_{i-1}+1, \\
& (1 \le k \le n \: \text{if} \: i = 0),
\end{cases} \\
X_\infty^\infty & := \bra{1(j,k)_0}, \quad k \ge 1, j \ge 1, p^{k-1}|j, \\
Y(0)^\infty_\infty & := \bra{h_0(j,k)_0}, \quad k \ge 1, j \ge 1, p^{k-1}|j-1, \\
\zeta Y(0)^\infty_\infty & := \bra{\zeta h_0(1,k)_0}, \quad k \ge 1, \\
G_\infty^\infty & := \bra{G_i(j,k)_0}, \quad i \ge 0, 1 \le j \le a_i, 1 \le k \le i+1, p^{k-1}|j+A_{i-1}+1, \\
& \quad (1 \le k \le \infty \: \text{if} \: i = 0), \\
\zeta G_\infty^\infty & := \bra{\zeta G_0(1,k)_0}, \quad k \ge 1.
\end{align*}
\end{thm}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=\textwidth, angle=270]{M20new.pdf}
\caption{$H^* M_0^2$ in the vicinity of $v_2^{sp^n}$, $0 \le n \le 4$, $s \not\equiv 0, -1 \mod p$ with respect to the simplified presentation}\label{fig:M20new}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:M20new} shows the resulting patterns in the vicinities of $v_2^{sp^n}$ for $s \not\equiv -1 \mod p$ and $n \le 4$. The meaning of the notation is identical to that of Figure~\ref{fig:M20} except that the lines are serving as an organizational principle, and are no longer meant to necessarily imply $v_1$-multiplication.
In order to prove that the presentation of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20new} is valid, we must provide a dictionary between the presentation of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20new} and the presentation of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20}.
The modules
$$ X^\infty, X^\infty_\infty, G^\infty, G^\infty_\infty, \zeta G^\infty_\infty $$
share the same notation and indeed refer to the same modules as in Theorem~\ref{thm:M20}, with
$$ x(j,k)_s = x_{s/j,k}. $$
We also have
\begin{align*}
Y_{0,\infty}^\infty & = Y(0)^\infty_\infty, \\
\zeta Y^\infty_{0, \infty} & = \zeta Y(0)^\infty_\infty.
\end{align*}
However, the modules $Y_0^\infty$, $Y^\infty$, and $Y_1^\infty$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20} get reorganized into the modules $Y(0)^\infty$ and $Y(1)^\infty$ of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20new}:
\begin{align*}
Y(0)^\infty \ni h_0(j,k)_{sp^n} & =
\begin{cases}
(h_0)_{sp^n/j,k}, & s \not \equiv -1 \mod p, \quad (Y_0^\infty) \\
(h_0)_{sp^n+p^n-p^{n-1}/j+p^{n+1}-p^{n-1}, k}, & s \equiv -1 \mod p, \quad (Y_1^\infty) \\
\end{cases} \\
Y(1)^\infty \ni h_1(j,k)_{sp^n} & =
\begin{cases}
(h_1)_{sp^n/j,k}, & a_0 < j+1 \le a_1, \quad (Y^\infty) \\
(h_0)_{sp^n-p^{n-i}/j-a_{i-1}+1,k} & a_{i-1} < j+1 \le a_i, i > 1. \quad (Y_1^\infty)
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
The advantage of the presentation of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20new} is that it attaches to \emph{every} element $v_2^{sp^n}$
four $v_1$-torsion families: the two ``unbroken'' families $X^\infty$ and $Y(0)^\infty$ and the two ``broken'' families $Y(1)^\infty$ and $G^\infty$. The unbroken families behave uniformly in $s$ and $n$, whereas the broken families display an exceptional behavior when $s \equiv -1 \mod p$. This allows for easy understanding of the structure of $H^{s,t}M_0^2$ for $t \le 0$. The torsion bounds on $X^\infty$ and $Y(1)^\infty$ match up, as do the torsion bounds on $Y(0)^\infty$ and $G^\infty$. Moreover, each of the four families are no more complicated than $X^\infty$, which corresponds to the family $\beta_{i/j,k}$ of \cite{MillerRavenelWilson}. In contrast the presentation of $Y_1^\infty$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:M20} has a more complex feel to it, and the presentation of $\mr{Y}_1^\infty$ in Theorem~\ref{thm:SY} borders on incomprehensible.
The disadvantages of the presentation of Theorem~\ref{thm:M20new} is that we have forsaken a complete description of $v_1$-multiplication between the generators. We have also broken any semblance of the Gross-Hopkins self-duality that was so readily apparent in Figure~\ref{fig:M11}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebras were introduced and profoundly
studied by Drinfeld in a series of papers \cite{d2,d3,d4}. These are
a natural generalization of quasitriangular Hopf algebras which play
an essential role in his theory of quantum groups \cite{d1}. They
turn out to have deep connections with tensor categories, conformal
field theory, knot invariants, Grothendieck-Teichm\"{u}ller group,
multiple zeta value, and so on.
As far as we know, there are not many examples of quasitriangular
quasi-Hopf algebras in literature other than the quasi-triangular
quasi-Hopf QUE-algebras of Drinfeld \cite{d2} and the twisted
quantum double of finite groups of Dijgraaf-Pasquier-Roche
\cite{dpr} as well as their various generalizations. In particular,
the fundamental classification problem is still widely open. It is
our expectation that there will be a nice theory for the
classification problem of some interesting classes of
quasitriangular quasi-Hopf algebras and the associated braided
tensor categories, for instance an extension of the classification
theory of finite-dimensional triangular Hopf algebras over the field
of complex numbers due to Etingof and Gelaki (see \cite{eg} and
references therein) into the quasitriangular quasi-Hopf setting.
This paper is devoted to the study of quasitriangular quasi-Hopf
algebras via the quiver approaches initiated in \cite{qha1,qha2}. As
before we will work on a dual setting, namely the so-called
coquasitriangular Majid algebras, since this allows a wider scope
and the convenience of exposition. A recent work of the authors
\cite{hsaq5} shows that the coquasitriangularity of pointed Hopf
algebras can be described by combinatorial property of Hopf quivers.
Moreover, the quiver setting helps to give a complete classification
of finite-dimensional coquasitriangular pointed Hopf algebras over
an algebraically closed field of characteristic 0. The basic aim of
the present paper is to extend the study to the quasi situation.
We start by showing that the path coalgebra $kQ$ of a quiver $Q$
admits a coquasitriangular Majid algebra structure if and only if
$Q$ is a Hopf quiver of the form $Q(G,R)$ with $G$ abelian. Next we
give a classification of the set of graded coquasitriangular Majid
structures on a given connected Hopf quiver of this form. Then we
show that, for a general coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebra,
its graded version induced by coradical filtration can be viewed as
a large sub structure of a graded coquasitriangular Majid structure
on some unique Hopf quiver defined in the previous step. So far a
quiver setting for the class of coquasitriangular pointed Majid
algebras is built up. Finally we use the quiver setting to provide
some examples and classification results.
Throughout the paper, we work over a field $k.$ Vector spaces,
algebras, coalgebras, linear mappings, and unadorned $\otimes$ are
over $k.$ The readers are referred to \cite{d2,majid} for general
knowledge of quasi-Hopf and Majid algebras, and to \cite{ass} for
that of quivers and their applications to associative algebras and
representation theory. We turn to \cite{qha1,qha2} frequently for
definitions, notations and results of the quiver setting of Majid
algebras.
\section{Majid Algebras and Their Quiver Setting}
In this section we recall the definition of coquasitriangular Majid
algebras and the quiver framework of pointed Majid algebras for the
convenience of the readers.
\subsection{Coquasitriangular Majid Algebras}
A Majid algebra $H$ with associator $\Phi$ is said to be
coquasitriangular, if there is a convolution-invertible map $\mathcal{R}: H
\otimes H \longrightarrow k$ such that
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{R}(ab , c)=\Phi(c_1 , b_1 , a_1)\mathcal{R}(a_2 , c_2)\Phi^{-1}(a_3 , c_3 ,
b_2) \\ \times \mathcal{R}(b_3 ,
c_4)\Phi(a_4 , b_4 , c_5), \nonumber \\
\mathcal{R}(a , bc)=\Phi^{-1}(b_1 , c_1 , a_1)\mathcal{R}(a_2 , c_2) \Phi(b_2 , a_3 ,
c_3) \\ \times \mathcal{R}(a_4
, b_3)\Phi^{-1}(a_5 , b_4 , c_4), \nonumber \\
b_1a_1\mathcal{R}(a_2 , b_2)=\mathcal{R}(a_1 , b_1)a_2b_2
\end{gather} for all $a,b,c \in H.$ Here and below we use the Sweedler sigma notation $\Delta(a)=a_1 \otimes
a_2$ for the coproduct and $a_1 \otimes a_2 \otimes \cdots \otimes
a_{n+1}$ for the result of the $n$-iterated application of $\Delta$ on
$a.$ The map $\mathcal{R}$ is called a coquasitriangular structure of $H.$ A
coquasitriangular Majid algebra $(H,\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ is called cotriangular
if \begin{equation} \mathcal{R}(a , b)\mathcal{R}(b , a) = \varepsilon(a)\varepsilon(b)
\end{equation} for all $a,b \in H.$
\subsection{Hopf Quivers}
A quiver is a quadruple $Q=(Q_0,Q_1,s,t),$ where $Q_0$ is the set of
vertices, $Q_1$ is the set of arrows, and $s,t:\ Q_1 \longrightarrow
Q_0$ are two maps assigning respectively the source and the target
for each arrow. A path of length $l \ge 1$ in the quiver $Q$ is a
finitely ordered sequence of $l$ arrows $a_l \cdots a_1$ such that
$s(a_{i+1})=t(a_i)$ for $1 \le i \le l-1.$ By convention a vertex is
said to be a trivial path of length $0.$ Let $Q_n$ denote the set of
paths of length $n$ in $Q.$ There is a natural path coalgebra
structure on the path space $kQ$ with coproduct defined by splitting
of paths.
According to \cite{cr2}, a quiver $Q$ is said to be a Hopf quiver if
the corresponding path coalgebra $kQ$ admits a graded Hopf algebra
structure. Hopf quivers can be determined by ramification data of
groups. Let $G$ be a group and denote its set of conjugacy classes
by $\mathcal{C}.$ A ramification datum $R$ of the group $G$ is a formal sum
$\sum_{C \in \mathcal{C}}R_CC$ of conjugacy classes with coefficients in
$\mathbb{N}=\{0,1,2,\cdots\}.$ The corresponding Hopf quiver
$Q=Q(G,R)$ is defined as follows: the set of vertices $Q_0$ is $G,$
and for each $x \in G$ and $c \in C,$ there are $R_C$ arrows going
from $x$ to $cx.$
\subsection{Quiver Setting for Majid Algebras}
It is shown in \cite{qha1} that the path coalgebra $kQ$ admits a
graded Majid algebra structure if and only if the quiver $Q$ is a
Hopf quiver. Moreover, given a Hopf quiver $Q=Q(G,R),$ the set of
graded Majid algebra structures on $kQ$ with $kQ_0=(kG,\Phi)$ as
Majid algebras is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of
$(kG,\Phi)$-Majid bimodule structures on $kQ_1.$ \emph{In this paper
we always ignore the difference of various quasi-antipodes of a
Majid algebra, since they are essentially equivalent according to
Drinfeld \cite{d2} (Proposition 1.1).}
Recall that if $M$ is a $(kG, \Phi)$-Majid bimodule, then the
underlying bicomodule structure makes it a $G$-bigraded space
$M=\bigoplus_{g,h \in G} \ ^gM^h$ with $(g,h)$-isotypic component
$^gM^h=\{ m \in M | \delta_{_L}(m)=g \otimes m, \ \delta_{_R}(m)=m \otimes h
\} \ .$ While the quasi-bimodule structure maps satisfy the
following equalities:
\begin{gather}
e(fm)=\frac{\Phi(e,f,g)}{\Phi(e,f,h)}(ef)m,\\
(me)f=\frac{\Phi(h,e,f)}{\Phi(g,e,f)}m(ef),\\
(em)f=\frac{\Phi(e,h,f)}{\Phi(e,g,f)}e(mf),
\end{gather}
for all $e,f,g,h \in G$ and $m \in \ ^gM^h.$
A Majid algebra is said to be pointed, if its underlying coalgebra
is pointed. Given a pointed Majid algebra $(H, \Phi),$ let
$\{H_n\}_{n \ge 0}$ be its coradical filtration. Then the
corresponding coradically graded coalgebra $\operatorname{gr}(H) = H_0 \oplus
H_1/H_0 \oplus H_2/H_1 \oplus \cdots$ has an induced graded Majid
algebra structure with graded associator $\operatorname{gr}(\Phi)$ satisfing
$\operatorname{gr}(\Phi)(\bar{a},\bar{b},\bar{c})=0$ for all homogeneous
$\bar{a},\bar{b},\bar{c} \in \operatorname{gr}(H)$ unless they all lie in $H_0.$
In particular, $H_0$ is a sub Majid algebra and turns out to be the
group algebra $kG$ of the group $G=G(H),$ the set of group-like
elements of $H.$ In addition, the restriction of $\Phi$ to the
coradical of $H$ is a 3-cocycle on $G.$
For a coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebra $(H,\Phi,\mathcal{R}),$ let
$(\operatorname{gr}(H), \operatorname{gr}(\Phi))$ be as above. Define the function $\operatorname{gr}(\mathcal{R}):
\operatorname{gr}(H) \otimes \operatorname{gr}(H) \longrightarrow k,$ for all homogeneous elements $g,h\in
\operatorname{gr}(H),$ by \[ \operatorname{gr}(\mathcal{R})(g,h) = \left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
\mathcal{R}(g,h), & \hbox{if $g,h \in H_0$;} \\
0, & \hbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right. \]
Then we have the following easy fact which is useful later on.
\begin{lemma}
The coradically graded version $(\operatorname{gr}(H), \operatorname{gr}(\Phi), \operatorname{gr}(\mathcal{R}))$ is
still a coquasitriangular Majid algebra.
\end{lemma}
Thanks to the Gabriel type theorem in \cite{qha1} (Theorem 3.4), for
an arbitrary pointed Majid algebra $H,$ its graded version $\operatorname{gr}(H)$
can be realized as a large sub Majid algebra of some graded Majid
algebra structure on a unique Hopf quiver. By ``large" it is meant
the sub Majid algebra contains the set of vertices and arrows of the
Hopf quiver.
\subsection{Multiplication Formula for Quiver Majid Algebras}
It is shown in \cite{qha1} that the path multiplication formula of
graded Majid algebras on Hopf quivers can be given via quantum
shuffle product as in \cite{cr2}.
Suppose that $Q$ is a Hopf quiver with a necessary $kQ_0$-Majid
bimodule structure on $kQ_1.$ Let $p \in Q_l$ be a path. An $n$-thin
split of it is a sequence $(p_1, \ \cdots, \ p_n)$ of vertices and
arrows such that the concatenation $p_n \cdots p_1$ is exactly $p.$
These $n$-thin splits are in one-to-one correspondence with the
$n$-sequences of $(n-l)$ 0's and $l$ 1's. Denote the set of such
sequences by $D_l^n.$ Clearly $|D_l^n|={n \choose l}.$ For $d=(d_1,
\ \cdots, \ d_n) \in D_l^n,$ the corresponding $n$-thin split is
written as $dp=((dp)_1, \ \cdots, \ (dp)_n),$ in which $(dp)_i$ is a
vertex if $d_i=0$ and an arrow if $d_i=1.$ Let $\alpha=a_m \cdots
a_1$ and $\beta=b_n \cdots b_1$ be paths of length $m$ and $n$
respectively. Let $d \in D_m^{m+n}$ and $\bar{d} \in D_n^{m+n}$ the
complement sequence which is obtained from $d$ by replacing each 0
by 1 and each 1 by 0. Define an element
$$(\alpha \beta)_d=[(d\alpha)_{m+n} (\bar{d}\beta)_{m+n}] \cdots
[(d\alpha)_1 (\bar{d}\beta)_1]$$ in $kQ_{m+n},$ where $[(d\alpha)_i
(\bar{d}\beta)_i]$ is understood as the action of $kQ_0$-Majid
bimodule on $kQ_1$ and these terms in different brackets are put
together by cotensor product, or equivalently concatenation. In
terms of these notations, the formula of the product of $\alpha$ and
$\beta$ is given as follows:
\begin{equation}
\alpha \beta=\sum_{d \in D_m^{m+n}}(\alpha \beta)_d \ .
\end{equation}
\section{Coquasitriangular Majid Algebras on Quivers}
In this section, we determine those quivers whose path coalgebras
admit coquasitriangular Majid algebra structures. A classification
of the set of graded coquasitriangular structures on such quivers is
also obtained.
\subsection{}
Our first step is to determine the condition on a quiver $Q$ such
that its path coalgebra $kQ$ admits a coquasitriangular Majid
algebra structure.
\begin{proposition}
Let $Q$ be a quiver. Then $kQ$ admits a coquasitriangular Majid
algebra structure if and only if $Q$ is a Hopf quiver of form
$Q(G,R)$ where $G$ is an abelian group and $R$ a ramification datum.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $Q$ is a quiver such that $kQ$ admits a
coquasitriangular Majid structure. By Lemma 2.1, we can assume that
the coquasitriangular Majid algebra is graded, namely both the
associator $\Phi$ and the coquasitriangular structure $\mathcal{R}$
concentrate at degree 0. Then by \cite{qha1} (Theorem 3.1), in the
first place $Q$ must be a Hopf quiver, say $Q(G,R).$ Note that
$kQ_0=kG$ is a group algebra and that $(kG,\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ is a
coquasitriangular Majid algebra. Here $\Phi$ and $\mathcal{R}$ are understood
as their restriction to the degree 0 part. Now by (2.3) we have
\[ hg \mathcal{R}(g,h) = \mathcal{R}(g,h) gh \] for all $g,h \in G.$ Since $\mathcal{R}$ is convolution-invertible, one always has
$\mathcal{R}(g,h) \ne 0$ and then $gh=hg.$ This proves that $G$ is an abelian
group.
Conversely, assume that $Q$ is the Hopf quiver $Q(G,R)$ of some
abelian group $G$ with respect to a ramification datum $R.$ Then we
can take the trivial 3-cocycle $\Phi$ on $G,$ that is,
$\Phi(f,g,h)=1$ for all $f,g,h \in G,$ and then the
$(kG,\Phi)$-Majid bimodule structure on $kQ_1$ which corresponds to
the product of a set of trivial $kG$-modules. For more detail, see
\cite{qha2} (Theorem 3.3). That implies, for all $g \in G$ and
$\alpha \in Q_1,$ we have $g \alpha=\alpha g.$ By the product
formula given in Subsection 2.4, this gives rise to a commutative
graded Majid structure on $kQ.$ In fact this is even a commutative
Hopf algebra as the 3-cocycle $\Phi$ is trivial. Apparently $(kQ,
\Phi, \varepsilon \otimes \varepsilon)$ is a coquasitriangular Majid algebra.
\end{proof}
\subsection{}
Next we turn to classify the set of graded coquasitriangular Majid
algebra structures on a Hopf quiver of the form $Q(G,R)$ with $G$
abelian and $R=\sum_{g \in G} R_gg.$ By the Cartier-Gabriel
decomposition theorem for pointed Majid algebras \cite{qha1}
(Theorem 4.1), every graded Majid algebra on a general Hopf quiver
can be written as the crossed product of the sub structure on its
connected component containing the identity and a group algebra
possibly twisted by a 3-cocycle. Therefore in the following we can
assume without loss of generality that the quiver $Q(G,R)$ is
connected. By definition, it is clear that the Hopf quiver $Q(G,R)$
is connected if and only if the set $\{g \in G | R_g \ne 0\}$
generates the group $G.$
\begin{theorem}
Let $Q=Q(G,R)$ be a connected Hopf quiver with $G$ abelian and
$R=\sum_{g \in G} R_gg.$ Then the set of graded coquasitriangular
Majid algebra structures on $kQ$ with associator and
coquasitriangular structure concentrating at degree 0 and $Q_0 \cong
G$ as groups is in one-to-one correspondence with the set of pairs
$(\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ in which $\Phi:G \times G \times G \longrightarrow k$ is a 3-cocycle
such that
\begin{gather}
\frac{\Phi(eg,f,t)\Phi(g,e,t)\Phi(e,t,f)}{\Phi(eg,t,f)\Phi(g,t,e)\Phi(e,f,t)}
=\frac{\Phi(gt,e,f)\Phi(g,ef,t)\Phi(t,e,f)}{\Phi(g,e,f)\Phi(g,t,ef)},\\
\frac{\Phi(e,g,t)\Phi(eg,f,t)}{\Phi(f,g,t)\Phi(eg,t,f)}
=\frac{\Phi(e,gt,f)\Phi(e,fg,t)\Phi(g,f,t)}{\Phi(e,g,f)\Phi(g,t,f)\Phi(f,g,t)}
\end{gather}
for all $e,f,g \in G$ and $t \in G$ with $R_t \ne 0,$ and $\mathcal{R}: G
\times G \longrightarrow k$ is a map such that
\begin{gather}
\mathcal{R}(f , gh)=\mathcal{R}(f , g)\mathcal{R}(f , h)\frac{\Phi(g,f,h)}{\Phi(g,h,f)\Phi(f,g,h)}, \\
\mathcal{R}(fg, h)=\mathcal{R}(f , h)\mathcal{R}(g ,
h)\frac{\Phi(h,f,g)\Phi(f,g,h)}{\Phi(f,h,g)}, \\
\mathcal{R}(g,h)\mathcal{R}(h,g)=1
\end{gather}
for all $f,g,h \in G.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Assume that $(kQ, \Phi, \mathcal{R})$ is a graded coquasitriangular Majid
algebra with $\Phi$ and $\mathcal{R}$ concentrating at degree 0 and $Q_0
\cong G.$ Then the restriction to degree 0 part, namely
$(kG,\Phi,\mathcal{R}),$ is again coquasitriangular. By definition, it is
clear that $\Phi$ is a 3-cocycle on $G$ and by (2.1)-(2.2) $\mathcal{R}$
satisfies
\begin{gather*}
\mathcal{R}(f , gh)=\mathcal{R}(f , g)\mathcal{R}(f , h)\frac{\Phi(g,f,h)}{\Phi(g,h,f)\Phi(f,g,h)}, \\
\mathcal{R}(fg, h)=\mathcal{R}(f , h)\mathcal{R}(g ,
h)\frac{\Phi(h,f,g)\Phi(f,g,h)}{\Phi(f,h,g)}
\end{gather*}
for all $f,g,h \in G.$ Next we verify (3.5). Choose any $g,h \in G$
with $R_gR_h \ne 0.$ Then in $Q$ there are arrows starting from the
unit $\epsilon$ of $G,$ say $\alpha: \epsilon \longrightarrow g$ and $\beta: \epsilon \longrightarrow
h.$ Then by (2.3) we have \[ \beta g \mathcal{R}(g,\epsilon) = \mathcal{R}(g,h) g \beta,
\quad \alpha h \mathcal{R}(h,\epsilon) = h \alpha \mathcal{R}(h,g). \] Here we have used
the fact that $\Phi$ and $\mathcal{R}$ concentrate at degree 0. By
(2.1)-(2.2) it is easy to deduce that $\mathcal{R}(g,\epsilon)=1=\mathcal{R}(\epsilon ,h)$
for any $g,h \in G.$ Hence we have
\[ \beta g = \mathcal{R}(g,h) g \beta, \quad \alpha h = h \alpha \mathcal{R}(h,g). \]
Now together with (2.3) and (2.8) we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta \alpha &=& [\beta g][\alpha] + [h \alpha][\beta] = \mathcal{R}(g
, h)[g \beta][\alpha] + [h \alpha][\beta] \\
&=& \mathcal{R}(g , h)\alpha \beta = \mathcal{R}(g , h)[\alpha h][\beta] + \mathcal{R}(g , h)[g \beta][\alpha] \\
&=& \mathcal{R}(g , h)\mathcal{R}(h , g)[h \alpha][\beta] + \mathcal{R}(g , h)[g \beta][\alpha]. \\
\end{eqnarray*}
It follows that $\mathcal{R}(g , h)\mathcal{R}(h , g)=1.$ For any $f,g,h \in G$ with
$R_fR_gR_h \ne 0,$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathcal{R}(f,gh)\mathcal{R}(gh,f) \\ &=&\mathcal{R}(f , g)\mathcal{R}(f ,
h)\frac{\Phi(g,f,h)}{\Phi(g,h,f)\Phi(f,g,h)}\mathcal{R}(g,f)\mathcal{R}(h,f)\frac{\Phi(f,g,h)\Phi(g,h,f)}{\Phi(g,f,h)}
\\ &=&1.
\end{eqnarray*}
As the Hopf quiver $Q$ is connected, all such $f,g,h$ run through a
generating set of $G,$ so (3.5) follows. Finally we prove
(3.1)-(3.2). If $R_t \ne 0,$ then in $Q$ there is an arrow $\alpha:
\epsilon \longrightarrow t.$ For any $e,f,g \in G,$ by the definition of Majid
algebra (see e.g. \cite{qha1}) we have
\begin{gather*}
e(f(g\alpha))=\frac{\Phi(e,f,gt)}{\Phi(e,f,g)}(ef)(g\alpha),\\
((g\alpha)e)f=\frac{\Phi(g,e,f)}{\Phi(gt,e,f)}(g\alpha)(ef),\\
(e(g\alpha))f=\frac{\Phi(e,g,f)}{\Phi(e,gt,f)}e((g\alpha)f).
\end{gather*}
Since $\mathcal{R}$ is a coquasitriangular structure, by the first equation
and (2.3) all the terms of the last two equations can be written as
some scalars times $(efg)\alpha.$ By comparison of the scalars, one
has (3.1) and (3.2).
Conversely, we assume that $(\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ is a pair satisfying
(3.1)-(3.5). Let $M$ be the $k$-space spanned by the set $\{ g\alpha
| g \in G, \alpha \in Q_1 \ with \ s(\alpha)=\epsilon\}.$ Set $\d_{_L}
(g\alpha)=gt(\alpha) \otimes g\alpha $ and $\d_{_R}(g\alpha) =g\alpha
\otimes g.$ Then it is direct to verify that $(M,\d_{_L},\d_{_R})$ is a
$kG$-bicomodule and is isomorphic to $kQ_1.$ For each $f \in G,$
define \begin{equation} f(g\alpha) = \Phi(f,g,t(\alpha)) (fg)\alpha,
\, \,
(g\alpha)f=\frac{\mathcal{R}(f,gt(\alpha))}{\mathcal{R}(f,g)}\Phi(f,g,t(\alpha))(fg)\alpha.
\end{equation} We claim that this defines $(kG,\Phi)$-Majid bimodule
on $M,$ that is, (2.5)-(2.7) hold and the quasi-bimodule structure
is compatible with the bicomodule structure. By definition (3.6), we
have
\begin{gather*}
e(f(g\alpha))=\Phi(f,g,t(\alpha))e((fg)\alpha)=\Phi(f,g,t(\alpha))\Phi(e,fg,t(\alpha))(efg)\alpha,\\
\frac{\Phi(e,f,gt(\alpha))}{\Phi(e,f,g)}(ef)(g\alpha)=\frac{\Phi(e,f,gt(\alpha))}{\Phi(e,f,g)}
\Phi(ef,g,t(\alpha))(efg)\alpha.
\end{gather*}
Since $\Phi$ is a 3-cocycle, it follows that \[ e(f(g\alpha)) =
\frac{\Phi(e,f,gt(\alpha))}{\Phi(e,f,g)}(ef)(g\alpha). \] This is
(2.5). Similarly, by direct calculation one can show that (3.1) and
(3.2) imply respectively (2.6) and (2.7). It is clear that the
quasi-bimodule structure maps are bicomodule morphisms. Now by
\cite{qha1} (Proposition 3.3), the $(kG,\Phi)$-Majid bimodule
structure on $M$ can provide a graded Majid algebra structure on
$kQ$ where the associator is the trivial extension of $\Phi.$ That
is, set $\Phi(x,y,z)=0$ whenever one of $x,y,z$ lies out of $kQ_0.$
The map $\mathcal{R}$ is extended trivially in a similar manner. We claim
that $(kQ,\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ is coquasitriangular. Since $\Phi$ and $\mathcal{R}$
concentrate at degree 0, the axioms (2.1)-(2.2) are direct
consequence of the conditions (3.3)-(3.4). It remains to verify
(2.3). We need to show that the following equation
\[ \beta \alpha {\mathcal{R}}(s(a_1) , s(b_1))= \mathcal{R}(t(a_m) , t(b_n)) \alpha \beta \]
holds for all paths $\alpha=a_m \cdots a_1,\ \beta=b_n \cdots b_1.$
Here we use the convention: if $m=0,$ then $\alpha \in Q_0$ and
$t(\alpha)=\alpha=s(\alpha).$ When $l(\alpha) + l(\beta) \le 1,$ the
equation is obvious. Now let $\alpha=a_m \cdots a_1,\ \beta=b_n
\cdots b_1$ with $m+n>1.$ Then we have by the preceding cases and
the product formula (2.8) that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\beta \alpha &=& \sum_{d \in D_n^{m+n}} [(d\beta)_{m+n} (\bar{d}\alpha)_{m+n}]
\cdots [(d\beta)_1 (\bar{d}\alpha)_1] \\
&=& \sum_{d \in D_n^{m+n}} [\frac{\mathcal{R}(t((\bar{d}\alpha)_{m+n}) ,
t((d\beta)_{m+n}))}{\mathcal{R}(s((\bar{d}\alpha)_{m+n}) ,
s((d\beta)_{m+n}))} (\bar{d}\alpha)_{m+n} (d\beta)_{m+n}] \cdots \\
& & [\frac{\mathcal{R}(t((\bar{d}\alpha)_1) , t((d\beta)_1))}{R(s((\bar{d}\alpha)_1)
, s((d\beta)_1))} (\bar{d}\alpha)_1 (d\beta)_1] \\
&=& \frac{\mathcal{R}(t(a_m) , t(b_n))}{\mathcal{R}(s(a_1) , s(b_1))} \sum_{d \in D_n^{m+n}}
[(\bar{d}\alpha)_{m+n} (d\beta)_{m+n}] \cdots [(\bar{d}\alpha)_1 (d\beta)_1] \\
&=& \frac{\mathcal{R}(t(a_m) , t(b_n))}{\mathcal{R}(s(a_1) , s(b_1))} \sum_{d \in D_m^{m+n}}
[(d\alpha)_{m+n} (\bar{d}\beta)_{m+n}] \cdots [(d\alpha)_1 (\bar{d}\beta)_1] \\
&=& \frac{\mathcal{R}(t(a_m) , t(b_n))}{\mathcal{R}(s(a_1) , s(b_1))} \alpha \beta.
\end{eqnarray*} This is exactly the desired equation. Note that in the third equality we have used the fact
$t((d\beta)_i)=s((d\beta)_{i+1})$ for $i=1, \cdots, m+n-1.$ Now we
are done.
\end{proof}
\subsection{}
We conclude this section by some remarks.
\begin{remarks} Keep the assumptions and notations of Subsection
3.2.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The coquasitriangular structure $\mathcal{R}$ is sort of a ``quasi" skew-symmetric bicharacter of the group $G.$
Clearly, if $\Phi$ is trivial, then $\mathcal{R}$ is a usual skew-symmetric bicharacter. This is the usual Hopf case as
given by Theorem 3.3 in \cite{hsaq5}. More generally, if $\Phi$ is a coboundary, then by a
suitable twisting, we can also go back to the Hopf case.
\item The coquasitriangular structures constructed in the previous
theorem are actually cotriangular by (3.5). By Lemma 2.1, all
possible (not necessarily graded and concentrating at degree 0)
coquasitriangular Majid algebra structures on Hopf quivers degenerate to
cotriangular ones. This reduces the classification problem of
general coquasitriangular Majid structures on Hopf quivers to a lifting procedure of the cotriangular ones.
\end{enumerate}
\end{remarks}
\section{Coquasitriangular Pointed Majid Algebras}
The aim of this section is to provide a quiver setting for general
coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebras. Some examples and
classification results are also provided via the quiver setting.
\subsection{}
The following is our main result which enables us to construct
coradically graded coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebras
exhaustively on Hopf quivers. This is a quasi analogue of Theorem
4.2 in \cite{hsaq5} and the proof is given by adjusting the argument
there into our situation.
\begin{theorem}
Let $(H,\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ be a coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebra, and
as in Subsection 2.3 let $(\operatorname{gr}(H),\operatorname{gr}(\Phi),\operatorname{gr}(\mathcal{R}))$ denote its
graded version. Then there exist a unique Hopf quiver $Q=Q(G,R)$
with $G$ abelian and a graded coquasitriangular Majid algebra
structure $(kQ,\Psi,\mathfrak{R})$ with $\Psi$ and $\mathfrak{R}$
concentrating at degree 0 such that $(\operatorname{gr}(H),\operatorname{gr}(\Phi),\operatorname{gr}(\mathcal{R}))$ is
isomorphic to a large sub structure of $(kQ,\Psi,\mathfrak{R}).$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G$ denote the set of group-like elements of $H.$ Then the
coradical $H_0$ of $H$ is the group algebra $kG.$ By restricting the
associator $\Phi$ and the coquasitriangular structure $\mathcal{R},$ one has
a sub coquasitriangular Majid algebra $(kG,\Phi,\mathcal{R}).$ As Proposition
3.1, we have immediately that $G$ is an abelian group and $\Phi$ is
a 3-cocycle on $G.$ By the Gabriel type theorem for pointed Majid
algebras \cite{qha1}, there exists a unique Hopf quiver $Q=Q(G,R)$
such that $(\operatorname{gr}(H),\operatorname{gr}(\Phi))$ can be viewed as a large sub Majid
algebra of the graded Majid structure $(kQ,\Psi)$ determined by the
$(kG,\Phi)$-Majid bimodule $H_1/H_0.$ Note that $\Psi$ is actually
the trivial extension of the 3-cocycle $\Phi$ on $G.$ Let
$\mathfrak{R}$ be the trivial extension of $\mathcal{R}:G \times G \longrightarrow k.$ By
the same argument as in the proof of Theorem 3.2, one can show that
$(kQ,\Psi,\mathfrak{R})$ is a graded coquasitriangular Majid algebra
and the embedding $(\operatorname{gr}(H),\operatorname{gr}(\Phi)) \hookrightarrow (kQ,\Psi)$
respects the coquasitriangular structures. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\subsection{}
By the quasi analogue of the Cartier-Gabriel decomposition theorem
for pointed Majid algebras \cite{qha1}, we can focus on the
connected ones (that is, those Majid algebras whose quivers are
connected) without loss of generality. In that case, we can say more
about their graded version.
\begin{corollary}
Suppose that $(H,\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ is a connected coquasitriangular pointed
Majid algebra. Then its graded version $(\operatorname{gr}(H),\operatorname{gr}(\Phi),\operatorname{gr}(\mathcal{R}))$
is cotriangular.
\end{corollary}
The proof is clear by Remarks 3.3 (2) and Theorem 4.1. More
generally, the graded version of a non-connected coquasitriangular
pointed Majid algebra can be written as the crossed product of a
cotriangular one (namely, its connected component containing the
identity) and a group algebra twisted by a 3-cocycle.
Recall that a tensor category is called pointed if its simple
objects are invertible. See \cite{eo} for more definitions and
results on finite tensor categories used below. We remark that the
preceding result also implies an interesting consequence for braided
pointed finite tensor categories with integral Frobenius-Perron
dimensions of objects. It is well-known that such tensor categories
indeed correspond to the corepresentation categories of
finite-dimensional coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebras. Thus
Corollary 4.2 implies for any braided pointed finite tensor category
$\mathcal{C}$ with integral Frobenius-Perron dimensions of objects,
its connected component ($\mathcal{C}$ is essentially governed by
its connected component, see \cite{qha3} for details) containing the
unit object is tensor equivalent to a deformation of a connected
\emph{symmetric} pointed finite tensor category.
\subsection{} For simplicity, \emph{we assume that the ground field $k$
is algebraically closed of characteristic 0 in the rest of the
paper.} As an example, let us consider the case of connected
coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebras over the cyclic group
$\mathbb{Z}_n=<g>$ of order $n>1.$ And we will see the condition
``coquasitriangular" is strong enough to make such pointed Majid
algebras to be twisting equivalent to Hopf algebras.
First we recall a list
of 3-cocycles on $\mathbb{Z}_n$ as given in \cite{g}. Let $q$ be a primitive
root of unity of order $n.$ For any integer $i \in \mathbb{N},$ we denote by
$i'$ the remainder of division of $i$ by $n.$ A list of 3-cocycles
on $\mathbb{Z}_n$ are
\begin{equation}
\Phi_s(g^{i},g^{j},g^{k})=q^{si(j+k-(j+k)')/n}
\end{equation}
for all $0 \le s \le n-1$ and $0 \le i,j,k \le n-1.$ Obviously,
$\Phi_s$ is trivial (i.e., cohomologous to a 3-coboundary) if and
only if $s=0.$
Let $R$ be a ramification datum of $\mathbb{Z}_n$ and let $Q$ denote the
associated Hopf quiver $Q(\mathbb{Z}_n,R).$ Assume that $Q$ is connected.
By Theorem 3.2, the set of graded coquasitriangular Majid algebras
on $kQ$ with associator and coquasitriangular structure
concentrating at degree 0 is equivalent to the set of pairs
$(\Psi,\mathfrak{R})$ satisfying (3.1)-(3.5). Take $\Psi=\Phi_s$ for
some $0 \le s \le n-1$ as given in (4.1). By (3.5), we have
$\mathfrak{R}(g,g)^2=1.$ Using induction and (3.3), one has
\begin{equation}
1 = \mathfrak{R}(g,g^n) = \mathfrak{R}(g,g)^nq^{-s}. \end{equation}
We claim that this indeed implies that $s=0$. In fact, by
$\mathfrak{R}(g,g)^2=1$ we know that $\mathfrak{R}(g,g)^{n}=1$ or
$\mathfrak{R}(g,g)^{n}=-1$. By (4.2), the first case implies that
$q^{-s}=1$ and $s=0$. If $\mathfrak{R}(g,g)^{n}=-1$, then $n$ must
be odd. Also, (4.2) shows that $q^{-s}=-1$. Note that $q$ is an
$n$-th primitive root of unity and so $1=(q^{-s})^{n}=(-1)^{n}=-1$.
This is absurd. Thus we always have $\mathfrak{R}(g,g)^{n}=1$. This
claim means, $\Psi$ can be chosen only as a 3-coboundary and thus
such graded coquasitriangular Majid algebras must be twisting
equivalent to cotriangular Hopf algebras by Remarks 3.3.
Now, together with Corollary 4.2, the following assertion is clear.
\begin{proposition}
Assume that $(H,\Phi,\mathcal{R})$ is a connected coquasitriangular pointed
Majid algebra with the set of group-likes equal to $\mathbb{Z}_n.$ Then its
graded version $(\operatorname{gr}(H),\operatorname{gr}(\Phi),\operatorname{gr}(\mathcal{R}))$ is twisting equivalent
to a cotriangular Hopf algebra.
\end{proposition}
As direct consequence, the pointed Majid algebras $M_+(8), M_-(8)$
and $M(32)$ over $\mathbb{Z}_2$ given in \cite{qha2}, and $M(n,s,q)$ with $s
\ne 0$ over $\mathbb{Z}_n$ given in \cite{qha3} are not coquasitriangular
since they are nontrivial graded pointed Majid algebras, that is,
pointed Majid algebras which are not twisting equivalent to Hopf
algebras. Note that finite-dimensional connected graded cotriangular
pointed Hopf algebras over $\mathbb{Z}_n$ is completely classified by
Corollary 6.3 of \cite{hsaq5}. Therefore, finite-dimensional
connected graded cotriangular Majid algebras over $\mathbb{Z}_n$ are
essentially known by the previous proposition.
Of course, Proposition 4.3 also implies the corresponding
consequence on connected braided pointed finite tensor categories
whose invertible objects consisting of the cyclic group $\mathbb{Z}_n.$ In
particular, together with \cite{qha3,hsaq5} in a fairly
straightforward way, we get a classification result for braided
pointed tensor categories of finite type, i.e., in which there are
only finitely many indecomposable objects.
\begin{corollary}
Any connected braided pointed tensor category of finite type whose
simple objects all have Frobenius-Perron dimension 1 is tensor
equivalent to a deformation of $\operatorname{Corep} H$ where $H$ is a generalized
Taft algebra which can be presented by generators $g$ and $x$ with
relations \[ g^n=1, \quad x^2=0, \quad gx=-xg. \] Here $n$ is an
even integer and $\operatorname{Corep} H$ denotes the comodule category of $H.$
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Let $\mathcal{C}$ be a connected braided pointed
tensor category of finite type whose simple objects all have
Frobenius-Perron dimension 1. Thus we know that there is a connected
coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebra $H$ of finite
corepresentation type such that $\operatorname{Corep} H=\mathcal{C}$ (see, for
example, Subsection 4.2 in \cite{qha3}). All connected pointed Majid
algebras of finite corepresentation type have been classified in
\cite{qha3} and they are shown to be pointed Majid algebras over
$\mathbb{Z}_{n}$ for some $n\in \mathbb{N}$. Therefore, by
Proposition 4.3 one can assume that $\operatorname{gr} H$ is a connected
cotriangular pointed Hopf algebra of finite corepresentation type.
It is known that a connected graded pointed algebra of finite
corepresentation type is indeed a generalized Taft algebra (see
\cite{GLL}). Corollary 6.3 of \cite{hsaq5} shows that this algebra
must be of the form as given in this corollary.
\end{proof}
By quiver representation theory, such braided tensor categories are
well understood. In particular, their Auslander-Reiten quivers are
truncated tubes of height 2, see for instance \cite{ass}.
Finally, we remark that the knowledge of connected coquasitriangular
pointed Majid algebras over $\mathbb{Z}_n$ also sheds some light on the
general ones over finite abelian groups. It is clear that a general
Hopf quiver $Q(G,R)$ with $G$ abelian is consisting of various sub
quivers of form $Q(\mathbb{Z}_n, r).$ Therefore at least the local structure
of a general coquasitriangular Majid algebra is known. The remaining
task is the gluing of these local structures.
\section{Summary}
A quiver setting for coquasitriangular pointed Majid algebras is
built. It shows that the coquasitriangularity can be described by
some combinatorial properties of Hopf quivers. The quiver approaches
provide practical way to construct bundles of coquasitriangular
Majid algebras and braided tensor categories.
So far we have only dealt with the coradically graded case. In order
to extend our work to the non-graded situation, a proper deformation
theory of pointed Majid algebras is very much desirable. This task
seems more complicated than in the Hopf case, as the associator gets
involved.
\vskip 0.5cm
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements:} The research was supported by the
NSFC grants (10601052, 10801069) and the SDNSF grants (YZ2008A05,
ZR2009AM012). The authors are grateful to the DAAD for financial
support which enabled them to visit the University of Cologne. They
would also like to thank their host Professor Steffen K\"{o}nig for
his kind hospitality. The second author is supported by the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science under the item ``JSPS
Postdoctoral Fellowship for Foreign Researchers" and he thanks
Professor Akira Masuoka for stimulating discussions.
|
\section{Introduction}
The time-varying low-frequency radio sky offers a rich parameter space for exploration. With the advent of low frequency, wide-field,
and high resolution interferometers e.g. the Murchison Widefield Array (MWA; \citealt{lonsdale_2009}, \citealt{Tingay_MWA}), the
Low Frequency Array (LOFAR; \citealt{LOFAR}), and the Long Wavelength Array (LWA; \citealt{LWA}) it is now feasible to blindly search vast areas of the sky for transient and variable phenomena. The purpose of such surveys is to explore the physical mechanisms (both intrinsic and extrinsic) driving dynamic behaviour in known and unknown classes of sources.
In this paper we present time domain measurements of 17 bright pulsars on cadences of minutes, months and years. These measurements
have been made as part of the Murchison Widefield Array Transients Survey (MWATS). MWATS is a time-domain survey covering the declination range $-80^{\circ} < \delta < +10^{\circ}$ at 154~MHz. For this survey, high fidelity wide-field (1000~deg$^{2}$) images were obtained with integration times of just 112 seconds. The science goal of MWATS is to provide a blind low frequency census of transient and variability activity (Bell et al., in prep).
Pulsars are compact stellar remnants that emit regular pulses as they spin, with significant intrinsic variability on timescales shorter than a second.
A small subset of pulsars are known to emit giant radio pulses (e.g. \citealt{Johnston_2011}, \citealt{Tsai_2015}). Giant pulses are typically broadband in nature with a low duty cycle when compared with normal pulses (see \citealt{pulsar_handbook}; \citealt{Oransaye_2015}). Some pulsars show intermitancy on various timescales (e.g. \citealt{int}, \citealt{beta}). For example, nulling i.e. the absence of detectable radio emission for one or more pulse periods, could modulate the long term phase averaged flux density, if the null rate was large (e.g. see \citealt{Deich_1986}).
However, for most pulsars the average emitted flux density is constant when averaged over suitably long timescales (minutes or longer). The received flux density can be modulated, though, because of propagation effects such as diffractive and refractive interstellar scintillation \citep{armstrong} that affects pulsars due to their compact sizes ($10^{-3}$~$\mu$arcseconds; \citealt{Lazio_2004}). Diffractive interstellar scintillation is the interference of different paths of a ray, between a source and receiver \citep{Goodman_97}. The different paths arise from small-scale inhomogeneities in the interstellar medium (ISM). Diffractive interstellar scintillation can cause variations on timescales of tens of minutes but is dependent on, for example, dispersion measure, distance, frequency, and pulsar transverse velocity (see \citealt{Rickett_77}; \citealt{Cordes_86}). Refractive interstellar scintillation is caused by large scale electron density irregularities along the line of sight \citep{Bhat_1999} and constitutes a slower and less modulated variation in the pulsar flux density over weeks to months \citep{Sieber}.
Depending on the cadence of the observations we can explore different variability regimes for different pulsars. Exploring these different regimes has typically been done via high-time resolution observations, rather than imaging (e.g. see \citealt{Stappers_2011}; \citealt{bhat_2014}; \citealt{Tsai_2015}; \citealt{Kondratiev_2015}). Long term studies have specifically aimed at exploring the effects of the ISM. For example, \cite{gupta_93} present daily phase averaged flux densities of nine pulsars over a duration of 400 days. For the majority of pulsars in their sample the flux density changes were consistent with those predicted by refractive interstellar scintillation (also see \citealt{Kaspi_92}; \citealt{stinebring_2000} and \citealt{zhou_2003}).
Imaging observations can offer an alternative and convenient way of studying and possibly even discovering pulsars (e.g. \citealt{Backer_82}; \citealt{kaplan_98}). With the increased survey speed of next generation wide-field instruments, much of this information comes for free. In this paper we present a time domain survey of a sample of 17 known pulsars. This survey allows us to probe the short and long term effects of the ISM on pulsar flux densities at low frequencies, and more generally the variability properties of this sample. In addition we evaluate the ability for the MWA to study pulsars via imaging observations and its applications to future surveys.
In Section 2 of this paper we present the observing strategy and pulsar sample selection.
In Section 3 we discuss the data reduction strategy and variability statistics used to characterise the sample.
In Section 4 we present the results of our analysis focusing on the pulsars that showed significant variability.
In Section 5 we discuss our results and explore what might be achieved with similar but deeper surveys using image plane techniques.
\section{Observing strategy and pulsar sample selection}
Data collection for this survey began in 2013 July and ended in 2015 July. The observing cadence was approximately one night per month, and on each night we typically observed for 10 hours. Observations were conducted at a centre frequency of 154~MHz with an observing bandwidth of 30.72~MHz. A channel bandwidth of 40~KHz and a correlator integration time of either 0.5~s or 2~s were used for these observations. The correlator integration time was increased to 2~s in later observations to reduce data rates.
We used a drift scanning strategy to cover a large sky area each night. Utilising night-time seasonal sky rotation allows for sampling the entire hemisphere over one year. A given pulsar takes approximately one hour to drift through the primary beam (FWHM of 24.4$^{\circ}$ at 154 MHz). The observing strategy was to cycle through three different pointings along the meridian at $\delta = -55^{\circ}$, $-26^{\circ}$ (zenith) and +1.6$^{\circ}$. These declination strips overlap giving complete sky coverage between $+10^{\circ}$ and $-80^{\circ}$. A 112 second snapshot observation was obtained at each of these declinations in turn for the duration of the observing run.
Due to the observing strategy, for a given declination, a four minute gap occurs between observations. An additional eight seconds are required to update the correlator configuration for a new pointing. A summary of the observing specifications are given in Table~\ref{observations}.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Properties of observations. Typical noise values are quoted in the extragalactic direction for $b>10^{\circ}$ and in the galactic direction for $b<10^{\circ}$.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
Property & Value \\
\hline
Integration time per snapshot & 112 seconds \\
Number of snapshots per pulsar & 55$-$159 \\
Cadence & minutes, months and years \\
Image size (pixels) & 3072 $\times$ 3072 \\
Frequency & 154 MHz \\
Bandwidth & 30.72 MHz \\
Channel bandwidth & 40~KHz \\
Pixel diameter & $0.75^{\prime}$ \\
Resolution at 154 MHz & $2.4^{\prime}$ \\
Briggs weighting & $-$1 \\
UV range (k$\lambda$) & $>0.03$ k$\lambda$ \\
Declinations & $+$1.6$^{\circ}$, $-$26$^{\circ}$, $-$55$^{\circ}$ \\
Typical image noise\\
(extragalactic pointing) & 20~mJy\\
Typical image noise\\
(galactic pointing) & 100~mJy\\
\hline
\label{observations}
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Two data products were generated from this survey: (1) single snapshot images, used to generate the light curves of the pulsars (discussed below); and (2) mosaiced monthly images formed from all snapshots for a given declination. These images were used for the initial identification of the pulsars in our sample.
We used the Australia Telescope National Facility (ATNF) pulsar database\footnote{http://www.atnf.csiro.au/people/pulsar/psrcat/} (version 1.54; date accessed 2015-05-01) to determine positions of known pulsars in our survey region. There were 2297 known pulsars in our survey region of declination $<+10^{\circ}$. We searched for detections at the positions of each pulsar in our monthly mosaiced images. If a detection was made the statistics were recorded e.g signal-to-noise ratio, flux density etc. Of a total 2297 pulsars that were within our sky area over 100 were detected above the 3$\sigma$ noise level. For this analysis we focused on extracting variability information, so we concentrated on bright, well detected pulsars that had adequate signal-to-noise ratio ($>8\sigma$) in the monthly mosiaced images. This restricted our final sample of pulsars to 17 (see Table~\ref{pulsar_table} for details). A more complete analysis of all pulsar detections will be presented in future work.
\section{Data reduction}
\subsection{Phase calibration, flagging, imaging, and self-calibration}
Phase calibration was performed as follows.
\label{cal_section}
A snapshot observation (with integration time 112~seconds) of a well modelled bright source was obtained for phase calibration
purposes as a function of declination strip and observing run. Model images of these calibrator
sources were extracted from the Sydney University Molonglo Sky Survey (SUMSS; \citealt{SUMSS}) or the VLA Low-frequency Sky Survey (VLSS; \citealt{VLSS}).
The model image of the calibrator source was inverse-Fourier transformed to generate a set of model visibilities. A single
time-independent, frequency-dependent amplitude and phase calibration solution was derived from
this model with respect to the calibrator observation visibilities. These gain solutions were then applied to the appropriate target visibilities (discussed below). We will discuss flux density scale corrections in Section \ref{flux_scale}.
For each of the snapshot target observations we performed the following processing:
\begin{itemize}
\item Data were flagged for radio frequency interference using the {\sc aoflagger} algorithm (\citealt{offringa_2012}) and converted into {\sc casa} measurement set format using the MWA preprocessing pipeline {\sc cotter}. Approximately 1\% of the visibilities were removed at this stage, see \citealt{Andre_2015} for a thorough discussion;
\item Phase and amplitude calibration solutions were applied to the visibilities (as discussed above);
\item The visibilities were deconvolved and {\sc clean}ed with 2000 iterations using the
{\sc wsclean} algorithm \citep{offringa_2014}. An RMS noise measurement was taken from the images to
ascertain an appropriate {\sc clean} threshold for post self-calibration imaging;
\item The {\sc clean} component model was inverse Fourier transformed for self-calibration purposes.
A new set of phase and amplitude calibration solutions were derived from this model and applied to the
data;
\item The visibilities were then deconvolved and {\sc clean}ed to a cutoff of three times the RMS derived from the pre self-calibration image. An image size of 3072 $\times$ 3072 with pixel diameter 0.75$^{\prime}$ and robust parameter of $-1$ was used;
\item A primary beam correction was applied to create Stokes I images. See \cite{offringa_2014} for further details.
\end{itemize}
As discussed above, two different data products were generated from the data reduction. First, we reduced a smaller subset of the total data covering approximately one year and all of our survey area. For a given night and declination strip all snapshot images were mosaiced together. We used these mosaics to construct our initial sample of detected pulsars. Second, we reduced all available images for our sample of 17 pulsars to produce complete light-curves. For each detected pulsar location we obtained all MWATS observations that were within a radius of 12$^{\circ}$. These observations were then reduced and imaged as discussed above. We aimed to image pulsars within 12$^{\circ}$ of the pointing centre to reduce the effects of uncertain primary beam correction (discussed further below). This is also to mitigate against the drop-off in sensitivity towards the edge of the beam. Two of the pulsars (PSR~J$0034-0721$ and PSR~J1456$-$6843) were located greater than 12$^{\circ}$ from our pointing centre but we include them in this analysis. This is because they are bright with low dispersion measures and as such we predicted that we might be able to detect variability.
\subsection{Flux density scale correction}
\label{flux_scale}
\subsubsection{Relative flux scale}
We calibrated the relative flux density scale of each snapshot image. This calibration consisted of comparing the flux density of unresolved sources detected within each image, to the flux density of sources from the SUMSS or VLSS catalogs. The SUMSS catalog was used for images south of $-30^{\circ}$ declination, whilst the VLSS was used for sources north of this declination. For each snapshot image we calculate the mean ratio of the MWA sources to that expected from either of the reference catalogs. Since the SUMSS, VLSS, and MWATS surveys are all at different frequencies (843~MHz, 74~MHz, and 154~MHz respectively), we scaled the reference catalog flux densities to the MWATS frequency using a spectral index of $\alpha=-0.8$ \citep{Lane_2014}. The mean flux density ratio $f_{g}$ was then used to correct all the MWATS flux densities to be in line with the SUMSS or VLSS flux densities.
This method bootstraps the flux density scale of an ensemble of unresolved sources (in the MWA images) rather than from a single source, and ensures an internally consistent flux scale. Typically between 150$-$500 crossmatched sources are used for this calculation. For sources that are not expected to be variable, we see an epoch-to-epoch flux density variation of $2-5$\% (calculated using approximately 1000 sources per pulsar field). We take this to be the accuracy of our relative flux density calibration.
\subsubsection{Absolute flux scale}
The method described above achieves a good relative flux density scale between epochs; it does not, however, guarantee that the absolute flux density scale is well calibrated with respect to other radio catalogues.
It is an area of active research to adequately constrain the low frequency flux density scale in the Southern Hemisphere (e.g. see \citealt{Joe}, \citealt{MWACS} and \citealt{GLEAM}).
Noting the absolute flux density scale is uncertain we find the relative flux density scale correction between images to be sufficient to achieve the goals of this work.
\subsection{Light curve extraction}
The light curves of the pulsars were extracted using a forced fit algorithm implemented in the {\sc aegean} (version 1.9.5) source finding software package \citep{aegean}.The right ascension and declination of each of the pulsars were fitted in the respective images to return the flux density values. The beam properties recorded in the image headers were used to constrain the Gaussian fit. We used the peak flux density reported by {\sc aegean} for all subsequent analyses. We also fitted two neighbouring unresolved sources that had a signal-to-noise ratio of above eight. The modulation indexes of these neighbouring sources were used to ascertain errors on the flux stability of the instrument. This will be discussed further in Section \ref{error}.
Due to the small angular sizes of the pulsars they should be unresolved at the MWA resolution. We visually inspected a region within a radius $5^{\prime}$ surrounding the pulsar positions for bright extended Galactic plane emission. Pulsars embedded in these complex regions were removed from our final sample. Extended emission can cause complications in obtaining adequate and stable measurements of flux density.
\subsection{Variability statistics}
\label{var_stats_section}
For each pulsar light-curve we calculated the reduced $\chi^{2}_{r}$ statistic. We used the assumption that the light-curve of a given pulsar was non-variable and the weighted mean of the flux density measurements was used as a model for the test. The reduced $\chi^{2}_{r}$ statistic is defined as:
\begin{equation}
\chi_{r}^{2} = \frac{1}{n-1} \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{(S_{i} - \tilde{S})^{2}}{\sigma_{i}^{2}},
\label{chisquared}
\end{equation}
\noindent where $S_{i}$ is the i$th$ flux density measurement with variance $\sigma^{2}_{i}$ and $n$ is the total number of epochs. The weighted mean flux density, $\tilde{S}$, is defined as
\begin{equation}
\tilde{S} = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \frac{ S_{i}}{\sigma_{i}^{2}} \right) / \sum_{i=1}^{n} \left( \frac{1}{\sigma_{i}^{2}} \right).
\label{w_mean}
\end{equation}
We also calculate the modulation index which is defined as:
\begin{equation}
M = 100 \times( \sigma / \overline{S}),
\end{equation}
\noindent where $\sigma$ is the standard deviation of the flux density measurements and $\overline{S}$ is the arithmetic mean (not the weighted mean).
\subsection{Error analysis}
\label{error}
The errors reported by {\sc aegean} give a good characterisation of the error in fitting a Gaussian to a point source in a single image. There are a number of other sources of error in our flux density measurements:
\begin{itemize}
\item Primary beam errors: The precise primary beam response of the MWA is difficult to model with increasing distance away from the pointing centre \citep{Sutinjo_2015}.
To reduce this effect we limit our analysis to within 12$^{\circ}$ of the pointing centre where this error is estimated to be around 5\% (see \citealt{cleo_pb}). We apply this restriction to 15 of the pulsars in our sample. For two of the pulsars, PSR~J0034$-$0721 and PSR~J1400$-$6325, this was impractical and we allowed measurements within 15$^{\circ}$ of the pointing centre;
\item Flux density scale correction errors: The flux density scale correction discussed in Section \ref{flux_scale} is not robust to problem images e.g. those containing bright diffuse Galactic emission in the sidelobes. Images with extreme flux density scale corrections $0.1<f_{g}<1.9$ were removed from this analysis. Images requiring extreme flux density scale corrections were often of poor quality. The resulting light curves obtained from using those images typically contained excess non-physical variability, which was clearly correlated with the extreme flux density scale corrections.
The range of corrections ($f_{g}$) we accept represents the different calibrator models that we have used for phase calibration. Note, the initial flux density scale of these calibrators was never intended for absolute flux calibration (hence the need for a robust flux density scale correction). One of the calibrators we used required flux scale corrections $f_{g}\sim0.15$ to bring the images onto a common flux scale. This resulted in a skewing of the acceptable flux scale corrections we used in the final light-curves;
\item Ionospheric: Excited geomagnetic conditions can distort the location of background radio sources (e.g. see \citealt{Cleo}) which can in turn affect the accuracy of the flux scale correction and source fitting algorithms. For example, when a number of bright MWA sources were incorrectly crossmatched with SUMSS counterparts, causing incorrect flux scale correction factors ($f_{g}$) and thus flux scale errors. Observations taken during heightened ionospheric activity, which had large positional offsets were removed from this analysis. This accounted for approximately $1\%$ of the total data.
\end{itemize}
All of the effects described above are difficult to separate out into individual time and position dependent error terms. We therefore boot-strapped our errors from two neighbouring sources (to the given pulsar) of similar flux, under the assumption that they were non-variable. For two sources we measured the averaged modulation index $\overline{M}$ and added this in quadrature with the {\sc aegean} Gaussian errors $e^{2}_{fit}$ and source flux density $S_{i}$ as follows:
\begin{equation}
e_{i} = \sqrt{e_{fit}^{2}+\left( S_{i} \times \overline{M}\right)^{2}}.
\end{equation}
\noindent $e_{i}$ is the adjusted error on an individual pulsar flux density measurement $S_{i}$.
By bootstrapping the errors in this way we set the minimum variability that we are capable of
detecting to that of the neighbouring sources. These are the errors used in the variability
statistics described in Section \ref{var_stats_section}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J0953+0755.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J0437-4715.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J0630-2834.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J0034-0721.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J0835-4510.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1057-5226.eps}
\caption{Light-curves for nine pulsars detected at high signal-to-noise ratio with the MWA. The top panel of each subplot shows the flux density as a function of sequential epoch number. The bottom panel shows the flux density as a function of date. The dashed grey line denotes an epoch number at which the time difference to the previous observation was greater than 8 days.}
\label{pulsar_lightcurves}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1359-6038.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1400-6325.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1453-6413.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1456-6843.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1534-5334.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1651-4246.eps}
\caption{Continued: Light-curves for eight pulsars detected at high signal-to-noise ratio with the MWA. Details as in Figure~\ref{pulsar_lightcurves}.}
\label{pulsar_lightcurves2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1707-4053.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1752-2806.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1820-0427.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J1900-2600.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{figures/J2048-1616.eps}
\caption{Continued: Light-curves for eight pulsars detected at high signal-to-noise ratio with the MWA. Details as in Figure~\ref{pulsar_lightcurves}.}
\label{pulsar_lightcurves3}
\end{figure*}
\section{Results}
\label{results}
We consider a source to be statistically variable if $\chi_{r}^{2}>2.0$. We made a low cut on the minimum $\chi^{2}_{r}$ used to define variability as we have been conservative with our error propagation. Of the 17 pulsars four showed significant variability and we discuss these below. A summary of our results is given in Table~\ref{pulsar_table} and pulsar light-curves are shown in Figures \ref{pulsar_lightcurves}, \ref{pulsar_lightcurves2} and \ref{pulsar_lightcurves3}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Variability of pulsars in this sample. Above the horizontal line is the pulsars that showed significant variability sorted by $\chi^{2}_{r}$. The pulsars below the line remain non-variable and are sorted by right ascension. The column labelled $M$ indicates the modulation index of the pulsar, the $\overline{M}$ column indicates the average modulation index of two nearby sources. The minimum, maximum and average flux densities of the pulsars are denoted by $S_{min}$, $S_{max}$ and $\overline{S}$, respectively. The total number of observations is denoted by $N$. Pulsars located $>12^{\circ}$ from the pointing centre of the observations are marked with a $\dagger$ symbol.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Pulsar name} & \multicolumn{1}{l}{B name} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{DM (cm$^{-3}$ pc)} & \multicolumn{1}{r}{$M$ (\%)} & $S_{min}$ (Jy) & $S_{max}$ (Jy) & $\overline{S}$ (Jy) &$N$ & $\chi^{2}_{r}$ & $\overline{M}$ (\%) \\
\hline
PSR~J0953$+$0755 & B0950$+$08 & 2.95 & 131.3 & 0.27 & 16.4 & 2.6 $\pm 0.8$ & 83 & 182.1 & 17.4 \\
PSR~J0437$-$4715 & $-$ & 2.65 & 44.9 & 0.32 & 2.0 & 0.87 $\pm$ 0.3 & 55 & 28.1 & 7.5 \\
PSR~J0630$-$2834 & B0628$-$28 & 34.5 & 30.0 & 0.33 & 1.18 & 0.64 $\pm$ 0.2 & 87 & 5.8 & 10.5 \\
PSR~J0034$-$0721$^{\dagger}$ & B0031$-$07 & 11.4 & 45.0 & 0.24 & 1.8 & $0.64 \pm 0.2$ & 90 & 2.0 & 25.7 \\
\hline
PSR~J0835$-$4510 & B0833$-$45 & 68.0 & 10.7 & 3.7 & 6.4 & 5.4 $\pm 1.6$ & 104 & 1.5 & 9.8 \\
PSR~J1057$-$5226 & B1055$-$52 & 30.1 & 22.2 & 0.18 & 0.72 & 0.31 $\pm$ 0.1 & 99 & 0.8 & 15.5 \\
PSR~J1359$-$6038 & B1356$-$60 & 293.7 & 24.0 & 0.30 & 0.93 & 0.43 $\pm$ 0.1 & 159 & 0.50 & 18.6 \\
PSR~J1400$-$6325$^{\dagger}$ & $-$ & 563.0 & 28.5 & 0.32 & 1.00 & 0.48 $\pm$ 0.1 & 142 & 0.61 & 20.8 \\
PSR~J1453$-$6413 & B1449$-$64 & 70.1 & 27.9 & 0.39 & 1.31 & 0.63 $\pm$ 0.2 & 134 & 0.61 & 27.2 \\
PSR~J1456$-$6843 & B1451$-$68 & 8.6 & 24.8 & 0.58 & 1.8 & $0.93 \pm 0.3$ & 109 & 0.4 & 24.3 \\
PSR~J1534$-$5334 & B1530$-$53 & 24.8 & 24.5 & 0.25 & 0.82 & 0.42 $\pm$ 0.1 & 117 & 0.75 & 15.1 \\
PSR~J1651$-$4246 & B1648$-$42 & 482.0 & 18.2 & 0.48 & 1.70 & 1.08 $\pm$ 0.3 & 144 & 0.75 & 21.0 \\
PSR~J1707$-$4053 & B1703$-$40 & 360.0 & 16.0 & 0.58 & 1.3 & 0.80 $\pm$ 0.2 & 84 & 0.45 & 14.1 \\
PSR~J1752$-$2806 & B1749$-$28 & 50.4 & 20.0 & 0.67 & 1.84 & 1.17 $\pm$ 0.4 & 86 & 1.0 & 20.0 \\
PSR~J1820$-$0427 & B1818$-$04 & 84.4 & 20.2 & 0.48 & 1.41 & 0.83 $\pm$ 0.2 & 134 & 0.81 & 16.6\\
PSR~J1900$-$2600 & B1857$-$26 & 38.0 & 24.0 & 0.21 & 0.73 & 0.37 $\pm$ 0.1 & 85 & 0.93 & 16.2 \\
PSR~J2048$-$1616 & B2045$-$16 &11.5 & 25.0 & 0.29 & 0.89 & 0.52 $\pm$ 0.1 & 132 & 0.93 & 18.5 \\
\hline
\label{pulsar_table}
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
\subsection{PSR J0953$+$0755 (B0950+08)}
\label{J0953}
We detected significant variability in PSR~J0953$+$0755, with a modulation index over all epochs of $M=131.3\%$ and a $\chi^{2}_{r} = 182.1$ (see Figure \ref{pulsar_lightcurves}). On one of the nights of observing (2015-04-14), extreme variability was detected. For approximately one hour the flux density of the pulsar increased and peaked at $S_{max}=16.4$~Jy (see Table~\ref{pulsar_table}). PSR~J0953$+$0755 \citep{Pil_68} has a low dispersion measure (DM) of 2.95 cm$^{-3}$~pc and spin period of 0.25~s \citep{Hobbs_2004}.
This pulsar is known to scintillate at low frequencies, for example, \cite{P_C_Nat_1992} report
observations consistent with diffractive scintillation.
Due to the high signal-to-noise ratio of the pulsar detection during this time, we were able to examine the frequency structure of the variability in the image plane. We took the data from the night of 2015-04-14 and for each observation we imaged the data in 30$\times$0.97~MHz sub-bands. For each of the sub-bands in each of the time slots we used the {\sc aegean} forced fit algorithm (discussed above) to fit the flux density at the location of the pulsar. The dynamic spectrum resulting from these measurements is plotted in Figure~\ref{dynamic_spectrum}. We note that our observations are not continuous i.e. each of the snapshot observations integrate for 112 seconds and then return four minutes later to that declination. Figure \ref{dynamic_spectrum} shows four distinct events with discrete time and frequency structure. The peak of the variability seen in some of the sub-bands was even higher than in the full-bandwidth data: a peak flux density of 48.6~Jy was observed at 142~MHz.
The modulation index in both frequency and time for all measurements in Figure \ref{dynamic_spectrum} (left) gives 85.6\%. As discussed in \cite{Narayan_92} we may expect a modulation index of up to 100\% for diffractive strong scintillation. In some of the frequency and times bins shown in Figure~\ref{dynamic_spectrum} the pulsar is undetected. The result of these non-detections would be to decrease the modulation index as the flux density measurements are only upper limits.
We followed the method described in \cite{Cordes_86} to calculate a scintillation bandwidth and timescale based on our observations. We calculated the 2D autocorrelation function of the dynamic spectrum which is shown in Figure \ref{dynamic_spectrum} (bottom row). To parameterize the autocorrelation function we fitted a 1D Gaussian in the time and frequency axes, respectively. We followed the definition in \cite{Cordes_86} whereby the half-width half-maximum in the frequency direction defines the scintillation bandwidth. We used the half width at the $1/e$ point to calculate the scintillation timescale. From this analysis we find a scintillation bandwidth of $\Delta \nu_{d}=4.1$~MHz and a scintillation timescale of $\Delta \tau_{d}=28.8$~minutes. We note that due to our broad bandwidth (30~MHz) we expect approximately a factor of three difference in scintillation bandwidth between to the top and the bottom of our band. For all the calculations above we use the central frequency for all scalings.
We scaled the scintillation bandwidth and timescale reported by \cite{P_C_Nat_1992} under the assumption that $\Delta \nu_{d} \propto \nu^{4.4} $ and $\Delta \tau_{d} \propto \nu^{1.2}$ \citep{Cordes_86}. We find that at 154~MHz the predicted scintillation timescale is 21.6 minutes and the scintillation bandwidth is 4.5~MHz. The predicted scintillation timescale is slightly shorter than our result of 28.8 minutes. The predicted and measured scintillation bandwidths are in good agreement. The amplitude of variability is extreme, but such cases have been reported before e.g. \cite{Galama_97}.
We can calculate the expected timescale for refractive scintillation ($\tau_{r}$) using the scintillation bandwidth ($\Delta \tau_{d}$) and timescale ($\Delta \nu_{d}$) via the following expression from \cite{Stinebring_1990}:
\begin{equation}
\tau_r = \frac{4}{\pi} \left(\frac{\nu \Delta \tau_d}{\Delta \nu_d}\right) \propto \nu ^{-11/5}.
\label{ref_eq}
\end{equation}
\noindent Using our diffractive scintillation parameters we find $\tau_{r} = 20.9$ hours at 154 MHz. This is consistent with \cite{gupta_93} who measure a refractive timescale for this pulsar of 3.4 days at 74 MHz (also see \citealt{cole_1970}). There also appears to be a timescale of several hundred days in the Gupta et al. data, the origin of which is unclear but could be inhomogeneties in the ISM.
This pulsar was recently observed with the LWA at 39.4~MHz and a number of giant pulses were detected that had a signal-to-noise ratio greater than 10 times that of the mean pulses \citep{Tsai_2015}. These giant pulses where however typically reported to be rare with approximately 5 per hour (or 0.035\% of the total number of pulse periods). \cite{singal_2012} observed this pulsar at 103~MHz with only 1.6~MHz of bandwidth. Scaling our results to their frequency, the scintillation bandwidth should be 0.7~MHz and the scintillation timescale should be 18 minutes. At certain epochs, \cite{singal_2012} report very strong pulses over the course of 30 minutes. Although they interpret this as giant pulse emission, we consider it much more likely to be the effects of scintillation. Giant pulses are largely broadband in nature \citep{Tsai_2016}, yet we see significant frequency structure in our observations. We therefore conclude that the extreme variability observed in PSR~J0953$+$0755 is consistent with diffractive scintillation and is not intrinsic to the pulsar.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.57]{figures/J0953_dynamic_spectrum_contour.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.57]{figures/J0437_dynamic_spectrum_contour.eps} \\
\includegraphics[scale=0.57]{figures/J0953_correlation_contour.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.57]{figures/J0437_correlation_contour.eps}
\caption{Top row: contour plots of the dynamic spectrum for the pulsars PSR~J0953$+$0755 and PSR~J0437$-$4715 during the most extreme levels of variability. The contours for these plots assume that the observations are continuous in time. For PSR~J0953+0755 the contours run from 10 to 50~Jy in steps of 1~Jy; for PSR~J0437-4715 they run from 2 to 8~Jy in steps of 0.25~Jy. Bottom row: two-dimensional covariance functions of the dynamic spectra for the corresponding pulsars. Ten contour levels are shown that cover the peak to the minimum of the covariance function.}
\label{dynamic_spectrum}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{PSR J0437$-$4715}
With a spin period of 5.76~ms and a DM of 2.65~cm$^{-3}$~pc, PSR J0437-4715 is one of the closest and brightest milli-second pulsars \citep{Johnston_1993}. This pulsar is located 7.3 degrees away from the bright (452~Jy at 160~MHz; \citealt{culgoora_95}) double lobed radio galaxy Pictor~A, making this field challenging to image at low frequencies. The main issues arise when Pictor~A is outside of the MWA field of view and is not de-convolved or {\sc clean}ed. This causes side-lobe flux to be scattered across the image, which in turn affects the image fidelity and the quality of the flux scale correction we are able to achieve and apply within that region. For the light-curve shown in Figure~\ref{pulsar_lightcurves} we removed 14 observations that had extreme gain corrections and bad image fidelity.
We found a modulation index of $M=44.9\%$ with $\chi_{r}^{2}=28.1$.
\cite{bhat_2014} have studied PSR~J0437$-$4715 using the MWA at 192.6~MHz. For approximately one hour's worth of data with
20~s~time resolution and 0.64~MHz of frequency resolution, the authors measure the scintillation
properties. They report a scintillation bandwidth of $\Delta \nu_{d}=1.7$~MHz and a scintillation
timescale of $\Delta \tau_{d}=4.5$~minutes. Using the frequency scaling $\Delta \nu_{d} \propto \nu^{3.9} $ and time scaling $\Delta \tau_{d} \propto \nu^{1.2}$ (see \citealt{bhat_2014}) these values become $\Delta \nu_{d}=0.7$~MHz and $\Delta \tau_{d}=3.5$~minutes at 154~MHz.
We repeated the same analysis described in Section~\ref{J0953} for the night of 2014-10-19, where
the pulsar had the highest signal-to-noise ratio (a total of six observations). The dynamic spectrum
is shown in Figure \ref{dynamic_spectrum} and this pulsar is clearly detected in the higher
frequency resolution images with a flux density peaking around 7~Jy. The dynamic spectrum is much
more discrete in frequency and time when compared with PSR~J0953$+$0755. From the 2D autocorrelation
analysis (see Figure \ref{dynamic_spectrum}, bottom row) we find a scintillation bandwidth of
$\Delta \nu_{d}=3.1$~MHz and scintillation timescale $\Delta \tau_{d}=3.7$~minutes. The scintillation
timescale of 3.7 minutes from this study is in good agreement with the scaled value of 3.5 minutes
from \cite{bhat_2014}. The scintillation bandwidth of $\Delta \nu_{d}=3.1$~MHz is however much
broader than the scaled value of 0.7~MHz found by \cite{bhat_2014}.
For this pulsar we are only barely resolving the scintles in the frequency direction.
Potentially this broader value of $\Delta \nu_{d}$ is a result of this under
sampling and uncertainties in obtaining a meaningful Gaussian fit to the autocorrelation function.
We conclude that this variability is attributed to diffractive scintillation but note that our scintillation measurements are
at the lowest frequency to date, and greater frequency resolution would be beneficial in characterising the scintillation further.
\subsection{PSR J0630$-$2834 (B0628-28)}
The pulsar PSR J0630$-$2834 (\citealt{Large_Nat}) became brighter peaking at $1.2$~Jy for one of
the observing runs on 2013-12-06 (see Figure~\ref{pulsar_lightcurves}). The flux density then dropped to
around $0.4$~Jy in the observations six months later. We measure a modulation index of $M=30.0\%$ with a
$\chi^{2}_{r}=5.8$. This pulsar is at a DM of 34.5~cm$^{-3}$~pc \citep{Hobbs_2004}.
Scaling the scintillation bandwidth and timescale reported by \cite{Cordes_86},
for this pulsar yields $\Delta \nu_{d}=2.2$~kHz and $\Delta \tau_{d}=1.2$~minutes.
The predicted scintillation bandwidth (from \citealt{Cordes_86}) is almost three orders of magnitude less than our sub-band frequency resolution (0.97~MHz).
We therefore conclude that the variability is not a consequence of diffractive scintillation.
Using Equation \ref{ref_eq} we find that the refractive scintillation timescale is 74.2 days. The major jump in flux density corresponds to 239 days (about 7 months). The variability seen is this pulsar is more consistent with refractive scintillation with regards to timescale. Averaging all the flux density measurements per night of observing and re-calculating the modulation index yields 24.0\%, which is slightly lower than the 30\% calculated from including all values independently. These values are consistent with the modulation that would be expected from refractive scintillation (see also \citealt{Bhat_99b}).
\subsection{PSR~J0034$-$0721 (B0031-07)}
PSR J0034$-$0721 was located at the edge of our survey region so the only data available were where the pulsar was $9-15^{\circ}$ from the pointing centre of the observations. In this region the primary beam correction is less accurate. A number of observations were also removed due to excited ionospheric conditions that affected source positions. The DM for this pulsar is 11.4~cm$^{-3}$~pc \citep{Hobbs_2004} and with the usable observations we detect mildly significant variability. We find a modulation index of $M=45.0\%$ with $\chi_{r}^{2}=2.0$. Scintillation bandwidth and timescale values from \cite{Johnston_0034} scaled to 154~MHz are $\Delta \nu_{d}=0.04$~MHz and $\Delta \tau_{d}>8.7$~minutes.
The expected scintillation bandwidth is much smaller than our sub-band frequency resolution, therefore the variability is unlikely to be caused by diffractive scintillation. Using Equation \ref{ref_eq} we find a refractive timescale of 30 days. The time difference between the final two epochs in Figure~\ref{pulsar_lightcurves}, where the majority of the variability is concentrated, is 13~days. Averaging the flux density measurements per night of observing and calculating the modulation index yields 32.2\% which is lower than for all measurements independently.
PSR J0034$-$0721 has been shown to undergo nulling (\citealt{0034_1970}; \citealt{Biggs_1992}). The nulls occur for a duration of up to one minute and repeat sudo-randomly every 100 pulses \citep{0034_1970}. Noting that null duration is similar to the length of our observations (112~s), it is plausible that nulling could reduce the flux density significantly in a given observation. We conclude, however, that the cadence of the nulling (every 100 pulses, or every 94 seconds) would not cause the larger modulated, longer term variability seen in our observations (around epoch 70 onwards). Owing to the lower significance of variability ($\chi_{r}^{2}=2.0$) and difficult ionospheric conditions during observing, it is difficult to draw conclusions about the cause of variability for this pulsar, but refractive scintillation seems the most plausible.
\subsection{PSR J0835$-$4510 (B0833-45)}
\label{0835}
We measure a modulation index of $M=10.7\%$, which is very close to the the average modulation index of two nearby sources $\overline{M}=9.8$\%. This source had a $\chi^{2}_{r}$ = 1.5 meaning it is considered non-variable by our definition (see Section \ref{results}). We do however include it in this discussion as there are some noteworthy features.
PSR~J0835$-$4510 is a pulsar with spin period 0.09~s and DM of 68.0 cm$^{-3}$~pc. Historical low frequency measurements of this pulsar by the Culgoora Circular Array (CCA; \citealt{culgoora_95}) report flux densities of $S_{80} = 12$~Jy at 80 MHz and $S_{160} = 9$~Jy at 160~MHz with a spectral index of $\alpha=-0.42$. Here we report a mean flux density of $S_{154} = 5.4 \pm 1.6$ which is significantly lower than the archival measurements. There is a distinct turnover in the spectrum (see Figure \ref{spectrum}) which is potentially attributed to pulse broadening due to interstellar scattering \citep{Higgins_71}.
Differences in flux density between our measurements and \cite{culgoora_95} could be attributed to
instrumental differences. The CCA consisted of a circular 3~km baseline array and it lacked sensitivity
to large, diffuse structure. With many short baselines, the MWA is sensitive to both diffuse and point-like emission.
PSR~J0835$-$4510 is embedded in a region of complex morphology, which includes both the pulsar and the Vela supernova remnant. We would therefore expect with its respective spatial sensitivity that the MWA would measure a greater flux density at the location of the pulsar, when compared with the CCA.
The size of the restoring beam was used to constrain the Gaussian fits to this object. This applies the assumption that this pulsar is represented by a single point source, which is unresolved. Separating the intrinsic flux of the pulsar from the contribution from the supernova remnant is difficult. We tested fitting this source with an unconstrained Gaussian and the reported major and minor axis of that fit were slightly larger than the restoring beam, indicating that this source is slightly resolved. Clearly it is difficult within this region to obtain an accurate flux density via the method we have chosen.
This $\chi^{2}_{r}$ is driven up by the apparent dip in the light-curve around epoch 65, or 2015-01-20. So far we have no explanation for a physical mechanism that would cause this dip but conclude that it is most likely a combination of source fitting errors (discussed above) and difficulty in achieving adequate flux scale correction in such a complex region of the Galactic plane.
\subsection{Non-variable pulsars}
The remaining pulsars in our sample remained non-variable with $\chi^{2}_{r}<2.0$ and modulation indices comparable to the neighbouring sources. The non-variable pulsars are: PSR~J1057$-$5226; PSR~J1359$-$6038; PSR~J1400$-$6325; PSR~J1453$-$6413; PSR~J1456$-$6843; PSR~J1534$-$5334; PSR~J1651$-$4246; PSR~J1707$-$4053; PSR~J1752$-$2806; PSR~J1820$-$0427; PSR~J1900$-$2600 and PSR~J2048$-$1616. See Table~\ref{pulsar_table} for full details of the statistics. See Figures \ref{pulsar_lightcurves}, \ref{pulsar_lightcurves2} and \ref{pulsar_lightcurves3} for light curves.
Visual inspection of SUMSS images for the regions around PSR~J1707$-$4053 and PSR~J1400$-$6325 show low-levels of diffuse emission from supernova remnants. For this work this emission is largely unresolved, but we note that a component of the flux density reported for these pulsars may originate from the supernova remnants.
\subsection{Spectral properties of detected pulsars}
\label{spec_section}
We calculated a spectral energy distribution for each pulsar using an average flux density measurement for all data points from this work, and available data in the literature. A least squares linear regression was used to find the spectral index and error (see Table \ref{pulsar_spectra}). The pulsars PSR~J1453$-$6413, PSR~J1400$-$6325 and PSR~J1534$-$5334 lacked sufficient archival data to calculate spectral indices.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.53]{figures/spec_J0835.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.53]{figures/spec_J1752.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.53]{figures/spec_J0437.eps}
\caption{Spectral energy distributions of the pulsars PSR~J0835$-$4510, PSR~J1752$-$2806 and PSR~J0437$-$4715. The archival data points are taken from \citealt{Johnston_1993}, \citealt{taylor_93}, \citealt{lorimer_95}, \citealt{culgoora_95}, \citealt{McConnell_96}, \citealt{SUMSS}, \citealt{Keith_2011} and \citealt{Dai_2015}.}
\label{spectrum}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{spectrum} we show spectra for the pulsars PSR~J0835$-$4510, PSR~J1752$-$2806 and PSR~J0437$-$4715. These pulsars, especially PSR~J1752$-$2806, show significant spectral curvature. We remind the reader of the discussion in Section \ref{0835} regarding the difficulties in obtaining an adequate flux density measurement for PSR~J0835$-$4510. In Figure \ref{spectrum} (left) our data point lies below archival measurements. In the case of PSR~J1752$-2806$, even taking into account a 30\% uncertainty in our flux density scale, our data point is approximately an order of magnitude lower than what would be predicted based on the archival data points of \cite{lorimer_95}.
The mechanism for this curvature and possible turn over is currently uncertain. Previous studies claim that the abundance of pulsars with low-frequency turnovers is at most 10\% (\citealt{kijak_2011}; \citealt{bates_2013}). Assuming three of the pulsars in our sample of 14 show spectral curvature, this equates to 21\%. This is supported by the recent work of \cite{kuniyoshi_2015}, who show that in a sample of millisecond pulsars, $26\%$ display evidence for turnovers. Results from \cite{Bilous_2015} also support this argument.
The average of our spectral index values for the pulsars is $\langle\alpha\rangle =-1.5 \pm 0.4$. A broad scatter is potentially a result of uncertainties in our absolute flux scale. This number is however in agreement with \cite{bates_2013} who report an average spectral index of $\langle\alpha\rangle=-1.41 \pm 0.96$, but slightly lower than \cite{maron} who report $\langle\alpha\rangle =-1.8 \pm 0.2$. Our value is also in agreement with \cite{Bilous_2015} who use low frequency measurements and report $\langle\alpha\rangle=-1.4$. \cite{bates_2013} use population synthesis techniques and a likelihood analysis to model the underlying distribution, whereas \cite{maron} derive their value empirically using measurements above 100~MHz only.
Calculating the mean spectral index of a population of pulsars is dependent on sufficient radio data spanning both MHz and GHz frequencies. It is compounded by frequency dependent selection effects associated with such measurements. Including data below 100~MHz, where the spectral turnover is thought to most commonly occur, results in a flattening of the average spectral index (see \citealt{Malofeev_2000} and \citealt{Bilous_2015}). The MWA has surveyed the Southern sky with frequency coverage between 72 $-$ 231~MHz (see \citealt{GLEAM}), and will contribute to exploring the low-frequency turn over of pulsar spectra further.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{Spectral indices of pulsars calculated using the average flux density from these observations plus arrival data. $\dagger$ Denotes that the pulsar is poorly fit by a power law with significant spectral curvature. The spectral index distributions for these pulsars are shown in Figure~\ref{spectrum}. The pulsar PSR~J1057$-$5226 only had two measurements; therefore we do not report any errors. The references column lists the archival surveys used to calculate the spectral indices. The abbreviations indicate the first author of the survey and year of publication. The full references including the frequencies are in the table footnote.}
\begin{tabular}{|l|r|r|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{l}{Pulsar name} & Spectral Index & References \\
\hline
PSR~J0953$+$0755 & $-1.3 \pm 0.1 $ & L95, T93, S95, C98, D93, C07, M00 \\
PSR~J0437$-$4715$^{\dagger}$ & $ -1.0 \pm 0.1 $ & J93, T93, M03, K11, D15 \\
PSR~J0630$-$2834 & $-1.6 \pm 0.1 $ & L95, T93, C98, D96, C07 \\
PSR~J0034$-$0721 & $-1.6 \pm 0.2 $ & T93, C98, M00 \\
\hline
PSR~J0835$-$4510$^{\dagger}$ & $ -1.3 \pm 0.2 $ & T93 \\
PSR~J1057$-$5226 & $-0.95$ & T93 \\
PSR~J1359$-$6038 & $-1.9 \pm 0.1 $ & T93, N09, M78 \\
PSR~J1456$-$6843 & $-1.1 \pm0.1$ & T93 \\
PSR~J1651$-$4246 & $-2.1 \pm 0.1$ & T93, M78 \\
PSR~J1707$-$4053 & $-2.1 \pm 0.1$ & T93 \\
PSR~J1752$-$2806$^{\dagger}$ & $ -1.7 \pm 0.4 $ & L95, T93 \\
PSR~J1820$-$0427 & $-2.1 \pm 0.1$ & L95, T93 \\
PSR~J1900$-$2600 & $-1.5 \pm 0.1 $ & L95, T93, C98 \\
PSR~J2048$-$1616 & $-1.7 \pm 0.2$ & L95, T93, N09, C98 \\
\hline
\label{pulsar_spectra}
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
\noindent
\textit{M78 - \cite{manchester_78} at 408~MHz; J93 - \cite{Johnston_1993} at 430, 1520 and 2360 MHz; T93 - \cite{taylor_93} at 400, 600 and 1400~MHz; L95 - \cite{lorimer_95} at 408, 606, 925, 1408 MHz; S95 - \cite{culgoora_95} at 160~MHz; D96 - \cite{douglas_1996} at 365~MHz; C98 - \cite{NVSS} at 1400~MHz; M03 - \cite{SUMSS} and \cite{SUMSS_murphy} at 843~MHz, M00 - \cite{Malofeev_2000} at 102.5~MHz, C07 - \cite{VLSS} at 74~MHz; N09 - \cite{noutsos_2009} at 1400~MHz and \cite{Dai_2015} at 730, 1400 and 3100 MHz.}
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
\section{Discussion}
Figure~\ref{DM_vs_M} shows the dispersion measure versus modulation index (left) and $\chi_{r}^{2}$ versus modulation index (right) for this sample of pulsars. Four pulsars out of our sample of 17 show significant variability. For two of these pulsars (PSR~J0953$+$0755 and PSR~J0437$-$4715) we conclude that the variability is consistent with diffractive scintillation. A further two pulsars (PSR~J0630$-$2834 and PSR~J0034$-$0721) show variability that is best explained by refractive scintillation. This conclusion is less definitive for PSR~J0034$-$0721.
Two of the pulsars, PSR J2048$-$1616 and PSR J1456$-$6843, show no significant variability despite their low dispersion measure (DM$<15$ cm$^{-3}$ pc). The lack of detection in these pulsars may be related to the probability of sampling bright diffractive scintillation events. This survey is limited by the conservative constraints we place on measurement errors. Reducing these uncertainties may indeed reveal significant variability for these pulsars in future analyses.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{figures/DM_vs_M.eps}
\includegraphics[scale=0.65]{figures/chi_vs_M.eps}
\caption{Left: plot of dispersion measure versus the modulation index for all pulsars in this sample. The pulsars shown with a starred symbol denote that significant variability was detected ($\chi^{2}_{r}>2$). Right: $\chi_{r}^{2}$ versus modulation index. The dashed line shows $\chi^{2}_{r}=2$.}
\label{DM_vs_M}
\end{figure*}
One question we would like to answer is whether we can make new detections of previously unknown pulsars blindly with this method using the MWA, or in the future with the Square Kilometre Array (SKA; \citealt{ska_low})?
We have shown that MWATS can detect pulsars as transient sources through
their scintillation properties. However, the bandwidth and time averaging
that we perform implies that only those pulsars which have a scintillation
bandwidth of at least a few MHz at 154~MHz are seen as transients.
Using the \cite{Cordes_Lazio_2002} electron density model we can infer a
DM and hence distance we could probe with this limit on the scintillation
bandwidth. This yields a limit of 15.6~cm$^{-3}$~pc or
a distance of 0.6~kpc (assuming $l=0$, $b=0$). We also need to ensure that the pulsar is
above the detection threshold of MWATS ($100$~mJy). In principle
therefore we could detect a 10~mJy pulsar if the scintillation boost
was a factor of 10 (similar to that seen for PSR~J0953$+$0755).
How many such pulsars exist in our Galaxy?
We simulate a pulsar population using
PsrPopPy\footnote{https://github.com/samb8s/PsrPopPy} (Bates et al. 2014),
drawing spin periods and positions from distributions described by
Lorimer et al. (2006) and luminosities from a log-normal distribution
(Faucher-Giguere \& Kaspi 2006). DMs were assigned by using the NE2001 model for
the Galactic distribution of free electrons and the true distances to
simulated sources. We populate the Galaxy with a population of
$\sim$130,000 pulsars beaming along our line of sight. Tallying only
sources with DM$< 15.6$~pc~cm$^{-3}$ and a flux density greater than 10~mJy,
we find $125 \pm 12$ detectable pulsars in our simulations.
The current pulsar catalogue contains some 50 pulsars which obey these
criteria, thus there are of order 75 pulsars yet to be discovered that are within our survey parameters.
In principle we could probe a much larger volume of the Galaxy for pulsars
if the data could be processed in 1~MHz channels rather than over the entire
32~MHz bandwidth. In this case, although the noise in each image would be
higher, we would be sensitive to much narrower scintillation bandwidths
corresponding to larger distances, increasing the likelihood of finding
pulsars not currently detected by conventional searches.
\section{Conclusion}
With the MWA we have detected significant variability in four pulsars using a sample of only 17 over almost the entire Southern Hemisphere. One of the pulsars (PSR~J0953+0755) shows extreme variability, of order a factor of 60. Both diffractive and refractive interstellar scintillation appear to explain the variability seen in our variable pulsar sample.
Signal-to-noise and good characterisation of instrumental errors is required to generate adequate variability statistics. Improving upon our current techniques could offer further detections. Continued observations also harbour the possibility of detecting rare and bright events, such as that displayed in PSR~J0953+0755. Future observations with an upgraded MWA with more tiles will allow for further exploration of the pulsar variability parameter space. This also includes refining the flux density measurements of the large number of low signal-to-noise ($3 \sigma$) ratio pulsars found via this work.
We predict that there are of order 75 pulsars that have not yet been detected via previous high time resolution surveys that could be detected by this method. These pulsars could potentially be of exotic or unusual type. Imaging observations with low frequency widefield interferometers therefore offer a new technique to explore and expand an already diverse population.
Prospects of exploring diffractive and refractive scintillation in imaging observations with the SKA are intriguing, especially exploring further DM ranges using the increased sensitivity and bandwidth capabilities. The possibility of detecting new pulsars via this imaging method is also promising. Assuming that a number of static continuum and time-domain surveys are completed with SKA then we could contemplate these pulsar surveys being completed commensally. This is true for the data presented in this paper which has been the result of a broad science case blind transient survey (MWATS).
\section{Acknowledgements}
This scientific work makes use of the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory, operated by CSIRO. We acknowledge the Wajarri Yamatji people as the traditional owners of the Observatory site. Support for the operation of the MWA is provided by the Australian Government Department of Industry and Science and Department of Education (National Collaborative Research Infrastructure Strategy: NCRIS), under a contract to Curtin University administered by Astronomy Australia Limited. We acknowledge the iVEC Petabyte Data Store and the Initiative in Innovative Computing and the CUDA Center for Excellence sponsored by NVIDIA at Harvard University. JKS is supported from NSF Physics Frontier Center award number 1430284. DLK and SDC acknowledge support from the US National Science Foundation (grant AST-1412421). Parts of this research were conducted by the Australian Research Council Centre of Excellence for All-sky Astrophysics (CAASTRO), through project number CE110001020. This work was supported by the Flagship Allocation Scheme of the NCI National Facility at the ANU.
|
\section{Introduction}
Let a finite group $G$ act regularly on a set of indeterminates $\{x_1,\ldots ,x_n\}$ and let $k$ be a field. {\it Noether's problem for $G$ over $k$} asks whether the field extension $k(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)^G/k$ is rational, i.e. purely transcendental.
The present note deals with Noether's problem for finite cyclic groups over the field of rational numbers. The reader is referred to \cite{Hoshi2015} for a brief survey of Noether's problem for abelian groups, including the most relevant references to work of Masuda, Swan, Endo, Miyata, Voskresenski, Lenstra and others.
Let $P_{\mathbb Q}$ denote the set of prime numbers $p$ for which $\mathbb Q(x_1,\ldots ,x_p)^{C_p}/\mathbb Q$ is rational, where $C_p$ denotes the cyclic group of order $p$.
Lenstra proved in \cite[Cor. 7.6]{Lenstra74} that $P_{\mathbb Q}$ has Dirichlet density $0$ inside the set of all prime numbers. Moreover, he suggested in \cite[p. 8]{Lenstra79} that $P_{\mathbb Q}$ could be finite and that perhaps coincides with the set
$$R:=\{2,3,5,7,11,13,17,19,23,29,31,37,41,43,61,67,71\}.$$
It is known that $R\subseteq P_{\mathbb Q}$. This is a consequence of the fact that, by the main result in \cite{MasleyMontgomery1976}, $R$ is nothing but the set of prime numbers $p$ such that the $(p-1)$-th cyclotomic field $\mathbb Q(\zeta_{p-1})$ has class number one.
For prime numbers $p<20000$, some computational evidence in favour of the equality $P_{\mathbb Q}=R$ is given by Hoshi in \cite{Hoshi2015}.
Our goal is to check the validity of Lenstra's suggestion. We prove:
\begin{thm}
\label{main}
$P_{\mathbb Q}=R$.
\end{thm}
From \cite[Cor. 3]{Lenstra79} and \cite[Prop. 4]{Lenstra79}, we get:
\begin{cor}
\label{coro}
Let $n$ be a positive integer and let $C_n$ denote the cyclic group of order $n$. Then $\mathbb Q(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)^{C_n}/\mathbb Q$ is rational if and only if $n$ divides
$$2^2\cdot3^m\cdot5^2\cdot7^2\cdot11\cdot13\cdot17\cdot19\cdot23\cdot29\cdot31\cdot37\cdot41\cdot43\cdot61\cdot67\cdot71,$$
for some $m\in \mathbb Z_{\geq 0}$.
\end{cor}
\section{Proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Thm. \ref{main}]
As has already been mentioned, the inclusion $R\subseteq P_{\mathbb Q}$ is known. See \cite[Prop. 3.4]{EndoMiyata1973}.
Let $p\in P_{\mathbb Q}$. This implies (actually, it is equivalent to) the existence of an element $\alpha \in \mathbb Z[\zeta_{p-1}]$ with norm $N_{\mathbb Q(\zeta_{p-1})/\mathbb Q}(\alpha)=\pm p$. See \cite[Thm. 3.1]{EndoMiyata1973}.
Thus, $\mathfrak{p}=(\alpha)$ is a principal prime ideal in $\mathbb Z[\zeta_{p-1}]$ above $(p)$.
If $\operatorname{Gal}(\mathbb Q(\zeta_{p-1})/\mathbb Q)=\{\sigma_1,\ldots ,\sigma_m\}$, then we have the prime ideal decomposition
$$(p)\mathbb Z[\zeta_{p-1}] = \sigma_1(\mathfrak{p}) \cdots \sigma_m(\mathfrak{p}).$$
Here $m=[\mathbb Q(\zeta_{p-1}):\mathbb Q]=\phi(p-1)$, where $\phi$ denotes Euler's totient function. Note that $(p)$ splits completely in $\mathbb Q(\zeta_{p-1})$, hence $\sigma_i(\mathfrak{p})\neq \sigma_j(\mathfrak{p})$ for $i\neq j$.
Now, a result of Amoroso and Dvornicich \cite[Cor. 2]{AmorosoDvornicich2000} ensures that
$$\frac{\log(p)}{\phi(p-1)}\geq
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\dfrac{\log(5)}{12}, & \text{ for every } p, \\[.3cm]
\dfrac{\log(7/2)}{8}, & \text{ for every } p\not\equiv 1 \pmod{7}.
\end{array}\right.$$
It may be worth mentioning here that we are not assuming that $\mathbb Q(\zeta_{p-1})$ contains an imaginary quadratic subfield, eventhough this hypothesis is apparently used in the proof of \cite[Cor. 2]{AmorosoDvornicich2000}; in fact, if $\overline{\alpha}$ denotes the complex conjugate of $\alpha$, then the argument in \cite[Cor. 2]{AmorosoDvornicich2000} works whenever $(\alpha)\neq (\overline{\alpha})$, and this holds because $(p)$ splits completely in $\mathbb Q(\zeta_{p-1})$.
On the other hand, from a result of Rosser and Schoenfeld \cite[Thm. 15]{RosserSchoenfeld1962}, we also know that
$$\frac{\log(p)}{\phi(p-1)}<\frac{\log(p)}{p-1}\left( e^C \log(\log(p-1))+\frac{5}{2\log(\log(p-1))} \right),$$
where $C\approx 0.57721$ denotes Euler's constant.
If $f(p)$ denotes the right hand side of the above inequality, it is easily checked that $f(x)$ defines a decreasing function for, say, $x> 43$. Since $f(173)<\frac{\log(5)}{12}$, we conclude that $p<173$.
Once we restrict ourselves to prime numbers $p<173$, Hoshi's computations \cite{Hoshi2015} show that the only possible counterexamples to the inclusion $P_{\mathbb Q}\subseteq R$ are $59$, $83$, $107$ and $163$.
Finally, each $p\in \{59,83,107,163\}$ satisfies
$$p\not\equiv 1\pmod{7} \quad \text{ and } \quad \frac{\log(p)}{\phi(p-1)}<\frac{\log(7/2)}{8},$$
hence $p\notin P_{\mathbb Q}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
Let $n=p^r$ for some prime number $p\geq 5$.
Lenstra proved \cite[Lemma 5]{Lenstra79} that $\mathbb Z[\zeta_{\phi(n)}]$ contains no element of norm $\pm p$ in the following cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i) ] $p\geq 11$ and $r\geq 2$.
\item[(ii) ] $p\geq 5$ and $r\geq 3$.
\end{itemize}
Then, by \cite[Thm. 3.1]{EndoMiyata1973}, $\mathbb Q(x_1,\ldots ,x_n)^{C_n}/\mathbb Q$ cannot be rational in these cases \cite[Prop. 4]{Lenstra79}.
Arguing as in the proof of Theorem \ref{main}, one can easily prove Lenstra's Lemma as follows.
If $\alpha \in \mathbb Z[\zeta_{\phi(n)}]$ has norm $\pm p$, then $\mathfrak{p}=(\alpha)$ is a principal prime ideal above $(p)$ whose inertia degree over $(p)$ is $1$. Since $(p)$ splits completely in $\mathbb Z[\zeta_{p-1}]$, it must be $\mathfrak{p}\neq \overline{\mathfrak{p}}$. It follows that Amoroso and Dvornicich's result \cite[Cor. 2]{AmorosoDvornicich2000} applies and it ensures that
$$\frac{\log(p)}{\phi(\phi(n))} \geq \frac{\log(5)}{12}.$$
But it is readily seen that this inequality does not hold in cases (i) and (ii), just checking that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1) ] In case (i), $\dfrac{\log(p)}{\phi(\phi(n))}\leq \dfrac{\log(p)}{2(p-1)}\leq \dfrac{\log(11)}{2\cdot 10}<\dfrac{\log(5)}{12} $.
\item[2) ] In case (ii), $\dfrac{\log(p)}{\phi(\phi(n))}\leq \dfrac{\log(p)}{p(p-1)}\leq \dfrac{\log(5)}{5\cdot 4}<\dfrac{\log(5)}{12} $.
\end{itemize}
\end{rem}
|
\section{Introduction} \label{sec:int}
The search for additional Higgs bosons is a high priority for current and future colliders.
The ATLAS and CMS collaborations have performed searches for heavy neutral~\cite{Aad:2012cfr, Aad:2014vgg, Aad:2015wra, Aad:2015kna, Aad:2015tna, Aad:2015agg, Khachatryan:2014jya, Khachatryan:2015tra, CMS:2015ooa}
and charged~\cite{Aad:2014kga, Aad:2015nfa, Khachatryan:2015qxa} Higgs bosons during the first run of the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at $\sqrt{s} = \unit[8]{TeV}$.
The reach of such searches will expand considerably in the future; in its second run, the LHC has started to take data at $\sqrt{s} = \unit[13]{TeV}$, with an eventual goal of collisions at $\sqrt{s} = \unit[14]{TeV}$.
In the long run, the center-of-mass energy of next-generation $pp$-colliders can be as much as an order of magnitude higher than that of the LHC. Such a high energy scale opens up new signal channels which are suppressed at lower energies.
Among the most challenging scenarios are those in which heavy neutral Higgs bosons decay predominantly into $t \bar t$ pairs.
Dedicated studies probing the heavy Higgs sector via $t \bar t$ final states have recently been presented for
the LHC~\cite{Dev:2014yca, Craig:2015jba, Hajer:2015gka, Bhattacherjee:2015sga, Gori:2016zto} and a \unit[100]{TeV} collider~\cite{Hajer:2015gka}.
In motivated models for extended Higgs sectors described by a type~II two Higgs doublet model (2HDM), the moderate $\tan\beta$ region can be covered up to \unit[1]{TeV} using BDT methods, in large part by using bottom quark associated production.
However, the low $\tan\beta$ region remains thus far uncovered as the conventional resonant $t\bar t$ channel suffers from interference with the Standard Model background~\cite{Gaemers:1984sj, Dicus:1994bm, Frederix:2007gi, Jung:2015gta} and the cross section for bottom quark associated production is negligible. This motivates dedicated searches for signals in the low $\tan \beta$ region; the development of strategies for such searches is the goal of this paper.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{DeltaEta_LHC}
\caption{\unit[500]{GeV} heavy Higgs at \unit[14]{TeV}}
\label{fig:delta eta lhc}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{deltaEta}
\caption{\unit[5]{TeV} heavy Higgs at \unit[100]{TeV}}
\label{fig:deltaEta 100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{%
(\subref{fig:delta eta lhc}) Distribution of the rapidity difference between two bottom quarks
at \unit[14]{TeV} for a \unit[500]{GeV} heavy Higgs. The rapidity difference is calculated between the bottom pair found in the decay products of the particles produced
in association with the heavy Higgs, which involves either one (red) or two (black) top quarks.
(\subref{fig:deltaEta 100}) Distribution of the rapidity difference at \unit[100]{TeV} for a \unit[5]{TeV} heavy Higgs. For comparison, in each case we also show the maximal rapidity difference between all $b$-quarks in the $t\bar tt\bar t$ background (green),
as well as between the soft additional $b$ and one of the $b$-quarks coming from a top decay in the $tt tW^\pm b$ background (blue).
Additionally, we show the rapidity difference between the two $b$ quarks in the $t\bar tW^\pm b\bar b$ background (pink).
}
\label{fig:delta eta}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{LeptonPt_LHC}
\caption{\unit[500]{GeV} heavy Higgs at \unit[14]{TeV}}
\label{fig:lepton pt lhc}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{LeptonPt}
\caption{\unit[5]{TeV} heavy Higgs at \unit[100]{TeV}}
\label{fig:lepton pt 100}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{%
(\subref{fig:lepton pt lhc}) Transverse momenta of the leptons at \unit[14]{TeV} for a \unit[500]{GeV} heavy Higgs. The transverse momenta are plotted for the two signal channels $H/At\bar t$ (black) and $H/AW^\pm tb$ (red) for cases in which the lepton comes from the decay products of a heavy Higgs boson (dotted) or the decay products of an associated particle ($W$ boson for three-top case) (solid).
(\subref{fig:lepton pt 100}) Transverse momenta of the leptons at \unit[100]{TeV} for a \unit[5]{TeV} heavy Higgs.
}
\label{fig:lepton pt}
\end{figure}
Given that gluon fusion and bottom quark associated production modes are unpromising, we propose to cover the low $\tan \beta$ region through top associated production modes, namely the channels
\begin{itemize}
\item $pp\to t\bar tH\to t\bar tt\bar t$ ,
\item $pp\to \bar tHW^+ b \to \bar tt\bar tW^+ b\ $ and $\ pp\to tHW^- \bar b \to tt\bar tW^- \bar b\ $.%
\footnote{Whenever we will mention in the following just one of these two conjugated processes, we implicitly mean both $pp\to \bar tHW^+ b\ $ and $\ pp\to tHW^- \bar b\ $, together.}
\end{itemize}
These channels are ideally suited for probing the low $\tan\beta$ region, since they do not suffer significant interference with Standard Model backgrounds, and the corresponding production cross sections are maximized for low $\tan\beta$ in type~II 2HDM.
Various aspects of these channels have already been discussed~\cite{Han:2004zh, Lillie:2007hd, Acharya:2009gb, Chen:2015fca}.
In this work we develop an optimized strategy for probing extended Higgs sectors in top associated production by focusing on the three main kinematic features of these channels:
First, large heavy Higgs masses lead to a sizable scalar sum of transverse momenta $H_T$.
Second, we use the forward-/backwardness of the accompanying quarks.
Although the heavy Higgs is produced in association with one or two top quarks, the bottom quarks resulting from heavy Higgs decays still tend to be forward/backward, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:delta eta}.
This feature discriminates against backgrounds other than the irreducible $t\bar tt\bar t$ background.
Third, we make use of the same-sign di-lepton (SSDL) signature present in these signal channels.
Especially in the $pp\to \bar tHW^+ b$ channel, the transverse momentum of the lepton originating from the decay of the associated W boson is comparable to the one originating from the decay of the heavy Higgs, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:lepton pt}.
The paper is organized as follows:
In Section~\ref{sec:Higgs Sector}, we study general features of heavy Higgs associated production at the Large Hadron Collider and a future $pp$-collider operating at $\sqrt{s} = \unit[100]{TeV}$.
We then consider constraints from existing SSDL searches at the \unit[8]{TeV} LHC in Section~\ref{sec:constraints} in a simplified model framework with a single scalar or pseudoscalar heavy Higgs.
We then turn to prospects for probing both scalar and pseudoscalar heavy Higgses in type~II 2HDM at present and future colliders. We discuss the relevant backgrounds and introduce our analysis strategies in Section~\ref{sec:analysis}.
We present the results of these analyses in Section~\ref{sec:prospects} and we summarize our work in Section~\ref{sec:summary}. We reserve details of the BDT used in our \unit[14]{TeV} and \unit[100]{TeV} analyses for Appendix \ref{sec:boca tagger}, and a discussion of the related $bb$ associated production channel for Appendix \ref{sec:systematic error}.
\section{The Higgs Sector}\label{sec:Higgs Sector}
For the sake of concreteness, in this work we will focus on extended Higgs sectors whose low-energy physics can be characterized by a two Higgs doublet model of type~II, such as the Higgs sector of the MSSM.
In addition to the SM-like Higgs boson, these sectors contain two heavy neutral Higgs bosons --- one CP-even ($H$) and one CP-odd ($A$) --- and a pair of charged Higgs bosons ($H^\pm$).
The physics of these bosons is governed at tree level by a neutral mixing angle and the ratio of the Higgs vacuum expectation values $\tan\beta$.
In the particular case of the MSSM, the neutral mixing angle is further fixed by the mass scale of the heavy Higgs bosons. Current Higgs coupling measurements require such extended Higgs sectors to be near an \textit{alignment limit} of the parameter space~\cite{Gunion:2002zf, Craig:2012vn, Craig:2013hca, Carena:2013ooa, Haber:2013mia}, in which the couplings of the light CP-even Higgs scalar are Standard Model-like.
\subsection{Production of heavy scalars in association with top quark(s)}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.75\textwidth]{4t_feynmandiagrams}%
\sublabel{fig:4top_int}
\sublabel{fig:4top_ext_1}
\sublabel{fig:4top_ext_2}
\caption{Typical Feynman diagrams for the production of a heavy scalar in association with a top pair at proton-proton colliders.}
\label{fig:4top_feyn}
\end{figure}
The physics of the alignment limit provides a natural organizing principle for associated production modes of the heavy Higgs bosons.
In the alignment limit with small $\tan\beta$, the $HW^+W^-$ and $b\bar bH(A)$ couplings are suppressed, so that the dominant contributions to $H(A)$ production arise from the $t\bar tH(A)$ vertex.
This leads to a variety of production processes in association with $t \bar t$ pairs that can be generated from the standard model (SM) top production processes with an additional heavy scalar radiated from the internal top quark (Figure~\ref{fig:4top_int}) or an external top quark leg (Figure~\ref{fig:4top_ext_1} and~\ref{fig:4top_ext_2}).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{single_t_feynmandiagrams}%
\sublabel{fig:1top_t}%
\sublabel{fig:1top_s}%
\sublabel{fig:1top_ext}%
\sublabel{fig:1top_int}%
\caption{Typical Feynman diagrams for the production of a heavy scalar in association with a single top quark at proton-proton colliders.}
\label{fig:1top_feyn}
\end{figure}
In addition to production of a heavy Higgs in association with top quark pairs, production in association with a single top quark may play a useful role. Production of Higgs bosons in association with single top quarks was studied extensively in~\cite{Maltoni:2001hu,Demartin:2015uha}, although the details differ somewhat near the alignment limit where radiation of heavy Higgses from vector bosons is suppressed.
The production of a heavy scalar in association with a single top quark in the alignment limit contains three main channels: $t$-channel (Figure~\ref{fig:1top_t}), $s$-channel (Figure~\ref{fig:1top_s}) and $tW$-associated production channel (Figure~\ref{fig:1top_ext} and~\ref{fig:1top_int}).
The $s$-channel process is highly suppressed by the center of mass energy $1/s^2$ and is much smaller than the other two.
Although the $t$-channel process is suppressed by a factor of $\alpha / \left( \alpha_s \sin^2 \theta_W \right)$, its cross-section is larger than that of the $tW$-associated channel on account of the larger phase space and the parton distribution function (PDF) of the valence quark.
However, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:1top_feyn}, the cross-section of the $tW$-associated channel for the heavy scalar with single top production is increased by the additional possibility of internal radiation.
Furthermore, the suppression from the phase space volume is no longer significant when the scalar is heavy, because the volume of phase space is determined by the mass of the heavy scalar. Thus both the $t$-channel and $tW$-associated channels contribute significantly to the total cross section for production of a heavy Higgs boson in association with a single top quark.
Although a variety of search strategies are sensitive to this final state, in this work we focus on final states involving same-sign dileptons.
If we require the signal events to contain SSDL, the contribution from the $tWH(A)$ channel will be enhanced by the possibility of the charged lepton from the $W^\pm$ decay.
Hence we expect the dominant contributions from new physics in SSDL final states to come from the $tWH(A)$ channel, with a sub-dominant contribution coming from the $tqH(A)$ channel.
The $s$-channel contribution should be negligibly small as discussed above.
In comparison, the rate for $t\bar tH(A)$ production is only slightly suppressed by the phase space, and is enhanced relative to single-top processes by both the coupling constant of the strong interaction $\order{\alpha_s \sin^2 \theta_W / \alpha}$ and the gluon PDF.
Hence the contributions from $t \bar t$ associated production are expected to be significant, especially when searching for SSDL signals. In this work we consider both single-top and $t \bar t$ associated production processes.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{xsec_8tev_H}
\caption{CP-even heavy Higgs production at \unit[8]{TeV}}
\label{fig:even at 8 TeV}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{xsec_8tev_A}
\caption{CP-odd heavy Higgs production at \unit[8]{TeV}}
\label{fig:odd at 8 TeV}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{xsec_14tev_H}
\caption{CP-even heavy Higgs production at \unit[14]{TeV}}
\label{fig:even at 14 TeV}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{xsec_14tev_A}
\caption{CP-odd heavy Higgs production at \unit[14]{TeV}}
\label{fig:odd at 14 TeV}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{
(\subref{fig:even at 8 TeV}) Cross-sections of the 3-top (colored) and 4-top (black) processes for a CP-even heavy Higgs at the \unit[8]{TeV} LHC, where the number of top quarks includes both the associated states and the $t \bar t$ decay of the heavy Higgs.
(\subref{fig:odd at 8 TeV}) The corresponding cross sections for a CP-odd heavy Higgs.
(\subref{fig:even at 14 TeV}) Cross-sections of the 3-top (colored) and 4-top (black) processes for a CP-even heavy Higgs at the \unit[14]{TeV}.
(\subref{fig:odd at 14 TeV}) The corresponding cross sections for a CP-odd heavy Higgs.
In each case the shaded regions represent the scale uncertainties.
Note the difference of uncertainties for processes proportional to $\alpha_s$ and $\alpha_s^2$.
In simulating these cross-sections we have assumed that the heavy Higgs coupling to bottom quarks and $\tau$-lepton are negligible, which corresponds to small values of $\tan\beta$.
}
\label{fig:xsec_hao}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ProdXS_ttHA_14TeV}
\caption{$\sigma\left(pp\to (H+A)t\bar t\right)$ at \unit[14]{TeV}}
\label{fig:ProXLHCttHA}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ProdXS_ttHA_100TeV}
\caption{$\sigma\left(pp\to (H+A)t\bar t\right)$ at \unit[100]{TeV}}
\label{fig:ProX100TeVttHA}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ProdXS_twHA_14TeV}
\caption{$\sigma\left(pp\to (H+A)tW^\pm\right)$ at \unit[14]{TeV}}
\label{fig:ProXLHCtHA}
\end{subfigure}
\hfill
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ProdXS_twHA_100TeV}
\caption{$\sigma\left(pp\to (H+A)tW^\pm\right)$ at \unit[100]{TeV}}
\label{fig:ProX100TeVtHA}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{(\subref{fig:ProXLHCttHA}) Contours of the $t \bar t (H + A)$ associated production cross-section of heavy neutral Higgs bosons at the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC.
(\subref{fig:ProX100TeVttHA}) Contours of the $t \bar t (H + A)$ cross-sections at a \unit[100]{TeV} $pp$-collider.
(\subref{fig:ProXLHCtHA}) Contours of the $tW (H + A)$ associated production cross-section at the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC.
(\subref{fig:ProX100TeVtHA}) Contours of the $tW (H + A)$ cross-sections at a \unit[100]{TeV} $pp$-collider.
The cross-section are calculated to leading order with \software{MadGraph} using its variable factorization and renormalization scale.
}
\label{fig:ProductionXsectiont}
\end{figure}
In what follows, we will both obtain existing limits on these processes by reinterpreting SSDL searches at $\sqrt{s} = \unit[8]{TeV}$ and forecast the reach of the $\sqrt{s} = \unit[14]{TeV}$ LHC and future $pp$-collider in SSDL channels.
To do so, we work in terms of a simplified model in which $H(A)$ couples to the SM particles via
\begin{align}
\mathcal L
= - y_t ( c_H H \bar t t + i c_A A \bar t \gamma_5 t )
\ , \label{eq::CP-structure}
\end{align}
where $y_t$, $y_b$ and $y_\tau$ are the SM Yukawa coupling constant of the third generation leptons.
As we are focusing on the case with small $\tan\beta$ we will neglect the sub-dominant coupling to $b$ and $\tau$ when we derive limits on the coefficients $c_H, c_A$.
We calculate the leading order (LO) cross-sections using \software[5]{MadGraph}~\cite{Alwall:2014hca} with CT14llo PDF in the 5-flavor scheme (FS)~\cite{Dulat:2015mca}.
For the $tH(A)+X$ processes, we choose the factorization and renormalization scales to be $\mu_F = \mu_R = m_t^{\overline{\text{MS}}} + m_{H(A)}$
, where
$m_t^{\overline{\text{MS}}} = \unit[163]{GeV}$
is the $\overline{{\text{MS}}}$ mass of the SM top quark.
For $t\bar tH(A)$ process, we instead choose
$\mu_F = \mu_R = m_t^{\overline{\text{MS}}} + m_{H(A)} / 2$.
The resulting cross sections for the \unit[8]{TeV} and \unit[14]{TeV} LHC are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:xsec_hao}.
Notice that the 4-top process has larger scale uncertainty since it is $\order{\alpha_s^2}$, while the 3-top processes are $\order{\alpha_s}$.
For the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC and a future \unit[100]{TeV} $pp$-collider we present additionally the contours in the $m_A$-$\tan\beta$ plane for the production cross-sections of the $pp\to t\bar tH(A)$ and the $pp\to tWH(A)$ processes within the framework of the MSSM in Figure~\ref{fig:ProductionXsectiont}.
We point out that for low masses the cross-section of the $tWH(A)$ processes is smaller than that of $t\bar tH(A)$ processes, but that the situation reverses at large heavy Higgs masses due to the asymptotic freedom of $\alpha_s$ together with the faster falloff in $x$ of the gluon PDF relative to the bottom-quark PDF.
\section{Constraint from LHC Run I} \label{sec:constraints}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.6\textwidth]{mbb}
\caption{
$b$-tagging efficiency as a function of jet $p_T$ at the \unit[8]{TeV} LHC.
The red hollow points are the result from our simulation using $pp\to Zb(\bar b)$ events.
The solid blue points are the result from the CMS simulation presented in~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea}. Although~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea} uses simulated $t \bar t$ events, the $b$-tagging efficiency is not expected to differ substantially between different processes.}
\label{fig:btag}
\end{figure}
Before developing a strategy for future searches, it is useful to determine the state of existing limits from searches at the \unit[8]{TeV} LHC.
In this section, we find the constraint on heavy Higgs bosons coming from an SSDL search performed by the CMS collaboration~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea}.
We consider a simplified model containing a heavy scalar or pseudoscalar Higgs boson with coupling to the top quark as in Equation \eqref{eq::CP-structure}.
The three-top signal events are generated to leading order (LO) at parton level with CTEQ6L1 PDFs~\cite{Pumplin:2002vw} within the 5-flavor scheme using \software{MadGraph}~\cite{Alwall:2014hca}.
The renormalization and factorization scales are set to be $\mu_R = \mu_F = m_t + m_{H(A)}$.
We also generate four-top signal events with the same method as the three-top signal events.
The renormalization and factorization scales for four-top processes are set to be $\mu_R = \mu_F = m_t + m_{H(A)} / 2$.
In both cases, the top quarks in the final state are decayed using \software{MadGraph} in order to preserve the effects of spin correlations. Events are showered using \software[6.4]{PYTHIA}~\cite{Sjostrand:2006za} with the Z2 Tune~\cite{Field:2011iq}.
\software[3]{Delphes}~\cite{deFavereau:2013fsa, Cacciari:2011ma} is used to simulate the detector effects.
The $b$-tagging efficiency from \software{Delphes} is tuned to mimic the results of the simulation by the CMS collaboration (cf. Figure~\ref{fig:btag}).
The mis-tagging rate of charm jets (light jets) is \unit[20]{\%} (\unit[1]{\%})~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea}.
We check the cut acceptances of events with same-sign top-quark pair production.
The same-sign top search regions are defined as having $\geq 2$ jets, $E_T^\text{miss} > \unit[30]{GeV}$ and $H_T > \unit[80]{GeV}$.
Additionally, the number of $b$-jets has to be either equal to one (SStop1) or greater than one (SStop2). The SStop1 (SStop2) search region acceptance (including branching fractions) is \unit[0.43]{\%} (\unit[0.26]{\%}) with relative uncertainty \unit[14]{\%} from simulation by the CMS collaboration~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea}, while our result is \unit[0.39]{\%} (\unit[0.28]{\%}). The results of our simulation are consistent with the results given by the CMS collaboration to within the Monte Carlo uncertainty.
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccccccc}
\toprule
$N_{b\text{-jets}}$
& $p_T(l)$ [GeV]
& \multicolumn{8}{c}{$E_T^\text{miss}$ [GeV]}
\\ \cmidrule{3-10}
&
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{50--120}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$> 120$}
\\
&
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$H_T$ [GeV]}
& \multicolumn{4}{c}{$H_T$ [GeV]}
\\ \cmidrule(r){3-6} \cmidrule(l){7-10}
&
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{200--400}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$>400$}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{200--400}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$>400$}
\\
&
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$N_\text{jets}$}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$N_\text{jets}$}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$N_\text{jets}$}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{$N_\text{jets}$}
\\ \cmidrule(r){3-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-10}
&
& 2--3
& $\geq4$
& 2--3
& $\geq4$
& 2--3
& $\geq4$
& 2--3
& $\geq4$
\\ \midrule \multirow{3}{*}[-1.1ex]{0}
&
& SR01
& SR03
& SR02
& SR04
& SR05
& SR07
& SR06
& SR08
\\ \cmidrule(r){3-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-10}
& $>10$
& 22
& 9.6
& 15
& 3.2
& 12
& 3.3
& 15
& 4.2
\\
& $>20$
& 13
& 4.0
& 10
& 2.8
& 4.4
& 2.8
& 10
& 4.4
\\ \midrule \multirow{3}{*}[-1.1ex]{1}
&
& SR11
& SR13
& SR12
& SR14
& SR15
& SR17
& SR16
& SR18
\\ \cmidrule(r){3-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-10}
& $>10$
& 22
& 7.5
& 5.1
& 4.0
& 4.9
& 4.0
& 5.4
& 12
\\
& $>20$
& 7.5
& 4.0
& 7.1
& 2.8
& 8.0
& 5.1
& 3.2
& 9.7
\\ \midrule \multirow{3}{*}[-1.1ex]{$\geq 2$}
&
& SR21
& SR23
& SR22
& SR24
& SR25
& SR27
& SR26
& SR28
\\ \cmidrule(r){3-4} \cmidrule(lr){5-6} \cmidrule(lr){7-8} \cmidrule(lr){9-10}
& $>10$
& 10
& 5.4
& 3.1
& 15
& 2.7
& 2.0
& 5.0
& 4.5
\\
& $>20$
& 13
& 4.3
& 3.5
& 11
& 6.5
& 2.0
& 3.7
& 4.1
\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The \unit[2]{$\sigma$} upper bounds of the number of signal events for each signal region (SR) defined in~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea}.}
\label{table:cms8tev_stat}
\end{table}
Given $n$ observed events the significance is~\cite{Cowan:2010js}
\begin{equation}
Z(x | n)
= \sqrt{- 2 \ln \frac{L (x | n )}{L (n | n )}}
\ , \label{eq:significance}
\end{equation}
where $x$ is either the number of events predicted by the background only hypothesis $b$ or by the background with signal hypothesis $b+s$ and the likelihood function is given by the Poisson probability
\begin{equation}
L (x | n)
= \frac{ x^n e^{-x}}{n!}
\ .
\end{equation}
For the exclusion of a model we require $Z(b + s | n) \geq 2$ and for discovery we require $Z(b | n) \geq 5$.%
\footnote{%
In the case that $n < b$ we calculate the significance with the more conservative statistics also used at the Tevatron, namely $Z = \sqrt{- 2 \ln \frac{L (b + s | n )}{L (b | n )}}$.
This split approach corresponds to the test statistic $\tilde q_\mu$ in~\cite{Cowan:2010js}.}
For the projection to future experiments we replace the event number $n$ with the prediction for the alternative hypothesis.
Hence, we are using $Z(b + s | b) \geq 2$ and $Z(b | b+s) \geq 5$, for exclusion and discovery, respectively.
Here we assume positive interference between signal and background and the systematic uncertainties of the signal and the background estimation are not included in this simplified statistical procedure.
Using the result in Table~7 of~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea}, we can give the \unit[2]{$\sigma$} upper bound of the event numbers of the new physics model for each signal region defined in~\cite{Chatrchyan:2013fea}.
The results are summarized in Table~\ref{table:cms8tev_stat}.
Given a number of signal events $s$ with $c_X = 1$ (where $X = H, A$) and an observed upper bound $n$ in the same signal region, the central value of the upper bound on $c_X$ is given by
\begin{equation}
c_X
= \sqrt\frac ns
\ .
\end{equation}
The corresponding error on the bound on $c_X$ is
\begin{equation}
\delta c_\pm
= \frac{\delta n}{2\sqrt{ns}}=\frac{c_X}{2\sqrt n}
\ .
\end{equation}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\toprule
Mass [GeV]
&
& $t$-channel
& $s$-channel
& $W$ associated
& 4-top
\\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{400}
& $c_H$
& $10.3 \pm 2.43$
& $91.7 \pm 21.6$
& $7.98 \pm 1.87$
& $4.47 \pm 1.06$
\\
& $c_A$
& $9.63 \pm 2.27$
& $123 \pm 29.0$
& $8.40 \pm 1.98$
& $4.28 \pm 1.01$
\\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{500}
& $c_H$
& $9.26 \pm 2.19$
& $130 \pm 30.7$
& $9.55 \pm 2.24$
& $5.81 \pm 1.37$
\\
& $c_A$
& $11.4 \pm 2.69$
& $163 \pm 38.4$
& $9.89 \pm 2.33$
& $5.37 \pm 1.27$
\\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{600}
& $c_H$
& $12.0 \pm 2.83$
& $186 \pm 43.9$
& $12.0 \pm 2.82$
& $7.55 \pm 1.78$
\\
& $c_A$
& $19.9 \pm 4.69$
& $228 \pm 53.5$
& $12.3 \pm 2.90$
& $6.99 \pm 1.65$
\\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{800}
& $c_H$
& $20.5 \pm 4.83$
& $531 \pm 125$
& $19.5 \pm 4.56$
& $12.7 \pm 3.00$
\\
& $c_A$
& $23.6 \pm 5.55$
& $441 \pm 104$
& $19.6 \pm 4.62$
& $11.9 \pm 2.81$
\\ \midrule
\multirow{2}{*}{1000}
& $c_H$
& $36.2 \pm 8.55$
& $760 \pm 179$
& $32.1 \pm 7.52$
& $21.5 \pm 5.05$
\\
& $c_A$
& $40.0 \pm 9.45$
& $848 \pm 200$
& $32.1 \pm 7.55$
& $20.2 \pm 4.76$
\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{The \unit[2]{$\sigma$} upper bounds of the effective interaction strength $c_H$ and $c_A$ from \unit[8]{TeV} LHC.}
\label{table:cms8tev_result}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Exclusion_tttt_8TeV}
\caption{4-top}
\label{fig:fourtop}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Exclusion_tttw_8TeV}
\caption{3-top}
\label{fig:threetop}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{%
(\subref{fig:fourtop}) Exclusion cross section for $pp\to H/Att \to tttt$ using \unit[8]{TeV} LHC data. (\subref{fig:threetop}) Exclusion cross section for $pp\to A/H tW^\pm\to tttW^\pm$ using \unit[8]{TeV} LHC data.}
\label{fig:cms8tev_result}
\end{figure}
We check all of the 24 signal regions (SR01--SR08, SR11--SR18, SR21--SR28) for $H$ and $A$ with $m_{H(A)} = \unit[400, 500, 600, 800, 1000]{GeV}$.
The numerical simulation indicates that the strongest constraint is from the ``Low-$p_T$ SR28'' signal region for all of the mass points.
For each mass point we consider the contributions from the $t$-channel, $s$-channel, $W$ associated production channel and 4-top channel separately and in combination.
As shown in Table~\ref{table:cms8tev_result}, the strongest constraint is from the 4-top channel as expected. The combined results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:cms8tev_result}.
From this it is apparent that \unit[8]{TeV} results place no meaningful limit on heavy scalar or pseudoscalar Higgses decaying to $t \bar t$ with $c_H, c_A \lesssim 4$.
\section{Analysis strategies for future searches} \label{sec:analysis}
\begin{table}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{rcccc}
\toprule
Background
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\unit[14]{TeV}}
& \multicolumn{2}{c}{\unit[100]{TeV}}
\\ \cmidrule(r){2-3} \cmidrule(l){4-5}
& $\sigma$ [fb]
& $\mathcal L_\text{gen}~[\unit{ab^{-1}}]$
& $\sigma$ [fb]
& $\mathcal L_\text{gen}~[\unit{ab^{-1}}]$
\\ \midrule
$t\bar t t\bar t$
& 0.4851
& 103
& 122.7
& 1.63
\\ $tttW^\pm b$
& 0.06016
& 831
& 14.86
& 6.73
\\ $t\bar tW^{+} b\bar b$
& 0.03284
& 1520
& 0.3822
& 262
\\ \bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\caption{%
Leading order cross-section times branching ratio to same-sign dileptons for the dominant backgrounds at \unit[14]{TeV} and \unit[100]{TeV}, defined such that $tttW^\pm b$ does not have an overlapping contribution with $t\bar t t\bar t$.
We have checked that $t\bar tW^- b\bar b$ is sub-dominant to $t\bar tW^+ b\bar b$ at $pp$ colliders and will neglect it in the further discussion.
}
\label{tab:XSectionBG}
\end{table}
We next consider the prospects for optimized searches at the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC and a future \unit[100]{TeV} $pp$ collider. We consider both a cut-based analysis and a BDT analysis at \unit[14]{TeV}, the former providing a validation of the latter. For our \unit[100]{TeV} projections we consider only a BDT analysis for simplicity, given the considerable uncertainty regarding the parameters of a \unit[100]{TeV} collider. For all of these analyses we generate events in the four FS using \software[2.3.3]{MadGraph}, such that the $tW^\pm H(A)$ signal is generated with an additional soft and forward/backward $b$-quark.
We consider only events with jets harder than \unit[20]{GeV} for the LHC and \unit[40]{GeV} a future collider, respectively. We have kept the spin correlation using \software{MadSpin}.
We generate the dominant irreducible backgrounds $t\bar t t\bar t$ and $tttW^\pm b$, as well as the main reducible background $t\bar tW^{+}bb$.
Given that our main analysis strategy involves SSDL, a mass-window cut around the $Z$ peak, at least four b-jets and a veto on the third lepton,
we have verified that the background contributions from $t\bar t W^\pm Z$, $t\bar tW^\pm cc$, $t\bar tZ$, $t\bar th$ and $ttW^\pm$ are sub-dominant to the main backgrounds.
The generated processes, their cross-sections, and the generated luminosity are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:XSectionBG}.
We use \software[3]{Delphes} to simulate a detector with CMS geometry.
For the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC, we use a tracker coverage of $|\eta| < 2.5$.
We assume a tracker coverage of $|\eta| < 3.5$ for detectors at future \unit[100]{TeV} colliders.
For all analyses we use anti-$k_T$ jet clustering with a jet cone size of 0.5.
However, in the BDT-based analysis this parameter plays a tangential role, as we additionally consider exclusively defined sub-jets as well as objects built of multiple jets.
\subsection{Pre-selection cuts}
For the analyses covering the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC we apply the following pre-selection cuts:
We consider only events with exactly two leptons with identical charge and transverse momenta $p_T > \unit[15]{GeV}$.
The leptons must be isolated with an isolation radius of $\Delta R > 0.3$ and a maximal transverse momentum ratio of 0.2.
Where the transverse momentum ratio is defined between the lepton and other cell activity within the isolation cone.
If the lepton transverse momentum is larger than \unit[50]{GeV}, we do not require them to be isolated~\cite{Brust:2014gia}.
We veto on a third lepton with $p_T > \unit[10]{GeV}$.
Additionally we require a minimal missing transverse energy $E_T^\text{miss} > \unit[30]{GeV}$ and reject events with less than four jets.
For the \unit[100]{TeV} analysis we demand for the leading lepton a transverse momentum of \unit[100]{GeV}.
The second leading lepton must have a $p_T>\unit[50]{GeV}$ and we veto on a third lepton with $p_T>\unit[50]{GeV}$.
We do not require leptons to be isolated as long as they are harder than \unit[100]{GeV}.
Otherwise, we apply the same isolation cone parameter as in the case of the LHC.
The missing transverse energy must be $E_T^\text{miss} > \unit[60]{GeV}$.
\subsection{Cut-based analysis for \unit[14]{TeV}} \label{sec:cut-based}
For the cut based analysis we use the \software{BoCA} $b$-tag presented in Appendix~\ref{sec:boca tagger} and require a minimum $b$-jet $p_T$ of \unit[40]{GeV}.
For this analysis we follow the ideas in~\cite{Aad:2015gdg}.
We require at least four bottom jets and veto events if the invariant mass of an electron pair falls within a \unit[20]{GeV} window around the $Z$-peak.
We develop a cut strategy by using the rectangular cut optimization of the \software{TMVA} library~\cite{Hocker:2007ht}.
The dominant cut is on the scalar sum of transverse momenta $H_T$.
In order to probe a given Higgs mass $m_{H/A}$ we require $H_T > m_{H/A}$.
These cuts also ensure the suppression of instrumental backgrounds, especially the misidentification of jets as well as the misidentification of lepton charges~\cite{ATLAS:2016sno}.
\subsection{BDT analysis for \unit[14 and 100]{TeV}} \label{sec:BDT}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=.7\textwidth]{Event-LHC-1000GeV-Bdt}
\caption{%
Example of a BDT result for the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC and a Higgs mass of \unit[1]{TeV}.
While the Higgs produced in association with two (black) and one (red) top quark has large BDT values,
the intrinsic background $t\bar tt\bar t$ (blue), $tttW^{\pm}b$ (green) and $ttW^{+} bb$ (pink) has small BDT values.
The vertical line indicates the optimal cut, which maximizes the significance.
}
\label{fig:BDT result}
\end{figure}
We focus the BDT-based search strategy on the the main features of this signal, namely
\begin{itemize}
\item Same sign di-lepton (SSDL)
\item Heavy Higgs boson resonance
\item Two additional forward/backward $b$-quarks
\end{itemize}
We apply a series of BDT-taggers designed to reconstruct the complete signal signature from its decay components following the strategy presented in~\cite{Hajer:2015gka}.
Our code is based on \software[3.1.3]{FastJet}~\cite{Cacciari:2011ma} and the \software[4.2.1]{TMVA} library~\cite{Hocker:2007ht} of the \software{ROOT} framework~\cite{Brun:1997pa} and is published as \software[0.2]{BoCA}~\cite{Boca}.
We tag bottom-like jets, based on their displaced vertices.
We exploit the fact that boosted top-like jets also show displacement but have additionally a larger jet mass.
Furthermore we require or veto hard leptons inside the jet radius for hadronic and leptonic top jets, respectively.
In the case of un-boosted top quarks we reconstruct the tops from their spatially separated decay products.
For the reconstruction of the heavy Higgs bosons we require two tagged top-like objects.
We do not reconstruct the tops of the quark pair accompanying the heavy Higgs.
Instead we require two jets with large $\Delta \eta$ and high $b$-likeliness.
Finally we assume that one of the tops originating from the heavy Higgs decay, decays leptonically; that another lepton is present; and that these leptons have the same charge.
One example of the final BDT result at \unit[14]{TeV} is presented in Figure~\ref{fig:BDT result}.
\section{Results} \label{sec:prospects}
Here we present the results of the cut-based and BDT analyses presented in the previous section. We note that in Section \ref{sec:constraints} we presented limits individually for scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons in the context of a simplified model, as \unit[8]{TeV} data is insufficient to meaningfully constrain the parameter space of the MSSM. In what follows, we present limits for the sum of scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons in the parameter space of $m_A$ and $\tan \beta$. We do so with an eye towards forecasting sensitivity to MSSM-like type~II 2HDM in which the heavy scalar and pseudoscalar Higgs bosons are nearly degenerate.
\subsection{Cut-based and BDT analyses at the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC} \label{sec:BDT-14}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Exclusion_tttt_14TeV}
\caption{$pp\to t\bar tH(A)\to t\bar tt\bar t$}
\label{fig:IndependentLimitLhc4t}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Exclusion_tttw_14TeV}
\caption{$pp\to tWH(A)\to tW^\pm t\bar t$}
\label{fig:IndependentLimitLhc3t}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{%
(\subref{fig:IndependentLimitLhc4t}) Model independent exclusion (orange) and discovery (green) limits at the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC in the four-top channel. (\subref{fig:IndependentLimitLhc3t}) Exclusion (orange) and discovery (green) limits in the three-top channel.
The dashed limits are derived with the cut based analysis presented in Section~\ref{sec:cut-based} while the solid limits are derived with the BDT analysis presented in Section~\ref{sec:BDT}.
}
\label{fig:IndependentLimitLhc}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Exclusion_tttt_100TeV}
\caption{$pp\to t\bar tH(A)\to t\bar tt\bar t$}
\label{fig:IndependentLimit4t}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.5\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Exclusion_tttw_100TeV}
\caption{$pp\to tW^\pm H(A)\to tW^\pm t\bar t$}
\label{fig:IndependentLimit3t}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{%
(\subref{fig:IndependentLimit4t}) Model independent limits for a future \unit[100]{TeV} collider in the $t\bar tt\bar t$ channel. (\subref{fig:IndependentLimit3t}) Limits for a future \unit[100]{TeV} collider in the $t\bar ttW^\pm$~ channel.
Note the dominance of the three-top channel over the four-top channel especially for low masses, due to the harder lepton originating from the $W^\pm$ decay compared to the top decay (cf.~Figure~\ref{fig:lepton pt}).
}
\label{fig:IndependentLimit-100}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{.41\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Exclusion_NeutralHiggs}
\caption{Exclusion limits}
\label{fig:DependentExclusionLimit}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.18\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Legend.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{.41\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Discovery_NeutralHiggs}
\caption{Discovery limits}
\label{fig:DependentDiscoveryLimit}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{%
Model dependent exclusion~(\subref{fig:DependentExclusionLimit}) and discovery~(\subref{fig:DependentDiscoveryLimit}) limits for the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC (hatched in black and purple) and a \unit[100]{TeV} hadron collider (colored) derived with the BDT analysis presented in Section~\ref{sec:BDT}.
The smaller bound can be reached with $\unit[0.3 \text{ and } 3]{ab^{-1}}$ while the large bound can be reached with $\unit[3 \text{ and } 30]{ab^{-1}}$ at the LHC and a future $pp$-collider, respectively.
The low $\tan\beta$ region (red) is covered by the top associated heavy Higgs production with decays to top pairs.
While the contribution from the $H/A b\bar b$ vertex dominates the decays for large $\tan\beta$ we neglected its sub-leading contribution in the analysis covering small $\tan\beta$.
The intermediate $\tan\beta$ region (orange) is covered by the bottom associated heavy Higgs production with decays to a top pair.
The large $\tan\beta$ region (blue) is covered by the bottom associated heavy Higgs production with decays to $\tau$ lepton pairs.
The latter two analyses are discussed in~\cite{Hajer:2015gka}, and we revisit some aspects of the analysis in Appendix~\ref{sec:systematic error}.
}
\label{fig:DependentLimit}
\end{figure}
The model-independent results for cut- and BDT-based analyses at the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC are depicted separately for the three- and four-top channels in Figure~\ref{fig:IndependentLimitLhc}.
While the cut-based and BDT analyses have comparable sensitivity for lower masses, for larger masses the BDT-based strategy demonstrates its power as the reconstructed heavy Higgs resonance improves discrimination of signal from background.
Furthermore, we would like to point out that the BDT-based analysis has an advantage in suppressing the signal over background ratio, as discussed in Appendix~\ref{sec:systematic error}.
We present the combined model dependent results of the BDT analysis in Figure~\ref{fig:DependentLimit}; the shaded purple regions denote the reach of the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC with $\unit[300 \text{ and } 3000]{fb^{-1}}$.
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:DependentExclusionLimit} the top associated heavy Higgs production can exclude the lower $\tan\beta$ region up to \unit[1 and 1.8]{TeV} for $\unit[300 \text{ and } 3000]{fb^{-1}}$, respectively.
The discovery reach of the LHC presented in Figure~\ref{fig:DependentDiscoveryLimit} extends to \unit[700 and 1100]{GeV} for the same luminosities.
As already demonstrated in~\cite{Hajer:2015gka} the bottom associated heavy Higgs production covers the intermediate $\tan\beta$ region up to \unit[1]{TeV} with $\unit[3000]{fb^{-1}}$.%
\footnote{The slight change in the shape of the limits derived from the bottom associated Higgs production with decays to a top pair compared to~\cite{Hajer:2015gka} is the result of a combination of improved background simulation and correspondingly optimized analysis.}
\subsection{BDT analysis at a \unit[100]{TeV} $pp$-Collider}
The model-independent sensitivity of a \unit[100]{TeV} collider is presented separately for the three- and four-top channels in Figure~\ref{fig:IndependentLimit-100}.
The model-dependent combination of three- and four-top channels is depicted alongside the \unit[14]{TeV} LHC reach in Figure~\ref{fig:DependentLimit}.
The top associated heavy Higgs production can exclude the lower $\tan\beta$ range up to \unit[15 and 18]{TeV} for $\unit[3 \text{ and } 30]{ab^{-1}}$, respectively.
The discovery reach extends to \unit[10 and 15]{TeV} for the same luminosities.
Of course, large uncertainties regarding detector properties, backgrounds, and BDT performance at \unit[100]{TeV} make these limits approximate.
The complementary bottom associated heavy Higgs production mode can be used to exclude the intermediate $\tan\beta$ region up to \unit[4 and 8]{GeV} for $\unit[3 \text{ and } 30]{ab^{-1}}$, respectively.
Finally the associated heavy Higgs production with two bottom quarks and decays to a $\tau$ lepton pair covers the large $\tan\beta$ range.
Together, these channels cover the whole $\tan\beta$ range up to $\sim \unit[10]{TeV}$.
Combining the dominance of the three-top channel over the four-top channel in Figure~\ref{fig:IndependentLimit-100} with the larger cross-section of the three-top channel compared to the four-top channel observed in Figure~\ref{fig:ProductionXsectiont}, the $H(A)W^\pm b$ channel provides the main contribution to the limits presented in Figure~\ref{fig:DependentLimit}.
\section{Summary and Outlook}\label{sec:summary}
Heavy Higgs bosons decaying predominantly into $t \bar t$ final states pose an exceptional challenge to searches at hadron colliders, particularly when $b \bar b$ associated production is negligible. This makes it difficult to probe a variety of motivated theories with heavy Higgs bosons decaying to $t \bar t$, including most notably the low $\tan\beta$ region of the MSSM Higgs sector.
In this work we have proposed probing this parameter space by searching for heavy Higgses produced in association with one and two top quarks. While these processes may be probed in a variety of final states, we have focused on searches involving same-sign dilepton pairs.
We have shown that existing LHC searches at \unit[8]{TeV} are sensitive to these channels, though current limits are too weak to meaningfully constrain the parameter space of heavy Higgs bosons.
However, the refinement of these cut-based searches at \unit[14]{TeV} will begin to meaningfully constrain the relevant parameter space. Further improvement with BDT-based analyses can potentially cover the lower part of the $m_A$-$\tan\beta$ plain up to \unit[700--1800]{GeV} and \unit[10--18]{TeV} at the LHC and a future hadron collider, respectively.
Together with the results of~\cite{Craig:2015jba, Hajer:2015gka} we have shown that the complete $\tan\beta$ range can be covered with associated heavy Higgs production, while only the upper part of this range can be probed up to large masses with resonantly-produced heavy Higgs bosons.
Although the sensitivity reach in this article was displayed in type II 2HDM, the proposed strategies can be used to probe the low $\tan \beta$ region of other 2HDM as well.
The sensitivity projection is straightforward.
\subsection*{Acknowledgment}
J. Hajer is supported by the Collaborative Research Fund (CRF) HUKST4/CRF/13G.
Y.-Y. Li is supported by the Hong Kong PhD Fellowship Scheme (HKPFS).
T. Liu is supported by the General Research Fund (GRF) under Grant No. 16304315 and 16312716.
Both the HKPFS and the CRF, GRF grants are issued by the Research Grants Council of Hong Kong S.A.R..
N. Craig is supported by the U.S. DOE under contract No. DE-SC0014129. H. Zhang is supported by the U.S. DOE under contract No. DE-SC0011702.
|
\section{\label{sec:introduction}Introduction}
One of the most promising models proposed so far for platforms to realise topological quantum computation is the two-dimensional (2D) $s$-wave topological superconductivity (TSC) model with Rashba spin-orbit (SO) coupling and Zeeman field.\cite{Sato2009,Sato2010,Sau2010,Alicea2010,Alicea2012} Sato, Takahashi, and Fujimoto have proposed the tight-binding model\cite{Sato2009,Sato2010} that can describe an $s$-wave superfluid of ultracold fermionic atoms in an optical lattice, where an effective SO interaction can be generated by spatially varying laser fields, or 2D $s$-wave TSC in a solid device. Such TSC can be realised, as proposed by Sau {\it et al.} in terms of the continuum model,\cite{Sau2010} in a semiconductor heterostructure, where a semiconductor with Rashba SO coupling is sandwiched between a conventional $s$-wave superconductor and a ferromagnetic insulator. While $s$-wave superconductivity is induced by the proximity effect, the ferromagnetic insulator can generate Zeeman coupling via exchange interactions, thus affecting only the spin degree of freedom in the semiconductor. A vortex in the model hosts a zero-energy Majorana bound state\cite{Sau2010,Tewari2010} and hence vortices in a 2D $s$-wave topological superconductor obey non-Abelian exchange statistics, like those in chiral $p$-wave superconductors.\cite{Kopnin1991,Read2000,Ivanov2001,Stern2004,Stone2006}
Inherent in the 2D $s$-wave TSC model are the two chiralities, $\sim{\rm sin}\,k_x \pm i\,{\rm sin}\,k_y$ in the tight-binding model\cite{Fujimoto2008,Sato2009p-wave} or $k_x\pm i k_y$ in the continuum model\cite{Zhang2008,Alicea2010,Shitade2015} (also for $|\bm{k}|\ll 1$ in the tight-binding model), where $\bm{k}=(k_x,k_y)$ is the wavevector. The noninteracting Fermi surface is split sideways by the Rashba SO interaction, which causes winding of spin as one goes around each Fermi surface,\cite{Frigeri2006} and the Zeeman field perpendicular to the 2D system favours one spin component along its direction over the other, resulting in two separate bands. With large enough Zeeman splitting and the chemical potential in the gap between the two bands, the system has a single Fermi surface on which spin is fixed for each $\bm{k}$ and thus becomes effectively spinless -- condition required for TSC that can support Majorana zero modes.\cite{Alicea2012}
Although the Fermi surface has a certain chirality (spin winding), in principle the two intrinsic chiralities are always present in a 2D $s$-wave TSC state.\cite{Shitade2015}
It is known that in a spin-triplet chiral $p$-wave superconductor, vortices in the $p_x+ip_y$ and $p_x-ip_y$ states, which are degenerate at zero field, are not equivalent.\cite{Takigawa2001,Ichioka2002} The free energy is lower and the upper critical field is higher when the vorticity, i.e., the angular momentum carried by the supercurrent, is antiparallel to the chirality, i.e., the angular momentum of Cooper pairs in the condensate.\cite{Ichioka2002} Moreover, bound states in such an antiparallel vortex are more robust against nonmagnetic impurities due to cancellation of angular momenta between the supercurrent and the condensate; which makes the vortex core region $s$-wave-like and allows the Anderson theorem\cite{Anderson1959} to take effect.\cite{Kato2000,Kato2002} Most notably, in each of the chirality domains, the order parameter of the other chirality is induced around the vortex centre, more prominently for lower applied field.\cite{Takigawa2001,Ichioka2002}
The effects of nonmagnetic impurities on vortex bound states in a 2D $s$-wave topological superconductor, depending on the major chirality with respect to the vorticity, have been studied recently for a single vortex in the continuum model\cite{Sau2010} by means of a Green-function technique for calculating the impurity self-energy.\cite{Masaki2014,Masaki2015} It has been found that when the major chirality is opposite to the vorticity, vortex bound states are less influenced by nonmagnetic impurities for relatively weak SO coupling, compared to the case where the major chirality is in the same direction as the vorticity. As to spinless $p_x\pm ip_y$ superconducting states per se, Ivanov has stated that though with slightly different structure of the quasiparticle eigenfunctions, the two types of vortices have the same low-energy spectra and braiding statistics.\cite{Ivanov2001}
Volovik has studied the effects of a single nonmagnetic impurity in a \emph{spinful} chiral $p$-wave superconductor, where Cooper pairs have a definite angular momentum, using quasiclassical theory\cite{Volovik1999} and has found that the Majorana zero mode in the vortex core is not affected by a nonmagnetic impurity. The robustness of the Majorana fermion at zero energy has also been shown for a coreless vortex in an ``antidot'' on the surface of a disordered three-dimensional (3D) topological insulator,\cite{Ioselevich2012} where superconductivity is induced by proximity to a superconducting film with a circular hole with radius larger than the coherence length and the mean free path. Such a 3D TSC state is in the symplectic class of AII, where the topological invariant belongs to $\mathbb{Z}_2$, and the system has no particle-hole symmetry and is odd under time reversal.\cite{Schnyder2008} It is intriguing to study the effects of a nonmagnetic impurity in a 2D $s$-wave topological superconductor in the presence of vortices, which belongs to symmetry class D and has particle-hole symmetry, but no time-reversal symmetry.\cite{Schnyder2008} In this system there exist two underlying chiralities ($p_x\pm ip_y$ in the continuum model) and the effective (spinless) $p$-wave nature of the system varies depending on the material parameters.
The purpose of the present work is to examine the effects of the two chiralities inherently present in 2D $s$-wave TSC states on vortex structure, by solving the Bogoliubov-de Gennes (BdG) equations\cite{deGennes} on the tight-binding model of Sato, Takahashi, and Fujimoto\cite{Sato2009,Sato2010} self-consistently for
the superconducting order parameter in the vortex lattice. The tight-binding model is versatile and useful for modelling real systems in that band structure and the filling factor can easily be incorporated in terms of hopping amplitudes and chemical potential. We assume that the 2D system has Rashba SO coupling and a pairing interaction that drives $s$-wave superconductivity or superfluidity, and is under Zeeman field, e.g., generated by proximity to a ferromagnetic insulator in a heterostructure. Our model is applicable to systems such as $s$-wave superfluids of fermionic atoms created by $s$-wave Feshbach resonance in an optical lattice\cite{Sato2009}, one-atom-layer TI-Pb on Si(111)\cite{Matetskiy2015}, and ionic-liquid based electronic double-layer transistors.\cite{Li2016,Nagai2016}
Solving the BdG equations for TSC has high numerical demand as the dimension of the BdG Hamiltonian matrix is four times the total number of lattice sites, and also the system area needs to be large enough to sustain two vortices that are well separated to have a pair of isolated Majorana fermions as vortex bound states. Thus, the conventional way of solving the BdG equations by direct diagonalization is not feasible. We utilise the Chebyshev polynomial expansion method\cite{Covaci2010,Nagai2012} for solving for the order parameter self-consistently, as well as calculating the local density of states (LDOS) after self-consistency has been achieved. Furthermore, we use the numerically efficient algorithm developed by Sakurai and Sugiura \cite{Sakurai2003,Nagai2013} to obtain quasiparticle spectra within an energy window of one's choice.
The paper is organised as follows. The model is described in Sec.~\ref{sec:model}, results are presented and discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:results}, and the work is summarised in Sec.~\ref{sec:conclusions}.
\section{\label{sec:model}Model}
We use the tight-binding model for a 2D $s$-wave topological superconductor:\cite{Sato2009,Sato2010,Nagai2015}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{H} &=& \sum_{\langle ij \rangle \sigma} t_{ij} c^\dag_{i \sigma} c_{j \sigma} + \sum_{i\sigma} (-\mu + V_i) c^\dag_{i \sigma} c_{i \sigma}\nonumber\\
&-& h \sum_i (c^\dag_{i \uparrow} c_{i \uparrow} - c^\dag_{i \downarrow} c_{i \downarrow}) \nonumber \\
&+& \frac{\alpha}{2} \biggl[\, \sum_i (c^\dag_{i-\hat{x} \downarrow} c_{i \uparrow} - c^\dag_{i+\hat{x} \downarrow} c_{i \uparrow}) \nonumber \\
&+& i(c^\dag_{i-\hat{y} \downarrow} c_{i \uparrow} - c^\dag_{i+\hat{y} \downarrow} c_{i \uparrow}) + \text{H.c.}\, \biggr] \nonumber \\
&+& \sum_i (\Delta_{i} c^\dag_{i \uparrow} c^\dag_{i \downarrow} + \text{H.c.})\,,
\label{hamiltonian}
\end{eqnarray}
where we consider hopping among nearest-neighbour lattice sites $\langle ij \rangle$ only with the hopping amplitude $t_{ij}\equiv -t$, $\mu$ is the chemical potential, $V_i$ is the single-particle potential due to a nonmagnetic impurity at site $i$, $h$ is the Zeeman field, $\alpha > 0$ is the Rashba SO coupling strength, $\Delta_{i}$ is the $s$-wave superconducting order parameter at site $i$, and H.c. stands for the Hermitian conjugate. We set the lattice constant to be unity, and $\hat{x}$ and $\hat{y}$ are the unit vectors in the $x$ and $y$ directions. $c^\dag_{i\sigma}$ and $c_{i\sigma}$ creates and annihilates, respectively, the electron at site $i$ with spin $\sigma$ ($=\uparrow,\downarrow$). We solve the BdG equations with the Hamiltonian (\ref{hamiltonian}) and solve for the order parameter $\{\Delta_i\}$ self-consistently for a given coupling constant for the pairing interaction, $U_i\equiv U$:
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{i} = U \langle c_{i \downarrow} c_{i \uparrow} \rangle .
\end{equation}
When the system has translational symmetry, the real-space Hamiltonian in Eq.~(\ref{hamiltonian}) can be Fourier-transformed to momentum space and written as\cite{Sato2010}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{2} \sum_{\bm{k}}\Psi^\dagger_{\bm{k}} \mathcal{H}(\bm{k}) \Psi_{\bm{k}}\,,
\label{hkspace}
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_{\bm{k}}=(c_{\bm{k}\uparrow}\;c_{\bm{k}\downarrow}\;c^\dagger_{-\bm{k}\uparrow}\;c^\dagger_{-\bm{k}\downarrow})^T$ and
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{H}(\bm{k}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon(\bm{k}) - h\sigma_z + \alpha \mathcal{L}(\bm{k})\cdot \bm{\sigma} & i \Delta(\bm{k}) \sigma_y \\
-i \Delta(\bm{k})^* \sigma_y & -\epsilon(\bm{k}) + h\sigma_z + \alpha \mathcal{L}(\bm{k})\cdot \bm{\sigma}^*
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{hkmatrix}
\end{equation}
Here $c^\dagger_{\bm{k}\sigma}$ and $c_{\bm{k}\sigma}$ are the creation and annihilation operators of the electron with momentum $\bm{k}=(k_x,k_y)$ and spin $\sigma$, $\epsilon(\bm{k}) = -2t({\rm cos}\,k_x + {\rm cos}\,k_y) -\mu$, $\mathcal{L}(\bm{k})\equiv (\mathcal{L}_x, \mathcal{L}_y) = ({\rm sin}\,k_y, -{\rm sin}\,k_x)$, and $\bm{\sigma}\equiv (\sigma_x,\sigma_y)$ and $\sigma_z$ are the Pauli matrices.
The above Hamiltonian
in momentum space can be diagonalized to obtain the quasiparticle spectrum as
\begin{equation}
E_\pm(\bm{k}) = \sqrt{\epsilon(\bm{k})^2 + \alpha^2 |\mathcal{L}(\bm{k})|^2 + h^2 + |\Delta|^2 \pm 2\xi(\bm{k})}\,,
\label{bulkspectrum}
\end{equation}
where
$\xi(\bm{k}) = \sqrt{\epsilon(\bm{k})^2 \alpha^2 |\mathcal{L}(\bm{k})|^2 + (\epsilon(\bm{k})^2 + |\Delta|^2)h^2}$ and we have assumed an isotropic $s$-wave order parameter, $\Delta(\bm{k})\equiv \Delta$. Depending on the values of $\mu$, $h$, and $\Delta$, the system can be in a trivial or nontrivial (Abelian or non-Abelian) topological phase according to the first Chern number or the Thouless-Kohmoto-Nightingale-Nijs (TKNN) number,\cite{TKNN1982} which we denote as $\nu$, as classified for four different band regions in Ref.~\onlinecite{Sato2010}. The topological invariant $\nu\in\mathbb{Z}$\cite{Schnyder2008} can be calculated by\cite{Ishikawa1987,Volovik2009,Gurarie2011}
\begin{eqnarray}
\nu = &&\frac{1}{8\pi^2}\int d\bm{k} d\omega\, [\,{\rm Tr}(G\partial_{k_x}G^{-1}G\partial_{k_y}G^{-1}G\partial_{\omega}G^{-1})\nonumber\\
&&-{\rm Tr}(G\partial_{k_y}G^{-1}G\partial_{k_x}G^{-1}G\partial_{\omega}G^{-1})\,]\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $G=(i\omega-\mathcal{H}(\bm{k}))^{-1}$.
The spectral gap $E_0$ is the minimum value of $E_\pm(\bm{k})$ in Eq.~(\ref{bulkspectrum}) and e.g., as $h$ is varied for a given set of $\alpha$, $\mu$, and $\Delta$, the system transitions from one topological (trivial or nontrivial) phase to another every time $E_0$ vanishes. The system is in Abelian and non-Abelian phase when $\nu$ is even and odd, respectively ($-2$ and $\pm 1$ in this model), and in trivial phase when $\nu=0$. Achieving non-Abelian phase with $\nu=-1$ in most of the band region $-2t < \mu \le 2t$ would require relatively large Zeeman field\cite{Sato2010,Nagai2014oval} and accordingly large values of $\alpha$ and/or $|U|$ that may be unrealistic for actual materials in order to overcome the Pauli depairing effect. Thus, in this work we focus on non-Abelian states with $\nu=\pm 1$ in the band regions $\mu \le -2t$ and $\mu > 2t$, where\cite{Sato2010}
\begin{eqnarray}
&&(4t-|\mu|)^2+\Delta^2<h^2<\mu^2+\Delta^2\,;\quad \nu = 1\,,\\
&&\mu^2+\Delta^2<h^2<(4t+|\mu|)^2+\Delta^2\,;\quad \nu = -1\,.
\end{eqnarray}
The vortex lattice is formed by uniform magnetic field applied in the $+z$ direction, $\bm{H}=H\hat{z}$. The electron wavefunction acquires the Peierls phase factor while traversing from site $j$ to $i$ (coordinate from $\bm{r}_{j}$ to $\bm{r}_{i}$) due to the associated vector potential so that the hopping amplitude is modified as
\begin{equation}
t_{ij}\,{\rm exp}\biggl[\,i\frac{e}{\hbar c} \int_{\bm{r}_{i}}^{\bm{r}_{j}} d\bm{r}\cdot\bm{A}(\bm{r}) \biggr]\,,
\end{equation}
where the vector potential $\bm{A}(\bm{r})=(\bm{H}\times \bm{r})/2$ in the symmetric gauge. To ensure obtaining Majorana fermions that come in pairs as a solution to the BdG equations,\cite{Stone2004,Sato2009p-wave} we place two vortices in our system that is the vortex unit cell, i.e., two flux quanta within the system area. The field strength is controlled by the system size as $H=2\phi_0/N_xN_y$ with $\phi_0=hc/2e$, where $N_x$ and $N_y$ are the number of lattice sites in the $x$ and $y$ directions. For the results presented below, we impose the periodic boundary condition for the vortex lattice\cite{Takigawa2000,Kawakami2016} such that there is one vortex in the centre of a square lattice and a quarter vortex at each of the four corners centred right outside the corner site, e.g., at $(x,y)=(1/2,1/2)$. For all the results shown, an odd number of lattice sites $N_x=N_y$ has been used so that the vortex inside the system is centred at the centre site of the square lattice.
We have used the convention that the electron charge is negative ($e>0$) and hence the quasiparticle bound states carry the angular momentum of $-\hbar$ about the vortex centre. The phase winding of the order parameter is referred to as the vorticity ($-1$ in our calculation) hereafter.
To study the effects of nonmagnetic impurities, we place a single nonmagnetic impurity with potential $V_i\equiv V_{\rm imp}$ at the centre site of the system. This is where one of the vortices is centred at, which is a reasonable assumption as a vortex tends to be pinned by an impurity or a defect in real materials, and $V_{\rm imp}$ can be thought of as a pinning potential. We stop self-consistent iterations for the order parameter at the $l$-th iteration step, when the order parameter as a complex vector $\vec{\Delta}$ of length $N_xN_y$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\frac{\|\vec{\Delta}^{(l)}-\vec{\Delta}^{(l-1)}\|}{\|\vec{\Delta}^{(l-1)}\|} < \delta\,,
\end{equation}
where we set $\delta=10^{-6}$. We have found that results do not change with tighter convergence criteria with $\delta$ as small as $10^{-10}$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{p{0.95\columnwidth}}
(a)\resizebox{!}{!}{\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{pimp.eps}}\\
\\
(b)\resizebox{!}{!}{\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{pipp.eps}}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:bands} (Colour online) Electron (solid curves) and hole (dashed curves) bands $\pm E_{\pm}$ in the normal state for $\mu=-3.5t$, $\alpha=t$, and $k_y=0$ as a function of $k_x$ for (a) $h=t$ and (b) $h=-t$, where the Fermi surface is formed by $E_-$ (orange curve) and $E_+$ (blue curve), respectively. The interband (intraband) pairing is represented by $\Delta^{({\rm s})}$ ($\Delta^{({\rm p}\pm i{\rm p})}$ corresponding to chiralities $\eta_\pm$).
}
\end{figure}
The energy spectrum (\ref{bulkspectrum}) depends only on the magnitude of the Zeeman field $h$ and so the phase transition between different topological phases is independent of the sign of $h$. In a given topological phase, however, which one of the two underlying chiralities, $\eta_{\pm}\equiv -({\cal L}_x\pm i{\cal L}_y)/\sqrt{{\cal L}_x^2+{\cal L}_y^2}=\pm i({\rm sin}\,k_x \pm i\,{\rm sin}\,k_y)/\sqrt{{\rm sin}^2k_x+{\rm sin}^2k_y}$,\cite{Fujimoto2008,Sato2009p-wave} is more manifest is determined by the sign of $h$\cite{Wu2012} as well as the sign of $\mu$.\cite{Sato2010} This can be seen by expressing $\mathcal{H}(\bm{k})$ in the ``chirality basis'' that diagonalizes the normal-state Hamiltonian $\epsilon(\bm{k}) - h\sigma_z + \alpha \mathcal{L}(\bm{k})\cdot \bm{\sigma}$:\cite{Sato2010}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\mathcal{H}}(\bm{k}) =
\begin{pmatrix}
\epsilon(\bm{k}) + \Delta\epsilon(\bm{k})\sigma_z & \hat{\Delta} \\
\hat{\Delta}^\dagger & -\epsilon(\bm{k}) - \Delta\epsilon(\bm{k})\sigma_z
\end{pmatrix},
\label{hktilde}
\end{equation}
where $\Delta\epsilon(\bm{k}) = {\rm sgn}(h) \sqrt{ \alpha^2 |\mathcal{L}(\bm{k})|^2 + h^2}$ and
\begin{equation}
\hat{\Delta} = \frac{1}{\Delta\epsilon(\bm{k})}
\begin{pmatrix}
-\alpha|\mathcal{L}(\bm{k})|\eta_+\Delta(\bm{k}) & h\Delta(\bm{k}) \\
-h\Delta(\bm{k}) & -\alpha|\mathcal{L}(\bm{k})|\eta_-\Delta(\bm{k})
\end{pmatrix}.
\label{deltahat}
\end{equation}
In the normal state, the eigenspectrum in Eq.~(\ref{bulkspectrum}) reduces to
$E_\pm(\bm{k}) = \epsilon(\bm{k})\pm \Delta\epsilon(\bm{k})$,
where ${\rm sgn}(h)$ in $\Delta\epsilon(\bm{k})$ is necessary for obtaining the correct eigenvalues and eigenfunctions as can be seen by taking the limit $\alpha\rightarrow 0$. We note that this factor is missing in the discussion of the chirality basis in Ref.~\onlinecite{Sato2010} where $h$ was supposed to be positive. It can be seen in Eq.~(\ref{deltahat}) that the \emph{intraband} pairing in the band $E_+$ ($E_-$) has the chirality of $\eta_+$ ($\eta_-$), while the interband pairing is purely $s$-wave. This is analogous to the two chiralities $p_x\pm ip_y$ present in the non-Abelian phase of the continuum model.\cite{Alicea2010,Shitade2015}. Although orbital angular momentum is not a good quantum number in the presence of SO coupling, it has been found in Ref.~\onlinecite{Shitade2015} that when $\alpha$ is small enough, the average angular momentum carried by a Cooper pair can be close to $-\hbar$ in non-Abelian states dominated by $p_x-ip_y$, as in chiral $p$-wave superconductors.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{eig51x51_mu-3_U-5.5.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:eigmu-3} (Colour online) Quasiparticle excitation spectra for $h=1.5t$ (red plus) and $h=-1.5t$ (blue cross) in the vortex lattice in a pure 51$\times$51 system for $\mu=-3t$, $U=-5.5t$, $\alpha=1.5t$. The index numbers the eigenvalues.
}
\end{figure}
We illustrate in Fig.~\ref{fig:bands} for $\mu=-3.5t$ and $\alpha=t$ the two cases, (a) $h=t$ and (b) $h=-t$, where the normal-state Fermi surface is formed by $E_-$ and $E_+$, respectively. This value of $\alpha$ is small enough so that the respective chirality, $\eta_-$ and $\eta_+$, associated with the Fermi surface can be dominant over the other, as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:chirality} for $\mu=3.5t$ (where the dominant chirality is $\eta_+$ and $\eta_-$, respectively, for $h=t$ and $h=-t$). Due to the interband pairing, however, both chiralities are present in a TSC state in general. We will demonstrate in Secs.~\ref{sec:chirality} and \ref{sec:weak-alpha} that for relatively weak SO coupling, vortex structure and effects of a nonmagnetic impurity can be influenced strongly by one of the chiralities $\eta_+$ and $\eta_-$, which we call the chirality of $+1$ and $-1$, respectively, in the remainder of the paper.
The major chirality in a non-Abelian TSC state stems from the chirality (spin winding) of the single Fermi surface in the normal state.\cite{Sato2010,Alicea2010,Shitade2015}. The latter is $+1$ for $\mu>0$, $h>0$ and $\mu<0$, $h<0$, and $-1$ for $\mu>0$, $h<0$ and $\mu<0$, $h>0$: The first and second $\mu<0$ combinations correspond to the convention used in the continuum model in Refs.~\onlinecite{Masaki2014}, \onlinecite{Masaki2015} and Ref.~\onlinecite{Shitade2015}, respectively. In the case of a trivial TSC state, the chirality of the dominant one of the two Fermi surfaces can manifest itself. The TKNN number $\nu$ reverses its sign under $h\rightarrow -h$, whereas it does not under $\mu\rightarrow -\mu$. Whether trivial or nontrivial, the underlying chirality in the TSC state -- rather than the TKNN number itself -- governs how the system responds to vorticity and nonmagnetic impurities in the presence of a vortex.
\section{\label{sec:results}Results}
\subsection{\label{sec:chirality}Chirality vs Vorticity}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{zero.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:zero} (Colour online) Minimum quasiparticle energy as a function of the distance between nearest-neighbour vortices $d=N_x/\sqrt{2}$ for $N_x=N_y=31$, 41, 51, 55, and 61.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{orderU-5.25_h-1_Vimp-2.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:orderU-5.25} (Colour online) Order parameter of the vortex lattice in a 41$\times$41-site system for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-5.25t$, $\alpha=t$, and $h=-t$, with (a) $V_{\rm imp}=0$ and (b) $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ at the lattice centre.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ldos_mu3.5_U-5.25_h1.eps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1} (Colour online) (a) Spin-up and (b) spin-down components of the LDOS as a function of quasiparticle energy at the centre of the 41$\times$41 vortex lattice for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-5.25t$, $\alpha=t$, and $h=t$; for $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ (red solid curves) and $V_{\rm imp}=0$ (green dashed curves).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ldos_mu3.5_U-5.25_h-1.eps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1} (Colour online) Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1}, but for $h=-t$.
}
\end{figure}
We have studied the vortex lattice states for a wide variety of parameter sets ($\mu$, $\alpha$, $h$, $U$ and the resulting bulk order parameter $\Delta$ and spectral gap $E_0$) within our tight-binding model (\ref{hamiltonian}), in particular exploring the effects of the strength of SO coupling $\alpha$ and the sign of the Zeeman field $h$. We find that for $\alpha\gtrsim t$ the sign of $h$ hardly makes any difference in a pure vortex lattice state (i.e., with no impurity). The converged order parameter, the excitation spectrum, and the ground-state energy are practically the same for positive and negative $h$ in the absence of impurity. We will discuss the influence of chirality on the vortex structure that can be apparent even in a pure system for relatively small $\alpha$ in Sec.~\ref{sec:weak-alpha}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{eig2_41x41_mu3.5_U-5.25.eps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:eigU-5.25} (Colour online) Excitation spectra in the 41$\times$41 vortex lattice for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-5.25t$, $\alpha=t$, comparing the cases with $V_{\rm imp}=0$ (red plus) and $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ (blue cross) at a vortex centre for (a) $h=t$ and (b) $h=-t$. The index numbers the eigenvalues.
}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:eigmu-3} we show the quasiparticle spectra for $h=\pm 1.5t$ in the vortex lattice in a pure 51$\times$51-site system for $\mu=-3t$, $\alpha=1.5t$, and $U=-5.5t$ ($\Delta\simeq 0.5t$, $E_0\simeq 0.33t$, and $\nu=1$), where the abscissa is an index numbering the discrete eigenvalues. The major change caused by reversal of the Zeeman field while keeping all other parameters the same is the average numbers of spin-up and spin-down electrons in the system being interchanged. Accordingly, the overall magnitude of the spin-up and spin-down probability amplitudes of the Majorana bound state (and low-energy quasiparticle excitations) in each vortex core changes when the sign of $h$ is flipped: e.g., if the spin-up component of a Majorana is dominant over the spin-down component for a given $h$, then vice versa for $-h$. Other than this, the overall structure of each of the spin-up and spin-down Majorana wave functions is little affected by the direction of the Zeeman field. It is just barely discernible in Fig.~\ref{fig:eigmu-3} that the first excited state has a slightly lower energy for $h=-1.5t$ than for $h=1.5t$. We find that the opposite is true for positive $\mu$, though the difference tends to be very small. The Majorana bound-state energy is $\sim 0.0003t$ and $\sim 0.0002t$, respectively, for $h=1.5t$ and $h=-1.5t$ in this example. These energy levels are not exactly zero due to nonzero overlap of the Majorana wavefunctions bound to nearest-neighbour vortices on the finite lattice. To demonstrate that they are indeed Majorana bound states, the minimum eigenvalue $|E|$ in units of the bulk spectral gap $E_0$ is plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:zero} as a function of the distance between nearest-neighbour vortices for $N_x=N_y=31$, 41, 51, 55, and 61; for the two systems shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:eigmu-3} and for $\mu=3.5t$, $\alpha=t$, $h=\pm 0.8t$, and $U=-4.855t$ ($\Delta\simeq 0.37t$, $E_0\simeq 0.18t$, and $\nu=1$). It can be seen that the minimum eigenvalue approaches zero as the system size increases.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{FS_alpha2.5.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:FS_alpha2.5} (Colour online) Normal-state Fermi surface $E_-$ for $\mu=-2t$, $\alpha=2.5t$ and $h=2.5t$ as a function of $k_x$ and $k_y$.
}
\end{figure}
Presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25} is the magnitude of the converged order parameter $\Delta(i_x,i_y)$ of the vortex lattice in a 41$\times$41-site system for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-5.25t$, $\alpha=t$, $h=-t$ ($\Delta\simeq 0.37t$ and $\nu=1$) as a function of $x\equiv i_x$ and $y\equiv i_y$ coordinates; with (a) no impurity and (b) a single nonmagnetic impurity with potential $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ at the centre of the lattice, where one of the vortices is centred at. The contour projection of the order parameter magnitude onto the $xy$ plane is in steps of $0.05t$. For this value of $\alpha$, the vortex structure in a pure system barely depends on the sign of $h$, and $|\Delta(i_x,i_y)|$ for $h=+t$ is very similar to the one shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25}(a) for $h=-t$. In the presence of a nonmagnetic impurity, however, one of the two chiralities can manifest itself in the vortex core structure. For $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$, while the vortex structure of the order parameter does not change much from the pure case for $h=+t$ (not shown), it can be seen clearly in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25}(b) that for $h=-t$, the vortex core shrinks in comparison to the no-impurity case shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25}(a).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{orderU-8_alpha2.5_Vimp-2.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:orderU-8} (Colour online) Order parameter of the vortex lattice in a 41$\times$41-site system for $\mu=-2t$, $U=-8t$, $\alpha=2.5t$, and $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ at the lattice centre, for (a) $h=2.5t$ and (b) $h=-2.5t$. Contour projection in steps of $0.05t$.
}
\end{figure}
The LDOS at the vortex centre (where the nonmagnetic impurity is placed at) is plotted as a function of quasiparticle energy in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1} for the system presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25} and in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1} for the same system but for $h=+t$, where the (a) spin-up and (b) spin-down components of the LDOS are compared between $V_{\rm imp}=0$ and $-2t$. The Lorentz kernel\cite{Weisse2006,Covaci2010} has been used for calculation of the LDOS with the corresponding Lorentzian smoothing width of $0.0005t$. The number of terms summed over in the Chebyshev polynomial expansion of the Green function components for the LDOS is 3000, while the cutoff of 2000 terms was used for the order parameter. The bulk spectral gap in this system (irrespective of the sign of $h$) is $E_0\simeq 0.26t$. We first note that the Majorana bound state is dominated by its spin-down component at the vortex centre for both $h=\pm t$ [Figs.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1}(b) and \ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1}(b)]. It turns out to be always the case for $\alpha\gtrsim t$ that spin of the Majorana zero mode is dominantly down at the vortex centre, regardless of the sign of the Zeeman field or the chemical potential. As mentioned above in regard to the Zeeman field, one spin component can be dominant over the other in a Majorana for a given $h$ and $\mu$, and the dominance is reversed under the change $h\rightarrow -h$, or $\mu\rightarrow -\mu$. Whether up spin or down spin is dominant in the wave function overall, spin of the Majorana bound state is mostly down at the vortex centre for $\alpha\gtrsim t$.
This spin polarization at the vortex centre is consistent with the findings of Ref.~\onlinecite{Nagai2014top}, where Majorana bound states in a three-dimensional topological superconductor with spin-orbit coupling have been found to be spin-polarised in a vortex core. Assuming circular symmetry around the vortex centre, the spin-up and spin-down wavefunctions are given by the Bessel function of the first kind, $J_n(r)$ and $J_{n-1}(r)$, respectively, where $n$ and $n-1$ are the orbital angular momentum carried by the spin-up and spin-down components of a quasiparticle, for the chirality of $+1$.\cite{Nagai2014top} The Majorana bound state has either $n=0$ or $n=1$, whichever yields the lowest (zero) energy, depending on the vorticity. In Ref.~\onlinecite{Nagai2014top} the vorticity of $+1$ was used that resulted in the Majorana wavefunction dominated by its spin-up component in the vortex core.
It can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1} that both spin-up and spin-down (Majorana) bound-state energies are hardly affected by the impurity for $h=+t$. This can be understood in terms of the major chirality being $+1$: the angular momentum $+\hbar$ carried by Cooper pairs in the condensate is mostly cancelled by the angular momentum $-\hbar$ carried by the supercurrent, making the system effectively $s$-wave-like in the vortex core region. In contrast, the spin-up (non-Majorana) bound-state energies are shifted substantially by the presence of the impurity for $h=-t$ [Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1}(a)], where the chirality has the same sign as the vorticity. Also in this case, however, the Majorana bound state is robust in that its energy is unchanged, albeit with reduced amplitude at the impurity site [Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1}(b)].
Figures~\ref{fig:eigU-5.25}(a) and \ref{fig:eigU-5.25}(b) show the quasiparticle spectra for the systems presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1} and \ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1}, respectively. It can be seen that even for $h=t$, the first excited state is pushed up in energy though slightly, resulting in an increased minigap, by the nonmagnetic impurity at the vortex centre. Note that each energy level is doubly degenerate as there are two vortices in the lattice, though numerically not exactly as the two vortices are not equivalent: Only one of them has its centre in the system, where we place a single nonmagnetic impurity, hence shifting the energy of only one of the two states (in each level). The only perceptible change caused by the impurity for $h=t$ is the small shift of the first excited level, and this is reflected in the LDOS in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1}(a) as the slight shift in the peak position. For $h=-t$, on the other hand, the first few excited states are affected by the impurity, and this results in the substantial shift of the bound-state peak in the LDOS at the vortex centre, as can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1}(a).
For both signs of $h$, the energy of the Majorana bound state remains practically the same ($\sim 0.001t$ on the 41$\times$41 lattice) with or without the impurity. This turns out to be the case also for stronger impurity potential, or stronger spin-orbit coupling as discussed in Sec.~\ref{sec:strong-alpha}, where the vortex bound states are significantly affected by the impurity for $h>0$ as well as for $h<0$. We also find that the minigap is increased by the presence of a nonmagnetic impurity at the vortex centre, regardless of the (nonzero) magnitude, or the sign of the potential -- in case of a positive potential, as long as the magnitude is large enough so that the order parameter is suppressed at the impurity site in the absence of vortices. The order parameter can be enhanced at the impurity site for a relatively weak, positive potential,\cite{Hu2013,Goertzen2016} and the BdG equations tend to have difficulty converging when such an impurity is placed at the vortex centre, especially for $h>0$ presumably due to competition between the dominant chirality and the vorticity. By including a Gaussian impurity potential in the core of a single vortex in the continuum model,\cite{Sau2010} the authors of Ref.~\onlinecite{Mao2010} showed that the minigap simply increased continuously as the magnitude of the positive Gaussian potential was increased from zero. This result may have been possible because these authors did not solve the BdG equations self-consistently for the vortex state within the topological superconductor.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ldos_mu-2_U-8_h2.5.eps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:ldosU-8_h2.5} (Colour online) (a) Spin-up and (b) spin-down components of the LDOS as a function of quasiparticle energy at the vortex centre for the system presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-8}(a) for $h=2.5t$ (red solid curves) in comparison with the pure case (green dashed curves).
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ldos_mu-2_U-8_h-2.5.eps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:ldosU-8_h-2.5} (Colour online) Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-8_h2.5}, but for $h=-2.5t$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{wfM_U-8_h2.5_Vimp-2.ps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:wfU-8_h2.5} (Colour online) Particle (left column) and hole (right column) probability amplitudes of the Majorana bound state for the system shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-8_h2.5} for $h=2.5t$; for spin up (a),(b) and spin down (c),(d) for $V_{\rm imp}=0$, and for spin up (e),(f) and spin down (g),(h) for $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{wfM_U-8_h-2.5_Vimp-2.ps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:wfU-8_h-2.5} (Colour online) Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:wfU-8_h2.5}, but for $h=-2.5t$.
}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\label{sec:strong-alpha}Strong SO Coupling}
For the systems studied in the previous subsection, the chemical potential $\mu=3.5t$ is fairly close to the top of the band and also the SO coupling constant $\alpha=t$ is relatively small so that the Fermi surface in the normal state is nearly perfectly circular. This means that the system has rotational symmetry to a good approximation and the difference between the two intrinsic chiralities can be apparent in vortex states. In this subsection, we examine a case where the chemical potential is far away enough from the top or bottom of the band and/or SO coupling is relatively strong so that the Fermi surface is nowhere close to having circular symmetry. For this purpose we use $\mu=-2t$ and $\alpha=h=2.5t$. The normal-state Fermi surface $E_-$ is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:FS_alpha2.5}, which is centred at $(\pi,\pi)$ like the Fermi surface ($E_+$) for $\mu=3.5t$ and $\alpha=h=t$ (not shown). One can see that a large portion of this Fermi surface is almost flat and perpendicular to the directions $k_y=\pm k_x$.
The converged order parameter for $\mu=-2t$, $\alpha=2.5t$, and $U=-8t$ ($\Delta\simeq 0.67t$, $E_0\simeq 0.39t$, and $\nu=-1$) in the 41$\times$41 vortex lattice with $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ at the centre of the system is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-8} for (a) $h=2.5t$ and (b) $h=-2.5t$. The contour projection onto the $xy$ plane is again in steps of $0.05t$. It can be seen that the vortex core size is not much different for the positive and negative $h$ in this case: It also turns out that it does not change much from the pure case ($V_{\rm imp}=0$) for either sign of $h$. Furthermore, in contrast to the results for $\mu=3.5t$, $\alpha=t$, and $h=-t$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25}, the contour projection shows that the order parameter has more square-like symmetry rather than circular about the vortex centre. We note that it is more so for negative $h$ than positive $h$, and even in the $\mu=3.5t$ result for $h=-t$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25} the order parameter has square symmetry ($45^\circ$ rotated with respect to the $xy$ axes) very close to the vortex centre.
Figures~\ref{fig:ldosU-8_h2.5} and \ref{fig:ldosU-8_h-2.5} present the (a) spin-up and (b) spin-down components of the LDOS at the vortex centre as a function of quasiparticle energy for the systems shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-8}, in comparison with the pure case. The influence of the impurity is visible for both $h=\pm 2.5t$, with some energy shifts for spin-up quasiparticles. In fact, vortex bound states are more affected by the impurity for positive $h$ than for negative $h$: the shift of the spin-up LDOS peak for $h=2.5t$ is a reflection of the first excited state moved up in energy from $\sim 0.11t$ to $\sim 0.21t$, thus increasing the minigap by about $0.1t$. Interestingly, unlike the results for $\mu=3.5t$, $\alpha=t$, and $h=\pm t$ in Figs.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1} and \ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1}, the Majorana bound state for $h=2.5t$ and some of the spin-up bound states for $h=-2.5t$ become more bound to the vortex centre by the presence of the impurity. Yet, the energy of the Majorana bound state ($\lesssim 0.003t$ in this example) is barely changed by the impurity for both signs of $h$.
We show in Figs.~\ref{fig:wfU-8_h2.5} and \ref{fig:wfU-8_h-2.5} the Majorana wave functions for the systems presented in Figs.~\ref{fig:ldosU-8_h2.5} and \ref{fig:ldosU-8_h-2.5}, respectively. In each of Figs.~\ref{fig:wfU-8_h2.5} and \ref{fig:wfU-8_h-2.5}, the spin-up (a) particle and (b) hole probability amplitudes and the spin-down (c) particle and (d) hole probability amplitudes for $V_{\rm imp}=0$ are plotted as a function of $x$ and $y$ coordinates for the entire 41$\times$41-site system. Respective probability amplitudes are plotted for $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ in (e) and (f), and (g) and (h). We first note that the particle and hole probability amplitudes in a given spin component are practically identical for all the cases shown, as expected for a Majorana fermion. Fourfold-symmetric extension of the wave functions can be discerned especially for the spin-up components (and the spin-down components for $h=-2.5t$ and $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$), reflecting $k_y=\pm k_x$ in the Fermi wave vector. The bound-state energy for this finite-size system being slightly higher than the counterpart for $\mu=3.5t$, $\alpha=t$, and $h=\pm t$ mentioned at the end of Sec.~\ref{sec:chirality} can be attributed to the nonzero overlap of the Majorana wave functions among the nearest-neighbour vortices.
Masaki and Kato have found\cite{Masaki2014,Masaki2015} in terms of the continuum model\cite{Sau2010} that for weak SO coupling, vortex bound states are more robust against nonmagnetic impurities when the chirality is opposite to the vorticity, compared to the case where the chirality and vorticity are in the same direction, and that this difference between the two chiralities diminishes as SO coupling is made stronger. They have also found that the scattering rates of zero-energy bound states are very small regardless of the major chirality and the strength of SO coupling.\cite{Masaki2015} Our results, though only with a single nonmagnetic impurity at the vortex centre, are consistent with their findings.
\subsection{\label{sec:weak-alpha}Weak SO Coupling}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{orderU-6.33_alpha0.5.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:orderU-6.33} (Colour online) Order parameter of the vortex lattice in a pure 51$\times$51-site system for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-6.33t$, and $\alpha=0.5t$; for (a) $h=t$ and (b) $h=-t$. Contour projection in steps of $0.05t$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{eig51x51_mu3.5_alpha0.5.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:eigmu3.5_a0.5} (Colour online) Quasiparticle spectra for $h=t$ (red plus) and $h=-t$ (blue cross) in the pure 51$\times$51 vortex lattice for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-6.33t$, and $\alpha=0.5t$. The index numbers the eigenvalues.
}
\end{figure}
In this subsection, we illustrate that when SO coupling is relatively weak, vortex structure can be markedly different for the two opposite directions of the Zeeman field even in a pure vortex state. It has been found in Ref.~\onlinecite{Shitade2015} that the weaker the SO coupling, the closer the average angular momentum per Cooper pair to $-\hbar$ in the ($p_x-ip_y$)-dominated states. Thus, in terms of the direction of the Zeeman field (or alternatively the external field applied to create the vortex lattice) one can make one of the two intrinsic chiralities strongly manifest in the vortex core structure.
Shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33} is the order parameter in the pure 51$\times$51 vortex lattice for $\mu=3.5t$, $\alpha=0.5t$, and $U=-6.33t$ ($\Delta\simeq 0.48t$, $E_0\simeq 0.21t$, and $\nu=1$); for (a) $h=t$ and (b) $h=-t$. Compared with the order parameter for $\mu=3.5t$ and $\alpha=t$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25}(a) (for $h=-t$, but it is very similar to the order parameter for $h=t$), it can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(a) that for $h=t$, the coherence length in the sense of a recovery length of the order parameter from the vortex centre to the bulk value is much larger for $\alpha=0.5t$ than $\alpha=t$. Note that the system size, namely, the size of the unit cell of the vortex lattice is 41$\times$41 and 51$\times$51, respectively, in Figs.~\ref{fig:orderU-5.25}(a) and \ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(a). In fact, we have tried the coupling constant of $U=-6.255t$ for $\alpha=0.5t$ that yields a similar bulk order parameter as for $\alpha=t$; however, the coherence (recovery) length in this case is so large that there is substantial overlap of vortex cores and it is not useful for comparison of the vortex structure with the $\alpha=t$ case.
Striking is the difference between the $\alpha=0.5t$ and $\alpha=t$ cases for $h=-t$ [Figs.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(b) vs \ref{fig:orderU-5.25}(b)] and also between positive and negative $h$ in Figs.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(a) and ~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(b). As can be seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(b), for $h=-t$ as the order parameter tends toward zero at the vortex centre, it oscillates and is enhanced slightly around the vortex centre. At first glance, this is reminiscent of the $p_x+ip_y$ order parameter induced in the vortex core with vorticity $+1$ in the $p_x-ip_y$ domain of a chiral $p$-wave superconductor.\cite{Ichioka2002} In our calculation, however, the vorticity is $-1$ and thus parallel to the major chirality for $h=-t$. Moreover, we only have the superconducting order parameter stemming from spin-singlet $s$-wave pairing, and the enlargement of the vortex core for $h=t$ and the enhancement around the vortex centre for $h=-t$ are happening within the same $s$-wave order parameter. Both underlying chiralities $\pm 1$ are always present and mixed except for $\alpha \ll t$,\cite{Shitade2015} and it is not clear as to whether there is a way to define a unique order parameter for each of the two chiralities separately. It is apparent nonetheless that some extra order is induced in the $h=-t$ system inside the vortex core, increasing the superconducting order somewhat.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{wfM_U-6.33_alpha0.5.ps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:wfU-6.33_alpha0.5} (Colour online) Particle (left column) and hole (right column) probability amplitudes of the Majorana bound state for the systems shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33} and \ref{fig:eigmu3.5_a0.5}; for spin up (a),(b) and spin down (c),(d) for $h=t$, and for spin up (e),(f) and spin down (g),(h) for $h=-t$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{ldos_U-6.33_alpha0.5.eps}
\vspace{.2cm}
\caption{\label{fig:ldosU-6.33_alpha0.5} (Colour online) Spin-up (red solid curves) and spin-down (blue dashed curves) components of the LDOS as a function of quasiparticle energy at the vortex centre for the systems presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:wfU-6.33_alpha0.5}. }
\end{figure}
The suppression and enhancement of the order parameter around the vortex centre for $h=t$ and $h=-t$, respectively, seen in Figs.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33} (a) and \ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(b) are reflected in the quasiparticle spectra presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:eigmu3.5_a0.5}. One can see that the first few excited levels of the vortex bound states are higher for $h=-t$ than for $h=t$, with the minigap of $\sim 0.04t$ and $0.03t$, respectively ($\sim 0.05t$ for $\alpha=t$ for both $h=\pm t$). By comparison, the Majorana bound-state energy is not much different between $h=-t$ ($\sim 0.001t$) and $h=t$ ($\sim 0.0006t$). The ground-state energy of the system and equivalently the average energy gain per electron are also hardly different for $h=t$ and $h=-t$.
Bj\"ornson and Black-Schaffer have solved the BdG equations on the Hamiltonian (\ref{hamiltonian}) self-consistently (without the vector potential) for a vortex in a square lattice with open boundaries and have also found asymmetry in low-energy spectra between positive and negative $h$ for a given vorticity for $\alpha\approx 0.5t$.\cite{Bjornson2013}
The Majorana wavefunctions are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:wfU-6.33_alpha0.5} for the above two systems; where the spin-up (a) particle and (b) hole probability amplitudes and the spin-down (c) particle and (d) hole probability amplitudes for $h=t$, and respective probability amplitudes for $h=-t$ in (e) and (f), and (g) and (h), are plotted as a function of $x$ and $y$ coordinates for the entire 51$\times$51 lattice. Once again, the particle (left column) and hole (right column) probability amplitudes are virtually identical in each spin component. For $h=t$, the bound-state peak of the spin-down component is strongly localized at the vortex centre [(c) and (d)], while the spin-up component, though much smaller in magnitude, extends substantially outside the core region [(a) and (b)].
Remarkably, the spin-down probability amplitudes are not peaked at the vortex centre for $h=-t$, as clearly visible in Figs.~\ref{fig:wfU-6.33_alpha0.5}(g) and \ref{fig:wfU-6.33_alpha0.5}(h). They are peaked at surrounding sites and though small in magnitude, have substantial extension outside the vortex core. The spin-up amplitudes are a little more confined: They are also suppressed right at the vortex centre, although it is not discernible in Figs.~\ref{fig:wfU-6.33_alpha0.5}(e) and \ref{fig:wfU-6.33_alpha0.5}(f). Furthermore, the spin-up amplitudes are one order of magnitude larger than the spin-down amplitudes, contrary to the $h=t$ case as well as the systems in Figs.~\ref{fig:wfU-8_h2.5} and \ref{fig:wfU-8_h-2.5} with strong SO coupling.
The LDOS at the vortex centre as a function of quasiparticle energy shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-6.33_alpha0.5}(b) confirms the absence of the spin-down Majorana component at the vortex centre for $h=-t$, in stark contrast to the examples shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h1}, \ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1}, \ref{fig:ldosU-8_h2.5} and \ref{fig:ldosU-8_h-2.5}, as well as the LDOS for $h=t$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-6.33_alpha0.5}(a). The peak in the spin-up LDOS for $h=-t$ seen in Fig.~\ref{fig:ldosU-6.33_alpha0.5}(b) corresponds to the first excited state (the minigap at $\sim 0.04t$).
Placing a nonmagnetic impurity at the vortex centre can enhance the unusual structure of the vortex core for $h=-t$. This is illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33_Vimp-2}, where the order parameter is shown for the systems analogous to those presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-6.33}, but with $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ at the centre of the 41$\times$41 vortex lattice, for (a) $h=t$ and (b) $h=-t$. For $h=t$, compared to the pure system (with 41$\times$41 lattice sites), the size of the vortex core is little changed by the nonmagnetic impurity, while its shape is modified slightly. For $h=-t$, on the other hand, the enhancement of the order parameter around the vortex centre is exaggerated by the presence of the impurity so much that the order parameter at its peaks is significantly larger than the bulk value.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{orderU-6.33_alpha0.5_Vimp-2.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:orderU-6.33_Vimp-2} (Colour online) Order parameter of the 41$\times$41 vortex lattice with $V_{\rm imp}=-2t$ at the centre site for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-6.33t$, and $\alpha=0.5t$; for (a) $h=t$ and (b) $h=-t$. Contour projection in steps of $0.05t$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{orderU-4.66_alpha0.5.ps}
\caption{\label{fig:orderU-4.66_alpha0.5_h0.5} (Colour online) Order parameter of the vortex lattice in a pure 41$\times$41 system in trivial phase for $\mu=3.5t$, $U=-4.66t$, and $\alpha=0.5t$; for (a) $h=0.5t$ and (b) $h=-0.5t$. Contour projection in steps of $0.05t$.
}
\end{figure}
Finally, we demonstrate the manifestation of chirality in the vortex lattice in the trivial phase. Shitade and Nagai\cite{Shitade2015} have found in the ($p_x-ip_y$)-dominated states that when $\alpha\ll t$, the average angular momentum per Cooper pair can be close to $-\hbar$ already in the trivial phase as $h$ ($>0$) approaches the critical value for the phase transition from the trivial to non-Abelian phase. We present in Fig.~\ref{fig:orderU-4.66_alpha0.5_h0.5} the order parameter in the pure 41$\times$41 vortex lattice for $\mu=3.5t$, $\alpha=0.5t$, and $U=-4.66t$, for (a) $h=0.5t$ and (b) $h=-0.5t$. These systems are in the trivial phase with $\nu=0$. The coupling constant $U$ has been chosen so as to make the bulk order parameter ($\Delta\simeq 0.48t$) similar to that in the non-Abelian systems for $\mu=3.5t$, $\alpha=0.5t$, and $h=\pm t$ discussed above. It can be seen in Figs.~\ref{fig:orderU-4.66_alpha0.5_h0.5}(a) and \ref{fig:orderU-4.66_alpha0.5_h0.5}(b) that the suppression and enhancement of the order parameter around the vortex centre for $h>0$ and $h<0$, respectively, are more substantial than in the non-Abelian systems shown in Figs.\ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(a) and \ref{fig:orderU-6.33}(b). This signifies the fact that the angular momentum carried by Cooper pairs governs vortex core structure, even though the current TSC model can be mapped onto a spinless $p$-wave superconductor with chiralities $\pm 1$ only in the nontrivial phase.\cite{Sato2010}
\subsection{\label{sec:minigap}Minigap}
We show in Fig.~\ref{fig:eigmu3.5_a1} the quasiparticle spectra for $\mu=3.5t$ and $\alpha=t$ in the pure 51$\times$51 vortex lattice; for $h=-t$ (red plus), $h=-0.9t$ (blue cross), and $h=-0.8t$ (magenta star). The coupling constant has been chosen to be $U=-4.855t$ and $U=-5.05t$, respectively, for $h=-0.8t$ and $h=-0.9t$ so that the bulk order parameter $\Delta\approx 0.37t$ as for $h=-t$ ($U=-5.25t$). The bulk spectral gap (independent of the sign of $h$) is $E_0\simeq 0.18t$, $E_0\simeq 0.27t$, and $E_0\simeq 0.26t$ for $h=0.8t$, $h=0.9t$, and $h=t$, respectively. As mentioned in relation to Fig.~\ref{fig:eigmu-3} in Sec.~\ref{sec:chirality}, $\mu>0$ in these systems and the minigap is larger for $h<0$ than for $h>0$ by a very small amount (of the order of $10^{-3}t$). The minigap is $0.065t$, $0.058t$, and $0.054t$, respectively, for $h=-0.8t$, $h=-0.9t$, and $h=-t$.
For these and other systems we have examined, we have not found any direct correlation between the minigap and the bulk order parameter nor the spectral gap. In this particular example (also for $h>0$), simply the smaller the $|h|$, the larger the minigap. The formula for the minigap for $s$-wave or chiral $p$-wave superconductors, $\sim \Delta/k_F\xi\sim \Delta E_0/k_F^2$, where $k_F$ is the magnitude of the Fermi wave vector and $\xi$ is the coherence length,\cite{deGennes,Tinkham} has been used in the literature for the $s$-wave TSC model with Rashba SO coupling and Zeeman field. For a given $\alpha$ and $h$, $E_0$ is determined uniquely from Eq.~(\ref{bulkspectrum}) once $\Delta$ is fixed. However, $k_F$ also depends on $\alpha$ and $h$. Thus, it is unclear as to whether this common formula applies to the minigap in $s$-wave TSC vortices with the two inherent chiralities.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.9\columnwidth]{eig51x51_mu3.5_alpha1_h-1.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:eigmu3.5_a1} (Colour online) Quasiparticle spectra for $\mu=3.5t$ and $\alpha=t$ in a pure 51$\times$51 vortex lattice. $U$ has been chosen so that $\Delta$ is roughly the same for different values of $h$. The index numbers the eigenvalues.
}
\end{figure}
As discussed at the end of Sec.~\ref{sec:chirality}, the minigap is increased by a nonmagnetic impurity which the vortex is pinned by, and the increase in the minigap can be substantial as illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:ldosU-5.25_h-1} and \ref{fig:ldosU-8_h2.5}, depending on the major chirality and the strength of SO coupling. The larger the minigap, the shorter the minimum time required for braiding operation of vortices to avoid nonadiabatic transitions of the Majorana zero mode to excited states.\cite{Masaki2015} Therefore, further exploration of the effects of $\alpha$ and $h$ on the minigap, especially in the presence of a nonmagnetic impurity in the vortex core, is of great interest from the application point of view for topological quantum computation.
\section{\label{sec:conclusions}Conclusions}
In summary, we have performed a self-consistent study of the vortex lattice in a two-dimensional topological superconductor with an $s$-wave pairing interaction, Rashba spin-orbit coupling, and Zeeman field. When a vortex is pinned at a nonmagnetic impurity, one of the two intrinsic chiralities in the non-Abelian topological superconducting state can manifest itself in the vortex structure and affect the low-energy excitation spectrum for relatively weak spin-orbit coupling. One can make one chirality dominant over the other by changing the direction of the Zeeman field, or alternatively, the sign of the chemical potential.
In such states, (non-Majorana) vortex bound states are less influenced by the impurity if the dominant chirality is opposite to the vorticity, compared to the case where it is in the same direction as the vorticity. For stronger spin-orbit coupling, where orbital angular momentum is less of a ``good quantum number'', low-energy spectra tend to be more affected by the impurity regardless of the direction of the Zeeman field. The Majorana zero mode effectively remains a zero-energy bound state, and its spin is polarised according to the vorticity unless spin-orbit coupling is rather weak, in which case the spin polarization depends on the major chirality as well.
We have shown in Sec.~\ref{sec:weak-alpha} that when spin-orbit coupling is weak, the vortex core structure can be strikingly different for the two directions of the Zeeman field: The order parameter is suppressed and enhanced around the vortex centre when the major chirality is antiparallel and parallel, respectively, to the vorticity. We have demonstrated this phenomenon not only in non-Abelian topological phase, but also in trivial phase where the TKNN number is zero. The major chirality in such a trivial TSC state is the chirality of the dominant (or single) Fermi surface. The enhancement of the order parameter implies some extra superconducting order being induced. This occurs, however, in the vortex core region where the chirality and the vorticity are in the same direction, and appears to be counterintuitive in view of the vortex physics in spin-triplet $p_x\pm ip_y$ superconductors. Moreover, it is not immediately obvious how to map out chirality-based order parameters\cite{Bjornson2015,Shitade2015} from the sole order parameter in the model that is of $s$-wave pairing symmetry. The chiral nature of 2D $s$-wave TSC states and the role that the angular momentum carried by Cooper pairs plays in determining various properties of the system are to be explored in further detail in a future publication.
Finally, the suppression (the enlargement of the vortex core) and enhancement of the self-consistent order parameter around the vortex centre will be reflected in the supercurrent and hence the field distribution in the vortex core area. Thus, particularly in a 2D $s$-wave topological superconductor where spin-orbit coupling is relatively weak, manifestation of different chiralities can be detected by probing the field distribution in the vortex lattice, e.g., by NMR and by switching the direction of the applied magnetic field.
\section{\label{sec:acknowledgements}Acknowledgements}
We thank S. L. Goertzen and T. Kawakami for helpful discussions. K.T. is grateful to CCSE at Japan Atomic Energy Agency for hospitality, where part of the research was performed. This work was enabled in part by support provided by WestGrid (www.westgrid.ca) and Compute Canada Calcul Canada (www.computecanada.ca). Part of the calculation was also performed on the supercomputing system SGI ICE X at the Japan Atomic Energy Agency. The research was supported by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, and partially by JSPS KAKENHI Grant No. 26800197 and the ``Topological Materials Science'' (No. 16H00995) KAKENHI on Innovative Areas from JSPS of Japan.
|
\section{\label{sec:level1}Introduction}
Research in the area of nanoscale thermoelectrics is primarily carried out along two broad directions: (i) materials and devices for practical energy conversion, and (ii) fundamental studies on heat flow in the nanoscale. The former concerns materials and interface design, device optimization and integration at the systems level \cite{shakouri}. The physics that is actively considered at the materials level is that of maximizing the thermoelectric figure of merit, $zT$ \cite{Hicks1993,Hickss1993,Dresselhaus2007,Poudel2008,Snyder2008,Heremans2008,Murphy2008}, via detailed electronic structure and interface considerations. The latter is exploratory in nature and concerns fundamental transport studies on the physics of heat flow at the nanoscale \cite{Andreev2001,Humphrey2002,Kubala2006,Kubala2008,nak,Kim2014,Reddy1568,jordan1,jordan2,Agarwal2014,Sothmann2014}. It is also well known from the thermodynamic interpretation of thermoelectric processes that $zT$ is conceptually meaningful only in the linear response regime \cite{ioffe} and does not provide the full picture of heat flow at the nanoscale\cite{Muralidharan2012,jordan1,Sothmann2014,whitney}. Therefore, themoelectric analysis based on power and efficiency considerations \cite{whitney,Muralidharan2012,Sothmann2014} have gained precedence when it comes to fundamental studies \cite{nak,jordan2,Muralidharan2012,Agarwal2014,Zimb2016,Leijnse2010}.\\
\indent Zero-dimensional systems such as molecules or quantum dots are known to possess unique thermoelectric properties \cite{Mahan1996,Zimb2016} owing to their highly distorted electronic density of states (DOS). From a fundamental stand point, nanoscale heat engines are built using quantum dots or molecules sandwiched between two contacts. Thermoelectric transport measurements are performed by subjecting electrochemical potential and thermal gradients across them \cite{Kim2014,Reddy1568}. Specific to short molecules and quantum dots, a lot of recent research work has focused on how strong correlation effects related to Coulomb charging may influence the thermoelectric performance \cite{jordan1,jordan2,Sothmann2014,Muralidharan2012,Zimb2016} under various bias situations.\\
\begin{figure*}[]
\begin{center}
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, height=0.25\textwidth]{image1a.png}\label{1a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, height=0.25\textwidth]{image1b.PNG}\label{1b}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, height=0.25\textwidth]{image1c.png}\label{1c}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth, height=0.25\textwidth]{image1d.png}\label{1d}}
\end{center}
\caption{Two operating limits of the dissipative heat engine set up studied here: (a) the dot phonon degrees of freedom (DOF) are out of equilibrium, and (b) the dot phonon degrees of freedom (DOF) relax via coupling to a heat bath with a rate $\beta$. In this case, the dot temperature is estimated by coupling a {\it{thermometer bath}} weakly, with an associated rate $\beta_{th}$. In both cases, the quantum dot is coupled weakly to the contacts with electronic rates, $\gamma_H$, $\gamma_C$ and phonon rates $\beta_H$, $\beta_C$. (c) State transition diagram in the quantum dot electronic Fock space. Electron transitions take place between the states where electron numbers differ by $\pm$ 1. (d) The state transition diagram in the electron-phonon Fock space.The black solid and black dash arrows represent electronic tunneling processes. The gray solid arrows and gray dotted arrows represent the phonon-assisted tunneling processes. The black double-sided arrows represent the heat bath assisted phonon transitions. In both cases, the currents are driven by a temperature gradient applied between the two contacts, $H$ and $C$, in a voltage controlled set up (see text). }
\end{figure*}
\indent However, the charging of the system due to electronic transport processes changes the nuclear geometry and couples with various vibrational modes \cite{Hartle2011,Zazunov2006}. The interplay between electronic and vibrational degrees of freedom have found numerous signatures in a multitude of charge transport experiments \cite{Park2000,Leroy2004,LeRoy2005,Yu2004,Sapmaz2006,Zhitenev2002}. From the point of view of thermoelectrics, the electron-phonon interactions are important since they modify both charge and heat currents at the nanoscale. While charge and heat transport in the dissipative quantum dot set up described using the Anderson-Holstein model have been the subject of many works \cite{Siddiqui2006,Entin-Wohlman2010,Entin-Wohlman2012,Entin-Wohlman2014,Hartle2011,Zazunov2006,Segal2006,Segal2005,Segall2005}, analysis of thermoelectric transport in this regime has not received much attention \cite{Leijnse2010}. \\
\indent The object of this paper is to advance the basic understanding developed in an earlier work \cite{Leijnse2010} on dissipative quantum dot heat engines by elucidating some relevant and novel physics that arises under two experimentally relevant operating limits. The first limit, being when the dot phonon modes are in non-equilibrium. Such a situation occurs in quantum dot systems that are suspended \cite{LeRoy2005} over metallic contacts and can hence be driven out of equilibrium, giving rise to interesting charge transport signatures \cite{Siddiqui2006}. The second limit occurs when the dot phonons relax via coupling to a heat bath held at a fixed temperature \cite{Siddiqui2006,Entin-Wohlman2010,Entin-Wohlman2012,Entin-Wohlman2014}. In the first case, a detailed analysis of the physics related to the interplay between the quantum dot level quantization, the on-site Coulomb interaction and the electron phonon coupling on the thermoelectric performance is carried out. Importantly, it is demonstrated that due to such an interplay, an n-type heat engine performs better than a p-type heat engine. In the second case, with the aid of the dot temperature estimated by incorporating a {\it{thermometer bath}}, it is shown that the dot temperature deviates strongly from the bath temperature as electron-phonon interaction in the dot becomes stronger. An interesting consequence of which is that the dot temperature intimately controls the direction of phonon heat current thereby influencing the thermoelectric performance. Finally, we evaluate the trend of the maximum efficiency as the phonon couplings between the dot and all the other macroscopic bodies vary. \\
\indent This paper is organized as follows: Sec. II introduces the Anderson-Holstein based dissipative heat engine and formulates the transport equations related to the two operating limits we consider. In Sec. IIIA and Sec. IIIB we analyze the performance of heat engines when phonons are out of equilibrium. In Sec. IIIC and Sec. IIID, we elucidate the physics related to heat engines coupled to heat baths with the aid of the dot temperature. In Sec. IV, we summarize our result and conclude.
\section{\label{sec:level2}Physics and Formulation}
\indent A schematic of the heat engine setups studied here is presented in Fig.~\ref{1a} and Fig.~\ref{1b}. Both setups constitute a quantum dot described by the dissipative Anderson Holstein Hamiltonian coupled weakly to two macroscopic contacts denoted as $H$ and $C$, which drive charge and heat currents through the dot. Additionally, the dot can be coupled strongly to a heat bath $B$, and be weakly coupled to the thermometer bath \cite{Segall2005} as presented in Fig.~\ref{1b}. We note that the set ups described here are typically {\it{voltage controlled}}, primarily driven by the application of a temperature gradient accompanied by the control of the voltage drop via a variable load resistor.
\subsubsection{Model Hamiltonian}
\indent The composite Hamiltonian of the set up is given as $\hat{H}=\hat{H}_{D}+\hat{H}_{C}+\hat{H}_{B}+\hat{H}_{CD}+\hat{H}_{BD}$, where $\hat{H}_{D}$, $\hat{H}_{C}$, and $\hat{H}_{B}$ are the respective Hamiltonians of the dot, the contacts, and the bath, while $\hat{H}_{CD}$ and $\hat{H}_{BD}$ represent the coupling Hamiltonians between the dot and the contacts and between the dot and the bath respectively. The dot Hamiltonian is described via the Anderson-Holstein model given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{D}=(\sum_{\sigma}^{} \epsilon_{\sigma} \hat{n}_{\sigma}+U \hat{n}_{\uparrow}\hat{n}_{\downarrow})
+\hbar \omega_{\nu}\hat{n}_{\nu} \\+\sum_{\sigma}^{} \lambda_{\nu} \hbar \omega_{\nu} \hat{n}_{\sigma} (\hat{b}_{\nu}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{\nu}),
\end{split}
\label{Anderson}
\end{equation}
where the dot comprises a single spin degenerate energy level with an on-site energy, $\epsilon_{\sigma}$, and a Coulomb interaction energy, $U$. The phonon degree of freedom is described via a single phonon mode of angular frequency $\omega_{\nu}$. Inside the dot, the electrons and phonons interact via the electron-phonon coupling, $\lambda_{\nu}$. Here, $\hat{n}_{\sigma}$=$\hat{d}_{\sigma}^{\dagger} \hat{d}_{\sigma}$ and $\hat{n}_{\nu}$=$\hat{b}_{\nu}^{\dagger} \hat{b}_{\nu}$ are the dot electron and dot phonon number operators respectively, given that $\hat{d}_{\sigma}^{\dagger} (\hat{d}_{\sigma})$ and $\hat{b}_{\nu}^{\dagger} (\hat{b}_{\nu})$ represent the creation (annihilation) operator for the electrons and phonons in the dot respectively. \\
The contact and heat bath Hamiltonians and their respective coupling Hamiltonians with the dot are defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{C}=\sum_{\alpha\in H,C}^{} \sum_{k\sigma'}^{}\epsilon_{\alpha k\sigma'} \hat{n}_{\alpha k\sigma'}+\sum_{\alpha\in H,C}^{} \sum_{p}^{}\hbar \omega_{\alpha p} \hat{n}_{\alpha p}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{B}=\sum_{t}^{} \hbar \omega_{t}\hat{B}_{t}^{\dagger} \hat{B}_{t}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{CD}=\sum_{k\sigma', \sigma}^{} [\tau_{ \alpha k\sigma'\sigma}^{el} \hat{c}_{\alpha k \sigma'}^{\dagger}\hat{d}_{\sigma}+h.c] \\ +\sum_{\nu,p}^{}[\tau_{ \alpha p\nu}^{ph} (\hat{a}_{\alpha p}^{\dagger}+\hat{a}_{\alpha p})(\hat{b}_{\nu}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{\nu})+h.c]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hat{H}_{BD}=\sum_{\nu,t}^{}\tau^{ph}_{ t\nu}(\hat{B}_{t}^{\dagger}+\hat{B}_{t})(\hat{b}_{\nu}^{\dagger}+\hat{b}_{\nu}).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Here, $\hat{n}_{\alpha k \sigma'}$=$\hat{c}_{\alpha k\sigma'}^{\dagger} \hat{c}_{\alpha k\sigma'}$ and $\hat{n}_{\alpha p}$=$\hat{a}_{\alpha p}^{\dagger} \hat{a}_{\alpha p}$ are the electron and phonon number operators in the contacts. The contacts are assumed to be in the eigen-basis with wave vectors $k$ and spin orientation ${\sigma'}$. An electron in the dot with a spin orientation $\sigma$ is coupled to an electron in contact $\alpha$ ($\alpha \in H,C$) through $\tau_{ \alpha k\sigma'\sigma}^{el}$. Similarly $\nu$-th phonon mode of the dot is coupled to the $t$-th phonon mode of the contact through $\tau_{ t\nu}^{ph}$.\\
\indent The dot Hamiltonian $\hat{H}_{D}$ is diagonalized by the polaron transformation \cite{Braig2003,Siddiqui2006} leading to the renormalization of the on-site and Coulomb interaction energies given by
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\epsilon}_{\sigma}=\epsilon_{\sigma}-(\lambda^2 \hbar \omega_{\nu}),
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde{U}=U-(2\lambda^2 \hbar \omega_{\nu}).
\end{equation}
The renormalized dot many-particle energies are given by $E=\tilde{E}_{\sigma}+m \hbar \omega_{\nu}$, where $m=(0,1,2,3,...)$ and $\tilde{E}_{\sigma}$=$(0,\tilde{\epsilon}_{\uparrow},\tilde{\epsilon}_{\downarrow},\tilde{\epsilon}_{\uparrow}+\tilde{\epsilon}_{\downarrow}+\tilde{U})$.\\
\indent Both $\hat{H}_C$ and $\hat{H}_B$ remain unchanged due to the renormalization since they are independent of the dot operators. The transformation of the electron tunneling part of the Hamiltonian $\hat{H_{CD}}$ leads to a modification of the electron coupling factor, $\tilde{\tau}_{ \alpha k\sigma'\sigma}^{el}=\tau_{ \alpha k\sigma'\sigma}^{el}\exp[-\lambda_{\nu}(\hat{b_{\nu}}-\hat{b_{\nu}}^{\dagger})]$. We can neglect the renormalization of phonon coupling factors $\tau_{ \alpha p\nu}^{ph}$ and $\tau^{ph}_{ t\nu}$, considering that both of them are very small, which is an essential condition to get optimized thermoelectric efficiency \cite{Leijnse2010}. \\
\indent With the above definitions, in the calculations to follow, it is also customary to define various tunneling rates under the assumption of dispersionless contacts as follows: The electronic tunneling rate between the dot and the contact $\alpha$ with density of states $\rho_{\alpha}$ is derived from the Fermi's golden Rule as $\gamma_{\alpha}=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}\sum_{\sigma} |\tilde{\tau}^{el}_{\alpha k\sigma}|^2 \rho_{\alpha \sigma}$. Similarly, the phonon relaxation rates between the dot and other macroscopic bodies $r'$( where, $r' \in H,C,B$) with phonon density of states $D_{r'}$ is expressed as $\beta_{r'}=\frac{2\pi}{\hbar}|\tau^{ph}_{r'\nu}|^2D_{r'}$.
\subsubsection{Transport formulation}
We first state the important assumptions made in the set ups that we consider. First, we work in a regime where the dot-bath phonon relaxation rate is smaller compared to the tunneling rates between the dot and the contacts. Larger phonon couplings may cause further energy shift in the dot phonon modes leading to a non-separable terminal phonon currents \cite{Segal2006,Segal2005,Segall2005}. The assumption of small phonon coupling also allows us to exclude system damping \cite{Braig2003}. Second, we perform all calculations within the sequential tunneling limit \cite{Timm,Leijnse2010}, where, the associated tunneling energies, $\hbar \gamma_{\alpha}, \hbar \beta_{r} << k_BT$. The mathematical expressions for the electron tunneling rate $\gamma$ and the phonon relaxation rate $\beta$ are to be defined shortly. The sequential tunneling limit is the relevant regime when describing quantum dot transport as most experiments are performed in this regime \cite{tarucha1,Timm}. Under this approximation, given a spin degenerate level coupled to non magnetic contacts, transport is described via rate equations \cite{Beenakker,Basky_Beenakker,Basky_Datta,Timm} in the diagonal subspace of the quantum dot reduced density matrix \cite{Koenig_1,Koenig_2,Brouw,Milena_noncoll,Basky_Milena}. \\
\indent The use of the diagonal subspace is justified in the absence of coherences. In the current context, we are faced with two types of coherences, (a) coherence between the degenerate up-spin and down-spin levels and (b) coherences between various phonon induced side band energies. The first type can be neglected simply because electron-phonon interaction is described via a coupling factor $\lambda_{\nu}$, which is spin independent. Such a coherence between up-spin and down-spin levels is characteristic of systems with non-collinear magnetic contacts \cite{Koenig_1,Koenig_2,Basky_Milena}, or in systems which have orbital degeneracies \cite{Brouw,Milena_noncoll}. The second type, namely, the coherence between two phonon induced side bands can be safely neglected by assuming that the energy spacing between two adjacent side bands is larger than the tunneling induced broadening of energy levels, i.e., $\hbar\omega_{\nu}>>\hbar\gamma$. In this limit electron-phonon interactions that occur at two consecutive times are completely uncorrelated \cite{Theses1}, and a Markovian approximation is also justified \cite{Timm}. This allows us to neglect bath memory also. Hence, the secular terms in density matrix get decoupled from the off-diagonal terms, which ultimately implies that such coherences may be safely ignored. \\
\indent The electronic tunneling rate between two electron-phonon Fock states, $\mid n,q \rangle$ and $ \mid n \pm 1,q \rangle$, with $n$ and $q$ representing the electronic and phonon state label respectively, is given by
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
R_{(n,q)\rightarrow(n+1,q')}^{el}=\\\sum\limits_{\alpha \in H,C}^{}\gamma_{\alpha}|\bra{n,q}\hat{\tilde{{d}}}_{\sigma}\ket{n+1,q'}|^2\\ \times f_{\alpha}\bigg(\frac{E_{(n+1,q')}-E_{(n,q)}-\mu_{\alpha}}{k_B T_{\alpha}}\bigg)
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
R_{(n,q)\rightarrow(n -1,q')}^{el}=\\\sum\limits_{\alpha \in H,C}^{} \gamma_{\alpha}|\bra{n,q}\hat{\tilde{{d}}}_{\sigma}^{\dagger}\ket{n-1,q'}|^2\\ \times \bigg[1-f_{\alpha}\bigg(\frac{E_{(n,q)}-E_{(n-1,q')}-\mu_{\alpha}}{k_B T_{\alpha}}\bigg)\bigg]
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
The relaxation of the dot phonons to the contacts and the heat bath cause transition between the states $(n,q)$ and $(n,q\pm 1)$ follow the Boltzmann ratio:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
R_{(n,q)\rightarrow(n,q+1)}^{ph}=\sum\limits_{r'\in H,C,B}^{}\beta_{r'} (q+1) exp(-\frac{\hbar \omega_{r}}{k_B T_{r'}})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
R_{(n,q)\rightarrow(n,q-1)}^{ph}=\sum\limits_{r'\in H,C,B}^{}\beta_{r'} (q+1).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
With various rates defined above, the master equation for the probabilities, $P_{n,q}$ of the many particle states $\mid n,q \rangle$, then reads:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{d P_{(n,q)}}{dt}=\sum_{k'=0}^{N_q'-1}\bigg[R_{(n\pm 1,q')\rightarrow(n,q)}^{el}P_{(n\pm 1,q')} \\ - R_{(n,q)\rightarrow(n\pm 1,q')}^{el}P_{(n,q)} \bigg]\\+\bigg[R_{(n ,q\pm 1)\rightarrow(n,q)}^{ph}P_{(n,q\pm 1)} \\ -R_{(n,q)\rightarrow(n,q\pm 1)}^{ph} P_{(n,q)} \bigg].
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In steady state, we set $\frac{d P_{(n,q)}}{dt}=0$, and find the null space of the rate matrix to evaluate the steady state probabilities. Using the steady state probabilities, we can get the expressions for the terminal electronic charge currents $J$ and heat currents $J_{el_{\alpha}}^{Q}$,$J_{ph_{r'}}^{Q}$ as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
J_{\alpha}=\sum_{n,q=0}^{N_e,N_p-1}\sum_{q'=0}^{N'_q-1} -q\bigg[R_{(n \pm 1,q') \rightarrow(n,q)}^{el_{\alpha}}P_{(n \pm 1,q')}\\ -R_{(n,q) \rightarrow(n \pm 1,q')}^{el_{\alpha}}P_{(n,q)}\bigg]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
J_{el_{\alpha}}^{Q}=\sum_{n,q=0}^{N_e,N_p-1}\sum_{k'}^{N'_p-1} \bigg[E_{(n\pm1,q')}-\mu_{\alpha}\bigg] \\ \times R_{(n\pm 1,q') \rightarrow(n,q)}^{el_{\alpha}}P_{(n \pm 1,q')}\\ - \bigg[E_{(N_e,N_p)}-\mu_{\alpha}\bigg]\\ \times R_{(n,q) \rightarrow(n \pm1,q)}^{el_{\alpha}}P_{(n,q)}
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
J_{ph_{r'}}^{Q}=\sum_{n,q=0}^{N_e,N_p-1} \hbar \omega_{r} \bigg[R_{(n,q) \rightarrow(n,q \pm 1)}^{ph_{\alpha}}P_{(n,q)}\\- R_{(n,q \pm 1) \rightarrow(n,q)}^{ph_{\alpha}}P_{(n,q +1)}\bigg]
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The charge or electronic heat currents associated with contacts $\alpha=H(C)$ involve only the rates associated with the respective contact. However, the phonon heat current is associated with both the contacts as well as the heat bath.
\subsubsection{Calculation of power and efficiency}
A thermal bias applied across the contacts, $T_H$, at the hot contact $H$, and $T_C$, at the cold contact $C$, can result in charge and heat currents. In the voltage controlled setup, a variable resistor controls the back flow charge current. At a voltage $V_S$, the back flow current completely cancels the charge current set up by the temperature gradient. This is referred to as the built-in potential or Seebeck voltage. The set up hence functions as a heat-to-charge-current converter or a heat engine in the voltage range $[0,V_S]$, which we term as the operating region. The electrical power generated in the circuit is given b $P=-J_{\alpha}\times V_{app}$. The thermoelectric efficiency is then expressed as
\begin{equation}
\eta=\frac{P}{J^Q_{in}},
\end{equation}
where, the input heat current includes both the electron and phonon heat currents such that the net heat input is $J^Q_{in}= J_{{el}_{H}}^{Q} + J_{{ph}_{in}}^{Q}$. It must be noted that while the input electronic heat current can be supplied only from the hot contact, the phonon heat current can be supplied from contacts or the heat bath depending on the dot temperature $T_M$. This aspect will be studied in detail in a later section.
\section{Results}
\subsection{Non-equilibrium phonons}
We first elaborate on the effect of the electron-phonon interaction parameter, $\lambda$, on the delivered electronic power, $P$, and the efficiency, $\eta$. Each operating point is signified by a constant applied thermal gradient ($T_H$=10K,$T_C$=5K) and a variable voltage bias $V$ between the two contacts. In the current section we assume that the Coulomb interaction is kept much larger, i.e., $U>>k_BT$, the electronic contact coupling and the phonon couplings, $\gamma_H,\gamma_C,\beta_H,\beta_C$ are small enough ($\hbar\gamma_{H(C)}=5\times10^{-6} eV,\hbar\beta_{H(C)}=2\times10^{-12} eV$) to keep the tunneling induced broadening of the states in the quantum dot small and ensure that the dot phonons are out of equilibrium. Transport under the sequential tunneling limit where the rate equation formalism is applicable is also ensured under these conditions. Additionally, in this part, we consider that the dot functions as an n-type, i.e., when $\epsilon-\mu>0$.\\
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic2a.png}\label{2a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic2b.png}\label{2b}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic2c.png}\label{2c}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic2d.png}\label{2d}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic2e.png}\label{2e}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic2f.png}\label{2f}}
\quad
\caption{Thermoelectric performance with non-equilibrium phonons. The Carnot efficiency is set to $\eta_C=0.5$ at $\epsilon-\mu<2KT$. (a) Variation of the electronic power as a function of voltage as $\lambda$ is varied. (b) Variation of $\eta$ as a function of voltage as $\lambda$ is varied. (c) and (d) 3-D color plots of $\gamma_{eff}/\gamma$ pertaining to the tunneling between two states with phonon numbers, $q_1$ and $q_2$, for $\lambda=0$ and $\lambda=2$ respectively. As $\lambda$ is increased, we notice a larger off-diagonal contribution in the associated phonon numbers between the two states. (e) Electronic power delivered at $\eta_{max}$ as $\lambda$ increases, and (f) Variation of $\eta$ at $P_{max}$, representing the efficiency at maximum power as $\lambda$ is increased. We infer that an increase in the electron-phonon coupling leads to a better performance in terms of the power at maximum efficiency while maintaining the efficiency at maximum power. }
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.222\textwidth]{pic4a.png}\label{3a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.222\textwidth]{pic4b.png}\label{3b}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.222\textwidth]{pic4c.png}\label{3c}
}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.222\textwidth]{pic4d.png}\label{3d}
}
\quad
\caption{A performance comparison between n-type and p-type heat engines. Variation of $\eta_{max}$ with Coulomb interaction and electron-phonon interaction for (a) an n-type ($\epsilon-\mu=1 meV$) and (b) a p-type setup ($\epsilon-\mu=-1 meV$). For both set ups, $\eta_{max}$ maximizes at $\tilde{U}=0$. The p-type setup can have a vanishing $\eta_{max}$ at the particle-hole symmetry point. (c) Maxima and minima points of $\eta_{max}$ for an n-type engine with $\lambda=1.5$, with the grey region depicting the negative $U$ regime. (d) The region around the particle-hole symmetry point for a p-type setup where $\eta_{max}$ vanishes. We note that an n-type setup can provide a better $\eta_{max}$ in the presence of a finite $U$ since it can avoid particle-hole symmetry.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\indent A finite electron-phonon coupling causes a displacement of the potential profile of the dot and alters the electron tunneling rate between two electron-phonon states, $\ket{n,q_1}$ and $\ket{n\pm 1,q_2}$ to $\gamma_{eff}$\cite{Theses} defined as
\begin{equation}
\begin{gathered}
\gamma_{eff}=\gamma\times |C_{q_1q_2}|^2\\
=\gamma\times exp(-\frac{\lambda^2}{2})\times {\bigg(\frac{q!}{Q!}\bigg)}^2\\\times\lambda^{Q-q}\times L_{q}^{Q-q}(\lambda^2)\times[sgn(q_1-q_2)]^{(q_1-q_2)},
\end{gathered}
\end{equation}
where $q=min(q_1,q_2)$ and $Q=max(q_1,q_2)$, $C_{q_1q_2}$ is a measure of the overlap between two many body electron-phonon states with phonon numbers, $q_1$ and $q_2$, arising from the electron-phonon interaction. Referring to Fig.~\ref{2a}, we see that the peak power, as well as the Seebeck voltage, $V_S$, drops as the electron-phonon coupling parameter $\lambda$ is increased. As $\lambda$ is increased, the charge current as well as the peak power falls, since $\gamma_{eff}$ between two states become smaller. In Fig.~\ref{2c}, we see that for $\lambda=0$, $\gamma_{eff}\sim\gamma$ is only non-zero between two states with equal phonon number. Hence, in the non-interacting case, only direct tunneling is feasible. As $\lambda$ is increased, strong electron-phonon interaction leads to the suppression of direct tunneling and the facilitation of phonon-assisted tunneling. \\
\indent We see in Fig.~\ref{2d} that a nonzero $\lambda$ results in phonon assisted tunneling between two states with unequal phonon numbers. Evidence of this phenomenon has been found in various transport experiments \cite{Steele1103,Park2000,Leturcq2008} and also has been demonstrated theoretically \cite{Koch2005,Kochh2006}. Notice that $\gamma_{eff}$ for non-zero $\lambda$ is always less than $\gamma$, due to electron-phonon coupling making the set up dissipative. For this reason, the charge current decreases and the open-circuit point is reached at a smaller voltage, leading to a fall in $V_S$ as $\lambda$ is increased. Turning to the analysis of the efficiency $\eta$, first we note the well known result \cite{Muralidharan2012} that for $\lambda=0$, $\eta$ attains a maximum of $\eta_C$ at $V_S$. But as $\lambda$ is increased, due to phonon assisted tunneling, $J^{Q}_{el}$ is always greater than $P$ within the operating range. Hence according to (16), $\eta_{max}$ falls below $\eta_C$.\\
\indent One must appreciate the fact that although a non-interacting system gives the maximum $\eta$, the power it delivers at that point is identically zero. With the inclusion of electron-phonon interaction, we evaluate two different trends: (a) Power at maximum efficiency $P_{\eta_{max}}$, and (b) Efficiency at maximum power $\eta_{P_{max}}$. In Fig.~\ref{2e} we see that the electronic power delivered at $\eta_{max}$ increases monotonically as $\lambda$ increases. On the other hand, $\eta$ at maximum power keeps almost constant as shown in Fig.~\ref{2f}. Hence, although there is a fall in the peak power as $\lambda$ increases, $\eta_{P_{max}}$ increases slightly. This may be counted as an advantage of having stronger electron-phonon interaction. Thus, so far, we can conclude from here that when phonons are out of equilibrium, $\lambda$ is the deciding factor for the thermoelectric performance.
\subsection{Comparison between n-type and p-type heat engines}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic3a.png}\label{4a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.225\textwidth,width=0.225\textwidth]{pic3b.png}\label{4b}}
\caption{Peak power characteristics of the heat engine as a function of $U$ and on-site energy position, keeping $\lambda$ constant. (a) Variation of $V_S$ as a function of $(\epsilon-\mu)/k_{B}T$ and $U/k_{B}T$. (b) Variation in peak electronic power as a function of $(\epsilon-\mu)/k_{B}T$ and $U/k_{B}T$. We note that $V_S$ and $P_M$ remain independent of $U$ for an n-type setup but decrease significantly for a p-type setup as the particle-hole symmetry condition is approached.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\indent We now turn our attention to an analysis with the inclusion of Coulomb interaction $U$, which brings to fore the difference between an n-type set up and a p-type set up. If $\epsilon>\mu$, then the thermal bias induced current flows from cold to hot contact, whereas the current direction is just reverse for $\epsilon<\mu$. The nomenclature due to the sense of particle flow being identical to that noted in the thermoelectric transport of n-type and p-type semiconductors . However, turning on $U$ for a p-type set up may give rise to a situation where transport channels $\epsilon$ and $\epsilon+U$ in conjunction with the phonon sidebands may give rise to a particle-hole symmetry, which will not be possible for an n-type setup. \\
\indent A schematic of the variation in $\eta_{max}$ with respect to $U$ for an n-type set up shown in Fig.~\ref{3a}. We notice that for a non-zero $\lambda$, $\eta_{max}$ never equals the Carnot efficiency and maximizes for a non-zero Coulomb interaction. In Fig.~\ref{3c}, we present a zoomed-in view for $\lambda=1.5$, which clearly shows the maxima and minima of $\eta_{max}$. We notice that $\eta_{max}$ reaches a maximum when $\tilde{U}$ disappears. Hence, electron-phonon interaction results in a region of increasing $\eta_{max}$ in the negative $\tilde{U}$ regime \cite{Andergassen2011,Alexandrov2002}, shown as a gray shaded area in Fig.~\ref{3c}. In Fig.~\ref{3b} we depict the $\eta_{max}$ variation for a p-type heat engine, which follows a similar trend except that it vanishes when the particle-hole symmetry point is reached \cite{Wang2010,Dubi2009,Rejec2012,Buddhiraju2015}, as shown schematically in Fig.~\ref{3d}. \\
\indent Next we compare the power generation of the n-type and the p-type setup. In Fig.~\ref{4a} and Fig.~\ref{4b}, we detail the variation in the Seebeck voltage $V_S$ and the peak power $P_M$ as a function of $U$ and the relative onsite-energy $\epsilon-\mu$. Both $V_S$ and $P_M$ rise with increasing $|\epsilon-\mu|$, since more voltage bias is needed to reach the open-circuit point, justifying the increase of $|V_S|$. As the operating region $[0, V_S]$, of the heat engine broadens, the peak power also increases. We see that for the n-type engine, where $\epsilon-\mu>0$, the variation of both $V_S$ and $P_M$ remains almost constant with $U$ while for a p-type engine, where $\epsilon-\mu<0$, this is not so .
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic5a.png}\label{5a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic5b.png}\label{5b}}
\caption{Study of $\eta_{max}$ as cumulative function of $U$ and the phonon angular frequency $\omega$, keeping $\lambda$ constant ($\lambda=0.5$) for (a) an n-type and (b) a p-type set up. (b) The region $\textbf{P1}$ depicts the locus along which $\eta_{max}$ vanishes for the p-type setup. Here both $U$ and $\omega$ contribute to achieve the particle-hole symmetry. The region $\textbf{P3}$ depicts where the p-type setup can perform as a heat engine. The region $\textbf{P2}$ represents the out of the operating limit region. In (a), an n-type setup performs like a p-type setup for large $\omega$ with the regions $\textbf{N1}$ and $\textbf{N2}$ being similar to $\textbf{P1}$, $\textbf{P2}$. The region $\textbf{N3}$ has a low efficiency since $\epsilon\sim\mu$. For small $\omega$, the n-type setup achieves a high efficiency which is independent of $\omega$. Hence in the limit of low $\omega$, an n-type setup is a better heat engine. }
\end{figure}
\end{center}
We see that for a p-type heat engine, significant power is delivered at small values of $U$. If we increase $U$, first both $|V_S|$ and $P_M$ drops to zero before increasing again to the previous value.
This is again due to the particle-hole symmetry condition. The analysis in Fig. 3 and Fig. 4 thus clearly indicates that an n-type engine can avoid particle-hole symmetry condition and hence performs better than the p-type engine. \\
\indent An important aspect to be noticed is that particle-hole symmetry can be reached in two ways, either by changing $U$ or by tuning $\omega$. In Fig.~\ref{5a} and Fig.~\ref{5b} we produce a 3-D plots for the variation of $\eta_{max}$ for the n-type dot and p-type dot respectively. According to (2) and (3), for large values of $\omega$, an n-type setup performs like a p-type setup. So the upper half of Fig.~\ref{5a} (where $\omega$ is high) resembles that of Fig.~\ref{5b}. For low frequencies, we see that $\eta_{max}$ does nullify along the black branch $\textbf{N3}$, where $\tilde{\epsilon}$ almost merges with $\mu$. In the region $\textbf{N4}$, we get a high $\eta_{max}$, which is almost independent of $U$. \\
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic9a.png}\label{6a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic9b.png}\label{6b}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic9c.png}\label{6c}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic9d.png}\label{6d}}
\caption{Trends in the dot temperature $T_M$. (a),(b) Variation of $T_M$ as a function of $V_S$ and $\gamma/\beta$ for (a) $T_B>>T_H,T_C$, and (b) $T_B<<T_H, T_C$. It shows that $T_M$ is almost independent of $V_S$. (c),(d) Variation of $T_M$ as a function of $\gamma/\beta$ for different $\lambda$, for the hot and cold bath conditions respectively. In the limit of strong dot to bath coupling, $T_M$ just follows $T_B$ for $\lambda=0$, but deviates considerably as $\lambda$ increases. This implies that a bath-to-dot heat current is also feasible and will control the calculation of efficiency.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\indent Switching our attention to Fig.~\ref{5b}, for the case of the p-type heat engine, we see that $\eta_{max}$ vanishes along the black branch (region marked as $\textbf{P1}$), which represents the locus of the particle-hole symmetry points. In the low frequency region marked $\textbf{P3}$, we get a comparatively high value of $\eta_{max}$ as described in Fig. 3. On the other hand, in the high frequency region (marked $\textbf{P2}$), both the polaronic shifted energy channels and their corresponding phonon sidebands go out of the transport window. Theoretically we get high efficiency in this region but it is of no use since this region lies outside the operating region.\\
\indent In general, hence, we should be interested in the low-frequency range since it serves as the power generating region, where $\eta_{max}$ is more for the n-type setup. Hence the overall study confirms that n-type engine is optimal compared to the p-type engine. One fact must be noted that we have chosen $\omega$ so that contact phonon heat current $J_{ph}^{Q}$ is low enough to control $Q^{in}$ or $\eta$. However $J_{ph}^{Q}$ becomes significant as the dot is strongly coupled to phonon modes of macroscopic bodies which we discuss in the subsequent sections. \\
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.22\textwidth]{image9a.png}\label{7a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.22\textwidth,width=0.22\textwidth]{image9c.png}\label{7b}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic7a.png}\label{7c}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic7c.png}\label{7d}}
\quad
\caption{Evaluation of the sense of contact and bath phonon heat currents when the bath is strongly coupled to the dot for (a) Hot bath, $T_B$$>$$T_H$,$T_C$ and (b) Cold bath, $T_B$$<$$T_H$,$T_C$. (c),(d) Contact phonon heat currents for hot and cold bath respectively. (c) Note that the hot bath forces that the contact phonon currents flow away from the dot, and (d) that cold bath just reverses the direction.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\subsection{Dot phonons coupled to a heat bath}
\indent In this section, we discuss exclusively the role of a heat bath in determining the thermoelectric performance of a heat engine and how the temperature of the bath controls the thermoelectric efficiency. In the limit of non-equilibrium phonons, the electronic heat current is much greater than the phonon heat current and takes the major role in determining $\eta$. But as the phonons of the dot become strongly coupled to the bulk phonon mode of any macroscopic body, the phonon heat current also becomes a relevant quantity.
\indent We start by estimating the temperature of the quantum dot by coupling the central system with a thermometer phonon bath as described in earlier works \cite{Galperin2007, Galperin2006, Galperin2004}. This is based on the principle that the phonon heat current between the thermometer and the dot vanish when the temperature of thermometer equals the temperature of the dot, $T_M$. In Fig.~\ref{6a} and ~\ref{6b}, we present the trends of the molecular temperature as a function of $\gamma$/$\beta$ and applied voltage. We see that dot temperature, $T_M$, is a weak function of the bias voltage. In Fig.~\ref{6c} and ~\ref{6d}, we have shown the dependence of $T_M$ with the electron-phonon coupling parameter $\lambda$. In the strong coupling limit, for $\lambda$=0, $T_M$ just follows $T_B$ and the bath phonon current cancels out. But as $\lambda$ increases, $T_M$ deviates from $T_B$ and gives rise to a bath phonon heat current.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic6a.png}\label{8a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic6b.png}\label{8b}}
\quad
\caption{Variation of $\eta_{max}$ as a function of $U$ in the limit of strong coupling to the phonon bath. (a) Variation of efficiency as a function of $U$ when $T_B<T_H,T_C$ (b) Same plot for $T_B>T_H,T_C$. This figure establishes the fact that a cold bath does not affect $\eta$ much, while a hot bath does.}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\indent To evaluate how $T_M$ controls the sense of contact phonon heat currents when the dot is strongly coupled to an external heat bath, We illustrate a schematic in Fig.~\ref{7a} and Fig.~\ref{7b}. For a non-zero $\lambda$, a hot bath always keeps $T_M$ greater than both $T_H$ and $T_C$, compelling the contact phonon heat currents to flow away from the dot. On the other hand, the hot bath itself pumps a phonon heat current into the dot. A cold bath does just the opposite and extracts phonon heat currents out of the dot which, in turn, compels phonon heat currents to flow from the contacts. In Fig.~\ref{7c} and Fig.~\ref{7d}, we show the plot of contact phonon heat currents considering that the dot is strongly coupled to the hot and the cold bath respectively. By convention, phonon currents from the contact to the dot are taken to be positive. We notice that for the hot bath, phonon heat currents flow away from the dot leading to a cooling of the dot by the contacts. A strongly coupled cold bath just does the reverse. If the bath is kept at an intermediate temperature, then the contact phonon heat currents will maintain the same direction, i.e., the hot contact will push phonons into the dot and the cold contact will extract phonons out of the dot. \\
\indent In Fig.~\ref{8a} and Fig.~\ref{8b}, we repeat the same plot as Fig.~\ref{4a} and Fig.~\ref{4b} for a fixed $\lambda$ as the temperature of the heat bath varies. We see that when the bath is hot ($T_B >>T_H, T_C$), the maximum efficiency reduces the most. The maximum efficiency $\eta_{M}$ improves monotonically as we reduce the bath temperature. The expression for the efficiency under the hot and cold bath conditions may be written as
\begin{equation}
\eta_{Hot}=\frac{P}{J_{el}^{Q}+J_{phB}^{Q}}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\eta_{cold}=\frac{P}{J_{el}^{Q}+J_{Q}^{phH}+J_{Q}^{phC}}.
\end{equation}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}[!htb]
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.218\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic12a.png}\label{9a}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.218\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic12b.png}\label{9b}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic12c.png}\label{9c}}
\quad
\subfigure[]{\includegraphics[height=0.221\textwidth,width=0.229\textwidth]{pic12d.png}\label{9d}}
\caption{A trade-off between $\beta$ and $\beta_{H(C)}$ to optimize $\eta_{max}$. We consider that the heat bath is cold, i.e $T_B<T_H,T_C$. (a) 3-D plot showing the variation of $\eta_{max}$(normalized by $\eta_C$) as a function of $\beta$ and $\beta_{H(C)}$, when the dot is (a) symmetrically and (b) asymmetrically phonon coupled to the contacts. Two blank circles represent the regions which are very weakly and very strongly coupled to both the bath and the contacts. The region \textbf{SB} indicates where the dot is strongly coupled to the bath but weakly to the contacts. The region \textbf{SC} indicates the reverse case. (c) and (d), Schematic of the directions of the phonon heat currents in all cases considered. The thick (thin) arrows represent the sense of phonon heat currents between the dot and the strongly (weakly) coupled macroscopic bodies respectively. }
\end{figure}
\end{center}
The above expressions are based on the sense of the phonon heat currents. When the dot is strongly coupled to the hot bath, the input phonon heat current is supplied by the heat bath only. Whereas, when the dot is strongly coupled to a cold bath, the contacts supply phonon heat currents into the dot. Since $\beta>>\beta_{H},\beta_{C}$, a hot bath deteriorates $\eta$ much more in comparison with the cold bath. A heat bath with an intermediate temperature keeps $\eta$ in between. Thus, a quantum dot coupled to a cold environment ensures a better thermoelectric performance and merits a greater efficiency.
\subsection{Trade-off between different phonon couplings and efficiency optimization }
\indent In the earlier section, we have discussed the effect of a strong coupling to a heat bath and established that the efficiency, $\eta$, is controlled by the bath temperature. We must also note that the degree of phonon coupling between the dot and contacts is an important factor in determining $\eta_{max}$. In this section we investigate how $\eta_{max}$ is influenced as a function of $\beta$, $\beta_H$ and $\beta_C$ and present conditions on the optimization of $\eta_{max}$. The preceding section established that the efficiency can be improved by coupling the dot to a cold environment which drives the phonons out of the dot. Hence from now on we will focus on the situation where the heat bath is a cold one.\\
\indent In Fig.~\ref{9a} we present the variation of $\eta_{max}$ as a function of the dot to bath and the dot to contact phonon couplings when $\beta_H=\beta_C$. When the dot is coupled strongly to both the contacts and the bath, $\eta_{max}$ is low. When the dot is weakly connected to both of them, phonons remain in non-equilibrium and hence this results in a high $\eta_{max}$. These two regions are represented by blank circles. In the regime strong coupling to the contact $\textbf{SC}$, $T_M$ remains close to the average temperature and the $H$ contact pushes large phonon currents to decrease $\eta_{max}$. On the other hand, in the regime of strong coupling to the bath, i.e., in the region marked as $\textbf{SB}$, $T_M$ remains close to the bath temperature and the cold bath extracts heat currents from the dot to increase $\eta_{max}$. The thermodynamics of phonon heat flow is shown in Fig.~\ref{9c}. Hence, when the dot is equally coupled to the contacts, strong bath coupling is better than strong contact coupling. \\
\indent We now turn our attention to the case when the dot is asymmetrically coupled to both the contacts. In Fig.~\ref{9b}, we present a plot similar to that in Fig.~\ref{9a}. We are only interested in the case $\beta_H<<\beta_C$, where there is a chance of getting high $\eta_{max}$. Here we see just the opposite case. The $\textbf{SB}$ regime gives a similar performance like the earlier case. But $\eta_{max}$ is maximized in the regime $\textbf{SC}$ since phonon currents pushed in by the hot contact are smaller. Even in this case, we can ensure $\eta_{max}$ to be the same as the non-equilibrium case. Hence, this is the region where the efficiency is optimized.\\
\section{\label{sec:level4} Conclusion} This paper examined the thermoelectric response of a dissipative quantum dot heat engine based on the Anderson-Holstein model in two relevant operating limits (i) when the dot phonon modes are out of equilibrium, and (ii) when the dot phonon modes are strongly coupled to an external heat bath. In the first case, a detailed analysis of the related physics was elucidated and it was conclusively demonstrated that an n-type heat engine performs better than a p-type as a result of an interplay between the on-site Coulomb interaction and the coupling to dot phonons. In the second case, with the aid of the dot temperature estimated by incorporating a {\it{thermometer bath}}, it was shown that the dot temperature deviates from the bath temperature as electron-phonon interaction becomes stronger. Consequently, we showed that the dot temperature intimately controls the direction of phonon heat current thereby influencing the thermoelectric performance. Our simulations highlight two crucial aspects: (a) a cold bath strongly coupled to the dot does not affect the efficiency that much but a hot bath does. (b) When the dot is phonon coupled with contacts, $H$ and $C$ and the cold bath $B$, it is better to couple it strongly to $B$ provided the phonon couplings with $H$ and $C$ are symmetric, whereas it is better to couple it strongly to $C$ if the phonon couplings with $H$ and $C$ are asymmetric. While the current work explored many aspects related to the functioning of a dissipative quantum dot heat engine, we believe some of the latter ideas developed here might merit a separate investigation by examining separately, the aspect of molecular Peltier cooling and refrigeration. \\ \\
{\it{Acknowledgements:}} Financial support from the Center of Excellence in Nanoelectronics (CEN) is acknowledged. We would like to thank Dr. S. D. Mahanti and Dr. R. H\"{a}rtle for illuminating discussions.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev}
|
\section{Introduction}
In many predictive modeling problems, we are concerned less with the
actual prediction, and more with how an individual prediction might be
changed. Classification problems such as loan screening and college
admission have one output class that is clearly ``desired'' by a
test case. A person turned down for a loan would naturally wonder why
the decision was made, and more importantly, what they could do to
change the outcome on the next attempt. We use the term {\it inverse
classification} to refer to the process of finding an optimal
set of changes to a test point so as to maximize its predicted probability
of the desired class label.
Problems such as this are prevalent in personalized medicine settings.
Consider, for example, lifestyle choices that minimize Patient 15's
long-term risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD) -- a randomly selected patient from our experiments in Section IV. An initial risk prediction,
estimated to be 32\%, is obtained using a trained, nonlinear
classifier, based on Patient 15's EHR data.
With Patient
15's initial risk now known, we wish to work ``backwards'' through the
classifier to obtain recommendations that minimize the probability of CVD. We approach the
recommendation step by defining an optimization problem: what is the
smallest (or easiest) set of feasible changes that this person can
make in order to minimize the predicted probability of developing CVD?
Our first contribution in this work is to define an inverse classification
framework that produces realistic recommendations. We do so by
first partitioning features into two categories: unchangeable and changeable.
It would be impossible for Patient 15 to reduce her age -- this is an unchangeable
feature. Changeable features are further partitioned into directly and indirectly
changeable categories. Directly changeable features are immediately actionable --
we can recommend that Patient 15 adjust her diet, for example. Indirectly changeable
features change as a consequence of manipulations to the directly changeable features,
but are themselves not actionable. Blood glucose changes as Patient 15's diet is
altered, but cannot be directly altered itself.
In our framework, directly changeable features incur individual, attribute-wise cost.
Cumulative costs across such features are constrained to be within a budgetary level.
These costs and budget can be specified by either a domain expert, the individual (e.g.,~Patient 15), or some
combination of the two.
The second contribution of this work is a method that solves the inverse classification problem within the specified framework. Our method uses the gradient information of classifiers to provide recommendations that minimize the probability of an undesirable class. Using such
a method within the specified framework we are able to provide recommendations
that reduce Patient 15's probability of CVD from 32\% to 3\%.
The third contribution we identify is to specify two bound-setting methods, Elastic and Hard-line, that
operate within the outlined framework allowing inverse classification to occur more freely or more rigidly, depending upon the problem. Lastly, we incorporate an indirect feature estimator, that adjusts features that change as a consequence of the directly alterable set of features.
In the remainder of the paper we discuss past work (Section II), our proposed framework and new method of inverse classification (Section III), our 16 experiments, conducted on two freely available datasets using our method and a sensitivity analysis-based benchmark method (Section IV), and the conclusions we make following these experiments (Section V).
\section{Related Work}
Inverse classification can be seen as a form of sensitivity analysis,
the process of examining the input features'
effects on the target output. While there are many forms of sensitivity analysis \cite{isukapalli1999,Yao2003}, inverse classification is most similar to local sensitivity analysis and variable perturbation method. Later on (Section III), we propose a benchmark method that is based on these.
Past works on inverse classification can be looked at from three perspectives: the manner in which the algorithm operates, the type of data the algorithm operates on, and the framework that guides the process of obtaining recommendations. Algorithm operation, which represents the optimization method employed, can be broken down into two groups: \textbf{greedy} \cite{Aggarwal2010,Chi2012,Yang2012,Mannino2000} and \textbf{nongreedy} \cite{Barbella2009,Pendharkar2002}. Greedy methods tend to focus on extreme objectives, which may not be realistic in the real world, while nongreedy methods tend to focus on more moderate objectives. This work uses the latter.
Algorithmic data types, which refers to the type of data a particular optimization algorithm has the capability of operating on, also fall into two categories: \textbf{discrete} \cite{Aggarwal2010,Chi2012,Yang2012} and \textbf{continuous} \cite{Mannino2000,Barbella2009,Pendharkar2002}. Discrete data types lead to coarse-grained recommendations, while continuous data types provide those that are more fine-grained. In this work, we focus on the latter, as precision recommendations are the goal.
Framework refers to the constraints that govern recommendation feasibility. These are manifested in the literature as either \textbf{unconstrained} \cite{Aggarwal2010,Chi2012,Yang2012} or \textbf{constrained} \cite{Barbella2009,Pendharkar2002,Mannino2000}. Unconstrained problems lead to unrealistic recommendations that may also be very extreme (e.g.,~`reduce your age by 30 years'). Constrained frameworks lead to more moderate and realistic recommendations. However, while \cite{Barbella2009,Pendharkar2002} focus on moderate objectives, they do not consider (1) what can/cannot be changed, (2) how hard it might be to change and (3), cumulatively, how willing someone may be to make changes. In \cite{Mannino2000} the authors consider (2), but do not consider (1) and (3). Additionally, in \cite{Barbella2009}, the formulation of \textit{border classification} relies on data points which lie exactly on the separating hyperplane; there is not guarantee that such points exist in practice. In this work we propose a framework that considers (1), (2) and (3).
\textcolor{black}{Inverse classification is a utility-based data mining topic and is thereby related to the subtopics of strategic \cite{Boylu2010} and adversarial \cite{Lowd2005} learning. In these topics it is assumed that a strategic agent may attempt to \textit{game} a learned classifier in order to conform to a desired class. Classifiers are then constructed taking such behavior into account. Such considerations do not need to be made in an inverse classification setting, however, as the goal is to provide explicit instructions to an intelligent agent (e.g.,~person) on how they can conform to a desired class, thereby making such accounts both unnecessary and undesirable.}
\section{An Inverse Classification Framework and Method}
In this section we propose a new inverse classification framework, and a method that can be used within the framework to solve the problem. We begin by generally discussing the problem and introducing some notation.
Suppose $\{(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i,y^i)\}_{i=1,2,\dots,n}$ is a dataset of $n$, assumed to have been drawn i.i.d.~from some population distribution $\mathcal{P}$, where $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$ is a column feature vector of length $p$ and $y^i \in \{-1,1\}$ is the binary label associated with $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i$ for $i=1,2,\dots,n$. Let $X = [\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^1,...,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^n]^T \in \mathbb{R}^{n\times p}$ denote the matrix of training instances with $(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i)^T$'s being its rows. Any number of classification models can be trained with this dataset and used to predict the class of new instances. Unlike typical classification settings, however, given a new instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}\in\mathbb{R}^{p}$, our goal is not only to classify it to the positive or the negative class but also to recommend an update on $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ that minimizes the probability of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ being classified as positive. We assume one unit change in each feature of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ will incur a cost and that only a limited amount of budget $B$ is available. We propose a numerical framework and algorithm that recommends an optimal change on $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ based on a classification model that incorporates this budgetary constraint.
\subsection{Framework}
Suppose we are allowed to change some of the features of instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ to obtain a new version $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'$. Also suppose we want this change to minimize the probability of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'$ being classified as positive. With a classifier $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$, such an $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'$ can be obtained by minimizing $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ over the features of the new version $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'$.
However, for some physical or economical reasons, we cannot search for the optimal $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ over the whole feature space $\mathbb{R}^p$. In particular, we assume the features $\{1,2,\dots,p\}$ can be partitioned into two subsets $C$ and $U$. Given a feature vector $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$, let $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_C$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U$ represent the sub-vectors of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ that contain only changeable and only unchangeable features, respectively. Since $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U$ cannot be changed, we will minimize $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ by optimizing $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_C$. Hence, we represent $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ as $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_C)$ to distinguish these two sub-vectors.
In addition, we assume the reasonable value of each changeable feature in $C$ must be within an interval, denoted by $[l_i,u_i]$ for $i\in C$. Moreover, the costs for increasing and decreasing any feature $x_i$ by one unit are denoted by $c_i^+$ and $c_i^-$, respectively. Give a limited budget $B$, the optimal feature design problem for a given instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ can be formulated as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{FeatureOpt}
\min_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_C'\in\mathbb{R}^{|C|}}&f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_C')\\\nonumber
\text{s.t.}&\sum_{i\in C}c_i^+(x_i'-x_i)_++c_i^-(x_i'-x_i)_-\leq B\\\nonumber
&l_i\leq x_i'\leq u_i\text{ for }i\in C,
\end{align}
where $(x)_+=\max\{0,x\}$ and $(x)_-=\max\{0,-x\}$.
In a more general setting, some of the features in $C$ can be changed directly by the designer. We call these features the directly changeable features. However, there are features that cannot be changed directly. Instead, they change as a consequence of manipulations made to the directly changeable features. We call these indirectly changeable features. In Chi et~al.~\cite{Chi2012} the effects of the directly changeable on the indirectly changeable features are measured upon completion of the inverse classification process. Our method incorporates them as part of the optimization.
To model this phenomenon, we further partition the features in $C$ into two subsets, $D$ and $I$, which represent the sets of directly and indirectly changeable features, respectively. When we optimize the features, we can only determine the value for $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D$ and the values of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I$ will depend on $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U$. Therefore, we model the dependency of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I$ on $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D$ and $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U$ as $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I=H(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U)$ where the mapping $H:\mathbb{R}^{|D|+|U|}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^{|I|}$ is assumed to be smooth and differentiable. Note that the mapping $H$ can be trained using the same training instances for $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$. Furthermore, while the estimates elicited from $H$ may be noisy, using $H$ is better than allowing the $I$ values to remain static by definition of what $I$ represents. Therefore, we represent $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ as $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D)$ to distinguish these three blocks so that the feature optimization problem \eqref{FeatureOpt} can be generalized to
\begin{align}
\label{FeatureOptGen}
\min_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D'\in\mathbb{R}^{|D|}}&f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U,H(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_{D}',\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U),\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D')\\\nonumber
\text{s.t.}&\sum_{i\in D}c_i^+(x_i'-x_i)_++c_i^-(x_i'-x_i)_-\leq B\\\nonumber
&l_i\leq x_i'\leq u_i\text{ for }i\in D.
\end{align}
We relate a specific method for solving $H(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_{D}',\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U)$ in Section IV.A.3. We note that, in practice, $D$ is likely to be small and that, while $U$ may be large (e.g.,~pictorial or text-based features), the efficiency of the optimization won't be affected.
\textcolor{black}{
\subsubsection{Time Complexity of $H$}
We acknowledge that the size of the indirectly changeable feature set $I$ may be large and, as a result, wish to examine the time complexity associated with the indirect feature estimator $H$, which may prove to be a computational bottleneck.}
\textcolor{black}{Let $H_a$ denote the indirect feature estimator for feature $a \in I$ and let $r_a$ denote the corresponding time complexity associated with using $H_a$; that is, $H_a$ is $\mathcal{O}(r_a)$. We can then write the time complexity of $H$ as
\begin{align}
R = \sum\limits_{a \in I} r_a
\end{align}
where $R$ is the time complexity of $H$. As we can see, $R$ increases linearly with the size of $I$ (this is by virtue of the fact that we can estimate each feature in $I$ independently). However, depending on the choice of $H_a$, and the size of $I$, this may still prove to be a bottleneck. If this is the case, the user may need to tailor their selection of $H_a$, or forgo estimating certain $I$ features during the inverse classification process. We empirically show that the time complexity scales linearly using the $H$ defined in the experiments section (kernel regression), and include the result in the supplementary material that can be found at the publicly accessible repository {\sffamily \textcolor{dgreen}{github.com/michael-lash/BCIC}}.
}
\subsubsection{Hard-line and elastic bound-setting methods}
The constraints in \eqref{FeatureOpt} and \eqref{FeatureOptGen} are flexible enough to model different feature perturbation requirements. Specifically, there are two ways that the lower and upper bounds can be parameterized, each resulting in different algorithmic behavior.
The first is rigid with respect to test point $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$'s original directly changeable values: if $c_{i}^{-} = 0$ then $l_{i} = x_{i}$, and if $c_{i}^{+} = 0$ then $u_{i} = x_{i}$ where $i \in D$. Such box constraint parameterization prevents feature $i$ from being increased without cost if $c_{i}^{+} = 0$, or from being decreased without cost if $c_{i}^{-} = 0$, even if doing so would be beneficial according to the local function space, determined by $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$. This allows for more control over the recommendations being made to individuals and is most appropriate when domain experts can interject their own knowledge in designating which directions of change
are most beneficial. We refer to this as the Hardline bound-setting method.
The second is less rigid, allowing feature $i$ to increase even if $c_{i}^{+} = 0$, or to decrease even if $c_{i}^{-} = 0$. To obtain such behavior, if $c_{i}^{+} = 0$ then $u_{i} = \max\{1,x_{i}\}$ and if $c_{i}^{-} = 0$ then $l_{i} = \min\{0,x_{i}\}$. We refer to this as the Elastic bound-setting method.
In practice, we acknowledge any combination of these bound-setting methods can be used in a feature-specific manner. Bounds and costs can also be imposed such that individual costs are incurred differently, depending on whether a specific feature is increased or decreased.
\subsection{Optimization Method}
To solve the inverse classification problem, according to \eqref{FeatureOpt} and \eqref{FeatureOptGen}, we assume that objective function $f$ is differentiable and its gradient is Lipschitz continuous. Under this assumption, if $f$ is linear, the problem can be solved optimally and efficiently. If, however, the objective function is highly non-linear and non-convex, finding the globally optimal solution is NP-hard, in general. Because we do no wish to make further assumptions about the linearity of $f$, we focus on methods that can solve both these and the harder non-linear, non-convex class of function.
The available techniques that can be applied to non-convex, constrained optimization problems (see \cite{Neumaier:04} and extensive references therein) include: (a) deterministic approaches such as branch and bound~\cite{Neumaier:04}, function approximation~\cite{Jones:01}, cutting plane methods~\cite{Tuy:85}, difference of convex functions methods~\cite{Tuy:09}; and (b) stochastic approaches such as genetic algorithms~\cite{Goldberg:89}. However, these methods are typically slow and do not scale to large problems\footnote{This fact is observed first-hand in conducting our own experiments; such an experience will be further elaborated on in Section IV.}.
Therefore, our list of potential methods is left to include the projected/proximal gradient method~\cite{Nesterov07composite,Ghadimi:13a} and the zero-order method~\cite{Ghadimi:13a}. If $f(x)$ is second-order differentiable, the list of potential methods can be extended to include regularized Newton's method, sequential quadratic programming and BFGS. Among these methods, the projected gradient method and the zero-order method can guarantee that the iterative solution converge to a stationary point at a rate of $O(\frac{1}{t})$. The remaining methods only guarantee asymptotic convergence, with no specified convergence rate. Since the zero-order method is appropriate only when evaluating the gradient of $f$ is difficult, which is not our case, the appropriate method to apply with good theoretical guarantees is the projected gradient method.
\subsubsection{The Projected Gradient Method}
Before we present the projected gradient method, we need to reformulate \eqref{FeatureOpt} or \eqref{FeatureOptGen} using the difference of the original features and updated features as our decision variables. Because space is limited, we will only conduct the reformulation and presentation of the algorithm for \eqref{FeatureOptGen}, but the same technique can be applied to \eqref{FeatureOpt}. In \eqref{FeatureOptGen}, we define $\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}=\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D'-\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D$ and, by changing variables, \eqref{FeatureOptGen} can be equivalently written as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{FeatureOptGenReform}
\min_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}\in\Delta_{D}}&&g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}})
\end{eqnarray}
where $g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}})\equiv f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U,H(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D+\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U),\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D+\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}})$,
\begin{align}
\label{FeasibleSet}
\Delta_{D}\equiv\left\{\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}\in\mathbb{R}^{|D|}\bigg|
\begin{array}{c}
\sum_{i\in D}c_i^+(z_i)_++c_i^-(z_i)_-\leq B,\\
l_i'\leq z_i\leq u_i'\text{ for }i\in D.
\end{array}
\right\},
\end{align}
$l_i'=l_i-x_i$ and $u_i'=u_i-x_i$ for $i\in D$. The projection mapping onto the set $\Delta_{D}$ is defined as
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{proj}
\textbf{Proj}_{\Delta_{D}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}})\equiv\argmin_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}\in\Delta_{D}}\frac{1}{2}\|\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}-\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\|^2.
\end{eqnarray}
When $g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}})$ is differentiable and its gradient $\nabla g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}})$ is $L$-Lipschitz continuous,\footnote{ $\nabla g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}})$ is $L$-Lipschitz continuous if $\|\nabla g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}})-\nabla g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}')\|\leq L\|\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}-\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}'\|$ for any $\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}'\in\mathbb{R}^{|D|}$.} which is true for our class of function, the projected gradient method for solving \eqref{FeasibleSet} is then given as Algorithm \ref{algo:PGM}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Projected Gradient Method}
\label{algo:PGM}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE{$\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}^{(0)}\in\Delta_{D}$, $t=0$ and $\eta>0$}
\WHILE {Stopping criterion is not satisfied}
\STATE {$\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}^{(t+1)}=\textbf{Proj}_{\Delta_{D}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}^{(t))}-\eta\nabla g(\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}^{(t)})$}
\STATE {$t\leftarrow t+1$}
\ENDWHILE
\ENSURE $\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}^{(t)}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
According to Theorem 3 of \cite{Nesterov07composite}, when $\eta\leq\frac{1}{L}$, Algorithm~\ref{algo:PGM} guarantees that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}^{(t)}$ converges to a stationary point (or so-called KKT point) of \eqref{FeatureOptGenReform} at a rate of $O(\frac{1}{t})$, which is the best convergence for non-convex smooth optimization.
Algorithm~\ref{algo:PGM} requires solving the projection $\textbf{Proj}_{\Delta_{D}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}})$ at each iteration, which is itself an optimization problem. An efficient solution scheme for this subproblem is critical for making Algorithm~\ref{algo:PGM} expeditious. Fortunately, the domain $\Delta_{D}\neq\emptyset$ has a specific structure which allow us to solve $\textbf{Proj}_{\Delta_{D}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}})$ for any $\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}$ with an efficient subroutine. To see this, we define
\begin{align}
\label{h}
h_i(w,\lambda)=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
w-\lambda c_i^+&\text{ if }\lambda\leq \frac{w}{c_i^+}\text{ and }w> 0\\
w+\lambda c_i^-&\text{ if }\lambda\leq -\frac{w}{c_i^-}\text{ and }w< 0\\
0&\text{ otherwise}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{align}
for each $i\in D$. The subroutine is given in Algorithm \ref{algo:Proj}.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{Projection Mapping $\textbf{Proj}_{\Delta_{D}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}})$}
\label{algo:Proj}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}}\in\mathbb{R}^{|D|}$, $\{c_i^+\}_{i\in D}$, $\{c_i^-\}_{i\in D}$, $\{l'_i\}_{i\in D}$ and $\{u'_i\}_{i\in D}$
\STATE {$\mathcal{A}_-\leftarrow\{i|u_i'\leq \min(0,w_i)\}$
\STATE $\mathcal{A}_+\leftarrow\{i|\max(0,w_i)\leq l_i'\}$}
\STATE {$z_i\leftarrow u_i'$ for $i\in\mathcal{A}_-$ and $z_i\leftarrow l_i'$ for $i\in\mathcal{A}_+$}
\IF {\small$\sum_{i\in D\backslash(\mathcal{A}_+\cup \mathcal{A}_-)}\max\{\min\{h_i(w_i,0),u_i'\},l_i'\}
\leq B-\sum_{i\in\mathcal{A}_-}u_i'c_i^--\sum_{i\in\mathcal{A}_+}l_i'c_i^+$\normalsize}
\STATE{$\lambda\leftarrow 0$}
\ELSE
\STATE{Apply bisection search to find $\lambda\in(0,+\infty)$ such that
\small
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\sum_{i\in D\backslash(\mathcal{A}_+\cup \mathcal{A}_-)}\max\{\min\{h_i(w_i,\lambda),u_i'\},l_i'\}\\
&=& B-\sum_{i\in\mathcal{A}_-}u_i'c_i^--\sum_{i\in\mathcal{A}_+}l_i'c_i^+
\end{eqnarray*}
\normalsize}
\ENDIF
\STATE {$z_i\leftarrow\max\{\min\{h_i(w_i,\lambda),u_i'\},l_i'\}$ for $i\in D\backslash(\mathcal{A}_+\cup \mathcal{A}_-)$}
\ENSURE $\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The correctness of Algorithm~\ref{algo:Proj} is ensured by the following proposition whose proof is given in the Appendix.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:proj}
If $\Delta_{D}\neq\emptyset$, the solution $\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}$ returned by Algorithm~\ref{algo:Proj} satisfies $\ensuremath{\mathbf{z}}=\textbf{Proj}_{\Delta_{D}}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{w}})$.
\end{proposition}
\textcolor{black}{
\subsection{Representativeness and Support}
}
\textcolor{black}{With our methodology defined, we wish to comment on, and subsequently quantify, both the representativeness of the training set from which our $f$ will generalize and the support underlying the inverse classification of an instance.}
\textcolor{black}{
Therefore, we first propose \textbf{$\pmb{\delta}$-dissimilarity}, related by Definition \ref{def:drep}, which quantifies the dissimilarity between the training set distribution $S$ and population distribution $\mathcal{P}$ using a linear discrepancy distance measure defined in Johansson et~al.~\cite{Johansson2016}.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:drep}
The distribution $S$ of the training set, drawn from the population distribution $\mathcal{P}$, is said to be \textbf{$\pmb{\delta}$-dissimilar} to that of $\mathcal{P}$ if
\begin{align}
\text{disc}_{\mathcal{H}}(S,\mathcal{P}) \leq \delta.
\end{align}
where $\text{disc}_{\mathcal{H}}(S,\mathcal{P}) \triangleq \lVert \mu(S) - \mu(\mathcal{P})\rVert$ is the \textit{discrepancy distance} between two samples \cite{Johansson2016}, or in this case the training sample and population, we define $\mu(\cdot)$ to denote the mean of a particular distribution, and $\lVert \cdot\rVert$ is the Euclidean norm.
\end{definition}
Using Definition \ref{def:drep}, we relate the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop:0rep}
As the size of the training set $n$ increases to infinity, the training set distribution $S$ is asymptotically $\delta=0$-dissimilar to that of population distribution $\mathcal{P}$.
\end{proposition}
The proof of Proposition \ref{prop:0rep} is in the appendix. We wish to point out, however, that the variance and shape of $\mathcal{P}$ and $S$ may be quite different despite $S$ being $\delta=0$-dissimilar to that of $\mathcal{P}$. Additionally, in practice, the i.i.d. assumption may not hold (in this work we assume it does). We leave methods, taking into account such factors, as tangential future work.}
\textcolor{black}{
We are also concerned with ensuring that optimized instances be near training data. These underlying training data provide support as to the ``trustworthyness'' of the recommendations and corresponding probabilities elicited from the inverse classification process. Therefore, we define \textbf{$\pmb{(\epsilon,\gamma)}$-support}, related by Definition \ref{def:egrep}, which empirically quantifies the degree to which an inversely classified instance can be trusted.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:egrep}
Define the \textbf{$\pmb{(\epsilon,\gamma)}$-support} for a particular test instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$, to be the following:
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] $\epsilon$ is the variance in the predicted probabilities of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$'s $k$ nearest neighbors (from the training data). This measure provides an assessment as to the stability of the local probability space surrounding $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$.
\item[-] $\gamma$ is the number of neighbors that fall within $\bar{\text{maxDkNN}}=\frac{1}{n}\sum_{i=1}^{n}\text{maxDist}(k\text{NN}(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i))$ of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$, where the function $\text{maxDist}(\cdot)$ returns the maximum distance of training instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i$'s $k$ nearest neighbors; $\bar{\text{maxDkNN}}$ represents the average of these maximum distances. By comparing the $\gamma$ of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ to the average $\gamma$ of the training set we can observe whether a particular test instance has more (larger $\gamma$) or less (smaller $\gamma$) ``support'' (relative to the average from the training data) underlying the predicted probability.
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
We explore $(\epsilon,\gamma)$-support in the Experiments section.}
\begin{figure}[b]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.34]{graphics/experiments.pdf}
\caption{Experiment process.\label{fig:exp}}
\end{figure}
\section{Experiments}
In this section we outline our experimental methods and then apply such methods to two datasets. The first is a benchmark dataset from the UCI Machine Learning Repository \cite{uci} called Student Performance \cite{cortez2008}. The second is derived from ARIC, the Atherosclerosis Risk in Communities study \cite{aric1989}. We emphasize that both datasets are publicly available. The latter requires explicit NIH permission\footnote{Obtained via BioLINCC.}. We provide the code used in all experiments, and processed Student Performance data for public use at {\sffamily \textcolor{dgreen}{github.com/michael-lash/BCIC}}. The list of unchangeable, indirectly changeable, and directly changeable features (and corresponding parameters) for both datasets is also provided at the above mentioned URL.
\textcolor{black}{We emphasize that parameterization of the inverse classification framework, including the costs-to-change and assignment of features to the categories of unchangeable, indirectly changeable and directly changeable, should be guided by domain experts. As such, our experiments on the ARIC dataset are guided by a CVD specialist who is a co-author of this work.}
\subsection{Experiment Parameters and Setup}
In this section we outline a general process of validating inverse classification methods, the two learning algorithms used to conduct the inverse classification, a method for estimating indirectly changeable features, and a benchmark optimization method which we will compare against our gradient-based method.
\subsubsection{Process}
Our process of making and evaluating recommendations is based on that proposed by \cite{Chi2012}. In our experiments, we are using data from the past in which known outcomes are observed. We then make recommendations that reduce the probability of a negative outcome occurring. But, in the absence of a time machine, we need a way of validating whether we would have actually reduced the probability of such an event occurring. A method that accomplishes this requires careful segmentation of the data such that none of the information used to make recommendations is used in validating the probability of an outcome occurring. The process, shown in Figure \ref{fig:exp}, is related as follows:
\textbf{Step 1: }Partition the full dataset into two equal parts: a training set and a testing set. Data cleansing and preparation are also performed, including missing value imputation (mean) and the normalization of data values to be within $[0,1]$.
\textbf{Step 2(a): }uses the training set to learn a model $f$. During this step cross-validation can be used to find the optimal parameters of $f$, if necessary. We also perform cross-validation to obtain optimal parameters in the model $x_I=H(x_D,x_U)$ for indirectly changeable features.
\textbf{Step 2(b): }Further split the testing set into 10ths. 1/10th is for performing inverse classification on and the other 9/10ths are used for validation.
\textbf{Step 3(a): } Perform inverse classification on the heldout 10th of data using $f$.
\textbf{Step 3(b): } Learn a validation $f^{\prime}$ (and $H^{\prime}$) using the 9/10ths of heldout testing data.
\textbf{Step 4: } Estimate probabilities for the optimized inverse classification instances using $f^{\prime}$. These are the probabilities we report in our experiments. Note that we obtain probabilities for each 1/10th of held out testing data.
\textcolor{black}{By setting up the experiment in this manner we are also able to be more confident that the recommendations obtained are not the result of overfitting. Note also that by switching the roles of training and validation/test sets, the full amount of data can be used to obtain results.}
\subsubsection{Classification Functions}
Our experiments employ the use of two different learning methods: the linear \textit{logistic regression} model and the nonlinear \textit{kernel SVM}.
Logistic regression is a popular predictive model that works particularly well when the linear feature independence assumption holds. The model is trained via maximum likelihood estimation, given by the optimization problem
\begin{align}
\label{eq:logregopt}
\max\limits_{\ensuremath{\pmb{\beta}}, \beta_{0}} \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} -\text{log}( 1 + \text{exp}(\beta_{0}+\ensuremath{\pmb{\beta}}^{\top}\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^{i})) + \sum\limits_{i=1}^{n} y^{i}(\beta_{0}+ \ensuremath{\pmb{\beta}}^{\top}\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^{i})
\end{align}
where $\ensuremath{\pmb{\beta}}$ and $\beta_{0}$ are a vector of coefficients and offset term, respectively. After being trained the $\ensuremath{\pmb{\beta}}$ and $\beta_{0}$ can be used to make classifications for a given test instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:logclass}
f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}) = \frac{1}{1 + \text{exp}(-(\beta_{0} + \ensuremath{\pmb{\beta}}^{\top}\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}))}
\end{align}
which gives the probability of $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ being in the positive class.
Employment of the logistic model in our described inverse classification framework can be viewed as a basic method having roots in sensitivity analysis. This is illustrated by observing the link between coefficient examination as a means of sensitivity analysis and the employment of our described gradient-based methodology. Examining the sign and magnitude of a coefficient uncovers a particular feature's bearing -- how positive or how negative -- on the problem being modeled. Taking the gradient of a linear model has the same effect, thus informing the inverse classification framework which feature perturbations decrease the objective function value, with larger coefficients having a larger effect. Integration of this optimization methodology into the framework allows cost, budget, etc.~to be taken into account as well.
Among classification models, the kernel SVM is one of the most widely used. Compared to the classical linear SVM, kernel SVM is more appropriate for data in which two classes of instances have a nonlinear boundary.
A kernel SVM model can be trained using its dual formulation which is related by the optimization problem
\begin{align}
\label{SVMdual}
\max_{\ensuremath{\mathbf{\alpha}}\in\mathbb{R}^n}&\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i-\frac{1}{2}\sum_{i=1}^n\sum_{j=1}^n\alpha_i\alpha_jy^iy^jk(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^j)\\\nonumber
\text{s.t.}&\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_iy^i=0\text{ and }0\leq \alpha_i\leq C\text{ for }i=1,2\dots,n,
\end{align}
where $k(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'):\mathbb{R}^p\times \mathbb{R}^p\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is a kernel function that measures the similarity between any pair of instances $x$ and $x'$ in $\mathbb{R}^p$. The commonly used kernel functions include linear kernels $k(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}')=\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^T\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'$, polynomial kernels $k(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}')=(1+x^Tx')^d$ for any positive integer $d$, and Gaussian kernels $k(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}')=\exp\left(-\frac{\|\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}-\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'\|^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)$ for $\sigma>0$ where $\|\cdot\|$ represents the Euclidean norm in $\mathbb{R}^p$.
Suppose the optimal solution of \eqref{SVMdual} is $\ensuremath{\mathbf{\alpha}}^*\in\mathbb{R}^n$. An SVM classifier can be derived based on the function\footnote{In fact, the exact kernel SVM classifier is $f_b(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i^*y^ik(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})+b$ where $b$ is an offset value such that the new instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ is classified to be positive if $f_b(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})>0$ and to be negative otherwise. }
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{simfun}
f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i^*y^ik(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}),
\end{eqnarray}
where the instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i$ with $\alpha_i^*>0$ is called a support vector.
Given a new instance $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$, the value of $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ represents how similar $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ is to the positive class. A larger value of $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ means that $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$ is more likely to be positive.
However, the scores obtained from $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ do not correspond to likelihood directly. Therefore, we apply Platt's Method \cite{platt1999}. Platt's Method transforms the scores obtained from applying $f(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}})$ to probabilities; specifically, the probability of being positive. By applying this method we learn a probability space that is more easily interpretable.
We elect to use the Gaussian kernel SVM for three reasons. The first is that such a function is highly nonlinear and complex, giving us the opportunity to explore a more flexible classifier by which we can assess the effectiveness of our method. Secondly, the Gaussian kernel can be used to assess point similarity. This is beneficial in our experiments as one of our assumptions is that similar points will have similar probabilities associated with them, which isn't enforced by linear predictors. Finally, using the $\sigma$ parameter, we can control the size of the neighborhood used to assess point similarity. That is, larger $\sigma$ values make more distant support vectors appear more similar to a test point $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$, which subsequently has the effect of smoother probability transitions during optimization.
Therefore, our objective function, outlined in (\ref{FeatureOpt}) and (\ref{FeatureOptGen}), becomes \eqref{eq:logclass} and (\ref{simfun}), logistic and SVM, respectively, with features segmented into appropriate groups and the indirect feature estimator, outlined in the next subsection, incorporated. We explicitly note that, in the case of \eqref{simfun}, the minimization task is to minimize the SVM score. More appropriately, by applying Platt's method, we will be minimizing probability directly, as we are when using \eqref{eq:logclass}.
\subsubsection{Estimating Indirectly Changeable Features}
We employ the use of Kernel Regression \cite{Nadaraya1964,Watson1964} as a means of estimating the indirectly changeable features. In particular, the model $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I=H(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D,\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U)$ used in \eqref{FeatureOptGen} is
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{kernelreg}
\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I &=& \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n} k([\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i_D, \ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i_U],[\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D, \ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U])\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I^i}{\sum_{i=1}^{n} k([\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i_D, \ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}^i_U],[\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_D, \ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_U])},
\end{eqnarray}
where the kernel $k(\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}},\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}')=\exp\left(-\frac{\|\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}-\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}'\|^2}{2\sigma^2}\right)$ (Gaussian) and the value $\sigma > 0$ is selected based on cross-validation. By using the model in \eqref{kernelreg} with the Gaussian kernel we are provided with the added benefit of a point similarity assessment in making estimations. The model works by considering the known training set $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I^i$, that are closer to $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}$, more favorably than those that are further away. In so doing, (\ref{kernelreg}) obtains an estimate for $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_I$ based on points that are most similar to it.
\subsubsection{Methodological Benchmark}
\textcolor{black}{In our experiments we wish to compare our method to that of another. However, to the best of our knowledge, there exists no past methods, including those found in Section II, that can be incorporated into our framework. Therefore we develop a method, based on sensitivity analysis, that we believe represents a reasonable initial attempt at solving the problem from such a standpoint. Our proposed benchmark method operates by iteratively perturbing each feature $\ensuremath{\mathbf{x}}_{D_i}$ $i \in D$ to the bounds of feasibility (and is therefore akin to the variable perturbation method of sensitivity analysis \cite{Yao2003})}. The objective function is then evaluated. If this value is found to be better than any of the previous single-feature perturbations, the perturbation is accepted. After making single-feature perturbations, if some amount of budget $B$ remains, then subsequent rounds of perturbation occur (double-feature perturbation, triple-feature perturbation, etc.).
\begin{figure*}[h]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[h]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.145]{figures/USING/benchS1KOnly.png}
\caption{SP dataset using Hardline Bound-setting. \label{fig:benchS1}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[h]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.15]{figures/USING/benchS2KOnly.png}
\caption{SP dataset using Elastic Bound-setting.\label{fig:benchS2}}
\end{subfigure}
\par
\begin{subfigure}[h]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.145]{figures/USING/aricS1KOnly.png}
\caption{ARIC dataset using Hardline Bound-setting.\label{fig:aricS1}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[h]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.15]{figures/USING/aricS2KOnly.png}
\caption{ARIC dataset using Elastic Bound-setting.\label{fig:aricS2}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Average probability vs.~budget by dataset (Student Performance or ARIC) and by bound-setting method. Solid lines represent a result obtained using the logistic model, while dotted lines represent a result obtained using the SVM model. PGD denotes use of the gradient method, while Sens denotes use of the sensitivity analysis-based method. The \textcolor{cyan}{cyan} dashed line is a randomly selected individual whose recommendations will be shown and discussed in the next subsection.\label{fig:avgprobres}}
\end{figure*}
\textcolor{black}{Here we assert that, because we have chosen two different indirectly changeable feature estimators, we will effectively be using two different benchmark methods.}
Cumulatively, our experiments will involve two datasets (ARIC, Student Performance), two classification functions (logistic, SVM), two optimization methods (PGD, sensitvity analysis-based), and two bound-setting methods (Hardline and Elastic) which constitute a total of 16 experiments.
\subsection{Data Description}
We validate the effectiveness of our inverse classification framework on two datasets: Student Performance and ARIC. Student Performance data consists of individual Portuguese students enrolled in two different classes. The one used in this experiment was the Portuguese language class, as it contained the greater number of instances ($n=649$). Each student-instance has 43 associated features ($p=43$). The dependent variable is whether a student earned a final grade of C or below ($y=1$) or not ($y=-1$). We discard the two intermediary grade reports to reflect the long-term goal of earning a better grade. Therefore, the task is to minimize the probability of earning a C or below.
The ARIC dataset contains $n=12907$ patients for which we define 110 features (please refer to {\sffamily \textcolor{dgreen}{github.com/michael-lash/BCIC}}). As the problem domain is medicine-based, we consulted an epidemiologist, a coauthor of this paper. We define $y=1$ to be a positive CVD diagnosis, which includes probable myocardial infarction (MI), definite MI, suspect MI, definite fatal coronary heart disease (CHD), possible fatal CHD, and stroke. Patients not having any of these diagnoses have their CVD class variable encoded as $y=-1$. Additionally, patients having one of these diagnoses prior to the study period were excluded from our dataset (giving us the final $n=12907$ patients).
\subsection{Results: Probability Reduction}
The results of our 16 experiments are reported in terms of average probability relative to budget, which can be viewed in Figure \ref{fig:avgprobres}, where the subfigures stratify results by dataset and bound-setting method.
Comprehensively we can see that, in the general case, all methods except the logistic classifier using PGD on the Student Performance dataset were successful in reducing the average probability of a negative outcome. Depending on the dataset and bound-setting method used, different methods coupled with different classifiers experienced different degrees of success. This seems to suggest that, as in typical classification settings, methodological success varies on a dataset-to-dataset basis.
Interestingly, at a high level, there is no difference between the results obtained using the Hardline and Elastic bound-setting methods on Student Performance and only one distinct difference between the results obtained on ARIC. Here, logistic regressing using the PGD method is observed to have distinctly greater average performance using the Elastic bound-setting method (shown in Figure \ref{fig:aricS2}). Such a result should be viewed cautiously, however, as the recommendations obtained may differ, and perhaps even contradict, those our cardiovascular disease specialist would view as being truly beneficial. Differences of this nature may be attributable to possible noise in the ARIC data.
In examining the results obtain on Student Performance, shown in Figures \ref{fig:benchS1} and \ref{fig:benchS2}, some interesting findings emerge \footnote{We wish to point out that the probabilistic estimates obtained from the two classifiers are disparate, which we believe stems from small amounts of training data}. We can see that the best result obtained using the logistic classifier was through the sensitivity analysis-based method and the best obtained using the SVM classifier was through PGD. This may suggest that simpler, linear classifiers may experience better inverse classification results using simpler means of optimization and that more complicated, non-linear classifiers may see better results using those that are more complicated.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.165]{figures/student_135_kernel.png}
\caption{Student 135.\label{fig:bench_kernel_rec}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.49\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.35]{figures/patient_15_rec_setting1.png}
\caption{Patient 15. \label{fig:cvd_changes_hl}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Recommended changes vs.~budget for a randomly selected individual from each dataset. \label{fig:recommend}}
\end{figure*}
This latter point is somewhat supported by the results obtained on the ARIC dataset, shown in Figures \ref{fig:aricS1} and \ref{fig:aricS2}. In examining Figure \ref{fig:aricS1} we can see that PGD outperformed the sensitivity analysis-based method when using the nonlinear SVM classifier and that the sensitivity analysis-based method outperformed PGD when using the linear logistic classifier. However, in Figure \ref{fig:aricS2}, which represents results obtained using the Elastic bound-setting method PGD has dominated in the case of both classifiers. This result seems to suggest that, regardless of classifier complexity, if there exist optimizations that benefit from an Elastic setting (recall that no benefits were found from such a setting on Student Performance), PGD may dominate (on average).
Unexpectedly, looking at the results obtained for a randomly selected individual from either dataset, we can see that there is no difference in probabilistic improvement between the two bound-setting methods based when using SVM with PGD. The specific recommendations made to these individuals are discussed in the next subsection along with recommendations most commonly made to individuals in each dataset at a budget of four.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.09]{figures/additions/bench_eps_s1.png}
\caption{Stud.~Perf.~Average $\epsilon$ by budget.\label{fig:ben_eps_hl}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.09]{figures/additions/bench_gamma_s1.png}
\caption{Stud.~Perf.~Average $\gamma$ by budget. \label{fig:ben_gam_hl}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.09]{figures/additions/aric_eps_s1.png}
\caption{ARIC.~Average $\epsilon$ by budget.\label{fig:ar_eps_hl}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.092]{figures/additions/aric_gamma_s1.png}
\caption{ARIC.~Average $\gamma$ by budget. \label{fig:ar_gam_hl}}
\end{subfigure}
%
\par
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.09]{figures/additions/bench_eps_s2.png}
\caption{Stud.~Perf.~Average $\epsilon$ by budget.\label{fig:ben_eps_el}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.09]{figures/additions/bench_gamma_s2.png}
\caption{Stud.~Perf.~Average $\gamma$ by budget. \label{fig:ben_gam_el}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.09]{figures/additions/aric_eps_s2.png}
\caption{ARIC.~Average $\epsilon$ by budget.\label{fig:ar_eps_el}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[]{.24\linewidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.09]{figures/additions/aric_gamma_s2.png}
\caption{ARIC.~Average $\gamma$ by budget. \label{fig:hr_gam_el}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{$(\epsilon,\gamma)$-support for Student Performance and ARIC using both the \textbf{Hardline} (\ref{fig:ben_eps_hl}-\ref{fig:ar_gam_hl}) and \textbf{Elastic} (\ref{fig:ben_eps_el}-\ref{fig:hr_gam_el}) bound-setting methods with $k=10$.\label{fig:eg_el}}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Results: Cumulative and Individual Recommendations}
In this subsection we briefly relate the most common changes recommended to individuals in each dataset and then discuss the definitive recommendations made to two randomly selected instances.
Table \ref{tab:chg} shows the most common recommendations by raw count, the highest ranking of which pertain to features relevant to nearly all individuals (time with friends and eating food, for instance).
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
Rank & Student Perf. & ARIC \\
\hline
1 & Time w/ friends & Eat dark/grain bread \\
\hline
2 & Study time & Eat fruit\\
\hline
3 & Absences & \textcolor{red}{Cigs/day} \\
\hline
4 & \textcolor{red}{Weekday alco.~cons.} & Eat veggies\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Most commonly recommended feature changes by dataset using SVM with the PGD method at a budget of four. \label{tab:chg}}
\end{table}
Not all changes could be made to all individuals, however. For instance, not all individuals drink during the weekdays (Student Performance) and not all individuals smoke cigarettes(ARIC). Therefore, \textcolor{red}{red} shows that when recommendation commonality is normalized by the number of individuals who were engaging in weekday drinking and smoking, 97.97\% and 99.98\% of the time alterations to such behaviors were respectively recommended. Such a result shows that while such risky behaviors are not necessarily common among all individuals, those who do engage in them are frequently recommended to make alterations.
Figures \ref{fig:bench_kernel_rec} and \ref{fig:cvd_changes_hl} show the changes recommended to a randomly selected individual from Student Performance and ARIC, respectively, using SVM with the PGD method.
Contrasting Figure \ref{fig:bench_kernel_rec} with Figure \ref{fig:cvd_changes_hl} we can see that, in the case of the former, a single feature was optimized to the extent of feasibility before perturbations were made to another, whereas in the case of the latter, optimization of several features happened in tandem.
In examining the specific recommendations made to Student 135 in Figure \ref{fig:bench_kernel_rec}, we can see that first weekday drinking was curbed, followed by a reduction in school absences, weekend alcohol consumption, and time out with friends, as the budget was increased. Last, at the second highest budgetary level, time spent studying was increased. In the aggregate, it seems as though risk-related behavioral mitigations were determined to be optimal for this student.
Looking at the recommendations made to Patient 15 in Figure \ref{fig:cvd_changes_hl} we can see that, at low budgetary levels, an increase in dark or grain breads and a decrease in the number of cigarettes were recommended. Following these, as the budget was further incremented, consumption of more fruits and vegetables, in tandem, was recommended. At a budget of 13 it was also recommended that the patient decrease sodium intake and then subsequently, at a budget of 18, dietary fiber intake was increased. Finally, at a budget of 20, an increase in the consumption of nuts was recommended. Comprehensively, the recommendations deemed optimal for this patient were dietary-based, with the exception of a reduction in the number of cigarettes.
\subsection{Results: $(\epsilon,\gamma)$-support}
The results in Figure \ref{fig:eg_el} show that our inverse classifications are well supported in terms of probability space ($\epsilon$) and underlying training data ($\gamma$) for both Student Performance and ARIC, up to certain budgetary levels (sans SVM/PGD in \ref{fig:hr_gam_el}). This suggests that, in future work, a constraint on the underlying $\gamma$-support may be desirable. The results were obtained by taking the average over the $\epsilon,\gamma$ values of all optimized test instances for each budgetary level explored in past experiments.
\section{Conclusions}
In this work we propose and validate a new framework and method for inverse classification. The framework ensures that recommendations are realistic by accounting for what can actually be changed, the cost/effort required to make changes, the cumulative effort (budget) an individual is willing to put forth, and the effects that making changes have on features that are not directly actionable. Additionally, we impose bounds on the changeable features that further ensure recommendations are realistic, as well as two bound-setting methods that govern algorithmic recommendation-generating behavior. Furthermore, our methods are very modular, allowing for the use of any differentiable classification function (logistic regression, neural networks, etc.), as well as virtually any estimator of the indirectly changeable features. We demonstrated the efficacy of these methods on two freely available datasets as compared to a baseline method. Future work will focus on augmenting the framework with additional utility, as well as on conducting an in-depth analysis exploring situations in which PGD outperforms sensitivity analysis-based methods.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
The Radon transform \cite{ra17, helgason} is an important tool in harmonic analysis with significant conceptual impacts on both group theory and applied mathematics. The classical definition of this transform considers integrals over hyperplanes with specific orientation and distance from a reference hyperplane. For this classical Radon transform many functional properties have been investigated, including the characterization of its kernel and range, the ill-posedness of the inverse problem, as well as several inversion formulas and algorithms. The Radon transform has also been extended to integration on manifolds \cite{ku06}, although in this case important functional and computational problems are still open issues.
In biomedical imaging the classical Radon transform is the well-established mathematical model for data formation in X-ray Computerized Tomography (CT) and in Positron Emission Tomography (PET) \cite{na86, nawu01}. Indeed in X-ray CT the parameter that must be represented in the image is the density of the biological tissue, but the signal recorded by the scanner (the so-called sinogram) is a set of integrals of such density along straight lines with many different orientations and at many different distances from a reference line. On the other hand, a PET sinogram is the collection of line integrals of the concentration of a tracer that is injected into the body and whose interaction with the tissue represents a clinically sound metabolic index. Therefore, all software tools for image visualization implemented in current industrial CT and PET scanners must realize, at same stage, the numerical inversion of the Radon transform.
While the Radon transform plays a crucial role in image reconstruction, the Hough transform provides an important computational technique in pattern recognition. Indeed, the Hough transform is widely used in image-processing to detect algebraic plane curves, which are zero-loci of polynomials whose coefficients depend polynomially on a set of parameters. The basic idea of this recognition procedure (just extending the usual point-line duality in projective plane) is that a point in the image space corresponds to a locus (its Hough transform) in the parameter space. In turn, the whole curve in the image space corresponds {\it by duality} to a single point given by the intersection of all Hough transforms of the points belonging to the curve. A histogram (the Hough counter) can be constructed, representing an accumulator function defined on the discretized parameter space: for each cell in the parameter space, the value of the accumulator corresponds to the number of Hough transforms passing through that cell. The position of the maximum in the Hough counter identifies the combination of parameters characterizing the curve to be detected in the image space.
The history of the Hough transform starts in $1962$ with a patent by P. V. C. Hough \cite{ho62} to detect straight tracks of subatomic particles in bubble chamber photographs. No algebraic equations are used in the Hough patent, where the transform is defined just as {\it geometric construction by hand}. A first detailed description of the computational steps needed to implement the Hough transform technique, together with a theoretical generalization (although just outlined) to arbitrary curves, can then be found in \cite{duha72}.
At the beginning of the Nineties, a monograph \cite{le92} makes the point about the Hough transform from several perspectives: theory (in particular, generalizations, extensions and variants), numerics, applications, interpretations, future developments. In \cite{le00}, the Radon transform is applied to extract parameters characterizing the shape and angularity of powder particles: this application is somehow in the spirit of the Hough transform and contributes to highlight the link between the two transforms.
Recent papers \cite{feol08, liol15} introduce new algorithms based on Hough transform voting schemes, enabling very fast and efficient recognition of specific geometric features in large images or data sets. From a more theoretical point of view, a recent research \cite{bemapi13} provides a rigorous mathematical foundation, based on algebraic-geometry arguments, for the case of algebraic plane curves of whatever degree, together with a key lemma stating equivalent conditions under which the existence and uniqueness of the intersection point of the Hough transforms is guaranteed. This framework is then applied in \cite{macapebe15} and \cite{iciap15} to provide an atlas of algebraic curves used to recognize profiles in real astronomical and biomedical images.
Finally, we complete our short overview of the Hough transform by citing \cite{much15}, an up-to-date survey of this transform, its variants and applications. In the abstract of this paper it is claimed that more than $2,500$ research papers are concerned with the Hough transform, which represents an expression of uninterrupted interest from scholars in this field during the last decades.
In $1981$, for the first time an IEEE letter \cite{de81} guesses and shows by examples how the Hough transform can be considered a particular case of the Radon transform. Although influential and constructive, this letter is somewhat heuristic and does not consider any formal definition of the Hough transform. In \cite{prilki92}, the limitations of \cite{de81} are noticed and the similarity between the two transforms is investigated by relying on a formal definition of the Hough transform. However, both \cite{de81} and \cite{prilki92} fail to present a general and sound mathematical framework for studying in depth the relationship between the two transforms. In particular, some notation drawn from the theory of distributions is occasionally adopted, without any formal assumption and specification of the conditions making this notation mathematically meaningful. In $2004$, an inspirational report \cite{vaetal04} both reviews the literature about the relationship between the two transforms and outlines a sort of (mainly mathematical) research program to properly understand their link; in particular, it points out the importance of using concepts and results from distribution theory.
The aim of this paper is to present a general framework to describe and explain the relationship between the (generalized) Radon transform and the Hough transform. Specifically, our aim is to prove that given a digital image, the corresponding Hough counter tends to become the Radon transform of the image itself as the discretization of the parameter space becomes finer and finer.
Depending on the context, the spatial extent of a pixel in a two-di\-men\-sio\-nal image may be regarded as negligible or not.
If the pixel is considered as dimensionless, a mathematical model describing it can be chosen as the Dirac delta centered at a point,
multiplied by a number representing the grey level\footnote{\label{bellissimi}We recall that grey levels are a calibrated sequence of
grey tones, represented by integers and classified into grey-scale bands, ranging from black (usually, level $0$) to white
(usually, level $255$).}
or an analogous information about the intensity of the pixel itself. On the other hand,
if the pixel is assumed to take up a small square region, it can be mathematically described by a function being constant on the square and
zero outside. Accordingly, throughout the paper we shall speak of ``discrete image'' whenever the underlying mathematical model consists
of a linear combination (with real or even complex-valued coefficients) of Dirac deltas centered at a finite number of points in $\field{R}^2$
(or, more generally, in $\field{R}^n$); instead, we shall speak of ``piecewise continuous image'' if the corresponding mathematical description
is given in terms of a piecewise continuous (or, in particular, piecewise constant) function. With a slight abuse of language,
we shall often identify an image with its mathematical model.
The plan of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{RT} we recall some basic notation and definitions concerning the Radon
transform of a (piecewise continuous) function $m$ describing an image, both in its traditional formulation
(as the set of all the surface integrals of $m$ over hyperplanes in $\field{R}^n$, see e.g. \cite[chap.~1]{helgason})
and in a distributional framework (as inspired by \cite[chap.~I]{gegr5}), whereby the integral over a hyperplane is replaced
by the action of an appropriate distribution on $m$, regarded as a test function. Such distribution is the Dirac delta of the function
describing the hyperplane in Cartesian coordinates and is supported on the hyperplane itself. In this regard, \ref{distrapp} is devoted
to a short survey of some concepts and results of distribution theory, as needed and applied throughout the paper, with particular
attention to the definition of the Dirac delta of a function and its connection with the coarea formula.
In Section \ref{ziogen} the distributional definition of the Radon transform is generalized in such a way that hyperplanes can be
replaced by a $\lambda$-parametrized family of smooth submanifolds of $\field{R}^n$, being $\lambda\in E\subset\field{R}^t$ a $t$-dimensional parameter.
For each $\lambda\in E$, the corresponding submanifold is the zero locus in $\field{R}^n$ of a continuously differentiable
function $f(\cdot;\lambda)$ expressible in the $\lambda_t$-solvable form $f(x;\lambda)=\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{t-1})$.
Some regularity results for this specific version of the so-called ``generalized Radon transform'' (cf. \cite{ku06} and references therein)
are established, as well as a physical interpretation allowing for a further extension, i.e., the determination of the generalized Radon
transform of a Dirac delta concentrated at a point in $\field{R}^n$ and, by linearity, of any discrete image. The latter result, together with
a short analysis of the concept of ``sinogram'' as a visual representation of the intensity values of the generalized Radon transform,
is presented in Section \ref{sinogrammi}.
The Hough transform (in the case of a discrete image) is introduced in Section \ref{HT}. Here, we first recall some basic notions
and definitions, referring mainly to \cite{bemapi13, macapebe15} for several details and applications. Then, we describe the
discretization of the parameter space and define on it the weighted Hough counter, a function of crucial importance in the implementation
of any algorithm based on the Hough transform. Next, we focus on some important consequences of the $\lambda_t$-solvability property
for the function $f(x;\lambda)$ whose zero loci (either for a fixed $x$ or for a fixed $\lambda$) are at the basis of the whole Hough
transform process. In particular, we define the rescaled Hough counter as the
ratio between the weighted Hough counter and the solvable parameter $\lambda_t$, and we introduce the concept of ``rescaled
Hough sinogram'' as a visual representation of the intensity values of the rescaled Hough counter.
Section \ref{ziodiscreto} is concerned with the case of discrete images. Its main result is the theorem stating that, as the discretization
of the parameter space $E\subset\field{R}^t$ becomes infinitely fine, the rescaled Hough counter, obtained for a given discrete image and for a
$\lambda_t$-solvable function $f(x;\lambda)$, tends (in a distributional sense) to the generalized Radon transform of the image itself,
provided that the latter transform is computed by integrating over submanifolds that are just the zero loci of $f(\cdot;\lambda)$ in $\field{R}^n$
for any fixed $\lambda\in E$. Section \ref{ziocontinuo} extends the analysis and results of Section
\ref{ziodiscreto} to the case of piecewise continuous images. Sections \ref{ziodiscreto} and \ref{ziocontinuo} together represent the core
of the paper, since they provide a quite general framework for describing and explaining in detail the close but not evident
relationship between the Radon transform and the Hough transform.
Section \ref{zionumerico} presents a numerical example in which a digital phantom is recovered from a very noisy Radon sinogram,
by regarding it as a Hough sinogram.
Finally, in Section \ref{zioprospettico} we point out that the numerical technique just outlined in Section \ref{zionumerico}, if properly understood and implemented, might find an interesting application to all cases (like in Positron Emission Tomography) in which the Radon sinograms are inherently affected by a high level of noise, so that the traditional (i.e., Radon-based) inversion techniques cannot provide a satisfactory reconstruction of the unknown object.
In order to make the paper as readable and self-contained as possible, we added an Appendix recalling and collecting some notation, definitions, theorems and properties that are often used throughout the paper itself.
\section{The Radon transform}\label{RT}
Let $\gamma\in\field{R}$ and $\widehat{\omega}\in\mathbb{S}^{n-1}:=\{x\in\field{R}^n: |x|=1\}$, with $n\in\field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$. Then, we define the hyperplane
$\mathcal{P}(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)$ in $\field{R}^n$ as
\begin{equation} \label{pinocchio}
\mathcal{P}(\widehat{\omega},\gamma):=\left\{x\in\field{R}^n : \gamma-\widehat{\omega}\cdot x=0 \right\},
\end{equation}
where, of course, $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, $\widehat{\omega}=(\widehat{\omega}_1,\ldots,\widehat{\omega}_n)$ and the dot ``$\cdot$'' between two
elements of $\field{R}^n$ denotes the canonical scalar product in $\field{R}^n$.
\begin{definition}\label{defradon}
Let $m:\field{R}^n\rightarrow\field{C}$ be a function such that $m\in L^1(\mathcal{P}(\widehat{\omega},\gamma))$ $\forall (\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\in
\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\times\field{R}$. Then, the \textnormal{Radon transform} of $m$ is defined as the function
$(Rm):\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\times\field{R}\rightarrow\field{C}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{radon}
(Rm)(\widehat{\omega},\gamma):=\int_{\mathcal{P}(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)}m(x)\,d\sigma(x)
\ \ \ \ \forall (\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}\times\field{R},
\end{equation}
where $d\sigma(x)$ is the Euclidean element of area on $\mathcal{P}(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)$ \textnormal{\cite{helgason}}.
\end{definition}
For each $(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}\times\field{R}$, we consider the map defined by
\begin{equation}\label{gloria1}
\field{R}^n\ni x\mapsto f(x;\widehat{\omega},\gamma) := \gamma-\widehat{\omega}\cdot x \in \field{R},
\end{equation}
and assume (just for notational simplicity) that $\widehat{\omega}_n\neq 0$. Then, we have
\begin{equation}\label{gloria2}
\mathcal{P}(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)=\left\{x\in\field{R}^n : f(x;\widehat{\omega},\gamma)=0 \right\}=
\left\{x\in\field{R}^n : x_n=\mathsf{F}(x';\widehat{\omega}',\gamma) \right\},
\end{equation}
where the notation
$\widehat{\omega}':=(\widehat{\omega}_1,\ldots,\widehat{\omega}_{n-1})$, $x':=(x_1,\ldots,x_{n-1})$ and
$\mathsf{F}(x';\widehat{\omega}',\gamma):=(\gamma -\widehat{\omega}'\cdot x')/\widehat{\omega}_n$ has been adopted.
Accordingly, by (\ref{dini}), (\ref{intsup}) and (\ref{desigma}) in the appendix,
expression (\ref{radon}) can be explicitly rewritten as
\begin{equation} \label{detorrente}
(Rm)(\widehat{\omega},\gamma):=\frac{1}{|\widehat{\omega}_n|}\int_{\field{R}^{n-1}}m\big(x',\mathsf{F}(x';\widehat{\omega}',\gamma)\big)\,dx'.
\end{equation}
We also recall that, by assumption, $|\widehat{\omega}|=1$: then, from (\ref{gloria1}),
we have $|\mathrm{grad}\,f(x;\widehat{\omega},\gamma)|=1$
$\forall x\in\field{R}^n$, i.e., condition (\ref{grad1}) is fulfilled. Hence, by (\ref{defdelta}), (\ref{desigma}) and (\ref{viotti}),
for a function\footnote{The space $\mathcal{PD}_0(\field{R}^n)$ is the vector space
$PC^0_{C}(\field{R}^n)$ of piecewise continuous and compactly supported functions,
endowed with an appropriate topology. The corresponding space of linear and continuous functionals on $\mathcal{PD}_0(\field{R}^n)$
will be denoted by $\mathcal{PD}'_0(\field{R}^n)$. See Appendices A.1--A.3 for more details.}
$m\in \mathcal{PD}_0(\field{R}^n)$
definition (\ref{detorrente}) can be equivalently restated as the action of the linear and continuous functional
$\delta\big(f(\cdot;\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\big)\in \mathcal{PD}'_0(\field{R}^n)$ on the test function $m$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{radondelta}
(Rm)(\widehat{\omega},\gamma) :=\int_{\field{R}^n}\delta\big(f(x;\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\big) \,m(x)\, dx=
\int_{\field{R}^n}\delta(\gamma-\widehat{\omega}\cdot x) \,m(x)\, dx.
\end{equation}
Of course, definition (\ref{radon}) is more general than definition (\ref{radondelta}), since the former does not require $m$ to be
piecewise continuous and compactly supported; anyway, the two definitions coincide whenever $m\in \mathcal{PD}_0(\field{R}^n)$.
Interestingly, definition (\ref{radondelta}) is naturally generalized from the case $\widehat{\omega}\in\mathbb{S}^{n-1}$
to the case $\omega\in\field{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$:
let us discuss this point in detail.
For each $a\in\field{R}\setminus\{0\}$ and $(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\in\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\times\field{R}$, we define the map
$f_{a}(\cdot;\widehat{\omega},\gamma):\field{R}^n\rightarrow \field{R}$ as $f_a(x;\widehat{\omega},\gamma):= a \gamma - a \widehat{\omega}\cdot x$.
Thus, the natural extension of definition (\ref{radondelta}) follows by setting, for all
$(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\in \mathbb{S}^{n-1}\times\field{R}$,
\begin{equation}\label{radondeltalfa}
(Rm)(a\widehat{\omega},a\gamma) :=\int_{\field{R}^n}\delta\big(f_a (x;\widehat{\omega},\gamma)\big) \,m(x)\, dx=
\int_{\field{R}^n}\delta(a\gamma - a\widehat{\omega}\cdot x) \,m(x)\, dx.
\end{equation}
Now, it is clear that
$|\mathrm{grad}\,f_{a}(x;\widehat{\omega},\gamma)|=|a|$ $\forall x\in\field{R}^n$. Then,
by relations (\ref{defdelta}), (\ref{radon}) (\ref{radondelta}) and (\ref{radondeltalfa}),
we have, for any $m\in \mathcal{PD}_0(\field{R}^n)$ and $a\in\field{R}\setminus\{0\}$,
\begin{align}
(Rm)(a\widehat{\omega}, a\gamma) &
=|a|^{-1} \int_{\field{R}^n}\delta(\gamma-\widehat{\omega}\cdot x)\,m(x)\,dx=\label{halle}\\
& = |a|^{-1}\int_{\mathcal{P}(\widehat{\omega},\gamma)} m(x)\,d\sigma(x)=|a|^{-1}(Rm)(\widehat{\omega},\gamma).\nonumber
\end{align}
Moreover, for any $\omega\in\field{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$, let $\widehat{\omega}=\omega/|\omega|$ be the corresponding unit vector.
Thus, by (\ref{halle}),
for all $(\omega,\gamma)\in \left(\field{R}^{n}\setminus\{0\}\right)\times\field{R}$
we have
\begin{equation}\label{martinoli1}
(Rm)(a\omega,a\gamma)=
|a\omega|^{-1}(Rm)\left(\widehat{\omega},\frac{\gamma}{|\omega|}\right)=|a|^{-1}(Rm)\left(\omega,\gamma \right).
\end{equation}
Of course, by (\ref{martinoli1}), the Radon transform $(Rm)$ is uniquely determined by its values on $\mathbb{S}^{n-1}\times\field{R}$.
Since the distance of the hyperplane
$\mathcal{P}(\omega,\gamma):=\{x\in\field{R}^n : \gamma-\omega\cdot x=0\}$
from the origin $0\in\field{R}^n$ is
$d\left(\mathcal{P}(\omega,\gamma),0\right)=|\gamma|/|\omega|$ and
the support of $m$ is compact, we have that
\begin{equation}\label{steffani}
\forall \bar{\gamma}\in\field{R}\setminus\{0\}\ \ \ \ \exists\,\lim_{(|\omega|,\gamma)\rightarrow (0,\bar{\gamma})}(Rm)(\omega,\gamma)=0.
\end{equation}
Then, property (\ref{martinoli1}) extends by continuity to $(\omega,\gamma)\in\field{R}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{martinoli2}
(Rm)(a\omega, a \gamma)= |a|^{-1} (Rm)(\omega,\gamma)
\ \ \forall (\omega,\gamma)\in \field{R}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\},\, \forall a\in\field{R}\setminus\{0\},
\end{equation}
being understood that
$(Rm)(0,\gamma):=0$ $\forall \gamma\in\field{R}\setminus\{0\}$, as suggested by (\ref{steffani}).
As we are going to prove in a more general setting\footnote{See Theorem \ref{monteverdi} and Remark \ref{ziolineare1}
in Section \ref{ziogen}.},
$(Rm)$ is a locally integrable function on
$\left(\field{R}^n\setminus\{0\}\right)\times\field{R}$ and then, by (\ref{steffani}), onto $\field{R}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}$. Moreover,
relation (\ref{martinoli2}) shows that $(Rm)$ is an even homogeneous function
of $\omega$ and $\gamma$ of degree $-1$, which implies that
the singularity of $(Rm)$ at $(\omega,\gamma)=(0,0)\in\field{R}^{n+1}$ is integrable, since $-1> -(n+1)$ for $n\geq 1$. Then,
recalling the inclusion map\footnote{See the end of \ref{test}, in particular definition (\ref{pairint}), as well as the end of
\ref{ziopiecewise}.}
$\widetilde{\iota}_k:L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\right)
\hookrightarrow \mathcal{PD}'_k\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\right)$ for any $k\in\field{N}$ or $k=\infty$,
we have
\begin{equation} \label{coero}
(Rm)\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\right)\ \ \ \mbox{and}\ \ \ \widetilde{\iota}_k(Rm)\in\mathcal{PD}'_k\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\right).
\end{equation}
Summing up, from now on we shall adopt the following definition of the Radon transform (cf. \cite[chap.~I]{gegr5}).
\begin{definition}\label{defradondelta1}
The \textnormal{Radon transform} of $\,m\in \mathcal{PD}_0(\field{R}^n)$ is defined as the function
$(Rm):\field{R}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}\rightarrow\field{C}$ given by
\begin{equation}\label{radondelta1}
(Rm)(\omega,\gamma):=
\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
\int_{\field{R}^n}\delta(\gamma-\omega\cdot x) \,m(x)\, dx & \forall (\omega,\gamma)\in
\left(\field{R}^{n}\setminus\{0\}\right)\times\field{R};\\[2mm]
0 & \forall (\omega,\gamma)\in \{0\}\times\left(\field{R}\setminus\{0\}\right).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
\subsection{Radon transform of the characteristic function of a square}\label{zioquadrato}
As an example and for future purpose, we now want to compute the Radon transform of the characteristic function of a square. This is
the key tool to solve the problem of
computing the Radon transform of any square-wise constant image, i.e.,
any plane image formed by square pixels, and then described by a function assuming, on each pixel, a constant
value (which may represent, e.g., the grey level\footnote{Cf. footnote no. \ref{bellissimi}.} associated with the pixel itself).
Indeed, by the linearity and translation properties of the Radon transform,
this problem is reduced to that of computing the Radon transform of
a single square pixel, with side of positive length $2a$ and centre at
the origin of the image plane. Thus, we are led to compute the Radon transform of the function $m:\field{R}^2\rightarrow\field{R}$ defined as
\begin{equation}\label{emme}
m(x)=m(x_1,x_2):=
\left\lbrace
\begin{array}{ll}
1 & \mbox{if } (x_1,x_2)\in [-a,a]\times[-a,a],\\
0 & \mbox{otherwise.}
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
By setting $\omega=(\omega_1,1)\in\field{R}^2\setminus\{0\}$ and $\mathsf{F}(x_1;\omega,\gamma)=-\omega_1 x_1 +\gamma$, with $\gamma\in\field{R}$,
the equation of any straight line (not parallel to the $x_2$-axis)
in the image plane can be written as $x_2=\mathsf{F}(x_1;\omega,\gamma)$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{retta1}
\gamma - \omega_1 x_1 - x_2=0,
\end{equation}
so that $f(x;\omega,\gamma)=\gamma - \omega_1 x_1 - x_2$.
Note that $|\mathrm{grad}_x\,f(x;\omega,\gamma)|^2=\omega_1^2+1=1+|\partial \mathsf{F}(x_1;\omega,\gamma)/\partial x_1|^2$, which implies the fulfilment
of property (\ref{viotti}). Then, by definitions (\ref{radondelta1}), (\ref{emme}) and (\ref{defdelta}), we have
\begin{equation}\label{sdoura}
(Rm)(\omega,\gamma)
=\int_{-a}^{a} m\big(x_1,\mathsf{F}(x_1;\omega,\gamma)\big)\,dx_1.
\end{equation}
Now, the integrand function in (\ref{sdoura}) does not vanish if and only if $\mathsf{F}(x_1;\omega,\gamma)\in [-a,a]$.
Accordingly, the integral in (\ref{sdoura}) coincides with the length of the interval obtained as the intersection of $[-a,a]$ with the
interval of variability for $x_1$ obtained from the condition $\mathsf{F}(x_1;\omega,\gamma)=x_2\in [-a,a]$, i.e.,
$-a\leq -\omega_1 x_1 +\gamma\leq a$. Depending on the possible values of
$a$, $\omega_1$, $\gamma$, the length of the intersection interval varies, as well as its analytical expression as a function of these
three parameters. However, it is also possible to obtain a single algebraic expression\footnote{Cf. \cite{we15}, with the identifications
$p=-\omega_1$, $\tau=\gamma$.}, given by
\begin{equation} \label{radonquadrato}
(Rm)(\omega,\gamma)=\frac{|a-a\omega_1-\gamma|+|a-a\omega_1+\gamma|-|a+a\omega_1-\gamma|-|a+a\omega_1+\gamma|}{-2\omega_1}.
\end{equation}
\section{The generalized Radon transform}\label{ziogen}
Taking inspiration from Definition \ref{defradondelta1} in the previous section,
it is natural to make a step further, i.e., to replace hyperplanes in $\field{R}^n$
with $(n-1)$-dimensional submanifolds in an open subset of $\field{R}^n$, parameterized by a finite number of parameters
$\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t$ varying in an open subset of $\field{R}^t$.
Often, when making such a generalization (see, e.g., \cite{be84, ku06}),
it is assumed that these submanifolds verify several specific conditions (e.g., smoothness, homogeneity, relationship between the
dimensions $n$ and $t$, definite positivity of the Hessian matrix), so that the corresponding generalized Radon
transform is endowed with structural properties preserving or resembling those of the classical Radon transform, in particular
its link with the Fourier transform. This approach is motivated by the need of investigating the most important issues of any integral
transform, i.e., 1) its injectivity (on an appropriate function space); 2) the characterization of its range; 3) inversion formulas and
corresponding algorithms; 4) the ill-posedness of the inverse problem (e.g., the stability of the reconstruction). While for the classical
Radon transform these problems have been solved (see, e.g., \cite{bebo98, helgason, na86, nawu01}),
only partial answers are known even for the spherical Radon transform \cite{ku06}, not to mention the case of more general submanifolds.
However, the focus of this paper is on the link between the Radon and the Hough transform and, to this end, only property (\ref{coero})
is of interest. Accordingly, in the following, we shall not be concerned with points 1)--4) above, thus being allowed to consider
submanifolds that are more general than those usually considered in the literature on this subject.
\begin{definition}\label{radongen}
For $n\in \field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$ and $t\in\field{N}\setminus\{0\}$, let $W$ and $E$ be non-empty
open subsets of $\,\field{R}^n$ and $\,\field{R}^{t}$
respectively, and let\footnote{$E'$ is understood to be empty if and only if $t=1$.}
$E':=\{\lambda'\in \field{R}^{t-1} : \exists \lambda_t\in\field{R} : \lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E\}$.
Moreover, let $f:W\times E \rightarrow\field{R}$ be a function expressible in the $\lambda_t$-solvable form, i.e., as
$f(x;\lambda):=\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda')$, being $F:W\times E'\rightarrow\field{R}$ such that $F\in C^1\left(W\times E'\right)$, and assume that
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] $\displaystyle\mathcal{S}(\lambda):=\{x\in W : f(x;\lambda)=0\}\neq\emptyset$ $\forall\lambda\in E$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $\mathrm{grad}_x\, f(x;\lambda)\neq 0$ $\forall\lambda\in E$, $\forall x\in\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$.
\end{itemize}
Finally, let $m\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$. Then, the \textnormal{generalized Radon transform} of $m$ is defined as the function
$(R_f\, m):E\rightarrow\field{C}$ given by\footnote{Note that the assumptions on $f$ allow defining the functional
$\delta\big(f(\cdot;\lambda)\big)$ for each $\lambda\in E$: see \ref{mementodelta} for details.}
\begin{equation}\label{radongeneq}
(R_f\, m)(\lambda):=\int_{W} \delta\big(f(x;\lambda)\big)m(x)\,dx\ \ \ \forall \lambda\in E.
\end{equation}
\end{definition}
We now want to prove the analogous of property (\ref{coero}) for the generalized Radon transform: this task is (step-wise)
accomplished by the following Theorem \ref{mozart}, Corollary \ref{haydn} and Theorem \ref{monteverdi}.
\begin{theorem}\label{mozart}
Notation and assumptions as in Definition \textnormal{\ref{radongen}},
except that $\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$ is to be replaced by $\mathcal{D}_0(W)$.
Thus, $(R_f\, m)\in C^0(E)$ for all $m\in\mathcal{D}_0(W)$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
Since $f(x;\lambda):=\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda')$ and $F\in C^1\left(W\times E'\right)$ by hypothesis, we have that
$f\in C^1\left(W\times E\right)$. Now, given $\widetilde{\lambda}\in E$, consider, according to
assumption (i) of Definition \ref{radongen}, the corresponding non-empty submanifold
$\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)$. By condition (ii) of Definition \ref{radongen},
for any point $\widetilde{x}\in\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)$
there exists $i\in\{1,\ldots,n\}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{battifollo}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\neq 0;
\end{equation}
just for notational simplicity, assume that $i=n$.
Next, for positive $\epsilon_1$, $\epsilon_2$ and $\epsilon_3$, define
\begin{align}
W' & :=\left\{x'\in \field{R}^{n-1} : \exists\,x_n\in\field{R} : (x',x_n)\in W\right\},\\
W_n & :=\left\{x_n\in \field{R} : \exists\,x'\in\field{R}^{n-1} : (x',x_n)\in W\right\},\\
B\left(\widetilde{x}',\epsilon_1\right) & :=\left\{x'\in W' : \big|x'-\widetilde{x}'\big|<\epsilon_1 \right\},\\
B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_2\big) & := \big\{\lambda\in E :
\big|\lambda-\widetilde{\lambda}\big| < \epsilon_2 \big\},\\
B\big(\widetilde{x}_n,\epsilon_3\big) & :=\left\{x_n\in W_n : \big|x_n-\widetilde{x}_n\big| < \epsilon_3\right\}.
\end{align}
Then, by condition (\ref{battifollo}) and the implicit function theorem, for $k=1,2,3$ we can take
$\epsilon_k=\epsilon_k\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)$ so small that a function
\begin{equation}
\mathsf{F}:B\big(\widetilde{x}',\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times
B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_2\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\rightarrow
B\big(\widetilde{x}_n,\epsilon_3\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)
\end{equation}
exists, satisfying the following properties:
\begin{equation}\label{priola}
\mathsf{F}\in C^1\left(\overline{B\big(\widetilde{x}',\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)}\times
\overline{B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_2\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)}\right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{align}\label{huet}
&\big\{\big(x',\lambda,\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\big):(x',\lambda) \in B\big(\widetilde{x}',\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)
\times B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_2\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\big\} = \\
&\big\{\big(x',\lambda, x_n\big)\in B\big(\widetilde{x}',\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times
B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_2\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times
B\big(\widetilde{x}_n,\epsilon_3\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big) : f(x;\lambda)=0\big\}. \nonumber
\end{align}
Moreover, by condition (\ref{battifollo}) and the continuous differentiability of $f$, it is not restrictive to assume that
\begin{equation} \label{bagnasco}
c\big[\epsilon_k\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big]:=\inf\left\{\left|\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_n}(x',x_n;\lambda)\right|
: (x',x_n;\lambda)\in
N\big[\epsilon_k\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big]\right\}>0,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{nucetto}
N\big[\epsilon_k\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big]:=
B\big(\widetilde{x}',\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times
B\big(\widetilde{x}_n,\epsilon_3\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times
B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_2\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big).
\end{equation}
For the same $\widetilde{\lambda}$, we can repeat the above construction for each $\widetilde{x}\in\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)$.
In particular, the union $\bigcup_{\widetilde{x}\in\mathcal{S}(\widetilde{\lambda})} B\big(\widetilde{x}',
\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x};\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times B\big(\widetilde{x}_n,\epsilon_3\big(\widetilde{x};
\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)$ is an open
covering of the closed subset $\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)$ of $\field{R}^n$ and \textit{a fortiori} of the compact subset
$\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\cap S_m$, being $S_m$ the compact support of $m\in\mathcal{D}_0(W)$. We can then extract a finite
subcovering of $\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\cap S_m$, i.e., there exist a finite set of indices $r=1,\ldots,R$, with
$R=R\big(\widetilde{\lambda},m\big)\in\field{N}$, and a corresponding finite subset $\big\{\widetilde{x}(r)\big\}_{r=1}^{R}$ of
$\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\cap S_m$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{putin}
\mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\cap S_m \subset \bigcup_{r=1}^R B\big(\widetilde{x}'(r),
\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times B\big(\widetilde{x}_n(r),\epsilon_3\big(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big).
\end{equation}
Now, an equality analogous to (\ref{huet}) holds true for all $r=1,\ldots,R$: in each subset of the form (\ref{nucetto}), i.e., in each
$N\big[\epsilon_k\big(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big]$,
the equation $f(x;\lambda)=0$ can be equivalently rewritten as $x_n=\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)$. This implies that, by defining
$\epsilon_{2,m}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big):=\min\big\{\epsilon_2\big(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\big):r=1,\ldots,R\big\}$ and taking
$\lambda\in B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_{2,m}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)$, the same covering on the right-hand side of
(\ref{putin}) also holds for $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)\cap S_m$.
Hence, for any such $\lambda$, this covering, together with any partition of unity $\{\rho_i\}_{i=1}^R$ subordinated to it,
can be used to compute the integral\footnote{Cf. relations (\ref{defdelta}) and (\ref{desigma}).}
\begin{equation}\label{eltsin}
\int_W\delta\left(f(x;\lambda)\right)m(x)\,dx := \int_{\mathcal{S}(\lambda)}\frac{m(x)}{|\mathrm{grad}_x\,f(x;\lambda)|}\,d\sigma(x).
\end{equation}
Indeed, by covering $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)\cap S_m$ as in (\ref{putin}), the integral on the right-hand side of (\ref{eltsin}) can be
computed as the finite sum of $R$ addenda: the generic $r$-th addendum is
\begin{equation} \label{pievetta}
\int_{B\left(\widetilde{x}'(r),\epsilon_1\left(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\right)\right)}\rho_r\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
m\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
\frac{\sqrt{1+\left|\mathrm{grad}_x\,\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right|^2}}{|\mathrm{grad}_x\,f(x',\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda);\lambda)|}\,dx'.
\end{equation}
We now note two properties concerning integral (\ref{pievetta}). First, since $\rho_r$ is infinitely differentiable,
$m$ is continuous and both $f$ and $\mathsf{F}$ are
continuously differentiable on their domain of definition,
it follows that the integrand function in (\ref{pievetta}) is continuous in $x'$ and $\lambda$. Second, taking into account conditions
(\ref{priola}), (\ref{bagnasco}) and the boundedness of $\rho_r$ and $m$, there exists a constant $K(r)\in\field{R}^+$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{guitton}
\rho_r\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
m\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
\frac{\sqrt{1+\left|\mathrm{grad}_x\,\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right|^2}}{|\mathrm{grad}_x\,f(x',\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda);\lambda)|}
\leq K(r)
\end{equation}
for all $(x',\lambda)\in B\big(\widetilde{x}'(r),\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\times
B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_{2,m}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)$. Thus, integral (\ref{pievetta}) converges uniformly with respect
to $\lambda$.
The two properties mentioned above imply that the function defined by
\begin{equation}\label{maritain}
\lambda \mapsto
\int_{B\left(\widetilde{x}'(r),\epsilon_1\left(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\right)\right)}
\rho_r\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
m\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
\frac{\sqrt{1+\left|\mathrm{grad}_x\, \mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right|^2}}{|\mathrm{grad}_x\,f(x',\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda);\lambda)|}\,dx'
\end{equation}
is continuous on $B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_{2,m}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)$. Since this is true for each $r=1,\ldots,R$,
it immediately follows that also the function defined by
$\lambda\mapsto (R_f\,m)(\lambda):=\int_W\delta\left(f(x;\lambda)\right)m(x)\,dx$ is continuous
on the same domain, i.e., on a neighbourhood of $\widetilde{\lambda}$.
Finally, the same argument holds for any $\widetilde{\lambda}\in E$: hence,
$(R_f\, m)$ is continuous onto $E$ itself.
This concludes the proof.~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
The following corollary is an immediate consequence of Theorem \ref{mozart}.
\begin{corollary}\label{haydn}
Assumptions as in Theorem \textnormal{\ref{mozart}}. Then,
$(R_f\, m)\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(E)$ for all $m\in \mathcal{D}_0(W)$.
\end{corollary}
Actually, Corollary \ref{haydn} is a particular case of the following theorem, allowing for the case of piecewise continuous functions.
\begin{theorem}\label{monteverdi}
Assumptions as in Definition \textnormal{\ref{radongen}}. Then, $(R_f\, m)\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(E)$ for all $m\in \mathcal{PD}_0(W)$.
\end{theorem}
\proof The proof is similar to that of Theorem \ref{mozart}. In fact, it is just the same up to expression (\ref{pievetta}). Then,
inequality (\ref{guitton}), which still holds true by conditions (\ref{priola}), (\ref{bagnasco}) and the boundedness of $\rho_r$ and $m$,
implies that the function defined as
\begin{equation}
(x',\lambda)\mapsto \rho_r\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
m\left(x';\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right)
\frac{\sqrt{1+\left|\mathrm{grad}_x\,\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda)\right|^2}}{|\mathrm{grad}_x\,f(x',\mathsf{F}(x';\lambda);\lambda)|}
\end{equation}
is an element of $L^1\left(B\left(\widetilde{x}'(r),\epsilon_1\big(\widetilde{x}(r);\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\right)\times
B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_{2,m}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\right)$. Thus, by Fubini theorem, the function defined by
(\ref{maritain}) is an element of $L^1\left(B\big(\widetilde{\lambda},\epsilon_{2,m}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)\big)\right)$.
Since this is true for each $r=1,\ldots,R$,
it immediately follows that also the function defined by
$\lambda\mapsto (R_f\,m)(\lambda):=\int_W\delta\left(f(x;\lambda)\right)m(x)\,dx$ is Lebesgue-integrable
on the same domain, i.e., on a neighbourhood of $\widetilde{\lambda}$.
Finally, the same argument holds for any $\widetilde{\lambda}\in E$: hence,
$(R_f\, m)$ is an element of $L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(E)$.
This concludes the proof.~$\square$
\begin{remark}\label{ziolineare1}
In the case of the Radon transform considered in Definition \ref{defradondelta1}, the assumptions of Theorem \ref{monteverdi}
(i.e., of Definition \ref{radongen}) are fulfilled for $t=n+1$, $W=\field{R}^n$, $E=\left(\field{R}^n\setminus\{0\}\right)\times\field{R}$,
$\lambda'=\omega\in\field{R}^n\setminus\{0\}$, $\lambda_t=\gamma\in\field{R}$ and $f(x;\lambda)=\lambda_t-\lambda'\cdot x$.
Accordingly, we have $(Rm)\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\big(\left(\field{R}^n\setminus\{0\}\right)\times\field{R}\big)$ by Theorem \ref{monteverdi},
then $(Rm)\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\setminus\{0\}\right)$ by setting $(Rm)(0,\gamma):=0$ $\forall\gamma\in\field{R}\setminus\{0\}$,
as suggested by limit (\ref{steffani}). Finally, the fact that $(Rm)\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\right)$, i.e.,
property (\ref{coero}), follows
from the weak-singularity argument explained just below relation (\ref{martinoli2}).
\end{remark}
\subsection{A physical interpretation of the generalized Radon transform}
Taking inspiration from simple physical concepts, it is possible to establish an important result concerning the generalized Radon transform.
In order to accomplish this task, we need to prove a preliminary lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{solvableL}
For $n\in\field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$ and $t\in\field{N}\setminus\{0\}$, let $W$ and $E'$ be non-empty\footnote{Actually, $E'$ is understood to be empty
if and only if $t=1$.} open subsets of $\field{R}^n$ and $\field{R}^{t-1}$ respectively. Moreover, let $f:W\times\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)\rightarrow\field{R}$
be a function of the $\lambda_t$-solvable form $f(x;\lambda):=\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda')$
$\forall (x,\lambda)\in W\times\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$, with
$\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)$. Finally, for each $\lambda\in E'\times\field{R}$, let
\begin{equation}\label{esselunga}
\mathcal{S}(\lambda):=\{x\in W : f(x;\lambda)=0\},\ \ \ \ \mathcal{S}^+(\lambda):=\{x\in W : f(x;\lambda)\geq 0\}.
\end{equation}
Then, the following two properties hold true:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] if $\lambda_t\neq\widetilde{\lambda}_t$, then $\mathcal{S}(\lambda',\lambda_t)\cap
\mathcal{S}\big(\lambda',\widetilde{\lambda}_t\big)=\emptyset$ $\forall\lambda'\in E'$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] if $\lambda_t\geq \widetilde{\lambda}_t$, then $\mathcal{S}^+(\lambda',\lambda_t)\supset
\mathcal{S}^+\big(\lambda',\widetilde{\lambda}_t\big)$ $\forall\lambda'\in E'$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
\proof (i)
According to the first of definitions (\ref{esselunga})
and in view of the specific form of $f(x;\lambda)=\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda')$, it holds that
\begin{equation}\label{odio}
\mathcal{S}(\lambda',\lambda_t)=\{x\in W : \lambda_t=F(x;\lambda')\},\ \
\mathcal{S}\big(\lambda',\widetilde{\lambda}_t\big)=\{x\in W : \widetilde{\lambda}_t=F(x;\lambda')\}.
\end{equation}
Then, $x\in\mathcal{S}(\lambda)\cap \mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)$ implies that $\lambda_t=F(x;\lambda')=\widetilde{\lambda}_t$,
which contradicts the hypothesis $\lambda_t\neq\widetilde{\lambda}_t$.
It follows that $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)\cap \mathcal{S}\big(\widetilde{\lambda}\big)=\emptyset$.
(ii) By the second of definitions (\ref{esselunga}) and the specific form of $f$, we have that if $\lambda_t\geq \widetilde{\lambda}_t$, then
$\mathcal{S}^+(\lambda',\lambda_t)=\{x\in W : F(x;\lambda)\leq \lambda_t\}$ contains the set
$\{x\in W : F(x;\lambda)\leq \widetilde{\lambda}_t\}=\mathcal{S}^+\big(\lambda',\widetilde{\lambda}_t\big).$~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
Now, if real-valued, a test function $m\in \mathcal{D}_0(W)$ can be regarded as the density with which some finite electric charge
(or mass, if $m$ is non-negative) is continuously distributed in free space.
Accordingly, in view of Lemma \ref{solvableL}, we shall denote by $M(\lambda',\lambda_t)$ the charge contained in the region
$\mathcal{S}^+(\lambda',\lambda_t)$, which, in general, becomes larger and larger as $\lambda_t$ increases.
Interestingly, by means of the generalized Radon transform of $m$, the following theorem establishes a link between the charge density
$m(x)$ and the charge $M(\lambda',\lambda_t)$ contained in $\mathcal{S}^+(\lambda',\lambda_t)$:
in this sense, the result can be considered as a physical interpretation of the generalized Radon transform itself. However, note that,
in the following, $m$ is not required to be real-valued.
\begin{theorem} \label{tristis}
Notation and hypotheses as in
Lemma \textnormal{\ref{solvableL}}. Moreover, assume the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] there exists a non-empty open subset $E$ of $E'\times\field{R}$ such that $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)\neq\emptyset$
$\forall\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $f\in C^1(W\times E)$ and, for all $\lambda\in E$, $\mathrm{grad}_x\, f(x;\lambda)\neq 0$
$\forall x\in\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, for any $m\in\mathcal{D}_0(W)$, let $M: E \rightarrow\field{C}$ be defined as
\begin{equation}\label{iperico}
M(\lambda',\lambda_t):=\int_{\mathcal{S}^+(\lambda',\lambda_t)}m(x)\,dx=\int_{\{x\in W : F(x;\lambda') \leq \lambda_t\}} m(x)\,dx.
\end{equation}
Then, it holds that
\begin{equation} \label{cipster}
\frac{\partial M}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t)=(R_f\,m)(\lambda',\lambda_t)
\ \ \ \forall (\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E,
\end{equation}
where $(R_f\,m)$ is the generalized Radon transform of $m$, as defined in \textnormal{(\ref{radongeneq})}.
\end{theorem}
\proof
By definition,
\begin{equation} \label{ipericina}
\frac{\partial M}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t):=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{M(\lambda',\lambda_t+h)-M(\lambda',\lambda_t)}{h}.
\end{equation}
Assume that $h\rightarrow 0^+$ (the proof for the case $h\rightarrow 0^-$ is analogous). Then, from (\ref{iperico}) and (\ref{ipericina}),
we have
\begin{equation}\label{ask}
\frac{\partial M}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t)
=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^+}\frac{1}{h}\int_{\left\{x\in\field{R}^n : \lambda_t \leq
F(x;\lambda')\leq \lambda_t+h\right\}} m(x)\,dx.
\end{equation}
By the representation of $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$ as in (\ref{odio})
and the coarea formula\footnote{See (\ref{coarea}), with the identifications
$A=\left\{x\in\field{R}^n : \lambda_t \leq F(x;\lambda')\leq \lambda_t+h\right\}$, $\Psi=F(\cdot;\lambda')$, $g=m$ and $s=\bar{\lambda}_t$.},
for each $(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E$ we can rewrite (\ref{ask}) as
\begin{equation}\label{ernia}
\frac{\partial M}{\partial\lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^+}\frac{1}{h}
\int_{\lambda_t}^{\lambda_t+h}\left(
\int_{\mathcal{S}(\lambda',\bar{\lambda}_t)}\frac{m(x)}{|\mathrm{grad}_x\, F(x;\lambda')|}\, d\sigma(x)\right) d\bar{\lambda}_t.
\end{equation}
The internal integral in (\ref{ernia}), i.e., in view of (\ref{defdelta}),
\begin{equation}\label{bay}
G\left(\lambda',\bar{\lambda}_t\right):=
\int_{\mathcal{S}(\lambda',\bar{\lambda}_t)}\frac{m(x)}{|\mathrm{grad}_x\, F(x;\lambda')|}\, d\sigma(x)=
\int_W\delta\big(f(x;\lambda',\bar{\lambda}_t)\big)m(x)\,dx,
\end{equation}
is a continuous function on $E$ by Theorem \ref{mozart}. In particular, if we set
$E_t:=\{\lambda_t\in\field{R} : \exists \lambda'\in\field{R}^{t-1} : (\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E\}$, then $G(\lambda',\cdot)\in C^0(E_t)$ for all
$\lambda'\in E'$. Since it is not restrictive to assume $[\lambda_t,\lambda_t+h]\subset E_t$,
by the integral mean value theorem we find from (\ref{ernia})--(\ref{bay}) that
\begin{equation}\label{discale}
\exists\, \widetilde{\lambda}_t(h)\in\left[\lambda_t, \lambda_t+h\right]\ :\
\frac{\partial M}{\partial\lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^+}\frac{1}{\xcancel{h}}\cdot \xcancel{h}\,\,
G\big(\lambda',\widetilde{\lambda}_t(h)\big).
\end{equation}
Moreover, it holds that $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0^+}\widetilde{\lambda}_t(h)=\lambda_t$. Thus, by (\ref{bay})--(\ref{discale}) and the
continuity of $G(\lambda',\cdot)$, we have
\begin{equation} \label{amburgo}
\frac{\partial M}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t) = G\left(\lambda',\lambda_t\right)=
\int_W\delta\big(f(x;\lambda',\lambda_t)\big)m(x)\,dx.
\end{equation}
Finally, by comparing (\ref{amburgo}) with (\ref{radongeneq}), assertion (\ref{cipster}) easily follows.~$\square$
\begin{remark}
By using the characteristic function $\Theta(f)$ introduced in (\ref{defHf1}), definition (\ref{iperico}) can be
equivalently rewritten in the form
\begin{equation}\label{letta}
M(\lambda',\lambda_t):=\int_{W}\Theta\big(f(x;\lambda',\lambda_t)\big)\,m(x)\,dx.
\end{equation}
Then, the result of Theorem \ref{tristis} can be heuristically obtained from (\ref{letta}) by formally interchanging the partial
derivative operator $\partial/\partial\lambda_t$ with the integral symbol and taking into account relations (\ref{derH1}) and
(\ref{radongeneq}), i.e.,
\begin{align}\label{lite}
\frac{\partial M}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t) & =
\int_{W}\frac{\partial \Theta\big(\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda')\big)}{\partial \lambda_t}\,m(x)\,dx \\
& =\int_{W}\delta\big(\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda')\big)\,m(x)\,dx = (R_f\,m)(\lambda',\lambda_t). \nonumber
\end{align}
\end{remark}
\section{Generalized sinograms}\label{sinogrammi}
The classical Radon transform can be generalized so to act on distributions \cite{gegr5,helgason}. Under appropriate
assumptions, a corresponding theory could be developed for the generalized Radon transform.
However, here we are only interested in determining
the generalized Radon transform of the Dirac delta $\delta(\cdot -\widetilde{x})=\delta_{\widetilde{x}}\in\mathcal{D}'_0(W)$ centred at a point
$\widetilde{x}\in W\subset \field{R}^n$. To this end, we shall adopt
an \textit{ad hoc} argument based on the property (\ref{cipster}) of the generalized Radon transform stated in Theorem \ref{tristis},
thus avoiding any approach concerned with distributions in general.
First, we observe that $\delta_{\widetilde{x}}$ can be regarded as an infinite charge density corresponding to a unit charge
concentrated at the point $\widetilde{x}\in W$. Then, we can imagine that such a density is the limit in $\mathcal{D}'_0(W)$
of a sequence of (feasible) charge densities $m_i$ as $i\rightarrow\infty$: this is made precise by the following Lemma \ref{safena}.
Finally, we can compute the Radon transform of
$\delta_{\widetilde{x}}$ as the limit in $\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E\right)$ of the generalized
Radon transforms $(R_f\, m_i)$ as $i\rightarrow\infty$: this is formalized by the subsequent Theorem \ref{daflon}.
\begin{lemma}\label{safena}
Let $W$, $\widetilde{x}\in W$ and $K\subset W$ be a non-empty open subset of $\field{R}^n$,
a given point of $W$ and a compact subset of $W$ containing a neighbourhood $U_{\widetilde{x}}$ of $\widetilde{x}$, respectively.
Then, there exist (infinitely many) sequences of functions $\left\{m_i\right\}_{i\in\field{N}}\subset\mathcal{D}_0(W)$ such
that\footnote{See (\ref{kant})--(\ref{pairint}) for details about the convergence in $\mathcal{D}'_k(W)$ and the inclusion map
$\iota_k:L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(W)\rightarrow \mathcal{D}'_k(W)$.}
$\mathrm{supp}\,m_i\subset K$ $\forall i\in \field{N}$ and $\iota_0(m_i)\rightarrow \delta_{\widetilde{x}}$ in $\mathcal{D}'_0(W)$ as $i\rightarrow\infty$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{reni}
\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\langle \iota_0(m_i),\phi\rangle=\langle\delta_{\widetilde{x}},\phi\rangle=\phi(\widetilde{x})
\ \ \forall\phi\in\mathcal{D}_0(W).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof
The proof can be obtained from an easy adaptation of standard results that can be found, e.g., in \cite[pp. 43--44]{zem87}.~$\square$
\begin{theorem}\label{daflon}
Let $\{m_i\}_{i\in \field{N}}\subset\mathcal{D}_0(W)$ be a sequence of functions as in Lemma \textnormal{\ref{safena}}, and let
$f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ be as in Theorem \textnormal{\ref{tristis}}.
Then, it holds that
$\iota_1\left(R_f\,m_i\right)\rightarrow \delta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot)\big)$
in $\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E\right)$ as $i\rightarrow\infty$, i.e.,
recalling \textnormal{(\ref{kant})--(\ref{pairint})} and \textnormal{(\ref{defdelta})},
\begin{equation} \label{diuretico}
\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\left\langle \iota_1\left(R_f\, m_i\right), \psi\right\rangle=
\left\langle\delta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot)\big),\psi\right\rangle\ \ \forall\psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E\right),
\end{equation}
where $\delta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot)\big)$ is the Dirac delta of the function $f(\widetilde{x};\cdot):E\rightarrow\field{R}$.
\end{theorem}
\proof
From Corollary \ref{haydn} and relations (\ref{pairint}), (\ref{derdistr}), (\ref{cipster}), (\ref{letta}), we have
\begin{align} \label{aiuto1}
\langle \iota_1\left(R_f\,m_i\right),\psi \rangle & =\left\langle\iota_1\left(\frac{\partial M_i}{\partial \lambda_t}\right),
\psi\right\rangle=
-\left\langle\iota_0(M_i),\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}\right\rangle\\
& = - \int_{E}\left[\int_{W} m_i(x)\, \Theta\big(f(x;\lambda)\big)\,dx\right]
\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda)\,d\lambda\nonumber\\
& = - \int_{W}m_i(x)\left[\int_{E}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda)\,
\Theta\big(f(x;\lambda)\big)\,d\lambda\right] dx,\nonumber
\end{align}
where the last equality follows from Fubini theorem. Now, let us consider the internal integral, i.e., the function $\Phi:W\rightarrow\field{C}$
defined by
\begin{equation}\label{defPhi}
W \ni x\mapsto \Phi(x):= \int_{E}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda)
\, \Theta\big(f(x;\lambda)\big)\,d\lambda\in\field{C}.
\end{equation}
By (\ref{defHf1}) and the compactness of $\mathrm{supp}\,\psi$, the integration domain in (\ref{defPhi}) can be restricted to the
intersection $I(\psi,x)$ of $\mathrm{supp}\,\psi$ with the set
$\mathcal{S}^+(x):=\left\{\lambda\in E: f(x;\lambda)\geq 0\right\}$, i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{defPhihalf}
\Phi(x)= \int_{I(\psi,x)}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda) \,d\lambda,\ \ \ \ \mbox{with}\
I(\psi,x):=\mathrm{supp}\,\psi\cap \mathcal{S}^+(x).
\end{equation}
We note that $I(\psi,x)$ is compact for any $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E\right)$ and any $x\in W$. Moreover, we can prove that
$\Phi$ is continuous on $W$, i.e.,
\begin{equation} \label{pergolesi}
\lim_{x\rightarrow x^\ast}\left|\Phi(x)-\Phi(x^\ast)\right|=0\ \ \forall x^\ast\in W.
\end{equation}
To prove limit (\ref{pergolesi}), we first set
$M_t:=\max_{\lambda\in E}\left|\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda)\right|$; then, we respectively denote by
$\Delta$ and $\mathcal{L}^{t}$ the symmetric difference between two sets and the Lebesgue measure on $\field{R}^{t}$. Accordingly,
from (\ref{defPhihalf}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{durante}
\left|\Phi(x)-\Phi(x^\ast)\right|=\left|\int_{I(\psi,x)\,\Delta\, I(\psi,x^\ast)}
\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda) \,d\lambda \right|\leq M_t \,
\mathcal{L}^{t}\big(I(\psi,x)\,\Delta\,I(\psi,x^\ast)\big).
\end{equation}
Now, it is easy to realize that
\begin{equation}\label{leo}
\lim_{x\rightarrow x^\ast}\mathcal{L}^{t}\big(I(\psi,x)\,\Delta\,I(\psi,x^\ast)\big)=0\ \ \ \forall x^\ast\in W,
\ \forall\psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E\right).
\end{equation}
Hence, limit (\ref{pergolesi}) readily follows from relations (\ref{durante})--(\ref{leo}).
In general, the function $\Phi$ is not compactly supported, but $m_i$ is, with $\mathrm{supp}\,m_i\subset K$ as in Lemma \ref{safena}.
Then, let $A$ be an open and bounded subset of $W$ such that $K\subset A$. By Urysohn lemma, there exists a continuous
function $u:W\rightarrow [0,1]$ such that $u(x)=1$ for $x\in K$ and $u(x)=0$ for $x\in W\setminus A$. It follows that the function
mapping
$x$ into $\widetilde{\Phi}(x):=u(x)\Phi(x)$ is both continuous and compactly supported, i.e., $\widetilde{\Phi}\in \mathcal{D}_0(W)$; moreover,
it clearly holds that $\big\{x\in W : \widetilde{\Phi}(x)=\Phi(x)\big\}\supset K\supset \mathrm{supp}\,m_i\cup U_{\widetilde{x}}$.
Then, recalling (\ref{pairint}) and (\ref{defPhi}),
we can rewrite the last equality in (\ref{aiuto1}) as
\begin{equation}\label{vivaldi}
\left\langle \iota_1\left(R_f\, m_i\right),\psi\right\rangle=- \int_{W} m_i(x)\widetilde{\Phi}(x)\,dx=
- \left\langle\iota_0(m_i),\widetilde{\Phi}\right\rangle.
\end{equation}
From (\ref{vivaldi}) and property (\ref{reni}), which is satisfied by assumption, we find
\begin{equation} \label{strozzi}
\lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\left\langle\iota_1\left(R_f\,m_i\right),\psi\right\rangle =
- \lim_{i\rightarrow\infty}\left\langle\iota_0(m_i),\widetilde{\Phi}\right\rangle= - \widetilde{\Phi}(\widetilde{x}).
\end{equation}
Finally, by (\ref{pairint}), (\ref{derdistr}), (\ref{derH1}), (\ref{defPhi}) and since $u(\widetilde{x})=1$, we have
\begin{align}
-\widetilde{\Phi}(\widetilde{x}) & = - u(\widetilde{x}) \int_{E}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}(\lambda)\,
\Theta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\lambda)\big)\,d\lambda=
-\left\langle \iota_0 \left[\Theta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot)\big)\right], \frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\lambda_t}\right\rangle\nonumber \\
& = \left\langle \frac{\partial\,\iota_0\left[\Theta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot)\big)\right]}{\partial\lambda_t},\psi \right\rangle=
\left\langle\delta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot)\big),\psi \right\rangle.\label{albinoni}
\end{align}
Then, relation (\ref{diuretico}) is obtained from an immediate comparison between (\ref{strozzi}) and (\ref{albinoni}).~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
Summing up, from Theorem \ref{daflon} it follows that the appropriate definition of the generalized Radon transform of the Dirac delta
$\delta_{\widetilde{x}}\in\mathcal{D}'_{0}(W)$ is
\begin{equation}\label{radeltagen}
\left(R_f\,\delta_{\widetilde{x}}\right)(\cdot):=\delta\big(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot)\big)\in \mathcal{D}_1'(E).
\end{equation}
The specific form of (\ref{radeltagen}) for the Radon transform considered in Definition \ref{defradondelta1} deserves a short discussion.
In view of the usual identifications
made in Remark \ref{ziolineare1}, we can rewrite (\ref{radeltagen}) as
\begin{equation}\label{radelta}
(R\delta_{\widetilde{x}})(\omega,\gamma):=\delta(\gamma - \omega\cdot \widetilde{x}),
\end{equation}
where $\delta(\gamma - \omega\cdot \widetilde{x})$ is the Dirac delta $\delta(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot))\in\mathcal{D}_1'\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\right)$
of the function\footnote{Analogously to Remark \ref{ziolineare1}, the hypotheses of Theorem \ref{tristis} are satisfied for
$E=\left(\field{R}^n\setminus\{0\}\right)\times\field{R}$, then its thesis (\ref{cipster}) does not hold true, in principle, for all $\lambda\in\field{R}^{n+1}$.
However, $\mathcal{L}^{n+1}\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\setminus E\right)=0$ and, as observed in Remark \ref{ziolineare1}, $(Rm_i)\in
L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(\field{R}^{n+1})$, so that the first equality in (\ref{aiuto1}) is valid
on $\field{R}^{n+1}$ (i.e., $R_f\,m_i$ and $\partial M_i/\partial\lambda_t$ are equal
as elements of $L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(\field{R}^{n+1})$). As a result, in Theorem \ref{daflon} we can set $E=\field{R}^{n+1}$ and then regard here
$\delta(f(\widetilde{x};\cdot))$ as an element of $\mathcal{D}_1'\left(\field{R}^{n+1}\right)$.}
mapping $(\omega,\gamma)$ into $f(\widetilde{x};\omega,\gamma):=\gamma-\omega\cdot \widetilde{x}$.
\begin{remark}\label{def-sinogramma}
Definition (\ref{radelta}) is the mathematical justification of the name ``sinogram'' given to the two-dimensional representation
of the intensity values of the Radon transform of an
image in X-ray Computerized Tomography (CT).
Indeed, for $n=2$, we can model a single point (a dimensionless pixel) $P$
in the image as a Dirac
delta\footnote{We denote by $x(P)$ the $n$ coordinates of $P$, i.e., $x(P):=\left(x_1(P),\ldots,x_n(P)\right)\in\field{R}^n$.}
$\delta_{x(P)}$, whose Radon transform is given by $\delta(\gamma - \omega\cdot x(P))$, according to (\ref{radelta}).
Now, the support of $\delta(\gamma - \omega\cdot x(P))$ in the parameter space is the plane
$\mathcal{P}(x(P))=\{(\omega_1,\omega_2,\gamma)\in\field{R}^3\,:\,\gamma - \omega\cdot x(P)=0\}$. By intersecting such plane with the cylinder $\mathbb{S}^1\times\field{R}$,
which amounts to expressing $\omega=(\omega_1,\omega_2)\in\mathbb{S}^1$ as $\omega=(\cos\vartheta,\sin\vartheta)$ for $\vartheta\in [0,2\pi)$,
we find a set of points described by the equation $\gamma= x_1(P)\cos\vartheta + x_2(P)\sin\vartheta$,
which is a sinusoidal curve in the $(\vartheta,\gamma)$-plane.
\end{remark}
Moreover, an image of greater complexity or an
object $m$ can be modelled as a set of a
finite number $\nu$ of dimensionless pixels $P_1,\ldots,P_{\nu}$ having respective grey levels $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_\nu$,
which correspond (in X-ray CT) to
the values of the linear attenuation coefficient of the object at those points.
This amounts to taking $m$ as
\begin{equation}\label{vinci1}
m(x)=\sum_{j=1}^\nu \mu_j\,\delta\big(x-x(P_j)\big),\ \mbox{with}\
\mu_j\in \field{R} , \ x(P_j)\in \field{R}^2 \ \ \forall j=1,\ldots,\nu.
\end{equation}
From (\ref{radelta}), (\ref{vinci1}) and the linearity of the Radon transform, we can then compute the Radon transform of $m(x)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{trip1}
(Rm)(\gamma,\omega)=
\sum_{j=1}^{\nu} \mu_j\,\delta\big(\gamma-\omega\cdot x(P_j)\big),
\end{equation}
thus obtaining, as its support, a superposition of $\nu$ sinusoidal curves in the $(\vartheta,\gamma)$-plane, which is just how a
sinogram appears. Of course, the same result (\ref{trip1}) also holds for $x(P_j)\in\field{R}^n$, with $n>2$.
Even though no sinusoidal curve is involved in the general case, by analogy we shall call ``(generalized) sinogram'' any visual
representation of the intensity values of the generalized Radon transform of (\ref{vinci1}), which is, according to (\ref{radeltagen}),
\begin{equation}\label{bilzerian}
\left(R_f\,m\right)(\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^{\nu} \mu_j\,\delta\big(f(x(P_j);\lambda)\big).
\end{equation}
By analogy, we shall speak of (generalized) sinogram also in the case of a piecewise continuous image, i.e., to indicate any
visual representation of the intensity values of the generalized Radon transform of $m\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$, as given by (\ref{radongeneq}).
\section{The Hough transform}\label{HT}
The Hough transform is a pattern recognition technique
for the automated detection of curves in images.
We refer, e.g., to \cite{ba81, bemapi13, bero12, de81, duha72, ho62, le92, le93, macapebe15, prilki92, vaetal04}
for background material and complete details.
Here, we limit ourselves to recalling that the problem solved by this technique can be formulated in short as follows.
Given an image whose points are contained in an open subset $W$ of $\field{R}^n$,
a set of points $\left\{P_j\right\}_{j=1}^{\nu}$ of
interest in the image itself
and a $\lambda$-parametrized family of functions $f_\lambda: W \rightarrow \field{R}$,
find, among all possible values of the parameters $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t)\in E\subset\field{R}^t$, the values
$\bar{\lambda}=(\bar{\lambda}_1,\ldots,\bar{\lambda}_t)$ for which
the corresponding zero locus of $f_{\bar{\lambda}}$, i.e., $\mathcal{S}(\bar{\lambda})=\{x\in W : f_{\bar{\lambda}}(x)=0\}$
(typically, a curve for $n=2$), best fits the set of points $\left\{P_j\right\}_{j=1}^{\nu}$.
In this section, we recall few basic definitions and discuss some concepts enlightening a new approach.
\subsection{The general setting}\label{SU}
The Cartesian product of copies of $\field{R}$ (or $\field{A}^1(\field{R})$, the affine space)
considered below is equipped with the Euclidean topology. First, let us fix some notation and preliminaries:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $x:=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$, orthogonal Cartesian coordinates in the {\em image space} $\field{A}^n(\field{R})$ (with $n\geq 2$),
also denoted by $\field{A}_x^n(\field{R})$ and often identified with $\field{R}^n$ itself;
\item[(ii)] $\lambda:=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t)$, orthogonal Cartesian coordinates in the {\em parameter space} $\field{A}^t(\field{R})$ (with $t\geq 1$),
also denoted by $\field{A}_{\lambda}^t(\field{R})$ and often identified with $\field{R}^t$ itself;
\item[(iii)] $W$ and $E$, non-empty open subsets of points in $\field{A}^n(\field{R})$ and $\field{A}^t(\field{R})$, respectively.
For notational simplicity and homogeneity with respect to the previous sections,
we shall also indicate by $x$ or $\lambda$ a point in $W$ or $E$, which amounts (by a slight abuse of language) to identifying
$W$ or $E$ with their coordinate representation in $\field{R}^n$ or in $\field{R}^t$, respectively;
\item[(iv)] $f:W\times E \to \field{R}$, a function such that,
for each $\lambda\in E$, the map $f_\lambda:=f(\cdot;\lambda):W\rightarrow\field{R}$ defined by $x\mapsto f(x;\lambda)$
satisfies the following conditions: (a) ${\mathcal S}(\lambda):=\{x\in W : f_{ \lambda}(x)= 0\}\neq \emptyset$; (b)
$f_{\lambda}\in C^1(W)$; (c) $(\mathrm{grad}_x\, f_{\lambda})(x)\neq 0$ $\forall x\in\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$.
\end{itemize}
Note that, as shortly explained between equalities (\ref{ulisse}) and (\ref{dini}) in \ref{mementodelta},
the previous conditions (a)--(c)
imply that ${\mathcal S}(\lambda)$ is a smooth, closed, orientable and $(n-1)$-dimensional
submanifold of $W\subset\field{R}^n$, for each $\lambda\in E$.
We now propose the following definition of Hough transform.
\begin{definition}\label{def1}
Let $f:W\times E \to \field{R}$ be a function satisfying conditions \textnormal{(a)--(c)} above, let $P\in W$ be a point in the image
space having coordinates $x=(x_1(P),\ldots, x_n(P))$, and let $f_x:E\rightarrow\field{R}$ be the map
defined by $\lambda\mapsto f(x;\lambda)$. Then we say that the zero locus of $f_x$, defined as
${\mathcal H}(x):=\left\lbrace\lambda\in E : f_x(\lambda)=0\right\rbrace$, is the
{\em Hough transform of the point $P$ with respect to the function $f$ and to the coordinate system $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$}.
If no confusion will arise, we simply say that $\mathcal{H}(x)$
is the {\em Hough transform of $x$}.
\end{definition}
Summarizing, the function $f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ introduced above, when evaluated either at a fixed point $\lambda\in E$ of
the parameter space or at a fixed point $P \in W$ of the image space, defines, respectively,
\begin{equation}\label{pesto}
{\mathcal{S}}(\lambda) =\left\lbrace x\in W : f_{\lambda}(x)=0\right\rbrace; \ \ \
\mathcal{H}(x) =\left\lbrace \lambda\in E : f_x(\lambda)=0\right\rbrace.
\end{equation}
Clearly, for each $(x,\lambda)\in W\times E$, the {\em duality condition} (already understood in the algebraic case in \cite{bemapi13})
\begin{equation}\label{Dual}
x\in {\mathcal S}(\lambda) \Longleftrightarrow 0=f_{\lambda}(x)=f(x;\lambda)=f_x(\lambda)=0
\Longleftrightarrow\lambda \in {\mathcal H}(x)
\end{equation}
holds true, allowing us to conclude that {\em the Hough transform ${\mathcal H}(x)$ of a point $x\in W$ contains a point $\lambda\in E$
if and only if ${\mathcal S}(\lambda)$ passes through $x$.}
Note that, in general, the Hough transform operator $\mathcal{H}:W\rightarrow E$ mapping $x$ to $\mathcal{H}(x)$ is not injective, since
we may have ${\mathcal H}(x)={\mathcal H}(x')$ for different points $x,x'\in W$ (see example \ref{CS} at the end of this section).
An issue naturally arising from the previous setting is that of investigating the geometrical properties of the Hough transform
$\mathcal{H}(x)$.
Since $\mathcal{H}(x)$ is the zero locus of the function $f_{x}:E\rightarrow\field{R}$, such properties will
depend on corresponding properties of $f_x$.
Here we limit ourselves to shortly recall the following.
A plain situation occurs if $f_x\in C^1(E)$ and $(\mathrm{grad}_\lambda\, f_x)(\lambda)\neq 0$ for each $\lambda\in\mathcal{H}(x)\neq\emptyset$:
in this case, $\mathcal{H}(x)$ is a smooth, closed, orientable and $(t-1)$-dimensional submanifold of $E\subset\field{R}^t$
(thus paralleling the
properties of $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$ in $W\subset\field{R}^n$; cf. item (iv) above).
However, the condition $(\mathrm{grad}_\lambda\, f_x)(\lambda)\neq 0$ may hold only for some $(x,\lambda)\in W\times E$: in this case,
${\mathcal H}(x)$ is a $(t-1)$-dimensional submanifold locally around $\lambda$.
In general, ${\mathcal H}(x)$ may be empty, or may contain (or even may be made up of) irreducible components of dimension not greater than
$t-2$ (for instance, a single point). On the other hand, $\mathcal{H}(x)$ may be equal to the whole $E\subset\field{R}^t$: this happens if $x$ is a
\textit{base point} of the family $\{{\mathcal S}(\lambda)\}_{\lambda\in E}$, i.e., a point belonging to ${\mathcal S}(\lambda)$ for all
$\lambda\in E$. Indeed, in this case the duality condition (\ref{Dual}) implies that ${\mathcal H}(x)=E$ (see example \ref{CS} again).
\subsection{The weighted Hough counter}\label{WHC}
We briefly describe here, with slight modifications with respect to \cite{bemapi13}, the basic steps of the algorithm leading to
the construction of the weighted Hough counter, which is a key tool of the pattern recognition technique based on the Hough transform,
as implemented in \cite{bemapi13}.
First, let $f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ be a function satisfying conditions (a)--(c) stated in item (iv) of Subsection \ref{SU}.
Then, consider the following steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item[I.] \textit{Discretization of the parameter space.} Identify a suitable (and bounded) investigation domain $\mathcal{T}\subset E$
in the parameter space $\field{R}^t$. Next, choose an \textit{initialization point} $\lambda^\ast=(\lambda_1^\ast,\ldots,\lambda_t^\ast)$ in
$\mathcal{T}$ and, for each $k=1,\ldots,t$, a \textit{sampling distance} $d_k$ with respect to the component $\lambda_k$. Then, set
\begin{equation}\label{IN}
\lambda_{k,\mathcal{n}_k}:=\lambda_k^{*}\pm \mathcal{n}_k d_k, \;\; k=1,\ldots,t, \;\; \mathcal{n}_k=0,\ldots,\mathcal{N}_k-1,
\end{equation}
where $\mathcal{N}_k$ is half the number of considered samples for such component, and $\mathcal{n}_k$ the index labelling the sample.
Moreover, denote by
\begin{equation}\label{cells}
\hspace{-1cm}
C(\mathcal{n}):=\left\{\lambda=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t) \in \mathcal{T} : \lambda_k\in
\left[\lambda_{k,\mathcal{n}_k}-\frac{d_k}{2},\,\lambda_{k,\mathcal{n}_k}+\frac{d_k}{2}\right)\ \forall k=1,\ldots,t\right\}
\end{equation}
the rectangular cell with centre in the \textit{sampling point}
$\lambda_{\mathcal{n}}:=(\lambda_{1,\mathcal{n}_1},\ldots,\lambda_{t, \mathcal{n}_t})$ of the discretized region
$\mathcal{T}$, where $\mathcal{n}\in\field{N}^t$ denotes the multi-index $(\mathcal{n}_1,\ldots, \mathcal{n}_t)$ labelling the cells.
Finally, denote by $C(\lambda)$ the cell containing the point $\lambda\in \mathcal{T}$.
We point out that the discretization is defined by relation (\ref{IN}), that is, by the choice of the initialization point
$\lambda^\ast\in\mathcal{T}$ and the \textit{discretization step} represented by the multi-index $d:=(d_1,\ldots,d_t)\in\field{R}_{+}^t$.
In the following, a discretization will be also denoted by $\{\lambda^\ast,d\}$.
\item[II.] \textit{Definition of the Hough transform kernel.} Let $P$ be a point in a subset $W\subset \field{R}^n$ of the image space,
with coordinates $x=(x_1(P),\ldots,x_n(P))$, and let $\mathcal{H}(x)$ be the Hough transform of $P$ with respect to the function
$f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ and the coordinate system $x=(x_1,\ldots,x_n)$ (cf. Definition \ref{def1}). Then consider the following map,
depending on both the function $f$ and the discretization (\ref{IN}), defined by
\begin{equation}\label{K1}
p(x, \lambda;\lambda^\ast,d):=
\begin{cases}
1 \; \;\; \mbox{if} \;\; \mathcal{H}(x)\cap C(\lambda)\neq \emptyset , \\
0\; \;\; \mbox{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
For a given discretization $\{\lambda^\ast,d\}$, the map
\begin{equation}
p(\cdot,\cdot\, ;\lambda^\ast,d) : W\times \mathcal{T} \to \{0,1\}
\end{equation}
is also called \textit{Hough transform kernel (with respect to the function $f$)}.
From a numerical viewpoint, the problem of computing $p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)$, i.e., establishing whether the Hough transform
$\mathcal{H}(x)$ intersects a cell $C(\mathcal{n})$ or not, is not so easy as it might appear at first sight: see, e.g., \cite{tobe14}
for a discussion of this problem in the algebraic case. Here we shall not deal with such an issue, since we are going to make an assumption
on the analytic form of $f$ (i.e., $\lambda_k$-solvability), whereby $p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)$ can be properly
redefined and easily computed (see Subsection \ref{solF}).
\item [III.] \textit{Introduction of weights and construction of the Hough accumulator.}
For any given set of points of interest in the image space, say $P_{j}$,
$j=1,\ldots,\nu$, denote by $\mu_j$ the grey level\footnote{Cf. footnote no. \ref{bellissimi}.}
associated with $P_{j}$. For all $j=1,\ldots,\nu$,
let $x(P_{j})\in\field{R}^n$ denote the $n$ coordinates of the point $P_{j}$. Accordingly, the mathematical description of this set of points,
regarded as a discrete image, can be given in terms of a linear combination of Dirac deltas centred at $x(P_{j})$, whose respective
coefficients are the weights $\mu_j$, just as in equality (\ref{vinci1}).
We then introduce the \textit{weighted Hough counter (with respect to the function $f$)}, also called \textit{weighted Hough accumulator},
as the map $H(\cdot;\lambda^\ast,d): \mathcal{T} \to \field{N}$ defined by\footnote{\label{zioambiguo}Some authors define the Hough transform itself as
the right-hand side of (\ref{WHT}): see, e.g., \cite{prilki92}, eq. (7).}
\begin{equation}\label{WHT}
H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d):=\sum_{j=1}^\nu \mu_j\, p\big(x(P_j), \lambda;\lambda^\ast,d\big).
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
For sake of completeness, we just recall that the set of points $\{P_j\}_{j=1}^{\nu}$ can be often selected by processing the image
through an appropriate edge-detection algorithm. Then, the grey level of all the points $P_j$ is usually set to $1$ and the values
$\bar{\lambda}=(\bar{\lambda}_1,\ldots,\bar{\lambda}_t)\in\mathcal{T}$ for which the manifold
$\mathcal{S}(\bar{\lambda})$ best fits the points $P_j$ can be found as those maximizing the Hough counter, i.e., those representing
the centre of the rectangular cell with the maximum number of intersections with all the Hough transforms of the points $P_j$.
In this framework, the so-called Hough regularity, i.e., the property whereby $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)=\mathcal{S}(\lambda')$
implies $\lambda=\lambda'$, plays an important role. However, here we shall not deal with any pattern recognition technique;
we again refer to \cite{bemapi13, macapebe15}
for details, examples and discussion of some numerical issues.
\subsection{The Hough transform kernel and $\lambda_t$-solvability}\label{solF}
Motivated from the framework of Section \ref{ziogen} (see, in particular, Definition \ref{radongen})
and in order to avoid possible pathologies,
like those highlighted in the final part of Subsection \ref{SU} above,
we now focus on a specific form of the function $f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ and on some properties following from it.
To this end, set $\lambda:=(\lambda',\lambda_k)$, with $k\in\{1,\ldots,t\}$, and define
$E':=\left\{\lambda'\in \field{R}^{t-1} : \exists \lambda_k\in \field{R} : \lambda:=(\lambda',\lambda_k)\in E\right\}$,
being $E'=\emptyset$ if and only if $t=1$. Up to renaming the variables $\lambda_i$'s, we can always assume that $k=t$.
Consider now a function $f:W\times E \rightarrow \field{R}$ satisfying conditions (a)--(c) stated in item (iv) of Subsection \ref{SU}.
Furthermore, assume the following two conditions to be true:
(d) $f$ is $\lambda_t$-\textit{solvable}, i.e., as introduced in Definition \ref{radongen}, $f(x;\lambda)$ is of the form
$f(x;\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t)= \lambda_t-F(x;\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{t-1})$; (e) for each $x\in W$,
the function $f_x:E\rightarrow\field{R}$ introduced in Definition \ref{def1} is continuously differentiable, i.e., in view of (d),
$F_x\in C^1(E')$, where, for each $x\in W$, the map $F_x:E'\rightarrow\field{R}$ is obviously defined as
$\lambda'\mapsto F(x;\lambda')$. Thus, we can prove the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{HTgood}
Let $f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ be a function satisfying conditions \textnormal{(d)--(e)} above, and let $P\in W$ be a point of coordinates
$x=(x_1(P),\ldots,x_n(P))$. Thus, if non-empty, the Hough transform $\mathcal{H}(x)=\left\lbrace \lambda\in E : f_x(\lambda)=0\right\rbrace$
of $x$ is a smooth, closed, orientable and $(t-1)$-dimensional submanifold of $E\subset\field{R}^t$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
By conditions (d)--(e), the gradient of $f$ with respect to $\lambda$ can be computed as
$(\mathrm{grad}_{\lambda}\,f_x)(\lambda)=\big(\frac{\partial F_x}{\partial\lambda_1}(\lambda),
\ldots,\frac{\partial F_x}{\partial\lambda_{t-1}}(\lambda),1\big)$, thus showing that it never vanishes on $E\subset\field{R}^t$.
Then, the same remark just below item (iv) in Subsection \ref{SU} suffices to conclude the proof.~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
As anticipated in Subsection \ref{WHC}, the $\lambda_t$-solvability of $f$ inspires an appropriate redefinition of the
Hough transform kernel $p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)$ and an easy way to compute it. To address this issue, we first observe that
if $f$ is $\lambda_t$-solvable, then the Hough transform $\mathcal{H}(x)$ can be regarded as the graph of a function $F(x;\cdot)$ of
$\lambda'\in E'$, i.e.,
$\mathcal{H}(x)=\left\lbrace(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E : \lambda_t=F(x;\lambda')\right\rbrace$. On the other hand, as shown in Figure
\ref{manualiter}(a),
it might happen that $\mathcal{H}(x)$ intersects two or more cells whose centres only differ by the $\lambda_t$-coordinate, i.e., cells belonging
to a column parallel to the $\lambda_t$-axis in the parameter space. Clearly, this circumstance is only due to the discretization of
the investigation domain $\mathcal{T}$ (i.e., to the fact that the length of the cells along the $\lambda'$-axes is positive),
while $\lambda_t$-solvability would rather suggest that for a certain discretized value of $\lambda'$, at most one cell
should be intersected by $\mathcal{H}(x)$, as a graph of a function of $\lambda'$. Interestingly, this drawback can be easily overcome
without refining or changing the kind of the discretization $\left\lbrace\lambda^\ast,d\right\rbrace$ in $\mathcal{T}$.
To this end, it suffices to choose,
among all the crossed cells in the same column, the one whose centre $(\widehat{\lambda}',\widehat{\lambda}_t)$ has the minimum distance
from the point $\big(\widehat{\lambda}',F(x;\widehat{\lambda}')\big)\in\mathcal{H}(x)$ (see Figure \ref{manualiter}(b)).
This amounts to redefining the Hough transform kernel, since we need to drop all the other crossed cells in the same column.
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.49]{fig1.jpg}\\
(a)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (b)
\caption{(a) The Hough transform $\mathcal{H}(x)$, which is the graph of the function $\lambda_t=F(x;\lambda')$, intersects four cells
in the same column parallel to the $\lambda_t$-axis; the first $t-1$ coordinates of the centres of the cells coincide, and are equal to
$\widehat{\lambda}'$. (b) The $\lambda_t$-solvability of
$\mathcal{H}(x)$ allows choosing a single cell among the four previous ones, according to a minimum distance criterion.}
\label{manualiter}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\FloatBarrier
The new definition can be made explicit, from a computational viewpoint, as follows. As explained in item I of Subsection \ref{WHC},
the sampling points $\lambda_{\mathcal{n}}=(\lambda_{1,\mathcal{n}_1},\ldots,\lambda_{t,\mathcal{n}_{t}})$ are the centres of the cells $C(\mathcal{n})$ covering the investigation domain $\mathcal{T}$.
Clearly, for each $k=1,\ldots,t$, the set of all the $k$-th coordinates $\lambda_{k,\mathcal{n}_k}$ of the sampling points induces a
corresponding discretization (with step $d_k$) of the values of
the $k$-th continuous variable $\lambda_k$.
In particular, if we set
$\mathcal{T}_k:=\left\lbrace\lambda_k\in\field{R} : \exists (\lambda_1,\ldots,\xcancel{\lambda_k},\ldots,\lambda_t)\in\field{R}^{t-1}
: (\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_k,\ldots,\lambda_t)\in \mathcal{T}\right\rbrace$,
we can define the function $c_k:\mathcal{T}_k\rightarrow\field{R}$ mapping $\lambda_k\in\mathcal{T}_k$ to
its closest discretized value. The ambiguity arising when $\lambda_k$ is just half-way between two discretized values is removed by taking
the larger value, in agreement with (\ref{cells}).
Accordingly, in view of (\ref{IN}), (\ref{cells}), the analytic expression of the function $c_k$ is
\begin{equation}\label{mappack}
c_k(\lambda_k)=\lambda^\ast_k+\left\lfloor \frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda_k-\lambda^\ast_k}{d_k}\right\rfloor d_k,
\end{equation}
where $\lfloor\cdot\rfloor$ denotes, as usual, the floor function, mapping $x\in\field{R}$ to the largest integer not greater than $x$.
Moreover, by using (\ref{mappack}) and setting $\mathcal{T}':=\left\lbrace\lambda'\in\field{R}^{t-1} : \exists
\lambda_t\in\field{R} : (\lambda',\lambda_t)\in \mathcal{T}\right\rbrace$,
we can also define the map $c': \mathcal{T}'\rightarrow \field{R}^{t-1}$ as
$\lambda'=(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{t-1})\mapsto c'(\lambda')= \left(c_1(\lambda_1),\ldots,c_{t-1}(\lambda_{t-1})\right)$.
Then, for fixed $x\in W$ and $\lambda'\in \mathcal{T}'$, among all the cells intersected by $\mathcal{H}(x)$ and having centres in
$\big(c'(\lambda'),\lambda_{t,\mathcal{n}_t}\big)$, we want to select the one whose centre has coordinates
$\big(c'(\lambda'), c_t(F(x;c'(\lambda')))\big)$. This amounts to replacing the Hough transform kernel (\ref{K1}) by the following one:
\begin{equation}\label{nuovokernel}
p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d):=
\begin{cases}
1 \; \;\; \mbox{if} \;\; (x,\lambda)\in C(x;\lambda), \\
0\; \;\; \mbox{otherwise,}
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where
$C(x;\lambda):=\left\{(x,\lambda)\in W\times \mathcal{T} : -d_t/2 \leq \lambda_t - F(x;c'(\lambda')) <d_t/2 \right\}$.
From now on throughout the paper, we shall always use definition (\ref{nuovokernel}) for the Hough transform kernel, both in the theoretical
discussion and in the numerical computation of the weighted Hough counter.
Finally, we give a definition that will prove useful in the following sections, where the link between the Hough transform
and the Radon transform will be investigated.
\begin{definition}\label{Hsinog}
Let $f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ be a function satisfying conditions \textnormal{(a)--(e)} above, and let $\mathcal{T}\subset E$ be
the investigation domain introduced in item \textnormal{I} of Subsection \textnormal{\ref{WHC}}.
Then, the function mapping $\lambda\in\mathcal{T}$ to
$H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)/d_t$ (i.e., the ratio between the weighted Hough counter defined in \textnormal{(\ref{WHT})} and the
sampling distance $d_t$ with respect to the component $\lambda_t$) will be called \textnormal{rescaled (weighted) Hough counter}.
A visual representation of the intensity values of $H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)/d_t$ in the coordinate system $(\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t)$
will be called \textnormal{Hough sinogram}.
\end{definition}
\subsection{The algebraic case}\label{AC}
An important class of functions satisfying the conditions imposed above is those of polynomials.
Indeed, the Hough transform is a standard pattern recognition technique initially introduced for the detection of straight lines,
circles and ellipses. Some foundational results, based on algebraic geometry arguments, strongly support an extension of this method
to the automated recognition of special plane algebraic curves in images, to detect profiles of interest of various shapes.
We refer to \cite{bemapi13, macapebe15, bero12} for complete details, examples, and further developments.
Let $\alpha:=(\alpha_1,\ldots,\alpha_n)$ be the multi-index characterizing monomials
$x_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots x_n^{\alpha_n}$ of degree $|\alpha |:=\sum_{i=1}^n\alpha_i$.
Then, consider a $\lambda$-parametrized family of irreducible polynomials in the variable $x$,
of a given degree $d$ independent of $ \lambda$, that is,
\begin{equation}\label{polinomi}
f_{\lambda}(x):=\sum_{|\alpha|=0}^dx_1^{\alpha_1}\cdots x_n^{\alpha_n}g_\alpha(\lambda)\in \field{R}[x_1,\ldots,x_n],
\end{equation}
where $g_\alpha(\lambda)$ is a polynomial expression in $\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t$,
such that for each $\lambda\in E\subset\field{R}^t$ there exists $\alpha=\alpha(\lambda)$ with $|\alpha|=d$
and $g_\alpha(\lambda)\neq 0$.
Of course, whenever we take $W$ as an open subset of $\field{R}^n$ that is disjoint from the set of singular points of
$\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$,
the polynomial $f_{\lambda}(x)$ satisfies conditions (b) and (c) stated in item (iv) of Subsection \ref{SU} above,
so that $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$ is $(n-1)$-dimensional (see also \cite[Theorem 4.5.1]{bocoro98}).
Moreover, the hypersurfaces $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$ defined as in (\ref{pesto}) are irreducible in $W\subset\field{R}^n$,
since the polynomials (\ref{polinomi}) are assumed to be irreducible.
We then have a family $\{\mathcal{S}(\lambda)\}_{\lambda\in E}$ of smooth and irreducible hypersurfaces in $W$ having the same degree.
Clearly, over an algebraically closed field $K$, the irreducible polynomial $f_\lambda(x)\in K[x_1,\ldots,x_n]$ always defines
an irreducible hypersurface in $K^n$.
For each point $P$ of coordinates $x=(x_1(P),\ldots, x_n(P))$ in the image space $\field{R}^n$, the Hough transform $\mathcal{H}(x)$
of the point $P$, if non-empty, is a hypersurface in the parameter space $\field{R}^t$, defined by the polynomial equation
\begin{equation}
f_x(\lambda) =
\sum_{|\alpha|=0}^d x_1(P)^{\alpha_1} \cdots x_n(P)^{\alpha_n} g_{\alpha}( \lambda)=0,
\end{equation}
provided that $(\mathrm{grad}_\lambda\, f_x)(\lambda)\neq 0$ for some $\lambda\in{\mathcal H}(x)$
(see \cite[Theorem 4.5.1]{bocoro98} again).
\begin{remark}
We observe that, in the algebraic case, it would be more natural to take the whole $\field{R}^n$ as the domain of definition of the polynomials
$f_\lambda(x)$ appearing in (\ref{polinomi}).
On the one hand, this would allow considering possible singularities of $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$, which
indeed characterize the geometry of the algebraic set itself. On the other hand, the presence of singularities, as well
as possible non-pure dimensionality issues (see example \ref{CS} again, and \cite[Section 1]{ribema15}), do not match with the typical
requirements
of smoothness which manifolds are assumed to satisfy in order to develop the classical integration theory on them. In turn, this theory
is crucial for defining and investigating important properties of the generalized Radon transform. This is the reason why we limit
ourselves to considering smooth manifolds $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$, as done from the very beginning in Subsection \ref{SU}.
\end{remark}
Let us conclude this section with some examples.
\begin{example}\label{HIP}
\normalfont
\textit{Hyperplanes.} As in Section \ref{RT}, consider the parameters $\lambda'=\omega=(\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_n)$ and $\lambda_t=\gamma$,
as well as the corresponding family of hyperplanes in the image space $\field{A}_x^n(\field{R})$, defined by
${\mathcal P}(\omega,\gamma)=\left\{x\in \field{R}^n : \gamma-\omega\cdot x=0 \right\}$
and having distance $|\gamma|/|\omega|$ from the origin. The function $f(x;\gamma,\omega)=\gamma-\omega\cdot x$ is clearly $\gamma$-solvable.
The Hough transforms are hyperplanes in the parameter space $\field{A}_{\lambda}^{n+1}(\field{R})$ of coordinates $\lambda=(\omega_1,\ldots,\omega_n,\gamma)$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{EC}
\normalfont
\textit{Elliptic curves.} In the image plane $\field{A}_{x}^2(\field{R})$, consider the family of cubic curves
expressed in the canonical Weierstrass form as
$x_2^2=x_1^3 + a x_1 + b$. With respect to the notation adopted for the general setting, here we have the identifications
$n=t=2$, $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=(a,b)$, $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)=
\mathcal{C}(a,b)=\left\lbrace (x_1,x_2)\in\field{R}^2 : x_2^2 - x_1^3 - a x_1 - b =0 \right\rbrace$.
Non-singular curves from this family are elliptic curves. The function $f(x_1,x_2;a,b)=x_2^2 - x_1^3 - a x_1 - b$ is clearly
$b$-solvable. The Hough transforms are straight lines in the parameter plane $\field{A}_{\lambda}^2(\field{R})$ of coordinates $\lambda=(a,b)$.
Slight variants of this family of curves has been successfully used to detect profiles of interest in both astronomical and
medical images (see \cite{bemapi13, macapebe15}).
\end{example}
\begin{example} \label{CS}
\normalfont
{\em Conchoid of Sl\"use.}
In the image plane ${\mathbb A}_x^2(\field{R})$, consider the family
of rational cubic curves defined by the equation
$a(x_1-a)(x_1^2+x_2^2) = b^2x_1^2$. With respect to the general notation, the identifications are now
$n=t=2$, $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=(a,b)\in E=\field{R}^+ \times \field{R}^+$, $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)=\mathcal{C}(a,b)=\{(x_1,x_2)\in\field{R}^2 :
a(x_1-a)(x_1^2+x_2^2) = b^2x_1^2 \}$. Note that the function $f(x_1,x_2;a,b)= a(x_1-a)(x_1^2+x_2^2)-b^2x_1^2$
is neither $a$- nor $b$-solvable.
Such a cubic is classically known as {\it conchoid of Sl\"use} of parameters $a$, $b$.
This curve has a double nodal point at the origin $O$, with complex conjugate tangent lines of equation $a^2(x_1^2+x_2^2)+b^2x_1^2=0$,
so that $O$ is an isolated point of the curve.
For any point $P$ of coordinates $x=\left(x_1(P), x_2(P)\right)$ in the image plane ${\mathbb A}_{x}^2(\field{R})$,
the Hough transform $\mathcal{H}(x)$ is an ellipse of equation
$\left[x_1(P)^2+x_2(P)^2\right]a^2 + x_1(P)^2\, b^2 - x_1(P)\left[x_1(P)^2+x_2(P)^2\right]a=0$ in the parameter plane
${\mathbb A}_{\lambda}^2(\field{R})$.
Clearly, the Hough transform of $O$ is the whole affine plane ${\mathbb A}_{\lambda}^2(\mathbb R)$. Moreover,
$\mathcal{H}(x)=\mathcal{H}(x')$ whenever $x'=\left(\pm x_1(P), \pm x_2(P)\right)$, which provides a simple example of the non-injectivity
of the Hough transform operator $\mathcal{H}$.
\end{example}
\section{Link between the Radon transform and the Hough transform: the case of discrete images}\label{ziodiscreto}
This section is devoted to proving the following Theorem \ref{equidiscreto}. Roughly speaking, its statement can be summarized as follows:
given a discrete image, i.e., an image formed by a finite number of pixels $P_1,\ldots,P_{\nu}$
having respective grey levels $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_{\nu}$ (cf. relation (\ref{vinci1})), the corresponding rescaled Hough counter
tends to become the generalized Radon transform of the image itself (cf. equality (\ref{bilzerian}))
as the discretization of the parameter space becomes finer and finer. The precise statement is as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{equidiscreto}
Let $f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ be a function satisfying properties \textnormal{(a)--(e)} stated in the previous section,
i.e., \textnormal{(a)} ${\mathcal S}(\lambda):=\{x\in W : f_{ \lambda}(x)= 0\}\neq \emptyset$ $\forall\lambda\in E$;
\textnormal{(b)} $f_{\lambda}\in C^1(W)$ $\forall\lambda\in E$; \textnormal{(c)}
$(\mathrm{grad}_x\, f_{\lambda})(x)\neq 0$ $\forall x\in {\mathcal S}(\lambda)$, $\forall\lambda\in E$; \textnormal{(d)}
$f(x;\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_t)= \lambda_t-F(x;\lambda_1,\ldots,\lambda_{t-1})$; \textnormal{(e)} $F_x\in C^1(E')$ $\forall x\in W$.
Moreover, let $\{\lambda^\ast,d\}$ be a discretization of the parameter space, and define
$D:=\max\{d_1,\ldots,d_t\}$, where $d_k$, for $k=1,\ldots,t$, is the sampling distance with respect to the component $\lambda_k$,
as explained in item \textnormal{I} of Subsection \textnormal{\ref{WHC}}.
Finally, let $m$ be a discrete image, $(R_f\, m)(\lambda)$ its generalized Radon transform
and $H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)/d_t$ the corresponding rescaled Hough
counter\footnote{Cf. equalities (\ref{vinci1}), (\ref{bilzerian}) and Definition \ref{Hsinog}, respectively.}, defined
on a bounded and open investigation domain $\mathcal{T}\subset E$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{minacce}
\lim_{D\rightarrow 0^+}\,\iota_1\left(\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t}\right)=
(R_f\, m)(\lambda)
\ \ \mbox{in}\ \ \mathcal{D}'_1\left(\mathcal{T}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\iota_1:L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathcal{T})\rightarrow \mathcal{D}'_{1}(\mathcal{T})$
denotes the inclusion map defined as in \textnormal{(\ref{pairint})}.
\end{theorem}
This theorem is an immediate consequence of the following technical Lemma \ref{haendel} and Corollary \ref{gasquet},
together with the subsequent identifications (\ref{rava})--(\ref{fava}).
\begin{lemma}\label{haendel}
Let $\Xi$ be a subset of $\,\field{R}$ such that $\bar{\xi}$ is an accumulation
point for $\Xi$, and let $\xi\in\Xi$ be a parameter.
Moreover, for $t\in\field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$, let $E'$ be a non-empty open subset of $\,\field{R}^{t-1}$
and, for each $\xi\in\Xi$, let
$U_\xi,V_\xi:E'\rightarrow\field{R}$ be two functions of the variable $\lambda'\in E'$, endowed with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] both of them are
elements of the space\footnote{Cf. Definition \ref{pezzi}
in \ref{ziopiecewise}.} $PC^1(E')$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $\exists\, \epsilon_\xi >0$ such that
$V_\xi(\lambda') - U_\xi(\lambda') > \epsilon_\xi$ $\forall\lambda'\in E'$, $\forall\xi\in\Xi$;
\item[\textnormal{(iii)}] $\forall\lambda'\in E'$
$\displaystyle\exists \lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}}U_\xi(\lambda')=
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}}V_\xi(\lambda')=:G(\lambda')\in\field{R}$, with $G\in C^1(E')$;
\item[\textnormal{(iv)}] the functions $u_\xi:=U_\xi-G$ and
$v_\xi:=V_\xi-G$ are uniformly bounded with respect to the parameter
$\xi$, i.e., there
exists a constant $M\geq 0$ such that
$\,\left|u_\xi(\lambda')\right|\leq M$ and $\,\left|v_\xi(\lambda')\right|\leq M$
$\forall\lambda'\in E'$, $\forall\xi\in\Xi$.
\end{itemize}
Finally, for each $\xi\in\Xi$ let us define:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(a)}] the set
$C_{\xi}:=\left\{\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E'\times\field{R} : U_\xi(\lambda')
\leq\lambda_t < V_\xi(\lambda')\right\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(b)}] the characteristic function of
$C_{\xi}$, i.e., $\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}}:E'\times\field{R}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(c)}] the function $r_\xi:=v_\xi-u_\xi$;
\item[\textnormal{(d)}] the function $T_\xi:=
\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}}/r_\xi\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$ and the corresponding distribution
$\iota_1\left(T_\xi\right)\in\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$;
\item[\textnormal{(e)}] the function defined by $E'\times\field{R}\ni (\lambda',\lambda_t)\mapsto g(\lambda):=\lambda_t-G(\lambda')\in\field{R}$ and the corresponding
Dirac delta $\delta(g)\in\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
Then, it holds that
$\iota_1\left(T_\xi\right) \rightarrow \delta\left(g\right)$ in
$\mathcal{D}'_1(E'\times\field{R})$ as $\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof
According to (\ref{kant}), the thesis of the theorem can be recast as
\begin{equation} \label{brunetta}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\left\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi\right),\psi\right\rangle=
\left\langle \delta\left(g\right),
\psi\right\rangle\ \ \ \forall \psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right).
\end{equation}
Note that, by points (iii) and (e), we have $g\in C^1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$, with $\partial g/\partial\lambda_t= 1$ identically. Thus,
$\mathrm{grad}\,g(\lambda)\neq 0$ $\forall \lambda\in E'\times\field{R}$ and, in particular, $\delta(g)\in \mathcal{D}'_1(E'\times\field{R})$
is well-defined, according to definition (\ref{defdelta}).
In order to prove (\ref{brunetta}), we begin by recalling (\ref{pairint}) and the definition of $T_\xi$ in point (d) above,
so that, for all $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$ and $\xi\in\Xi$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{edda}
\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi\right),\psi\rangle =
\int_{E'\times\field{R}}\frac{\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}}(\lambda)}{r_\xi(\lambda')}\,\psi(\lambda)\,d\lambda
= \int_{C_\xi}\frac{\psi(\lambda)}{r_\xi(\lambda')}\,d\lambda.
\end{equation}
By setting
\begin{align}
A_{\xi} & :=\{(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E'\times\field{R} :\lambda_t\geq U_\xi(\lambda')\},\label{A}\\
B_{\xi} & :=\{(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E'\times\field{R} :\lambda_t > V_\xi(\lambda')\},\label{B}
\end{align}
we easily realize that $C_{\xi}=A_{\xi}\Delta B_{\xi}$, where $\Delta$ denotes the symmetric
difference between two sets: accordingly, we have
\begin{equation}\label{delpo}
\int_{C_\xi}\frac{\psi(\lambda)}{r_\xi(\lambda')}\,d\lambda=
\int_{A_\xi}\frac{\psi(\lambda)}{r_\xi(\lambda')}\,d\lambda-
\int_{B_\xi}\frac{\psi(\lambda)}{r_\xi(\lambda')}\,d\lambda.
\end{equation}
Now, remembering the definition of $u_\xi$ and $v_\xi$ given in assumption (iv),
from (\ref{A})--(\ref{B}) we immediately get
\begin{align}
A_{\xi} &
=\{(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E'\times\field{R} : \lambda_t - u_\xi(\lambda')- G(\lambda') \geq 0\},\label{Au}\\
B_{\xi} &
=\{(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E'\times\field{R} : \lambda_t - v_\xi(\lambda')- G(\lambda') > 0\}.\label{Av}
\end{align}
Then, by assumption (i), we can make the following two $\xi$-dependent changes of coordinates
$\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)\mapsto \eta^\xi=\left(\eta', \eta_t^\xi\right)$ almost everywhere
on $A_{\xi}$ and $B_{\xi}$ respectively:
\begin{align}
\eta'=\lambda',\ \ \eta_t^\xi=\lambda_t - u_\xi(\lambda')\ \ \ & \mbox{for}\ (\lambda',\lambda_t)
\in A_{\xi},\label{AJ}\\
\eta'=\lambda',\ \ \eta_t^\xi=\lambda_t - v_\xi(\lambda')\ \ \ & \mbox{for}\ (\lambda',\lambda_t)
\in B_{\xi}.\label{BJ}
\end{align}
An immediate check shows that both the Jacobian matrices of transformations (\ref{AJ}) and (\ref{BJ}) are triangular with $1$ on the
diagonal, so that their determinant is $1$. Moreover, relations (\ref{Au})--(\ref{BJ}) show that, when expressed in the new coordinates
$\eta^\xi$, the integration domains $A_{\xi}$ and $B_{\xi}$ become
\begin{align}
A &
:=\left\{\left(\eta',\eta_t^\xi\right)\in E'\times\field{R} : \eta_t^{\xi} - G(\eta') \geq 0\right\},\label{Aue}\\
B &
:=\left\{\left(\eta',\eta_t^\xi\right)\in E'\times\field{R} : \eta_t^{\xi} - G(\eta') > 0\right\},\label{Ave}
\end{align}
i.e., $A$ and $B$ are independent of $\xi$ and
coincide up to a zero-measure subset of $E'\times\field{R}$.
Accordingly, from (\ref{edda}), (\ref{delpo}) and (\ref{Au})-(\ref{Ave}), we easily find
\begin{equation}\label{delpoeta}
\langle\iota_1\left(T_\xi\right),\psi\rangle =
\int_{A}\frac{\psi\big(\eta',\eta_t^\xi+u_\xi(\eta')\big)-\psi\big(\eta',\eta_t^\xi+v_\xi(\eta')\big)}
{r_\xi(\eta')}\,d\eta'd\eta_t^\xi.
\end{equation}
For notational simplicity, we now change the names of the integration variables by setting\footnote{Incidentally, $\lambda'=\eta'$ is also
the first set of equations in the coordinate transformations (\ref{AJ})--(\ref{BJ}), but this has nothing to do with the current
renaming of the integration variables.}
$\lambda':=\eta'$ and $\lambda_t:=\eta_t^\xi$, so that (\ref{delpoeta}) becomes
\begin{equation}\label{delpoetal}
\langle\iota_1\left(T_\xi\right),\psi\rangle =
\int_{A}\frac{\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + u_\xi(\lambda')\right)-\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + v_\xi(\lambda')\right)}
{r_\xi(\lambda')}\,d\lambda.
\end{equation}
As far as the integrand function in (\ref{delpoetal}) is concerned, we remember that, by definition (c),
$r_\xi(\lambda')=v_\xi(\lambda')-u_\xi(\lambda')>0$. Thus, by applying Lagrange mean value theorem, there exists
$\widetilde{\lambda}_t^{\xi}\in [\lambda_t +u_\xi(\lambda'),\lambda_t +v_\xi(\lambda')]$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{Lagrange}
\frac{\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + u_\xi(\lambda')\right)-\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + v_\xi(\lambda')\right)}
{v_\xi(\lambda')-u_\xi(\lambda')}=
-\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial \lambda_t}\big(\lambda',\widetilde{\lambda}_t^{\xi}\big).
\end{equation}
Moreover, by assumptions (iii) and (iv), we have
$\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}} u_\xi(\eta')=0$ and
$\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}v_\xi(\eta')=0$:
as a consequence, $\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\widetilde{\lambda}_t^{\xi}=\lambda_t$. Then, by (\ref{Lagrange}) and the
continuity of $\partial\psi/\partial\lambda_t$, we find
\begin{equation} \label{Lagrangelim}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\frac{\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + u_\xi(\lambda')\right)-
\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + v_\xi(\lambda')\right)}{v_\xi(\lambda')-u_\xi(\lambda')}=
-\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\lambda_t}(\lambda',\lambda_t).
\end{equation}
Furthermore, remembering assumption (iv) and the fact that $\psi\in C^{1}\left(\field{R}^t\right)$, we deduce the inequality
\begin{equation} \label{domina}
\left|\frac{\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + u_\xi(\lambda')\right)-
\psi\left(\lambda',\lambda_t + v_\xi(\lambda')\right)}{v_\xi(\lambda')-u_\xi(\lambda')}\right|\leq
\|\psi\|_{C^1}\,\mathbf{1}_{K_M}(\lambda)\ \ \ \forall\xi\in\Xi,
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{1}_{K_M}(\cdot)$ denotes the characteristic function of the compact subset of $\field{R}^t$ defined as
$K_M:=\{(\lambda',\lambda_t+\bar{\lambda}_t)\in\field{R}^t : (\lambda',\lambda_t)\in\mathrm{supp}\,\psi\ \mbox{and}\ |\bar{\lambda}_t|\leq M\}$.
Since $\mathbf{1}_{K_M}(\cdot)\in L^1(\field{R}^t)$, by (\ref{Lagrangelim})--(\ref{domina}) we can apply Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem in
(\ref{delpoetal}), thus obtaining
\begin{equation}\label{gilbert}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\langle\iota_1\left(T_\xi\right),\psi\rangle =
-\int_{A}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\lambda_t}(\lambda)\,d\lambda.
\end{equation}
Finally, having defined $g(\lambda):=\lambda_t-G(\lambda')$ in (e),
by (\ref{Aue}) and (\ref{defHf1}) the characteristic function of
$A$ can be written as $\field{R}^t\ni\lambda\mapsto \Theta\left(g(\lambda)\right)$. Hence,
from (\ref{pairint}), (\ref{derdistr}) and (\ref{derH1}), we have
\begin{align}
\int_{A}\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\lambda_t}(\lambda)\,d\lambda & =
\int_{\field{R}^t}\Theta\left(g(\lambda)\right)\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\lambda_t}(\lambda)\,d\lambda=
\left\langle\iota_0\big(\Theta(g)\big),\frac{\partial\psi}{\partial\lambda_t}\right\rangle\nonumber\\
&=-\left\langle\frac{\partial\, \iota_0\big(\Theta(g)\big)}{\partial \lambda_t},\psi\right\rangle
=-\left\langle\delta(g),\psi\right\rangle.\label{brad}
\end{align}
Now, an immediate comparison between (\ref{gilbert}) and (\ref{brad}) proves equality (\ref{brunetta}), as wanted.~$\square$
\begin{corollary}\label{gasquet}
For each $j\in\{1,\ldots,J\}$, assume that $U_\xi^j$, $V_\xi^j$, $G^j$, $g^j$, $C_\xi^j$, $T_\xi^j$
verify the hypotheses satisfied, respectively, by $U_\xi$, $V_\xi$, $G$, $g$, $C_\xi$, $T_\xi$ in
Lemma~\textnormal{\ref{haendel}}.
Moreover, let $\beta_j\in\field{C}$ for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,J\}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{marcello}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}}\,\iota_1\left(\sum_{j=1}^J \beta_j\, T_\xi^j\right) = \sum_{j=1}^{J} \beta_j\,
\delta(g^j)\ \ \mbox{in}\ \ \mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
\proof
From Lemma \ref{haendel}, for each $j=1,\ldots,J$, we have that $\iota_1\left(T_\xi^j\right)\rightarrow \delta(g^j)$ in
$\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$ as $\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}$. From (\ref{hume}) and (\ref{kant}), it follows that
$\sum_{j=1}^J \beta_j\,\iota_1\left(T_\xi^j\right)\rightarrow\sum_{j=1}^{J} \beta_j\, \delta(g^j)$ in $\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$
as $\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}$. Then, limit (\ref{marcello}) immediately follows from the linearity of the inclusion map
$\iota_1:L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(E'\times\field{R})\hookrightarrow\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$.~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
Let us now see how Corollary \ref{gasquet} applies to the rescaled Hough counter. To this end,
we first observe that, by Definition \ref{hegel} in \ref{test},
convergence in $\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$ implies
convergence in $\mathcal{D}'_1\left(\mathcal{T}\right)$,
for any open and bounded investigation domain $\mathcal{T}\subset E\subset E'\times\field{R}$.
Furthermore, keeping into account the notation and
definitions introduced throughout Subsections \ref{WHC}, \ref{solF} in the case of a discrete image
(i.e., an image described as in (\ref{vinci1}),
with $\field{R}^2$ replaced by $\field{R}^n$), we can choose or identify the functions and parameters appearing in the
statement of Corollary \ref{gasquet} as follows:
\begin{align}
& \xi=D=\max\{d_1,\ldots,d_t\},\ \ \bar{\xi}=0,\label{rava}\\
& J=\nu,\ \ \beta_j=\mu_j,\ \ r_{\xi}^j=d_t\ \ \forall j=1,\ldots,\nu,\\
& U_{\xi}^j(\lambda')=-d_t/2 + F\big(x(P_j);c'(\lambda')\big),\ \ V_{\xi}^j(\lambda')=d_t/2 + F\big(x(P_j);c'(\lambda')\big),\\
& G^j(\lambda')=F\big(x(P_j); \lambda'\big),\ \ g^j(\lambda)=f\big(x(P_j);\lambda\big)=\lambda_t-F\big(x(P_j);\lambda'\big),\\
& C_\xi^j=\left\{\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E : -d_t/2 \leq \lambda_t - F\big(x(P_j);c'(\lambda')\big) <d_t/2 \right\},\\
& \mathbf{1}_{C_\xi^j}(\lambda)=p\big(x(P_j),\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d \big),\ \
T_\xi^j(\lambda)=\frac{\mathbf{1}_{C_\xi^j}(\lambda)}{r_\xi^j}=\frac{p\big(x(P_j),\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d\big)}{d_t},\\
& \sum_{j=1}^J \beta_j\, T_\xi^j(\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^\nu \mu_j\, \frac{p\big(x(P_j),\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d\big)}{d_t}=
\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t}.
\label{fava}
\end{align}
An easy check shows that identifications (\ref{rava})--(\ref{fava}) ensure the fulfilment of the hypotheses required by Corollary
\ref{gasquet}, so that the corresponding form of statement (\ref{marcello}) is now
\begin{equation}\label{minacce1}
\lim_{D\rightarrow 0^+} \,\iota_1\left(\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t}\right)=
\sum_{j=1}^\nu\mu_j\,\delta\big(\lambda_t-F\left(x(P_j);\lambda'\right)\big)
\ \ \mbox{in}\ \ \mathcal{D}'_1\left(\mathcal{T}\right).
\end{equation}
Finally, it suffices to recall that
the right-hand side of equality (\ref{minacce1}) is just the generalized Radon transform of a discrete image formed by
$\nu$ points $P_1,\ldots,P_\nu$, with corresponding grey levels $\mu_1,\ldots,\mu_\nu$, as shown in relations (\ref{vinci1}) and
(\ref{bilzerian}). Accordingly, relation (\ref{minacce1}) can be equivalently rewritten as (\ref{minacce}), thus proving Theorem
\ref{equidiscreto} and justifying the claims opening this section.
\subsection{The one-dimensional case $t=1$}
For sake of completeness, let us now see how the previous investigation trivializes when $t=1$.
The one-dimensional counterpart of Lemma \ref{haendel} can be formulated as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{zarelis}
Let $\Xi$ be a subset of $\,\field{R}$ such that $\bar{\xi}$ is an accumulation point for $\Xi$, and let $\xi\in\Xi$ be a parameter.
For each $\xi\in\Xi$, let $U_{\xi}$ and $V_{\xi}$ be two real numbers endowed with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] $\exists\,\epsilon_\xi>0$ such that $V_\xi-U_\xi>\epsilon_\xi$ $\forall\xi\in\Xi$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $\displaystyle\exists\,\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}} U_\xi=\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}} V_\xi=:\lambda_0\in\field{R}$.
\end{itemize}
Moreover, for each $\xi\in\Xi$ let us define:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(a)}] the set
$C_{\xi}:=\left\{\lambda\in \field{R} : U_\xi \leq \lambda < V_\xi\right\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(b)}] the characteristic function of
$C_{\xi}$, i.e., $\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}}:\field{R}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(c)}] the number $r_\xi:=V_\xi-U_\xi > \epsilon_\xi$;
\item[\textnormal{(d)}] the function $T_\xi:=
\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}}/r_\xi\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}\right)$ and the corresponding distribution
$\iota_0\left(T_\xi\right)\in\mathcal{D}'_0\left(\field{R}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
Then, it holds that
$\iota_0\left(T_\xi\right) \rightarrow \delta_{\lambda_0}$ in
$\mathcal{D}'_0(\field{R})$ as $\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}$.
\end{lemma}
\proof According to (\ref{kant}), the thesis of the theorem can be recast as
\begin{equation} \label{bruttetta}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\left\langle \iota_0 \left(T_\xi\right),\psi\right\rangle=
\left\langle \delta_{\lambda_0},
\psi\right\rangle\ \ \ \forall \psi\in\mathcal{D}_0\left(\field{R}\right).
\end{equation}
By (\ref{pairint}) and definitions (a)--(d), for any $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_0\left(\field{R}\right)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{stravaganza}
\left\langle\iota_0\left(T_\xi\right),\psi\right\rangle=\int_{\field{R}}\frac{\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}}(\lambda)}{r_\xi}\,\psi(\lambda)\,d\lambda=
\frac{1}{r_\xi}\int_{C_{\xi}}\psi(\lambda)\,d\lambda=\frac{1}{V_\xi - U_\xi}\int_{U_\xi}^{V_{\xi}}\psi(\lambda)\,d\lambda.
\end{equation}
Moreover, by the integral mean value theorem,
\begin{equation}\label{cetra}
\exists\,\bar{\lambda}(\xi)\in \left[U_\xi,V_\xi\right]\, :\, \frac{1}{V_\xi - U_\xi}\int_{U_\xi}^{V_{\xi}}\psi(\lambda)\,d\lambda
=\psi\left(\bar{\lambda}(\xi)\right).
\end{equation}
By assumption (ii) we then have $\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}}\bar{\lambda}(\xi)=\lambda_0$. Since $\psi$ is continuous, this implies
that $\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}}\psi\left(\bar{\lambda}(\xi)\right)=\psi\left(\lambda_0\right)$. The latter limit, together with
(\ref{stravaganza})--(\ref{cetra}), yields
$\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}}\left\langle\iota_0\left(T_\xi\right),\psi\right\rangle =\psi(\lambda_0)=
\left\langle \delta_{\lambda_0},\psi\right\rangle$,
i.e., limit (\ref{bruttetta}). This concludes the proof.~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
Obviously, the one-dimensional counterpart of Corollary \ref{gasquet} is as follows.
\begin{corollary}\label{tsonga}
For each $j\in\{1,\ldots,J\}$, assume that $U_\xi^j$, $V_\xi^j$, $\lambda_0^j$, $T_\xi^j$
verify the hypotheses satisfied, respectively, by $U_\xi$, $V_\xi$, $\lambda_0$, $T_\xi$ in Lemma \textnormal{\ref{zarelis}}.
Moreover, let $\beta_j\in\field{C}$ for all $j\in\{1,\ldots,J\}$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{gasparini}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow\bar{\xi}}\,\iota_0\left(\sum_{j=1}^J \beta_j\, T_\xi^j\right) =
\sum_{j=1}^{J}\beta_j\, \delta_{\lambda_0^j} \ \ \mbox{in}\ \ \mathcal{D}'_0\left(\field{R}\right).
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Finally, the one-dimensional counterpart of Theorem \ref{equidiscreto} is obtained from Corollary \ref{tsonga} by making the following
identifications:
\begin{align}
& \xi=D=d_1,\ \ \bar{\xi}=0,\ \ J=\nu,\ \ \beta_j=\mu_j,\ \
r_{\xi}^j=d_1\ \ \forall j=1,\ldots,\nu,\label{rava1}\\
& U_{\xi}^j=-d_1/2 + F\big(x(P_j)\big),\ \ V_{\xi}^j=d_1/2 + F\big(x(P_j)\big),\ \ \lambda_0^j=F\big(x(P_j)\big),\\
& C_\xi^j=\left\{\lambda\in \field{R} : -d_1/2 \leq \lambda - F\big(x(P_j)\big) <d_1/2 \right\},\\
& \mathbf{1}_{C_\xi^j}(\lambda)=p\big(x(P_j),\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d\big),\ \
T_\xi^j(\lambda)=\frac{\mathbf{1}_{C_\xi^j}(\lambda)}{r_\xi^j}=\frac{p\big(x(P_j),\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d\big)}{d_1},\\
& \sum_{j=1}^J \beta_j\, T_\xi^j(\lambda)=\sum_{j=1}^\nu \mu_j\, \frac{p\big(x(P_j),\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d\big)}{d_1}=
\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_1}.\label{fava1}
\end{align}
It is understood that, when considering identifications (\ref{rava1})--(\ref{fava1}), convergence in $\mathcal{D}'_0\left(\field{R}\right)$,
involved in relation (\ref{gasparini}), can be replaced by convergence in $\mathcal{D}'_0\left(\mathcal{T}\right)$,
for any open and bounded investigation domain $\mathcal{T}\subset\field{R}$.
\section{Link between the Radon transform and the Hough transform: the case of piecewise continuous images}\label{ziocontinuo}
The results obtained in the previous section for discrete images can be extended to the case of piecewise continuous images, i.e.,
images described by a function $m\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$ (cf. Definition \ref{convDkpezzi} in \ref{ziopiecewise}).
The goal of this section is just to prove the $x$-continuum analogous of
Theorem \ref{equidiscreto}, i.e., roughly speaking, to show again that the rescaled Hough counter of a piecewise continuous image,
defined by analogy with
its discrete counterpart (\ref{WHT}), tends to the generalized Radon transform of the image itself (cf. Definition \ref{radongen})
as the discretization of the parameter space becomes finer and finer. The precise statement of this property will be given in
Theorem \ref{muguruza} at the end of the current section.
The first step is to generalize the formulation of Corollary \ref{gasquet}, by
replacing the discrete sum $\sum_{j=1}^J \beta_j\, T_\xi^j$ with the integral $\int_W \beta(x)\, T_\xi(x;\cdot)\, dx$.
\begin{lemma}\label{bach}
Let $\Xi$ be a subset of $\,\field{R}$ such that $\bar{\xi}$ is an accumulation point for $\Xi$, and let
$\xi\in\Xi$ be a parameter.
For $n,t\in\field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$, let $W$ and $E'$ be non-empty open subsets of $\field{R}^n$ and $\field{R}^{t-1}$, respectively.
Moreover, for each $\xi\in\Xi$, let
$W\times E' \ni(x,\lambda')\mapsto U_\xi(x;\lambda')\in\field{R}$ and
$W\times E'\ni(x,\lambda')\mapsto V_\xi(x;\lambda')\in\field{R}$
be two functions endowed with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] $\forall x\in W$, both $U_\xi(x;\cdot)$ and $V_\xi(x;\cdot)$
are elements of the space $PC^1\left(E'\right)$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $\exists\,\epsilon_\xi >0$ such that
$V_\xi(x;\lambda')-U_\xi(x;\lambda')>\epsilon_{\xi}$ $\forall(x,\lambda')\in W\times E'$;
\item[\textnormal{(iii)}] $\forall (x,\lambda')\in W\times E'$ $\displaystyle \exists\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}U_\xi(x;\lambda')=
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}V_\xi(x;\lambda')=:G(x;\lambda')\in\field{R}$, with $G(x;\cdot)\in C^1(E')$ $\forall x\in W$;
\item[\textnormal{(iv)}] the functions $u_\xi:=U_\xi-G$ and $v_\xi:=V_\xi-G$ are uniformly bounded with respect to the parameter $\xi$,
i.e., there exists a constant $M\geq 0$ such that
$\,|u_\xi(x;\lambda')|\leq M$ and $\,|v_\xi(x;\lambda')|\leq M$ $\forall(x,\lambda')\in W\times E'$, $\forall\xi\in\Xi$.
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, for each $x\in W$ and $\xi\in\Xi$, let us define:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(a)}] the set
$C_{\xi}(x):=\{\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E'\times\field{R} : U_\xi(x;\lambda')\leq\lambda_t < V_\xi(x;\lambda')\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(b)}] the characteristic function of $C_{\xi}(x)$, i.e., $\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}(x)}:E'\times\field{R}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(c)}] the function $r_\xi(x;\cdot):=v_\xi(x;\cdot)-u_\xi(x;\cdot)>\epsilon_\xi$;
\item[\textnormal{(d)}] the function $T_\xi(x;\cdot):=\left[\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}(x)}(\cdot)/r_\xi(x;\cdot)\right]\in
L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$;
\item[\textnormal{(e)}] the function $E'\times\field{R}\ni(\lambda',\lambda_t)\mapsto g(x;\lambda):=\lambda_t-G(x;\lambda')\in\field{R}$ and
the corresponding
Dirac delta $\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\in\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
Finally, let $\beta\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$ a piecewise continuous function, compactly supported in $W$.
Then
\begin{equation}\label{provenzale}
\int_{W}\beta(x)\,T_\xi(x;\cdot)\,dx\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)\ \ \forall\xi\in\Xi
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{scarlatti}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\,\iota_1\left(\int_{W}\beta(x)\,T_\xi(x;\cdot)\,dx\right)=
\int_{W}\beta(x)\,\delta(g(x;\cdot))\,dx\ \ \mbox{in}\ \mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right),
\end{equation}
where the integral on the right-hand side of \textnormal{(\ref{scarlatti})} is to be understood in the sense of Definition
\textnormal{\ref{intparam}} in \ref{test}.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Since both $\beta$ and $T_\xi$ are bounded, we have that
$\beta(\cdot)\,T_\xi(\cdot;\cdot)\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(W\times\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)\right)$ $\forall\xi\in\Xi$. Accordingly,
statement (\ref{provenzale}) follows from Fubini theorem.
Moreover, according to (\ref{kant}), statement (\ref{scarlatti}) is equivalent to claiming that, for all
$\psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$,
\begin{equation} \label{fago}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\left\langle \iota_1\left(\int_{W}\beta(x)\,T_\xi(x;\cdot)\,dx\right),\psi\right\rangle
=\left\langle\int_{W}\beta(x)\,\delta(g(x;\cdot))\,dx,\psi\right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Note that, by assumption (iii) and definition (e), we have $g(x;\cdot)\in C^1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$ $\forall x\in W$, with
$\partial g(x;\cdot)/\partial\lambda_t=1$ identically. Thus, $\mathrm{grad}_\lambda\,g(x;\lambda)\neq 0$
$\forall (x;\lambda)\in W\times\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$ and, in particular, $\delta(g(x;\cdot))\in \mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$
is well-defined $\forall x\in W$, according to definition (\ref{defdelta}).
In order to prove (\ref{fago}), we begin by observing that an immediate application of Lemma \ref{haendel}, i.e., of equality
(\ref{brunetta}), yields, for each $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$,
\begin{equation}\label{giordani}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\beta(x)\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi(x;\cdot)\right),\psi\rangle=
\beta(x)\langle\delta(g(x;\cdot)),\psi\rangle\ \ \forall x\in W.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if we set $M_{\beta}:=\max_{x\in W}|\beta(x)|$, $S_{\beta}:=\mathrm{supp}\,\beta$, and denote by $\mathbf{1}_{S_\beta}:W\rightarrow
\{0,1\}$ the characteristic function of $S_\beta$ and by $\mathcal{L}^n$ the Lebesgue measure on $\field{R}^n$,
from (\ref{delpoeta}) and (\ref{domina}) (with $u_\xi(\lambda')$ and $v_\xi(\lambda')$ replaced by $u_\xi(x;\lambda')$ and
$v_\xi(x;\lambda')$, respectively) we have
\begin{equation}\label{ferrandini}
\left|\beta(x)\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi(x;\cdot)\right),\psi\rangle\right|\leq
M_\beta\, \|\psi\|_{C^1}\,\mathcal{L}^n\left(K_M\right)\,\mathbf{1}_{S_\beta}(x).
\end{equation}
By assumption, $S_\beta\subset W$ is compact and then $\mathbf{1}_{S_\beta}\in L^1(W)$. Hence, from (\ref{giordani})--(\ref{ferrandini}) and
Lebesgue dominated convergence theorem, we find, for each $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$,
\begin{equation}\label{radwanska}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\int_{W} \beta(x)\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi(x;\cdot)\right),\psi\rangle\, dx =
\int_{W}\beta(x)\langle\delta(g(x;\cdot)),\psi\rangle \,dx.
\end{equation}
Now, we are going to show that (\ref{radwanska}) is actually thesis (\ref{fago}).
Indeed, as far as the left-hand side of (\ref{radwanska}) is concerned, by (\ref{pairint}) we can write
\begin{equation}\label{azarenka}
\int_{W} \beta(x)\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi(x;\cdot)\right),\psi\rangle\, dx=
\int_{W} \beta(x)\left[\int_{E'\times\field{R}}T_{\xi}(x;\lambda)\,\psi(\lambda)\, d\lambda\right]dx.
\end{equation}
From the properties of functions $\beta$, $T_\xi$ and $\psi$ (cf., in particular, definitions (b)--(d)), it follows that their product
is bounded and compactly supported, and then $\beta(\cdot)\,T_\xi(\cdot;\cdot)\,\psi(\cdot) \in
L^1\left(W\times\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)\right)$ $\forall\xi\in\Xi$.
Hence, by Fubini theorem, we can rewrite
(\ref{azarenka}) as
\begin{equation}\label{williams}
\int_{W} \beta(x)\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi(x;\cdot)\right),\psi\rangle\, dx=
\int_{E'\times\field{R}} \left[\int_{W}\beta(x)\,T_{\xi}(x;\lambda)\, dx\right]\psi(\lambda)\,d\lambda.
\end{equation}
Moreover, property (\ref{provenzale}) and definition (\ref{pairint}) imply that
relation (\ref{williams}) can be written in the form
\begin{equation}\label{ivanovic}
\int_{W} \beta(x)\langle \iota_1\left(T_\xi(x;\cdot)\right),\psi\rangle\, dx=
\left\langle \iota_1\left(\int_{W}\beta(x)\,T_{\xi}(x;\cdot)\, dx\right),\psi\right\rangle.
\end{equation}
An immediate comparison between (\ref{radwanska}) and (\ref{ivanovic}) now shows that the left-hand side of (\ref{radwanska})
coincides with that of statement (\ref{fago}).
As far as the right-hand side of (\ref{radwanska}) is concerned, we remember that, according to definition (e),
$g(x;\lambda)=\lambda_t-G(x;\lambda')$. Thus, by (\ref{hume}), (\ref{defdelta}) and (\ref{viotti}) in the appendix, we have
\begin{equation}\label{schubert}
\left\langle \beta(x)\,\delta(g(x;\cdot)),\psi\right\rangle=
\beta(x)\left\langle\delta(g(x;\cdot)),\psi\right\rangle = \beta(x)\int_{E'}\psi\left(\lambda', G(x;\lambda')\right)d\lambda'.
\end{equation}
From the properties of the functions $\beta$ and $\psi$, it follows that their product
is bounded and compactly supported: then,
$\beta(\cdot)\,\psi(\cdot,G(\cdot;\cdot))\in L^1\left(W\times E'\right)$.
Hence, by Fubini theorem, we have that $\beta(\cdot)\int_{E'}\psi\left(\lambda',G(\cdot;\lambda')\right)d\lambda'\in L^1(W)$ and
\begin{equation} \label{luchesi}
\int_{W}\beta(x)\left[\int_{E'}\psi\left(\lambda',G(x;\lambda')\right)d\lambda'\right]dx=
\int_{W\times E'}\beta(x)\,\psi\left(\lambda',G(x;\lambda')\right)\,dx\, d\lambda'.
\end{equation}
Now, it is clear that the right-hand side of (\ref{luchesi}) defines a linear and continuous functional on
$\mathcal{D}_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)\ni\psi$, i.e., an element $\ell\in\mathcal{D}'_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$. Indeed, linearity is
obvious, while continuity readily follows from Lebesgue dominated
convergence theorem and the notion of convergence in $\mathcal{D}_1\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$, as given by Definition \ref{convDk}
in \ref{test}. In agreement with Definition \ref{intparam} in \ref{test}, such functional $\ell$ is denoted by
$\int_{W}\beta(x)\,\delta(g(x;\cdot))\,dx$.
Summing up, from (\ref{schubert}) and (\ref{luchesi}) we find
\begin{equation}\label{schumann}
\int_{W} \beta(x)\left\langle\delta(g(x;\cdot)),\psi\right\rangle dx=\left\langle\int_{W}\beta(x)\,\delta(g(x;\cdot))\,dx,\,\psi\right\rangle,
\end{equation}
thus showing that the right-hand side of (\ref{radwanska}) coincides with that of the claimed assertion (\ref{fago}).
This concludes the proof.~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
It is worth noting that, according to our notation, \textit{a priori}
\begin{equation}\label{tensiun}
\int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,dx \neq \int_{W} \delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,\beta(x)\,dx.
\end{equation}
Indeed, the left-hand side of (\ref{tensiun}) is the integral of the one-parameter family of distributions
$\beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\in\mathcal{D}'_0\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$ with respect to the parameter $x\in W$, in the sense of
Definition \ref{intparam}.
Instead, according to (\ref{radongeneq}), the right-hand side of (\ref{tensiun}) denotes the generalized Radon transform
$\left(R_g\,\beta\right)$, i.e., the map defined by $\lambda\mapsto \langle\delta\left(g(\cdot;\lambda)\right), \beta \rangle$,
in agreement with the integral notation adopted in (\ref{defdelta}) for the pairing.
However, the following lemma states that, under appropriate hypotheses,
the two sides of (\ref{tensiun}) are equal as elements of $\mathcal{D}'_0\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{beethoven}
For $n,t\in \field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$, let $W$ and $E'$ be non-empty open subsets of $\,\field{R}^n$ and $\,\field{R}^{t-1}$ respectively, and let
$\beta\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$. Moreover, let $G:W\times E'\rightarrow\field{R}$ be a function such that
$G(\cdot;\lambda')\in C^1(W)$ $\forall \lambda'\in E'$ and $G(x;\cdot)\in C^1(E')$ $\forall x\in W$.
Finally, assume that the function $g:W\times \left(E'\times\field{R}\right)\rightarrow\field{R}$ defined as
$g(x;\lambda):=\lambda_t-G(x;\lambda')$ satisfies the following two conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] $\forall\lambda\in E'\times\field{R}$ such that $\mathcal{S}(\lambda):=\{x\in W : g(x;\lambda)=0\}\neq\emptyset$,
it holds that $\mathrm{grad}_x\, g(x;\lambda)\neq 0 \ \forall x\in\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $\displaystyle \int_{W} \delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,\beta(x)\,dx\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
Then, as elements of $\mathcal{D}_0'\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$,
\begin{equation}\label{muffat}
\int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,dx =\iota_0\left(\int_{W} \delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,\beta(x)\,dx\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof
Proving equality (\ref{muffat}) amounts to proving that, for all $\psi\in \mathcal{D}_0\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$,
\begin{equation}\label{muffatpsi}
\left\langle \int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,dx,\,\psi\right\rangle=
\left\langle\iota_0\left(\int_{W} \delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,\beta(x)\,dx\right),\,\psi \right\rangle.
\end{equation}
Now, from (\ref{schubert})--(\ref{schumann}), we immediately find
\begin{equation}\label{chopin}
\left\langle \int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,dx,\,\psi\right\rangle=
\int_{W\times E'}\beta(x)\,\psi\left(\lambda',G(x;\lambda')\right)\,dx\, d\lambda'.
\end{equation}
As already observed just below (\ref{schubert}), $\beta(\cdot)\,\psi\left(\cdot,G(\cdot;\cdot)\right)\in L^1\left(W\times E'\right)$. Thus, by
Fubini theorem, we can rewrite (\ref{chopin}) as
\begin{equation}\label{mendelssohn}
\left\langle \int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,dx,\,\psi\right\rangle=
\int_{E'}\left[\int_W \beta(x)\,\psi\left(\lambda',G(x;\lambda')\right)\,dx\right] d\lambda'.
\end{equation}
Now, for each $\lambda'\in E'$, we introduce the auxiliary functions $\psi_{\lambda'}:\field{R}\rightarrow\field{R}$ and $G_{\lambda'}:W\rightarrow\field{R}$,
defined by the conditions
\begin{equation}\label{liszt}
\psi_{\lambda'}(\lambda_t):=\psi(\lambda',\lambda_t)=\psi(\lambda),\ G_{\lambda'}(x):=G(x;\lambda')
\ \ \forall (x,\lambda',\lambda_t)\in W\times E'\times\field{R}.
\end{equation}
From the expression of $g(x;\lambda):=\lambda_t-G(x;\lambda')$ and definitions (\ref{liszt}), it follows that
\begin{equation}\label{zitromax}
G^{-1}_{\lambda'}(\lambda_t)=\{x\in W : G_{\lambda'}(x)=\lambda_t\}=\{x\in W : g(x;\lambda)=0\}=\mathcal{S}(\lambda),
\end{equation}
as well as $\mathrm{grad}\,G_{\lambda'}(x)=\mathrm{grad}_x\,g(x;\lambda)$ for all $(x,\lambda)\in W\times\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$.
Then, by assumption (i), for each $\lambda'\in E'$ we can apply the coarea
formula\footnote{Cf. also the short discussion just below (\ref{coarea}) itself. The identifications to be done in (\ref{coarea}) to obtain
(\ref{brahms}) are the following ones: $W=A$, $\beta(x)\,\psi_{\lambda'}\left(G_{\lambda'}(x)\right)=g(x)$, $G_{\lambda'}=\Psi$, $\lambda_t=s$.}
(\ref{coarea}) to the internal integral on the right-hand side of (\ref{mendelssohn}),
thus obtaining
\begin{equation}\label{brahms}
\int_W \beta(x)\,\psi_{\lambda'}\left(G_{\lambda'}(x)\right)\,dx =
\int_{G_{\lambda'}(W)}\left[\int_{\mathcal{S}(\lambda)}\frac{\beta(x)\,\psi_{\lambda'}(\lambda_t)}
{|\mathrm{grad}_x\,g(x;\lambda)|}\,d\sigma(x)\right]d\lambda_t.
\end{equation}
Taking into account
(\ref{liszt}), (\ref{defdelta}), (\ref{desigma}) and observing that, by (\ref{zitromax}), if
$\lambda_t\notin G_{\lambda'}(W)$ then $\mathcal{S}(\lambda)=\emptyset$,
we can rewrite (\ref{brahms}) as
\begin{equation}\label{busoni}
\int_W \beta(x)\,\psi\left(\lambda',G_{\lambda'}(x)\right)\,dx=
\int_{\field{R}}\psi(\lambda',\lambda_t)\left[\int_{W}\delta\left(g(x;\lambda)\right)\beta(x)\,dx\right]d\lambda_t.
\end{equation}
Next, by substituting (\ref{busoni}) into (\ref{mendelssohn}), we find
\begin{align}\label{breva}
& \left\langle \int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,dx,\,\psi\right\rangle \\
&\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \
=\int_{E'}\left\{\int_{\field{R}}\psi(\lambda)
\left[\int_{W}\delta\left(g(x;\lambda)\right)\beta(x)\,dx\right]d\lambda_t\right\}d\lambda'.\nonumber
\end{align}
From hypothesis (ii) and the fact that $\psi\in\mathcal{D}_0\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$, it follows that the map defined by
\begin{equation}
E'\times\field{R}\ni\lambda\mapsto \psi(\lambda) \int_{W}\delta\left(g(x;\lambda)\right)\beta(x)\,dx\in\field{R}
\end{equation}
is in $L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(E'\times\field{R}\right)$. Thus, by Fubini theorem, relation (\ref{breva}) can be written as
\begin{equation}\label{polaramin}
\left\langle \int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,dx,\,\psi\right\rangle =
\int_{E'\times\field{R}}\psi(\lambda)\left[\int_{W}\delta\left(g(x;\lambda)\right)\beta(x)\,dx\right]d\lambda.
\end{equation}
Finally, the same hypothesis (ii) and definition (\ref{pairint}) easily allow recognizing that (\ref{polaramin})
coincides with equality (\ref{muffatpsi}), as wanted.~$\square$
\begin{remark}\label{luxilon}
If $E$ is an open subset of $E'\times\field{R}$ and hypothesis (ii) in Lemma \ref{beethoven} is reformulated as (ii$'$)
$\int_{W} \delta\left(g(x;\cdot)\right)\,\beta(x)\,dx\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(E)$, then thesis (\ref{muffat})
still holds true, provided that it be regarded as an equality between elements of $\mathcal{D}'_0(E)$. The proof is almost
identical to that of Lemma \ref{beethoven} itself. However, as an assumption on $g$, property (ii), or (ii$'$), in Lemma \ref{beethoven}
is rather implicit and, in principle, its fulfilment depends not only on
$g$, but also on $\beta$. Accordingly, it is important to establish sufficient and more explicit conditions on $g$ only,
ensuring that such a property holds true for all $\beta\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$.
This task has already been accomplished by Theorem \ref{monteverdi}.
\end{remark}
We can now come back to our main problem, i.e., the link between the Radon transform and the Hough transform. To this end, we first need to
formulate an appropriate definition of the weighted Hough accumulator $H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)$ for a piecewise continuous image
$m\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$. Taking inspiration from (\ref{WHT}), it is natural to define\footnote{See also footnote no. \ref{zioambiguo}.}
\begin{equation}\label{Hcontinuo}
H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d):=\int_W m(x)\,p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)\,dx,
\end{equation}
where $p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)$ is the Hough transform kernel (\ref{nuovokernel}).
Then, we can state the main result of this section as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{muguruza}
For $n,t\in \field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$, let $W$ and $E$ be non-empty open subsets of $\,\field{R}^n$ and $\,\field{R}^{t}$, respectively.
Moreover, let $f:W\times E\rightarrow\field{R}$ be a function satisfying the following properties:
\textnormal{(a)} ${\mathcal S}(\lambda):=\{x\in W : f_{ \lambda}(x)= 0\}\neq \emptyset$ $\forall\lambda\in E$;
\textnormal{(b)} $f\in C^1(W\times E)$; \textnormal{(c)} $(\mathrm{grad}_x\, f_{\lambda})(x)\neq 0$ $\forall x\in {\mathcal S}(\lambda)$, $\forall\lambda\in E$;
\textnormal{(d)} $f$ is $\lambda_t$-solvable, i.e., $f(x;\lambda)= \lambda_t-F(x;\lambda')$, with $\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)$.
Moreover, let $\{\lambda^\ast,d\}$ be a discretization of the parameter space, and define
$D:=\max\{d_1,\ldots,d_t\}$, where $d_k$, for $k=1,\ldots,t$, is the sampling distance with respect to the component $\lambda_k$,
as explained in item \textnormal{I} of Subsection \textnormal{\ref{WHC}}.
Finally, let $m\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$ be a piecewise continuous and compactly supported image,
$(R_f\, m)(\lambda)$ its generalized Radon transform
and $H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)/d_t$ the corresponding rescaled Hough
counter\footnote{Cf. definitions (\ref{hume}), (\ref{radongeneq}) and (\ref{Hcontinuo}), respectively.}, defined
on a bounded and open investigation domain $\mathcal{T}\subset E$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{minacce2}
\lim_{D\rightarrow 0^+}\,\iota_1\left(\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t}\right)=
(R_f\, m)(\lambda)
\ \ \mbox{in}\ \ \mathcal{D}'_1\left(\mathcal{T}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\iota_1:L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathcal{T})\rightarrow \mathcal{D}'_{1}(\mathcal{T})$
denotes the inclusion map defined as in \textnormal{(\ref{pairint})}.
\end{theorem}
\proof First, we choose or identify the functions and parameters appearing in the statements of Lemmas \ref{bach} and
\ref{beethoven} as follows:
\begin{align}
& \xi=D=\max\{d_1,\ldots,d_t\},\ \ \bar{\xi}=0,\ \ \beta=m,\ \ r_{\xi}(x;\cdot)=d_t\ \forall x\in W,\label{rava2} \\
& U_{\xi}(x;\lambda')=-d_t/2 + F\big(x;c'(\lambda')\big),\ \ V_{\xi}(x;\lambda')=d_t/2 + F\big(x;c'(\lambda')\big),\\
& G(x;\lambda')=F(x; \lambda'),\ \ g(x;\lambda)=f(x;\lambda)=\lambda_t-F(x;\lambda'),\\
& C_\xi(x)=\left\{\lambda=(\lambda',\lambda_t)\in E : -d_t/2 \leq \lambda_t - F\big(x;c'(\lambda')\big) <d_t/2 \right\},\\
& \mathbf{1}_{C_\xi(x)}(\lambda)=p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d),\ \
T_\xi(x;\lambda)=\frac{\mathbf{1}_{C_\xi(x)}(\lambda)}{r_\xi(x;\lambda)}=\frac{p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t},\\
& \int_W \beta(x)\, T_\xi(x;\lambda)\,dx=\int_W m(x)\,\frac{p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t}\,dx=\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t}.
\label{fava2}
\end{align}
An easy check shows that identifications (\ref{rava2})--(\ref{fava2}) ensure the fulfilment of the hypotheses required by
Lemmas \ref{bach}, \ref{beethoven} and Remark \ref{luxilon}. Accordingly, we find that
\begin{equation}\label{minacce3}
\lim_{D\rightarrow 0^+}\,\iota_1\left(\frac{H(\cdot;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_t}\right)=
\int_W \delta(f(x;\cdot))\,m(x)\,dx
\ \ \mbox{in}\ \ \mathcal{D}'_1\left(\mathcal{T}\right).
\end{equation}
Finally, it suffices to recall that the right-hand side of equality (\ref{minacce3}) is just the generalized Radon transform of
a piecewise continuous image $m\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$, as shown in definition (\ref{radongeneq}). Accordingly, relation (\ref{minacce3})
can be equivalently rewritten as (\ref{minacce2}), thus proving Theorem \ref{muguruza} and justifying the claims opening this
section.~$\square$
\subsection{The one-dimensional case $t=1$}
For sake of completeness, let us now sketch how the previous investigation trivializes when $t=1$.
The one-dimensional counterpart of Lemma \ref{bach} can be formulated as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{bach1}
Let $\Xi$ be a subset of $\,\field{R}$ such that $\bar{\xi}$ is an accumulation point for $\Xi$, and let
$\xi\in\Xi$ be a parameter. For $n\in\field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$, let $W$ be a non-empty open subset of $\field{R}^n$.
Moreover, for each $\xi\in\Xi$, let $U_\xi:W\rightarrow\field{R}$ and $V_\xi:W\rightarrow\field{R}$
be two functions endowed with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] $\exists\,\epsilon_\xi >0$ such that
$V_\xi(x)-U_\xi(x)>\epsilon_{\xi}$ $\forall x\in W$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $\forall x\in W$ $\displaystyle \exists\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}U_\xi(x)=
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}V_\xi(x)=:G(x)\in\field{R}$.
\end{itemize}
Furthermore, for each $x\in W$ and $\xi\in\Xi$, let us define:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(a)}] the set
$C_{\xi}(x):=\{\lambda\in\field{R} : U_\xi(x)\leq\lambda < V_\xi(x)\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(b)}] the characteristic function of $C_{\xi}(x)$, i.e., $\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}(x)}:\field{R}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$;
\item[\textnormal{(c)}] the number $r_\xi(x):=V_\xi(x)-U_\xi(x)>\epsilon_\xi$;
\item[\textnormal{(d)}] the function $T_\xi(x;\cdot):=\left[\mathbf{1}_{C_{\xi}(x)}(\cdot)/r_\xi(x)\right]\in
L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
Finally, let $\beta\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{provenzale1}
\int_{W}\beta(x)\,T_\xi(x;\cdot)\,dx\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}\right)\ \ \forall\xi\in\Xi
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{scarlatti1}
\lim_{\xi\rightarrow \bar{\xi}}\,\iota_0\left(\int_{W}\beta(x)\,T_\xi(x;\cdot)\,dx\right)=
\int_{W}\beta(x)\,\delta\big(\cdot- G(x)\big)\,dx\ \ \mbox{in}\ \mathcal{D}'_0\left(\field{R}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\delta\big(\cdot - G(x)\big)=\delta_{G(x)}\in \mathcal{D}'_0\left(\field{R}\right)$ is the Dirac delta centred at the point $G(x)$,
and the integral on the right-hand side of \textnormal{(\ref{scarlatti1})} is to be understood in the sense of
Definition \textnormal{\ref{intparam}} in \ref{test}.
\end{lemma}
\proof
The result follows by adapting and simplifying the proof of Lemma \ref{bach}.~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
The one-dimensional counterpart of Lemma \ref{beethoven} can be formulated as follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{beethoven1}
For $n\in\field{N}\setminus\{0,1\}$, let $W$ be a non-empty open subset of $\,\field{R}^n$, and let
$\beta\in\mathcal{PD}_0(W)$. Moreover, let $G\in C^1(W)$ be a real-valued function satisfying the following two conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item[\textnormal{(i)}] $\forall\lambda\in\field{R}$ such that $\mathcal{S}(\lambda):=\{x\in W : \lambda - G(x)=0\}\neq\emptyset$, it holds that
$\mathrm{grad}\, G(x)\neq 0$ $\forall x\in\mathcal{S}(\lambda)$;
\item[\textnormal{(ii)}] $\int_{W} \delta\big(\cdot - G(x)\big)\,\beta(x)\,dx\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}\left(\field{R}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
Then, as elements of $\mathcal{D}_0'\left(\field{R}\right)$,
\begin{equation}\label{muffat1}
\int_{W} \beta(x)\,\delta\big(\cdot - G(x)\big)\,dx =\iota_0\left(\int_{W} \delta\big(\cdot - G(x)\big)\,\beta(x)\,dx\right).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\proof
The result follows by adapting and simplifying the proof of Lemma \ref{beethoven}.~$\square$
\vspace{3mm}
Note that Theorem \ref{monteverdi}, mentioned in Remark \ref{luxilon}, already comprise the case $t=1$. Then, the
one-dimensional counterpart of Theorem \ref{muguruza} is obtained from Lemmas \ref{bach1}, \ref{beethoven1} and Remark \ref{luxilon}
by making the following identifications:
\begin{align}
& \xi=D=d_1,\ \ \bar{\xi}=0,\ \ \beta=m,\ \ r_{\xi}(x;\cdot)=d_1\ \forall x\in W,\label{rava3} \\
& U_{\xi}(x)=-d_1/2 + F(x),\ \ V_{\xi}(x)=d_1/2 + F(x),\\
& G(x)=F(x),\ \ g(x;\lambda)=f(x;\lambda)=\lambda-F(x),\\
& C_\xi(x)=\left\{\lambda\in \field{R} : -d_1/2 \leq \lambda - F(x) <d_1/2 \right\},\\
& \mathbf{1}_{C_\xi(x)}(\lambda)=p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d),\ \
T_\xi(x;\lambda)=\frac{\mathbf{1}_{C_\xi(x)}(\lambda)}{r_\xi(x;\lambda)}=\frac{p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_1},\\
& \int_W \beta(x)\, T_\xi(x;\lambda)\,dx=\int_W m(x)\,\frac{p(x,\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_1}\,dx=\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_1},
\label{fava3}
\end{align}
so that relation (\ref{minacce2}) now reads
\begin{equation}\label{minacce4}
\lim_{D\rightarrow 0^+}\,\iota_0\left(\frac{H(\lambda;\lambda^\ast,d)}{d_1}\right)=
(R_f\, m)(\lambda)
\ \ \mbox{in}\ \ \mathcal{D}'_0\left(\mathcal{T}\right),
\end{equation}
for any open and bounded investigation domain $\mathcal{T}\subset\field{R}$.
\section{Applications and numerical examples}\label{zionumerico}
The investigation performed in the previous sections has highlighted a complex relationship between the Radon transform and the Hough
transform. That is, according to Theorem \ref{equidiscreto} and Theorem \ref{muguruza}, the rescaled (weighted) Hough counter
of either a discrete or a piecewise continuous image tends to the generalized Radon transform of the image itself
as the discretization of the parameter space becomes finer and finer.
Although this is an interesting result in itself, an issue naturally arises concerning its possible numerical applications.
Here we just outline a new inversion technique for visualizing an object from a very noisy Radon sinogram, by regarding
the latter as an approximation of a rescaled Hough sinogram (cf. Definition \ref{Hsinog}). This possibility is suggested, in particular,
by limit (\ref{minacce2}), and it is worth
investigating, since there are cases (e.g., Positron Emission Tomography) in which a high level of noise affects the Radon sinogram,
thus preventing the traditional (i.e., Radon-based) inversion techniques from providing satisfactory reconstruction of the unknown object.
Then, we consider the well-known Shepp--Logan phantom \cite{shlo74}, shown in panel (a) of Figure \ref{phantom}, as the piecewise constant
image\footnote{This image is contained in a square of sides ranging from $-1$ to $1$ and is formed by pixels with values ranging from $0$
to $1$.} to be recovered from a very noisy Radon sinogram. To this end, we first compute the exact Radon transform with respect to the
family of straight lines of equation
\begin{equation}\label{retta2}
\gamma-x_1\cos\vartheta-x_2\sin\vartheta=0,
\end{equation}
which is of the form $f(x;\lambda)=0$, under the identifications
$x=(x_1,x_2)$, $\lambda=(\lambda_1,\lambda_2)=(\vartheta,\gamma)$ and $f(x;\lambda)= \lambda_2 -x_1\cos\lambda_1-x_2\sin\lambda_1$ (cf. the notation adopted in Remark \ref{def-sinogramma}). As explained in Subsection \ref{zioquadrato}, such computation can be easily performed by means
of an appropriate implementation\footnote{In particular, owing to the different forms of the straight line equation adopted in Subsection
\ref{zioquadrato} and in the current section (compare (\ref{retta1}) with (\ref{retta2})), in formula (\ref{radonquadrato}) the
following substitutions should be made: $\gamma\mapsto\gamma/\sin\vartheta$, $\omega_1\mapsto\cot\vartheta$.}
of formula (\ref{radonquadrato}), by considering $I$ discretized values $\vartheta_i$
(with $i=1,\ldots,I$) of $\vartheta\in [0, \pi)$ and $J$ discretized values $\gamma_j$ (with $j=1,\ldots,J$) of
$\gamma\in \left[-\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2}\right]$.
The corresponding noise-free sinogram, obtained for $I=629$ and $J=287$, is represented in the upper part of panel (b) in Figure
\ref{phantom}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig2.jpg}\\
(a)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (b)
\caption{(a) The Shepp--Logan phantom. (b) Upper plot: the Radon noise-free sinogram of the Shepp--Logan phantom, computed for $629$ values of
$\vartheta\in [0,\pi)$ (horizontal axis) and $287$ values of $\gamma\in[-\sqrt{2},\sqrt{2}]$ (vertical axis). Lower plot: the noisy sinogram of the
Shepp--Logan phantom, obtained from the upper one by corrupting it with additive Gaussian noise at a level $\ell = 100\%$, according to formula (\ref{eq:sinonoise}).}
\label{phantom}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The noise-free sinogram is then corrupted by additive Gaussian noise by using the formula
\begin{equation}\label{eq:sinonoise}
S_n(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)=S_t(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)+\ell\,\varepsilon\, S_t(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{itemize}
\item $\vartheta_i$, for $i = 1\dots I$, are discretized values of $\vartheta$;
\item $\gamma_j$, for $j = 1\dots J$, are discretized values of $\gamma$;
\item $S_t(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$ is the true value of the sinogram at the point $(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$;
\item $S_n(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$ is the noisy value of the sinogram at the point $(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$;
\item $\varepsilon$ is a realization of a normal Gaussian random variable;
\item $\ell$ is the percentage noise level ($\ell = 100\%$).
\end{itemize}
The resulting noisy Radon sinogram is shown in the lower part of panel (b) in Figure \ref{phantom}.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig3.jpg}\\
\caption{Reconstructions of the Shepp--Logan phantom, obtained from the noisy sinogram (shown in the bottom part of Figure
\ref{phantom}, panel (b)) by using the unfiltered back-projection, and the FBP algorithm with five different choices for the filtering function. Except for the case of the unfiltered back-projection, the internal structure of the phantom is almost completely lost.}
\label{radonA}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Usually, the inversion of the Radon transform is numerically performed by using the filtered back-projection (FBP) algorithm, where the presence of a ramp filter (Ram--Lak filter) in the frequency domain attenuates the blurring effect of a crude unfiltered back-projection and where, at the same time, a second filtering function multiplying the ramp filter allows the attenuation of high frequency noise that can be present in the sinogram. Common choices for this filtering function are \cite{bebo98, nawu01} the Shepp--Logan filter (a sinc function); the Cosine filter (a cosine function); the Hamming window; the Hann window. We have then applied both the unfiltered and the filtered back-projection to recover the Shepp--Logan image from its noisy Radon sinogram, using all the cited filters in the case of the FBP algorithm. The corresponding results are shown in Figure \ref{radonA}. It is clear that, independently of the particular filter adopted, the FBP algorithm fails to recover the internal structure of the phantom, while the unfiltered back-projection can at least visualize its main features.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{fig4.jpg}\\
\caption{Visualizations of the Shepp--Logan phantom, obtained by drawing straight lines identified by pairs of parameters corresponding to cells in the Hough counter (i.e., the noisy Radon sinogram shown in the bottom part of Figure \ref{phantom}, panel (b)) whose values are higher than a fixed percentage of the maximum value. Five different thresholds are chosen, while ``no threshold'' means that all the pairs of parameters related to non-empty cells are used to identify straight lines in the image space.}
\label{hough}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Let us now see what kind of visualization we can obtain by regarding the noisy Radon sinogram as an approximation of a rescaled Hough
sinogram, as suggested by limit (\ref{minacce2}). Each pixel of the noisy Radon sinogram is regarded as a cell of centre
$(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$ in the parameter space, and the value of the pixel, multiplied by the sampling distance\footnote{Cf. definition (\ref{IN}), for $t=2$.} $d_2$ with respect to the component $\lambda_2=\gamma$, is regarded as the number of straight
lines characterized by parameters $(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$ and to be considered in the image space. Note that this number need not be an
integer. In fact, more precisely, all the pixel values in the image space $\field{A}^2_{(x_1,x_2)}(\field{R})$
are initialized to zero and then, for any pixel centred at $(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$ in the parameter space $\field{A}^2_{(\vartheta,\gamma)}(\field{R})$ and having value $S_n(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$, we trace back in $\field{A}^2_{(x_1,x_2)}(\field{R})$ a straight line of equation $\gamma_j-x_1\cos\vartheta_i-x_2\sin\vartheta_i=0$, and the value of each pixel crossed by this straight line is increased by $d_2 S_n(\vartheta_i,\gamma_j)$. The resulting visualization is shown in the bottom-right panel of Figure \ref{hough}.
It is also interesting to implement the above procedure by taking into account only the ``principal'' pixels, i.e., the pixels whose
values are larger than a certain threshold. Various thresholds are considered, as five different percentages of the maximum value of the pixels
in the noisy Radon sinogram (multiplied by $d_2$). The corresponding visualizations are shown in the first five panels of Figure \ref{hough}.
It is worth observing that, unlike Figure \ref{radonA}, the pixel values in the panels of Figure \ref{hough} are not
related, in principle, to the true values of the Shepp--Logan phantom. However, a visual comparison between Figure \ref{radonA} and
\ref{hough} suggests that, for appropriate values of the threshold, our new (Hough-based) approach can provide visualizations
that are more informative and accurate than those provided by the (Radon-based) FBP algorithm.
This is confirmed by a quantitative and objective analysis, performed as follows. In order to verify the existence of an optimal threshold,
and to compare the quality of the visualizations with those obtained by filtered/unfiltered back-projection with different filters (and
shown in Figure \ref{radonA}), we have
\begin{itemize}
\item rescaled the grey levels of all the visualizations in the range $[0,1]$, as in the original Shepp--Logan phantom;
\item masked the pixels of the background in order to compare just the values of the pixels inside the phantom;
\item defined and computed the visualization error as the Frobenius norm of the matrices given by the differences between each visualization and the original Shepp--Logan phantom.
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[!htbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{fig5.pdf}\\
\caption{Visualization errors committed in the inversion of a noisy Radon sinogram by using unfiltered/filtered back projection with different filtering functions (red plot and axes) and by using the Hough-based procedure (black plot and axes).}
\label{frobenius}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The results of this analysis are summarized in the graph with multiple $x$- and $y$-axes shown in Figure \ref{frobenius}, where the black axes and plot refer to the errors computed from the Hough visualizations, while the red ones refer to back-projection rescaled reconstructions. The black plot clearly shows that there exists an optimal threshold value minimizing the Hough error function. Moreover, for a rather large range of threshold values, the visualizations obtained from Hough inversion seem to be more accurate than those obtained from usual back-projection inversion.
The black plot in Figure \ref{frobenius} also seems to suggest that the threshold may play the role of a regularization parameter in the
Hough-based inversion algorithm. This is one of several issues to be investigated in order to make this algorithm a feasible and accepted
alternative to the classical FBP, at least when the latter does not provide satisfactory results.
\section{Conclusions and future perspectives}\label{zioprospettico}
This paper provides for the first time a rigorous description of the formal equivalence between the Radon transform, introduced in harmonic analysis and at the basis of the mathematical theory of X-ray tomography, and the Hough transform, utilized in image processing for pattern recognition. Specifically, the main theoretical result of the paper is concerned with the forward problem associated to the Radon transform, i.e., the proof that the rescaled Hough counter of either a linear combination of Dirac deltas or a piecewise constant function tends to the Radon sinogram as the discretization step in the parameter space vanishes. Moreover, we briefly discussed how the Hough-Radon equivalence may have impacts on the inverse problem associated to image reconstruction in the case of modalities in which the data formation process is modeled by the Radon transform. Indeed, application perspectives of this paper are concerned with the possibility to invert a Radon sinogram by regarding it as a rescaled Hough sinogram. There is no doubt that the FBP algorithm is a very powerful tool for the inversion of Radon sinograms in X-ray computed tomography, but its performance can degrade in presence of very noisy sinograms, as in the case of Positron Emission Tomography (PET) imaging, where well known physical effects limit the spatial resolution. Exploiting the identification between Radon and Hough sinograms proved in this paper, for a simple and synthetic example we have here shown that improvements can be obtained by using the Hough procedure with an optimal threshold to invert a Radon sinogram. Further studies should be aimed at testing this computational method in realistic PET conditions.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
Our collegues and friends Filippo De Mari, Ernesto De Vito and Nicola Pinamonti (Universit\`{a} di Genova)
are kindly acknowledged for their valuable suggestions.
\newpage
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Radio AGN have always held an important place in our understanding of AGN and their link to galaxy evolution. Among the first active galaxies to be discovered following the opening of the radio window in first half of the 20th century
\citep{bolton49}, it was soon recognised that they are associated with giant elliptical
galaxies \citep{matthews64}. Their extraordinary luminosities at radio wavelengths also mean that they stand out at high redshifts. In this way, they act as important signposts to the early Universe, in particular probing the evolution of the most massive galaxies in some of the highest density environments \citep{mccarthy93,miley08}. Most recently it has been acknowledged that the mechanical energy imparted by the expanding jets and lobes is one of the most important forms of AGN-induced feedback. This is because it prevents the hot X-ray emitting gas of the host galaxies and clusters from cooling to form stars, and thereby influences the shape of the high luminosity end of the galaxy luminosity function \citep[e.g.][]{benson03,mcnamara07}. In addition, the jets drive massive outflows
of warm, neutral and molecular gas that can potentially influence the star formation histories of the central bulge regions of galaxies
\citep{holt03,morganti05,holt08,morganti13}.
The physics of the exquisite jets and lobes of relativistic particles that produce the radio emission, and how these components interact with their gaseous environments, has been a major focus for many detailed studies at radio wavelengths. However, much of our current understanding of the fuelling and triggering of the activity in radio AGN has been derived from observations at other wavelengths. These include: optical and infrared observations of the host galaxies; X-ray, optical and infrared observations of the nuclei; and X-ray and optical observations of the large-scale environments.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{llllllll}
\hline
& &\multicolumn{6}{c}{\bf References} \\
{\bf Sample} &{\bf Selection} &{\bf Mast.} &{\bf Radio} &{\bf Opt.} &{\bf NIR} &{\bf MFIR} &{\bf Xray} \\
\hline \\
{\bf 2Jy} &$S_{2.7GHz} > 2$Jy &1,9, &2,3, &6,7 &10 &5,11, &14,15, \\
Dicken &$0.05 < z < 0.7$ &40 &4,5, &8,9 & &8,12, &38 \\
et al. (2009) &$\delta < +10^{\circ}$ & &39 & & &13 & \\
&$\alpha^{4.8}_{2.7} > +0.5$ & & & & & & \\
&($F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$) & & & & & & \\
\hline \\
{\bf 3CR} &$S_{178MHz} > 9$Jy &16,17, &19,20, &23,24, &26,27, &30,31, &33,34,\\
Buttiglione &$z < 0.3$ &18 &21,22 &25 &28,29 &32,11, &35,36, \\
et al. (2009) &$\delta > -5^{\circ}$ & & & & &12,34 &37,38\\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Selection criteria and references for the two main samples of radio AGN considered in this review. Note that both
of these samples were selected from larger master samples with less restrictive selection criteria, the
references for which are given in column 3. Columns 4 to 8 give the references for the optical, radio,
near-IR, mid- to far-IR (MFIR), and X-ray data for the samples. Reference key: 1. \citet{wall85}; 2. \citet[][and references therein]{morganti93};
3. \citet{morganti97a}; 4. \citet{morganti99}; 5. \citet{dicken08}; 6. \citet[][and references therein]{tadhunter93}; 7. \citet{shaw95}, 8. \citet{morganti97b}; 9. \citet{tadhunter98}; 10. \citet{inskip10}; 11. \citet{dicken12}; 12.\citet{dicken14}; 13. \citet{dicken16}; 14. \citet{siebert96}; 15. \citet{mingo14}; 16. \citet{bennett62a}; 17. \citet{bennett62b}; 18. \citet{spinrad85}; 19. http:$//$www.jb.man.ac.uk$/$atlas
; 20. \citet{black92}; 21. \citet{leahy97}; 22. \citet[][and references therein]{hardcastle97}; 23. \citet{buttiglione09}; 24. \citet{buttiglione10};25. \citet{buttiglione11}; 26. \citet{lilly84}; 27. \citet{madrid06}; 28. \citet{donzelli07}; 29. \citet{baldi10}; 30. \citet{haas04}; 31. \citet{ogle06}; 32. \citet{dicken10}; 33. \citet{hardcastle06}; 34. \citet{hardcastle09}; 35. \citet{massaro10}; 36. \citet{massaro12}; 37. \citet{massaro15}; 38. \citet{ineson15}; 39. \citet{tzioumis02}; 40. \citet{diserego94}.}
\label{samples}
\end{table}
Aside from their high radio luminosities, perhaps the most important feature that the majority of radio AGN have in common is that they are associated with massive early-type galaxies. This feature holds considerable advantages for investigating the triggering of the AGN activity, since it allows relatively ``clean'' searches to be made for the morphological, star formation, and gas content signatures of the triggering events. This is in contrast to Seyfert galaxies, for example, which are more commonly associated with spiral galaxy hosts \citep[e.g.][]{adams77}; the morphological complexity of such hosts, coupled with the large gas reservoirs of their quiescent disks and associated star formation activity, make it challenging to disentangle the triggering events from the normal, non-AGN-related
evolution of their host galaxies.
Two of the key outstanding questions for radio AGN are as follows.
\begin{itemize}
\item What do their radio morphological and optical spectroscopic classifications imply about the fuelling and evolution of their activity?
\item How are radio AGN triggered, and how does the triggering tie in with the evolution of their host galaxies?
\end{itemize}
Answering these questions is crucial, for example, if we want to properly incorporate radio AGN into
models of galaxy evolution. It has become clear that addressing them requires a multi-wavelength approach that encompasses not only deep radio and optical observations, but also observations at X-ray and infrared wavelengths. Therefore this is a field that has particularly benefitted from the availability of large space observatories such as Chandra, XMM, Spitzer and Herschel over the last 20 years. At the same time, deeper and higher resolution optical observations with 8m-class telescopes and the Hubble Space Telescope (HST) respectively have allowed the host galaxy morphologies to be examined in unprecedented depth. Concerted efforts have also been made to improve the completeness of optical spectroscopic classifications for samples of radio AGN.
In this article I review the considerable progress that has been made in the study of radio AGN and their host galaxies based on deep multi-wavelength observations with ground- and space-based observatories over the last 20 years. I take the approach of concentrating on modest-sized samples of radio AGN selected from radio surveys with relatively bright radio flux limits, in particular the southern 2Jy sample of \citet{dicken09}, and the northern 3CR\footnote{It is important to distinguish between the 3CR sample \citep[][see Table \ref{samples}]{bennett62a,bennett62b} and the 3CRR sample of \citet{laing83}. The latter has has more restrictive selection criteria: flux densities $S_{178MHz} > 10.9$~Jy, declinations $\delta > 10^{\circ}$, and Galactic latitudes $|b| > 10^{\circ}$; the 3CRR sample selection is also based on higher quality radio data.} sample
of \citet{buttiglione09}; full details of the selection criteria and references for these samples are given in Table \ref{samples}. I also concentrate on objects at low- to intermediate-redshifts ($z < 0.7$) because this ensures a high degree of completeness in optical spectroscopic classifications and in the detection of individual objects at X-ray and infrared wavelengths. I aim to fill an important gap between highly detailed studies of individual iconic radio AGN in the local universe such as Centaurus A and Cygnus A, and the more statistical, but less detailed, studies of much larger samples of radio AGN selected using a combination of deep wide field optical spectroscopic and radio
surveys.
No single review can encompass all aspects of radio AGN. In particular, this review will not consider the detailed physics of the synchrotron-emitting jets and lobes, radio galaxies at high redshifts ($z > 0.7$), or the feedback effect of the expanding radio components. These aspects are covered by excellent reviews elsewhere: \citet{miley80} and \citet{worrall09} review the detailed jet/lobe physics from radio and X-ray perspectives; \citet{miley08} review high redshift radio galaxies; \citet{mcnamara07} review the impact of the radio sources on the hot ISM of the host galaxies and galaxy clusters; and
\citet{fabian12} presents a broad overview of the AGN feedback effect. Readers might
also find the detailed reviews by \citet{israel98} and \citet{carilli96} on, respectively, the archetypal FRI and FRII sources Centaurus A and Cygnus A useful. Finally, \citet{heckman14} present a comprehensive overview of the key results on nearby AGN ($z < 0.2$) from the Sloan Digital Sky Survey (SDSS), which helps to
place radio AGN in the broader context of other AGN populations.
Throughout this review I assume a cosmology with $H_0 = 71$ km s$^{-1}$ Mpc$^{-1}$, $\Omega_m = 0.73$ and $\Omega_{\lambda} = 0.27$, and a spectral index of $\alpha = 0.7$ (for $F_{\nu} \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$) when converting radio fluxes between different frequencies.
\section{AGN and jet properties}
\label{sec:1}
Before considering their detailed properties, it is important to start by defining
radio AGN as a class. One approach is to use the
shapes of the AGN spectral energy distributions (SEDs), for example defining radio AGN to have a minimum ratio of radio to optical luminosity \citep[e.g. $R = L_{5GHz}/L_B > 10$:][]{kellermann89}. However, the disadvantage of this method is that the optical AGN luminosity estimates may be affected by dust obscuration --- a particular problem for narrow-line AGN --- and contamination
by the direct starlight of the host galaxies. There is also evidence that the
radio-to-optical luminosity ratio that defines the boundary between
radio-loud and radio-quiet AGN increases substantially towards low AGN luminosities and Eddington ratios \citep{sikora07,chiaberge11}. Use of a mid-IR-to-radio flux ratio \citep[e.g. $q_{24} = L_{24\mu m}/L_{1.4 GHz}$:][]{appleton04,ibar08} would avoid the extinction problem; however, in this case there is the potential for strong contamination of the mid-IR luminosities by star formation in the host galaxies.
An alternative to the SED-based approach is to use a single radio power cut above which an AGN can be considered as
radio-loud. This is the approach adopted for this review: I define a radio AGN to have a monochromatic radio luminosity measured at 1.4~GHz of $L_{1.4GHz} > 10^{24}$~W Hz$^{-1}$. Although this cut may seem arbitrary given
that the general population of AGN shows a continuous range of radio power, it does have some physical basis in the sense that the populations of objects in the local universe that are generally considered radio-quiet in terms of AGN properties, such as starburst galaxies and classical, UV-selected Seyfert galaxies, have steeply declining luminosity functions above $L_{1.4GHz} = 10^{23}$~W Hz$^{-1}$; such objects are rare above
$L_{1.4GHz} = 10^{24}$~W Hz$^{-1}$ \citep{meurs84,condon89,sadler02}.
In what follows I will also sometimes draw a distinction between luminous, quasar-like AGN and their less luminous counterparts.
Originally quasars were defined by their star-like appearance in optical images. However, with the detection and characterisation of the
underlying host galaxies, it has become clear that quasars represent the higher luminosity end of a general AGN
population that shows a continuous range of luminosities. Here I define quasars to have bolometric luminosity $L_{bol} > 10^{38}$~W. Roughly, this corresponds
to 2 -- 10 keV X-ray luminosities $L_{X-ray} > 10^{37}$~W, optical absolute magnitudes $M_B < -23$ and
optical [OIII]$\lambda$5007 emission line luminosities $L_{[OIII]} > 10^{35}$~W, depending on the precise SEDs and
bolometric correction factors assumed.
However, I will not distinguish between broad-line radio galaxies (BLRG: see below for description) and radio-loud quasars, because there is a significant overlap in the properties of these two groups, and some BLRG show evidence for relatively high levels of dust extinction \citep[e.g.][]{osterbrock76} consistent with them being partially obscured quasars; I will refer to these objects collectively as BLRG/Q sources, but they also sometimes
labelled broad-line objects (BLO).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline \\
{\bf Abbr.} &{\bf Meaning} &{\bf Ref} \\
\hline \\
NLRG &Narrow-line radio galaxy &1 \\
BLRG &Broad-line radio galaxy &2 \\
WLRG &Weak-line radio galaxy &3 \\
SLRG &Strong-line radio galaxy &4 \\
Quasar &Quasi-stellar radio source &5 \\
LEG &Low-excitation galaxy &6 \\
HEG &High-excitation galaxy &6 \\
ELEG &Extreme low-excitation galaxy &6 \\
BLRQ/Q &Broad-line radio galaxy or quasar &7 \\
BLO &Broad-line object &6 \\
OVV &Optically violently variable (quasar) &8 \\
\hline
FRI &Fanaroff-Riley class I source &9 \\
FRII &Fanaroff-Riley class II source &9 \\
FR0 &Fanaroff-Riley class 0 source &10 \\
FSRQ &Flat-spectrum radio-loud quasar &11 \\
SSRQ &Steep-spectrum radio-loud quasar &11 \\
CSS &Compact steep spectrum radio source &12 \\
GPS &Gigahertz-peaked radio source &13 \\
FD &Fat-double radio source &14 \\
RD &Relaxed-double radio source &15 \\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the main abbreviations of the labels used to classify radio AGN. The top half of the
table relates to optical classifications, while the lower half relates to radio classifications. The final column gives references to some of the first uses of the labels. Reference key: 1. \citet{costero77}; 2. \citet{osterbrock76}; 3.\citet{tadhunter98}; 4. \citet{dicken14}; 5. \citet{schmidt63}; 5. \citet{buttiglione10}; 7. \citet{dicken09}; 8. \citet{penston71}; 9. \citet{fanaroff74}; 10. \citet{ghisellini11}; 11. \citet{urry95}; 12. \citet{fanti90}; 13. \citet{odea91}; 14. \citet{owen89}; 15. \citep{leahy93}.
Note that LEGs and HEGs are sometimes labelled LERGs (low excitation radio galaxies) and HERGs (high excitation radio galaxies)
in the literature.}
\label{abbr}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Classification}
\label{sec:1.1}
In many sciences, including astronomy, the classification of a phenomenon often precedes its
interpretation in terms of the underlying mechanisms. Faced with a diverse phenomenon, the process of classification
is an attempt to sort things out, a first step in elucidating underlying patterns of behaviour. While the classifications
themselves remain relatively fixed, their interpretation in terms of the underlying physical processes, structures, geometries etc.
may not be unique and may change with time. For these reasons it is important to keep the classifications separate from
the interpretations. In this sub-section I summarise the radio and optical classifications of
radio AGN; possible interpretations are then discussed in the following sub-sections. For ease of reference, the labels used to classify radio AGN are summarised in Table \ref{abbr}.
An interesting feature of classification in astronomy is that a particular object may me classified in different
ways at different wavelengths. For radio AGN some of the greatest insights have been obtained when attempting to understand the
relationships between their classifications at the different wavelengths.
The main radio and optical classifications of radio AGN are illustrated in
Figure \ref{class}.
The radio classification of radio AGN followed the development of large radio interferometers in the 1970s that were able to map the extended radio-emitting structures in some detail. It was found that extragalactic radio sources are generally double in character, with synchrotron-emitting lobes that sometimes contain
compact higher surface brightness concentrations called hot spots, connected to radio cores sources
in the nuclei of the galaxies by jets \citep[e.g.][]{miley80}. The radio structures often extend on scales that are larger than the host galaxies ($\sim$50~kpc to 1~Mpc).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure1.pdf}
\caption{The main radio and optical classifications of radio AGN. Left: radio morphological classifications. Right: optical spectroscopic classifications. The dashed lines indicate
links between the radio and optical classifications. Credits: the radio images were taken from
http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/atlas.}
\label{class}
\end{figure}
One of the
main radio morphological classifications is that of \citet{fanaroff74}, who
divided objects according to whether the distance between the highest surface brightness extended radio features
on either side of the nucleus was more or less than 50\% of the total diameter of the radio source, corresponding
to the FRII and FRI classifications respectively (see Figure \ref{class} for examples). Fanaroff \& Riley showed that the FRII sources have higher radio powers on average than FRI sources, with the division between the two types occurring at a radio power of $L_{178MHz} \sim 10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$ (or $L_{1.4GHz} \sim 3\times10^{25}$ W Hz$^{-1}$). However, it was already recognised by Fanaroff \& Riley
that a minority of sources ($\sim$17\% in their sample) could not be unambiguously assigned to either the FRI or the
FRII class. Certainly, with the higher resolution radio maps available since the early 1980s it has become clear that
some sources have an apparently hybrid FRI/FRII character (see the example of Hercules A in Figure \ref{hera}). Also, the radio power
division is not sharp: some sources with an FRII morphology have radio powers well below
$L_{178MHz} = 10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$, and vice versa. Some ambiguity in this classification may be caused by the fact that,
with the availability of higher resolution radio maps,
the original quantitative criterion of Fanaroff \& Riley has often been replaced by a subjective assessment of whether the morphology of a source appears ``edge brightened'' or ``edge darkened''.
Although the FRI/FRII classification is the most common, other radio morphological classifications are also used\footnote{See http:$//$www.jb.man.ac.uk$/$atlas
for a more detailed discussion of radio
classifications schemes.}. For example, some radio sources resemble double-lobed, edge-brightened FRII sources, with similar steep-spectrum
radio synchrotron emission, but have much smaller linear diameters. The class of compact steep-spectrum (CSS) sources has been defined \citep[see][]{fanti90,odea98} to include steep spectrum radio sources with total diameters $D \le 20$~kpc. Further diversity in the radio classification is added by objects that, rather than showing the classical double-lobed
morphology, exhibit a core-jet or core-halo structure \citep[e.g.][]{antonucci85a}. Finally,
some extended double-lobed radio sources have been classified as ``fat doubles'' (FD) based on the fact that their lobes are unusually extended in the direction
perpendicular to the axis defined by the radio jets \citep{owen89}. Such sources are also sometimes labelled
``relaxed doubles'' (RD) on the basis that their radio lobes lack bright hotspots and jets \citep{leahy93}. However, both the fat and the relaxed classifications lack clear, quantitative
definitions.
In addition to the morphological classifications, radio sources are also classified on the
basis of their long wavelength SED shapes, often quantified in terms of the spectral index ($\alpha$) of a power law fitted to their radio spectra when expressed in frequency units ($F_\nu \propto \nu^{-\alpha}$). Flat- and steep-spectrum radio
sources are defined to have spectral indices smaller or greater than a particular limiting value (typically $\alpha_{lim} \sim 0.5$,
but definitions vary). It is notable that, whereas steep-spectrum radio sources are commonly associated with FRI, FRII
or CSS radio morphologies, flat-spectrum sources are generally core dominated, appearing as core-jet or core-halo
sources in high resolution very long baseline interferometry (VLBI) observations \citep[e.g.][]{antonucci85a}. However, some
radio sources have more complex radio spectra that cannot be approximated using a simple power-law fit. In particular, the
GHz-peaked sources (GPS) have radio spectra that peak at GHz frequencies and decline at higher and lower frequencies \citep{bolton63}; such spectra are often attributed to synchrotron self-absorption effects \citep{kellermann66}.
Morphologically, GPS sources often show double-lobed radio structures that are even more compact
($D \le 1$~kpc) than those of CSS sources\footnote{ Since the GPS and related CSS sources show strong morphological similarities with their more extended counterparts \citep{odea98,tzioumis02}, and are thought to represent radio sources in a young evolutionary phase \citep{fanti95,owsianik98,polatidis03}, in most of this review I will not distinguish them from the extended sources. However, note that the detection of GSP/CSS sources in flux-limited samples may be affected by
selection effects related to the strong interactions between the compact radio sources and dense ISM in the central regions of the galaxies \citep{tadhunter11,morganti11,dicken12}.}.
Most optical classifications of radio AGN rest on their emission line properties.
In the 1970s Osterbrock and colleagues identified a host of
narrow emission lines in several radio galaxies that they used to measure key properties of the narrow line region (NLR) such
as reddening, density and temperature \citep[e.g.][]{osterbrock75}. Paralleling the classification of Seyfert galaxies
into Seyfert type 1 and Seyfert type 2, based on respectively the presence or absence of broad ($FWHM > 2000$~km s$^{-1}$) permitted lines in the spectra \citep{khachikian71}, they also divided the radio galaxies into two types:
broad-line radio galaxies \citep[BLRG][]{osterbrock76} and narrow-line radio galaxies \citep[NLRG:][]{costero77}, with BLRG showing spectral similarities to
quasars, but having less luminous AGN. Collectively the NLRG and BLRG/Q spectroscopic classes can be labelled as strong-line radio galaxies (SLRG).
By the late 1970s, however, it became clear that the NLRG/BLRG/Q classification does not capture the full spectral diversity of the radio AGN population: in a study of 3CR radio galaxies \citet{hine79} recognised a new class of objects (labelled ``Class B'') that have ``only the absorption spectra typical of giant elliptical galaxies or else very weak [OII]$\lambda$3727''.
Understanding these objects, and how they relate to the SLRG, has been a major focus of
research on radio AGN in the last 20 years; over this period improved spectroscopic data has allowed
more quantitative classification schemes to be developed. Such objects are now identified in samples of radio AGN on the
basis of their low [OIII]$\lambda$5007 equivalent widths (e.g. the weak-line radio
galaxy [WLRG] classification of Tadhunter et al. 1998) or their low excitation/ionization emission line spectra (e.g. the low excitation galaxy [LEG] class of Buttiglione et al. 2010), or one or other of [OIII] equivalent width and excitation/ionization criteria \citep{laing94,jackson97,best12}.
The different methods used to classify the Class B/WLRG/LEG objects have the potential to lead to ambiguity. Fortunately, most objects classified as WLRG on the basis of their low equivalent width [OIII] emission would be also be classified as LEG on the basis of the low excitation/ionization of their emission line spectra, as quantified using emission line ratios and diagnostic diagrams. Indeed, the [OIII] equivalent width is strongly correlated with excitation/ionization state in the radio AGN population (see Figure 1 of Best et al. 2012). However,
the LEG and WLRG classifications are not exactly the same, and a minority of objects classified as LEG are not classified as WLRG. For example,
in the study of \citet{buttiglione10} a few of the objects classified as LEGs on the basis of their low excitation/ionization emission line spectra have relatively strong, high equivalent width [OIII] emission lines (e.g. 3C84\footnote{N.B. This object would also be classified as a BLRG
on the basis of its broad Balmer emission lines.}, 3C153, 3C196.1, 3C349).
The data in Buttiglione et al. (2009,2011) can be used to make a more quantitative comparison between the classification schemes. Taking the 99 3CR radio AGN with redshifts $z < 0.3$ in the Buttiglione et al. (2010,2011) study with secure spectroscopic classifications, 2\% are classified as star forming objects, 46\% as LEGs\footnote{This includes the
3 objects classified by \citet{capetti11} as extreme low excitation radio galaxies (ELEGs).}, 33\% as
high excitation galaxies (HEGs), and 18\% as broad line objects (BLOs). In comparison, according to the WLRG/NLRG/BLRG/Q classification scheme of \citet{tadhunter98}, 32\% of the same objects would be classified as WLRG, 48\% as NLRG and 19\% as BLRG/Q objects. Overall, 65\% of the 43 objects classified as LEGs by Buttiglione et al. would be classified as WLRG based on their [OIII] equivalent withs.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure2.png}
\caption{Emisssion line ratio diagnostic diagrams for 3CR radio galaxies from \citet{buttiglione10}. In all of
the diagrams the blue circles indicate HEGs, the red squares LEGs, the green crosses objects
in which the ionization of the NLR gas has a significant contribution from stellar photoionization, and the black triangles indicate objects that lack measurements of one of the diagnostic ratios. The dotted line indicates the division between LEGs and HEGs, and the curved black line shows the division between AGN and star forming galaxies. In the $[NII]/H\alpha$ vs $[OIII]/H\beta$ diagram the area between the curved solid and dashed lines indicates the region containg objects with composite AGN/stellar photoionization spectra, while the inclined solid black lines in the other two diagrams indicate the division between Seyfert galaxies and LINERs \citep[from][]{kewley06}. Credits: this figure was originally published as Figure 7 in \citet{buttiglione10}.
}
\label{diagnostics}
\end{figure}
An advantage of the \citet{buttiglione10} scheme is that it is based on a clear, quantitative criterion that is motivated by the positions of the points on emission line diagnostic diagrams (see Figure \ref{diagnostics}).
In this scheme LEGs and HEGs are classified according to their excitation indices ($EI$):
\begin{eqnarray}
EI & = & log([OIII]/H\beta) - 1/3(log([NII]/H\alpha)+ \\
& & log([SII]/H\alpha)+log([OI]/H\alpha)) \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $[OIII]/H\beta$ represents the ratio of the flux of the [OIII]$\lambda$5007 line to that of the $H\beta$ line, while $[NII]/H\alpha$, $[SII]/H\alpha$ and $[OI]/H\alpha$ represent respectively the ratios of the fluxes of [NII]$\lambda$6583, [SII]$\lambda\lambda$6717,6731 and [OI]$\lambda$6300 lines to that of H$\alpha$; LEGs are defined to have $EI < 0.95$\footnote{\citet{buttiglione10} and \citet{capetti13} also distinguish a class of radio AGN
showing extremely low excitation emission line spectra that they label extreme low excitation galaxies (ELEGs). However,
in what follows I make no distinction between LEGs and ELEGs and label them collectively as LEGs.}, while HEGs are defined to have $EI > 0.95$.
Importantly, there is evidence that the distribution of excitation class in the sample is bimodal, with one peak representing the HEGs/BLO and the other the LEGs. However, a disadvantage of this method is that it requires accurate measurements of all the
lines involved in the excitation index. For objects at the lower end of the [OIII] equivalent width (EW) distribution this information is difficult to obtain, since several (or all) of the emission lines are undetected or have flux measurements with large uncertainties. For this reason, 14 (12\%) of the 113 3CR objects with redshifts $z < 0.3$ in the full sample of Buttiglione et al. (2010,2011), lack spectroscopic classifications. The latter objects would be classified as WLRG in the Tadhunter et al. (1998) scheme, leading to 43\% of the full sample of Buttiglione et al. (2009,2010,2011) being classified as WLRG.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lllll}
Type &Sample (N) & \%WLRG & \%NLRG & \%BLRG/QSO \\
\hline \\
FRI &3CR (22) &100 &0 &0 \\
&2Jy (15) &100 &0 &0 \\
FRII &3CR (78) &24 &54 &21 \\
&2Jy (39) &23 &41 &36 \\
CSS/GPS &3CR (4) &25 &75 &0 \\
&2Jy (7) &0 &71 &29 \\
FRI/FRII &3CR (5) &60 &40 &0 \\
&2Jy (4) &100 &0 &0 \\
Other &3CR (4) &25 &25 &50 \\
&2Jy (2) &0 &0 &100 \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparisons between the radio and optical classifications
for objects in the $z < 0.3$ 3CR sample (Buttiglione et al. 2009, 2010, 2011) and the $z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample \citep{tadhunter98}. In the second column the number in brackets gives the size of the sub-sample. Note that
the ``Other'' classification in the final two rows includes objects with core/halo, core/jet or uncertain, often irregular, radio morphologies that defy clear classification, and objects without the high resolution data required
to make the morphological classification. Note that two of the NLRG objects have narrow line ratios that lead to their
classification as star forming (SF) objects in \citet{buttiglione10}.}
\label{class_comparison}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Therefore a major advantage of the alternative technique of using an upper limiting [OIII] EW is that it captures the objects with low EW or undetected [OIII] that cannot be classified on the basis of excitation class. On the other hand, using a particular [OIII] equivalent width limit ($EW_{[OIII]} < 10$~\AA\, in the case of Tadhunter et al. 1998) is somewhat arbitrary because, while there is some
evidence for bi-modality in the [OIII] emission line luminosities and equivalent withs for the high radio power end of the 2Jy sample, at low radio powers the distribution [OIII] equivalent widths appears continuous. Also, the equivalent width of [OIII] depends not only on the [OIII] emission line flux but also on the flux of the underlying stellar continuum. The latter may vary from
object to object (for a given [OIII] luminosity), and be subject to aperture and reddening effects.
An important general point about the LEG and WLRG classes is that, while their emission line ratios are similar to the those of the LINER class of radio-quiet AGN \citep{heckman80}, there are differences in terms of emission line luminosity. As pointed out by \citet{capetti13}, many of the LEGs in the 3CR sample have emission line luminosities that are comparable with those of Seyfert galaxies, but much higher than those of LINERs; the same is true of many of the 2Jy radio AGN classified as WLRG by \citet{tadhunter98}.
One further classification method is based on optical variability. A subset of objects --- labelled blazars --- exhibit extreme variability at optical wavelengths. This class includes BL Lac objects and optically violently variable (OVV) quasars, with the two groups separated on the basis that BL Lac objects show emission lines that are weak relative to the underlying featureless continuum (e.g. $EW < 5$\AA\,: Urry \& Padovani 1995), whereas OVV quasars exhibit broad emission lines as well as a strong non-stellar continuum; a relatively high degree of optical polarisation is also common in both of the latter groups. Moreover, most such objects are
flat-spectrum radio sources with core/halo or core/jet morphologies.
Finally, it is important to consider the degree to which the various optical and radio classifications are correlated. Table \ref{class_comparison} shows the frequency of the different optical spectroscopic classifications for FRI, FRII, CSS/GPS, and hybrid FRI/FRII or uncertain radio morphological classifications in both the full $z < 0.3$ 3CR sample of Buttiglione et al. (2009,2011: 113 objects) and the full $z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample of Tadhunter et al. (1998: 66 objects)\footnote{Note that this sample extends to lower redshifts than the $0.05 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample of \citet{dicken09} described in Table 1}. The most striking feature of this comparison is that {\it all} the objects unambiguously classified as FRI radio sources are WLRG; none are classified as BLRG/Q\footnote{One object deserves particular mention here: 3C84 (also known as NGC1275). This object was originally classified as an FRI by \citet{fanaroff74}, but shows broad Balmer emission that lead to a BLRG optical classification. Also, as expected for a BLRG, it has luminous narrow lines, albeit of low ionization (hence the LEG classification of 3C84 by Buttilgione et al. 2010). On the basis of these properties, 3C84 could be considered as the {\it only} FRI object in the combined 3CR and 2Jy
sample classified as a SLRG. However, its radio structure is highly peculiar, with a strong, highly variable flat spectrum core, an inner steep spectrum double structure, and an outer halo \citep{pedlar90}. Therefore, its radio morphological classification must be regarded as uncertain; it is certainly not a typical FRI source.}. In addition, all SLRG have FRII or CSS/GPS radio morphologies, apart from a small minority that have hybrid FRI/FRII or ambiguous morphologies. It is also clear that, while the majority of FRII sources are SLRG, a significant minority ($\sim$24\%) are WLRG.
\subsection{Orientation-based unification I: SLRG}
\label{sec:1.2}
The orientation-based unified schemes were developed following the recognition in the late 1970s and early 1980s that the continuum emission from AGN is highly anisotropic. In the case of radio AGN, there are two types of anisotropy to consider. First, the {\it beaming} of the non-thermal synchrotron emission due to the bulk relativistic motions of the jets in the core regions of the sources. Direct evidence for the bulk relativistic motions and beaming is provided by the detection of apparently superluminal velocities in VLBI observations of the radio cores of blazar-like objects \citep{cohen77}, and the detection of a polarisation asymmetries in the radio lobes of radio-loud quasars that correlate with sidedness of the inner radio jets \citep{garrington88,laing88}. Second, the {\it blocking} effect of dust and gas in the circum-nuclear dust structures that are often characterised as tori. The presence of this form of anisotropy is supported by detection of significant optical polarisation that is aligned perpendicular to the radio axes in nearby radio galaxies \citep{antonucci82,antonucci84}, the detection of broad emission lines in the polarised intensity spectra of nearby Seyfert galaxies and NLRG \citep{antonucci84,antonucci85b,ogle97,cohen99}, and
the detection of ``ionisation cones'' in narrow-band emission line images of Seyfert galaxies \citep[e.g.][]{pogge88,tadhunter89b} and radio galaxies \citep{jackson98}. The effect of such blocking is to heavily attenuate both
the continuum and broad line region (BLR) emission of the AGN at UV and optical wavelengths in objects for which the radio
jet/torus axis is pointing at a large angle to the line of sight.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure3.pdf}
\caption{Schematic showing the main elements of the orientation-based unified schmes for (a) SLRG/FRII objects, and (b) WLRG/FRI objects. The blue solid arrows indicate the directions from which different classes of objects might be observed, while curved dashed lines indicate the polar diagram of the beamed radio jet emission;
narrow-line region (NLR) clouds are indicated by turquoise circles.}
\label{unification}
\end{figure}
The anisotropic AGN continuum emission can help to explain some of the observed diversity in the properties of the radio AGN. Perhaps the most ambitious anisotropy-based unified scheme for radio AGN involves both forms of anisotropy, and attempts to explain the relationship between steep-spectrum radio-loud quasars (SSRQ), flat-spectrum radio-loud quasars (FSRQ), and radio galaxies, \citep{barthel89}. This scheme is shown schematically in Figure \ref{unification}(a). The basic idea is that, for a given radio power, the different classes of radio sources are all drawn from the same parent population with similar
central AGN properties, and the differences between their radio and optical properties are explained in terms of anisotropy and orientation. In this scheme, the relative proportions of FSRQ, SSRQ/BLRG and NLRG in a particular radio AGN sample is set by the opening
half-angles of both the torus ($\theta_{tor}$) and the beaming cones of the relativistic jets ($\theta_{beam} \sim \Gamma^{-1}$, where $\Gamma$ is the Lorentz factor of the bulk relativistic motions in the jet). Recent analysis of the radio and optical properties of the HEG and BLO with FRII morphologies
in the $z < 0.3$ 3CR sample is consistent with $\theta_{tor} = 50\pm5$ degrees and $\Gamma \sim$3 --- 5
\citep{baldi13}.
One way to test such schemes is to compare the statistical properties of the different classes of radio AGN in flux-limited samples selected in well-defined redshift/radio luminosity ranges. For example, \citet{barthel89} compared
the distributions of the measured (i.e. projected) linear sizes of the radio sources of the radio galaxies and the quasars in his sample of intermediate- to high-redshift ($0.5 < z < 1$) radio galaxies, and found that the radio galaxies have larger diameter radio sources on average than the quasars, as expected in the case that we have a foreshortened view of the radio sources of the quasars. However, attempts to repeat the linear diameter test on other samples of radio sources, albeit samples selected in different redshift ranges and/or with different radio flux limits, have
failed to find significant differences between the linear size distributions of radio galaxies and quasars \citep{singal93,kapahi95}.
Note that, this lack of difference between the linear size distributions is not necessarily evidence against the orientation-based unified schemes, but could rather reflect selectional biases in the samples, incompleteness
in the optical classifications of the targets, mixing up different populations of radio sources, or the effects of the radio power evolution of the sources coupled with a luminosity dependence in the opening angle of the torus \citep[e.g.][]{gopal96}.
Another statistical test involves comparing the radio powers of the extended radio lobes
of powerful radio galaxies and quasars. In this case, since the radio lobes are not thought to be undergoing bulk relativistic motions that would cause anisotropy in their radio emission, we would
expect the radio galaxies and quasars to have similar distributions of lobe power. In general, this is borne out by the observations \citep[e.g.][]{urry95}. Clearly, a major advantage of radio AGN for tests of the unified schemes is the isotropy of the emission from their radio lobes: samples selected on the basis of their low frequency radio emission --- assumed to be lobe-dominated --- can be considered orientation-independent.
The recent dramatic improvement of the optical and infrared data for samples of nearby radio sources has also allowed tests of orientation-based unification based on the optical and mid-IR emission lines and mid-IR continuum: if BLRG/Q and NLRG objects are drawn from the same parent population, on average the two groups should show similar luminosities in their narrow emission lines and mid-IR continua, assuming that the latter are emitted isotropically (i.e. they do not suffer attenuation by the circum-nuclear dust).
As one of the brightest optical emission lines that
represents the high ionization conditions typical of the NLR, the [OIII]$\lambda$5007 forbidden line was the first to be used in this way. Early results suggested that the quasars are up to an order of magnitude more luminous in [OIII] than NLRG \citep{jackson90}. In contrast, the lower ionisation [OII]$\lambda$3727 line --- which is likely to be emitted on larger scales than the [OIII] --- showed no significant difference between the two groups \citep{hes93}. Therefore, rather than providing evidence against the unified schemes, it was proposed that all, or part, of the [OIII]-emitting NLR is emitted on a relatively small scale and is subject to attenuation by the circum-nuclear dust in NLRG. This is supported by the observation of variability in the [OIII] emission lines of the BLRG 3C390.3, which provides evidence that much of the [OIII] emission in that object is emitted on a scale $r < 10$~pc \citep{clavel87,zheng95}.
However, some of the early studies that compared the [OIII] emission line luminosities of radio galaxies and quasars failed to distinguish between WLRG and SLRG. If WLRG represent a separate class of
radio AGN with intrinsically lower luminosity AGN (see discussion in section 2.4 below), this could lead to the apparent differences between the [OIII] luminosities of narrow- and broad-line objects being exaggerated \citep{laing94}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{Example mid-IR spectra of radio AGN from the 2Jy sample, illustrating the
diversity in the observed spectra. Various mid-IR fine-structure and PAH features are indicated.
See \citet{dicken12,dicken14} for further details.}
\label{mir_spectra}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Deep mid-IR spectroscopy observations taken with the IRS spectrograph on the Spitzer satellite have deepened our understanding of the degree of attenuation suffered by the [OIII] narrow line and the mid-IR continuum emission \citep{haas05,dicken14}. Figure \ref{mir_spectra} shows example Spitzer/IRS spectra for radio AGN from the 2Jy sample and illustrates the diversity in the mid-IR spectra of radio AGN. Such observations have enabled accurate measurements to be made of the mid-IR [NeIII]$\lambda$15.6$\mu$m and
[OIV]$\lambda$25.9$\mu$m fine structure lines, which are much less likely to suffer dust extinction
than the optical forbidden lines. Figure \ref{mir_corr_slrg} shows the [OIII] emission line and 24$\mu$m continuum luminosities plotted against the [OIV]$\lambda$25.9$\mu$m luminosity for complete sub-samples of 3CRR and 2Jy SLRG, with NLRG and BLRG/Q indicated by different symbols. It is clear that, on average, the NLRG fall below the correlations defined by the BLRG/Q. Under the reasonable assumption that the [OIV] emission is not significantly attenuated, this suggests that both the [OIII] and 24$\mu$m emission suffer a similar mild attenuation by factor of $\sim$2 --- 3 \citep{dicken14}\footnote{ Note that Haas et al. (2005) derive a larger attenuation factor of $\sim$7 based on a smaller, more heterogeneous sample}. This is similar to the level of [OIII] extinction deduced by \citet{baum10} and \citet{lamassa10} for samples of nearby Seyfert 2 galaxies using Spitzer/IRS data.
In fact, it is remarkable that the degree of attenuation is apparently so similar for the [OIII] and 24$\mu$m emission in the radio AGN, given that the equivalent dust extinctions expressed in magnitudes in the V-band, are $A_v \sim 1$ magnitudes and $A_v \sim 20$ magnitudes for the [OIII] emission line and 24$\mu$m continuum respectively. Therefore, if the results are interpreted solely in terms of extinction,
the [OIII] and 24$\mu$m emission must be extinguished by different dust structures, or by different parts
of the same dust structure.
For example, the 24$\mu$m continuum could be extinguished by the dust in the compact inner parts of the torus, and the [OIII]
by larger-scale dust, perhaps in the outer parts of the torus, or a kpc-scale
dust lane in the host galaxy.
However, it is not possible to entirely rule out the possibility that, rather than being due to extinction, the difference between the 24$\mu$m luminosities of the NLRG and BLRG/Q objects at fixed [OIV] luminosity is due
to contamination by beamed synchrotron emission from the radio cores, given that the degree of synchrotron contamination would be expected to be larger in the case of the BLRG/Q objects, because their jets are pointing closer to the line of sight.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure5.jpg}
\caption{Correlation plots showing comparisons between different optical and mid-IR
inidicators of intrinsic AGN power, highlighting the differences between NLRG and BLRG objects the combined 2Jy and 3CRR sample of \citep{dicken14}: (a) $L_{[OIII]}$ vs $L_{[OIV]}$, and (b) $L_{24\mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIV]}$. The dashed
lines show the linear regression fits to the BLRG/Q points. Of the two
objects highlighted in the right-hand plot, the NLRG PKS2314+03 is an object with prodigious starburst activity for which the 24$\mu$m emission is likely to be boosted by starburst heating of the near-nuclear dust, while it is suspected that the BLRG PKS1932-46 is under-luminous in 24$\mu$m emission because its AGN has recently entered a low activity state \citep{inskip07}.
See \citet{dicken14} for further details.}
\label{mir_corr_slrg}
\end{figure}
An alternative technique involves using the high spatial resolution of the HST to investigate the rate of detection of compact core sources at both optical and infrared wavelengths in samples of nearby radio sources. The bright AGN nuclei are expected to be heavily attenuated at optical wavelengths by dust in the torus for objects observed as NLRG. However, due to the decrease in dust extinction towards longer wavelengths, the torus will become more transparent in the near-IR, potentially allowing the direct detection of the compact nuclei. Early attempts to detect the compact near-IR nuclei in radio galaxies using ground-based observations produced some promising results for a few individual radio galaxies \citep{djorgovski91,simpson95}, but were hampered by the difficulty of separating the AGN nuclei from the starlight, given the relatively modest spatial resolution. Therefore the HST, with its order of magnitude better spatial resolution, has revolutionised this area \citep[see][]{baldi10,ramirez14a}. Figure \ref{compact_cores} shows the detection rate of AGN nuclei in low redshift ($z < 0.11$) NLRG as a function of wavelength from the optical to the mid-IR\footnote{Note that the mid-IR AGN detection rates are based on photometric measurements with the IRAC instrument on the Spitzer satellite. In this case, rather than using
high spatial resolution to detect the compact nuclei, the AGN are detected as an excess in the
mid-IR continuum over the flux in the starlight predicted on the basis of an
extrapolation of the near-IR starlight flux, with the latter measured from HST observations using the same aperture as used for the Spitzer/IRAC measurements \citep[see][]{ramirez14a}.}. As expected, the rate of detection
of AGN nuclei in the NLRG sources is low at optical wavelengths ($<$30\%), although
interestingly not zero. The detection rate for the NLRG then rises with increasing wavelength through the near-IR to the mid-IR bands, reaching 80\% at 2$\mu$m and 95\% at 8$\mu$m \citep{ramirez14a}. This behaviour is entirely as expected on the basis of the standard orientation-based unified schemes. The infra-red fluxes and SED shapes deduced for the nuclei of NLRG are consistent with degrees of dust extinction in the range $10 < A_v < 200$ magnitudes \citep{tadhunter99,ramirez14a}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure6.pdf}
\caption{The detection of compact cores in NLRG/HEG and WLRG/LEG from the 3CR and 3CRR samples. Left: the grey-scale images show example 2.05$\mu$m images of 3CRR galaxies from \citep{ramirez14a} for which models of the smooth underlying starlight have been subtracted to highlight the Airy rings surrounding the nuclear point sources. Right: the detection rate of nuclei as a function of wavelength in 3CR and 3CRR HEG and LEG galaxies at $z < 0.11$. Key for the points: black squares represent 3CRR WLRG/FRII sources from \cite{ramirez14a}; black circles represent 3CR NLRG/FRII from
\citet{baldi10} and \citet{chiaberge02}; open circles represent WLRG/FRII sources from \citet{baldi10} and \citet{chiaberge02}; and the open triangle represents WLRG/FRI sources from \citet{chiaberge99}. Note the increase in detection rate of compact cores with wavelength for the NLRG/FRII and
WLRG/FRII sources, and the fact that WLRG/FRI sources show a much higher detection rate of compact
cores at the shorter, optical wavelengths than the NLRG/FRII and WLRG/FRII sources. See \citet{ramirez14a} for details.}
\label{compact_cores}
\end{figure}
At this stage it is important to add a caveat about the nature of the unresolved near-IR cores detected
in NLRG. The near-IR light of type 1 AGN is dominated by the thermal emission
of dust at close to the sublimation temperature in the inner parts of the obscuring torus, rather than
accretion disk emission. Therefore it is possible that the unresolved nuclei detected in NLRG at near-IR
wavelengths represent directly transmitted dust emission from the inner parts of the torus. However, alternative possibilities include non-thermal emission from the inner synchrotron jets and light scattered
by dust in the near-nuclear regions (e.g. the far wall of the torus). Unfortunately, the recent detection of high degrees of linear polarisation in the unresolved near- and mid-IR nuclei of some NLRG \citep{tadhunter00,ramirez09,ramirez14b,lopez14} does not entirely resolve this issue, because the synchrotron, scattered AGN and transmitted AGN mechanisms could all produce significant IR
polarisation (in the latter case via the dichroic extinction effect of aligned dust grains in the torus: Ramirez et al. 2009,2014b).
Note that if the near-IR emission of NLRG were dominated by synchrotron or scattered AGN emission, the level of extinction to the AGN would be higher than estimated based on the assumption that all the near-IR core emission is directly transmitted AGN light.
It is also possible to search for direct AGN continuum emission from NLRG at harder X-ray energies ($>$2 keV), where the level of absorption by gas in the torus is reduced compared to
that at EUV and soft-X-ray wavelengths. Again this is an area that has benefitted from improvements
in technology in the last 20 years, with the launch of the Chandra and XMM satellites providing
improved spatial resolution and sensitivity compared with previous X-ray satellites. One complication of the X-ray studies is that emission from the inner non-thermal jets --- which are likely to suffer less attenuation than that of the AGN themselves --- may contribute to the X-ray
core fluxes. However, by explicitly accounting for the non-thermal component in the modelling of
the X-ray spectra, it has proved possible to detect the attenuated X-ray emission from AGN in several
NLRG: absorbed X-ray AGN components have been detected in 81\% of the 21 NLRG\footnote{Using updated optical spectral classifications from the data in Buttiglione et al. (2009,2010) and other sources.} at $z < 0.3$
in the sample of 3CRR objects studied by \citet{hardcastle09}, and in 84\% of 19 NLRG in the $0.05 < z < 0.7$
2Jy sample studied by \citet{mingo14}. Thus the X-ray results are consistent with the near- to mid-IR
results in the sense that they show the presence of heavily attenuated AGN is a high proportion of NLRG. However, for objects with both X-ray and near-IR HST observations, the attenuating HI columns are generally higher than predicted from the levels of near-IR dust extinction assuming
the standard Galactic dust-to-gas-ratio \citep{ramirez14a}. This apparent inconsistency
can be explained if AGN have a non-standard (order-of-magnitude higher) gas-to-dust ratio due
to the AGN radiation field destroying dust grains in the inner part of the torus
\citep{maiolino01}.
Despite the success of the X-ray and infrared imaging observations in detecting intrinsically luminous, obscured
AGN in several NLRG, such observations do not allow the detailed spectra of the obscured AGN to be determined --- an important step in demonstrating that the nuclei have quasar-like properties. Therefore, near-IR
spectroscopy and optical spectropolarimetry observations --- which have the potential to detect
broad permitted lines characteristic of quasars in transmitted or scattered light --- provide an important complement to the X-ray and infrared imaging observations.
Attempts have been made to detect the directly transmitted broad Pa$\alpha$ emission using K-band spectroscopy of NLRG. However, despite claims of the detections in a few nearby NLRG \citep{hill96}, the observations have a low S/N, and this technique suffers from the fact that the infrared nuclei tend to be faint relative to the starlight of the cores of the host galaxies in most objects, and the broad Pa$\alpha$ in typical type 1 AGN spectra has a low equivalent width compared with the optical Balmer lines \citep[see discussion in][]{ramirez09}. Together, these factors make the detection of broad Pa$\alpha$ in NLRG challenging, even with 8m-class telescopes.
Far more successful have been optical spectropolarimetry observations that use the alternative technique of detecting the broad Balmer lines in scattered light: there are now convincing detections of the scattered broad H$\alpha$ lines in five NLRG in the local universe \citep{antonucci84,ogle97,cohen99}. Such observations provide the most direct evidence to support the orientation-based unified schemes for SLRG, because they demonstrate that individual NLRG have nuclei with the spectral characteristics of quasars.
Although scattered broad lines have so far been detected in a only handful of the dozens of NLRG in the 3CR and 2Jy samples at low redshifts ($z < 0.2$), the relatively low detection rate cannot be taken as strong evidence against the unified schemes. This is because several factors can confound the detection scattered broad lines, including the strong dilution of the polarised light by the starlight of the host galaxies, geometrical dilution of the polarization, a lack of scattering dust in the NLR, and illuminating AGN that are at the lower end of the intrinsic luminosity range for a given radio power. Moreover, many of the 3CR and 2Jy NLRG still lack deep spectropolarimetry observations. Unfortunately, it is unlikely that there will be rapid progress in this area in the near future, since making the requisite spectropolarimetry observations of a large sample of NLRG would be prohibitively expensive in observing time with the current generation of 8m telescopes
Taken together, the statistical results from comparisons between the optical, mid-IR and radio properties of BLRG/Q and NLRG, the detection of highly attenuated AGN nuclei at X-ray, near-IR and mid-IR wavelengths in a high proportion of nearby NLRG, and the detection of polarised broad lines in scattered light in some NLRG, provide compelling evidence that the orientation-based unified schemes for SLRG work to first order: the data are consistent with the idea that all NLRG contain BLRG/Q nuclei that are obscured along our direct line of sight by circum-nuclear dust.
The unification debate for SLRG now centres on the geometry of the central obscuring region (e.g. smooth torus, clumpy torus, warped disk), and also on whether the properties of the obscuring structures change with luminosity and redshift \citep[e.g.][]{lawrence91,lawrence10,elvis12}.
\subsection{Orientation-based unification II: WLRG}
While the orientation-based unified schemes are successful in explaining the relationship between NLRG and BLRG/Q objects amongst the SLRG, they cannot readily explain the relationship between WLRG and SLRG, or between FRI and FRII sources. Although it has been proposed that the WLRG objects might be SLRG radio galaxies in which the NLR is unusually heavily obscured by circumnuclear dust \citep[e.g.][]{cao04}, the Spitzer results presented in Figure \ref{mir_corr_wlrg} demonstrate that this cannot be the case: a heavily obscured SLRG nucleus would be
expected to radiate strongly in the mid-IR continuum and emission lines, whereas the WLRG have weak
mid-IR continuum and [OIV] line emission \citep{hardcastle09,dicken14}; many of the WLRG are also weak at far-IR
wavelengths \citep{dicken09}\footnote{The exceptions are WLRG that have a strong starburst heated dust component or substantial contamination of their far-IR emission by non-thermal jet emission.}, despite the fact that their continua are often dominated by non-thermal emission \citep{dicken08,leipski09,vanderwolk10}. Similarly, the relationship between FRI and FRII sources cannot be explained in terms of orientation, because it is not possible to ``hide'' the strong radio lobe and hot spot emission typical of FRII sources in the FRI sources.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure7.pdf}
\caption{Correlation plots showing comparisons between different optical and mid-IR
inidicators of intrinsic AGN power, highlighting the differences between NLRG and WLRG objects in the combined 2Jy and 3CRR sample of \citet{dicken14}: (a) $L_{[OIII]}$ vs $L_{[OIV]}$, and (b) $L_{24\mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIV]}$.
See \citet{dicken14} for further details of sample selection.}
\label{mir_corr_wlrg}
\end{figure}
Noting that FRI sources are almost invariably associated with WLRG optical spectra, and that BL Lac objects also show low equivalent emission lines, an alternative orientation-based unified scheme (see Figure \ref{unification}(b)) has been proposed to explain the link between these two classes of objects \citep{urry91,urry95}. In this case, the required anisotropy in the optical continuum is produced entirely through the beaming effect caused by the bulk relativistic motions of the inner jets; the presence or otherwise of a central obscuring torus in such objects is controversial. The beaming that is such a key part of this scheme explains why BL Lac objects --- viewed with the line of sight close to the direction of the radio axis --- have core-dominated radio morphologies and relatively flat radio spectra; beamed jet emission also explains the relatively strong, point-like, and highly polarised optical continuum sources that are observed at optical wavelengths in such objects.
Interestingly, HST observations also reveal point-like nuclei at optical wavelengths in a high proportion of WLRG/FRI sources \citep[see Figure \ref{compact_cores};][]{chiaberge99,verdoes99,capetti02}. The strong correlations between the luminosities of the optical nuclei and those of the radio cores \citep{chiaberge99}, the optical to X-ray SED spectral indices \citep{balmaverde06}, and the detection of high degrees of optical polarization \citep{capetti07} are all consistent with the idea that the optical nuclei in the WLRG/FRI objects represent
synchrotron emission from the inner jets. At first sight the detection of the optical nuclei in FRI sources might seem to go against the orientation-based unified schemes, since the WLRG/FRI sources are considered to be the unbeamed counterparts of the BL Lac objects.
However, even in the case that the radiation from the inner jets is strongly beamed, it is expected
that {\it some} radiation will be detected from the jets in objects whose jets are pointing at a large
angle to the line of sight. Moreover, the inner synchrotron jets could extend beyond
any central obscuring tori that would otherwise block the emission of their nuclei at X-ray and optical wavelengths. Finally, as already noted, it is not clear whether the obscuring tori are present in the nuclei of typical WLRG/FRI objects.
The unification of BL Lac objects with FRI radio galaxies in the context of the orientation-based scheme shown in Figure \ref{unification}(b) can be tested in a similar way to unified scheme for SLRG: by statistical comparison of properties that are considered to be isotropic. In this case the results are mixed: while the extended
radio lobe luminosities of BL Lac objects and FRI radio galaxies appear to be similar \citep{urry95}, on average the [OIII] emission line luminosities of the BL Lac objects are significantly higher when the comparison is made for low redshift samples \citep[$z \le 0.2$:][]{urry95,wills04}\footnote{This is consistent with the idea that the relatively low equivalent widths of the optical emission lines in BL Lac objects is due to their strongly beamed optical continuum emission, rather than their low emission line luminosities.}. These results can be
reconciled if there is sufficient circum-nuclear dust to significantly obscure the [OIII] emission in the WLRG/FRI objects. Certainly some WLRG/FRI objects do have kpc-scale dust lanes \citep{dekoff00}. On the other hand, as we have already seen, most WLRG/FRI objects lack evidence for central obscuring tori.
A further relevant result is that broad permitted lines characteristic of type 1 AGN have been detected in some BL Lac objects --- most notably Bl Lac itself \citep{corbett96} and PKS0521-36 \citep{ulrich81} --- whereas, do date, there have been no convincing detections of broad permitted lines in any of the FRI objects in the 3CR and 2Jy samples\footnote{Discounting the 3C84, which, as noted above, has a peculiar radio morphology.}. Even allowing for some obscuring dust in the circum-nuclear regions, by analogy with the SLRG unification scheme, we might expect a significant fraction of the
WLRG/FRI objects --- those observed at intermediate angles (the equivalent of the steep spectrum radio-loud quasars) --- to show broad lines if these objects are truly the unbeamed counterparts of the BL Lac objects, and most BL Lac objects have a BLR in their nucleus. However, the result that FRI sources lack broad lines should be
treated with some caution, because the broad lines might be difficult to detect against the strong stellar emission of the cores of the host elliptical galaxies, especially if the AGN luminosity (including the broad-line emission) scales with the extended radio luminosity \citep{rawlings91}, such that the relatively low radio luminosity FRI sources have correspondingly low luminosity BLR emission.
Taking the results on FRI/BL Lac unification together, it seems unlikely that {\it all} BL Lac objects would
appear as FRI sources if they were observed with their radio jets pointing at a large angle to the line of
sight; however, it is entirely plausible that a {\it subset} of such objects (i.e. those with lower luminosity
[OIII] emission) can be unified with FRI sources in this way.
This leaves the WLRG/FRII sources as true misfits in terms of the orientation-based unified schemes: they cannot be readily unified with WLRG/FRI sources because of the luminosities and morphologies of their extended radio emission, yet they cannot be unified with SLRG/FRII sources because of their low [OIII] emission line luminosities, lack of broad line emission, and low mid-IR continuum and emission line luminosities. Note that the latter mid-IR properties rule out the idea that the WLRG/FRII sources contain luminous AGN that are unusually
heavily obscured, just as they do in the case of the WLRG/FRI sources.
Overall, it is clear that the orientation-based unified schemes are successful at explaining the relationship between NLRG and BLRG/Q objects in the case of SLRG, and less certainly between FRI radio galaxies and BL Lac objects in the case of WLRG. However, they cannot by themselves explain the full diversity of properties of the radio AGN population. In the following sections I discuss
other factors that are important in determining the observed properties of radio AGN; many of these have come to light in the last 20 years.
\subsection{Accretion rates and modes}
\label{sec:1.3}
Aside from anisotropy/orientation effects, it is natural to consider the possibility that the varied manifestations of the radio AGN phenomenon are related to the mechanisms that produce the AGN radiation and jets in the nuclear regions --- the so-called ``central engines'' of the AGN --- in particular, changes in rate or mode of accretion of material by the central supermassive black holes.
In this context, it is significant that there is a strong correlation between the radio morphological properties (e.g. Fanaroff \& Riley types I and II) and the optical spectroscopic properties
(e.g. WLRG/SLRG) of radio AGN (see Table \ref{class_comparison}). As we have seen, FRI radio sources are almost invariably associated with WLRG spectra, and SLRG are almost invariably associated with FRII or CSS/GPS radio sources; only the WLRG/FRII objects break the trend. This strongly suggests that radio morphological and optical spectroscopic properties are linked primarily through the natures of the central engines, rather than through external environmental factors. Note, however, that environmental factors may nonetheless affect the radio properties at some level. For example, entrainment of the relatively dense, hot ISM found at the centres of giant elliptical galaxies and clusters of galaxies may be required to explain the detailed properties of FRI jets \citep[e.g.][]{laing14}; and the confinement effect of a hot, dense ISM may act to boost the observed radio luminosity for a given intrinsic mechanical jet power (Barthel \& Arnaud 1996, but see Ramos Almeida et al. 2013).
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8.0cm]{figure8.jpg}
\caption{A plot of 1.4GHz monochromatic luminosity against absolute R-Band
magnitude for a sample of powerful radio sources in galaxy clusters, with
FRI- and FRII-class objects marked with different symbols. Credits: this figure was originally published as Figure 1 in \citet{ledlow96}.
}
\label{ledlow_owen}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Further important clues are provided by examining the links between the levels of AGN activity, the host galaxy absolute magnitudes, and the radio morphological or optical spectroscopic classifications. Such links were first discussed in detail by \citet{owen93} and \citet{ledlow96} who plotted monochromatic radio power against host galaxy absolute magnitude and identified FRI and FRII sources with separate symbols (see Figure \ref{ledlow_owen}). Essentially, their plot demonstrates that the radio power that defines the break between FRI and FRII sources increases with increasing host galaxy luminosity: FRI sources hosted by luminous (and more massive) elliptical galaxies can have higher radio powers than those hosted by less luminous galaxies, without breaching the FRI/FRII radio power limit.
A possible explanation for the trend shown in Figure \ref{ledlow_owen} in terms of the accretion processes close to the supermassive black holes was suggested by \citet{ghisellini01} who noted that the radio power could be taken as a proxy for the overall level of AGN activity, while the host galaxy absolute magnitude is related to the mass of the central supermassive black hole \citep[e.g.][]{kormendy13}. Therefore, Figure \ref{ledlow_owen} could be recast as a plot of AGN power against the black hole mass, with the dividing line between FRI and FRII sources representing a fixed ratio of the AGN power to the Eddington luminosity of the black hole. This is the first suggestion that the division between FRI and FRII sources is due to an ``Eddington switch'': a change in the nature of the accretion flow from a radiatively inefficient accretion flow (RIAF) that is geometrically thick but optically thin (FRI objects) to a standard geometrically thin but
optically thick accretion disk (FRII objects) at a critical ratio of the jet power ($Q_{jet}$) to the Eddington luminosity of the central black hole ($L_{edd}$). The critical ratio derived by \citet{ghisellini01} was in the range $10^{-3} < Q_{jet}/L_{edd} <10^{-2}$, although a more recent study by \citet{wold07} that used host galaxy velocity dispersion rather than absolute magnitude as a proxy for black hole mass found $Q_{jet}/L_{edd} \sim 5\times10^{-4}$.
Figure \ref{ledlow_owen} can also be redrawn as a plot of emission line luminosity against host galaxy absolute magnitude, this time identifying objects by their optical spectroscopic classifications rather than their radio morphologies \citep{buttiglione10}. The results for the 3CR sample are shown in Figure \ref{oiii_mh}. Just as there is a clear dividing line between FRI and FRII radio galaxies in Figure \ref{ledlow_owen}, there is a clear
demarcation between HEG and LEG objects in Figure \ref{oiii_mh}, with some evidence that the emission line luminosity that represents the
boundary between the two classifications increases with host galaxy luminosity. Again, since the [OIII] luminosity is a good indicator of overall AGN power \citep[e.g.][]{heckman05}, this trend can be interpreted in terms of an Eddington switch: LEGs are associated with radiatively inefficient accretion, and the HEG/BLOs with a standard thin accretion disk, with the transition between the two types occurring at $L_{ion}/L_{edd} \sim 10^{-3}$, where $L_{ion}$ is the ionising luminosity of the AGN. This is also consistent with the recent results of both \citet{best12} for SDSS-selected radio AGN and \citet{mingo14} for the 2Jy and 3CR samples, who find a clear division between the Eddington ratios of low- and high-excitation objects at $(L_{bol}+Q_{jet})/L_{edd} \sim 10^{-2}$, where $L_{bol}$ is the bolometric (radiative) luminosity of the AGN.
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure9.png}
\caption{[OIII] emission line luminosity plotted against the absolute H-band magnitude for
3CR sources in the sample of Buttiglione et al. (2010). The lines represent different
fractions of the ionizing luminosity relative to the Eddington luminosity of the supermassive black hole. Credits: this figure was originally published as Figure 11 in \citet{buttiglione10}.
}
\label{oiii_mh}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
Interestingly, an Eddington ratio of $\sim$10$^{-2}$ also represents the division between different accretion states in X-ray binary systems: from the low/hard to the high/soft states \citep{maccarone03}. Therefore, in terms of interpreting diagrams like Figs \ref{ledlow_owen} and \ref{oiii_mh}, analogies have often been drawn with X-ray binary systems \citep[e.g.][]{falcke04,kording06}, and it has been proposed that X-ray binaries and AGN together form part of a main sequence in black hole activity \citep{merloni03}. A potential problem with this picture is that the high/soft state in X-ray binary systems is not commonly associated with the formation of non-thermal jets. However, \citet{nipoti05} have linked radio AGN with a transitory jet flaring stage of activity as sources pass between the low/hard and high/soft states \citep[see also][]{kording06}, and radio-quiet AGN with the more usual non-flaring high/soft state. In this case, the transitory nature of jet flaring stage could be
consistent with the fact that radio-loud quasars represent $<$10\% of the full quasar population: perhaps objects cycle through radio-loud and radio-quiet phases as part a particular quasar triggering event \citep[but see][]{bessiere12}.
An important debate concerns whether the different radio AGN classifications, in particular the division between WLRG/LEG and SLRG/HEG, are related to the {\it mode} rather than the {\it rate} of accretion. On the basis that
the powers of the jets of LEGs in the 3CR sample are consistent with fuelling via Bondi accretion of the hot ISM from the X-ray haloes of the objects, whereas HEGs are too powerful to be explained in this way, \citet{hardcastle07} proposed that LEGs are associated with hot mode accretion, whereas HEGs are associated with cold mode accretion which has the capability to fuel the AGN at the requisite higher accretion rates; in this model the division between FRI and FRII sources is explained in terms of environmental effects. \citet{buttiglione10} also favoured the mode of accretion as being the dominant factor, arguing that any hot gas being accreted will not be able to cool to form a thin accretion disk and will therefore be associated with WLRG/LEG nuclear activity in radio AGN. On the other hand, cool gas in the process of being accreted will naturally form a standard accretion disk, leading to HEG-style nuclear activity.
Despite these arguments, it seems unlikely that all WLRG/LEG are fuelled by hot gas. Indeed, many have plentiful cold gas in their nuclear regions, as evidenced by nuclear dust lanes \citep{dekoff00}, at least one shows evidence at mid-IR wavelengths for a compact, warm dust structure close to the nucleus \citep[PKS0043-42:][]{ramos11b}, and the nuclear NLR of several WLRG/FRI sources --- albeit of low luminosity compared to SLRG --- appear compact and centred on nuclei in HST long-slit and imaging observations
\citep{verdoes99,capetti05}, thus providing evidence that there is at least some warm gas on a sub-100~pc scale in these objects, even if the gas masses are relatively low. Therefore, it seems more plausible that accretion rate is the dominant factor, and that some WLRG are fuelled by cold mode accretion at a relatively low rate, even if the majority are fuelled by hot mode accretion \citep[see also][]{best12}.
Until recently, most studies of hot mode accretion assumed that the hot gas accretes as a spherical, unperturbed flow at the Bondi rate \citep{bondi52}. However, recent simulations that include realistic prescriptions for cooling, heating and turbulence, provide evidence that much of the hot gas in the nuclear regions on a scale of $\sim$0.1 --- 1~kpc can condense into filaments of cool gas that fall near-radially towards the nucleus, with cloud-cloud collisions helping to dissipate any angular momentum in the gas \citep[e.g.][]{gaspari13,gaspari15}. As a result, the accretion rates associated with such chaotic cold accretion (CCA) can be orders of magnitude higher than the Bondi rate --- sufficient to trigger a quasar-like AGN. The CCA simulations --- which clearly blur the distinction between hot and cold mode accretion --- also predict the presence of large masses of cold gas
and the formation of clumpy torus-like structures close to the AGN. Since these predictions are somewhat at odds with what we observe in the majority
of WLRG/FRI objects, the applicability of CCA models to such objects is currently uncertain. Furthermore, if the CCA mechanism is as effective
as the models suggest, we would expect luminous, quasar-like AGN to be common in rich clusters of galaxies, where the densities of hot ISM are relatively high; however, this appears inconsistent with the measured environments of most SLRG (see section 3.5).
On the basis of diagrams such as Figures \ref{ledlow_owen} and Figure \ref{oiii_mh} it might seem plausible that the radio morphological and optical spectroscopic classifications of radio AGN are linked through the nature of the accretion onto the black holes via the Eddington switch i.e. FRI objects are always WLRG and are associated with low rates accretion and a radiatively inefficient accretion flow, whereas FRII objects are always SLRG and are associated with thin, radiatively efficient accretion disks.
However, the WLRG/FRII sources do not fit into this
picture. While the reason for this apparent discrepancy might be related to some aspect of the accretion flow onto the black hole that can generate powerful jets and an FRII radio morphology but not a SLRG nucleus, or perhaps to some particular combination of environmental and nuclear accretion factors, an alternative possibility is that it is due do the intermittency or even switching off the nuclear fuel supply. This possibility will be explored in the next subsection.
\subsection{Variability}
\label{sec:1.4}
All types of broad-line AGN are known to vary by up to a factor of a few at optical wavelengths on timescales of weeks to years \citep{matthews63,fitch67}. Radio AGN are no exception, and there are now detailed studies of bright, nearby BLRG that track the variability of both the broad lines and continuum, and use the time lags between the two types of emission to estimate the size of the broad-line region \citep[e.g.][]{dietrich12}.
Apart from this ``normal'' AGN variability, which is likely to be due to relatively minor changes in the accretion flow that lead to a temporary increase or decrease in luminosity of the thermal accretion disk emission and hence
the flux of ionising photons in the BLR, it is also possible that there are longer-time-scale variations in the fuelling of the AGN that lead to larger amplitude (i.e. factor of 3 or more) variations. There are two situations to consider here: high-amplitude intermittency in the fuel supply {\it within} a particular cycle of SLRG activity; and the switch-off phase at the end of a SLRG cycle, in which a longer-term scarcity of fuel causes the central AGN to shut down completely or enter
a lower activity state associated with a low Eddington ratio.
Evidence for intermittency is provided by the radio structures of some radio sources. For example, the radio structure of the WLRG Hercules A (3C348: see Figure \ref{hera}), shows hybrid FRI/FRII characteristics, including a series of bubble structures that may represent successive phases of high jet activity in the lifecycle of the source. Other objects show evidence for more than one phase of activity in the form of ``double-double'' radio structures \citep{schoenmakers00}, or high surface brightness, compact inner double structures combined with much larger-scale and lower-surface-brightness outer structures
\citep[e.g. PKS1345+12:][]{stanghellini05}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure10.jpg}
\caption{Radio image of the southern radio source Hercules~A (pink) superimposed
on an optical image of the same source. The radio image was made at frequencies between 4 and 9~GHz using a variety of VLA confirgurations, while the optical image represents a composite of images taken with the WFPC3 camera on the HST using
the F606W and F614W filters. Credit: NASA, ESA, S. Baum and C. O'Dea (RIT), R. Perley and W. Cotton (NRAO/AUI/NSF), and the Hubble Heritage Team (STScI/AURA).}
\label{hera}
\end{figure}
The observational consequences of high-amplitude changes in the fuel supply depend on the timescales of the changes, and on the AGN components being considered. Observations show that the BLR, torus, NLR, and large-scale radio-emitting lobes of radio AGN have typical radial scales of $r_{\rm BLR} \sim 0.01 - 1$ light year,
$r_{\rm torus} \sim 0.1 - 100$~pc, $r_{\rm nlr} \sim 0.001 - 3$~kpc\footnote{This is the typical scale on which the narrow-line emitting gas accessed by the nuclear apertures used for the spectroscopic classification is emitted. Many radio galaxies show lower-surface-brightness extended emission line nebulosities on much larger scales \citep[up to $\sim$100~kpc:][]{baum88,tadhunter89a}, but these are not used for the optical spectral classifications of the sources.}, $r_{\rm lobe} \sim 0.05 - 1$~Mpc, corresponding to light crossing times of $\tau_{\rm BLR} \sim 0.01 - 1$~yr,
$\tau_{\rm torus} \sim 0.3 - 300$~yr, $\tau_{\rm nlr} \sim 3 - 10,000$~yr and
$\tau_{\rm lobe} \sim 150,000 - 3\times10^6$~yr respectively.
Thus, when an AGN finally switches off due to the exhaustion of its fuel supply, this change will lead to a substantial decrease in the BLR and torus emission on a timescale of weeks to decades, in the NLR emission on a timescale of decades to thousands of years\footnote{Note that, for a typical cloud in the NLR, the time taken
for the [OIII] emission to fade following a substantial decline in the ionizing flux is negligible
compared with the light crossing time of the NLR \citep{capetti13}.}, and in the radio emission on a timescale of a hundred thousand to millions of years. It is notable that, due to their larger scales, the radio components access much longer time scales that the other components.
The different timescales of variability for the emission components on different scales in radio AGN could help to explain the apparent anomaly of the WLRG/FRII sources: perhaps these are objects in which the AGN has switched off or entered a low activity phase for a timescale of hundreds to thousands of years, such that there has been a substantial decrease in the nuclear NLR emission (hence the WLRG classification), but this information has yet to reach the hotspots in the radio lobes of the sources. This possibility has been discussed by \citet{buttiglione10} and \citet{tadhunter12}; \citet{capetti11, capetti13} have also considered the possibility that WLRG with unusually low excitation emission line spectra --- the so-called extreme low excitation radio galaxies (ELEG) --- represent objects caught in the act of the NLR switching off.
The advantage of associating the WLRG/FRII sources with the switch-off phase is that it explains their ambiguous status in the unified schemes. Moreover, in the context of explanations of both radio morphological and optical spectroscopic classifications in terms of an Eddington switch, it allows the link between FRII and SLRG, and between FRI and WLRG to be preserved, without the need to explain the WLRG/FRII sources in terms of special accretion flow physics.
It is also possible that the radio AGN classified as relaxed or fat doubles \citep{owen89}, which lack radio hotspots, but nonetheless have FRII-like radio lobes (e.g. 3C310, 3C314.1, 3C386 in the 3CR sample), represent a post-switch-off stage in the evolution of the radio sources, in which the hot spots have already responded to the decline in jet activity, but the relic lobes have not yet faded below the
flux limoit of the sample. Significantly, $\sim$48\% of all the 25 WLRG/FRII sources, but only $\sim$11\% of all the 80 SLRG/FRII sources, in the 3CR and 2Jy samples of \citet{dicken09} and Buttiglione et al. (2009, 2011) could be classified as relaxed or fat doubles.
It is also notable that spectral ageing studies of the lobes of at least two WLRG/FRII objects with relaxed radio lobes suggest that they represent
relic radio sources in which the jets switched off $\sim$6 -- 20 Myr ago \citep{mazzotta04,harwood15}.
The switch-off phase {\it must} occur at the ends of the activity cycles of all powerful radio sources. However, it is also possible that the nuclear AGN/jet activity is intermittent, and switches off for timescales
$\tau_{\rm nlr} < t_{\rm off} < \tau_{\rm lobe}$, {\it within} a full activity cycle. In this case, the fraction of FRII that are WLRG sets an upper limit on the proportion of time that the radio sources are ``off'' for timescales longer than $\tau_{nlr}$ within the cycle: $f_{\rm off} \le 0.25$ for the full 2Jy and 3CR samples\footnote{Note that WLRG with
hybrid FRII/FRI radio morphologies were counted as WLRG/FRII sources when making this estimate.}, and $f_{off} \le 0.1$ for the 29 sources at the higher radio power end of the 2Jy sample ($P_{5GHz} > 10^{26}$ W Hz$^{-1}$). These estimates are upper limits on the in-cycle intermittency because some WLRG/FRII sources may represent objects observed in the switch-off phase, and there may be other explanations for the WLRG/FRII phenomenon. We deduce from this
that the fuel supply must be steady, and the AGN ``on'', for the overwhelming majority of activity cycle. This is remarkable given that the rate of infall of gas to the nuclear regions may be clumpy rather than smooth, and the feedback effect of the jets and winds associated with the AGN may disrupt the fuel supply.
Note that, based on the existing spatially integrated spectra of radio galaxies, it is not possible to
rule out the existence high-amplitude intermittency on shorter timescales ($t_{\rm off} < \tau_{\rm nlr}$). Indeed, \citet{inskip07} have argued that the 2Jy BLRG PKS1932-46 represents a case in which the AGN has recently entered a low activity phase, but this is not yet reflected in its NLR properties, because its [OIII] and mid-IR narrow emission line luminosities
are much higher than expected from its relatively low X-ray, near-IR and mid-IR continuum luminosities, and H$\alpha$ broad-emission-line luminosity. There are also several reports in the literature of ``changing state'' AGN in which broad lines near-disappeared, or appeared, on
timescale of years to decades \citep[e.g.][and references therein]{penston84,lamassa15,macleod15}.
Before concluding that all WLRG/FRII sources represent powerful radio AGN in which the nuclear activity has switched off, either permanently of temporarily, it is important to consider some objections to this interpretation. First, it has been noted that the radio cores of WLRG/FRII sources are stronger than expected in the case that the nuclear activity has switched off \citep{buttiglione10}. Second, some WLRG/FRII appear to be in richer environments and have more luminous host galaxies than their SLRG/FRII counterparts, suggesting that the gaseous environments of the radio sources may play a role in determining whether a source appears as a WLRG/FRII \citep{hardcastle07,ramos13,ineson15}. However, neither of these objections is insurmountable. For example, in the case of the radio cores, at least some of the WLRG/FRII sources have radio
cores that {\it are} significantly weaker relative to their extended radio emission than in SLRG/FRII sources; examples from the 2Jy sample include PKS0043-42, PKS0347+05, PKS1648+05 and PKS2211-17, all of which have core-to-extended radio flux ratios measured at 2.3~GHz of $R_{2.3GHz} < 10^{-3}$
compared with a median of $R_{2.3GHz} = 3\times10^{-3}$ for the NLRG/FRII sources
in the same sample \citep{morganti97a}. In addition, FRI radio galaxies have higher core/extended
radio flux ratios on average than FRII sources \citep{morganti97a}, so if a SLRG/FRII source were to drop down to a lower level of nuclear activity consistent with it eventually becoming a WLRG/FRI source, this change would not necessarily have a dramatic effect on the radio core flux.
Considering the environments and host galaxies, it is notable that, even if WLRG/FRII sources are associated with
richer environments and more luminous host galaxies on average than SLRG/FRII sources, there is a considerable range in, and overlap between, the environments and host galaxy properties of the two groups \citep{ramos13,ineson15}. It is also possible that the level of high amplitude intermittency depends on the environment and host galaxy properties (e.g. due to the nature of the fuel supply), such that FRII sources in rich environments and with massive host galaxies are more likely to be observed in a low activity (WLRG) phase. Alternatively, the confinement effect of the dense hot gaseous haloes in rich galaxy environments may lead to the relic radio sources remaining visible for longer than they would in lower density environments \citep[see discussion in][]{murgia11}, thus making in more likely that WLRG/FRII sources will be observed in rich environments.
\subsection{Relationship to lower luminosity radio AGN samples}
\label{sec:1.6}
So far, this review has concentrated on the results for samples of nearby radio sources selected in bright, flux-limited radio surveys such as the 3CR and the 2Jy. Because such surveys select relatively high luminosity radio sources, which are rare in the local universe, the sample sizes are modest. However, cross correlation of the SDSS optical and FIRST/NVSS radio catalogues has recently allowed the selection of much larger samples of nearby radio sources ($z < 0.2$) down to lower flux densities and radio luminosities \citep{best05,best12}, albeit lacking the detailed radio and optical morphological, X-ray and infrared spectral information available for the brighter samples. It is interesting to consider how the sources selected in the bright radio samples compare with those in the SDSS-selected samples.
The homogeneous spectral data available for these SDSS-selected samples has allowed the radio luminosity functions to be derived separately for the LEG and HEG populations. The results are shown in Figure \ref{lf}, which is taken from \citet{best12}. While the HEG population starts to dominate the radio source population at the highest radio luminsoities, and the LEG population dominates at lower radio luminosities, it is interesting that both types of objects are present in the SDSS sample at all radio luminosities.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=10.0cm]{figure11.jpg}
\caption{The 1.4~GHz radio luminosity functions for LEGs (blue) and HEGs (red) derived from SDSS data by
\citet{best12}. See \citet{best12} for details. Credits: this figure was originally
published as Figure 4 in \citet{best12}.
}
\label{lf}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Although detailed radio morphological information is lacking for the SDSS-selected samples, based on the results for the 3CR and 2Jy samples, it seems highly likely that a large fraction of the LEG population at higher radio luminosities ($L_{1.4GHz} > 10^{24}$~W Hz$^{-1}$) are WLRG/FRI, with perhaps an admixture of WLRG/FRII sources, whereas the majority of the high radio power HEGs are SLRG/FRII sources. Moreover, the majority of these high radio luminosity sources are likely to be hosted by giant elliptical galaxies (see section 3.1 below). However, considerable uncertainty surrounds the natures of the HEG and LEG radio sources and their host galaxies at lower radio luminosities: for a given optical spectral
classification, do the lower power radio sources have the same radio and optical morphologies as their higher radio power counterparts? Do the luminosity functions for the HEGs and LEGs each represent uniform populations of objects?
Concentrating first on the LEG objects, there is already evidence that the natures of the radio sources associated with the LEGs change dramatically with radio luminosity. For example, a recent radio morphological study of the low radio luminosity end of the LEG population ($L_{1.4GHz} < 10^{24}$~W Hz$^{-1}$) by \citet{baldi15} shows that most of the lower radio luminosity sources are compact and lack the prominent jets and diffuse lobes typical of more powerful LEG objects. \citet{baldi15} have labelled such sources FR0 radio galaxies, in recognition of the fact that they fall outside the usual FRI/FRII classification scheme \citep[see also][]{ghisellini11,sadler14}. However, the host galaxies of most of the FR0 objects appear to be massive, early-type galaxies, just like their more powerful LEG counterparts.
The situation for the HEG sources is less clear. While the high radio luminosity end of the HEG population is dominated by FRII radio sources that are hosted by giant elliptical galaxies, the lower power end of the luminosity function of the HEGs overlaps with the high power end of the radio luminosity function of Seyfert galaxies \citep{meurs84}, which are more likely to be hosted by spiral galaxies. This raises intriguing questions about the makeup of the HEG population: is there a gradual transition between spiral and elliptical host galaxies from low to high radio powers along the HEG sequence? How do the radio morphologies change along the HEG sequence?
\section{The host galaxies and environments of radio AGN}
\label{sec:2}
The ultimate aim of studies of the host galaxies and environments of radio AGN is to understand how their AGN are triggered as part of the evolution of the general (non-active) galaxy populations. An holistic approach is required. A limited study of, say, the host galaxy morphologies alone, or the star formation properties alone, would not be sufficient. Fortunately, this is another area that has profited from observations with the new generation of ground- and space-based telescope facilities, which have provided a far more complete picture of the host galaxies than was possible in the recent past.
\subsection{Overall morphologies, light profiles, kinematics and masses}
\label{sec:2.1}
It was already clear from the earliest photographic imaging studies that radio AGN are associated with early-type host galaxies. \citet{matthews64} showed that, above a certain radio power limit, the hosts of AGN are elliptical, D, or cD galaxies, whereas at lower radio powers spiral morphologies are more prevalent.
However, there are exceptions. Table \ref{disks} shows a list of radio AGN for which extended disk or spiral components are clearly visible upon cursory inspection of optical images. Note that it is important to distinguish here between objects that show such morphologies, and those that merely harbour dust lanes that cross the nuclear regions of the otherwise elliptical host galaxies \citep{dekoff00}.
There are several points to make about the radio AGN with clearly visible disk/spiral structures: (a) they are rare ($<$5\% of the objects in the 3CR and 2Jy samples); (b) they generally fall at the lower power end of the radio AGN population; (c) they are often associated with compact or double-double radio sources; and (d) their host galaxy stellar and black hole masses
are comparable with those of the giant elliptical host galaxies of the majority of the radio AGN population
($M_{stellar} > 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$ and $M_{bh} > 10^{8}$~M$_{\odot}$). The latter point is particularly interesting because it suggests that it is only the most massive disk galaxies that are capable of hosting radio AGN; it also further reinforces the link between black hole mass and radio loudness in the AGN population (see below).
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{llrllll}
Object &Redshift &$L_{1.4GHz}$ &Optical &Radio &Ref \\
\hline \\
NGC612 &$0.0298$ &$2\times10^{25}$ &NLRG &FRII &1 \\
0313-192 &$0.0671$ &$1\times10^{24}$ &NLRG &FRI/DD? &2,3 \\
J0832+0532 &$0.099$ &$1.5\times10^{24}$ &NLRG &FRII &4 \\
3C223.1 &0.107 &$5.4\times10^{25}$ &NLRG &FRII &5,6 \\
J1159+5820 &$0.054$ &$2.3\times10^{24}$ &WLRG &FRII/DD &7,4 \\
3C236 &$0.1007$ &$1.0\times10^{26}$ &NLRG &FRII/DD &8 \\
3C293 &$0.0450$ &$2\times10^{25}$ &WLRG &FRII?/DD &9,4 \\
3C305 &$0.0416$ &$1.2\times10^{25}$ &NLRG &CSS &10, 11 \\
Speca &$0.1378$ &$7\times10^{24}$ &WLRG &FRII?/DD &12 \\
J1649+26 &$0.055$ &$1\times10^{24}$ &WLRG &FRII &14,4 \\
PKS1814-637 &$0.0641$ &$1.2\times10^{26}$ &NLRG &CSS &13 \\
J23345-0449 &$0.0755$ &$3\times10^{24}$ &WLRG &FRII/DD &15\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Radio AGN showing clear disk and/or spiral morphologies in optical
images. Reference key: 1. \citet{emonts08}; 2. \citet{ledlow01}; 3. \citet{keel06}; 4. \citet{singh15}; 5. \citet{dekoff00}; 6. \citet{madrid06}; 7. \citet{koziel12}; 8. \citet{odea01}; 9. \citet{vanbreugel84a}; 10. \citet{sandage66}; 11. \citet{heckman82}; 12. \citet{hota11}; 13. \citet{morganti11}; 14. \citet{mao15};
15. \citet{bagchi14}. The radio luminosities in column 3 are in units of W Hz$^{-1}$. Columns 4 and 5
give the optical spectroscopic and radio morphological classification respectively, with uncertain
classifications indicated by a question mark; a DD designation in column 5 indicates a double-double source.}
\end{center}
\label{disks}
\end{table}
With the development of sensitive, linear CCD detectors in the 1980s, it became possible to make quantitative studies of the radial light profiles of the hosts down to low surface brightness limits, and to compare them with those of non-active elliptical galaxies. Such studies have the potential to reveal disk-like components in the hosts of radio AGN that might not be immediately apparent upon cursory visual inspection of the images. Many of these studies fit the
radial fall off in surface brightness with a Sersic profile:
\begin{equation}
\mu(r) = a \left( \frac{r}{R_e} \right)^{1/n} + b
\end{equation}
where $r$ is the radius, $\mu(r)$ is the surface brightness in magnitudes arcsec$^{-2}$ at radius $r$, $n$ is the Sersic index,
$R_e$ is the effective radius that contains half the total light, and $a$ and $b$ are constants for a particular profile \citep{sersic63}. Note that $n=4$ represents an R$^{1/4}$ profile characteristic of elliptical galaxies \citep{devauc48} and $n=1$ an exponential profile characteristic of the disks of spiral galaxies. Some studies explicitly model a nuclear point source component --- especially important in the case of objects with unresolved broad-line nuclei --- and/or include more than one Sersic profile component.
The results of the profile fitting have been mixed. On the one hand, some studies have found that the surface brightness profiles of radio galaxies are similar to those of quiescent elliptical galaxies, with a preference for R$^{1/4}$ outer profiles in the majority of cases, rather than the exponential profiles characteristic of the disks of the spiral galaxies \citep{heckman86,smith89a,smith89b,mclure99,dunlop03}. On the other hand, a number of studies have presented evidence for significant departures from pure R$^{1/4}$ profiles. Concentrating first on ground-based optical studies, \citet{colina95} found that the outer surface brightness profiles depart significantly from an R$^{1/4}$ law in 65\% of their sample of 44 nearby FRI radio galaxies, while \citet{govoni00} required an additional exponential component to fit the outer profiles of 29\% of their mixed sample of 72 nearby FRI and FRII radio sources. Further evidence for departures from a single Sersic profile is provided by the H-band HST imaging results for a sample of 82 FRI and FRII 3CR sources presented by \citet{donzelli07}, who require an additional exponential component to fit the outer surface brightness profiles in 45\% of their sample.
The departures of the outer surface brightness profiles from R$^{1/4}$ laws might be taken as evidence for major disk components in a significant fraction of the radio AGN population, but there are other explanations. In particular, given that radio AGN are hosted by massive elliptical galaxies that are sometimes at the centres of rich galaxy clusters, it is possible that the departures from a pure R$^{1/4}$ or Sersic law are due to the presence of cD-like outer envelopes, since the outer envelopes of cD galaxies often show significant excesses over and above the extrapolations of the inner Sersic or R$^{1/4}$ profiles \citep[e.g.][]{seigar07}. However,
\citet{colina95} have argued that the hosts of the FRI sources differ from cD galaxies in the sense that the departures from a pure R$^{1/4}$ profile set in at higher surface brightness levels in the FRI hosts than they do in cD galaxies. Alternatively, the departures might be explained in terms of the light of the accumulated debris of galaxies merging with the radio AGN hosts, with these mergers perhaps triggering the AGN activity \citep{colina95}.
It is also important to consider why some of the most recent HST-based studies provide apparently contradictory results. Most notably, \citet{mclure99} and \citet{dunlop03} were able to model the R-band light profiles {\it all} 20 intermediate redshift, radio AGN in their sample using single Sersic profiles with $n\sim4$ (range: $3.6 < n < 5.3$), whereas \citet{donzelli07} found evidence for departures from an R$^{1/4}$ law in the outer profiles of their larger sample of 3CR sources using H-band observations. At least some of the ambiguities in the results may be due to differences in samples/observations/analysis techniques. For example, it is notable that the detector used by \citet{dunlop03} has a much wider FOV than that used by \citet{donzelli07} for the objects in their sample in the overlapping redshift range, thus allowing more accurate sky subtraction; the \citet{dunlop03} observations are also more sensitive, reaching a magnitude fainter in surface brightness.
Although the current results on the outer surface brightness profiles may not be clear-cut, in other regards the hosts of the radio AGN show much in common with elliptical galaxies. For example, several studies have now demonstrated that radio galaxies follow the correlations between effective radius and the mean surface brightness at the effective radius (the so-called Kormendy relation) for non-active elliptical galaxies \citep[][]{smith89b,govoni00,dunlop03}. In addition, although data on the stellar kinematics are currently sparse for radio AGN, due to the observational difficulties in obtaining accurate results for all but the closest objects, the existing results provide evidence that radio galaxies fall on the fundamental plane that relates the kinematic and photometric properties of elliptical galaxies \citep{smith90b,bettoni01}.
The final important point to make about the hosts of radio AGN is that their stellar masses are relatively large:
optical and near-IR results for low and intermediate
redshift samples yield estimates in the range $10^{11} < M_{stellar} < 2\times10^{12}$~M$_{\odot}$ \citep[][see Figure 18 below]{dunlop03,inskip10,tadhunter11}, corresponding to $\sim$0.7 --- 10$m_*$, where $m_*=1.4\times10^{11}$ is the characteristic mass of the galaxy mass function \citep{cole01}. This result appears to hold even in cases where the hosts show evidence for disk morphologies (see references in Table \ref{disks} above), or signs of recent star formation activity \citep{tadhunter11}. Given the correlations between black hole mass and host galaxy properties \citep{kormendy13}, the black hole masses of radio AGN are correspondingly large ($M_{bh} > 10^8$~M$_{\odot}$). Therefore it has been suggested that, along with black hole spin, the black hole mass is one of the key factors that determine whether an AGN is radio-loud \citep[e.g.][]{lacy01,dunlop03,sikora07,chiaberge11}.
\subsection{Morphological peculiarities}
\label{sec:2.2}
Despite their predominantly early-type character, it long been noted that the hosts of radio AGN show peculiarities in their {\it detailed} optical morphologies \citep{baade54,matthews64}. These peculiarities include: dust lanes, large-scale tidal tails, fans, shells and bridges; double nuclei; and, at a more subtle level, isophotal twists. The first truly systematic studies of these peculiarities were made by \citet{heckman86} and Smith \& Heckman (1989a,b), using CDD observations of a large sample of radio galaxies of all types, most selected from the 3CR catalogue. Based on isophotal analysis, these studies found that 50\% of all the radio AGN host galaxies show departures from elliptical symmetry. Further, it was noted that 50\% of the SLRG in the sample show tidal tails, fans, shells and dust lanes at relatively high levels of surface brightness ($\mu_V < 25$ mag arcsec$^{-2}$), whereas only 7\% of WLRG show similar evidence. The rate of occurrence of tidal features in the SLRG was found to be the higher than the $\sim$10\% of
quiescent elliptical galaxies that show evidence for shell structures in photographic images \citep{malin83b}. Together, these results appeared consistent with the idea that the SLRG are triggered in galaxy mergers, with perhaps a different triggering mechanism for the WLRG.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure12.jpg}
\caption{Examples of optical r' Gemini-S images of 2Jy radio galaxies from the study of \citet{ramos11a}.
In each case, the radio source host galaxy is at the centre of the image. Note the diversity in the detailed structures: while PKS2221-02, PKS0349-27, PKS0035-02, PKS1934-63 and PKS1151-34 are pre-coalescence systems that show evidence for tidal interactions with neighbouring galaxies,
PKS2314-03, PKS1733-56, PKS1559+02 and PKS0442-28 are post-coalescence systems that show evidence
for high surface brightness tidal features (PKS2314+03, PKS1733-56) or more subtle shell structures (PKS1559+02, PKS0442-28). See \citet{ramos11a,ramos12} for full details.}
\label{morphologies}
\end{figure}
In apparent contradiction, some more recent HST-based imaging studies of nearby AGN found less evidence for tidal features. In particular, although some of the 20 radio AGN in the sample of \citet{dunlop03} show morphological peculiarities in their R-band HST images, the rate of such features was significantly lower than in the earlier Smith \& Heckman (1989a,b) study. Indeed, \citet{dunlop03} could find no clear difference between the rate of galaxy interactions in their luminous AGN sample and that of a matched sample of quiescent giant elliptical galaxies at the centres Abell clusters of similar richness to those of the AGN hosts. However, despite their clearly superior spatial resolution, the surface brightness depths achieved in HST observations are sometimes inferior to those of the ground-based studies, because the HST is a relatively small telescope, and any diffuse tidal features are spread over many pixels of the HST detectors. This point is emphasised by the work of \citet{bennert08}, who repeated the HST imaging of 5 of the \citet{dunlop03} objects using longer exposure times (5 orbits rather than 1 orbit) and a more sensitive detector (the ACS rather than WFPC2), and found that 4/5 of the objects show tidal features that were not detected in the earlier study.
Recognising the importance of surface brightness depth in studies of this type, \citet{ramos11a,ramos12} undertook a deep r'- and i'-band imaging study of the complete intermediate redshift $0.05 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample using the Gemini South telescope, reaching a magnitude fainter in surface brightness depth compared with the earlier Smith \& Heckman (1989a,b) study, and with significantly better seeing ($0.55 < FWHM < 1.15$ arcsec compared with $1 < FWHM < 2$ arcsec). Crucially, they also compared their results with those for two comparison samples of quiescent early-type galaxies matched in absolute magnitude and imaged to similar surface brightness depths: the OBEY sample of nearby elliptical galaxies \citep{tal09} and a sample of intermediate redshift early-type galaxy morphologically selected from deep Subaru images of the Extended Groth Strip (EGS).
Example Gemini images of some of the 2Jy sources are shown in Figure \ref{morphologies}. Strikingly, 94\% of the 35 SLRG in the 2Jy sample show tidal features\footnote{Dust lanes have not been counted as tidal features. Note that only two SLRG in the intermediate redshift 2Jy sample --- 3C105 (PKS0404+05) and PKS0252-71 --- show no evidence for tidal features or close double nuclei. It is significant that one of these objects (3C105) is affected by an unusually high level of dust extinction at optical wavelengths ($\sim$1 magnitude in the r'-band), which makes it harder to detect faint morphological features, while the other (PKS0252-71) is at higher redshifts and was observed in relatively poor seeing conditions. Therefore the true rate of occurrence of tidal features or close double nuclei in the 2Jy SLRG could approach 100\%.} or close double nuclei ($<$10~kpc separation), whereas only 27\% of the 11 WLRG in the sample show similar features. This confirms the dichotomy in the incidence of morphological peculiarities between radio AGN with strong and weak emission lines originally noted by \citet{heckman86} and \citet{smith89b}, and is consistent with the idea that the AGN triggering mechanisms for the two groups are different (see discussion in section 3.6 below).
Note that, in terms of firmly establishing that radio AGN are triggered in galaxy mergers, it is not sufficient simply to demonstrate a high incidence of tidal features. This is because a large proportion of the quiescent elliptical galaxy population show tidal features at faint surface brightness levels \citep{vandokkum05,tal09,duc15}. Therefore comparisons with control samples are important. Concentrating first on the incidence of morphological features with surface brightnesses $\mu_V < 26.2$ mag arsec$^{-2}$ --- this limit includes all the tidal features detected in the 2Jy radio galaxies --- \citet{ramos12} show that such features are present in 93\% and 95\% of the SLRG at redshifts $z < 0.2$ and $0.2 \le z < 0.7$ respectively, but in only 67\% of the 55 quiescent elliptical galaxies in $z < 0.01$ OBEY sample, and 55\% of the 109 early-type galaxies in the $0.2 < z < 0.7$ EGS sample. Moreover,
the tidal features detected in the 2Jy radio galaxies have surface brightnesses that are 1 - 2 magnitudes brighter on average than those detected in the comparison sample galaxies.
Overall, the deep optical studies provide compelling evidence that SLRG are triggered in galaxy mergers. This is consistent with the recent results for radio-quiet AGN with quasar-like nuclei \citep[$L_{BOL} > 10^{38}$~W:][]{bessiere12,treister12} and high redshift radio galaxies \citep[$z > 1$:][]{chiaberge15}, but in contrast with the results for samples of low-to-moderate luminosity AGN \citep[$L_{BOL} < 10^{37.5}$~W:][]{grogin05,cisternas11}. The dichotomy between high and low luminosity AGN suggests that, while luminous AGN favour galaxy mergers as a triggering mechanism, low/moderate luminosity AGN are triggered via secular processes. Interestingly, we see evidence for this dichotomy {\it within} the radio AGN population through the morphological differences between SLRG and WLRG.
The other striking feature of the deep imaging results is that radio galaxies are diverse in their detailed morphological properties: \citet{ramos11a} found that 37\% of the SLRG in the full 2Jy sample are pre-mergers in the sense that the host
galaxies are tidally interacting with companion galaxies (e.g. have bridges) or have close double nuclei, whereas 57\% show tidal features consistent with the hosts being observed at or after the time of coalescence of the merging nuclei.
Despite the strong evidence they provide for the triggering of SLRG in galaxy mergers, the images alone provide only limited information about the {\it types} of mergers involved in the triggering events. Fortunately there are other facets of the triggering events that can provide further information, including the star formation properties (section 3.3), the cool gas contents (section 3.4), and the large-scale environments (section 3.5). For example, if the radio AGN were triggered at the peaks of major, gas-rich mergers we would expect them to appear similar to ultra luminous infrared galaxies \citep[ULIRGs:][]{sanders96}, with large masses of cool ISM, prodigious star formation activity, and relatively low density galaxy environments; detailed spectral synthesis modelling of the optical spectra also has the potential to provide information about the timing of the triggering of the AGN relative to the peak of the merger-induced starburst \citep[e.g.][]{canalizo01,tadhunter05,tadhunter11}. These aspects are considered in the following sections.
\subsection{Star formation}
\label{sec:2.4}
Measuring the level of star formation activity in the host galaxies of radio AGN is challenging. Figure \ref{contamination} illustrates the problem: as well as the direct starlight and emission from dust heated by recent star formation activity, several AGN-related components can contribute to the UV, optical and infrared continuum emission, even in cases where the broad-line AGN nucleus is obscured.
Apart from the components shown in Figure \ref{contamination}, non-thermal radiation from compact synchrotron-emitting components (e.g. cores, jets, and lobes) also has the potential to contribute at all wavelengths in radio AGN.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure13.pdf}
\caption{Schematic showing various AGN-related continuum components that contribute at UV, optical, mid-IR and far-IR wavelengths. Blue lines indicate UV/optical components and red lines indicate mid- and far-IR components. By diluting the starlight (UV/optical wavelengths) and the emission of dust heated by recent star formation activity (mid- and far-IR wavelengths), these component make it challenging to
determine the star formation properties of the host galaxies, especially for the objects with the
most luminous AGN. }
\label{contamination}
\end{figure}
Taking full account of the potential for AGN contamination, I now review the star formation properties of host galaxies of radio AGN at UV/optical, mid-IR, and far-IR wavelengths.
\subsubsection{UV/optical diagnostics}
The earliest studies of star formation in radio AGN were based on the optical or optical/near-IR colours provided by deep photometric observations. For example, \citet{smith89b} found that a subset of their sample of $z < 0.4$ 3CR radio galaxies
show blue (B-V) colours relative to quiescent elliptical galaxies. Interestingly, the bluer colours are associated with the SLRG in their sample rather than the WLRG, most of which tend to show red, elliptical-like colours. These results are broadly consistent with those obtained using spectroscopic measurements of the 4000\AA\, break (D4000)\footnote{The 4000\AA\, break measures the ratio of fluxes measured in wavelength bins above and below the metal line blanketing break for old stars at 4000\AA. The version of D4000 defined by \citet{tadhunter02} uses continuum bins that avoid strong emission lines ($3750 < \lambda < 3850$\AA\, and $4150 < \lambda < 4250$\AA\,).} by \citet{tadhunter02}
and \citet{herbert10}, and HST photometric measurements of the UV/optical colours by \citet{allen02} and \citet{baldi08}. However, it is important to emphasise that the presence of blue or UV excesses does not necessarily imply high levels of star formation. For example, in their detailed study of the UV emission in 3C236 --- one of the nearby radio galaxies with the brightest off-nuclear UV structures --- \citet{odea01} show that the star formation rates in the UV knots are relatively modest: typically a few solar masses per year.
The higher incidence of blue/UV excesses in SLRG than in WLRG might be taken as evidence for distinct star formation histories for the two classes, perhaps related to differeces in the triggering mechanisms \citep[e.g.][]{smith89b,allen02,baldi08,herbert10}. However, at UV/optical wavelengths there is a strong potential for contamination by AGN-related continuum components. These include: scattered AGN light \citep[e.g.][]{tadhunter90,tadhunter92} and nebular continuum \citep{dickson95}\footnote{The nebular continuum comprises recombination, 2-photon and free-free emission from the warm ionised gas in the NLR: see Dickson et al. (1995) for details.} from the NLR; and direct AGN emission from weak or partially obscured broad-line AGN \citep{shaw95}. Since the luminosities of the nebular continuum, scattered AGN continuum, and narrow emission lines all depend strongly on the intrinsic AGN luminosity and the covering factor of the NLR, the absolute level of the AGN-related continuum components is expected to strongly correlate with the emission line luminosity, with the highest degrees AGN contamination relative to the level of the stellar continuum found in objects with the highest equivalent width emission lines. Therefore, at least some of the correlation between the optical spectroscopic class and blue/UV excess could be due to AGN contamination.
Recognising the potential for AGN contamination, \citet{tadhunter02} used a combination of spectroscopy and polarimetry observations to directly quantify the contribution of various AGN continuum components to the optical and near-UV emission of the integrated light of a complete sample of 22 $0.15 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy radio galaxies. Their polarimetry measurements show that scattered AGN light makes a significant contribution (up to 10 --- 30\% in some cases) to the UV continuum below 3600\AA\, in 32\% of the full sample (50\% of the 11 NLRG and 20\% of the 9 BLRG). Moreover, based on measurements of the Balmer emission lines, they show that nebular continuum is important in all the SLRG objects in the sample, contributing as much as 30\% of the UV continuum. In a further 40\% of objects, emission from the direct light of weak or partially obscured broad-line AGN also contributes at UV wavelengths.
Taking full account of the AGN-related components, \citet{tadhunter02} found that the spectra of 85\% of their complete sample could be adequately modelled using a combination of quiescent elliptical template and a power law (PL), with the latter included to represent scattered or direct AGN light. However, in 3 objects (14\% of the full sample) an additional young stellar population (YSP) with age $t_{YSP} < 2$~Gyr was required to model the continuum in the region of the Balmer break; all three of these objects also show higher order Balmer lines in absorption, providing direct confirmation of the presence of a YSP. Subsequent deeper spectroscopy observations reported in \citet{holt07} have detected high order Balmer lines in one further object in the sample. Less directly, in a further 7 objects the PL contributions to the UV continuum are larger than expected on the basis of the polarimetry results if all the PL represents scattered light; since a very young YSP can mimic a PL, potentially this might indicate a YSP contribution to the UV continuum in these objects. Overall, between 18\% (objects with detected Balmer absorption lines) and 55\% (including objects with less direct evidence for YSP) of the $0.15 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample show evidence for recent star formation activity in their UV/optical spectra. This rate of detection of YSP components is similar to the $\sim$30 --- 40\% deduced by \citet{aretxaga01} and \citet{wills02} based on spectral synthesis modelling of low redshift 3CR sources. Note, however, that a large proportion of radio AGN may have lower levels of star formation activity that have not so far been detected due to the strength of light of the old stellar populations and/or AGN-related continuum components.
The detection of significant YSP in some radio AGN opens the prospect of deducing their detailed properties (masses, ages, reddening) in order to further investigate possible triggering mechanisms. This is challenging work because of the difficulty of adequately accounting for the AGN-related continuum components, as well as the degeneracies inherent in modelling multiple stellar components of different ages, some of which may be heavily reddened. Only the small proportion of radio AGN host galaxies that are already known to have significant YSP are suitable for detailed spectral synthesis modelling studies. The results of such studies reveal a substantial diversity in the YSP properties. On the one hand, in some nearby radio AGN the YSP have intermediate ages ($0.1 < t_{ysp} < 2$~Gyr) and relatively large masses, suggestive of post-starburst populations \citep{tadhunter05,emonts06,holt07,tadhunter11}. In these cases, the ages of YSP are older than the typical lifetimes of the radio sources, consistent with the idea that the radio AGN have been triggered {\it after} the peaks of the merger-induced starbursts. On the other hand, in other radio AGN the YSP are much younger ($t_{ysp} < 0.1$~Gyr), suggesting that the starbursts and AGN are triggered quasi-simultaneously. Interestingly, younger YSP ages tend to be associated with radio AGN
with quasar-like AGN luminosities, whereas older YSP ages are more frequently found in objects
with lower AGN luminosities. In the case that the AGN with detected YSP are triggered in mergers, this difference is consistent with the idea that the lower luminosity radio AGN are triggered later in the merger sequence \citep{tadhunter11}.
\subsubsection{Mid-IR diagnostics}
A major advantage of the mid-IR wavelength region ($5 < \lambda < 30$$\mu$m) is that it is much less affected by dust extinction than the UV/optical. Potentially, this property allows the detection of regions of star formation that
suffer high levels of dust extinction. However,
contamination by the AGN is particularly pronounced in the mid-IR, where the continuum is dominated by
emission of the warm dust in the circum-nuclear torus (mainly SLRG), or by the synchrotron emission of the inner jets (most WLRG). Only a few radio AGN with particularly strong starbursts show evidence that the emission from dust heated by regions of recent star formation makes a significant contribution to their continuum emission at 24$\mu$m (Dicken et al. 2012). Otherwise, the main diagnostics of star formation activity at these wavelengths are the broad polyaromatic hydrocarbon (PAH) features --- emitted by large, sheet-like organic molecules --- which are strong in starbursts, but might be destroyed by the hard radiation fields of AGN \citep{siebenmorgen04}.
The Spitzer Observatory made a major impact this field, because its high sensitivity allowed for the first time deep mid-IR spectroscopy observations to be made of large samples of radio AGN \citep[e.g.][]{ogle06,cleary07,leipski09}. \citet{dicken12} exploited these capabilities to make a Spitzer/IRS survey of the complete $0.05 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample, combining the results with those for a complete sample of 3CRR FRII sources with redshifts $z < 0.11$ (see Figure \ref{mir_spectra} for example spectra).
The principal mid-IR PAH features are emitted at 6.6. 7.7 and 11.3~$\mu$m. Unfortunately, the strongest PAH blend at 7.7~$\mu$m is particularly broad, is potentially contaminated by narrow fine-structure emission lines, and falls at the blue edge of the 10~$\mu$m silicate absorption feature. Therefore, the 11.3~$\mu$m PAH feature, which is considerably narrower than the 7.7~$\mu$m feature, is preferred when attempting to establish the occurrence rate of PAH features, and hence the incidence of recent star formation activity, in the radio AGN population. \citet{dicken12} detected this feature in only 30\% of their combined 2Jy and 3CRR sample. This immediately suggests that the hosts of most radio AGN do not harbour major starbursts, although the dilution effect of the strong AGN continuum at mid-IR wavelengths would make it difficult to detect low levels of star formation activity based on the PAH features alone.
Another technique involves using the mid- to far-IR (MFIR) colours (e.g. $L_{70 \mu m}/L_{24 \mu m}$), since an increase in the contribution from cool dust heated by young stars will tend to boost the far-IR relative to the mid-IR emission. Indeed, a number of studies have shown that the MFIR colours correlate well with a range of other diagnostics of the relative contributions of AGN and star formation activity \citep[e.g.][]{veilleux09,dicken09}. In the case of the combined 2Jy and 3CRR sample studied by \citet{dicken10,dicken12}, 24\% of the 55 objects with the requisite photometric data were found to have red MFIR colours $L_{70 \mu m}/L_{24 \mu m} \ge 5$, consistent with a significant contribution at far-IR wavelengths from dust heated by young stars.
\subsubsection{Far-IR diagnostics}
The strength of far-IR ($30 < \lambda < 500$$\mu$m) continuum is often considered to provide a clean diagnostic of star formation activity. This is because the dust heated by starbursts is relatively cool, such that its thermal emission peaks in the far-IR, whereas the AGN-heated dust in the compact, circum-nuclear torus is much warmer and radiates predominantly at shorter, mid-IR wavelengths. However, this division is not as clear-cut as it might at first seem. Mirroring the controversy surrounding the nature of the UV excess in radio AGN host galaxies (see section 3.3.1 above), the main issue here is the extent to which AGN-related continuum components contaminate the far-IR continuum: although the warmer dust components in the torus will radiate mostly at mid-IR wavelengths, clumpy torus models and those with large outer torus radii allow the possibility of significant cool dust components in the torus that radiate in the far-IR; AGN illumination of the larger-scale NLR may also power cool dust that radiates at far-IR wavelengths \citep{tadhunter07}; and, for radio AGN, contamination by synchrotron-emitting jets and lobes may also be an issue in some sources \citep[e.g.][]{cleary07,dicken08,leipski09,vanderwolk10}. Most attempts to investigate the degree of AGN contamination of the far-IR continuum have adopted the approach of fitting the mid- to far-IR continuum spectral energy distributions using a combination of starburst and AGN templates \citep[e.g.][]{netzer07,mullaney11}.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure14_top.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure14_bottom.pdf}
\caption{Correlation plots for $L_{24 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ (top) and
$L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ (bottom) for the
combined $0.05 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy and $z < 0.11$ 3CRR FRII sample of \citep{dicken10}. The 24$\mu$m and 70$\mu$m monochromatic continuum luminosities have units of W Hz$^{-1}$, while the [OIII] luminosities have units of W. Objects showing evidence for recent star formation based on optical spectroscopy and/or PAH detection are indicated by blue stars, whereas those that show
no such evidence are indicated by black, filled circles. Note the larger scatter in the $L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ correlation. In the lower plot, the
horizonal dashed lines show the equivalent star formation rates, based on the calibration of \citet{calzetti10} and assuming that all the far-IR emission is due to dust heated by young stars.}
\label{mfir_corr_sf}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The sensitive mid- and far-IR continuum observations of radio AGN made possible by Spitzer and Herschel have helped to illuminate this debate. First, analysis of the mid-IR to radio SEDs has shown that contamination by synchrotron emitting components is unlikely to be a serious issue at mid- to far-IR wavelengths for most SLRG, but may be important for WLRG \citep{cleary07,dicken08,leipski09,vanderwolk10,dicken16}. Second, Dicken et al. (2009,2010) have found strong correlations between the optical [OIII] emission line luminosity --- often taken as a proxy of the overall level of AGN activity --- and both the mid-IR 24$\mu$m and the far-IR 70$\mu$m continuum luminosities for their combined sample of 2Jy and 3CRR radio galaxies (see Figure \ref{mfir_corr_sf}), although the scatter is larger for the
$L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ correlation. A partial rank correlation analysis shows that these correlations are not simply the result of the well-known correlations between redshift, radio power and emission line luminosity for flux limited samples \citep{dicken09,dicken10}.
The strength $L_{24 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ correlation is not surprising given that the 24$\mu$m and [OIII] emission are both produced by AGN illumination of the circum-nuclear structures: the dusty torus and/or the NLR in the case of the 24$\mu$m emission, and the NLR in the case of the [OIII] emission; as the bolometric luminosity of the AGN increases, the level of illumination of both the torus and the NLR increases, hence the correlation. The ratio of the mid-IR to the [OIII] luminosity depends on the relative covering factors of the torus and the NLR, and \citet{dicken09} have shown on energetic grounds that the observed correlation is consistent with the expected torus/NLR covering factor ratios.
There are two interpretations of the $L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ correlation. First, the $L_{70 \mu m}$ far-IR continuum luminosity measures the rate of star formation, while the [OIII] luminosity measures intrinsic power of the AGN, and the correlation then arises because the star formation rate and AGN power are correlated \citep{schweitzer06,netzer07}. Second, the far-IR continuum is produced by AGN illumination of the extended dust in the NLR or circumnuclear torus, and is therefore strongly correlated with the [OIII] luminosity, which is produced by AGN illumination of the NLR \citep{tadhunter07,dicken09}. Support for the latter interpretation is provided by the fact that the slopes of the $L_{24 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ and $L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ are similar. Moreover, \citet{dicken09} have shown that luminosity of the far-IR continuum in most SLRG can be reproduced if the covering factors of the dust structures emitting the far-IR continuum are similar to those of the NLR. An important caveat on the latter argument is that, in order for the dust in the NLR
to radiate significantly at far-IR wavelengths, it must be distributed on sufficiently large scales to avoid being heated too highly by the AGN. Whether the latter condition is fulfilled is currently uncertain, but it is notable that some SLRG show NLR that are extended on radial scales of kpc.
If the far-IR and mid-IR continuum are both produced by AGN illumination, why is the scatter larger for the
$L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ correlation? Clues are provided by Figure \ref{mfir_corr_sf}, where the objects showing independent evidence for recent star formation activity
are highlighted in the correlations. It is clear that all of the objects that form the upper envelope of the $L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ correlation show independent evidence for star formation activity, whereas the main correlation is made
up of the majority of radio AGN that show no such evidence. Therefore much of the enhanced scatter in the
$L_{70 \mu m}$ vs $L_{[OIII]}$ correlation can be explained in terms of the boosting of the far-IR emission in a minority of the sources by starburst-heated dust, with the degree of boosting reaching a factor of 10 or more in some cases. It is also plausible that the far-IR continuum of most of the
SLRG on the main correlation is dominated by the emission of cool, AGN-illuminated dust in the NLR.
In this case, the far-IR results provide evidence for a wide range of star formation properties in radio AGN, with star formation rates varying by more than an order of magnitude for a given intrinsic AGN luminosity.
Uncertainties about the degree of contamination by AGN heated dust make it difficult to use the far-IR observations to derive accurate star formation rates (SFR) for individual objects; however, upper limits on the SFR can be obtained by assuming that {\it all} the far-IR continuum is associated with star formation activity. The horizontal dashed lines in Figure \ref{mfir_corr_sf} show the star formation rates corresponding to different 70$\mu$m luminosities, as determined using the calibration of \citet{calzetti10}. The two most far-IR luminous radio AGN plotted in Figure \ref{mfir_corr_sf} --- 3C459 and PKS2135-20 --- have IR luminosities that qualify them as ULIRGs with star formation rates $SFR > $100~M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$. However, for the majority of SLRG on the main correlation in Figure \ref{mfir_corr_sf} the upper limiting star formation rates are much lower, and many have
$SFR <$10~M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ (see also Figure \ref{main_sequence} below).
\subsubsection{Star formation summary}
Although the UV/optical, mid-IR and far-IR results on the star formation properties have been presented separately, there is a strong correlation between the results from the different diagnostics: objects showing clear signs of star formation activity based on their UV/optical spectra generally also show PAH features at mid-IR wavelengths, as well as a far-IR continuum excesses \citet{dicken12}. This is demonstrated by the Venn diagram shown in Figure \ref{venn}. Individually, each of the techniques gives a relatively low incidence of radio AGN with clear evidence for recent star formation activity ($\sim$20 - 30\%), and it is notable that the proportion of objects in the combined 2Jy and 3CRR sample of \citet{dicken12} that show {\it any} evidence for recent star formation activity is only 33\%. Clearly the star formation properties of radio AGN are diverse. A major implication of the low detection rate of star formation activity is that a large fraction of radio AGN in the local universe cannot have been triggered at the peaks of major, gas-rich mergers, given that such mergers lead to prodigious star formation activity around the time of coalescence of the merging nuclei which would be detectable using at least one, but probably all, of the techniques considered above.
This lack of evidence for major star formation activity in the majority of radio AGN is further demonstrated by Figure \ref{main_sequence}, which plots the maximum star formation rates derived from the far-IR photometry against the total stellar masses for a complete sample of nearby 2Jy sources with redshifts in the range $0.05 < z < 0.5$. Apart from
one clear starburst object, the majority of sources fall on or well below the ``main sequence'' of star formation derived for nearby star forming galaxies, and towards the part of the diagram normally occupied by ``red and dead'' galaxies. It is also notable that, while all but one of the WLRG fall well below the main sequence, a significant
proportion of the SLRG ($\sim$50\%) fall close to or above the main sequence. However, this difference may in part reflect an enhanced level of contamination of far-IR light by AGN heated dust for the SLRG (see section 3.3.3), given their generally higher levels of AGN activity.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure15.pdf}
\caption{Venn diagram comparing the detection of recent star formation activity in individual
objects in the combined 2Jy and 3CRR FRII sample of \citet{dicken12} using three different techniques: far-IR excess, UV/optical spectroscopy and PAH detection. In the case of the far-IR excess, objects lying more than 0.5 dex (i.e. a factor of 3) above the main correlation shown in
Figure \ref{mfir_corr_sf} are considered to show a far-IR excess that indicates recent star formation
activity. For each technique, the detection rate of recent star formation activity using that technique across the full sample is shown in brackets. }
\label{venn}
\end{figure}
Although the majority of the local radio AGN population lacks evidence for the moderate-to-high levels of star formation that would be readily detected using existing techniques, this does not necessarily imply that their star formation rates are zero. Indeed, based on the typical cool ISM masses estimated from the Herschel results ($10^8 < M_{gas} < 2\times10^9$~M$_{\odot}$: see section 3.4 below), and the relationships between total gas mass and SFR deduced for the star forming galaxies at both low and high redshifts \citep{daddi10}, we would expect typical radio AGN to form stars at a rate of $\sim$0.5 -- 30~M$_{\odot}$ yr$^{-1}$ if the radio AGN hosts have the type of efficient star formation that is characteristic of
starbursts. However, the star formation rates would be at least a factor of ten lower than this if the star formation efficiency were more typical of the disks of spiral galaxies. Such low levels of star formation would be difficult to detect because of AGN-related components that effectively ``hide'' low levels of star formation activity, particularly in the objects with the most luminous AGN. Dilution by the strong continuum emission of the old stellar populations in the giant elliptical galaxy host galaxies also disfavours the detection of low levels of star formation activity at optical wavelengths.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=14.0cm]{figure16.pdf}
\caption{Star formation rate vs total stellar mass for a complete subset of 30 sources from the \citet{dicken09} 2Jy sample (see Table 1) with redshifts in the range $0.05 < z < 0.5$, excluding quasars and BLRG whose K-band light has a major contribution from AGN emission. Blue circles, green triangles and red squares represent SLRG/FRII, WLRG/FRII and WLRG/FRI sources respectively.
The solid line shows the main sequence for nearby star forming galaxies ($z < 0.2$) derived by \citet{elbaz07}
from SDSS data, with the dashed lines representing the 1$\sigma$ scatter about this relationship, while the dotted line
shows a more recent determination of the main sequence for $z = 0.5$ star forming galaxies taken from \citet{schreiber15}. The stellar masses were estimated using K-band photometry under the assuption
of a constant mass-to-light ratio: $(L_K/M_*)_{\odot} = 0.9$. The
64~kpc aperture K-band magnitudes of \citet{inskip10} were used for the majority of objects, but K-band magnitudes from 2MASS were used for the four sources not included in \citet{inskip10} study. The star formation rates were estimated from the Spitzer 70$\mu$m luminosities of \citet{dicken09} by using
the calibration of \citet{calzetti10}. Note that the star formation rates derived for the radio AGN are likely to represent upper limits because they have
not been corrected for contributions to the 70$\mu$m luminosities by AGN heated dust and synchrotron emission.}
\label{main_sequence}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Dust and gas contents}
\label{sec:2.5}
Most triggering mechanisms for the AGN in SLRG involve the accretion of cool gas in a particular event such as a galaxy merger. Large reservoirs of cool gas are required in the triggering event to fuel the AGN and simultaneously grow the bulge of the host galaxy: a cool ISM reservoir of at least $\sim$10$^9$~M$_{\odot}$ is required for an AGN at the lower end of the quasar luminosity range if the quasar has a lifetime of $10^7$~yr \citep{tadhunter14}. Therefore, measurements of the cool gas contents of radio AGN have the potential to provide key information about the nature of the triggering events.
Until recently, most studies of the cool gas in radio AGN involved observations of the mm-wavelength CO lines \citep{evans05,smolcic09,ocana10}. Unfortunately, even using long integration times, the sensitivity of such observations was limited. Moreover, the CO observations tended to involve relatively small, heterogeneous samples of radio AGN, or samples of objects that are unusually bright at far-IR wavelengths. Overall, the CO detection rates are low ($\sim$20 -- 60\%), and the upper limits on the gas masses derived for the undetected sources are often large --- well above the predicted minimum mass of the total reservoir required to trigger a quasar event.
Fortunately, the high sensitivity of the Herschel Observatory at the longer far-IR wavelengths ($\ge 100$~$\mu$m) has provided an alternative way of estimating the cool ISM masses using the emission of the associated dust, under the assumption that the dust radiates as a modified black body, and that the gas-to-dust ratio is constant.
The deep Herschel observations of the complete $0.05 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample reported in \citet{dicken16} detect 100\% of the sources at 100~$\mu$m and 85\% at 160~$\mu$m. Considering first the 35 SLRG objects in the sample, the derived dust and cool ISM masses cover a wide range: $7\times10^5 < M_{dust} < 3\times10^8$~M$_{\odot}$ and $10^8 < M_{gas} < 4\times10^{10}$~M$_{\odot}$ \citep[see][for details]{tadhunter14}. For reference, the median cool ISM mass for the SLRG in the 2Jy sample ($1.2\times10^{9}$~M$_{\odot}$) is a factor $\sim$4$\times$ lower than the total cool ISM mass of the Milky Way, and remarkably close to the predicted minimum total mass of the gas reservoir required for a quasar triggering event.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=12.0cm]{figure17.pdf}
\caption{Dust emission as a probe of the ISM contents of radio AGN host galaxies: (a)
example radio to mid-IR SEDs of the 2Jy NLRG/FRII objects PKS0806-10 and
PKS0349-27; (b) dust masses derived for the SLRG in the $0.05 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample of \citep{dicken12} (top)
compared with those for nearby ULRGS (middle) and elliptical galaxies (bottom). The vertical dashed and dotted lines indicate the dust mass of the Milky Way and LMC respectively. See \citet{tadhunter14} for details.}
\label{dust_masses}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{dust_masses} compares the distribution of dust masses for the 2Jy SLRG with those measured for samples of local ULIRGs and quiescent elliptical galaxies using similar techniques. The dust masses of the SLRG are typically a factor of 10 higher than those of quiescent elliptical galaxies, but a factor of 10 lower than those of ULIRGs; however, the high mass tail of the elliptical galaxy distribution overlaps with lower end of the SLRG distribution, and some SLRG have dust masses comparable with those of ULIRGs. It is notable that many of the latter group belong to the rare subset of radio galaxies that show evidence for recent star formation activity (see section 3.3 above).
Analysis of the long-wavelength SEDs demonstrates that the far-IR emission of 5/6 of the WLRG/FRI sources in the 2Jy sample is likely to be dominated by non-thermal synchrotron emission \citep[see][]{dicken16}. However, even if all the far-IR emission were entirely due to dust emission in these WLRG/FRI sources, their dust dust masses would fall at or below the lower end of the dust mass distribution of the SLRG. In contrast, all 5 WLRG/FRII sources in 2Jy sample show evidence for cool dust emission, with a dust mass distribution similar to that of the SLRG. This apparent difference between the dust properties of WLRG/FRI and WLRG/FRII sources has important implications for our understanding of the nature of the WLRG/FRII sources, potentially supporting the idea that the SLRG/FRII represent objects in which the AGN has recently switched off (see section 2.5). However, observations of a larger sample will be required to put this result on a firmer footing.
\subsection{Large-scale environments}
\label{sec:2.6}
A further important property that might provide clues to the triggering mechanism is the large-scale environment of the host galaxy. For example, a high density cluster environment might favour fuelling of the radio AGN via the accretion of the hot ISM that is expected to be relatively dense in such environments, whereas a lower density group environment is more likely to be consistent with galaxy mergers as the main triggering mechanism, since major mergers are most common in such environments.
Several studies have sought to measure the environments of radio AGN using number counts derived from optical images, with much of the analysis based on the spatial clustering amplitude ($B_{gg}$). The most recent study by \citet{ramos13} for the $0.05 < z < 0.7$ 2Jy sample found clear differences between the environments of WLRG and SLRG: while the 82\% of the 11 WLRG in the 2Jy sample are in relatively rich cluster environments
($400 < B_{gg} < 1600$, corresponding to Abell class 0, 1, 2 and 3 clusters), only 31\% of the 35 SLRG in the same sample are in similarly dense environments; however, there is a significant overlap between the environmental properties of the two groups.
Perhaps not surprisingly given the correlations between optical and radio classifications, similar results are obtained when comparing the environments of FRI and FRII galaxies, in the sense that the FRI sources inhabit significantly denser environments on average than FRII sources. All of these results for the 2Jy sample agree with those obtained for other samples of nearby radio AGN using number count techniques \citep{longair79,prestage88,zirbel97}.
An alternative method involves using X-ray observations to measure the luminosities of the extended hot gas surrounding the host galaxies. Such luminosities can be used as a proxy for the large scale galaxy environments, since richer galaxy environments tend to be associated with denser, more massive hot gaseous halos. \citet{ineson15} used this technique to make an extensive study of the environments of 2Jy and 3CRR sources at $z < 0.2$, finding a clear dichotomy between the extended X-ray luminosities of SLRG and WLRG, in the sense that WLRG show significantly higher extended X-ray luminosities for a given radio power; notwithstanding the uncertainties inherent in both techniques, they also found reasonable concordance with the number count analysis of \citet{ramos13} for 2Jy objects in the overlapping redshift range.
To summarize, there is now clear evidence from various studies at low and intermediate redshifts that WLRG occupy higher density environments than SLRG on average, but there is clearly some overlap between the two groups in terms of their environmental properties.
\subsection{The triggering of radio AGN}
Although the majority of radio AGN hold in common the feature that they are hosted by giant elliptical galaxies, the host galaxies are surprisingly diverse in their detailed properties.
Together, the detailed information on the optical morphologies, star formation properties, gas contents and environments allows us to develop a coherent picture of the dominant triggering mechanisms for the different sub-types of radio AGN. Table \ref{summary} summarises the typical properties of the main SLRG/FRII and WLRG/FRI classes.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{lll}
{\bf Property} &{\bf SLRG/FRII} &{\bf WLRG/FRI} \\
\hline \\
{\bf Host galaxy} &Giant ellipticals &Giant ellipticals \\
{\bf Tidal features} &Common &Rare \\
{\bf Environment} &Group or weak cluster &Modest or rich cluster \\
{\bf Star formation rate} &Low or modest &Low \\
{\bf Cool gas content} &Modest &Low \\
{\bf AGN accretion mode} &Geometrically thin, radiatively &Radiatively inefficient \\
&thick accretion disk &accretion flow \\
{\bf Triggering mechanism} &Modest merger &Hot ISM/ICM accretion \\
\hline \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the typical host galaxy properties, accretion modes and triggering mechanisms of the two main classes of radio AGN. The host galaxy properties are quantified in sections 3.1 to 3.5. It is important to emphasise that these are the typical properties; however, there are important exceptions which are discussed in the main text. }
\label{summary}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The hosts of SLRG/FRII sources frequently show optical peculiarities such a tidal tails, fans, shells and bridges that have higher surface brightnesses than the tidal features detected in comparison samples of quiescent elliptical galaxies matched in absolute magnitude. They also show a tendency to be associated with modest, but not rich, galaxy environments. These two features are fully consistent with the idea that their AGN have been triggered in galaxy mergers. On the other hand, most SLRG/FRII hosts lack evidence for high levels of recent star formation activity, and contain relatively small amounts of cool ISM compared with ULIRGs, even if the cool ISM masses are larger than those of typical quiescent elliptical galaxies. Therefore, for the majority of SLRG/FRII sources, the triggering mergers are likely to have been relatively modest: a merger between a giant elliptical and a galaxy with a cold gas mass twice that of the Large Magellanic Cloud (LMC) would suffice; in these objects we are likely to be witnessing the late-time re-triggering of radio-AGN activity in mature elliptical galaxies with existing super-massive black holes.
The majority of SLRG/FRII sources could therefore represent a fleeting active phase in the evolution of a subset of general population of early-type galaxies with high stellar masses $M_{star} > 10^{11}$~M$_{\odot}$, which formed the bulk of its stellar
mass at $z > 1$ and has not shown major evolution in stellar mass or co-moving number density at more recent epochs \citep[e.g.][]{pozzetti10,mcdermid15}. Interestingly, there
is evidence that minor mergers have contributed most of the growth in stellar mass of this population since $z = 1$ \citep{kaviraj11}.
However, a minority of SLRG/FRII objects ($<$20\% of the full population) have cool gas masses and levels of star formation activity that are more comparable with those of ULIRGs. In these objects, major, gas-rich mergers are likely to have been involved in the triggering of the activity, and we may be witnessing the main event in terms of the formation of both the host galaxy bulges and the supermassive black holes.
Of course, these conclusions for SLRG/FRII objects refer to the redshift and radio power ranges covered by the bright radio AGN samples in the local universe ($z < 0.7$), and it is possible that the situation changes at higher redshifts. Indeed, a recent Herschel study of a sample of 3CR radio galaxies at high redshifts ($1 < z < 2.5$) found evidence for higher rates of star formation and larger dust masses than those of the local samples \citep{podigachoski15}, thus suggesting that major, gas-rich mergers may become a more common triggering mechanism for radio AGN at higher redshifts and/or radio powers.
It is important to draw the distinction here between modest or minor mergers\footnote{Minor mergers
are generally defined to be those in which one object involved in the merger has
a mass of 25\% or less of that of the other.} and major, gas-rich mergers. The debate about the triggering mechanism for luminous AGN (whether radio-loud or radio-quiet) has often been framed in terms of major, gas-rich mergers, with quasars perhaps representing a late, post-coalescence phase in the evolution of ULIRGs \citep{sanders88a,sanders88b}. Therefore, the hypothesis that luminous AGN are triggered in mergers has sometimes been rejected on the grounds that the host galaxies do not appear as major, ULIRG-like mergers. However, the results for the nearby radio AGN clearly demonstrate that luminous AGN activity can be triggered in more modest mergers, and also that the triggering occurs at a variety of merger stages, including pre-coalescence. Since the relatively subtle
morphological, star formation and gas content signs of modest mergers may be difficult to detect in surveys of high redshift AGN, clearly some caution is required when interpreting the results from such surveys in terms of triggering mechanisms.
In stark contrast to the SLRG/FRII objects, the WLRG/FRI sources tend to favour more massive host galaxies, inhabit richer large-scale environments, show less evidence for recent star formation activity and tidal features, and have lower masses of cool ISM. These properties are consistent with the idea that, rather than being {\it triggered} by a sharp accretion event such as merger, the WLRG/FRI sources are {\it fuelled} by the more gradual accretion of the hot ISM from the host galaxy or cluster; certainly analysis of the LEGs in the SDSS sample suggests a high duty cycle for this type of radio AGN activity \citep{best05}. However, it is always dangerous to generalise, and a subset of the WLRG/FRI objects have host galaxy and/or environmental properties that are similar to those of SLRG/FRII sources. An obvious example of this is the closest radio AGN, the WLRG/FRI Centaurus A, which contains massive reservoir of cool gas in its prominent dust lane \citep[$\sim3\times10^9$~M$_{\odot}$:][]{parkin12}, is located in a group environment \citep[e.g.][]{cote97}, and shows large-scale tidal features in deep imaging observations \citep{malin83a}. In such objects is possible that the original galaxy merger delivered a large reservoir of cool gas to the system and perhaps triggered a luminous, SLRG/FRII event at the merger peak, but subsequently the gas reservoir has settled into a more stable dynamical configuration, reducing the rate of accretion of cool gas into the nuclear regions and leading to lower-level WLRG/FRI activity. This would be consistent with the evidence for a delay between the merger-induced starburst and the triggering of the current phase of AGN activity based on analysis of the stellar populations in lower-luminosity radio AGN with YSP \citep{tadhunter05,emonts06,tadhunter11}.
One further possible fuel supply, which may be particularly relevant to the WLRG objects, is gas cooling from the hot X-ray haloes of the host galaxies and clusters and falling into the nuclear regions: the so-called ``cooling flows''. Indeed, it has been argued that the kinematics of the extended emission line gas in some radio AGN, particuarly WLRG in cluster environments, are consistent with a cooling flow origin for the warm gas \citep{tadhunter89a,baum92}.
Considering more luminous AGN, cooling flows could be particularly effective under the conditions of chaotic cold accretion
(Gaspari et al. 2013: see discussion in section 2.4 above) in the centres of rich clusters of galaxies. In this context, it is notable that a cooling flow has been implicated in the triggering of the luminous, quasar-like AGN and starburst at the centre of the Phoenix cluster \citep[$z = 0.596$:][]{mcdonald12}. However, the Phoenix cluster is extreme in its X-ray properties --- it is one of the most X-ray luminous galaxy clusters with one of the highest cooling rates. Therefore, it is not clear whether this mechanism is significant for the majority of SLRG, which are in relatively low density galaxy environments.
This discussion of triggering/fuelling mechanisms feeds into the question of whether it is the rate or the mode of accretion that is most important for determining the optical spectral properties of radio AGN (e.g. whether WLRG/LEG or SLRG/HEG: see section 2.4). Broadly, the results on the host galaxies and environments of the radio AGN are consistent with cold mode accretion via galaxy mergers for the SLRG objects, and hot mode accretion of gas from the gaseous haloes of the host galaxies/clusters for the WLRG. However, the modes are not independent of the rates. For example, because of the rarefied nature of the hot ISM at the centres of galaxies and clusters, hot mode will generally {\it tend} be associated with low rates to accretion. Moreover, it is likely that the types of events associated with cold mode accretion (e.g. galaxy mergers) {\it tend} to lead to higher rates of accretion and Eddington ratios above that required to produce a
SLRG. However, the link between rate and mode is not one-to-one, and cases like Centaurus A suggest that cold accretion at low rates may be possible following a merger, once the gas has settled to a stable configuration.
Finally, it is interesting that the WLRG/FRII objects, which can be considered misfits in terms of their radio/optical classifications, also appear to show hybrid host/environment properties: while on average they tend to inhabit relatively rich environments that are similar to those WLRG/FRI sources \citep{ramos13,ineson15}, evidence is emerging that their cool gas contents are more similar to those of SLRG/FRII sources \citep{dicken16}; and one of the WLRG/FRII objects in the 2Jy sample (PKS0347+05) appears to be involved in a major, gas-rich galaxy merger \citep{tadhunter11}.
Although intermittency/switch off may help to explain some of their properties (see section 2.5), the WLRG/FRII sources clearly present a challenge to our current understanding of radio AGN phenomenology.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:2}
The population of radio AGN shows considerable diversity in both its AGN and its host galaxy properties. By investigating the causes of this diversity using a multi-wavelength approach, considerable recent progress has been made in understanding the underlying physical mechanisms.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] {\bf Anisotropy and orientation.} A broad range of observations now lend strong support to the unified schemes that explain the relationship between broad- and narrow-line radio AGN within the SLRG/FRII category in terms of anisotropy and orientation effects.
The observations also demonstrate that two of the key indicators of the bolometric luminosities of the AGN --- the [OIII] emission line luminosity (L$_{[OIII]}$) and the 24$\mu$m continuum luminosity (L$_{24}$) --- suffer mild (factor $\sim$2 -- 3) attenuation in NLRG, due to the extinction effects of the circum-nuclear dust.
\item[-] {\bf Accretion rates.} Differences in accretion rates onto the central supermassive black holes can further help to explain the diversity of the optical spectra and radio morphologies of the radio AGN population: the properties of SLRG/FRII sources are consistent with high Eddington accretion ratios, and those of WLRG/FRI sources with lower Eddington ratios, with the break between the two occurring at $(L_{bol}+Q_{jet})/L_{edd} \sim 10^{-2}$.
\item[-] {\bf Variability.} Long-term, high-amplitude variability of the AGN --- either within a cycle, or in the switch-off phase at the end of a cycle --- can help to explain the properties of the WLRG/FRII objects, whose relationship with the other classes of radio AGN is otherwise difficult to explain in terms of the effects of anisotropy/orientation and/or different accretion physics.
\item[-] {\bf The triggering of SLRG.} The detailed morphological, star formation, cool ISM and environmental properties of SLRG are consistent with them being triggered in galaxy mergers. However, the mergers are likely to be relatively minor in most cases: equivalent to the accretion of twice the gas mass of the LMC; only a minority of the hosts of radio AGN in the local universe ($<$20\%) have the high star formation rates and large cool ISM masses typical of major, gas-rich mergers that would lead to substantial growth of the supermassive black holes and stellar masses. Simulations of galaxy mergers indicate that timescale of this type of quasar-like radio AGN activity is likely to be relatively short \citep[$<$100~Myr:][]{dimatteo05}.
\item[-] {\bf The fuelling of WLRG.} In contrast to the SLRG, the detailed properties of the WLRG are more consistent with their supermassive black holes
being fuelled at low rates: by the accretion of the hot ISM in the host galaxies/clusters, the cool ISM from cooling flows, or cool ISM in the near-nuclear regions that has reached a relatively stable dynamical configuration. This type of radio AGN activity is likely to have a high duty cycle.
\end{itemize}
\section{Outlook}
Promising directions for future research in this field include the following.
\begin{itemize}
\item[*] {\bf Understanding the WLRG/FRII sources.} It is important to use observations of larger samples of WLRG/FRII sources to determine whether they represent a truly uniform population in terms of their host galaxy masses, detailed optical morphologies, large-scale environments, star formation properties and gas contents. By comparison with the properties of SLRG/FRII objects, this will help to establish whether all, or a only a subset, of the WLRG/FRII sources represent objects in which the AGN has recently switched off. In addition, further detailed spectral ageing studies at radio wavelengths will be key to establishing whether the radio sources of some WLRG/FRII objects represent relics, consistent with the switch-off idea.
\item[*] {\bf What types of mergers trigger luminous radio AGN activity?} The star formation properties and gas contents of the majority of SLRG/FRII sources suggest that they have been triggered in galaxy mergers that are relatively modest, at least in terms of their cool gas masses. Such mergers have the potential to deliver total reservoirs of cool gas that are sufficiently massive to sustain quasar activity on the requisite timescale. However, further numerical simulations are required to establish what types of modest mergers can trigger luminous AGN activity, considering a range of galaxy properties (e.g. total stellar masses), not just the cool gas contents. On the observational side, it will also be important to use deep high resolution imaging and/or integral field observations of the tidal features to establish the stellar masses of the galaxies merging with the
giant elliptical hosts of the radio AGN.
\item[*] {\bf The nature of the lower luminosity radio AGN populations.} This review has concentrated the high-luminosity end of the radio source population ($L_{1.4GHz} > 10^{24}$~W Hz$^{-1}$). However, the majority of the radio AGN detected in large-area surveys such as NVSS and FIRST have lower luminosities. Although the SDSS has been used to establish the optical spectral classes of such sources, we know relatively little about their detailed radio and optical morphologies. Therefore further deep, high resolution imaging observations of samples of lower-luminosity radio sources at both radio and optical wavelengths are required to establish their relationship with the high-luminosity radio AGN population, and hence investigate the natures of their AGN and how they are triggered.
\item[*] {\bf High spatial resolution studies of the cool gas kinematics in the near-nuclear regions.} The new generation of mm-wavelength interferometers such as ALMA has the capability to study the kinematics of the cool gas in the central regions of the nearest radio AGN on scales of $\sim$0.1 --- 1~kpc via observations of the CO emission lines. On such scales, the dynamical timescale of the gas ($\le 10^7$~yr) is comparable with, or less than, the typical lifetimes of the AGN. In this case, detailed mapping of the gas kinematics has the potential to reveal how the gas is transported from kpc-scale dust lanes to sub-100pc-scales --- one of the key outstanding problems in AGN studies. The observations will be challenging because the cool gas masses are modest in most cases (see section 3.4). However, it will be particularly interesting to compare the kinematics of the cool gas in nearby SLRG/FRII and WLRG/FRII objects, to determine whether the relatively dim AGN in the WLRG/FRII (perhaps related to the switch-off phase) are linked to a particular dynamical state of the near-nuclear gas.
\end{itemize}
\begin{acknowledgements}
I am grateful to all my collaborators on the 2Jy project over the last 25 years for their valuable contributions, in particular Raffaella Morganti, Dan Dicken, Cristina Ramos Almeida, Martin Shaw, Bob Dickson, Sperello di Serego Alighieri, Katherine Inskip, Bob Fosbury, Andy Robinson, Joanna Holt, Martin Hardcastle, Beatriz Mingo and Montse Villar-Mart\'in. I also thank Raffaella Morganti and Francesco Palla for suggestions that have improved the manuscript. I acknowledge the NASA Astrophysics Data System, which has greatly assisted me in constructing the bibliography for this review.
\end{acknowledgements}
|
\section{Introduction}
Gravitational theory entered its current ``dark age'' in the early 1930’s when galactic rotation curves (RC's) and galactic cluster masses were observed to deviate from Newtonian expectations based on luminous matter and mass-to-luminosity ratios \cite{oort,zwicky1,zwicky2,rubin}. These are two aspects of the dark matter phenomenon \cite{garrett}, a phenomenon that was followed much more recently by ``the discovery of the accelerating expansion of the Universe through observations of distant supernovae \cite{nobel},'' ushering in the phenomenon of dark energy. Both non-baryonic dark matter (DM) and a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ (dark energy) play important roles in the concordance model $\Lambda$CDM \cite{planck} where baryonic matter comprises $\sim$4\% of all the energy density in the universe, DM comprises $\sim$23\%, and dark energy comprises $\sim$73\%. The sum of these contributions results in a spatially flat, radiation-dominated universe transitioning to a spatially flat, matter-dominated universe which does a good job accounting for cosmological observations, e.g., anisotropies in the power spectrum of the CMB \cite{hu} and galactic distributions attributed to baryon acoustic oscillations \cite{eisenstein}. However, 80 years after first being posited, there is still no independent verification of DM and galactic RC's do not conform to the theoretical predictions of $\Lambda$CDM for the distribution of DM on galactic scales \cite{gentile1}. After listing DM's attributes, i.e., dark, cold, abundant, stable, and dissipationless, Sean Carroll concludes \cite{carroll1}, ``So should we be surprised that we live in a universe full of dark matter? I’m going to say: yes.'' Likewise, we have no consensus explanation for $\Lambda$ of the size needed in $\Lambda$CDM \cite{carroll2,weinberg1,bianchi}. In other words, while DM and $\Lambda$ serve us well in $\Lambda$CDM, they are also problematic. ``As Tom Shanks once said, there are only two things wrong with $\Lambda$CDM: $\Lambda$ and CDM'' \cite{bull}. For these reasons and others, there are efforts to explain gravitational phenomena on astrophysical scales without DM or $\Lambda$ \cite{garfinkle,paranjape,tanimoto,clarkson,milgrom1,milgrom2,sanders1,bekenstein,sanders2,zlosnik,zhao,blanchet,brownstein1,brownstein2}. However, as far as we know, there is no attempt to get rid of both DM and $\Lambda$, which is what we propose.
Concerning our motivation for explaining dark matter and dark energy phenomena, we point out that we came to these problems from the foundations of physics. Our proposed fundamental ontology, Relational Blockworld (RBW), was originally conceived as an interpretation of quantum mechanics \cite{stuckey1,stuckey2,silber1}, but it quickly became apparent that it has implications for quantum gravity, unification and astrophysics \cite{silber2,stuckey3}. According to RBW, reality is fundamentally discrete, so although the lattice geometry of Regge calculus \cite{regge,misner,barrett,williams} is typically viewed as an approximation to the continuous spacetime manifold of general relativity (GR), it could be that discrete spacetime is fundamental while ``the usual continuum theory is very likely only an approximation'' \cite{feinberg} and that is what we assume. Further, the links of a Regge calculus graph can connect non-neighboring points of the corresponding GR spacetime manifold leading to small corrections to the corresponding GR spacetime geometry. The direct connection between non-neighboring points on the spacetime manifold is referred to as ``disordered locality'' \cite{caravelli} and has been used on astrophysical scales to explain dark energy \cite{prescod}. Our views deviate from the standard use of Regge calculus, so we refer to our approach as modified Regge calculus (MORC). Thus, ours is a foundationally motivated approach to the problems of dark matter and dark energy.
\section{The Model}
RBW's disordered locality is a variation on the old idea of direct particle interaction \cite{wheeler,hawking,davies1,davies2,hoyle,narlikar} whereby the na$\ddot{\mbox{\i}}$ve notion of a mediating quantum field between sources is eliminated. A discrete graphical spacetime is obviously going to create conflict with the differentiable spacetime manifold of GR, but particularly so when quantum matter-energy exchange occurs between sources at distances exceeding the validity of a flat spacetime approximation. Thus, we propose that Regge calculus be modified by adding links between non-neighboring points in the context of the corresponding continuous spacetime manifold. One would then solve Regge's equations for the lattice modified per disordered locality. Of course, without some highly symmetric form of disordered locality, we expect the modified Regge's equations would have to be solved numerically. Thus, we assume that the existence of modest disordered locality in the exact Regge calculus graph justifies small corrections to the corresponding approximate GR solution. In practice we imagine modified Regge calculus graphs with greatly simplifying assumptions would be used as approximations of the exact Regge calculus graph (also true of standard Regge calculus, obviously). When all link lengths are small, i.e., in the absence of disordered locality, these approximate Regge calculus solutions would then correspond to GR solutions and we have standard Regge calculus \cite{brewin1,miller,brewin2}. As with GR solutions, Regge calculus solutions are nontrivial and there is no reason to believe that finding extrema of a Regge graphical action modified per disordered locality would be any easier. Rather, at this point, we are simply operating on the assumption that a modified Regge graphical action and its extrema will make correspondence with Regge calculus and GR in the proper limits. Motivated by RBW's prediction of disordered locality, we are systematically exploring possible geometric corrections to astrophysical phenomena that may be examples of disordered locality. It seems to us that dark energy and dark matter are two such examples. If we can find simple geometric corrections that resolve the problems of dark energy and dark matter, then we will use these as guides to produce a simplified cosmological Regge graphical action modified per disordered locality.
Accordingly, we introduced simple geometric corrections to idealized GR spacetime structure on large scales to account for observational data associated with dark matter, i.e., galactic RC's and galactic cluster mass profiles, and dark energy, i.e., type Ia supernova data. First, we fit the SCP Union2.1 supernova data matching that of $\Lambda$CDM via a simple correction of proper distance in Einstein-deSitter (EdS) cosmology \cite{stuckey4,stuckey5}. Specifically,
\begin{equation}
D_{L}=(1+z)D_{p} \rightarrow (1+z)D_{p} \sqrt{1+\frac{D_{p}}{A}}
\end{equation}
where $D_L$ is the luminosity distance, $z$ is the redshift, $D_p$ is the proper distance obtained using the Regge calculus EdS solution, and $A$ is a fitting parameter. From our Regge calculus EdS solution we have
\begin{equation}
D_p = \int \left(\frac{F'(b)}{bF(b)}\sqrt{1+\frac{b^2}{4}}\right)db
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
F(b) = \frac{\sqrt{4+b^2}}{2[\pi -cos^{-1}(\frac{b^2}{4+2b^2})-2cos^{-1}(\frac{\sqrt{4+3b^2}}{2\sqrt{2+b^2}})]}
\end{equation}
with $b = \frac{R\dot{a}}{c}$.
The type Ia supernova data to be fit is distance modulus ($\mu$) versus redshift ($z$), i.e., $\mu = 5 \log \left(\frac{D_L}{10pc}\right)$. The MORC sum of squares error (SSE) for $\frac{\mu}{5} - 8$ is robust against variation in coordinate lattice spacing $R$ and nodal mass $m$. We find the MORC best fit SSE = (1.630 $\pm$ 0.002) for $A$ = (7.48 $\leftrightarrow$ 10.6) Gcy with a current Hubble constant of $H_o$ = (69.9 $\leftrightarrow$ 75.1) km/s/Mpc using the MORC values $R$ = (2.11 $\leftrightarrow$ 8.39) Gcy and $m$ = (0.301 $\leftrightarrow$ 17.5) x 10$^{51}$ kg. The best fit $\Lambda$CDM gave SSE = (1.639 $\pm$ 0.003) using $H_o$ = (68.9 $\leftrightarrow$ 70.1) km/s/Mpc, $\Omega_M$ = (0.24 $\leftrightarrow$ 0.28) and $\Omega_\Lambda$ = (0.72 $\leftrightarrow$ 0.76). Both of these fits were superior to the EdS best fit with SSE = 2.67 and $H_o$ = 60.9 km/s/Mpc (Figure \ref{fig1}). A recent study has found $H_o$ = 73.00 $\pm$ 1.75 km/s/Mpc \cite{riess}. [For details see references [51] and [52]. Note: Those fits were for the older SCP Union2 SN Ia data.]
In order to account for dark matter phenomena, we note that in addition to a graphical spacetime with disordered locality, RBW assumes relationalism/contextuality \cite{auffeves}, i.e., mass is not an intrinsic property of matter, but is rather a characterization of spacetime geometry, itself a system of relations. As such, matter can simultaneously have different values of mass, each different value of mass associated with a different spacetime context. Like disordered locality, contextuality is not new to physics, e.g., it already exists in GR. Specifically, it is well known that the mass of the matter interior to the Schwarzschild solution (proper mass) can differ from the dynamic mass of that same matter per the exterior Schwarzschild metric \cite{wald,stuckey6}. While it may seem unnecessary to bring GR to bear on such rarified distributions of matter with non-relativistic rotation speeds ($v \ll c$), Cooperstock {\it et al.} used GR instead of Newtonian gravity in fitting galactic RC's and found that the non-luminous matter in galaxies ``is considerably more modest in extent than the DM extent claimed on the basis of Newtonian gravitational dynamics'' \cite{magalhaes,carrick,cooperstock}. Thus, we used contextuality and disordered locality to motivate a simple geometric modification to proper mass to obtain dynamic mass for MORC fits \cite{stuckey7} of twelve high-resolution galactic RC's from The HI Nearby Galaxy Survey \cite{walter} (THINGS) used by Gentile {\it et al}. to explore modified Newtonian dynamics (MOND) fits \cite{gentile2}. Specifically, we modified the proper mass $\Delta M_p$ of each (discrete) annulus of galactic matter to obtain its dynamic mass $\Delta M$ ($i^{th}$ component, where bulge, disk, and gas are the possible components) per
\begin{equation}
\Delta M_i=\delta_i (\frac{r_2+r_1}{2})^\xi \Delta M_p \label{RCFit}
\end{equation}
with $\delta_i$ and $\xi$ (same for all components) fitting parameters. The THINGS data to be fit is rotation velocity versus orbital radius. Gentile {\it et al}. describe these data as ``the most reliable for mass modelling, and they are the highest quality RC's currently available for a sample of galaxies spanning a wide range of luminosities.'' MORC fits rival MOND fits which were deemed ``very successful'' for these data \cite{gentile2} (Figure \ref{fig2}).
Finally, we used this same technique to fit the mass profiles of the eleven X-ray clusters found in Brownstein \cite{brownstein3} as obtained from Reiprich and B$\ddot{\mbox{o}}$hringer \cite{reiprich1,reiprich2} using combined ROSAT (ROentgen SATellite) and ASCA (Advanced Satellite for Cosmology and Astrophysics) data. Specifically, we used the continuum version of Eq. (\ref{RCFit})
\begin{equation}
M(r)=\int_{0}^{r}\delta r^\xi dM_p=4\pi \int_{0}^{r}\delta r'^{\xi } \rho (r')r'^2dr'
\end{equation}
to modify the proper mass of each annulus of intracluster medium gas to obtain its dynamic mass. The X-ray cluster mass profile data to be fit is mass versus radius. MORC fits rival metric-skew-tensor gravity (MSTG) fits which bested MOND and scalar-tensor-vector gravity fits of these same data \cite{brownstein3} (Figure \ref{fig3}). [For details on dark matter fits see reference \cite{stuckey7}.]
\section{Conclusion}
The fundamental ontological entity per RBW is the ``spacetimesource element.'' A spacetimesource element is $of$ space and time, not $in$ space and time, and its properties are determined relationally and contextually per its classical context. The distribution of spacetimesource elements in their classical context is given by an adynamical global constraint that underwrites quantum physics. This view leads to a modified Regge calculus (MORC). We have shown that dark matter and dark energy phenomena associated with galactic rotation curves, X-ray cluster mass profiles, and type Ia supernova data can be accounted for via small corrections to GR spacetime geometries motivated by RBW’s disordered locality and relationalism/contextuality as implemented by MORC. Accordingly, the phenomena of dark matter and dark energy may be chimeras created by an errant belief that spacetime is a differentiable manifold instead of a disordered graph.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{intro}
In engineering design, one often seeks to lower the product cost while
ensuring its integrity. These are by construction two conflicting
objectives. Optimization has therefore been used as an automatic
procedure to find a good trade-off. The optimal solution
usually lies at the boundary of the feasible space. However
uncertainties are ubiquitous to engineering systems whether arising from
modeling approximations or input parameters inherent variability. They
make any optimal design solution likely to depart from its real-world
counterpart. Such discrepancy may turn a feasible solution into an
unfeasible one. It is therefore of prime importance to account for
uncertainties during optimization. This is generally achieved through
\emph{robust} and \emph{reliability-based design optimization}
(respectively RDO and RBDO). In the former, emphasis is put on the cost
function. The designer actually searches for a design that is immune to
the inputs uncertainties. The cost function is in this case replaced by
robustness measures which include worst-case scenarios or moment-based
criteria \citep{Trosset1997}. \citet{Beyer2007} and
\citet{Baudoui2012} give a comprehensive review of such techniques. On
the other hand, reliability-based design optimization rather seeks to
balance the cost and the safety requirements by moving the solution away
from the boundary of the admissible space. The work presented in this
paper is concerned with the latter approach.
Following the notations in \citet{Dubourg2011}, a reliability-based design optimization may be formulated as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:001}
\begin{split}
& \ve{d}^\ast = \arg \min_{\ve{d} \in {\mathbb D}} {\mathfrak c} \prt{\ve{d}} \quad \text{subject to: }
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\mathfrak{f}_j \prt{\ve{d}} \leq 0, \quad & \acc{j = 1, \ldots, n_s}, \\
\Prob{\mathfrak{g}_k \prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \leq 0} \leq \bar{P}_{f_k}, \quad & \acc{k = 1, \ldots, n_h},
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where a cost function ${\mathfrak c}$ is minimized with respect to design
variables $\ve{d}$. This minimization task is carried out under a set of
constraints divided into two groups respectively denoted by \emph{soft}
and \emph{hard} constraints. The $n_s$ soft constraints $\mathfrak{f}_j$
are simple analytical functions, often bounding the design space while
the $n_h$ hard constraints $\mathfrak{g}_k$ are actually the system
performance functions. They rely on the mechanical model $\mathcal{M}_k$
used to predict the structural behavior. In our case, they result from a
finite element model and may be written as $\mathfrak{g}_k = \bar{\mathfrak{g}}_k
- \mathcal{M}_k$, where $\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_k$ is a threshold not to be
exceeded by the structural response which is computed from a simulation model $\ve{x} \mapsto \mathcal{M}_k\prt{\ve{x}}$ (usually a time-consuming finite element model). When safety requirements are of
interest, performance may be measured in terms of a failure probability.
To this end, random variables accounting for the uncertainties in the
inputs are introduced and denoted respectively by $\ve{X} \sim \fx$ for
the design variables and $\ve{Z} \sim f_{\boldsymbol{Z}}$ for the environmental
variables. The former notation means that the distribution of $\ve{X}$
is conditioned on the design parameters. Typically, design parameters
$\ve{d}$ are nominal dimension and $\fx$ models the uncertainties due to
manufacturing tolerances. Environmental variables $\ve{Z}$ may for
instance be parameters of the crash protocol such as the impact speed in
crashworthiness design. By propagating these uncertainties to the
output, the failure probability for a given design $\ve{d}$ reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:002}
P_{f_k}\prt{\ve{d}} = \Prob{\mathfrak{g}_k\prt{\ve{W}} \leq 0} = \int_{\mathfrak{g}_k\prt{\ve{w}} \leq 0} f_{\boldsymbol{W}}\prt{\ve{w}} d\ve{w},
\end{equation}
where $\ve{W} = \acc{\ve{X}|\ve{d},\ve{Z}}^T \sim f_{\boldsymbol{W}}$ is a vector
gathering all the input parameters of the mechanical model that governs
the structure's behavior. The solution of this integral is generally not
tractable because the failure domain defined by $\acc{\ve{w}:
\mathfrak{g}_k \prt{\ve{w}} \leq 0}$ has an implicit definition. One
rather resorts to \emph{approximation} or \emph{simulation} methods
\citep{Madsen1986}. Within the former group, the first-order reliability
method (FORM) is the most widely used
\citep{Ditlevsen1996,Lemaire2007,Hasofer1974}. It consists in mapping the
random variables into the standard normal space where the limit-state
surface is linearly approximated. Therefore, the failure probability can
be equivalently expressed by the so-called \emph{reliability index}
\citep{Hasofer1974}. Curvatures of the limit-state surface may be handled
by the second-order reliability method (SORM). As for the simulation
methods, the most straightforward one is crude Monte Carlo simulation
(MCS) where the failure probability is estimated by the relative
occurrence of failed samples. The accuracy of the estimate depends on
the number of samples. For extremely small probabilities of failure, the
required number of samples for an accurate estimate becomes relatively
high, typically $10^{6-8}$, which makes the approach not affordable.
Variance-reduction techniques have been introduced in order to by-pass
this limitation \citep{Asmussen2007}. Applied to rare events simulations,
such techniques include importance sampling \citep{Au1999,Melchers1989}
and subset simulation \citep{Au2001}. The former proceeds by sampling
from an instrumental distribution which puts a higher weight to the
failure domain and afterwards correct the introduced bias appropriately.
The latter splits the failure domain into nested auxiliary domains such that the
failure probability can be estimated by the product of larger ones, the
latter being easier to evaluate by simulation. However, the
computational cost of all these techniques is in the order of $10^{3-4}$
(for each design $\ve{d}$), and can thus not be used within an
optimization loop.
Indeed, the solution of the RBDO problem relies on the estimate of the
failure probability for different values of the design parameters. Many
techniques exist and may be classified into \emph{two-level},
\emph{mono-level} and \emph{decoupled} approaches
\citep{Chateauneuf2008,Aoues2010}. Two-level approaches, which basically
consist of two nested loops, are among the most straightforward to
implement. The outer loop explores the design space and the inner one
solves the reliability analysis for any given design. Usually, the inner
loop resorts to FORM approximations as in the so-called \emph{reliability index} \citep{Enevoldsen1994} and \emph{performance measure} \citep{Tu1997,Tu1999} approaches (respectively RIA and PMA). Simulation techniques may also be used in the inner loop, as we show in the sequel. The mono-level approach transforms the double-loop problem into a single-loop one by introducing optimality criteria for the FORM problem. \citet{Kuschel1997} propose an equivalent formulation based on RIA while \citet{Agarwal2007} rather rely on PMA. Finally, the decoupled approaches transform the double-loop into a sequence of deterministic problems. A well-known example is \emph{sequential optimization and reliability analysis} (SORA) proposed in \citet{Du2004}.
As introduced above, all theses methods rely on repeated evaluations of
the mechanical models, \ie during the outer optimization loop and more
intensively in the reliability analysis steps. This limits their range
of applications to engineering problems of practical interest. This
issue is even more dramatic in the design of complex industrial systems
which relies on high-fidelity models and henceforth time-consuming
simulations. \emph{Surrogate modeling}, a technique in which the
mechanical model is replaced by a well calibrated easy-to-evaluate
analytical function, has been extensively used in the past decade to
alleviate the computational burden. For instance, support vector
machines have been used for structural reliability assessment in
\citet{Hurtado2001,Bourinet2011,Deheeger2007}. Polynomial chaos expansion
were considered in \citet{BlatmanThesis,Blatman2010,Hu2011}.
Kriging (a.k.a. Gaussian process modeling) has been successfully used for reliability analysis in
\citet{Echard2011,Picheny2010,Bichon2008,Balesdent2013}. For the specific task of RBDO, conservative surrogate models which rely on Kriging or polynomial response surfaces were considered in \citet{Viana2010,Picheny2008}. From another perspective, \citet{Dubourg2011,Chen2015,Lee2011,Li2016}, for instance, have proposed some approaches which rely on locally or globally refined Kriging approximations. Likewise, the present work considers Kriging because it provides
not only an approximation of the original mechanical model but also
gives a built-in error estimate. This enables adaptive techniques that
further reduce the computational cost.
In contrast to most of the literature in RBDO, we are not interested in
this paper in highly reliable designs, for which the probability of
failure has to be computed by one of the methods mentioned above. Our
goal is rather to develop a \emph{conservative} optimal design
methodology. To this aim, we first introduce a quantile-based design
optimization procedure, in which the hard constraints are formulated on
quantiles of the performance criteria, instead of target probabilities
of failure. At each iteration of the design optimization, we therefore
evaluate quantiles through Monte Carlo simulation instead of solving a
reliability problem. This approach is justified by the "degree of
conservatism" targeted in our applications to car body mass
optimization: $95 \%$-quantiles are indeed considered as sufficiently
conservative, which makes their evaluation relatively easy. As the
performance criteria are obtained from time-consuming simulation (\eg
frontal impact of a full car body or a subsystem), quantile evaluation
must rely on surrogate models. In this respect, the goal of the paper is
to propose a quantile-based design optimization methodology which is
relying on adaptive Kriging surrogate models.
The paper is organized as follows: in Section 2 we introduce the
quantile-based optimization and prove its formal equivalence with the
classical RBDO setting. The basics of Kriging are then summarized in
Section 3. In Section 4, an original two-stage strategy of enrichment of
the experimental designs used in Kriging is proposed, as a means to
reduce the overall computational burden (\eg, at most a few hundreds
runs of the time-consuming computational model) to regions of the design
space that are relevant for optimization. Finally, Section 5 presents
four examples: the three first involve analytical constraints and allows
us to validate our approach against benchmark results. The final example
is a real case study which deals with the mass optimization of a car body subsystem under
crashworthiness constraints.
\section{Formulation of the quantile-based optimization procedure}
\subsection{Equivalence between RBDO and quantile-based
formulation} Prior to formulating the quantile-based procedure, let
us consider the reliability-based design optimization problem in
\equaref{eq:001}. By explicitly introducing the computational model
of interest $\mathcal{M}$ which describes the system performance, the
following equivalence holds: \begin{equation}\label{eq:003}
\begin{split}
\Prob{\mathfrak{g} \prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \leq 0} \leq \bar{P}_{f} & \Leftrightarrow \Prob{\mathcal{M} \prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \geq \bar{\mathfrak{g}}} \leq \bar{P}_{f}, \\
& \Leftrightarrow \Prob{\mathcal{M}
\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \leq \bar{\mathfrak{g}}} \geq 1
- \bar{P}_{f}, \end{split} \end{equation} where
$\bar{\mathfrak{g}}$ is an upper threshold on the system mechanical
response.
From the last expression, we can introduce the following quantile as an
alternative way of measuring the failure probability:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:004}
Q_{\alpha} \prt{\ve{d}; \mathcal{M}\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}}} = \inf \acc{q \in {\mathbb R}\; : \; \Prob{\mathcal{M} \prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \leq q } \geq \alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha = 1 - \bar{P}_{f}$.
The computed quantile may henceforth be used as a measure of reliability given a target failure probability. Considering \equaref{eq:003} and \equaref{eq:004}, the following equivalence holds:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:3001}
\Prob{\mathfrak{g} \prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \leq 0} \leq
\bar{P}_{f} \Leftrightarrow Q_{\alpha} \prt{\ve{d};
\mathcal{M}\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}}} \leq
\bar{\mathfrak{g}},
\end{equation}
where the value of $\alpha$ is directly related to the target failure
probability.
This equivalence between the failure probability and the quantile
estimation is illustrated in \figref{fig:001} where the distributions of
a mechanical response in two configurations are shown. In the upper
panel, the quantile corresponding to the target failure probability is
lower than the constraint threshold. This corresponds to a safe design
since the probability that $\mathcal{M}\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}}, \ve{Z}}$
is greater that $\bar{\mathfrak{g}}$ is smaller than $\bar{P}_f = 1 -
\alpha$. In contrast, the lower panel shows an unsafe design since the
associated quantile is higher than the threshold $\bar{\mathfrak{g}}$,
meaning that the probability of failure $\Prob{\mathcal{M}
\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \geq \bar{\mathfrak{g}} }$ is greater
than $\bar{P}_f$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[Safe design: $\Prob{\mathcal{M}
\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \geq \bar{\mathfrak{g}}}
\leq \bar{P}_{f} \Leftrightarrow Q_{\alpha} \prt{\ve{d};
\mathcal{M}\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}}} \leq
\bar{\mathfrak{g}}$]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Safe_design.pdf}\label{fig:Safe_D}}%
\\%
\subfloat[Unsafe design: $\Prob{\mathcal{M}
\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \geq \bar{\mathfrak{g}}} >
\bar{P}_{f} \Leftrightarrow Q_{\alpha} \prt{\ve{d};
\mathcal{M}\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}}} >
\bar{\mathfrak{g}}
$]{\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{Unsafe_design.pdf}\label{fig:Unsafe_D}}%
\caption{Comparison of a safe and an unsafe design with respect to a quantile $Q_\alpha$ corresponding to a target failure probability $\bar{P}_f = 1 - \alpha$.} %
\label{fig:001}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Following the previous developments, the RBDO problem of \equaref{eq:001} may eventually be recast as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:005}
\begin{split}
& \ve{d}^\ast = \arg \min_{\ve{d} \in {\mathbb D}} {\mathfrak c} \prt{\ve{d}} \quad \text{subject to: }
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\mathfrak{f}_j \prt{\ve{d}} \leq 0, \quad & \acc{j = 1, \ldots, n_s}, \\
Q_{\alpha_k}\prt{\ve{d}; \mathcal{M}_k\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}}} \leq \bar{\mathfrak{g}}_k, \quad & \acc{k = 1, \ldots, n_h},
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\alpha_k = 1 - \bar{P}_{f_k}$.
\subsection{Monte Carlo estimate of the quantile}
To solve the optimization problem in \equaref{eq:005}, the quantile must be estimated in each iteration for the current design $\ve{d}^{(i)}$. In this paper, we consider crude Monte Carlo sampling. The following steps describe the numerical procedure:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample the Monte Carlo set needed to evaluate the quantile:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:006}
\mathfrak{C}_q\prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}} = \acc{\prt{\ve{x}^{(j)},\ve{z}^{(j)}}, j = 1, \ldots, N},
\end{equation}
where $\ve{X} \sim f_{\ve{X}|\ve{d}^{(i)}}$, $\ve{Z} \sim f_{\boldsymbol{Z}}$ and $N$ is the size of the Monte Carlo sample set.
\item Compute the set of associated responses for each mechanical model:
\begin{equation}
\ve{\mathcal{Y}}_k = \acc{y_k^{(j)} = \mathcal{M}_k\prt{\ve{x}^{(j)},\ve{z}^{(j)}}, j = 1, \ldots, N}
\end{equation}
\item Sort them in ascending order such that $y_{k_{(1)}} \leq y_{k_{(2)}} \leq \ldots \leq y_{k_{(N)}}$
\item Retrieve the quantile corresponding to the $k$-th constraint by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:008}
Q_{\alpha_k} \prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}; \mathcal{M}_k\prt{\ve{X}\prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}},\ve{Z}}} \equiv \mathfrak{q}_{\alpha_k} \prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}} = y_{k_{(\lfloor N \ve{\alpha}_k \rfloor)}},
\end{equation}
where $\lfloor t \rfloor$ denotes the floor function yielding the largest integer smaller than $t$.
\end{enumerate}
To apply this approach, the Monte Carlo sample set in \equaref{eq:006} needs to be large enough so that the computed quantile is accurate. For our application, where the target failure probability is $1 \% - 10 \%$, we choose $N = 10,000$. As this simulation is embedded in the iterative process of optimization, the number of calls to the mechanical model may reach hundreds of thousands. When a high-fidelity model is involved, such a large number of calls is not affordable. We therefore couple the proposed approach to a well-known surrogate modeling technique, namely Kriging.
\section{Kriging (a.k.a Gaussian process modeling)}
Surrogate models have been increasingly used as proxies of time-consuming functions in the past decade. In the computer experiments setting, such a function is considered to be a black-box \ie only pairs of inputs/outputs are known with respect to a limited set of observations. This set constitutes the \emph{design of experiments} and reads, for a given model $\mathcal{M}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:009}
\mathcal{D} = \acc{\prt{\ve{x}_i, y_i}, \ve{x}_i \in \mathbb{R}^s, y_i = \mathcal{M}\prt{\ve{x}_i}, i = 1, \ldots, n},
\end{equation}
where $\ve{x}_i$ is an $s$-dimensional input, $y_i$ is the corresponding scalar output and $n$ is the number of available observations in the design of experiments.
Kriging a.k.a. Gaussian process modeling \citep{Santner2003} is one particular emulator which considers the function $\mathcal{M}$ to approximate as a realization of a stochastic process, which may be cast as:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{M}\prt{\ve{x}} = \sum_{j=1}^{p} \beta_j f_j\prt{\ve{x}} + Z \prt{\ve{x}},
\end{equation}
where the first summand is the deterministic part referred to as the \emph{trend}. It reads as a linear combination of a vector of $p$ weight coefficients $\ve{\beta} = \acc{\beta_j, j = 1, \ldots, p}$ and a set of function basis $\ve{f} = \acc{f_j, j = 1, \ldots, p}$. The second summand is a zero-mean stationary Gaussian process. It is completely defined by its auto-covariance function $\Cov{Z\prt{\ve{x}},Z\prt{\ve{x}'}} = \sigma^2 R \prt{\ve{x},\ve{x}'; \ve{\theta}}$, where $\sigma^2$ is the constant variance of the Gaussian process, $R$ is the auto-correlation function whose hyperparameters are gathered in the vector $\ve{\theta}$.
The calibration of the Kriging model involves making a few choices that can be motivated by some prior knowledge on the function to approximate. The first one is the choice of the mean trend. In this work, we consider an unknown constant trend. This results in the so-called \emph{ordinary Kriging}. The second one is the choice of the auto-correlation function which encodes assumptions such as the degree of regularity of the underlying process. A wide family of auto-correlation functions have been used in the literature. Here, we consider the Mat\'ern $5/2$ auto-correlation family, defined in the one-dimensional case by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:101}
R\prt{x,x';l} = \prt{1 + \sqrt{5} \frac{\abs{x-x'}}{l} + \frac{5}{3} \frac{\prt{x-x'}^2}{l^2}} \exp \prt{-\sqrt{5} \frac{\abs{x-x'}}{l}},
\end{equation}
where $l$ is the so-called \emph{characteristic length scale}. The multi-dimensional case is obtained by tensor product of the above equation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:102}
R\prt{\ve{x},\ve{x}';\ve{\theta}} = \prod_{i=1}^{s} R\prt{x_i,x^{'}_{i};\theta_i}.
\end{equation}
Once these choices are made, the Kriging predictor at the point $\ve{x}$ is assumed to follow a normal distribution $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}\prt{\ve{x}} \sim \mathcal{N}\prt{\mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x}}, \widehat{\sigma}^2_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x}}}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:389}
\begin{split}
& \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x}} = \ve{f}^T \prt{\ve{x}} \widehat{\ve{\beta}} + \ve{r}^T\prt{\ve{x}} \mat{R}^{-1} \prt{\ve{y} - \mat{F}^T \widehat{\ve{\beta}}},\\
& \widehat{\sigma}^2_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x}} = \sigma^2 \prt{1 - \ve{r}^T\prt{\ve{x}} \mat{R}^{-1} \ve{r}\prt{\ve{x}} + \ve{u}^T\prt{\ve{x}} \prt{\mat{F}^T \mat{R}^{-1}\mat{F}}^{-1} \ve{u}\prt{\ve{x}}},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\widehat{\ve{\beta}} = \prt{\mat{F}^T \mat{R}^{-1} \mat{F}}^{-1} \mat{F}^T \mat{R}^{-1} \ve{y}$ is the generalized least-square estimate of the weight coefficients $\ve{\beta}$, $\ve{r}\prt{\ve{x}}$ is a vector of cross-correlations between the point $\ve{x}$ and each point of the design of experiments, $\mat{F}$ is the information matrix whose components are $f_j\prt{\ve{x}_i}, i = \acc{1, \ldots, n}, j = \acc{1, \ldots, p}$ and $\ve{u} = \mat{F}^T \mat{R}^{-1} \ve{r}\prt{\ve{x}} - \ve{f}\prt{\ve{x}}$ has been introduced for the sake of clarity.
Beside the prediction given by $\mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x}}$, Kriging features a measure its own accuracy through the prediction variance $\widehat{\sigma}^2_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x}}$. Confidence intervals on the prediction can then be derived since the distribution of the prediction $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}\prt{\ve{x}}$ is Gaussian by assumption. More importantly, this has supported the development of infill-sampling criteria used for the adaptive refinement of Kriging models.
Eventually, one has to estimate the hyperparameters of the auto-correlation functions to completely define the Kriging predictor. This is achieved through automatic calibration following techniques such as \emph{cross-validation} or \emph{maximum likelihood estimation}. The latter is used in this work and boils down to the following optimization problem:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:012}
\widehat{\ve{\theta}} = \arg \min_{\ve{\theta} \in {\mathbb R}^d} \psi \prt{\ve{\theta}} = \widehat{\sigma^2}\prt{\ve{\theta}} \det \mat{R}\prt{\ve{\theta}}^{\frac{1}{n}},
\end{equation}
where $\psi \prt{\ve{\theta}}$ is the so-called \emph{reduced likelihood} function and $d$ is the number of parameters in $\ve{\theta}$ \citep{Koehler1996,DubourgThesis}.
The accuracy of the solution of the optimization problem in \equaref{eq:012} is crucial as it conditions the quality of the Kriging predictor. General-purpose algorithms such as genetic algorithm or BFGS are often used. Available softwares such as DiceKriging \citep{Roustant2012} in R, UQLab \citep{MarelliSudret2014,Lataniotis2015} or ooDace \citep{Couckyut2013} in MATLAB make use of such algorithms and more generally provide a framework to train a Kriging model.
\section{Kriging-based optimization}
\subsection{Construction of a Kriging model in the augmented reliability space}
In this section, the optimization problem in \equaref{eq:005} is solved while each performance function $\mathcal{M}_k$ is replaced by a Kriging model $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_k$ as introduced above. This simply means that the performance functions for now on read:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}_k \prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}} = \bar{\mathfrak{g}}_k - \widehat{\mathcal{M}}_k \prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}, \qquad k = \acc{1,\ldots, n_h}.
\end{equation}
Computing the quantile with respect to this surrogate model becomes an extremely cheap operation. The expensive part is the initial building of the surrogate model which requires to set and evaluate a design of experiments. Given the possible number of iterations before convergence is achieved, building one surrogate model for each reliability analysis (\ie the quantile computation for a given design in our case) would be quite cumbersome. Instead we advocate for the use of a \emph{single} Kriging model as already proposed in other contributions. The idea is to build the surrogate model in a unique space that embeds both the design and random variables. In \citet{Kharmanda2002}, this space is called the \emph{hybrid design space} and is defined as the tensor product between the design and random variables. This needlessly increases the dimension of the space where the surrogate model is built and may be problematic when it comes to space-filling design of experiments. From another perspective, \citet{Au2005} efficiently computes the failure probability in the so-called \emph{augmented reliability problem} for a given design considering a space where the design variables are artificially considered as random. \citet{Taflanidis2008} use this augmented reliability problem to construct a stochastic optimization problem. Eventually, \citet{Dubourg2011,DubourgThesis} propose an augmented reliability space following the ideas in the two above contributions. In these works, the size of the augmented reliability space remains equal to that of the original reliability problem. This is because they consider that the uncertainty in the random variables is simply augmented by the choice of the design points. In practice, the design and environmental variables are treated separately in the so-called \emph{confidence regions} which span a sufficiently large space such that any point sampled during the analysis is extremely likely to fall within the space of definition of the surrogate model. For the design variables, this region is hyper-rectangular and consists of the design space with extended bounds. The confidence region for the environmental variables is a hypersphere in the standard normal space (\ie, after transforming these variables into standard Gaussian ones) with a sufficiently large radius to account for extreme realizations of the random variables. The augmented space is henceforth considered as the tensor product between these two spaces.
In this paper, we propose an augmented space which is quite close to that defined in \citet{Dubourg2011}. We indeed treat separately the design and environmental variables. However, in our case, the environmental variables are not defined in a hypersphere. The reasons for this are twofold. First, due to its very formulation, the reliability analysis we perform does not need any mapping to the standard Gaussian space. Second, the non-linear mapping from the unit hypersphere (where the space-filling design of experiments is sampled) to the physical space may add complexity and non linearity to the function that is eventually surrogated. To avoid this, we rather consider a hypercube. Since the surrogate models are built in the unit hypercube, the mapping to the physical space is simply linear.
The augmented space is therefore the tensor product between two hyperrectangular confidence regions $\mathbb{X} \times \mathbb{Z}$, where $\mathbb{X}$ refers to the design variables and $\mathbb{Z}$ to the environmental parameters. The former is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:014}
\mathbb{X} = \prod_{i = 1}^{s_d} \bra{q^-_{d_i},q^+_{d_i}},
\end{equation}
where $s_d$ is the number of design variables and $q^-_{d_i}$ and $q^+_{d_i}$ are respectively quantiles associated to the lower and upper bounds of the design variables. They are defined in such a way that the confidence region spans a space sufficiently large to contain with high probability (\eg $99 - 99.9 \%$ in the application) all realizations of $\ve{X}|\ve{d}$ sampled during the optimization procedure. They read as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:015}
\begin{split}
q_{d_i}^{-} & = F^{-1}_{X_i|d_i} \prt{\alpha_{d_i}/2} \\
q_{d_i}^{+} & = F^{-1}_{X_i|d_i} \prt{1 - \alpha_{d_i}/2},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $X_i$ follows the marginal distribution $f_{X_i|d_i}$, $F^{-1}_{X_i|d_i}$ is the associated inverse CDF, $d_i^-$ and $d_i^+$ are respectively the lower and upper bounds of the design variable $d_i$, and $\alpha_{d_i}$ is the probability of sampling outside the augmented space. In applications we select $\alpha_{d_i} = 2.7 \; 10^{-3}$ for each variable, which corresponds to $\mu \pm 3 \sigma$ for a Gaussian variable.
In the same fashion, the confidence region for the environmental variables is defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:016}
\mathbb{Z} = \prod_{j = 1}^{s_z} \bra{q^-_{z_j},q^+_{z_j}},
\end{equation}
where $s_z$ is the number of environmental variables and the bounding quantiles are defined by:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:409}
\begin{split}
q_{z_j}^- & = F^{-1}_{Z_j} \prt{\alpha_{z_j}/2}, \\
q_{z_j}^+ & = F^{-1}_{Z_j} \prt{1 - \alpha_{z_j}/2},
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $Z_j$ follows the marginal distribution $f_{Z_j}$ whose inverse CDF is $F^{-1}_{Z_j}$ and $\alpha_{z_j}$ is the probability of sampling outside the augmented space in the direction of $Z_j$, again in the order of $10^{-3}$ in applications.
To illustrate the augmented space defined in this paper, we consider a problem where the design space is one-dimensional: $\mathbb{D} = \bra{d^-,d^+}$. For the RBDO problem, the design variable is supposed random with distribution $d \sim \mathcal{N}\prt{d,\sigma_d^2}$. We also assume that the RBDO problem features a unique environmental random variable defined by $Z \sim \mathcal{N}\prt{\mu_z, \sigma_z^2}$. An augmented space associated to this problem is shown in \figref{fig:Aug_Spa}. The design space is the blue line and the augmented space is the gray area. The distributions of the design and environmental variables are also plotted.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.65\textwidth]{Augmented_space.pdf}
\caption{Illustration of the augmented space for a two-dimensional problem with both random design and environmental variables.} %
\label{fig:Aug_Spa}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Note that the proposed framework naturally encompasses the two following cases:
\begin{itemize}
\item When the analysts disregard uncertainties in the design parameters (\eg, ignore manufacturing tolerances), $q_{d^-}$ and $q_{d^+}$ are simply set to $d^-$ and $d^+$ respectively.
\item When no environmental variables are considered, the augmented space reduces to $\mathbb{X}$.
\end{itemize}
Once the augmented space is defined for a specific problem, one may build a single \emph{global} surrogate model. This may be achieved by a space-filling design of experiments, \ie by using uniformly distributed samples so as to cover the entire space. The built Kriging model may henceforth be used for any reliability analysis during the RBDO. This one-shot approach is theoretically possible but would require the Kriging model to be accurate in the entire space. However, during the optimization only a subset of the space is actually of interest, \ie regions in the vicinity of the limit-state surface and those where the objective function decreases. These two issues can be dealt with using so-called \emph{adaptive design of experiments}. We propose in this paper a two-stage enrichment scheme where each stage is geared toward achieving one of the two above goals.
\subsection{Adaptive design of experiments: A short literature review}
Adaptive design of experiments have been developed from the premise that only a limited region of the space is of interest to the designer during an optimization analysis. Thus, instead of densely filling the space so as to have an evenly accurate model in the entire space, the optimization starts with a not so accurate model built upon a scarcely sampled design of experiments. Enrichment is then made so as to improve the surrogate accuracy in regions that matter. \citet{Jones1998} proposed the \emph{efficient global optimization} (EGO) scheme relying on an \emph{expected improvement} function which focuses on sequentially updating a Kriging model so as to converge to a global minimum. From the same idea, numerous authors have proposed infill sampling criteria to achieve the same goal. As for RBDO, emphasis is rather put on the vicinity of the limit-state surface in order to accurately estimate failure probabilities. A first family of infill sampling criteria comes from EGO techniques as they are mere adaptation, \eg adjusted expected improvement \citep{schonlau1998}, expected violation \citep{Audet2000} or expected improvement for contour approximation \citep{Ranjan2008}. On the other hand, \citet{Bichon2008} introduced a so-called \emph{efficient global reliability analysis} (EGRA) where an \emph{expected feasibility function} is used to improve the surrogate model in the vicinity of the limit-state surface. Similarly, \citet{DubourgThesis} used in his PhD thesis work the margin probability function. In the present work, we will focus on the \emph{deviation number} developed by \citep{Echard2011} for their Active Kriging Monte Carlo simulation technique (AK-MCS). In AK-MCS, some candidates to enrichment are considered among a Monte Carlo set. The point that is most likely to improve the Kriging model is defined as the one that minimizes the following $U$-function:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:018}
U\prt{\ve{x}} = \frac{\abs{\bar{\mathfrak{g}} - \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} \prt{\ve{x}} } }{\sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} \prt{\ve{x}}}.
\end{equation}
In practice, points that tend to minimize this function are those which are close to the constraint threshold \ie $\mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x}} \rightarrow \bar{\mathfrak{g}}$ (otherwise put, $ \widehat{\mathfrak{g}}\prt{\ve{x}} \rightarrow 0$), or those for which the Kriging variance is high ($\sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} \prt{\ve{x}} \rightarrow \infty$), thus implying that the Kriging model may lack of accuracy there because of the DoE scarcity.
In the sequel, we adapt this function for contour estimation with respect to a quantile which is referred to as the global stage of enrichment.
\subsection{Proposed global stage of enrichment} \label{SEC:glo_enr}
This first stage of enrichment is aimed at revealing regions of the space where the constraints, as defined in terms of quantiles, are likely to be violated. We call it \emph{global} as this enrichment spans the entire augmented space just as the AK-MCS defined above. There is however one difference in our setting. In contrast to AK-MCS, the constraint is defined with respect to $\ve{d}$ in the design space but the Kriging model is built in the augmented space. The idea with the proposed approach is to find the pair of points in the augmented space that most likely leads to an improvement of the quantile estimation in the design space. The following steps are completed to achieve this task:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample candidates for enrichment in the design space:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:019}
\mathfrak{C} = \acc{\ve{d}^{(1)}, \ve{d}^{(2)}, \ldots, \ve{d}^{(m)} }
\end{equation}
\item For each design $\ve{d}^{(i)}, i = \acc{1, \ldots, m}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Sample the Monte Carlo set required to compute the quantile:
\begin{equation}
\mathfrak{C}_q^{(i)} = \acc{\prt{\ve{x}_j, \ve{z}_j}, j = 1, \ldots, N}
\end{equation}
\item Compute the associated quantile $\widehat{q}_{\alpha} \prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}}$
\item Identify the point in the augmented space that is associated to the quantile, \ie
\begin{equation}\label{eq:021}
\prt{\ve{x}_\alpha^{(i)},\ve{z}_\alpha^{(i)}} = \acc{ \prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}} \in \mathfrak{C}_q^{(i)} \; : \, \widehat{q}_\alpha \prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}} = \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} \prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}}
\end{equation}
\item Compute the modified deviation number:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:022}
\mathcal{U}\prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}} \equiv U \prt{\ve{x}_\alpha^{(i)},\ve{z}_\alpha^{(i)}} = \frac{\abs{\bar{\mathfrak{g}} - \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} \prt{\ve{x}_\alpha^{(i)},\ve{z}_\alpha^{(i)}}}} {\sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} \prt{\ve{x}_\alpha^{(i)},\ve{z}_\alpha^{(i)}}}
\end{equation}
\end{enumerate}
\item The next best point to add to the design of experiments is therefore defined as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:462}
\prt{\ve{x}_{\text{next}},\ve{z}_{\text{next}}} = \arg \min_{\prt{\ve{x}_{\alpha},\ve{z}_{\alpha}} \in \mathfrak{C}_\alpha} \mathcal{U} \prt{\ve{d}},
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{C}_\alpha = \acc{\prt{\ve{x}_\alpha^{(i)},\ve{z}_\alpha^{(i)}}, i = 1, \ldots, m}$.
\end{enumerate}
To illustrate this enrichment scheme, let us consider the mathematical function from \citet{Janusevskis2013} which reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:293}
\mathcal{M}\prt{d,z} = \prt{\frac{1}{3}z^4 - 2.1 z^2 + 4}z^2 + dz + 4d^2 \prt{d^2 - 1},
\end{equation}
where $d \in \bra{-1,1}$. It is considered as a performance function for an RBDO problem where the constraint threshold is set to $\bar{\mathfrak{g}} = 0.5$. The probabilistic model consists of the random design variable $X \sim \mathcal{N}\prt{d,0.05^2}$ and the random environmental variable $Z \sim \mathcal{N}\prt{0.5, 0.05^2}$. \figref{fig:quant_enrich} shows the various iterations of the enrichment procedure. The left panel shows the augmented space with contour of $\varphi(-U)$, where $\varphi$ is the standard Gaussian PDF ($U$ is conveniently mapped for proper illustration). The contour $\widehat{\mathfrak{g}}\prt{\ve{x}, \ve{z}} = 0$ is plotted as black dotted line and the small black crosses form the set $\mathfrak{C}_\alpha$. In the right panel, the true and estimated quantiles ($\mathfrak{q}_\alpha$ and $\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha$) are respectively plotted in blue and black lines. The threshold $\bar{\mathfrak{g}} = 0.5$ is represented by the red dotted line. The blue triangles are the initial DoE. As enrichment is carried out, the red squares are added to the DoE. At each iteration, the best next point corresponds to the black diamond. From this example, we can see that the points added in the augmented space actually corresponds to those where $\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha\prt{d} \rightarrow \bar{\mathfrak{g}}$.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\centering \subfloat[Augmented space (left) and design space (right):
iteration $\#
1$]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{janu_tex01.pdf} \hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{janu_qa_tex01.pdf}\label{fig:qea}}%
\\
\subfloat[Augmented space (left) and design space (right): iteration
$\# 10$]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{janu_tex10.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{janu_qa_tex10.pdf}\label{fig:qed}}%
\caption{Enrichment with the mathematical function. In the left panel, the augmented space with contours of the enrichment functions and the set $\mathfrak{C}_\alpha$ shown as small crosses. In the right panel, the true and estimated quantiles are shown (resp. blue and black curve). Triangles and squares respectively stand for initial and enrichment points.}%
\label{fig:quant_enrich}%
\end{figure}
In this example, the enrichment was stopped when $\min_{d \in \mathfrak{C}} \mathcal{U} \geq 2$. This criterion actually means that there is only $5 \%$ of chance of mistaking a safe design for a failed one (and vice-versa) w.r.t. all the points in $\mathfrak{C}$. This is quite a conservative stopping criterion. We do not need such an accuracy in the entire design space. Since the next step is optimization, we may go further in reducing the computational budget by saving model evaluations to regions that actually improve the objective function. For this reason we propose a second stage of enrichment as explained in the sequel.
\subsection{Local stage of enrichment}
In order to further reduce the number of calls to the original computational model, we stop the first and global stage of enrichment earlier and proceed to a local enrichment which is coupled with optimization. In fact, the idea is to have a roughly accurate surrogate model that reveals the different regions of the space where the approximated limit-state function is close to zero. To this end, we may relax the criterion $\min \mathcal{U} \geq 2$ to a certain proportion of the enrichment candidates rather than all of them. The criterion may therefore be written as:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:025}
\eta = \text{Card}\prt{\mathfrak{C}_2} / \text{Card}\prt{\mathfrak{C}} \leq \bar{\eta}.
\end{equation}
where $\mathfrak{C}_2 = \acc{\ve{d} \in \mathfrak{C} \; : \; \mathcal{U}\prt{\ve{d}} \leq 2}$. Note that the original criterion corresponds to $\bar{\eta} = 0$. We may consider a relaxed criterion by setting $\bar{\eta} = 0.30$ for instance.
Assuming that the first stage of enrichment has been stopped with respect to the above criterion, there is residual epistemic uncertainty to the Kriging model. This uncertainty can be monitored during optimization and dealt with by updating the Kriging model only when necessary. To achieve this goal, we may consider a local accuracy measure associated to the quantile estimates, as they ultimately define the constraints of interest.
Following the idea in \citet{Dubourg2011} where bounds on failure probabilities were developed, we define the following lower and upper bounds, $\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha^-$ and $\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha^+$, which are quantiles computed with respect to $\mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} - 2 \sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}$ and $\mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}} + 2 \sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}$. Since the standard deviation is positive the following relationship holds:
\begin{equation}
\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha^-\prt{\ve{d}} \leq \widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha\prt{\ve{d}} \leq \widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha^+\prt{\ve{d}} \qquad \text{for any } \ve{d} \in \mathbb{D}.
\end{equation}
The spread of this interval is a good measure of the local Kriging accuracy for the quantile estimation. The following local accuracy criterion may henceforth be derived:
\begin{equation}
\eta_q\prt{\ve{d}} = \frac{\widehat{q}_\alpha^+\prt{\ve{d}} - \widehat{q}_\alpha^-\prt{\ve{d}}}{\bar{\mathfrak{g}}} \leq \bar{\eta}_q,
\end{equation}
where $\bar{\eta}_q$ is a pre-defined threshold. In the case where $\bar{\mathfrak{g}} = 0$, we may replace the denominator by $\sqrt{\Var{\widehat{\mathcal{Y}}_{MCS}}}$, where $\Var{\widehat{\mathcal{Y}}_{MCS}}$ is the variance of Kriging prediction over a large Monte Carlo set sampled in the augmented space.
The surrogate model is considered to be accurate enough for the quantile
estimation at the design $\ve{d}^{(i)}$ if this relationship holds. If
in contrast $\eta_q > \bar{\eta}_q$, then a local enrichment is made. To
this end, candidates for enrichment are selected among the Monte Carlo
set $\mathfrak{C}_q^{(i)}$. The following deviation number is computed
on this set \citep{Schobi2014,SchoebiASCE2016}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:028}
\mathfrak{U}\prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}} = \frac{\abs{\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_\alpha\prt{\ve{d}^{\prt{i}}} - \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}}} {\sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}}\prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}}.
\end{equation}
The best next point is the one that minimizes this function. This point corresponds to a certain $\prt{\ve{x}_\alpha^{(i)},\ve{z}_\alpha^{(i)}}$ from \equaref{eq:021}. By iteratively adding points in this fashion, it is expected that the quantile will be more and more accurately estimated.
\subsection{Implementation of the proposed procedure}
We now consider the implementation of the whole procedure. Prior to that, let us specify two additional points that most often characterize the actual problems we intend to address, \ie the possibility of adding many points per iterations and the presence of multiple constraints. The first point may be interesting when one has computational resources that allow for distributed computations. It may also be argued that there is not one single point that is likely to improve the surrogate model but many points located in disjoint regions. In such a case, multiple enrichment points allow us to reach them simultaneously. In order to add $K$ points in the DoE, we consider a weighted $K$-means clustering of the candidates for enrichment, where each point is weighted by $\varphi(-U)$. This way, regions with small values of $U$ are favored. Finally, $K$ clusters centers are chosen as the next points to add in the DoE.
As for the case of multiple constraints, many techniques exist. We may, for instance, rank the constraints and enrich sequentially starting with the most important one. This is not an optimal scheme. \citet{Fauriat2014} proposed a composite criterion which focuses on the most violated constraints. However, the notion of "most violated" is not adequate when the constraints are defined on completely different scales. In this work, we thus consider a composite criterion where, for each enrichment candidate, the constraint with minimum value of $U$ is taken, that is:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:029}
\begin{split}
\mathcal{U}_{comp} \prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}} = & \min_{l \in \acc{1, \ldots, n_h}} \mathcal{U}_{l} \prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}= \frac{ \abs{\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_l - \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l}\prt{\ve{x} ,\ve{z}}}}{\sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l}\prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}}, \\
\mathfrak{U}_{comp} \prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}} = & \min_{l \in \acc{1, \ldots, n_h}} \mathfrak{U}_l\prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}} = \frac{\abs{\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha_l}\prt{\ve{d}^{\prt{i}}} - \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l}\prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}}} {\sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l}\prt{\ve{x},\ve{z}}}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Considering all these developments, the pseudo-code in Algorithm~\ref{alg:qRBDO} summarizes the proposed procedure. Here we consider that the first stage of enrichment has been already performed. The selected optimization algorithm is the $(1+1)$-CMA-ES (Covariance matrix adaptation - evolution strategy) for constrained problems \citep{Arnold2012}. This is a stochastic global search algorithm which relies on multivariate normal distributions to search candidates with increased fitness as iterations grows. It also accounts for constraints by decreasing the likelihood to sample in the direction of previously unfeasible sampled points. Such a global search algorithm is quite convenient for the proposed procedure since only one parent generates one offspring, thus allowing us to check the quantile accuracy for the offspring before moving on. The entire procedure is illustrated in \figref{fig:flowchart}.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{tikzpicture}[node distance=1.5cm,auto,scale=0.99,transform shape]
\node(init)[init] {Initialize the DoE and the Kriging models};
\node(glo_enr)[glo_enr, below of = init]{Proceed to global enrichment (Section \ref{SEC:glo_enr})};
\node (i0) [counter, below of =glo_enr] {$i=0$};
\node(Cq)[optimization,below right = 0.5 cm and 0.3 cm of i0]{Build $\mathfrak{C}_q^{(i)}$};
\node (comp)[optimization, below = 0.2 cm of Cq]{Compute the quantile $q_\alpha(\ve{d}^{(i)})$, the bounds $q^\pm_\alpha(\ve{d}^{(i)})$ and the criterion $\eta_q^{(i)}$} ;
\node (eta) [decision, below = 3 cm of i0,aspect=3] {Is $\eta_q^{(i)} \leq \bar{\eta}_q$ ?};
\node(udoe)[optimization, left = 1cm of comp]{Update DOE following \equaref{eq:029}};
\node (meta)[optimization, left = 1cm of Cq ]{Update Kriging models};
\node (ddi)[optimization, below = 0.5 cm of eta ]{Run one iteration of CMA-ES: $\ve{d}^{(i+1)} = \ve{d}^{(i)} + \ve{\nu}^{(i)}$};
\node (conv) [decision, below = 0.5 cm of ddi ,aspect=3] {Convergence achieved ?};
\node (fin) [Fin, below = 0.5 cm of conv, node distance = 1.5cm] {End};
\node (ii1) [counter, right of = conv, node distance = 8cm] {$i=i+1$};
\draw [arrow] (init) -- (glo_enr);
\draw [arrow] (glo_enr) -- (i0);
\path [line] (i0) -| (Cq);
\draw [arrow] (Cq) -- (comp);
\path [line] (comp) |- (eta);
\path [line] (eta) -- node[near start] {yes} (ddi);
\path [line] (eta) -| node[near start] {no} (udoe);
\draw [arrow] (udoe) -- (meta);
\draw [arrow] (meta) -- (Cq);
\path [line] (conv) -- node[near start] {no} (ii1);
\path [line] (ii1) |- (Cq);
\draw [arrow] (ddi) -- (conv);
\path [line] (conv) -- node[near start] {yes} (fin);
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{Flowchart of the optimization procedure with the two stages of enrichment.}
\label{fig:flowchart}
\end{figure}
\begin{spacing}{0.8}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Quantile and adaptive Kriging optimization procedure}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\Require{}
\Statex DoE after the first stage of enrichment $\mathcal{D}$
\Statex Kriging models $\acc{\widehat{\mathcal{M}_l}, l=1, \ldots, n_h}$ based on the DoE $\mathcal{D}$
\Statex Target failure probability $\acc{\bar{P}_{f_l} = 1 - \alpha_l, l = 1, \ldots, n_h}$
\Statex Initial design for optimization $\ve{d}^{(0)}$
\Statex Number of simultaneous enrichment points $K$ \Comment{\color{BlueViolet} {\scriptsize{\eg $K = 3$}} \color{black}}
\Statex Constraint and quantile accuracy thresholds $\bar{\mathfrak{g}}$ and $\bar{\eta}_q$ \Comment{\color{BlueViolet} {\scriptsize{\eg $\bar{\eta}_q = 0.1$}} \color{black}}
\Statex Size of the Monte Carlo set $\mathfrak{C}_q$ $N$ \Comment{\color{BlueViolet} {\scriptsize{\eg $N = 10,000$}} \color{black}}
\Statex \hrulefill
\State $i = 0$; NotConverged $= \texttt{true}$,
\While{NotConverged $= \texttt{true}$}
\State Draw samples $\mathfrak{C}_q^{(i)} = \acc{\prt{\ve{x}_1,\ve{z}_1}, \ldots \prt{\ve{x}_N,\ve{z}_N}}$ in the augmented space where $\ve{X} \sim f_{\ve{X}|\ve{d}^{(i)}}$ and $\ve{Z} \sim f_{\ve{Z}}$
\For{$l = 1 \textrm{ to } n_h$}
\For{$j = 1 \textrm{ to } N$}
\State $\widehat{y}_j = \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l} \prt{\ve{x}_j,\ve{z}_j}$
\State $\widehat{y}_j^{-} = \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l} \prt{\ve{x}_j,\ve{z}_j} - 2 \sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l} \prt{\ve{x}_j,\ve{z}_j} $
\State $\widehat{y}_j^{+} = \mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l} \prt{\ve{x}_j,\ve{z}_j} + 2 \sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l} \prt{\ve{x}_j,\ve{z}_j} $
\EndFor
\State $q_{\alpha_l}\prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}} = \texttt{quantile}\prt{\acc{\widehat{y}}_{j=1}^{N},\alpha_l}$ \Comment{\color{OliveGreen} {\scriptsize{Estimated quantile}} \color{black}}
\State $q_{\alpha_l}^{-}\prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}} = \texttt{quantile}\prt{\acc{\widehat{y}^{-}}_{j=1}^{N},\alpha_l}$ \Comment{\color{OliveGreen} {\scriptsize{Lower bound of the quantile}} \color{black}}
\State $q_{\alpha_l}^{+}\prt{\ve{d}^{(i)}} = \texttt{quantile}\prt{\acc{\widehat{y}^{+}}_{j=1}^{N},\alpha_l}$ \Comment{\color{OliveGreen} {\scriptsize{Upper bound of the quantile}}\color{black}}
\EndFor
\If{$\prt{q_\alpha^{+} - q_\alpha^{-}}/\bar{\mathfrak{g}} > \bar{\eta}_q$}
\For{$k = 1 \textrm{ to } N$}
\For{$l = 1 \textrm{ to } n_h$}
\State $\mathfrak{U}_l\prt{\ve{x}_k,\ve{z}_k} = \abs{\mu_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l } \prt{\ve{x}_k,\ve{z}_k} - q_{\alpha_l}}/\sigma_{\widehat{\mathcal{M}}_l} \prt{\ve{x}_k,\ve{z}_k}$
\EndFor
\State $ \mathfrak{U}_{comp} \prt{\ve{x}_k,\ve{z}_k} = \min_{l \in \acc{1, \ldots, n_h}} \mathfrak{U}_l\prt{\ve{x}_k,\ve{z}_k}$
\EndFor
\If{$K == 1$}
\Comment{\color{OliveGreen} {\scriptsize{The point that minimizes $\mathfrak{U}_{comp}$ is chosen}} \color{black}} \State $\prt{\ve{x}_{\text{next}},\ve{z}_{\text{next}}} = \arg \min \acc{\mathfrak{U}_{comp}\prt{\ve{x}_k,\ve{z}_k}}_{k=1}^{N}$
\Else \Comment{\color{OliveGreen} {\scriptsize{$K$ points are chosen among the $N$ candidates}}\color{black}}
\State $\prt{\ve{x}_{\text{next}},\ve{z}_{\text{next}}}$ obtained from weighted $K$-means clustering with weight $\varphi\prt{-\mathfrak{U}_{comp}}$
\EndIf
\EndIf
\State Update the DoE $\mathcal{D}$ and the Kriging models $\widehat{\mathcal{M}_l}$
\Let{$\ve{d}^{(i)}$}{$\ve{d}^{(i)} + \nu^{(i)}$} \Comment{\color{OliveGreen} {\scriptsize{Explore the next design point using $(1+1)$-CMA-ES}} \color{black}}
\Let{$i$}{$i+1$}
\State Check convergence of the optimization algorithm
\EndWhile
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:qRBDO}
\end{algorithm}
\end{spacing}
\newpage
\section{Application examples}
The proposed methodology is now validated with four application examples. The first three are analytical problems whose solutions are available in the literature. The last one is related to the lightweight design of an automotive body structure under crashworthiness constraints. The following settings are common to all the problems. $L_2$-discrepancy-based optimized Latin hypercube is used to generate the initial designs of experiments. Anisotropic Kriging with Mat\'ern 5/2 autocorrelation function and a constant trend is considered as the default surrogate model.
\subsection{Column under compression}
This first example, introduced in \citet{DubourgThesis}, is concerned with a column of rectangular cross-section $b \times h$ submitted to a compressive load $F_{ser}$. The aim is to minimize the cross-sectional area while avoiding buckling. Buckling may occur here if the service load is higher than critical Euler force which reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:030}
F_{cr} = \frac{\pi^2 E I}{L^2},
\end{equation}
where $L$ is the length of the column, $E$ is the Young's modulus of its constitutive material and $I= bh^3/12$ ($b > h$) is the column area moment of inertia.
The deterministic optimization problem then reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:031}
\begin{split}
& \ve{d}^\ast = \arg \min_{\ve{d} \in \bra{150,350}^2} bh \quad \text{subject to: }
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\mathfrak{f}\prt{\ve{d}} = h - b \leq 0,} \\
\displaystyle{\mathfrak{g}\prt{\ve{d},\ve{z}} =F_{ser} - k \frac{\pi^2 E b h^3}{12 L^2},}
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $k$ is a parameter which accounts for model uncertainty in the Euler force (\ie it represents the effect of imperfections in the beam geometry and may be viewed as a model correction factor with respect to the ideal Euler force) and $\ve{z} = \acc{k,E,L}^T$ is the vector of environmental variables. Uncertainties are considered by introducing the probabilistic model as described in \tabref{tab:001}. With all parameters being lognormally distributed, an analytical solution can be derived \citep{DubourgThesis}:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:032}
b^\ast = h^\ast = \frac{12 F_{ser}}{\pi^2 \exp \prt{ \lambda_k + \lambda_E - 2 \lambda_L + \Phi^{-1}\prt{P_f} \sqrt{\zeta_k^2 + \zeta_E^2 + 4 \zeta_L^2}}},
\end{equation}
where $\zeta_\bullet = \sqrt{\ln \prt{1+\delta_\bullet^2}}$ and $\lambda_\bullet = \ln\prt{\mu_\bullet} - \frac{1}{2} \zeta_\bullet^2$ are respectively the scale and location parameters of the lognormal distribution. By setting the target probability of failure to $5 \%$, \ie $\alpha = 0.95$, the analytical solution, $b^\ast = h^\ast = 238.45$ mm.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Probabilistic model for the column under compression example.}
\label{tab:001}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
{Parameter} & {Distribution} & {Mean ($\mu$)} & {COV ($ \delta \%$)} \\ \hline
{$k$} & {Lognormal} & {$0.6$} & {$10$} \\
{$E$ (MPA)} & {Lognormal} & {$10,000$} & {$5$} \\
{$L$ (mm)} &{Lognormal} & {$3,000$} & {$1$} \\
{$F_{ser}$ (N)} &{$-$} & {$1.4622 \times 10^6$} & {$-$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
To apply the methodology on this five-dimensional problem, we start with a scarce initial design of $10$ points and set the global accuracy threshold in \equaref{eq:025} to $\bar{\eta} = 0.15$. Only two enrichment points are necessary to reach the required global accuracy. We then start the optimization by setting a simulated-annealing-like threshold $\bar{\eta}_q$ with three levels which are respectively $1$, $0.5$ and $0.1$. The idea is to start with a relaxed threshold in the early iterations where CMA-ES is exploring and gradually reduce it as iterations grow and CMA-ES starts exploring identified local minima. With this optimally tuned scheme, six points are added to the DoE. The found solution is $b^\ast = h^\ast = 239.12$ mm, has $0.28 \%$ discrepancy with the analytical solution. Note that the exact solution can be reached, should we increase the number of iterations of CMA-ES or refine the solution by a gradient-based algorithm. \figref{fig:Euler_appl} illustrates the convergence of CMA-ES. In total, only $18$ points were necessary to achieve convergence. By comparison, a one-shot approach with a DoE of size $18$ does not systematically converge to the reference solution. Additional points are needed most of the time.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[Points sampled during CMA-ES in the design
space]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Euler_cmaes.pdf}\label{fig:Euler_cmaes}}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[Quantile accuracy criterion during
optimization]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Euler_conv.pdf}\label{fig:Euler_conv}}%
\caption{Convergence of the column under compression problem. The left panel shows the evolution of CMA-ES in the design space. The blue and red dots fall respectively in the feasible and unfeasible sets. The green ones are the successive best sample points. In the right panel, the evolution of the local accuracy criterion is shown with respect to the number of iterations. In the two figures, the points corresponding to enrichment have been circled in cyan.} %
\label{fig:Euler_appl}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Two-dimensional problem}
This analytical example has been widely used for benchmark purposes in the related literature \citep{Du2004,Shan2008,Liang2004,DubourgThesis}. The optimization problem consists in minimizing the sum of the design parameters under three non-linear limit state functions whose deterministic formulation reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:1001}
\begin{split}
& \ve{d}^\ast = \arg \min_{\ve{d} \in \bra{0, 10}^2} d_1 + d_2 \quad \text{s.t.: }
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\mathfrak{g}_1 \prt{\ve{d}} = \frac{d_1^2 d_2}{20} - 1 \leq 0} \\[1em]
\displaystyle{\mathfrak{g}_2\prt{\ve{d}} = \frac{\prt{d_1 + d_2 - 5}^2}{ 30} + \frac{\prt{d_1 - d_2 - 12}^2}{120} - 1 \leq 0} \\[1em]
\displaystyle{\mathfrak{g}_3\prt{\ve{d}} = \frac{80} {\prt{d_1^2 + 8 d_2 + 5} - 1}} \leq 0
\end{array} \right..
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In order to solve the RBDO problem, we consider the following setting. The two design variables are considered as random: $X_i \sim \mathcal{N}\prt{d_i,0.6^2}, i = \acc{1,2}$. The target failure probability is $\bar{P}_{f_i} =1.35 \cdot 10^{-3}$ and thus corresponds to $\beta_i = 3$ for $i = \acc{1,2,3}$.
We start the procedure with a $10$-point experimental design. Considering \\ $\bar{\eta}~=~0.3$, five points are added during the first stage of enrichment. \figref{fig:1001a} shows the convergence of this enrichment stage. In \figref{fig:1001b}, the contours of the limit-state with respect to the current Kriging models in the augmented space $\mathbb{X} = \bra{-1.8,11.8}^2$ are shown. In this figure, the black rectangle corresponds to the bounds of the design space $\mathbb{D} = \bra{0,10}^2$ and the initial and added points are shown respectively as blue triangles and red squares.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[Convergence of the first stage of
enrichment]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Choi_stage1.pdf}\label{fig:1001a}}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[Limit-state surface after the first stage of
enrichment]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Choi_stage1_state.pdf}\label{fig:1001b}}%
\caption{Illustration of the first stage of enrichment for the two-dimensional problem} %
\label{fig:1001}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
We then proceed to optimization using constrained $(1+1)$-CMA-ES, starting from $\ve{d}^{(0)} = \acc{4, 5}^T$. The quantile accuracy thresholds are once more set in a simulated-annealing fashion as in the previous case with $\bar{\eta}_q = \acc{1,0.5,0.1}^T$. Convergence is achieved with four points added in the experimental design as illustrated in the diagnostic plots in \figref{fig:1002}. In the left panel, the evolution of the quantile accuracy criterion together with their associated thresholds are presented. The right panel illustrates convergence of CMA-ES algorithm. The red points violate the performance criteria (failure points). The blue and green ones are in the safe domain but only the latter improves the current best design during optimization.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[Evolution of the quantile accuracy
criterion]{\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Choi_stage2.pdf}\label{fig:1002a}}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[Convergence of the constrained $(1+1)$-CMA-ES
algorithm]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Choi_stage2_state.pdf}\label{fig:1002b}}%
\caption{Illustration of the second stage of enrichment for the two-dimensional problem} %
\label{fig:1002}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, \tabref{tab:1001} compares the results presented here with those reported in the literature for benchmark. All the selected methods provide a solution with a good accuracy. The difference rather lies in their costs. In these results, the single loop and the reliable design space (RDS) approaches require a relatively small number of functions evaluation despite they do not rely upon surrogate models. The two cases considering surrogate models (Meta-RBDO and Quantile-RBDO) are among the best in terms of model evaluations. In this example, the quantile-based approach we propose is on average the less expensive one. Since the initial design is random, the analysis is replicated $50$ times. The number of calls to the true models varies between $11$ and $23$, all of them leading to good results. On average the number of calls is $14.6$ and among them only three are above $20$.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Results comparison for the Choi problem.}
\label{tab:1001}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
{Method} & {$d^\ast_1$} & {$d^\ast_2$} & {$\mathfrak{c}\prt{\ve{d}^\ast}$} & {$\mathfrak{g}$-calls} \\ \hline
{Brute force} & {$3.45$} & {$3.30$} & {$6.75$} & {$\approx 10^6$} \\
{PMA$^1$} & {$3.43$} & {$3.29$} & {$6.72$} & {$1,551$} \\
{SORA$^2$} & {$3.44$} & {$3.29$} & {$6.73$} & {$151$} \\
{Single loop$^3$} & {$3.43$} & {$3.29$} & {$6.72$} & {$19$} \\
{RDS$^1$} & {$3.44$} & {$3.28$} & {$6.72$} & {$27$} \\
{Meta-RBDO$^4$} & {$3.46$} & {$3.27$} & {$6.74$} & {$20 (20/10/10)$} \\
{Quantile-RBDO} & {$3.44$} & {$3.29$} & {$6.73$} & {$17$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\tiny
\item $^1$ As calculated in \citet{Shan2008}
\item $^2$ As calculated in \citet{Du2004}
\item $^3$ As calculated in \citet{Liang2004}
\item $^4$ As calculated in \citet{DubourgThesis}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\subsection{Bracket structure}
This mechanical example consists of the two-member bracket structure illustrated in \figref{fig:bra_str} \citep{Chateauneuf2008}. The two-members are pin-joined at the point B and a vertical load $P$ is applied on the right end of the member CD at a distance $L$ of its hinge. The aim is to minimize its weight while considering two failure modes:
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim = 15mm 40mm 15mm 40mm, clip,width=0.75\textwidth]{bracket_structure.pdf}%
\caption{A sketch of the bracket structure (as illustrated in \citet{DubourgThesis})} %
\label{fig:bra_str}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{itemize}
\item The bending stress in the member CD whose maximum value $\sigma_b$ is required to be smaller than the yield stress $\sigma_y$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:033}
\mathfrak{g}_1 \prt{\ve{d},\ve{z}} = \sigma_y - \sigma_b,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_b = 6 M_B/w_{CD} t^2$, with $M_B = PL/3 + \rho g w_{CD} t L^2 / 18$. Here $w_{CD}$ and $t$ are the cross-sectional dimensions of CD, $\rho$ is the unit mass of its constitutive material and $g$ is the gravity intensity.
\item The compression force $F_{AB}$ that must be lower than the critical Euler force $F_b$:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:034}
\begin{split}
\mathfrak{g}_2 \prt{\ve{d},\ve{z}} = F_b - F_{AB} \quad \text{with:} \quad & F_b = \frac{\pi^2 E I}{L^{2}_{AB}} = \frac{\pi^2 E t w_{AB}^3}{12 \prt{2 L/3 sin \theta}^2}, \\
& F_{AB} = \frac{1}{cos \theta} \prt{\frac{3P}{2} + \frac{3 \rho g w_{CD} t L}{4}}, \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $w_{AB}$ and $L_{AB}$ are respectively the width and length of AB and $\theta$ is its inclination angle.
\end{itemize}
The RBDO application problem as in \citet{Chateauneuf2008} and \citet{Dubourg2011} consists in minimizing the weight of the structure, given the following objective function:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:035}
\mathfrak{c}\prt{\ve{d}} = \rho t L \prt{\frac{4 \sqrt{3}}{9} w_{AB} + w_{CD}},
\end{equation}
where $\ve{d} = \acc{w_{AB},w_{CD},t}^T \in \mathbb{D} = \bra{5,30}^3$ represents the set of design parameters.
The target reliability index for this problem is set to $\beta_1 = \beta_2 = 2$, thus corresponding to a component failure probability of $0.0227$. The RBDO problem therefore reads:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2001}
\begin{split}
& \ve{d}^\ast = \arg \min_{\ve{d} \in \mathbb{D}} \mathfrak{c}\prt{\vec{d}} \quad \text{subject to: }
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\mathcal{P}\prt{\mathfrak{g}_1 \prt{\vec{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \leq 0} \leq \bar{P}_{f_1}} \\
\displaystyle{\mathcal{P}\prt{\mathfrak{g}_2 \prt{\vec{X}\prt{\ve{d}},\ve{Z}} \leq 0} \leq \bar{P}_{f_2},}
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{P}_{f_i} = \Phi\prt{-\beta_1} \approx 0.0227$ and the functions $\mathfrak{g}_1$, $\mathfrak{g}_2$ and $\mathfrak{c}$ are respectively given by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:033}) -- (\ref{eq:035}).
The probabilistic model associated to this problem is shown in \tabref{tab:002}. \tabref{tab:002b} shows the bounds of the augmented space in which the training points are sampled. The surrogate model is built in the unit hypercube following a linear mapping from this augmented space.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Parameters of the variables defining the probabilistic model for the bracket structure problem: $\ve{d} = \acc{w_{AB}, w_{CD}, t}^T$ are the design variables and $\ve{z} = \acc{P,E,\sigma_y, \rho, L }^T$ are the environmental variables.}
\label{tab:002}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
{Parameter} & {Distribution} & {Mean} & {COV ($ \delta \%$)} \\ \hline
{Width of AB ($w_{AB}$ in m)} & {Normal} & {$w_{AB}$} & {$0.05$} \\
{Width of CD ($w_{CD}$ in m)} & {Normal} & {$w_{CD}$} & {$0.05$} \\
{Thickness ($t$ in m)} &{Normal} & {$t$} & {$0.05$} \\
{Applied load ($P$ in kN)} &{Gumbel} & {$100$} & {$0.15$} \\
{Young's modulus ($E$ in GPa)} &{Gumbel} & {$200$} & {$0.08$} \\
{Yield stress ($\sigma_y$ in MPa)} &{Lognormal} & {$225$} & {$0.08$} \\
{Unit mass ($\rho$ in kg/m$^3$)} &{Weibull} & {$7860$} & {$0.10$} \\
{Length ($L$ in m)} &{Normal} & {$5$} & {$0.05$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Bounds of the augmented space for the bracket structure problem.}
\label{tab:002b}
\begin{tabular}{lccc}
\hline
{Parameter} & {Lower bound} & {Upper bound} \\ \hline
{Width of AB ($w_{AB}$ in m)} & {$4.25$} & {$34.5$} \\
{Width of CD ($w_{CD}$ in m)} & {$4.25$} & {$34.5$} \\
{Thickness ($t$ in m)} & {$4.25$} & {$34.5$} \\
{Applied load ($P$ in kN)} &{$15.98$} & {$109.58$} \\
{Young's modulus ($E$ in GPa)} &{$110.38$} & {$224.31$} \\
{Yield stress ($\sigma_y$ in MPa)} &{$176.49$} & {$285.01$} \\
{Unit mass ($\rho$ in kg/m$^3$)} &{$4760.20$} & {$9576.3$} \\
{Length ($L$ in m)} &{$4.25$} & {$5.75$}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
For the solution of this problem, we start with an initial design of $50$ points. The threshold for the first stage of enrichment is set to $\bar{\eta} = 0.30$. A total of $60$ enrichments points have been added to reach the required accuracy through $6$~iterations of $10$ points each. The optimization is then initiated starting from $\ve{d}^{(0)} = \acc{6.1, 20.2, 26.9}^T$ which is also the initial design in the benchmark references \cite{Chateauneuf2008,DubourgThesis} and corresponds to the optimal deterministic solution. In the second stage, $K=3$ points are added per enrichment, thus leading to $15$ additional points in the DoE. Convergence of the CMA-ES algorithm is illustrated in \figref{fig:3001} where the evolution of the cost function with respect to the iteration number is shown. The green circles highlight the points that were feasible and improved the current best design. The CMA-ES algorithm is stopped after $150$ iterations and the solution locally refined through a gradient-based approach using the final Kriging model. The overall number of calls to the original model is $125$ for this illustrated case.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth]{Convergence_bracket_structure.pdf}
\caption{Convergence of the CMA-ES algorithm for the bracket structure.} %
\label{fig:3001}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
As in the previous example, we replicate the optimization $20$ times because of the random nature of the initial experimental design. The number of calls varies between $80$ and $170$, with the maximum clearly being an outlier. On average, this number of calls is $107$. In the light of this result, the proposed procedure is more efficient than the approaches from the two benchmark references as shown in \tabref{tab:003}. In this table, the brute force approach refers to a solution that is found by a quantile-based procedure directly relying on the true mechanical models rather than surrogates. Beside, the resulting weight saving is higher in our approach. This may be explained by the fact that we use a global optimization algorithm rather than a gradient-based one as was done in the two references.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\begin{threeparttable}
\caption{Comparative results for the bracket structure. The PMA result comes from \cite{Chateauneuf2008} and Meta-RBDO from \cite{DubourgThesis}.}
\label{tab:003}
\begin{tabular}{lccccc}
\hline
{Design method} & {Weight (kg)} & {$w_{AB}$ (cm)} & {$w_{CD}$ (cm)} & {$t$ (cm)} & {$\mathfrak{g}$-calls}\\ \hline
{Brute force} & {$1357$} & {$5.35$} & {$7.40$} & {$30.00$} & {$\approx 10^6$} \\
{PMA$^1$} & {$1673$} & {$6.08$} & {$15.68$} & {$20.91$} & {$2340$}\\
{Meta-RBDO$^2$} & {$1584$} & {$5.80$} & {$12.80$} & {$23.30$} & {$160 (160/90)$}\\
{Quantile-based RBDO} & {$1364$} & {$5.57$} & {$7.28$} & {$30.00$} & {$125$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{tablenotes}
\scriptsize
\item $^1$ As computed by \cite{Chateauneuf2008}
\item $^2$ As calculated by \cite{DubourgThesis}
\end{tablenotes}
\end{threeparttable}
\end{table}
\subsection{Sidemember subsystem}
This final application is related to the lightweight design of an automotive body structure under crashworthiness constraints. This involves finding the best distribution of the metal sheet thicknesses which allows one to satisfy frontal impact-related constraints. These constraints are evaluated by finite element crash simulations which are extremely time-consuming, \ie $24$ hours for a single model run on distributed CPUs. The use of surrogate models is therefore the only alternative in order to perform such an optimization. In this application, we consider the so-called \emph{sidemember subsystem} which is a subset of the front end of a vehicle. This subsystem actually has the same behavior in frontal impact as a full vehicle, yet requires reduced computational time ($10$ to $15$ minutes on a cluster of $48$ CPUs). The sidemember subsystem is illustrated in \figref{fig:Sid_sub}. Five parts are considered for optimization as shown in the figure. To account for noise which is inherent to frontal impact, some parameters of the crash protocol are considered as random. These are respectively the initial speed and the position of the barrier: $V \sim \mathcal{U}\prt{34,35}$ km/h and $P \sim \mathcal{N}\prt{0,2}$ mm. The two constraints that are considered for this problem are the maximum wall contact force that should not be larger than $\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_1 = 170$ kN and the maximum sidemember compression which should be kept below $\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_2 = 525$ mm. In order to obtain a conservative design with respect to uncertainties, the quantile-based optimization procedure is applied with a quantile level $\alpha_1 = \alpha_2 = 0.95$. The associated RBDO problem reads as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq:2002}
\begin{split}
& \ve{d}^\ast = \arg \min_{\ve{d} \in \mathbb{D}} \mathfrak{c}\prt{\vec{d}} \quad \text{subject to: }
\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
\displaystyle{\mathcal{P}\prt{\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_1 - \mathcal{M}_1 \prt{\ve{d},\ve{Z}} \leq 0} \leq 0.05 }\\
\displaystyle{\mathcal{P}\prt{\bar{\mathfrak{g}}_2 - \mathcal{M}_2 \prt{\ve{d},\ve{Z}} \leq 0} \leq 0.05,}
\end{array} \right.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\ve{Z} = \acc{V,P}^T$ and $\mathcal{M}_1$ and $\mathcal{M}_2$ are the outputs of the finite element model giving respectively the maximum wall force and maximum sidemember compression.
The initial design and the bounds of the augmented space associated to this problem are given in \tabref{tab:004}. Since the design variables are deterministic $\mathbb{X}$ reduces to the design space.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Bounds of the augmented space and initial design for the sidemember subsystem.}
\label{tab:004}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
\hline
{Param.} & {$d_1$ (mm)} & {$d_2$ (mm)} & {$d_3$ (mm)} & {$d_4$ (mm)} & {$d_5$ (mm)} & {$V$ (km/h)} & {$P$ (mm)} \\ \hline
{Lower} & {$1.5$} & {$1.5$} & {$2$} & {$1.5$} & {$0.6$} & {$34$} & {$-6$} \\
{Upper} & {$2.5$} & {$2.5$} & {$3$} & {$2.5$} & {$1.2$} & {$35$} & {$6$} \\
{Initial} & {$2$} & {$2$} & {$2.5$} & {$2$} & {$0.9$} & {$-$} & {$-$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\subfloat[Parts of the sidemember
subsystem]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Sub-system.pdf}\label{fig:sid_sub_a}}%
\hfill%
\subfloat[A vehicle under frontal
impact]{\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Crash_model.pdf}\label{fig:Sid_sub_b}}%
\caption{Sidemember subsystem} %
\label{fig:Sid_sub}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To solve this seven-dimensional highly non-linear problem, we start with
an initial design of $70$ points. In the first stage of enrichment, $20$
points are added during two iterations thus leading to a global accuracy
criterion $\eta \leq 0.2$. For the second stage, we set $\eta_q = 0.01$,
thus accepting a $1 \%$ relative error. To keep the enrichment to what
is strictly necessary, we decide to enrich only around designs that
improve the current best ones. In this way, eight iterations with $K =
3$ simultaneously added points were carried out. The overall number of
calls to the finite element model therefore amounts to only $114$.
At convergence, the found solution results to a weight saving of $1.08$
kg, that is $11.5 \%$ of the initial weight, which is considered
significant in car manufacturing. The thicknesses associated to the
initial and optimal solutions are shown in \figref{fig:Sous_syst_df}.
The corresponding quantile constraints for this solution are
$\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha_1}\prt{\ve{d}^\ast} = 155.62$ kN and
$\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha_2}\prt{\ve{d}^\ast} = 523.12$ mm, which are below
the thresholds.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{Sous_syst_df.pdf}
\caption{Comparison of the initial and optimal designs with respect to each parameter for the $5$-part sidemember subsystem. The blue color stands for the nominal design and the green color for the optimal one.}%
\label{fig:Sous_syst_df}%
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The validation of the reliability of this solution with respect to the finite element model is not possible due to the large cost of a single run. Instead, we focus here on the accuracy of the Kriging surrogates in the vicinity of the optimal design. To this end, we estimate quantiles with the original and surrogate models from a set of Monte Carlo samples of size $100$. To account for this reduced size, we consider the mean value of the quantiles estimates obtained from $500$ bootstrap replicates. Each bootstrap replicate consists in sampling with replacement $100$ points from the available data. The resulting relative error is still biased because of the small size of the Monte Carlo set. However, this allows us to give a flavor on the ability of the surrogate model to approximate the quantile in the vicinity of the found solution. \tabref{tab:005} compares the results by considering the finite element model ($\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha}^{\text{FE}}$) on the one hand and the Kriging model ($\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha}^{\text{KRG}}$) on the other. The two responses are quite close for each output, showing that the Kriging models were accurate enough (at least locally) for the purpose of quantile estimation.
\begin{table}[!ht]
\centering
\caption{Quantiles of the performance criteria $\mathfrak{g}_1$
and $\mathfrak{g}_2$ computed from the Kriging model
($\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha}^{\text{KRG}}$) (resp. the original model ($\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha}^{\text{FE}}$)) obtained from $100$
Monte Carlo samples, averaged over $500$ bootstrap replicates.}
\label{tab:005}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
\hline
{Criterion} & {$\mathfrak{g}_1$ (kN)} & {$\mathfrak{g}_2$ (mm)}\\ \hline
{Original model $\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha}^{\text{FE}}$} & {$150.66$} & {$527.81$} \\
{Kriging model $\widehat{\mathfrak{q}}_{\alpha}^{\text{KRG}}$} & {$148.02$} & {$528.04$} \\
{Error ($\%$)} & {$1.75$} & {$0.04$} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
The aim of this paper is to propose a quantile-based, conservative
optimization procedure for structures in an uncertain environment.
Furthermore, structures whose behavior is simulated by high-fidelity and
expensive-to-evaluate models are considered. Such simulations are
time-consuming. Surrogate modeling approaches are therefore introduced
as computationally costless approximations of these models.
The optimization problem is first posed in the framework of
reliability-based design optimization (RBDO). After a brief review of
the most-widely used techniques to solve a RBDO problem, we formulate a
new quantile-based approach of optimal design. This approach is
motivated by the relatively high target failure probabilities that can
be accepted in the applications under consideration in the field of car
body design. These probabilities of failure will be estimated by crude
Monte Carlo sampling.
Kriging, with its basic equations, is introduced for the purpose of
surrogate modeling. To further reduce the computational burden
associated to building the Kriging surrogate model, a two-stage
enrichment of the design of computer experiments is proposed in an
augmented space that combines both design variables and uncertain
environmental variables. The first stage, which is global, aims at
reducing the overall Kriging epistemic uncertainty by adding points in
the vicinity of the limit-state surfaces. The second stage, which is
local, is embedded in the optimization procedure. At each iteration, the
accuracy of the estimated quantiles is checked. Enrichment of the design
of experiments is made locally only when the accuracy is not sufficient.
This allows us to direct the experimental design points to regions of
the space that decrease significantly the cost function while ensuring
that the performance criteria are fulfilled.
Three applications are considered to validate the proposed procedure. The first one is a five-dimensional example related to a beam buckling problem, whose analytical solution can be computed. This allows us to validate the proposed method against exact results. The second and third problems respectively involve three non-linear limit state functions and a bracket structure. The optimal solutions obtained from different approaches are already available in the literature. The application of the proposed procedure shows increased efficiency as the number of calls to the original computational model is reduced. For the bracket structure, a better solution in terms of the cost function is even found compared to the best results available in the literature. Finally, we apply the methodology to an industrial problem related to the lightweight design of an automotive sidemember subsystem under frontal impact. A reliable solution is found within a reasonable number of calls to the expensive finite element model. All these applications feature relatively low-dimensional problems. Applications to high-dimensional cases, say $s > 20$, is still a challenging task and require further work.
\nocite{SudretHDR}
\bibliographystyle{chicago}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec-intro}
Modeling blood perfusion in tissues belongs to the most challenging
problems in the biomechanical and biomedical research. The topic is of
interest especially in liver surgery
\citep{patient_specific_hepatic-2016}, brain neurosurgery, or neurology
\citep{voxelized_brain-2016,vascular_grap-2009,cerebral_flow-2011}. Although
the functionality of the two related organs, liver and brain, is
completely different, there are some similar aspects for both. In
contrast with the myocardium, another highly perfused tissue, for both
the organs the phenomenon of deformation can be neglected unless
special concerns are in focus, see {e.g.{~}}
\cite{vascularized_liver-2012}. It is desirable to find accurately
parts of the tissue with an insufficient blood supply, to localize
anomalies in the blood microcirculation, and to quantify locally the
perfusion efficiency. It is worth to note that also the kidney belongs
to highly perfused tissues with its important role in the blood
circulation system, but we do not tackle this issue in the present
paper.
In most perfused organs, the blood is transported through complex hierarchical
branching systems of vessels with various diameters which diminish consecutively
at each bifurcation, beginning from arteries down to capillaries. The ascending
system of veins is arranged in the reversed sense, starting at the capillary
level, where the blood participates in the metabolism process,
delivering the oxygen to the tissue and collecting the waste products. The blood
circulation in the tissue can be represented by two penetrating, but mutually
separated {vascular} trees connected only at the capillary level. In reality,
collateralization vessels exist which make shunts between the two trees, but
this phenomenon is usually negligible for the global hierarchically built
system.
Although the modeling approach is presented in a rather general
setting, in this paper, we focus on the \emph{liver tissue} which has
a special structure. The blood flows in the whole organ from two
separated vascular trees, one connected to the hepatic artery (HA) and
the other to the portal vein (PV), whereby the venous supply
dominates. The two branching systems bifurcate to about 20
generations \citep{Debbaut-JOA2014}. The blood is filtered in the
tissue functional units, called hepatic units, or lobules, which
typically are considered as hexagonal prisms. At their corner edges,
the hepatic artery and portal vein trees terminate and the blood flows
through hepatic capillaries constituting the sinusoids to the
so-called central veins, the terminal branches of the draining hepatic
vein (HV) located in the center of each lobule. In the proposed model,
for simplicity we neglect the HA, as its blood supply is minor in the
comparison with the one by the portal vein\footnote{The perfusion
model is intended to estimate the volume regeneration capacity of
the liver parenchyma \citep{bruha_2015}. In this context, it is
important to capture the supply through the portal vein. Concerning
the perfusion CT simulation, we focus on the second stage when the
contrast bolus arrives at the PV inlet so that the first stage
associated with the HA is over.}.
The steadily growing body of published works related to the modeling of liver
perfusion shows its importance for the medical research. Obviously, relevant
computational models which can be used for complex simulations involving various
parameters require detailed information about the liver structure. However,
there is a pertaining difficulty in describing the vascular trees bridging
several scales. The current standard computed tomography (CT), magnetic
resonance imaging (MRI) and related image processing techniques provide
resolution of the vascular trees down to millimeters, which is not enough to
capture details on about 10 underlying tree generations. Therefore, various
methods and algorithms have been proposed to generate artificial, but
anatomically correct vascular architectures. These are coupled with the
authentic patient-specific reconstructed geometry to obtain complete vascular
trees with a required resolution of microvessels. The most popular approach is
based on the constrained constructive optimization (CCO), see e.g.~\cite{gco},
\cite{Schwen2012}. However, there are more advanced approaches based on the metabolism driven processes of
the vascular tree reconstruction
\citep{Schneider2012}.
Rather than modeling the flow on the complex branching system, many publications
have been devoted to detailed studies of microcirclation. Perfusion
characteristics of blood flow through hepatic microcapillaries of human lobular
sinusoids were analyzed by \cite{Debbaut2012} using tissue samples processed by
corrosion casting and the micro-CT imaging; anisotropic tensors of the
sinusoidal permeability were calculated by a simple averaging of the flow field
obtained using standard CFD simulations. Blood circulation in the liver {lobule}
was considered in \cite{Bonfiglio2010} using both Newtonian and shear-thinning
flow models. The liver tissue is able to adapt rapidly to modified hydraulic
conditions; in \cite{Ricken2010}, the sinusoidal permeability has been studied
in terms of a vascular remodeling process induced by outflow obstruction.
Sinusoidal vascular canals were assumed to align with the blood pressure
gradient. In \cite{Ricken-Werner-BMMB2015}, using the general framework of a
two-scale approach and the theory of porous media, the basic coupled
transport-reaction mechanisms between blood perfusion and the hepatic cell
metabolism were described at the level of lobule.
Lymphatic flow production in the liver lobules arranged in periodic lattices was
treated in \cite{Siggers2014}. A similar approach has been used in
\cite{Lettmann2014} to study microcirculation driven transport of oxygen and
cytokine in the tissue. Besides the blood flow in healthy liver itself,
diseased tissue deserve attention from medical point of view, but also as a
challenge for mathematical modeling; there is a considerable number of issues
related to modeling pathophysiological conditions, such as the fluid transport
through vascular tumors \citep{pozrikidis_2010,Shipley-Chapman2010,Mescam-TMI2010}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Fig1}
\caption{
Decomposition of the blood vessel perfusion system in the liver:
higher hierarchy (HH) -- blood flow described by a 1D model,
lower hierarchy (LH) -- blood distribution governed by the Darcy flow
model extended for multiple compartments, each compartment characterized by
a permeability tensor $\Kb^{i}$}
\label{fig-multiperf}
\end{figure}
Since the straightforward mathematical description of blood flow on the complete
vascular trees featured by several hierarchies using the Navier-Stokes equations
leads to a prohibitively complicated numerical model, some convenient model
reduction is needed. We adhere to the general approach proposed in
\cite{FormQuart-book} which consists in decomposing the tree into a higher (HH)
and a lower (LH) hierarchy, see Fig.~\ref{fig-multiperf}.
The HH tree is constituted by larger vessels, so that the flow can be described
in the 3D geometry using the Navier-Stokes equations. Alternatively the vessels
can be replaced with line segments, so that the flow model is obtained using the
1D description of flow on such branching system of line segments.
To describe the blood flow in the LH tree, we resort to a type of the Darcy flow
model which is defined in the 3D bulk of the liver parenchyma. Since the LH part
involves vessels associated with different hierarchies, several compartments are
introduced and Darcy model is used within each of them. The flow between
different compartments is described in terms of the difference between the
compartmental pressure at a given location; details are given below.
\paragraph{Remark}\label{rem1}
The \textbf{multicompartment model of perfusion} has been used {e.g.{~}} in
\cite{Cimrman2007} and then in \cite{Rohan-Jonasova-Lukes-WCCM2014-liver} as a
phenomenological model. Recently a multicompartment model of cardiac perfusion
was presented in \cite{Michler2012}, cf. \cite{Michler2013}. For two
compartments it can be derived using the homogenization of the Darcy flow in
porous medium with large contrasts in the permeability
\citep{rohan-cimrman-perfusionIJMCE2010,Rohan-Lukes-Jonasova-ECCOMAS2012-layer-perf}.
Another derivation is based on the averaging theory by Slattery and Whitaker
\citep{Slattery1967,Whitaker1967} employed to the hierarchical flow in pores
with continuously variable cross-sections, cf.
\cite{huyghe_campen_1995:ALL}.\bigskip
In the context of the multi-porous, media employed in the geophysical research,
phenomenological approaches based on extensions of the Biot model
\citep{Mehrabian-Abousleiman-JGR2014} lead to multi-compartment models where
co-existing porosities are associated with distinct pressures. As a special
case, the double-porous, or double-permeability media was obtained by
homogenization approach applied to upscale periodic structures with large
contrasts in the hydraulic permeability
\citep{rohan-cimrman-perfusionIJMCE2010,rohan-etal-jmps2012-bone}. The derived
model describing fluid flow in the double-permeability medium with two systems
of periodic channels separated by low permeable matrix can be adapted to the
liver parenchyma generated as a quasi-periodic structure of lobules.
The aim of the present paper is twofold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
we present a numerically tractable model of the liver perfusion intended for real-time simulations, which is
based on the hierarchical decomposition of the perfusion trees, combining approaches of the multicompartment porous media flow and the ``1D'' flow on vascular trees;
\item
we propose an associated model of transport of the contrast agent dissolved in the blood
and characterized by the saturation function.
\end{enumerate}
The latter model provides an analogous output to the so-called
\emph{tissue density} (measured in the Hounsfield units) which is
obtained from the medical perfusion examination by the dynamic contrast-enhanced CT, or alternatively by the magnetic resonance imaging, see
{e.g.{~}} \cite{fieselmann2011deconvolution,keeling_2007}.
We would like to stress out that this modeling option is important for the model parameters identification and, thereby, also for
the model validation.
The conception of the
hierarchical modeling reported in this paper has been outlined in a
short proceedings paper
\citep{Rohan-Jonasova-Lukes-WCCM2014-liver}. However, here we give
additional details on the model itself and present new results
computed for anatomically relevant data, including the anisotropic
permeability coefficients estimated by an analysis of the perfusion
trees.
The organization of the paper is as follows. The perfusion model based on the
hierarchical decomposition of the perfusion trees (the portal and hepatic veins)
is described in Section~\ref{sec-FM}. In Section~\ref{sec-CT}, the transport of
the contrast fluid is introduced. In Section~\ref{sec-simulation} we present
numerical examples to illustrate an application of the model to describe the
hierarchical blood flow in a ``liver'' which is a simplified geometrical
structure created using anatomical data combined with the CCO approach to define
the portal and hepatic vascular trees. The paper conclusions and the discussion
of further perspectives is presented in Section~\ref{sec-Concl}.
\section{Hierarchical mathematical model of perfusion}\label{sec-FM}
The simulation of blood perfusion in tissues, such as the hepatic or cerebral
ones, belongs to problems typically requiring a sort of multiscale modeling
approach \citep{DAngelo-thesis}. The term ``multiscale'' is employed in a
slightly different manner than in \cite{FormQuart-book}, where the ``geometrical
multiscale'' modeling was introduced in the context of the cardiovascular
system. The difficulty of blood perfusion modeling arises from the nature of
the flow in the perfusion trees incorporating blood vessels of very different
diameters. In liver, the blood is conveyed to the organ by the portal vein which
has the diameter of about $D=1\,\textrm{cm}$. The perfusion trees have several
hierarchies associated with bifurcations, where vessel diameters reduce. The
tissue parenchyma is arranged in hexagonal structures (lobules) with the
characteristic size of 1.5 mm where the blood is transported through the
capillaries with the diameter of about $d=10\,\mu\textrm{m}$ from the portal
compartment to the hepatic one. Thus, the overall scale change characterized by
the ratio of the largest and smallest diameters of the vascular trees is
approximately $d/D = 0.001$.
The model which we develop should allow also for simulation of the transport of
the contrast fluid (the tracer) during the contrast-enhanced dynamic perfusion test. The aim is to
provide a computational feedback which would enable us to analyze more
accurately the CT scans obtained from the standard dynamic perfusion test of a
patient \citep{Materne-CT-liver-perfus2000}. The methods currently being
used are based on the deconvolution, or maximum slope techniques. They provide
some local integral characteristics like the blood flow, blood volume, mean
transition times and others for each voxel of the tissue
\citep{Koh-etal-2006,fieselmann2011deconvolution}. Our approach should provide an
alternative and more detailed interpretation of the measured CT scans. The
proposed strategy announced first in our conference paper
\citep{Rohan-Jonasova-Lukes-WCCM2014-liver} is based on the following tasks:
\begin{itemize}
%
\item to describe flows in the perfusion trees including the parenchyma by
combining suitable models which are associated with different hierarchies and
which use the most information about the structures and geometry, involving
only few undetermined parameters;
%
\item to reconstruct the organ (liver) shape and the blood vessels geometries
up to a certain hierarchy using the image segmentation techniques (based on
the CT ``static'' data) \citep{Jirik2013,LISA} possibly supplemented by the
CCO approach employed also in \cite{euroscipy2014};
%
\item to identify selected parameters of the perfusion model (like
permeability), so that the simulated dynamic CT examination well approximates
the measured data \citep{Rohan-vipimage2015}.
\end{itemize}
Such a ``tuned'' model would enable us to analyze the blood flow in particular
compartments and to predict effects of intended medical treatment, like
resection of a part of the tissue.
In the proposed strategy, several difficulties arise: on one hand, the model
should reflect the microstructure and fit the complex geometry of the perfusion
trees, on the other hand, it should be parametrized using just not too many
parameters, to prevent ill conditioning of the ``tuning'' step {involving}
simulations of the steady blood flow and the dynamic tracer transport.
Therefore, the tuning parameters must reflect some important features of the
perfusion system.
The model of the perfusion and of the contrast fluid transport described in this
paper consists of the following two parts:
\begin{enumerate}
%
\item The ``inlet'' and ``outlet'' trees which are associated with the portal
and hepatic vein networks\footnote{We have in mind the liver perfusion
modeling, so that we also adapt the notations to fit with this particular
application.} (in the case of the liver; recall that we have neglected the
hepatic artery in the model). These trees are denoted by $\mathcal{T}_P$ and
$\mathcal{T}_H$ (label $P$ stands for the portal vein system, whereas label
$H$ stands for the hepatic vein system). They are formed by vessel segments
and junctions representing the bifurcations. The steady flow on these trees is
described by a 1D model which is introduced in Section~\ref{sec-Bf}, see also
\cite{Jonasova-1D-ACM-2014}. The model is relevant for higher hierarchies of
the vascular trees, down to a certain size of the vessels, so that the
terminal branches\footnote{or leaves in the graph theory terminology} of
$\mathcal{T}_P$ and $\mathcal{T}_H$ may have diameters about 1\,mm.
%
\item The tissue parenchyma including lower hierarchies of the ``inlet'' and
``outlet'' trees. The flow in this part of the vascular system is governed by
the multi-compartment Darcy flow model in a porous medium. At any point of the
liver occupying domain $\Omega \subset \mathbb{R}^3$, several (at least two)
different pressure values are defined which are associated with different
compartments, see Section~\ref{sec-0D}. There are point sources and sinks
defined in $\Omega$, where the 1D trees are connected to the parenchyma model.
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Structure of compartments}
In this section we consider the lower hierarchies of the vascular trees. We
consider a part of tissue (or the whole organ) occupying the domain $\Omega
\subset \mathbb{R}^3$. The compartments are established as continuum
representations of the connected vascular network (or tree, as the special case)
restricted by a given range of characteristic vessel cross-sections. Denoting by
$N$ the total number of considered hierarchies, such a range is indicated by the
hierarchy index $j = 0,1,\dots,N$, whereby hierarchies $j = 0$ correspond to the
precapillary vessels of the lobular structure. Denoting by $a_j$ the typical (or
mean) vessel cross section in the given hierarchy, it holds that $i < j$
whenever $a_i < a_j$. Each compartment is associated with the group; typically
there are two groups labeled by index $g = P, H$, corresponding to the portal
and hepatic vein systems (should also the hepatic artery be included in the
model, another group, say $g = A$ would be included). We shall identify
compartments by a simple index $k = \mathcal{C}(g,j)$ given by the group $g$ and
the hierarchy $j$, whereby $\mathcal{C}$ denotes the index set of all
compartments. Any compartment is represented by a subdomain $\Omega_k \subset
\Omega$ and by the hydraulic permeability tensor $\Kb^i$ which can be introduced
using an averaging procedure once the underlying tree segment (denoted by
$\mathcal{S}$) is known. This point will be discussed below in
Section~\ref{sec-simulation}. For a given compartment $k$ belonging to a group
$g = \mathcal{G}(k)$, let $j = \mathcal{H}(k)$ is the hierarchy index. The
fluid between two distinct compartments $i$ and $k$ can be exchanged only in the
overlap domain $\Omega_{ij} = \Omega_i \cap \Omega_k \not = \emptyset$, and
only, if either a) they belong to the same group $g = \mathcal{G}(k) =
\mathcal{G}(i)$ and their hierarchies are closed, $|\mathcal{H}(i) -
\mathcal{H}(k)| = 1$, or b) if $\mathcal{H}(i) = \mathcal{H}(k) = 0$ and
$\mathcal{G}(k) \not = \mathcal{G}(i)$. More general rules of flow between
compartments are possible, but would not be physiological, or would describe
special anomalies in the vasculature.
\paragraph{Groups, hierarchies and volume fractions}
The concept of volume fractions is a very natural basis to relate the model
parameters with structural features. Vessels of a given group $g$ and associated
with hierarchy $h$ are distributed at point $x \in \Omega$ with volume fractions
$\varphi_h^{g}(x)$. In the context of the present model, by $\phi_i(x)$ we
describe the local volume fraction of blood vessels comprised in compartment
$i$. Since $i = \mathcal{C}(g,h)$, obviously $\varphi_h^{g}\equiv \phi_i$.
Denoting by $\varphi_m$ is the volume fraction of all parts of the parenchyma
which are not blood vessels and, thus, not being included in any compartment,
the partition of unity expressed in terms of volume fractions of all components
reads in two possible ways:
\begin{align}\label{eq-ctp-vf}
\sum_{h=0,\dots,N}\sum_{g = P,H}\varphi_h^{g}(x)
+ \varphi_m(x) & = 1\;,\quad
\mbox{ or }\\\quad \sum_i \phi_i(x) + \varphi_m(x) &= 1\;,
\end{align}
at any point $x \in \Omega$. Note that all volume fractions must be
non-negative.
\subsection{Multicompartment model of Darcy flow}\label{sec-0D}
We approximate the flow in lower hierarchies of the arterial and venous trees,
including perfusion at the level of tissue parenchyma, using a macroscopic
model describing parallel flows in $\bar i$ defined compartments. The model is
based on some more fundamental principles related to homogenization, see Remark
in Section~\ref{sec-intro}, but can simply be justified by the phenomenological
approach. Similar models have been used in other works
\citep{Showalter2004,Cimrman2007,Michler2013}.
The model involves pressures $\{p^i\}$, associated with each compartment $i =
1,\dots,\bar i$ . Any $i$-th compartment occupying domain $\Omega_i$ can be
saturated from an external source (or drained by a sink); in general one may
define the local source/sink flux $f^i$ which expresses an amount of fluid
supplied, or drained out from the compartment $i$ to the upper perfusion tree
branches, $\mathcal{T}_P$ and $\mathcal{T}_H$. Alternatively, the pressure can
be prescribed in a given subdomain $\Sigma_i \subset \Omega_i$ which may
represent junctions with upper hierarchies of the perfusion system treated by
the 1D flow model on branching networks, see Section~\ref{sec-Bf}. In practice,
$\Sigma_i$ can be formed by a number of ``small'' balls $\Sigma_i^k$, thus
$|\Sigma_i^k|<<|\Omega_i|$, labeled by index $k$ associated with the $k$-th
junction. The mass conservation for compartment $i$ is expressed by the
following equations (to be satisfied in $\Omega_i\setminus \Sigma_i$):
\begin{align}
\nabla \cdot \wb^i + \sum_{j} \mathcal{J}_j^i & = f^i\;,
\quad i = 1,\dots,\bar i \quad \mbox{ in } \Omega_i\setminus \Sigma_i\;,
\label{eq-ctp-1a}
\\
\wb^i & = - \Kb^i\nabla p^i\;,
\label{eq-ctp-1b}
\\
\mathcal{J}_j^i & = G_j^i(p^i - p^j)\;,
\label{eq-ctp-1c}
\end{align}
where $\wb^i$ is the Darcy velocity, $\Kb^i = (K_{kl}^i)$ is the local
permeability tensor associated with vessels of the $i$-th compartment and
$G_j^i$ is the local perfusion coefficient coupling compartments $i,j$, so that
$\mathcal{J}_j^i$ describes the amount of fluid transported from $i$ to $j$
(drainage flux; obviously $\mathcal{J}_i^j = - \mathcal{J}_j^i$). As the
boundary conditions for \eq{eq-ctp-1a}, we consider the non-penetration
condition on the outer surface, and a prescribed pressure on $\pd\Sigma_i$,
\begin{align}
\nb\cdot\wb^i & = - \nb\cdot\Kb^i\nabla p^i
= 0\quad \mbox{ on }\pd \Omega_i\;,\label{eq-ctp-1bca}\\
p^i & = \bar p^i\quad \mbox{ on }\pd \Sigma_i,\; i
= 1,\dots,\bar i\;.\label{eq-ctp-1bcb}
\end{align}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{Fig2}
\caption{Schematic decomposition of the tissue perfusion system into
compartments, note that the blood supply through the hepatic artery
is not considered in our model
}\label{fig-compartments}
\end{figure}
The numerical model is obtained by the finite-element discretization of the weak
formulation of problem \eq{eq-ctp-1a}-\eq{eq-ctp-1bcb}. We shall need the
following admissibility sets:
\begin{align}
\mathcal{V}^i =
\{q \in H^1(\Omega_i)|\;q = \bar p_i \mbox{ on }\pd \Sigma_i\}\;,
\label{eq-ctp-1asa}\\
\mathcal{V}_0^i =
\{q \in H^1(\Omega_i)|\;q = 0 \mbox{ on }\pd \Sigma_i\}\;.
\label{eq-ctp-1asb}
\end{align}
In our numerical tests we consider $\bar p_i$ being given by point values in
vertices of the finite element mesh. For some compartments, $\Sigma_i$ can
vanish, so that $\mathcal{V}^i = \mathcal{V}_0^i = H^1(\Omega_i)$.
\paragraph{The weak formulation of the problem} constituted by equations
\eq{eq-ctp-1a}-\eq{eq-ctp-1c} and the boundary conditions
\eq{eq-ctp-1bca}-\eq{eq-ctp-1bcb} is, as follows:
Find $\bmi{p} = (p^1,p^2,\dots,p^{\bar i})$ with $p^i \in \mathcal{V}^i$, such
that for all compartments $i = 1,\dots,\bar i$,
\begin{multline}
\label{eq-wf}
\int_{\Omega_i\setminus \Sigma_i} \Kb^i \nabla p^i \cdot \nabla q^i
+ \int_{\Omega_i\setminus \Sigma_i} \sum_j G_{j}^i( p^i - p^j) q^i\\
= \int_{\Omega_i\setminus \Sigma_i} f^i q^i\;,
\quad \forall q^i \in \mathcal{V}_0^i \;.
\end{multline}
The summation in the second term takes only over nonvanishing $G_{j}^i$.
All parameters $\Kb^i(x)$ and $G_{j}^i(x)$ depend on the local volume fractions
$\phi_i(x)$. In fact, for a given tree, see Fig.~\ref{fig-ph_trees}, both these
parameters can be computed point-wise in $\Omega$ using an averaging approach
reported in \cite{vankan-huyghe_1997,Michler2013} which is based on the
theoretical result describing hierarchical flows \citep{huyghe_campen_1995:ALL}.
Then the following properties can be guaranteed:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\Kb^i(x)$ is positive semi-definite 2nd order tensor for $x \in
\Omega$.
\item Domain $\Omega_i = \{x \in \Omega\,,\,|\Kb^i(x)| > 0 \}$.
\item $G_i^j(x)\geq 0$ for $|i-j| = 1$ in the overlap subdomains $\Omega_i
\cap \Omega_j \not = \emptyset$.
\end{itemize}
Usually, when the averaging control volume $V_c$ is large enough {w.r.t.{~}} the
characteristic size of the vessel segments, $\Kb^i$ is positive definite,
however, if only one or two vessels are encountered in $V_c$, $\Kb^i$ is
singular. For the numerical treatment, a regularization can be considered,
{e.g.{~}} using modified permeabilities $\tilde \Kb^i(x) := \Kb^i(x) +
\varepsilon \bar K \bmi{I}$, where $\bmi{I} = (\delta_{ij})$, $\bar K =
\|\Kb^i\|_{\Omega_i}$, but can be any relevant permeability value in domain
$\Omega_i$, and $\varepsilon > 0$ is a small number.
\paragraph{Well posedness of the perfusion problem.}
Assume nonvanishing Lipschitz open bounded domains $\Omega^i$, such that for
each $i = 1,\dots,\bar i-1$ there exists a nonempty overlap domain
$\Omega_{i,i+1} = \Omega_i\cap \Omega_{i+1} \not = \emptyset$ and $G_{i+1}^{i} >
0$ in $\Omega_{i,i+1}$. If at least for one compartment $j \in \{ 1,\dots,\bar
i\}$ the Dirichlet boundary $\pd \Sigma_j$ is nonempty, then the regularized
problem \eq{eq-wf}, where $\Kb^i$ is replaced by $\tilde \Kb^i$, yields a unique
solution $\tilde {\bmi{p}}$.
\subsection{Flow on upper-level vascular trees}\label{sec-Bf}
As announced above, the upper-level vascular trees, the arterial, or the venous
one, should be treated by taking into account the specific geometry of the
vessels. In order to obtain an efficient numerical model it has been suggested
to consider a simplified flow model based on the Bernoulli equation. Thus,
instead of the full CFD analysis of flow in complicated 3D vessel geometries,
the perfusion tree is replaced by a system of line segments characterized by the
length, the cross-section and a loss parameter which is related to the specific
geometry of the vessel segment. To respect the tortuosity of the vascular
network, the lengths associated with the line segments should correspond to the
actual vessel length.
We consider a vascular tree $\mathcal{T}(\{\mathcal{B}^j\}_j,\{\ell_e\}_e)$
constituted by vessel segments $\ell_e$ and junctions $\mathcal{B}^j$ labeled
by $j$, see Fig.~\ref{fig-tree_1D}. Any $\mathcal{B}^j = (X^j,J^j)$ is defined
by its spatial position $X^j \in \mathbb{R}^3$ and by the connectivity set $J^j$
containing indices of segments connected at the junction. Although it is assumed
that $\mathcal{T}$ may form a graph with loops, in our study we consider only
branching trees, so that $\mathcal{B}^j$ is typically a bifurcation. The root
and terminal junctions are just one-element sets. The number of all terminal
junctions is denoted by $\hat n$. By $J^0$ we denote the root junction, whereas
the terminal branches end by junctions $\hat J^k$ through which they are
connected with the continuum model described above in Section~\ref{sec-0D}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{Fig3}\\
\caption{Structure of the 1D vascular tree}
\label{fig-tree_1D}
\end{figure}
The simplest possible model of flow on $\mathcal{T}$ is based on the Bernoulli
equation. The flow in a tree $\mathcal{T}$ is described by nodal pressures
$\{p_j\}$ and segment velocities $\{w_e\}$. In order to take into account the
dissipation of the viscous flow, the pressure loss terms must be introduced by
virtue of the Reynolds number associated with the flow on one segment. For any
line segment $\ell_e$ featured by a ``true'' vessel length $L_e$ and its
diameter $D_e$ which is assumed to be constant along the whole segment, the
pressure drop related to the node pressures at the vessel end-points is related
to the velocity $w_e$ by the following relationship
\begin{equation*}
\Delta_e p = p_i - p_j = \frac{1}{2}\rho
\lambda_e w_e^2\;, \quad e \in J^i \cap J^j\;,
\end{equation*}
where $\rho$ is the blood density and $\lambda_e =
\frac{64}{\textsf{Re}(w_e)}\frac{L_e}{D_e}$ is derived using the Poiseuille flow
model; note that the Reynolds number depends on the velocity $w_e$.
The flow model for the tree $\mathcal{T}$ is assembled using the mass
conservation (the continuity equation) expressed for each junction $j$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq-Be1}
\sum_{e \in J^j} A_e w_e = 0\;,\quad j = 1,\dots\;,
\end{equation}
where $A_e = \pi D_e^2/4$ is the cross-section, and by the modified Bernoulli
equation written for all branches of any bifurcations $j$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq-Be2}
\frac{1}{2}\rho w_{e_i}^2 + p_i = \frac{1}{2}\rho w_{e_j}^2 + p_j
+ \frac{1}{2}\rho \lambda_{e_j} w_{e_j}^2\;,
\end{equation}
where $e_j$ is the segment index of vessel $\ell_{e_j}$ connecting nodes $i$
and $j$, \ie $e_j \in J^i \cap J^j$, whereas ${e_i} \in J^i$ is the source
vessel of node $i$. The final system of equations involving all bifurcations is
solved by the Newton method.
\subsection{Coupling the 1D and the multicompartment Darcy flow models}
\label{sec-alg}
The 1D model is coupled with the model introduced in Section \ref{sec-0D}
through the terminal junctions which specify the sources and sinks $f^i$ for all
the considered compartments of the upper-most hierarchy, \ie for $i=1$ or $i =
\bar{i}$. For the $i$-th compartment saturated by the tree $\mathcal{T}$ we
define
\begin{align}
f^i(x) & = \sum_{k = 1}^{\hat n}\delta(x - \hat x^k) A_k w_k\;,
\label{eq-ssfa}\\
p^i(x) & = p_k\;,\quad x \in \Sigma_i^k\;,
\label{eq-ssfb}
\end{align}
where $\delta(x - \hat x^k)$ is the Dirac distribution centered at point $\hat
x^k \in \Omega$ which is associated with the terminal junction $k$ of the 1D
model. The pressures at these junctions represented by $\Sigma_i^k$ are coupled
with the pressure fields in parenchyma, as expressed by condition \eq{eq-ssfb}.
In practice, we use an approximation of $\delta(x - \hat x^k)$ which is based
upon the specific finite element discretization, and \eq{eq-ssfb} is replaced by
$p^i(\hat x^k) = p_k$ so that only nodal value of the pressure is shared.
We conclude by a simple iterative algorithm used to compute the perfusion
pressure and velocity fields in a steady state which is reached by increments
for a pseudo-time step. Since there are two trees $\mathcal{T}$, as illustrated
in Fig.~\ref{fig-sources_sinks}, we shall label the corresponding solutions by
indices $P$ and $H$, denoting quantities associated with the portal and hepatic
veins. For given values $\bar w_0^P$ and $\bar p_0^H$, \ie the velocity in the
inlet portal vein and the pressure in the (outlet) hepatic vein, the computation
proceeds by repeating the following algorithm:
\begin{enumerate}
\item Set all interface velocities and pressures to zero, namely $\{p_k^P\} =
0$ and $\{w_k^H\} = 0$. Set $i = 0$ and $\tau = 1/N$, for a given $N \in
\mathbb{N}$, the number of pseudo-time steps.
\item For the new iteration $i:=i+1$, update $w_0^P:= \min\{i\tau,1\} \bar
w_0^P$ and $p_0^H:= \min\{i\tau,1\} \bar p_0^H$.
\item Solve \eq{eq-Be1}-\eq{eq-Be2} on trees $\mathcal{T}_P$ and
$\mathcal{T}_H$, so that\\
$\left( w_0^P,\{p_k^P\}\right) \mapsto \left(
p_0^P,\{w_k^P\}\right)$, for the artery, and\\
$\left( p_0^H,\{w_k^H\}\right)
\mapsto \left( w_0^H,\{p_k^H\}\right)$, for the vein.
\item Solve \eq{eq-ctp-1a}-\eq{eq-ctp-1bcb} in $\Omega$, so that\\
$\left(\{w_k^P\},\{p_k^H\}\right) \mapsto \left(\{p_k^P\},\{w_k^H\}\right)$
and $(p^i(x),\wb^i(x))$ is computed for $x \in \Omega$.
\item Use the conditions \eq{eq-ssfa}--\eq{eq-ssfb} to update the interface
variables for the next iteration $i+1$.
\item Go to step 2, unless a steady state is reached.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Contrast fluid transport}\label{sec-CT}
In this section we explain how to simulate the dynamic perfusion tests which are
used as a principal method to assess blood flow in highly perfused organs,
{e.g.{~}} in the liver, or brain. It is based on {the} computed tomography
{scans which provide information on} \emph{the tissue density}. This quantity is
proportional to the local concentration of the contrast fluid (the tracer)
which is dissolved
in the blood. Its relative content is expressed by the saturation $S$. This
quantity is defined for each of the individual compartments of the parenchyma
treated by the Darcy flow model and also for all branches of the upper level
vascular trees, as explained in Section~\ref{sec-Bf}.
Transport equations for resolving the saturations in all the compartments can be
derived using the pre-computed perfusion velocities, the mass conservation law,
and taking into account fluid exchange between the compartments. Thus, we obtain
a system of hyperbolic equations for resolving the saturations. Then the tissue
contrast is defined locally as the weighted sum of all the saturations; the
weights are given by the volume fractions.
\subsection{Tracer distribution in compartments}
The tracer saturation associated with the $i$-th compartment is denoted by
$S^i$; its values are restricted by $S^i \in [0,1]$. This restriction must be
guaranteed by the transport equations arising from the conservation law whenever
the feasible initial and boundary conditions satisfy this constraint. Then we
can introduce the tracer partial concentration, $c^i = \phi^i S^i$ (no
summation) for each compartment $i$. This quantity is equivalent to the
tissue density retrieved from CT scans.
The total apparent concentration corresponding to the grey levels is then given as
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-2}
C = \sum_i c^i = \sum_i \phi^i S^i\;,
\end{equation}
where the summation is taken over all locally overlapping compartments.
The local conservation in domain $\Omega_i \subset \Omega$ for the $i$-th
compartment is expressed, as follows:
\begin{multline}\label{eq-ctp-3}
\int_{\Omega_i} \phi^i \frac{\partial S^i}{\partial t}
+ \int_{\pd \Omega_i} \wb^i \cdot \nb S^i\, \mathrm{d} \Gamma
+ \sum_j \int_{\Omega_i} Z_j^i(S)\mathcal{J}_j^i\\
= \int_{\Omega_i} S_{\rm in} f_+^i + \int_{\Omega_i} S^if_-^i \;,
\end{multline}
where $S_{\rm in}$ is the external source saturation, $f_+^i>0$, the positive
part of $f^i$ is the in-flow (while the negative part $f_-^i$ is the out-flow) and the $Z_j^i(S)$ is
the nonlinear operator defined, as follows (note $\mathcal{J}_j^i$ is given by
\eq{eq-ctp-1c}):
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-4}
Z_j^i(S) = \left \{
\begin{array}{ll}
S^i & \mbox{ if } \mathcal{J}_j^i>0\;,\\
S^j & \mbox{ if } \mathcal{J}_j^i\leq 0\;.
\end{array}\right .
\end{equation}
From \eq{eq-ctp-3} we deduce the following problem: given $\{\wb^i\}$,
$\{p^i\}$ and initial conditions $\{S^i(t=0,x)\} = \{S_0^i(x)\}$ defined
in $\Omega_i$, find $\{S^i(t,x)\}$ such that
\begin{multline}\label{eq-ctp-5}
\phi^i \frac{\partial S^i}{\partial t} + \nabla \cdot (S^i \wb^i)
+ \sum_j Z_j^i(S)\mathcal{J}_j^i =
S_{\rm in} f_+^i + S^if_-^i\\
\quad x \in \Omega_i, \quad t > 0\;, \quad i = 1,\dots \bar i\;,
\end{multline}
\begin{equation*}
S^i \mbox{ given on } \pd_{i-} \Omega_i(\wb^i)\;,
\end{equation*}
where $\pd_{i-} \Omega_i(\wb^i) = \{x \in \pd \Omega_i|\; \wb^i\cdot \nb < 0\}$
is the in-flow boundary of $\Omega_i$. However, $\pd_{i-} \Omega_i(\wb^i) =
\emptyset$ in our problem due to the boundary condition \eq{eq-ctp-1bca}.
Instead of the switch $Z$ we may introduce corresponding index sets:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-6}
\mathcal{I}_+^i = \{j\not = i|\; \mathcal{J}_j^i > 0\}\;,\quad
\mathcal{I}_-^i = \{j\not = i|\; \mathcal{J}_j^i \leq 0\}\;.
\end{equation}
Further, by introducing the ``true mean velocities'' $\vb^i =
(\phi^i)^{-1}\wb^i$, we can rewrite \eq{eq-ctp-5}, as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-6a}
\phi \frac{D_{\vb^i} S^i}{D t} + S^i \nabla\cdot \wb^i +
\sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_-^i} S^j \mathcal{J}_j^i
+\sum_{j \in \mathcal{I}_+^i} S^i \mathcal{J}_j^i
= S_{\rm in} f_+^i + S^i f_-^i \;,
\end{equation}
where $\frac{D_{\vb^i} S^i}{D t}$ is the material derivative {w.r.t.{~}}
$\vb^i$.
\subsection{Transport on branching network}
The upper hierarchies of the perfusion trees $\mathcal{T}_P$ and $\mathcal{T}_H$
are represented by branching networks consisting of \emph{vessel segments} and
\emph{junctions}. For such structures we can derive the transport (advection)
equations. By $x$ we refer to the axial coordinate along the oriented line
segment $\ell = ]x_0,x_1[$, $x_0,x_1 \in \mathbb{R}$ with the end-points
$x_0,x_1$, while by $X \in \mathbb{R}^3$ we mean the spatial positions
associated with $x$. We consider a velocity $w(x)$ and cross-section $A(x)$
given at any $x \in \ell$, which satisfy the mass conservation (by $Q$ we denote
the flux in the segment)
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-10}
\pd_x (w A) = \pd_x Q = 0\;, \quad x \in \ell.
\end{equation}
The positiveness of the convection velocity $w$ is established in the context of
the orientation of the vessel segment.
It is now easy to derive the following equation for transport of the tracer,
where $S(x,t)$ is the local instantaneous saturation; possible forms of the same
equation are:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-11}
\pd_tS(x,t) + w(x)\pd_x S(x,t) = 0\;,
\quad x \in \ell.
\end{equation}
At the line segment ends we consider the boundary conditions:
\begin{align}
S(x_0,t) &= S_0(t)\quad \mbox{ given for } Q >0\;, \label{eq-ctp-12a}\\
S(x_1,t) &= S_1(t)\quad \mbox{ given for } Q \leq 0\;\label{eq-ctp-12b}.
\end{align}
\paragraph{Transition times.}
We consider given saturations $S_0(t)$ and $S_1(t)$ at the end-points of vessel
segment $\ell_e$, see \eq{eq-ctp-12a}--\eq{eq-ctp-12b}. From \eq{eq-ctp-11}
one can obtain the following equation:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-13}
S(x_1, t_0 + T_e) = S(x_0,t_0)\;,
\end{equation}
where $T_e = \int_{x_0}^{x_1} (w(x))^{-1}\, \mathrm{d} x$ is the transition time
of the transport between the endpoints.
\paragraph{Mixing and transport through junctions.}
At any junction, a unique saturation $\tilde S^j$ is computed using an obvious
conservation law. The mean junction saturation $\tilde S^j$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-14}
\sum_{e \in J_+^j} S_e A_e v_e^j
+ \tilde S^j \sum_{e \in J_-^j} A_e v_e^j = 0\;,
\end{equation}
where the two index sets $J_-^j$ and $J_+^j$ are defined according to the flow
orientation in the vessel segments passing through the junction $j$, as follows:
\begin{align}
v_e^j &= +w_e \qquad \mbox{ if $e$ ends at junction } j\;,\nonumber\\
v_e^j &= -w_e \qquad \mbox{ if $e$ begins at junction } j\;,\nonumber\\
J_+^j &= \{ e \in J^j|\, v_e \geq 0\}\;,\nonumber\\
J_-^j &= \{ e \in J^j|\, v_e < 0\}\;,\nonumber
\end{align}
so that velocities $w_e$ in the vessel segment $\ell_e$ define $v_e$ depending
on the oriented network topology. We can call $J_+^j$ the index set of sources
and $J_-^j$ the index set of sinks. It is worth noting that for the perfusion
tree $\mathcal{T}_P$ (portal vein tree) with binary bifurcation at any junction,
the set $J_+^j = e$ contains just one index of the saturating vessel, while
$J_-^j$ contains the two children vessels, say $e_1,e_2$. For the hepatic vein
tree $\mathcal{T}_H$ with the analogous property, the role of $J_-^j = e$ and
$J_+^j = e_1,e_2$ is exchanged.
\paragraph{Assembling equations of the transport on the network.}
Due to \eq{eq-ctp-13} and knowledge of the transition times, the state of the
transport is described by the junction saturations $\{\tilde S^j(t)\}_j$. The
resulting system of equations governing the nodal saturations takes the
following form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq-ctp-15}
\tilde S^j(t) \sum_{e \in J_-^j} A_e v_e^j +
\sum_{e \in J_+^j} A_e v_e^j \tilde S^{k_e}(t - T_e) = 0\;.
\end{equation}
The junction equations \eq{eq-ctp-15} can be evaluated for discretized time
interval, \ie for $t \in \{t_n\}_n$ where $t_n = t_0 + n \Delta t$. Obviously,
for a given $T_e$, the saturation at $t_n - T_e \in [t_p,t_{p+1}]$ is
approximated using the average of values at $t_p$ and $t_{p+1}$ .
\section{Numerical simulation of liver perfusion}\label{sec-simulation}
The model introduced in the preceding sections has been implemented in our
non-commercial codes. In this section, we illustrate the model response using
numerical examples with real geometry of the human liver, but with the perfusion
trees of the portal and hepatic veins generated using the CCO method
\citep{gco}. Before presenting particular results which serve as a proof
concept, we explain a flowchart of the currently developed computational
modeling tool.
CT scans of human liver processed by the {\it LISA (LIver Surgery Analyser)}
software \citep{LISA} are the starting point to the numerical simulation of
liver perfusion. The {\it LISA} code includes the semi-automated segmentation
method based on the graph-cut algorithm and returns the geometrical model of
liver parenchyma that can be transformed into a volumetric finite element mesh.
The code is also used to identify the position and diameter of the portal and
hepatic veins at the point of entry into the liver parenchyma; this data is
necessary to generate two artificial vascular trees associated with the portal
and hepatic veins, which in part are employed directly in the simulation of the
upper-level flow using the 1D flow model described in Section~\ref{sec-Bf}, but
also to establish permeabilities $\Kb^i$ and perfusion coefficients $G_i^j$
appearing in the multicompartment Darcy flow model. The hepatic artery is not
considered in our liver model because of its small contribution to the overall
blood perfusion through the liver tissue. A constrained constructive
optimization approach is used for the creation of vascular structures reflecting
main physiological principles, see \cite{gco}, and the geometry of a particular
liver.
In accordance with the modeling principles described above, the calculation of
blood perfusion and contrast fluid distribution in the liver can be divided into
two stages. The first one includes the solution of 1D flow model
\eq{eq-Be1}-\eq{eq-Be2} coupled with the multicompartment Darcy model
\eq{eq-wf}.
The resulting velocities associated with vessel segments of the 1D flow model
and velocity fields $\wb^i$ in compartments $i$ are then employed in the second
stage in which the compartmental saturations $S^i$ yielding the total
concentration $C$ are computed. The 1D flow model is implemented in the {\it
Python} language, the multicompartment Darcy flow model is discretized using the
FE method in software {\it SfePy -- Simple Finite Elements in Python}, see
\cite{cimrman_2014:sfepy}. The model describing the tracer transport is
implemented using the finite volume method in the {\it Matlab} system. The
overview of the simulation process is illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig-comp_workflow}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Fig4}
\caption{Flowchart of the liver perfusion simulation process}
\label{fig-comp_workflow}
\end{figure}
To demonstrate features of the hierarchical model described in this paper, a
three compartment model is considered. The first compartment represents the
vascular network of the portal vein consisting of veins with diameter in the
range of about $10^{-3}- 10^{-4}$\,m. The same diameter range is chosen also for
the third compartment which stands for the system of the hepatic vein.
Compartment 2 involves small veins of diameters smaller than $10^{-4}$\,m
including the hepatic capillaries of the lobular sinusoids, and it may therefore
be perceived as a filtration part of the perfusion model. The generated
artificial vascular trees representing the vascular networks in the liver are
depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig-ph_trees}, their properties are summarized in
Tab.~\ref{tab-ph_trees}. The higher hierarchy trees, where the blood flow is
approximated by the 1D model, see Fig.~\ref{fig-multiperf}, are obtained by
taking the vessel segments with the Horton--Strahler (HS) number \citep{gco}
greater or equal to 6. The branching complexity of the generated portal vascular
tree characterized by the HS number is illustrated in
Fig.~\ref{fig-hs_portal_tree}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.85\linewidth]{Fig5}
\caption{Artificially generated vascular trees
(3D visualization of tree structure)
representing the portal {\it(top)} and hepatic {\it(bottom)}
vein systems}
\label{fig-ph_trees}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c|c}
vascular
& number of all & number of & diameter of & diameter of\\
tree
& vessel segments & terminal segments & the root segment &terminal segments\\
\hline
portal & 36\,739 & 19\,777 & 8.4\,mm & $\approx 10^{-4}$\,mm \\
\hline
hepatic & 37\,133 & 19\,769 & 5.8\,mm & $\approx 1.4 \times 10^{-4}$\,mm \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Properties of artificial vascular trees}\label{tab-ph_trees}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.60\linewidth]{Fig18}
\caption{The artificial portal vein tree and its branching complexity
measured by the Horton-Strahler number}
\label{fig-hs_portal_tree}
\end{figure}
To determine parameters $\Kb^1$, $\Kb^3$ and $G_1^2$, $G_2^3$, as well as the
porosities $\phi^1$, $\phi^3$ in each finite element, a volume averaging is
performed over the corresponding vascular tree for a given range of the vessel
diameters. The anisotropic permeabilities $\Kb^1$, $\Kb^3$ of compartments 1~and
3 are evaluated using the expression derived by Huge and van Campen
\citep{huyghe_campen_1995:ALL}, whereas the coupling perfusion coefficients
$G_1^2$, $G_2^3$ are calculated with the help of the theory presented in
\cite{Michler2013}. Values of the model parameters at two selected points are
listed in Tab.~\ref{tab-perf_params}. The isotropic permeability in
compartment~2 is taken as $K^2 = 2\times 10^{-14}$ and the uniform porosity as
$\phi^2 = 0.15$, both values are chosen with respect to the parameters
identified in~\cite{Debbaut2012}. The domain of the liver is discretized by a
finite element mesh consisting of 11\,019 tetrahedrons and 2\,442 nodes. The
rather coarse mesh was chosen due to large computational cost associated with
the tracer transport calculation.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c|c}
point &
permeability $\Kb$ [m$^2\cdot$(Pa$\cdot$s)$^{-1}$]
& porosity $\phi$ [--]
& coef. $G$ [(Pa$\cdot$s)$^{-1}$]\\
\hline
$\hat{\textrm A}$&
$\Kb^1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
1.10 & -0.01 & 0.12\\
-0.01 & 1.21 & 0.08\\
0.12 & 0.08 & 1.11
\end{matrix}
\end{pmatrix} \times 10^{-9}$
& $\phi^1 = 1.05 \times 10^{-3}$
& $G_1^2 = 3.52 \times 10^{-5}$\\
&
$\Kb^3 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
4.38 & -0.18 & -0.61 \\
-0.18 & 3.84 & -0.03 \\
-0.61 & -0.03 & 4.81
\end{matrix}
\end{pmatrix} \times 10^{-9}$
& $\phi^3 = 1.76 \times 10^{-3}$
& $G_2^3 = 4.27 \times 10^{-5}$\\
\hline
$\hat{\textrm B}$&
$\Kb^1 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
1.00 & -0.03 & 0.11 \\
-0.03 & 1.05 & 0.08 \\
0.11 & 0.08 & 0.95
\end{matrix}
\end{pmatrix} \times 10^{-9}$
& $\phi^1 = 0.93 \times 10^{-3}$
& $G_1^2 = 3.26 \times 10^{-5}$\\
&
$\Kb^3 =
\begin{pmatrix}
\begin{matrix}
4.32 & -0.15 & -0.60 \\
-0.15 & 3.55 & -0.02 \\
-0.60 & -0.02 & 4.80
\end{matrix}
\end{pmatrix} \times 10^{-9}$
& $\phi^3 = 1.64 \times 10^{-3}$
& $G_2^3 = 4.20 \times 10^{-5}$\\
\end{tabular}
\caption{
Perfusion parameters at two distinct points $\hat{\textrm A}$,
$\hat{\textrm B}$ (see Fig.~\ref{fig-liver_sec_AB}) related to
compartments 1 and 3 obtained on the basis of calculations carried out on
the artificial vascular trees}\label{tab-perf_params}
\end{table}
The 1D flow model is connected to the multicompartment model through 45
junctions, 34 of them are the sources located in compartment~1 and remaining 11
are the sinks located in compartment~3. The upper-level vascular trees, terminal
points of which correspond to the sources and sinks, are shown in
Fig.~\ref{fig-sources_sinks} and Fig.~\ref{fig-liver_pressure_velocity} {\it
(middle)}. The input blood velocity to the portal vein is taken as $v_{in} =
0.25\,{\textrm m}\cdot {\textrm s}^{-1}$ and the output blood pressure
prescribed in the hepatic vein is $p_{out} = 10^3$\,Pa.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Fig6}
\caption{
The upper-level vascular trees ({\it top} -- portal, {\it bottom} --
hepatic) where the flow is approximated using the 1D model based on the
extended Bernoulli equation. Their terminal points correspond either to the
sources in compartment 1 or to the sinks in compartment 3}
\label{fig-sources_sinks}
\end{figure}
The steady state results computed for the three compartment perfusion model
described above are presented in Fig.~\ref{fig-liver_pressure_velocity}. This
figure shows the distribution of pressure $p^i$ in each of the three
compartments, $i=1,2,3$ (1~--~portal, 2~--~filtration, 3~--~hepatic) as well as
the corresponding velocity vectors $\wb^i$, which well illustrate an interplay
between the filling and draining functionality of the portal and hepatic
compartments, respectively. From the surface and volumetric visualizations of
the computed pressure fields (\textit{left, middle}), it can be noticed that the
portal (\textit{top}) and hepatic (\textit{bottom}) pressures depend strongly on
the structure of the vascular trees, especially their upper-level hierarchies;
this is in accordance with observations made on real human liver.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\linewidth]{Fig7}
\caption{
Pressures {(\it left, middle, right)} and velocity vectors {(\it right)} in
compartments 1--3. The upper-level vascular trees are visualized {\it
(middle)}, they are connected to compartments 1 and 3 through 34 and 11
junctions}
\label{fig-liver_pressure_velocity}
\end{figure}
To get a better idea on how the different perfusion properties of the three
compartments influence the final distribution of blood within the liver and also
to simulate a real dynamic perfusion test, a simulation of the contrast fluid
transport is carried out using the model presented in
Section~\ref{sec-CT}. For this purpose, a given external source saturation
$S_{\textrm{in}}(t)$ is prescribed in the form of a time bolus defined at the
root segment of the portal vein system, Fig.~\ref{fig-bolus},
\begin{equation}
S_{\textrm{in}}(t) =\left\{
\begin{array}[c]{ll}
\bar{S}(1-\cos 2\pi\frac{t}{T}) & \textrm{for }0 \leq t\leq T,\\
0 & \textrm{for }t>T,
\end{array}\right.
\label{eq.S-inlet}
\end{equation}
where $\bar{S}=0.4$ and $T=2\,\textrm{s}$. In Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-healthy},
the obtained portal $S_{pv}$, lobular $S_{lob}$ and hepatic $S_{hv}$ saturations
and total apparent concentration $C$ are shown in two selected sections of the
liver, positions of which are outlined in Fig.~\ref{fig-liver_sec_AB} and
denoted as planes A and B. Due to the time-dependent character of the tracer
transport simulation, the results in Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-healthy} are
visualized at three time instants ($t_1=1.17\,\textrm{s}$,
$t_2=1.95\,\textrm{s}$, and $t_3=8\,\textrm{s}$). Note that the first two time
instants reflect the time at which most of the portal $S_{pv}$ and lobular
$S_{lob}$ saturations attain their maximum, see graphs in
Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.healthy}. The top graphs show the time development of the
portal $S_{pv}$, hepatic $S_{hv}$ and lobular $S_{lob}$ saturations at points
$\hat{\textrm{A}}$ and $\hat{\textrm{B}}$ located in planes A and B
(Fig.~\ref{fig-liver_sec_AB}), while the bottom graph depicts the evolution of
the total apparent concentration $C$ at the same points.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{Fig8}
\caption{
Input function $S_{\textrm{in}}(t)$ of the tracer bolus prescribed at the
inlet of the portal vein tree}
\label{fig-bolus}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Fig9}
\caption{Two plane sections of the liver parenchyma labeled as A, B
and points $\hat{\textrm A}$, $\hat{\textrm B}$ in these planes}
\label{fig-liver_sec_AB}
\end{figure}
The saturation isocontours presented in Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-healthy} clearly
demonstrate the transport of the contrast fluid through each of the three
considered liver compartments. In other words, the most apparent saturation of
the respective compartment occurs successively---first in the portal vein system
at the time $t_1=1.17\,\textrm{s}$, followed by the lobular one at
$t_2=1.95\,\textrm{s}$ and then concluded in the hepatic vein system at
$t_3=8\,\textrm{s}$. This dynamics of the perfusion can also be recognized from
the varying grey levels of the total apparent concentration $C$ in
Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-healthy}.
To get another, more time continuous view of the tracer transport through each
of the three compartments, we refer to the graphs in
Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.healthy}; from there it is possible to observe a relatively
fast ``filtration'' of the tracer through the portal compartment ($S_{pv}$
reaches its maximum shortly after the saturation bolus have entered the
compartment; moreover, the shape of the bolus remains almost unchanged over
time, see Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.healthy} (\textit{top left}). On contrary, the
filtration compartment, which is characterized by a relatively high porosity
($\phi^2 = 0.15$) compared to the ones computed in the filling/draining
compartments ($\phi^1$ and $\phi^3\approx 10^{-4}$, see
Tab.~\ref{tab-perf_params}), fulfills its function as a filtration system, in
which the saturation $S_{lob}$ decreases only slowly over time, see
Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.healthy} (\textit{top right}). As a consequence, the
perfusion properties of the filtration system influence the time development of
the hepatic saturation $S_{hv}$ which, compared to the portal saturation
$S_{pv}$, changes much more gradually depending on tracer transfer from the
filtration system.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Fig10}
\caption{Distribution of portal $S_{pv}$, lobular $S_{lob}$ and
hepatic $S_{hv}$
saturations and total apparent concentration $C$ (\textit{from top to
bottom}) in planes A and B of the liver at three selected time instants:
$t_1=1.17\,\textrm{s}$, $t_2=1.95\,\textrm{s}$, and $t_3=8\,\textrm{s}$
(\textit{from left to right})}
\label{fig-sections-healthy}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.480\linewidth]{Fig12}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.470\linewidth]{Fig13}\\
\includegraphics[width=0.470\linewidth]{Fig14}
\caption{
Time development of portal $S_{pv}$, lobular $S_{lob}$ and hepatic $S_{hv}$
saturations and total concentration $C$ plotted at points $\hat{\textrm A}$
and $\hat{\textrm B}$ shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-liver_sec_AB}. The dashed
vertical lines in both graphs denote the three selected time instants
$t_1=1.17\,\textrm{s}$, $t_2=1.95\,\textrm{s}$, and $t_3=8\,\textrm{s}$
mentioned in Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-healthy}}
\label{fig-graphs.healthy}
\end{figure}
\paragraph{Liver model with pathologically changed permeability}
To demonstrate the applicability of the proposed model for numerical simulation
of various liver tissue pathologies, a simple illustrative example is presented.
In a small spherical region, which is depicted in Fig.~\ref{fig-pulec}, the
permeability parameter $\Kb$ of compartment 2 is locally changed to values close
to zero (due to numerical reasons arising from the solution of the Darcy
system). This change in permeability should mimic a pathology of the lobular
structure, namely a lesion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.65\linewidth]{Fig11}
\caption{
%
Region in the liver where the permeability in compartment 2 (the filtration
one) is taken close to zero, this simulates a local pathology of the lobular
structure
%
}
\label{fig-pulec}
\end{figure}
To be able to quantify how the introduction of the lesion within the parenchyma
affects the overall perfusion of the liver including the transport of the
contrast fluid, the following auxiliary quantities are introduced:
\begin{equation}
\begin{array}[c]{rcl}
\Delta S_{pv} &=& S_{pv} - S_{pv}^{\bullet},\\
\Delta S_{lob} &=& S_{lob} - S_{lob}^{\bullet},\\
\Delta S_{hv} &=& S_{hv} - S_{hv}^{\bullet},\\
\Delta C &=& C - C^{\bullet},
\end{array}
\label{eq-deltas}
\end{equation}
where the upper index ``$^{\bullet}$'' denotes a quantity associated with the
pathologically changed liver model. Similarly to
Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-healthy}, Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-damaged} shows the
distribution of $\Delta S_{lob}$ and $\Delta C$ in planes A and B at the three
previously introduced time instants ($t_1=1.17\,\textrm{s}$,
$t_2=1.95\,\textrm{s}$, and $t_3=8\,\textrm{s}$). From the $\Delta S_{lob}$
isocontours, it can be deduced that the lesion, which is located in the upper
part of the liver model (near plane A), affects the perfusion and tracer
transport globally. This phenomenon can be particularly observed on plane B,
where at the beginning of the simulation ($t_2=1.95\,\textrm{s}$) the lobular
saturation $S_{lob}$ of the original model is higher than in the case of the
model with lesion (i.e., $\Delta S_{lob}>0$). The presence of the lesion within
the liver model and its influence on the overall blood perfusion is also
reflected by the distribution of $\Delta C$ in Fig.~\ref{fig-sections-damaged}
(\textit{bottom}). Here the differences in the total concentration $\Delta C$
are apparent on both planes A and B. The region with $\Delta C>0$ in the left
part of plane A is of particular importance, as it is clearly
distinguishable in all snapshots, thus, indicating the location of the
lesion.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\linewidth]{Fig15}
\caption{
%
Liver model with damaged parenchyma -- distribution of $\Delta S_{pv}$ and
$\Delta C$ (\textit{from top to bottom}) in planes A and B at three selected
time instants $t_1=1.17\,\textrm{s}$, $t_2=1.95\,\textrm{s}$, and
$t_3=8\,\textrm{s}$ (\textit{from left to right})}
%
\label{fig-sections-damaged}
\end{figure}
To assess the impact of the lesion on the perfusion results in a time-continuous
manner, we refer to the graphs shown in Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.difference}, which
capture evolution of $\Delta S_{pv}$, $\Delta S_{hv}$ and $\Delta C$ in time at
the points $\hat{\textrm A}$ and $\hat{\textrm B}$ previously introduced. Note
that, in comparison with Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.healthy}, the graph of $\Delta
S_{lob}$ is not displayed in Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.difference}, as it would
closely resemble that of $\Delta C$. When comparing the plotted curves, two
observations are worth of nothing. First, although the perfusion anomaly
(lesion) is located only in the filtration compartment, it influences the
perfusion and, thereby, the tracer transport through the higher hierarchies
included in to the portal compartment (the difference $\Delta S_{pv}$ is not
zero from the beginning, \ie for $t < t_2$). Second, curves plotted for the
selected points $\hat{\textrm A}$ and $\hat{\textrm B}$ are dissimilar each
other, no common features are evident. This is particularly apparent in the case
of $\Delta S_{pv}$, which for both points exhibit completely different
behaviour: On one hand, at point $\hat{\textrm A}$ (red solid line in
Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.healthy} (\textit{left})), the graph is characterized by a
delayed maximum portal saturation in the undamaged liver model (fast change of
$\Delta S_{pv}$ from negative to positive values within a short time interval).
On the other hand, the time evolution of $\Delta S_{pv}$ at point $\hat{\textrm
B}$ (blue solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig-graphs.healthy} (\textit{left})) shows no
time delay, only higher portal saturation compared to the damaged liver model is
apparent ($\Delta S_{pv}>0$ during the whole simulation). Similar observations
can be made in the case of the $\Delta S_{hv}$ and $\Delta C$ curves.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{Fig16}\hfill
\includegraphics[width=0.47\linewidth]{Fig17}
\caption{
%
Evolution of $\Delta S_{pv}$, $\Delta S_{hv}$ (\textit{left}) and
$\Delta C$ (\textit{right}) at points $\hat{\textrm A}$ and $\hat{\textrm
B}$}
%
\label{fig-graphs.difference}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec-Concl}
In the paper, we proposed the multicompartment model of the tissue blood
perfusion and of the superimposed time-space distribution of the contrast fluid.
This latter feature enables to establish a modeling feedback which is necessary
to tune the model parameters according to information available due to standard
clinical CT examination combined with essential flow parameters and basic
structural and morphological data of a specific perfused tissue. Although the
model is intended and currently being developed for modeling the liver perfusion, it
can be adapted for other applications, namely the cerebral perfusion; this issue
is in our focus for future work.
\subsection{Summary of the proposed modeling approach}
The perfusion model has been derived on a very simple idea of decomposing the
perfusion tree into a number of sets -- the compartments -- which are
hierarchically organized. The flow within each compartment $i$ is governed by
the Darcy law involving permeability tensors $\Kb^i$. Cross links between two
``communicating'' compartments $i$ and $j$ is respected locally by scalar
perfusion coefficients $G_i^j$ which are associated with cuts of the perfusion
tree at those bifurcations separating the two different hierarchies. These
features represent a substantial step towards an anatomically parametrized
porous perfusion model. However, the key issue is the quantification of the
model parameters. If an exact geometry of the perfusion tree is known, as in our
case, when using the artificially generated trees, the permeabilities $\Kb^i$
can be determined using the geometrical data by a representative volume
averaging following the approaches suggested in
\cite{huyghe_campen_1995:ALL,vankan-huyghe_1997} and followed in
\cite{Michler2013}. Following this work, a procedure has been proposed to
determine also the perfusion coefficients $G_i^j$ which, however, would require
resolving the whole ``non-reduced'' problem of flow on all vessel segments of
the tree. Therefore, in our treatment, we simplified such a complex procedure to
obtain an approximate, but tractable computation of the perfusion coefficients.
Flow on the uppermost hierarchies of the perfusion tree is described by the
Bernoulli type model on 1D branching network; its coupling with the 3D continuum
multicompartment model is by means of distributed point sources, or sinks. An
iterative algorithm is based on commuting the 1D flow solvers associated with
the portal and hepatic vein trees, and the 3D perfusion solver, whereby the
inlet velocity at the portal vein is being increased gradually from zero until a
steady state is reached.
As the second contribution of the paper, we propose the model describing the
contrast fluid (the tracer) dynamic transport at all hierarchies of the
perfusion trees. Superposition of the local saturation of the tracer in all
compartments yields the local concentration, often called the tissue density
which can be measured by the perfusion CT examination. On one hand, due to this
option, it is possible to use the patient-specific CT images to tune the model
parameters. On the other hand, this computational tool will allow for a deeper
analysis of CT scans and a more accurate localization and assessment of possible
liver pathology.
\subsection{Discussion and future development of the model}
To bring the modeling approach to its practical application with valuable
outputs for clinical practice, there are several important issues to be pursued
in our future work. The main purpose of using the multicompartment continuum
model to describe approximately the flow on complex branching vessel networks,
like trees, is to avoid direct flow simulations which may be prohibitively
expensive and even non-feasible to provide real time solutions.
To verify the model performance, we need to check how the tree decomposition
into varying number of compartments influences the modeling error. Such a
numerical experiment requires a reference model which would provide a
sufficiently fine and robust resolution of flow on all the vascular tree
branches. For this purpose, we shall consider the 1D flow on the perfusion tree
described by the Bernoulli-type model. This reference model will also be used to
set the parameters $G_i^j$ for a particular split of the tree.
For practical use of the model, its parameters cannot be set appropriately using
the direct calculations: the reason is twofold. If real data is used, the tree
cannot be identified to a sufficient resolution of small vessels using the
imaging techniques which are currently available. Moreover, even if the tree is
known, as in our numerical examples, a cumbersome direct calculation of the flow
would be necessary to set the parameters $G_i^j$. Therefore, we intend to
identify the model parameters by solving an inverse problem. In
\cite{Rohan-vipimage2015}, we suggested a formulation of the nonlinear least
square problem which is based on the discrepancy between the local contrast
fluid concentration resolved by the model, and the corresponding data provided
by the CT examination. This approach seems to be the only way of tuning the
model. However, such a treatment requires further improvements of the model
itself to capture more accurately the flow at the lowermost level of the
parenchyma and also to account for dispersion of the contrast fluid during its
transport through the compartments.
We are currently working on a homogenized model \citep{RTL-CC2015} of the flow
on the capillary and pre-capillary level which should be integrated in the
multicompartment model. In liver, the lobular level of the vasculature can be
approximated by a periodic structure featured by the double porosity in the
context of the vertex and the central venules connected by the hepatic
capillaries of the sinusoids. Another issue is certainly related to
the deformation of the parenchyma
\citep{Cimrman2007,rohan-cimrman-perfusionIJMCE2010,RL-CST-2014}. In a longer
perspective, this phenomenon must be treated in the model to capture processes
of the tissue remodeling.
%
\acknowledgements
This research is supported by
the project LO\,1506 of the Czech Ministry of
Education,Youth and Sports.}
%
\bibliographystyle{spbasic}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
The present evidence for neutrino masses and mixings demands an extension of the Standard Model (SM) to account for them and
represents one of our best windows to new physics. The simplest and one of the most appealing possibilities,
given its symmetry with the quark sector, is the addition of fermion singlets, right-handed neutrinos,
to the SM particle content. However, even this simplest extension points towards the existence of a new type
of term in the SM Lagrangian: a Majorana mass term for the right-handed neutrinos, allowed by the SM gauge symmetry.
Such a term would imply direct breaking of the otherwise accidental Lepton number symmetry and the introduction
of a mass scale not directly related to the Higgs mechanism of electroweak symmetry breaking. Depending on the actual scale of
this mass term, interesting phenomenological consequences follow, such as the possible explanation of the baryon
asymmetry of the Universe via the Leptogenesis mechanism~\cite{Fukugita:1986hr} or of the mysterious dark matter
component via these sterile neutrinos~\cite{Dodelson:1993je,Shi:1998km,Abazajian:2001nj,Asaka:2005an}.
A popular assumption for this mass scale is that it is above that of electroweak symmetry breaking.
This choice indeed leads to the well-known Seesaw mechanism~\cite{Minkowski:1977sc,Mohapatra:1979ia,Yanagida:1979as,GellMann:1980vs}
that nicely accommodates the strikingly tiny neutrino masses, as compared with the rest of the SM fermion content.
In particular, for neutrino Yukawa couplings ranging in value from the electron to the top quark, a Majorana mass
scale between the electroweak (EW) and grand unification scales can correctly reproduce our present constraints.
Unfortunately, this huge hierarchy of scales also suppresses any other observable consequence of the model,
beyond the leading order Weinberg $d=5$ operator~\cite{Weinberg:1979sa} that explains neutrino masses, rendering
its experimental verification extremely challenging.
An interesting alternative is that of explaining the smallness of neutrino masses, not through a large hierarchy of scales,
but rather via an approximate symmetry~\cite{Mohapatra:1986bd,Bernabeu:1987gr,Branco:1988ex,Buchmuller:1990du,Pilaftsis:1991ug,Dev:2012sg}. In particular,
there are choices for the Majorana mass and Yukawa matrices such as the inverse~\cite{Mohapatra:1986bd,Bernabeu:1987gr}
or linear~\cite{Malinsky:2005bi} Seesaw mechanisms that, for a given assignment of the charges among the extra states,
approximately conserve $B-L$. Therefore, the Majorana masses obtained via the Weinberg operator by the light neutrinos
are necessarily suppressed by the small $B-L$-violating parameters. Interestingly, higher order operators that would, a priori,
be more strongly suppressed than neutrino masses, are not necessarily protected by this symmetry and can thus lead to
sizable signals. In particular, apart from the Majorana nature of neutrino masses, the most characteristic signals of
the Seesaw mechanism with right-handed neutrinos are deviations from unitarity of the lepton PMNS mixing matrix generated
by the only $d=6$ operator present at tree level. This
in turn would lead to signals in lepton flavour violating processes (LFV), non-universality of weak interactions and/or affect
electroweak precision observables~\cite{Lee:1977tib,Shrock:1980vy,Schechter:1980gr,Shrock:1980ct,Shrock:1981wq,Langacker:1988ur,Bilenky:1992wv,Nardi:1994iv,Tommasini:1995ii,Bergmann:1998rg,Loinaz:2002ep,Loinaz:2003gc,Loinaz:2004qc,Antusch:2006vwa,Antusch:2008tz,Biggio:2008in,Alonso:2012ji,Abada:2012mc,Akhmedov:2013hec,Basso:2013jka,Abada:2013aba,Antusch:2014woa,Antusch:2015mia,Abada:2015oba,Abada:2015trh,Abada:2016awd}.
In this work we will combine results from all these probes to derive updated constraints on the presently allowed
mixing among the extra massive neutrinos and the SM flavour eigenstates. We will present our results both, for a
completely model-independent parametrization without any further assumption about the extra massive states and for the
more restricted assumption of only three massive neutrinos, in analogy to the three generations for
all other fermions. In the latter case, since the three extra neutrinos must also reproduce the correct pattern of masses and mixings
as observed in neutrino oscillations, correlations among the potentially observable effects are predicted and constraints
are qualitatively different from the general case.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:param} we introduce the parametrizations adopted for our studies for
the general and three-heavy-neutrino cases. In Section~\ref{sec:obs} we describe the set of observables used to probe for
the heavy extra neutrinos. In Section~\ref{sec:res} we present and describe our results and finally we conclude in
Section~\ref{sec:sum}.
\section{Parametrizations}
\label{sec:param}
Starting from the usual type-I Seesaw Lagrangian:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:The3FormsOfNuMassOp}
\mathscr{L} &=& \mathscr{L}_\mathrm{SM} -\frac{1}{2} \overline{N_\mathrm{R}^i} (M_N)_{ij} N^{c j}_\mathrm{R} -(Y_{N})_{i\alpha}\overline{N_\mathrm{R}^i} \phi^\dagger
\ell^\alpha_\mathrm{L} +\mathrm{h.c.}\; ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\phi$ denotes the SM Higgs field, $M_N$ the Majorana mass allowed for the right-handed neutrinos $N_\mathrm{R}^i$ and $Y_{N}$ the Yukawa couplings between the neutrinos and the
Higgs field. The vev of the Higgs $v_{\mathrm{EW}}$ will, in addition, induce Dirac masses $m_D = v_\text{EW} Y_N/\sqrt{2}$. In the usual Seesaw limit, for $M_N \gg m_D $, the three light and mostly-active neutrinos observed in the neutrino oscillation phenomenon will be clearly separated from the heavy and mostly-sterile new states. Upon integrating out these heavy states, their low energy phenomenology will be encoded in a series of effective operators. The first such operator is the well-known $d=5$ Weinberg operator~\cite{Weinberg:1979sa} that, upon electroweak symmetry breaking, induces the Majorana masses for the light neutrinos:
\begin{equation}
\hat{m} \equiv m_D^t M_N^{-1} m_D = -U_{\rm PMNS} ^* m U_{\rm PMNS} ^\dagger,
\label{eq:mass}
\end{equation}
where $U_{\rm PMNS} = U_{23}(\theta_{23}) U_{13}(\theta_{13},\delta) U_{12}(\theta_{12}) {\rm diag}(e^{-i\alpha_1/2},e^{-i\alpha_2/2},1) $ is the Unitary mixing matrix that diagonalizes the symmetric mass matrix $\hat{m}$ generated from
the Weinberg operator. At tree level, the only $d=6$ operator obtained upon integrating out the heavy neutrinos induces
non-canonical neutrino kinetic terms for the three SM active neutrinos when the Higgs develops its vev~\cite{Broncano:2002rw}.
After diagonalizing and normalizing the kinetic terms, the mixing matrix appearing in charged current interactions will
thus contain, not only the two Unitary rotations to diagonalize the $d=5$ and $d=6$ operators respectively, but also
the necessary rescaling to bring the neutrino kinetic term to its canonical form. Thus, in all generality, the
matrix describing the mixing between the light neutrino mass eigenstates and the SM charged leptons via $W$ interactions will
not be Unitary and to stress this feature we will dub it $N$. Since any general matrix can be parametrized as the product
of an Hermitian and a Unitary matrix, these deviations from unitarity have been often parametrized as~\cite{FernandezMartinez:2007ms}:
\begin{equation}
N = (I - \eta) U_{\rm PMNS} ,
\label{eq:Neq}
\end{equation}
where the small Hermitian matrix $\eta$ (also called $\epsilon$ in other works) encodes the deviations from unitarity in neutrino mixing. This parametrization is very convenient from a phenomenological point of view. Indeed, since the particular neutrino mass eigenstate is never identified in physical observables, its index is always summed upon, while the flavour index labeling the charged leptons participating in the process is normally fixed. Thus, most observables depend on the combination:
\begin{equation}
\sum_i N_{\alpha i} N^\dagger_{i \beta} = \delta_{\alpha \beta} - 2\eta_{\alpha \beta} +\mathcal{O}\left(\eta_{\alpha \beta}^2\right)
\end{equation}
and can thus be expressed only though the parameters contained in the Hermitian matrix $\eta$. Moreover, the physical
interpretation of $\eta$ is also very transparent in terms of the mixing between the extra heavy neutrinos and the SM flavours. Indeed, if the full mass matrix is diagonalized as:
\begin{equation}
U^T \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
0 & m_D^T \\ m_D & M_N
\end{array}
\right) U = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
m & 0 \\ 0 & M
\end{array}
\right), \label{eq:diag}
\end{equation}
where $m$ and $M$ are diagonal matrices containing respectively the masses of the 3 light $\nu_i$ and heavy $N_i$ mass eigenstates.
The diagonalizing matrix $U$ can be written as~\cite{Blennow:2011vn}:
\begin{equation}
U = \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\ c & s \\ -s^\dagger & \hat{c}
\end{array}
\right) \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
U_{\rm PMNS} & 0 \\ 0 & I
\end{array}
\right), \label{eq:block}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\ c & s \\ -s^\dagger & \hat{c}
\end{array}
\right) \equiv \left(
\begin{array}{cc}
\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{ \left(- \Theta \Theta^\dagger \right)^{n}}{2n!} &
\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{ \left(- \Theta \Theta^\dagger \right)^{n}}{\left(2n+1\right)!} \Theta \\
-\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{ \left(- \Theta^\dagger \Theta \right)^{n}}{\left(2n+1\right)!} \Theta^\dagger &
\displaystyle\sum\limits_{n=0}^\infty \frac{ \left(- \Theta^\dagger \Theta \right)^{n}}{2n!}\end{array}
\right) ,
\label{eq:sincos}
\end{equation}
and $\Theta \sim m^\dagger_D M_N^{-1}$ is the general matrix that describes the mixing between the heavy mass eigenstates
and the active neutrino flavours. Thus, the non-unitary correction $I-\eta$ can be identified with the first term of the
cosine expansion $1 - \Theta\Theta^\dagger/2$ such that:
\begin{equation}
\eta = \frac{\Theta \Theta^\dagger}{2}.
\label{eq:eta:theta}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, $\eta$ is also ($1/2$ of) the coefficient of the $d=6$ operator
obtained upon integrating out the heavy neutrino fields:
\begin{equation}
\eta = \frac{m_D^\dagger M_N^{-2} m_D}{2}.
\label{eq:d6eta}
\end{equation}
In all generality the $d=6$ operator $\eta$ is completely independent from the $d=5$ $\hat{m}$ and thus from the measured neutrino masses and mixings in oscillation experiments~\cite{Broncano:2003fq,Antusch:2009gn}. However, both $\hat{m}$ and $\eta$ are ultimately built from $m_D$ and $M_N$ and thus, in particular cases, may not be fully independent. Apart from the completely general parametrization through $\eta$, here we will also investigate one such case. Namely, we will focus on the particular scenario in which:
\begin{itemize}
\item The SM is only extended through 3 right-handed neutrinos.
\item The three extra neutrino mass eigenstates are heavier than the EW scale.
\item Large, potentially observable, $\eta$ is allowed despite the smallness of neutrino masses.
\item The small neutrino masses are radiatively stable.
\end{itemize}
The only way to simultaneously satisfy these requirements is through an underlying $L$ symmetry~\cite{Kersten:2007vk,Abada:2007ux} (see also Ref.~\cite{Adhikari:2010yt,Antusch:2015mia}) which leads to:
\begin{equation}
m_D = \frac{v_\text{EW}}{\sqrt{2}} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
Y_{Ne} & Y_{N\mu} & Y_{N\tau} \\ \epsilon_1 Y'_{Ne} & \epsilon_1 Y'_{N\mu} & \epsilon_1 Y'_{N\tau} \\ \epsilon_2 Y''_{Ne} & \epsilon_2 Y''_{N\mu} & \epsilon_2 Y''_{N\tau}
\end{array}
\right)
\qquad
\textrm{and}
\qquad
M_N = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\mu_1 & \Lambda & \mu_3 \\ \Lambda & \mu_2 & \mu_4 \\ \mu_3 & \mu_4 & \Lambda'
\end{array}
\right), \label{eq:texture}
\end{equation}
with all $\epsilon_i$ and $\mu_j$ small lepton number violating parameters (see also Ref.~\cite{Dev:2013oxa} for a particular scenario where these small parameters arise naturally). By setting all $\epsilon_i=0$ and $\mu_j=0$, lepton number symmetry is indeed recovered with the following $L$ assignments $L_e = L_\mu = L_\tau = L_1 = -L_2 = 1$ and $L_3 = 0$. Also $\hat{m}=0$ (3 massless neutrinos in the $L$-conserving limit), $M_1=M_2=\Lambda$ (a heavy Dirac pair) and $M_3=\Lambda'$ (a heavy decoupled Majorana singlet), but:
\begin{equation}
\eta= \frac{1}{2} \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
|\theta_e|^2 & \theta_e \theta_\mu^* & \theta_e \theta_\tau^* \\ \theta_\mu \theta_e^* & |\theta_\mu|^2 & \theta_\mu \theta_\tau^* \\ \theta_\tau \theta_e^* & \theta_\tau \theta_\mu^* & |\theta_\tau|^2
\end{array}
\right)
\quad
\mathrm{with}
\quad
\theta_\alpha \equiv \frac{Y_{N\alpha} v}{\sqrt{2} \Lambda}.
\label{eq:theta}
\end{equation}
So that large $\eta$ is possible even in the limit of massless neutrinos when $L$ is conserved. Upon switching on
the $L$-violating parameters in Eq.~(\ref{eq:texture}), neutrino masses and mixings $\hat{m}$ that can reproduce
the observed neutrino oscillations are generated. However, these are not completely independent from $\eta$ and the
following relationship between the $\theta_\alpha$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:theta}) and $\hat{m}$ follows~\cite{Fernandez-Martinez:2015hxa}:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\theta_\tau& \simeq \frac{1}{\hat{m}_{e \mu}^2 - \hat{m}_{ee} \hat{m}_{\mu \mu}}\left(\theta_e\left(\hat{m}_{e \mu}\hat{m}_{\mu \tau}-\hat{m}_{e \tau}\hat{m}_{\mu \mu}\right)+\right.\\
&\left. \theta_\mu\left(\hat{m}_{e \mu}\hat{m}_{e \tau}-\hat{m}_{ee}\hat{m}_{\mu \tau}\right)\pm\sqrt{\theta_e^2\hat{m}_{\mu \mu}-2\theta_e\theta_\mu \hat{m}_{e \mu}+\theta_\mu^2\hat{m}_{ee}}\times \right.\\
&\left.\times\sqrt{\hat{m}_{e \tau}^2\hat{m}_{\mu \mu}-2\hat{m}_{e \mu}\hat{m}_{e \tau}\hat{m}_{\mu \tau}+\hat{m}_{ee}\hat{m}_{\mu \tau}^2+\hat{m}_{e \mu}^2\hat{m}_{\tau \tau}-\hat{m}_{ee}\hat{m}_{\mu \mu}\hat{m}_{\tau \tau}}\right) .
\end{split}
\label{eq:Yt}
\end{equation}
Thus, this extra constraint will lead to correlations among the heavy-active mixing parameters $\theta_\alpha$ and
therefore also $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$ through Eq.~(\ref{eq:theta}), not present in the completely general scenario
with more than 3 heavy neutrinos. From now on we will refer to the unrestricted scenario as {\bf G-SS}
(\emph{general Seesaw}) and to the particular case with 3 extra heavy neutrinos as {\bf 3N-SS}. The parameters
characterizing the heavy neutrino mixing and the correlations between them in each case are summarized in
Table~\ref{tab:params}. In particular, the constraints on $\eta$ for the G-SS come from the fact that $\eta$ is positive definite (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:eta:theta})).Regarding $\theta_\tau$ in the 3N-SS case, its value is fixed by $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\mu$
through Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}) once the SM neutrino masses and mixings encoded in the $d=5$ operator $\hat{m}$ are specified.
In our analysis we will thus scan the allowed parameter space of the 3N-SS by leaving $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\mu$ free
in the fit, together with the remaining unknown values characterizing $\hat{m}$: the Dirac phase $\delta$, the Majorana
phases $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$, the absolute neutrino mass and the mass hierarchy (normal or inverted). Regarding the absolute neutrino mass scale we will add the constraint from Planck on the sum of the light neutrino masses $\sum m_i < 0.23$ at a $95 \%$ CL~\cite{Ade:2015xua}. The rest of the
oscillation parameters are fixed to their best fits from Ref.~\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2014bfa} since they are well-constrained
by present neutrino oscillation data.
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
& $\eta_{ee}$ & $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ & $\eta_{\tau \tau}$ & $\eta_{e \mu}$ & $\eta_{e \tau}$ & $\eta_{\mu \tau}$ \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{G-SS} & $\eta_{ee} > 0$ & $\eta_{\mu \mu} > 0$ & $\eta_{\tau \tau} > 0$ & $|\eta_{e \mu}| \leq \sqrt{\eta_{ee} \eta_{\mu \mu}}$ & $|\eta_{e \tau}| \leq \sqrt{\eta_{ee} \eta_{\tau \tau}}$ & $|\eta_{\mu \tau}| \leq \sqrt{\eta_{\mu \mu} \eta_{\tau \tau}}$ \\
& free & free & free & free & free & free \\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{3N-SS} & $\eta_{ee} = \frac{|\theta_e|^2}{2} $ & $\eta_{\mu \mu} = \frac{|\theta_\mu|^2}{2}$ & $\eta_{\tau \tau} = \frac{|\theta_\tau|^2}{2}$ & $ \eta_{e \mu} = \frac{\theta_e \theta_\mu^*}{2}$ & $ \eta_{e \tau} = \frac{\theta_e \theta_\tau^*}{2}$ & $ \eta_{\mu \tau} = \frac{\theta_\mu \theta_\tau^*}{2}$ \\
& free & free & fixed by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}) & fixed by $\theta_e$, $\theta_\mu$ & fixed by $\theta_e$, $\theta_\tau$ & fixed by $\theta_\mu$, $\theta_\tau$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the parameters characterizing the mixing between flavour eigenstates and the extra heavy neutrinos
for a completely general Seesaw scenario ({G-SS}) and the particular case of 3 extra heavy neutrinos (3N-SS).
The constraints and correlations between parameters in each model are also summarized in the table. The value of
$\theta_\tau$ for the 3N-SS case is computed through Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}) as a function of
$\theta_e$, $\theta_\mu$, $\delta$, $\alpha_1$, $\alpha_2$, the absolute neutrino mass scale and the mass hierarchy.
The rest of the oscillation parameters are fixed to their best fits from Ref.~\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2014bfa}.}
\label{tab:params}
\end{center}
\end{table}
When presenting the results of the global fit in Section \ref{sec:res} we will derive constraints on the mixing of the heavy neutrinos with the SM active flavours $\theta_\alpha$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:theta}) for the 3N-SS. Regarding the G-SS, we do not specify the number of heavy neutrinos with which the SM is extended since all the observable effects are simply encoded in the matrix $\eta$. Thus, each heavy neutrino can have a different mixing $\Theta_{\alpha i}$ and, to ease the comparison with the results from the 3N-SS, we will use the combination $\sqrt{2 \eta_{\alpha \alpha}}$ which represents the total mixing from all the additional heavy neutrinos with the flavour $\alpha$ and an upper bound on the individual mixings $\Theta_{\alpha i}$:
\begin{equation}
\Theta_{\alpha i} = \left( m_D^\dagger M^{-1} \right)_{\alpha i} \quad \mathrm{and} \quad 2 \eta_{\alpha \alpha} = \sum_i |\Theta_{\alpha i}|^2.
\label{eq:sqrteta}
\end{equation}
\section{Observables}
\label{sec:obs}
Global constraints on the mixing between the heavy and active neutrinos will be derived through a fit to the following 28 observables:
\begin{itemize}
\item{The $W$ boson mass $M_W$}
\item{The effective weak mixing angle $\theta_\text{W}$: $s_\text{W eff}^{2 \text{ lep}}$ and $s_\text{W eff}^{2 \text{ had}}$}
\item{Four ratios of $Z$ fermionic decays: $R_l$, $R_c$, $R_b$ and $\sigma^0_\text{had}$}
\item{The invisible width of the $Z$ $\Gamma_\text{inv}$}
\item{Ratios of weak decays constraining EW universality: $R^\pi_{\mu e}$, $R^\pi_{\tau \mu}$, $R^W_{\mu e}$, $R^W_{\tau \mu}$, $R^K_{\mu e}$, $R^K_{\tau \mu}$, $R^l_{\mu e}$ and $R^l_{\tau \mu}$}
\item{9 weak decays constraining the CKM unitarity}
\item{3 radiative LFV decays: $\mu\rightarrow e \gamma$, $\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma$ and $\tau\rightarrow e \gamma$}
\end{itemize}
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Observable & SM prediction & Experimental value \\
\hline
\hline
$M_{W}\simeq M_{W}^{\text{SM}}\left(1+0.20\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & $\left(80.363\pm 0.006\right)$ GeV & $\left(80.385\pm0.015\right)$ GeV\\
$s_\text{W eff}^{2 \text{ lep}}\simeq s_\text{W eff}^{2 \text{ lep SM}}\left(1-1.30\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$& $0.23152\pm0.00010$ & $0.23113\pm0.00021$\\
$s_\text{W eff}^{2 \text{ had}}\simeq s_\text{W eff}^{2 \text{ had SM}}\left(1-1.30\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$&$0.23152\pm0.00010$ & $0.23222\pm 0.00027$\\
\hline
$R_{l}\simeq R_{l}^{\text{SM}}\left(1+0.18\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & $20.740\pm 0.010$ & $20.804\pm0.050$\\
$R_{c}\simeq R_{c}^{\text{SM}}\left(1+0.11\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & $0.17226\pm 0.00003$ & $0.1721\pm0.0030$\\
$R_{b}\simeq R_{b}^{\text{SM}}\left(1-0.06\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & $0.21576\pm0.00003$ & $0.21629\pm0.00066$\\
$\sigma^0_\text{had}\simeq\sigma_\text{had}^{0\text{ SM}}\left(1+0.55\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)+0.53\eta_{\tau\tau}\right)$ & $\left(41.479\pm 0.008\right)$ nb & $\left(41.541\pm0.037\right)$ nb\\
$\Gamma_\text{inv}\simeq \Gamma_\text{inv}^{\text{SM}}\left(1-0.33\left(\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)-1.32\eta_{\tau\tau}\right)$ & $\left(0.50166\pm0.00005\right)$ GeV& $\left(0.4990\pm0.0015\right)$ GeV\\
\hline
$R^\pi_{\mu e}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\mu\mu}-\eta_{ee}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $1.0042\pm0.0022$ \\
$R^\pi_{\tau \mu}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\tau\tau}-\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $0.9941\pm0.0059$\\
$R^W_{\mu e}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\mu\mu}-\eta_{ee}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $0.992\pm0.020$\\
$R^W_{\tau \mu}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\tau\tau}-\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $1.071\pm0.025$\\
$R^K_{\mu e}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\mu\mu}-\eta_{ee}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $0.9956\pm0.0040$\\
$R^K_{\tau \mu}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\tau\tau}-\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $0.978\pm0.014$\\
$R^l_{\mu e}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\mu\mu}-\eta_{ee}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $1.0040\pm 0.0032$\\
$R^l_{\tau \mu}\simeq \left(1-\left(\eta_{\tau\tau}-\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\right)$ & 1 & $1.0029\pm0.0029$ \\
\hline
$\left|V_{ud}^\beta\right| \simeq \sqrt{1-|V_{us}|^2}(1+\eta_{\mu\mu})$ & $\sqrt{1-|V_{us}|^2}$ & $0.97417\pm0.00021$\\
$\left|V_{us}^{\tau\rightarrow K\nu_{\tau}}\right|\simeq \left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}-\eta_{\tau\tau}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2212\pm0.0020$ \\
$\left|V_{us}^{\tau\rightarrow K,\pi}\right|\simeq\left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2232\pm0.0019$ \\
$\left|V_{us}^{K_{L}\rightarrow \pi e\overline{\nu}_{e}}\right|\simeq\left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2237\pm0.0011$ \\
$\left|V_{us}^{K_{L}\rightarrow \pi \mu\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\right|\simeq\left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{ee}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2240\pm0.0011$ \\
$\left|V_{us}^{K_{S}\rightarrow \pi e\overline{\nu}_{e}}\right|\simeq\left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2229\pm0.0016$ \\
$\left|V_{us}^{K^{\pm}\rightarrow \pi e\overline{\nu}_{e}}\right|\simeq\left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2247\pm0.0012$ \\
$\left|V_{us}^{K{\pm}\rightarrow \pi \mu\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\right|\simeq\left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{ee}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2245\pm0.0014$ \\
$\left|V_{us}^{K,\pi \rightarrow \mu\nu}\right| \simeq\left|V_{us}\right|\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)$ & $\left|V_{us}\right|$ & $0.2315\pm0.0010$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{List of observables input to the global fit. The first column contains the leading dependence on the non-unitarity parameters $\eta$, the second column contains the loop-corrected SM expectation,
and the third column the experimental measurement used in the fit.}
\label{tab:obs:num}
\end{table}
The dependence of each observable on the non-unitarity mixing matrix $N_{\alpha i}$ and the parameters $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$ will be presented and discussed in this section.
In Ref.~\cite{Fernandez-Martinez:2015hxa} it was recently shown that loop level corrections
involving the new degrees of freedom can be safely neglected. However,
many SM-mediated loop corrections are relevant for these precision
observables and will therefore be accounted for~\cite{Agashe:2014kda}.
Notice that, in principle, these SM loop corrections also contain an
indirect dependence on the non-unitarity parameters, notably through
their dependence on $G_F$ as determined in muon decay. This subleading
dependence of the observables will be neglected and only the
corrections from non-unitarity affecting the tree level relations will
be discussed in the following expressions. The numerical analysis, however, contains all relevant
SM loop corrections when comparing with the corresponding observables. The loop-corrected SM expectation,
together with the leading non-unitarity correction and the experimental measurements that will be the inputs
of our global fit are all summarized in Tab. (\ref{tab:obs:num}).
\subsection{Constraints from $\mu$ decay: $G_{F}$, $M_Z$, $M_{W}$ and $\theta_{\text{W}}$}
As usual, all SM predictions will be made in terms of the very accurate measurements of $\alpha$, $M_Z$ and $G_F$ as measured in $\mu$ decay, $G_\mu$~\cite{Agashe:2014kda}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\alpha&=&\left(7.2973525698\pm0.0000000024\right)\cdot 10^{-3}, \nonumber\\
M_Z&=&\left(91.1876\pm0.0021\right) \text{ GeV}, \\
G_\mu&=&\left(1.1663787\pm0.0000006\right)\cdot 10^{-5} \text{ GeV}^{-2}. \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
However, a non-unitary mixing matrix $N_{\alpha i}$ would modify the expected decay rate of $\mu \to e \nu \bar{\nu}$. Indeed, since the final state neutrinos are not determined, their index must be summed upon obtaining:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\mu}=\frac{m_{\mu}^5 G_{F}^{2}}{192 \pi^3}\sum_i{|N_{\mu i}|^2} \sum_j{|N_{e j}|^2} \simeq \frac{m_{\mu}^5 G_{F}^{2}}{192 \pi^3}\left(1-2\eta_{ee}-2\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\equiv
\frac{m_{\mu}^5 G_{\mu}^{2}}{192 \pi^3}.
\end{equation}
Thus, $G_F$ as determined through muon decay ($G_\mu$) acquires a non-unitary correction that will propagate to most observables:
\begin{equation}
G_{F}=G_{\mu}\left(1+\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right).
\label{eq:Gmu}
\end{equation}
In particular, the relation between $G_\mu$ and $M_W$ allows to constrain $\eta_{ee}$ and $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ through kinematic measurements of $M_W$:
\begin{equation}
G_\mu = \frac{\alpha \pi M^2_Z\left(1+\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)}{\sqrt{2}M^2_W\left(M^2_Z - M^2_W \right)}.
\end{equation}
Similarly, the weak mixing angle $s_{\text{W}}^2$ will be modified and independent determinations of $s_{\text{W}}^2$ will be used to further constrain $\eta_{ee}$ and $\eta_{\mu \mu}$:
\begin{equation}
s_{W}^{2}=\frac{1}{2}\left(1-\sqrt{1-\frac{2\sqrt{2}\alpha\pi}{G_{\mu}
M_{Z}^{2}}\left(1-\eta_{ee}-\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)}\right),
\label{eq:sw}
\end{equation}
Regarding different measurements of $s_{\text{W}}^2$ it is important to note that in some low energy determinations, such as
from the \emph{weak charge of the proton} or \emph{M{\o}ller scattering}, the dependence on this parameter appears through
the following combination $-1/2 + 2s_{\text{W}}^2$. Since the value of $s_{\text{W}}^2$ is close to $1/4$, there is a partial
cancellation in this observables that, in the SM, allows for a very accurate determination of $s_{\text{W}}^2$, since small
changes in its value significantly affect the degree of the cancellation and hence the size of the observable. For the same
reason, we find that these observables are also very sensitive to corrections of the order of SM loop corrections times the
non-unitary parameters $\eta$. Indeed, including some of these corrections we find that the corresponding coefficients in front of the $\eta$ parameters in Tab. (\ref{tab:obs:num}) would vary up to a factor 2, indicating that our approximation of neglecting
these terms is not good enough for these precision observables. Since the inclusion of these corrections is beyond the
scope of this work, we choose not to include these particular determinations of $s_{\text{W}}^2$ in the list of observables
for our global fit.
\subsection{Constraints from $Z$ decays}
\subsubsection{$Z$ decays into charged fermions}
The $Z$ decays into charged fermions are not directly modified in presence of heavy neutrinos or a non-unitary lepton mixing matrix at tree level. However, these measurements depend on $G_F$ and $s_W$ and, as such, an indirect dependence on the non-unitarity parameters appears through its determination via muon decay, as described above. In particular:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma\left(Z\rightarrow f\bar{f}\right)\equiv\Gamma_{f}=
\frac{G_{\mu}M_{Z}^{3}\left(g_{V}^{f 2}+g_{A}^{f 2}\right)}{6\sqrt{2}\pi}\left(1+\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)
\label{eq:Z:widths}
\end{equation}
where the vector and axial-vector form factors are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{V}^{f}&=&N_{C}\left(T_{f}-2Q_{f}s_{\text{W}}^{2}\right) \nonumber \\
g_{A}^{f}&=&N_{C}T_{f}
\end{eqnarray}
with $N_{C}$ the color factor, $N_{C}=3\text{ }(1)$ for quarks (leptons) and where $Q_f$ and $T_f$ are the electric charge and third component of the weak isospin of the fermion $f$. Notice that an additional dependence on $\eta_{ee}$ and $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ will be present in $g_{V}$ through $s_{\text{W}}^{2}$ and Eq.~(\ref{eq:sw}).
The usual combinations of decay rates will be used as observables for the global fit:
\begin{equation}
R_{q}=\frac{\Gamma_{q}}{\Gamma_{\text{had}}},\quad
R_{l}=\frac{\Gamma_{\text{had}}}{\Gamma_{l}} \quad \text{and}\quad
\sigma_{\text{had}}^{0}=\frac{12 \pi\Gamma_{ee}\Gamma_{\text{had}}}{M_{Z}^{2}\Gamma_{Z}^{2}} \,;
\end{equation}
where $\Gamma_{\text{had}}\equiv\displaystyle\sum_{q\neq t}\Gamma_{q}$.
\subsubsection{Invisible $Z$ width}
In presence of a non-unitary lepton mixing matrix $N_{\alpha i}$, the $Z$ coupling to neutrinos is directly affected and becomes non diagonal since $(N^\dagger N)_{ij} \neq \delta_{ij}$.
Thus, apart from its indirect dependence through $G_F$, the invisible width of the $Z$, from which the number of active neutrinos can be determined, is directly sensitive to the mixing of heavy neutrinos:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma_{\text{inv}}=\frac{G_{F}M_{Z}^{3} \sum_{ij} |(N^\dagger N)_{ij}|^2 }{12\sqrt{2}\pi}
\simeq \frac{G_{\mu}M_{Z}^{3}}{12\sqrt{2}\pi}\big(3-
\left(4\,\eta_{\tau\tau}+\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\big) \equiv \frac{G_{\mu}M_{Z}^{3} N_{\nu}}{12\sqrt{2}\pi}
\end{equation}
Notice that, since $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$ is positive definite from Eq.~(\ref{eq:eta:theta}), the number of active neutrinos as measured through the invisible $Z$ width will be smaller than 3 in presence of mixing with heavy neutrinos, to be compared with the present determination of $N_\nu = 2.990 \pm 0.007$ from LEP~\cite{ALEPH:2005ab}.
\subsection{Constraints from weak interaction universality tests}
The lepton flavour universality of weak interactions is strongly constrained through ratios of lepton and meson decays
differing in the charged lepton generation involved, such as $\pi \to \mu \nu_i$ vs $\pi \to e \nu_i$. Since the final
state neutrino cannot be determined, these processes are proportional to $\sum_i |N_{\alpha i}|^2 \approx 1 - 2\eta_{\alpha \alpha}$, where $\alpha$ is the flavour of the charged lepton. Thus, a flavour dependence is induced in presence on non-unitary mixing and the weak interaction universality constraints become powerful probes of heavy neutrino mixing:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma_\alpha}{\Gamma_\beta} \equiv \frac{\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\alpha}{\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\beta} R^2_{\alpha\beta}
= \frac{\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\alpha}{\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\beta} \frac{\sum_i |N_{\alpha i}|^2}{\sum_i |N_{\beta i}|^2} \simeq \frac{\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\alpha}{\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\beta} \left( 1-2\eta_{\alpha \alpha}+2\eta_{\beta\beta} \right) ,
\label{eq:univ}
\end{equation}
where the ratio of the SM expectations for the decay widths $\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\alpha$ will be given by a function of the charged lepton masses involved containing the corresponding phase space and chirality flip factors as well as the different loop corrections. Thus, at tree level and for the particular case of $\pi$ decays:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma^{\pi \text{SM}}_\alpha}{\Gamma^{\text{SM}}_\beta} =\left(\frac{m_{\alpha}\left(m_{\pi}^{2}-m_{\alpha}^{2}\right)}{m_{\beta}^{2}\left(m_{\pi}^{2}-m_{\beta}^{2}\right)}\right)^{2}.
\end{equation}
Constraints on the values of the ratios of weak coupling constants $R_{\alpha \beta}$ as defined in Eq.~(\ref{eq:univ}) have been derived through ratios of different decays~\cite{Pich:2013lsa} and are summarized in Tab.~(\ref{tab:obs:num}).
\subsection{Unitarity of the CKM matrix}
The presence of extra heavy neutrinos leads to unitarity violations of the lepton PMNS mixing matrix leaving the CKM quark mixing unaffected.
However, the processes through which the elements of the CKM matrix $V$ are determined are affected both directly
(for processes involving leptons) and indirectly (through the determination of $G_F$ in muon decays). In particular,
the unitarity relation among the elements of the first row of the CKM matrix is very strongly constrained and reads:
\begin{equation}
\left|V_{ud}\right|^{2}+\left|V_{us}\right|^{2}+\left|V_{ub}\right|^{2}=1
\label{CKM:eq}
\end{equation}
For the present accuracy on $V_{us}$, the value of $V_{ub} = \left(4.13\pm0.49\right)\times 10^{-3}$~\cite{Agashe:2014kda} can be safely neglected in Eq.~(\ref{CKM:eq}). This relation, together with the measurements from the different processes used to constrain $V_{ud}$ and $V_{us}$ will thus also present indirect sensitivities to $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$. In particular we will rewrite through Eq.~(\ref{CKM:eq}):
\begin{equation}
\left|V_{ud}\right|=\sqrt{1-\left|V_{us}\right|^{2}}
\label{eq:udus}
\end{equation}
and use the following experimental constraints to fit for $V_{us}$ and the $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$ parameters on which they depend. In our final constraints on $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$ the dependence on $V_{us}$ has been treated as a nuisance parameter and the $\chi^2$ has been minimized with respect to it.
\subsubsection{Superallowed $\beta$ decay}
Superallowed $\beta$ decays provide the best determination of $\left|V_{ud}\right|$. However, in presence of a non-unitary PMNS matrix it will receive a direct correction with $\left(1-2\eta_{ee}\right)$ from the electron and neutrino coupling, as well as the indirect correction from $G_F$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Gmu}). All in all the value of $V_{ud}$ extracted from this process corresponds to:
\begin{equation}
\left|V_{ud}^{\beta}\right|
\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\left|V_{ud}\right|.
\label{eq:betadec}
\end{equation}
The most recent update on $\left|V_{ud}^{\beta}\right|$ based on 20 different superallowed $\beta$ transitions~\cite{Hardy:2014qxa} is listed in Tab.~(\ref{tab:obs:num}) and will be an input for our fit.
\subsubsection{$\left|V_{us}\right|$}
$\left|V_{us}\right|$ can be determined through $\tau$ decays and semileptonic or leptonic $K$ decays.
The values of $f_{+}(0)$ and $f_{K}/f_{\pi}$ involved in these observables have been taken from~\cite{Aoki:2013ldr}.
\begin{itemize}
\item{$K$ decays}
Kaon decays offer a direct way to determine $\left|V_{us}\right|$. Apart from their sensitivity to this parameter, decays with $\mu$ ($e$) final states also have a direct dependence on $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ ($\eta_{e e}$) which cancels against the indirect dependence through $G_\mu$ leading to:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|V_{us}^{K\rightarrow \pi e\overline{\nu}_{e}}\right|&=
\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\left|V_{us}\right|,\\
\left|V_{us}^{K\rightarrow \pi \mu\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\right|&=
\left(1+\eta_{ee}\right)\left|V_{us}\right|.
\end{eqnarray}
The present determinations of $\left|V_{us}^{K\rightarrow \pi e\overline{\nu}_{e}}\right|$ and
$\left|V_{us}^{K\rightarrow \pi \mu\overline{\nu}_{\mu}}\right|$ are listed
in Tab. (\ref{tab:obs:num}) and have been obtained from \cite{Antonelli:2010yf,Moulson:2014cra} together with
$f_{+}\left(0\right)$ from~\cite{Aoki:2013ldr}, the correlation matrix among observables from \cite{Antonelli:2010yf} has also been taken into account.
An alternative determination of $\left|V_{us}\right|$ stems from the ratio of the branching fractions $\mathcal{B}\left(K \rightarrow \mu \nu \right)/\mathcal{B}\left(\pi \rightarrow \mu \nu \right)$. Notice that in this ratio any direct or indirect dependence on leptonic non-unitarity cancels allowing to constrain the ratio $\left|V_{us}\right|/\left|V_{ud}\right|$ as in the SM. Since this measurement is latter combined with $\left|V_{ud}^{\beta}\right|$ from Eq.~(\ref{eq:betadec}) to obtain $\left|V_{us}^{K,\pi \rightarrow \mu\nu }\right|$ the same $\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)$ correction as for $\left|V_{ud}^{\beta}\right|$ is finally present:
\begin{equation}
\left|V_{us}^{K,\pi \rightarrow \mu\nu }\right|
\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\left|V_{us}\right|.
\label{eq:newK}
\end{equation}
\item{$\tau$ decays}
An alternative constraint on $\left|V_{us}\right|$ can be obtained from the $\tau\rightarrow K\nu_{\tau}$ decay rate. In presence of non-unitary leptonic mixing, a direct correction by $\left(1-2\eta_{\tau \tau}\right)$ will be present from the $\tau$ coupling as well as the indirect correction from $G_F$ leading to the following dependence:
\begin{equation}
\left|V_{us}^{\tau\rightarrow K\nu_{\tau}}\right|
\left(1+\eta_{ee}+\eta_{\mu\mu}-\eta_{\tau\tau}\right)\left|V_{us}\right|.
\end{equation}
The value of $\left|V_{us}^{\tau\rightarrow K\nu_{\tau}}\right|$ is given in Tab.~(\ref{tab:obs:num}) \cite{Amhis:2014hma}.\\
Another possibility is to constrain $\left|V_{us}\right|$ from the ratio $\mathcal{B}\left(\tau\rightarrow K\nu_{\tau}\right)/\mathcal{B}\left(\tau\rightarrow \pi\nu_{\tau}\right)$. In complete analogy to Eq.~(\ref{eq:newK}), the sensitivity to the non-unitarity parameters takes the form:
\begin{equation}
\left|V_{us}^{\tau\rightarrow K,\pi}\right|
\left(1+\eta_{\mu\mu}\right)\left|V_{us}\right|.
\end{equation}
All these observables with the values listed in Tab.~(\ref{tab:obs:num}) will be used to fit for $\eta_{ee}$, $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ and $\eta_{\tau \tau}$. Regarding $|V_{us}|$, its value will be free to vary in the fit and will be treated as a nuisance parameter, choosing the value of $|V_{us}|$ that minimizes the $\chi^2$ for each value of $\eta_{ee}$, $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ and $\eta_{\tau \tau}$.
\end{itemize}
\subsection{LFV observables}
Flavour transitions $\alpha \to \beta$ in presence of non-unitary mixing such that
$(N^\dagger N)_{\alpha \beta} = -2 \eta_{\alpha \beta} \neq 0$ are no longer protected by
the GIM~\cite{Glashow:1970gm} mechanism. Thus, the stringent constraints that exist on lepton flavour violating (LFV)
processes translate into strong probes of the PMNS unitarity, in particular on the off-diagonal
elements $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$. Notice that from Eq.~(\ref{eq:eta:theta}) $\eta$ is a positive-definite matrix
and its off diagonal elements subject to the Schwarz inequality:
\begin{equation}
|\eta_{\alpha \beta}| \leq \sqrt{\eta_{\alpha \alpha} \eta_{\beta \beta}},
\label{eq:schwarz}
\end{equation}
as summarized in Table~\ref{tab:params}. Thus, the direct constraints on the diagonal elements of $\eta$ stemming
from the processes discussed above also constrain indirectly the size of the off-diagonal entries. Moreover, for
the 3N-SS, Eq.~(\ref{eq:theta}) implies that the Schwarz inequality is saturated to an equality. Therefore, in the G-SS a global fit to constrain the diagonal elements of $\eta$ with the list of
observables described above will be performed. Then, constraints on the off-diagonal entries will be derived indirectly
through the Schwarz inequality and compared with the direct bounds from LFV processes. For the 3N-SS, the
LFV observables will be added directly to the global fit since they also constrain the diagonal elements
through the saturation of the inequality.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{paper_plots/Eta_em.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{paper_plots/Eta_te.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{paper_plots/Eta_tm.pdf}
\caption{$90$\% CL constraints on $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ from LFV
observables in the 3N-SS. Solid lines represent current experimental bounds while dotted lines represent future
sensitivities as listed in Table.~\ref{tab:NDobs:num}.
The red-shadowed region represents the non-perturbative region with $|Y_N|^2>6\pi$. In the bottom panel, given the preference
for non-zero $h \rightarrow \tau \mu$ \cite{Khachatryan:2015kon,Aad:2015gha} we show the preferred value in blue and
the the $1 \sigma$ region in yellow.}
\label{fig:bounds}
\end{figure}
Below we list and describe the set of LFV transitions that would take place through non-unitary leptonic mixing.
The present experimental bounds and future sensitivities are summarized in Table.~\ref{tab:NDobs:num}. A
comparison summarizing the present relative importance of these observables constraining the off-diagonal elements
of $\eta$ (solid lines) is presented in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds}. Since the LFV observables typically depend on the value
of the heavy masses, we have performed the comparison for the 3N-SS, since there is only a common scale that simplifies the comparison.
As can be seen, radiative decays $\l_\alpha \to l_\beta \gamma$ presently dominate the existing bounds and will thus be added to the global
fit in the 3N-SS. However, regarding future expectations (dotted lines),
the constraints on $|\eta_{e \mu}|$ will be dominated by $\mu \to eee$ or $\mu-e$ transitions in nuclei rather
than by $\mu \to e \gamma$. On the other hand, the present and future sensitivity to $|\eta_{e \tau}|$ and $|\eta_{\mu \tau}|$
is completely dominated by the radiative decays $\l_\alpha \to l_\beta \gamma$. In particular, the constraints on $|\eta_{\alpha\beta}|$ from the LFV decays of the $Z$ and Higgs bosons,
$Z \to \l_\alpha\l_\beta$ and $h\to \l_\alpha\l_\beta$, are at least one or three orders of magnitude weaker than the
bounds from radiative decays respectively. Unfortunately this precludes the explanation of the present mild preference for non-zero $h\to \mu \tau$~\cite{Khachatryan:2015kon,Aad:2015gha} through heavy neutrino mixing (see yellow band in the lower panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds}). Indeed, the values of the Yukawas required to explain these events are, not only excluded by the other observables depicted in the third panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds}, but also fall into the non-perturbative region, shaded red in the figure.
\begin{table}[htbp]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Observable & Experimental bound & Future sensitivity \\
\hline
\hline
$\mu\rightarrow e \gamma$ & $<4.2\cdot 10^{-13}$ \cite{Agashe:2014kda} & $<6\cdot 10^{-14}$ \cite{Baldini:2013ke}\\
$\tau\rightarrow \mu \gamma$ & $<3.3\cdot 10^{-8}$ \cite{Agashe:2014kda}
& $<3\cdot 10^{-9}$ \cite{Bona:2007qt}\\
$\tau\rightarrow e \gamma$ & $<4.4\cdot 10^{-8}$ \cite{Agashe:2014kda} & $<3\cdot 10^{-9}$ \cite{Bona:2007qt}\\
\hline
$Z\rightarrow e \mu$ & $<7.1\cdot 10^{-7}$ \cite{Aad:2014bca} & $<10^{-13}$ \cite{Abada:2014cca} \\
$Z\rightarrow \tau e$ & $<9.3\cdot 10^{-6}$ \cite{Adriani:1993sy, Akers:1995gz}& $-$\\
$Z\rightarrow \tau \mu$ & $<1.1\cdot 10^{-5}$ \cite{Akers:1995gz, Abreu:1996mj}& $-$\\
\hline
$h\rightarrow e \mu$ & $<3.4\cdot 10^{-4}$ \cite{CMS:2015udp} & $-$\\
$h\rightarrow \tau e$ & $<6.6\cdot 10^{-3}$ \cite{CMS:2015udp} & $-$\\
$h\rightarrow \tau \mu$ & $(8.2\pm3.2)\cdot 10^{-3}$ \cite{Khachatryan:2015kon,Aad:2015gha}& $-$\\
\hline
$\mu\rightarrow eee$ & $<10^{-12}$ \cite{Bellgardt:1987du}& $<10^{-16}$ \cite{Blondel:2013ia}\\
$\tau\rightarrow eee$ & $<2.7\cdot 10^{-8}$ \cite{Hayasaka:2010np}& $<2\cdot 10^{-10}$ \cite{Bona:2007qt}\\
$\tau\rightarrow \mu\mu\mu$ & $<2.1\cdot 10^{-8}$ \cite{Hayasaka:2010np}& $<2\cdot 10^{-10}$ \cite{Bona:2007qt}\\
\hline
$\mu\rightarrow e$ (Al) & $-$ & $<10^{-17}$ \cite{Kutschke:2011ux}\\
$\mu\rightarrow e$ (Ti) & $<4.3\cdot 10^{-12}$ \cite{Dohmen:1993mp}& $<10^{-18}$ \cite{Barlow:2011zza}\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Summary of the present constraints and expected future sensitivities for the different LFV observables considered.}
\label{tab:NDobs:num}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{LFV $Z$ decays}
For the 3N-SS, the $Z \rightarrow l_\alpha^{\mp}l_\beta^{\pm}$
decay branching ratio is simplified to~\cite{Illana:1999ww}
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{B}\left(Z \rightarrow l_\alpha^{\mp}l_\beta^{\pm}\right)= \frac{\alpha^2 M_Z^3 G_\mu}{24\sqrt{2}\pi^3 s_w \Gamma_Z}
|\eta_{\alpha\beta}|^2\big|F(\lambda)-F(0)+G(\lambda,0)+G(0,\lambda)-2G(0,0)\big|^2,
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
G(\lambda_i,\lambda_j)&=&2C_{24}-1-\lambda_Q\left(C_0+C_{11}+C_{12}+C_{23}\right)-\frac{\lambda_i\lambda_j}{2}C_0,
\nonumber\\
F(\lambda)&=& 2c_w^2\big[\lambda_Q\left(\bar{C}_{11}+\bar{C}_{12}+\bar{C}_{23}\right)-6\bar{C}_{24}+1\big]
-\lambda(1-2s_w^2)\bar{C}_{24}\\
&-&2s_w^2\lambda\bar{C}_{0}+\frac{1-2c_w^2}{2}\big[(1+\lambda)B_1+1\big], \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
and $\lambda=\Lambda^2/M_W^2$, $\lambda_Q=(p_\alpha-p_\beta)^2/M_W^2=M_Z^2/M_W^2+\mathcal{O}(m_l^2/M_W^2)$
and $C_{\left\{0,11,12,23\right\}}$, $C_{\left\{0,11,12,23,24\right\}}$ and $B_1$ defined in Appendix C
of~\cite{Illana:1999ww}.
As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds}, at present $\l_\alpha \to l_\beta \gamma$ is able to set bounds much stronger than through this process.
\subsubsection{LFV $h$ decays}
In the case of the LFV Higgs decay the expression at $\mathcal{O}\left(\eta_{\alpha\beta}^2\right)$ for the
branching ratio is much more involved than in the $Z \rightarrow l_\alpha^{\mp}l_\beta^{\pm}$ case. In Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds}
we have used the complete computation presented in~\cite{Pilaftsis:1992st,Arganda:2004bz,Arganda:2014dta}. Nevertheless, we instead present here an
approximate expression which can be useful in order to understand the dependence on the parameters in the 3N-SS.
\begin{equation}
\mathcal B\left(h\rightarrow l_\alpha^{\mp}l_\beta^{\pm}\right)\approx \frac{\alpha^3}{64\,\pi^2 s_w^6 \Gamma_h}
\left(\frac{\Lambda}{M_W}\right)^4M_h\,|\eta_{\alpha\beta}|^2
\left(\frac{m_\alpha^2}{M_W^2}\,|f_L|^2+\frac{m_\beta^2}{M_W^2}\,|f_R|^2\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
f_L &=&
\frac{M_h^2}{2}\left(C_0+C_{11}-C_{12}\right),
\nonumber\\
f_R &=&
\frac{M_h^2}{2}\left(C_0+C_{12}\right),
\end{eqnarray}
and $C_{\left\{0,11,12\right\}}= C_{\left\{0,11,12\right\}}(m_\alpha^2,M_h^2,\Lambda^2,M_W^2,M_W^2)$. This approximate
result is reasonably accurate for scales above few TeV and works very well for $\Lambda \gtrsim 10$ TeV. However,
since here we are neglecting $\mathcal{O}\left(M_W^2/\Lambda^2\right)$ contributions, it fails for
$\Lambda \lesssim 1$ TeV. In any case, the full calculation shows that the constraints on $|\eta_{\alpha\beta}|$ are
still very far from the present radiative bounds, falling indeed in the non perturbative region.
\subsubsection{$l_\alpha\rightarrow l_\beta l_\beta l_\beta$ decay}
Another LFV observable that would be induced by heavy neutrino mixing is the $l_\alpha\rightarrow l_\beta l_\beta l_\beta$. Its branching
ratio, for the 3N-SS, is given by~\cite{Ilakovac:1994kj}
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{B}\left(l_\alpha\rightarrow l_\beta l_\beta l_\beta\right)&=&\dfrac{G_\mu^4 M_W^4 m_{\alpha}^5 \left| \eta_{\alpha\beta} \right|^2}
{18432 \pi^7\Gamma_{\alpha}}\left\lbrace 54-1188 s_\text{W}^2 + s_\text{W}^4 \left(1105 + 96 \log{\left(\frac{m_{\alpha}^2}{m_{\beta}^2}\right)} \right) \right. \\ \nonumber
&+& \left. 2 \log^2{\dfrac{\Lambda^2}{M_W^2}} \left(27 -96 s_\text{W}^2 +128 s_\text{W}^4 \right) - 4 \log{\dfrac{\Lambda^2}{M_W^2}} \left(27 - 219 s_\text{W}^2 + 296 s_\text{W}^4 \right) \right\rbrace.
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
Notice that, while additional non-unitarity corrections from $G_\mu$ and $s_\text{W}^2$ (also through $\Gamma_\alpha$ when
$\alpha\neq\mu$) would be present, these are higher order in $\eta$ and therefore subleading since the whole process is already proportional to $|\eta_{\alpha\beta}|^2$.
Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds} shows that the present $\mu\rightarrow eee$ decay bound on
$|\eta_{e\mu}|$ is quite competitive with the one coming from $\mu \to e \gamma$. The constraint is presently dominated
by $\mu \to e \gamma$, but it is expected to be overcome by $\mu\rightarrow eee$ in the future. On the other hand,
the present and future sensitivity to $|\eta_{e\tau}|$ and $|\eta_{\mu\tau}|$ is dominated by the radiative decays.
\subsubsection{$\mu\rightarrow e$ conversion}
In the 3N-SS, the ratio between $\mu\rightarrow e$ conversion rate over the capture
rate $\Gamma_{capt}$ in light nuclei is given by~\cite{Alonso:2012ji}
\begin{equation}
\label{Rmue}
R_{\mu\rightarrow e}\simeq \dfrac{G_\mu^2 \alpha^5m_\mu^5}{2s_w^4\pi^4\Gamma_\text{capt}}\dfrac{Z_\text{eff}^4}{Z}|\eta_{e\mu}|^2F_p^2
\Big[\left(A+Z\right)F_u+\left(2A-Z\right)F_d\Big]^2 \ \
\,.
\end{equation}
where $A$ corresponds to the mass number, $Z$ ($Z_\text{eff}$) stands for the (effective) atomic number, $F_p$
is a nuclear form factor and
\begin{eqnarray}
F_{u} &=&\dfrac{2}{3}s_W^2\dfrac{16\log\left(\frac{\Lambda^2}{M_W^2}\right)-31}{12}
-\dfrac{3+3\log\left(\frac{\Lambda^2}{M_W^2}\right)}{8},
\nonumber\\
F_{d}&=&-\dfrac{1}{3}s_W^2\dfrac{16\log\left( \frac{\Lambda^2}{M_W^2}\right)-31}{12}
-\dfrac{3-3\log\left(\frac{\Lambda^2}{M_W^2}\right)}{8},
\nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
The bounds shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds} have been obtained from $\mu\rightarrow e$ conversion transitions in
$_{13}^{27}\mbox{Al}$ and $_{22}^{48}\mbox{Ti}$. The input values for the nuclear parameters $F_p$, $Z_\text{eff}$ and
$\Gamma_\text{capt}$ have been extracted from ~\cite{Kitano:2002mt,Suzuki:1987jf} and are summarized in Table 1
of~\cite{Alonso:2012ji}.
According to the forecasted performances the future sensitivity to $|\eta_{e\mu}|$ will be dominated by this observable. Remarkably, future
$\mu\rightarrow e$ searches~\cite{Barlow:2011zza} could improve the present bound by three orders of magnitude making
it a very promising channel to probe for new physics signal in LFV decays.
\subsubsection{Radiative decays}
In the G-SS, the branching ratio for the radiative decays
$\l_\alpha \to l_\beta \gamma$ is given by:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\Gamma\left(l_{\alpha}\rightarrow \l_{\beta} \gamma \right)}{\Gamma\left(l_{\alpha}
\rightarrow\l_{\beta}\nu_{\alpha}\overline{\nu}_{\beta}\right)}=\frac{3\alpha}{32\pi}
\frac{\left|\displaystyle\sum^{n}_{k=1}U_{\alpha k}U_{k\beta}^{\dagger}F\left(x_{k}\right)\right|^{2}}
{\left(UU^\dagger\right)_{\alpha\alpha}\left(UU^\dagger\right)_{\beta\beta}},
\end{equation}
where $x_k\equiv \frac{M_{k}^2}{M_W^2}$, and
\begin{equation}
F(x_k)\equiv\frac{10-43x_k+78x_k^2-49x_k^3+4x_k^4+18x_k^3\ln x_k}{3(x_k-1)^4}.
\end{equation}
For $M_k\gg M_W$ the limit can be simplified to:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:muegamma}
\frac{\Gamma\left(l_{\alpha}\rightarrow \l_{\beta} \gamma \right)}
{\Gamma\left(l_{\alpha}\rightarrow\l_{\beta}\nu_{\alpha}\overline{\nu}_{\beta}\right)}
\simeq \frac{3 \alpha}{8 \pi}\left|\eta_{\alpha\beta}\right|^{2}\big(F\left(\infty\right)-F\left(0\right)\big)^{2}
=\frac{3 \alpha}{2 \pi}\left|\eta_{\alpha\beta}\right|^{2}.
\end{equation}
This expression shows how the non-unitarity induced in the PMNS by the heavy neutrinos and the
separation of the two scales prevents the GIM cancellation. Indeed, the cancellation is recovered
in the limit $x_k\ll 1$.
These radiative decays are the observables dominating the present constraints on $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:bounds} and
will thus be the ones introduced in the fit through Eq.~(\ref{eq:muegamma}) for the 3N-SS. In the G-SS, these constraints will be compared with the bounds stemming from the Schwarz inequality Eq.~(\ref{eq:schwarz}) from the outcome of the global fit to the diagonal entries.
\section{Results}
\label{sec:res}
With the list of observables described in the previous section and under a Gaussian approximation we construct a $\chi^2$ function to scan the parameter
spaces of the G-SS and the 3N-SS. For the G-SS the free parameters of the fit are directly $\eta_{ee}$,
$\eta_{\mu \mu}$ and $\eta_{\tau \tau}$ without further constraints and all the observables listed in
Section \ref{sec:obs} except for the LFV transitions will be used to constrain them. The LFV radiative decays
rather constrain the off-diagonal elements of the matrix $\eta$. Therefore, to obtain the global constraints
on the off-diagonal elements, the LFV radiative decays will be combined and compared with the indirect bounds
implied by the Schwarz inequality Eq.~(\ref{eq:schwarz}) from the lepton flavour conserving observables.
Regarding the 3N-SS, the free parameters for the fit are $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\mu$ (modulus and phase)
while $\theta_\tau$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}) once the light neutrino masses and mixings are specified
through the $d=5$ operator $\hat{m}$. Thus, we also take as free parameters of the fit the values of
the unknown phases of the PMNS matrix Dirac ($\delta$) and Majorana ($\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$) as well as
the mass of the lightest neutrino mass eigenstate for both a normal and an inverted neutrino mass ordering.
The rest of the oscillation parameters are fixed to their best fits from Ref.~\cite{Gonzalez-Garcia:2014bfa}
since they are well-constrained by present neutrino oscillation data. Notice that, a priori, the number of
free parameters we fit for in the 3N-SS case is larger than in the G-SS. However, this larger number of
parameters is only included to take into account the constraints affecting $\theta_\tau$ (and therefore
$\eta_{\tau \tau}$) via Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}) that are absent in the G-SS. Indeed, as we will see from the results
of the fit, these constraints imply extra correlations between the parameters of the 3N-SS and there is in fact less freedom in the relevant parameters $\eta_{ee}$, $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ and $\eta_{\tau \tau}$ to
fit for the observables. Since for the 3N-SS the Schwarz inequality Eq.~(\ref{eq:schwarz}) is saturated
$|\eta_{\alpha \beta}| = \sqrt{\eta_{\alpha \alpha} \eta_{\beta \beta}}$, the LVF radiative decays also imply non-trivial
constraints on the values of $\theta_\alpha$ and the diagonal elements $\eta_{\alpha \alpha}$ and will hence be included
in the list of observables of the global fit. Notice that, under the approximation of Eq.~(\ref{eq:muegamma}),
the LFV radiative decays do not depend on the Majorana mass scale. Therefore, since none of the observables for the G-SS or
3N-SS cases depend directly on the Majorana masses, the bounds on the mixing derived apply for any choice of the heavy
neutrino masses above the electroweak scale.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_TeTm.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_TeTt.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_TeTm.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_TeTt.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_TeTm.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_TeTt.pdf}
\caption{Frequentist confidence intervals at $1 \sigma$, $90\%$ and $2 \sigma$ on the parameter space of the G-SS (upper panels) and the 3N-SS for normal hierarchy (middle panels) and inverted hierarchy (bottom panels).}
\label{fig:contours}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:contours} we present our results from the global fit, performed by scanning the relevant parameter spaces
through a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm. The results presented here correspond to the frequentist confidence intervals for
$1 \sigma$, $90\%$ and $2 \sigma$ significance. We present the results directly in the heavy-active neutrino mixing
$\theta_\alpha$ for the 3N-SS under the assumption of a normal neutrino ordering (middle panels) and
inverted neutrino ordering (lower panels). To ease the comparison of the constraints, we present the results for the G-SS
(upper panels) in the variable $\sqrt{2 \eta_{\alpha \alpha}}$, which can be identified with the total effective mixing of
the different heavy mass eigenstates with the flavour $\alpha$, see Eq.~(\ref{eq:sqrteta}), and an upper bound on the individual mixing $\Theta_{\alpha i}$ of any additional heavy neutrino $N_i$. As can be seen, while the bounds on the
individual parameters are comparable in strength for the two scenarios, the constraints imposed by Eqs.~(\ref{eq:theta})
and (\ref{eq:Yt}) for the 3N-SS reflect in strong correlations for their allowed regions. In particular,
$\mu \to e \gamma$ imposes a very stringent constraint in the product $\theta_e \theta_\mu$ leading to the hyperbolic
constraints in the middle-left and bottom-left panels of the figure and absent in the upper for the G-SS. On the other hand,
in the middle and bottom-right panels of the figure non-trivial correlations between $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\tau$,
absent in the upper-right panel for the G-SS, can be observed. This stems from the fact that $\theta_\tau$ is not free
to take any value preferred by the observables, but constrained by $\theta_e$, $\theta_\mu$ and the neutrino masses
and mixings through Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_chi2_ThE.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_chi2_ThM.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_chi2_ThT.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_chi2_ThE.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_chi2_ThM.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_chi2_ThT.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_chi2_ThE.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_chi2_ThM.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_chi2_ThT.pdf}
\caption{$\Delta \chi^2$ profile minimized over all fit variables except for one $\theta_\alpha$
(or $\sqrt{2 \eta_{\alpha \alpha}}$) in the case of the G-SS) at a time. The upper panels are for the G-SS,
and the middle and lower panels for the 3N-SS for a normal and inverted hierarchy respectively.}
\label{fig:chi2}
\end{figure}
To summarize the results of the global fit we present in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2} the profiles of the $\Delta \chi^2$
obtained as a function of the individual $\theta_\alpha$ and minimized over all the other
parameters. The 1 and $2 \sigma$ regions are colored in red and blue respectively. As can be seen,
the observables considered (notably the invisible width of the Z and $M_W$) overall show a mild
(between 1 and $2\sigma$) preference for some degree of non-unitarity $\theta \sim 0.03-0.04$. The constraints
on the universality of the weak interactions, particularly from ratios of pion and lepton decays, prefer these
unitarity deviations with non-vanishing mixing with the heavy neutrinos to take place in the electron and tau sectors.
This preference is clear in the upper panels of Fig.~(\ref{fig:chi2}), which show the constraints for the
unbounded G-SS. But, even in the more constraint case of a 3N-SS (middle panels for normal hierarchy and lower panels
for inverted), there is enough freedom to accommodate this general preference shown by the datasets considered. The more characteristic feature that distinguishes the 3N-SS from the G-SS in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2} is the constraint in $\theta_{\mu}$ which, for the 3N-SS shows a very non-Gaussian behaviour with a very stringent $1\sigma$ limit and a much milder $2 \sigma$ bound comparable to the one found for the G-SS. The reason for the comparatively much stronger $1\sigma$ constraint stems from the very stringent constraint from $\mu \to e \gamma$, which for the 3N-SS imply either a very small $\theta_e$ or $\theta_\mu$. Together with the $1 \sigma$ preference for non-vanishing $\theta_e$, this implies a very strong $1 \sigma$ upper bound for $\theta_\mu$. On the other hand, at the $2 \sigma$ level $\theta_e$ can be arbitrarily small and thus the bound on $\theta_\mu$ from $\mu \to e \gamma$ is evaded.
Regarding the G-SS, $\mu \to e \gamma$ only constrains the element $\eta_{e \mu}$ and not $\eta_{ee}$ or $\eta_{\mu \mu}$ since, contrary to the 3N-SS, the Schwarz inequality Eq.~(\ref{eq:schwarz}) is not saturated. Regarding $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\tau$, the limits for the 3N-SS and the G-SS are much more similar between them. Indeed, despite the constraint from Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}) on $\theta_\tau$, the preferred value for this parameter in the 3N-SS does not show significant deviations with respect to the G-SS. However, non-trivial correlations among the Majorana phases $\alpha_1$ and
$\alpha_2$ as well as among the phases of $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\tau$: $\alpha_e$ and $\alpha_\tau$ when a normal
neutrino mass ordering is assumed are required to satisfy Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt}). These phase correlations are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/alpha1_alpha2.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{paper_plots/alphaT_alphaE.pdf}
\caption{Points scanned by the MCMC algorithm with a $\Delta \chi^2 <1$ showing the mild preferred correlation between the two Majorana phases of the PMNS matrix $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ (left panel) and between the phases of $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\tau$: $\alpha_e$ and $\alpha_\tau$ (right panel) for the 3N-SS and under a normal hierarchy assumption.}
\label{fig:phases}
\end{figure}
Two interesting features can be observed: (i)
The values of the PMNS Majorana phases such that $\alpha_1-\alpha_2\sim 2n\pi$ are favoured (left plot); (ii) The
data prefers values for the phases of $\theta_\tau$ and $\theta_e$ which satisfy $\alpha_\tau-\alpha_e\sim \left(2n+1\right)\pi$ (right plot). In the IH case, we have not found any significant correlation among the phases.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_chi2_ThEM.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_chi2_ThET.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/GS_chi2_ThTM.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_chi2_ThEM.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_chi2_ThET.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/NH_chi2_ThTM.pdf} \\
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_chi2_ThEM.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_chi2_ThET.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.32\textwidth]{paper_plots/IH_chi2_ThTM.pdf}
\caption{Bounds on the off-diagonal entries of $\eta_{\alpha \beta}$ ($|\theta_\alpha \theta_\beta|$ for the 3N-SS). The upper panels are for the G-SS,
and the middle and lower panels for the 3N-SS for a normal and inverted hierarchy respectively. For the G-SS the strongest limit between the direct bound from radiative LFV decays and the indirect limit from the diagonal entries through the Schwarz inequality is shown for each element.}
\label{fig:chi2off}
\end{figure}
Regarding the off-diagonal elements $|\eta_{\alpha \beta}|$,
we present in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2off} the limits obtained from the combination of all observables as
a function of $\sqrt{2|\eta_{\alpha \beta}|}$ and marginalized over all the other parameters for the G-SS
(upper panels) and the 3N-SS for NH (middle panels) and IH (lower panels). As in Fig.~\ref{fig:chi2}, the
1 and $2 \sigma$ regions are colored in red and blue respectively. For the G-SS the strongest limit between the direct bound from radiative LFV decays and the indirect limit from the diagonal entries through the Schwarz inequality is shown. For $|\eta_{e \mu}|$ the constraint from $\mu \to e \gamma$ gives the most stringent bound while for $|\eta_{e \tau}|$ and $|\eta_{\mu \tau}|$ the indirect constraints from the lepton flavour conserving (LFC) processes included in the global fit together with the Schwarz inequality Eq.~(\ref{eq:schwarz}) rather dominate. Moreover, the bound on the product $|\theta_e \theta_\tau|$ for the 3N-SS shows a $1\sigma$ preference for a non-zero value. This mild hint can be translated into a prediction for LFV $\tau-e$ transitions, in particular, to a branching ratio of $\tau \to e \gamma$ of $\sim 2.5 \cdot 10^{-10}$ for $|\eta_{e \tau}| \sim 6 \cdot 10^{-4}$. This is rather challenging to probe but not very far from the future sensitivities expected at Super-B factories.
\section{Discussion and conclusions}
\label{sec:sum}
A global fit to lepton flavour and electroweak precision data has been performed to constrain the size presently
allowed for the mixing of the extra heavy Seesaw neutrinos with the SM leptons. The analysis has been performed
both in a completely general Seesaw (G-SS) with the effects of the extra neutrinos encoded in effective operators with no assumed correlations and for the particular case where only three heavy neutrinos are considered (3N-SS). The results of the fit are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:bounds}.
\begin{table}[htb!]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c||c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{\multirow{2}{*}{}} & \multicolumn{2}{c||}{G-SS} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{3N-SS} \\
\cline{3-6}
\multicolumn{2}{|c||}{} & LFC & LFV & NH & IH \\
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt{2\eta_{ee}}$, $|\theta_{e}|$} & $1\sigma$ & $\mathbf{0.031^{+0.010}_{-0.020}}$ & $-$ & $0.029^{+0.012}_{-0.020}$ & $\mathbf{0.031^{+0.010}_{-0.012}}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $2\sigma$ & $\mathbf{<0.050}$ & $-$ & $<0.050$ & $\mathbf{<0.050}$\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt{2\eta_{\mu \mu}}$, $|\theta_{\mu}|$} & $1\sigma$ & $\mathbf{<0.011}$ & $-$ & $\mathbf{<7.6\cdot 10^{-4}}$ & $<6.9\cdot 10^{-4}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $2\sigma$ & $\mathbf{<0.021}$ & $-$ & $<0.020$ & $\mathbf{<0.023}$\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt{2\eta_{\tau \tau}}$, $|\theta_{\tau}|$} & $1\sigma$ & $\mathbf{0.044^{+0.019}_{-0.027}}$ & $-$ & $\mathbf{0.043^{+0.018}_{-0.027}}$ & $0.037^{+0.021}_{-0.032}$ \\
\cline{2-6}
& $2\sigma$ & $\mathbf{<0.075}$ & $-$ & $\mathbf{<0.074}$ & $<0.066$\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt{2\eta_{e \mu}}$, $\sqrt{|\theta_{e} \theta_{\mu}|}$} & $1\sigma$ & $<0.018$ & {\bf $\mathbf{<4.1\cdot 10^{-3}}$} & $\mathbf{<4.1\cdot 10^{-3}}$ & $<4.1\cdot 10^{-3}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $2\sigma$ & $<0.026$ & {\bf $\mathbf{<4.9\cdot 10^{-3}}$} & $\mathbf{<4.9\cdot 10^{-3}}$ & $<4.9\cdot 10^{-3}$\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt{2\eta_{e \tau}}$, $\sqrt{|\theta_{e} \theta_{\tau}|}$} & $1\sigma$ & {\bf$\mathbf{<0.045}$} & $<0.107$ & $\mathbf{0.036^{+0.010}_{-0.016}}$ & $0.036^{+0.010}_{-0.023}$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $2\sigma$ & {\bf $\mathbf{<0.052}$} & $<0.127$ & $\mathbf{<0.054}$ & $0.052$\\
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{$\sqrt{2\eta_{\mu \tau}}$, $\sqrt{|\theta_{\mu} \theta_{\tau}|}$} & $1\sigma$ & {\bf $\mathbf{<0.024}$} & $<0.115$ & $\mathbf{<0.007}$ & $0.005$\\
\cline{2-6}
& $2\sigma$ & {\bf $\mathbf{<0.035}$} & $<0.137$ & $\mathbf{<0.033}$ & $0.032$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of all 1 and $2\sigma$ constraints on the heavy-active neutrino mixing. For the
G-SS the bounds are expressed for $\sqrt{2 \eta_{\alpha \beta}}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:sqrteta})). For the off-diagonal
entries the indirect bounds from the LFC observables via the Schwarz inequality Eq.~(\ref{eq:schwarz}) are compared
with the direct LFV bounds and the dominant bound is highlighted in bold face. For the 3N-SS the bounds are shown
for $\theta_{\alpha}$ for assumptions of a normal (NH) and inverted hierarchy (IH), the less stringent bound is highlighted
in bold face as an overall bound on the 3N-SS case.}\label{tab:bounds}
\end{table}
For the G-SS with an arbitrary number of extra heavy neutrinos the bounds are expressed in the quantity
$\sqrt{2 |\eta_{\alpha \beta}|} = \sum_i \sqrt{ \Theta_{\alpha i} \Theta^*_{\beta i}}$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:sqrteta})).
Thus, the diagonal elements $\sqrt{2 \eta_{\alpha \alpha}}$ correspond to the sum (in quadrature) of all mixings $\Theta_{\alpha i}$ of the individual extra heavy neutrinos $N_i$ to a given SM flavour $\alpha$ and represent an upper bound on each individual mixing. The off-diagonal entries, on the other hand, are the combinations that can mediate LFV transitions and even provide extra sources of CP-violation. Notice that, from this definition, $\eta$ is a positive definite matrix and its off-diagonal elements subject to the Schwarz inequality $|\eta_{\alpha \beta}| \leq \sqrt{\eta_{\alpha \alpha} \eta_{\beta \beta}}$.
In the case of the 3N-SS, only one mixing parameter $\theta_\alpha$ per SM flavour $\alpha$ can be large enough to
saturate the bounds derived here, so as to comply with our present constraints on light neutrino masses and mixings
from neutrino oscillation data (see discussion in Section \ref{sec:param}). Thus, the Schwarz inequality is saturated to an equality for the 3N-SS.
Furthermore, some non-trivial correlations between the parameters $\theta_\alpha$ are also present (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yt})).
As shown in Table~\ref{tab:bounds} the data show a mild, between $1$ and $2\sigma$ preference, for non-zero heavy-active
mixing of order $\sim 0.03-0.04$ in the $e$ and $\tau$ sectors. At the $2 \sigma$ level, upper bounds in all mixing
parameters are found. The most stringent one $\sim 0.02$ is found for the mixing with muons, followed by $\sim 0.05$ for
electrons and $\sim 0.07$ for taus. Regarding the off diagonal entries, for the G-SS the indirect bounds from LFC processes
can be compared with the direct constraints from LFV observables. Interestingly, the constraint from $\mu \to e \gamma$ strongly
dominates over all others leading to a bound one order of magnitude better $\sim 0.005$ in the $e-\mu$ entry, while the $e-\tau$ and $\mu-\tau$ values are rather dominated by the indirect constraints from the Schwarz inequality (comparison between the LFC and LFV columns). Regarding the 3N-SS, even though the necessity of correctly reproducing the observed neutrino mass and mixing pattern introduces non-trivial correlations among the $\theta_\alpha$ and the neutrino masses and mixings (dependence on normal or inverted hierarchy assumptions shown in the comparison of the third and fourth columns), there is still enough freedom to obtain very similar bounds to those found for the G-SS. This however implies some non-trivial correlations preferred at $1\sigma$ notably among the PMNS matrix Majorana phases as well as among the phases of $\theta_e$ and $\theta_\tau$ as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:phases}.
The bounds derived here represent the most updated set of constraints and compare well with previous studies. Notably, it is interesting to compare with another recent global fit presented in Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2014woa} were bounds to the G-SS were also studied. We find that the agreement between the two sets of constraints is generally good. The same preference for non-zero mixing in the electron and tau sectors was found but in their case the preferred value is slightly ($\sim 20-30\%$) larger. Similarly the upper bound on muon mixing is weaker in Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2014woa}. Conversely the limits on the off-diagonal elements are slightly ($\sim 20-40\%$) stronger in Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2014woa} for the $e-\tau$ and $\mu-\tau$ sectors. The only very noticeable difference is in the $e-\mu$ sector where the limit from $\mu \to e \gamma$ is almost a factor 3 stronger than the one presented here (despite not being yet updated to the final MEG result). This difference can be attributed to not considering the propagation of the heavy neutrinos in the loop for the process which tends to restore the GIM cancellation (given the Unitarity of the full mixing matrix) and to therefore slightly weaken by the corresponding factor the bound stemming from the process. This extra contribution was not taken into account in Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2014woa} since a more agnostic source of the non-unitarity of the PMNS matrix was adopted while here we concentrate in constraining heavy neutrino mixings. The rest of the discrepancies can stem from small differences in our analyses. For example our observables for weak lepton universality and CKM unitarity are more updated and our bounds correspond to frequentist confidence regions while Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2014woa} rather presented Bayesian credible intervals. Regarding the 3N-SS, the closest study of a similar setup in the literature is that of Ref.~\cite{Antusch:2015mia}. This work is rather complementary to our results focusing instead in the region between 10 to 250~GeV, where more stringent constraints are derived since the extra neutrinos would be kinematically accessible.
It is also interesting to translate the bounds derived here to other common parametrizations, useful in particular for the analysis of neutrino non-standard interactions (see e.g. Ref.~\cite{Ohlsson:2012kf}). Indeed, the non-unitary PMNS matrix induced by the mixing with the extra heavy neutrinos modifies the neutrino production and detection processes, which can be encoded in production/detection NSI~\cite{FernandezMartinez:2007ms,Antusch:2008tz}. In particular:
\begin{equation}
|\varepsilon^{p,d}_{\alpha \beta}| = |\eta_{\alpha \beta}| \leq \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
1.3 \cdot 10^{-3} & 1.2 \cdot 10^{-5} & 1.4 \cdot 10^{-3} \\
1.2 \cdot 10^{-5} & 2.2 \cdot 10^{-4} & 6.0 \cdot 10^{-4} \\
1.4 \cdot 10^{-3} & 6.0 \cdot 10^{-4} & 2.8 \cdot 10^{-3}
\end{array}
\right) .
\label{eq:NSI}
\end{equation}
Furthermore, neutrino interactions with matter are also affected and these effects can also be described by matter NSI~\cite{Antusch:2008tz}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon^m_{\alpha\beta} = 2 \eta_{\alpha e} \delta_{\beta e} + 2 \eta_{e \beta} \delta_{e \alpha} - \frac{n_n}{n_e} \, 2 \eta_{\alpha \beta} ,
\end{eqnarray}
where $n_e$ and $n_n$ are the electron and neutron densities of the matter traversed by the neutrinos.
Finally, an alternative parametrization of the non-unitarity of the PMNS matrix of the form $N = TU$ with $T$ a lower triangular matrix~\cite{Xing:2007zj,Xing:2011ur,Escrihuela:2015wra}:
\begin{equation}
T = \left(
\begin{array}{ccc}
\alpha_{ee} & 0 & 0 \\
\alpha_{\mu e} & \alpha_{\mu \mu} & 0\\
\alpha_{\tau e} & \alpha_{\tau \mu} & \alpha_{\tau \tau}
\end{array}
\right)
\label{eq:triang}
\end{equation}
is also considered appropriate to study the effects of non-unitary PMNS mixing in neutrino oscillation
searches~\cite{FernandezMartinez:2007ms,Antusch:2009pm,Parke:2015goa,Miranda:2016wdr,Ge:2016xya}. Comparing Eqs.~(\ref{eq:Neq}) and~(\ref{eq:triang}) it is easy to see
that $\alpha_{\beta \beta} \approx 1 - \eta_{\beta \beta}$, while $|\alpha_{\beta \gamma}| \approx 2|\eta_{\beta\gamma}|=|\epsilon_{\beta\gamma}|$ so
that the bounds derived here can be trivially translated to this parametrization too. All in all this level of
non-unitarity (or equivalently NSI as in Eq.~(\ref{eq:NSI})) is extremely tough to probe at present or near-future
neutrino oscillations facilities and its effects would be negligible. However, prospective very precise neutrino
oscillation facilities such as the Neutrino factory~\cite{Geer:1997iz,DeRujula:1998umv} could probe
beyond this very stringent present limits for some elements~\cite{FernandezMartinez:2007ms,Antusch:2009pm}.
Notice that the bounds derived here apply for any heavy neutrino mass above the electroweak scale. For
lighter heavy neutrino masses, the LFV radiative decays start to be suppressed by
the restoration of the GIM mechanism (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:muegamma})) and therefore the constraints shown in the LFV column of Table~\ref{tab:bounds} are not valid.
The rest of the bounds summarized in the LFC column of Table~\ref{tab:bounds} do apply down to $\mathcal{O}$(500 MeV) with the only exception of the invisible width of the $Z$, since for masses below $\sim M_Z/2$ the heavy neutrinos can be kinematically produced and unitarity is restored. Therefore, in the region between the Kaon mass and the EW scale we do not expect any significant change in the G-SS bounds shown in the LFC column of Table~\ref{tab:bounds}. Nevertheless, at these lower energies were the extra neutrinos can be directly produced, more stringent constraints than the ones derived here, from direct searches~\cite{Atre:2009rg,Ruchayskiy:2011aa,Drewes:2015iva,Parke:2015goa,deGouvea:2015euy,Deppisch:2015qwa} and cosmology~\cite{Dolgov:2003sg,Cirelli:2004cz,Melchiorri:2008gq,Hannestad:2012ky,Ruchayskiy:2012si,Mirizzi:2012we,Jacques:2013xr,Saviano:2013ktj,Archidiacono:2013xxa,Mirizzi:2013gnd,Hernandez:2013lza,Vincent:2014rja,Hernandez:2014fha} apply.
In summary, we have combined present probes on weak lepton universality, searches for LFV processes and precision
electroweak observables to derive updated and global constraints on the allowed mixing of heavy Seesaw neutrinos with
the SM fermions. These bounds apply for any value of the Majorana scale larger than the electroweak scale and have been
computed both for a completely general scenario as well as for the case in which only 3 extra heavy neutrinos are
considered. At the $1\sigma$ level a mild preference for non-zero mixing in the electron and tau sectors around
$0.03-0.04$ was found, which could be probed for by improving the LFC searches that currently lead to that preference, as well as through $\tau-e$ LFV transitions.
At the $2\sigma$ level, upper bounds between $10^{-1}$ and $10^{-2}$ for all elements were
derived with a most stringent constraint on the mixing in the $e-\mu$ sector an order of magnitude better from the
$\mu \to e \gamma$ process. While this is by far the present dominant bound, it will be superseded in the future
by $\mu \to eee$ and/or $\mu-e$ conversion in nuclei searches. Apart from this and other improvements in the datasets
considered, this level of mixing is challenging but still plausible to probe at future collider~\cite{Abada:2014cca,Antusch:2015mia,Antusch:2016brq,Antusch:2016vyf} and dedicated neutrino oscillation searches~\cite{FernandezMartinez:2007ms,Antusch:2009pm}.
\begin{acknowledgments}
We warmly thank Luca di Luzio, Michele Lucente, Xabier Marcano, Carlos Pena and Maria Jose Herrero for very useful discussions.
We acknowledge financial support by the European Union through the ITN ELUSIVES H2020-MSCA-ITN-2015//674896 and the RISE INVISIBLESPLUS H2020-MSCA-RISE-2015//690575. EFM and JHG also acknowledge
support from the EU through the FP7 Marie Curie Actions CIG NeuProbes PCIG11-GA-2012-321582 and the Spanish MINECO through the
``Ram\'on y Cajal'' programme (RYC2011-07710), the HPC-Hydra cluster at IFT, the project FPA2012-31880 and through the Centro de excelencia Severo Ochoa Program
under grant SEV-2012-0249. EFM also acknowledges the support of the COST action EuroNuNet CA15139. JLP also acknowledges support by the Marie Curie CIG program, project number
PCIG13-GA-2013-618439.
\end{acknowledgments}
|
\section{Introduction}
In this paper, we study the (normalized) Ricci flow on surfaces with conical singularities. Let $S$ be a smooth Riemann surface and $\set{p_i}$ be finitely many prescribed points on $S$. For each $p_i$, we assign a weight $\beta_i>-1$. We are interested in the class of metrics $g$ which are smooth and compatible with the conformal structure of $S$ away from $p_i$ while having a conical singularity of order $\beta_i$ at $p_i$, i.e. in a conformal coordinate chart $U$ around $p_i$, $g$ is given by
\begin{equation*}
e^{2u} r^{2\beta} (dx^2+dy^2),
\end{equation*}
where $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2}$ and $u$ is at least continuous around $p_i$. These metrics are incomplete, and hence there are many different ways of talking about Ricci flows starting from such metrics. For example, the conical singularities can be smoothed out immediately to become the ordinary Ricci flow on closed manifolds as in \cite{simon2001deformation,ramos2011smoothening,simon2013local}, or the conical singularities can be pushed to infinity immediately to become some Ricci flow on complete noncompact surfaces as in \cite{topping2010ricci}. Here we are interested in a special type of Ricci flow which preserves the conical singularities while deforms the smooth part into nicer and nicer geometry.
To describe the flow, it is convenient to have a background metric $\tilde{g}$ which is exactly the cone metric of order $\beta_i$ near small neighborhood of each $p_i$. Throughout this paper, we shall have $S$, $\set{p_i}$, $\set{\beta_i}$ and $\tilde{g}$ fixed, which we denote by $(S,\beta,\tilde{g})$ for simplicity. Consider the family of metrics $g(t)$ given by $e^{2u(t)}\tilde{g}$ with $u(t)$ being `good' near $p_i$ so that $g(t)$ is still conical at $p_i$ and $u(t)$ satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle}u + \frac{r}{2} -e^{-2u} \tilde{K}
\label{eqn:rfu}
\end{equation}
on $S\setminus \set{p_i}$ where $\tilde{\triangle}$ and $\tilde{K}$ are the Laplacian and the Gauss curvature of $\tilde{g}$ and $r$ is some normalization constant. The exact meaning of `being good' depends on the approach we take to study the problem and is also a central theme of the present paper.
This singularity-preserving flow was first studied by the author in \cite{yin2010ricci}, where a local existence result was claimed. The study was continued in \cite{yin2013ricci} which proves the long time existence of the flow if $\beta_i\in (-1,0)$ and gives some convergence results in certain cases. Unfortunately, the proofs in both papers \cite{yin2010ricci,yin2013ricci} contain gaps. We refer the interested readers to the historical remark near the end of this section.
In the mean time, the topic of Ricci flow with conical singularity attracts the attention of many authors. Mazzeo, Rubinstein and Sesum \cite{mazzeo2013ricci}, backed up by the mircolocal analysis method developed by Mazzeo \cite{mazzeo1991elliptic}, Bahuaud and Vertman \cite{bahuaud2014yamabe}, Jeffres and Loya \cite{jeffres2003regularity}, Mooers \cite{mooers1999heat} and others, proved the long time existence of \eqref{eqn:rfu} when $\beta_i\in (-1,0)$, showed the convergence to constant curvature metric if some stability condition is satisfied and speculated an interesting phenomenon when there is no constant curvature metric in the conformal class. This last phenomenon, which is called the one dimensional Hamilton-Tian conjecture by the authors in \cite{mazzeo2013ricci}, was proved by Phong, Song, Strum and Wang \cite{phong2014ricci,phong2015convergence}.
We should also mention that the higher dimensional generalization of this flow, i.e. the K\"ahler Ricci flow singular along a smooth divisor was studied by Chen and Wang \cite{chen2015bessel,chen2014long} and Wang \cite{wang2014smooth}. They developed in \cite{chen2015bessel} a parabolic version of Donaldson's $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimate \cite{donaldson2012kahler}. Naturally, their proof can be reduced to complex dimension one to give some results.
In this paper, we discuss the PDE aspect of the conical Ricci flow by developing a weak solution theory to the linear parabolic equation on surfaces with conical singularities. This includes a new space of functions in which the weak solution lies, various linear estimates using either the maximum principle or the energy method, some smoothing estimates. We refer to Section \ref{sec:weaksolution} and Section \ref{sec:smoothing} for the exact statement of these results. Using these PDE results, we are able to prove the following main theorems.
The first is an existence result.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main1}
Suppose $(S,\beta,\tilde{g})$ is a conical surface with a background metric fixed. For any function $u_0:S\to \mathbb R$ satisfying that $u_0$ and $\tilde{\triangle} u_0$ lie in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$, there exist $T>0$ depending only on the $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ norm of $u_0$ and $\tilde{\triangle} u_0$ and $u(t)\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ solving \eqref{eqn:rfu}. If $r$ is chosen so that $r/2$ is the average of Gauss curvature of the metric $e^{2u_0} \tilde{g}$, then $u(t)$ is defined on $[0,\infty)$ and for any $T\in [0,\infty)$, $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$.
\end{thm}
For the exact definition of $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ and $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$, see Section \ref{sec:weaksolution}. It suffices for now to remark that these spaces consist of functions which are $C^{2,\alpha}$ away from the singularities and which have some bounded integral norm near the singularities so that it behaves like the weak solution in the standard theory of parabolic equation on smooth domains (see Chapter III of \cite{ladyzhenskaya1968linear} for example).
Theorem \ref{thm:main1} holds for any $\beta_i>-1$, while the long time existence results in \cite{yin2013ricci} and \cite{mazzeo2013ricci} are both restricted to the case of sharp cone angles, i.e. $\beta_i\in (-1,0)$ (note that this is equivalent to $\beta_i \in (0,1)$ in \cite{mazzeo2013ricci}). The reason behind this is that the method used by Hamilton \cite{hamilton1988ricci} requires the gradient of some potential function to be bounded, which may not be true if some $\beta_i>0$. The proof here focuses on the conformal factor $u$ instead of the curvature $K$. We get an apriori bound for the $C^0$ norm of $u$ first by using the method from K\"ahler geometry and then turn it into a bound of $K$ by pure PDE methods for quasilinear parabolic equations.
Given the existence of the solution in Theorem \ref{thm:main1}, it is natural to ask how smooth the solution is near a singular point. Usually, the higher order regularity of a nonlinear PDE is proved by successively taking derivatives. In our case, we can not take spacial derivative due to the singularity and we study first the time derivatives.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main2}
Let $u(t)$ be the solution given in Theorem \ref{thm:main1}. For all $k\in \mathbb N$ and $0<\delta<T<\infty$, $\partial_t^k u$ lies in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[\delta,T]}$. In particular, $\partial_t^k u$ is bounded in $S\times [\delta,T]$.
\end{thm}
To describe the regularity property of $u(t)$ near a singular point, we take the polar coordinates $(\rho,\theta)$ around a singular point such that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{g}= d\rho^2 + \rho^2(\beta+1)^2 d\theta^2,
\end{equation*}
which is the standard cone metric of order $\beta$. Here $\rho$ is the Riemannian distance to the cone point with respect to $\tilde{g}$. We prove
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:main3}
Let $u(t)$ be the solution given in Theorem \ref{thm:main1}. For any $t>0$ and $q>0$ fixed, we have
\begin{equation*}
u(t)= \sum_{v\in \mathcal T^q} a_v v + \tilde{O}(q)
\end{equation*}
in a neighborhood of the singular point for some real numbers $a_{v}$,
where
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal T^q =\set{ \rho^{2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\cos l \theta, \rho^{2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\sin l \theta \,|\, l,j,k,\frac{k-l}{2}\in \mathbb N \cup \set{0}; 2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}< q}
\end{equation*}
and $\tilde{O}(q)$ is some error term satisfying that for any $k_1,k_2 \in \mathbb N\cup\set{0}$,
\begin{equation*}
\abs{(\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} \partial_\theta^{k_2} \tilde{O}(q)} \leq C(k_1,k_2) \rho^q
\end{equation*}
in the same neighborhood as above.
\end{thm}
In Theorem 2.1 of \cite{mazzeo2013ricci}, an asymptotic expansion of the metric $g(t)$ is given in the form
\begin{equation*}
g\sim \left( \sum_{j,k\geq 0}\sum_{l=0}^{N_{j,k}} a_{jkl}(y) r^{j+k/\beta}(\log r)^l \right) \abs{z}^{2\beta-2} \abs{dz}^2.
\end{equation*}
Please note that the $\beta$ and $r$ in the above equation are $\beta+1$ and $\rho$ in this paper. Theorem \ref{thm:main3} provides more information by putting more restrictions on the terms that appear in the expansion. In particular, it is proved that there is no log term involved. Moreover, as one can always expand $a_{jk0}$ in the trigonometric series
\begin{equation*}
a_{jk0}(\theta)\sim \sum_{l} a_l \cos l\theta + b_l \sin l\theta,
\end{equation*}
Theorem \ref{thm:main3} also puts restrictions on the possible value of $k$ and $l$.
As shown in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:main3}, this refined information of expansion is related to both the nature of the singularity and the structure of the equation. In a forthcoming paper \cite{yin2016}, the authors show that a more complicated nonlinear structure of the equation leads to more singular terms in the expansion. In particular, we shall see $\log$ terms there.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:weaksolution}, we define the function space in which the weak solution lies, construct the weak solution via approximation and prove various estimates for it. The estimates presented in this section are of the kind that the control over the solution is inherited from the corresponding property of the initial data. In Section \ref{sec:smoothing}, we show how a linear parabolic equation can `create' regularity. These results are key to the proof of higher regularity later. The results in these two sections are somewhat independent from the application. A more detailed introduction is included at the beginning of each section. The rest three sections are devoted to the proof of three main theorems respectively.
To conclude the introduction, we discuss the conventions and the notations used throughout the entire paper. We assume without loss of generality that there is only one singular point of order $\beta$, which is denoted by $p$. Around $p$, there is a conformal coordinate system $(x,y)$ of $S$, which is defined for all $\set{x^2+y^2\leq 1}$. We fix a background metric $\tilde{g}$, which is smooth away from the singular point and is the standard cone metric
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{g}= (x^2+y^2)^\beta (dx^2+dy^2)
\end{equation*}
in the above mentioned coordinate neighborhood of $p$.
We use a tilde to indicate quantities related to this metric, such as $\tilde{\nabla}$, $\tilde{\triangle}$ and so on.
By `polar coordinates', we mean $(\rho,\theta)$ defined by
\begin{equation*}
x=r\cos \theta, \quad y=r\sin \theta
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\rho=\frac{1}{\beta+1} r^{\beta+1}.
\end{equation*}
It is not hard to see that $\rho$ is the Riemannian distance to $p$ measured by $\tilde{g}$. Throughout this paper, we write $B_*$ for the subset $\set{(\rho,\theta)\,|\, \rho<*}$ and in the case that $*$ is $1$, we simply write $B$.
\begin{rem}
This paper follows the basic strategy taken by the author's previous papers \cite{yin2010ricci, yin2013ricci}. The proof of the main theorem in \cite{yin2010ricci} contains a gap and therefore the local existence result claimed there (with a rather weak initial data) is not proved. Under stronger assumptions of the initial data, a local existence proof was given in \cite{yin2013ricci}. However, there are other problems in that paper. The second version of \cite{yin2013ricci} added an appendix fixing one gap caused by the compatibility condition of initial and boundary data of parabolic equations. Recently, another gap was found and the attempt to fix it directly motivates the definition of weak solution used in this paper. See Remark \ref{rem:gap} for details.
To make things clear, we give a detailed discussion of the whole problem totally independent of \cite{yin2010ricci,yin2013ricci}. It turns out that many seemingly important technical problems in \cite{yin2013ricci} disappear naturally in this new exposition. This paper is not just a revised version of \cite{yin2013ricci} and much stronger results are obtained here.
\end{rem}
\vskip 1cm
\noindent
{\it Acknowledgment.}
A major part of this paper was finished during the author's visit in Warwick university in 2015. He would like to thank the Mathematics Institute for the wonderful working environment and Professor Topping for making it available to him.
\section{Weak solution of linear equation}
\label{sec:weaksolution}
In this section, we develop a weak solution theory of linear equation of the type
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t u = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u + f(x,t).
\end{equation*}
We will start in Section \ref{subsec:functionspace} with the definition of spaces of functions in which the weak solution lies. Briefly speaking, it is a combination of the H\"older space and the Sobolev space. More precisely, it is the usual $C^{k,\alpha}$ space away from the singularity and equipped with a H\"older norm weighted naturally by the distance to the singular point, while near the singularity, it is similar (a little stronger) to the Sobolev space $V_2^{1,0}$ used in the book \cite{ladyzhenskaya1968linear}. The definition works well with both the maximum principle and the energy estimates.
In Section \ref{subsec:approximation}, we construct a weak solution via approximation by surfaces with boundary using the estimates proved in Section \ref{subsec:bvp}. In Section \ref{subsec:maximum}, we prove a maximum principle, which extend the estimates in Theorem \ref{thm:linear} obtained for the weak solution obtained by approximation to other weak solutions. Finally, in Section \ref{subsec:timederivative}, we prove stronger estimates for linear equation with stronger assumptions on the initial data and the coefficients of the equation. This estimate is to be used in the proof of local existence of the Ricci flow.
\subsection{Functions spaces}\label{subsec:functionspace}
We start by recalling some weighted H\"older space defined in \cite{yin2010ricci}. The elliptic version is $C^{l,\alpha}(S,\beta)$ and the parabolic version is $C^{l,\alpha}( (S,\beta)\times [0,T])$. In this paper, for simplicity, we denote them by $\mathcal E^{l,\alpha}$ and $\mathcal P^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}$ respectively.
Let $(\rho,\theta)$ be the polar coordinates defined in the introduction and $U$ be a neighborhood of $\overline{S\setminus B}$. We define the $\mathcal E^{l,\alpha}$ norm to be
\begin{equation*}
\norm{f}_{\mathcal E^{l,\alpha}}= \sup_{k=0 \ldots \infty} \norm{f(2^{-k} \rho,\theta)}_{C^{l,\alpha}(B_1\setminus B_{1/2})} + \norm{f}_{C^{l,\alpha}(U)}.
\end{equation*}
Here $B_r$ is $\set{(\rho,\theta)\in B \,|\, \rho<r}$, $C^{l,\alpha}(B_1\setminus B_{1/2})$ and $C^{l,\alpha}(U)$ are just the usual H\"older norms. Similarly, if $f$ is a function defined on space time $S\times [0,T]$, we define (by regarding $f$ as a function of $(\rho,\theta,t)$ in $B$)
\begin{equation*}
\norm{f}_{\mathcal P^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}}= \sup_{k=0 \ldots \infty} \norm{f(2^{-k} \rho,\theta,4^{-k} t)}_{C^{l,\alpha}(B_1\setminus B_{1/2}\times [0,4^k T])} + \norm{f}_{C^{l,\alpha}(U\times [0,T])}.
\end{equation*}
To see that the definition is independent of our choice of coordinate system $(x,y)$, we refer to Section 2 of \cite{yin2010ricci}.
In spite of the tedious definition, it is not difficult to understand the meaning of these weighted H\"older space. Away from the singularity, they are just the normal H\"older space. Near a singularity, the $\mathcal E^{l,\alpha}$ norm is the bound for up to $l-$th derivatives which one may obtain for a bounded harmonic function via applying the interior estimate on a ball away from the singularity. A similar characterization is true for $\mathcal P^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}$ if we replace the harmonic function by a solution to the linear heat equation defined on $S\times [0,T]$.
These spaces are too weak for a useful discussion of the Ricci flow equation because they contain almost no information at the singular point. We define stronger function spaces by requiring some integral norm to be bounded. For time-independent functions, we define $\mathcal W^{l,\alpha}$ to be the set of function $u$ in $\mathcal E^{l,\alpha}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\abs{u}_{\mathcal W}:=\left( \int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}^2 d\tilde{V}\right)^{1/2} < +\infty.
\end{equation*}
$\mathcal W^{l,\alpha}$ is a Banach space equipped with the norm
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{\mathcal W^{l,\alpha}} := \norm{u}_{\mathcal E^{l,\alpha}} + \abs{u}_{\mathcal W}.
\end{equation*}
For functions defined on $S\times [0,T]$, we define $\mathcal V^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}$ to be the set of function $u$ in $\mathcal P^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}:=\max_{t\in [0,T]} \abs{u(t)}_{\mathcal W} + \left( \iint_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t u}^2 dtd\tilde{V} \right)^{1/2}< +\infty.
\end{equation*}
The norm of $\mathcal V^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}$ is defined to be
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{\mathcal V^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}}= \norm{u}_{\mathcal P^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}} + \abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}.
\end{equation*}
For later reference, we need the following variations of $\mathcal W^{l,\alpha}$ and $\mathcal V^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}$:
\begin{itemize}
\item
If $\Omega$ is a domain in $S$ containing $p$, or a part of the infinite cone $\mathbb R^+\times S^1$ with standard cone metric $\tilde{g}= d\rho^2 + \rho^2(\beta+1)^2 d\theta^2$ containing the cone tip, we can define $\mathcal W^{l,\alpha}(\Omega)$ and $\mathcal V^{l,\alpha,[0,T]}(\Omega)$ similarly.
\item
For any open interval $(t_1,t_2)$, $\mathcal V^{l,\alpha,(t_1,t_2)}$ is the set of function $f$, which belongs to $\mathcal V^{l,\alpha,[t_1+\delta,t_2-\delta]}$ for any $\delta>0$. Similar convention holds for $[t_1,t_2)$ and $(t_1,t_2]$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{defn}\label{defn:weak}
Suppose a function $u$ is defined on $S\times [t_1,t_2]$ which is at least $C^2$ away from the singularity. If it satisfies some linear equation or the Ricci flow equation classically away from the singularity and $\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ is finite, then we call it a 'weak' solution.
\end{defn}
In the rest of this section, we discuss the implications of being a weak solution. The next two lemmas show the advantage of having $\abs{u}_{\mathcal W}$ and $\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ bounded respectively.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:basic}
Suppose that $u$ and $v$ are two functions in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$. If $\tilde{\triangle} u$ is integrable on $S$, or $v\cdot \tilde{\triangle} u$ is bounded from below (or above) by some integrable function, then
\begin{equation*}
\int_{S} {\tilde\triangle} u=0 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \int_{S} v\cdot{\tilde \triangle u} =-\int_{S} \tilde\nabla u\cdot \tilde\nabla v.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since the first inequality follows from the second one by letting $v\equiv 1$, we prove the second one only.
By the definition of $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$, there is small $\delta>0$ with
\begin{equation*}
\int_0^\delta \int_{\partial B_\rho} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}^2 d\sigma d\rho <\infty.
\end{equation*}
Recall that here $B_\rho$ is the ball of radius $\rho$ centered at the singularity measured with respect to the cone metric $\tilde{g}$.
For any $\varepsilon>0$, we claim that there is a sequence $\rho_i$ going to zero such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:rhoi}
\int_{\partial B_{\rho_i}} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}^2 d\sigma \leq \frac{\varepsilon}{\rho_i}.
\end{equation}
If the claim is not true, then there exists some $\varepsilon>0$ and $\delta_0>0$ such that for any $\rho\leq \delta_0$ ,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\partial B_\rho} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}^2 d\sigma>\frac{\varepsilon}{\rho},
\end{equation*}
which is a contradiction to the finiteness of $\int_{B_{\delta_0}} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}^2 d\tilde{V}$.
For each $\rho_i$, the integration by parts gives
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ibp}
\int_{S\setminus B_{\rho_i}} v \cdot \tilde{\triangle} u + \tilde{\nabla} u \cdot \tilde{\nabla} v d\tilde{V} = \int_{\partial B_{\rho_i}} v\cdot \pfrac{u}{\nu} d\sigma,
\end{equation}
where $\nu$ is the outward normal vector to $\partial B_{\rho_i}$.
By \eqref{eqn:rhoi} and the H\"older inequality, we get
\begin{equation*}
\int_{\partial B_{\rho_i}} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}d\sigma \leq C \left( \int_{\partial B_{\rho_i}} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}^2 d\sigma\right)^{1/2} \rho_i^{1/2}<\varepsilon.
\end{equation*}
Together with \eqref{eqn:ibp} and the boundedness of $v$, it implies that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{i\to \infty} \abs{\int_{S\setminus B_{\rho_i}} v \cdot \tilde{\triangle} u + \tilde{\nabla} u \cdot \tilde{\nabla} v d\tilde{V}} \leq \varepsilon.
\end{equation*}
The assumptions of the lemma imply that the integrand $v\cdot \tilde{\triangle} u + \tilde{\nabla} u\cdot \tilde{\nabla} v$ is bounded from below (or above) by some integrable function, which allows us to conclude that
\begin{equation*}
\int_{S} v \cdot \tilde{\triangle} u + \tilde{\nabla} u \cdot \tilde{\nabla} v d\tilde{V} =0.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:basic2}
Suppose that $u\in \mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ and that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:basica}
\iint_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t u} d\tilde{V} ds < +\infty.
\end{equation}
Then for any $C^1$ functions $\Psi:\mathbb R\to \mathbb R$ and $\varphi(x,t):S\times [0,T]\to \mathbb R$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:basicb}
\max_{S\times[0,T]} \abs{\varphi}+\abs{\partial_t \varphi}< +\infty,
\end{equation}
$\int_S \Psi(u) \varphi d\tilde{V}$ is an absolutely continuous function of $t$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:basic2}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_S \Psi(u)\varphi d\tilde{V} = \int_S \Psi'(u) \partial_t u \varphi d\tilde{V} + \int_S \Psi(u) \partial_t \varphi d\tilde{V}
\end{equation}
for almost every $t$. In particular, the result holds for $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For any $0\leq t_1<t_2\leq T$, the Fubini theorem implies that
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \int_S \Psi'(u) \partial_t u \varphi + \Psi(u) \partial_t \varphi d\tilde{V} dt \\
&=& \int_S \left( \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \partial_t (\Psi(u)\varphi(x,t)) dt \right) d\tilde{V} \\
&=& \left. \int_S \Psi(u)\varphi(x,t) d\tilde{V}\right|_{t_1}^{t_2},
\end{eqnarray*}
where the first line is absolutely integrable by \eqref{eqn:basica}, \eqref{eqn:basicb} and the boundedness of $u$.
This implies that $\int_S \Psi(u)\varphi(x,t) d\tilde{V}$ is absolutely continuous and \eqref{eqn:basic2} holds.
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem:gap} In \cite{yin2013ricci}, when $u$ is a solution to the linear parabolic equation or the Ricci flow equation, $\int_S (u_+)^2 d\tilde{V}$ is taken as a differentiable function of $t$ for many times without further justification. By Lemma \ref{lem:basic2}, this is not a problem as long as one has $\iint_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t u}^2 d\tilde{V}dt< \infty$. Since this quantity appears naturally in the energy estimate of linear parabolic equations, we add it to the definition of weak solution.
\end{rem}
\subsection{Estimates of boundary value problems}\label{subsec:bvp}
In this section, $M$ is a compact surface with nonempty boundary and a Riemannian metric $\tilde{g}$. The reuse of $\tilde{g}$ is not likely to cause confusion because when we apply the results of this section, $(M,\tilde{g})$ will be a part of $(S,\tilde{g})$. We prove two apriori estimates for the $C^{2,\alpha}$ solutions of linear parabolic equations on $M$. One of them is a $C^0$ estimate implied by the maximum principle and the other is an inequality involving the integrals used in Definition \ref{defn:weak}. The key point is that these estimates are independent of the geometry of $\partial M$. In the next section, we consider a sequence of surfaces with boundary which approximates the conical surfaces and the geometry of this sequence is not uniform.
Consider the linear boundary value problem
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}[]{ll}
\partial_t u = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u + f(x,t) & \quad \mbox{on } M\times [0,T] \\
u(0)= u_0 &\quad \mbox{on } M\\
\partial_\nu u =0 &\quad \mbox{on } \partial M.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:Sk}
\end{equation}
We also require a compatibility condition on the initial and boundary data.
\begin{equation}
\partial_\nu u_0=0 \quad \mbox{on } \partial M.
\label{eqn:compatible}
\end{equation}
\begin{prop}\label{prop:bvp}
For $a,b,f$ in $C^\alpha(M\times [0,T])$ with $0<\lambda<\min_{M\times [0,T]} a$ and $u_0\in C^{2,\alpha}(M)$ satisfying \eqref{eqn:compatible}, there is a unique $u(x,t)$ in $C^{2,\alpha}(M\times [0,T])$ solving \eqref{eqn:bvp} such that for $t\in [0,T]$,
\begin{equation}
\norm{u(t)}_{C^0(M)}\leq e^{C_1 t} \left( \norm{u_0}_{C^0(M)} + \int_0^t e^{-C_1 s} C_2 ds\right),
\label{eqn:Mc0}
\end{equation}
where $C_1=\norm{b}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ and $C_2=\norm{f}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$,
and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Menergy}
\int_M \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u}^2(t) d\tilde{V} + \int_0^t \int_M \abs{\partial_t u}^2 dsd\tilde{V}
\leq C_3 \int_M \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}^2 d\tilde{V} + C_4 t,
\end{equation}
where $C_3$ depends on $\norm{a}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ and $C_4$ depends on the $C^0$ norm of $a, b, f, u$ and $\lambda$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
The existence and uniqueness of the solution $u$ in $C^{2,\alpha}(M\times [0,T])$ is well known (see Theorem 5.18 of \cite{lieberman1996second}).
For \eqref{eqn:Mc0}, we notice that the right hand side of \eqref{eqn:Mc0} is the solution of the ODE
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:bvpode}
\frac{dh}{dt}= C_1 h+C_2\quad \mbox{and} \quad h(0)=\norm{u_0}_{C^0(M)}.
\end{equation}
The proof of \eqref{eqn:Mc0} then reduces to the claim that $\abs{u}\leq h$. Subtracting \eqref{eqn:bvpode} from the equation of $u$ yields
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t(u-h) = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} (u-h) + b(x,t)u - C_1 h + f-C_2.
\end{equation*}
By the definition of $C_1$ and $C_2$ and the fact that $h\geq 0$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t(u-h) \leq a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} (u-h) + b(x,t) (u-h).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, $\partial_\nu(u-h)|_{\partial M}=0$. Since $u_0\leq h(0)$, the classical maximum principle for the linear parabolic equation on manifolds with boundary gives $u\leq h$ on $M\times [0,T]$. The lower bound is proved similarly.
For the proof of \eqref{eqn:Menergy}, we consider the weighted integral
\begin{equation*}
\iint_{M\times [0,t]} \abs{\partial_t u}^2 a^{-1} ds d\tilde{V}
= \iint_{M\times [0,t]} \partial_t u \left( \tilde{\triangle} u + a^{-1} b u + a^{-1} f \right) ds d\tilde{V}
\end{equation*}
By the Young's inequality, there is a constant $C$ depending on $C^0$ norm of $b,f,u$ and $a^{-1}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:young}
\frac{1}{2}\iint_{M\times [0,t]} \abs{\partial_t u}^2 a^{-1} ds d\tilde{V}
\leq \iint_{M\times [0,t]} \partial_t u \tilde{\triangle} u ds d\tilde{V} + C t.
\end{equation}
Using integration by parts and the Fubini's Theorem, we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eqn:iby}
&&\iint_{M\times [0,t]} \partial_t u \tilde{\triangle} u ds d\tilde{V} \\ \nonumber
&=& -\int_0^t \int_M \tilde \nabla \partial_t u \cdot \tilde{\nabla} u d\tilde{V} ds \\ \nonumber
&=& - \int_M \int_0^t \frac{1}{2} \partial_t \abs{\tilde{\nabla}u}^2 ds \tilde{V}\\\nonumber
&=& \frac{1}{2} \int_M \abs{\tilde{\nabla }u}^2(0) d\tilde{V} - \frac{1}{2} \int_M \abs{\tilde{\nabla }u}^2(t) d\tilde{V}.
\end{eqnarray}
The boundary term of integration by parts vanishes because of the boundary condition $\partial_\nu u|_{\partial M} =0$. The computation above involves some higher derivative of $u$ which does not exist for a function in $C^{2,\alpha}$. However, the first line and the last line make perfect sense for $C^{2,\alpha}$ functions. Therefore, the computation can be justified by smooth approximations. \eqref{eqn:Menergy} follows from \eqref{eqn:young} and \eqref{eqn:iby}
\end{proof}
\subsection{Weak solution of the linear equation via approximations}\label{subsec:approximation}
In this section, we construct a weak solution to the linear parabolic equation on conical surfaces and prove some estimates. The idea is to approximate $(S,\tilde{g})$ by a sequence of surfaces with boundary, solve a sequence of linear parabolic equations with Neumann boundary condition and take the limit of the sequence of solutions.
\begin{rem}
Note that this is the only place in the paper where we use this approximation method. This is different from \cite{yin2013ricci} where the same type of approximation was used again and again. The idea is that all special properties we need are coded into the definition of weak solution, i.e. the finiteness of $\abs{\cdot}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$, which will be the starting point of many later discussions.
\end{rem}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:linear}
For $a,b,f$ in $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ with $0<\lambda<\min_{S\times[0,T]} a$ and $u_0\in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$, there exists a weak solution $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ to
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:linear1}
\partial_t u = a(x,t)\tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u + f(x,t)
\end{equation}
with $u(0)=u_0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}}\leq C
\end{equation*}
for a constant $C$ depending on $\lambda$, $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ norms of $a,b,f$ and $\norm{u_0}_{\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}}$.
Moreover, we have
\begin{equation}
\norm{u(t)}_{C^0(S)}\leq e^{C_1 t} \left( \norm{u_0}_{C^0(S)} + \int_0^t e^{-C_1 s} C_2 ds\right),
\label{eqn:linear1c0}
\end{equation}
where $C_1=\norm{b}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ and $C_2=\norm{f}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$, and
\begin{equation}
\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}} \leq C_3 \int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}^2 d\tilde{V} + T C_4,
\label{eqn:linear1energy}
\end{equation}
where $C_3$ depends on the $\norm{a}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ and $C_4$ depends on the $C^0(S\times [0,T])$ norm of $a,b,f,u$ and $\lambda$.
\end{thm}
Recall that we have assumed that $p$ is the only singular point in $S$ and $(\rho,\theta)$ is the polar coordinates around $p$. Define
\begin{equation*}
S_k:=S \setminus \set{(\rho,\theta)|\, \rho<\frac{1}{k}}.
\end{equation*}
The restriction of $\tilde{g}$ to $S_k$ is still denoted by $\tilde{g}$.
To use the linear estimate for surfaces with boundary in Section \ref{subsec:bvp}, the initial data of the approximating problem must satisfy the compatibility condition \eqref{eqn:compatible}. Therefore, we must modify the initial data so that it satisfies the Neumann boundary condition on $\partial S_k$ while keeping various norms of the modification under control.
By the definition of $S_k$, we know that $(\rho,\theta)$ parametrizes a neighborhood of $\partial S_k$ for $\rho\in [\frac{1}{k},1)$ and $\theta\in S^1$. For any $\epsilon>0$ small, let $\eta_\epsilon: [1/k,1)\to [1/k,1)$ be some smooth increasing function satisfying:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item $\eta_\epsilon(\rho)=\frac{1}{k}$ for $\rho\in [1/k,1/k+\epsilon]$;
\item $\eta_\epsilon(\rho)=\rho$ for $\rho\in [1/k+2\epsilon,1)$;
\item $\eta_\epsilon'(\rho)\leq 3$ for all $\rho\in [1/k,1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{lem}
For each $k$ fixed, there is $\epsilon$ so small that if $u_{0,k}:S_k\to \mathbb R$ is obtained from $u_0$ by a modification near $\partial S_k$ given by
\begin{equation*}
u_{0,k}(\rho,\theta)= u_0(\eta_\epsilon(\rho),\theta),
\end{equation*}
then
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u_{0,k}}_{C^0(S_k)} \leq \norm{u_0}_{C^0(S)}
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\tilde{\nabla} u_{0,k}}_{L^2(S_k,\tilde{g})} \leq 2\norm{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, we may take $\epsilon\to 0$ as $k\to \infty$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The control of $C^0$ norm is obvious. For the second inequality, we assume $\norm{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})}>0$, otherwise there is nothing to prove. It suffices to show
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\tilde{\nabla} (u_{0,k}-u_0)}_{L^2(S_k,\tilde{g})} < \norm{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})}.
\end{equation*}
Notice that $\tilde{\nabla} (u_{0,k}-u_0)$ is supported in
\begin{equation*}
\set{(\rho,\theta)\,|\, \frac{1}{k}\leq \rho\leq \frac{1}{k}+2\epsilon}
\end{equation*}
and $\abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}$, hence $\abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_{0,k}}$ is bounded (by a constant depending on $u_0$ and $k$). Hence, we can make $\norm{\tilde{\nabla} (u_{0,k}-u_0)}_{L^2(S_k,\tilde{g})}$ as small as we want by choosing $\epsilon$ small.
\end{proof}
Now we can define an initial-boundary value problem
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}[]{ll}
\partial_t u = a(x,t)\tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u + f(x,t) &\quad \mbox{on } S_k\times [0,T] \\
u(0)= u_{0,k} &\quad \mbox{on } S_k \\
\partial_\nu u=0 & \quad \mbox{on }\partial S_k \times [0,T].
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:bvp}
\end{equation}
Proposition \ref{prop:bvp} implies that we have a unique solution $u_k\in C^{2,\alpha}(S_k\times [0,T])$ to \eqref{eqn:bvp} satisfying
\begin{equation}
\norm{u_k(t)}_{C^0(S_k)}\leq e^{C_1 t}\left( \norm{u_0}_{C^0(S)} + \int_0^t e^{-C_1 s} C_2 ds\right),
\label{eqn:Skc0}
\end{equation}
where $C_1=\norm{b}_{C^0(S_k\times [0,T])}$ and $C_2=\norm{f}_{C^0(S_k\times [0,T])}$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{eqn:Skenergy}
\int_{S_k} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_k}^2(t) d\tilde{V} + \int_0^t \int_{S_k} \abs{\partial_t u_k}^2 dsd\tilde{V}
\leq C_3 \int_{S_k} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}^2 d\tilde{V} + C_4 t,
\end{equation}
where $C_3$ depends on $\norm{a}_{C^0(S_k\times [0,T])}$ and $C_4$ depends on the $C^0$ norm of $a,b,f,u_k$ and $\lambda$.
With \eqref{eqn:Skc0} and the Schauder estimate, we obtain some uniform estimate for $u_k$ on $\Omega\times [0,T]$ (for $k$ sufficiently large), for any fixed compact set $\Omega \subset S\setminus \set{p}$. These estimates imply that after taking subsequence if necessary, $u_k$ converges to a solution $u$ to \eqref{eqn:linear1} (defined on $S\times [0,T]$) and the convergence is in $C^{2,\alpha'}$ on $\Omega\times [0,T]$ for $\alpha'\in (0,\alpha)$.
\eqref{eqn:Skc0} and \eqref{eqn:Skenergy} pass on to the limit to give \eqref{eqn:linear1c0} and \eqref{eqn:linear1energy} respectively. Moreover, the $\mathcal P^{2,\alpha,T}$ norm of $u$ follows from the equation \eqref{eqn:linear1} and the Schauder interior estimates. This concludes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:linear}.
\subsection{Maximum principle and the uniqueness of weak solution}\label{subsec:maximum}
In this section, we prove a maximum principle for the weak solution of linear equations and as a corollary, we show that the weak solution obtained in Theorem \ref{thm:linear} is unique among all weak solutions if the time derivative of $a$ is bounded.
The maximum principle proved here uses the so-called energy method, which is well known in the weak solution theory of parabolic equations. There are other types of maximum principles in the literature using barrier functions. One of them is due to Jeffres \cite{jeffres2000uniqueness} and we refer to Section 5 of \cite{jeffres2011k} and Lemma 11.4 in \cite{chen2015bessel}. The other is due to Chen and Wang \cite{chen2014long}, see Theorem 6.2 there.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:maximum}
Suppose that $u\in \mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ satisfies pointwisely on $S\setminus \set{p}\times [0,T]$
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t u \leq a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u,
\end{equation*}
whose coefficients satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:maxab}
0< \lambda< a(x,t)< \lambda^{-1} \quad \mbox{and} \quad \abs{b},\abs{\partial_t a} < \lambda^{-1}
\end{equation}
for some $\lambda>0$.
Assume that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:assmax}
\max_{t\in [0,T]} \norm{\tilde{\nabla} u}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})} + \iint_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t u} d\tilde{V} dt < \infty.
\end{equation}
If $u(0)\leq 0$, then $u(x,t)\leq 0$ for all $t\in [0,T]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
For $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$, the assumption \eqref{eqn:assmax} is trivially satisfied.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
By setting $\Psi(z)=(\max\set{z,0})^2$ and $\varphi(x,t)= a^{-1}$, Lemma \ref{lem:basic2} implies that $\int_S (u_+)^2 a^{-1} d\tilde{V}$ is absolutely continuous so that we can compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt} \int_S (u_+)^2 a^{-1} d\tilde{V} &=& \int_S 2 u_+ (\partial_t u) a^{-1}d\tilde{V} + \int_S (u_+)^2 \partial_t (a^{-1}) d\tilde{V} \\
&\leq& \int_S 2 u_+ \tilde{\triangle} u d\tilde{V} + C \int_S (u_+)^2 d\tilde{V} \\
&\leq & -2 \int_S \abs{\tilde\nabla u_+}^2 d\tilde{V} + C \int_S (u_+)^2 a^{-1} d\tilde{V}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the above computation, we used Lemma \ref{lem:basic} to justify the integration by parts.
\footnote{
A little more effort is necessary here because $u_+$ is not in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$.
We note that by Lemma 7.6 of \cite{trudinger1983elliptic} $\int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_+}^2 d\tilde{V}$ is finite, which implies that there exists a sequence of nonnegative $u_i\in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ such that $u_i$ converges to $u_+$ in the sense that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:goodu}
\lim_{i\to \infty} \sup_S \abs{u_i-u_+} + \int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} (u_i-u_+)}^2 d\tilde{V} =0.
\end{equation}
In fact, by setting $\rho=e^{s}$, we can regard $u_+$ as a function of $(s,\theta)$, which (by the definition of $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$) satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:goodcylinder}
\sup_{k\in \mathbb N} \norm{u_+(s-k,\theta)}_{C^{2,\alpha}([0,1]\times S^1)} + \int_{(-\infty,0]\times S^1} \abs{\partial_s u_+}^2 + \abs{\partial_\theta u_+}^2 dtd\theta <C.
\end{equation}
The standard mollification on the infinite cylinder $(-\infty,0]\times S^1$ gives nonnegative $u_i$, which approximates $u_+$ in the $C^0$ norm and the $L^2$ norm of gradient. It is exactly \eqref{eqn:goodu} if we regard $u_i$ as a function of $(\rho,\theta)$ (by the conformal invariance of the Dirichlet energy). Moreover, $u_i\in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ because it also satisfies \eqref{eqn:goodcylinder}. By the Fubini theorem, \eqref{eqn:assmax} and the inequality satisfied by $u$, $\tilde{\triangle} u$ is bounded from below by some integrable function for almost every $t$.
Since $u_i$ is nonnegative and uniformly bounded, we know $u_i\tilde{\triangle} u$ is bounded from below by some integrable function so that we can apply Lemma \ref{lem:basic} to get
\begin{equation*}
\int_S 2 u_i \tilde{\triangle} u + 2 \tilde{\nabla} u_i \cdot \tilde{\nabla} u d\tilde{V}=0.
\end{equation*}
Taking $i\to \infty$ yields
\begin{equation*}
\int_S 2 u_+ \tilde{\triangle} u + 2 \tilde{\nabla} u_+ \cdot \tilde{\nabla} u d\tilde{V}\leq 0.
\end{equation*}
Here we used the Fatou's lemma for the sequence $u_i \tilde{\triangle} u$, which is uniformly bounded from below by some integrable function.
Since $\int_S (u_+)^2 a^{-1} d\tilde{V}$ is zero when $t=0$, it is zero for all $t\in [0,T]$.
\end{proof}
As a corollary of Lemma \ref{lem:maximum}, we have the following ODE comparison lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:odecompare}
Suppose that $u\in \mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ satisfies pointwisely on $S\setminus \set{p}\times [0,T]$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:odeu}
\partial_t u = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u + f(x,t),
\end{equation}
whose coefficients satisfy \eqref{eqn:maxab}.
If $u$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:assmax}, then for $t\in [0,T]$,
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u(t)}_{C^0(S)}\leq e^{C_1 t} \left( \norm{u(0)}_{C^0(S)} + \int_0^t e^{-C_1 s} \norm{f(s)}_{C^0(S)} ds \right)
\end{equation*}
where $C_1= \norm{b}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is similar to that of Proposition \ref{prop:bvp}. Let $h(t)$ be the solution to the ODE
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:odeh}
\frac{d}{dt}h= C_1 h(t) + \norm{f(t)}_{C^0(S)} \quad \mbox{and} \quad h(0)= \norm{u(0)}_{C^2(S)}
\end{equation}
and notice that $h(t)$ is exactly the right hand side of the inequality we want to prove.
Subtracting \eqref{eqn:odeh} from \eqref{eqn:odeu} yields
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (u-h) \leq a \tilde{\triangle} (u-h) + b(u-h).
\end{equation*}
Applying Lemma \ref{lem:maximum} to the above inequality shows that $u\leq h$ on $S\times [0,T]$. The other side of the inequality can be proved similarly.
\end{proof}
Next, we give a theorem about the uniqueness of the weak solution. Once we know a weak solution is `the' weak solution, then it coincides with the solution given by Theorem \ref{thm:linear} and satisfies some linear estimates.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:unique} Suppose that $u$ is a weak solution on $S\times [0,T]$ to the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:linear2}
\partial_t u = a(x,t)\tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u + f(x,t)
\end{equation}
with $u(0)=u_0\in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$. Assume that $a,b,f$ are in $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:moreover}
\max_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t a}< \infty.
\end{equation}
Then $u$ is the same as the solution given in Theorem \ref{thm:linear}. In particular, \eqref{eqn:linear1c0} and \eqref{eqn:linear1energy} holds for $u$.
\end{thm}
The last part of the above theorem is very useful in later proofs of this paper. We use it to obtain $C^0$ and $\abs{\cdot}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ estimates for weak solutions as long as \eqref{eqn:moreover} holds.
\begin{proof}
Let $\tilde{u}$ be the weak solution to \eqref{eqn:linear2} given by Theorem \ref{thm:linear}. Then $u-\tilde{u}$ is a weak solution to the homogeneous equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (u-\tilde{u}) =a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} (u-\tilde{u}) + b(x,t)(u-\tilde{u})
\end{equation*}
with $(u-\tilde{u})(0)=0$. Applying Lemma \ref{lem:maximum} to both $u-\tilde{u}$ and $\tilde{u}-u$ proves the theorem.
\end{proof}
For future use, we prove an estimate on the growth of $L^p$ norm for a weak solution to the linear equation.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:fora}
Suppose $a,b,f,u_0$ satisfy the same assumption as in Theorem \ref{thm:linear} and we further assume that
\begin{equation}
\max_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t a}< \infty.
\label{eqn:fora1}
\end{equation}
If $u$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:linear1}, then for any $p>1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_S \abs{u}^p(t) d\tilde{V} \leq C, \quad \forall t\in [0,T]
\end{equation*}
where $C$ depends on $p$, $T$, the $C^0$ norm of $a, a^{-1},b,f,\partial_t a$ and $\int_S \abs{u_0}^p d\tilde{V}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We will split $u$ into three parts, $u^+$, $u^-$ and $u_f$ and estimate the $L^p$ norm of them separately. To see this, we let $u_f$ be the solution to
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t u_f = a \tilde{\triangle} u_f + b u_f + f
\end{equation*}
with $u_f(0)=0$ given by Theorem \ref{thm:linear}. For the initial data $u_0$, we write
\begin{equation*}
u_0= u_0^+ - u_0^-,
\end{equation*}
where $u_0^+$ and $u_0^-$ are two functions in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ such that they are bounded from below by some positive number and
\begin{equation*}
\int_S \abs{u^{\pm}_0}^p d\tilde{V} \leq \int_S \abs{u}^p d\tilde{V} +1.
\end{equation*}
We can obtain $u_0^\pm$ by splitting $u_0$ into its positive and negative parts, adding a small positive constant and smoothing them out if necessary. Theorem \ref{thm:linear} gives us $u^{\pm}(t)$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t u^\pm(t) = a \tilde{\triangle} u^\pm + b u^\pm
\end{equation*}
with $u^\pm(0)=u_0^\pm$. By Theorem \ref{thm:unique}, we know $u=u^+-u^-+u_f$. Moreover, $u_f$ is bounded on $S\times [0,T]$, so it remains to bound the $L^p$ norm of $u^{\pm}(t)$. Since the proof is the same, we give only the proof of $u^+$. It is a consequence of Lemma \ref{lem:maximum} that $u^+(t)$ is nonnegative. Direct computation shows away from $p$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:uplusp}
\partial_t (u^+)^p \leq a \tilde{\triangle} (u^+)^p + p b (u^+)^p.
\end{equation}
By the fact that $u^+\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ and that $\partial_t a$ is bounded, we have
\begin{equation} \label{eqn:uplust}
\iint_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t ( (u^+)^p a^{-1})} d\tilde{V} ds < +\infty,
\end{equation}
which justifies the following computation
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt} \int_S (u^+)^p a^{-1} d\tilde{V} &=& \int_S \partial_t (u^+)^p a^{-1} + (u^+)^p \partial_t (a^{-1})d\tilde{V} \\
&\leq& \int_S \tilde{\triangle} (u^+)^p d\tilde{V} + C \int_S (u^+)^p a^{-1} d\tilde{V} \\
&\leq& C \int_S (u^+)^p a^{-1} d\tilde{V}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the last line above, we used Lemma \ref{lem:basic} to see that $\int_S \tilde{\triangle} (u^+)^p d\tilde{V}$ vanishes.\footnote{In this case, $u^+$ and hence $(u^+)^p$ is in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ and by \eqref{eqn:uplusp} and \eqref{eqn:uplust}, $\tilde{\triangle} (u^+)^p$ is bounded from below by an integrable function for almost every $t$.} The control over $\int_S (u^+)^p d\tilde{V}$ follows from the above inequality by integration over time.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Estimates of the time derivative of solution}\label{subsec:timederivative}
In the study of PDE, when we assume that the coefficients in the equation and the initial boundary data are smoother (or have stronger estimates), we naturally expect that the solution is smoother(or have stronger estimates). This is usually proved by taking derivative of the equation. In the conical setting, there is no natural spacial derivatives to take near a singular point. However, we can still take the time derivative.
For example, if we take the time derivative of the equation
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u + f(x,t)
\label{eqn:nob}
\end{equation}
and write $w$ for $\partial_t u$, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\partial_t w = a \tilde{\triangle} w + \partial_t a \frac{w-f}{a} + \partial_t f.
\label{eqn:dt}
\end{equation}
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:stronglinear}
In addition to the assumptions that $a,f\in \mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$, $u_0\in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ and $\norm{a^{-1}}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])} \leq C$, which is assumed in Theorem \ref{thm:linear}, if $\partial_t a$, $\partial_t f$ are in $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ and
\begin{equation*}
w_0:=a(x,0)\tilde{\triangle} u_0 + f(x,0) \in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha},
\end{equation*}
then $\partial_t u$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:dt}. Moreover, it is the unique weak solution to \eqref{eqn:dt} and
$\norm{\partial_t u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}}$ is bounded by a constant depending on the $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ norm of $a,f,\partial_t a,\partial_t f$, the $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ norm of $u_0$ and $w_0$ and $\norm{a^{-1}}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We start by observing that all the rest conclusions in Theorem \ref{thm:stronglinear} follow from the claim that $\partial_t u$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:dt}. Since $\partial_t a$ is in $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ (hence is bounded), Theorem \ref{thm:unique} applies directly to show $\partial_t u$ is the unique weak solution so that we have the bound of $\norm{\partial_t u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}}$ as given in Theorem \ref{thm:linear}.
To see the claim holds, let $\tilde{w}$ be the weak solution to \eqref{eqn:dt} (given by Theorem \ref{thm:linear}) with the initial data $w_0$ and set
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:utw}
\tilde{u}(t)= u(0)+ \int_0^t \tilde{w}(s)ds.
\end{equation}
Theorem \ref{thm:stronglinear} is proved if we can show $u(t)=\tilde{u}(t)$, which implies that $\partial_t u$ (being the same as $\partial_t \tilde{u} = \tilde{w}$) is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:dt}.
The aim of showing $u(t)=\tilde{u}(t)$ is further reduced to checking that $\tilde{u}(t)$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:nob}, because $u(t)$ and $\tilde{u}(t)$ will then be two weak solutions with the same initial data so that Theorem \ref{thm:unique} can be applied. Here we used the fact that $\partial_t a$ is bounded.
The rest of the proof is devoted to proving $\tilde{u}(t)$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:nob}. First, we show that it satisfies \eqref{eqn:nob} pointwisely away from the singularity. At $t=0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:H0}
\partial_t \tilde{u}|_{t=0}= \tilde{w}(0)= a(x,0)\tilde{\triangle} u_0 + f(x,0)= a(x,0) \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u}_0 + f(x,0).
\end{equation}
For $t>0$, we set
\begin{equation*}
H=\partial_t \tilde{u} - a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u} -f=\tilde{w}-a\tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u} -f
\end{equation*}
and compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t H &=& \partial_t \tilde{w} -\partial_t a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u} - a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{w} - \partial_t f\\
&=& \partial_t \tilde{w} -\partial_t a a^{-1} (\tilde{w}-f -H)- a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{w} - \partial_t f\\
&=& \partial_t a a^{-1} H.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the last line, we used the equation satisfied by $\tilde{w}$. Now, since $H(0)=0$ by \eqref{eqn:H0}, $H\equiv 0$ for $t\geq 0$.
To see that $\tilde{u}$ is a weak solution, we notice first that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:tildeu2}
\int_0^T \int_S \abs{\partial_t \tilde{u}}^2 d\tilde{V}ds = \int_0^T \int_S \abs{\tilde{w}^2} d\tilde{V}ds<\infty,
\end{equation}
because $\tilde{w}$ is bounded. For the Dirichlet energy bound of $\tilde{u}$, we take any compact domain $W$ in $S$ away from the singular point and use the dominated convergence theorem and the fact that $\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w}$ is bounded on $W\times [0,t]$ to get
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u} = \tilde{\nabla} u_0 + \int_0^t \tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w} \quad \mbox{in} \quad W.
\end{equation*}
The Schwartz inequality, the H\"older inequality and the Fubini theorem imply that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:tildeu1}
\int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}}^2 (t) d\tilde{V} \leq 2 \int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} u_0}^2 d\tilde{V} + 2 t \int_0^t \int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w}}^2 d\tilde{V} dt.
\end{equation}
\eqref{eqn:tildeu1} and \eqref{eqn:tildeu2} together proves that $\tilde{u}$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:nob} and hence concludes the proof of the theorem.
\end{proof}
\section{Smoothing effect of linear equation}\label{sec:smoothing}
The estimates proved in previous section are as good as the initial data. For example, a weak solution $u$ is bounded because the initial data $u_0$ is bounded and to show that $\partial_t u$ is in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$, we need to assume that $\partial_t u|_{t=0}$ is in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$. However, as is well known for the linear parabolic equation on smooth manifolds, rough initial data can be smoothed out. Of course, the regularity of the solution is still restricted by the regularity of the coefficients of the equation. In this section, we collect a few results in this direction for the linear parabolic equation on conical surfaces. They play essential roles in proving higher regularity of the conical Ricci flow.
\subsection{H\"older regularity for bounded solution}\label{subsection:calpha}
We first define the H\"older spaces on a conical surfaces. Recall that we have a background metric $\tilde{g}$ on $S$, hence, for any $x,y\in S$ (including the singular point), we have a well defined distance function $\tilde{d}(x,y)$, which is the infimum of the lengths of all smooth paths connecting $x$ and $y$. For any $\alpha\in (0,1)$, we define $C^\alpha(S)$ to be the set of bounded functions $u$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\abs{u}_{C^\alpha(S)} := \sup_{x,y\in S} \frac{\abs{u(x)-u(y)}}{ \tilde{d}(x,y)^\alpha} < +\infty
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{C^\alpha(S)}:= \norm{u}_{C^0(S)} + \abs{u}_{C^\alpha(S)}
\end{equation*}
is defined to be the $C^\alpha$ norm. Similarly, we have a parabolic version for functions defined on $S\times [0,T]$ for some $T>0$. For $(x,t)$ and $(y,s)$ in $S\times [0,T]$, we define the space-time H\"older space $C^\alpha(S\times [0,T])$ to be the set of bounded function $u$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\abs{u}_{C^{\alpha}(S\times [0,T])}:= \sup_{(x,t),(y,s)\in S\times [0,T]} \frac{\abs{u(x,t)-u(y,s)}}{ (\tilde{d}(x,y)+\sqrt{t-s})^{\alpha} }
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{C^\alpha(S\times [0,T])}:= \norm{u}_{C^0(S\times[0,T])} + \abs{u}_{C^\alpha(S\times[0,T])}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{rem}
The definition above depends on $\tilde{g}$.
\end{rem}
Our first result is the following H\"older regularity result. Since it is a local result, we state it in a neighborhood of the singular point $p$. Of course, the result also holds in a ball away from the singularity. In fact, the proof given below is a modification of the proof in the smooth case which is well known.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:dg}
Suppose that $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}(B)$ is a weak solution to
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u +b(x,t)u+ f(x,t).
\label{eqn:dg1}
\end{equation}
If there is $C_1>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
a(x,t)+\frac{1}{a(x,t)}+ \abs{\partial_t a}+ \abs{b(x,t)} + \abs{f(x,t)}\leq C_1
\end{equation*}
on $B\times [0,T]$, then for any $\delta>0$, there is some $\alpha'>0$ depending on $\beta$ and $C^0$ norm of $a$ and $a^{-1}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{C^{\alpha'}(B_{1-\delta}\times [\delta,T])}\leq C_2
\end{equation*}
for some $C_2>0$ depending on $\delta, C_1$ and $C^0$ norm of $u$.
\end{thm}
It is closely related to the well known H\"older regularity result for linear parabolic equations of divergence form with bounded coefficients, for example, Section III.10 of \cite{ladyzhenskaya1968linear}, which is proved by Di Giorgi-Nash-Moser iteration. The idea is that in some natural coordinates, the linear equation here can be shown to have bounded (but not continuous) coefficients. This feature of conical singularity has been observed and utilized by Chen and Wang \cite{chen2014long} in the elliptic case. In the parabolic case, we have some extra difficulty caused by the fact that \eqref{eqn:dg1} is not of a divergence form. This is why we assume $\norm{\partial_t a}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ is finite.
For the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:dg}, by using some natural coordinates, we first transform Theorem \ref{thm:dg} into Theorem \ref{thm:dg1} below which has nothing to do with the conical surface. For this purpose, let $(x_1,x_2)$ be $(\rho\cos \theta, \rho\sin \theta)$ and compute $\tilde{g}$ in terms of $(x_1,x_2)$ to see
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{g}= \frac{1}{\rho^2} \left( (x_1^2+(\beta+1)^2 x_2^2) dx_1^2 - 2(\beta^2+2\beta)x_1x_2 dx_1dx_2 + (x_2^2+(\beta+1)^2 x_1^2) dx_2^2 \right).
\end{equation*}
The observation is that these coefficients are bounded (not continuous at $(0,0)$). If we use $g_{ij}$ to denote the coefficients of $a^{-1}\tilde{g}$, we can rewrite (\ref{eqn:dg1}) in coordinates $(x_1,x_2)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:new}
\partial_t u = \frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}\partial_i \left( g^{ij}\sqrt{g} \partial_j u \right) +bu + f.
\end{equation}
Here $g=\mathrm{det} g_{ij}$.
Since the identity map from $(B, \tilde{g}_{ij}dx_idx_j)$ to $(B,{\delta_{ij}}dx_idx_j)$ is a bi-Lipschitz map,\footnote{The best way to see this is to notice that in the polar coordinates,
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{g}_{ij} dx_i dx_j = d\rho^2 + \rho^2(\beta+1)^2 d\theta^2 \quad \mbox{and} \quad \delta_{ij} dx_i dx_j = d\rho^2 + \rho^2 d\theta^2.
\end{equation*} } the assumption that $u$ is a weak solution becomes
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:weak}
\max_{t\in [0,T]} \int_B \abs{\partial_i u}^2 dx + \int_0^T \int_B \abs{\partial_t u}^2 dx dt< +\infty.
\end{equation}
Moreover, the H\"older space (and norm) defined with these two metrics are equivalent. In summary, to show Theorem \ref{thm:dg}, it suffices to prove
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:dg1}
Suppose that $u:C^{2,\alpha}(B\setminus \set{0}\times [0,T])\to \mathbb R$ is a classical solution to \eqref{eqn:new} satisfying \eqref{eqn:weak}. Assume that the coefficients of \eqref{eqn:new} satisfy
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\frac{1}{\lambda} \delta_{ij}\leq g_{ij}\leq \lambda \delta_{ij}$ for some $\lambda>0$;
\item $\abs{\partial_t g}+\abs{b}+ \abs{f}\leq C_1$ for some $C_1$.
\end{enumerate}
If $u$ is bounded on $B\setminus \set{0} \times [0,T]$, then for each $\sigma>0$, there is $\alpha'>0$ depending only on $\lambda$ and $C_2$ depending on $\sigma$, $\lambda$, $T$ and $\norm{u}_{C^0(B\setminus\set{0}\times [0,T])}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{C^{\alpha'}(B_{1-\sigma}\times [\sigma,T])}\leq C_2.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
This is almost a special case of Theorem 10.1 in Chapter III of \cite{ladyzhenskaya1968linear} except that the principal part of \eqref{eqn:new} is not a divergence form. We will show that this is not a problem if we assume $\partial_t g$ is bounded as above. The idea is that instead of multiplying the equation by some test function $v$, we multiply the equation by $(\sqrt{g})v$, which cancels the $(\sqrt{g})^{-1}$ in front of $\partial_i(g^{ij}\sqrt{g}\partial_j u)$ so that the integration by parts works (using \eqref{eqn:weak}) as if the equation is of the divergence form. Of cause, the price of doing so is an extra term involving $\partial_t(\sqrt{g})$, which is assumed to be bounded. Given this observation, some routine computation shows that the proof in \cite{ladyzhenskaya1968linear} still works. We shall give complete details to this in the appendix and for now, let's assume this theorem, hence Theorem \ref{thm:dg}.
As a corollary of the above result, we have the following Liouville type theorem.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:liouville}
Let $\mathbb R^+\times S^1$ be the infinite cone with metric $\tilde{g}=d\rho^2 + (\beta+1)^2 \rho^2 d\theta^2$. Suppose $u$ is a bounded solution to the standard heat equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:heat}
\partial_t u =\triangle_{\tilde{g}} u
\end{equation}
on $(\mathbb R^+\times S^1)\times (-\infty,0)$. If
\begin{equation*}
\max_{t\in [-T,0]} \norm{\tilde{\nabla} u}_{L^2(\set{\rho<R},\tilde{g})} + \left( \iint_{\set{\rho<R}\times [-T,0]} \abs{\partial_t u}^2 d\tilde{V}dt \right)^{1/2} < +\infty
\end{equation*}
for any $R>0$ and $T>0$, then $u$ is a constant.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Set
\begin{equation*}
u_n(\rho,\theta,t)= u(n\rho,\theta,n^2 t).
\end{equation*}
$u_n$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:heat} and is uniformly bounded on $B\times [-1,0]$. Theorem \ref{thm:dg} then implies a uniform $C^{\alpha'}$ norm on $B_{1/2}\times [-1/2,0]$. This is impossible for large $n$ unless $u$ is a constant.
\end{proof}
The application of Theorem \ref{thm:dg} is restricted by the assumption $\partial_t a$ being bounded. In particular, in \eqref{eqn:rfu}, we have $a=e^{-2u}$ and therefore unless we know $\partial_t u$ is bounded, we should not assume $\partial_t a$ is bounded. Fortunately, we have
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:dgspecial}
Suppose that $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}(B)$ is a weak solution to
\begin{equation}
\partial_t u = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle}u + f(x,t)
\label{eqn:special}
\end{equation}
with
\begin{equation*}
\norm{f}_{C^0(B\times [0,T])}+ \norm{u}_{C^0}(B\times [0,T])\leq C_1.
\end{equation*}
Then for any $\sigma>0$, there is some $\alpha'>0$ depending on $C_1$ and $C_2$ depending on $C_1$ and $\sigma$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{C^{\alpha'}(B_{1-\sigma}\times [\sigma,T])}\leq C_2.
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Setting $v=e^{2u}$, \eqref{eqn:special} becomes
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t v = \tilde{\triangle} \log v + f.
\end{equation*}
Taking $(\rho,\theta)$ coordinates, and setting $(x_1,x_2)$ as before, we can rewrite the above equation as
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t v = \frac{1}{\sqrt{\tilde{g}}} \partial_i \left( \tilde{g}^{ij} \sqrt{\tilde{g}} \frac{1}{v} \partial_j v \right) + f.
\end{equation*}
This is only slightly different from \eqref{eqn:new} with an additional $1/v$. We still have $\lambda$ depending on $C^0$ norm of $u$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\frac{1}{\lambda}\delta_{ij}\leq \tilde{g}^{ij} \sqrt{\tilde{g}} \frac{1}{v} \leq \lambda \delta_{ij}
\end{equation*}
and $\partial_t \tilde{g}=0$. It is then evident from here that Theorem \ref{thm:dgspecial} follows from (the proof of) Theorem \ref{thm:dg1}\footnote{In fact, the actual structure of $g^{ij}\sqrt{g}$ in \eqref{eqn:new} is not important. What we need is only the fact that this matrix is comparable with $\delta_{ij}$.}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Smoothing estimate for rough initial data}\label{subsec:rough}
The main result of this section strengthens Theorem \ref{thm:stronglinear} in the sense that we drop the assumption of $\tilde{\triangle} u_0$ there and show that the regularity and estimate of $\partial_t u$ remain true on $S\times [t_0,T]$ for any $t_0>0$.
\begin{thm}\label{thm:smoothing}
Suppose that
\begin{enumerate}
\item the $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ norms of $a,b,f,\partial_t a$, $\partial_t b$ and $\partial_t f$ are bounded by $C_1$;
\item $\norm{u_0}_{\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}}\leq C_2$;
\item $a>\lambda>0$ on $S\times [0,T]$.
\end{enumerate}
Let $u$ be the weak solution to
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:linear}
\partial_t u = a(x,t)\tilde{\triangle} u + b(x,t) u + f(x,t)
\end{equation}
with $u(0)=u_0$ given by Theorem \ref{thm:linear}. Then for each $t_0>0$, $w=\partial_t u$ is a weak solution to
\begin{equation}
\partial_t w = a \tilde{\triangle} w + (\partial_t a a^{-1} +b) w + \left( \partial_t f + \partial_t b u - \partial_t a a^{-1} (bu +f) \right)
\label{eqn:lineardt}
\end{equation}
on $[t_0,T]$ and that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\partial_t u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[t_0,T]}} \leq C(C_1,C_2,\lambda,T,t_0).
\end{equation*}
\end{thm}
The proof consists of three steps. We state the goal of each step in the form of a lemma. Note that for each lemma, we assume the same assumptions as in Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing}. The first step is
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:lp}
For $t_1=t_0/2>0$, there exists $q>1$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\partial_t u (t_1)}_{L^q(S,\tilde{g})}\leq C (C_1,C_2,\lambda,t_1).
\end{equation*}
Moreover, by the H\"older inequality, we may always assume that $1<q<2$.
\end{lem}
The second step is to construct a solution to \eqref{eqn:lineardt} with initial data $\partial_t u(t_1)$, which lies in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[t_1+\delta,T]}$ for all $\delta>0$. Since the initial data is only in $L^q$, we can not expect the $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ norm of the solution to be bounded up to $t=t_1$. However, we shall have a growth estimate of it in terms of $t-t_1$. Precisely,
\begin{lem} \label{lem:growth}
There is a solution $\tilde{w}$ to \eqref{eqn:lineardt} such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item for any $\delta>0$,
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\tilde{w}}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[t_1+\delta,T]}}\leq C (C_1,C_2,\lambda,T,t_1,\delta).
\end{equation*}
\item for $q>1$ in Lemma \ref{lem:lp},
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\tilde{w}(t)}_{C^0(S)} + \norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w}(t)}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})} \leq \frac{C(C_1,C_2,\lambda,t_0)}{(t-t_1)^{1/q}}.
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
This solution $\tilde{w}$ satisfies all the requirements for $\partial_t u$ in Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing}. The last step for the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing} is
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:same}
$\tilde{w}$ constructed in Lemma \ref{lem:growth} is the same as $\partial_t u$ on $S\times [t_1,T]$.
\end{lem}
So the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing} reduces to the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:lp}, Lemma \ref{lem:growth} and Lemma \ref{lem:same}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:lp}]
$\partial_t u(t_1)$ is bounded away from the singular point $p$ by the interior estimate of \eqref{eqn:linear}. To prove Lemma \ref{lem:lp}, it suffices to consider the growth of $\tilde{\triangle} u(t_1)$ (near the singular point) in $B$.
By Theorem \ref{thm:dg}, we know $u(t_1)$ is $C^{\alpha'}(B)$ for some $\alpha'>0$, which means that in terms of polar coordinates
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:step11}
\abs{u(\rho,\theta,t_1)-u(0,\theta,t_1)}\leq C \rho^{\alpha'}.
\end{equation}
For any $y=(\rho_0,\theta_0)$ ($\rho_0\ne 0$), there is constant $\sigma$ depending only on $\beta$ such that the geodesic ball $B_{\sigma \rho_0}(y)$ (with respect to $\tilde{g}$) is diffeomorphic to a disk embedded in $S\setminus \set{p}$ and $\tilde{g}$ restricted to $B_{\sigma \rho_0}(y)$ is flat. Let $(x_1,x_2)$ be the Euclidean coordinates in $B_{\sigma \rho_0}(y)$ with $x_i=0$ at $y$ and regard $u$ as a function of $x_1,x_2$ and $t$. Set
\begin{equation*}
v(z_1,z_2,t)= u (\sigma \rho_0 z_1, \sigma \rho_0 z_2, (\sigma \rho_0)^2 t + t_1).
\end{equation*}
$v$ is defined on $B^z\times [-1,0]$ (here $B^z$ is the unit ball in $z$ plane) and satisfies
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t v = a \triangle_z v + (\sigma \rho_0)^2 b v + (\sigma\rho_0)^2 f.
\end{equation*}
By the interior estimates of linear parabolic equations, we know that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:interpolation}
\norm{v(0)}_{C^{2,\alpha}(B^z_{1/2})}\leq C
\end{equation}
for some $C$ depending on the $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$ norm of $a,b,f$ and $\lambda$. \eqref{eqn:step11} implies that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:osc}
\mbox{osc}_{B^z} v(0)\leq C \rho_0^{\alpha'}.
\end{equation}
By \eqref{eqn:interpolation} and \eqref{eqn:osc}, the interpolation of H\"older norm\footnote{In case the reader needs a proof, we refer to Lemma \ref{lem:D2} proved in the appendix.} gives $\alpha''>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\max_{B^z_{1/2}}\abs{\frac{\partial^2}{\partial z_i \partial z_j} v(0)}\leq C \rho_0^{\alpha''} \quad i,j=1,2
\end{equation*}
which implies that
\begin{equation*}
\abs{\tilde{\triangle}u (\rho_0,\theta_0,t_1)}\leq C \rho_0^{-2+\alpha''}.
\end{equation*}
Therefore, there is some $q>1$ such that $\tilde{\triangle}u(t_1)$ is in $L^q(S,\tilde{g})$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:growth}]
The problem we want to solve is a linear parabolic equation with nonzero non-homogeneous term and nonzero initial data. By the linearity, it suffices to solve the following two problems separately and add up the solutions:
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}[]{ll}
\partial_t w_1 = a\tilde{\triangle} w_1 + \tilde{b} w_1 + \tilde{f} & \quad \mbox{ on } S\times [t_1,T] \\
w_1(0)=0 &
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:w1}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}[]{ll}
\partial_t w_2 = a\tilde{\triangle} w_2 + \tilde{b} w_2 & \quad \mbox{ on } S\times [t_1,T] \\
w_2(0)= \partial_t u (t_1). &
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:w2}
\end{equation}
Here for simplicity, we have set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{b}=\partial_t a a^{-1} + b \quad \mbox{and} \quad \tilde{f} = \partial_t f + \partial_t b u - \partial_t a a^{-1} (bu +f).
\end{equation*}
Note that by the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing}, we know $\tilde{b},\tilde{f}\in \mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[t_1,T]}$. By Theorem \ref{thm:linear}, there exists a solution $w_1$ to \eqref{eqn:w1} satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\norm{w_1}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[t_1,T]}}\leq C(C_1,C_2,\lambda,T),
\end{equation*}
so that to show Lemma \ref{lem:growth}, it suffices to find a solution $w_2$ to \eqref{eqn:w2} which satisfies (1) and (2) in Lemma \ref{lem:growth}.
The most natural way of solving \eqref{eqn:w2} is to consider an approximation to $\partial_t u(t_1)\in L^q(S,\tilde{g})$. For that purpose, let $w_{2,n,0}$ be a sequence of $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ functions such that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \norm{w_{2,n,0}- \partial_t u(t_1)}_{L^q(S,\tilde{g})}=0
\end{equation*}
and for each compact domain $W\subset S\setminus \set{p}$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:calphainitial}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \norm{w_{2,n,0}- \partial_t u(t_1)}_{C^{2,\alpha}(W)}=0.
\end{equation}
Note that in the last line above, we used the fact that $\partial_t u$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:lineardt} pointwisely away from the singular point so that $\partial_t u(t_1)$ is in $C^{2,\alpha}(W)$ by the Schauder estimate and the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing}. For each $w_{2,n,0}$, Theorem \ref{thm:linear} gives a weak solution $w_{2,n}(t)$ defined on $S\times [t_1,T]$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t w_{2,n} = a\tilde{\triangle} w_{2,n} + \tilde{b} w_{2,n} \quad \mbox{and} \quad w_{2,n}(t_0)= w_{2,n,0}.
\end{equation*}
We claim the following apriori estimates for $w_{2,n}(t)$:
\begin{enumerate}[(a)]
\item For some $C>0$,
\begin{equation}
\max_{t\in [t_1,T]} \norm{w_{2,n}(t)}_{L^q(S,\tilde{g})}\leq C;
\label{eqn:wnlp}
\end{equation}
\item For any compact domain $W\subset S\setminus \set{p}$, there is $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{w_{2,n}}_{C^{2,\alpha}(W\times [t_1,T])}\leq C;
\end{equation*}
\item For any $t\in (t_1,T]$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:smoothorder}
\norm{w_{2,n}(t)}_{C^0(S)} + \norm{\tilde{\nabla} w_{2,n}(t)}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})} \leq \frac{C}{(t-t_1)^{1/q}};
\end{equation}
\item For any $\delta>0$,
\begin{equation*}
\norm{w_{2,n}}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[t_1+\delta,T]}}\leq C(C_1,C_2,\lambda,T,t_1,\delta).
\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
Before we start proving (a)-(d) above, we show how they imply Lemma \ref{lem:growth}. Recall that our aim is to find $w_2$ solving \eqref{eqn:w2} and check that (1) and (2) in Lemma \ref{lem:growth} holds for $w_2$ in the place of $\tilde{w}$.
The estimate (b) above and \eqref{eqn:calphainitial} imply that $w_{2,n}$ subconverges to a solution of \eqref{eqn:w2}. By taking the limit, the estimates (c) and (d) become (2) and (1) for $w_2$ in Lemma \ref{lem:growth}.
Now, let's turn to the proof of the claim, i.e. (a)-(d). Notice that (a) is a direct consequence of Lemma \ref{lem:fora}, (b) follows from (a) by applying known parabolic interior estimates to $w_{2,n}$ on $Q\times [t_1,T]$, where $W \subset Q\subset \bar{Q}\subset S\setminus \set{p}$ and (d) follows from (c), by regarding $w_{2,n}(t)$ as a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:w2} with initial data $w_{2,n}(t_1+\delta)$ (which by (c) belongs to $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$) and applying Theorem \ref{thm:unique}.
Before we prove (c), we describe a cover of ${S}$ by balls. For some $t$ fixed, there is a sequence of points $p_1,\cdots,p_N$ in $S$, where $p_1=p$ is the singular point such that the following is true. Let $B_1$ be $B_{\sqrt{t}}(p)$, the geodesic ball centered at $p_1=p$ with radius $\sqrt{t}$ and for $i=2,\cdots,N$, let $B_i$ be $B_{c_\beta \sqrt{t}}(p_i)$. Here $c_\beta\in (0,1)$ is a constant depending only on $\beta$ and the geometry of $(S,\tilde{g})$ so that each $B_i (i>1)$ is topologically a ball and $p\notin B_i$ for $i>1$. We also denote by $B^\lambda_i$ the geodesic ball centered at $p_i$ but with the radius being $\lambda$ times that of $B_i$. We require that $B^{1/4}_i$ cover $S$ and that each point in $S$ is covered by $\bar{B_i}$ for at most $c$ times for a universal constant $c$.
We need the following lemma
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:moser} Suppose that $a,b\in \mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,t]}(B_i)$ and that $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,t]}(B_i)$ is a weak solution to
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t u =a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u + bu.
\end{equation*}
Assume
\begin{equation*}
\max_{B_i\times [0,t]} \abs{\partial_t a} < C_1
\end{equation*}
for some $C_1$. Then there exists $C_2$ depending on $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,t]}$ norms of $a,b$ and $C_1$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:moser1}
\max_{B^{1/2}_i \times [t/2,t]} \abs{u} \leq {C_2} \frac{1}{t^{2/q}}\left( \int_0^t \int_{B_i} \abs{u}^q d\tilde{V} dt\right)^{1/q}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:moser2}
\norm{\tilde{\nabla} u(t)}_{L^2(B^{1/4}_i,\tilde{g})} \leq {C_2} \frac{1}{t^{2/q}} \left( \int_0^t \int_{B_i} \abs{u}^q d\tilde{V} dt\right)^{1/q}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
The proof \eqref{eqn:moser1} of this lemma is a Moser iteration, which is more or less standard, while the proof of \eqref{eqn:moser2} is a combination of \eqref{eqn:moser1} with Theorem \ref{thm:dg}. In order not to distract the readers from the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing}, we move it to the appendix.
We apply Lemma \ref{lem:moser} to $w_{2,n}$ and see immediately from \eqref{eqn:moser1} and (a) that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{w_{2,n}(t)}_{C^0(S)}\leq \frac{C_3}{(t-t_1)^{1/q}},
\end{equation*}
which is the $C^0$ part of \eqref{eqn:smoothorder}. For the other half,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} w_{2,n}(t)}^2 d\tilde{V} &\leq& \sum_{i=1}^N \int_{B_i^{1/4}} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} w_{2,n}(t)}^2 d\tilde{V} \\
&\leq& C^2_2 \sum_{i=1}^N \frac{1}{(t-t_1)^{4/q}} \left( \int_{t_1}^t \int_{B_i} \abs{w_{2,n}}^q d\tilde{V} dt \right)^{2/q} \\
&\leq& \frac{C_4}{(t-t_1)^{4/q}} \left( \int_{t_1}^t \int_S \abs{w_{2,n}(t)}^q d\tilde{V} dt\right)^{2/q}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the last line above, we used the elementary inequality that if $2/q>1$ (as we have assumed in Lemma \ref{lem:lp}), then for $x,y\in [0, \infty)$, we have $x^{2/q}+y^{2/q}\leq (x+y)^{2/q}$. Together with (a), this concludes the proof of part (c) of the claim and hence the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:growth}.
\end{proof}
Finally, we give a proof of Lemma \ref{lem:same}.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:same}]
For $t>t_1$, we set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{u}(t)= u(t_1)+ \int_{t_1}^t \tilde{w}(t) dt.
\end{equation*}
Obviously, $\tilde{u}(t_1)=u(t_1)$.
The proof consists of three steps. First, we show that $\tilde{u}-u$ satisfies some homogeneous equation with an error term, i.e. \eqref{eqn:tildeuu} below. Then we show that although $\tilde{u}-u$ is not a weak solution in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[t_1,T]}$, there is still some control over its energy and time derivative when $t$ is close to $t_1$, so that in the final step, we can invoke an argument similar to the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:maximum} to show that $\tilde{u}=u$.
{\bf Step 1.} When $t=t_1$,
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t \tilde{u}|_{t=t_1} = \tilde{w}(t_1)= \partial_t u(t_1)= a \tilde{\triangle} u +bu +f = a\tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u}+ b\tilde{u} +f.
\end{equation*}
For $t>t_1$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:defH}
H=\partial_t \tilde{u}- a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u} -b\tilde{u} -f = \tilde{w}-a\tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u} -b\tilde{u} -f
\end{equation}
and compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \partial_t H \\
&=&\partial_t \tilde{w} -\partial_t a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{u} -a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{w} -\partial_tb \tilde u - b \tilde{w} -\partial_t f \\
&=& \partial_t a a^{-1} H - \partial_t a \frac{\tilde{w} -b \tilde{u}-f}{a} + \partial_t \tilde{w} -a \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{w} -\partial_t b \tilde{u} - b\tilde{w} -\partial_t f \\
&=& \partial_t a a^{-1} H + (\partial_t a a^{-1} b -\partial_t b ) (\tilde{u}-u).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the last line above, we used the fact that $\tilde{w}$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:lineardt}.
For each fixed $x\in S\setminus \set{p}$, consider $H$ as a function of $t$ alone satisfying the above ODE with initial data $H(0)=0$. There exists $C_4$ and $C_5$ depending on the $C^0$ norm of $\partial_t a, \partial_t b$ , $a^{-1}$ and $b$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\abs{\partial_t H} \leq C_4 \abs{H} + C_5 \abs{\tilde{u}-u},
\end{equation*}
from which we obtain $C_6>0$ depending on $C_4,C_5$ and $T$ such that
\begin{equation}
\abs{H}(t) \leq C_6 \int_{t_1}^t \abs{\tilde{u}-u} ds.
\label{eqn:H}
\end{equation}
We then subtract \eqref{eqn:defH} and \eqref{eqn:linear} to get
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:tildeuu}
\partial_t (\tilde{u}-u) = a\tilde{\triangle} (\tilde{u}-u) + b(\tilde{u}-u) +H.
\end{equation}
Intuitively, \eqref{eqn:H}, \eqref{eqn:tildeuu} and some maximum principle type argument shall prove $\tilde{u}=u$ for $t\in [t_1,T]$. However, there is some technical issue in the maximum principle type argument, which requires the following claim.
{\bf Step 2.} We claim that $\tilde{u}$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}(t)}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})} < \infty \quad \mbox{for } \, t>t_1
\label{eqn:tildeuenergy}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\int_{t_1}^T\int_S \abs{\partial_t \tilde{u}} d\tilde{V} dt < +\infty.
\label{eqn:tildeudt}
\end{equation}
\eqref{eqn:tildeudt} follows from (2) of Lemma \ref{lem:growth} since $\partial_t \tilde{u}= \tilde{w}$. To see \eqref{eqn:tildeuenergy}, we take compact set $W\subset S\setminus \set{p}$. By (2) in Lemma \ref{lem:growth} and the definition of $\tilde{u}$, we know $\tilde{u}$ is bounded on $S\times [t_1,T]$, which in turn gives that $H$ is bounded on $S\times [t_1,T]$ by \eqref{eqn:H}. Since $\tilde{u}(t_1)-u(t_1)=0$, we can apply the usual $L^p$ estimate for $\tilde{u}-u$ to the equation \eqref{eqn:tildeuu} on $W'\times [t_1,T]$ to see that $\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}$ is bounded on $W\times [t_1,T]$. Here $W'$ is a compact domain in $S\setminus \set{p}$ whose interior set contains $W$. This together with (2) in Lemma \ref{lem:growth} shows that for any $t\in [t_1,T]$,
\begin{equation*}
\int_{t_1}^t \int_W \abs{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}} \abs{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w}} d\tilde{V} ds < \infty.
\end{equation*}
The Fubini theorem implies that $\int_W \abs{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}}^2 d\tilde{V}$ is absolutely continuous function on $[t_1,T]$ and
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt}\int_W \abs{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}}^2 d\tilde{V} &=& 2 \int_W \tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u} \cdot \tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w} d\tilde{V} \\
&\leq& 2 \norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}}_{L^2(W,\tilde{g})} \norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w}}_{L^2(W,\tilde{g})} \\
&\leq & \frac{C}{ (t-t_1)^{1/q}} \norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}}_{L^2(W,\tilde{g})}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since we know $\norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}(t_1)}_{L^2(W,\tilde{g})}\leq \norm{\tilde{\nabla} u(t_1)}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})}\leq C < +\infty$, we can integrate the above differential inequality to get another constant $C'$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{u}(t)}_{L^2(W,\tilde{g})}\leq C'
\end{equation*}
for all $t\in [t_1,T]$. By the arbitrariness of $W$, \eqref{eqn:tildeuenergy} is proved.
{\bf Step 3.} Let $F(t)$ be $\int_S (\tilde{u}-u)^2 a^{-1} d\tilde{V}$. \eqref{eqn:tildeudt} and Lemma \ref{lem:basic2} imply that $F$ is an absolutely continuous function of $t$ so that we can compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\frac{d}{dt} F(t) &\leq & 2\int_S (\tilde{u}-u) (\tilde{\triangle} (\tilde{u}-u) + a^{-1}b (\tilde{u}-u) + a^{-1}H) d\tilde{V} + C F(t)\\
&\leq& C F(t)+ C \int_S H^2 d\tilde{V}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the last line above, the integration by parts is justified by Lemma \ref{lem:basic}, \eqref{eqn:tildeuenergy} and the fact that $\tilde{\triangle} (\tilde{u}-u)$ is integrable for almost every $t\in [t_1,T]$, which is a consequence of \eqref{eqn:defH}, \eqref{eqn:H} and \eqref{eqn:tildeudt}.
On the other hand, by the H\"older's inequality and the Fubini's theorem,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_S H^2 d\tilde{V} &\leq& C(T) \int_S \int_{t_1}^t (\tilde{u}-u)^2 ds d\tilde{V} \\
&\leq & C(T) \int_{t_1}^t F(s) ds.
\end{eqnarray*}
In summary, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Fdt}
\frac{d}{dt} F(t)\leq C F(t) + C \int_{t_1}^t F(s) ds
\end{equation}
and $F(t_1)=0$. One can conclude from the above inequality that $F\equiv 0$. To see this, set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{F}(t)=\max_{s\in [t_1,t]} F(s).
\end{equation*}
It turns out that $\tilde{F}$ is also absolutely continuous and
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt} \tilde{F} (t)\leq \max\set{0, \frac{d}{dt} F(t)} \leq \max \set{0, CF(t)+ C \int_{t_1}^t F(s)ds} \leq C \tilde{F}(t).
\end{equation*}
Integrating over $t$ and noticing that $\tilde{F}(t_1)=0$ gives $\tilde{F}\equiv 0$, which finishes the proof of Step 3, and hence Lemma \ref{lem:same}.
\end{proof}
\section{Global existence of conical Ricci flow}\label{sec:global}
In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{thm:main1}. The local existence is proved in Section \ref{subsec:local} with an explicit iteration process. As a result of the local existence result (Theorem \ref{thm:local}), we show that the solution exists as long as the curvature remains bounded (see Lemma \ref{lem:blowup}). In Section \ref{subsec:apriori} and Section \ref{subsec:curvature}, we prove apriori estimates on the conformal factor and the curvature respectively, which are used to show Theorem \ref{thm:main1}.
\subsection{Local existence of the Ricci flow}\label{subsec:local}
In this section, we prove the local existence of the Ricci flow equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:localexist}
\partial_t u = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} u +\frac{r}{2}- e^{-2u}\tilde{K}.
\end{equation}
Here $r$ is some constant. We will show if $r$ is properly chosen according to the Gauss-Bonnet formula, then the flow preserves the volume.
\begin{thm}
\label{thm:local} Suppose that $u_0:S\to \mathbb R$ and the curvature $K_0$ of $e^{2u_0}\tilde{g}$ are both in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$. Then there is $T>0$ depending on $\norm{u}_{\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}}$ and $\norm{K_0}_{\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}}$ and a weak solution $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ to \eqref{eqn:localexist}. Moreover, $\partial_t u$ is in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$.
\end{thm}
The proof is an iteration. We start by defining $u_1(x,t)\equiv u_0(x)$.
Let $u_i(i>1)$ to be the weak solution (given by Theorem \ref{thm:linear}) of
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ui}
\left\{
\begin{array}[]{l}
\partial_t u_i = e^{-2u_{i-1}} \tilde{\triangle} u_i +\frac{r}{2}-e^{-2u_{i-1}} \tilde{K} \\
u_i(0)=u_0.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The goal is to show that this sequence converges and gives us the solution we want on small time interval.
\begin{lem} For $u_i$ defined above, if we write $w_i (i\geq 1)$ for $\partial_t u_i$, then $w_i (i\geq 2)$ is the weak solution of
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}[]{l}
\partial_t w_i = e^{-2u_{i-1}}\tilde{\triangle} w_i - 2 w_{i-1}(w_i -\frac{r}{2}) \\
w_i(0)= e^{-2u_0} \tilde{\triangle} u_0 +\frac{r}{2} - e^{-2u_0} \tilde{K}.
\end{array}
\right.
\label{eqn:wi}
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction. For $i=2$, we try to apply Theorem \ref{thm:stronglinear} with $a= e^{-2u_0}$, $f=\frac{r}{2}-e^{-2u_0}\tilde{K}$ and
\begin{equation*}
w_0= e^{-2u_0} \tilde{\triangle} u_0 + \frac{r}{2} - e^{-2u_0}\tilde{K}= \frac{r}{2}-K_0.
\end{equation*}
Since $\partial_t a =\partial_t f =0$, it remains to check $w_0\in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$, which follows from the assumption that $K_0$ is in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$. Theorem \ref{thm:stronglinear} proves that $w_1$ is a weak solution to \eqref{eqn:wi} for $i=2$.
Assume the lemma is proved for $i-1$. By the induction hypothesis, $\partial_t(e^{-2u_{i-1}})$ and $\partial_t (\frac{r}{2}-e^{-2u_{i-1}}\tilde{K})$ are in $\mathcal V^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}$. $w_0$ remains as before, so that we can apply Theorem \ref{thm:stronglinear} again to conclude the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
To show that $u_i$ converges to the solution we want, we need several apriori estimates. We start with a uniform $C^0$ estimate.
Set
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{C}= \max \set{\norm{u_0}_{C^0(S)}, \norm{e^{-2u_0}\tilde{\triangle} u_0 +\frac{r}{2}- e^{-2u_0}\tilde{K}}_{C^0(S)}}.
\end{equation*}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:time}
There exists some $T>0$ depending only on $\tilde{C}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u_i(t)}_{C^0(S)}, \norm{w_i(t)}_{C^0(S)}\leq \tilde{C} +1
\end{equation*}
uniformly for all $i$ and $t\in [0,T]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that the conclusion of the lemma holds trivially for $i=1$. Assume that it is true for $i-1$.
$u_i$ and $w_i$ are weak solutions to \eqref{eqn:ui} and \eqref{eqn:wi} respectively, and by the boundedness of $w_{i-1}$, the coefficients in front of $\tilde{\triangle}$ in both \eqref{eqn:ui} and \eqref{eqn:wi} have bounded time derivatives, which allows us to apply Theorem \ref{thm:unique} to see that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:c01}
\norm{u_i(t)}_{C^0(S)}\leq e^{C_1 t} \left( \norm{u_0}_{C^0(S)} + \int_0^t e^{-C_1s} C_2 ds \right)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:c02}
\norm{w_i(t)}_{C^0(S)}\leq e^{C_3 t} \left( \norm{e^{-2u_0}\tilde{\triangle} u_0 +\frac{r}{2}- e^{-2u_0}\tilde{K}}_{C^0(S)} + \int_0^t e^{-C_3s} C_4 ds \right).
\end{equation}
According to Theorem \ref{thm:unique}, we have
\begin{align*}
C_1 &= 0 & C_2&=\norm{\frac{r}{2}-e^{-2u_{i-1}}\tilde{K}}_{C^0(S)} \\
C_3 &=\norm{-2w_{i-1}}_{C^0(S)} & C_4&= \norm{r w_{i-1}}_{C^0(S)}
\end{align*}
By induction hypothesis again, we can bound $C_1, \cdots, C_4$ by a number depending only on $\tilde{C}$. It follows from \eqref{eqn:c01} and \eqref{eqn:c02} that we can choose $T$ small depending only on $\tilde{C}$ so that the lemma holds for $i$.
\end{proof}
The next lemma provides $C^{2,\alpha}$ estimates of $u_i$ and $w_i$ away from the singularity.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:schauder}
For the constant $T$ in Lemma \ref{lem:time}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u_i}_{\mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}}, \norm{w_i}_{\mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}}\leq C
\end{equation*}
for some constant $C$ depending on $\tilde{C}$ and the $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ norm of $u_0$ and $e^{-2u_0}\tilde{\triangle} u_0 +\frac{r}{2} -e^{-2u_0} \tilde{K}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Note that this lemma is not proved by induction. Instead, we have to make sure that in each step below, we obtain estimates that are uniform with respect to $i$.
By the boundedness of $w_i$ and $u_i$ and \eqref{eqn:ui}, there is a constant $C$ depending on $\tilde{C}$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:star2}
\norm{\tilde{\triangle} u_i (t)}_{C^0(S)}\leq C(\tilde{C})
\end{equation}
for all $t\in [0,T]$. We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:claimalpha}
\max_{t\in [0,T]}\norm{u_i(t)}_{C^{\alpha'}(S)}< C(\tilde{C})<\infty
\end{equation}
for some $\alpha'\in (0,1)$ depending only on $\beta$. It suffices to prove this in a neighborhood of $p$. Let $(x,y)$ be the conformal coordinates defined in $B$, then
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} u_i(t) = (x^2+y^2)^{-\beta} \triangle u_i,
\end{equation*}
which implies (by \eqref{eqn:star2} and $\beta>-1$) that there is some $q>1$ such that $\triangle u_i\in L^q(B)$. By the $L^q$ estimate of $\triangle$ and the Sobolev embedding theorem, there is a function $v$ in $C^{\alpha'}(B)\cap W^{1,2}(B)$ with
\begin{equation*}
\triangle v = (x^2+y^2)^\beta \tilde{\triangle} u_i(t) \quad \mbox{on } \quad B
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
v|_{\partial B}=u_i(t).
\end{equation*}
Since both $u_i(t)$ and $v$ are bounded on $B$ and their difference is a harmonic function on $B\setminus \set{0}$ which vanishes on $\partial B$, we know $u_i(t)=v$ and hence $u_i(t)\in C^{\alpha'}(B)$. This proves the claim.
Let's assume that $\alpha'<\alpha$ because the proof for the case $\alpha'\geq \alpha$ is simpler. \eqref{eqn:claimalpha} and the boundedness of $\partial_t u_i$ imply a uniform bound of
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u_i}_{\mathcal P^{0,\alpha',[0,T]}}< C(\tilde{C}),
\end{equation*}
which allows us to apply the interior Schauder estimate to \eqref{eqn:ui} to get a uniform bound of $\norm{u_i}_{\mathcal P^{2,\alpha',[0,T]}}$. Although $\alpha'<\alpha$, we have at least $\norm{u_i}_{\mathcal P^{0,\alpha,[0,T]}}$ is bounded, so that we can apply Schauder estimate again to \eqref{eqn:ui} to get the uniform bound $\norm{u_i}_{\mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}}$ as we need. The estimate for $w_i$ follows easily by the Schauder estimate of \eqref{eqn:wi}.
\end{proof}
With Lemma \ref{lem:schauder}, $u_i$ subconverges. We now claim that if we choose $T$ to be even smaller, we can make $u_i$ converge without taking any subsequence.
\begin{lem}
There exists $T>0$ (maybe smaller than given in Lemma \ref{lem:time}) such that $u_i$ is a Cauchy sequence in $C^0(S\times [0,T])$ norm.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It follows from \eqref{eqn:ui} that
\begin{equation*}
\pfrac{}{t}(u_{i+1}-u_i) = e^{-2 u_{i}} \tilde{\triangle} (u_{i+1}-u_i) + (e^{-2 u_{i}}-e^{-2u_{i-1}})\tilde{\triangle} u_i -(e^{-2 u_{i-1}}- e^{-2u_i})\tilde{K}.
\end{equation*}
Regard $u_{i+1}-u_i$ as a weak solution to
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (u_{i+1}-u_i) = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} (u_{i+1}-u_i) + f(x,t)
\end{equation*}
where $a=e^{-2u_i}$ and $f=(e^{-2 u_{i}}-e^{-2u_{i-1}})\tilde{\triangle} u_i -(e^{-2 u_{i-1}}- e^{-2u_i})\tilde{K}$.
Since $w_i=\partial_t u_i$ and $u_i$ are uniformly bound, so is $\tilde{\triangle} u_i$ by \eqref{eqn:ui}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\abs{f} \leq C \norm{u_i-u_{i-1}}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, $\partial_t a$ is bounded so that Theorem \ref{thm:unique} gives
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u_{i+1}-u_i}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}\leq T C \norm{u_i-u_{i-1}}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}.
\end{equation*}
Hence, if we choose $T$ small, then the sequence $u_i$ is Cauchy in $C^0$ norm and the lemma is proved.
\end{proof}
Let $u$ be the limit of $u_i$. By Lemma \ref{lem:schauder}, the convergence of $u_i$ away from the singularity is in $C^{2,\alpha'}$ for any $\alpha'<\alpha$ and hence the limit $u$ satisfies the Ricci flow equation \eqref{eqn:rfu} pointwisely. To finish the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:local}, we still need
\begin{lem}
For $T$ determined above,
\begin{equation*}
\abs{u_i}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}, \abs{w_i}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}\leq C(T).
\end{equation*}
In particular, $u$ is a weak solution.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Recall that $u_i$ and $w_i$ are the weak solutions to \eqref{eqn:ui} and \eqref{eqn:wi} respectively. Since $\partial_t (e^{-2u_{i-1}})$ is uniformly bounded, we obtain control of $\abs{u_i}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ and $\abs{w_i}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ by Theorem \ref{thm:unique}. Note that the constants $C_3$ and $C_4$ in \eqref{eqn:linear1energy} depend only on $C^0$ norm of the coefficients and initial data (for \eqref{eqn:ui} and \eqref{eqn:wi} respectively), which are uniformly bounded as in Lemma \ref{lem:time}.
\end{proof}
Based on Theorem \ref{thm:local}, we can discuss the blow-up criterion which serve as a starting point for the proof of long time existence. We start with a uniqueness result.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:uniqueRF}
For $i=1,2$, suppose that $u_i\in V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ is a weak solution to Ricci flow \eqref{eqn:rfu} for some $T>0$. If the Gauss curvature of $e^{2u_i}\tilde{g}$ are bounded on $S\times [0,T]$ and that $u_1(0)=u_2(0)$, then $u_1=u_2$ on $S\times [0,T]$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We subtract the equation of $u_i$ to get
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (u_1-u_2)= e^{-2u_1}\tilde{\triangle} (u_1-u_2) + (e^{-2u_1}-e^{-2u_2})(\tilde{\triangle} u_2 -\tilde{K}),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
e^{-2u_1}-e^{-2u_2} = - 2 (u_1-u_2) \int_0^1 e^{-2u_2-2t(u_1-u_2)} dt.
\end{equation*}
The curvature bound of $u_1$ and $u_2$ implies a bound for $\partial_t (e^{-2u_1})$ and $\tilde{\triangle} u_2$ respectively so that we can apply Lemma \ref{lem:maximum} to show $u_1\equiv u_2$.
\end{proof}
Suppose $u_0$ is an initial data satisfying the assumptions in Theorem \ref{thm:local}. Let $T_{max}$ be the supremum of $T$ such that there is a solution $u\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ satisfying $u(0)=u_0$ and $\partial_t u \in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$. Theorem \ref{thm:local} implies that $T_{max}>0$. The next lemma gives a characterization of $T_{max}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:blowup}
Suppose that $u_0$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:local} and $T_{max}$ is defined as above. Then there is a solution $u(t)$ defined on $S\times [0,T_{max})$ such that $u$ and $\partial_t u$ lie in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T_{max})}$. Moreover, if $T_{max}< +\infty$, then
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Kblow}
\limsup_{t\to T_{max}} \norm{K(t)}_{C^0(S)}=+\infty
\end{equation}
where $K(t)$ is the Gauss curvature of $e^{2u}\tilde{g}$.
\end{lem}
In the rest of this paper, we shall call the solution given in the above lemma the maximal solution starting from $u_0$.
\begin{proof}
By the definition of $T_{max}$, for each $T<T_{max}$, there is $u_T\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ solving \eqref{eqn:rfu} with $u_T(0)=u_0$ and $\partial_t u_T\in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$. For any $t<T_{max}$, we define $u(t)=u_T(t)$ for any $t<T<T_{max}$, which is well defined by Lemma \ref{lem:uniqueRF}. It remains to show \eqref{eqn:Kblow}.
If the lemma is not true, then there is $C>0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{S\times [0,T_{max})} \abs{K}\leq C.
\end{equation*}
Since \eqref{eqn:rfu} is equivalent to $\partial_t u = \frac{r}{2}-K$, we know
\begin{equation*}
\sup_{S\times [0,T_{max})} \abs{u}\leq C
\end{equation*}
for possibly another $C>0$.
Using a proof similar to Lemma \ref{lem:schauder}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ext1}
\norm{u}_{\mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}} +\norm{\partial_t u}_{\mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}}< C(T_{max}),
\end{equation}
for all $T<T_{max}$.
We claim that for all $T<T_{max}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ext2}
\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}} + \abs{\partial_t u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}} < C(T_{max}).
\end{equation}
To see the claim, we regard $u$ as the weak solution of the linear equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t u = a(x,t) \tilde{\triangle} u + f(x,t)
\end{equation*}
where $a=e^{-2u}$ and $f= \frac{r}{2}-e^{-2u}\tilde{K}$. Since $\partial_t a$ is bounded, we apply Theorem \ref{thm:unique} to bound $\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ by $T$, the $C^0$ norm of $a,f,u$ and $a^{-1}$ and the $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ norm of $u_0$. The same argument applies to $\partial_t u$.
With \eqref{eqn:ext1} and \eqref{eqn:ext2}, we can extend the definition of $u$ to $T_{max}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u(T_{max})}_{\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}}+ \norm{\tilde{\triangle} u(T_{max})}_{\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}}< +\infty.
\end{equation*}
Now Theorem \ref{thm:local} shows that we can extend the domain of $u$ to $T_{max}+\delta$, while keeping $\norm{u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T_{max}+\delta}]}$ and $\norm{\partial_t u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T_{max}+\delta}]}$ finite. This is a contradiction to the definition of $T_{max}$.
\end{proof}
Finally, to conclude this section, we prove that for a natural choice of $r$, the maximal solution of \eqref{eqn:rfu} preserves the volume and the Gauss-Bonnet formula remains true as long as the solution exists. Following \cite{troyanov1991prescribing}, we set
\begin{equation*}
\chi(S,\beta)= \chi(S) + \sum \beta_i,
\end{equation*}
where $\chi(S)$ is the Euler number of the underlying Riemann surface $S$.
\begin{prop}
\label{prop:normalize}
Suppose that $u_0$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:local} and that $u(t)$ is the maximal solution starting from $u_0$. If
\begin{equation*}
r=\frac{4\pi \chi(S,\beta)}{V_0}
\end{equation*}
where $V_0=\int_S e^{2u_0} d\tilde{V}$ is the volume of the initial metric, then
\begin{equation*}
V(t):=\int_S e^{2u(t)} d\tilde{V}
\end{equation*}
is a constant for $t\in [0,T_{max})$ and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:GB}
2\pi \chi(S,\beta)= \int_{S} K_t dV_t.
\end{equation}
Here $K_t$ and $V_t$ are the Gauss curvature and the volume form of $g(t)=e^{2u(t)}\tilde{g}$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Since $\tilde{g}$ is the standard cone metric near the cone point, we can check by using the Gauss-Bonnet theorem involving the geodesic curvature on the boundary that
\begin{equation*}
2\pi\chi(S,\beta) = \int_S \tilde{K} d\tilde{V}.
\end{equation*}
For any $t\in [0,T_{max})$, by $K_t= e^{-2u}(-\tilde{\triangle} u + \tilde{K})$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\int_S K_t dV_t = \int_S - \tilde{\triangle} u + \tilde{K} d\tilde{V}.
\end{equation*}
Since $u(t)$ is in $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ (as in the definition of maximal solution) and $\tilde{\triangle} u$ is bounded, Lemma \ref{lem:basic} implies that
\begin{equation*}
\int_S \tilde{\triangle} u d\tilde{V}=0,
\end{equation*}
which proves \eqref{eqn:GB}.
Since $\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ is finite for any $T<T_{max}$, Lemma \ref{lem:basic2} and Lemma \ref{lem:basic} allow us to compute
\begin{equation*}
\frac{d}{dt} V(t) = \int_S 2\tilde{\triangle} u + re^{2u} -2\tilde{K} d\tilde{V}= rV(t)- rV_0.
\end{equation*}
Since $V(0)=V_0$ by definition, we have $V(t)=V_0$ for all $t\in [0, T_{max})$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Apriori estimate for the conformal factor}\label{subsec:apriori}
Lemma \ref{lem:blowup} implies that if $T_{max}$ for a maximal solution is finite, then the curvature $K(t)$ blows up as $t\to T_{max}$. The next lemma implies that at least the $C^0$ norm of conformal factor $u$ will stay bounded for any finite time interval.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:c2}
Suppose $u_0$ is some initial data satisfying the assumptions of Theorem \ref{thm:local}. Let $u(t)$ be the maximal solution given by Lemma \ref{lem:blowup} with $T_{max}< +\infty$. There exists $C>0$ depending on $T_{max}$ and $u_0$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{C^0(S\times [0,T_{max}) )}\leq C.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
The proof follows some well known approach in K\"ahler geometry. In the smooth case, if $\varphi(t)$ is the potential function in the sense that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} \varphi(t)= e^{2u(t)}-\frac{V_t}{\tilde{V}}
\end{equation*}
where $V_t$ is the volume of $g(t)$, then (up to some normalization) $\partial_t \varphi$ satisfies a linear parabolic equation, from which we obtain immediately $C^0$ apriori estimate of $u$. The rest of this section is to prove Lemma \ref{lem:c2} by showing that this argument works for conical surfaces as well.
For the definition of potential function, we need
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:poisson}
Suppose that $f$ is a $\mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$ functions satisfying
\begin{equation*}
\int_S f d\tilde{V} =0.
\end{equation*}
Then up to a constant, there is a unique $u\in \mathcal W^{4,\alpha}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} u = f.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
The proof is elementary and not new (see Lemma 2.10 of \cite{yin2013ricci}) and hence is moved to the appendix.
By the choice of $r$ in Proposition \ref{prop:normalize}, Lemma \ref{lem:poisson} gives some $h_0 \in \mathcal W^{4,\alpha}$ satisfying
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:h0}
\tilde{\triangle} h_0= \frac{r V_0}{2\tilde{V}}-\tilde{K}
\end{equation}
because
\begin{equation*}
\int_S \frac{r V_0}{2 \tilde{V}} d\tilde{V} = \frac{r V_0}{2} = 2\pi \chi(S,\beta) = \int_S \tilde{K} d\tilde{V}.
\end{equation*}
Note that $h_0$ is determined only up to a constant.
The existence of potential function $\varphi(t)$ is given in the next lemma
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:potential}
Suppose that $u(t)$ is a maximal solution to \eqref{eqn:rfu} and that $h_0$ is defined as in \eqref{eqn:h0}. Then there exists $\varphi(t)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:varphiode}
\varphi'- r\varphi= 2u(t)+ 2h_0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} \varphi = e^{2u} -\frac{V_0}{\tilde{V}}.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, $\norm{\partial_t \varphi}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ and $\abs{\partial_t \varphi}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ are finite for any $T<T_{max}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By the definition of $V_0$ in Proposition \ref{prop:normalize} and Lemma \ref{lem:poisson}, we have $\varphi_0\in \mathcal W^{4,\alpha}$ solving
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:varphi0}
\tilde{\triangle} \varphi_0= e^{2u_0}-\frac{V_0}{\tilde{V}}.
\end{equation}
For $t\in [0,T_{max})$, we can define $\varphi(t)$ to be the solution of \eqref{eqn:varphiode} with $\varphi(0)=\varphi_0$.
By solving the ODE \eqref{eqn:varphiode}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:varphi}
\varphi(t)=e^{rt}\left( \varphi(0)+ \int_0^t ( 2 u(s)+ 2h_0)e^{-rs}ds \right).
\end{equation}
We claim that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:potential}
\tilde{\triangle} \varphi(t)= e^{2u}-\frac{V_0}{\tilde{V}},
\end{equation}
which is true for $t=0$ by \eqref{eqn:varphi0}. To see the claim is true for $t>0$, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& \partial_t (\tilde{\triangle} \varphi - e^{2u} +\frac{V_0}{\tilde{V}}) \\
&=& \tilde{\triangle} \partial_t \varphi - e^{2u} 2 \partial_t u \\
&=& \tilde{\triangle} \partial_t \varphi -2 \left( \tilde{\triangle} u + \frac{r}{2}e^{2u} - \frac{r V_0}{2 \tilde{V}}+ \frac{r V_0}{2\tilde{V}}-\tilde{K} \right) \\
&=& \tilde{\triangle} \left( \partial_t \varphi -2u - 2h_0 - r\varphi \right) + r \left( \tilde{\triangle} \varphi -e^{2u}+ \frac{V_0}{\tilde{V}} \right) \\
&=& r \left( \tilde{\triangle} \varphi -e^{2u}+\frac{V_0}{\tilde{V}} \right) .
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the above computation, we used \eqref{eqn:rfu}, \eqref{eqn:h0} and \eqref{eqn:varphiode}.
It remains to check that $\abs{\partial_t \varphi}_{V^{[0,T]}}$ and $\norm{\partial_t \varphi}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ are finite for any $T<T_{max}$. By \eqref{eqn:varphiode}, it suffices to show $\abs{\varphi}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$ and $\norm{\varphi}_{C^0(S\times [0,T])}$ are finite because $\norm{h_0}_{\mathcal W^{4,\alpha}}<\infty$ and $\abs{u}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}< \infty$ by the definition of the maximal solution and $T<T_{max}$.
For this purpose, we derive from \eqref{eqn:varphi}
\begin{equation*}
\max_{t\in [0,T]} \int_S \abs{\tilde{\nabla} \varphi}^2 d\tilde{V} < \infty
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\max_{t\in [0,T]} \norm{\varphi(t)}_{C^0(S)} < \infty
\end{equation*}
by using the fact that $\varphi_0, h_0$ are in $\mathcal W^{4,\alpha}$ and $u(t)$ is in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$.
Finally, \eqref{eqn:varphiode} shows that $\varphi'$ is bounded on $S\times [0,T]$, which is stronger than
\begin{equation*}
\iint_{S\times [0,T]} \abs{\partial_t \varphi}^2 d\tilde{V} ds <+\infty.
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
Given the existence of the potential function $\varphi$, we move on to derive a uniform upper bound of $\partial_t \varphi$ (up to $T_{max}$). Using (\ref{eqn:potential}), we compute the equation satisfied by $\partial_t \varphi$ as follows
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t (\partial_t \varphi) &=& 2 \partial_t u + r \partial_t \varphi \\
&=& e^{-2u}\left( \tilde{\triangle} (2u) + r e^{2u}-\frac{rV_0}{\tilde{V}} +\frac{rV_0}{\tilde{V}} -2\tilde{K} \right) + r\partial_t \varphi \\
&=& e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} (2u+ r\varphi + 2h_0) + r \partial_ t \varphi \\
&=& e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} (\partial_t \varphi) + r \partial_t \varphi.
\end{eqnarray*}
With this equation and the fact that $u\in \mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$ and $\partial_t \varphi(0)=r\varphi_0+2u(0)+2h_0\in \mathcal W^{2,\alpha}$, the interior Schauder estimate implies that $\partial_t \varphi$ is in $\mathcal P^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$. Together with the finiteness of $\abs{\partial_t \varphi}_{\mathcal V^{[0,T]}}$, we know $\partial_t \varphi$ is a weak solution to the linear equation
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (\partial_t \varphi) = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} (\partial_t \varphi) +r \partial_t \varphi.
\end{equation*}
The final step in the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:c2} is to realize that for each $T<T_{max}$, Theorem \ref{thm:unique} applies to $\partial_t \varphi$ as a weak solution to the above equation to give the required apriori $C^0$ bound.
\subsection{Curvature bound and global existence}\label{subsec:curvature}
In this section, we prove Theorem \ref{thm:main1}. Suppose $u_0$ satisfies the assumption of Theorem \ref{thm:local} and $r$ is chosen as in Proposition \ref{prop:normalize}. Let $u(t)$ be the maximal solution given in Lemma \ref{lem:blowup}. It suffices to show that $T_{max}< +\infty$ is not possible. If otherwise, Lemma \ref{lem:c2} gives a constant $C_1$ depending on $T_{max}$ and $u_0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:c0bound}
\norm{u}_{C^0(S\times [0,T_{max}))}\leq C_1 < +\infty.
\end{equation}
We will show in this section that this $C^0$ norm bound of $u$ contradicts Lemma \ref{lem:blowup}, which asserts that
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{t\to T_{max}} \norm{K(t)}_{C^0(S)}=+\infty.
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{eqn:c0bound}, this is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
\limsup_{t\to T_{max}} \norm{\partial_t u}_{C^0(S)} = +\infty.
\end{equation*}
Hence, we can choose $x_i\in S\setminus \set{p}$ and $t_i\to T_{max}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\lim_{i\to \infty} \abs{\partial_t u(x_i,t_i)}= \infty.
\end{equation*}
By modifying $x_i$ and $t_i$ if necessary, we may assume
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:assume}
\abs{\partial_t u}(x_i,t_i)\geq \frac{1}{2}\sup_S \abs{\partial_t u(t_i)}=\frac{1}{2}\sup_{t\in [0,t_i]}\sup_S \abs{\partial_t u}.
\end{equation}
For any $T<T_{max}$, we can apply Theorem \ref{thm:dgspecial} directly to $u$ as a function on $S\times [0,T]$ to see that there is $\alpha'$ depending on $C_1$ such that for small $\delta>0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:ucalpha}
\norm{u}_{C^{\alpha'}(S\times [\delta,T_{max}) )}\leq C.
\end{equation}
Note that on the smooth part of $S$, the $C^0$ norm of $u$ is enough to bound any derivative of $u$ by applying the known theory of quasilinear parabolic equation to \eqref{eqn:rfu}, so we may assume that $x_i$ converges to the unique singular point $p$. Let
\begin{equation*}
\lambda_i= \abs{\partial_t u(x_i,t_i)}\to \infty.
\end{equation*}
We compare the speed of $x_i\to p$ and $\lambda_i\to \infty$ and distinguish three cases.
Case one: $d_{\tilde{g}}(x_i,p)^2 \lambda_i=\infty$. In fact, this case never happens because we can apply the theory of quasilinear parabolic equation to \eqref{eqn:rfu} on a ball centered at $x_i$ with the radius being a small multiple (depending only on $\beta$) of $d_{\tilde{g}}(x_i,p)$ to see that
\begin{equation*}
\abs{\partial_t u}(x_i,t_i) \leq \frac{C}{d_{\tilde{g}}(x_i,p)^2}.
\end{equation*}
Case two: $0<d_{\tilde{g}}(x_i,p)^2 \lambda_i< \infty$. Let $(\rho,\theta)$ be the polar coordinates around $p$. Suppose $x_i=(\rho_i,\theta_i)$. By passing to some subsequence, we may assume (without loss of generality) that
\begin{equation*}
({\rho_i}{\lambda_i^{1/2}},\theta_i)\to (1,0).
\end{equation*}
Set
\begin{equation*}
w_i(\rho,\theta,t)=u(\frac{\rho}{\lambda_i^{1/2}},\theta,t_i+\frac{t}{\lambda_i}),
\end{equation*}
which satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nonzero}
\abs{\partial_t w_i}(\rho_i \lambda_i^{1/2},\theta_i,0)=1
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\pfrac{w_i}{t}(\rho,\theta,t)= e^{-2w_i} \tilde{\triangle} w_i (\rho,\theta,t)+ \frac{1}{\lambda_i}\left[ \frac{r}{2}-e^{-2w_i }\tilde{K} \right].
\label{eqn:localw2}
\end{equation}
We can apply the Schauder estimate in a neighborhood of $(\rho,\theta,t)=(1,0,0)$ to see that $w_i$ converges in $C^2$ to a limit $w_\infty$ with
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t w_\infty (1,0,0)=1.
\end{equation*}
This is a contradiction to \eqref{eqn:ucalpha}, which implies that $w_\infty$ must be a constant.
Case three: $d_{\tilde{g}}(x_i,x_0)^2\lambda_i=0$. Let $w_i$ be defined as in Case two so that \eqref{eqn:nonzero} holds.
In this case, $\rho_i \lambda_i^{1/2}$ converges to zero. Taking $t$-derivative of the equation satisfied by $w_i$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t(\partial_t w_i)= e^{-2w_i} \tilde{\triangle }(\partial_t w_i) + (-2 \partial_t w_i)\left[ \partial_t w_i -\frac{1}{\lambda_i}\left( \frac{r}{2}-e^{-2w_i}\tilde{K} \right) \right] + \frac{1}{\lambda_i}\left( 2\partial_t w_i e^{-2w_i}\tilde{K} \right).
\end{equation*}
By (\ref{eqn:assume}), the term
\begin{equation*}
(-2 \partial_t w_i)\left[ \partial_t w_i -\frac{1}{\lambda_i}\left( \frac{r}{2}-e^{-2w_i}\tilde{K} \right) \right] + \frac{1}{\lambda_i}\left( 2\partial_t w_i e^{-2w_i}\tilde{K} \right)
\end{equation*}
is uniformly bounded on $\set{(\rho,\theta,t)|\, \rho<2, t\in [-1,0]}$. By the scaling invariance of $\abs{\cdot}_{\mathcal V}$ and the definition of maximal solution (Lemma \ref{lem:blowup}), we know $\partial_t w_i$ is a weak solution defined on $\set{(\rho,\theta,t)|\, \rho<2, t\in [-1,0]}$. Theorem \ref{thm:dg} then implies the existence of $\alpha'\in (0,1)$ and $C_1>0$ (independent of $i$) such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\partial_t w_i(0)}_{C^{\alpha'}(\set{(\rho,\theta)|\, \rho<1})}\leq C_1.
\end{equation*}
\begin{rem}
Note that we do not have uniform control over $\abs{\partial_t w_i}_{\mathcal V^{[-1,0]} (\set{\rho<2})}$. The point is that Theorem \ref{thm:dg} only requires that it is finite and the constant $C_1$ does not depend on the particular value of it.
\end{rem}
This together with (\ref{eqn:nonzero}) gives (for $i$ large)
\begin{equation*}
\abs{\partial_t w_i} (\tilde{\rho},0,0)\geq 1/2,
\end{equation*}
where $\tilde{\rho}= \left( \frac{1}{4C_1} \right)^{1/\alpha'}$. We can then obtain a contradiction as in Case two.
\section{Higher regularity of conical Ricci flow}\label{sec:higher}
In previous sections, we proved the global existence of a Ricci flow solution. For any $T< \infty$, we know that $u$ and $\partial_t u$ (or equivalently $K$) are in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[0,T]}$. In this section, we show that
\begin{lem}\label{lem:higher}
Suppose $u$ is the solution in Theorem \ref{thm:main1}. If for some $C_1>0$ and $T>1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[T-1,T]}} + \norm{\partial_t u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[T-1,T]}}\leq C_1,
\end{equation*}
then for any $k>1$, there exists $C_2(k)$ depending only on $C_1$ (not on $T$) such that
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\partial_t^k u}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[T-1/2,T]}}\leq C_2(k).
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
For any constant $\delta>0$, we may replace $T>1$ by $T>\delta$, $[T-1,T]$ by $[T-\delta,T]$ and $[T-1/2,T]$ by $[T-\delta/2,T]$ in the above lemma, which still holds with $C_2$ depending on $\delta$.
\end{rem}
Before we start the proof, we note that since $\partial_t u =\frac{r}{2}-K$, it is equivalent to bound $\partial_t^{k-1}K$.
\subsection{Regularity of $\partial_t K$}\label{subsec:dtK}
\begin{lem}\label{lem:dtK}
Let $u$ be the solution in Lemma \ref{lem:higher}. For any $0<\delta<1$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\partial_t K}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[T-\delta,T]}}< C
\end{equation*}
for some $C$ depending on $C_1$ in Lemma \ref{lem:higher} and $\delta$.
\end{lem}
We study the evolution equation of $K$ instead of $u$,
\begin{equation}
\partial_t K = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} K + K(2K -r).
\label{eqn:flowK}
\end{equation}
The proof is very similar to that of Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing}. For $\delta\in (0,1)$ in Lemma \ref{lem:dtK}, set $t_0=T-\frac{1+\delta}{2}$. The same proof as in Lemma \ref{lem:lp} shows
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:wlp}
\partial_t K(t_0)\in L^q(S,\tilde{g})
\end{equation}
for some $q>1$.
Next, we compute the evolution equation of $w=\partial_t K$. Taking $t$-derivative of \eqref{eqn:flowK} gives
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t w = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} w + e^{-2u}(-2\partial_t u) \tilde{\triangle} K + w(4K-r).
\end{equation*}
Using $\partial_t u = -K +r/2$ and \eqref{eqn:flowK}, we get
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t w = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} w + (w-K(2K-r))(2K-r) + w(4K-r),
\end{equation*}
which is simplified to
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:w}
\partial_t w =e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} w + w(6K-2r) -K(2K-r)^2.
\end{equation}
We take \eqref{eqn:w} as a linear parabolic equation of $w$, while the coefficients are in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[T-1,T]}$ and $\partial_t e^{-2u}$ lies also in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[T-1,T]}$. Together with \eqref{eqn:wlp}, Lemma \ref{lem:growth}\footnote{We use here a different linear equation, but the coefficients satisfy the same assumption.} gives us a solution $\tilde{w}$ to the initial value problem
\begin{equation*}
\left\{
\begin{array}[]{l}
\partial_t \tilde{w} = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{w} + \tilde{w}(6K-2r) - K(2K-r)^2 \\
\tilde{w}(t_0)= \partial_t K(t_0).
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation*}
Moreover, Lemma \ref{lem:growth} guarantees that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:weakw}
\norm{\tilde{w}}_{\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[t_0+\eta,T]}}\leq C(\eta) \quad \mbox{for } 0<\eta<T-t_0
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:goodw}
\norm{\tilde{w}(t)}_{C^0(S)} + \norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{w}(t)}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})}\leq \frac{C}{(t-t_0)^{1/q}}
\end{equation}
for $t\in (t_0,T]$.
We define for $t\in [t_0,T]$
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{K}(t)=K(t_0)+ \int_{t_0}^t \tilde{w}(s)ds.
\end{equation*}
The proof of Lemma \ref{lem:dtK} is done if we can show that $\tilde{K}\equiv K$ for any $t\in [t_1,T]$. To show this, we follow the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:same}.
By the fact that $\tilde{w}(t_0)=\partial_t K(t_0)$ and $\tilde{K}(t_0)=K(t_0)$, $\tilde{K}$ satisfies the (\ref{eqn:flowK}) at $t_0$. For later time, we compute $\partial_t H$ for
\begin{eqnarray*}
H&:=& \partial_t \tilde{K} - e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle}\tilde{K} -\tilde{K}(2\tilde{K}-r),
\end{eqnarray*}
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t H &=& \partial_t \tilde{w} - e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{w} - \tilde{w}(4\tilde{K}-r) + e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} \tilde{K} (2 \partial_t u) \\
&=& (2\partial_t u)(-H) + (r-2K)\left( \tilde{w}-\tilde{K}(2\tilde{K}-r) \right) + \partial_t \tilde{w} -e^{2u}\tilde{\triangle} \tilde{w} - \tilde{w}(4\tilde{K}-r) \\
&=& (2\partial_t u) (-H) + 4 \tilde{w}(K-\tilde{K}) + (2K-r) \left( \tilde{K}(2\tilde{K}-r)-K(2K-r) \right).
\end{eqnarray*}
Here in the second line above, we used $2\partial_t u = r- 2K$ and the definition of $H$; in the last line above, we used the equation satisfied by $\tilde{w}$. Due to \eqref{eqn:goodw}, we know $\tilde{K}$ is bounded on $S\times [t_1,T]$, while $K$ is bounded by the assumption of the lemma so that the last term in the above equation is bounded by
\begin{equation*}
\abs{(2K-r) \left( \tilde{K}(2\tilde{K}-r)-K(2K-r) \right)}\leq C \abs{\tilde{K}-K}.
\end{equation*}
On the other hand, by \eqref{eqn:goodw},
\begin{equation*}
\abs{4\tilde{w}(K-\tilde{K})}\leq \frac{C}{ (t-t_0)^{1/q}} \abs{\tilde{K}-K}.
\end{equation*}
In summary, we obtained
\begin{equation*}
\abs{\partial_t H}\leq C \abs{H} + \frac{C}{(t-t_0)^{1/q}} \abs{\tilde{K}-K},
\end{equation*}
from which we get by integration (using $H(t_0)=0$)
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:H2}
\abs{H}(t)\leq C \int_{t_0}^t \frac{1}{(s-t_0)^{1/q}}\abs{\tilde{K}-K} ds
\end{equation}
for $t\in [t_0,T]$.
Set
\begin{equation*}
F(t):= \sup_{S} \abs{\tilde{K}(t)-K(t)} \quad \mbox{and} \quad F_H(t):= \sup_S \abs{H}.
\end{equation*}
\eqref{eqn:H2} implies that
\begin{equation*}
F_H(t) \leq C\int_{t_0}^t \frac{1}{(s-t_0)^{1/q}} F(s) ds.
\end{equation*}
By (\ref{eqn:flowK}) and the definition of $H$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:KK}
\partial_t (\tilde{K}-K)=H + e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle}(\tilde{K}-K) + (\tilde{K}-K)(2\tilde{K}+2K -r).
\end{equation}
In order to apply Lemma \ref{lem:odecompare} to \eqref{eqn:KK}, we check that \eqref{eqn:assmax} holds. In fact, as in Step 2 of the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:same}, we have
\begin{equation*}
\norm{\tilde{\nabla} \tilde{K}}_{L^2(S,\tilde{g})}\leq C' \quad \mbox{for } t\in [t_1,T]
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\int_{t_1}^T \int_S \abs{\partial_t \tilde{K}} d\tilde{V} dt < \infty.
\end{equation*}
Lemma \ref{lem:odecompare} then gives
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:iterate}
F(t)\leq C_1 \int_{t_0}^t F_H(t) dt \leq C'_1 \int_{t_0}^t \int_{t_0}^s \frac{1}{(r-t_0)^{1/q}} F(r)dr ds.
\end{equation}
It follows from \eqref{eqn:iterate} that $F\equiv 0$ for $t\in [t_0,T]$. To see this, we notice $F\leq C_2$ for some $C_2$ and integrate the right hand side to see
\begin{equation*}
F(t)\leq C'_1 C_2 \frac{1}{(1-1/q)(2-1/q)} (t-t_0)^{2-1/q}.
\end{equation*}
Plugging this back into \eqref{eqn:iterate} will give
\begin{equation*}
F \leq (C'_1)^2 C_2 \frac{1}{(1-1/q)(2-1/q)(3-2/q)(4-2/q)} (t-t_0)^{4-2/q}.
\end{equation*}
Repeating this process gives $F\equiv 0$ and proves Lemma \ref{lem:dtK}.
\subsection{Higher order regularity}\label{subsec:higher}
In the previous section, we have shown that $\partial_t K$ (or equivalently, $\partial^2_t u$) is in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,*}$. For higher $t$-derivatives, we can apply Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing} directly, because for any $l\geq 2$, the evolution equation of $\partial_t^l u$ is a linear equation whose coefficients involve only lower $t$-derivatives, which we may assume to be in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha,*}$ by induction.
To be precise, we claim that for $l\geq 2$
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (\partial^l_t u) = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} (\partial_t^l u) + P_l\cdot \partial_t^l u + Q_l
\eqno(E_l)
\end{equation*}
where $P_l$ and $Q_l$ are polynomials of $\partial_t u,\cdots, \partial_t^{l-1}u$ with constant coefficients.
To see this, we compute directly to get
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (\partial_t u) = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} (\partial_t u) - 2\partial_t u (\partial_t u -\frac{r}{2})
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t (\partial_t^2 u) = e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} (\partial_t^2 u) + \partial_t^2 u \left( -6 \partial_t u +r \right) -2 (\partial_t u)^2 (2\partial_t u -r),
\end{equation*}
which confirms the claim for $l=2$.
Assume the claim is true for $l$. Taking one more $t$-derivative gives
\begin{eqnarray*}
\partial_t (\partial_t^{l+1} u) &=& e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle}(\partial_t^{l+1} u) + (-2 \partial_t u) (e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle} \partial_t^l u) \\
&& + P_l \cdot \partial_t^{l+1} u + (\partial_t P_l) \cdot \partial_t^l u + \partial_t Q_l \\
&=& e^{-2u} \tilde{\triangle}(\partial_t^{l+1} u) + (-2 \partial_t u) (\partial_t^{l+1} u- P_l \cdot \partial_t^l u -Q_l) \\
&& + P_l \cdot \partial_t^{l+1} u + (\partial_t P_l) \cdot \partial_t^l u + \partial_t Q_l.
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, the claim is proved if we take
\begin{equation*}
P_{l+1}= -2\partial_t u + P_l
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
Q_{l+1} = 2\partial_t u (P_l \cdot \partial_t^l u + Q_l) + (\partial_t P_l) \cdot \partial_t^l u +\partial_t Q_l.
\end{equation*}
Given ($E_l$), we may prove Lemma \ref{lem:higher} by induction. Starting with ($E_2$), we can apply Theorem \ref{thm:smoothing} directly to it, because $u,\partial_t u, \partial_t^2 u$ are in $\mathcal V^{2,\alpha, [T-\delta,T]}$. Hence, for any $\delta'<\delta$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\partial_t^3 u \in \mathcal V^{2,\alpha,[T-\delta',T]}.
\end{equation*}
The proof for higher order derivatives is similar and omitted.
\section{Asymptotic expansion of the solution}\label{sec:expansion}
The aim of this section is to prove Theorem \ref{thm:main3}. The proof is built on the previous knowledge that $\partial_t^l u$ is bounded for all $l=0,1,2,\cdots$. All discussions in this section are local, hence we take the polar coordinates $(\rho,\theta)$ on $B$ and regard $u(t)$ as a function of $(\rho,\theta)$.
\subsection{Formal consideration}\label{subsec:formal}
Since our aim is to study the expansion of $u$, we must first decide what terms should be included in the expansion. On one hand, we need to include sufficiently many terms so that $u(t)$ can be expanded as a series of such terms. On the other hand, we do not want to include more than what is absolutely necessary, because that will weaken our understanding on the regularity. The consideration in this subsection is a little formal, but it shall be fully justified when we prove Theorem \ref{thm:main3} in later subsections and it explains the reason why a particular term appears in the expansion.
First, let's recall the expansion of bounded harmonic functions defined on $B\setminus \set{0}$.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:harmonic}
Suppose $u$ is a bounded harmonic function defined on $B\setminus \set{0}$, i.e. $\tilde{\triangle} u=0$. Then we have
\begin{equation*}
u(\rho,\theta) = a_0 + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \left( a_k \rho^{\frac{k}{\beta+1}} \cos k\theta + b_k \rho^{\frac{k}{\beta+1}} \sin k\theta \right)
\end{equation*}
for $\rho\in (0,1)$. Here $a_k$ and $b_k$ are real numbers determined by $u$.
\end{lem}
The proof is a well known argument of separation of variables and is omitted.
This is the starting point of our consideration. Namely, we should consider linear combinations of the terms in
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal T_h = \set{ \rho^{\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\cos k\theta, \rho^{\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\sin k\theta \,|\, k=0,1,2,\cdots}.
\end{equation*}
We denote the set of finite linear combination of terms in $\mathcal T_h$ by $\mbox{Span}(\mathcal T_h)$ and similar conventions apply to $\mathcal T_a$ and $\mathcal T$ to be defined later.
Next, we would like to include more terms so that some basic algebraic operations are closed. We define
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal T_a =\set{ \rho^{\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\cos l \theta, \rho^{\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\sin l \theta \,|\, l=0,1,2,\cdots; \frac{k-l}{2}\in \mathbb N \cup \set{0}}.
\end{equation*}
We characterize $\mathcal T_a$ in the following lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:algebra}
$\mbox{Span}(\mathcal T_a)$ is the smallest vector space of functions which contains $\mbox{Span}(\mathcal T_h)$ and is multiplicatively closed.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is straightforward to check that $\mbox{Span}(\mathcal T_a)$ is multiplicatively closed by computing the product of two terms in $\mathcal T_a$. Moreover, $\mathcal T_a$ contains $\mathcal T_h$ trivially. It suffices to show that it is the smallest set satisfying these properties. To see this, we compute
\begin{equation*}
\rho^{\frac{1}{\beta+1}}\cos \theta \cdot \rho^{\frac{1}{\beta+1}}\cos \theta = \rho^{\frac{2}{\beta+1}} \frac{\cos 2\theta +1}{2},
\end{equation*}
which implies that $\rho^{\frac{2}{\beta+1}}$ should be in $\mbox{Span}(\mathcal T_a)$. Multiplying $\rho^{\frac{2}{\beta+1}}$ to the terms in $\mathcal T_h$ repeatedly gives all terms in $\mathcal T_a$.
\end{proof}
Finally we define
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal T =\set{ \rho^{2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\cos l \theta, \rho^{2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\sin l \theta \,|\, l,j,k=0,1,2,\cdots; \frac{k-l}{2}\in \mathbb N\cup\set{0}}.
\end{equation*}
Note that if $\beta\in \mathbb Q$, it is possible that there exists $j_1\ne j_2$ and $k_1\ne k_2$ such that
\begin{equation*}
2j_1+\frac{k_1}{\beta+1} = 2j_2 + \frac{k_2}{\beta+1}.
\end{equation*}
The motivation behind the definition of $\mathcal T$ is explained in the next lemma.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:inverse} $\mbox{Span}(\mathcal T)$ is the smallest vector space of functions containing $\mbox{Span}(\mathcal T_h)$ such that (1) it is multiplicatively closed; (2)for each $u\in \mbox{Span}(\mathcal T)$, there is $v\in \mbox{Span}(\mathcal T)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} v = u.
\end{equation*}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
(1) can be checked with direct computation. For (2), for each $u=\rho^\sigma \cos l\theta$ in $\mathcal T$, we compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\tilde{\triangle} \rho^{\sigma+2} \cos l\theta &=& (\partial_\rho^2 +\frac{1}{\rho}\partial_\rho - \frac{l^2}{\rho^2(\beta+1)^2}) \rho^{\sigma+2} \cos l\theta \\
&=& ( (\sigma+2)^2 - \frac{l^2}{(\beta+1)^2}) \rho^\sigma \cos l\theta.
\end{eqnarray*}
By the definition of $\mathcal T$, $\sigma+2> \frac{l}{\beta+1}$ so the right hand side above in not zero, hence we may take
\begin{equation*}
v=( (\sigma+2)^2 - \frac{l^2}{(\beta+1)^2})^{-1} \rho^{\sigma+2} \cos l\theta.
\end{equation*}
The computation works as well if we replace $\cos$ by $\sin$. Obviously, $\mathcal T_h\subset \mathcal T$ and the above computation also shows that $Span(\mathcal T)$ is the smallest vector space with the required properties.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Finite expansion}\label{subsec:finite}
As in the formulation of a Taylor expansion of a smooth function on $\mathbb R^n$, we need to be precise about the difference between a smooth function and a Taylor polynomial. For that purpose, we shall define a class of functions $\tilde{O}(q)$ for any nonnegative real number $q$. In addition to the restriction on the decay of the function itself, we put some restrictions to the derivatives of the function, which is quite natural in our setting.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:O}
A function $u$ defined in $B_{1/2}\setminus \set{0}$ is said to be in $\tilde{O}(q)$ for $q\in [0,\infty)$ if and only if there are constants $C_k$ for each $k=0,1,2,\cdots$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:qk}
\abs{\tilde{\nabla}^k u} \leq C_k \rho^{q - k} \quad\mbox{on}\quad B_{1/2}\setminus \set{0}.
\end{equation}
\end{defn}
\begin{rem}
We note that \eqref{eqn:qk} is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
\abs{(\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} \partial_{\theta}^{k_2} u}\leq C(k_1,k_2) \rho^q.
\end{equation*}
\end{rem}
To define an expansion up to order $q>0$, we consider only the linear combination of functions in
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal T^q =\set{ \rho^{2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\cos l \theta, \rho^{2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}}\sin l \theta \,|\, l,j,k=0,1,2,\cdots; \frac{k-l}{2}\in \mathbb N \cup \set{0}; 2j+\frac{k}{\beta+1}< q}.
\end{equation*}
In other words, it is the subset of $\mathcal T$ which decays strictly faster than $\rho^q$ when $\rho\to 0$.
\begin{defn}\label{defn:expansion}
A function $u$ is said to have an expansion up to order $q$ if and only if there is a set of real numbers $a_v$ for each $v\in \mathcal T^q$ such that
\begin{equation*}
u= \sum_{v\in \mathcal T^q} a_v v + \tilde{O}(q) \quad\mbox{on}\quad B_{1/2}\setminus \set{0}.
\end{equation*}
\end{defn}
As an example, we prove
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:harmonicexp} Each bounded harmonic function $u$ on $B\setminus \set{0}$ has expansion up to order $q$ for any $q>0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $l_0$ be the smallest integer such that $\frac{l_0}{\beta+1}\geq q$. By Lemma \ref{lem:harmonic}, it suffices to prove
\begin{equation*}
R:=\sum_{l\geq l_0} \left( a_l \rho^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q} \cos l\theta + b_l \rho^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q}\sin l\theta \right) \in \tilde{O}(0).
\end{equation*}
For any $k_1$ and $k_2$ in $\mathbb N\cup \set{0}$, we need to show that $(\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} \partial_\theta^{k_2} R$ is bounded on $B_{1/2}\setminus \set{0}$. Since $u$ and hence $R$ is smooth away from $0$, the trigonometric series converges nicely so that for $\rho\in (0,1)$
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:series}
(\rho \partial_\rho^{k_1} \partial_\theta^{k_2})R:=\sum_{l\geq l_0} \left( \tilde{a}_l \rho^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q} \cos^{(k_2)} l\theta + \tilde{b}_l \rho^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q}\sin^{(k_2)} l\theta \right),
\end{equation}
where the exact formula for $\tilde{a}_l$ and $\tilde{b}_l$ is not important.
Each term in the series of \eqref{eqn:series} is a continuous function of $(\rho,\theta)$ defined on $[0,1/2]\times S^1$. If we can show that the series converges uniformly on $[0,1/2]\times S^1$, then we are done. To see this, we use Abel's uniform convergence test and write for $\rho_0=1/2$
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{a_l} \rho^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q} \cos^{(k_2)} l\theta = \tilde{a_l} \rho_0^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q} \cos^{(k_2)} l\theta \cdot (\rho/\rho_0)^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q}.
\end{equation*}
The series of $\tilde{a}_l \rho_0^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q}\cos^{(k_2)}l\theta$ (forgetting about $\sin$ for simplicity) converges uniformly as functions (trivial in $\rho$) defined on $[0,1/2]\times S^1$, while the sequence of functions $(\rho/\rho_0)^{\frac{l}{\beta+1}-q}$ is uniformly bounded and decreases in $l$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:goodxi}
If $f_1$ and $f_2$ both have expansions up to order $q$, then so do $f_1\pm f_2$, $f_1\cdot f_2$ and $e^{f_1}$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
The claim holds trivially for $f_1\pm f_2$. For $f_1\cdot f_2$, it suffices to notice that
\begin{itemize}
\item for any $\sigma\geq 0$ and $l\in \mathbb N\cup \set{0}$, $\rho^\sigma \cos l \theta$ is in $\tilde{O}(q)$ if and only if $\sigma\geq q$;
\item for any $\sigma\geq 0$ and $l\in \mathbb N\cup \set{0}$, if $u\in \tilde{O}(q)$, then $\rho^\sigma \cos l \theta \cdot u \in \tilde{O}(q+\sigma)$;
\item for $q_1,q_2\geq 0$, if $u_i\in \tilde{O}(q_i)$ for $i=1,2$, then $u_1\cdot u_2 \in \tilde{O}(q_1+q_2)$.
\end{itemize}
Instead of showing that $e^{f_1}$ has the required expansion, we prove something a little stronger. For any smooth function $F:\mathbb R \to \mathbb R$, we claim that $F\circ f_1$ has expansion up to order $q$. By changing $F(\cdot)$ to $F(c+\cdot)$, we may assume without loss of generality that the constant term in the expansion of $f_1$ vanishes. Namely, we can find $\xi \in Span(\mathcal T^q)$ with no constant term such that $f_1=\xi+\tilde{O}(q)$.
Recall that we have the Taylor expansion formula with the integral remainder,
\begin{equation*}
F(x)=\sum_{l=0}^n \frac{F^{(l)}(0)}{l!}x^l + \frac{1}{n!} \left( \int_0^1 F^{(n+1)}(tx) (1-t)^n dt \right) x^{n+1},
\end{equation*}
in which we choose $n$ so that $(n+1) \min\set{2,\frac{1}{\beta+1}}> q$. By what has been proved so far, we know
\begin{equation*}
\sum_{l=0}^n \frac{F^{(l)}(0)}{l!} (f_1)^n
\end{equation*}
has an expansion up to order $q$. It remains to show
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:remains}
\left( \int_0^1 F^{(n+1)}(tf_1) (1-t)^n dt \right) (f_1)^{n+1}\in \tilde{O}(q).
\end{equation}
If $q< \min\set{2,\frac{1}{\beta+1}}$, then $\xi$ must be zero because $\mathcal T^q$ contains nothing but a constant function. In this case, $f_1\in \tilde{O}(q)$. If $q\geq \min\set{2,\frac{1}{\beta+1}}$, by our choice of $n$ and the fact that $f_1\in \tilde{O}( \min\set{2,\frac{1}{\beta+1}})$, we have $f_1^{n+1}$ is in $\tilde{O}(q)$. Hence, \eqref{eqn:remains} is reduced to
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:remains1}
\left( \int_0^1 F^{(n+1)}(tf_1) (1-t)^n dt \right) \in \tilde{O}(0).
\end{equation}
By direct computation, one can check that \eqref{eqn:remains1} is true because of the smoothness of $F$ and the fact that $f_1\in \tilde{O}(0)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Expansion of Conical Ricci flow solution}\label{subsec:expansion}
Assume that we have a solution $u$ given in Theorem \ref{thm:main1}. By Theorem \ref{thm:main2}, for any $t>0$, we know that
\begin{equation*}
\abs{\partial_t^l u(t)}\leq C_k
\end{equation*}
for $l\in \mathbb N\cup\set{0}$.
Recall that we work on $B$ where $\tilde{K}=0$ and $\partial_t^l u$ satisfies the equations (after some rearrangement)
\begin{align*}
\tilde{\triangle} u &= e^{2u}(\partial_t u -\frac{r}{2});
\tag{$E_0$} \\
\tilde{\triangle} (\partial_t u) &=e^{2u}\left( \partial_t (\partial_t u)+ \partial_t u (2\partial_t u -r)\right) ;
\tag{$E_1$} \\
\intertext{and for $l\geq 2$}
\tilde{\triangle} (\partial_t^l u)&=e^{2u}\left( \partial_t (\partial^l_t u) - P_l\cdot \partial_t^l u - Q_l\right),
\tag{$E_l$}
\end{align*}
where $P_l$ and $Q_l$ are polynomials of $\partial_t u,\cdots, \partial_t^{l-1}u$ with constant coefficients.
We consider the following family of claims.
\noindent
{\bf Claim $\mathcal C^q$:} for each $l=0,1,2,\cdots$, $\partial_t^l u$ has an expansion up to order $q$.
Here are two easy observations. First, by Lemma \ref{lem:higher}, we know that the claim $\mathcal C^0$ is true. If $q_1<q_2$, then $\mathcal C^{q_2}$ is a stronger statement than the claim $\mathcal C^{q_1}$, hence, to show the claim $\mathcal C^q$ holds for any $q>0$, it suffices to justify $\mathcal C^{q_i}$ for a sequence $q_i$ going to $\infty$. This is done by a bootstrapping argument applied to the whole family of equations $(E_l)$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:orderup}
Suppose that $w$ and $f$ are smooth functions on $\bar{B}_1\setminus \set{0}$ and that $w$ is bounded and $f$ has an expansion up to order $q\geq 0$.
If
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} w =f \qquad \mbox{on} \quad \bar{B}_1 \setminus \set{0},
\end{equation*}
then $w$ has an expansion up to order $q'$ for any $q'< 2+q$. When $q\ne \frac{k}{\beta+1}-2$ for any $k\in \mathbb N\cup \set{0}$, $w$ has an expansion up to order $q'=2+q$.
\end{lem}
Before the proof, we show how this lemma implies Theorem \ref{thm:main3}.
If we know that the claim $\mathcal C^q$ is true, then Lemma \ref{lem:goodxi} implies that the right hand side of ($E_l$) for $l=0,1,\cdots$ has an expansion up to order $q$. By Lemma \ref{lem:orderup}, $\partial_t^l u$ has an expansion up to order $q'$ with $q'>q+1$ for all $l$. Hence, the claim $\mathcal C^{q'}$ for some $q'>q+1$ is true. Theorem \ref{thm:main3} then follows by repeatedly using the above argument.
The proof of Lemma \ref{lem:orderup} requires
\begin{lem}
\label{lem:ode} If $f_o$ is a smooth function defined on $\bar{B}_1\setminus \set{0}$ and $f_o\in \tilde{O}(q)$ for some $q\geq 0$, then there exists another smooth function $w_o \in C^\infty(\bar{B}_1\setminus \set{0}) \cap \tilde{O}(q')$ with
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} w_o =f_0.
\end{equation*}
Here $q'=2+q$ if $q\ne \frac{k}{\beta+1}-2$ for any $k\in \mathbb N\cup \set{0}$ and $q'$ can be any number smaller than $2+q$ if otherwise.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:orderup}] By Definition \ref{defn:expansion}, there is $\xi_f\in \mbox{Span}(\mathcal T^q)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
f=\xi_f + \tilde{O}(q).
\end{equation*}
Lemma \ref{lem:inverse} implies the existence of $\xi_w\in \mbox{Span}(\mathcal T^{q+2})$ with
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} \xi_w = \xi_f.
\end{equation*}
Since $f_o:=f-\xi_f$ is in $\tilde{O}(q)$, Lemma \ref{lem:ode} gives $w_o\in \tilde{O}(q')$ with $\tilde{\triangle} w_o =f_o$. Since $w,\xi_w$ and $w_o$ are all bounded on $B_1\setminus \set{0}$, we know that $w_h:= w- \xi_w - w_o$ is a bounded harmonic function on $B_1\setminus \set{0}$. By Lemma \ref{lem:harmonicexp}, all bounded harmonic functions have expansion up to any order. Since $w=w_h+\xi_w+w_o$, $w$ has an expansion up to order $q'$ for $q'$ given in Lemma \ref{lem:ode}.
\end{proof}
The rest of this section is devoted to the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:ode}.
Let's first do some formal computation to motivate the proof. We shall justify later that this gives the solution we want. Assume we have an expansion
\begin{equation*}
w_o=\sum_{l=0}^\infty A_l(\rho) \cos (l\theta) + B_l(\rho) \sin (l\theta),
\end{equation*}
which is convergent in some suitable sense such that
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} w_o = \sum_{l=0}^{\infty} (L_l A_l) \cos (l\theta) + (L_l B_l) \sin (l\theta)
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
L_l := \partial_\rho^2 + \frac{1}{\rho}\partial_\rho - \frac{l^2}{\rho^2 (\beta+1)^2}.
\end{equation*}
Hence, we are motivated to solve the equations
\begin{equation*}
L_l A_l = a_l\quad \mbox{and} \quad L_l B_l=b_l,
\end{equation*}
if $a_l$ and $b_l$ are given by
\begin{equation*}
f_o= \sum_{l=0}^\infty a_l(\rho) \cos (l\theta) + b_l(\rho) \sin (l\theta).
\end{equation*}
Notice that it follows from the theory of trigonometric series that $f_o$ is in $\tilde{O}(q)$ if and only if
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:goodfo}
\abs{l^{k_2} (\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} a_l(\rho)}+\abs{l^{k_2} (\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} b_l(\rho)}\leq C(k_1,k_2) \rho^q
\end{equation}
for constants $C(k_1,k_2)$ depending on $f_o$.
\begin{lem}\label{lem:lkvw}
Suppose $a_*:(0,1]\to \mathbb R$ satisfies that
\begin{equation}
\abs{(\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} a_*(\rho)} \leq C_1(k_1) \rho^q\qquad \mbox{for} \quad k_1=0,1,2,\cdots.
\label{eqn:goodastar}
\end{equation}
If
\begin{equation}
-\frac{l}{\beta+1}+2+q \ne 0,
\label{eqn:goodalpha}
\end{equation}
then there exist constants $C_2(k_1)$ depending on $\abs{-\frac{l}{\beta+1}+2+q}$ and $C_1(\cdot)$ and a function $A_*:(0,1]\to \mathbb R$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Lkv}
L_l A_*=a_*
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:goodAstar}
\abs{(\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} A_*(\rho)} \leq C_2(k_1) \rho^{q+2}\qquad \mbox{for} \quad k_1=0,1,2,\cdots.
\end{equation}
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}\label{rem:c1c2}
The dependence of $C_2(\cdot)$ on $C_1(\cdot)$ is linear in the sense that if we multiply every one of $C_1(\cdot)$ by a positive constant $\lambda$, then $C_2(\cdot)$ is multiplied by the same constant. It follows either from the proof below by tracing the dependency of constants carefully or from the linearity of the statement of the lemma, i.e. we can apply it to $\lambda a_*$ instead of $a_*$.
\end{rem}
\begin{proof}
For simplicity, we write $c$ for $\frac{l}{\beta+1}$. First, we note that the solution of \eqref{eqn:Lkv} can be explicitly written down. We assume that the solution is of the form $A_*(\rho)=h(\rho) \rho^c$, then \eqref{eqn:Lkv} is equivalent to
\begin{equation*}
(2c+1) h' \rho^{c-1} + h'' \rho^c = a_*.
\end{equation*}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
h'(\rho)= \rho^{-2c-1}\left( h'(1) + \int_1^\rho a_*(t)t^{c+1}dt \right).
\end{equation*}
Here $h'(1)$ is some constant. We can choose it to be anything we want, since it suffices for the proof of the lemma to give one solution. We choose $h'(1)$ so that
\begin{equation*}
h'(1) + \int_1^0 a_*(t)t^{c+1}dt=0.
\end{equation*}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
h'(\rho)= \rho^{-2c-1}\int_0^{\rho} a_*(t) t^{c+1}dt.
\end{equation*}
By \eqref{eqn:goodastar}, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:hprime}
\abs{h'(\rho)}\leq \frac{C_1(0)}{c+2+q } \rho^{-c+1+q}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, we have
\begin{equation*}
A_*(\rho)=\rho^c \left( h(1)+\int_1^\rho h'(t)dt \right).
\end{equation*}
Here $h(1)$ is another constant at our disposal.
By \eqref{eqn:goodalpha}, we have two possible cases:
{\bf Case 1:} $c>2+q$. Take $h(1)=0$ and compute
\begin{eqnarray*}
\abs{A_*}&\leq& \rho^c \frac{C_1(0)}{(c+2+q)\abs{-c+2+q}} \left( \rho^{-c+2+q}-1 \right)\\
&\leq& C_2(0) \rho^{2+q},
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_2(0)=\frac{C_1(0)}{(c+2+q)\abs{-c+2+q}} $.
{\bf Case 2:} $c<2+q$. Take $h(1)$ satisfying
\begin{equation*}
h(1)+\int_1^0 h'(t) dt =0.
\end{equation*}
Hence,
\begin{equation*}
\abs{A_*}\leq \rho^c \frac{C_1(0)}{(c+2+q)\abs{-c+2+q}} \rho^{-c+2+q} \leq C_2(0)\rho^{2+q}
\end{equation*}
for the same $C_2(0)$ as in Case 1.
For the derivatives of $A_*$, we compute
\begin{equation*}
(\rho \partial_\rho) A_*(\rho)= c A_* + \rho^{c+1} h'(\rho),
\end{equation*}
which has the correct order of decay by \eqref{eqn:hprime}. Moreover, $C_2(1)$ in \eqref{eqn:goodAstar} is a linear combination of $C_2(0)$ and $C_1(0)$.
For $k_1>1$, we rewrite the equation $L_l A_*=a_*$ as
\begin{equation*}
(\rho\partial_\rho)^2 A_* - \frac{l^2}{(\beta+1)^2} A_* = \rho^2 a_*,
\end{equation*}
The estimate \eqref{eqn:goodAstar} for $k_1=2$ follows from the above equation and \eqref{eqn:goodastar} directly, while for the case $k_1>2$, we take $\rho\partial_\rho$ repeatedly on both sides of the above equation.
\end{proof}
Now, we apply Lemma \ref{lem:lkvw} to both $a_l$ and $b_l$ to get $A_l$ and $B_l$. More precisely, for $a_l$ and any $k_2$, \eqref{eqn:goodfo} implies
\begin{equation*}
\abs{(\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} a_l(\rho)}\leq \frac{C(k_1,k_2)}{l^{k_2}} \rho^q.
\end{equation*}
By Lemma \ref{lem:lkvw} and Remark \ref{rem:c1c2}, we have $A_l(\rho)$ such that
\begin{equation*}
L_l A_l=a_l
\end{equation*}
and
\begin{equation*}
\abs{(\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} A_l(\rho)}\leq \frac{C'(k_1,k_2)}{l^{k_2}} \rho^q.
\end{equation*}
Similar arguments work for $b_l$ as well. In summary, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:goodwo}
\abs{l^{k_2} (\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} A_l(\rho)}+\abs{l^{k_2} (\rho\partial_\rho)^{k_1} B_l(\rho)}\leq C'(k_1,k_2) \rho^q.
\end{equation}
This not only justifies the convergence of the series
\begin{equation*}
w_o= \sum_{l=0}^\infty A_l(\rho) \cos l\theta + B_l(\rho)\sin l\theta,
\end{equation*}
but also the computation
\begin{equation*}
\tilde{\triangle} w_o = \sum_{l=0}^\infty (L_l A_l) \cos l\theta + (L_l B_l) \sin l\theta,
\end{equation*}
so that $\tilde{\triangle }w_o=f_o$. Moreover, the decay of $w_o$, $ (\rho \partial_\rho)^{k_1}\partial_\theta^{k_2} w_o$ also follows from \eqref{eqn:goodwo}.
|
\section{Introduction}
An important strongly coupled near-conformal gauge theory built on the minimally required
SU(2) bsm-flavor doublet of two massless fermions, with a
confining gauge force at the TeV scale in the sextet
representation of the new SU(3) BSM color gauge group is an intriguing possibility
for the minimal realization of the composite Higgs mechanism.
Early discussions of the model as a BSM candidate were initiated in
systematic explorations of higher fermion representations of color gauge groups~\cite{Dietrich:2005jn,Sannino:2004qp,Hong:2004td}
for extensions of the original Higgsless Technicolor paradigm~\cite{Susskind:1978ms,Weinberg:1979bn}.
In fact, the first appearance of the particular two-index symmetric SU(3) fermion representation
can be traced even further back to Quantum Chromodynamics (QCD) where a doublet of sextet quarks
was proposed as a mechanism for Electroweak symmetry breaking (EWSB)
without an elementary Higgs field~\cite{Marciano:1980zf}. This idea had to be
replaced by a new
gauge force at the TeV scale, orders of magnitude stronger than in QCD, to facilitate the dynamics
of EWSB just below the lower edge of the conformal window in
the new BSM paradigm~\cite{Dietrich:2005jn,Sannino:2004qp,Hong:2004td}.
It should be noted that throughout its early history the important near-conformal behavior
of the model was not known and definitive results had to wait for recent
non-perturbative investigations with lattice gauge theory methods
as used in our work.
Near-conformal BSM theories raise
the possibility of a light composite scalar, perhaps a Higgs impostor, to emerge from new strong dynamics,
far separated from the associated composite resonance spectrum in the few TeV mass range
with interesting and testable predictions for the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).
This scenario is very different from what was expected from QCD when scaled up to the Electroweak scale,
as illustrated by the failure of the Higgsless Technicolor paradigm.
Given the discovery of the 125 GeV Higgs particle at the LHC, any realistic BSM theory must contain a Higgs-like state,
perhaps with some hidden composite structure.
Based on our {\it ab initio} non-perturbative lattice calculations
we find
accumulating evidence for near-conformal behavior in the sextet theory with
the emergent low mass $0^{++}$ scalar state far separated from
the composite resonance spectrum of bosonic and baryonic excitations in the 2-3 TeV energy range~\cite{Fodor:2012ty,Fodor:2012ni,Fodor:2014pqa,Fodor:2015vwa}.
The identification of the light scalar state is numerically challenging since it
requires the evaluation of disconnected fermion loop contributions to correlators with vacuum quantum numbers
in the range of light fermion masses we explore.
The evidence to date is very promising that the $0^{++}$ scalar is light
in the chiral limit and that the model at this stage remains an important BSM candidate.
This report presents new results and outlines the need for important further work needed for definitive results.
In Section 2 for the first time we describe the anomaly-free
Electroweak embedding of the strongly coupled sextet gauge theory in a more comprehensive way
than before and present the need for more extensive baryon analysis of our gauge ensembles with
relevance for dark matter searches and model viability.
In Section 3 new results are reported and analysis tools are proposed for mass-deformed chiral
perturbation theory and its chiral limit using p-regime and $\epsilon$-regime technologies including
the improved chiral properties of mixed actions in the valence sector.
This is critically important for accurate BSM scale setting
from the chiral limit of the Goldstone decay constant ${\rm F_\pi}$ and the chiral condensate .
In Section 4 the status of the light ${\rm 0^{++}}$ scalar and the resonance spectrum is discussed
with new plans briefly outlined. Section 5 describes efforts to understand physics at several scales in
nearly conformal gauge theories from the asymptotically free UV regime with an almost conformal crossover
to the infrared with spontaneous chiral symmetry breaking. Flavor dependence of the running coupling and beta function
in the sextet and fundamental fermion representations illustrates this problem.
In Section 6 we provide a brief summary of the computational aspects
of our work describing the staggered fermion action
we use in the simulations with well known taste breaking effects on the exact chiral symmetries of the continuum theory.
All figures are attached at the end of the report without interrupting the flow of the narrative.
\section{Electroweak multiplet structure, gauge anomalies, and baryons}
As in the minimal scheme of Susskind~\cite{Susskind:1978ms} and Weinberg~\cite{Weinberg:1979bn},
the gauge group of the theory is
${\rm SU(3)_{bsm}\!\otimes\!SU(3)_c\!\otimes\!SU(2)_w\!\otimes\!U(1)_Y}$ where ${\rm SU(3)_c}$ designates
the QCD color gauge group and ${\rm SU(3)_{bsm}}$ represents the BSM color gauge group
of the new strong gauge force.
In addition to quarks and leptons of the Standard Model, we include one ${\rm SU(2)}$
bsm-flavor doublet ${\rm (u,d)}$ of fermions which are ${\rm SU(3)_c}$ singlets and transform
in the six-dimensional sextet representation of BSM color, distinct from
the fundamental color representation of fermions in the original Technicolor
scheme~\cite{Susskind:1978ms,Weinberg:1979bn}.
The formal designation ${\rm (u,d)}$ for the bsm-flavor doublet of sextet fermions uses a similar notation
to the two light quarks of QCD but describes completely different physics.
The massless sextet fermions form two chiral doublets
${\rm (u,d)_L}$ and ${\rm (u,d)_R}$ under the global symmetry group
${\rm SU(2)_L\!\otimes\!SU(2)_R\otimes\!U(1)_B}$. Baryon number
is conserved
for quarks of the Standard Model separate from baryon number conservation
for sextet fermions which carry $1/3$ of BSM baryon charge associated
with the BSM sector of the global ${\rm U(1)_B}$ symmetry group.
\subsection{Electroweak multiplet structure}
It is straightforward to define
consistent multiplets for the sextet fermion flavor doublet
under the ${\rm SU(2)_w\!\otimes\!U(1)_Y}$ Electroweak gauge group
with hypercharge assignments for left- and right-handed fermions
transforming under the ${\rm SU(2)_w}$ weak isospin group.
The two fermion flavors ${\rm {u^{ab}}}$ and ${\rm d^{ab}}$ of the strongly coupled sector
carry six colors in two-index symmetric tensor notation,
${\rm a,b = 1,2,3}$, associated with the gauge force of the ${\rm SU(3)_{bsm}}$ group.
This is equivalent to a six-dimensional vector notation in the sextet representation.
The fermions transform as left-handed weak isospin doublets
and right-handed weak isospin singlets for each color,
\begin{equation}
{\rm \psi^{ab}_L = \left(\begin{array}{c} {\rm u^{ab}_L} \\ {\rm d^{ab}_L }\end{array}\right) , \qquad \psi^{ab}_R = (u^{ab}_R ,\; d^{ab}_R) }.
\end{equation}
With this choice of representations, the normalization for the hypercharge ${\rm Y}$
of the ${\rm U(1)_Y}$ gauge group is
defined by the relation ${\rm Y=2(Q-T_3)}$, with ${\rm T_3}$ designating the third component of weak isospin.
Once Electroweak gauge interactions are turned on,
the chiral symmetry breaking pattern ${\rm SU(2)_L\!\otimes\!SU(2)_R \rightarrow SU(2)_V}$
of strong dynamics breaks Electroweak symmetry in the expected pattern,
${\rm SU(2)_w \times U(1)_Y \rightarrow U(1)_{\rm em}}$, and with the simultaneous
dynamical realization of the composite Higgs mechanism. It is important to note that the
dynamical Higgs mechanism is facilitated through the electroweak gauge couplings of
the sextet fermions and does not depend on the hypercharge assignments
of the multiplets~\cite{Susskind:1978ms}.
Recently, we presented a detailed analysis on anomaly constraints of hypercharge assignments~\cite{Fodor:2016wal}.
In this report we summarize what is relevant for the sextet baryon analysis of our existing gauge ensembles
with dark matter and model viability implications~\cite{Fodor:2016wal}.
\subsection{Anomaly conditions}
Anomaly constraints have a long history in Technicolor motivated BSM model building with
representative examples
in~\cite{Dietrich:2005jn,Kainulainen:2006wq,Foadi:2007ue,Antola:2009wq,Kainulainen:2009rb}.
The first condition for model construction with left-handed doublets is the global Witten anomaly
constraint which requires an even number of left-handed SU(2) multiplets to
avoid inconsistency in the theory from a vanishing fermion determinant of the partition function~\cite{Witten:1982fp}.
In addition, gauge anomaly constraints also have to be satisfied~\cite{Adler:1969er}.
With vector current ${\rm V^i_\mu(x)=\overline{\psi}T^i\gamma_\mu\psi(x)}$ and axial current
${\rm A^i_\mu(x)=\overline{\psi}T^i\gamma_\mu\gamma_5\psi(x)}$
constructed from fermion fields and internal symmetry matrices ${\rm T^i}$ in some group representation
R for fermions, the anomaly in the axial vector Ward
identity is proportional to ${\rm tr(\{T^i(R),T^j(R)\}T^k(R))}$ and must vanish.
In the sextet theory fermions are either left-handed doublets or right-handed singlets
under the ${\rm SU(2)_w}$ gauge group.
The matrices ${\rm T^i}$ will be either the ${\rm \tau^i}$ Pauli matrices
or the diagonal ${\rm U(1)}$ hypercharge ${\rm Y}$.
Since the ${\rm SU(2)}$ group is anomaly free, ${\rm tr(\{\tau^i,\tau^j\}\tau^k)=0}$,
we only need to consider anomalies where at least one ${\rm T^i}$ is the hypercharge Y.
The non-trivial constraints come from two conditions on hypercharge traces,
\begin{equation}
{\rm tr(Y )=0, \quad tr(Y^3) \propto tr(Q^2T_3 - QT^2_3) = 0}\;,
\label{eq:hyper}
\end{equation}
where ${\rm Y=2(Q-T_3)}$ with electric charge ${\rm Q}$, and
${\rm T_3}$ as the third component of weak isospin.
There are two simple solutions for BSM model building with sextet fermions to satisfy
the Witten anomaly condition and
gauge anomaly constraints on tr(Y) and ${\rm tr(Y^3)}$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:hyper}).
The first solution with the choice ${\rm Y(f_L)=0}$ for doublets of left-handed sextet fermions ${(\rm f_L)}$
leads to half-integer electric charges for composite baryons. The second solution
with the choice ${\rm Y(f_L)=1/3}$ for doublets of left-handed sextet fermions leads to integer electric charges
for composite baryons. The hypercharges of right-handed singlets are automatically set from
consistent electric charge assignments in both cases. The two choices have very different
implications for sextet baryons.
\subsection{Sextet baryons and their Early Universe}
In the sextet BSM theory we do not have direct observations of new heavy baryons
to set unique hypercharge
assignments for left-handed doublets and right-handed singlets of sextet fermions from two alternate
solutions to the anomaly conditions.
Viability of the choices ${\rm Y(f_L)=0}$, or ${\rm Y(f_L)=1/3}$, is
affected by the different electric charge assignments they imply.
With heavy sextet baryon masses in the 3 TeV range, as determined from our recent lattice
simulations~\cite{Fodor:2016wal},
the seemingly minimal solution with ${\rm Y=0}$ for left-handed doublets would lead to intriguing
predictions of baryon states with half-integer electric charges for future accelerator searches and relics
with fractional electric charges from the early Universe with observable consequences.
Problems with half-integer electric charges, from the choice ${\rm Y(f_L)=0}$ in our case, were anticipated earlier
from strong observational limits on stable fractional charges in the early Universe
and their terrestrial relics~\cite{Chivukula:1989qb,Langacker:2011db}.
The non-controversial ${\rm Y(f_L)=1/3}$ anomaly solution for the sextet model has
new dark matter implications~\cite{Fodor:2016wal} which require new lattice calculations proposed here.
\subsection{ Ongoing lattice work on sextet baryons and future plans}
The lightest baryons in the strongly coupled sextet gauge sector are expected to form
isospin flavor doublets ${\rm (uud,udd)}$, similar to the pattern in QCD.
As we noted earlier, baryons in the sextet model
should carry integer multiples of electric charges if ${\rm Y(f_L)\neq 0}$ to avoid problems with the relics
of the early Universe. This leads to the
simplest choice ${\rm Y(f_L)=1/3}$ with gauge anomalies to be compensated.
A new pair of left-handed lepton
doublets emerged from this choice as the simplest manifestation
of the anomalies and the Electroweak extension of the strongly coupled sextet gauge sector~\cite{Fodor:2016wal}.
Neutron-like ${\rm udd}$ sextet model baryons ${\rm (n_6)}$ will carry no electric charge
and proton-like ${\rm uud}$ sextet model baryons ${\rm (p_6)}$ have one unit of positive electric charge
from the choice ${\rm Y(f_L)=1/3}$.
The two baryon masses are split by electromagnetic interactions.
The ordering of the two baryon masses in the chiral limit of massless sextet fermions will
require non-perturbative {\em ab initio} lattice calculations of the electromagnetic
mass shifts to confirm intuitive expectations
that the neutron-like ${\rm n_6}$ baryon has lower mass than the proton-like ${\rm p_6}$ baryon.
In QCD this pattern was confirmed by recent lattice calculations~\cite{Borsanyi:2014jba}.
We expect the same ordering in the sextet model so that the proton-like ${\rm p_6}$ baryon
will decay very fast, ${\rm p_6 \rightarrow n_6 + ... }$, with a lifetime ${\rm \tau \ll 1~second}$.
It is unlikely for rapidly decaying ${\rm p_6}$ baryons to leave any relic footprints
from dark nucleosynthesis before they decay.
With BSM baryon number conservation the neutral ${\rm n_6}$ baryon is stable
and observational limits on its direct detection from experiments like
XENON100~\cite{Aprile:2012nq} and LUX2013~\cite{Akerib:2013tjd} have to be estimated.
In charge symmetric thermal evolution sextet model baryons are produced with relic number density ratio
${\rm n_{B_6}/n_B \approx 3\cdot 10^{-7}}$.
For 3 TeV sextet model baryon masses we can estimate the detectable dark matter ratio of
respective mass densities ${\rm \rho_{B_6}}$ and ${\rm \rho_{B}}$ as
${\rm \rho_{B_6}/\rho_B \approx 10^{-4}}$,
about ${\rm 5\cdot 10^{4}}$ times less than the full amount of unaccounted dark mass,
${\rm \rho_{dark} \approx 5\cdot \rho_B}$.
We will use this mass density estimate to guide observational limits on relic sextet model baryons
emerging from charge symmetric thermal evolution where
tests of dark baryon detection come from elastic collisions with nuclei in dark matter detectors~\cite{Fodor:2016wal}.
The neutral and stable ${\rm n_6}$
baryon can interact several different ways with heavy nuclei in direct detection experiments
including (a) magnetic dipole interaction, (b) Z-boson exchange, (c) Higgs boson exchange, and
(d) electric polarizability.
It turns out that cross sections from (a) and (b) can be parametrized and estimated even without
lattice simulations. Cross sections from (c) and (d) require lattice calculations using our existing gauge ensembles
and capacity computing from new allocation we request for gpu capacity computing.
Based on these estimates we expect to show that the sextet BSM model is consistent with observational limits and
stable baryons
will contribute a small fraction to the missing dark matter content.
New physics implied by gauge anomaly constraints, like new lepton generations with neutrinos~\cite{Fodor:2016wal},
can also contribute to the relic abundance of dark matter.
These are important and interesting issue for future investigations.
\section{Mass-deformed chiral perturbation theory and the chiral condensate}
One of the most important goals of lattice BSM models is to accurately set the Electroweak scale
as a function of the lattice spacing.
This allows control on the continuum limit when the cutoff is removed and phenomenologically relevant
BSM predictions are made.
The chiral ${\rm SU(2)_L\times SU(2)_R}$ symmetry of the model is dynamically broken to the diagonal vector
symmetry ${\rm SU(2)_V}$ and
three associated Goldstone pions facilitate
the minimal realization of the Higgs mechanism after the Electroweak interactions are turned on.
The Electroweak scale in finite
lattice spacing units is set from the decay constant ${\rm F_\pi}$ of the Goldstone pion in the
chiral limit with ${\rm F=250~GeV}$ in continuum physics notation.
It can be identified as the fundamental scale of the theory related to the chiral (Higgs) condensate
through the GMOR relation.
\subsection{Taste breaking cutoff effects in the staggered pion spectrum}
Since the determination of the Goldstone decay constant ${\rm F}$ in the chiral limit is critically important
for the location of the light scalar mass and the well-separated resonance spectrum in the 2-3 TeV range,
we carefully monitor taste breaking effects in the pion spectrum with the goal of removing cutoff effects from physics predictions. This also serves as guidance
for our choice of lattice spacings for new configuration generation.
To illustrate cutoff dependent taste breaking effects, spectra of mass-deformed non-Goldstone pion states are shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:goldstone} from our newest data with the definition of the relevant correlators and
quantum numbers given in~\cite{Fodor:2011tu,Fodor:2012ty}. In the fermion mass range of our data set the taste breaking pattern
is different from QCD where the residual ${\rm \Delta}$ mass shifts of the non-Goldstome pions are equispaced
in the chiral limit with approximately degenerate SO(4) taste multiplets and with parallel slopes for finite fermion mass deformations
of Goldstone and non-Goldstone pion states~\cite{Lee:1999zxa}.
For example, as part of the equispaced split of degenerate SO(4) multiplets, the observed approximate split
${\rm \Delta_{ij} \sim 2\Delta_{sc}}$ of two multiplets in QCD appears to have collapsed in the sextet model.
The other distinct difference from QCD is the non-parallel slopes which fan out
in Goldstone and non-Goldstone mass deformations of the pion spectrum as shown
in Figure~\ref{fig:goldstone}. While the ${\rm \Delta}$ additive mass shifts are LO taste breaking effects
in the chiral Lagrangian~\cite{Lee:1999zxa,Aubin:2003mg}, the taste breaking slope corrections ${\rm \delta}$
can plausibly be identified with NLO analytic terms in rooted staggered chiral perturbation
theory (${\rm rs\chi PT}$)~\cite{Sharpe:2004is}. The corrected mass
relation is ${\rm M^2_{NLO} = M^2_{LO}(1+\delta)}$
where ${\rm \delta}$ depends on the taste quantum number of the pion state.
Several relations
constrain the ${\rm \delta}$ taste breaking corrections~\cite{Sharpe:2004is}.
The pion spectrum with taste breaking cutoff effects is the input to analyze the fundamental
parameters of ${\rm rs\chi PT}$ as worked out for the SU(3) group
in~\cite{Aubin:2003mg}.
Our adaptation to the SU(2) group of ${\rm rs\chi PT}$ in the sextet model is straightforward.
\subsection{Fundamental parameters from rooted staggered chiral perturbation theory (p-regime)}
For the SU(2) analysis we adapted the procedure from~\cite{Aubin:2003mg}.
There are two fundamental parameters F and B in the SU(2) chiral Lagrangian. The fundamental parameter F
of ${\rm \chi PT}$, defined as the chiral limit of
the pion decay constant ${\rm F_\pi}$, sets the Electroweak scale and the fundamental parameter B sets the
fermion mass deformation of the Goldstone spectrum. With bare fermion mass m, the
RG invariant combination ${\rm m\cdot B F^2}$ is related
to the chiral condensate via the GMOR relation.
We apply rooted staggered chiral perturbation theory to the mass-deformed pion spectrum and ${\rm F_\pi}$.
The fitting procedure in the p-regime proceeds in several steps. In the first step
finite volume correction is applied to the ${\rm M_\pi}$ and ${\rm F_\pi}$ data from 1-loop continuum ${\rm \chi PT}$.
This is sufficient to assure that in the next step the fitting procedure
is applied to data free from volume dependence.
A linear fit is applied to the quadratic masses of the non-Goldstone pion spectrum to determine their
mass shifts and slopes.
In the final analysis of rooted chiral perturbation theory, non-Goldstone pion states run in the chiral loops
including their mass splittings and fan-out slope structure from taste breaking as determined from the
linear fits to the non-Goldstone spectrum.
We applied this analysis at two values of the gauge coupling where we have extensive ensembles.
For illustration, preliminary results from ${\rm rs\chi PT}$ are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:chipt}
from fits at gauge coupling ${\rm \beta = 3.20}$
which corresponds to our coarser lattice of the two extended sets of gauge ensembles.
The upper left panel shows the linear fits to the quadratic masses of the non-Goldstone pions to determine their
mass shifts and slopes as input. The upper right panel shows the
${\rm rs\chi PT}$ fit to ${\rm F_\pi}$ as a function of fermion mass
deformations away from the chiral limit. The two lower panels show
${\rm rs\chi PT}$ fits to ${\rm M_\pi}$ as a function of fermion mass
deformations away from the chiral limit.
Fits at the finer lattice
spacing ${\rm \beta = 3.25}$ are quite similar in quality but with lower confidence level.
The unambiguous determination of the cutoff dependent F and B parameters and their continuum limit
from ${\rm rs\chi PT}$ will require extended analysis.
Partial quenching with valence fermions is the first added step to make the ongoing analysis more robust.
Although our results are consistent with chiral symmetry breaking and ${\rm rs\chi PT}$, ongoing work will
require considerable extensions for definitive results. Important new work, besides partial quenching
includes a solution to the entanglement problem of the
light scalar with the low pion spectrum in perturbation theory with comparable masses in the
${\rm rs\chi PT}$ regime, crossover analysis from the p-regime to the $\epsilon$-regime and
applications of Random Matrix Theory (RMT) in the $\epsilon$-regime. Coupled chiral dynamics of the low
mass scalar ${\rm 0^{++}}$ state with the pions requires new analysis based on an extended effective theory.
We are using the modified effective field theory of ${\rm \chi PT}$ on existing gauge ensembles
but new gauge configuration generation is also needed in the crossover to the $\epsilon$ regime.
For independent control on the results for the fundamental parameters F and B we developed and apply now
mixed actions with improved chiral symmetry without taste breaking in the valence sector of the analysis.
Ongoing new efforts in the p-regime and RMT based $\epsilon$-regime in mixed action setting
will resolve important aspects of ${\rm rs\chi PT}$ with better determination of F and B.
\subsection{Epsilon-regime, RMT, and mixed action in the valence sector}
Safe extrapolation from the entangled regime of the low mass ${\rm 0^{++}}$ scalar with pions to the massless fermion limit
is enabled by crossover to the $\epsilon$-regime of ${\rm \chi PT}$ at low enough scales ${\rm \lambda}$ where Goldstone dynamics begins to decouple from the scalar state. This is demanding and requires significant resources.
To control taste breaking we cannot go to lattice spacings coarser than the one set by ${\rm \beta=3.20}$.
The uncertainties in the value of ${\rm F\sim 0.018-0.025}$ with limitations from rooted chiral perturbation theory at this
lattice spacing requires large ${\rm V=56^3\times 96}$ and ${\rm V=48^3\times 96}$ lattice volumes
to control the ${\rm F\cdot L \geq 1}$
condition which is necessary for convergent expansion in all regimes of ${\rm \chi PT}$, including the $\epsilon$-regime.
Even for our largest ${\rm V=56^3\times 96}$ and ${\rm V=48^3\times 96}$ lattice volumes control with
${\rm F\cdot L \sim 1}$ is just barely sufficient.
For the lowest fermion mass ${\rm m=0.0010}$, we have now at these volumes and at this lattice spacing,
the scaling variable ${\rm m\Sigma V\sim 80}$ is very large and more appropriate for the p-regime analysis
of ${\rm \chi PT}$. Reaching the $\epsilon$-regime requires substantial decrease in
the scaling variable ${\rm m\Sigma V}$ targeting ${\rm m=0.0003}$
which presents considerable algorithmic challenge for accelerated inversion methods and also calls for
mixed action innovation.
We deploy accelerated inverters in configuration generation to the ${\rm m=0.0010-0.0003}$
range and analyze these configurations with mixed valence actions of good chiral properties as described below.
Our limited resources this year allowed us to test these methods without comprehensive deployment for
phenomenologically relevant results like the ${\rm M_{0^{++}}/F}$ ratio in the continuum limit.
The ${\rm m=0.0010-0.0003}$ range is in the crossover from the p-regime to the $\epsilon$-regime
where known methods of ${\rm \chi PT}$ are based on partial quenching and mixed action analysis.
For reliable testing, we performed ${\rm \chi PT}$ analysis
in the crossover to the $\epsilon$-regime with partial quenching and a mixed valence action with
improved chiral symmetries.
We take the p-regime gauge configurations of the lowest fermion masses on the largest lattice volumes
and analyze the fermion condensate and the Dirac spectrum with valence fermion action
where the original gauge link variables are replaced with the ones with a fixed number of small stout steps
which corresponds to fixed gradient flow time ${\rm t}$ in lattice spacing units at each gauge coupling.
This strategy
can be viewed as a mixed action based analysis with very good chiral properties of the fermion valence action.
The newest test results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:mixed}.
The valence action is defined with a large number of very small stout steps
which corresponds to gradient flow time ${\rm t=3}$ in
cutoff units. We checked the eigenvalues of the Dirac operator which order into nearly degenerate quartets
with the smeared gauge links of the gradient flow. The degenerate eigenvalues follow the index theorem count matching
the topology of each gauge configuration as measured from the topological charge operator on the gradient flow.
The upper left panel shows the RMT distribution of four degenerate quartets showing that
the $\epsilon$-regime is reached with the scaling variable ${\rm \lambda\Sigma_{mixed} V\sim 10}$
where the fermion mass is replaced by the scale
of the gradient flow defined valence Dirac spectrum (${\rm m\rightarrow\lambda)}$.
The fermion condensate ${\rm \Sigma_{mixed}}$, not RG invariant itself, is
consistently determined from the gradient flow defined valence Dirac operator.
The upper right panel illustrates the perfect degeneracy of the Goldstone pion with one selected non-Goldstone pion
(scPion in the plot). We checked that the degeneracy holds for all non-Goldstone pion states.
The lower left panel shows the infrared part of the directly calculated Dirac spectral density on the gauge
configurations and its Chebyshev expansion based approximation. The lower right panel shows the pion decay
constant ${\rm F_\pi}$ fitted with the mixed action for fixed sea mass as a function of valence masses.
Continued future work is needed for definitive results of BSM phenomenology.
\section{The light $0^{++}$ scalar and the resonance spectrum}
The most important goals of our lattice Higgs project are
to establish the emergence of the light scalar state with $0^{++}$ quantum numbers and the resonance spectrum far
separated from the light composite scalar.
\subsection{The light scalar state}
The ${\rm f_0}$ meson (in QCD terminology) has ${\rm 0^{++}}$ quantum numbers and acts as the
scalar state in the sextet model (${\rm \sigma}$ particle in QCD).
Close to the conformal window, the ${\rm f_0}$ meson
of the sextet model is not expected to be similar to its counterpart in QCD. If it turns out to be light,
it can replace the elementary Higgs particle and pose as the Higgs impostor.
Two types of different ${\rm 0^{++}}$ operators, the fermionic one and the gluonic one (${\rm 0^{++}}$ glueball),
are expected to mix in the relevant correlation functions for mass determination.
Such mixing was not included in the pilot study~\cite{Fodor:2014pqa} but becomes an important goal of our ongoing effort.
We will report our new results without including these mixing effects.
A particular flavor-singlet correlator is needed to capture the ${\rm 0^{++}}$ scalar state with vacuum quantum numbers. It
requires connected and disconnected diagrams of fermion loop propagators on ensemble gauge configurations.
The connected diagram corresponds to the non-singlet correlator ${\rm C_{\rm non-singlet}(t)}$.
The correlator of the disconnected diagram is ${\rm D(t)}$ at time separation ${\rm t}$.
The ${\rm f_0}$ correlator ${\rm C_{\rm singlet}(t)}$ is defined as ${\rm C_{\rm singlet}(t) \equiv C_{\rm non-singlet}(t) + D(t)}$.
The transfer matrix has the spectral decomposition of the ${\rm C_{\rm singlet}(t)}$ correlator in terms of the
sum of all energy levels ${\rm E_i(0^{++}), i=0,1,2,...}$ and their parity partners ${\rm E_j(0^{-+}), j=0,1,2,...}$
but at large time separation ${\rm t}$ the lowest states ${\rm E_0(0^{++}) }$ and ${\rm E_0(0^{-+})}$ dominate.
They correspond to ${\rm m_{f_0}}$ and ${\rm m_{\eta_{\rm sc}}}$.
The relevant non-singlet
staggered correlator can be fitted well with non-oscillating $a_0$ contribution and oscillating $\pi_{\rm sc}$ contribution, with the
non-Goldstone pion $\pi_{\rm sc}$ discussed in Section 3.
One of the most important new developments in our analysis is to use correlators which project out non-zero momentum
states of the scalar. This projection eliminates the vacuum contribution in the disconnected part and improves
the mass extraction procedure.
We estimate the connected and disconnected diagrams with stochastic source vectors of fermion propagators.
To evaluate the disconnected diagram, we need to calculate closed loops of quark propagators.
We introduce $Z_2$ noise sources on the lattice where each source is defined on individual time-slice $t_0$ for color $a$.
The scheme can be viewed as a ``dilution'' scheme which is fully diluted in time and color and even/odd diluted in space.
Results from the original pilot study~\cite{Fodor:2014pqa}
on $32^3 \times 64$ lattice volumes at $\beta=3.20$ could only extend down to the lowest fermion mass
at ${\rm m=0.003}$.
From our new analysis some representative examples of ${\rm 0^{++}}$ effective mass fits
are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:scalar} probing the light scalar closer to the chiral limit than before at fermion mass ${\rm m=0.0015}$.
The upper left panel is at $\beta=3.20$ with $48^3 \times 96$ lattice volume and the upper right panel is
at $\beta=3.20$ with $56^3 \times 96$ lattice volume to check against finite volume dependence in this low
fermion mass range. The two lower panels of the plot show results at $\beta=3.25$.
Although our original estimate ${\rm M_{0^{++}}/F \sim 1-3}$ for the chiral limit remains consistent with
the ongoing new analysis, important further work is needed on the light ${\rm f_0}$ scalar with ${\rm 0^{++}}$ quantum numbers.
We want better control on the slowly changing topology of the RHMC algorithm and the related dependence of the
extracted masses on the topological quantum numbers of the gauge configurations. We are also in the process
of a closely related study of the $\eta'$ problem which is particularly interesting and important in the staggered fermion
formulation.
Fermion mass deformations of the low-lying ${\rm f_0}$ state and the Goldstone pion are expected to be entangled
which requires extended ${\rm \chi PT}$ analysis.
Our ongoing work will have to address these issues.
\subsection{The emerging resonance spectroscopy}
It is important to investigate the chiral limit of composite hadron states separated
from the Goldstones and the light scalar by finite mass gaps. The baryon mass gap in the chiral limit, for example,
provides further evidence
for ${\rm \chi SB}$ with preliminary results reported earlier~\cite{Santanu:2015}.
Resonance masses of parity partners provide important additional information with split parity masses in the chiral limit.
This is particularly important for consistency with ${\rm \chi SB}$ and for a first estimate of the S parameter
when probing the model via Electroweak precision tests~\cite{Peskin:1991sw}.
A remarkable resonance spectrum is emerging in our new analysis which is sketched in Figure~\ref{fig:spectroscopy}
for illustration only. The scale is set by F in TeV units at both lattice spacings with caveats from discussions in
Section 3 of the report.
Any conclusion about $\rm{\chi SB}$ or conformal behavior from eyeballed inspection of the data would be
inappropriate and misleading.
Although with more work needed for confirmation, the sextet model appears to be close to the conformal window and
due to $\chi{\rm SB}$ exhibits
the right Goldstone spectrum for the minimal realization of the composite Higgs mechanism with a light scalar
separated from the associated resonance spectrum in the 2-3 TeV region.
Chiral symmetry breaking and a very small beta function are
not sufficient to guarantee a light dilaton-like state as the natural interpretation for the emergence of the light scalar.
Consistent with our observations, a light Higgs-like scalar is still expected to emerge near the conformal window as a composite state with $0^{++}$ quantum numbers, but not necessarily with a dilaton interpretation.
This scalar state has to be light but is not required to match exactly the observed ${\rm 125~GeV}$
mass. The light scalar
from composite strong dynamics gets lighter
from electroweak loop corrections, dominated by the large negative mass shift from
the top quark loop~\cite{Foadi:2012bb,Cacciapaglia:2014uja,DiChiara:2014uwa}.
\section{The scale dependent renormalized coupling and beta function}
An important and independent consistency condition of the model would be provided
by matching the scale dependent renormalized coupling of the perturbative regime to the scale dependent
coupling of the non-perturbative phase associated with $\chi{\rm SB}$.
We proposed a gauge coupling earlier
$g(\mu = 1/L)$, running with the scale set by the finite volume~\cite{Fodor:2012td}
and defined on the gradient flow of the gauge field~\cite{Luscher:2010iy}.
Since the gradient flow at flow time $t$ probes the gauge field at the scale $\sqrt{8t}$, the running coupling can be defined as a
function of $L$ in finite volume $V=L^4$ while holding $c=(8t)^{1/2}/L$ fixed with
${\rm \alpha_{c}(L)=4\pi\langle t^2E(t)\rangle /[3(1+\delta (c)]}$
with details of the definition given in ~\cite{Fodor:2012td}.
This volume dependent coupling is
particularly suitable to study the perturbative
regime and departures from it.
The measured renormalized couplings are very accurate and the scheme defines a one-parameter family when $c$
is varied and adjusted for different goals~\cite{Fodor:2014cpa,Fodor:2014cxa}.
For illustration, published results are presented in Figure~\ref{fig:beta12} to show the efficiency of the method.
For comparison, red color marks the step $\beta$-function of four massless fermion flavors in the fundamental representation
from an earlier publication~\cite{Fodor:2014cpa}. The new published result for the step $\beta$-function of eight massless fermion flavors in the fundamental representation is marked with green color in the plot~\cite{Fodor:2015baa}.
The step $\beta$-function of the sextet model of this report is marked with blue color in the plot from a
recent publication~\cite{Fodor:2015zna}. This result ruled out an earlier claim of an infrared fixed point (IRFP) in the
${\rm g^2 = 6}$ range of the renormalized coupling which would have implied a conformal
phase for the sextet model~\cite{Hasenfratz:2015ssa}.
It is important to note that an IRFP was reported in the ${\rm g^2=6.0-6.4}$
range of the renormalized coupling with twelve massless fermions in the fundamental representation~\cite{Cheng:2014jba}.
This IRFP is based on the study of the scale-dependent running coupling from the gradient
flow with the choice $c=0.2$ and has been generally accepted
as the most convincing evidence that the model with twelve massless flavors in the fundamental representation
is inside the conformal window. Recent work using larger $c$ values in the gradient flow scheme
does not find an IRFP in the reported range~\cite{Lin:2015zpa}. Further work would be required to resolve the tension
between these two findings.
\begin{comment}
Our newest high precision work similarly rules out an IRFP with indisputable statistical evidence in the ${\rm g^2=6.0-6.4}$
range of the renormalized coupling with twelve massless fermions in the fundamental representation~\cite{Kuti:nf12}.
The results are schematically marked on the plot before publication.
The IRFP published earlier in this range of the renormalized coupling~\cite{Cheng:2014jba} has been generally accepted
as the most convincing evidence that the model with twelve massless flavors in the fundamental representation
is inside the conformal window. Our new work refutes this result and puts a new
question mark on the widely accepted conformal behavior of the model.
\end{comment}
To establish the volume dependent running coupling without an IRFP in the range of renormalized couplings
which can be reached within limitations of the method should be only one important part of the analysis.
Equally important is to find independent and direct evidence for ${\rm \chi SB}$ to rule out the conformal phase.
In this report we presented a preponderance of evidence for ${\rm \chi SB}$ in the sextet model.
For added consistency,
in the non-perturbative phase with ${\rm \chi SB}$ we are interested in a scale-dependent
and volume independent renormalized coupling.
At fixed lattice size, bare coupling, and fermion mass m
we determine the appropriate flow time ${\rm t(g^2, m)}$ to match any targeted
flow-dependent renormalized coupling ${\rm g^2}$ calculated from ${\rm \langle t^2E(t)\rangle}$.
Assuming that the footprint of the operator on the gradient flow is sufficiently small
compared to the Compton wavelength of the pion for p-regime
analysis, the dependence of ${\rm t(g^2, m)}$ on ${\rm m}$ can be replaced by ${\rm t(g^2, M^2_\pi)}$ in
${\rm \chi PT}$ of pion dynamics with
linear dependence of ${\rm t(g^2, M^2_\pi)}$ on ${\rm M^2_\pi}$ in leading order~\cite{Bar:2013ora}.
Any residual finite volume dependence can be corrected in ${\rm \chi PT}$.
A scale dependent and volume independent step
beta function can be determined from this procedure in the phase with ${\rm \chi SB}$.
The analysis is far from complete in the sextet model. Plans for similar calculations in the fundamental rep
with twelve flavors, motivated by our newest results, would be interesting to consider.
\section{ Computational framework}
We developed promising and well-tested new methods to overcome some limitations of more conventional
lattice BSM methods. They include the analysis of Goldstone dynamics with mixed actions, the chiral condensate, and spectroscopy
in crossover from the p-regime to the $\epsilon$-regime, close to the chiral limit of the theory.
As a candidate theory of the composite Higgs particle
the new approach requires new runs and a mixed valence action with excellent chiral properties of valence fermions.
The required fermion mass range of the gauge configurations is below the range of our existing run set.
Runs in the range from ${\rm m=0.0010}$ to ${\rm m=0.0003}$ operate in the crossover region from
the p-regime to the $\epsilon$-regime and runs with valence fermions in the
${\rm m=0.0003-0.0001}$ range reach further down in the fermion mass range of the RMT analysis.
Three gauge couplings are needed to control the continuum limit.
Our physics analysis includes spectroscopy, the Dirac spectra, and
the running coupling in capacity computing mode with new configuration generation plans.
The disconnected diagrams of the low mass ${\rm 0^{++}}$ state are extremely demanding on gpu
resources. The conventional spectroscopy including analysis with a series of
valence fermion masses in mixed actions,
Dirac spectra including RMT, and configuration generation for the volume dependent running coupling also
require large gpu resources for every given run parameter set in large volumes.
We use the tree-level Symanzik-improved gauge action for all simulations reported here.
The conventional $\rm{\beta=6/g^2}$ lattice gauge coupling is defined as the overall
factor in front of the well-known terms of the Symanzik lattice action.
Its values are in the $\beta=3.20-3.30$ range of the proposed ensemble generation.
The link variables in the staggered fermion matrix are exponentially smeared with two
stout steps~\cite{Morningstar:2003gk}; the precise definition of the staggered stout action was given in~\cite{Aoki:2005vt}.
The RHMC algorithm is deployed in all runs. The fermion flavor doublet requires rooting in the algorithm.
For molecular dynamics time evolution we apply multiple time scales~\cite{Urbach:2005ji} and the
Omelyan integrator~\cite{Takaishi:2005tz}.
Our error analysis of hadron masses uses correlated fitting with double jackknife procedure on the covariance matrices.
The time histories of the fermion condensate, the plaquette, the topological charge,
and correlators are used to monitor autocorrelation times in the simulations.
The composite Higgs theory of this report requires a code structure which is distinct from lattice QCD in one important way.
The fermions in QCD are in the fundamental representation of the SU(3) gauge group and represented in the code by a
complex vector ${\rm q_i}$, with color index ${\rm i=1,2, 3}$. In the sextet model the fermions are represented as a two-index
symmetric tensor $T_{ij}$ which is constructed as the symmetric part of the tensor ${\rm q_iq_j}$.
The staggered Dirac operator, represented in matrix form and built from the SU(3) gauge link variables,
has to be applied to the fermions
field during the CG iteration steps consuming the dominant part of the ensemble generating evolution code.
We developed two versions of the code. In the vector code, using the 6-dimensional vector representation of the fermions,
the SU(3) gauge link matrices $U_{ij}$ are brought in from main memory and from the product $U_{ij}\cdot U_{kl}$ on each link a new
6x6 matrix $V_{mn},~m,n=1,2,...6$ is constructed which acts on the $Q_n$ vectors as a $V_{mn}\cdot Q_n$ matrix-vector product.
It is possible, however, to keep the Dirac matrix-vector algebra in the original two-index symmetric representation which entirely eliminates
the overhead required to reconstruct the 6x6 matrix $V_{mn}$ and directly use the product of SU(3) link matrices
on each link in tensor representation.
The load on the memory bandwidth remains unchanged and on the BG/Q platform
with excellent balance of the network bandwidth and
memory bandwidth this leads to a factor of two reduction in flops and to a corresponding speedup factor in performance.
The code, with high utilization of the fast BG/Q network and with register level optimization of the local code on the nodes,
was thoroughly tested for weak scaling and strong scaling across a large number of nodes on the BG/Q platform.
The efficiency of the code in CG performance is 29 percent of the peak speed of the BG/Q platform
on ${\rm 48^3\times 96}$ lattices on one rack with little loss of efficiency on half-rack.
The numbers illustrate our efficient BG/Q code in lattice gauge theory applications of staggered fermions.
\section{Acknowledgement}
We acknowledge support by the DOE under grant DE-SC0009919,
by the NSF under grants 0970137 and 1318220, by the DOE ALCC award for the BG/Q Mira platform
of Argonne National Laboratory, by OTKA under the grant OTKA-NF-104034, and by the Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft grant SFB-TR 55. Computational resources were provided by the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility under an ALCC award, by USQCD at Fermilab, by the University of Wuppertal, by The Juelich Supercomputing Center on Juqueen
and by the Institute for Theoretical Physics, Eotvos University.
We are grateful to Szabolcs Borsanyi for his code development for the BG/Q platform. We are also
grateful to Sandor Katz and Kalman Szabo for their code development for the CUDA platform \cite{Egri:2006zm}. KH wishes to thank the Institute for Theoretical Physics and the Albert Einstein Center for Fundamental Physics at the University of Bern for their support.
\clearpage
\section{...}
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:intro}
Entanglement is a kind of nonlocal correlations that plays key role
in condensed matter physics\cite{Amico08}. The study of entanglement
provides new insights into topological states of matter, which can
not be characterized using local order parameters. For instance, the
topological entanglement entropy of von Neumann entanglement
entropy, the most commonly used measurement of entanglement, is
directly related to the total quantum dimension of fractional
quasiparticles\cite{Levin06, Kitaev06}. The full {\it entanglement
spectrum} (ES) provides even more complete information than
topological entanglement entropy\cite{Li08}. The entanglement
spectrum of a bipartite system with $A$ and $B$ subsystems, can be
characterized by the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix
$\rho_{red.}$ of either one of the two subsystems in the ground
state of composite system. The reduced density matrix of a subsystem is obtained by tracing out the
other subsystem degrees of freedom. As
the eigenvalues of the reduced density matrix are non-negative, one
can write $\rho_{red.}=\frac 1Z e^{-{\cal H}}$,
where $Z=tr(e^{-{\cal H}})$ is a partition function at temperature $T=1$ and ${\cal H}$ is the {\it entanglement Hamiltonian} whose spectrum is the ES.
The notion of entanglement spectrum has now been applied to many
different systems. These include quantum Hall monolayers at
fractional
filling\cite{Regnault09,Zozulya09,Lauchli10,Thomale10-1,Sterdyniak11-1,Thomale11,Chandran11,Sterdyniak11-2,Qi12},
quantum Hall bilayers at filling factor $\nu=1$\cite{Schliemann11},
the Kitaev model\cite{Yao10}, one dimensional quantum spin
systems\cite{Calabrese08,Fidkowski10,Thomale10-2,Pollmann10-1,Pollmann10-2,Turner11,Chiara12,Lepori13,Rao14,Lundgren15},
Hofstadter poblem\cite{Huang12, Schliemann13, Schliemann14},
interacting fermions on honeycomb lattice\cite{Assaad14} and bosonic
critical system in three dimensions\cite{Lemonik15}. As a result of
these studies, the ES depends on the chosen basis to partition the
many body Hilbert space. For systems with a bulk energy gap, the ES
obtained from some form of spatial cut contains information
reflecting the actual excitation spectrum of the systems at
issue.\cite{Thomale10-1, Lauchli10, Qi12,Lundgren13}. A large amount
of focus of the investigation of ES has been with a partition in
various systems like two-leg ladders and various bilayer systems,
where the edge comprises the entire remaining subsystem.
\cite{Poilblanc10,Cirac11,Peschel11,Lauchli11,Tanaka12,Lundgren12,Lundgren13,Chen13,Moudgalya15,Santos15}.
In this systems, broadly speaking, in the strong interlayer coupling
limit, the entanglement Hamiltonian is proportional to the
subsystems Hamiltonian. However, this is not the case in general and
their relation, depends on the couplings between subsystems.
In this paper we consider a model of non-interacting free fermions on a
bilayer honeycomb lattice where the presence of interlayer skew
hoppings breaks down the mentioned proportionality. Utilizing single particle
correlations of one layer, we obtain the entanglement Hamiltonian of
the system and present a relation between hopping parameters in
which, an exact correspondence is established between the ES of the
bilayer and energy spectrum of the monolayer (MES). We show that
this correspondence breaks down in the presence of trigonal warping
in the band structure of the bilayer. However, similar to the band
structure, the ES is symmetric with respect to the zero entanglement
as well as the trigonal warping appears on the ES. In the presence
of on-site energy difference, in spite of the symmetric energy
spectrum of bilayer the entanglement spectrum is completely
asymmetric.
In the second part of this paper we study the entanglement spectrum of bilayer honeycomb lattices in the presence of a uniform perpendicular magnetic field. We
demonstrate that in the absence of trigonal wrapping in energy spectrum, the ES similar to MES has a self-similar fractal structure, dubbed {\it Hofstadter
butterfly}. We also show that, the presence of an on-site energy
difference results in a transition from the so-called
Hofstadter butterfly to a tree-like picture.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=65mm]{honeycomb}
\includegraphics[width=180mm]{energy1}
\includegraphics[width=180mm]{energy2}
\caption{(Color online) Top: Illustration of Bernal-stacked
fermionic bilayer honeycomb lattice with the indication of the
within layer and interlayer hopping parameters. Middle: contour plots of energy band ${\varepsilon}^-$ for
$t_v=t$. The dashed lines indicate the edge of the Brillouin zone. Colors show the amount of entanglement. In the
presence of interlayer skew hopping three additional Dirac points appear near a
given K point. Bottom: the band structure for vertical hopping
parameters $t_v=0.5 t$ (red lines) and $t_v=t$ (blue lines). Two
left panels correspond to the energy spectrum in the absence of on-site
energy difference for skew hoppings $0$ and $0.5 t$. The inset
hexagon is the first Brillouin zone with labels of high symmetry
points. The enlarged inset plot shows effects of trigonal warping on
the band structure in the vicinity of zero energy at the edge of
Brillouin zone. Two right panels correspond to energy spectrum in
the presence of on-site energy difference,
$2\Delta$.} \label{bi-energy-band}
\end{figure*}
We have organized the rest of this paper as follows. In Sec.
\ref{sec:model}, we introduce the non-interacting fermionic model on
a bilayer honeycomb lattice and obtain the energy spectrum of the
model in the presence of interlayer skew hoppings and on-site energy
differences. In Sec. \ref{sec:ent} using nonzero single particle
correlation functions we build the layer-layer entanglement
Hamiltonian. By diagonalizing this Hamiltonian we obtain the
entanglement spectrum of the bilayer. In this section we investigate
in details the effects of trigonal warping and on-site energy
difference on the behavior of single particle correlations and their
direct relations with the entanglement spectrum of the system. In
Sec. \ref{sec:HoF} we investigate the effects of an external
perpendicular magnetic field on the energy band structure and
entanglement spectrum of bilayer. Finally in Sec. \ref{sec:con} we
present our conclusions and outlook.
\section{Bilayer honeycomb lattice model}\label{sec:model}
Bilayer honeycomb lattice consists of two stacked hexagonal
monolayers which in turn are made of two sublattices. We denote them
as $A$ and $B$ for the lower layer and $A^\prime$ and $B^\prime$
for the upper layer. In the Bernal stacked bilayer honeycomb lattice (BLH)
the $A$ and $B^\prime$ sublattices are directly situated above each other as
illustrated on the top panel of Fig. \ref{bi-energy-band}, however the sites on other two sublattices, B and $A^\prime$, don't have a counterpart
on the other layer that is directly above or below
them.
The tight binding Hamiltonian of the model of noninteracting free
fermions on BLH latices is given by \cite{bilayergraphene}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber H&=&-\sum_{\vec{k}}[t S_{\vec{k}}(a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}+h.c.)-\Delta (a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger a_{\vec{k}}+b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}})]~~~\\
\nonumber&-&\sum_{\vec{k}}[t S_{\vec{k}}(a_{\vec{k}}^{\prime\dagger} b_{\vec{k}}^\prime+h.c.)+\Delta (a_{\vec{k}}^{\prime\dagger} a_{\vec{k}}^\prime+b_{\vec{k}}^{\prime\dagger} b_{\vec{k}}^\prime)]\\
&+& \sum_{\vec{k}} [ t_ v (b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger a_{\vec{k}}^\prime +a_{\vec{k}}^{\prime\dagger} b_{\vec{k}})
-t_3 (S_{\vec{k}} b_{\vec{k}}^{\prime\dagger} a_{\vec{k}} + S^*_{\vec{k}} a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
b_{\vec{k}}^\prime)],
\label{HBL-kspace}
\end{eqnarray}
where the summations run over wave vectors in hexagonal Brillouin zone. $a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger (a_{\vec{k}}^{\prime\dagger})$, $b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
(b_{\vec{k}}^{\prime\dagger})$ and $a_{\vec{k}} (a_{\vec{k}}^\prime)$, $ b_{\vec{k}}
(b_{\vec{k}}^\prime)$ are fermionic creation and annihilation operators with wave vector ${\vec{k}}$ in
lower (upper) layer on sublattices $A (A^\prime)$ and $B
(B^\prime)$, respectively. $S_{\vec{k}}= \sum_{\ell=1}^3 e^{i{\vec{k}}\cdot\vec{\delta}_\ell}$ where $\vec{\delta}_\ell$ are the positions
of three nearest $B$ sites relative to a given $A$ site, which is written as
\begin{equation}
\vec{\delta}_{1,2}=\frac
a2(1,\pm\sqrt{3}),~~~\vec{\delta}_3=a(-1,0),
\end{equation}
with $a$ the distance between two neighboring sites. The on-site energy difference between two layers
is denoted by $2\Delta$ which can be controlled by doping or an external electric field.
$t$ denotes the hopping within each layer
between sublattices and $t_{v}$ is vertical hopping between two
sublattices in different layers, $B$ and $A^{\prime}$. The parameter
$t_3$ is skew hopping between $A$ and $B^{\prime}$ which leads to
trigonal warping in the energy spectrum. All these hoppings
are illustrated in Fig. \ref{bi-energy-band}.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=180mm]{corr}
\caption{(Color online) Single particle correlation functions versus
scaled hopping parameters $t_v/t$ and $t_3/t$ in the absence and
presence of on-site energy difference. Top: at $\Gamma$ point.
Bottom: at M point.} \label{correlation}
\end{figure*}
By diagonalizing the Hamiltonian (\ref{HBL-kspace}), the energy spectra of the bilayer are readily obtained as ${\varepsilon}_{\vec{k}}=\pm{\varepsilon}^{\pm}$, with
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\varepsilon^\pm=\sqrt{\Delta^2 + \frac 12\left(t_{v}^2 +(t_3^2 + 2t^2)|S_{\vec{k}}|^2
\pm\sqrt{4t^2|S_{\vec{k}}|^2(4\Delta^2 + t_{v}^2 + t_3^2|S_{\vec{k}}|^2) +(t_{v}^2 - t_3^2|S_{\vec{k}}|^2)^2+ 8t^2t_3t_{v}\Re(S_{\vec{k}}^3)}\right)},
\label{energyspect}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where $\Re$ denotes real part. The band structure is symmetric with
respect to zero energy (${\varepsilon}_{\rm F}=0$), and the separation of
branches depends on the hopping parameters and on-site energy
difference (see Fig. \ref{bi-energy-band}). In the absence of
on-site energy difference, at zero skew hopping the band structure
is rotationally symmetric for an area around a K point and shows a
split into four massive bands, with the two inner ones ($\pm{\varepsilon}^-$)
touching at zero energy and the two outer branches ($\pm{\varepsilon}^+$)
separating from the inner ones by gap $t_v$. In the presence of skew
hoppings, level crossings between ${\varepsilon}_+$ and ${\varepsilon}_-$ and between
$-{\varepsilon}_+$ and $-{\varepsilon}_-$ occur in $\Gamma$-K direction and therefore the
low energy physics of the system is captured by the two new inner
bands $\pm{\varepsilon}^+$. At the edge of entire Brillouin zone these two
branches touch at zero energy at an additional Dirac point where
they have linear dispersion (Fig. \ref{bi-energy-band}, the bottom
panels, inset plot). The appearance of three additional Dirac points
around a given K point due to the skew hoppings is known as trigonal
warping which is shown by the contour plots in Fig.
\ref{bi-energy-band}.
The level crossings in the band structure
are removed by on-site energy difference. The on-site energy
difference creates separation $2\Delta$ between inner branches
and opens a band gap at the edge of Brillouin zone.
\section{Entanglement Spectrum of Bilayer Honeycomb Lattice}\label{sec:ent}
Before we start the discussions on layer-layer ES of the BLH
lattice, it is worthwhile to review briefly some mathematical
details concerning the ES of fermionic hopping models on two-leg
ladders\cite{Peschel03-1,Peschel11} or bilayer square
lattices\cite{Schliemann13}. In these systems the Hamiltonian of
each layer is generally written in the following diagonal form
\begin{equation}
H_\ell = \sum_{\vec{k}}{\varepsilon}_{\ell{\vec{k}}} c_{\ell{\vec{k}}}^\dagger c_{\ell{\vec{k}}},
\end{equation}
where $c_{\ell{\vec{k}}}^\dagger$ and $c_{\ell{\vec{k}}}$ are fermionic creation and annihilation operators of single particle states with eigenvalues
${\varepsilon}_{\ell{\vec{k}}}$. For systems with opposite dispersion in both
subsystems {\it i.e.}, ${\varepsilon}_{1{\vec{k}}}=-{\varepsilon}_{2{\vec{k}}}$, the entanglement
Hamiltonian is readily obtained by tracing out subsystem $2$ as:
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_{ent}= \sum_{\vec{k}} {\varepsilon}_{\vec{k}}^e c_{1{\vec{k}}}^\dagger c_{1{\vec{k}}},
\end{equation}
where ${\varepsilon}_{\vec{k}}^e$ denotes the entanglement spectrum which is given by
${\varepsilon}_{\vec{k}}^e=2{\rm arctanh}(2\braket{c_{1{\vec{k}}}^\dagger c_{1{\vec{k}}}})$, with the
single particle correlation $\braket{c_{1{\vec{k}}}^\dagger c_{1{\vec{k}}}}$ on the
ground state of the composite
system\cite{Peschel03-1,Peschel09,Vidal03,Latorre09}.
The non-interacting free fermions model on BLH lattice
(\ref{HBL-kspace}) is somewhat different from the models considered
so far, in that the Hamiltonian of layers does not have a diagonal
form. We propose the following way for determining the entanglement
Hamiltonian of this system. In the first step, we obtain non-zero
single particle correlations of lower layer's fermionic operators
($a$ and $b$) on the ground state of the composite system. In the
second step, we build a fictitious entanglement Hamiltonian in terms
of the single particle operators with non-zero correlations.
By diagonalizing the Hamiltonian (\ref{HBL-kspace}) we find out that the single particle correlations:
\begin{equation}
\label{non-zero-corr}
\bra{\psi}a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger a_{\vec{k}}\ket{\psi},
\bra{\psi}b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}\ket{\psi},
\bra{\psi}a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}\ket{\psi},
\bra{\psi}b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger a_{\vec{k}}\ket{\psi},
\end{equation}
are non-zero where $\ket{\psi}$ denotes ground state of composite system.
Employing these non-zero correlations we build
the entanglement Hamiltonian as:
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_{ent}=\sum\limits_{\vec{k}} u_{\vec{k}}^a a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
a_{\vec{k}}+u_{\vec{k}}^bb_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}+(v_{\vec{k}} a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}+h.c.),
\label{NDEntH}
\end{equation}
where the unknown ${\vec{k}}$-dependent coefficients $u_{\vec{k}}^a$, $u_{\vec{k}}^b$, and
$v_{\vec{k}}$ could be obtained in terms of the nonzero single particle correlation functions (\ref{non-zero-corr}),
however we will see that their explicit forms are not necessary to achieve the ES.
By defining
\begin{equation}\label{ent-spect}
\xi_{\vec{k}}^\pm=\frac 12\left(u_{\vec{k}}^a-u_{\vec{k}}^b\pm\sqrt{(u_{\vec{k}}^a-u_{\vec{k}}^b)^2+4|v_{\vec{k}}|^2}\right),
\end{equation}
and employing the following unitary transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\nonumber
a_{\vec{k}}=\frac{\xi_{\vec{k}}^-/v_{\vec{k}}^*}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{\vec{k}}^-/|v_{\vec{k}}|)^2}}{\alpha_\kv}+
\frac{\xi_{\vec{k}}^+/v_{\vec{k}}^*}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{\vec{k}}^+/|v_{\vec{k}}|)^2}}{\beta_\kv},\\
&&b_{\vec{k}}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{\vec{k}}^-/|v_{\vec{k}}|)^2}}{\alpha_\kv}+
\frac{1}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{\vec{k}}^+/|v_{\vec{k}}|)^2}}{\beta_\kv},\label{unitary-trans}
\end{eqnarray}
where, ${\alpha_\kv}$ and ${\beta_\kv}$ are two new fermionic operators, the entanglement
Hamiltonian (\ref{NDEntH}) is readily diagonalized as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}_{ent}^{d}=\sum_{\vec{k}}(\xi_{\vec{k}}^+\alpha_{\vec{k}}^\dagger{\alpha_\kv}+\xi_{\vec{k}}^-\beta_{\vec{k}}^\dagger{\beta_\kv}).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\xi_{\vec{k}}^\pm$ are the entanglement spectra which could be written in terms of $n_{\vec{k}}^+=\braket{\alpha_{\vec{k}}^\dagger{\alpha_\kv}}$ and $n_{\vec{k}}^-=\braket{\beta_{\vec{k}}^\dagger{\beta_\kv}}$ as
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\vec{k}}^\pm=2{\rm arctanh}(2n_{\vec{k}}^\pm).
\label{ent-spect-gen1}
\end{equation}
It is now needed to find $n_{\vec{k}}^\pm$ on the ground state of the
composite system. By substituting $\xi^\pm$ from Eq. (\ref{ent-spect}) into the unitary
transformations (\ref{unitary-trans}) we readily obtain them after simple manipulations in terms of the non zero correlations (\ref{non-zero-corr})
as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber n_{\vec{k}}^\pm&=&\frac 12\bigg(\braket{a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger a_{\vec{k}}}+\braket{b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}}\\
&\pm&\sqrt{(\braket{a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger a_{\vec{k}}}-\braket{b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
b_{\vec{k}}})^2+4|\braket{a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}}|^2}\bigg). \label{ent-spect-gen2}
\end{eqnarray}
In the absence of on-site energy differences, $\braket{a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
a_{\vec{k}}}$ and $\braket{b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}}$ are identically equal to
$1/2$ which implies the existence of the symmetry of single particle
distributions on sublattices $A$ and $B$ of lower layer in the
ground state of composite system. The single particle correlations
$|\braket{a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}}|$, however, depend on ${\vec{k}}$ vector as
well as the hopping parameters. At a given K point they are zero,
whereas their behavior at other high symmetry points strongly
depends upon the hopping parameters. At $\Gamma$ point, for small values
of $t_v/t$ and $t_3/t$ they are almost $1/2$ and increasing the
interlayer couplings begin to progressively destroy them and for
large enough values of interlayer hoppings they will be destroyed
(see upper left panel of Fig. \ref{correlation}). At a given M point
they fall sharply down to zero by increasing the interlayer
couplings (see lower left panel of Fig. \ref{correlation}).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=89mm]{entspect1}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{entd0t30}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{entd0t305}
\caption{(Color online) Entanglement spectrum of Bernal-stacked
fermionic bilayer honeycomb lattice in the absence of on-site energy
difference. Top: entanglement spectra versus ${\vec{k}}$ vector for
different values of vertical hopping, in the absence (left panel)
and presence (right panel) of interlayer skew hoppings. The green
line is both the energy spectrum of a monolayer honeycomb lattice
and the ES of bilayer at $t_v\cong 2.82 t$. Bottom: contour plots of
$\xi_{\vec{k}}^+$. The dashed lines indicate the edge of the Brillouin
zone. Similar to the energy spectrum of BLH lattice, trigonal
warping also appear near K point in the ES.} \label{entspect-d0}
\end{figure}
In the absence of on-site energy difference ($\Delta=0$), the entanglement spectra (\ref{ent-spect-gen1}) are simplified to:
\begin{equation}
\xi_{\vec{k}}^+=-\xi_{\vec{k}}^-=-2{\rm arctanh}(2|\braket{a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger b_{\vec{k}}}|),\label{ent-spect-d0}
\end{equation}
where, similar to the band structure, they are symmetric with
respect to the level with zero entanglement ($\xi=0$) and their
separation depends on the interlayer couplings $t_v/t$ and $t_3/t$ (see
Fig. \ref{entspect-d0}). In the absence of trigonal warping on the energy spectrum of the bilayer,
the entanglement spectra are rotationally symmetric for an area around a K point and shows a split into two massless bands, touching at
$\xi=0$. At a particular relevance between interlayer and within
layer hoppings, {\it i.e.} at $t_3=0$ and $t_v\cong 2.82 t$, an
exact correspondence is established between the entanglement spectra
of BLH lattice and monolayer energy spectra which means that the
layer-layer ES of BLH lattice reflects the edge state properties of
the system, perfectly.
Interlayer skew hoppings considerably affect the ES of the system.
As a consequence of trigonal warping some degeneracy and one
discontinuity are shown to take place at the edge of entire
Brillouin zone, {\it i.e.} in K-M direction, due to the level
touching at zero energy on band structure of BLH lattice (see Fig.
\ref{entspect-d0}, plot $\Delta=0$ and $t_3=0.5 t$). In the presence
of trigonal warping, in general, there is no exact correspondence
between entanglement spectra of BLH lattice and the energy spectrum
of a monolayer honeycomb lattice , however, in $\Gamma$-K direction
for particular relevances between interlayer and within layer
hoppings, {\it e.g.} for $t_3\sim 0.1 t$ and $t_v\sim 2.51 t$, the
behavior of the ES versus ${\vec{k}}$ are remarkably similar to the MES.
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=87mm]{entspect2}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{entd05t305}
\includegraphics[width=60mm]{entgap}
\caption{(Color online) Entanglement spectrum and entanglement gap of Bernal-stacked fermionic bilayer honeycomb lattice in the presence of on-site energy difference.
Top: entanglement spectra versus ${\vec{k}}$ vector for different values of vertical hopping, in the absence (left panel) and presence (right panel) of trigonal warping.
Middle: contour plot at the presence of on-site energy difference.
Bottom: the indirect entanglement gap versus on-site energy difference.
The solid line is for $t_v=0.5 t$, the dashed line is for $t_v=t$ and the others are for $t_v=2.82 t$.} \label{entspect-d05}
\end{figure}
The on-site energy difference ($\Delta\neq 0$) causes the
correlations $\braket{a_{\vec{k}}^\dagger a_{\vec{k}}}$ and $\braket{b_{\vec{k}}^\dagger
b_{\vec{k}}}$ behave differently with varying interlayer couplings (see
Fig. \ref {correlation}) which implies that the on-site energy
difference breaks the symmetry of single particle distributions on
sublattice $A$ and $B$ of the lower layer. The different behaviors
of the single particle correlations, accompany an asymmetry in
entanglement spectra with respect to $\xi=0$ (see the upper panel of Fig. \ref{entspect-d05}). As a result of this
symmetry breaking, the degeneracy of the entanglement spectra at
$\xi=0$ is shown to be removed and consequently an {\it indirect
entanglement gap} (IEG) is opened. Variations of this IEG with increasing
the on-site energy difference is shown in lower panel of Fig.
\ref{entspect-d05}. In the absence of the trigonal warping it is
obviously seen that the IEG increases by $\Delta$, except for weak
interlayer vertical hoppings, where the IEG have very small
decrease. In the presence of trigonal warping, IEG is found to be
increased with a small value of $\Delta$, however more increasing of
the on-site energy decreases the IEG progressively and for
particular value of interlayer coupling the gap is exactly zero
where the two branches overlap indirectly.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=70mm]{HOF}
\caption{Energy spectrum of a monolayer honeycomb lattice in the presence of a uniform magnetic field versus reduced magnetic flux $\phi/\phi_0=p/q$ where $0\leq p\leq q=51$.}
\label{HoFmono}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{ent-HOF1}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ent-HOF2}
\caption{Entanglement spectrum of BLH lattice versus reduced magnetic flux, in the absence of on-site energy difference, for $0\leq p\leq q=51$.
Top: symmetric self similar structure of entanglement spectrum in the absence of trigonal warping.
Bottom: asymmetric spectrum due to the effects of trigonal warping at $t_v=t$. For strong interlayer skew hoppings full collapse to zero entanglement is happened.}
\label{hofd0}
\end{figure*}
\section{Hofstadter bilayer honeycomb lattice model}\label{sec:HoF}
In this section we investigate the effects of an external uniform
magnetic field $\vec{B}=(0,0,B)$ on the entanglement spectrum of the
non-interacting free fermions model on the bilayer honeycomb
lattice. The effects of a uniform magnetic field, perpendicular to
the two dimensional fermionic lattices, could be included by
modifying the hopping parameters via the Peierls
substitution\cite{Peierls} as $t_{ij} =t e^{iA_{ij}}$, such that the
magnetic flux $\phi$ through each unit cell is a rational multiple
$p/q$ of the magnetic flux quantum, $\phi_0$. The gauge field
$A_{ij}$ can be made periodic by constructing a magnetic super cell
of $q$ structural unit cells of the lattice. For a lattice with an
$r$ element basis, this results in $qr$ energy sub-bands which in
general do not cross. Plotting these energies as a function of
$\phi/\phi_0=p/q$ yields to a self similar fractal structure, known
as Hofstadter butterfly\cite{Azbel, Hofstadter}.
The actual equations, that need to be solved to obtain the energy
spectrum, are known as Harper's equation which is the energy
eigenvalue equation for the Hamiltonian matrix\cite{Rammal}. For
non-interacting free fermions model on monolayer honeycomb lattice
the Harper's equation is equivalent to a $q\times q$ eigenvalue
problem. Solving this equation, the energy spectrum versus reduced
magnetic flux $\Phi=\phi/\phi_0$ has a self similar butterfly
structure which is shown in Fig. \ref{HoFmono}.
For fermionic model on the BLH lattice, Harper's equation is
equivalent to the following $4q\times 4q$ eigenvalue problem
\begin{equation}
H_{\vec{k}}\Psi_{\vec{k}}={\varepsilon}_{\vec{k}}\Psi_{\vec{k}},
\end{equation}
where $\Psi_{\vec{k}}$ is the $4q$-component spinor
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber\Psi_{\vec{k}}&=&\bigg(\eta_{0{\vec{k}}},\dots,\eta_{q-1{\vec{k}}},\zeta_{0{\vec{k}}},\dots,\zeta_{q-1{\vec{k}}},\\
\nonumber&&\gamma_{0{\vec{k}}},\dots,\gamma_{q-1{\vec{k}}},\delta_{0{\vec{k}}},\dots,\delta_{q-1{\vec{k}}}\bigg)^T,
\end{eqnarray}
and
\begin{equation}
H({\vec{k}})=\left(
\begin{matrix}
\Delta{\bf I}_{q \times q} & th_{\vec{k}} & 0 & t_3h^*_{\vec{k}}\\
th^*_{\vec{k}} & \Delta{\bf I}_{q \times q} & t_v{\bf I}_{q \times q} & 0 \\
0 & t_v{\bf I}_{q \times q} & -\Delta{\bf I}_{q \times q} & th_{\vec{k}} \\
t_3h_{\vec{k}} & 0 & th^*_{\vec{k}} & -\Delta{\bf I}_{q \times q}
\end{matrix}
\right).
\label{BiHof1}
\end{equation}
Here, ${\bf I}_{q\times q}$ is the $q\times q$ unit matrix and $h_{\vec{k}}$
is the following $q\times q$ matrix
\begin{equation}
h_{\vec{k}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
x_{0{\vec{k}}} & y_{0{\vec{k}}} & 0 & \dots & z_{\vec{k}} \\
y_{0{\vec{k}}}^* & x_{1{\vec{k}}} & y_{1{\vec{k}}} & \dots & 0 \\
\vdots & \ddots & \ddots & \ddots & \vdots \\
0 & & \ddots & \ddots & y_{q-1{\vec{k}}} \\
z_{\vec{k}}^* & 0 & \ldots & y_{q-1{\vec{k}}}^* & x_{q-1{\vec{k}}}
\end{matrix}
\right),
\label{Hof}
\end{equation}
where,
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber x_{m{\vec{k}}}&=&2\cos(2\pi m\Phi+\frac{\sqrt 3}{2} k_y),\\
\nonumber y_{m{\vec{k}}}&=&1+e^{i(2\pi m\Phi+ \frac{\sqrt 3}{2} k_y)},\\
\nonumber z_{\vec{k}}&=&e^{-iqk_x} +e^{i(2\pi \Phi - \frac{\sqrt 3}{2} k_y - \frac{1}{2} qk_x)},
\end{eqnarray}
and $m=0,1,\dots,q-1$. The diagonalization of the Hamiltonian
(\ref{BiHof1}), in general, requires numerics, however explicit
analytical results are possible for the special values of the
magnetic flux $\phi$. The diagonalization of the Hamiltonian
(\ref{BiHof1}) is indeed reduced to the diagonalization of the
following $4\times 4$ Hamiltonian:
\begin{equation}
H_{m{\vec{k}}}=\left(
\begin{matrix}
\Delta & t\tilde{{\varepsilon}}_{m{\vec{k}}} & 0 & t_3\tilde{{\varepsilon}}_{m{\vec{k}}} \\
t\tilde{{\varepsilon}}_{m{\vec{k}}} & \Delta & t_v & 0 \\
0 & t_v & -\Delta & t\tilde{{\varepsilon}}_{m{\vec{k}}} \\
t_3\tilde{{\varepsilon}}_{m{\vec{k}}} & 0 & t\tilde{{\varepsilon}}_{m{\vec{k}}} & -\Delta
\end{matrix}
\right),
\label{BiHof2}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{{\varepsilon}}_{m{\vec{k}}}$ is $m$-th eigenvalue of $h_{\vec{k}}$.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering\noindent
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{ent-HOF3}
\caption{Self similar structure of the entanglement spectrum of fermionic BLH
lattice versus reduced magnetic flux, at $t_3=0$, in the presence of on-site
energy difference, for $0\leq p\leq q=51$. A transition from butterfly to a tree-like
picture is shown to be occurred for non-zero $\Delta$.}
\label{ent3plotD2}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Butterfly entanglement spectrum}\label{sec:HoF-ent}
In order to obtain the entanglement spectrum of the non-interacting free fermions model on BLH lattice
in the presence of a uniform magnetic field we calculate again the single particle correlations.
The non-zero single particle correlations read
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber&&\bra{\psi_m}a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger a_{m{\vec{k}}}\ket{\psi_m},
\bra{\psi_m}b_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger b_{m{\vec{k}}}\ket{\psi_m},\\
&&\bra{\psi_m}a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger b_{m{\vec{k}}}\ket{\psi_m},
\bra{\psi_m}b_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger a_{m{\vec{k}}}\ket{\psi_m},
\label{non-zero-corr-mag}
\end{eqnarray}
where $a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger$ and $b_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger$ ($a_{m{\vec{k}}}$ and $b_{m{\vec{k}}}$)
are creation (annihilation) operators of fermions on the lower
layer and $\ket{\psi_m}$ is the ground state of $H_{m{\vec{k}}}$. Using
these non-zero correlations one can build the entanglement
Hamiltonian of each structural unit cell as
\begin{equation}
{\cal H}_m=\sum\limits_{\vec{k}} u_{m{\vec{k}}}^a a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger
a_{m{\vec{k}}}+u_{m{\vec{k}}}^b b_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger b_{m{\vec{k}}}+(v_{m{\vec{k}}} a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger
b_{m{\vec{k}}}+h.c.), \label{NDEntH-mag}
\end{equation}
where the coefficients $u_{m{\vec{k}}}^a$, $u_{m{\vec{k}}}^b$, and $v_{m{\vec{k}}}$
could be obtained in terms of the nonzero single particle
correlation functions (\ref{non-zero-corr-mag}). By defining
\begin{equation}\label{ent-spect-mag}
\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^\pm=\frac
12\left(u_{m{\vec{k}}}^a-u_{m{\vec{k}}}^b\pm\sqrt{(u_{m{\vec{k}}}^a-u_{m{\vec{k}}}^b)^2+4|v_{m{\vec{k}}}|^2}\right),
\end{equation}
and using the following unitary transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\nonumber
a_{m{\vec{k}}}=\frac{(\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^-/v_{m{\vec{k}}}^*){\alpha_{m\kv}}}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^-/|v_{m{\vec{k}}}|)^2}}+
\frac{(\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^+/v_{m{\vec{k}}}^*){\beta_{m\kv}}}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^+/|v_{m{\vec{k}}}|)^2}},\\
&&b_{m{\vec{k}}}=\frac{{\alpha_{m\kv}}}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^-/|v_{m{\vec{k}}}|)^2}}+
\frac{{\beta_{m\kv}}}{\sqrt{1+(\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^+/|v_{m{\vec{k}}}|)^2}},\label{unitary-trans-mag}
\end{eqnarray}
the Hamiltonian (\ref{NDEntH-mag}) is diagonalized as
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal H}_m^d=\sum_{\vec{k}}(\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^+\alpha_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger\alpha_{m{\vec{k}}}+\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^-\beta_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger\beta_{m{\vec{k}}}).
\end{eqnarray}
Here, $\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^\pm$ are the entanglement spectra which are given
by
\begin{equation}
\xi_{m{\vec{k}}}^\pm=2{\rm arctanh}(2n_{m{\vec{k}}}^\pm), \label{ent-spect-gen3}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber n_{m{\vec{k}}}^\pm&=&\frac 12\bigg(\braket{a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger a_{m{\vec{k}}}}+\braket{b_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger b_{m{\vec{k}}}}\\
\nonumber&\pm&\sqrt{(\braket{a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger a_{m{\vec{k}}}}-\braket{b_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger
b_{m{\vec{k}}}})^2+4|\braket{a_{m{\vec{k}}}^\dagger b_{m{\vec{k}}}}|^2}\bigg).
\end{eqnarray}
In the absence of on-site energy difference, at zero skew hopping the ES versus reduced magnetic flux $\phi/\phi_0$,
is perfectly symmetric with respect to $\xi=0$, with a self similar structure like Hofstadter butterfly.
Increasing interlayer vertical hopping causes $\xi^+$ and $\xi^-$ get closer to each other so that at large values of $t_v$ they collapse to $\xi=0$.
The butterfly-like ES at $t_v\cong 2.82 t$ is exactly identical to the MES (compare Fig. \ref{HoFmono} and the right plot in upper panels of Fig. \ref{hofd0}).
In the presence of trigonal warping the symmetry of butterfly-like ES with respect to $\xi=0$ is shown to be broken (see Fig. \ref{hofd0}, the lower panels).
For small skew hoppings, the entanglement levels close to $\xi=0$ start to collapse to $\xi=0$ which causes the separation of the two halves of ES.
At strong skew hopping, a complete collapse to zero entanglement occurs.
In the presence of on-site energy difference, an asymmetry appears in entanglement spectra with respect to $\xi=0$
and an increase of the entanglement is observed.
By increasing $\Delta$ the entanglement levels in the lower half (see Fig. \ref{ent3plotD2}, blue levels)
get closer to each other, whereas the levels in upper half are shown to be spread forming a self similar {\it tree}-like picture.
This butterfly-tree transition is due to the symmetry breaking of single particle distributions on sublattice $A$ and $B$ of the lower layer.
\section{Conclusions and outlook}\label{sec:con}
In this paper we have studied analytically the energy and
entanglement spectrum of a non-interacting free fermions model on
bilayer honeycomb lattice in the presence of trigonal warping on energy spectrum, on-site energy difference and external magnetic field. The fermionic
bilayer honeycomb lattice is somewhat different from the models
considered so far in that the Hamiltonian of layers does not have a
diagonal form. We have proposed a way for determining the
entanglement Hamiltonian of this system by obtaining single particle
correlations of one of both layers on the ground state of the
composite system. Employing the non-zero single particle
correlations we have constructed the entanglement Hamiltonian in
terms of these single particle operators. Diagonalizing this
Hamiltonian we have found out that in the absence of trigonal
warping, at the special value of interlayer vertical coupling
$t_v=2.82 t$ the entanglement spectrum is exactly identical to the
edge state energy spectrum. Trigonal warping breaks down this
correspondence, however, in $\Gamma$-K direction in particular
relevances between hopping parameters the entanglement spectrum is
remarkably the same as monolayer energy spectrum. Moreover similar
to the energy spectrum of the bilayer honeycomb lattice, trigonal
warping also exist on the entanglement spectrum. We have also
studied the effects of on-site energy difference on the entanglement
spectrum of the bilayer and found out that an indirect entanglement
gap is opened on ES by on-site energy difference. The behavior of
this gap is completely different for bilayers with and without
trigonal warping.
In the second part of this paper, we have studied the effects of an
external perpendicular magnetic field on the energy and entanglement
spectrum of the fermionic bilayer honeycomb lattice. Solving Harper's equation and obtaining the non-zero single particle correlations in the ground state of
composite system, we present a non-diagonal entanglement Hamiltonian for Hofstadter bilayer honeycomb lattice. We have shown
that the entanglement spectrum versus magnetic flux is perfectly symmetric and, in correspondence with the energy spectrum, possesses the Hofstadter butterfly
structure. Finally we have shown that in the presence of an on-site
energy difference a transition form butterfly to tree-like picture
occurs on entanglement spectrum.
Bilayer graphene is one of the well-known materials with honeycomb
lattice which has became the focus of numerous theoretical and
experimental works. In bilayer graphene the experimental values \cite{experimentalvaluesgraphene} of hopping parameters are $t=3.16$ eV, $t_v=0.381$ eV, and $t_3=0.38$ eV.
Although they are not in the range where the entanglement spectrum of the bilayer is identical with the
energy spectrum of a single layer graphene, similar to the energy spectrum of bilayer graphene the trigonal warping also seen on the entanglement spectrum of the graphene.
Study of the entanglement properties of fermionic bilayer honeycomb
lattice with other stacking in the presence of in-plane magnetic
field and effects of fermionic interactions are left for the future
works.
{\it Note added}:
During preparing this manuscript we became aware of the paper by Predin, et. al. \cite{Predin15} where the
effects of trigonal warping on the entanglement spectrum of bilayer graphene in the absence of on-site energy difference have been investigated.
The authors have found that although the entanglement spectrum shows qualitative geometric differences
to the energy spectrum of a graphene monolayer, topological quantities such as Berry-phase-type contributions to Chern numbers agree.
|
\section{Introduction}
Mandelbrot measures are statistically self-similar measures introduced in early seventies by B. Mandelbrot in~\cite{mandelbrot} as a simplified model for energy dissipation in intermittent turbulence. In ${\Bbb R}^2$, such a non-trivial random measure $\mu$ is built on $[0,1]^2$ and is characterized by the equality
\begin{equation}\label{self-similarity}
\mu=\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} W_{i,j}\, \mu^{(i,j)}\circ S_{i,j}^{-1},
\end{equation}
where $m$ is an integer $\ge 2$, $S_{i,j}$ are similarity maps on ${\Bbb R}^2$ defined by
$$
S_{i,j}(x,y)=\left(\frac{x+i}{m},\frac{y+j}{m}\right),
$$
$W_{i,j}$ are non-negative random variables satisfying
$$
{\mathbb E}\left (\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} W_{i,j}\right )=1$$
and
$$
D:=-{\mathbb E}\left (\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} W_{i,j}\log_m(W_{i,j})\right )>0,
$$
$\mu^{(i,j)}$ are independent copies of $\mu$, which are also independent of the weights~$W_{i,j}$.
The topological support of $\mu$, denoted by $K$, is a statistically self-similar limit set so that
$$
K=\bigcup_{\substack{0\le i,j\le m-1\{\mathcal W}_{i,j}>0}} S_{i,j}(K_{i,j}),
$$
where $K_{i,j}$ are independent copies of $K$.
The fine geometric properties of $\mu$ were initially studied by Mandelbrot himself in \cite{mandelbrot,mandel2}, as well as by Kahane and Peyri\`ere in \cite{KP}. It was established that $\mu$ is exactly $D$-dimensional, i.e. the local dimension of $\mu$ equals $D$ on a set of full $\mu$-measure. Moreover, a statistical description of the mass distribution of $\mu$ at small scales was given by Mandelbrot by using large deviations properties of the branching random walk naturally associated with $\mu$.
On the other hand, the topological and measure theoretic properties of $K$ have been studied intensively \cite{mandel3,Pey,CCDu,DekGri,Fal, GMW,DekMee,FalGri,BenNasr,Wa07,DekSi,MorSiSo,RamSi1,RamSi2,FalJin,PerRam}.
Mandelbrot measures, as well as self-similar measures and Gibbs measures, are typical objects illustrating the multifractal formalism, which emerged in the middle of the eighties from turbulence theory \cite{FrPa} and hyperbolic dynamical systems \cite{HaJeKaPrSh,Collet},
in order to describe geometrically at small scales the distribution of a measure, or the H\"older singularities of a function;
this formalism can be viewed as a geometric counterpart of large deviations theory. For measures, it can be defined as follows.
If $(X,d)$ is a locally compact metric space and $\mu$ is a positive and finite compactly supported measure, denoting its topological support as $\mathrm{supp}(\mu)$, the $L^q$-spectrum of $\mu$ is a kind of free energy concave function defined by
$$
\tau_\mu:q\in{\Bbb R}\mapsto \liminf_{r\to 0+}\frac{\log \sup\Big \{\sum_i \mu(B(x_i,r))^q\Big \}}{\log(r)},
$$
where the supremum is taken over all the centered packings of $\mathrm{supp}(\mu)$ by closed balls of radius $r$.
If $(X,d)$ possesses the Besicovitch property (like Euclidean ${\Bbb R}^d$ or any symbolic space endowed with the standard metric), for $\alpha\in{\Bbb R}$ one always has (see e.g. \cite{BMP,Olsen1995,LN})
$$
\dim_H E(\mu,\alpha)\le \tau_\mu^*(\alpha):=\inf\{\alpha q-\tau_\mu(q):q\in{\Bbb R}\},
$$
where
$$
E(\mu,\alpha)=\left \{x\in\mathrm{supp}(\mu): \lim_{r\to 0+} \frac{\log(\mu(B(x,r)))}{\log(r)}=\alpha\right \},
$$
here $\dim_H$ stands for the Hausdorff dimension, and we adopt the convention that $$\dim_H \emptyset=-\infty.$$
One says that {\it the multifractal formalism holds for $\mu$ at $\alpha$} if $\dim_H E(\mu,\alpha)=\tau_\mu^*(\alpha)$, and one says that {\it it holds for $\mu$} if this equality holds for all $\alpha$, i.e. the Hausdorff spectrum $\alpha\mapsto \dim_H E(\mu,\alpha)$ and $\tau_\mu$ form a Legendre pair. Furthermore, one says that there is { \it $k$-th order phase transition} at $q$ for $\mu$ if $\tau_\mu$ has a $(k-1)$-th order derivative but no $k$-th order derivative at $q$.
In this paper we will investigate the multifractal structure of the orthogonal projections of a Mandelbrot measure $\mu$ on the horizontal and vertical axes, and its relation with that of $\mu$. For this purpose, we recall that under mild assumptions, defining for $q\in {\Bbb R}$
$$
T(q)=-\log_m\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1}\mathbb E(\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}}W_{i,j}^q),
$$
one has $\tau_\mu=T$, hence $\tau_\mu$ is analytic, on the interval $\{q\in{\Bbb R}: T^*(T'(q))\ge 0\}$ (see Section~\ref{MAMM}).
In our study of projections of $\mu$, we will consider the range $q\ge 0$ for the $L^q$-spectrum. This restriction is often met in the geometric study of measures obtained via projection schemes, like self-similar measures obtained as projections of Bernoulli products on self-similar sets satisfying the weak separation condition (see e.g. \cite{FengLau} and the references therein) or self-affine measures obtained as projections of Bernoulli products on almost all the attractors associated with a given finite collection of contractive linear maps \cite{Fal99,BF}.
The case of {orthogonal projections ${\pi_\ell}_*\mu$ of $\mu$} on almost every line {$\ell$} passing through the origin is essentially similar to that of Gibbs measures treated in \cite{BaBh}. In this case, due to Mastrand projection theorem, one is naturally led to consider the case where $D\le 1$, for otherwise the projection of $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to Lebesgue measure and it is hard to say more about the multifractality in general. Then, since $D\le 1$, the dimension of the projection is still $D$, and there are two possible behaviors in terms of the $L^q$-spectrum. If $\dim_H K\le 1$ as well, then {$\tau_{{\pi_\ell}_*\mu}=\tau_\mu$} on the interval $[0,q_2]$, where $q_2$ is defined by $\tau_\mu(q_2)=2$ (notice that $q_2\ge 3$ due to the concavity of $\tau_\mu$ and the facts that $\tau_\mu(1)=0$ and $\tau_\mu(0)\ge - \dim_H\mathrm{supp}(\mu)=-1$ in this case). If $\dim_H K> 1$, there is a second order phase transition at the unique $\widetilde q\in[0,1]$ at which $\tau_{\mu}^*(\tau_\mu'(\widetilde q))=1$; more precisely, the $L^q$-spectrum {$\tau_{{\pi_\ell}_*\mu}$} is analytic over $(0,\widetilde q)$ and $(\widetilde q,q_2)$ but not twice differentiable at $\widetilde q$; specifically, it is linear on $[0,\widetilde q]$ and equals $\tau_\mu$ on $[\widetilde q,q_2]$. {Also, the multifractal formalism is valid at any $\alpha\in \tau_{{\pi_\ell}_*\mu}'([0,q_2])$. It is worth mentioning that the preservation of the $L^q$-spectrum over $[1,q_2]$ is a fact valid for any measure (see \cite{HK,BB}).}
The situation is significantly different with the main axes. At first, it is worth noticing that for a Gibbs measure associated with a H\"older potential on the unit square, e.g. for the self-similar measures obtained when the weights $W_{i,j}$ are constant, its projection on any of the main directions is still a Gibbs measure of this kind \cite{ChU}, so no special new phenomenon appears related to its multifractal nature. Things turn out to be more interesting with (random) Mandelbrot measures.
Denote by $\pi$ the orthogonal projection on one of the main axes. It is known (Dekking and Grimmett \cite{DekGri}, Falconer \cite{Fal}), that $\dim_H \pi (K)$ in general differs from the typical value obtained by Mastrand's projection theorem when one projects on almost every line. Instead of being equal to $\min (\dim_HK,1)$, $\dim_H \pi (K)$ is given by a variational formula: denoting $N_i=\#\{0\le j\le m-1: W_{i,j}>0\}$, one has
\begin{equation}\label{dimproj}
\dim_H \pi (K)=\inf_{0\le h\le 1} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^h.
\end{equation}
Moreover, this dimension equals the box counting dimension of $\pi (K)$. It turns out that understanding the geometric structure of the projection $\pi_*\mu$ of the Mandelbrot measure $\mu$ heavily relies on its expectation, which is the Bernoulli product measure~$\nu$ associated with the probability vector $\left (p_i=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(W_{i,j})\right )_{0\le i\le m-1}$, for which it is known that
$$
\tau_\nu(q)=-\log_m\sum_{\substack{0\le i\le m-1\\ p_i>0}} p_i^q.
$$
In this paper, we show (Theorems~\ref{ABS} and \ref{DIM}) that when $\mu\neq 0$, $\pi_*\mu$ is exactly dimensional with $\dim (\pi_*\mu)=\dim(\mu)=D$ if and only if $\dim (\mu)\le \dim (\nu)$, in which case $\pi_*\mu$ is singular with respect to $\nu$, while if $\dim (\mu)>\dim (\nu)$ then $\pi_*\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to~$\nu$. We also find sufficient conditions for the two measures to be equivalent. Exact dimensionality and ``dimension conservation properties'' of projections of Mandelbrot measures on {\it all} the lines have already been established in \cite{FalJin}; however, the result of \cite{FalJin} is not quantitative, whilst for the main axes we provide the precise values for the dimensions, which differ from those given by Mastrand's theorem for almost every line when $\nu$ is not the Lebesgue measure. Also, as a consequence of Theorem~\ref{DIM} we get a new variational interpretation of Dekking-Grimmett-Falconer formula for $\dim_H\pi(K)$ (Corollary~\ref{DGF}).
Regarding the multifractal analysis (Theorem~\ref{MA}), for $q\ge 1$ we prove that $$\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=\min (\tau_\mu(q),\tau_\nu(q))$$ on a non-trivial interval $[1,\widetilde q_c)$. This fact is a source of first order phase transitions when the graphs of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ cross each other transversally. For $0< q\le 1$, we prove that $\tau_{\pi_*\nu}$ is given by the following variational formula:
$$
\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=\displaystyle -\inf\left\{ \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\left (\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(W_{i,j}^s)\right )^{q/s}:q\le s\le 1\right \},
$$
which converges to the value of $\dim_H \pi (K)$ given by \eqref{dimproj} as $q$ tends to $0$. The function $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}$ is differentiable over $[0,1]$. It coincides with $\tau_\mu(q)$ when the infimum is attained at $s=q$ and $\tau_\nu(q)$ when it is attained at $s=1$. Otherwise, the infimum is attained at a unique $s(q)\in (q,1)$, and this property holds on a neighborhood of $q$ over which by definition of $s(q)$ one has $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)> \max (\tau_\mu(q),\tau_\nu(q))$. These possible changes of analytic expressions lead to phase transitions of orders greater than or equal to 2. In particular, each transversal crossing of the graphs of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ gives rise to such a phase transition.
We also verify the validity of the multifractal formalism over $(\tau_{\pi_*\mu}'(q_c-),\tau_{\pi*\mu}'(0+)]$. When applied to the so-called branching measure on $K$, our result yields a partial multifractal classification of the asymptotic number of squares of a given generation necessary to cover the fibers $\pi^{-1}(\{x\})$, $x\in \pi(K)$ (see Corollary~\ref{covnumb}).
Let us finally mention that Mandelbrot martingales in various Bernoulli random environments play an important role in our study.
The paper is organized as follows. We will work with Mandelbrot measures on the symbolic space $\{0,\ldots,m-1\}^{ {\Bbb N}}\times \{0,\ldots,m-1\}^{ {\Bbb N}}$, for this offers a simpler framework to expose ideas and techniques. We explain in Appendix~\ref{D} the general simple principle which makes it possible to transfer the results to the Euclidean case. In Section~\ref{GenMA} we recall basic facts from multifractal formalism, as well as the formal definition of Mandelbrot measures and a precise known result for their multifractal analysis. In Section~3 we present in complete rigor our main results in this symbolic context, while Section~4 contains comments and examples related to phase transitions. Section~\ref{pfDIM} provides the proof of our results related to the dimension of the projected measures, as well as the new variational interpretation of the Hausdorff dimension of their topological support. Sections~6 to~8 provide the proof of Theorem~\ref{MA} about the multifractal analysis of the projection. Specifically, Section 6 deals with the differentiability property of the function identified to be the $L^q$-spectrum of $\pi_*\mu$, Section 7 exhibits the sharp lower bound for the $L^q$-spectrum, and Section 8 deals both with the sharp upper bound for the $L^q$-spectrum and the Hausdorff spectrum. Sections~5,~7 and~8 use moments estimates developed in Section~\ref{MEST} for quantities related to Mandelbrot martingales in Bernoulli environments, as well as other basic results gathered in the Appendix.
\section{Preliminaries on multifractal formalism and Mandelbrot measures}\label{GenMA}
Throughout this paper, we use ${\Bbb N}$ to denote the set of natural numbers, i.e. ${\Bbb N}=\{1,2,\ldots\}$. Let us first restate the multifractal formalism in this context.
\subsection{Multifractal formalism on symbolic spaces}
Let $m\ge 2$ be an integer. For $n\ge 0$ let $\Sigma_n=\{0,\ldots,m-1\}^n$. By convention, $\Sigma_0$ consists of the empty word $\epsilon$. Then define $\Sigma_*=\bigcup_{n\ge 0}\Sigma_n$, $(\Sigma\times\Sigma)_*=\bigcup_{n\ge 0}(\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n)$, and $\Sigma=\{0,\ldots,m-1\}^{\Bbb N}$. The sets $\Sigma_*$ and $(\Sigma\times\Sigma)_*$ act in the standard way by concatenation on $\Sigma_*\cup \Sigma $ and $(\Sigma\times\Sigma)_*\cup(\Sigma\times\Sigma)$ respectively. We denote by $\sigma$ the standard left shift operation on $\Sigma_*\cup(\Sigma\times\Sigma)$. The length of a word $w\in\Sigma_*$, i.e. its number of letters, is denoted as $|w|$.
For $x=x_1\cdots x_p\cdots \in\Sigma$, set $x_{|n}=x_1\cdots x_n$ if $n\ge 1$ and $\epsilon$ if $n=0$. For $u\in\Sigma_*$, set $[u]=\{x\in\Sigma: x_{||u|}=u\}$.
The set $\Sigma$ is endowed with the standard metric distance $$d(x,x')=m^{-\sup\left\{n: \, x_{|n}=x'_{|n}\right\}},$$ and $\Sigma\times \Sigma$ is endowed with the distance $d((x,y),(x',y'))=\max (d(x,x'),d(y,y'))$.
Given a positive and finite Borel measure $\rho$ on $\Sigma$ or $\Sigma\times\Sigma$, its topological support, i.e. the smallest closed set carrying the whole mass of $\mu$ is denoted as $\mathrm{supp}(\rho)$, and its lower and upper local dimensions at $x \in\mathrm{supp}(\rho)$ are defined as
$$
\underline \dim_{\rm loc}(\rho, x)=\displaystyle \liminf_{n\to \infty} \frac{\log (\rho([ x_{|n}]))}{(-n\log (m))} \quad\text{and}\quad \overline \dim_{\rm loc}(\rho,x)=\displaystyle \limsup_{n\to \infty} \frac{\log (\rho([x_{|n}]))}{(-n\log (m))}
$$
respectively. Let
\begin{align*}
\underline \dim_H(\rho)&=\inf\{\dim_H E: \, \rho(E)>0 \mbox{ and $E$ is a Borel set}\} \; \text{and} \\
\quad \overline \dim_P(\rho)&=\inf\{\dim_P E: \rho(E)=\|\rho\| \mbox{ and $E$ is a Borel set}\},
\end{align*}
where $\dim_PE$ stands for the packing dimension of $E$ (see e.g. \cite{Mattila}) and $\|\rho\|$ stands for the total mass of~$\rho$ .
It is well known that (see e.g. \cite{Cut0,Cut})
\begin{align*}
\underline \dim_H(\rho)&=\sup\{ s:\; \underline \dim_{\rm loc}(\rho,x)\geq s \mbox{ for $\rho$-almost every $x$}\} \; \mbox{and}\\
\overline \dim_P(\rho)&=\inf\{s:\; \overline \dim_{\rm loc} (\rho,x)\leq s \mbox{ for $\rho$--almost every $x$}\};
\end{align*}
when these two dimensions coincide, one says that $\rho$ is exactly dimensional and writes~$\dim(\rho)$ for the common value.
The $L^q$-spectrum of $\rho$ is the mapping $\tau_\rho:\; {\Bbb R}\to {\Bbb R}\cup\{-\infty\}$ given by
$$
\tau_\rho(q)=\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{-1}{n}\log_m\sum_{w\in S_n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\rho([w])>0\}}\rho([w])^q\quad (q\in{\Bbb R}),
$$
where $S_n$ stands for $\Sigma_n$ or $\Sigma_n\times \Sigma_n$. It is well known that (cf. \cite{Ngai})
$$
\tau_\rho'(1+)\le \underline \dim_H(\rho)\le \overline \dim_P(\rho)\le \tau_\rho'(1-).
$$
For all $\alpha\in{\Bbb R} $, set
\begin{align*}
\underline E(\rho,\alpha)&=\{x\in\mathrm{supp}(\rho): \underline \dim_{\rm{loc}}(\rho,x)=\alpha\},\\
\overline E(\rho,\alpha)&=\{x\in\mathrm{supp}(\mu): \overline \dim_{\rm{loc}}(\rho,x)=\alpha\}
\end{align*}
and
$$
E(\rho,\alpha)=\underline E(\rho,\alpha)\cap \overline E(\rho,\alpha).
$$
Then one also always has (see e.g. \cite{LN, Olsen1995}) that
$$
\dim_H E(\rho,\alpha)\le \max (\dim_H \underline E(\rho,\alpha), \dim_H \overline E(\rho,\alpha))\le \tau_\rho^*(\alpha),
$$
where the Legendre transform of $f:{\Bbb R}\to{\Bbb R}\cup\{-\infty\}$ is defined as $$f^*:\alpha\in {\Bbb R}\mapsto \inf_{q\in{\Bbb R}}(\alpha q-f(q)),$$ and a negative dimension means that the set is empty. One says that the multifractal formalism holds at $\alpha$ if $$\dim_H E(\rho,\alpha)= \tau_\rho^*(\alpha).$$
Also, if $\alpha\le \tau_\rho'(0+)$, one has (see e.g. \cite{LN, Olsen1995})
\begin{equation}\label{MF}
\dim_H \underline E^{\le }(\rho,\alpha)\le \tau_\rho^*(\alpha),
\end{equation}
where
$$
\underline E^{\le }(\rho,\alpha)=\{x\in\mathrm{supp}(\rho): \underline \dim_{\rm{loc}}(\rho,x)\le \alpha\}.
$$
\subsection{Multifractal analysis of the Mandelbrot measures on $\Sigma\times\Sigma$}\label{MAMM}
Now let us formally define the Mandelbrot measures on $\Sigma\times\Sigma$. We consider a non-negative random vector $$W=(W_{i,j})_{(i,j)\in\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_1}$$ whose entries are integrable. For $q\in {\Bbb R}$ we define
\begin{equation}\label{defpsi}
T(q)=T_W(q)=-\log_m\sum_{(i,j)\in\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_1}\mathbb E(\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}}W_{i,j}^q).
\end{equation}
We denote $N=\sum_{(i,j)\in\Sigma_1\times\Sigma_1}\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}}$, and assume that $\mathbb P(N\in\{0,1\})<1$.
To build a Mandelbrot measure on $\Sigma\times \Sigma$ we assume that $T(1)=0$ and consider a sequence $(W(u,v))_{(u,v)\in \bigcup_{n\ge 0}\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n}$ of independent copies of $W$, defined on a probability space $(\Omega,\mathcal A,\mathbb{P})$.
For each $n\ge 1$ let $\mu_n=\mu_{W,n}$ be the measure on $\Sigma\times \Sigma$ whose density with respect to the measure of maximal entropy is constant over each cylinder $[u,v]:=[u]\times[v]$ of generation $n$ and given by $m^{2n}Q(u,v)$, where
$$
Q(u,v)=\prod_{j=1}^{n}W_{u_j,v_j}(u_{|j-1},v_{|j-1}).
$$
Denote the total mass of $\mu_n$ as $Y_n$, i.e. $$Y_n=\sum_{|u|=|v|=n} Q(u,v).$$ By construction the sequence $(Y_n)_{n\ge 1}$ is a non-negative martingale of expectation $1$ with respect to the filtration $(\sigma(W(u,v): |u|=|v|\le n-1))_{n\ge 1}$, thus it converges to a limit, which we denote by $Y$.
Let $T_n=\{(u,v)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n: Q(u,v)>0\}$. The sequence $(T_n)_{n\ge 1}$ represents the generations of a Galton-Watson process with offspring distribution given by that of $N$. We have $$K_n:={\rm supp}(\mu_n)=\bigcup_{(u,v)\in T_n}[u]\times[v].$$
For $n\ge k\ge 1$ and $(u,v)\in \Sigma_k\times\Sigma_k$, the statistical self-similarity of the construction yields $(\mu_n([u]\times[v])= Q(u,v) Y_{n-k}(u,v)$, with $(Y_{n-k}(u,v))_{(u,v)\in\Sigma_k\times\Sigma_k}$ a family of independent copies of $Y_{n-k}$, also independent of $\sigma(W(u,v): |u|=|v|\le k-1)$.
Consequently, with probability 1, there exists a family $(Y(u,v))_{(u,v)\in \Sigma_k\times\Sigma_k,k\ge 1})$ of copies of $Y$ such that for each $k\ge 1$ and $(u,v)\in \Sigma_k\times\Sigma_k$,
\begin{equation}\label{Yuv}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \mu_n([u]\times[v])=Q(u,v) Y(u,v).
\end{equation}
Moreover, the random variables $Y(u,v)$, $(u,v)\in \Sigma_k\times\Sigma_k$, are independent, and generate a $\sigma$-field independent of $\sigma(W(u,v): |u|=|v|\le k-1)$. By construction, this means that $\mu_n$ weakly converges to a measure $\mu$ defined by
$$
\mu([u]\times[v])= Q(u,v) Y(u,v).
$$
Moreover, $\mu$ is positive (i.e. $Y>0$) with positive probability if and only if $T'(1-)>0$; and this is also equivalent to the uniform integrability of $(Y_n)_{n\ge 1}$, that is ${\mathbb E}(Y)=1$ (\cite{KP,DL}). From now on we assume that this condition (i.e., $T'(1-)>0$) holds; in this case, it is known (cf. \cite{KP,K87}) that the measure $\mu$, if non-degenerate, is exactly dimensional and
$$
\dim(\mu)=T'(1-)\text{ almost surely on }\{\mu\neq 0\}.
$$
Also, the events $\{\mu\neq 0\}$ and $\{K:=\bigcap_{n\ge 1} K_n\neq\emptyset\}$ coincide up to a set of probability~0 over which we have $K=\mathrm{supp}(\mu)$ (see Proposition~\ref{Kmu} for a proof). In addition, the inequality $T'(1-)>0$ and the concavity of $T$ imply that $T(0)=-\log_m({\mathbb E}(N))<0$, i.e. ${\mathbb E}(N)>1$.
We have the following result regarding the multifractal analysis of $\mu$ (see also \cite{HoWa,Falconer1994,Olsen1994,Mol,Ba00} for slightly less sharp versions).
\begin{thm}[\cite{AB}]\label{AB} Suppose that $T$ is finite on a neighborhood of $0$ and that conditionally on $N\neq 0$ one has $N\ge 2$. Define $f(\alpha)=T^*(\alpha)$ if $T^*(\alpha)\ge 0$ and $f(\alpha)=-\infty$ otherwise. With probability 1, conditionally on $\{\mu\neq 0\}$, $\tau_\mu=f^*$ and the multifractal formalism holds at all $\alpha$ in the domain of $\tau_\mu^*=f$. In particular, $\tau_\mu(q)=T(q)$ at each $q\in{\Bbb R}$ such that $T^*(T'(q))\ge 0$.
\end{thm}
Since we mainly want to focus on new phenomena associated with $\pi_*\mu$, we will avoid to deal with too many technicalities and discard the case when
$$\sup\{q\ge 1: T(q)>-\infty\}= \sup\{q\ge 1: T^*(T'(q))>0\}.$$
Thus, when we study the validity of the multifractal formalism for $\pi_*\mu$, our assumptions will be:
\begin{equation}\label{assumMA}
\begin{split}
&\bullet \ \mathbb P(N\in\{0,1\})<1,\ T'(1-)>0;\\
&\bullet \ T \text{ is finite on a neighborhood of $0$};\\
&\bullet \ \text{either $\exists$ $q_{c}>1$ such that $T^*(T'(q_{c}^-))=0$}\\
& \quad \; \text{or $T^*(T'(q))>0$ for all $q\ge 0$, in which case we set $q_{c}=\infty$}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We drop the assumption that $N\ge 2$ when $N\neq 0$ because this does not affect the validity of Theorem~\ref{AB} for the local dimensions $\alpha$ associated with non-negative $q$ by Legendre duality, and our study of $\pi_*\mu$ we will only focus on the case $q\ge 0$.
\section{Main results for projections of Mandelbrot measures}
Throughout this section we assume that $\mathbb P(N\in\{0,1\})<1$ and $T'(1-)>0$. We are interested in the geometric properties of the measure $\pi_*\mu$, where $\pi$ stands for the canonical projection onto the first factor of $\Sigma\times \Sigma$. We are also concerned with the disintegrations of $\mu$ associated with the projection $\pi$.
\medskip
For $0\le i,j\le m-1$ set
$$
p_i=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(W_{i,j}) \text{ and }
V_{i,j}=\begin{cases} W_{i,j}/p_i&\text{ if $p_i>0$,}\\
{1}/{m}&\text{ otherwise.}
\end{cases}
$$
(In fact those $i$ for which $p_i=0$ will play no role in our study.)
Then write $V_i:=(V_{i,j})_{j\in \Sigma_1}$ and define
\begin{equation}\label{defpsii}
T_i(q)=T_{V_i}(q)=-\log_m\sum_{j\in\Sigma_1}\mathbb E(\mathbf{1}_{\{V_{i,j}>0\}}V_{i,j}^q),\qquad q\in {\Bbb R}.
\end{equation}
Notice that $T_i(1)=0$ for all $0\le i\le m-1$.
Let $\nu$ stand for the Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ associated with the probability vector $(p_0,\ldots,p_{m-1})$, that is $$\nu([x_1\ldots x_n])=p_{x_1}\ldots p_{x_n}$$ for $n\geq 1$ and $x_1,\ldots, x_n\in \{0,1,\ldots, m-1\}$.
By construction we have
\begin{equation}\label{psi}
m^{-T(q)}=\sum_{i,j}\mathbb{E}(\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}}W_{i,j}^q)=\sum_{i,j}\mathbf{1}_{\{p_i>0\}}p_i^q\mathbb{E}(V_{i,j}^q)=\sum_{i}\mathbf{1}_{\{p_i>0\}}p_i^qm^{-T_i(q)}.
\end{equation}
Consequently,
\begin{equation}\label{dimrel}
T'(1-)=\sum_{i}p_i(T'_i(1-)-\log_m(p_i))=\Big (\sum_i p_iT'_i(1-)\Big )+\dim(\nu),
\end{equation}
where we recall that
$$
\dim(\nu)=-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i\log(p_i)/\log(m).
$$
Notice that $\nu=\mathbb{E} (\pi_*\mu)$, and recall that a direct calculation yields
$$
\tau_\nu(q)=-\log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^q \quad (q\in{\Bbb R}).
$$
For $q\in{\Bbb R}$, we denote by $\nu_q$ the Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ associated with the probability vector $\big(p_0^qm^{\tau_\nu(q)},\ldots,p_{m-1}^qm^{\tau_\nu(q)}\big )$.
Below we discard two trivial situations.
We first discard the case when $p_i=1$ for some $0\le i\le m-1$, which means that the measure $\mu$ is supported on a deterministic vertical line hence is a Mandelbrot measure on a line, for which the multifractal nature is analogue to that of a 1-dimensional Mandelbrot measures. For $0\le i\le m-1$, we set
\begin{equation}\label{Ni}
N_i=\#\{0\le j\le m-1:W_{i,j}>0\}.
\end{equation}
We also discard the case when $N_i=1$ almost surely for all $0\le i\le m-1$, which implies that $\pi_*\mu$ is a Mandelbrot measure on a line as well.
\subsection{Absolute continuity and dimension}
This section gathers our results on the absolute continuity/singularity of $\pi_*\mu$ with respect to $\nu=\mathbb{E}(\pi_*\mu)$, and on the dimension of $\pi_*\mu$ and its associated conditional measures in the natural disintegration of $\mu$ along $\pi_*\mu$-almost every fiber $\{x\}\times\Sigma$. The result on $\dim(\pi_*\mu)$ also yields a new variational principle for $\dim \pi(K)$.
\begin{thm}\label{ABS}
With probability 1, conditionally on $\{\mu\neq 0\}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\dim (\mu)>\dim(\nu)$, then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\pi_*\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$.
\item[(ii)]
Suppose that $T$ is finite in a neighborhood of $1$. Then the density of $\pi_*\nu$ with respect to $\nu$ is in $L^s$ for all $s$ in the following non-empty set $$\left\{s\in (1,2]: \; T(s)>0 \text{ and }\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_im^{-T_i(s)} <1\right\}.$$
\item[(iii)] Suppose, moreover, that there exists $c\in (0,1)$ such that both $$\Bbb P\left(\sup_{0\leq j\leq m-1} V_{i,j}>c\right)=1 \mbox{ and }\; {\mathbb E}(\#\{j: V_{i,j}>c\})>1$$ hold for all $i$ such that $p_i>0$. Then $\nu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\pi_*\mu$, and its density with respect to $\pi_*\mu$ is in $L^s$ for some $s>1$.
\end{itemize}
\item If $\dim (\mu)\le \dim(\nu)$, then $\pi_*\mu$ and $\nu$ are mutually singular.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{thm}\label{DIM}With probability 1, conditionally on $\{\mu\neq 0\}$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\dim (\mu)>\dim(\nu)$ then $\pi_*\mu$ is exactly dimensional with dimension $\dim(\nu)$; while if $\dim (\mu)\le \dim(\nu)$ and $T$ is finite in a neighborhood of $1$, then $\pi_*\mu$ is exactly dimensional with dimension $\dim(\mu)$.
\item
For $\pi_*\mu$-almost every $x$, the conditional measure $\mu^x$ is exactly dimensional with dimension $\dim (\mu)-\dim(\pi_*\mu)=\dim(\mu)-\dim(\nu)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT'_i(1)$ if $\dim(\mu)>\dim(\nu)$, and dimension 0 if $\dim (\mu)\le \dim(\nu)$ and $T$ is finite in a neighborhood of~$1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}{\rm Recall that in \cite{FalJin} Falconer and Jin have already proven that with probability~1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for $\pi_*\mu$-almost every $x$ one has $\dim (\mu^x)=\dim (\mu)-\dim(\pi_*\mu)$, without specifying the value of $\dim(\pi_*\mu)$, hence of $\dim (\mu^x)$. Here we give an alternative proof of the exact dimensionality of $\pi_*\mu$ and find its dimension, and in the case when $\dim (\mu)>\dim(\nu)$, we also give an alternative proof of the exact dimensions of $\mu^x$ and the dimension preservation $\dim(\mu)=\dim(\pi_*\mu)+\dim(\mu^x)$. When $\dim (\mu)\le \dim(\nu)$, the exact dimensionality of $\mu^x$ follows from \cite{FalJin}, but our result on $\dim (\pi_*\mu)$ yields that the dimension of $\mu^x$ is 0. Without using the work in \cite{FalJin}, our result on $\dim (\pi_*\mu)$ and simple arguments would give $\underline{\dim}_H(\mu^x)=0$.
}\end{rem}
The previous statement makes it possible to derive the dimension formula of $\pi(K)$ by using an adapted Mandelbrot measure, whilst in \cite{Fal} Falconer builds statistically self-similar subsets of $\pi(K)$ of Hausdorff dimension smaller than but arbitrarily close to the value given by \eqref{dimproj}. The new point is the variational principle invoking Mandelbrot measures in \eqref{vp} and the related uniqueness property.
\begin{cor}[Dekking-Grimmett-Falconer formula revisited]\label{DGF} Let
\begin{equation}\label{varphi}
\varphi:h\ge 0\mapsto \log\left (\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^h\right )/\log(m).
\end{equation}
With probability 1, conditionally on $K\neq\emptyset$, we have
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\dim_H \pi(K)&=\dim_{B}(\pi(K))\\
&=\inf_{0\le h\le 1}\varphi(h)\\
\label{vp}&=\max\{\dim (\pi_*\mu'): \mu' \ \text{{\rm is a Mandelbrot measure supported on $K$}}\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Moreover, the maximum in \eqref{vp} is attained at a unique point if and only if $\varphi'(0)\le 0$, i.e. $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\log({\mathbb E}(N_i))\le 0$.
\end{cor}
\begin{rem}{\rm One has $\dim_H \pi(K)=\dim_H K$ if and only if $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)\log {\mathbb E}(N_i)\le 0$, i.e. in \eqref{vp} the infimum is attained at $h=1$.}
\end{rem
\subsection{Multifractal formalism for $\pi_*\mu$}
Assume \eqref{assumMA} and define
$$
\widetilde q_c=
\begin{cases}
q_{c}&\text{if $q_c<\infty$ and }\tau_{\nu}(q_{c})\ge T(q_{c})\\
\inf\{q> q_c: \tau_\nu(q)\ge T(q)\}&\text{ otherwise}
\end{cases},
$$
with the convention that $\inf \emptyset=q_c$.
Let
$$
\tau: q\mapsto \begin{cases}
\displaystyle -\inf\left \{\log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^h: 0\le h\le 1\right \}&\text{ if }q=0,\\
\displaystyle -\inf\left\{ \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s)/s}:q\le s\le 1\right \}&\text{ if }0<q\le 1,\\
\min(\tau_\nu(q),T(q))&\text{ if }1<q< \widetilde q_c\text{ or }q=\widetilde q_c <\infty.
\end{cases}
$$
\begin{thm}\label{MA}
The function $\tau$ is differentiable everywhere except at the possible points in $(1,\widetilde q_c)$ at which the graphs of $T$ and $\tau_\nu$ cross each other transversally.
Moreover,
\begin{enumerate}
\item with probability 1, conditionally on $\{\mu\neq 0\}$, for all $ q\in [0,\widetilde q_c)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{convtaun}
\tau(q)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{-1}{n}\log_m\sum_{|u|=n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\pi_*\mu([u])>0\}}\pi_*\mu([u])^q.
\end{equation}
In particular $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=\tau(q)$. Also, if $\widetilde q_c=q_c<\infty$, we have $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=qT'(q_c-)$
for $q>q_c$.
\item If $\alpha\in(\tau'(\widetilde q_c-),\tau'(0+)]$, with probability 1, conditionally on $\{\mu\neq 0\}$, the multifractal formalism holds at $\alpha$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{rem}
Notice that when $q_c<\infty$, the equality $\tau_\nu(q_c)=T(q_c)$ cannot hold if $\tau_\nu'(q_c)\le T'(q_c-)$, for this would imply that $\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q_c))\le T^*(T'(q_c-))=0$, while $\tau_\nu^*\circ \tau_\nu'$ is always positive over ${\Bbb R}$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}
\label{rem-2.9}
The same conclusion as in \eqref{convtaun} and Theorem~\ref{MA}(2) holds if we replace $\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])$ by $\pi_*\mu_n([x_{|n}])$ in the definition of the level sets $E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)$.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{specialtau}
(1) One has $\tau=T=\tau_\nu$ over $[0,q_c)$ if and only if for all $0\le i\le m-1$ such that $p_i>0$ one has $\mathbb{E}(N_i)=1$ and $W_{i,j}\in \{0,p_i\}$ almost surely for all $0\le j\le m-1$, i.e. $T_i$ is identically equal to 0 (see Section~\ref{difftau}).
\medskip
(2) On the other hand, a sufficient condition to have $\tau=\tau_\nu$ over ${\Bbb R}_+$ and $\tau_\nu>T$ over $(0,1)$ and $\tau_\nu<T$ over $(1,\infty)$ is $(\mathcal P)$: there exists a partition $\{I_1,\ldots, I_L\}$ of $\{0\le i\le m-1:p_i>0\}$ such that $(i)$ $p_i$ does not depend on $i\in I_k$ and $\prod_{i\in I_k}\mathbb E(N_i)=1$ for each $1\le k\le L$; $(ii)$ there exists $1\le k\le L$ such that $\# I_k\ge 2$ and ${\mathbb E}(N_i)\neq 1$ for at least two values of $i\in I_k$; $(iii)$ for all $0\le i\le m-1$ such that $p_i>0$, one has $W_{i,j}\in \{0,p_i/\mathbb{E}(N_i)\}$ almost surely for all $0\le j\le m-1$. See the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-4.8}.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem}\label{intersections}
In all the examples we have examined numerically and for which we do not have $\tau_\nu=T$, the functions $\tau_\nu$ and~$T$ coincide at three points at most. We do not know whether this is a general fact.
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} We think (and know that it is true on some intervals) that the validity of the multifractal formalism for $\pi_*\mu$ holds almost surely for all $\alpha\in (\tau'(\widetilde q_c-)),\tau'(0+)]$. However, we dediced to limit the technicalities as most as possible, the most important facts being the new behaviors associated with the projection. In particular, the proof of the validity of the multifractal formalism will show that the possible phase transitions separate the domain of possible exponents $\alpha$ into intervals over which the computation of the Hausdorff dimension of the sets $E(\mu,\alpha)$ uses different arguments, this being in contrast with what happens for the measure $\mu$ itself (see \cite{AB}).
\end{rem}
\begin{rem} [Similar result for critical Mandelbrot measures] When $T'(1-)=0$, under mild assumptions there exists a substitute to the degenerate Mandelbrot measure $\mu$, namely a critical Mandelbrot measures $\widetilde\mu$, which satisfies the same statistical self-similarity \eqref{self-similarity} with the set $K$ as its support, but $\mathbb E(\|\mu\|)=\infty$; the multifractal analysis of this measure is considered in \cite{Ba00}. Defining $q_c$ like when $T'(1-)>0$, we have $q_c=1$. Furthermore, defining $\widetilde q_c=1$ and $\nu$ as for $\mu$, the conclusions of Theorem~\ref{MA} holds for $\pi_*\widetilde\mu$.
\end{rem}
\section{Phases transitions. Remarks and examples}
This section gathers a series of remarks and examples related to phase transitions associated with $\pi_*\mu$.
\begin{rem}
{\rm Let $S$ denote the set of non-analytic points of $\tau$ in $(0,\widetilde q_c)$. Then $S$ is discrete and possibly empty. Moreover, the cardinality of $S\cap (0,1]$ is not less than the number of times that the graphs of $T$ and $\tau_\nu$ cross each other transversally over $(0,1)$. These properties will be established in Section~5.
}
\end{rem}
Now we give some examples to illustrate Theorem~\ref{MA}.
\begin{ex}[Lognormal canonical cascades] Let us consider the standard lognormal canonical cascade, for which the weights $W_{i,j}$ are independent and $W_{i,j}\sim m^{-2} \exp (\beta N-\beta^2/2)$, where $\beta\ge 0$ and $N\sim \mathcal N(0,1)$. We have
$$
T(q)=2(q-1)-\frac{\beta^2}{2\log(m)}q(q-1).
$$
A necessary and sufficient condition for $\mu$ to be almost surely positive is $T'(1)=2-\frac{\beta^2}{2\log(m)}>0$, i.e. $\beta\in [0,2\sqrt{\log m})$.
Fix $\beta\in (0,2\sqrt{\log m})$ (we discard the case $\beta=0$ which corresponds to $\mu$ being the resctriction of the Lebesgue measure to $[0,1]^2$). Then, the dimension of $\mu$ equals $2-\frac{\beta^2}{2\log(m)}$, and the measure $\nu$ is simply the Lebesgue measure restricted to $[0,1]$, so $\tau_\nu(q)=q-1$. Also, due to Theorem~\ref{ABS}, the measure $\pi_*\mu$ is almost surely equivalent to the Lebesgue measure if and only if $T'(1)>1$, i.e. $\beta\in [0, \sqrt{2\log(m)})$.
We also have $T'(q)q-T(q)=2-\frac{\beta^2q^2}{2\log(m)}$, so $q_c=2\sqrt{\log(m)}/\beta$. Moreover, $T(q)=\tau_\nu(q)$ if and only if $q=1$ or $q=q_0:=2\log(m)/\beta^2$.
Thus, if $\beta\in [0,\sqrt{\log(m)}]$, we have $q_c\le\widetilde q_c=q_0$; if $\beta\in (\sqrt{\log(m)}, \sqrt{2\log(m)})$, $q_c=\widetilde q_c$ and $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ cross once transversally at $q_0\in (1,q_c)$, and do not cross over $[0,1)$; if $\beta= \sqrt{2\log(m)}$ then $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ cross at $1=q_0$ only and $q_c=\widetilde q_c$; if $\beta\in (\sqrt{2\log(m)}, 2\sqrt{\log(m)})$, then $T$ and $\tau_\nu$ cross once transversally at $q_0\in (0,1)$ and do not cross over $(1,\infty)$.
The previous observations and the definition of $\tau$ yield, with probability 1:
\begin{itemize}
\item if $\beta\in (0, \sqrt{\log m}]$, then $\tau(q)=q-1$ over $[0,q_0=\widetilde q_c]$ (and $q_0>1$).
\item If $\beta\in (\sqrt{\log(m)}, \sqrt{2\log(m)})$, $\tau(q)=q-1$ over $[0,q_0]$, $\tau(q)=T(q)$ over $[q_0,q_c=\widetilde q_c]$, and $q_0\in (1,q_c)$.
In this case $\pi_*\mu$ provides new examples of statistically self-similar measures absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure over $[0,1]$, with a non trivial Hausdorff spectrum and a first order phase transition, here at $q_0$ (see also \cite{Feng12} for deterministic examples for which, however, the Hausdorff spectrum is not described at the phase transition).
\item If $\beta=\sqrt{2\log(m)}$, $\tau(q)=q-1$ over $[0,1=q_0]$ and $\tau(q)=T(q)$ over $[1,q_c=\widetilde q_c]$.
\item If $\beta\in (\sqrt{2\log(m)}, 2\sqrt{\log(m)})$ then $q_0<1$, and a calculation using the definition of $\tau$ over $[0,1]$ shows that $\tau(q)= -1+T'(\sqrt{q_0}) q$ over $[0, \sqrt{q_0}]$ and $\tau(q)=T(q)$ over $[ \sqrt{q_0}, q_c=\widetilde q_c]$.
In the last two cases, for which $\dim (\mu)\le 1$, our result provides, for the special directions of projection considered in this paper, the same information as that given by \cite{BaBh} for almost every direction, and recalled in Section 1.
\end{itemize}
Illustrations are provided by Figure~\ref{Fig0}.
\end{ex}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.1,yscale=1.1]
\draw [->] (0,-2) -- (0,2.5) ;
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (3.8,0) node [right] {$q$};
\draw [thick, domain=0:3.4] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}-1});
\draw [dashed, domain=0:3.8] plot ({\bf x}, {2*({\bf x}-1)-(1/3.4)*{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$0$};
\draw [fill] (1,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-1) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-2) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-2$};
\draw [dotted] (3.4,0) -- (3.4, 2.4) ;
\draw [dotted] ({2*sqrt{1.7}},0) -- ({2*sqrt{1.7}}, {2*((2*sqrt{1.7})-1)-(1/3.4)*(2*sqrt{1.7})*((2*sqrt{1.7})-1)}) ;
\draw [fill] (3.4,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$q_0=\widetilde q_c$};
\draw [fill] ({2*sqrt{1.7}},0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$q_c$};
\draw [dotted, domain=0:2*sqrt{1.7}] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}*((2*((2*sqrt{1.7})-1)-(1/3.4)*(2*sqrt{1.7})*((2*sqrt{1.7})-1))/(2*sqrt{1.7}))});
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$\beta\in (0, \sqrt{\log m}]$.}\label{fig1a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.7,yscale=1.7]
\draw [->] (0,-2) -- (0,1) ;
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (3.5,0) node [right] {$q$};
\draw [thick, domain=0:2/1.3] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}-1});
\draw [thick, domain=2/1.3:2/(sqrt{1.3})] plot ({\bf x}, {2*({\bf x}-1)-.65*{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dashed, domain=0:2/1.3] plot ({\bf x}, {2*({\bf x}-1)-.65*{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dotted, domain=0:2/(sqrt{1.3})] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}*((2*(2/(sqrt{1.3})-1)-.65*(2/(sqrt{1.3}))*((2/(sqrt{1.3}))-1))/(2/(sqrt{1.3}))});
\draw [thick, domain=2/(sqrt{1.3}):3.4] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}*((2*(2/(sqrt{1.3})-1)-.65*(2/(sqrt{1.3}))*((2/(sqrt{1.3}))-1))/(2/(sqrt{1.3}))});
\draw [dashed, domain=2/(sqrt{1.3}):3.4] plot ({\bf x}, {2*({\bf x}-1)-.65*{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dotted] (2/1.3,0) -- (2/1.3, 2/1.3-1) ;
\draw [dotted] ({2/(sqrt{1.3})},0) -- ({2/(sqrt{1.3})}, {2*((2/(sqrt{1.3}))-1)-.65*(2/(sqrt{1.3}))*((2/(sqrt{1.3}))-1)}) ;
\draw [fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$0$};
\draw [fill] (1,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-1) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-2) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-2$};
\draw [fill] (2/1.3,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$q_0$};
\draw [fill] (2/sqrt{1.3},0) circle [radius=0.03] node [above] {$\quad\quad q_c=\widetilde q_c$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$\beta\in (\sqrt{\log m}, \sqrt{2\log m})$. First order phase transition at $q_0$ and second order phase transition at $q_c$.}\label{fig1a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.5,yscale=1.5]
\draw [->] (0,-2) -- (0,.6) ;
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (3.5,0) node [right] {$q$};
\draw [thick, domain=0:1] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}-1});
\draw [thick, domain=1:sqrt(2)] plot ({\bf x},{2*({\bf x}-1)-{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dashed, domain=0:1] plot ({\bf x},{2*({\bf x}-1)-{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dashed, domain=sqrt(2):3] plot ({\bf x},{2*({\bf x}-1)-{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dotted, domain=0:sqrt(2)] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}*((2*(sqrt(2)-1)-(sqrt(2))*(sqrt(2)-1))/(sqrt(2)))});
\draw [thick, domain=sqrt(2):3.4] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}*((2*(sqrt(2)-1)-(sqrt(2))*(sqrt(2)-1))/(sqrt(2)))});
\draw [dotted] ({sqrt(2)},0) -- ({sqrt(2)}, {2*((sqrt(2))-1)-(sqrt(2))*((sqrt(2))-1)}) ;
\draw [fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$0$};
\draw [fill] (1,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-1) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-2) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-2$};
\draw [fill] ({sqrt(2)},0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$\quad\quad q_c=\widetilde q_c$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$\beta= \sqrt{2\log m}$. Second order phase transitions at $q_0=1$ and $q_c=\sqrt{2}$. }\label{fig1a}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[xscale=1.7,yscale=1.7]
\draw [->] (0,-2) -- (0,.3) ;
\draw [->] (0,0) -- (3.5,0) node [right] {$q$};
\draw [dotted, domain=0:1] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}-1});
\draw [thick, domain=sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5):2/sqrt(3.5)] plot ({\bf x},{2*({\bf x}-1)-1.75*{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dashed, domain=0:sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5)] plot ({\bf x},{2*({\bf x}-1)-1.75*{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dashed, domain=2/sqrt(3.5):2.1] plot ({\bf x},{2*({\bf x}-1)-1.75*{\bf x}*({\bf x}-1)});
\draw [dotted, domain=0:2/sqrt(3.5)] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}*((2*((2/sqrt(3.5))-1)-1.75*(2/sqrt(3.5))*((2/sqrt(3.5))-1))/((2/sqrt(3.5)))});
\draw [thick, domain=2/sqrt(3.5):3.4] plot ({\bf x}, {{\bf x}*((2*((2/sqrt(3.5))-1)-1.75*(2/sqrt(3.5))*((2/sqrt(3.5))-1))/((2/sqrt(3.5)))});
\draw [thick] (0,-1) -- ({sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5)}, {2*((sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5))-1)-1.75*(sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5))*((sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5))-1)}) ;
\draw [dotted] ({sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5)},0) -- ({sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5)}, {2*((sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5))-1)-1.75*(sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5))*((sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5))-1)}) ;
\draw [fill] (0,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$0$};
\draw [fill] (1,0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-1) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-1$};
\draw [fill] (0,-2) circle [radius=0.03] node [left] {$-2$};
\draw [fill] ({sqrt(2)/sqrt(3.5)},0) circle [radius=0.03] node [above] {$\sqrt{q_0}$};
\draw [fill] ({2/sqrt(3.5)},0) circle [radius=0.03] node [below] {$\quad\quad \quad q_c=\widetilde q_c$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{$\beta\in (\sqrt{2\log m}, 2\sqrt{\log m})$. Second order phase transitions at $\sqrt{q_0}$ and $q_c$.}\label{fig1a}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{The thick curve represents $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}$ over $[0,\widetilde q_c]$ in case (A) and $[0,\infty]$ in the other cases, while the dashed curve represents $T$.}\label{Fig0}
\end{figure}
Below we construct a concrete example so that $q_c=\infty$ and the function $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}$ has a non-differentiable point in $(1, \infty)$ (i.e. first order phase transition), and a non-$C^\infty$ smooth point in $(0,1)$ (i.e. phase transition of order $\geq 2$). It is illustrated in Figure~\ref{Fig1}.
\begin{ex}\label{Ex1}{\rm Let $(p_0,\ldots, p_{m-1})$ be a positive probability vector different from the vector $(m^{-1},\ldots,m^{-1})$. We have $p_{\max}=\max\{p_i:0\le i\le m-1\}>m^{-1}$. We assume that $p_0=p_{\max}>\sqrt{p_{1}}=\ldots =\sqrt{p_{m-1}}$. Fix $\beta$ in the interval $(m,mp_{\max}^{-1})$ and $\lambda\in (0,1)$. Let $(V_{i,j})_{1\le i\leq {m-1},0\leq j\le m-1}$ be a family of random variables which take value $\beta/m$ with probability $\lambda\beta^{-1}$ and $c_{m,\beta,\lambda}= \frac{\beta(1-\lambda)}{m(\beta-\lambda)}$ with probability $ 1-\lambda\beta^{-1}$. Let $$V_{0,0}\in \left(\max_{1\le i\le m-1}\frac{p_i}{p_{\max}^2},\; 1\right),$$
$V_{0,1}=1-V_{0,0}$, and $V_{0,j}=0$ if $j\ge 2$; also suppose that $V_{0,1}<V_{0,0}$. Set $W_{i,j}=p_iV_{i,j}$ for all $0\le i,j\le m-1$ and define the functions $T_i$ and $T$ as previously.
For all $1\le i\le m-1$, for all $0\le j\le m-1$ by construction we have $W_{i,j} \le p_i\beta/m<W_{0,0}<p_{0}<1$, and we also have $W_{0,1}<W_{0,0}<1$. Consequently, $T'(1)>0$. Also, for all $0\le i\le m-1$, we have
$
{\mathbb E}\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{i,j}\right )=1
$
and for $1\le i\le m-1$, we have
$$
-\log(m)T_i'(1)={\mathbb E}\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{i,j}\log( V_{i,j})\right )=\lambda \log\left (\frac{\beta}{m} \right ) +m (1-\lambda\beta^{-1}) c_{m,\beta,\lambda}\log(c_{m,\beta,\lambda})
$$
and $-\log(m)T_0'(1)=V_{0,0}\log(V_{0,0})+V_{0,1}\log(V_{0,1})$. Thus, if we take $\lambda$ close enough to 1 and $V_{0,0}$ close enough to 1, we have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_iT'_{i}(1)<0$. Thus $0<T'(1)<\tau_\nu'(1)$, and $T<\tau$ near $1+$. Now let us make $T(q)$ explicit:
$$
T(q)=-\log_m\left ((p_0V_{0,0})^q+(p_0V_{0,1})^q+\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}m\lambda\beta^{-1}\Big (p_i\frac{\beta}{m} \Big )^q+m(1-\lambda\beta^{-1})(p_ic_{m,\beta,\lambda}) ^q\right ).
$$
We have $T(q)=-q\log_m (p_0V_{0,0})+o(1)$ as $q\to\infty$, with $-\log_m (p_0V_{0,0})>-\log_m (p_0)>0$ since $V_{0,0}<1$. This shows that $T^*\circ T'$ does not vanish over ${\Bbb R}_+$ and $q_c=\infty$. Moreover $\tau_\nu(q)=-q\log_m (p_{\max})+o(1)$ as $q\to\infty$, so $\tau_\nu(q)<T(q)$ near $\infty$. It follows that there is a first order phase transition over $(1,\infty)$.
Now let us look at the situation over $[0,1]$. We have $-\log_m(m(m-1)+2)=T(0)<\tau_\nu(0)=-1$, and $T'(1)<\tau_\nu'(1)$ implies that $\tau_\nu<T$ near $1-$. Thus, the graphs of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ cross each other on $[0,1]$, and we know from Theorem~\ref{MA} that there is at least one phase transition of order at least 2. Let us be a little bit more precise. Set
$$
G(q,s)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^qm^{-T_i(s)q/s}.
$$
We have $$\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (q,s)= -s^{-2}q\log (m) \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^qm^{-T_i(s)q/s} T_i^*(T_i'(s)).$$
By construction, we have $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (1,1)= -\log (m) \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT_i'(1)>0$.
Thus, by continuity of $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (q,s)$, for $q$ near $1-$ we have $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (q,s)>0$ for all $s\in [q,1]$, which implies that $\tau$ is attained at $s=q$ and $\tau(q)=T(q)$. Also $T_i^*(T_i'(0))=-T_i(0)=1>0$ if $i\ge 1$, $T_0^*(T_0'(0))=-T_0(0)=\log_m(2)>0$ and by construction $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} T_i'(1)<0$. Consequently, for all $q$ near $0+$ we have $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (q,q)<0$ and $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (q,1)>0$, which implies that $\tau(q)$ is attained at some $s\in (q,1)$ and $\tau(q)>\max(\tau_\nu(q),T(q))$.
}
\end{ex}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width=0.3\textwidth,height=0.4\textwidth]{Example1.eps}} {\includegraphics[width=0.56\textwidth,height=0.4\textwidth]{Example1-bis.eps}}
\vskip 0cm
\caption{Illustration of Example~\ref{Ex1} with $m=2$, $p_0=.62$, $\beta=3.22$, $\lambda=.99$ and $V_{00}=.99$ (blue curve: $T$; black curve: $\tau_\nu$; red curve: $\tau$). $q_c=\widetilde q_c=\infty$. One second order phase transition at some $q_0\in (0,1)$ and one first order phase transition at some $q'_0 \in (1,\infty)$. $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau>\max(\tau_\nu,T)$ over $[0,q_0)$, $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=T=\tau_\mu$ over $[q'_0,q_0]$, and $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau_\nu$ over $[q_0,\infty)$.}
\label{Fig1}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{ex}\label{Ex2}{\rm This example exhibits two phase transitions over $[0,1]$ and no first order phase transition over $(1,q_c)$, with $q_c<\infty$ and $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau_\mu$ over $(1,\infty)$. Take $m=2$, $p_0\in (0,1)$, and $N_0$ and $N_1$ two random integers taking values in $\{0,1,2\}$ and with positive expectation. Then for $0\le i,j\le 1$ define $V_{i,j}=({\mathbb E}(N_i))^{-1} \mathbf{1}_{\{j\le N_i-1\}}$. This yields $T_i(q)=(q-1)\log {\mathbb E}(N_i)$, hence $T_i^*(T_i'(s))=-T_i(0)=T_i'(1)=\log {\mathbb E}(N_i)$ for all $s\ge 0$. Also,
$$
T(q)=-\log_2 \left (p_0^q {\mathbb E}(N_0)^{1-q}+(1-p_0)^q {\mathbb E}(N_1)^{1-q}\right ).
$$
We require ${\mathbb E}(N_0)<1$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{r1} &&{\mathbb E}(N_0) {\mathbb E}(N_1)>1,\\
\label{r2}&& {\mathbb E}(N_0)^{p_0}{\mathbb E}(N_1)^{1-p_0}<1,\\
\label{r3} &&\left(\frac{{\mathbb E}(N_0)}{p_0}\right)^{p_0}\left(\frac{{\mathbb E}(N_1)}{1-p_0}\right)^{1-p_0}>1.
\end{eqnarray}
Properties \eqref{r2} and \eqref{r3} yield $\tau_\nu'(1)>T'(1)>0$. Also \eqref{r1} implies ${\mathbb E}(N_1)+{\mathbb E}(N_2)>2$ hence $T(0)<-1=\tau_\nu (0)$. The graphs of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ cross each other on $[0,1]$. Let $G$ be defined as in the previous example. Property \eqref{r1} yields $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (q,s)<0$ for all $s\in [q,1]$ if $q$ is close enough to 0, hence $\tau(q)$ is attained at $q=1$; $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)$. Moreover, \eqref{r2} implies that $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} (q,s)>0$ for all $s\in [q,1]$ if $q$ is close to $1$, hence $\tau(q)$ is attained at $s=q$: $\tau(q)=T(q)$. Then our study of $\tau$ in Section~\ref{study of tau} implies that on a non trivial interval we have $\tau(q)>\max(\tau_\nu(q),T(q))$, i.e. $\tau$ is given by a third analytic expression.
It is also possible to choose the parameters so that $T'(1)<-\log_2(p_0)=\tau_\nu'(+\infty)$ and $p_0>{\mathbb E}(N_0)$, hence $\tau_\nu>T$ over $(1,\infty)$ and $q_c<\infty$, which implies that $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=\tau_\mu(q)$ over $[1,\infty)$. A concrete choice is $p_0=.8$, ${\mathbb E}(N_0)=.6$ and ${\mathbb E}(N_1)=1.8$.
}
\end{ex}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=0.6\textwidth]{Example2.eps}}
\caption{Illustration of Example~\ref{Ex2} with $p_0=.8$, ${\mathbb E}(N_0)=.6$ and ${\mathbb E}(N_1)=1.8$ (blue curve: $T$; dashed blue curve: $\tau_\mu$; black curve: $\tau_\nu$; red curve: $\tau$). $q_c=\widetilde q_c\simeq 1.229<\infty$. Second order phase transition at some $q_0<q'_0$ in $(0,1)$, no first order phase transition over $(1,q_c)$, and one second order phase transition at $q_c$. $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau_\nu$ over $[0,q_0]$, $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau>\max(\tau_\nu,T)$ over $(q_0,q'_0)$, $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=T=\tau_\mu$ over $[q'_0,q_c]$, and $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=\tau_\mu(q)=T'(q_c) q$ over $[q_c,\infty)$.}
\label{Fig2}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{ex}[Previous example continued] We can use the same model as in Example~\ref{Ex2} to get other different behaviors. See Figures~\ref{Fig3} to \ref{Fig5}.
\end{ex}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=0.55\textwidth]{Example3.eps}}
\caption{Same model as in Example~\ref{Ex2} with $p_0=.1$, ${\mathbb E}(N_0)=.4$ and ${\mathbb E}(N_1)=1.3$ (blue curve: $T$; black curve: $\tau_\nu$; red curve: $\tau$). $q_c=\widetilde q_c=\infty$. Second order phase transitions at some $q_0<q'_0$ in $(0,1)$, no first order phase transition over $(1,\infty)$. $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=T=\tau_\mu$ over $[0,q_0]$, $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau>\max(\tau_\nu,T)$ over $(q_0,q'_0)$, and $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau_\nu$ over $[q'_0,\infty)$.}
\label{Fig3}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=0.57\textwidth]{Example4.eps}}
\caption{Same model as in Example~\ref{Ex2} with $p_0=.3$, ${\mathbb E}(N_0)=.25$ and ${\mathbb E}(N_1)=2$ (blue curve: $T$; dashed blue curve: $\tau_\mu$; black curve: $\tau_\nu$; red curve: $\tau$). $q_c=\widetilde q_c\simeq 2.176<\infty$. One second order phase transition at some $q_0\in (0,1)$. One first order phase transition at some $q'_0\in (1,q_c)$, and one second order phase transition at $q_c$. $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau>\max(\tau_\nu,T)$ over $[0,q_0)$ (in particular $-\tau(0)=\dim_H \pi(K) <\min (-\tau_\nu(0),-T(0))$), $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau_\nu$ over $[q_0,q'_0]$ and $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=T=\tau_\mu$ over $[q_0,q_c]$, and $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=\tau_\mu(q)=T'(q_c) q$ over $[q_c,\infty)$.}
\label{Fig4}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\begin{center}
\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth,height=0.57\textwidth]{Example5.eps}}
\caption{Same model as in Example~\ref{Ex2} with $p_0=.3$, ${\mathbb E}(N_0)=.3$ and ${\mathbb E}(N_1)=2$ (blue curve: $T$; dashed blue curve: $\tau_\mu$; black curve: $\tau_\nu$; red curve: $\tau$). $q_c\simeq 2.665<\infty$ and $\widetilde q_c\simeq 3.059$. One second order phase transition at some $q_0\in (0,1)$. No first order phase transition over $[1,\widetilde q_c)$. $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau>\max(\tau_\nu,T)$ over $[0,q_0)$ (in particular $-\tau(0)=\dim_H \pi(K) <\min (-\tau_\nu(0),-T(0))$) and $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau_\nu$ over $[q_0,\widetilde q_c]$.}\label{Fig5}
\end{figure}
\end{center}
\section{Proofs of Theorem~\ref{ABS}, Theorem~\ref{DIM}, and Corollary~\ref{DGF}}\label{pfDIM}
We first introduce the following new notations and definitions.
For each $u\in\Sigma_*$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{pimu}
\pi_*\mu([u])=\sum_{v\in\Sigma_{|u|}} \mu([u,v])
=\sum_{v\in\Sigma_{|u|}}Q(u,v)Y(u,v)=\nu(u) X(u),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{X(u)}
X(u)=\sum_{v\in\Sigma_{|u|}}Y(u,v)\prod_{j=1}^{|u|}V_{u_j,v_j}(u_{|j-1},v_{|j-1}).
\end{equation}
Define also
$$
\widetilde X(u)=\sum_{v\in\Sigma_{|u|}}\prod_{j=1}^{|u|}V_{u_j,v_j}(u_{|j-1},v_{|j-1}),
$$
and for all $x\in\Sigma$ and $n\ge 0$, set
$$
X_n(x)=X(x_{|n}) \quad \text{and}\quad \widetilde X_n(x)=\widetilde X(x_{|n}).
$$
Now, let us start by presenting three results that will be used in this section. They will be proved in Section~\ref{MEST}, where they appear as Proposition~\ref{mom+estimate}, Corollary~\ref{momestimate}, and Proposition~\ref{negmom1} respectively.
\begin{pro}\label{mom+estimate'} Let $q>1$ such that $T(q)>0$. Let $\eta$ be the Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ generated by a probability vector $(p_0',\ldots, p_{m-1}')$. Set $A:=\max\{1, \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}\}$. Then there exists a polynomial $f_q$ depending on $W$ and $q$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-p1}
A^n \leq \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \eta} (X_n^q)\leq f_q(n) A^n,\quad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, when $q\in (1,2]$, $f_q(n)$ can be taken as a constant.
\end{pro}
\begin{cor}\label{momestimate'} Let $q>1$ such that $T(q)>0$. Then there exists a polynomial $f_q$ depending on $W$ and $q$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-pp1}
m^{-n \min \{\tau_\nu(q), T(q)\}} \leq \mathbb{E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\pi_*\mu([u])^q\Big )\leq f_q(n) m^{-n \min \{\tau_\nu(q), T(q)\}}
\end{equation}
for all $n\in {\Bbb N}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{pro}\label{negmom2'}
Let $\eta$ be the Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ generated by a probability vector $(p_0',\ldots, p_{m-1}')$. Assume that $T(q)>0$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}<1$ for some $q\in (1,2]$, and that there exists $c\in (0,1)$ such that the following two conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Bbb P(\sup_{0\leq j\leq m-1} V_{i,j}>c)=1$ for all $0\leq i\leq m-1$;
\item[(ii)] ${\mathbb E}(\#\{j: V_{i,j}>c\})>1$ for all $0\leq i\leq m-1$.
\end{itemize}
Then there exists $b>0$ such that $$
\sup_{n\ge 1}{\mathbb E}_{\mathbb P\otimes \eta} (X_n^{-b})<\infty.
$$
\end{pro}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{ABS}} \
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{ABS}(1)] (i)
Since $(\Sigma,d)$ satisfies the Besicovitch covering property, we have almost surely
$
\pi_*\mu_\omega(\mathrm{d}x)= f(\omega,x) \, \nu(\mathrm{d}x)+\rho_\omega(\mathrm{d}x)$, where $\rho_\omega$ is a Borel measure singular with respect to $\nu$ and
\begin{equation}\label{density}
f(\omega,x)=\lim_{n\to\infty} \left(X_n(\omega,x)=\frac{\pi_*\mu_\omega([x_{|n}])}{\nu(x_{|n})}\right ),
\end{equation}
$\nu$-almost everywhere. Thus, if $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}( f)= \mathbb{E}(\|\pi_*\mu\|)=1$, we have $\rho_\omega=0$ almost surely, i.e. $\pi_*\mu$ is almost surely absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$.
We know by the construction of $\mu$ that for all $n\ge 1$ we have $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(X_n)={\mathbb E}(\|\mu_n\|)=1$. This implies that for all $\lambda\in (0,1)$ the sequence $(X_n^\lambda)_{n\ge 1}$ is uniformly integrable with respect to $\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu$, hence by \eqref{density} we have $\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(X_n^\lambda)=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(f^\lambda)$.
Next we claim that under $\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu$, $X_n$ converges in law to a random variable $\widetilde X$. We postpone its proof to the next paragraph. Since for any given $\lambda\in (0,1)$ the sequence $(X_n^\lambda)_{n\ge 1}$ is uniformly integrable, we have $\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(X_n^\lambda)={\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(\widetilde X^\lambda)$. Hence $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(f^\lambda)={\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(\widetilde X^\lambda)$ for all $\lambda\in (0,1)$. Furthermore, if ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(\widetilde X)=1$, letting $\lambda$ tend to 1 we get $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}( f)=1$.
We now prove that $X_n$ converges in law to a random variable $\widetilde X$ such that ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(\widetilde X)=1$.
By the definition of $X_n(x)$, for any $t>0$ we have
$$
\mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(e^{-t X_n})=\mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu} \Big (\prod_{v\in\Sigma_n} \phi_Y\Big (t\prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,v_j}(x_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})\Big ),
$$
where $\phi_Y$ stands for the Laplace transform of $Y$, i.e. $\phi_Y(t)=\mathbb{E}(e^{-tY})$.
Let us show that $$M_n(x):=\max_{v\in\Sigma_n}\prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,v_j}(x_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})$$ converges in law to~0 under $ \mathbb P\otimes\nu$, as $n$ tends to $\infty$. For $x\in \Sigma$, let $\mathbb{Q}_x$ be the probability measure on $$(\Omega\times \Sigma,\sigma(V_{x_n}(x_{|n-1},v): n\ge 1,\, v\in \Sigma_{n-1})\otimes \mathcal{B}(\Sigma))$$
whose restriction to $$\sigma(V_{x_j}(x_{|n-1},v): 1\le j\le n,\, v\in \Sigma_{j-1})\otimes \sigma([v]: v\in\Sigma_n)$$ is determined by $$\mathbb{Q}_{x,n}(A\times [v])= \mathbb{E}\big (\mathbf{1}_A(\omega) \prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,v_j}(x_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})\big )$$ for $A\in \sigma(V_{x_j}(v): 1\le j\le n,\, v\in \Sigma_{j-1})$ and $v\in\Sigma_n$.
This yields a new skew product measure $\rho(\mathrm{d}\omega,\mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)=\nu (\mathrm{d}x)\mathbb{Q}_x(\mathrm{d}\omega,\mathrm{d}y)$ on $\Omega\times \Sigma^2$. A direct computation shows that the random variables $(\omega,x,y)\mapsto V_{x_j,y_j}(x_{|j-1},y_{|j-1})$ are i.i.d. with respect to $\rho$, and their logarithms are of expectation
$$
\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(V_{i,j} \log V_{i,j})=-\log(m) \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i T_i'(1-)<0.
$$ It follows from the strong law of large numbers that for $\rho$-almost every $(\omega,x,y)$ one has $$\lim_{n\to\infty} \prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,y_j}(x_{|j-1},y_{|j-1})=0.$$
Now fix $\epsilon>0$. We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{P}\otimes\nu (M_n(x)\ge \epsilon)&\le& {\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes\nu}\Big (\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,v_j}(x_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})\ge \epsilon\}}\Big )\\&\le & {\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes\nu}\Big (\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\epsilon^{-1} \mathbf{1}_{\{\prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,v_j}(x_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})\ge \epsilon\}} \prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,v_j}(x_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})\Big )\\
&=&\epsilon^{-1}\rho \Big(\Big\{\prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,y_j}(x_{|j-1},y_{|j-1})\ge \epsilon\Big\}\Big),
\end{eqnarray*}
and the right hand side converges to 0.
Consequently, since $\mathbb E(Y)=1$, we have $\phi_Y(u)=e^{-u+o(u)}$ near $0+$, so for each $t>0$ we can write
\begin{eqnarray}\label{LT}
\mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(e^{-t X_n})&=&\mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}\Big (\mathbf{1}_{\{M_n(x)<\epsilon\}}e^{-t\widetilde X_n(1+O(\epsilon))}\Big )+ \mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}\Big (\mathbf{1}_{\{M_n(x)\ge \epsilon\}}e^{-t X_n}\Big )\\
\nonumber&=& \mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}\Big (e^{-t\widetilde X_n(1+O(\epsilon))}\Big )+R_n,
\end{eqnarray}
where $|R_n|\le 2 \mathbb P\otimes\nu (M_n(x)\ge \epsilon)$ and $\widetilde X_n(1+O(\epsilon))\ge 0$. On the other hand, the information gathered in Appendix~\ref{B1} applied with $\eta=\nu$ and $U_i=V_i$ shows that $(\widetilde X_n(x,\cdot))_{n\ge 1}$ is a Mandelbrot martingale in the random environment defined by $\nu$, and $\widetilde X_n$ converges $\mathbb{P}\otimes\nu$-almost surely to a limit $\widetilde X$. We then deduce from the bounded convergence theorem and the fact that $\mathbb P\otimes\nu (M_n(x)\ge \epsilon)$ tends to 0 as $n\to\infty$ that ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb P\otimes \nu}(e^{-tX_n})$ converges to ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb P\otimes \nu}(e^{-t\widetilde X})$. Moreover, the condition $\dim(\mu)-\dim(\nu)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT_i'(1-)>0$ is sufficient for $(\widetilde X_n)_{n\ge 1}$ to be uniformly integrable (Theorem~\ref{thmBK}), hence ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(\widetilde X)=1$.
\medskip
(ii) Since $T'(1-)>0$, the assumption that $T$ is finite on a neighborhood of $1$ implies that $T(s)>0$, hence ${\mathbb E}(Y^s)<\infty$ on a right neighborhood of $1$ (see \cite{KP} or \cite{DL}). Moreover, the assumption $\dim (\mu)>\dim(\nu)$ is equivalent to $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_iT_i'(1)>0$, hence we have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_im^{-T_i(s)}<1$ on a right neighborhood of $1$. Also, if $s\in (1,2]$ and both ${\mathbb E}(Y^s)<\infty$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_im^{-T_i(s)}<1$, then $\sup_{n\ge 1}\mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(X_n(x)^{s})<\infty$ by Proposition~\ref{mom+estimate'}. For any such $s>1$, using \eqref{pimu} we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\int_{\Sigma}\Big (\frac{\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^{s-1}\,\pi_*\mu(\mathrm{d}x)=\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\nu([u])>0\}} \Big (\frac{\pi_*\mu([u])}{\nu([u])}\Big )^{s-1}\pi_*\mu([u])= \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u]) X(u)^s.
\end{eqnarray*}
Thus
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sup_{n\ge 1}{\mathbb E}\left (\int_{\Sigma}\Big (\frac{\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^{s-1}\,\pi_*\mu(\mathrm{d}x)\right )=\sup_{n\ge 1}\mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(X_n(x)^{s})<\infty.
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, by the Fatou lemma,
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E}\left (\liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{\Sigma}\Big (\frac{\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^{s-1}\,\pi_*\mu(\mathrm{d}x)\right )&\le& \liminf_{n\to\infty}{\mathbb E}\left (\int_{\Sigma}\Big (\frac{\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^{s-1}\,\pi_*\mu(\mathrm{d}x)\right )\\
&<&\infty,
\end{eqnarray*}
from which we get
$$
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{\Sigma}\Big (\frac{\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^{s-1}\,\pi_*\mu(\mathrm{d}x)<\infty\quad \text{a.s.}
$$
Due to \cite[Theorem 2.12(3)]{Mattila}, this implies both the absolute continuity of $\pi_*\mu$ with respect to $\nu$ and the desired result about the density of $\pi_*\mu$ with respect to $\nu$.
\medskip
(iii) At first notice that our assumption implies that the support of $\pi_*\mu$ equals that of $\nu$ almost surely. In particular, $X(u)>0$ for all $u$ such that $\nu(u)>0$. Thus, for any $s>1$ we have almost surely
$$
\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\pi_*\mu([u])>0\}} \Big (\frac{\nu([u])}{\pi_*\mu([u])}\Big )^{s-1}\nu([u])= \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\nu([u])>0\}}\nu([u]) X(u)^{1-s}
$$
and
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\pi_*\mu([u])>0\}} \Big (\frac{\nu([u])}{\pi_*\mu([u])}\Big )^{s-1}\nu([u])\Big)=\mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(X_n(x)^{1-s}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Due to our assumption on the random vectors $V_i$ and the fact that for $q$ close enough to~1 we have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_im^{-T_i(q)}<1$, Proposition~\ref{negmom2'} yields $\sup_{n\ge 1} \mathbb E_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(X_n(x)^{1-s})<\infty$ if $s$ is close enough to 1. Similarly to (ii), this implies
$$
\liminf_{n\to\infty}\int_{\Sigma}\Big (\frac{\nu([x_{|n}])}{\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^{s-1}\,\nu(\mathrm{d}x)<\infty\quad \text{a.s.}
$$
hence both the absolute continuity of $\nu$ with respect to $\pi_*\mu$ and the desired result about the density of $\nu$ with respect to $\pi_*\mu$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{ABS}(2)] If $\dim(\mu)<\dim(\nu)$, there is nothing to prove since $\overline \dim_P(\pi_*\mu)\le \dim(\mu)$.
Suppose now that $\dim(\mu)=T'(1)=\dim(\nu)$. This time, under $\mathbb P\otimes\nu$, the martingale $\widetilde X_n(\omega,x)$ converges to 0 almost surely since $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT_i'(1-)=0$ (see Theorem~\ref{thmBK} again). This implies that $M_n(x)=\max_{v\in\Sigma_n}\prod_{j=1}^{n}V_{x_j,v_j}(x_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})$ converge to~0 almost surely under $ \mathbb P\otimes\nu$. Using \eqref{LT} this time yields the convergence in law to 0 for $X_n$, and ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\nu}(f^\lambda)=0$ for all $\lambda\in (0,1)$. Consequently, $f=0$ with $\mathbb P\otimes\nu$ probability 1, which is equivalent to the fact that $\pi_*\mu$ and $\nu$ are almost surely mutually singular.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{DIM}(1)}When $\dim(\mu)>\dim(\nu)$, since by Theorem~\ref{ABS}(1)(i) $\pi_*\mu$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$, we already know that if $\mu\neq 0$, we have $\dim(\pi_*\mu)=\dim(\nu)$. However, under the assumption that $T$ is finite in a neighborhood of 1, we give an alternative proof which works regardless of the respective positions of~$\dim(\mu)$ and $\dim(\nu)$, and independently of absolute continuity considerations.
We will use Corollary~\ref{momestimate'} and the following elementary lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lemma2.3} Let $\rho$ be a positive and finite Borel measure on $\Sigma$. Let $D\ge 0$. If for all $\epsilon>0$ there exists $q>1$ such that $\sum_{n\ge 1} m^{n (q-1)(D-\epsilon)}\sum_{|u|=n} \rho([u])^q<\infty$, then $\underline \dim_{\rm loc}(\rho,x)\ge D$ for $\rho$-almost every $x$. Also, if for all $\epsilon>0$ there exists $q\in(0,1)$ such that $\sum_{n\ge 1} m^{n(q-1)(D+\epsilon)}\sum_{|u|=n} \rho([u])^q<\infty$, then $\overline \dim_{\rm loc}(\rho,x)\le D$ for $\rho$-almost every $x$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Fix $\epsilon>0$. For all $q>1$ and $n\ge 1$, applying Markov's inequality we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\rho\Big ( \Big \{x\in\Sigma: \; \frac{\log(\rho([x_{|n}]))}{-n\log(m)}\le D-\epsilon\Big\}\Big)&=&\rho\Big (\Big \{x\in\Sigma: \; \rho([x_{|n}])^{q-1}\ge m^{-n(q-1)(D-\epsilon)}\Big\}\Big)\\
&\le& m^{n(q-1)(D-\epsilon)}\ \int_\Sigma \rho([x_{|n}])^{q-1}\, \rho(\mathrm{d}x)\\
&=&m^{n(q-1)(D-\epsilon)} \sum_{|u|=n} \rho([u])^q .
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, if $\sum_{n\ge 1}m^{n(q-1)(D-\epsilon)}\sum_{|u|=n} \rho([u])^q <\infty$, by the Borel-Cantelli lemma we get $\underline \dim_{\rm loc}(\rho,x)\ge D-\epsilon$ for $\rho$-almost every $x$.
The upper local dimension of $\rho$ is dealt with similarly.
\end{proof}
Recall that $\dim(\nu)=\tau_\nu'(1)$ and that almost surely, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, $\dim(\mu)=T'(1)$. We deduce from corollary~\ref{momestimate'} that for $q>1$ close enough to 1, there exists a polynomial function $f_q$ such that for all $n\ge 1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\pi_*\mu([u])^q\Big )\le f_q(n)\cdot \begin{cases}
m^{-n (q-1)\dim(\nu)+o(q-1)}&\text{if } T'(1)> \tau_\nu'(1)\\
m^{-n (q-1)T'(1)+o(q-1)}&\text{if } T'(1)\le \tau_\nu'(1)
\end{cases}
\end{eqnarray*}
as $q\to 1+$. Fix $\epsilon>0$. Take $q$ close enough to $1$ so that the previous upper bound holds with $|o(q-1)|\le \epsilon(q-1)/4$. By Lemma~\ref{Borel} we conclude that, with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for $n$ large enough we have $$m^{n(q-1)(D-\epsilon)}\sum_{|u|=n} \pi_*\mu([u])^q\le m^{-n\epsilon(q-1)/2},$$ with $D=\tau_\nu'(1)$ if $T'(1)>\tau_\nu'(1)$, and $D=T'(1)$ otherwise. Then Lemma~\ref{lemma2.3} yields the expected lower bound for $\underline \dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)$, $\pi_*\mu$-almost everywhere.
To control $\overline \dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)$, $\pi_*\mu$-almost everywhere, we only need to deal with the case $T'(1)> \tau_\nu'(1)$. Indeed, for $\pi_*\mu$-almost every $x$, we obviously have $\overline \dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)\le \dim (\mu)$.
Now assume $T'(1)> \tau_\nu'(1)$. Let $q\in (0,1)$. We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\pi_*\mu([u])^q\Big )
&=&\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q \mathbb{E} (X(u)^q)\\
&\le & \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q \mathbb{E} (X(u))^q= \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q=m^{-n\tau_\nu(q)}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This is enough to conclude that $\overline \dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)\le \tau_\nu'(1)$ for $\pi_*\mu$-almost every $x$
by using again Lemmas~\ref{Borel} and~\ref{lemma2.3}.
Putting together the previous arguments we conclude that with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, $\pi_*\mu$ is exactly dimensional with $\dim(\pi_*\mu)=\dim(\nu)$ if $T'(1)>\tau_\nu'(1)$ and $\dim(\pi_*\mu)=\dim(\mu)$ if $T'(1)\le \tau_\nu'(1)$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{DIM}(2): Two approaches to the dimension of the conditional measures}\label{sec-3.2.1} We will give two different approaches to the calculation of the dimension of the conditional measures. The first one will assume that $T$ is finite in a neighborhood of $1$ and adapt the original approach by Peyri\`ere \cite{KP} and Liu-Rouault \cite{LR} to compute the dimensions of Mandelbrot measures. The second one, more, conceptual, will require no additional assumption, and combine a reduction to the case of Mandelbrot measures in random environment with the percolation approach developed by Kahane {\cite{K87}} to remove the extra hypothesis assumed on the moments of orders greater than 1 in \cite{KP,LR} in the case of Mandelbrot measures.
\medskip
{We start with preliminary definitions.} When $\mu\neq 0$, for $\pi_*\mu_\omega$-almost every $x$, there exists a conditional measure $\mu^x_\omega $ supported on $K^x=\pi^{-1} (\{x\})\cap K$, obtained as the weak-star limit, as $n\to\infty$, of the measures $\mu_{\omega,n}^x$ obtained on $\pi^{-1} (\{x\})$ by assigning uniformly the mass $\frac{\mu_\omega([x_{|n}]\times [J])}{\pi_*\mu_\omega([x_{|n}])}$ to each cylinder $[J]$ of generation~$n$, so that we have
$$
\mu_\omega (\mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)=\pi_*\mu_\omega (\mathrm{d}x) \mu^x_\omega (\mathrm{d}y).
$$
{To be more specific, for any cylinder $[J]$, almost surely, the measurable set $$A_J=\{(\omega,x)\in\Omega\times \Sigma: \lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\mu_\omega([x_{|n}]\times [J])}{\pi_*\mu_\omega([x_{|n}])} \text{ exists}\}$$ is of full $\widehat {\mathbb Q}$-probability, where we define $\widehat {\mathbb Q }({\rm d}\omega,{\rm d}x)=\mathbb{P}({\rm d}\omega) \pi_*\mu_\omega(\mathrm{d}x)$, and for all $(\omega,x)$ in a subset $A'_J$ of $A_J$ of full $\widehat {\mathbb Q}$-probability, we have $ \mu^x_\omega (J)=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\mu_\omega([x_{|n}]\times [J])}{\pi_*\mu_\omega([x_{|n}])}$. }
{ Suppose now that $T(1-)>\tau_\nu'(1)$, so that $\mathbb P$-almost surely, $\pi_*\mu_\omega$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu$. There exists a measurable set $A'$ of full $\widehat {\mathbb Q}$-probability such that for all $(\omega,x)\in A'$, we have $$f_\omega(x)=\lim_{n\to\infty} \left(f_{\omega,n}(x):=\frac{\pi_*\mu_\omega ([x_{|n}])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\right),$$
where the limit exists and is positive.
Set $A=A'\cap \bigcap_{J\in \Sigma_*}A'_J$. For all $(\omega,x)\in A$, the sequence of measures $\widetilde\mu_{\omega,n}^x= f_{\omega,n}(x) \mu_{\omega,n}^x $ weakly converges to the measure $\widetilde\mu_\omega^x$ defined as $ f_\omega(x) \mu_\omega^x$.
Let
\begin{align*}
\Omega_A&=\{\omega:\ (\omega,x)\in A\text{ for some $x\in\Sigma$}\},\\
F^\omega&=\{x\in\Sigma: \ (\omega,x)\in A\}, \quad \forall\,\omega\in\Omega_A.
\end{align*}
Now, if $(\omega,x)\not\in A$, set $\mu_\omega^x=\widetilde\mu_\omega^x=0$.
Also, for $n\ge 1$ and $(u,J)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n$ and $(L,K)\in \Sigma_p\times\Sigma_p$ we define
$$
Q^{u,J}(L,K)= \prod_{\ell=1}^p W_{L_\ell,K_\ell}(u (L_{|\ell-1}),J(K_{|\ell-1})),
$$
where $L_\ell$ and $K_\ell$ stand for the $\ell$-th letter of $L$ and $K$ respectively.
For $x\in F^\omega$ and $J\in\Sigma_n$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\widetilde \mu^x([J])=\lim_{p\to\infty} \widetilde \mu_p^x([J])= \lim_{p\to\infty} \frac{\mu([x_{|n}\cdot (\sigma^nx)_{|p}]\times [J])}{\nu ([x_{|n+p}])},
\end{eqnarray*}
and by construction of $\mu$, we have
$$
\frac{\mu([x_{|n}\cdot (\sigma^nx)_{|p}]\times [J])}{\nu ([x_{|n+p}])}= \frac{Q(x_{|n},J)}{\nu([x_{|n}])} \, X^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^nx)_{|p}),
$$
where
\begin{eqnarray}\label{XnJ}
X^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^nx)_{|p})=\sum_{K\in\Sigma_p}\frac{Q^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^n x)_{|p},K)Y(x_{|n+p},JK)}{\nu([(\sigma^n x)_{|p}])}.
\end{eqnarray}
Subsequently, we have
$$
\widetilde \mu^x([J])=\frac{Q(x_{|n},J)}{\nu([x_{|n}])} X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx),\text{ where }
X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx)=\lim_{p\to\infty} X^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^n x)_{|p}),
$$
and for $y\in K^x$,
$$
\log (\widetilde\mu^x([y_{|n}]))=\log (Q(x_{|n},y_{|n})-\log (\nu([x_{|n}])) +\log (X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}(\sigma^nx)).
$$
\noindent
{\bf First approach:} Now observe that by construction, ``$\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu$-almost surely, $\widetilde \mu^x$-almost everywhere'' is equivalent to ``$\mathbb{P}$-almost-surely, if $\mu\neq 0$, $\mu$-almost everywhere'', i.e. almost surely under the Peyri\`ere probability measure $\mathbb{P}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\mu_\omega (\mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)$. Under this measure, the random variables $\log (W_{x_k,y_k}(x_{|k-1},y_{|k-1})) - \log (p_{x_k})$, $k\ge 1$, are i.i.d.~and integrable, with expectation $\sum_{i,j}{\mathbb E}(W_{i,j}\log(W_{i,j}))-\sum_{i}p_j\log(p_j)$, hence by the strong law of large numbers we have
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{\log (Q(x_{|n},y_{|n})-\log (\nu([x_{|n}]))}{-n\log m}=\dim (\mu)-\dim(\nu),
$$
$\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu$-almost surely, $\widetilde \mu^x$-almost everywhere.
To conclude with this first approach, we show that $\lim_{n\to\infty}\log (X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}(\sigma^nx))/n=0$, $\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu$-almost surely, $\widetilde \mu^x$-almost everywhere. To do so, we assume that $T$ is finite in a neighborhood of $1$. In particular, there exists $\epsilon\in (0,1]$ such that $\mathbb E(Y^{1\pm\epsilon})<\infty$. By construction, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}\Big (\int_\Sigma \int_\Sigma (X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}(\sigma^nx))^{\pm \epsilon}\widetilde \mu^x({\rm d}y)\nu(\mathrm{d}x)\Big )&=&\sum_{J\in\Sigma_n}\mathbb{E}\Big (\int_\Sigma (X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx))^{\pm\epsilon}\widetilde \mu^x([J])\nu(\mathrm{d}x)\Big )\\
&=&\sum_{J\in\Sigma_n}\mathbb{E}\Big (\int_\Sigma \frac{Q(x_{|n},J)}{\nu([x_{|n}])}(X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx))^{1\pm\epsilon}(\mathrm{d}x)\Big ).
\end{eqnarray*}
By the Fatou lemma we have
\begin{align*}
\mathbb{E}\Big (& \int_\Sigma \frac{Q(x_{|n},J)}{\nu([x_{|n}])}(X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma_n(x)))^{1\pm\epsilon}\nu(\mathrm{d}x)\Big )\\
&\le\liminf_{p\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\Big (\int_\Sigma \frac{Q(x_{|n},J)}{\nu([x_{|n}])}(X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx_{|p}))^{1\pm\epsilon}\nu(\mathrm{d}x)\Big )\\
&=\liminf_{p\to\infty} \mathbb{E}\Big ( \sum_{I\in\Sigma_n}Q(I,J) \sum_{L\in\Sigma_p}(X^{I,J}(L))^{1\pm\epsilon}\nu([L])\Big )\\
&=\liminf_{p\to\infty} \sum_{I\in\Sigma_n}\mathbb{E}(Q(I,J))\mathbb{E}\Big ( \sum_{L\in\Sigma_p}(X^{I,J}(L))^{1\pm\epsilon}\nu([L])\Big ).
\end{align*}
Now we notice that $(X^{I,J}(L))_{L\in\Sigma_p}$ has the same probability distribution as $(X(L))_{L\in\Sigma_p}$. Since $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT_i'(1)>0$, using Proposition~\ref{mom+estimate'}, for $\epsilon$ small enough we can get $C_\epsilon\ge 1$ such that for all $I,J\in\Sigma_n$ and $p\ge 1$
$$
\mathbb E\Big ( \sum_{L\in\Sigma_p}(X^{I,J}(L))^{1+\epsilon}\nu([L])\Big )\le C_{\epsilon} \max \left (1,\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_im^{-T_i(1+\epsilon)}\right)^n\le C_{\epsilon}.
$$
Moreover, $\mathbb E(X(L)^{1-\epsilon})\le \mathbb E(X(L))^{1-\epsilon}=1$. For such an $\epsilon$, we finally get that for all $\eta>0$, for all $n\ge 1$,
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\mathbb{E} & \Big (\int_\Sigma \int_\Sigma (e^{\mp n\eta}X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}(\sigma_n(x)))^{\pm\epsilon}\widetilde \mu^x({\rm d}y)\nu(\mathrm{d}x)\Big )\\
&\mbox{}\quad \le C_{\epsilon} e^{-n\eta\epsilon}\sum_{(I,J)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n} \mathbb{E}(Q(I,J))=C_{\epsilon} e^{-n\eta\epsilon},
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
hence
$$
\mathbb{E}\int_\Sigma \int_\Sigma \sum_{n\ge 1}(e^{\mp n\eta}X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}(\sigma_n(x)))^{\pm\epsilon}\widetilde \mu^x({\rm d}y)\nu(\mathrm{d}x)<\infty.
$$
It follows that with probability 1, if $\mu\neq 0$, for $\nu$-almost every $x\in \mathrm{supp}(\mu)$,
$$
-\eta\le \liminf_{n\to\infty}\log (X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}(\sigma^n x))/n \le \limsup_{n\to\infty}\log (X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}(\sigma^n x))/n\le \eta.
$$
Since $\eta>0$ can be taken arbitrarily small, we get the desired limit.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Second approach:} Now let us explain the more conceptual approach which does not assume anything else but $T'(1-)> \tau_\nu'(1)$.
Recall \eqref{XnJ} and write
\begin{eqnarray*}
X^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^nx)_{|p})&=&\sum_{K\in\Sigma_p}\frac{Q^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^n x)_{|p},K)Y(x_{|n+p},JK)}{\nu([(\sigma^n x)_{|p}])}\\
&=&\sum_{K\in\Sigma_p}Y(x_{|n+p},JK)\prod_{\ell=1}^pV_{x_{n+\ell},K_\ell}({x_{|n+\ell-1},J(K_{|\ell -1}})).\end{eqnarray*}
The proof of Theorem~\ref{DIM}(1)(a)(i) yields the convergence in law of $X_p$ to that of $\widetilde X_V$ as $p\to\infty$, where $\widetilde X_V$ is the limit of the Mandelbrot martingale $\widetilde X_{V,n}$ defined in Appendix~\ref{B1} (take $U=V$ and $\eta=\nu$ there). This property extends to the convergence, for every $n\ge 1$, of the law of the vector $(X^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^nx)_{|p}))_{J\in\Sigma_n}$ under $ \mathbb{P}\otimes\nu$ to that of the vector $(\widetilde X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx))_{J\in\Sigma_n}$, where $\widetilde X^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx)$ is the random variable $\widetilde X_V^{x_{|n},J}(\sigma^nx)$ defined in \eqref{XUnx} in Appendix~\ref{B1}. Consequently, since for each $p\ge 2$ we have the branching property
$$
X^{x_{|n},J}((\sigma^nx)_{|p})=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} X^{x_{|n+1},Jj}((\sigma^{n+1}x)_{|p-1}) V_{x_{n+1},j}(x_{|n},J),
$$
setting, for $p\ge n$,
$$
\rho_{\omega,n,p}^x:\; J\in \bigcup_{k=0}^n\Sigma_k\mapsto \widetilde X^{x_{||J|},J}((\sigma^{|J|}x)_{p})\cdot \prod_{k=1}^{|J|} V_{x_k,J_k}(x_{k-1},J_{k-1}),
$$
we get the convergence in law of $\mathbf{1}_{A}\rho_{\omega,n,p}^x$ to $\mathbf{1}_{A}\widetilde\mu^x_V$ restricted to $\bigcup_{k=0}^n\Sigma_k$ as $p\to\infty$, where $\widetilde\mu^x_V$ is the Mandelbrot measure in a random environment described in \eqref{muUnx}.
However, by definition, for $(\omega,x)\in A$, $\rho_{\omega,n,p}^x$ converges almost surely to $\widetilde\mu^x$ restricted to $\bigcup_{k=0}^n\Sigma_k$. Hence for all $n\ge 1$, we have the identity in distribution of the restrictions to $\bigcup_{k=0}^n\Sigma_k$ of $\widetilde\mu^x$ and $\mathbf{1}_{A}\widetilde\mu^x_V$, that is the equality in distribution of $\widetilde\mu^x$ and $\mathbf{1}_{A}\widetilde\mu^x_V$. Moreover, we notice that by construction, up to a $\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu$ negligible set, $A$ is a subset of the set $\Sigma_{A,V}$ of those points $(\omega,x)$ for which $\widetilde\mu^x_V\neq 0$. Consequently, if, conditionally on $\widetilde\mu^x_V\neq 0$, we have that $\widetilde\mu^x_V$ is exactly dimensional with dimension $\dim(\mu)-\dim(\nu)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT'_i(1-)$, then the same holds for $\widetilde\mu^x$.
Now, it is straightforward to adapt Kahane's percolation approach \cite{K87} developed for Mandelbrot measures in the so-called canonical case to get the conclusion.
At first we notice that conditionally on $\mu_V^x\neq 0$, the proof of the first approach applied to $\widetilde \mu^x_V$ instead of $\widetilde \mu^x$ yields $\overline \dim_{\mathrm{loc}}(\widetilde \mu^x_V,y)\le \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT'_i(1-))$ for $\widetilde \mu_V^x$-almost every $y$ (in the proof it just corresponds to proving that $-\eta\le \liminf_{n\to\infty}\widetilde X^{x_{|n},y_{|n}}_V(\sigma^nx)$ for all $\eta>0$, which holds because ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu}(\widetilde X_V^{1-\epsilon})<\infty$ without additional assumption). Thus $\overline\dim_P(\rho)\le \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT'_i(1-)$.
For each $\alpha\in (0,1)$, let $W^{(\alpha)}$ be a random variable taking value $m^\alpha$ with probability $m^{-\alpha}$ and value 0 with probability $1-m^{-\alpha}$. Then let $V^{(\alpha)}$ be a random vector whose coordinates are independent copies of $W^{(\alpha)}$, and consider $V^{(\alpha,\omega')}(u,v)_{(u,v)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n, n\ge 0}$, a sequence of independent copies of $V^{(\alpha)}$ defined on a space $(\Omega',\mathcal A',\mathbb{P}') $. For each $(\omega',x)\in\Omega'\times\Sigma$, consider the sequence of operators $(Q_{\lambda,n} (\omega',x))_{n\ge 1}$ acting on the finite non-negative Borel measures on $\pi^{-1}(\{x\})$ as follows:
$$
Q_{\alpha,n}(\omega',x)(\rho)(\mathrm{d}y)= \left (\prod_{k=1}^n V^{(\alpha,\omega')}_{x_k,y_k}(x_{|k-1},y_{|k-1})\right)\cdot \rho (\mathrm{d}y).
$$
For each such measure $\rho$, $Q_{\alpha,n}(\omega',x)(\rho)$ is a martingale which converges $\mathbb{P}'$-almost surely in the weak-star topology to a measure denoted as $Q_\alpha(\omega',x)\cdot\rho$. Moreover, one deduces from \cite[Corollaire du th\'eor\`eme 1]{K87} that if $\rho\neq 0$ and the martingale $(\|Q_{\alpha,n}(\omega',x)(\rho)\|)_{n\ge 1}$ is uniformly integrable (in Kahane's terminology it means that $Q_{\alpha,n}$ acts fully on $\rho$), then $\underline\dim_H(\rho)\ge \alpha$.
Now we consider the product space $(\Omega\times\Sigma)\times\Omega'$ endowed with the tensor $\sigma$-field $\mathcal A\otimes \mathcal B(\Sigma)\otimes \mathcal A'$ and the product probability measure $\mathbb{P}\otimes\nu\otimes\mathbb{P}'$. It remains to prove that for all $\alpha\in (0,\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT'_i(1-))$, for $\mathbb{P}\otimes\nu$-almost every $(\omega,x)$, conditionally on $\mu_V^x\neq 0$, the martingale $(\|Q_{\alpha,n}(\omega',x)(\widetilde\mu_V^x)\|)_{n\ge 1}$ is uniformly integrable. The proof follows similar lines as in the deterministic environment case (see \cite{WW,FK} for details). It comes from the fact that the Mandelbrot martingale in the variable $(\omega,\omega')$
$$
\widetilde X_{V^{(\alpha)}V,n}(\omega,\omega',x)=\sum_{|v|=n} \prod_{k=1}^n V^{(\alpha,\omega')}_{x_k,y_k}(x_{|k-1},y_{|k-1}) V^\omega_{x_k,y_k}(x_{|k-1},y_{|k-1})
$$
in random environment $x$ taken under $\nu$ is uniformly integrable. Indeed,
$$
-{\mathbb E}_{(\mathbb P\otimes\mathbb{P}') \otimes\nu}\left (\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}V^{(\alpha,\omega')}_{x_1,j}V^\omega_{x_1,j})\log (V^{(\alpha,\omega')}_{x_1,j}V^\omega_{x_1,j})\right )=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_iT'_i(1-)-\alpha>0;
$$
consequently, Theorem~\ref{thmBK} yields the desided conclusion.
\subsection{Proof of Corollary~\ref{DGF}} Let $\varphi :\; h\in {\Bbb R}_+\mapsto \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h}$.
We begin with the proof of \eqref{vp}. The upper bound for the box dimension of $\pi(K)$ can be obtained as a consequence of our approach to the multifractal analysis, or by using Falconer's argument in \cite{Fal} (see also \cite{DekGri}). To see it, notice that at a given generation $n$ of the construction, $\pi(K_n)$ is covered by at most $\sum_{|u|=n} (\#\{v\in\Sigma_n: Q(u,v)>0\})^h$, for all $0\le h\le 1$, which yields that the expectation of this number is at most $(\inf_{0\le h\le 1} m^{\varphi(h)})^n$. Applying Lemma \ref{Borel}, we obtain that $\overline{\dim}_B(\pi(K))\leq \inf_{0\le h\le 1} \varphi(h)$.
Thus it remains to derive a lower bound for the Hausdorff dimension of $\pi(K)$.
Let $h_0$ be a point at which $\inf_{0\le h\le 1} \varphi(h)$ is attained. Due to the convexity and the analyticity of $\varphi$, such a point is not unique if and only if ${\mathbb E}(N_i)=1$ when ${\mathbb E}(N_i)>0$. Let us consider the Mandelbrot measure associated with the following weights:
$$
W'_{i,j}=p'_i V'_{i,j}\quad\text{with } V'_{i,j}= \begin{cases}
\displaystyle \frac{\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}}}{{\mathbb E}(N_i)}&\text{ if ${\mathbb E}(N_i)>0$}\\
0&\text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
$$
where $$
p'=(p'_i)_{0\le i\le m-1}=\left (\frac{{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0}}{\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0}}\right )_{0\le i\le m-1}.
$$
Let $\mu'$ be the associated Mandelbrot measure and $\nu'$ the Bernoulli product associated with~$p'$. We have
$$
\dim(\nu')=-\frac{ h_0 \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0}\log_m({\mathbb E}(N_i))}{\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0}}+\log_m\left (\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0}\right )=\varphi(h_0)-h_0\varphi'(h_0)
$$
and
\begin{equation}
\label{e-ef}
\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT'_{V'_i}(1)= \frac{\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0} \log_m ({\mathbb E}(N_i))}{\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0}}=\varphi'(h_0).
\end{equation}
Next we show that $\dim_H \pi(K) \geq \dim_H\pi(\mu')\geq \varphi(h_0)$, by considering the scenarios $h_0=1$, $h_0\in (0,1)$ and $h_0=0$, separately. First
suppose that $h_0=1$. Then $\mu'$ is the so-called branching measure on $K$, and we see that
$$\dim(\nu')+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT'_{V'_i}(1)= \varphi(1)=\log({\mathbb E}(N))/\log(m)>0,$$
hence $\mu'$ is non-degenerate with positive probability (a fact that can also be directly seen from $T_{W'}'(1)$). Moreover, since on $[0,1]$ $\varphi$ takes the minimum at $h=1$, by smoothness of $\varphi$ we must have $\varphi'(1)\le 0$, consequently $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT'_{V'_i}(1)\le 0$, and thus by Theorem \ref{DIM},
$\dim (\pi_*\mu') =\dim(\mu')$ and $\dim_H \pi(K)=\dim_H (K)=\varphi(1)$ when $K\neq\emptyset$.
Next suppose that $0<h_0<1$. We have $\varphi'(h_0)=0$, hence $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT'_{V'_i}(1)=0$ and thus by Theorem \ref{DIM},
$$\dim (\pi_*\mu') =\dim(\mu')=\dim(\nu')=\varphi(h_0),$$ yielding $\dim_H\pi(K)\ge \varphi(h_0)$ when $K\neq\emptyset$.
Finally suppose that $h_0=0$. Then $\varphi'(0)\ge 0$, so $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT'_{V'_i}(1)\geq 0$ and thus by Theorem \ref{DIM}, $\dim(\pi_*\mu')=\dim(\nu')=\varphi(0)\le \dim(\mu')$ when $\mu'\neq 0$, and consequently, $\dim_H \pi(K) \ge \varphi(0)$ when $K\neq\emptyset$.
So far we have proved \eqref{vp}. Below we discuss the uniqueness problem regarding the last variational relation in \eqref{vp}.
Notice that the Mandelbrot measure $\mu'$ considered above has a dimension equal to $\dim_H K$ if and only if $T_{W'}'(1)=-T_{W'}(0)=\log_m({\mathbb E}(N))$, that is $T_{W'}$ is linear. If $h_0=1$, $\mu'$ is the branching measure. If $h_0<1$, since
$$T_{W'}(q)=q \log_m\Big(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_0}\Big)-\log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\mathbf{1}_{\{p_i>0\}}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{1+q(h_0-1)}$$
and the second derivative of $T_{W'}$ vanishes, we get that ${\mathbb E}(N_i)=1$ for each $i$ such that $p_i>0$. Once again $\mu'$ is the branching measure.
For the uniqueness problem, the case when $\dim_H K=\dim_H \pi(K)$ is clear from the above discussion, since the same argument in fact shows that a Mandelbrot measure supported on $K$ whose dimension equals that of $K$ must be the branching measure. Thus we can suppose that $\dim_H K>\dim_H \pi(K)$.
Suppose that the maximum in \eqref{vp} is attained at a Mandelbrot measure $\mu''$ defined simultaneously with $\mu'$ and supported on $K$ conditionally on non-vanishing. Then it is easily seen that $\mu''$ is generated by a random vector $W''$ such that $W''_{i,j}>0$ only if $W_{i,j}>0$, and one can associate with $W''$ the probability vector $(p''_i=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(W''_{i,j}))_{0\le i\le m-1}$ and the vectors $V''_i=(W''_{i,j}/p''_i)_{0\le j\le m-1}$ if $p''_i>0$ and $0$ otherwise. Moreover, $p'_i>0$ implies $p''_i>0$ for otherwise the formula $\inf_{0\le h\le 1} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_i)^h$ for the Hausdorff dimension of $\pi(K)$ would give a strictly smaller dimension.
By Theorem~\ref{DIM} we have
\begin{equation}\label{dimmu''}
\dim (\pi_*\mu'')= \min \Big (\dim (\nu''), \; \dim (\nu'')+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_iT_{V''_i}'(1-)\Big ).
\end{equation}
Now, let us observe that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_iT_{V''_i}'(1-)$ is always smaller than or equal to $$\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_iT_{V'_i}'(1-)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_i\log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i)
.$$
This is due to the fact that $T_{V''_i}$ is concave, equal to 0 at~1, and
\begin{equation}
\label{e-ee}
T_{V''_i}(0)=-\log_m{\mathbb E}(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}\mathbf{1}_{\{W''_{i,j}>0\}})\ge -\log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i),
\end{equation}
implying that $T_{V''_i}'(1-)\le -T_{V''_i}(0) \le \log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i).$
Consequently, in order to optimize $ \dim (\nu'')+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_iT_{V''_i}'(1-)$, $\mu''$ must satisfy the condition that $T'_{V''_i}(1-)= T'_{V'_i}(1-)=\log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i)$. On the other hand, by concavity of $T_{V''_i}$ on $[0,1]$, we have that $T_{V''_i}(0)\le -T'_{V''_i}(1-)$. Finally, since by \eqref{e-ee}, $T_{V''_i}(0)\ge -\log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i)=-T'_{V''_i}(1-)$, we get $T_{V''_i}(0)=-\log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i)=-T'_{V''_i}(1-)$, hence $T_{V''_i}$ is linear on $[0,1]$. This means that like for $V'_i$, the coordinates of the vector $V_i''$ equal either 0 or $1/{\mathbb E}(N_i)$. Since, moreover, we have $W''_{i,j}=0$ as soon as $W'_{i,j}=0$, we get $V''_i=V'_i$ almost surely. On the other hand, a simple study using Lagrange multipliers shows that $\dim (\nu'')+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_i\log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i)$ is optimal for $p''=p'$, the maximum being unique. In other words, the maximum over $\mu''$ of $\dim (\nu'')+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_iT_{V''_i}'(1-)$ is reached uniquely at~$\mu'$.
Now, suppose first that $\varphi'(0)\le 0$, i.e. the infimum of $\varphi$ over $[0,1]$ is reached at a unique $h_0\in (0,1 ]$, or at $h_0=0$ with $\varphi'(0)=0$. In both cases, we have $\varphi'(h_0)\leq 0$, and our study of $\mu'$ (cf. \eqref{e-ef}) shows that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_i T_{V_i'}'(1^{-})= \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_i\log_m{\mathbb E}(N_i)=\varphi'(h_0)\leq 0$, showing that $\dim (\pi_*\mu')=\dim (\mu')$ by Theorem \ref{DIM}. Consequently, by the arguments in the last paragraph, for any Mandelbrot measure $\mu''$ supported on $K$, we have
$$
\dim (\nu'')+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p''_iT_{V''_i}'(1-)\le \dim (\nu')+\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_{V'_i}'(1-)=\dim(\mu')= \dim (\pi_*\mu'),
$$
{where the first equality holds if and only if $\mu''=\mu'$. Then, the relation \eqref{dimmu''} yields $\mu'$ as the unique Mandelbrot measure such that $\dim (\pi_*\mu')$ is maximal.
Next suppose that $\varphi'(0)>0$. Fix $\lambda>1$ and $U_\lambda$ a random variable independent of $V'$ and taking value $\lambda >1$ with probability $\lambda^{-1}$ and $0$ with probability $1-\lambda^{-1}$. Take $p''=p'$ and replace $V'$ by $V''=(V''_0,V''_1,V''_2,\ldots,V''_{m-1})$ with $V''_i=U_\lambda\cdot V'_i$. This yields a Mandelbrot measure $\mu''$ different from $\mu'$, with the same expectation $\nu'$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p''_iT'_{V''_i}(1)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT'_{V'_i}(1)-\log_m(\lambda)>0$ if $\lambda$ is close enough to 1. Consequently, $\dim (\pi_*\mu'')=\dim(\nu')=\dim(\pi_*\mu')$, and there is no uniqueness in this case.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{MA}: Differentiability properties of the function $\tau$} \label{study of tau}
\subsection*{{\bf Differentiability over $(0,1-]$}}\label{difftau} $\ $
Notice that the differentiability of $\tau$ over $(0,1-]$ automatically holds if $\tau\equiv T$ over $(0,1]$, and that this holds in particular if $T_i$ is linear and ${\mathbb E}(N_i)=1$ for all $0\le i\le m-1$ such that ${\mathbb E}(N_i)>0$, i.e. $T_i\equiv 0$ so that $T=\tau_\nu=\tau$ (the study achieved below shows that this is also a necessary condition, which is equivalent to have ${\mathbb E}(N_i)=1$ and $V_{i,j}=\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}}$ for all $0\le j\le m-1$ almost surely). Moreover, still in this case, since we have excluded the case that $N_i=1$ for all $0\le i\le m-1$ such that ${\mathbb E}(N_i)>0$, by Theorem~\ref{ABS}(2), $\pi_*{\mu}$ and $\nu$ are mutually singular, and thus $\pi_*\mu\neq\nu$ almost surely.
Now suppose that $\tau\not\equiv T$ over $(0,1]$. For $0<q\le s\le 1$ set
$$
G(q,s)= \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s)/s}
$$
and
$$
g(q,s)=s^2(-q\log(m))^{-1}\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,s)=\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s))/s}T_i^*(T_i'(s)).
$$
Let $q\in (0,1]$. At first suppose that the infimum defining $\tau(q)$, i.e. the infimum of $G(q,\cdot)$, is reached at $s\in (q,1)$ (hence $q<1$). We claim that $s$ is unique and for all $q'$ in an open neighborhood of $q$ there exists a unique $s(q')\in (q',1)$ such that $\tau(q')=- \log_m G(q,s(q'))$. To show this claim, notice that at any $s_0\in (q,1)$ at which the infimum defining $\tau(q)$ is reached we have $g(q,s_0)=0$. Moreover, for all $s\in [q,1]$ we have
$$
\frac{\partial g}{\partial s}(q,s)= \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s))/s}(-q\log(m)s^{-2}(T_i^*(T_i'(s)))^2+sT_i''(s))\le 0.
$$
Suppose that $T_i''(s)=0$ for some $i$. It means that
$$
\left (\mathbb{E}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}V_{i,j}^s(\log(V_{i,j}))^2\right )\left (\mathbb{E}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}V_{i,j}^s\right)= \left (\mathbb{E}\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}V_{i,j}^s(\log(V_{i,j}))\right )^2.
$$
It follows that by the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, there exists a constant $c$ such that almost surely either $V_{i,j}=0$ or $V_{i,j}=c$, hence $c=1/{\mathbb E}(N_i)$. In this case we have $T_i^*(T_i'(s))=\log({\mathbb E}(N_i))$. Consequently, for $\frac{\partial g}{\partial s}(q,s)$ to be equal to 0 we need to have ${\mathbb E}(N_i)=1$ and $V_{i,j}=\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}}$ for all $0\le i,j\le m-1$ such that $p_i>0$, a situation that we have discarded by assuming that $\tau\neq T$ (notice that this property is equivalent to requiring that $T_i\equiv 0$ for all $0\le i\le m-1$ such that $p_i>0$). Thus $\frac{\partial g}{\partial s}(q,s)< 0$, hence $g(q,s)$ can vanish only at one point of $(q,1)$, that we denote by $s(q)$. Then, because $\frac{\partial g}{\partial s}(q,s(q))< 0$, the implicit function theorem implies our claim, as well as the analyticity of $ s(\cdot)$ and $\tau$ on any maximal interval of points $q$ such that $s(q)\in (q,1)$. In addition, $
s'(q)=-\frac{\frac{\partial g}{\partial q}(q,s(q))}{{\frac{\partial g}{\partial s}(q,s(q))}}
$. We also notice that the study of {$s\mapsto g(q,s)$ shows that $s\mapsto\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,s)$} is negative on the left hand side of $s(q)$ and positive on the right hand side, so the infimum of $G(q,\cdot)$ { over $[q,1]$} can be reached neither at $q$ nor at $1$.
Now suppose that the infimum of $G(q,\cdot)$ is reached at $s_0\in\{q,1\}$. Suppose that this infimum is reached at another point of $[q,1]$ as well (this can hold only if $q<1$). Then, let $s_1\in (q,1)$ at which $G(q,\cdot)$ reaches a local maximum, hence $g(q,\cdot)$ vanishes. Our previous analysis of the sign of $g(q,\cdot)$, which is the opposite of the sign of $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,\cdot)$, shows that $ \frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,\cdot)$ is negative on the left of $s_1$, which is a contradiction. Thus the infimum of $G(q,\cdot)$ at $s_0$ is strict. We again denote this point $s_0$ by $s(q)$.
We notice that the argument in the above paragraph also shows that if $q$ is a point of $(0,1)$ at which $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ coincide, i.e. $G(q,1)=G(q,q)$, then $\tau(q)$ cannot be attained at $q$ or $1$. This entails the fact that $\tau=T=\tau_\nu$ only if $T_i\equiv 0$ when $p_i>0$.
Next we prove that both $\tau$ and $s(\cdot)$ are continuous over $(0,1]$. Suppose that $q\in (0,1]$. Let $(q_n)_{n\ge 1}$ be a sequence of points in $(0,1]$ such that $q_n\to q$. Without loss of generality, we can assume that $s(q_n)$ converges as well, to a number, say $s_q$, which necessarily belongs to $[q,1]$ since $s(q_n)\in[q_n,1]$. It follows by continuity of $G$ that $G(q_n,s(q_n))\to G(q,s_q)$. Suppose that $s_q\neq s(q)$. Then, $G(q,s(q))<G(q,s_q)$, hence there exist $n_0>1$ and $\epsilon>0$ such that for all $n\ge n_0$, for all $s\in[q_n,1]$ we have $$G(q_n,s)\geq G(q_n, s(q_n))>G(q,s(q))+\epsilon.$$
However, there exists a sequence $(s_n)_{n\ge 1}$ such that $s_n\in[q_n,1]$ for all $n\ge n_0$ and $(q_n,s_n)\to (q,s(q))$. By continuity of $G$ over $[0,1]$, we have $G(q_n,s_n)\to G(q,s(q))$, but $G(q_n,s_n)>G(q,s(q))+\epsilon$, which gives a contradiction. Consequently, we obtained the desired continuity property of $s(\cdot)$, and that of $\tau=-\log_mG(\cdot,s(\cdot))$.
Let us denote by $\mathcal I$ the set of the connected components of $\{q\in(0,1): s(q)\in (q,1)\}$.
Let $E=(0,1]\setminus\bigcup_{I\in\mathcal I} I$. Let $q_0\in E$. If $q_0$ is an interior point of $E$, then by continuity of $s$, we must have either $s(q)=q$ or $s(q)=1$ on the maximal interval $I_{q_0}$ containing $q_0$ and contained in $E$; as a consequence, both $s(\cdot)$ and $\tau$ are analytic on the interior of $I_{q_0}$.
Suppose that $q_0\in\partial E$ and $q_0<1$. Notice that since $q_0$ is an accumulating point of $\bigcup_{I\in\mathcal I} I$, by continuity of $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s} $ and $s(\cdot)$, we have either $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q_0,q_0)=0$ if $s(q_0)=q_0$ or $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q_0,1)=0$ if $s(q_0)=1$.
Up to symmetry between the left and the right hand sides of $q_0$, there are essentially three situations. There exists $\eta>0$ such that either $s(q)=q$ over $[q_0-\eta,q_0)$ and $s(q)\in (q,1)$ over $(q_0,q_0+\eta]$, $s(q)=1$ over $[q_0-\eta,q_0)$ and $s(q)\in (q,1)$ over $(q_0,q_0+\eta]$, or $s(q)\in (q,1)$ both over $[q_0-\eta,q_0)$ and $(q_0,q_0+\eta]$. It means that $q_0$ cannot be an accumulating point of boundary points of $E$. Indeed, suppose that on the contrary $q_0$ is such a point. Then $s(q_0)\in \{q_0,1\}$. First assume that $s(q_0)=q_0$. By the remark in the last paragraph, $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,q)$ should have infinitely many zeros accumulating at $q_0$, which would imply that $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,q)=0$ for all $q\in (0,1)$ by analyticity of $G$; but this does not hold, for otherwise we have $\tau=T$, a case that we discarded. Indeed if $\tau\neq T$, there exists $q_0\in(0,1)$ such that $s(q_0)\in (q_0,1)$. Then our previous study of $g(q_0,\cdot)$ shows that $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q_0,q_0)=-(\log)g(q_0,q_0)/q_0<0$ since $g(q_0,\cdot)$ is strictly decreasing and $g(q_0,s(q_0))=0$. Next assume $s(q_0)=1$. Again by the remark in the last paragraph we should have $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,1)=0$ and thus $g(q,1)=0$ for all $q\in (0,1)$, and it follows that $g(q, s(q))>0$ whenever $s(q)\neq 1$, leading to a contradiction.
Finally suppose that $q_0=1$. The same approach as above shows that there exists $\eta>0$ such that either $s(q)=1$ or $s(q)\in (q,1)$ over $[1-\eta,1)$. Also, we notice that $0$ cannot be an accumulating point of $\partial E$ since we assumed that the $T_i$ are finite and analytic in a neighborhood of $0$.
The previous arguments imply the following intermediate fact.
\begin{pro}\label{partition} The functions $\tau$ and $s(\cdot)$ are continuous over $(0,1]$. There exists a set $S$, finite or empty, such that for each connected component $I$ of $(0,1]\setminus S$, the functions $\tau$ and $s(\cdot)$ restricted to $I$ are analytic, and $I$ is a maximal interval over which either $s(q)=q$, $s(q)\in (q,1)$ or $s(q)=1$.
\end{pro}
It remains to prove the differentiability of $\tau$ at each $q\in S$. Let $q_0\in S$. If $q_0=1$, then there exists $\eta>0$ such that $s(q)\in (q,1)$ over $[1-\eta,1)$. The formula
\begin{equation}\label{tau'q}
\tau'(q)=-\frac{\frac{\partial G}{\partial q}(q,s(q))}{\log(m) G(q,s(q))}
\end{equation}
implies that $\tau'(q)$ has a limit at $1-$, hence by the mean value theorem $\tau$ is left differentiable at $1$.
Suppose that $q_0<1$. If $s(q)\in(q,1)$ for all $q$ in $[q_0-\eta,q_0+\eta]\setminus \{q_0\}$ for some $\eta>0$, then formula \eqref{tau'q} and the continuity of $s(\cdot)$ combined with the mean value theorem yield the fact that $\tau$ is $C^1$ at $q_0$. If $s(q)=q$ on $[q_0-\eta,q_0)$ and $s(q)\in (q,1)$ on $(q_0,q_0+\eta]$, we first notice that $s(q)/q$ tends to $1$ as $q\to q_0+$ by continuity of $s(\cdot)$. It is then almost direct to see that $\tau'(q)$ given by \eqref{tau'q} converges to $T'(q_0)$ as $q\to q_0+$. Indeed, one has
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{tau'q1}
\frac{\partial G}{\partial q}(q,s(q))&=& \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^qm^{-T_i(s(q)) q/s(q)} (\log (p_i)-\log(m) T_i(s(q))/s(q))\\
\label{tau'q2}&=&\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^qm^{-T_i(s(q)) q/s(q)} (\log (p_i)-\log(m) T_i'(s(q)),
\end{eqnarray}
due to the equality $\frac{\partial G}{\partial s}(q,s(q))=0$. Then, letting $q$ tend to $q_0+$ and using the fact that $s(q)/q$ tends to 1, we get $\lim_{q\to q_0+} \tau'(q)=T'(q_0)$. On the other hand, $\tau=T$ over $[q_0-\eta,q_0)$, hence $\tau$ is $C^1$ at $q_0$. The other cases can be treated similarly.
\subsection*{\bf {Concavity of $\tau$}} We will show later that the differentiability of $\tau$ over $[0,1]$ combined with other arguments yield the equality of $\tau$ with the $L^q$-spectrum of $\pi_*\mu$, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$. Consequently, $\tau$ is concave, and automatically differentiable at the right hand side of $0$ if it is right continuous at 0.
\subsection*{{\bf Continuity and differentiability at 0}} Due to the previous discussion, it is enough to prove the continuity at 0. However, we will examine the value of $\tau'(0+)$. We distinguish two cases.
At first suppose that $h(q)=q/s(q)$ does not tend to 0 as $q$ tends to 0. It follows that $s(q)$ tends to 0. Suppose that for some sequence $(q_n)_{n\ge 0}$ tending to 0 we have $h(q_n)\to h_*\in (0,1]$. The study achieved above gives $g(q_n,s(q_n))=0$ if $q_n<s(q_n)<1$ and $g(q_n,s(q_n))\le 0$ if $s(q_n)=q_n$. This implies that
$$\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_*}\log_{ m}({\mathbb E}(N_i))=\lim_{n\to +\infty} g(q_n,s(q_n))$$ vanishes if $h_*<1$ and is non positive if $h_*=1$. By convexity of the mapping $h\in [0,1]\mapsto \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h}$, we conclude that in any case, $$- \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_*}=-\inf_{0\le h\le 1} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h},$$ i.e. $h_*$ is the point at which the minimum in~\eqref{dimproj} is attained. Moreover we have $\lim_{n\to\infty} \tau(q_n)=- \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_*}=\tau(0)$.
It follows that $\tau$ is right continuous at~$0$.
Now suppose that $h(q)=q/s(q)$ tends to 0 as $q$ tends to 0. We have $q<s(q)\le 1$ for $q$ small enough. From this it follows that $g(q,s(q))\ge 0$. Consequently, since $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \mathbf{1}_{\{p_i>0\}} \log({\mathbb E}(N_i))=\lim_{q\to 0+} g(q,s(q))$ (because $h(q)$ tends to 0), this number is non negative. This implies that $\log_m \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \mathbf{1}_{\{p_i>0\}}=\inf_{0\le h\le 1} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h} $. On the other hand $\lim_{q\to 0+} \tau(q)=-\log_m \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} \mathbf{1}_{\{p_i>0\}}$, hence $\tau$ is right continuous at 0, and $\tau(0)=\tau_\nu(0)$. In this case we set $h_*=0$.
In all the cases, we set
\begin{equation}
\label{e-p'}
p'_i=\left (\frac{{\mathbb E}(N_i)^{h_*}}{\sum_{i'=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(N_{i'})^{h_*}}\right )_{0\le i\leq m-1},
\end{equation}
with the convention $0^0=0$, and we denote by $\nu'$ the associated Bernoulli product.
\subsection*{{\bf The value of $\tau'(0+)$}} Now we use Proposition~\ref{partition} to determine the value of $\tau'(0+)$ and examine more precisely the behavior of $s(q)$ at $0+$. This will be used to prove the validity of the multifractal formalism for $\pi_*\mu$ at $\tau'(0+)$. Our observation is the following:
{\begin{pro}\label{tau'0} Let $p_i'$ be defined as in \eqref{e-p'}. One of the three following situations occurs:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] $\tau=T$ near $0+$ and $\tau'(0+)=T'(0)$.
\item [(ii)] $\tau=\tau_\nu$ near $0+$ and $\tau'(0+)=\tau_\nu'(0)$. Moreover, $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}p'_i T_i^*(T_i'(1))\ge 0$.
\item [(iii)] $\tau>\max(T,\tau_\nu)$ near $0+$, and there exists $s_0\in [0,1]$ such that
$$
\tau'(0+)=-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_i(\log_m(p_i)-T'_i(s_0)).
$$
Moreover, $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_i^*(T'_i(s_0))=0$.
\end{itemize}
\end{pro}
}
\begin{proof} We treat the three cases considered in the statement separately.
{\bf Case 1: $\tau=T$ near $0+$.} In this case, we have $h_*=1$ and $\tau'(0+)=T'(0)$.
{{\bf Case 2: $\tau=\tau_\nu$ near $0+$.} We have $h_*=0$ and $\tau'(0+)=\tau_\nu'(0)$. Moreover, for all $q>0$ close enough to 0 we have $s(q)=1$, which implies that $g(q,s(q))=g(q,1)=\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}p_i^q T_i^*(T_i'(1))\ge 0$. Consequently, letting $q$ tend to 0 we get $\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}p'_i T_i^*(T_i'(1))\ge 0$.
}
{{\bf Case 3: $\tau>\max(T,\tau_\nu)$ near $0+$.}
}
{Assume at first that $h_*\in (0,1]$. Letting $q$ tend to $0+$ in the equality $g(q,s(q))=0$ we obtain $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_i^*(T'_i(0))=0$. Then, applying \eqref{tau'q} and \eqref{tau'q2} at $q$ close enough to $0+$ and letting $q$ tend to $0$ we obtain $\tau'(0+)=-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_i(\log_m(p_i)-T'_i(0))$; we then set $s_0=0$.
}
{Next assume that $h_*=0$. From the discussion of the continuity of $\tau$ at 0 we deduce that $\tau(0)=\tau_\nu(0)$. Next, consider a sequence $(q_n)_{n\ge 1}$ converging to $0+$ such that $s(q_n)$ (which belongs to $(q_n,1)$) tends to $s_0\in [0,1]$. From the equality $g(q_n,s(q_n))=0$ we deduce that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_i^*(T'_i(s_0))=0$ by letting $n$ tend to $\infty$. Moreover, using \eqref{tau'q} and \eqref{tau'q2} with $q_n$ and letting $n$ tend to $\infty$ yields $\tau'(0+)=-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_i(\log_m(p_i)-T'_i(s_0))$.}
\end{proof}
\subsection*{{\bf Differentiability at 1}} Due to \eqref{tau'q}, if $q<s(q)<1$ in a left neighborhood of $1$, by \eqref{tau'q} we have $\tau'(1-)=T'(1)$. {This, together with the facts that $\tau\ge \max(\tau_\nu,T)$ over $[0,1]$ and $\tau(1)=T(1)=\tau_\nu(1)$ implies that $\tau_\nu'(1)\ge T'(1)$. Then, if the last inequality is strict, we have $\tau_\nu>T$ hence $\tau=T$ on a right neighborhood of $1$, which yields the differentiability of $\tau$ at $1$. If $\tau_\nu'(1)=T'(1)$, then $\min (\tau_\nu,T)$ must have a derivative equal to $T'(1)$ on the right of $1$, and we get the desired conclusion as well.}
If $s(q)=1$ in a left neighborhood $1$, then there we have $\tau=\tau_\nu\ge T$, and $\tau'(1-)=\tau_\nu'(1)$. {Then, similar argument as in the previous case (with the roles of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ exchanged) yields the existence of $\tau'(1)$.}
The case $s(q)=q$ in a left neighborhood $1$ is treated similarly.
In conclusion, we get
\begin{equation}\label{tau'1}
\tau'(1)=
\begin{cases}T'(1)&\text{if }T'(1)\le \tau_\nu'(1)\\
\tau'(1)=\tau_\nu'(1)&\text{otherwise }
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
\subsection*{{\bf Differentiability and concavity over $(1,q_c)$}} Recall that $q_c$ is defined in \eqref{assumMA}. The definition of $\tau$ clearly implies its concavity and differentiability at points at which the graphs of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ do not cross transversally. Due to the analyticity of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$, there are at most finitely many such points in a given bounded interval.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{MA}: Lower bound for the $L^q$-spectrum}
\begin{pro}\label{tau}With probability 1, conditionally on $\pi_*\mu\neq 0$,
\begin{enumerate}
\item for all $q\ge 1$ we have the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item [(i)] $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q) \le \tau_\mu(q)$;
\item [(ii)] if $T(q)>0$, then $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)\ge \min (\tau_\nu(q),T(q))$;
\item [(iii)] if $T^*(T'(q))\ge 0$ then $T(q)>0$. If, in addition, $\min (\tau_\nu(q),T(q))=T(q)$, then $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=T(q)$.
\end{itemize}
\item For all $0< q\le 1$, we have
$
\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)\ge \tau(q).
$
\end{enumerate}
\end{pro}
Since, as a $L^q$-spectrum, the function $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}$ is continuous over $(0,\infty)$ and $\tau$, $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ are continuous, we only need to get the desired inequalities for each $q>0$.
\begin{proof}
(1) (i) The fact that $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q) \le \tau_\mu(q)$ for $q\ge 1$ is general and comes from the super-additivity of $x\mapsto x^q$ over ${\Bbb R}_+$ applied to $\Big (\pi_*\mu([u])= \sum_{v\in\Sigma_n}\mu([u,v])\Big )^q$.
(ii) The almost sure inequality $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)\ge \min(\tau_\nu(q),T(q))$ for a given $q\ge 1$ such that
$T(q)>0$ is a direct consequence of Corollary~\ref{cor6.11}.
(iii) Let $q\ge 1$ be such that $T^*(T'(q))\ge 0$ and suppose that $T(q)\le 0$. Recall that $T$ is concave, so its derivative is non increasing. Also, $T(1)=0$ and $T'(1)>0$. This implies that $T'$ is negative at some point of $(1,q)$, otherwise $T$ could not take non positive values over $(1,q]$. Since $T'$ is non increasing, it follows that $T$ has a unique zero $q_0$ over $(1,q]$ at which $T'(q_0)<0$. This implies that $T^*(T'(q_0))=q_0T'(q_0)<0$. Since $T^*(T')$ is non increasing on ${\Bbb R}_+$ (its derivative is $q\mapsto qT''(q)$), we get $T^*(T'(q))\le T^*(T'(q_0))<0$, which is a contradiction. So $T(q)>0$.
Now recall that by Theorem~\ref{AB}, we have $T(q)=\tau_\mu(q)$ as soon as $T^*(T'(q))\ge 0$. Thus, if $\min (\tau_\nu(q),T(q))=T(q)$, the equality $\tau_\mu(q)=T$ comes from (i) and (ii).
\medskip
(2) For $0< q\le 1$ and $q\le s\le 1$, using Jensen's inequality, for each $n\ge 1$ we get
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q X(u)^q\Big )
&=& {\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q X(u)^{s \cdot q/s}\Big )\\
&\le& \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q {\mathbb E}(X(u)^s)^{q/s}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Then, using the definition of $X(u)$, the fact that ${\mathbb E}(Y^s) \le {\mathbb E}(Y)^s=1$, and the branching property, we obtain
\begin{eqnarray*}
\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q {\mathbb E}(X(u)^s)^{q/s}&= &\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q {\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{v\in\Sigma_n} \Big (\frac{\mu([u,v])}{\nu([u])}\Big )^s\Big )^{q/s}\\
&= & \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q {\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{v\in\Sigma_n} Y(u,v)^s \prod_{k=1}^nV_{u_k,v_k}(u_{|k-1},v_{|k-1})^s\Big )^{q/s}\\
&=&{\mathbb E}(Y^s)^{q/s} \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\prod_{k=1}^n p_{u_k}m^{-T_{u_k}(s)q/s}\le \Big (\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s)/s}\Big )^n.
\end{eqnarray*}
Since this holds for all $s\in [q,1]$, for each $n\ge 1$ we obtain
$$
{\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q X(u)^q\Big )\le \Big (\inf_{q\le s\le 1}\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s)/s}\Big )^n.
$$
Consequently, Lemma~\ref{Borel} yields $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)\ge \tau(q)$ almost surely.
\end{proof}
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{MA}: Upper bound for the $L^q$-spectrum and validity of the multifractal formalism}\label{sec-4.3}
Proposition~\ref{tau} yields the following lemma.
\begin{lem}With probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, we have $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}\ge \tau$ over $[0,\widetilde q_c)$.
\end{lem}
Consequently, due to the general inequality $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)\le \tau_{\pi_*\mu}^*(\alpha)$, valid for all $\alpha$,
to prove the validity of the multifractal formalism at any $\alpha\in [\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)]$ for some $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)$ or at $\alpha=\tau'(0+)$ almost surely, as well as the almost sure equality of $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau$ over $[0,\widetilde q_c)$, it is enough to show that, for each $q\in [0,\widetilde q_c)$, with probability 1, conditionally on if $\mu\neq 0$, we have $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)\ge \tau^*(\alpha)$ for $\alpha\in [\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)]$ if $q>0$ and $\alpha=\tau'(0+)$ if $q=0$.
Indeed, once this is done, we automatically have that almost surely, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, $\tau^*(\alpha)=\alpha q-\tau(q)\le \dim E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)\le \tau_{\pi_*\mu}^*(\alpha)\le \alpha q-\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)\le \alpha q-\tau(q)$. Moreover, the information $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)\ge \tau^*(\alpha)$ for $\alpha=\tau'(q)$, where $q$ describes a dense countable subset of values of $q$ is enough to get the equality $\tau=\tau_{\pi_*\mu}$ over $[0,\widetilde q_c)$. Also, the fact $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=qT'(q_c-)$
for $q\ge q_c$ when $\widetilde q_c=q_c<\infty$ follows from Proposition~\ref{linearization}.
Then, to get \eqref{convtaun} for $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)$, we notice that if $\alpha\in\{\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)\}$, for any $\epsilon>0$, for $n$ large enough, one has $\#\{u\in\Sigma_n: \pi_*\mu([u])\ge m^{-n(\alpha+\epsilon)}\}\ge m^{n(\tau^*(\alpha)-\epsilon)}$, for otherwise a simple covering argument would give $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)<\tau^*(\alpha)$. This implies
$$
\sum_{|u|=n} \mathbf{1}_{\{\pi_*\mu([u])>0\}}\pi_*\mu([u])^q\ge m^{n(\tau^*(\alpha)-\epsilon)}m^{-nq(\alpha+\epsilon)}\ge m^{-n(\tau(q) +(q+1)\epsilon)}.
$$
Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary, this yields $\limsup_{n\to\infty} -\frac{1}{n}\log_m\sum_{|u|=n} \mathbf{1}_{\{\pi_*\mu([u])>0\}}\pi_*\mu([u])^q\le \tau(q)$. Moreover, we already know (by Proposition~\ref{tau}) that
$$
\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)=\liminf_{n\to\infty} -\frac{1}{n}\log_m\sum_{|u|=n}\mathbf{1}_{\{\pi_*\mu([u])>0\}} \pi_*\mu([u])^q\ge \tau(q).
$$
The case $q=0$ just comes from the fact that $\dim_H K=\dim_B K$.
\begin{rem}\label{taupsitaunu} {\rm To follow the different cases distinguished below, it is useful to have the following properties in mind.
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] If $\alpha=\tau'(1)$, our study of the exact dimensionality of $\pi_*\mu$ and \eqref{tau'1} show that $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)=\alpha=\tau^*(\alpha)$ almost surely conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$.
\item[(2)] The study of the differentiability of $\tau$ achieved in Section~\ref{study of tau} shows that if $q\in (0,1)$ then either $\tau(q)=T(q)$ and $\tau'(q)=T'(q)$ or $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)$ and $\tau'(q)=\tau_\nu'(q)$.
\item[(3)] Simple considerations about the concave function $\min (\tau_\nu,T)$ show that at $q\in (1,q_c)$, if $\tau(q)=T(q)<\tau_\nu(q)$ then $\tau'(q)=T'(q)$, if $q\in (1,\widetilde q_c)$ and $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)<T(q)$ then $\tau'(q)=\tau_\nu'(q)$, and if $q\in (1,q_c)$ and $\tau(q)=T(q)=\tau_\nu(q)$, then $\{\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)\}=\{T'(q),\tau_\nu'(q)\}$.
\end{itemize}
}
\end{rem}
\subsection{The case $\alpha=T'(q)$ and $\tau(q)=T(q)$ with $q\in (0,q_c)\setminus\{1\}$}\label{tauegalpsi} At first we must recall some facts about the multifractal analysis of $\mu$.
For $q\ge 0$, let $\mu_q$ be the Mandelbrot measure built with the random vectors
$$
W_q(u,v)= (m^{T(q)}W_{i,j}(u,v)^q)_{0\le i,j\le m-1},\quad (u,v)\in \bigcup_{n\ge 0}\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n.
$$
According to the study achieved in \cite{Ba00}, with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, all the Mandelbrot measures $\mu_q$, $q\in [0,q_c)$ are defined simultaneously and one has $\dim (\mu_q)=T^*(T'(q))>0$ and $E(\mu,T'(q))$ is of full $\mu_q$-measure.
\begin{pro}\label{preservdim} Fix $q\in (0,q_c)\setminus\{1\}$ such that $\tau(q)=T(q)$. With probability 1, conditionally on $\{\mu\neq 0\}$, we have $\dim(\pi_*\mu_q)= T^*(T'(q))$.
\end{pro}
The following corollary is our main goal.
\begin{cor}\label{4.6}
Fix $q\in (0,q_c)\setminus\{1\}$ such that $\tau(q)=T(q)$. With probability 1, conditionally on $\{\mu\neq 0\}$, we have $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,T'(q))\ge T^*(T'(q))=\tau^*(T'(q))$.
\end{cor}
We start with the proof of the corollary.
\begin{proof} Suppose $\mu\neq 0$. At first, we show that $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}'(0+)\ge \tau'(0+)\ge T'(q)$. To see this, observe at first that $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(0)=\tau(0)$ since $-\tau_{\pi_*\mu}'(0)$ is the upper box dimension of $\pi(K)$ and by \eqref{dimproj} we have $-\tau(0)=\dim_B\pi(K)$. Since, moreover, we have $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}\ge \tau$ over $(0,1]$ by Proposition~\ref{tau}(2), we get the first inequality. Now if $\tau'(0+)< T'(q)$, the equality $\tau(q)=T(q)$ yields
$$
T^*(T'(q))=qT'(q)-T(q)>q\tau'(0+) -\tau(q)\ge \tau^*(\tau'(0+))=-\tau(0)=\dim_B(\pi(K)).
$$
However, by Proposition~\ref{preservdim}, we have $\dim(\pi_*\mu_q)= T^*(T'(q))$, so $\dim(\pi_*\mu_q)>\dim_B\pi(K)$, which is impossible since $\pi_*\mu_q$ is supported on $\pi(K)$. Thus $\tau'(0)\ge T'(q)$.
There is a subset $F_q$ of $\mathrm{supp}(\mu)$ of full $\mu_q$-measure such that for all $t\in F_q$, $\dim_{\rm loc}(\mu_q,t)=\dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu_q,\pi(t))=T^*(T'(q))$ (by Proposition~\ref{preservdim}) and $\dim_{\rm loc}(\mu,t)=T'(q)$ (by the multifractal analysis of $\mu$ \cite{Ba00}). This implies that for all $t\in F_q$ we have $\underline \dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu, \pi(t))\le\overline \dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu, \pi(t))\le \overline\dim_{\rm loc}(\mu,t)= T'(q)$. On the other hand, since $T'(q)\le \tau_{\pi_*\mu}'(0+)$, for all $\alpha'<T'(q)$, by \eqref{MF} we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim \underline E^{\le }(\pi_*\mu, \alpha') \le \tau_{\pi_*\mu}^*(\alpha')\le \alpha' q-\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)< T'(q)q-\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)\le T'(q)q-\tau(q)=T^*(T'(q)).
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, since the family $( \underline E(\pi_*\mu, \alpha'))_{\alpha'<T'(q)}$ is non decreasing and $\dim (\pi_*\mu_q)=T^*(T'(q))$, we get $\pi_*\mu_q\big (\bigcup_{\alpha'<T'(q)} \underline E(\pi_*\mu, \alpha'))=0$. Now, set $ \widetilde F_q=\pi(F_q)\setminus \bigcup_{\alpha'<T'(q)}\underline E(\pi_*\mu, \alpha')$. By construction we have $\widetilde F_q\subset E(\pi_*\mu,T'(q))$ and $\pi_*\mu_q(\widetilde F_q)>0$. Finally $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,T'(q))\ge T^*(T'(q))$. Moreover, by Remark~\ref{taupsitaunu}, if $q\le 1$ then $\tau'(q)=T'(q)$, and if $q>1$, then $T'(q)\in\{\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)\}$, so $T^*(T'(q))=\tau^*(T'(q))$.
\end{proof}
Proposition~\ref{preservdim} is a consequence of Theorem~\ref{DIM} and the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{muq/espmuq}
If $q\in (0,q_c)\setminus\{1\}$ and $\tau(q)=T(q)$, then, conditionally on $\mu_q\neq 0$, $\dim(\mu_q)=T^*(T'(q))\le \dim ({\mathbb E}(\pi_*\mu_q))$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} We first show that for any $q\in (0,q_c)$, almost surely, conditionally on $\mu_q\neq0$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-diff}
\dim(\mu_q)-\dim ({\mathbb E}(\pi_*\mu_q))=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^qm^{T(q)-T_i(q)} T_i^*(T'_i(q)).
\end{equation}
To see this, notice that ${\mathbb E}(\pi_*\mu_q)$ is a Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ generated by the probability vector $(p_0',\ldots, p_{m-1}')$ with
$$
p_i': = \sum_{j=0}^{m-1}m^{T(q)}{\mathbb E}(W_{i,j}^q)=p_i^q m^{T(q)-T_i(q)}.
$$
A simple computation yields that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-split}
\begin{split}
\dim({\mathbb E}(\pi_*\mu_q))
&=-\frac{1}{\log m} \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i'\log p_i'\\
&= -T(q)+\left(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{T(q)-T_i(q)} T_i(q)\right)-\frac{q}{\log m}
\left(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q \log p_i m^{T(q)-T_i(q)}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the meantime, since $\sum_{i=0}p_i^q m^{T(q)-T_i(q)}=1$, differentiating with respect to $q$ yields
\begin{equation}
\label{e-psi'}
T'(q)=\left( \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{T(q)-T_i(q)}T_i'(q)\right)-\frac{1}{\log m} \left(
\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q \log p_i m^{T(q)-T_i(q)}
\right).
\end{equation}
Since $\dim(\mu_q)=T^*(T'(q))=T'(q)q-T(q)$ almost surely, by \eqref{e-split} and \eqref{e-psi'} we obtain~\eqref{e-diff}.
Next we show that if $\tau(q)=T(q)$ for some $q\in (0, q_c)\setminus\{1\}$, then
$$\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^qm^{T(q)-T_i(q)} T_i^*(T'_i(q))\leq 0.$$
We consider the cases $q\in (1, q_c)$ and $0<q<1$ separately.
First suppose $q\in (1, q_c)$. For $1\le s\le q$ and $n\ge 1$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\pi_*\mu([u])^q\Big )&\ge& \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q {\mathbb E}(X(u)^s)^{q/s}\\
&= & \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q {\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{v\in\Sigma_n} \Big (\frac{\mu([u,v])}{\nu([u])}\Big )^s\Big )^{q/s}\\
&= & \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^q {\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{v\in\Sigma_n} Y(u,v)^s \prod_{k=1}^nV_{u_k,v_k}(u_{|k-1},v_{|k-1})^s\Big )^{q/s}\\
&=&{\mathbb E}(Y^s)^{q/s} \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\prod_{k=1}^n p_{u_k}m^{-T_{u_k}(s)q/s}\\
&\ge &
\Big (\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s)/s}\Big )^n,
\end{eqnarray*}
since $1={\mathbb E}(Y)\le {\mathbb E}(Y^s)^{1/s}$. Consequently, due to Corollary~\ref{momestimate}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-sup}
-\tau(q)=\max (-\tau_\nu(q),-T(q))\ge \sup_{1\le s\le q} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s)/s}.
\end{equation}
Since $\tau(q)=T(q)$, this implies that the supremum is reached at $s=q$. Differentiating with respect to $s$ at $s=q$ then yields $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^qm^{-T_i(q)} T_i^*(T'_i(q))\le 0$, hence $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^qm^{T(q)-T_i(q)} T_i^*(T'_i(q))\le 0$.
In the end, suppose that $0< q<1$. By the definition of $\tau$, the condition $\tau(q)=T(q)$ also implies that the following infimum
$$
\inf_{q \le s\leq 1} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^q m^{-qT_i(s)/s}
$$
is attained at $q$. Hence differentiating with respect to $s$ at $s=q$ yields $$\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i^qm^{-T_i(q)} T_i^*(T'_i(q))\le 0.$$ This completes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The case $\alpha=\tau'(q)$ with $\tau(q)\neq T(q)$ and $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)\setminus\{1\}$, or $\alpha\in \{\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)\}$ when a first order phase transition occurs at $q\in(1,q_c)$}\label{taudifpsi}
$\ $
In this section, we suppose that we do not have $\tau\equiv\tau_\nu\equiv T$ over $[0,\widetilde q_c)$, i.e. we are not in the case where for each $0\le i\le m-1$ such that $p_i>0$ the function $T_i$ is equal to 0.
We will use the notations of Section~\ref{study of tau}, and we set $s(q)=1$ if both $q>1$ and $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)$ hold. Also we recall Remark~\ref{taupsitaunu}.
For $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)$ such that $s(q)$ is defined, for $0\le i\le m-1$ set
$$
p'_i=p'_{q,i}=m^{\tau(q)}p_i^qm^{-qT_i(s(q))/s(q)}.
$$
Also let $\nu'=\nu'_q$ be the Bernoulli measure associated with $p'=(p'_0,\ldots,p'_{m-1})$.
For $s>0$ and $0\le i,j\le m-1$, set
\begin{equation}\label{V'i}
V'_{s,i,j}=\mathbf {1}_{\{V_{i,j}>0\}} V_{i,j}^sm^{T_i(s)},
\end{equation}
so that for $q'\ge 0$
$$
T_{V'_{s,i}}(q'):=-\log_m\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}({V'_{s,i,j}}^{q'})= T_i(q's)-q'T_i(s).
$$
Set $W'_s=(W'_{s,i,j}=p'_i V'_{s,i,j})_{0\le i,j\le m-1}$. We have
$$
T_{W'_s}(q')=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}(p'_i)^{q'} m^{-T_{V'_{s,i}}(q')}.
$$
For all $(u,v)\in\bigcup_{n\ge 1}\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n$, let $W'_{s,i,j}(u,v)=(p'_i \mathbf {1}_{\{V_{i,j}(u,v)>0\}} V_{i,j}(u,v)^sm^{T_i(s)})_{0\le i,j\le m-1}$. This family of random weights generates a Mandelbrot mesure $\mu_{W'_s}$ simultaneously with~$\mu_W$.
We start with a first lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-4.8}
\begin{enumerate}
\item
If $q\in (0,1)$ and $s(q)\in(0,1)$, then for all $s\in (0,s(q))$ we have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$.
\item If $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)\setminus\{1\}$ and $s(q)=1$, then either $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))=0$ for all $s\in [0,1]$, or $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$ for all $s\in (0,1)$ according to whether $T_i$ is affine (and equal to $q\mapsto (q-1)\log_m(\mathbb{E}(N_i)$) for each $i$ such that $p_i>0$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i'(1)=0$, or not.
Moreover, either the set $\widetilde S$ of those $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)$ for which $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))=0$ for all $s\in [0,1]$ is discrete or it is equal to $\mathbb (0,\widetilde q_c))$. The later case holds if and only if property~$(\mathcal P)$ of Remark~\ref{specialtau}(2) holds. In particular, $T$ is finite over ${\Bbb R}_+$, $\widetilde q_c=\infty$, and one has $\tau=\tau_\nu>T$ over $(0,1)$ and $\tau=\tau_\nu<T$ over $(1,\infty)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} (1) Suppose $q\in (0,1)$ and $s(q)\in (q,1)$. The study of the differentiability of $\tau$ achieved in Section~\ref{difftau} yields $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s(q)))=m^{\tau(q)}g(q,s(q))=0$ and since $\frac{\partial g}{\partial s}(q,s(q))<0$, we have $g(q,s)=m^{-\tau(q)} \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$ for all $s\in (0,s(q))$.
(2) Suppose that $q\in(0,1)$ and $s(q)=1$. That means that we have $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)$. Here again, we can use the study of $\tau$ to get that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(1))=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i'(1) =m^{\tau_\nu(q)}g(q,1)\ge 0$. Now, notice that the derivative of $s\mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))$ is $s\mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i' sT_i''(s)$. If one of the $T_i$ is not affine, then by an argument given in the study of the differentiability of $\tau$ we have that $T_i''$ is strictly negative so $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$ for all $s\in (0,1)$. Otherwise, the function $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*\circ T_i'$ is identically equal to $ 0$ over its domain by analyticity.
Suppose now that $q\in (1,\widetilde q_c)$ and $s(q)=1$. We have $s(q)=1$. The condition $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)\le T(q)$ implies that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i m^{-T_i(q)}=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^q m^{\tau_\nu(q)-T_i(q)}\le 1$. Since, moreover, $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i m^{-T_i(1)}=1$, by convexity of $q\mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i m^{-T_i(q)}$, we must have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i T'_i(1)\ge 0$. Then, the same arguments as in previous paragraph yield the same conclusion.
For each $q$ such that $s(q)=1$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))=0$ for all $s\in [0,1]$, the functions $T_i$ are linear and we have $p_i'=p_i^qm^{\tau_\nu(q)}$, so $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^q T'_i(1)=-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^q\log(\mathbb E(N_i))=0$. If the set of such points $q$ has an accumulating point, then by analyticity, we must have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^q \log(\mathbb E(N_i))=0$ for all $q$. It is then not hard to conclude that property $(\mathcal P)$ holds. Then, $T$ is finite over ${\Bbb R}_+$, and the study of $\inf_{q\le s\le 1} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^qm^{-qT_i(s)/s}$ for $q\in (0,1)$ and $\sup_{1\le s\le q} \log_m\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i^qm^{-qT_i(s)/s}$ for $q\in (1,\infty)$ shows that both are uniquely reached at $s=1$, so $\tau=\tau_\nu>T$ over $(0,1)$ and $\tau=\tau_\nu<T$ over $(1,\infty)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{4.9} Let $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)$ such that $s(q)$ is defined. Suppose that $s>0$ is such that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))\ge 0$. With probability 1, the Mandelbrot measure $\mu_{W'_s}$ has the same topological support as $\mu$. If, moreover, $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$ then, conditionally on $\mu_{W'_s}\neq 0$, the measure $\pi_*\mu_{W'_s}$ is absolutely continuous with respect to $\nu'$. In particular, $\nu'(\pi(K))>0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof} At first we notice that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_i T_{V'_{s,i}}'(1-)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))$. Thus, due to \eqref{dimrel} our assumption implies $T_{W'_s}'(1-)\ge \dim(\nu')$, hence $\mu_{W'_s}$ is non degenerate. Moreover, since the weights $W'_{s,i,j}$ and $W_{i,j}$ vanish simultaneously, Proposition~\ref{Kmu} shows that $\mu_{W'_s}$ and $\mu$ have almost surely the same topological support. If, in addition, $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$, then $T_{W'_s}'(1-)> \dim(\nu')$ and by Theorem~\ref{ABS}(1)(a), this implies that $\pi_*\mu_{W'_s}$ is almost surely absolutely continuous with respect to ${\mathbb E}(\pi_*\mu_{W'_s})=\nu'$, so $\nu'(\pi(K))>0$.
\end{proof}
Now, for $q\in(0,\widetilde q_c)\setminus\{1\}$, if $s(q)<1$ or if $s(q)=1$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$ for all $s\in (0,1)$, let $\widetilde\nu_q=\nu'_q$. Otherwise, i.e. if $q\in \widetilde S$ ($\widetilde S$ is defined in Lemma~\ref{lem-4.8}) set $\widetilde\nu_q=\pi_*\mu_{W'_1}$ (recall that this Mandelbrot measure is defined before Lemma~\ref{lem-4.8} and it has teh same topological support as $\mu$ almost surely by Lemma~\ref{4.9}). The main result of this section is the following.
\begin{pro}\label{tauneqpsi}
Let $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)\setminus\{1\}$ at which $\tau(q)\neq T(q)$ or $q\in (1,q_c)$ at which $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)=T(q)$. Set $\alpha=\tau'(q)$ if $s(q)<1$ and $\alpha=\tau_\nu'(q)$ otherwise.
With probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, we have $\widetilde \nu_q(E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha))>0$, and $\dim(\widetilde\nu_q)=\tau^*(\alpha)$. Consequently, $\dim_H E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)\ge \tau^*(\alpha)$.
\end{pro}
From now on we fix $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)\setminus\{1\}$ at which $\tau(q)\neq T(q)$ or $\tau(q)=\tau_\nu(q)=T(q)$.
\begin{lem}
Suppose that $\widetilde\nu_q=\nu'$. Let $\mathscr S$ stand for a maximal open interval of points $s>0$ such that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0$ and ${\mathbb E}(Y^s)<\infty$. With probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for $\nu'$-almost every $x$ in $\pi(K)$, for all $s\in \mathscr S$ we have
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{-1}{n} \log_m\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu(x_{|n})}\Big )^s=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_i(s).
$$
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
By convexity, we only need to check this for each $s$ in a dense countable set $\mathcal S$ of $\mathscr{S}$. Indeed, if this is done, there exists a subset of $\{\mu\neq 0\}$ of probability $\mathbb P(\mu\neq 0)$ such that the sequence of concave functions $f_n(s)= \frac{-1}{n} \log_m\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu(x_{|n})}\Big )^s$ converge pointwise on $\mathcal S$, and this is enough to get the convergence over $\mathscr S$.
Fix $s\in\mathcal S$. For $n\ge 1$ and $x$ in the topological support of $\nu'$, set
\begin{eqnarray*}
Z_{s,n}(x)&=&\Big (\prod_{k=1}^n m^{T_{x_k}(s)}\Big )\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^s\\
&=&\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n} Y(x_{|n},v)^s\cdot \prod_{k=1}^n m^{T_{x_k}(s)} V_{x_k,v_k}(x_{|k-1},v_{|k-1})^s.
\end{eqnarray*}
Define $V'_{s,i}$, $0\le i\le m-1$, as in \eqref{V'i}. Since $\mathscr S$ is open, we have ${\mathbb E}(Y^{q's})$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_{V'_{s,i}}(q')>-\infty$ for some $q'>1$, and since $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT'_{V'_{s,i}}(1)>0$, we also have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_{V'_{s,i}}(q')>0$ if $q'$ is close enough to 1. By Proposition~\ref{XntoX} applied with $\eta=\nu'$ and $U_i=V'_{s,i}$, the sequence $Z_{s,n}(x)$ converges $\mathbb{P}\otimes\nu'$ almost surely to the same non degenerate limit $\widetilde Z_s(x)$ as the Mandelbrot martingale in random environment
$$
\widetilde Z_{s,n}(x)=\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n} \prod_{k=1}^n m^{T_{x_k}(s)} V_{x_k,v_k}(x_{|k-1},v_{|k-1})^s.
$$
This variable satisfies the equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqZs}
\widetilde Z_{s}(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{x_1,j}\widetilde Z_s(\sigma x,j),
\end{equation}
where the $\widetilde Z_s(\sigma x,j)$ are independent copies of $\widetilde Z_s(\sigma x)$, which are also independent of $V_{x_1}$.
Equation \eqref{eqZs} shows that $\mathbb{P}(\{\widetilde Z_{s}(x)=0\})$ is $\{f_i\}_{0\le i\le m-1; p_i>0}$-stationnary in the sense of Appendix~\ref{A}, where $f_i$ stands for the generating function of the random integer $N_i$. Moreover, we assumed from the beginning that there exists $0\le i\le m-1$ such that $p_i>0$ for which $\mathbb{P}(N_i=1)<1$. Consequently, Proposition~\ref{f-stat} shows that for $\nu'$-almost every $x$, $\mathbb{P}(\{\widetilde Z_{s}(x)=0\})$ is less than 1 (because $\widetilde Z_{s,n}(x)$ is non degenerate) and independent of $s\in \mathcal S$.
Also, for each $s\in\mathcal S$, the event $\{\widetilde Z_{s}(x)=0\}$ contains the event $\bigcup_{n\ge 1} \{\widetilde Z_{s,n}(x)=0\}$, which due to the definition of $\widetilde Z_{s,n}$ is independent of $s$ and is equal to the extinction of the branching process defining the Galton-Watson tree in random environment $T_n(x)=\{v\in\Sigma_n:\ Q(x_{|n},v)>0\}$. In addition, the function $\mathbb{P}(\bigcup_{n\ge 1} \{T_n(x)=\emptyset\})$ is $\{f_i\}_{0\le i\le m-1; p_i>0}$-stationnary as well, and it cannot be equal to 1 since it is smaller than or equal to $\mathbb{P}(\{\widetilde Z_{s}(x)=0\})$. Consequently, we conclude that for $\nu'$-almost every $x$, the event $\{\widetilde Z_{s}(x)>0\text{ for all $s\in\mathcal{S}$}\}$ equals $A_x=\bigcap_{n\ge 1} (A_{x,n}:=\{\{v\in\Sigma_n:\ Q(x_{|n},v)>0\}\neq\emptyset\})$ up to a set of probability 0.
We have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\int\nu'(\{x:Z_s(\omega,x)> 0 \ \forall \ s\in \mathcal S,\ \text{and } \omega\in A_x\}\, \mathbb {P}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\\
&&\quad ={\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes \nu'}(\mathbf{1}_{\{Z_s(\omega,x)> 0 \ \forall \ s\in \mathcal S,\ \text{and } \omega\in A_x\}})\\
&&\quad=\int \mathbb{P}( Z_s(\omega,x)> 0 \ \forall \ s\in \mathcal S,\ \text{and } \omega\in A_x\})\,\nu'(\mathrm{d}x)\\
&&\quad= \int \mathbb{P}(A_x)\,\nu'(\mathrm{d}x).
\end{eqnarray*}
Notice that the events $A_{x,n}$ are non increasing so $\mathbb{P}(A_x=\bigcap_{n\ge 1} A_{x,n})=\lim_{n\to\infty} \mathbb{P}(A_{n,x})$. Consequently,
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\int\nu'(\{x:Z_s(\omega,x)> 0 \ \forall \ s\in \mathcal S,\ \text{and } \omega\in A_x\}\, \mathbb {P}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\\&&\quad=\int\lim_{n\to\infty}\mathbb{P}(A_{x,n})\,\nu'(\mathrm{d}x)\\
&&\quad=\lim_{n\to\infty}\int\mathbb{P}(A_{x,n})\,\nu'(\mathrm{d}x)\\
&&\quad=\lim_{n\to\infty}{\mathbb E}(\nu'(\{x: \{v\in\Sigma_n:\ Q(x_{|n},v)>0\}\neq\emptyset\}))\\
&&\quad=\lim_{n\to\infty}{\mathbb E}(\nu'(\pi(K_n)))\\
&&\quad={\mathbb E}(\nu'(\lim_{n\to\infty}\pi(K_n)))\\
&&\quad={\mathbb E}(\nu'(\pi(K)).
\end{eqnarray*}
Since the inclusion $\{x: Z_s(\omega,x)> 0\}\subset \pi(K(\omega))$ holds by construction, we obtained that $\nu'(\{x\in \pi(K(\omega)):Z_s(\omega,x)> 0 \ \forall \ s\in \mathcal S\}=\nu'(\pi(K(\omega)))$ almost surely. In other words, with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for $\nu'$-almost every $x$ in $\pi(K)$, for all $s\in\mathcal S$ we have $\widetilde Z_s(x)>0$. Finally, $\widetilde Z_s(x)$ is the positive limit of $Z_{s,n}(x)$. Since by definition we have
$$
\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^s=\Big (\prod_{k=1}^n m^{T_{x_k}(s)}\Big )^{-1}Z_{s,n}(x)
$$
we conclude that
$$
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{-1}{n} \log_m\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu(x_{|n})}\Big )^s=\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{1}{n}\sum_{k=1}^n T_i(s)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_i(s),
$$
due to the ergodic theorem applied to $\nu'$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{lem4.12}
Suppose that $\widetilde\nu_q= \nu'$. Let
$$
s_0=\sup\left\{s>0: \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T_i^*(T_i'(s))>0\text{ and }{\mathbb E}(Y^s)<\infty\right\}.
$$
With probability 1, for $\nu'$-almost every $x\in \pi(K)$, we have $\lim_{n\to\infty} -\frac{1}{n}\log_m X_n(x)=0$ or $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'T'_i(s_0)$ according to whether $s_0> 1$ or $s_0\le 1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We notice that $s_0=s(q)$ when $s(q)<1$. Due to the previous lemma, with probability $1$, for $\nu'$-almost every $x\in\mathrm{supp}(\pi(K))$, defining
$$
\tau_x(s)=\liminf_{n\to\infty} \frac{-1}{n} \log_m\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^s,
$$
we have
\begin{equation}\label{LDP}
\tau_x(s)=\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{-1}{n} \log_m\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^s=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_i(s)
\end{equation}
over $[0,s_0)$. On the other hand, we naturally have
\begin{equation}\label{ineqtau}
\tau_x(s)\ge \widetilde T(s):=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_iT_i(s)
\end{equation}
for all $s$. This is due to Lemma~\ref{Borel} and the fact that
$$
{\mathbb E}\Big(\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\Big (\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\Big )^s\Big)= \prod_{k=1}^n m^{-T_{x_k}(s)}.
$$
Now let us make a few remarks.
There exist $\alpha_0<\beta_0$ in ${\Bbb R}$ such that, with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, we have $m^{-n\beta_0}\le \frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\le m^{-n\alpha_0}$, for all $x\in\pi(K)$, $n\ge 1$ and $v\in\Sigma_n$ such that $\mu([x_{|n},v])>0$.
Indeed, for all $x\in\pi(K)$, $n\ge 1$ we already have $(\min \{p_i: p_i>0\})^n\le \nu(x_{|n})\le (\max \{p_i: p_i>0\})^n$. Also, we can fix $\eta>0$ such that $C_\eta=\max({\mathbb E}(\mathbf{1}_{\{Y>0\}}Y^{-\eta}),{\mathbb E}(Y^{\eta}))<\infty$. Then, for any $A>0$, and $n\ge 1$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
&&\mathbb{P}\left (\exists\ (u,v)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n: 0<\mu([u,v])\le m^{-nA} \text{ or } \mu([u,v])\ge m^{nA}\right )\\
&&\quad\le M^{-n\eta A}{\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{(u,v)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n} \mathbf{1}_{\{Q(u,v)>0\}}\mathbf{1}_{\{Y(u,v)>0\}}Q(u,v)^{-\eta}Y(u,v)^{-\eta}\Big )\\
&&\quad\quad\quad\quad+M^{-n\eta A}{\mathbb E}\Big (\sum_{(u,v)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n}Q(u,v)^\eta Y(u,v)^\eta\Big ) \\
&&\quad\le C_\eta M^{-n\eta A}\left ( m^{-nT(-\eta)}+m^{-nT(\eta)}\right ).
\end{eqnarray*}
Hence, if $A$ is large enough so that $A\eta+\min (T(-\eta),T(\eta))>0$, by the Borel-Cantelli lemma we get $m^{-nA}\le \mu([x_{|n},v])\le m^{nA}$ for all $x\in\pi(K)$, $n\ge 1$ large enough and and $v\in\Sigma_n$ such that $\mu([x_{|n},v])>0$.
\medskip
If $s_0\le 1$, then $\widetilde T'(s_0)$ exists and by definition of $s_0$ we have $\widetilde T^*(\widetilde T'(s_0))=0$. Moreover, $\widetilde T^*\circ \widetilde T'$ is strictly decreasing in a neighborhood of $s_0$ since we have already shown that when they are defined at some $s$, the functions $T_i''$ cannot vanish simultaneously there. This, together with \eqref{ineqtau} implies that for all $\alpha< \widetilde T'(s_0)$ we have $\widetilde\tau_x^*(\alpha)\le \widetilde T^*(\alpha)<0$. Thus,
\begin{equation}\label{LDP}
\alpha< \widetilde T'(s_0),\text{ for $n$ large enough, }\left \{v\in\Sigma_n: \frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu(x_{|n})}\geq m^{-n\alpha}\right\}=\emptyset.
\end{equation}
Over its domain, which contains a neighborhood of $[0,1]$, the mapping $s\mapsto \widetilde T^*(\widetilde T'(s))-\widetilde T'(s)$ is increasing on the left of 1 and decreasing on the right, and it takes the maximum value 0 at 1. In other words, over its domain, the mapping $\alpha \mapsto \widetilde T^*(\alpha)-\alpha$ is strictly increasing on the left of $\widetilde T'(1)$ and strictly decreasing on the right of $\widetilde T'(1)$, since $q\mapsto T'(q)$ is decreasing.
Now, for $\alpha\in {\Bbb R}$, $n\ge 1$ and $\epsilon>0$ define
$$
f(n,\alpha,\epsilon)=\frac{1}{n}\log_m\#\left \{v\in\Sigma_n: m^{-n(\alpha+\epsilon)}\le \frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu([x_{|n}])}\le m^{-n(\alpha-\epsilon)}\right\}.
$$
Fix $\eta>0$ and $\epsilon>0$. For any $\alpha\in [\alpha_0,\beta_0]$, there exists $\epsilon_\alpha\in (0,\epsilon)$ and $n_\alpha\ge 1$ such that for all $n\ge n_\alpha$ we have
$$
f(n,\alpha,\epsilon_\alpha)\le \tau_x^*(\alpha)+\eta \le \widetilde T^*(\alpha)+\eta.
$$
Set $\alpha_c=\widetilde T'(s_0)$ if $s_0\le 1$ and $\alpha_c=\widetilde T'(1)$ otherwise.
Fix a finite covering $\bigcup_{i=1}^N(\alpha_i-\epsilon_i,\alpha_i+\epsilon_i)$ of $[\alpha_0,\beta_0]\setminus (\alpha_c-\epsilon_c,\alpha_c+\epsilon_c)$, where $\epsilon_c$ stands for $\epsilon_{\alpha_c}$, and $\epsilon_i$ stands for $\epsilon_{\alpha_i}$, and set $n_0=\sup\{n_{\alpha}:\alpha\in \{\alpha_c\}\cup \{\alpha_i:1\le i\le N\}\}$. Without loss of generality we assume that the $\alpha_i$ belong to $[\alpha_0,\beta_0]\setminus (\alpha_c-\epsilon_c,\alpha_c+\epsilon_c)$. Moreover, due to \eqref{LDP}, if $s_0\le 1$ we can restrict the $\alpha_i$ to be larger than or equal to $\alpha_c$, and set $\alpha_0=\alpha_c$.
Then, there exists $\gamma>0$ such that for all $\alpha_i$ we have $\widetilde T^*(\alpha_i)-\alpha_i\le \widetilde T^*(\alpha_c)-\alpha_c-\gamma$.
For $n\ge n_0$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
X_n(x)&=&\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n}\frac{\mu([x_{|n},v])}{\nu(x_{|n})}\\
&\le& m^{f(n,\alpha_c,\epsilon_c)} m^{-n(\alpha_c-\epsilon_c)}+ \sum_{i=1}^N m^{f(n,\alpha_i,\epsilon_i)} m^{-n(\alpha_i-\epsilon_i)}\\
&\le& m^{n(\eta+\epsilon)}\Big (m^{n(\tau_x^*(\alpha_c)-\alpha_c)}+\sum_{i=1}^N m^{n(\tau_x^*(\alpha_i)-\alpha_i)}\Big )\\
&\le& m^{n(\eta+\epsilon)}\Big (m^{n(\widetilde T^*(\alpha_c)-\alpha_c)}+\sum_{i=1}^N m^{n(\widetilde T^*(\alpha_i)-\alpha_i)}\Big )\\
&\le& m^{n(\eta+\epsilon)}m^{n(\widetilde T^*(\alpha_c)-\alpha_c)}(1+N m^{-n\gamma}).
\end{eqnarray*}
We conclude that $\liminf_{n\to\infty}-\frac{1}{n}\log_m(X_n(x))\ge \alpha_c-\widetilde T^*(\alpha_c)-\eta-\epsilon$. Since this holds for any positive $\eta$ and $\epsilon$, we get the desired lower bound: $\widetilde T'(s_0)$ if $s_0\le 1$, and 0 otherwise.
On the other hand, due to \eqref{LDP}, Gartner-Ellis theorem (see e.g. \cite{De-Zei}) ensures that for all $s\in (0,\min(s_0,1))$ one has $\lim_{\epsilon\to 0}\liminf_{n\to\infty} f(n,\widetilde T'(s),\epsilon)=\widetilde T^*(\widetilde T'(s))$.
This immediately yields $\limsup_{n\to\infty}-\frac{1}{n}\log(X_n(x))\le \widetilde T'(s))-\widetilde T^*(\widetilde T'(s))$ for all $s<\min (s_0,1)$ close enough to $\min (s_0,1)$, hence $\limsup_{n\to\infty}-\frac{1}{n}\log_m(X_n(x))\le \alpha_c-\widetilde T^*(\alpha_c)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{tauneqpsi}] Recall that $\alpha$ stands for $\tau'(q)$ if $s(q)<1$ and $\tau_\nu'(q)$ if $s(q)=1$.
We use the writing $\pi_*\mu([x_{|n}])=\nu([x_{|n}]) X_n(x)$.
At first we suppose that $\widetilde\nu_q=\nu'$.
If $q\in (0,1)$ and $s(q)<1$, applying ergodic theorem to $\nu'$ to control the local dimension of $\nu$, and Lemma~\ref{lem4.12} to $X_n(x)$ after setting $s_0=s(q)$, we obtain that conditionally on $\pi_*\mu\neq 0$,
for $\nu'$-almost every $x\in\pi(K)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)=\Big (-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i) \Big )+ \widetilde T'(s_0)&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i) +\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p'_i T_i'(s(q))\\&=&\tau'(q)=\alpha,
\end{eqnarray*}
by using \eqref{tau'q} and \eqref{tau'q2}. On the other hand,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim(\nu')=-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p'_i)&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i(q\log_m(p_i)+\tau(q)-qT_i(q)/s(q))\\
&=&q\tau'(q)-\tau(q)=\tau^*(\alpha)
\end{eqnarray*}
by using \eqref{tau'q} and \eqref{tau'q1}.
If $s(q)=1$, then $\nu'=\nu_q$, and this time one applies Lemma~\ref{lem4.12} with $s_0=s(q)=1$ to control $X_n(x)$ . This yields that conditionally on $\pi_*\mu\neq 0$,
for $\nu'$-almost every $x\in\pi(K)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)=\Big (-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i) \Big )+ 0=\tau_\nu'(q).
\end{eqnarray*}
Moreover, $\dim (\nu_q)=\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))=\tau_\nu'(q) q-\tau_\nu(q)=\alpha q-\tau(q)=\tau^*(\alpha)$ since we have $\tau_\nu(q)=\tau(q)$ and $\alpha\in \{\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)\}$.
Thus, at this stage, due to Corollary~\ref{4.6} and the conclusions obtained in the previous lines, for all $q\in (0,\widetilde q_c)\setminus \widetilde S$ and $\alpha=\tau'(q)$ or $\alpha\in\{\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)\}$ if $q>1$ and the graphs of $\tau_\nu$ and $T$ cross transversally at $(q,T(q)$, we have established the desired inequality $\dim_H E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)\ge \tau^*(\alpha)$, almost surely, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$.
Now suppose that $q\in \widetilde S$. Recall that $\widetilde\nu_q=\pi_*\mu_{W'_1}$ and by Lemma~\ref{4.9} the measure $\mu_{W'_1}$ has almost surely the same topological support as $\mu$. Moreover, it follows from the theory of Mandelbrot measures \cite{B1999,Ba00} that, with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for $\mu_{W'_1}$-almost every $(x,y)$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\mu([x_{|n},y_{|n}])}{-n\log(m)}&=&-\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1}{\mathbb E}(W'_{1,i,j}\log_m (W_{i,j}))\\
&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i)-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(V'_{1,i,j}\log_mV_{1,i,j})\\
&=& -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i),
\end{eqnarray*}
since $V'_{1,i,j}=V_{i,j}$ and $0=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT'_i(1)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(V'_{1,i,j}\log_mV_{1,i,j}) $. Also,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim (\mu_{W'_1})&=&-\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1}{\mathbb E}(W'_{1,i,j}\log_m (W'_{1,i,j}))\\
&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p'_i) -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(V'_{1,i,j}\log_mV'_{1,i,j})\\
&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p'_i) +\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT_i'(1)\\
&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p'_i)=\dim(\nu')=\dim ({\mathbb E}(\pi_*\mu_{W'_1})).
\end{eqnarray*}
Consequently, for $\pi_*\mu_{W'_1}$-almost every $x$, we have $\overline\dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)\le -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i)=\tau_\nu'(q)=\alpha$. Moreover, $\dim(\pi_*\mu_{W'_1})=\dim (\nu') =\tau_\nu^*(\tau'_\nu(q))=\tau^*(\alpha)$ (the last inequality coming from the equality $\tau_\nu(q)=\tau(q)$ and the fact that $\alpha=\tau_\nu'(q)\in\{\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-)\}$. Then, the same arguments as in the proof of Corollary~\ref{4.6} where $T$ is replaced by $\tau_\nu$ and $\mu_q$ by $\mu_{W'_1}$ yield $\dim_H E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)\ge \tau^*(\alpha)$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The case where $\alpha\in (\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-))$ when a first order phase transition occurs at $q\in(1,q_c)$} $\ $
Recall that in the case considered in this section we have $\tau_\nu(q)=T(q)$, $\tau_\nu'(q)\neq T'(q)$, and $(\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-))=(\tau_\nu'(q),T(q))$ or $(\tau'(q^+),\tau'(q^-))=(T'(q),\tau_\nu'(q))$.
Fix $\lambda\in [0,1]$. Let $(n_k)_{k\ge 1}$ be an increasing sequence of positive integers such that $n_k=o(n_1+\cdots n_{k-1})$ as $k\to\infty$, and $n_1\min(\lambda,1-\lambda)>1$ if $\lambda>0$. For $k\ge 0$, let $N_k=\sum_{i=1}^{k}n_i$ and $N_{k,\lambda}=N_{k-1}+\lfloor \lambda n_k\rfloor$. We will later further specify the sequence $(n_k)_{k\ge 1}$.
For each $n\ge 0$ and $(u,v)\in \Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n$, set
$$
\widetilde W_\lambda(u,v)=
\begin{cases}
W_q(u,v)=(p_i^qm^{T(q)}V_{i,j}^q)_{0\le i,j\le m-1}&\text{if } N_{k-1}+1\le n\le N_{k,\lambda}\text{ for some $k$}\\
(p_{q,i} V_{i,j})_{0\le i,j\le m-1}&\text{otherwise}
\end{cases},
$$
where as previously $p_{q,i}=p_{i}^qm^{-\tau_\nu(q)}$. These random vectors can be used to build a non homogeneous Mandelbrot measure in the same way as $\mu$ and $\mu_q$: for each $n\ge 0$ and $(u,v)\in\Sigma_n\times\Sigma_n$, define
$$
\widetilde Y_\lambda(u,v)=\lim_{p\to\infty}\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v), \text{ where }\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v)=\sum_{|u'|=|v'|=p} \prod_{k=1}^p\widetilde W_{\lambda,u'_k,v'_k}(u\cdot u'_{|k-1},v\cdot v'_{|k-1}),
$$
and denote $\widetilde Y_\lambda(\epsilon,\epsilon)$ by $\widetilde Y_\lambda$ (each $\widetilde Y_\lambda(u,v)$ exists almost surely as limit of the non negative martingale (of expectation 1) $(\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v))_{p\ge 0}$). Then,
$$
\widetilde\mu_\lambda([u]\times[v])=\widetilde Y_\lambda(u,v) \prod_{j=1}^n\widetilde W_{\lambda,u_j,v_j}(u_{|j-1},v_{|j-1})
$$
defines a measure almost surely. Moreover, the same argument as in Proposition~\ref{Kmu} shows that if $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$ is not equal to 0 almost surely, then its topological support equals that of $\mu_\lambda$ almost surely. It is the situation which occurs as the following proposition shows. Also, $\widetilde\mu_1=\mu_q$, while $\widetilde\mu_0$ is a non degenerate Mandelbrot measure such that $\mathbb{E}(\pi_*\widetilde\mu_0)=\nu_q$ and by \eqref{dimrel} $\dim(\widetilde\mu_0)-\dim(\nu_q)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{q,i}T_i'(1)$.
\begin{pro}\label{pro-4.13}
One has $\mathbb E(\widetilde Y_\lambda)=1$; consequently $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$ is not almost surely degenerate, and with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$ we have $\mathrm{supp}(\widetilde\mu_\lambda)=\mathrm{supp}(\mu)$. Moreover, there exists $h\in (1,2]$ such that
$$
M(\lambda,h)=\sup\{\mathbb{E}(\widetilde Y_\lambda(u,v)^h): n\ge 0, \, u,v\in\Sigma_n\}<\infty.
$$
\end{pro}
We postpone the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro-4.13} for a while.
For all $k\ge 1$ and $(u,v)\in\Sigma_{N_k}\times\Sigma_{N_k}$, define
\begin{align*}
\widetilde \mu^{T}_1 (u,v)&=\prod_{i=1}^k \prod_{\ell=N_{i-1}+1}^{N_{i,\lambda}} p_{u_\ell}^qm^{T(q)} V_{ u_\ell,v_\ell}(u_{|\ell-1},v_{|\ell-1})^q,\\
\mu^T(u,v)&=\prod_{i=1}^k \prod_{\ell=N_{i-1}+1}^{N_{i,\lambda}} p_{u_\ell}V_{ u_\ell,v_\ell}(u_{|\ell-1},v_{|\ell-1}),\\
\widetilde \mu^{\tau_\nu}_0 (u,v)&=\prod_{i=1}^k \prod_{\ell=N_{i,\lambda}+1}^{N_i} p_{q,u_\ell}V_{u_\ell,v_\ell}(u_{|\ell-1},v_{|\ell-1}),\\
\mu^{\tau_\nu}(u,v)&=\prod_{i=1}^k \prod_{\ell=N_{i,\lambda}+1}^{N_i} p_{u_\ell}V_{u_\ell,v_\ell}(u_{|\ell-1},v_{|\ell-1}).
\end{align*}
We have
\begin{equation}
\label{decompmulambda}
\widetilde\mu_\lambda([u]\times[v])=\widetilde \mu^{T}_1 (u,v)\widetilde \mu^{\tau_\nu}_0 (u,v) \widetilde Y_\lambda(u,v)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
\label{decompmu}
\mu([u]\times[v])= \mu^{T} (u,v)\mu^{\tau_\nu} (u,v) Y(u,v).
\end{equation}
Define
$$
\alpha=\lambda T'(q)+(1-\lambda)\tau_\nu'(q)\quad\text{and} \quad \alpha'=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{q,i}T_i'(1).
$$
Since $\alpha\in [\tau'(q+),\tau'(q-)]$ and $\tau_\nu(q)=\tau(q)=T(q)$, we have
$$
\tau^*(\alpha)=\alpha q-\tau_\nu(q)=\lambda T^*(T'(q))+(1-\lambda)\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))
.
$$
We will prove the following propositions and corollary, which give the desired conclusion.
\begin{pro}\label{pro-4.14}
With probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$-almost every $(x,y)$, one has
\begin{align*}
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log(\widetilde \mu^T_1(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-N_k\log(m)}&=\lambda T^*(T'(q)),\\
\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\log(\widetilde \mu^{\tau_\nu}_0(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-N_k\log(m)}&=(1-\lambda)\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))+(1-\lambda)\alpha'\\
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log(\mu^T(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-N_k\log(m)}&=\lambda T'(q),\\
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log(\mu^{\tau_\nu}(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-N_k\log(m)}&=(1-\lambda)\tau_\nu'(q)+(1-\lambda)\alpha',\\
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log (\widetilde Y_\lambda(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-N_k\log(m)}&= \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log (Y_(x_{|N_k},y_{|n}))}{-N_k\log(m)}=0;
\end{align*}
in particular, $\dim_{\rm{loc}}(\mu,(x,y))=\alpha+(1-\lambda)\alpha'$ and $\dim_{\rm{loc}}(\widetilde\mu_\lambda,(x,y))=\tau^*(\alpha)+(1-\lambda)\alpha'$.
\end{pro}
We will see in the proof that $\alpha'\ge 0$.
\begin{pro}\label{pro-4.15} Suppose that $\lambda\in (0,1)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item With probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, one has $\underline{\dim}_{\rm{loc}}(\widetilde\mu_\lambda,x)\ge \tau^*(\alpha)$ for $\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda$-almost every $x$.
\item With probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, one has both $\overline{\dim}_{\rm{loc}}(\widetilde\mu_\lambda,x)\le \tau^*(\alpha)$ and $\overline{\dim}_{\mathrm{loc}}(\pi_*\mu,x)\le \alpha$.
\end{enumerate}
\end {pro}
\begin{cor}\label{cor-4.16}
With probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, $\dim E(\pi_*\mu,\alpha)=\tau^*(\alpha)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pro-4.13}]
Let $h\in(1,2]$ and write
$$
\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v)=\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} \widetilde W_{\lambda,i,j}(u,v) \widetilde Y_{\lambda,p-1}(ui,vj).
$$
We can use Kahane's original approach \cite{KP} to the moments of Mandelbrot martingales to write
$$
\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v)^h\le\Big ( \sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} \widetilde W_{\lambda,i,j}(u,v)^{h/2} \widetilde Y_{\lambda,p-1}(ui,vj)^{h/2}\Big )^2
$$
and then get
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v)^h)&\le& \sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} \mathbb{E}(\widetilde W_{\lambda,i,j}(u,v)^h) \mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p-1}(ui,vj)^h)\\
&&+\sum_{(i,j)\neq (i',j')} \mathbb{E}(\widetilde W_{\lambda,i,j}(u,v)^{h/2}\widetilde W_{\lambda,i',j'}(u,v)^{h/2}).
\end{eqnarray*}
If $h$ is close enough to 1, there exists $C>0$ such that
$$
\sum_{(i,j)\neq (i',j')} \mathbb{E}(\widetilde W_{\lambda,i,j}(u,v)^{h/2}\widetilde W_{\lambda,i',j'}(u,v)^{h/2})\le C$$ independently on $(u,v)$, by equidistribution of the $W(u,v)$ and the fact that our assumption on the domain of finiteness of $T$ we have $\mathbb{E}(W_{i,j}^{q'} )<\infty$ for all $q'<q_c$ and $0\le i,j\le m-1$. Also, by construction $\mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p-1}(ui,vj)^h)$ does not depend on $(i,j)$. Thus, if $h<q_c$, we have
$$
\mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v)^h)\le C+ \mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p-1}(u0,v0)^h)\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} \mathbb{E}(\widetilde W_{\lambda,i,j}(u,v)^h).
$$
By definition of $\widetilde W_{\lambda}(u,v)$, we have
$$\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} \mathbb{E}(\widetilde W_{\lambda,i,j}(u,v)^h)\in\Big \{\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{q,i}^hm^{-T_i(h)}, m^{hT(q)-T(hq)}\Big\}.
$$
Since $T^*(T'(q))>0$ by our assumption $q\in (1,q_c)$, for $h$ close enough to 1 we have $hT(q)-T(hq)<0$, hence $m^{ hT(q)-T(hq)}<1$. On the other hand, since $\tau_\nu(q)=T(q)$ we have
$$
\psi(h):=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{q,i} m^{-T_i(h)}=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{i}^qm^{T(q)} m^{-T_i(h)},
$$
and $\psi (1)=\psi(q)=1$. Since $\psi$ is convex, it follows that if $h$ is taken in $(1,q)$, we have $\psi(h)\le 1$. Consequently, $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{q,i} ^hm^{-T_i(h)}\le \max\{p_{q,i}^{h-1}:0\le i\le m-1\}\psi(h)<1$, since all the positive $p_{q,i}$ belong to $(0,1)$. Notice in passing that since the derivative of $\psi$ at 1 is non positive, we have $\alpha'=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{q,i} T'(1)\ge 0$.
Finally, if $h$ is close enough to 1, there exists $c\in(0,1)$ independent of $(u,v)$ such that
$
\mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v)^h)\le C+ c\, \mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p-1}(u0,v0)^h).
$
This yields $\mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,p}(u,v)^h)\le C \mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda,0}(u0^p,v0^p)^h)/(1-c)=C/(1-c)$, hence both $\mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda}(u,v)^h)\le C/(1-c)$ and $\mathbb{E} (\widetilde Y_{\lambda}(u,v))=1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pro-4.14}] Define $\widetilde Q_\lambda(\mathrm{d}\omega, \mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)=\mathbb{P}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\widetilde\mu_{\lambda,\omega}(\mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)$, $\widetilde Q_1(\mathrm{d}\omega, \mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)=\mathbb{P}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\widetilde\mu_{1,\omega}(\mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)$ and $\widetilde Q_0(\mathrm{d}\omega, \mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)=\mathbb{P}(\mathrm{d}\omega)\widetilde\mu_{0,\omega}(\mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)$ the Peyri\`ere measures associated with $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$, $\widetilde\mu_1$ and $\widetilde\mu_0$ respectively. Also, set $\widetilde N_k=\sum_{i=1}^k\lfloor \lambda n_i\rfloor$ and $N'_k=N_k-\widetilde N_k$.
It is straightforward to write that under $\widetilde Q_\lambda$, the random vectors $\widetilde W_\lambda(x_{|n-1},y_{|n-1})$, $N_{k-1}+1\le n\le N_{k,\lambda}$, $k\ge 1$, are independent and equidistributed, with the same law as the vectors $W_q(x_{|n-1},y_{|n-1})$, $n\ge 1$, with respect to $\widetilde Q_1(\mathrm{d}\omega, \mathrm{d}x,\mathrm{d}y)$. Moreover, since
$$
\mu_{1,n}([x_{|n}]\times [y_{|n}])=\prod_{k=1}^n W_{q,x_n,y_n}(x_{|n-1},y_{|n-1})),
$$
the strong law of large numbers yields
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log (\mu_{1,\widetilde N_k}([x_{|\widetilde N_k}]\times [y_{|\widetilde N_k}]))}{-\widetilde N_k\log(m)}=-\mathbb{E}\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} p_i^qm^{T(q)}V_{i,j}^q\log_m(p_i^qm^{T(q)}V_{i,j}^q)=T^*(T'(q)),$$ $\widetilde Q_1$-almost surely. Since $\lim_{k\to\infty}\widetilde N_k/N_k=\lambda$, by definition of $\widetilde\mu_1^T(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))$ we get the first claim.
The same idea applied with $ \mu^T(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})$ with respect to $\widetilde Q_\lambda$ and $\mu_{\widetilde N_k}([x_{|\widetilde N_k}]\times [y_{|\widetilde N_k}])$ with respect to $\widetilde Q_1$ yields
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log (\mu^T(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-\widetilde N_k\log(m)}=-\mathbb{E}\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1} p_i^qm^{T(q)}V_{i,j}^q\log_m(p_iV_{i,j})=T'(q),$$ $\widetilde Q_\lambda$-almost surely, i.e.
the third claim of the proposition since $\lim_{k\to\infty}\widetilde N_k/N_k=\lambda$.
For the second claim, one needs to consider $ \widetilde \mu_\lambda^{\tau_\nu}(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})$ and $\widetilde\mu_{0,N'_{k}}([x_{|N'_{k}}]\times [y_{|N'_{k}}])$ with respect to $\widetilde Q_\lambda$ and $\widetilde Q_0$ respectively; then one applyies the strong law of large numbers to $\log (\widetilde\mu_{0,N'_{k}}([x_{|N'_{k}}]\times [y_{|N'_{k}}]))/N'_k$ under $\widetilde Q_0$, and use the fact the $\lim_{k\to\infty} N'_k/N_k=1-\lambda$. The fourth claim follows similarly by considering $ \mu^{\tau_\nu}(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})$ and $\mu_{N'_{k}}([x_{|N'_{k}}]\times [y_{|N'_{k}}])$ with respect to to $\widetilde Q_\lambda$ and $\widetilde Q_0$ respectively.
For the last two claims, an application of the Markov inequality shows that for any fixed $(u(k),v(k))$ in $\Sigma_{N_k}\times\Sigma_{N_k}$, for $Z\in \{Y,\widetilde Y_\lambda\}$ and $\gamma\in \{-1,1\}$, for any $\eta>0$ and $\epsilon>0$, one has
\begin{multline*}
\widetilde Q_\lambda(\{(x,y): \mathbf{1}_{\{Z(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})>0\}} Z(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})^{\gamma}>m^{N_k\epsilon})\\
\le m^{-N_k\eta\epsilon} \mathbb E \big ( \mathbf{1}_{\{Z(u(k),v(k))>0\}} \widetilde Y_\lambda (u(k),v(k)) Z^{\gamma \eta}(u(k),v(k))\big ).
\end{multline*}
Since conditionally on non vanishing $Y$ has finite negative moments, by Proposition~\ref{pro-4.13} and the H\"older inequality we can choose $\eta$ so that
$$
\sup\{\mathbb E \big ( \mathbf{1}_{\{Z(u(k),v(k))>0\}} \widetilde Y_\lambda (u(k),v(k)) Z^{\gamma \eta}(u(k),v(k))\big ):k\ge 1, \ Z\in\{Y,\widetilde Y_\lambda\}\}<\infty.
$$
Consequently
$$
\sum_{k\ge 1}\widetilde Q_\lambda(\{(x,y): \mathbf{1}_{\{Z(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})>0\}} Z(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})^{\gamma}>m^{N_k\epsilon})<\infty,
$$
and the desired claims follow from the Borel-Cantelli lemma.
Finally, the claim about the local dimensions follows from~\eqref{decompmulambda} and \eqref{decompmu}, and the fact that $\lim_{k\to\infty}N_{k-1}/N_k=1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pro-4.15}(1)] We will use the following lemma.
\begin{lem}\label{lem-4.15}
We have
$$
\mathbb{E}\sum_{|u|=N_k} \pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda ([u])^{h}=O(N_k m^{N_k(-\tau^*(\alpha)(h-1)+ o(h-1)+O(k/N_k))})$$
as $h\to 1+$.
\end{lem}
We deduce from the previous lemma that for all $\epsilon>0$, for $h$ close enough to $1+$ we have $\mathbb{E}\sum_{k\ge 1}\sum _{|u|=N_k} m^{N_k (h-1)(\tau^*(\alpha)-\epsilon)}\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda ([u])^{h}<\infty$.
This implies that with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for all $\epsilon>0$, there exists $h>1$ such that $\sum_{k\ge 1}\sum _{|u|=N_k} m^{N_k (h-1)(\tau^*(\alpha)-\epsilon)}\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda ([u])^{h}<\infty$. Due to Lemma~\ref{lemma2.3} and the fact that $\lim_{k\to\infty}N_k/N_{k-1}=1$, we get $\underline\dim(\widetilde \mu_\lambda)\ge \tau^*(\alpha)$.
If we were able to prove that the same estimate as in the lemma holds for $h$ near $1-$, we could derive the second part of the proposition quite easily (but maybe such a bound does not hold). We have to use another approach (see below).
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem-4.15}]
If $k\ge 1$ and $u\in\Sigma_{N_k}$, by definition of $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$ we have
\begin{multline*}
\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda ([u])=\sum_{|v|=N_k} \widetilde Y_\lambda (u,v)
\prod_{i=1}^k \Big (\prod_{\ell=N_{i-1}+1}^{N_{i,\lambda}} p_{u_\ell}^qm^{T(q)} V_{ u_\ell,v_\ell}(u_{|\ell-1},v_{|\ell-1})^q \Big )\\
\cdot \Big (\prod_{\ell'=N_{i,\lambda}+1}^{N_i} p_{q,u_\ell'}V_{u_{\ell'},v_{\ell'}}(u_{|\ell'-1},v_{|\ell'-1})\Big ) .
\end{multline*}
Setting, for $k\ge 1$ and $h>1$ such that $hq<q_c$ (recall that $q$ is fixed)
\begin{equation}\label{Lambda}
\Lambda(k,h)=\big (\sum_{i=1}^{k} \lfloor \lambda n_i\rfloor\big ) (T(hq)-hT(q))+ \big (N_k- \sum_{i=1}^{k} \lfloor \lambda n_i\rfloor\big ) (\tau_\nu(hq)-h\tau_\nu(q)),
\end{equation}
we can write
\begin{align*}
m^{\Lambda(k,h)}\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda ([u])^{h}= Z(u)^h\, \prod_{i=1}^k \Big (\prod_{\ell=N_{i-1}+1}^{N_{i,\lambda}} p_{u_\ell}^{hq}m^{T(hq)}m^{-hT_{u_\ell}(q)}\Big ) \Big (\prod_{\ell'=N_{i,\lambda}+1}^{N_i} p_{hq,u_{\ell'}}\Big ),
\end{align*}
where
\begin{multline*}
Z(u)=\sum_{|v|=N_k} \widetilde Y_\lambda (u,v)
\prod_{i=1}^k \Big (\prod_{\ell=N_{i-1}+1}^{N_{i,\lambda}} m^{T_{u_{\ell}}(q)}V_{ u_\ell,v_\ell}(u_{|\ell-1},v_{|\ell-1})^q\Big )\\
\cdot \Big (\prod_{\ell'=N_{i,\lambda}+1}^{N_i} V_{u_{\ell'},v_{\ell'}}(u_{|\ell'-1},v_{|\ell'-1})\Big ).
\end{multline*}
Fix $h\in(1,2]$ as in Proposition~\ref{pro-4.13} such that $M(\lambda,h)<\infty$ and set (remind that $q$ is fixed)
$$
C_1(h)=\max_{0\le i\le m-1}\sum_{0\le j\neq j'\le m-1} \mathbb E(m^{T_i(q) h/2}V_{i,j}^{hq/2}m^{T_i(q) h/2}V_{i,j'}^{hq/2})
$$
and
$$
C_2(h)= \max_{0\le i\le m-1}\sum_{0\le j\neq j'\le m-1} \mathbb E(V_{i,j}^{h/2}V_{i,j'}^{h/2}).
$$
Taking $h$ closer to 1 if necessary we have $C(h)=\max (C_1(h),C_2(h))<\infty$.
We notice that $\mathbb E(Z(u))=1$, and we can use the same approach as in Section~\ref{pmeXu} to estimate the positive moments of $X(u)$ to get
$$
\mathbb{E}(Z(u)^h)\le M(\lambda,h) C(h)\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_k} m^{-(\theta^{(1)}_{u_1}+\cdots +\theta^{(\ell)}_{u_\ell})},
$$
where $\theta^{(\ell)}_i=hT_{i}(q)-T_{i}(hq)$ if $N_{j-1}+1\le \ell\le N_{j,\lambda}$ for some $j$ and $\theta^{(\ell)}_i= T_{i}(h)$ otherwise. It follows that, if we set $\widetilde p^{(\ell)}_{i}=p_{i}^{hq}m^{T(hq)}m^{-hT_{i}(q)}$ whenever$N_{j-1}+1\le \ell\le N_{j,\lambda}$ for some $j$ and $\widetilde p^{(\ell)}_{i}=p_{hq,i}$ otherwise, then
\begin{align*}
&m^{\Lambda(k,h)}\mathbb{E}\sum_{|u|=N_k} \pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda ([u])^{h}\\
&\le M(\lambda,h) C(h)\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_k} \sum_{|u|=N_k}m^{-(\theta^{(1)}_{u_1}+\cdots +\theta^{(\ell)}_{u_\ell})}\prod_{j=1}^{N_k} \widetilde p^{(j)}_{u_j}\\
&=M(\lambda,h) C(h)\sum_{\ell=1}^{N_k} \Big( \prod_{j=1}^\ell \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j)}_im^{-\theta^{(j)}_i}\Big )\Big (\prod_{j'=\ell+1}^{N_k} \sum_{i'=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j')}_{i'}\Big ).
\end{align*}
We have for each $0\le j\le m-1$, either $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j)}_i=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{hq,i}=1$ or $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j)}_i=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_{i}^{hq}m^{T(hq)}m^{-hT_{i}(q)}$. On the other hand, the computations achieved in the proof of Lemma~\ref{muq/espmuq}
show that the derivative of $h\mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_{i}^{hq}m^{T(hq)}m^{-hT_{i}(q)}$ equals $\log(m)(\dim(\mu_q)-\dim(\mathbb{E}(\pi_*\mu_q)))\le 0$. So $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j)}_i\le 1+o(h-1)$.
On the other hand, we have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j)}_im^{-\theta^{(j)}_i}=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_{i}^{hq}m^{T(hq)}m^{-T_{i}(hq)}=1$ or $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j)}_im^{-\theta^{(j)}_i}=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{hq,i}m^{-T_i(h)}$, and the derivative at 1 of $h\mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_{hq,i}m^{-T_i(h)}$ equals $-\log(m)\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_{q,i}T'_i(1)$ which is non positive by a remark made in the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro-4.13}. So $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}\widetilde p^{(j)}_im^{-\theta^{(j)}_i}\le 1+o(h-1)$.
Finally,
$$
m^{\Lambda(k,h)}\mathbb{E}\sum_{|u|=N_k} \pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda ([u])^{h}=O(N_k m^{o(h-1) N_k}).
$$
Since it is easily seen from \eqref{Lambda} that
$$
\Lambda(k,h)=N_k(\lambda\, T^*(T'(q))+(1-\lambda)\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q)))(h-1)+ N_k\, o(h-1)+O(k)
$$
and we know that $\tau^*(\alpha)=\lambda\, T^*(T'(q))+(1-\lambda)\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))$, we get the desired conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{pro-4.15}(2)] If $\alpha'=0$, the result directly follows from Proposition~\ref{pro-4.14} since projecting does not increase the upper local dimensions.
Suppose now that $\alpha'>0$. Recall that $N'_k=\sum_{i=1}^k n_i-\lfloor \lambda n_i\rfloor$. Conditionnaly on $\mu\neq 0$, the behavior of $\widetilde\mu^{\tau_\nu}_0(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k})$, $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$-almost everywhere, is the same as that of $\widetilde \mu_{0,N'_k}([x_{|N'_k}]\times [y_{|N'_k}])$, $\widetilde \mu_0$-almost everywhere. Moreover, we deduce from Theorem~\ref{DIM}(2) and the proof of Proposition~\ref{pro-4.14} that for $\pi_*\widetilde\mu_0$-almost every $x$, for $\widetilde\mu_0^x$-almost every $y$, we have both
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{lim1}
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log (\widetilde \mu_{0,N'_k}([x_{|N'_k}]\times [y_{|N'_k}]))}{-N'_k\log(m)}&=&\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))+\alpha'\\
\label{lim2}\text{and}\quad \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log(\widetilde\mu_0^x([y_{|N'_k}]))}{-N'_k\log(m)}&=&\alpha'.
\end{eqnarray}
In particular, if we denote by $E$ a set of full $\widetilde\mu_0$-measure such that \eqref{lim1} holds for all $(x,y)\in E$, due to the exact dimensionality \eqref{lim2} of $\widetilde\mu_0^x$ we can find a subset $E'$ of $E$ of full $\widetilde\mu_0$-measure such that in addition for $\pi_*\widetilde\mu_0$-almost every $x\in \pi(E')$, we have
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\log \#\{v\in\Sigma_{N'_k}: [x_{|N'_k}]\times [v]\cap E\neq\emptyset\}}{N'_k\log(m)}=\alpha'.
$$
Now we can transfer these properties to $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$. We can find two sets $\widetilde {E}'\subset \widetilde E$ of full $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$-measure such that for all $(x,y) \in \widetilde E $ we have
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log (\widetilde \mu_{0}^{\tau_\nu}(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-N'_k\log(m)}=\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))+\alpha'
$$
and for all $x\in \pi(\widetilde{E}')$,
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty}\frac{\log \#\{v\in\Sigma_{N_k}: [x_{|N_k}]\times [v]\cap \widetilde E\neq\emptyset\}}{N'_k\log(m)}=\alpha'.
$$
Due to Proposition~\ref{pro-4.14}, we can also assume that for all $(x,y)\in \widetilde E$ we have
$$
\lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log(\widetilde \mu^T_1(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{-N_k\log(m)}=\lambda T^*(T'(q))\quad\text{and}\quad \lim_{k\to\infty} \frac{\log(\widetilde Y_\lambda(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))}{N_k\log (m)}=0.
$$
Set $\beta_q=T^*(T'(q))$, $\widetilde \beta_q=\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))$, and for $N\ge 1$ and $\epsilon>0$ set
$$\widetilde E_{N,\epsilon}=\left \{(x,y): \forall\, k\ge N,
\begin{cases}
m^{-N'_k(\widetilde \beta_q+\alpha'-\epsilon)}\ge \widetilde \mu_{0}^{\tau_\nu}(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))\ge m^{-N'_k(\widetilde \beta_q+\alpha'+\epsilon)},\\
m^{-N_k (\lambda \beta_q -\epsilon)}\ge \widetilde \mu^T_1(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))\ge m^{-N_k (\lambda \beta_q +\epsilon)},\\
m^{N_k\epsilon} \widetilde Y_\lambda(x_{|N_k},y_{|N_k}))\ge m^{-N_k\epsilon}
\end{cases}
\right\}.
$$
The previous properties can be precised as follows: for $\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda$-almost every $x$, for all $\epsilon>0$, there exists $N\ge 1$ such that for $k\ge N$ there are at least $m^{N'_k (\alpha'-\epsilon)}$ words $v\in\Sigma_{N_k}$ such that $[x_{|N'_k}]\times[v]\cap \widetilde E_{N,\epsilon}\neq\emptyset$, so due to \eqref{decompmulambda}
$$
\widetilde \mu_\lambda([x_{|N_k}]\times [v])\ge m^{-N_k (\lambda T^*(T'(q)) +\epsilon)} m^{-N'_k (\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))+\alpha'+\epsilon)} m^{-N_k\epsilon}.
$$
Consequently
$$
\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda([x_{|N_k}])\ge m^{-N_k \lambda T^*(T'(q)) -N'_k \tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))} m^{-(2N_k+2N'_k)\epsilon}.
$$
Since $\lim_{k\to\infty} N'_k/N_k=1-\lambda$ and $\lim_{k\to\infty} N_{k-1}/N_k=1$, we can conclude that
$$
\overline\dim_{\rm{loc}}(\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda,x)\le \lambda T^*(T'(q))+(1-\lambda)\tau_\nu^*(\tau_\nu'(q))+4\epsilon=\tau^*(\alpha) +4\epsilon,
$$
for all $\epsilon>0$. This yields $\overline\dim_{\rm{loc}}(\pi_*\widetilde\mu_\lambda,x)\le \tau^*(\alpha)$ for $\widetilde\mu_\lambda$-almost every $x$, and similar arguments using again Theorem~\ref{DIM}(1) and the information provided by Proposition~\ref{pro-4.14} about $\mu$ as well as \eqref{decompmu} yield $\overline\dim_{\rm{loc}}(\pi_*\mu,x)\le \alpha$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary~\ref{cor-4.16}] Due to Proposition~\ref{pro-4.15}, we can use an argument similar to that used in the proof of Corollary~\ref{4.6}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{The case $\alpha=\tau'(0+)$} We distinguish the three cases of Proposition~\ref{tau'0}.
Notice that by the results obtained in the previous sections we know that $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}=\tau$ over $[0,\widetilde q_c)$ conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$. In particular, $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}'(0+)=\tau'(0+)$.
{\bf (i) $\tau=T$ near $0+$.} In this case, we have $\tau'(0+)=T'(0)$, and by continuity the property $\dim(\mu_q)\le \dim({\mathbb E}(\mu_q))$ which holds near $0+$ by Lemma~\ref{muq/espmuq} extends to the Mandelbrot measure $\mu_0$. Also, the approach developed in Section~\ref{tauegalpsi} still applies to give $\dim_H E(\pi_*\mu,T'(0))\ge \tau^*(T'(0))$.
\medskip
\bf (ii) $\tau=\tau_\nu$ near $0+$.} We have $\tau'(0+)=\tau_\nu'(0)$. Let $p'=(p'_i)_{0\le i\le m-1}$ be defined as in \eqref{e-p'} and recall that $\nu'$ is the Bernoulli product associated with $p'$. Since we have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT_i^*(T_i'(1))\ge 0$, the approach used in Section~\ref{taudifpsi} when $s(q)=1$ still works and shows that conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, $\dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)=-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p_i'\log_m(p_i)=\tau_\nu'(0)$, either at $\nu'$-almost every $x\in \pi(K)$, or at $\pi_*\mu_{W'_1}$-almost every~$x$ if $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT_i^*\circ T_i'$ equals 0 over $[0,1]$ ($\mu_{W'_1}$ is the Mandelbrot measure associated with $p'$ and the vectors $V'_{1,i}$ defined in~\eqref{V'i}). Moreover, by definition of the vector $p'$ we have $\dim(\nu')=\dim_H (\pi(K))=-\tau(0)=\tau^*(\tau_\nu'(0))$ in the first case and $\dim(\nu')=\dim(\pi_*\mu_{W'_1})=\dim_H (\pi(K))=-\tau(0)=\tau^*(\tau_\nu'(0))$ in the second case. This yields $\dim_H E(\pi_*\mu,\tau_\nu'(0))\ge \tau^*(\tau_\nu'(0))$. We notice that in the second case $\mu_{W'_1}$ coincides with the measure $\mu'$ considered in the proof of Corollary~\ref{DGF}.
\medskip
{{\bf (iii) $\tau>\max(\tau_\nu, T)$ near $0+$.} Using the notations of Proposition~\ref{tau'0}, we see that if $s_0>0$ we are exactly in the same situation as in Section~\ref{taudifpsi}, with in addition the fact that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT_i^*(T'_i(1))>0$ is excluded if $s_0=1$. This yields $\dim_H E(\pi_*\mu,\tau'(0+))\ge \tau^*(\tau'(0+))$ in this case.}
If $s_0=0$, consider the Mandelbrot measure $\mu_{W'_0}$ associated with $p'$ and the vectors $V'_{0,i}$ defined in~\eqref{V'i}. Using the theory of Mandelbrot measures \cite{B1999,Ba00} here again yields, with probability 1, conditionally on $\mu\neq 0$, for $\mu_{W'_0}$-almost every $(x,y)$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\mu([x_{|n},y_{|n}])}{-n\log(m)}&=&-\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1}{\mathbb E}(W'_{0,i,j}\log_m (W_{i,j}))\\
&=& -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i) -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(V'_{0,i,j}\log_mV_{i,j})\\
&=& -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p_i) +\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT_i'(0)=\tau'(0+).
\end{eqnarray*}
Also,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\dim (\mu_{W'_0})&=&-\sum_{0\le i,j\le m-1}{\mathbb E}(W'_{0,i,j}\log_m (W'_{0,i,j}))\\
&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p'_i) -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}{\mathbb E}(V'_{0,i,j}\log_mV'_{0,i,j})\\
&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p'_i) -\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_iT_i(0)\\
&=&-\sum_{i=0}^{m-1}p'_i\log_m(p'_i)=\dim(\nu')=\dim (\mathbb{E}(\pi_*\mu_{W'_0}))
\end{eqnarray*}
(notice that this time $\mu_{W'_0}$ is here again the Mandelbrot measure $\mu'$ considered in the proof of Corollary~\ref{DGF}). Consequently, for $\pi_*\mu_{W'_0}$-almost every $x$, we have $\overline\dim_{\rm loc}(\pi_*\mu,x)\le \tau'(0+)$, and $\dim(\pi_*\mu_{W'_0})=\dim (\nu')=\tau(0)=\tau^*(\tau'(0+))$. Then, an argument similar to that used in the proof of Corollary~\ref{4.6} again yields the desired conclusion.
\section{Moment estimates}\label{MEST}
We start by establishing two basic lemmas on concave functions in Section~\ref{sec-lem}. Then Sections~\ref{pmeXu} and~\ref{nmeXu} respectively provide positive moments and negative moments estimates for $X(x_{|n})$ with respect to $\mathbb{P}\otimes \eta$, where $\eta$ is a Bernoulli product.
\subsection{Lemmas}\label{sec-lem}
We begin with an elementary observation.
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-1.1}
Let $q>1$ and $f:[1,q]\to {\Bbb R}$ be a continuous concave function with $f(1)=0$. Let $k\in {\Bbb N}$.
Suppose that $q_1,\ldots, q_k\geq 1$ with $\sum_{i=1}^k q_k\leq q$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)\geq f(q)$ provided that $\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)\leq 0$;
\item[(ii)]
$\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)\geq \min \{0, f(q)\}$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Clearly (ii) follows from (i). To prove (i), assume that $\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)\leq 0$. We show below that $\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)\geq f(q)$.
Set $\displaystyle t_i= \frac{f(q_i)-f(1)}{q_i-1}=\frac{f(q_i)}{q_i-1}$ for $1\leq i\leq k$, and $\displaystyle t=\frac{f(q)}{q-1}$. By concavity we have
$t\leq t_i$ for every $1\leq i\leq k$. Since $\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)\leq 0$, we have $t_i=f(q_i)/(q_i-1)\leq 0$ for some~$i$, and thus $t\leq t_i\leq 0$. Therefore
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)=\sum_{i=1}^k t_i(q_i-1)&\geq \sum_{i=1}^k t (q_i-1)\\
&\geq t (q-k)\\
&\geq t(q-1)=f(q).
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
\begin{rem}{\rm
Under the condition of Lemma \ref{lem-1.1}, it is possible that $0<\sum_{i=1}^k f(q_i)< f(q)$; for instance letting $f(x)=x-1$, $q_1=2$ and $q=3$, we have $0<f(q_1)<f(q)$.
}\end{rem}
\begin{lem} \label{lem-1.2}
Let $q>1$ and $f_1,\ldots, f_m$ be continuous concave functions defined on $[1,q]$ satisfying $f_j(1)=0$ for $1\leq j\leq m$. Let $(p_1', \dots, p_m')$ be a probability vector.
Suppose that $q_1,\ldots, q_k\geq 1$ with $\sum_{i=1}^k q_k\leq q$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{e-0}
\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}\leq \max\left\{1, \sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}\right\}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $ \sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}<1$, then $\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}<1$.
\end{lem}
\begin{rem}
{\rm Under the condition of Lemma \ref{lem-1.2}, it is possible that
$$1>\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}>\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}.$$
For instance letting $f(x)=x-1$, $q_1=2$ and $q=3$, we have
$1>m^{-f(q_1)}>m^{-f(q)}$.
}\end{rem}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma \ref{lem-1.2}]
We first show that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-1}
\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}\leq 1+ \sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}.
\end{equation}
Set $\Lambda=\{1\leq j\leq m:\; \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)<0\}$. By Lemma \ref{lem-1.1}, we have
$\sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)\geq f_j(q)$ for each $j\in \Lambda$. Hence we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}& \leq 1+\sum_{j\in \Lambda}p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}\\
&\leq 1+ \sum_{j\in \Lambda}p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}\\
&\leq 1+\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
This proves \eqref{e-1}.
Next we show that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-2}
\left( \sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}\right)^n \leq 1+ \left(\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}\right)^n
\end{equation}
for any $n\in {\Bbb N}$, from which \eqref{e-0} follows.
Indeed setting $p_{j_1\ldots j_n}'=p_{j_1}'\ldots p_{j_n}'$ and $f_{j_1\ldots j_n}=f_{j_1}+\ldots+f_{j_n}$, then \eqref{e-2} can be re-written as
$$
\sum_{1\leq j_1,\ldots, j_n\leq m} p_{j_1\ldots j_n}' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_{j_1\ldots j_n}(q_i)}\leq 1+ \sum_{1\leq j_1,\ldots, j_n\leq m} p_{j_1\ldots j_n}' m^{- f_{j_1\ldots j_n}(q)};
$$
but this is just the application of \eqref{e-1} to the probability weight $(p_{j_1\ldots j_n}')$ and the concave functions $f_{j_1\ldots j_n}$. This finishes the proof of \eqref{e-0}.
In the end, assume that $\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}<1$. By \eqref{e-0}, $\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}\leq 1$. We need to show that the inequality is strict. Suppose on the contrary that $$\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- \sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}=1.$$
Define $g(x)=\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- x\sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)}$ for $x\in {\Bbb R}$. Then $g$ is convex. Notice that on a small neighborhood $U$ of $1$,
we have $\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- xf_j(q)}<1$ for $x\in U$. For any fixed $x\in U$, applying \eqref{e-0} to the functions $xf_i$, we obtain that
$g(x)\leq 1$. Hence $g$ takes a local maximum at $x=1$. However $g$ is convex and analytic on ${\Bbb R}$, it follows that $g$ is constant on ${\Bbb R}$ and therefore
$$
\sum_{i=1}^k f_j(q_i)=0
$$
for any $1\leq j\leq m$. Then by Lemma \ref{lem-1.1}(i), we have $f_j(q)\leq 0$ for all $1\leq j\leq m$, which contradicts the assumption
that $\sum_{j=1}^m p_j' m^{- f_j(q)}<1$. This finishes the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Positive moments estimates for $X_n$}\label{pmeXu}
Let us first recall some notations. We are given $W=(W_{i,j})_{0\leq i,j \leq m-1}$, a non-negative random vector with ${\mathbb E}(\sum_{i,j}W_{i,j})=1$.
Let $q>1$ and assume that ${\mathbb E}(\sum_{i,j}W_{i,j}^q)<\infty$. Set
$p_i={\mathbb E}(\sum_j W_{i,j})$. Set
$$V_{i,j}=\left\{ \begin{array}{ll}
W_{i,j}/p_i, & \mbox{ if }p_i\neq 0,\\
{1}/{m}, & \mbox{ if }p_i=0.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
For $t\in [0,q]$, set
$$T(t)=-\log_m {\mathbb E}(\sum_{i,j}W_{i,j}^t),\quad T_i(t)=-\log_m {\mathbb E}(\sum_{j}V_{i,j}^t).$$
Then $T$ and $T_i$ ($0\leq i\leq m-1$) are well defined continuous concave functions on $[0,q]$, with $T(1)=T_i(1)=0$.
Set $\Sigma=\{0,1,\ldots, m-1\}^{\Bbb N}$. Let $\mu$ be the (random) Mandelbrot measure on $\Sigma\times \Sigma$ generated by $W$. Set $Y=\|\mu\|$ to be the total mass of $\mu$ and assume that $T(q)>0$. By Kahane-Peyriere~\cite{KP} and Durrett-Liggett~\cite{DL}, this is equivalent to the property that $0<{\mathbb E}(Y^q)<\infty$. For each
$(u,v)\in (\Sigma\times \Sigma)_*$, let $Y(u,v)$ be defined as in \eqref{Yuv}. We defined in Section~\ref{pfDIM}
\begin{equation}
\label{e-3}
X(u)=\sum_{v\in \Sigma_{|u|}} Y(u,v) \prod_{j=1}^{|u|} V_{u_j, v_j}(u|_{j-1}, v|_{j-1}),\quad u\in \Sigma_*.
\end{equation}
and $X_n(x)=X(x_{|n})$ for all $x\in\Sigma$ and $n\ge 1$.
Given any Bernoulli product $\eta$ on $\Sigma$ generated by a probability vector $(p'_0,\ldots,p'_{m-1})$, we are seeking for estimates of ${\mathbb E}_{\mathbb{P}\otimes\eta}(X_n^q)$, i.e. $\sum_{|u|=n} \eta([u]) {\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)$.
For short we write $V_{u_1,v_1}=V_{u_1, v_1}(\epsilon,\epsilon)$ and
$$X_1(u,j)= \sum_{v\in \Sigma_{|u|}:\; v_1=j} Y(u,v) \prod_{k=2}^{|u|} V_{u_k, v_k}(u|_{k-1}, v|_{k-1}),\quad j=0,\ldots, m-1.$$
Then we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-4}
X(u)=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{u_1,j} X_1(u,j).
\end{equation}
We emphasize that $X_1(u,j)$ ($j=0,\ldots, m-1$) are independent copies of $X(\sigma u)$. Moreover, they are independent of $V_{u_1, j'}$ ($j'=0,\ldots, m-1$).
By \eqref{e-3} and the assumption that ${\mathbb E}(Y^q)<\infty$, we have ${\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)<\infty$ for each $u\in \Sigma_*$. In particular, ${\mathbb E}(X(u))=1$.
For $n\in {\Bbb N}$, set
$$
{\Bbb R}^n_\leq =\{(x_1,\ldots, x_n)\in {\Bbb R}^n:\; x_1\leq \cdots\leq x_n\}.
$$
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-2.1}
Let $t\in (1,q]$ and $u\in \Sigma_*$.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] ${\mathbb E}(X(u)^t)\geq m^{-T_{u_1}(t)} {\mathbb E}(X(\sigma u)^t)$.
\item [(ii)] There exists a positive constant $C$ (depending on $q$) such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-5}
{\mathbb E}(X(u)^t)\leq m^{-T_{u_1}(t)} {\mathbb E}(X(\sigma u)^t)+ C+C\sum_{(q_1,\ldots, q_s)\in {\mathcal I}_t} \prod_{j=1}^s
{\mathbb E}\left(X(\sigma u)^{q_j}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\lceil t \rceil$ denotes the smallest integer $\geq t$, and
\begin{equation}
\label{e-6}
\begin{split}
{\mathcal I}_t: =& \left\{ \left(\frac{k_1t}{\lceil t \rceil},\ldots, \frac{k_st}{\lceil t \rceil}\right)\in {\Bbb R}^s_\leq :\; s, k_i\in {\Bbb N}\cap[2,\infty),\; \sum_{i=1}^s k_i \leq \lceil t \rceil
\right\}\\
& \cup \left\{ \frac{kt}{\lceil t \rceil}\in {\Bbb R}:\; k\in {\Bbb N},\; 2\leq k \leq \lceil t \rceil-1\right\}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Since $t>1$, by \eqref{e-4} and using the super-additivity of $x\mapsto x^t$ on ${\Bbb R}_+$, we have
$$
X(u)^t=\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{u_1,j} X_1(u,j)\right)^t\geq \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{u_1,j}^t X_1(u,j)^t.
$$
Taking expectations on both sides, we obtain (i).
To see (ii), by \eqref{e-4} and using the sub-additivity of $x\mapsto x^{t/ \lceil t \rceil}$ on ${\Bbb R}_+$, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
X(u)^t&=\left(\left(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{u_1,j} X_1(u,j)\right)^{t/ \lceil t \rceil}\right)^{ \lceil t \rceil}\\
& \leq \left(\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{u_1,j}^{t/\lceil t \rceil} X_1(u,j)^{t/\lceil t \rceil}\right)^{ \lceil t \rceil}\\
&=\sum_{k_0+\ldots+k_{m-1}=\lceil t \rceil} \frac{\lceil t \rceil !}{k_0!\cdots k_{m-1}!} \prod_{j=0}^{m-1} (V_{u_1, j} X_1(u, j))^{k_jt/\lceil t \rceil}.
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
Taking expectations on both sides, we have
\begin{equation*}
\begin{split}
{\mathbb E}(X(u)^t)\leq \sum_{k_0+\ldots+k_{m-1}=\lceil t \rceil} \frac{\lceil t \rceil !}{k_0!\cdots k_{m-1}!} {\mathbb E}\left( \prod_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{u_1, j}^{k_jt/\lceil t \rceil}\right) \prod_{s=0}^{m-1} {\mathbb E}(X(\sigma u)^{k_st/\lceil t \rceil}),
\end{split}
\end{equation*}
from which \eqref{e-5} follows, thanks to the fact that ${\mathbb E}(X(\sigma u)^p)\leq 1$ for $p\in [0,1]$; the involved constant $C$ can be taken as
$ m^{q} \sup_{1\leq q'\leq q} {\mathbb E}(\sum_{j}V_{u_1,j}^{q'})$. Here we use the fact that
\[
\begin{split}
{\mathbb E}\left( \prod_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{u_1, j}^{k_jt/\lceil t \rceil}\right)&\leq
\prod_{j=0}^{m-1} ({\mathbb E}(V_{u_1, j}^t))^{k_j/\lceil t \rceil}\\
&\leq \prod_{j=0}^{m-1} \left({\mathbb E}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{m-1}V_{u_1, s}^t\right)\right)^{k_j/\lceil t \rceil}\\
&={\mathbb E}\left(\sum_{s=0}^{m-1}V_{u_1, s}^t\right)\leq\sup_{1\leq q'\leq q} {\mathbb E}\left(\sum_{j}V_{u_1, j}^{q'}\right),
\end{split}
\]
where the first `$\leq$' comes from the H\"{o}lder inequality.
\end{proof}
Next we would like to establish an analogue of Lemma \ref{lem-2.1} for $\prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{t_j}$, where $t_1,\ldots, t_k\in (1,q]$ with $t_1+\ldots+t_k\leq q$. First we introduce some notation.
For $(x_1,\ldots, x_n)\in {\Bbb R}^n_\leq $ and $(y_1,\ldots, y_m)\in {\Bbb R}^m_\leq $, let $(z_1,\ldots, z_{n+m})\in {\Bbb R}^{n+m}_\leq $ be the vector re-ordered from the numbers $x_1,\ldots, x_n, y_1,\ldots, y_m$; and write
$$
(x_1,\ldots, x_n)\oplus (y_1,\ldots, y_m):=(z_1,\ldots, z_{n+m}).
$$
Clearly, the operation `$\oplus$' is commutative. By convention, we write $(x_1,\ldots, x_n)\oplus \emptyset=(x_1,\ldots, x_n)$, where $\emptyset$ denotes the empty set.
For $t_1,\ldots, t_k\in (1,q]$ with $t_1\leq \cdots \leq t_k$ and $t_1+\ldots+t_k\leq q$, we write
\begin{equation}
\label{e-8}
{\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}=\{w_1\oplus \cdots\oplus w_k:\; w_i\in {\mathcal I}_{t_i}\cup \{t_i\}\cup\{\emptyset\}\}\backslash \{(t_1,\ldots, t_k)\},
\end{equation}
where ${\mathcal I}_t$ is defined as in \eqref{e-6}. The following simple property comes from the definition of ${\mathcal I}_{(\cdot)}$:
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-n}
Assume that ${\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}\neq \emptyset$. Then for any $(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)\in {\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}$, we have $q_1+\cdots+q_\ell\leq t_1+\cdots+ t_k$. Moreover, we have either $\ell\geq k+1$ or
$q_1+\ldots+q_\ell\leq t_1+\ldots+ t_k-1/2$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
For any vector $w\in {\Bbb R}^m$, let $\|w\|$ denote the sum of the absolute values of its components. Clearly by \eqref{e-6}, for any $t>1$ and $w\in {\mathcal I}_t$, we have
$\|w\|\leq t$. Fix $(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)\in {\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}$. Then there exist $w_i\in {\mathcal I}_{t_i}\cup \{t_i\}\cup\{\emptyset\}$ ($i=1,\ldots, k$) such that $(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)=w_1\oplus \cdots\oplus w_k$. Therefore $q_1+\cdots+q_\ell=\|w_1\|+\cdots+ \| w_k\|\leq t_1+\cdots+t_k$. If $w_i=\emptyset$ for some $i$, then $q_1+\cdots+q_\ell\leq (t_1+\cdots t_k)-t_i<(t_1+\cdots t_k)-1$. If otherwise, we have $w_i\in {\mathcal I}_{t_i}\cup \{t_i\}$ for all $1\leq i\leq k$, and $w_j\in {\mathcal I}_{t_j}$ for at least one $j$; in such case, either $\|w_j\|\leq t_j-\frac{t_j}{\lfloor t_j\rfloor}\leq t_j-\frac{1}{2}$ or the dimension of $w_j$ is $\geq 2$, hence we have either $q_1+\ldots+q_\ell\leq t_1+\cdots+t_k-1/2$ or $\ell\geq k+1$.
\end{proof}
As a direct application of Lemma \ref{lem-2.1}, we have
\begin{lem}
\label{lem-2.2}Let $t_1,\ldots, t_k\in (1,q]$ so that $t_1\leq \cdots \leq t_k$ and $t_1+\ldots+t_k\leq q$.
Let $u\in \Sigma_*$.
Then
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{t_j})\geq m^{-\sum_{i=1}^k T_{u_1}(t_i)} \prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(\sigma u)^{t_j})$.
\item [(ii)] There exists a positive constant $C'$ (depending on $q$) such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-5}
\begin{split}
\prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{t_j})\leq & m^{-\sum_{i=1}^k T_{u_1}(t_i)} \prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(\sigma u)^{t_j})\\
& \mbox{} + C'+C'\sum_{(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)\in {\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}} \prod_{j=1}^\ell
{\mathbb E}\left(X(\sigma u)^{q_j}\right).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{lem}
\begin{pro}\label{mom+estimate} Let $q>1$ such that $T(q)>0$. Let $\eta$ be the Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ generated by a probability vector $(p_0',\ldots, p_{m-1}')$. Set $A:=\max\{1, \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}\}$. Then the following statements hold:\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] There exists a polynomial $f_q$ depending on $W$ and $q$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-p1}
A^n \leq \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\eta([u])\mathbb{E}(X(u)^q)\leq f_q(n) A^n,\quad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if $q\in (1,2]$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}<1$, then the polynomial $f_q$ can be replaced by a positive constant.
\item[(ii)]
More generally, for any $t_1,\ldots, t_k\in (1, q]$ with $t_1\leq \cdots \leq t_k$ and $t_1+\ldots+t_k\leq q$, there exists a polynomial $f_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-p1'}
1 \leq \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\eta([u])\prod_{j=1}^k \mathbb{E} (X(u)^{t_j}) \leq f_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}(n) A^n,\quad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
Since $q>1$, we have ${\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)\geq {\mathbb E}(X(u))^q=1$ for each $u\in \Sigma_*$, and thus
\begin{equation}
\label{e-10}
\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\eta([u]) {\mathbb E} (X(u)^q)\geq 1.
\end{equation}
Similarly we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-10'}
\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\eta([u]) \prod_{j=1}^k{\mathbb E} (X(u)^{t_j})\geq 1.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, by Lemma \ref{lem-2.1}(i), we have
\begin{equation}\label{e-11}
\begin{split} \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\eta([u]) {\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)& \geq \left(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}\right)
\sum_{u\in\Sigma_{n-1}}\eta([u]){\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)\\
&\geq \left(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}\right)^n {\mathbb E}(Y^q)\geq \left(\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}\right)^n.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining \eqref{e-11} with \eqref{e-10}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-12}
\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\eta([u]) {\mathbb E}( X(u)^q)\geq A^n.
\end{equation}
This completes the proof of the first inequality in \eqref{e-p1}.
To show the second inequality in \eqref{e-p1}, let $t_1,\ldots, t_k\in (1,q]$ with $t_1\leq \cdots \leq t_k$ and $t_1+\ldots+t_k\leq q$. By Lemma \ref{lem-1.2},
\begin{equation}
\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} p_j' m^{-\sum_{i=1}^k T_j(t_i)}\leq A.
\end{equation}
This together with Lemma \ref{lem-2.2}(ii) yields
\begin{equation}
\label{e-14}
\begin{split}
\sum_{u\in \Sigma_n} \eta([u])\prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{t_j})\leq & A \sum_{u\in \Sigma_{n-1}} \eta([u]) \prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{t_j})+C'\\
& \mbox{} +C'\sum_{(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)\in {\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}} \sum_{u\in \Sigma_{n-1}}\eta([u]) \prod_{j=1}^\ell
{\mathbb E}\left(X( u)^{q_j}\right),
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Write $S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k):=\sum_{u\in \Sigma_n} \eta([u])\prod_{j=1}^k {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{t_j})$. Then \eqref{e-14} can be re-written as
\begin{equation}
\label{e-14'}
\begin{split}
S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k)\leq & A S_{n-1}(t_1,\ldots, t_k)+C'+C'\sum_{(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)\in {\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}} S_{n-1} (q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
for $n\in {\Bbb N}$.
We claim that there exists an increasing polynomial function $f_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-13}
S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k) \leq f_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}(n) A^n,\qquad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
\end{equation}
Clearly the claim is true in the case when ${\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}=\emptyset$. Indeed in such case, by \eqref{e-14'},
we have
$$
S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k)\leq A\; S_{n-1}(t_1,\ldots, t_k)+ C',\quad \forall n\in {\Bbb N},
$$
and thus
\[
\begin{split}
S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k)&=A^n \; S_0(t_1,\ldots, t_k)+\sum_{j=1}^n A^{n-j}\left(S_j(t_1,\ldots, t_k)-A\;S_{j-1}(t_1,\ldots, t_k)\right)\\
&\leq A^n \;S_0(t_1,\ldots, t_k)+\sum_{j=1}^n C' A^{n-j}\leq nA^n (C'+S_0(t_1,\ldots, t_k)).
\end{split}
\]
Next we consider the case when ${\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}\neq\emptyset$. Suppose that for each $(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)\in {\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}$, there exists an increasing polynomial function $f_{q_1,\ldots, q_\ell}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
S_n(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell) \leq f_{q_1,\ldots, q_\ell}(n) A^n,\qquad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
\end{equation*}
Set $g=C'+C'\sum_{(q_1,\ldots, q_\ell)\in {\mathcal I}_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}}f_{q_1,\ldots, q_\ell}$. Then $g$ is an increasing polynomial. By \eqref{e-14'}, we have
$$
S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k)-A\;S_{n-1}(t_1,\ldots, t_k)\leq g(n-1)A^{n-1},\qquad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
$$
Therefore
\[
\begin{split}
S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k)-A^n \; S_0(t_1,\ldots, t_k)&=\sum_{j=1}^n A^{n-j}( S_j(t_1,\ldots, t_k)-A\; S_{j-1}(t_1,\ldots, t_k))\\
& \leq A^{n-1} \sum_{j=1}^n g(j-1)\leq A^{n-1}n g (n),
\end{split}
\]
Hence $S_n(t_1,\ldots, t_k)$ is bounded by $f_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}(n) A^n$ with $f_{t_1,\ldots, t_k}(x): = xg(x)+S_0(t_1,\ldots, t_k)$.
According to the arguments in the above two paragraphs, if the claim \eqref{e-13} is false at $T_1:=(t_1,\ldots, t_k)$, then ${\mathcal I}_{T_1}\neq \emptyset$ and moreover there exists $T_2\in {\mathcal I}_{T_1}$ such that \eqref{e-13} is false at $T_2$. Repeatedly applying the arguments, we see that there exist
$$T_n\in {\mathcal I}_{T_{n-1}}\neq \emptyset,\; n=2, 3,\ldots $$
such that \eqref{e-13} is false at $T_n$. However, by Lemma \ref{lem-n}, the sequence $(\|T_n\|)_{n=1}^\infty$ is non-increasing and is bounded above by $q$; and moreover, there are infinitely many $n$ such that $\|T_n\|\leq \|T_{n-1}\|-1/2$ (because the dimension of $T_n$ can not keep strictly increasing for $q$ consecutive integers of $n$), which leads to a contradiction. This proves the claim \eqref{e-13}.
Applying \eqref{e-13} to the particular case when $k=1$, we have
$$
\sum_{u\in \Sigma_n} \eta([u]) {\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)\leq f_q(n) A^n, \qquad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}
$$
for some polynomial $f_q$. This, together with \eqref{e-12}, yields \eqref{e-p1}.
In the meantime, \eqref{e-p1'} follows from \eqref{e-13} and \eqref{e-10'}.
In the end, assume that $q\in (1,2]$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}<1$. By the definition \eqref{e-6}, we have ${\mathcal I}_q=\emptyset$. Hence applying \eqref{e-5} yields
\begin{equation}\label{e-6''}
\sum_{u\in \Sigma_n} \eta([u]) {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{q})\leq B\sum_{u\in \Sigma_{n-1}} \eta([u]) {\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)+C',
\end{equation}
with $B:= \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}<1$.
Iterating \eqref{e-6''} yields that $$\sum_{u\in \Sigma_n} \eta([u]) {\mathbb E}(X(u)^{q})\leq C'(1+B+B^2+\cdots)=\frac{C'}{1-B}.$$
This finishes the proof of the proposition.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{momestimate} Let $q>1$ such that $T(q)>0$. Then there exists a polynomial $f_q$ depending on $W$ and $q$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-pp1}
m^{-n \min \{\tau_\nu(q), T(q)\}} \leq \mathbb{E}\Big (\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\pi_*\mu([u])^q\Big )\leq f_q(n) m^{-n \min \{\tau_\nu(q), T(q)\}}
\end{equation}
for all $n\in {\Bbb N}$. Furthermore, if $q\in (1,2]$ and $\tau_\nu(q)<T(q)$, the polynomial $f_q$ can be replaced by a positive constant.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $\nu_q$ denote the Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ generated by the probability weight $(p_0',\ldots, p_{m-1}')$, where
$p_i':=p_i^q/\sum_{j=0}^{m-1}p_j^q$. Then
\begin{equation}
\label{e-9'}
\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\pi_*\mu([u])^q=\sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu([u])^qX(u)^q=m^{-n\tau_\nu(q)} \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu_q([u])X(u)^q.
\end{equation}
Set $A=\max\{1, \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} p_j' m^{-T_j(q)}\}$. Then $A=\max\{1, m^{\tau_v(q)-T(q)}\}$, due to the fact that
$\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} p_j' m^{-T_j(q)}=m^{\tau_\nu(q)} \sum_{j=0}^{m-1} p_j^q m^{-T_j(q)} =m^{\tau_\nu(q)-T(q)}$ (cf. \eqref{psi}).
By Proposition \ref{mom+estimate}, there is a polynomial function $f_q$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-XA}
A^n\leq \sum_{u\in\Sigma_n}\nu_q([u]){\mathbb E}(X(u)^q)\leq f_q(n) A^n, \quad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
\end{equation}
Now \eqref{e-pp1} follows directly from \eqref{e-9'} and \eqref{e-XA}.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}\label{cor6.11}
Let $q>1$ such that $T(q)>0$. Then $\tau_{\pi_*\mu}(q)\geq \min \{\tau_\nu(q), T(q)\}$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
It is a direct consequence of Corollary \ref{momestimate} and Lemma \ref{Borel}.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Negative moments estimates for $X_n$}\label{nmeXu}
We begin with a known lemma.
\begin{lem}[Lemma 4.4, \cite{Liu99}]
\label{lem-liu99}
Let $Z$ be a positive random variable. For $0 < a < \infty$, consider
the following statements:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] ${\mathbb E}(Z^{-a}) < \infty$;
\item[(ii)] ${\mathbb E}(e^{-t Z}) = O(t^{-a})\;\; (t \to \infty)$;
\item[(iii)]${\Bbb P}(Z\leq z) = O(z^a)\; \; (z\to 0)$;
\item[(iv)] $\forall \; b \in (0, a)$, ${\mathbb E}(Z^{-b})<\infty$.
\end{itemize}
Then the following implications hold: $(i)\Longrightarrow (ii)\Longleftrightarrow(iii)\Longrightarrow (iv)$.
\end{lem}
Next we present our assumptions and some direct consequences.
The random variables $X(u)$ and $X_n$ are still defined as in the previous section.
Let $\eta$ be the Bernoulli product measure on $\Sigma$ generated by a probability vector $(p_0',\ldots, p_{m-1}')$. Suppose that both $T(q)>0$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}<1$ for some $q\in (1,2)$.
The first assumption yields $0<{\mathbb E}(Y^s)<\infty$ for all $t\in [1,q]$. By convexity of $s\mapsto \sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(s)}$ and the fact that $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(1)}=1$, we have $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(s)}<1$ for all $s\in (1,q]$, hence $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' T_i'(1)>0$. Consequently, \begin{equation}
\label{positive}
\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' T_i(s)>0
\end{equation}
for any $s\in (1,q]$ close enough to 1.
Fix a number $s\in (1,q]$ so that \eqref{positive} holds.
Then, Proposition~\ref{XntoX} applied with $q=s$, $U_i=V_i$ and $Z=Y$ implies that $X_n$ converges $\Bbb P\times \eta$-a.e. to a random variable $\widetilde X_V(\omega,x)$ that we simply denote by $X$. Also, since $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(s)}<1$, ${\mathbb E}(Y^s)<\infty$ and $1<s<2$, Proposition~\ref{mom+estimate} yields $\sup_{n\ge 1}{\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P\times \eta} \left( X_n^{s}\right) <\infty$, from which we get
$$
{\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P\times \eta} \left( X^{s}\right) <\infty.
$$
This fact will be used to evaluate the negative moments of $X$ in Propositions~\ref{pro-2.11} and~\ref{negmom1}. For this purpose, we extend an idea used in~\cite{HuLi12} in the context of branching processes in random environments. Then we proceed to the uniform control of the negative moments of $X_n$ in Proposition~\ref{negmom2}. We notice that these moments cannot be directly derived from those of $X$ because $X_n$ cannot be expressed as the conditional expectation of $X$, due to the presence of the factors $Y(u,v)$ in the definition of $X(u)$.
Define \begin{equation}
\label{delta}
\delta=s-1.
\end{equation}
For $t>0$ and $x\in \Sigma$, define
$$
\phi_x(t)={\mathbb E}(e^{-X(\cdot,x)t}).
$$
Choose $C>1$ large enough so that
$$
e^{-z}<1-z+\frac{C}{1+\delta}z^{1+\delta}, \qquad \forall z>0.
$$
Then we have
$$
e^{-tX(x)} \leq 1-tX(x)+Ct^{1+\delta} X(x)^{1+\delta}/(1+\delta).
$$
Taking expectation and using the fact that ${\mathbb E}(X(x))=1$ for $x\in \Sigma$, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{phixt}
\phi_x(t)<1-t+Ct^{1+\delta} {\mathbb E}(X(x)^{1+\delta})/(1+\delta).
\end{equation}
Set $K_x=(C{\mathbb E}(X(x))^{1+\delta})^{1/\delta}$. Then $K_x>1$.
Notice that the polynomial in the right-hand side of \eqref{phixt} takes its minimum
$$
\beta_{x}:=1-\frac{\delta}{(1+\delta)K_x} <1
$$
at $t=\frac{1}{K_x}$. Hence whenever $t\geq 1/K_x$, we have $\phi_x(t)\leq \phi_x(1/K_x)\leq \beta_x$.
In particular, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{phi1}
\phi_x(t)\leq \beta_x, \quad \forall t\geq 1, \; x\in \Sigma.
\end{equation}
Notice that $X(x)$ satisfies
$$
X(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1} V_{x_1,j} X(x, j),
$$
where $X(x, j)$, $j=0,\ldots, m-1$, are independent copies of $X(\sigma x)$, and are independent to $V_{x_1, j'}$ ($j'=0,\ldots, m-1$).
Hence
\begin{equation}
\label{e-phi}
\phi_x(t)=\int \prod_{j=0}^{m-1} \phi_{\sigma x} (t V_{x_1, j}) \;d\Bbb P.
\end{equation}
First consider a simple model.
\begin{pro}
\label{pro-2.11}
Assume that $T(q)>0$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}<1$ for some $q\in (1,2]$. Assume, moreover, that there exists $c\in (0,1)$ such that ${\Bbb P} (V_{i,j}>c)=1$ for all $0\leq i,j\leq m-1$.
Then
$$
{\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P\times \eta}\left( X(x)^{-b}\right)<\infty
$$
for any $b\in (0, -\delta \log m/\log c)$, where $\delta$ is given as in \eqref{delta}.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
Since ${\Bbb P} (V_{i,j}>c)=1$ for all $0\leq i,j\leq m-1$,
by \eqref{e-phi}, we have
$$
\phi_x(t)\leq (\phi_{\sigma x}(tc))^m \leq \ldots\leq (\phi_{\sigma^n} (t c^n))^{m^n}, \quad \forall n\in {\Bbb N}.
$$
Therefore by \eqref{phi1},
$$
\phi_x(c^{-n})\leq (\phi_{\sigma^n x}(1))^{m^n}\leq (\beta_{\sigma^n x})^{m^n}.
$$
Hence
$$\int \phi_x(c^{-n}) \; d\eta(x)\leq \int (\beta_{\sigma^n x})^{m^n}\; d\eta(x)=\int (\beta_x)^{m^n}\; d\eta(x).$$
Notice that
\begin{eqnarray*}
\begin{split}
(\beta_x)^{m^n} &=\exp\left(m^n \log \left(1-\frac{\delta}{(1+\delta)K_x}\right)\right)\\
&\leq \exp (- \gamma m^n /K_x)
\end{split}
\end{eqnarray*}
for some constant $\gamma>0$. Take $\epsilon>0$ so that $m-\epsilon>1$. Then
$$
\int \exp (- \gamma m^n /K_x) \; d\eta (x) \leq \exp \Big(- \gamma \Big(\frac{m}{m-\epsilon}\Big)^n \Big) +\eta\{x: \; K_x\geq (m-\epsilon)^{n}\}.
$$
Notice that by Markov's inequality,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\eta(\{x: \; K_x\geq (m-\epsilon)^{n}\})&\leq & (m-\epsilon)^{-\delta n} \int K_x^\delta \; d\eta(x)\\
&=& C (m-\epsilon)^{-\delta n} \int {\mathbb E}(X(x))^{1+\delta} \; d\eta(x)\\
&\leq & C' (m-\epsilon)^{-\delta n}
\end{eqnarray*}
for some constant $C'>0$. It follows that
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P\times \eta}\left( \exp(-c^{-n}X(x))\right) &= & \int \phi_x(c^{-n}) \; d\eta(x)\\
& \leq & \exp \Big(- \gamma \Big(\frac{m}{m-\epsilon}\Big)^n \Big) +C' (m-\epsilon)^{-\delta n}\\
&\leq & O(c^{na}),
\end{eqnarray*}
with $a=-\delta \log (m-\epsilon)/\log c$. Hence by Lemma \ref{lem-liu99},
${\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P\times \eta} \left(X(x)^{-b}\right)<\infty$ for any $b\in (0, a)$.
\end{proof}
Next we consider a more general model.
\begin{pro}\label{negmom1}
Assume that $T(q)>0$ and $\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' m^{-T_i(q)}<1$ for some $q\in(1,2]$. Assume that there exists $c\in (0,1)$ such that the following two conditions are satisfied:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\Bbb P(\sup_{0\leq j\leq m-1} V_{i,j}>c)=1$,\quad $\forall i$;
\item[(ii)] ${\mathbb E}(\#\{j: V_{i,j}>c\})>1,\quad \forall i$.
\end{itemize}
Then there exists $a>0$ such that
$${\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P\times \eta} \left(X(x)^{-a} \right)<\infty.$$
\end{pro}
\begin{proof}
For $x\in \Sigma$, set $N_0(\epsilon)=1$ and
$$
N_n(x_{|n}):=\# \{v=v_1\ldots v_n\in \Sigma_n: \; V_{x_j, v_j}(x_{|j-1}, v_{|j-1})\geq c \mbox{ for } 1\leq j\leq n\}
$$
for $n\geq 1$.
Then $(N_n(x_{|n}))_{n\geq 0}$ satisfies the following relation:
$$
N_{n+1}(x_{|n+1})=\sum_{v\in {\mathcal A}(x,n)} \#\{j: \; V_{x_{n+1}, j}(x_{|n}, v)>c\},
$$
with ${\mathcal A}(x,n):=\{v=v_1\ldots v_n\in \Sigma_n: \; V_{x_j, v_j}(x_{|j-1}, v_{|j-1})\geq c \mbox{ for } 1\leq j\leq n\}$.
Since the random variables $\#\{j: \; V_{x_{n+1}, j}(x_{|n}, v)>c\}$, $v\in {\mathcal A}(x,n)$, are independent with the same distribution (depending on $x$), and are independent of $N_n(x_{|n})$, $(N_n(x_{|n}))_{n\geq 0}$ is exactly a branching process in the random environment $x$ (cf. \cite{HuLi12}) picked according to~$\eta$.
For $0\leq i\leq m-1$ and $0\leq k\leq m$, set
$$
\gamma_i(k)=\Bbb P(\#\{j:\; V_{i, j}>c\}=k).
$$
and
$$
M_i=\sum_{k=0}^m k \gamma_i(k).
$$
The assumptions (i)-(ii) guarantee that $\gamma_i(0)=0$ and $M_i>1$ for all $i$.
For $t\in {\Bbb R}$, set $\Lambda(t)=\log (\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' M_i^t)$.
By \cite[Corollary 1.2]{HuLi12}, we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-large}
\lim_{n\to \infty} \frac{1}{n} \log \Bbb P\times \eta \left(\frac{\log N_n(x_{|n})}{n}\leq z\right)\leq \inf_{t\in {\Bbb R}} \{\Lambda (t)-tz\}
\end{equation}
for $z <\Lambda'(0)=\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' \log M_i$. Pick $0<z_0<\sum_{i=0}^{m-1} p_i' \log M_i$. Since $\Lambda$ is convex and smooth, we have
$$ T_0:=\inf_{t\in {\Bbb R}} \{\Lambda (t)-tz_0\}<0.$$
Take any $T_1\in (T_0, 0)$. By \eqref{e-large}, there exists $L>0$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-Peta}
\Bbb P\times \eta \left( N_n(x_{|n})\leq e^{nz_0}\right)\leq e^{nT_1}
\end{equation}
for any $n\geq L$.
Similar to \eqref{e-phi}, we have for any $n\in {\Bbb N}$ and $t>0$,
\begin{equation}
\label{e-phi'}
\phi_x(t)=\int \prod_{v=v_1\ldots v_n\in \Sigma_n} \phi_{\sigma^n x} (t Q_V(x_{|n}, v)) \;d\Bbb P,
\end{equation}
with $Q_V(x_{|n}, v)=\prod_{j=1}^n V_{x_j, v_j}(x_{|j-1}, v_{|j-1}).$ Since
$$
\#\{v\in \Sigma_n:\; Q_V(x_{|n}, v)\geq c^n\}\geq N_n(x_{|n}),
$$
by \eqref{phi1} we have
\begin{equation}
\label{e-phi''}
\phi_x(c^{-n})\leq \int (\phi_{\sigma^n x}(1))^{N_n(x_{|n})}\;d\Bbb P\leq \int (\beta_{\sigma^n x})^{N_n(x_{|n})}\;d\Bbb P.
\end{equation}
Hence for $n\geq L$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
{\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P \times \eta} (\exp(-c^{-n}X(x)))&\leq & \iint (\beta_{\sigma^nx})^{N_n(x_{|n})} d\Bbb Pd\eta \\
&\leq & \iint {\bf 1}_{\{N_n(x_{|n})\geq e^{nz_0} \}} (\beta_{\sigma_n x})^{e^{nz_0} }d\Bbb Pd\eta+\Bbb P\times \eta\left(N_n(x_{|n})\leq e^{nz_0}\right) \\
&\leq & \int (\beta_x)^{e^{nz_0}} \; d\eta(x)+ e^{nT_1}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Repeating the argument in the proof of Proposition \ref{pro-2.11}, we can show that there exists $a'>0$ such that
$$\int (\beta_x)^{e^{nz_0}}\; d\eta(x) =O(c^{na'}).$$
Hence ${\mathbb E}_{\Bbb P \times \eta} (e^{-c^{-n}X(x)})=O(c^{na'}+e^{nT_1})$. Since $T_1<0$, by Lemma \ref{lem-liu99} this is enough to conclude the desired result.
\end{proof}
Now we estimate moments of negative orders of $X_n=X(x_{|n})$.
\begin{pro} \label{negmom2} Assume the hypotheses of Proposition~\ref{negmom1}. Then there exists $b>0$ such that $\sup_{n\ge 1}{\mathbb E}_{\mathbb P\otimes \eta} (X_n^{-b})<\infty$.
\end{pro}
\begin{proof} Fix $q\in (1,2]$ as in the beginning of this section, i.e. $T(q)>0$ and $ \sum_{i=1}^{m-1}p'_im^{-T_i(q)}<1$, and notice that for $n\ge 1$, we have $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(\sum_{v\in\Sigma_n}Q_V(x_{|n}, v)^q)=\Big (\sum_{i=1}^{m-1}p'_im^{-T_i(q)}\Big )^n$. Consequently, there exist two positive numbers $\alpha$ and $\gamma$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{e-PE}
\mathbb P\otimes\eta(\max_{v\in \Sigma_n}Q_V(x_{|n}, v)>m^{-\alpha n})\le m^{-\gamma n}.
\end{equation}
Now, we estimate $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})$ in two steps.
At first, we write
$$
X_n=\sum_{v\in \Sigma_n} Q_V(x_{|n}, v) Y(x_{|n},v)
$$
and use the independence and equidistribution properties of the random variables $Y(x_{|n},v)$ with respect to $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}$ to get that, for any $t\ge 0$, $$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\Big (\prod_{v\in \Sigma_n}\phi_Y(tQ_V(x_{|n}, v))\Big ).
$$
We know that $\phi_Y(u)\le e^{-u/2} $ for $u$ small enough since ${\mathbb E}(Y)=1$. Consequently, there exists $\epsilon_0>0$ such that for $n$ large enough, if $0<t\le \epsilon_0 m^{n\alpha}$, on $\{\max_{v\in \Sigma_n}Q_V(x_{|n}, v)\le m^{-n\alpha})\}$ we have
$$
\prod_{v\in \Sigma_n}\phi_Y(tQ_V(x_{|n}, v))\le e^{-\frac{t}{2}\sum_{v\in\Sigma_n}Q_V(x_{|n}, v)}=e^{-\frac{t}{2}\widetilde X_n}.
$$
Moreover, the Mandelbrot martingale in random environment $(\widetilde X_n)$ being uniformly integrable and $u\mapsto e^{-u/2}$ being convex, for all $n\ge 1$ we have
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-\frac{t}{2}\widetilde X_n})\le \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-\frac{t}{2}\widetilde X}).
$$
Thus, for $n$ large enough, for $0< t\le \epsilon_0 m^{n\alpha}$, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})
&=&\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\Big (\prod_{v\in \Sigma_n}\phi_Y(tQ_V(x_{|n}, v))\Big )\\
&\le & \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-\frac{t}{2}\widetilde X})+ \mathbb P\otimes\eta(\max_{v\in \Sigma_n}Q_V(x_{|n}, v)>m^{-\alpha n}).
\end{eqnarray*}
Due to Proposition \ref{negmom1}, Lemma \ref{lem-liu99} and the estimate \eqref{e-PE}, we get constants $C_0>0$ and $b_0>0$ such that for $0< t\le \epsilon_0 m^{n\alpha}$ we have
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})\le C_0 t^{-b_0}.
$$
Moreover, taking $\alpha$ slightly smaller we can assume without loss of generality that $\epsilon_0=1$. %
The second estimate of $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})$ is as follows. Since, with probability 1, we have $\#\{(i,j)\in\{0,\ldots,m-1\}^2: W_{i,j}\ge c p_i\}\ge 1$ almost surely, we know from \cite[Theorem 4.1]{liu01} that for some $\beta_0>0$ we have ${\mathbb E}(Y^{-\beta})<\infty$ for all $\beta\in(0,\beta_0]$, hence $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(Y^{-\beta}(x_{|n},v))<\infty$ for all $n\ge 1$, $x\in\Sigma$ and $v\in\Sigma_n$ and $\beta\in(0,\beta_0]$. Fix $\beta\in (0,\beta_0]$ and write
$$
X_n(x)=\sum_{j=0}^{m-1,*} V_{x_1,j} X_{n-1}(\sigma x,j),
$$
where $*$ means that we sum over those $j$ such that $V_{x_1,j}>0$. Setting $N_{x_1}=\#\{j:V_{x_1,j}>0\}$ and using the convexity of $t\mapsto t^{-N_{x_1}}$ in a similar way as in \cite{Mol,B1999} to study the moments of negative orders of $Y$, we get
$$
X_n(x)^{-\beta}\le N_{x_1}^{-\beta} \Big (\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*} V_{x_1,j}^{-\beta/N_{x_1}}\Big )\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*} X_{n-1}(\sigma x,j)^{-\beta/N_{x_1}},
$$
which yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
\nonumber\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(X_n(x)^{-\beta})&\le& \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\left (N_{x_1}^{-\beta} \Big (\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*}V_{x_1,j}^{-\beta/N_{x_1}}\Big ) \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\Big (\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*} X_{n-1}(\sigma x,j)^{-\beta/N_{x_1}}|(x_1,V_{x_1})\Big )\right )\\
&\le & \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\left (N_{x_1}^{-\beta} \Big (\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*}V_{x_1,j}^{-\beta/N_{x_1}}\Big ) \prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*} {\mathbb E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(X_{n-1}(\sigma x,j)^{-\beta}|(x_1,V_{x_1}))^{1/N_{x_1}}\right )\\
&= &\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\Big (N_{x_1}^{-\beta} \Big (\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*}V_{x_1,j}^{-\beta/N_{x_1}}\Big )\Big ) \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta} (X_{n-1}(x)^{-\beta}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where we have successively used generalized H\"older inequality to bound from above the term $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\Big (\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*} X_{n-1}(\sigma x,j)^{-\beta/N_{x_1}}|(x_1,V_{x_1})\Big )$, and the equality in distribution of the random variables $X_{n-1}(\sigma x,j)$ with $X_{n-1}(x)$ as well as their independence with respect to $(x_1,V_{x_1})$ under $\mathbb P\otimes\eta$. Consequently, using the previous inequality recursively we obtain
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(X_n^{-\beta})\le g(\beta)^n \mathbb E(Y^{-\beta}),
$$
where
$$
g(\beta)=\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}\Big (N_{x_1}^{-\beta} \Big (\prod_{j=0}^{m-1,*}V_{x_1,j}^{-\beta/N}\Big )\Big ).
$$
Now, for any $t>1$, setting $u=\log(t)^2/t$ we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})&\le&\mathbb P\otimes\eta(X_n\le u)+e^{-tu}\\
&\le & u^\beta\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(X_n^{-\beta})+e^{-\log(t)^2}\\
&\le& \mathbb E(Y^{-\beta}) \log(t)^{2\beta} t^{-\beta} g(\beta)^n +e^{-\log(t)^2}.
\end{eqnarray*}
It is not hard to check that $g(\beta)$ is differentiable at $0$. Hence we can fix $\theta>0$ such that for $\beta$ small enough we have $g(\beta)^n\le m^{\beta\theta n}$. Fix such a $\beta\in (0,\beta_0]$. For $t> m^{3\theta n}$, the previous inequalities yield
$$
\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})=O( \log(t)^{2\beta} t^{-2\beta /3})=O(t^{-\beta/3}),
$$
where $O$ is uniform with respect to $n$. Consequently, if $3\theta< \alpha$, so that $m^{3\theta n}< m^{\alpha n}$, our two estimates for $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})$ yield $C>0$ such that for all $n\ge 1$ and $t>1$ we have $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})\le C t^{-\min (b_0,\beta/3)}$. Otherwise, for $ m^{\alpha n}< t <m^{3\theta n}$, using the log convexity of $u\mapsto \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-uX_n})$ and our estimates of this map at $m^{\alpha n}$ and $m^{3\theta n}$, we get $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n})\le C t^{-\min (b_0\alpha/(3\theta),\beta/3)}$ for all $t>1$ and independently of~$n$.
Finally, since for $h>0$ we have $\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(X_n^{-h})=\Gamma(h)^{-1}\int_0^\infty \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(e^{-tX_n}) t^{h-1}\mathrm{d}t$, we conclude that $\sup_{n\ge 1}\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb P\otimes\eta}(X_n^{-b})<\infty$ for all $b\in (0,\min (b_0,b_0\alpha/(3\theta),\beta/3))$.
\end{proof}
\section{Final remarks}
As a consequence of our study of the multifractal formalism, we can achieve a part of the multifractal analysis of the number $N_n(x)$ of cylinders of generation $n$ of the form $[x_{|n},v]$, $v\in\Sigma_n$, which intersect the support $K_n$ of $\mu_n$. Specifically, if $n\ge 1$ and $u\in\Sigma_n$ we set
$$
N(u)=\#\{v\in\Sigma_n: Q(u,v)>0\}.
$$
Then $N_n(x)=N(x_{|n})$. This number measures the overlapping amount over $[x_{|n}]$ when one projects $K_n$ onto $\pi(K)$.
\begin{cor}\label{covnumb}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Suppose that ${\mathbb E}(N_i)\le 1$ for all $0\le i\le m-1$ such that ${\mathbb E}(N_i)>0$. With probability one, conditionally on $K\neq\emptyset$, for all $x\in \pi(K)$ one has $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log N_n(x)}{n}=0$.
\item Suppose that ${\mathbb E}(N_i)>1$ for at least one $0\le i\le m-1$. Let $\varphi$ be defined as in \eqref{varphi}. Let $q_0$ be the unique point at which $\varphi$ attains its minimum over $[0,1]$. Define
\begin{equation}\label{pressure}
P: q\mapsto \begin{cases}
\log(m)\cdot \varphi(q_0) &\text{ if }0\le q\le q_0\\
\log(m)\cdot \inf\{\varphi(q/s): q\le s\le 1\} &\text{ if }q_0<q\le 1\\
\max (\log{\mathbb E}(N), \log(m)\cdot \varphi(q))&\text{ if }q> 1
\end{cases}.
\end{equation}
If $q_0<1$ or $q_0=1$ and $\varphi'(1)=0$, then $P$ is differentiable over ${\Bbb R}_+$, analytic over $[0,q_0)\cup(q_0,\infty)$ and it has a second order phase transition at $q_0$. Specifically, $P\equiv \log(m)\cdot \varphi(q_0)$ over $ [0,q_0)$ and $P\equiv \log(m)\cdot \varphi $ over $(q_0,\infty)$.
If $q_0=1$ and $\varphi'(1)<0$, then there exists a unique $q'_0>1$ such that $P(q'_0)= \log {\mathbb E}(N)$, and $P$ is analytic over $[0,q'_0)\cup(q'_0,\infty)$, with $P\equiv \log {\mathbb E}(N)$ over $ [0,q'_0)$ and $P\equiv \log(m)\cdot \varphi $ over $(q'_0,\infty)$. Moreover, $P$ has a first order phase transition at $q'_0$.
With probability 1, conditionally on $\pi(K)\neq\emptyset$, for all $q\ge 0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{PntoP}
\lim_{n\to\infty} \frac{1}{n}\log \sum_{|u|=n}\mathbf{1}_{\{N(u)\ge 1\}}N(u)^q=P(q).
\end{equation}
\item If $\alpha\in \{P'(q^-),P'(q^+)\} $ for some $q>0$ or $\alpha=P'(0+)$, then, with probability 1, conditionally on $K\neq\emptyset$,
$$
\dim_H\left\{x\in\pi(K):\frac{\log N_n(x)}{n}=\alpha\right\}=\frac{1}{\log(m)}\inf\{P(q)-\alpha q: q\ge 0\}.
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
Parts (2)-(3) of this corollary follow from the application of Theorem~\ref{MA} to the branching measure, i.e. the Mandelbrot measure $\mu'$ associated with $$W'=({\mathbb E}(N)^{-1}\mathbf{1}_{\{W_{i,j}>0\}})_{0\le i,j\le m-1}.$$
More precisely, one writes that $N_n(x)={\mathbb E}(N)^n \mu'_n([x_n])$ and use Remark \ref{rem-2.9}.
For Part (1), under our assumptions property \eqref{PntoP} still holds, with $P$ given by~\eqref{pressure}, for the same reason as in item (2). It is then direct to check that $P(q)=\log {\mathbb E}(N)$ for all $q\ge 0$. Consequently, conditionally on $\pi(K)\neq\emptyset$, for any $\epsilon>0$, for any $q>0$, if $n$ is large enough, we have
\begin{eqnarray*}
\#\{u\in\Sigma_n: N(u)\ge m^{n\epsilon}\}&\le& m^{-nq\epsilon} \sum_{|u|=n}\mathbf{1}_{\{N(u)>0\}}N(u)^q\\
&\le& m^{-nq\epsilon}m^{n(\log({\mathbb E}(N))+\epsilon)}\\
&=& m^{-n((q-1)\epsilon-\log{\mathbb E}(N))}.
\end{eqnarray*}
Choosing $q>1$ such that $(q-1)\epsilon-\log{\mathbb E}(N)>0$ yields that for $n$ large enough, $\#\{u\in\Sigma_n: N(u)\ge m^{n\epsilon}\}<1$ so $\{u\in\Sigma_n: N(u)\ge m^{n\epsilon}\}$ is empty. Thus, for all $x\in\pi(K)$, we have $\limsup_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log N_n(x)}{n}\le \epsilon$. Since $\epsilon$ is arbitrary and $N_n(x)\ge 1$, this yields $\lim_{n\to\infty}\frac{\log N_n(x)}{n}=0$ for all $x\in\pi(K)$.
|
\section{Capacity Region of the MAC Protocol} \label{Sec: Capacity}
In this section, we identify the capacity region of the IRSA for the considered $k$-class network $\mathds{N}_k$. The capacity region of the network determines the throughput performance boundaries of the system \cite{naware2005stability}. The formal definition of the capacity region is presented in the following.
\defin For $\mathds{N}_k$, a throughput $k$-tuple $\mathds{T}(\pmb{G}) = (T_1(\pmb{G}),T_2(\pmb{G}),\ldots,T_k(\pmb{G}))$ is said to be achievable if for a given traffic load vector $\pmb{G}$, there exists a set of probability distributions $\{\Lambda_i(x)\}_{i \in \cal{K}}$ resulting in the throughput $T_i(\pmb{G})$ for class $\cal{C}_i$.
\defin The closure of the set of all achievable $\mathds{T}(\pmb{G})$, taken over all possible $\pmb{G}$, is called the \emph{capacity region} of the network.
\lem \label{Lemma outer} The following constitutes an outer bound to the capacity region of $\mathds{N}_k$
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq \min \{1, \frac{N_i}{M} \}, \label{eq: Cond 1}\\
&\sum_{i \in \cal{K}} T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq \min \{1, \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} \frac{N_i}{M} \} \label{eq: Cond 2}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Now, before finding the capacity region of the network, we state the following lemma.
\lem \label{Lemma dual} For a $k$-class network $\mathds{N}_k$ with traffic vector $\pmb{G}$, the slot degree distribution is similar to the one for its dual homogenous network $\mathds{N}_1$ with traffic load $G = G_{\mathrm{t}}$ and
\begin{equation} \label{Eq Lambda Ave}
\Lambda(x) = \frac{1}{G_{\mathrm{t}}} \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} G_i \Lambda_i(x).
\end{equation}
\begin{IEEEproof}
To prove the lemma, we start by deriving $\Psi_m$ for an arbitrary $m$. The degree of an arbitrary slot in the frame is $m$ if exactly $m$ out of the all active $G_{\mathrm{t}} M$ users in $\mathds{N}_k$ transmit within this slot. Thus,
\begin{equation}
\Psi_m = \binom{G_{\mathrm{t}} M}{m} \rho ^ m (1 - \rho)^{L - m}
\end{equation}
where $\rho$ is the probability of a packet transmission by an arbitrary user $u$ in the considered slot. On the other hand,
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{i \in \cal{K}} \mathrm{P}[u \in \cal{C}_i] \bar{\Lambda}_i = \frac{1}{M}\sum_{i \in \cal{K}} \frac{G_i}{G_{\mathrm{t}}} \Lambda_i'(1) = \frac{\Lambda'(1)}{M}.
\end{equation}
Thus,
\begin{equation}
\Psi_m = \binom{G_{\mathrm{t}} M}{m} \left( \frac{\Lambda'(1)}{M} \right) ^ m \left(1 - \frac{\Lambda'(1)}{M} \right)^{L - m}
\end{equation}
that is basically the probability of having a degree $m$ slot in $\mathds{N}_1$ with load $G_{\mathrm{t}} = G$.
\end{IEEEproof}
In other words, Lemma~\ref{Lemma dual} indicates that from the viewpoint of SIC, the effective user degree distribution of $\mathds{N}_k$ is the weighted average of user degree distributions of all classes. Thus, in the asymptotic situation as $N$ and $M$ become large, we expect SIC to perform similarly for $\mathds{N}_k$ and $\mathds{N}_1$. Now, since a successful recovery of one of the packets from any class of $\mathds{N}_k$ by SIC can be mapped to a successful packet recovery for $\mathds{N}_1$, throughput of $\mathds{N}_1$ in Lemma~\ref{Lemma dual} is $T(G_{\mathrm{t}}) = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} T_i(\pmb{G})$. Using this fact, we are able to state the following theorem on the capacity region of the assumed $k$-class network.
\theo \label{Theorem Capacity} For a $k$-class network $\mathds{N}_k$ with asymptotically large classes, the capacity region is the closure of the convex hull of all $\mathds{T}(\pmb{G}) = (T_1(\pmb{G}),T_2(\pmb{G}),\ldots,T_k(\pmb{G}))$ satisfying
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}
&T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq \min \{T^*, \frac{N_i}{M} \}, \label{eq: Cond 1}\\
&\sum_{i \in \cal{K}} T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq \min \{T^*, \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} \frac{N_i}{M} \} \label{eq: Cond 2}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
for all possible $\pmb{G}$ where $T^*$ is the throughput of the optimal dual network.
\begin{IEEEproof}
To prove Theorem~\ref{Theorem Capacity}, we first show the converse of the theorem and then the achievability of the region.
Using the result of Lemma~\ref{Lemma dual}, we model the the considered network $\mathds{N}_k$ with its dual network $\mathds{N}_1$ with an active load of $G = G_{\mathrm{t}}$ and a user degree distribution $\Lambda(x)$ defined in (\ref{Eq Lambda Ave}). Let us first consider the case where only (some) users from $\cal{C}_i$ are active and all other classes are silent. The associated load vector in this case is $\pmb{G} = [0,0,\ldots,G_i, 0, \ldots, 0]$. Now, if $G_i < G^*$ and using Remark~\ref{Remark 1}, we have
\begin{equation} \nonumber
T(G_{\mathrm{t}}) = T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq G_{i} \leq \frac{N_i}{M}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, if $G_i > G^*$, the throughput of $\mathds{N}_1$ is capped by the throughput of the optimal dual network, i.e. $T^*$. Thus,
\begin{equation}
T(G_{\mathrm{t}}) = T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq T^*
\end{equation}
and as a consequence, (\ref{eq: Cond 1}) holds. Now, consider a general load vector $\pmb{G}= [G_i]_{i \in \cal{K}}$ for $\mathds{N}_k$. If $G_{\mathrm{t}} = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} G_i \leq G^*$, then from Remark~\ref{Remark 1},
\begin{equation} \nonumber
T(G_{\mathrm{t}}) = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq G_{\mathrm{t}} \leq \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} \frac{N_i}{M}.
\end{equation}
On the other hand, if $G_{\mathrm{t}} > G$, the optimal dual network determines the throughput upper bound and
\begin{equation}
T(G_{\mathrm{t}}) = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} T_i(\pmb{G}) \leq T^*.
\end{equation}
This completes the proof of the theorem's converse.
Now, we focus on proving the achievability of the capacity region. To achieve any throughput tuple $\mathds{T} = (T_1, T_2, \ldots, T_k)$ within the described capacity region, we need to determine the set of the user degree distributions and load vector achieving this throughput point. To this end, we enforce a load vector $\pmb{G} = [T_i]_{i \in \cal{K}}$ by picking $M T_i$ users from $\cal{C}_i$ and activating them. We assign $\Lambda^*(x)$ as the user degree distribution to all of the active users from all classes. As a result of this load and degree distribution assignment, the dual homogeneous network of $\mathds{N}_k$ is the optimal dual network $\mathds{N}^*_1$. Furthermore, since $\sum_{i \in \cal{K}} T_i \leq T^*$, we have
\begin{equation}
G_{\mathrm{t}} = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} G_i = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} T_i \leq T^* = G^*.
\end{equation}
Now, from Remark~\ref{Remark 1}, since $G_{\mathrm{t}} \leq G^*$, the throughput of the dual network $\mathds{N}^*_1$ is $T(G_{\mathrm{t}}) = G_{\mathrm{t}}$. This means that all active users can successfully send their packets to the BS and the desired throughput tuple is achieved.
\end{IEEEproof}
\corol \label{Corol bound} For a non-asymptotic network, (\ref{eq: Cond 1}) and (\ref{eq: Cond 2}) define an outer bound for the capacity region.
\rem To achieve any throughput point within the capacity region, the set of active users are chosen by the BS. At the end of each frame, the BS sends a feedback message to the users informing them if their packets have been successfully received and what users should transmit in the next frame. Later we will discuss how the choice of active users by the relay affects the delay performance of the system.
To help the reader to clearly understand the concept of capacity region, here, we present some numerical examples for the capacity region of a multi-class network. To this end, we consider $\mathds{N}_2$, a two-class network with a total of $N$ users where $N = M$. Before plotting the capacity region for this network, we need to find $\Lambda^*(x)$, $G^*$, and $T^*$ for its optimal dual network. To this end, we use the results in \cite{liva2011graph} where for a maximum transmission degree of eight, it is shown that $\Lambda^*(x) = 0.5 x^2 + 0.28 x^3 + 0.22 x^8$ is the optimal user degree distribution for a single-class network. Asymptotically when the number of users approaches infinity, the maximum throughput is achieved at $G^* = 0.938$. However, for finite number of users, $\Lambda^*(x)$ achieves lower throughputs \cite{liva2011graph}. Before presenting the capacity regions, we depict the throughput versus the traffic load of this distribution for the optimal dual network of $\mathds{N}_2$ in Figure~\ref{fig:T vs G} for different values of $N$. As seen in this figure, the maximum achievable throughput $T^*$ increases with $N$. For $N = 100$ and $N = 200$, $T^* = 0.72$ and $T^* = 0.77$ that are respectively achieved at $G^* = 0.76$ and $G^* = 0.81$. For $N = 300$, the maximum throughput is $T^* = 0.79$ achieved at $G^* = 0.82$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.95\columnwidth]{Figures/SingleClass.ps}
\caption{Throughput versus traffic load of a single-class network when $\Lambda(x)=0.5x^2+0.28x^3+0.22x^8$ is applied.}
\label{fig:T vs G}
\end{figure}
Using these numbers and Theorem~\ref{Theorem Capacity}, we present the capacity region for two different network setups in Figure~\ref{fig:T1 vs T2 Sym} and Figure~\ref{fig:T1 vs T2 Asym}. In Figure~\ref{fig:T1 vs T2 Sym}, the capacity region is depicted for different values of $N$ where $M = N$ and the network has two classes each with $N_1 = N_2 = \frac{N}{2}$ users. As seen in Figure~\ref{fig:T1 vs T2 Sym}, since the two classes have equal number of users, the capacity region is symmetric. For this setup, the capacity region is
\begin{align}
&T_1(\pmb{G}),T_2(\pmb{G}) \leq \frac{1}{2}, \\ \nonumber
&T_1(\pmb{G}) + T_2(\pmb{G}) \leq T^*.
\end{align}
Figure~\ref{fig:T1 vs T2 Asym} present the results for a two-class network where $N_1 = 0.8 N$ and $N_2 = 0.2N$. Due to the asymmetry of the number of users within the classes, the capacity region is asymmetric.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.96\columnwidth]{Figures/Capacity_Region_Symmetric_Fixed.ps}
\caption{Capacity region of $\mathds{N}_2$ when $N_1 = N_2 = \frac{N}{2}$.}
\label{fig:T1 vs T2 Sym}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.985\columnwidth]{Figures/Capacity_Region_Asymmetric_Fixed.ps}
\caption{Capacity region of $\mathds{N}_2$ when $N_1 = 0.8 N$ and $N_2 = 0.2 N$.}
\label{fig:T1 vs T2 Asym}
\end{figure}
\section{Delay Performance Analysis}
In the previous section, we identified the capacity region of a multi-class network $\mathds{N}_k$ and proposed an approach to achieve any given point within this capacity region. However, we did not discuss how the active users within each class are selected and its effect on the delay performance of the network. The goal of this section is to further elaborate on this. Before presenting our results, we first define the average transmit delay and the maximum transmit delay of the users.
\defin The average transmit delay of class $i$, denoted by $D_{\mathrm{a},i}$, denotes the \emph{average} number of slots that takes for a user in $\cal{C}_i$ to successfully transmit its packet. The average transmit delay of the whole network is defined as
\begin{equation}
D_{\mathrm{a}} = \frac{1}{k} \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} D_{\mathrm{a},i}.
\label{eq: Delay av}
\end{equation}
\defin The maximum transmit delay of class $i$, denoted by $D_{\mathrm{w},i}$, refers to the \emph{maximum} number of slots that takes for a user in $\cal{C}_i$ to successfully transmit its packets. Similarly, the maximum transmit delay of the network is defined as
\begin{equation}
D_{\mathrm{w}} = \max_i D_{\mathrm{w},i}.
\label{eq: Delay worst}
\end{equation}
\subsection{Random Selection of the Active Users}
Now that we have defined our delay measures, we study the delay performance of the system. Assumem that to achieve a throughout vector $\mathds{T} = (T_1,T_2, \ldots, T_k)$ within the capacity region, $MG_i$ users in $\cal{C}_i$ should be activated. One way to select these users is to randomly pick them from the $N_i$ users in the class. While the desired throughput vector is achieved through this selection, we are interested in knowing how this selection approach affects the delay measures of the network. In this case, it can be shown that
\begin{equation}\label{Eq: Davi}
D_{\mathrm{a},i} = \frac{N_i}{MT_i}.
\end{equation}
Now, using (\ref{eq: Delay av}) and (\ref{Eq: Davi}), $D_{\mathrm{a}}$ can be found. On the other hand, it is easy to see that $D_{\mathrm{w},i}$, and as a result $D_{\mathrm{w}}$, are unbounded and could approach infinity albeit with a probability approaching zero.
\subsection{Deterministic Selection of the Active Users}
Another approach for choosing the active users from $\cal{C}_i$ at the base station is to first map the class users to numbers from 1 to $N_i$. The base station then puts these numbers in a circular queue and starts user selection by choosing the users mapped from $1$ to $MG_i$. Out of these users, a number of them, say $f$ which is about $M (G_i - T_i)$, fail to successfully transmit their packet within the frame. In the next frame, the base station chooses $M G_i$ active user as the failed $f$ users from the previous frame and the next $MG_i - f$ users in the circular queue and continues so on. For this approach, it is easy to show that
\begin{equation}
D_{\mathrm{a},i} = \frac{N_i}{MT_i}.
\label{eq: Davi fixed assignment}
\end{equation}
Further, for large networks where $T_i = G_i$ and thus $f = 0$,
\begin{equation}
D_{\mathrm{w},i} = \left \lceil \frac{N_i}{MT_i} \right \rceil.
\label{eq: Dawi fixed assignment}
\end{equation}
Having $D_{\mathrm{a},i}$ and $D_{\mathrm{w},i}$, $D_{\mathrm{a}}$ and $D_{\mathrm{w}}$ are found accordingly.
Following the above, one can see that the BS approach to choose active users influences the delay measures. While both aforementioned schemes offer the same average transmit delay, their maximum transmit delays differ drastically. Note that the improvement seen in $D_{\mathrm{w}}$ for the deterministic selection comes at the price of implementing $k$ circular queues at the base station to keep the track of the selected users.
\section{Introduction} \label{Sec Introduction}
In the future Internet of Things (IoT), a variety of transmitting devices ranging from patient monitoring sensors and traffic control devices to smart cars and appliances will coexist \cite{Zorzi_IoT_2010}. In such a heterogeneous environment, the nature of data communicated by each device dictates a level of priority of using the communication resources for that user in the network. For instance, in a hospital environment, a patient monitoring device that measures the vital signs of a patient should be given priority to transmit its data over a sensor which reports the temperature of a medicine fridge. That said, novel network protocols should be devised to accommodate the needs of such multi-class IoT networks with different service priorities for each class.
Medium access control (MAC) protocols play a critical role in addressing the needs of a multi-class network by managing how users from different classes share a common medium for communication. Since the MAC protocol should deal with a massive number of uncoordinated and dynamic devices with sporadic traffic loads in an IoT network, random access protocols stand as a promising candidate. Despite their potential, only few prior studies \cite{wang1991heterogeneous, jin2002equilibria, hefeida2013cl, Liu_2014_MAC, Liu_2015_MAC, toni2015prioritized} have considered the application of these protocols for a multi-class network scenario. This work is an attempt to further explore the application of random MAC protocols for heterogeneous multi-class IoT networks.
ALOHA \cite{abramson1970aloha, roberts1975aloha} is one of the existing random access protocols that is well applicable to IoT scenarios. While the original ALOHA protocol offers a small throughput, recent advances \cite{casini2007contention,liva2011graph, stefanovic2012frameless} have allowed for a significant throughput increase over the original ALOHA. For instance, it is shown in \cite{casini2007contention} that through sending several packet replicas by the users and using successive interference cancellation (SIC) to resolve some of the packet collisions at the receiver, the throughput of the network can be markedly improved. The idea of transmitting packet replicas at the users and exploiting SIC at the receiver for achieving higher throughputs was further developed in \cite{liva2011graph} where irregular repetition slotted ALOHA (IRSA) is introduced and in \cite{stefanovic2012frameless} where the authors propose frameless slotted ALOHA. Although these improvements for the ALOHA protocol have been suggested, they do not address all requirements demanded in the IoT era, importantly different service requirements of the users.
One of the few studies to consider ALOHA for a heterogeneous network is \cite{toni2015prioritized} where the authors study a network with different importance classes of users. For each class, a utility function is defined to reflect the requirements of the users within that class. The authors then formulate an optimization problem whose goal is to maximize a weighted sum of the class utility functions. Due to the difficulty of solving this optimization problem, the authors propose an approximate solution to maximize the sum of the utility functions in a network setup where larger probabilities of access by higher priority classes are enforced.
In this work, we further advance the existing results by identifying the throughput performance boundaries of a heterogeneous network. For this, we first formally define the capacity region of the network \cite{naware2005stability} and identify an outer bound for it. Later, we introduce the concept of dual network of the considered heterogeneous multi-class network referring to a homogeneous single-class network with the same number of users. For the case of IRSA as the MAC protocol, we then analytically find the capacity region of the multi-class network using the achievable throughput of its dual network. Further, it is discussed how any given point within this capacity region can be achieved by carefully activating specific number of users from each class and utilizing the optimal IRSA scheme for the dual network. In addition, we provide analytical results on how the user activation strategy affects the average and maximum packet transmission delay in the network. Numerical example are also presented.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we studied the capacity region as well as the delay performance of a multi-class IoT network when IRSA is applied. To achieve any given point within the capacity region, we proposed an IRSA-based scheme by carefully activating a specific number of users within each class. Here, the active user selection process was completed in a centralized manner at the base station. As a future research direction, we would like to study the effect of employing a decentralized user selection strategy, where the decision of becoming active is made locally at the users, on the performance of the network.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors would like to thank Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (AITF), Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), and TELUS Corporation for supporting their research.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
\section{Background and System Model} \label{Sec Model}
We consider a network consisting of $k$ disjoint sets (classes) of users, denoted by $\cal{C}_i$ for $i \in \cal{K} = \{1,2,\ldots, k \}$, who share a common channel to transmit their packets to a base station (BS). Each class $\cal{C}_i$ has $\vert \cal{C}_i \vert = N_i$ users and the total number of users in the network is $N = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} N_i$. It is assumed that all users within different classes always have a packet for transmission, however, different classes may have different service needs and requirements making the network heterogeneous. We call such a network a \emph{$k$-class} network.
To share the communication medium, irregular repetition slotted ALOHA (IRSA) \cite{liva2011graph} is used as the MAC protocol. To this end, channel access time is divided into equal-duration slots. The length of each slot is equal to the time needed to transmit a packet plus a possible guard time to counteract propagation delays \cite{ahn2011design}. Also, $M$ slots are grouped together to form a frame. Here, it is assumed that only $L_i$ out of the $N_i$ users in $\cal{C}_i$ are active and send their packets within a frame. Thus, the total number of active users in the network is $L = \sum_{i \in \cal{K}} L_i$.
By adopting IRSA as the access strategy by the users, each user may transmit several replicas of its packet within a frame according to a repetition distribution. Here, it is assumed that all active users within the same class employ the same repetition distribution. To this end, a user within $\cal{C}_i$ transmits $l$ replicas of its packet within a frame with probability $\Lambda_{i,l}$ where $1 \leq l \leq M$. We call $l$ the \emph{user degree}. To send the replicas, the user randomly selects $l$ of the $M$ available time slots and send each replica in one of these slots. Following the above, the user degree distribution of class $i$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Lambda_i(x) \triangleq \sum_{l = 1}^M \Lambda_{i,l} x^l
\label{eq: poly rep user}
\end{equation}
where $\sum_{l = 1}^M \Lambda_{i,l} = 1$. Further, the average packet repetition by users within $\cal{C}_i$ is
\begin{equation}
\bar{\Lambda}_i = \sum_{l = 1}^M l \Lambda_{i,l} = \Lambda_i'(1).
\end{equation}
Following the users' transmissions, each of the frame's time slots has one of the following statuses: a) no transmission (idle slot), b) only one transmission (singleton slot), c) more than one transmission (collision slot). To better describe the slots' status, we use $\Psi_m$ showing the probability of having exactly $m$ transmissions within a time slot. Now, similar to the user degree distribution, the slot degree distribution is defined as
\begin{equation}
\Psi(x) \triangleq \sum_{m = 0}^L \Psi_m x^m.
\label{eq: poly rep slot}
\end{equation}
After receiving the users' signals, the BS performs successive interference cancellation (SIC) to resolve the packets \cite{liva2011graph}. For this purpose, the BS stores the received signals within a frame and first resolves the collision-free packets. Then, the BS cancels the corresponding interference of the resolved packets from the collision slots of the frame. By doing such, some other singleton slots may appear making resolving some other packets possible. This process is iteratively repeated until no more packets can be resolved. At this point, the BS sends a feedback to the users informing them about the resolved packets. Users whose transmissions were not successful will try to send their packets in the upcoming frames.
As shown in \cite{liva2011graph}, the performance of SIC heavily depends on the input traffic load to the network. For class $i$, the input traffic load is
\begin{equation}
G_i = \frac{L_i}{M}.
\label{Eq: traffic load}
\end{equation}
We also define the traffic load vector as $\pmb{G} = [G_i]_{i \in \cal{K}}$ where the total network traffic is $G_{\mathrm{t}} = \sum_{i = 1}^k G_i$. To define the throughput, we denote the number of users from class $i$ whose packets are successfully received at the BS by $S_i(\pmb{G})$. That said, the throughput of $\cal{C}_i$ for the traffic load vector $\pmb{G}$, denoted by $T_i(\pmb{G})$\footnote{As we discuss later, the throughput of a class depends on the traffic load of the class as well as other classes' traffic loads.}, is defined as
\begin{equation}
T_i(\pmb{G}) = \frac{ S_i(\pmb{G}) }{M}.
\label{eq: throughput def}
\end{equation}
Now, we introduce the tuple presentation of the described $k$-class network. According to this presentation, a $k$-class network with class $i$ having $N_i$ users whose active users transmit according to a user degree distribution $\Lambda_i(x)$ is described by
\begin{equation}
\mathds{N}_k = (k,\{N_i \}_{i \in \cal{K}}, \{ \Lambda_i(x) \}_{i \in \cal{K}}).
\label{eq: tuple presentation}
\end{equation}
\defin For the considered $k$-class network $\mathds{N}_k$, we define a \emph{dual homogeneous network}, namely $\mathds{N}_1$, as a 1-class network with $N$ users and a user degree distribution $\Lambda(x)$. That is,
\begin{equation}
\mathds{N}_1 = (1,N, \Lambda(x)).
\end{equation}
\defin We call a dual homogeneous network with maximum throughput as the \emph{optimal dual network} denoted by $\mathds{N}_1^*$ where
\begin{equation}
\mathds{N}_1^* = (1,N,\Lambda^*(x))
\end{equation}
and the maximum throughput $T^*$ is achieved at the optimal traffic load $G^*$.
For more details on how $G^*$ and $\Lambda^*(x)$ are found for a single-class (homogeneous) network, please see \cite{liva2011graph}.
\rem \label{Remark 1} From the definition of the optimal dual network, for any arbitrary dual network $\mathds{N}_1$ with load $G$, if $G \neq G^*$ or $\Lambda(x) \neq \Lambda^*(x)$, then $T(G) < T^*$ where $T(G)$ is the throughput of $\mathds{N}_1$. Also, for $G < G^*$ and $\Lambda(x) = \Lambda^*(x)$, $T(G) = G$ for asymptotically large $N$ and $M$ \cite{liva2011graph}. That is, the packet loss probability asymptotically approaches 0 for $G < G^*$. Furthermore, $T(G) \leq G$ regardless of $G$ and $\Lambda(x)$. |
\section{Introduction}
The \textit{INTEGRAL}\ mission \citep{winkler2003} has been surveying the hard X-ray sky for more than a decade, detecting close to a thousand sources \citep[see][for the most recent catalog]{bird2016}. About half of these detections are in the direction of the Galactic plane \citep[$\vert b\vert <17.5$\degr,][]{krivonos2012} and among those, two dozen sources are reported as unidentified persistent sources, with a 17--60\,keV flux below the 0.7\,mCrab limit of the \textit{INTEGRAL}\ survey \citep[e.g.][]{lutovinov2013}. The goal of the `Unidentified \textit{INTEGRAL}\ sources' legacy program conducted by the \textit{Nuclear Spectroscopic Telescope Array} (\textit{NuSTAR}) is to take full advantage of the better sensitivity and the higher spatial resolution of this instrument to investigate these faint persistent sources using detailed spectral and variability analyses. These individual identifications will help to characterize the population of faint hard X-ray sources in the Galaxy by improving the completeness of the current sample.
Faint Galactic sources with hard X-ray spectra are likely to be either Cataclysmic Variables (CVs), Low Mass X-ray Binaries (LMXBs) or High Mass X-ray Binaries (HMXBs). These three types of sources are accreting compact binaries. However, the nature of the accretion onto the compact object, a white dwarf for CVs and a neutron star or a black hole for LMXBs and HMXBs, is responsible for different orbital parameters and different emission processes. These differences can be used to discriminate between these three categories of hard X-ray sources \citep[see][for detailed reviews on their properties]{kuulkers2006,tauris2006}.
IGR\,J18293--1213 has been reported in successive \textit{INTEGRAL}/IBIS catalogs \citep{krivonos2010,krivonos2012,bird2016}. A \textit{Swift}/XRT position and spectrum were also obtained for this source \citep{landi2010} and its \textit{Chandra}\ and near-infrared counterparts have been identified \citep{karasev2012}. However, these observations did not allow for a conclusive identification of the nature of this source. \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ was therefore part of the list proposed for the `Unidentified \textit{INTEGRAL}\ sources' \textit{NuSTAR} legacy survey and was the first one to be observed with \textit{NuSTAR}\ and \textit{Swift}/XRT as part of this program. In the present paper, we describe the corresponding observations and data reductions (Sec.\,\ref{sec:dataAnalysis}). The new constraints we obtained using both the light curve (Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}) and the spectra (Sec.\,\ref{sec:spec}) of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ are sufficient to identify this source as an Intermediate Polar (IP, a subcategory of CVs), and to constrain the orbital parameters of this system (Sec.\,\ref{sec:sys}). These results are discussed in Sec.\,\ref{sec:conclu}.
\section{Observations and data reduction}
\label{sec:dataAnalysis}
The \textit{NuSTAR}\ legacy program observations of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ were performed on 2015 September~11, and are summarized in Table\,\ref{tab:obs}.
\begin{table*}
\centering
\caption{\textit{NuSTAR}\ legacy program observations of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}.}
\label{tab:obs}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c c}
\hline \hline
Mission/Instrument & Obs. ID & Start Time (UT) & End Time (UT) & Clean exposure (ks) \\
\hline
\textit{NuSTAR}/FPMA\&B & 30161002 & 2015-09-11 10:56:08 & 2015-09-12 04:06:08 & 25.71$^{\rm *}$ \\
\textit{Swift}/XRT & 00081763001 & 2015-09-11 16:32:55 & 2015-09-11 18:20:54 & \hspace{4pt}1.89\hspace{4pt} \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
{\em $^{\rm *}$} The \textit{NuSTAR}\ effective exposure used for the spectral analysis (excluding the eclipse intervals) is 23.07\,ks.\\
\end{table*}
Our data set is composed of two observations made with the two co-aligned X-ray telescopes on board the \textit{NuSTAR}\ mission, both of which cover the 3--79\,keV energy range \citep{harrison2013}. We also obtained a short observation with the \textit{Swift}\ \citep{gehrels2004} X-ray telescope \citep[XRT;][]{burrows2005} covering the 0.5--10\,keV energy range.
\subsection{\textit{NuSTAR}}
We reduced the \textit{NuSTAR}\ data using NuSTARDAS v.1.5.1 which is part of HEASOFT 6.17, setting \texttt{saamode=strict} and \texttt{tentacle=yes} in order to better remove the time intervals having an enhanced count rate due to the contamination created by the South Atlantic Anomaly (SAA).
\subsubsection{Further cleaning of the SAA contamination}
\label{sec:saa}
The SAA contamination was not fully removed by the automated procedure and could be seen as multiple periods with increased count rates. In order to remove the corresponding periods from the Good Time Intervals (GTI), we extracted the light curve of the whole detector for both \textit{NuSTAR}\ focal plane modules (FPMA \& FPMB), using a binning of 10\,s. We then removed from the GTI all bins which had an exposure fraction lower than 0.8 and all continuous bins which were at least 1.5\,$\sigma$\ above the average count rate, simultaneously in both FPMA and FPMB. This last step was iterated twice in order to correct for any artificial increase of the average count rate created by the SAA contamination.
\subsubsection{Light curve and spectral extraction}
\label{sec:lc+spec}
We extracted the source light curves and spectra from a circular region having a 60$''$ radius and centered on the \textit{Chandra}\ position of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ \hbox{(${\rm R.A.}=18^{\rm h}29^{\rm m}20.16^{\rm s}$, ${\rm Dec.}=-12^\circ12'50.7''$, J2000)}\footnote{The \textit{NuSTAR}\ detection is in agreement with the \textit{Chandra}\ position, within the systematic uncertainties of a few arcseconds.}.
The background light curves and spectra were extracted from a circular region having a 100$''$ radius and located at the other end of the source detector chip.
We applied the barycenter correction to the photon arrival times by setting \texttt{barycorr=yes}, to create both the event files used to constrain the variability of the source, and the light curves. Unless stated otherwise, the source light curves are not background subtracted, but are presented along with the background light curves scaled to the area covered by the source region. The source lightcurves are shown with the gaussian 1\,\,$\sigma$\ error bars which lead to an underestimation of the corresponding uncertainties for small bins at low count rates (e.g.\ during the eclipse periods, Fig.\,\ref{fig:lc}, bottom panel). However, these error bars are only used for display purposes, while variability studies are mainly based on the event files (Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}).
The spectra were extracted after removing the eclipse time intervals (Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}) from the GTI to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Then, each spectrum was grouped to reach at least a 5\,$\sigma$\ significance in each energy bin, except for the highest energy ones for which we have a significance of 3.3\,$\sigma$\ (31.72--79\,keV) and 3.2\,$\sigma$\ (25.96--79\,keV), for FPMA and FPMB, respectively.
\subsection{\textit{Swift}}
The \textit{Swift}/XRT was operated in Photon Counting (PC) mode and the corresponding data were reduced using HEASOFT v6.17.
For the source, we extracted a spectrum from a 30$''$ radius centered on \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}. We also made a background spectrum using an annulus with inner and outer radii of 60$''$ and 300$''$, respectively. We obtained a source count rate of $0.029 \pm 0.004$\,cts\,s$^{-1}$\ (0.5--10\,keV). We used the most recent response matrix for a spectrum in PC mode (swxpc0to12s6\_20130101v014.rmf), and we used {\ttfamily xrtmkarf} with an exposure map to make the ancillary response file. Finally, we grouped the spectrum by requiring bins in which the source is detected at the 3.4\,$\sigma$\ level or higher except for the highest energy bin (6.3--10\,keV) which has a significance of 1.9\,$\sigma$.
\section{New constraints on \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}}
\label{sec:constr}
Using the \textit{NuSTAR} light curve of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ we are able to put strong constraints on the eclipse parameters (Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}). This is the first time eclipses have been reported for this system. The \textit{Swift}\ and \textit{NuSTAR}\ joint spectral analysis give additional constraints on the nature and the parameters of this binary system (Sec.\,\ref{sec:spec}).
\subsection{Light curve including eclipses}
\label{sec:eclipse}
The source and background light curves are presented in Fig.\,\ref{fig:lc} (top panels). Within each \textit{NuSTAR}\ module, the source count rate is compatible with a constant emission \hbox{($\sim0.25$\,cts\,s$^{-1}$)}, apart from three intervals during which its flux drops to the background emission level \hbox{($\sim0.016$\,cts\,s$^{-1}$)}.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.81\textwidth]{figure1a.pdf}
\includegraphics[width=0.81\textwidth]{figure1b.pdf}
\caption{\textit{NuSTAR}\ light curves of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ (black) and corresponding background (cyan) as defined in Sec.\,\ref{sec:lc+spec}. Top panels: FPMA and FPMB individual light curves sampled with a bin size of 100\,s. Bottom panels: zoom-in on specific periods of the \textit{NuSTAR}\ average light curves sampled with a bin size of 30\,s. The time reference corresponds to the first bin of our observation. The gaps in the light curves are due to the Earth occultation and/or to the SAA passages. The red shade highlights the three eclipses covered by our observations as defined by the Bayesian block analysis (Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}). The blue shade highlights the simultaneous \textit{Swift}/XRT observation, which does not cover any eclipse.}
\label{fig:lc}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Bayesian block analysis}
\label{sec:bb}
In order to get precise start and stop times of the eclipsing periods (i.e. independent of the light curve binning) we used the source event file including all events detected in FPMA or FPMB during their common GTI, and relied on the Bayesian block analysis described by \cite{scargle2013} and provided by P.~K.~G.\ Williams\footnote{https://github.com/pkgw/pwkit/blob/master/pwkit/bblocks.py}. This method models the continuous light curve (i.e. ignoring the numerous gaps present in our data set) with a succession of blocks having constant count rates, and it finds the optimal location for the transition times. The overall description of the light curve depends on the probability of detecting a fake extraneous block. The parameter $p_0$ is an estimation of this probability and it was set to 0.05 for our analysis. Among the ten blocks we detected, only three are compatible with the background level. The corresponding time intervals are given in Table\,\ref{tab:eclipse}, and they match the three low count-rate periods seen in the light curves (Fig.\,\ref{fig:lc}).
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Bayesian blocks defining the eclipse intervals. The time reference is given by $t_0 + t_{bar} = 179665452{\rm\,s} + 161$\,s where $t_0$ is the starting time of the GTI given by the clock on board \textit{NuSTAR}\ and $t_{bar}$ is the corresponding barycenter correction.}
\label{tab:eclipse}
\begin{tabular}{c r r}
\hline \hline
Eclipse block & $t_{\rm start}$ (s) &$t_{\rm stop}$ (s)\\
\hline
1 & 8449\hspace{4pt} &9048$^{\rm *}$ \\
2 & 34824$^{\rm *}$ & 35220\hspace{4pt} \\
3 & 58300\hspace{4pt} & 59954$^{\rm *}$ \\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
{\em $^{\rm *}$} These transitions are associated with large exposure gaps (see Fig.\,\ref{fig:lc}): they cannot be used to derive the eclipse parameters.\\
\end{flushleft}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Eclipse parameters}
\label{sec:tT}
The Bayesian block description ignores the observation gaps, so only the transitions detected within a continuous observation interval can be used to derive the parameters of the eclipsing signal. In particular, the three eclipses we detected are only partially covered by the \textit{NuSTAR}\ effective exposure (Fig.\,\ref{fig:lc}, bottom panels, and Table\,\ref{tab:eclipse}). Therefore, assuming that the eclipsing signal is periodic, we used the starting times of the first and third eclipse and the ending time of the second eclipse in order to derive the eclipse properties.
The Bayesian block analysis does not provide any uncertainty for these transition times. However, in the present work these uncertainties are dominated by the systematic error linked to the shape chosen to fit the eclipse (Fig.\,\ref{fig:lc}, bottom panels). Using the unweighted light curve with 30\,s bins, we tested models including a linear transition between the detection and the non detection periods. A slow transition of about 500\,s seems to be relevant to fit the shape of the first eclipse we detected, leading to a starting time shift of about 90\,s. For the others, the transition seems to be faster (less than 100\,s) and the transition time is better constrained. However, the second eclipse may not have sufficient coverage to properly fit a linear transition, and, adding information from the third eclipse, we constrained the stopping time shift to be less than 290\,s. Therefore, we fix the systematic errors to be $t_{\rm start}$\,$^{+0}_{-90}$ and $t_{\rm stop}$\,$^{+290}_{-0}$\,s, where $t_{\rm start}$ and $t_{\rm stop}$ are the Bayesian block values listed in Table\,\ref{tab:eclipse}.
Using these values and their systematic errors, we obtained the duration of the eclipse, $\Delta t=30.8^{+6.3}_{-0.0}$\,min, and the signal period, $T=6.92\pm0.01$\,hr. The eclipse profile obtained by folding the light curve on \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}'s orbital period $T$ is shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:foldlc}. A shorter period is excluded by the detection of the source within at least one of the putative additional eclipse intervals, e.g.\ the detection in the 46300--47700\,s interval excludes the possibility that the period is twice as short (Fig.\,\ref{fig:lc}, top panels).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 0mm 0mm 0mm 0mm, clip, width=\columnwidth]{figure2.pdf}
\caption{Profile of the eclipse obtained by folding the \textit{NuSTAR}\ 3--79\,keV lightcurve on \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ orbital period, $T\sim6.92$\,hr. Each bin corresponds to a 40\,s interval and the source mean count rate is given by the dashed-red line.
}
\label{fig:foldlc}
\end{figure}
The short orbital period we detected for \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ is a strong indication that this system is either a CV or an LMXB. Indeed, the majority of known CVs have orbital periods of a few hours and LMXBs of the order of a day or less, while HMXBs are generally observed with orbital periods of a few days or more \citep[e.g.][]{kuulkers2006,tauris2006}.
\subsubsection{Upper limit on spin modulation}
\label{sec:spin}
Modulations at the spin period, caused by the variation of photoelectric absorption and/or self-occultation, have been observed in several CVs. In order to search for such a short periodic signal, we made \textit{NuSTAR}\ light curves in the \hbox{3--24\,keV} energy range using 0.05\,s time bins and combining the counts from FPMA and FPMB. We extracted counts from the same source and background regions used for spectral analysis. We also used the same GTI as for the spectral analysis; thus, the eclipse times were removed.
We used the $Z_{1}^{2}$ (Rayleigh) test \citep{buccheri1983} to search for signals, making a periodogram extending from 0.0001\,Hz (10,000\,s) to the Nyquist frequency (10\,Hz). From 0.1 to about 750\,s, there are no signals that reach the 3\,$\sigma$\ significance threshold (after accounting for trials). Although there is a 3\,$\sigma$\ peak at 769\,s, it is the first of a series of peaks that increase in significance with increasing period, and we suspect that we are simply seeing evidence for aperiodic variability (Fig.\,\ref{fig:zplot}).
To determine the upper limit on the strength of a periodic signal, we folded the background subtracted light curve on 10,000 frequencies between 0.0001\,Hz (10,000\,s) and 1\,Hz (1\,s) using ten phase bins. For each trial frequency, we recorded the $\chi^{2}$ value obtained when fitting a constant and also the amplitude of the folded light curve in terms of the maximum count rate minus the minimum count rate divided by the sum of these two quantities. From 1\,s to 1000\,s, 95\% of the trials have amplitudes below 9.2\%, indicating that this is the 2\,$\sigma$\ upper limit on periodic signals in the 3--24\,keV band. From 1000\,s to 10,000\,s, the highest amplitude is 19$\pm$4\% (1\,$\sigma$\ error), indicating a 2\,$\sigma$\ upper limit of 27\%. The implication of this upper limit will be discussed in Sec.\,\ref{sec:conclu}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[trim = 25mm 130mm 20mm 30mm, clip, width=\columnwidth]{figure3.pdf}
\caption{Periodogram obtained from the 3--24\,keV \textit{NuSTAR} lightcurve of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}. The horizontal dashed line corresponds to a 3\,$\sigma$\ threshold.
}
\label{fig:zplot}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Spectrum compatible with a CV}
\label{sec:spec}
The \textit{NuSTAR}\ and \textit{Swift}/XRT joint spectrum of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ is presented in Fig.\,\ref{fig:spec}. All the model fits were performed using XSPEC v.12.9.0. A simple absorbed power-law poorly fits the data ($\chi^2$/d.o.f. = 277.7/193), and the residuals highlight the presence of a high-energy cutoff and of a Gaussian emission line around 6.5\,keV. Including these two additional components to the model leads to a good fit ($\chi^2$/d.o.f. = 185.1/190) with a photon index $\Gamma=0.4\pm0.2$. With such a hard spectrum, this source cannot be an LMXB and \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ is therefore likely to be a CV \citep[see Sec.\,\ref{sec:tT} and][]{tauris2006}.
The spectrum of this category of sources is generally fitted with an absorbed Bremsstrahlung model, a Gaussian line to account for the iron-line complex around 6.5\,keV and sometimes an additional partial covering absorption component \citep[e.g.][]{suleimanov2005,mukai2015}. For \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}, a partial covering component is needed ($\chi^2$/d.o.f. = 298.4/191 down to 180.9/189 when \texttt{pcfabs} is added), and the Bremsstrahlung temperature given by the best fit is $kT=17.3^{+5.7}_{-3.3}$\,keV. Such a high temperature is a strong indication that this source is a magnetic CV \citep[non-magnetic CV are characterized by lower temperatures, $kT\sim1$--$5$\,keV,][]{kuulkers2006}.
Among magnetic CVs, there are two subcategories: Polars and Intermediate Polars (IPs), based on the strength of the white dwarf magnetic field, strong and intermediate, respectively \citep{kuulkers2006}. The hardness of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}'s spectrum, the relatively high luminosity of this source, its rather long orbital period and the absence of visible variability in its light curve are strong indications that \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ is an IP (see Sec.\,\ref{sec:conclu} for more details).
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure4.pdf}
\caption{Unfolded spectrum (top) and residuals (bottom) obtained for \textit{NuSTAR}\ (FPMA, black; FPMB, red) and \textit{Swift}/XRT (blue) joint spectral analysis of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}. The model we use and the parameters we obtained are given in eq.\,(\ref{eq:model}) and in Table\,\ref{tab:param}, respectively. The continuum components are the IPM model (dashes) and the corresponding reflection (dash-dots).}
\label{fig:spec}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{IP spectral model}
\label{sec:model}
In IPs, accreted material, coming from the truncated accretion disk, follows the magnetic field of the white dwarf towards its magnetic poles. It experiences a strong shock before reaching the compact object and then cools on its way down. This column of cooling material produces the main source of X-ray radiation, and we used the spectral model \texttt{IPM} to account for its continuum component \citep{suleimanov2005}.
Part of this emission is reflected onto the surface of the white dwarf, and we used the XSPEC model \texttt{reflect} to represent the continuum emission created by this second process \citep{magdziarz1995}. To account for the iron fluorescence lines which are not included in the previous models, we also added two Gaussian lines to our model. Therefore, the spectral model we used is the following:
\begin{equation}
\textsf{const}*\textsf{tbabs}*\textsf{pcfabs}*(\textsf{reflect}*\textsf{IPM}+\textsf{gauss}+\textsf{gauss}),
\label{eq:model}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where \texttt{pcfabs} takes into account the partial absorption which can be created by the accretion flow itself, and where \texttt{tbabs} models the column density towards the source. The constant \texttt{const} accounts for imprecision in the instruments cross-calibration.
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Spectral parameters obtained by fitting model\,(\ref{eq:model}) to the \textit{NuSTAR}\ and \textit{Swift}/XRT joint spectrum of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}. The uncertainties listed correspond to 90\% confidence intervals. The normalization constant is fixed to 1 for FPMA, and is \hbox{$0.97\pm0.04$} and $0.8\pm0.2$ for FPMB and XRT, respectively.
The X-ray flux of the source is $1.6$ and $0.9\times10^{-11}$\,erg\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ in the 0.1--100 and 3--20\,keV range, respectively.
}
\label{tab:param}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{tabular}{l c c c}
\hline \hline
Model & Param. & Unit & Best Fit \\
\hline
tbabs & $N_{\rm H}$ & $10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$ & $4.0$ (fixed) \\
pcfabs & $N_{\rm H}$$_{,\rm pc}$ & $10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$ & $42.8^{+19.2}_{-14.6}$ \\
& fraction & --- & $0.70^{+0.08}_{-0.06}$\\ \hline
reflect & $\Omega/2\pi$ & --- & $1.0$ (fixed)\\
& A & --- & $0.56^{+2.90}_{-0.44}$\\
&A$_{\rm Fe}$& --- & $1.0$ (fixed)\\
& cos\,$\alpha$ & --- & $>0.5$\\ \hline
IPM & $M_{\rm wd}$ &\,M$_\odot$ & $0.78^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$\\
& F$_{1-79\rm keV}$& $10^{-3}$\,ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ & $2.4^{+1.3}_{-0.7}$\\\hline
gauss & E$_{\rm Fe\,K\alpha}$ & keV & $6.4$ (fixed)\\
& $\sigma_{\rm Fe\,K\alpha}$ & eV & $50$ (fixed)\\
& N$_{\rm Fe\,K\alpha}$ & $10^{-5}$\,ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ & $1.7^{+0.8}_{-0.7}$\\ \hline
gauss & E$_{\rm Fe\,xxv}$ & keV & $6.7$ (fixed)\\
& $\sigma_{\rm Fe\,xxv}$ & eV & $50$ (fixed)\\
& N$_{\rm Fe\,xxv}$ & $10^{-5}$\,ph\,cm$^{-2}$\,s$^{-1}$ & $ < 0.13$\\
\hline \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsubsection{Constraints on the parameters}
\label{sec:spec-param}
After setting the abundances to the values provided by \citet{wilms2000}, the column density towards the source was fixed to \hbox{$N_{\rm H}=4\times10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$}. This is the sum of the hydrogen contribution ($\sim1.3\times10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$, average value given by the HEASOFT tool -- Leiden/Argentine/Bonn Survey of Galactic HI) and of the molecular contribution ($\sim2.6\times10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$, converted from the CO map\footnote{The antenna temperature of CO at the position of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ is $W_{\rm CO}=72$\,K\,km\,s$^{-1}$. We used this value and the conversion factors, $N_{\rm H_2}/W_{\rm CO}=1.8\times10^{20}$\,cm$^{-2}$\,K$^{-1}$\,km$^{-1}$\,s and $N_{\rm H}/N_{\rm H_2}$ = 2, to obtain the molecular contribution to the total column density, $N_{\rm H}$.} provided by \citealt{dame2001}) estimated in the direction of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}. When free to vary, this parameter is poorly constrained: $N_{\rm H}=(4.3^{+4.8}_{-2.5})\times10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$, but the value obtained
is consistent with the above estimation.
The intensity of the reflection component depends on the fraction of the X-ray flux intercepted by the white dwarf, which is represented by a solid angle scaled to unity for an isotropic source above a disk extending to infinity. When left free, this parameter reaches $\Omega/2\pi \sim 1.7$, which is not physical for the source we consider. Therefore, we fixed this parameter to~1, i.e. to the highest meaningful value. In addition, the abundance of iron, A$_{\rm Fe}$, was set to 1 compared to the abundance of elements heavier than helium, A, so the global abundance of the reflecting material can be directly compared to that of the sun.
The Gaussian line energies were fixed to 6.4 and 6.7\,keV to account for the fluorescent lines Fe\,K$\alpha$ and Fe\,\textsc{xxv}, respectively. In CVs these emission lines are observed to be relatively narrow \citep[e.g.][]{hellier2004,hayashi2011}, so we fixed their widths to 50\,eV.
The other parameters are free to vary within the default range allowed by the corresponding XSPEC models. The fit is satisfactory ($\chi^2$/d.o.f. = 177.6/188) and, except for the 6.7\,keV emission line, all components listed in the model are statistically required (removing the partial covering absorption or the reflection component lead to fits having $\chi^2$/d.o.f. = 315.8/190 and $\chi^2$/d.o.f. = 213.7/190, respectively). The results are shown in Fig.\,\ref{fig:spec} and in Table\,\ref{tab:param}. The parameters of the \texttt{IPM} model are well constrained by the fit and the white dwarf mass we obtain, $M_{\rm wd} = 0.78^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$\,M$_\odot$, is consistent with the typical mass generally observed for white dwarfs in IPs \citep[e.g.][]{suleimanov2005,yuasa2010,hailey2016}. In our system, the free parameter $\alpha$ of the \texttt{reflect} model is the inclination of the white dwarf magnetic field compared to the line of sight. The fit only gives an upper limit $\alpha < 60$\degr\ for this parameter. Finally, of the two emission lines added to our model, only the 6.4\,keV line is significantly detected. Its equivalent width is $EW_{\rm Fe\,K\alpha}\sim160$\,eV, which is in the range of values typically reported for this type of source \citep[e.g.][]{hellier2004}. The 6.7\,keV emission line is only marginally detected in our data set, so we report an upper limit on its normalization. Removing this component from our model does not change the continuum model parameters, except for the abundance of the reflection model which is then constrained to values less than solar.
\section{Parameters of the binary system}
\label{sec:sys}
Using the duration and the period of the eclipse, as well as the white dwarf mass constraints obtained in Sec.\,\ref{sec:constr}, we are able to derive precise orbital parameters for the corresponding binary system.
\subsection{Binary system equations}
\label{sec:equations}
The binary system is composed of a white dwarf of mass $M_{\rm wd}$ and a companion star of mass $M_{\star}$ and of radius $R_{\star}$. In IPs, there is evidence that the companion star is filling its Roche lobe, which means that its orbit should circularize on a short time scale \citep[e.g.][]{hurley2002}. Therefore, we assume that our system has a circular orbit with an orbital separation $a$ and an inclination $i$ compared to our line of sight (with $i=90$\degr\ corresponding to an edge-on system).
From Kepler's equations, we derive the following two relations,
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_\star}{a} = \sqrt{\sin^2\left(\frac{\pi\, \Delta t}{T}\right) + \cos^2\left(i\right)},
\label{eq:1}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
M_\star +M_{\rm wd} = \frac{4 \pi^2 a^3}{G\,T^2},
\label{eq:2}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\Delta t$ and $T$ refer to the duration and the period of the eclipse, respectively (Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}) and $G$ is the gravitational constant.
As already stated, the companion star is filling its Roche lobe, so we also use the approximation of \cite{eggleton1983} to describe its radius,
\begin{equation}
\frac{R_\star}{a} = \frac{ 0.49 \, q^{2/3} }{ 0.6 \, q^{2/3} +\ln\left(1 + q^{1/3} \right) }, {\rm \hspace{0.5cm} where \hspace{0.5cm}} q=\frac{M_\star}{M_{\rm wd}}.
\label{eq:3}
\end{equation}
Finally, the donor mass and radius follow an empirical relation derived by \citet{patterson1984}. The corresponding relation is discontinuous at $M_\star\sim0.8$\,M$_\odot$\ but can be approximated by,
\begin{equation}
M_\star \sim \frac{R_\star}{{\rm R}_\odot} {\rm M}_\odot.
\label{eq:4}
\end{equation}
\noindent
This approximation is further justified by the comparison of the final parameters in Fig.\,\ref{fig:systemplot} and in Sec.\,\ref{sec:results}.
\subsection{\hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ system parameters}
\label{sec:results}
Using the parameters of the eclipse, $\Delta t$ and $T$, derived in Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}, we numerically solved the system of equations introduced in Sec.\,\ref{sec:equations}. The results are presented as functions of the system inclination $i$ (Fig.\,\ref{fig:systemplot}). We restricted the parameter space to the standard white dwarf mass range, $M_{\rm wd} = 0.1$--$1.4$\,M$_\odot$, which corresponds to an orbital inclination $i=57.1$--$76.4$\degr, an orbital separation $a=2.0$--$2.4$\,R$_\odot$, and a mass $M_\star = 0.75$--$1.2$\,M$_\odot$\ for the companion star.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\columnwidth]{figure5.pdf}
\caption{Parameters of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ binary system derived from the duration and the period of the eclipse (Sec.\,\ref{sec:eclipse}), and presented as functions of the system putative inclination. Top panel: white dwarf mass (blue) and stellar mass (red). Bottom panel: stellar radius (red) and orbital radius (black). The parameter space was limited to the interval 0.1--1.4\,M$_\odot$\ for the white dwarf mass, and the measurement obtained from the spectral analysis is delimited by the grey shade (90\% confidence interval around the best fit value shown by the dashed line). For each parameter the thick line corresponds to the value derived using the mass-radius relation given in eq.\,(\ref{eq:4}) while the thin lines are obtained by using the discontinuous empirical relation given by \citet{patterson1984}. The results obtained are very similar and, in this figure, the thin lines are partly overlaid by the thick ones (e.g.\ for $R_\star$).
}
\label{fig:systemplot}
\end{figure}
The parameters of the \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ binary system can then be fully constrained by using the mass of the white dwarf obtained from our spectral analysis (see Table\,\ref{tab:param} and Fig.\,\ref{fig:systemplot}). Thus, their precise values are: $M_{\rm wd}=0.78^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$\,M$_\odot$, $M_\star=0.82\pm0.01$\,M$_\odot$, $R_\star=0.82\pm 0.01$\,R$_\odot$, $a=2.14\pm0.04$\,R$_\odot$, and $i=72.2\pm0.9$\degr. The uncertainties listed here only account for the propagation of the errors on the white dwarf mass through the system of equations presented in Sec.\,\ref{sec:equations}.
The systematic errors derived for the orbital period and the eclipse duration do not significantly change the constraints we obtain on the system parameters, except for the orbital inclination. As the eclipse duration increases, the curves presented in Fig.\,\ref{fig:systemplot} shift towards higher inclination angles, leading to an inclination $i=74.6\pm1.0$\degr\ when the eclipse duration reaches its upper limit $\Delta t \leq 37.1$\,min.
We also tested the approximation we made by using eq.\,(\ref{eq:4}) instead of the empirical mass-radius relations given by \citet[][eq.\,3]{patterson1984}. We solved our system of equations (\ref{eq:1}, \ref{eq:2}, and \ref{eq:3}) using both parts of his relation: (i) $M_\star \leq 0.8$\,M$_\odot$\ and (ii) $M_\star >0.8$\,M$_\odot$, and the results are plotted in Fig.\,\ref{fig:systemplot}. As the relation of \citet{patterson1984} is discontinuous, both regimes (i) and (ii) can be verified for \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}. The parameters derived for the best fit white dwarf mass are within the error bars listed previously, except for $M_\star$. The mass of the donor would be 0.78 or 0.85\,M$_\odot$\ in regime (i) and (ii), respectively.
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\label{sec:conclu}
Based on the orbital and spectral parameters we derived using the \textit{NuSTAR}\ legacy program observations, we identified \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ as an eclipsing Intermediate Polar. The inclination we derived for this source, $i=(72.2^{+2.4}_{-0.0})\pm1.0$\degr, is consistent with the expectation that the system is close to being edge-on, based on the eclipses we detected. In this case, any strong misalignment between the orbital inclination $i$ and the magnetic field inclination $\alpha$ would produce a self-occultation of the X-ray source at the white dwarf spin period\footnote{The X-ray emission is mainly created close to the magnetic poles of the white dwarf (see Sec.\,\ref{sec:model}).}. Therefore, the non-detection of spin modulation might be an indication that the orbit and the magnetic field inclinations are not far apart (i.e. the inclination of the magnetic field could be close to the upper limit derived from the spectral analysis, $\alpha<60$\degr).
The white dwarf mass $M_{\rm wd}=0.78^{+0.10}_{-0.09}$\,M$_\odot$\ of this system is close to the average values published for the brightest known IPs \citep[e.g.][]{suleimanov2005,yuasa2010,hailey2016}. The average X-ray luminosity of this bright population is $L_{0.1-100keV}\sim 2\times10^{34}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$\ and \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ would reach this luminosity if located at a distance $d>3$\,kpc. The high Galactic absorption anticipated from the source spectrum is compatible with such a large distance and this is therefore strong evidence that \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ is not a Polar, since Polars tend to have lower accretion rates and therefore lower luminosities \citep[$ L_{3-20keV} < 10^{32}$\,erg\,s$^{-1}$,][]{sazonov2006}.
Furthermore, a distance of several kiloparsecs explains the relative faintness of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ compared to the previously identified IPs for which $d<1$\,kpc \citep[][and references therein]{suleimanov2005}. In addition, the sample of known IPs is probably not representative of the whole population. Indeed, the properties of the faint population of magnetic CVs can be investigated through their putative contribution to the Galactic Ridge X-ray emission: an average mass of about 0.5\,M$_\odot$\ is anticipated for these unresolved sources in order to explain the level of emission measured in the hard X-rays \citep[][and references therein]{krivonos2007}. In this case, \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ would be on the higher end of the IPs' mass distribution, even if populations with masses larger than 0.9\,M$_\odot$\ have also been anticipated in the Galactic center region \citep{perez2015,hong2016} and if systems with masses close to the Chandrasekhar limit have been reported \citep[e.g.][]{tomsick2016}.
The donor star mass and radius, $M_\star=0.82\pm0.01$\,M$_\odot$\ and $R_\star=0.82\pm 0.01$\,R$_\odot$, are compatible with the star being of type K, similar to those observed in other CVs having similar orbital periods \citep[e.g.][]{knigge2006}. The near-IR counterpart reported by \citet{karasev2012}\footnote{From the UKIDSS-DR6 Galactic plane survey catalog, the near-IR counterpart of \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ is observed in three bands (${\rm J}=16.750\pm0.016$, ${\rm H}=15.714\pm0.014$, ${\rm K}=14.356\pm0.011$) and is located at ${\rm R.A.}=18^{\rm h}29^{\rm m}20.16^{\rm s}$, ${\rm Dec.}=-12^\circ12'50.3''$ (J2000).} cannot be used to confirm this stellar type because, in IPs, this energy range is likely to be dominated by the accretion disk \citep{knigge2006}. However, it can provide an independent estimation of the column density towards this source. Assuming a flat intrinsic spectrum and using the conversion factor provided by \citet{cox2000}, we derived the column density $N_{\rm H}\sim2.6\times10^{22}$\,cm$^{-2}$. Such a high extinction is expected for a distant source close to the Galactic plane (Galactic latitude $b=-0.7$\degr), and is therefore consistent with what has been inferred from the X-ray observations.
By improving the completeness of the hard X-ray Galactic faint sources, the \textit{NuSTAR}\ legacy program `Unidentified \textit{INTEGRAL}\ sources' also aims at improving our knowledge of the luminosity functions of the different categories of sources and in particular to address whether there is a faint HMXB population. In this context, \hbox{IGR\,J18293--1213}\ was successfully excluded from this putative population, and several similar observations are being made in order to help the identification of additional faint persistent sources. They will be the subject of future publications.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work was supported under NASA Contract No. NNG08FD60C, and made use of data from the \textit{NuSTAR}\ mission, a project led by the California Institute of Technology, managed by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and funded by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. We thank the \textit{NuSTAR}\ Operations, Software and Calibration teams for support with the execution and analysis of these observations. This research has made use of the \textit{NuSTAR}\ Data Analysis Software (NuSTARDAS) jointly developed by the ASI Science Data Center (ASDC, Italy) and the California Institute of Technology (USA). RK acknowledges support from Russian Science Foundation (grant 14-22-00271). GP acknowledges the Bundesministerium f\"ur Wirtschaft und Technologie/Deutsches Zentrum f\"ur Luftund Raumfahrt (BMWI/DLR, FKZ 50 OR 1408).
\bibliographystyle{mn2e}
|
\section{Proofs from Section \ref{sec:additiveError}} \label{app:additiveError}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:add_concentration}]
Suppose $S_1,S_2 \subseteq [n]$ are such that $f(S_1) + 2\gamma\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\xi}}\right) < f(S_2)$. We know from Lemma~\ref{lemma:add_tail} and the union bound that with probability at least $1-\xi$, \[f(S_i) - \gamma\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\xi}}\right) \leq p_0(S_i) \leq f(S_i) + \gamma\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\xi}}\right)\] for both $i \in \{1,2\}$. Therefore, with probability at least $1-\xi$, \[\vec{p}\cdot v(S_1) = p_0(S_1) \leq f(S_1) + \gamma\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\xi}}\right) \leq f(S_2) - \gamma\left(1+\sqrt{\frac{2}{\xi}}\right) \leq p_0(S_2) = \vec{p}\cdot v(S_2).\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add}]
First, in order to derive the sample complexity result, we need to bound the VC dimension of each class of loss functions $\mathcal{L}_{ij} = \{L_{(\vec{p}_{ij},\theta_{ij})} \ | \ \vec{p}_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^{n^k}, \theta_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}\},$ where \[L_{(\vec{p}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S) = \begin{cases} 1 &\text{if } f(S) \leq f(S_i) \mbox{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij}\\
&\text{or } f(S) \geq f(S_j) \mbox{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) < \theta_{ij}\\
0 &\text{otherwise} \end{cases}.\] By the same reasoning as in the proof of Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error} , the VC dimension of each $\mathcal{L}_{ij}$ is simply $n^k.$ Therefore, by standard VC-dimension bounds, we need \begin{align*}m' &= O\left( \frac{m^2}{\epsilon^2}\left[n^{O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}}\log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)} \ln \frac{m^2}{\epsilon} + \ln \frac{1}{\delta}\right]\right)\\ &= O\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon^4}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\left[n^{O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}}\log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)} \log \left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^3}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\right) + \log \frac{1}{\delta}\right]\right)\end{align*} examples to ensure that \[P\left[|L_{ERM_{ij}({\cal S}_2)}({\cal S}_2) - L_{ERM_{ij}({\cal S}_2)}(\mathcal{D})| > \frac{\epsilon}{4m^2}\right] < \delta.\] Since we only add $(i,j)$ to $R$ if $L_{ERM_{ij}({\cal S}_2)}({\cal S}_2) < \frac{\epsilon}{4m^2}$, this means that with probability at least $1-\delta$, \[L_{ERM_{ij}({\cal S}_2)}(\mathcal{D}) = \Pr_{S \sim {\cal D}}
\left[\begin{array}{r} f(S) \leq f(S_i)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}\\
\text{or }f(S) \geq f(S_j)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) < \theta_{ij} \end{array}\right] < \frac{\epsilon}{2m^2}.\] By a union bound over all $m^2$ pairs in $R$, we have that with probability at least $1-\delta$, \[\Pr_{S \sim {\cal D}}
\left[\begin{array}{r}\exists (i,j)\in R \text{ such that } f(S) \leq f(S_i)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}\\
\text{or }f(S) \geq f(S_j)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) < \theta_{ij} \end{array}\right] < \frac{\epsilon}{2}.\]
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:general_add}]
We combine Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive} and Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add} to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:general_add}. To this end, let $g$ be the comparison function returned by Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error}. We want to bound the probability that for $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, $f(S) + \beta < f(S')$ but $g$ predicts that $f(S') \leq f(S).$ Equivalently, we want to bound the probability that for $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, $f(S) + \beta < f(S')$ but there exists $(i,j) \in R$ such that $\vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij}$ and
$\vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}$. To analyze this probability, we partition the pairs $(i,j)\in R$ into two sets:
\begin{align*}R_1 = \{(i,j) \ | \ f(S)\leq f(S_i) \text{ or } f(S') \geq f(S_j)\} \text{ and}\\
R_2 = \{(i,j) \ | \ f(S)> f(S_i) \text{ and } f(S') < f(S_j)\}.\end{align*}
Clearly, \begin{align*}\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} [ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R \text{ such that } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}]\\
\leq \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} [ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R_1 \text{ such that } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}]\\
+ \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} [ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R_2 \text{ such that } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}].\end{align*}
First, notice that \begin{align*} &\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} [ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R_1 \text{ such that } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}]\\
\leq &\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[ \begin{array}{r}f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R\text{ such that } f(S) \leq f(S_i)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}]\\
\text{or }f(S') \geq f(S_j)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}\end{array}\right].\end{align*}
From Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add}, with probability at least $1-\frac{\delta}{2}$, this probability is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$.
Next, we analyze \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} [ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R_2 \text{ such that } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}].\] Recall that the algorithm
removed all non-minimal pairs from $R$. Therefore, the probability that there exists $(i,j) \in R_2$ is simply the probability that there does not exist $S_i,S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $f(S) + \beta \leq f(S_i) + \beta < f(S_j) \leq f(S')$ and $(i,j) \in R$. Therefore,
\begin{align*} &\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} [ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R_2 \text{ such that } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}]\\
\leq &\Pr_{S,S' \sim {\cal D}}\left[ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \mbox{ and } \not\exists (i,j) \in R \text{ such that }
f(S) + \beta \leq f(S_i) + \beta < f(S_j) \leq f(S')\right].\end{align*} By using confidence and accuracy parameters $\delta/2$ and $\epsilon/2$, respectively, in Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive}, we have that with probability at least $1-\frac{\delta}{2}$, this probability is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$.
Putting these bounds together, we have that with probability least $1-\delta,$ \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} [ f(S) + \beta < f(S') \text{ and } \exists (i,j) \in R \text{ such that } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S') < \theta_{ij}] < \epsilon.\] Therefore, if $g$ is the classifier that Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error} outputs, with probability at least $1-\delta$, the probability that $f(S) + \beta < f(S')$ and $g$ predicts incorrectly is at most $\epsilon$.
Therefore, we have the desired result.
\end{proof}
\section{Additive Separation Analysis}\label{sec:additiveError}
Let $f$ be a monotone submodular function with range in $[0,1]$ and fix $\mathcal{D}$ to be the uniform distribution over the $n$-dimensional boolean cube. A slight variant on Algorithm 1 allows us to learn a comparator $g$ which, on input $S,S' \subseteq [n]$, returns whether $f(S)$ is greater than $f(S')$ or vice versa whenever $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ differ by a sufficiently large additive factor $\beta$, rather than a multiplicative factor as in Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError}. In this case, we say that $f$ is \emph{comparator-learnable with additive separation $\beta$}.
This result relies on key insights into the Fourier spectrum of submodular functions. In particular, we use the fact that any monotone submodular function $f$ with range in $[0,1]$ is $\gamma$-close to a polynomial $p$ of degree $O\left( \frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)$ in the $\ell_2$ norm, i.e. $\sqrt{{\mathrm{E}}[(f(x) - p(x))^2]} < \gamma$ \cite{FeldmanV15}. Specifically, $p$ is a truncation of the Fourier expansion of $f$, consisting only of terms with degree at most $O\left( \frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)$. The polynomial $p$ can easily be extended to a linear function $h_f$ in $n^{O\left( \frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)}$-dimensional space that closely approximates $f$ in the $\ell_2$ norm.
With this result in hand, we are in a similar position as we were in Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError}, although we now have a means of additively approximating a submodular function, rather than multiplicatively. However, the analysis from Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError} does not carry over directly. Recall that in that section, we knew that there existed a $p$-th power of a linear function that approximated the underlying function \emph{everywhere}. Now, due to the probabilistic nature of the $\ell_2$ norm, we can only say that \emph{in expectation}, for a set $S$ drawn at random from $\mathcal{D}$, $h_f(S)$ will be close to $f(S)$.
We address this subtlety in the design of our additive separation algorithm, Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error}, in the following way. First, we sample the sets ${\cal S}_1$ and ${\cal S}_2$ as before, and sort them according to the underlying submodular function $f$. Again, ${\cal S}_1$ will serve as our landmarks; the size of ${\cal S}_1$ is large enough so that we can be ensured that if $S$ and $S'$ are drawn uniformly at random, it is unlikely that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are at least $\beta$ apart additively, and yet there is no pair of landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that (1) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ fall between $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ and (2) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are also separated by a $\beta$ additive factor.
Next, we solve for the suite of linear separators which allow the output comparator to make predictions. Recall that the linear function $h_f$ which approximates $f$ is in $n^{O\left( \frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)}$-dimensional space, so rather than mapping each set $S$ to the characteristic vector $\chi(S)$ in order to solve for a linear separator, we must map it to $n^{O\left( \frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)}$-dimensional space. This mapping is straightforward and is described later on.
The way in which we learn the linear separators in Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error} is the main difference between this algorithm and Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}. This is because when designing Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}, we knew that the approximating function approximated $f$ everywhere, whereas $h_f$ only approximates $f$ in the probabilistic $\ell_2$ norm. Therefore, it may be the case that two landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ are separated by a $\beta$ additive factor, yet for some $S$ such that $f(S) < f(S_i)$, it happens that $h_f(S) > h_f(S_i)$, for example. In other words, there may be noise in the training set ${\cal S}_2$.
Therefore, when learning the suite of linear separators, we only save the indices of any landmark pair whose corresponding linear separator has low error rate over ${\cal S}_2$. We ensure that ${\cal S}_2$ is large enough so that it is unlikely that for any two landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$, $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are separated by a $\beta$ additive factor and yet the empirical risk minimizing linear separator that classifies $S$ as negative if $f(S) < f(S_i)$ and positive if $f(S) > f(S_j)$ has high error over ${\cal S}_2$. Moreover, we ensure that ${\cal S}_2$ is large enough so that it is unlikely that we learn a linear separator that has a much lower error rate over ${\cal S}_2$ than over the entire distribution. We can conclude that the linear separators we keep track of will have low total error over the distribution.
Finally, as in Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}, we keep track of only the ``minimal'' linear separators: we never keep track of a linear separator corresponding to a pair of landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ if we are also keeping track of a linear separator corresponding to a pair $S_{i'}$ and $S_{j'}$ such that $f(S_{i'})$ and $f(S_{j'})$ fall in between $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$.
The output comparator predicts on input $S$ and $S'$ as in Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}. It searches for a linear separator $(\vec{p}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ among the remaining minimal linear separators such that $S$ is classified as negative and $S'$ is classified as positive. If it finds one, it outputs 1 ($f(S) < f(S')$). Otherwise, it outputs 0 ($f(S') < f(S)$).
We now present our guarantees on the performance of Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error}.
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{Parameters $\epsilon, \delta, \beta \in (0,1)$ and $\ell$, a sample $\mathcal{S}$ from the uniform distribution over $2^{[n]}$ of size $\ell$, and a pairwise comparison oracle}
\KwOut{Function $g:2^{[n]}\times 2^{[n]}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Set $\gamma = \beta\left(1 + \frac{2}{\epsilon} \log\frac{1}{\epsilon \delta}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\epsilon}}\right)^{-1}$, $k = \frac{25}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{\sqrt[3]{2}}{\gamma}$.
\item Remove $m=\frac{2}{\epsilon}\log(\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta})$ samples uniformly at random from $\mathcal{S}$. Label this set $\mathcal{S}_1$, and\\ label
$\mathcal{S}\setminus\mathcal{S}_1$ as $\mathcal{S}_2$.
\item Sort $\mathcal{S}_1$ such that $f(S_1)\leq \cdots\leq f(S_m)$ and sort ${\cal S}_2$ into the sets ${\cal S}_{ij} = \{S \ | \ S \in {\cal S}_2 \text{ and } f(S) \leq f(S_i) \text{ or } f(S) \geq f(S_j)\}$ for all $S_i, S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $i < j$.
\item Let $S_1, \dots, S_{n^k}$ be an arbitrary ordering of the subsets of $[n]$ of size at most $k$, and for $S \subseteq [n]$, define $v(S)\in \mathbb{R}^{n^k}$ such that the $i^{th}$ component of $v(S)$ equals $\chi_{S_i}(S)$.
\item For each $S_i,S_j\in \mathcal{S}_1$, find $\theta_{ij}\in \mathbb{R}$ and $\vec{p}_{ij}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ that minimizes the number of sets\\ $S\in {\cal S}_{ij}$, such that $f(S)<f(S_i)$ and $\vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S)>\theta_{ij}$ or $f(S_j)<f(S)$ and $\vec{p}_{ij}\cdot v(S)<\theta_{ij}$.\\ \label{step:add_train} If the fraction of such sets over ${\cal S}_2$ is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{4m^2}$, put $(i,j)$ into $R$.
\item Remove all but the ``minimal'' pairs in $R$: if there exists
$(i,j),(i',j')\in R$ such that\\ $i\leq i'$ and $j\geq j'$, remove $(i,j)$ from $R$.
\item Define the function $g(S,S')$ as follows. Return 1 if $\exists (i,j)\in R$ such that $\vec{p}_{ij}\cdot v(S)<\theta_{ij}<\vec{p}_{ij}\cdot v(S')$.
Otherwise, return 0.
\end{enumerate}
\caption{Algorithm for learning submodular functions up to pairwise comparisons with an additive factor difference.}
\label{alg:additive_error}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:general_add}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the class of monotone submodular functions with range in $[0,1]$. For any $\beta \in (0,1)$, accuracy parameter $\epsilon$, and confidence parameter $\delta$, $\mathcal{F}$ is comparator learnable with separation $\beta$ given a sample of size $\tilde{O} \left(n^{O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}}\log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)}/\epsilon^3\right),$ where $\gamma = \tilde{O}\left(\beta/\epsilon^{3/2}\right).$
\end{theorem}
We note that Algorithm \ref{alg:additive_error} is efficient given access to an ERM oracle for agnostically learning linear separators. Moreover, even in the model where the learning algorithm has access to real-valued function labels, for a monotone submodular function $f$ with range in $[0,1]$, the best known results for learning a function $h$ such that $||f-h||_2 \leq \epsilon$ require running time $2^{\tilde{O}(1/\epsilon^{4/5})}\cdot n^2$ and $2^{\tilde{O}(1/\epsilon^{4/5})}\log n$ random examples \cite{FeldmanV15}.
For ease of notation, we set $k = \frac{25}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{\sqrt[3]{2}}{\gamma}$ for the remainder of this section, where the constants come from the analysis in \cite{FeldmanV15}.
Let $f$ be a monotone submodular function with range in $[0,1]$. As we alluded to in the introduction of this section, we exploit existence of a polynomial $p$ of degree $O\left( \frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)$ that closely approximates $f$ in the $\ell_2$ norm to show that there exists a vector $\vec{p}$ in $n^k$-dimensional space such that for $S,S' \sim {\cal D}$, with probability at least $1-\delta$, $f(S) + \beta < f(S')$ and $\vec{p} \cdot v(S) < \vec{p} \cdot v(S')$. Here, $v$ is a mapping from $n$-dimensional space to $n^k$-dimensional space, which we describe in the following analysis. Once we know that this vector $\vec{p}$ exists, we can attempt to solve for a set of the linear threshold functions $\vec{p}_{ij}, \theta_{ij}$ as in Algorithm 1, which will allow us to define the output predictor $g$. To this end, we now show that such a vector $\vec{p}$ in $n^k$-dimensional space does exist.
\begin{theorem}
Let $f:2^{[n]} \to [0,1]$ be a monotone submodular function, ${\cal D}$ be the uniform distribution over $2^{[n]}$, and $\gamma \in (0,1)$. There exists a vector $\vec{p}$ in $n^k$-dimensional space and a mapping $v$ from $2^{[n]}$ to $2^{\left[n^k\right]}$ such that $\sqrt{{\mathrm{E}}_{S \sim {\cal D}}[(f(S) - \vec{p} \cdot v(S))^2]} \leq \gamma.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
\cite{FeldmanV15} proved that for $\gamma \in (0,1)$, if we set $\kappa = \frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}}\log \frac{1}{\gamma}$, then there exists $L \subseteq [n]$, $|L| \leq \frac{24}{\gamma^{4/5}} \log \frac{\sqrt[3]{2}}{\gamma},$ such that if $p(T) = \sum_{S:|S\setminus L| \leq \kappa} \hat{f}(S) \chi_S(T),$ then $||f-p||_2 = \sqrt{{\mathrm{E}}_{S \sim {\cal D}}[(f(S) - p(S))^2]} < \gamma$. Here, $\chi_S(T) = (-1)^{|T \cap S|}$ and $\hat{f}(S)$ is the Fourier coefficient of $f$ on $S$.
Unfortunately, we cannot find $L$ without knowing the value $f$ on our samples. However, we can simply extend the polynomial $p$ to include all summands from the Fourier expansion of $f$ up to sets of size $k \geq |L|+\kappa$ and thus obtain an even better approximation to $f$, a polynomial which we call $p_0$. Next, we can easily write $p_0$ as a linear mapping from $n^k$-dimensional space to $\mathbb{R}$ as follows. Let $S_1, \dots, S_\ell$ be an ordering of the sets $S \subseteq [n]$ such that $|S| \leq k$. Next, let \begin{align}\label{eq:pVec} \vec{p} &= \left( \hat{f}\left(S_1\right), \dots, \hat{f}\left(S_\ell\right)\right)\text{ and } v(S) = \left(\chi_{S_1}(S) \dots, \chi_{S_\ell}(S)\right)\end{align} for all $S \subseteq [n]$. Then $p_0(S) = \vec{p} \cdot v(S)$.
\end{proof}
We are now in a similar situation as we were in Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError} when we were analyzing the case with a multiplicative approximation factor. In particular, we knew that so long as $\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S')$, then there had to exist a weight vector $\vec{w}$ such that $\vec{w} \cdot \chi(S) < \vec{w} \cdot \chi (S')$. Now, we know that there is some probability that $f(S) + \beta < f(S')$ and $\vec{p} \cdot v(S) < \vec{p} \cdot v(S')$. In the following lemmas, we derive a lower bound on that probability, which in turn allows us to provide strong guarantees on the performance of Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error}.
Lemma~\ref{lemma:add_tail} is an immediate consequence of Parseval's identity and Chebychev's inequality and the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:add_concentration} can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:additiveError}.
\begin{lemma}\label{lemma:add_tail}
Given $\gamma,\xi \in (0,1)$, let $\vec{p}$ and $v$ be defined by Equation~\ref{eq:pVec}. Then \newline $\Pr_{S \sim {\cal D}}\left[|f(S) - \vec{p}\cdot v(S)| > \gamma \left(1+\sqrt{1/\xi}\right)\right] < \xi.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:add_concentration}
Given $\gamma,\xi \in (0,1)$, let $\vec{p}$ and $v$ be defined by Equation~\ref{eq:pVec}. Then \newline $\Pr_{S_1,S_2 \sim {\cal D}} \left[f(S_1) + 2\gamma\left(1+\sqrt{2/\xi}\right) < f(S_2) \text{ and }\vec{p}\cdot v(S_1) \leq \vec{p}\cdot v(S_2)\right] > 1-\xi.$
\end{lemma}
We are now ready to prove the correctness of Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error}.
\begin{proof}[Theorem~\ref{thm:general_add} proof sketch.]
In keeping with the outline of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:general}, we prove Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive}, a parallel to Claim~\ref{claim:buckets}, and Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add}, a parallel to Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error}. We then combine Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive} and Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add} as we combined Claim~\ref{claim:buckets} and Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error} to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:general_add}.
For the most part, Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive} follows from Claim~\ref{claim:buckets}. The proof of the latter is not specific to a multiplicative factor difference; it can easily be extended to an additive factor difference. In particular, it follows that if ${\cal S}_1$, our set of ``landmarks'' which discretize the range of $f$, is sufficiently large, then on a random draw of $S$ and $S'$, it is unlikely that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are separated by an additive $\beta$ factor and yet there does not exist two landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that (1) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ fall in between $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ and (2) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are separated by an additive factor of $\beta$.
However, this does not mean that a pair $(i,j)$ such that $f(S_i) + \beta < f(S_j)$ will necessarily be added to $R$. This again highlights the difference between this analysis and the analysis in Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError}. In that section, we were guaranteed that if $\alpha(n) f(S_i) < f(S_j)$, then there had to exist a linear threshold function that will label $S$ as negative if $f(S) < f(S_i)$ and positive if $f(S) > f(S_j)$. Now, we can only make a probabilistic argument about the likelihood that $f(S_i) + \beta < f(S_j)$ and $(i,j)$ is added to $R$. In particular, in Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive}, we show that if $|{\cal S}_1|$ \emph{and} $|{\cal S}_2|$ are sufficiently large, then on a random draw of $S$ and $S'$, it is unlikely that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are separated by an additive $\beta$ factor and yet there does not exist two landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that (1) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ fall in between $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ and (2) the corresponding linear separator has small training error.
Next, we show in Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add} that the probability that there exists a linear separator with much lower empirical error than true error is small. Since we only save linear separators that have small empirical error, this means that the true error will be small as well. In other words, for any linear separator corresponding to two landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ that we save, the probability that $f(S) > f(S_j)$ yet the linear separator classifies $S$ as negative is small, and the probability that $f(S) < f(S_i)$ yet the linear separator classifies $S$ as positive is small.
Finally, we rely on both Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive} and Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add} to show that on a random draw of $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, it is unlikely that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are separated by an additive $\beta$ factor and yet the algorithm predicts incorrectly. The formal way in which we combine Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive} and Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add} to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:general_add} is similar to the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:general}, and can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:additiveError}.
\end{proof}
Now, we provide the formal statement and proof of Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive}. The proof relies on the Chernoff bounding technique to show that for two landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$, it is unlikely that that $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are at least $\beta$ apart and yet the empirical risk minimizing linear separator has high empirical error over ${\cal S}_2$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:buckets_additive}
Sample sizes $|{\cal S}_1| = O\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\right)$ and $|{\cal S}_2| = O\left(\frac{m^2}{\epsilon} \log \frac{m^2}{\epsilon}\right)$ are
sufficient so that with probability $\geq 1-\delta$, \newline $\Pr_{S,S' \sim {\cal D}}\left[f(S')> f(S) + \beta \mbox{ and } \not\exists (i,j) \in R:
f(S') \geq f(S_j) > f(S_i) + \beta \geq f(S) + \beta\right] \leq \epsilon.
$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
First, we bound the probability that for a fixed $S_i, S_j \in {\cal S}_1$, $f(S_i) + \beta < f(S_j)$, yet $(i,j) \not \in R$. Recall that the pair $(i,j)$ is added to $R$ in Step~\ref{step:add_train} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:additive_error} if, for the empirical risk minimizing threshold function $ERM_{ij}({\cal S}_2) = (\vec{p}_{ij}^*, \theta_{ij}^*)$, the fraction of sets $S \in {\cal S}_2$ such that $f(S)<f(S_i)$ and $\vec{p}_{ij}^* \cdot v(S)>\theta_{ij}^*$ or $f(S_j)<f(S)$ and $\vec{p}_{ij}^*\cdot v(S)<\theta_{ij}^*$ is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{8m^2}$.
In other words, $(\vec{p}_{ij}^*, \theta_{ij}^*)$ is the linear threshold function which minimizes the loss function \[L_{(\vec{p}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S) = \begin{cases} 1 &\text{if } f(S) \leq f(S_i) \mbox{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij}\\
&\text{or } f(S) \geq f(S_j) \mbox{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) < \theta_{ij}\\
0 &\text{otherwise} \end{cases}.\]
Let $|{\cal S}_2| = m'$. For a given $(\vec{p}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$, let \[L_{(\vec{p}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}({\cal S}_2) = \frac{1}{m'} \sum_{S\in {\cal S}_2} L_{(\vec{p}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S)\] be the empirical loss of $(\vec{p}_{ij},\theta_{ij})$ over ${\cal S}_2$. We claim that a sample size of $m' = O\left(\frac{m^2}{\epsilon} \log \frac{m^2}{\epsilon}\right)$ is sufficient to ensure that $\Pr_{\mathcal{S}_2 \sim \mathcal{D}^{m'}}[L_{(\vec{p}_{ij}^*,\theta_{ij}^*)}({\cal S}_2) > \frac{\epsilon}{8m^2}] < \frac{\epsilon}{2m^2}.$ We prove this using Chernoff's bounding technique.
First, notice that \begin{align*}{\mathrm{E}}_{S \sim \mathcal{D}} [L_{(\vec{p}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S)] = &\Pr[f(S) \leq f(S_i) \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) > \theta_{ij}]\\ + &\Pr[f(S_j) \leq f(S) \text{ and } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot v(S) < \theta_{ij}].\end{align*} We will see that it is enough to find an upper bound on ${\mathrm{E}}_{S \sim \mathcal{D}}[L_{(\vec{p},\tilde{\theta}_{ij})}(S)]$, where $\tilde{\theta}_{ij} = \frac{f(S_i) + f(S_j)}{2}$ and $\vec{p}$ is defined by Equation~\ref{eq:pVec}.
We begin by finding an upper bound on $\Pr[f(S_j) \leq f(S) \text{ and } \vec{p} \cdot v(S) < \tilde{\theta}_{ij}]$. Notice that $\tilde{\theta}_{ij} = \frac{f(S_i) + f(S_j)}{2} < f(S_j) - \frac{\beta}{2}$ since $f(S_j) > f(S_i) + \beta$. Therefore, \[\Pr[f(S_j) \leq f(S) \text{ and } \vec{p} \cdot v(S) < \tilde{\theta}_{ij}] < \Pr \left[f(S_j) \leq f(S) \text{ and } \vec{p} \cdot v(S) \leq f(S_j) - \frac{\beta}{2}\right].\] However, so long as $|f(S) - \vec{p}\cdot v(S)| < \frac{\beta}{2}$, we know that $f(S_j) - \frac{\beta}{2} \leq f(S) - \frac{\beta}{2} < \vec{p}\cdot v(S)$. Therefore, the only way that $\vec{p}\cdot v(S) \leq f(S_j) - \frac{\beta}{2}$ is if $|f(S) - \vec{p}\cdot v(S)| \geq \frac{\beta}{2}$, which we know from Lemma~\ref{lemma:add_tail} happens with probability at most $\frac{\epsilon}{8m^2}$ since \begin{align*}\frac{\beta}{2} = \frac{\gamma}{2}\left(1 + \frac{2}{\epsilon} \log\frac{1}{\epsilon \delta}\sqrt{\frac{2}{\epsilon}}\right)= \frac{\gamma}{2} \left( 1 + \sqrt{\frac{8m^2}{\epsilon}}\right).\end{align*} To apply Lemma~\ref{lemma:add_tail}, we simply use $\frac{\gamma}{2}$ instead of $\gamma$ and $\frac{\epsilon}{8m^2}$ instead of $\delta.$ Therefore, \[\Pr[f(S_j) \leq f(S) \text{ and } \vec{p} \cdot v(S) < \tilde{\theta}_{ij}] < \frac{\epsilon}{8m^2}.\] By a symmetric argument, \[\Pr[f(S) \leq f(S_i) \text{ and } \vec{p} \cdot v(S) > \tilde{\theta}_{ij}]< \frac{\epsilon}{8m^2}\] as well. This means that ${\mathrm{E}}_{S \sim \mathcal{D}}[L_{(\vec{p},\tilde{\theta}_{ij})}(S)] < \frac{\epsilon}{4m^2}.$
Using Chernoff's bounding technique, we have that \[\Pr_{{\cal S}_2 \sim \mathcal{D}^{m'}}\left[L_{(\vec{p},\tilde{\theta}_{ij})}({\cal S}_2) > \frac{\epsilon}{4m^2}\right] < \frac{\epsilon}{2m^2}\] for $m' = O\left(\frac{m^2}{\epsilon} \log \frac{m^2}{\epsilon}\right).$ Since it will always be the case that $L_{ERM_{ij}({\cal S}_2)}({\cal S}_2) < L_{(\vec{p},\tilde{\theta}_{ij})}({\cal S}_2)$, we have that \[\Pr_{{\cal S}_2 \sim \mathcal{D}^{m'}}\left[L_{ERM_{ij}({\cal S}_2)}({\cal S}_2) > \frac{\epsilon}{4m^2}\right] < \frac{\epsilon}{2m^2}\] as well. By a union bound over all $m^2$ $(i,j)$ pairs in ${\cal S}_1$, we have that for $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, the probability that $f(S') > f(S) + \beta$ and there exists $S_i,S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $f(S') \geq f(S_j) > f(S_i) + \beta \geq f(S) + \beta$ yet $(i,j) \not \in R$ is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{2}$.
Finally, by the same argument as in the proof of Claim~\ref{claim:buckets_additive}, a sample ${\cal S}_1$ of size $|{\cal S}_1| = O\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\right)$ is sufficient the guarantee that with probability at least $1-\delta$, the probability that $f(S') > f(S) + \beta$ and there does not exist $S_i,S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $f(S') \geq f(S_j) > f(S_i) + \beta \geq f(S) + \beta$ is at most $\epsilon$. Putting these two arguments together, we have that with probability at least $1-\delta$, \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim {\cal D}}\left[f(S')> f(S) + \beta \mbox{ and } \not\exists (i,j) \in R:
f(S') \geq f(S_j) > f(S_i) + \beta \geq f(S) + \beta\right] \leq \epsilon.\]
\end{proof}
Finally, we state Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error_add}. The proof takes advantage of agnostic learning VC dimension bounds to prove that the size of ${\cal S}_2$ is sufficiently large to ensure that the true error of the learned linear separators is close to the empirical error. The full proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:additiveError}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:lin_sep_error_add}
A sample size $|{\cal S}_2| = O\left( \frac{1}{\epsilon^3}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\left[n^{O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}}\log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)} \log \left(\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\right) + \log \frac{1}{\delta}\right]\right)$ is sufficient so that with probability at least $1-\delta$, \[\Pr_{S \sim {\cal D}}
\left[\begin{array}{r}\exists (i,j)\in R \text{ such that } f(S) \leq f(S_i)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}\\
\text{or }f(S) \geq f(S_j)
\mbox{ yet } \vec{p}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) < \theta_{ij} \end{array}\right] < \frac{\epsilon}{2}.\]
\end{claim}
We can obtain similar results for the class of XOS functions, as follows.
\begin{cor}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be the class of XOS functions with range in $[0,1]$. For any $\beta \in (0,1)$, accuracy parameter $\epsilon$, and confidence parameter $\delta$, $\mathcal{F}$ is comparator learnable with additive separation $\beta$ given a sample of size $\tilde{O}\left( n^{O\left(1/\gamma\right)}/\epsilon^3\right)$, where $\gamma = \tilde{O}\left( \beta / \epsilon^{3/2}\right)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows from the same line of reason as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:general_add} and the fact that for any XOS function $f: 2^{[n]} \to [0,1]$, there is a polynomial $p$ of degree $O(1/\gamma)$ such that $||f - p||_2 \leq \gamma$ \cite{FeldmanV15}. In particular, $p(T) = \sum_{S : |S| \leq \frac{\sqrt{5}}{(2\gamma)}} \hat{f}(S) \chi_S(T).$
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we explore the learning model where the goal is to learn an underlying combinatorial function up to pairwise comparisons, from pairwise comparisons. We present several general algorithms that can be used to learn over a variety of combinatorial function classes, including those consisting of submodular, XOS, subadditive, coverage, and Fourier sparse functions. We also prove nearly matching lower bounds for submodular and XOS functions, and for submodular functions with bounded curvature.
In particular, we show that if the functions in a class $\mathcal{F}$ can be approximated by the $p$-th root of a linear function to within a multiplicative factor of $\alpha(n)$, then we can learn a comparison function that for most pairs $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, either predicts correctly which of $f(S)$ or $f(S')$ is larger, or $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are separated by less than a multiplicative $\alpha(n)$ factor. We extend this algorithm to account for an additive separation factor, rather than a multiplicative separation factor, by taking advantage of key structural properties of the Fourier spectrum of the functions we consider. In this case, we require that the underlying distribution be uniform and that the underlying function be XOS or monotone submodular with range in $[0,1]$. Finally, we show that it is possible to learn over some combinatorial function classes, such as the class of Fourier sparse functions, with no separation factor. In this way, the power and adaptability of our general algorithmic framework is exemplified by our results over a hierarchy of function classes, with significantly stronger separation factor guarantees the more structure a class exhibits.
Determining the exact approximation factor for comparator-learning submodular
functions is an open question, as there is a gap between
the $\tilde{O}(n^{1/2})$
upper bound and the $\tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/3})$ lower bound.
Another open question is determining whether the sample complexity for the
additive error results in
Section \ref{sec:additiveError} can be improved.
We note, both of these questions are unresolved even in the setting
where the sample consists of function values and the goal is to learn an
approximate function.
Another interesting question is to find nontrivial generalizations
of the pairwise comparison model and show corresponding results.
For instance, the distribution is over $k$-tuples and the
top $k'$ sets in the tuple are ranked.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank Peter Bartlett for insightful initial discussions which led to the development of this research project.
This work was supported in part by NSF grants CCF-1451177,
CCF-1422910, a Sloan Research Fellowship, a Microsoft Research Faculty
Fellowship, a Google Research Award,
and a National Defense Science \& Engineering Graduate (NDSEG) fellowship.
\section{General Framework for Learning with Comparisons}\label{sec:multiplicativeError}
In this section, we present a general algorithm for learning combinatorial functions
up to pairwise comparisons.
We guarantee that for an underlying combinatorial function $f$, with high probability our algorithm outputs a hypothesis $g$, where given a random $S,S'$, the probability that
$f(S)$ and $f(S')$ differ by a large multiplicative factor yet $g$ predicts incorrectly is low.
We describe our algorithm for a large family of general function classes, each of which has the property that any function in the class can be approximated by the $p$-th root of linear function up to an $\alpha(n)$ factor. We then instantiate this algorithm for many classes of combinatorial functions. To make this notion more concrete, we define the following characterization of a class of functions.
\begin{definition}[$\alpha(n)$-approximable]\label{def:approximable}
A class $\mathcal{F}$ of set functions is \textit{$\alpha(n)$-approximable}
if there exists a $p\in\mathbb{R}$
such that for all $f\in \mathcal{F}$, there exists a vector $\vec{w}_f\in\mathbb{R}^n$ such that for all $S \subseteq [n]$,
$f(S)\leq (\vec{w}_f \cdot\chi(S))^p\leq \alpha(n) f(S)$.
\end{definition}
\noindent \textbf{High Level Description of the Algorithm and Analysis.}\begin{figure}
{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{full}}
\caption{Illustration of landmark pairs in Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}.}
\label{fig:landmark_regions}
\end{figure}
As a crucial first step in our algorithm design, we show that if the underlying function $f$ is $\alpha(n)$-approximable, then
there exists a vector $\vec{w}_f \in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that for any sets $S_i$ and $S_j$ in our sample, if $\alpha(n)f(S_i)<f(S_j)$, then $ \vec{w}_f\cdot\chi(S_i)< \vec{w}_f\cdot\chi(S_j)$. As one would expect, this is simply the vector $\vec{w}_f$ referred to in Definition~\ref{def:approximable}.
Taking one step further, this means that there exists a linear separator such that if $f(S) < f(S_i) < f(S_j) < f(S')$ for two sets $S$ and $S'$, then $S$ is labeled as negative and $S'$ is labeled as positive by the linear separator. This situation is illustrated by Figure \ref{fig:landmark_regions}a. This fact alone will not be enough when designing our comparator learning algorithm. After all, we want to predict accurately on all random pairs, not just those that span $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$. Moreover, without real-valued labels, it is impossible to know if $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are $\alpha(n)$ apart to begin with.
This suggests the following algorithm. We begin by discretizing the range of $f$ using a series of ``landmarks.'' This is simply an initial random sample, which we sort according to $f$. Since $f$ is $\alpha(n)$-approximable, we know that if two landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ are at least $\alpha(n)$ apart, then there exists a weight vector $\vec{w}_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and threshold $\theta_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}$ that classifies a set $S$ as negative if $f(S) < f(S_i)$ and positive if $f(S) > f(S_j)$. Namely, $\vec{w}_{ij}=\vec{w}_f$ and $\theta_{ij}=\frac{1}{2}\left[\vec{w}_f\cdot\chi(S_i)+\vec{w}_f\cdot\chi(S_j)\right]$.
Therefore, we attempt to learn $\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij}$ for every landmark pair $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that $f(S_i) \leq f(S_j)$. From pairwise comparison queries alone, we cannot know if $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are $\alpha(n)$ apart, which would mean that $(w_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ has no training error, so we must attempt to solve for such a linear separator for all landmark pairs. Using a set $R$, we save the indices of the landmark pairs whose corresponding linear separator has no training error. Crucially, we guarantee that it is highly unlikely, on a random query $(S,S')$, that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are $\alpha(n)$ apart, and yet there does not exist a pair of landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that (1) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ fall in between $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ and (2) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are also separated by an $\alpha(n)$ factor. This guarantee is illustrated by Figure 1c. If such a pair of landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ do exist, we can be confident that we solve for a linear separator that correctly classifies $S$ and $S'$.
Ultimately, on input $(S,S')$, the learned comparator will search for a pair $(i,j)$ in $R$ such that the corresponding linear separator $(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ classifies $S$ as positive and $S'$ as negative, or vice versa, in which case $f(S) < f(S')$ or the opposite, respectively. However, we cannot guarantee that this will work as planned just yet. After all, suppose that on a random query $(S,S')$, $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are $\alpha(n)$ apart but there is some pair of landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ fall in between $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$, instead of the other way around. This event is illustrated in Figure \ref{fig:landmark_regions}b. In this situation, we can guarantee nothing about how $S$ and $S'$ will be classified. To avoid this case, we remove all but the minimal pairs in $R$. In other words, if there exists $(i,j)$ and $(i', j')$ in $R$ such that $f(S_i) \leq f(S_{i'}) < f(S_{j'}) \leq f(S_j)$, then we remove $(i,j)$ from $R$. Therefore, so long as there do exist two landmarks falling between $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ that are $\alpha(n)$ apart, we can be guaranteed that any bad landmark pair $(S_i, S_j)$, as illustrated by Figure \ref{fig:landmark_regions}b, is removed, and the learned comparator never considers $(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ when making a prediction.
Now we state the algorithm formally, and in Corollary~\ref{cor:structure_classes}, show that it can be instantiated for many different combinatorial function classes, achieving polynomial sample complexity as well as efficient runtime.
\begin{algorithm}
\DontPrintSemicolon
\KwIn{Sample $\mathcal{S}\sim\mathcal{D}$ of size $\tilde O(\frac{n}{\epsilon^3})$,
pairwise comparison oracle}
\KwOut{Function $g:2^{[n]}\times 2^{[n]}\rightarrow\{0,1\}$}
\begin{enumerate}
\item Remove $m=\frac{2}{\epsilon}\log(\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta})$ samples uniformly at random from $\mathcal{S}$. Label this set $\mathcal{S}_1$,\\
and label $\mathcal{S}\setminus\mathcal{S}_1$ as $\mathcal{S}_2$.
\item Sort $\mathcal{S}_1$ into $f(S_1)\leq \cdots\leq f(S_m)$. \label{step:sort}
\item Sort ${\cal S}_2$ into the sets ${\cal S}_{ij} = \{S \ | \ S \in {\cal S}_2 \text{ and } f(S) \leq f(S_i) \text{ or } f(S) \geq f(S_j)\}$ for all\\ $S_i, S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $i < j$.
\item For each $S_i,S_j\in \mathcal{S}_1$ (wlog $i<j$), attempt to find $\theta_{ij}\in \mathbb{R}$ and
$\vec{w}_{ij}\in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that for all $S\in {\cal S}_{ij}$, $f(S)<f(S_i)\implies \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S)<\theta_{ij}$
and $f(S_j)<f(S)\implies \vec{w}_{ij}\cdot \chi(S)>\theta_{ij}$.\label{step:train}
\item If the previous step is successful, put $(i,j)$ into $R$.
\item Remove all but the ``minimal'' pairs in $R$: if there exists
$(i,j),(i',j')\in R$ such
that\\ $i\leq i'$ and $j\geq j'$, remove $(i,j)$ from $R$. \label{step:minimal}
\item Define the function $g(S,S')$ as follows. Return 1 if $\exists (i,j)\in R$ such
that $\vec{w}_{ij}\cdot\chi(S)<\theta_{ij}<\vec{w}_{ij}\cdot\chi(S')$.
Otherwise, return 0.
\end{enumerate}
\caption{Algorithm for comparator-learning combinatorial functions.}
\label{alg:active_learning}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:general}
Let $\mathcal{F}$ be an $\alpha(n)$-approximable class.
Then $\mathcal{F}$ is comparator-learnable with separation $\alpha(n)$, using Algorithm \ref{alg:active_learning}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, we show there exists a $\vec{w} \in \mathbb{R}^n$ such that if $\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S')$, then $\vec{w} \cdot \chi(S) < \vec{w} \cdot \chi(S')$.
Since $f$ is from an $\alpha(n)$-approximable class,
we know there exists $\hat{f}(S) = (\vec{w}_f \cdot\chi(S))^p$ such that
$f(S)\leq \hat{f}(S)\leq \alpha(n) f(S)$ for all $S$. This
implies that if $\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S')$, then $\hat{f}(S) < \hat{f}(S')$, which in
turn implies that $(\vec{w}_f \cdot\chi(S))^p < (\vec{w}_f \cdot\chi(S'))^p$. Finally, this means that
$\vec{w}_f \cdot\chi(S) < \vec{w}_f \cdot\chi(S')$.
Now we prove that the learned comparator has low error by splitting the analysis into two parts.
First, we show that on a random pair $S,S'$, it is unlikely that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are an $\alpha(n)$ factor apart and yet there is no landmark pair
$S_i,S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that (1) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ fall in between $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ (i.e. $f(S) < f(S_i) < f(S_j) < f(S')$) and (2) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are separated by at least an $\alpha(n)$ factor. This is exactly what we need, because if such a pair $S_i,S_j$ does exist, then during Step~\ref{step:train} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}, we will have solved for a linear separator $(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ that will label $S$ as negative and $S'$ as positive, with high probability.
We prove this formally in Claim~\ref{claim:buckets}.
The only case where one of the linear separators $(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ would fail to label $S$ or $S'$ correctly is if $S$ or $S'$ contribute to the learning error inherent to learning linear separators. To handle this case, we show that on a random pair $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, the probability that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are at least an $\alpha(n)$ factor apart and yet some linear separator learned during Step~\ref{step:train} mislabels $S$ or $S'$ is low. We prove this in Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error}.
We combine Claim~\ref{claim:buckets} and Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error} to prove the correctness of Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} in the following way. We claim that with probability at least $1-\delta$, on a random pair $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, the probability that $\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S')$ yet the learned comparator $g$ predicts that $f(S') < f(S)$ is low. This will happen whenever there exists a pair $(i,j) \in R$ such that $\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}$ and $\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}$. In particular, we want to bound \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}}[\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S') \text{ and } \exists(i,j) \in R \text{ such that } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and }\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}].\] To analyze this probability, we partition the pairs $(i,j)\in R$ into two sets:
\begin{align*}
&R_1 = \{(i,j) \ | \ f(S_i) < f(S) \text{ and } f(S') < f(S_j)\} \text{ and}\\
&R_2 = \{(i,j) \ | \ f(S)\leq f(S_i) \text{ or } f(S_j) \leq f(S')\}.\end{align*}
Clearly, the probability that $g$ predicts incorrectly on $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$ due to a pair $(i,j) \in R$ is simply the probability that $g$ predicts incorrectly due to a pair $(i,j) \in R_1$ or a pair $(i,j) \in R_2$. With this in mind, we first analyze \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}}[\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S') \text{ and } \exists(i,j) \in R_1 \text{ such that } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and }\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}].\] Recall that in Step~\ref{step:minimal} of Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}, all non-minimal pairs were from $R$. This means that if $(i,j) \in R_1$, then it must be minimal, so there must not exist $S_{i'}, S_{j'} \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $\alpha(n) f(S) < \alpha(n) f(S_{i'}) < f(S_{j'}) < f(S).$ After all, if such a pair $S_{i'}, S_{j'}$ did exist, then we would have obtained the linear separator $(\vec{w}_{i'j'}, \theta_{i'j'})$ in Step~\ref{step:train}, and $(i,j)$ would have no longer been minimal. Therefore, the probability that $g$ predicts incorrectly due to a pair $(i,j) \in R_1$ is simply \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim {\cal D}}\left[\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S') \mbox{ and } \not\exists S_i,S_j \in {\cal S}_1:
\alpha(n) f(S) \leq \alpha(n) f(S_i) < f(S_j) \leq f(S')\right].\] This is exactly the probability we bound in Claim~\ref{claim:buckets}, which means that if we set $\epsilon' = \frac{\epsilon}{2}$ and $\delta' = \frac{\delta}{2}$, then with probability at most $\frac{\delta}{2},$ \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}}[\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S') \text{ and } \exists(i,j) \in R_1 \text{ s.t. } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and }\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}] > \frac{\epsilon}{2}.\]
Meanwhile, whenever $g$ predicts incorrectly due to a pair $(i,j) \in R_2$, it means that $f(S) \leq f(S_i)$ and $\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}$ or $f(S_j) \leq f(S')$ and $\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}$. In other words, $S$ or $S'$ contributes to the learning error of $(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$. This is the probability we bound in Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error}, which means that if we set $\epsilon' = \frac{\epsilon}{2}$ and $\delta' = \frac{\delta}{2}$, we have that with probability at most $\frac{\delta}{2},$ \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}}[\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S') \text{ and } \exists(i,j) \in R_2 \text{ s.t. } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and }\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}] > \frac{\epsilon}{2}.\]
Putting these bounds together, we have that with probability at most $\delta,$ \[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}}[\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S') \text{ and } \exists(i,j) \in R \text{ such that } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij} \text{ and }\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}] > \epsilon.\] Therefore, with probability at least $1-\delta$, the probability that $f(S)\alpha(n) < f(S')$ and $g$ predicts incorrectly is at most $\epsilon$.
\end{proof}
Now we prove the first claim, which guarantees that with probability at least $1-\delta$, at most an $\epsilon$ density of pairs $S, S' \sim \mathcal{D}$ have the property that $\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S')$ and yet there does not exist
a landmark pair
$S_i, S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are separated by a $\alpha(n)$ multiplicative factor and $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ sit between $f(S)$ and $f(S')$.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:buckets}
A sample size $m = O\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\right)$ is
sufficient so that with probability at least $1-\delta$, ${\cal S}_1 = \{S_1, \dots, S_m\}$ has the property that
$$
\Pr_{S,S' \sim {\cal D}}\left[\alpha(n) f(S) < f(S') \mbox{ and } \not\exists S_i,S_j \in {\cal S}_1:
\alpha(n) f(S) \leq \alpha(n) f(S_i) < f(S_j) \leq f(S')\right]\leq \epsilon.
$$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}
First, note that the distribution ${\cal D}$ induces a distribution over values
$f(S) \in \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$. Partition $\mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ into $1/\epsilon$ buckets of
probability mass $\epsilon$.
If $m =
O\left(\frac{1}{\epsilon}\log\frac{1}{\epsilon\delta}\right)$,
then with probability at least $1-\delta$, our sample ${\cal S}_1 = \{S_1, S_2, \ldots, S_m\}$
contains at least one set from every
bucket. Let us assume below this is indeed the case.
Now, define two buckets $b_i$ and $b_j$ to be {\em close} if all points in
$b_i$ are within an $\alpha(n)$ factor of all points in $b_j$. Define
the buckets to be {\em far} if all points in $b_i$ have a gap
of size greater than $\alpha(n)$ with all points in $b_j$. Otherwise (some points in
$b_i$ are close to some points in $b_j$ and some are far), say that the
two buckets are {\em in conflict}.
Say that $S$ is in bucket $b_{i'}$ and $S'$ is in bucket $b_{j'}$
(WLOG, $i'\leq j'$). If $b_{i'+1}$ and $b_{j'-1}$ are far, then
we have the desired $S_i$ and $S_j$ (from buckets $b_{i'+1}$ and $b_{j'-1}$).
Also, if $b_{i'}$ and $b_{j'}$ are close buckets,
then we are fine (the bad event in the statement does not occur)
since $S$ and $S'$ must have values that do not
differ by a $\alpha(n)$ factor.
The final case is if $b_{i'+1}$ is not far from $b_{j'-1}$ and
$b_{i'}$ is not close to $b_{j'}$. This is captured by the case where:
$b_{i'+1}$ is in conflict with $b_{j'-1}$, $b_{i'+1}$ is in
conflict with $b_{j'}$, $b_{i'}$ is in conflict with $b_{j'-1}$, or $b_{i'}$ is in conflict with $b_{j'}$.
Now we show the fraction of pairs of buckets in conflict is low.
If, say, $b_{i'}$ and $b_{j'}$ are in conflict,
then $b_{i'-1}$ and $b_{j'+1}$ must be far and, assuming $i<j-1$,
$b_{i'+1}$ and $b_{j'-1}$ must be close. This implies there are at most
$1/\epsilon$ pairs of buckets in conflict because for every bucket $b_i$, there is at most one bucket $b_j$ it can be in conflict with. Since there are at most $1/\epsilon$ pairs of buckets in
conflict but $1/\epsilon^2$ pairs of buckets overall, this implies
the probability that two buckets are in conflict is $O(\epsilon)$.
\end{proof}
We now provide a proof sketch of Claim~\ref{claim:lin_sep_error}. The full proof can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:multiplicativeError}.
\begin{claim}\label{claim:lin_sep_error}
Let $P_1 = \Pr_{S \sim {\cal D}}[\exists(i,j) \in R \text{ such that } f(S) \leq f(S_i) \mbox{ yet } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}]$ and
$P_2 = \Pr_{S \sim {\cal D}}[\exists(i,j) \in R \text{ such that } f(S) \geq f(S_j)\mbox{ yet } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) < \theta_{ij}].$
A sample of size \[|{\cal S}_2| = O\left(\frac{m^2}{\epsilon}\left[n \log \frac{m^2}{\epsilon} + \log\frac{1}{\delta}\right]\right)\] is sufficient so that with probability at least $1-\delta$,
$P_1+P_2 < \epsilon.$
\end{claim}
\begin{proof}[Proof sketch.]
For each $(i,j)$, we define a class of loss functions $\mathcal{L}_{ij}=
\{L_{(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})} \ | \ \vec{w}_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^n, \theta_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}\},$ where for any $(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ and any $S \subseteq [n]$, $L_{(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})}(S)$ is equal to 1 if
$f(S)\leq f(S_i)$ and $\vec{w}_{ij}\cdot\chi(S)>\theta_{ij}$ or if $f(S) \geq f(S_j)$ and $\vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) < \theta$, and 0 otherwise.
It is straightforward to show the VC dimension of $\mathcal{L}_{ij}$ is the same as the
VC dimension of the class of linear separators over $\mathbb{R}^n$, which is $n+1$.
We know that for any pair $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that $\alpha(n)f(S_i)\leq f(S_j)$, the empirical risk minimizer of
$\mathcal{L}_{ij}$ will have zero loss over $\mathcal{S}_2$.
Therefore, by standard VC dimension bounds,
if $|{\cal S}_2| = O(\frac{m^2}{\epsilon}[n \log \frac{m^2}{\epsilon} + \log\frac{1}{\delta}])$, then with probability at least $1-\delta$, the error of $h^*$ over ${\cal D}$ is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{m^2}$.
Now we union bound over all $m^2$ pairs $(i,j)$ on which
Algorithm \ref{alg:active_learning} attempts to solve for a linear threshold
$(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ and thereby achieve an overall error of $\epsilon$.
\end{proof}
These claims complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:general}.
By using structural results for submodular, XOS, and subadditive functions, as well as submodular functions with bounded curvature and XOS functions with a polynomial number of SUM trees,
compiled from \cite{Balcan11submodular,balcan2012learning,iyer2013curvature}
we immediately obtain the following corollary to Theorem \ref{thm:general}
(the formal proof is in Appendix \ref{app:multiplicativeError}).
\begin{cor} \label{cor:structure_classes}
The following statements are true:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The class of monotone submodular functions is efficiently comparator-learnable with separation $\sqrt{n}$.
\item The class of XOS functions is efficiently comparator-learnable with separation $O(\sqrt{n})$.
\item The class of monotone subadditive functions is efficiently comparator-learnable
with separation $\sqrt{n}\log{n}$.
\item The class of submodular functions with curvature $\kappa$ is efficiently comparator-learnable with
separation $\min\left\{\sqrt{n},\frac{1}{1-\kappa}\right\}$.\label{cor:curvature}
\item For any $\xi>0$, the class of XOS functions with $R$ SUM trees is comparator-learnable with separation $R^{\xi}$. In this case, the sample complexity and running time of Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} are both polynomial in $n^{\frac{1}{\xi}}$.\label{cor:poly_sum_trees}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\section{Proofs from Section \ref{sec:multiplicativeError}} \label{app:multiplicativeError}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Claim \ref{claim:lin_sep_error}]
First we will show the probability of the bad event happening
for each $(i,j)\in R$ is low, and then we union bound over all possible pairs
$(i,j)$. Formally, let
$$P_1 = \Pr_{S \sim {\cal D}}[f(S) \leq f(S_i)\mbox{ and } (i,j)\in R \mbox{ yet } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}]$$
and
$$P_2 = \Pr_{S' \sim {\cal D}}[f(S') \geq f(S_j) \mbox{ and } (i,j)\in R \mbox{ yet } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S') < \theta_{ij}].$$
We show that with probability at least $1-\delta$,
$P_1+P_2 \leq \frac{\epsilon}{m^2}.$
First we bound the VC dimension of each class of loss functions
$\mathcal{L}_{ij} = \{L_{(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})} \ | \ \vec{w}_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}^n, \theta_{ij} \in \mathbb{R}\},$ where
\[L_{(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S) =
\begin{cases} 1 &\text{if } f(S) \leq f(S_i) \mbox{ and } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) > \theta_{ij}\\
&\text{or } f(S) \geq f(S_j) \mbox{ and } \vec{w}_{ij} \cdot \chi(S) < \theta_{ij}\\
0 &\text{otherwise} \end{cases}.\]
Clearly, if ${\cal S} = \{S_1, \dots, S_t\}$ can be shattered, then it cannot contain any set $S$ such that $f(S_i) < f(S) < f(S_j)$ because for such a set $S$, $L_{(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S) = 0$ for all choices of $(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})$. Therefore, the problem reduces to finding the VC dimension of the class of linear separators over $\mathbb{R}^n$ in the following way.
First, suppose that ${\cal S}$ can be labeled in every possible way by the class of linear separators over $\mathbb{R}^n$. We claim that for any $A \subseteq [t]$, there exists a linear separator $(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})$ such that $L_{(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S_\ell) = 1$ if $\ell \in A$ and $L_{(\vec{w}_{ij},\theta_{ij})}(S_\ell) = 0$ if $\ell \not\in A$. To this end, let \begin{align*}A_{\leq} &= \{\ell \ | \ \ell \in A, f(S_\ell) \leq f(S_i)\},\\
A_{\geq} &= \{\ell \ | \ \ell \in A, f(S_\ell) \geq f(S_j)\},\\
B_{\leq} &= \{\ell \ | \ \ell \not\in A, f(S_\ell) \leq f(S_i)\}, \text{ and}\\
B_{\geq} &= \{\ell \ | \ \ell \not\in A, f(S_\ell) \geq f(S_j)\}.\end{align*} Then $(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$ is the linear separator that labels $A_{\leq} \cup B_{\geq}$ as positive and $A_{\geq} \cup B_{\leq}$ as negative. Such a linear separator must exist by assumption.
Now suppose that ${\cal S}$ can be labeled in every possible way by functions in $\mathcal{L}_{ij}$. We claim that for any $A \subseteq [t]$, there exists a linear separator $(\vec{w},\theta)$ such that $\vec{w}\cdot \chi(S_\ell) \geq \theta$ if $\ell \in A$ and $\vec{w}\cdot \chi(S_\ell) < \theta$ if $\ell \not\in A$. Indeed, $(\vec{w},\theta)$ is the linear separator such that $L_{(\vec{w},\theta)}(S_\ell) = 1$ if $\ell \in A_{\leq} \cup B_{\geq}$ and $L_{(\vec{w},\theta)}(S_\ell) = 0$ if $\ell \in A_{\geq} \cup B_{\leq}$. We know that $(\vec{w},\theta)$ by assumption.
Therefore, the VC dimension of $\mathcal{L}_{ij}$ is the same as the VC dimension of the class of linear separators over $\mathbb{R}^n$, which is $n+1$.
Now, let $h^*$ be the empirical risk minimizer of $\mathcal{L}_{ij}$ over ${\cal S}_2$. We know that so long as $\sqrt{n} f(S_i) \leq f(S_j)$, $h^*$ will have zero loss over the ${\cal S}_2$. Therefore, by standard VC dimension bounds, if $|{\cal S}_2| = O(\frac{m^2}{\epsilon}[n \log \frac{1}{\epsilon} + \log\frac{1}{\delta m^2}])$, then with probability at least $1-\delta$, the error of $h^*$ over ${\cal D}$ is at most $\frac{\epsilon}{m^2}$.
Now we union bound over all $m^2$ pairs $(i,j)$ on which
Algorithm \ref{alg:active_learning} attempts to solve for a linear threshold
$(\vec{w}_{ij}, \theta_{ij})$, to achieve an overall error of $\epsilon$.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:structure_classes}]
The statements follow by applying Theorem \ref{thm:general} with the following structural results.
\begin{enumerate}
\item The class of submodular functions is $\sqrt{n}$-approximable because for all submodular functions $f$, there exists $w\in\mathcal{R}^n$ such that
$f(S)\leq \sqrt{w\cdot\chi(S)}\leq \sqrt{n}f(S)$ \cite{goemans2009approximating}.
\item The class of XOS functions is $O(\sqrt{n})$-approximable because for all XOS functions $f$, there exists $w\in\mathcal{R}^n$ such that
$f(S)\leq \sqrt{w\cdot\chi(S)}\leq \alpha(n) f(S)$, where $\alpha(n) = O(\sqrt{n})$ \cite{balcan2012learning}.
\item The class of subadditive functions is $\sqrt{n}\log n$-approximable because for all subadditive functions $f$, there exists a submodular function $g$ such that
for all $S \subseteq [n]$, $f(S)\leq g(S)\leq f(S)\log{n}$ \cite{Balcan11submodular}. From this, we can use the approximation guarantee for submodular functions from item 1 of this corollary to obtain the result.
\item Recall the curvature of a submodular function $f$ is defined as
\begin{equation*}
\kappa_f=1-\min_{j\in [n]}\frac{f([n])-f([n]\setminus\{j\})}{f(j)}.
\end{equation*}
Intuitively, the curvature $f$ is the extent to which the function deviates from a modular function.
From \cite{iyer2013curvature}, we have the following bound,
\begin{equation*}
\forall S\subseteq [n],~(1-\kappa_f)\sum_{j\in[n]}f(j)\leq f(S)\leq \sum_{j\in[n]}f(j).
\end{equation*}
Therefore, the class of functions with curvature at most $\kappa$ is $\min\left\{\sqrt{n},\frac{1}{1-\kappa}\right\}$-approximable.
\item \cite{balcan2012learning} proved that for any XOS function $f$ with $R$ SUM trees, there exists
a function $g(S)=w\cdot \chi_M(S)$ such that $f(S)\leq g(S)\leq R^{\xi}\cdot g(S)$,
where $\chi_M$ denotes the indicator function for all subsets of size at most $\frac{1}{\xi}$ over $[n]$. Specifically, $\chi_M(S)_{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_L} = 1$ if $\{i_1, i_2, \dots i_L\} \subseteq S$ and $\chi_M(S)_{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_L} = 0$ otherwise. We feed the sample with the new features into Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} in order to learn a comparator with separation $R^\xi$ for this class of functions. Now that the feature space consists of $n^{1/\xi}$ features, the sample complexity and running time are polynomial in $n^{1/\xi}$, rather than $n$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
\section{Introduction}
The problem of ranking based on pairwise comparisons is present in many application domains ranging from algorithmic game theory~\cite{agt-book} to computational finance~\cite{comp-finance-book} to social networks~\cite{jk-book}. For example, a business might wish to learn its consumers' combinatorial valuation functions, since this will allow them to better set prices, choose which goods to sell as bundles, and determine inventory levels. Previous work on learning valuation functions has concentrated on the model in which the learning algorithm is given access to a set of examples (bundles of goods) which are labeled by the underlying valuation function \cite{Balcan11submodular,Sketching,Feldman2012optimal,balcan2012learning,iyer2013curvature}. However, for real-valued functions, this cardinal data may not be accessible. Indeed, it may be difficult for a consumer to provide the real-valued number corresponding
to her valuation for a bundle of goods. Instead, it might be more natural for her to express
whether she likes one bundle of goods more than another. After all, it is well-known that humans are significantly better at comparing than scoring
\cite{barnett2003modern,stewart2005absolute}. Therefore, we may hope to learn a consumer's valuation function up to pairwise comparisons, from pairwise comparisons.
Of course, economics is not the only field where it would be valuable to learn an underlying function up to pairwise comparisons. Research on judgment elicitation through pairwise comparisons is a fundamental problem in fields outside of computer science, ranging from psychology to economics to statistics, as well as many others \cite{heldsinger2010using,chen2013pairwise,
bradley1952rank,barnett2003modern}. For example, in a social network, one might wish to learn the influence of subgroups and individuals, but it could be difficult to consistently assign real-valued numbers as measurements of this influence. Rather, it might be easier to simply answer which of two subgroups is more influential. Although the number of subgroups in a social network may be exponential in the number of nodes, through a polynomial number of such queries, we may hope to learn a pairwise comparison function that allows us to accurately predict which of any two subgroups is more influential.
\subsection{Our Results}
In this paper, we prove that many classes of combinatorial functions can be learned up to comparisons.
Our formal definition of what it means to learn a function up to comparisons is similar to the PAC setting: we say that a class of functions is \emph{comparator-learnable} if there exists is an efficient algorithm which outputs a comparison function
that, with high probability
over the choice of examples, has small error over the distribution. For some function classes, we require that the function value of two sets be sufficiently far apart in order to guarantee that the learned comparator predicts accurately on those sets.
More formally, in Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError}, we show that for a fixed class $\mathcal{F}$ of combinatorial
functions which map $2^{[n]}$ to $\mathbb{R}$, if any function in $\mathcal{F}$ can be multiplicatively approximated up to a factor of $\alpha(n)$
by some power of a linear function,
then we can learn any function in $\mathcal{F}$ up to comparisons on pairs of sets whose values differ by at least an $\alpha(n)$ multiplicative factor. In this case, we say that $\mathcal{F}$ is \emph{comparator-learnable with separation $\alpha(n)$.} Our results are summarized in Tables \ref{tab:results} and \ref{tab:results2}.
Using existing approximation results
\cite{goemans2009approximating,balcan2012learning}, we immediately conclude
that several broad classes of combinatorial functions are comparator-learnable, including many that are ubiquitous in microeconomic theory. These include the nested classes of monotone submodular, XOS, and subadditive functions, all of which are used to model consumer preferences that exhibit diminishing marginal utility. In particular, we show that submodular functions are comparator-learnable with separation $\alpha(n) = \sqrt{n}$ and provide a nearly-matching lower bound of $\alpha(n) = \tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/3})$. Further, we show that the classes of XOS and subadditive functions are comparator-learnable with separation $\alpha(n) = \tilde{\Theta}(\sqrt{n})$.
We also rely on results from \cite{iyer2013curvature} and \cite{balcan2012learning} to achieve stronger bounds for submodular functions if the \emph{curvature} is small. Curvature is a well-studied measure of submodular complexity which quantifies how close a function is to being fully additive. We prove that the separation factor approaches 1 (which is optimal) as the function class approaches full additivity, i.e. as the maximum curvature approaches 0. Further, for XOS functions with polynomially-many SUM trees, we show that the separation factor decreases as a function of the number of trees. In this way, the more structured a class in question is, the stronger our results in Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError} are.
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{6cm}||p{3.5cm}|p{4cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Function Class} & \textbf{Separation} & \textbf{Sample Complexity} \\ \hline\hline
Subadditive & $\tilde{\Theta}(\sqrt{n})$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n/\epsilon^3\right)$ \\\hline
XOS & $\tilde{\Theta}(\sqrt{n})$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n/\epsilon^3\right)$ \\\hline
Submodular & $O\left(\sqrt{n}\right), \tilde{\Omega}\left(\sqrt[3]{n}\right)$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n/\epsilon^3\right)$ \\\hline
Submodular with curvature $\kappa$ & $O\left(\min \left\{\sqrt{n}, \frac{1}{1-\kappa}\right\}\right),$\newline $\frac{n^{1/3}}{O(\kappa\log n)+(1-\kappa)n^{1/3}}$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n/\epsilon^3\right)$ \\\hline
XOS with $R$ SUM trees & $O\left(R^{\xi}\right) $, where $\xi > 0$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n^{1/\xi}/\epsilon^3\right)$ \\\hline
$|\mathcal{P}|$-sparse Fourier support functions & 1 & $\tilde{O}\left(|\mathcal{P}|/\epsilon^2\right)$ \\\hline
Valuation functions with \newline $k$-limited nonlinear interactions& 1 & $\tilde{O}\left(n^k/\epsilon^2\right)$ \\\hline
Coverage functions & $1+\epsilon$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n^3/\epsilon^5\right)$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{Using our general algorithmic framework, we prove that these combinatorial function classes are comparator learnable with the associated multiplicative separation factors.}\label{tab:results}
\end{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\begin{table}[h]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|p{6cm}||p{3.5cm}|p{4cm}|}
\hline
\textbf{Function Class} & \textbf{Separation} & \textbf{Sample Complexity} \\ \hline\hline
XOS functions with \newline distributional assumptions and range in {[}0,1{]} & $\beta \in (0,1)$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n^{O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma}\right)}/\epsilon^3\right)$, \newline where $\gamma = \tilde{O}\left(\beta/\epsilon^{3/2}\right)$ \\\hline
Submodular functions with \newline distributional assumptions and range in {[}0,1{]} & $\beta \in (0,1)$ & $\tilde{O}\left(n^{O\left(\frac{1}{\gamma^{4/5}}\log \frac{1}{\gamma}\right)}/\epsilon^3\right)$, \newline where $\gamma = \tilde{O}\left(\beta/\epsilon^{3/2}\right)$ \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{We also show that our algorithmic framework can be extended to learn over classes of combinatorial function classes on pairs of sets whose values differ by an additive factor $\beta$, for any $\beta \in (0,1)$. For both XOS and submodular functions, we assume that the underlying distribution over subsets of $[n]$ is uniform in order to derive the additive guarantees.}\label{tab:results2}
\end{table}
In Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError} we only guarantee the accuracy of the learned comparator on pairs of sets whose values differ by a sufficiently large multiplicative factor. We show in Section \ref{sec:additiveError} that if the underlying distribution over subsets of $[n]$ is uniform, then we can take advantage of key insights regarding the Fourier spectrum of monotone submodular functions with range in $[0,1]$, presented in \cite{FeldmanV15}, to learn such a function up to comparisons on pairs of sets whose values differ by a sufficiently large \emph{additive} factor. We extend this result to XOS functions with range in $[0,1]$ as well.
In Section \ref{sec:otherCombinatorial},
we show that our algorithm from Section \ref{sec:multiplicativeError} applies to a wide range of other classes
of combinatorial functions. In particular, we
present results for functions with sparse Fourier support \cite{stobbe2012learning} and
functions with bounded nonlinear interactions
\cite{vainsencher2011bundle}.
For these more structured function classes we demonstrate a much better $\alpha(n) = 1$, meaning we do not need to assume $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are
sufficiently far apart to predict correctly. Finally, for coverage functions \cite{feldman2014learning,Sketching}, we achieve $\alpha(n) = 1+\epsilon$.
In Appendix \ref{ksubmodular}, we study comparator-learning $k$-submodular functions
(submodular functions with range in $\{1,\dots, k\}$) in the membership query model, in which the algorithm may ask for labels on examples of its own construction. We show how to learn a $k$-submodular function up to a multiplicative separation of $\alpha$
with sample complexity and running time $O\left(n^{k/\alpha}\right)$.
\subsection{Our Techniques}
Our techniques depart significantly from learning with real-valued labeled examples. When attempting to learn a combinatorial function from cardinal data, rather than ordinal data, the existence of an approximating linear function implies a natural learning algorithm, via a reduction to learning linear separators. In our model, where we are only allowed to make pairwise comparison queries, we require a substantially different algorithm and analysis. At a high level, the existence of an approximating linear function still implies useful structure: once we know that such a function $\vec{w}$ exists and approximates the underlying function $f$ up to an $\alpha(n)$ factor, then given two sets $S$ and $S'$ such that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are $\alpha(n)$ apart, we can learn a linear separator that classifies all sets with value less than $f(S)$ as negative and all sets with value greater than $f(S')$ as positive. However, we would like to predict accurately over all random pairs of subsets, not only those whose values are separated by $f(S)$ and $f(S')$. Even more problematic, using only pairwise comparisons, we cannot know if $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are $\alpha(n)$ apart in the first place.
To surmount this obstacle, we show that we can discretize the range of $f$ using a set of ``landmarks,'' i.e. a sorted set of random examples. For every pair of landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$, we attempt to solve for a linear separator that classifies a set $S$ as negative if its value is less than $f(S_i)$ and positive if its value is greater than $f(S_j)$. If $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are at least $\alpha(n)$ apart, then we are guaranteed that a such a linear separator must exist. Naturally, on a random pair of subsets $T$ and $T'$, the learned comparator simply searches for a linear separator that classifies $T$ as positive and $T'$ as negative, which implies that $f(T) < f(T')$, or vice versa. The key idea which guarantees the correctness of the algorithm is the fact that on one such random query, it is highly unlikely that $f(T)$ and $f(T')$ are $\alpha(n)$ apart, and yet there does not exist a pair of landmarks $S_i$ and $S_j$ such that (1) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ sit between $f(T)$ and $f(T')$ and (2) $f(S_i)$ and $f(S_j)$ are also $\alpha(n)$ apart. This is exactly what we need, because if such a pair of landmarks \emph{does} exist, then we will have solved for a linear separator that correctly classifies $T$ and $T'$.
\subsection{Related Work}
Past work has explored the learnability of submodular and related functions
when given access to a set of random examples labeled by the underlying function. Goemans et al.\, showed how to learn an approximation of a submodular function within a multiplicative $\tilde{O}(\sqrt{n})$ factor \cite{goemans2009approximating} in the membership query model, i.e.\
the queries are selected adaptively by the algorithm.
Balcan and Harvey showed how to efficiently learn a function that approximates the given
submodular factor up to a $\sqrt{n}$ factor on a $1-\epsilon$ fraction of the test inputs, with probability
$1-\delta$, in the supervised learning setting \cite{Balcan11submodular}.
They call this model the \emph{PMAC model} of learning,
where PMAC stands for ``Probably Mostly Approximately Correct,''
due to similarity to the PAC model of learning.
They also show an $\Omega(n^{\frac{1}{3}})$ lower bound in this model.
A later paper by Balcan et al.\ show near tight bounds on the PMAC learnability of
subadditive functions and XOS (fractionally subadditive) functions \cite{balcan2012learning}.
There is also a large body of work on learning submodular functions with additive, rather than multiplicative, guarantees, when the
underlying distribution over subsets of $[n]$ is uniform.
Gupta et al.\ gave an algorithm with runtime $n^{O(\log(1/\delta)/\epsilon^2)}$
which learns an approximation $h$ to a submodular function $f$ such that
with high probability, $|f(x) - h(x)| \leq \epsilon$ \cite{gupta2013privately}.
Feldman et al.\ show an algorithm with runtime $2^{\tilde{O}(1/\epsilon^{4/5})} \cdot n^2$ for approximating
a submodular function with $L_2$ error $\epsilon$ \cite{FeldmanV15}.
Both of these results are accomplished by proving there exist low degree polynomials which approximate submodular functions.
Badanidiyuru et al.\ showed that submodular functions
always have an approximate function with a small sketch \cite{Sketching},
and Iyer et al.\ showed parameterized bounds based on the curvature of the
submodular function (how close the function is to being fully additive)
\cite{iyer2013curvature}.
We conclude this section by reviewing related works on ranking via pairwise comparisons.
Jamieson and Nowak study this problem under the assumption that the $n$ objects they wish to rank are embedded into a $d$-dimensional Euclidean space and that the ranking reflects the objects' relative distance to some fixed point in $\mathbb{R}^d$.
They show an algorithm to learn the rank using $O(d\log n)$ queries on average \cite{jamieson2011active}.
Shah et al.\ study the ranking problem by assuming that the ranking reflects the inherent ``qualities'' of the objects, as defined by a vector $\vec{w}^* \in \mathbb{R}^n$ \cite{ShahBBPRW15}. They work under the standard Bradley-Terry-Luce and Thurstone models, and prove upper and lower bounds on the optimal error when estimating $\vec{w}^*$ in these models.
\subsection{Lower Bounds} \label{sec:lower-bound}
Now, we show that the class of non-negative, monotone, submodular functions is not comparator-learnable with separation $o(n^{1/3}/ \log n)$. This lower bound nearly matches our upper bound from Corollary \ref{cor:structure_classes}.1. To prove this result, we use a special family of matroid rank functions, which form a subset of the class of monotone submodular functions, presented in \cite{Balcan11submodular} and described as follows.
\begin{theorem}[Theorem 7 in \cite{Balcan11submodular}]\label{thm:bh_lb}
For any $k\geq 8$ with $k=2^{o(n^{1/3})}$, there exists a family of sets $\mathcal{A}\subseteq 2^{[n]}$ and a family of matroids $\mathcal{M}= \{\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{B}}:\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}\}$ with the following properties.
\begin{itemize}
\item $|\mathcal{A}|=k$ and for each $A\in\mathcal{A}$, $|A|=n^{1/3}$.
\item For each $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ and $A\in\mathcal{A}$,
\begin{equation*}
\text{rank}_{\mathcal{M}_{\mathcal{B}}}(A)=
\begin{cases}
8\log k & \text{if }A\in\mathcal{B} \\
|A| & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
We now formally present our lower bound.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sub_lower}
Let $\mathcal{ALG}$ be an arbitrary learning algorithm that uses only a polynomial number of training samples drawn i.i.d. from the underlying distribution and produces a predictor $g$. There exists a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ and a submodular target function $f^*$ such that, with probability at least $1/25$ (over the draw of the training samples),
\[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f(S) \leq f(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f(S) > f(S')\right] \geq \frac{1}{25},\] where $\alpha(n) = \Omega(n^{1/3}/\log n)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
As in \cite{Balcan11submodular}, we use the family of matroids presented in Theorem~\ref{thm:bh_lb} to show that for a super-polynomial sized set of $k$ points in $\{0,1\}^n$, and for any partition of those points into \textsc{High} and \textsc{Low}, we can construct a matroid where the points labeled \textsc{High} have rank $r_{high}$ and the points labeled \textsc{Low} have rank $r_{low}$, and that $r_{high}/r_{low} = \tilde{\Omega}(n^{1/3})$. We prove that this implies hardness for comparator-learning over the uniform distribution on these $k$ points from any polynomial-sized sample.
Formally, we use the probabilistic method to prove the existence of the $f^*$ referred to in the theorem statement. To this end, suppose that $\mathcal{ALG}$ uses $\ell \leq n^c$ training examples for some constant $c$. To construct a hard family of submodular functions, we apply Theorem~\ref{thm:bh_lb} with $k = 2^t$ where $t = c\log n + 3$. Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ be the families that are guaranteed to exist, and let $\text{rank}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}$ be the rank function of a matroid $M_{\mathcal{B}} \in \mathcal{M}$. Let the underlying distribution $\mathcal{D}$ on $2^{[n]}$ be the uniform distribution on $\mathcal{A}$.
Assume that $\mathcal{ALG}$ uses a set $\mathcal{S}$ of $\ell$ training examples. For any $S,S' \in \mathcal{A} \setminus \mathcal{S}$ such that $S \not= S'$, we claim that the algorithm $\mathcal{ALG}$ has no information about how $f^*(S)$ compares to $f^*(S')$, for any target function $f^* = \text{rank}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}$ where $M_{\mathcal{B}} \in \mathcal{M}$. After all, by Theorem~\ref{thm:bh_lb}, for a fixed labeling of ${\cal S}$ by the values $r_{low}$ and $r_{high}$, there exist exactly $2^{|\mathcal{A}\setminus {\cal S}|}$ matroids in $\mathcal{M}$ whose respective rank functions label ${\cal S}$ according to this fixed labeling. Moreover, for any partition of the points in $\mathcal{A} \setminus \mathcal{S}$ into \textsc{High} and \textsc{Low}, there exists exactly one matroid among those $2^{|\mathcal{A}\setminus {\cal S}|}$ matroids such that the points labeled \textsc{High} have rank $r_{high}$ and the points labeled \textsc{Low} have rank $r_{low}$. In other words, if $M_{\mathcal{B}}$ is drawn uniformly at random from $\mathcal{M}$ and $f^* = \text{rank}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}$, then the conditional distribution of $f^*(S)$ given $\mathcal{S}$ is uniform in $\{r_{low}, r_{high}\}$.
The set of non-training examples has measure $1-2^{-t+\log \ell}$, and as we have seen, in expectation, half of the non-training sets will have rank $r_{high}$ and half will have rank $r_{low}$. Therefore,\[E_{f^*, {\cal S}} \left[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[S, S' \not\in {\cal S}\text{, }f^*(S) = r_{low}, \text{ and } f^*(S') = r_{high}\right]\right] = \left(\frac{1-2^{-t+\log \ell}}{2}\right)^2.\]
Moreover, for $S,S' \not\in{\cal S}$, due to the uniform conditional distribution of $f^*(S)$ and $f^*(S')$ given ${\cal S}$, $\mathcal{ALG}$ cannot determine whether $f^*(S) \geq f^*(S')$ or vice versa better than randomly guessing between the two alternatives. Therefore \begin{align*}
&\text{ }E_{f^*, \mathcal{S}} \left[ \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f^*(S) \leq f^*(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f^*(S) > f^*(S')\right]\right]\\
\geq &\text{ }E_{f^*, \mathcal{S}} \left[ \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[S, S' \not\in {\cal S}\text{, }f^*(S) = r_{low} \text{, } f^*(S') = r_{high} \text{, and } g \text{ predicts that } f^*(S) > f^*(S')\right]\right]\\
\geq &\text{ }\frac{1}{2}\left(\frac{1-2^{-t+\log \ell}}{2}\right)^2\\
\geq &\text{ }\frac{49}{512}.\end{align*}
Therefore, there exists a rank function $f^*$ such that \[E_{{\cal S}}\left[ \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f^*(S) \leq f^*(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f^*(S) > f^*(S')\right]\right] \geq \frac{49}{512}.\] We claim that this means that for this fixed $f^*$, \[\Pr_{{\cal S}}\left[ \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f(S) \leq f(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f(S) > f(S')\right]\geq \frac{1}{25}\right] \geq \frac{1}{25}.\] After all, suppose not, so \[\Pr_{{\cal S}}\left[ \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f(S) \leq f(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f(S) > f(S')\right]\geq \frac{1}{25}\right] < \frac{1}{25}.\] Then setting $X := \Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f(S) \leq f(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f(S) > f(S')\right]$, we have that \[E_{{\cal S}}[X] \leq 1 \cdot \Pr\left[X \geq \frac{1}{25}\right] + \frac{1}{25}\cdot \Pr\left[X < \frac{1}{25}\right] < 1 \cdot \frac{1}{25} + \frac{1}{25}\cdot 1 = \frac{2}{25} < \frac{49}{512}.\] Of course, this is a contradiction, so the theorem statement holds.
\end{proof}
By a similar argument, we show that the class of XOS functions is not comparator-learnable with separation $o(\sqrt{n}/ \log n)$. The proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:XOS_lower} makes use of a special family of XOS functions presented in \cite{balcan2012learning} and follows the same logic as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:sub_lower}. It can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:multiplicativeError}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:XOS_lower}
Let $\mathcal{ALG}$ be an arbitrary learning algorithm that uses only a polynomial number of training samples drawn i.i.d. from the underlying distribution and produces a predictor $g$. There exists a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ and an XOS target function $f^*$ such that, with probability at least $1/25$ (over the draw of the training samples),
\[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f(S) \leq f(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f(S) > f(S')\right] \geq \frac{1}{25},\] where $\alpha(n) = \Omega(\sqrt{n}/\log n)$.
\end{theorem}
We also show a lower bound parameterized by the curvature of a submodular function.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:curvature_lower}
Let $\mathcal{ALG}$ be an arbitrary learning algorithm that uses only a polynomial number of training samples drawn i.i.d. from the underlying distribution and produces a predictor $g$. There exists a distribution $\mathcal{D}$ and a submodular target function $f^*$ with curvature $\kappa$ (possibly known to
the algorithm) such that, with probability at least $1/25$ (over the draw of the training samples),
\[\Pr_{S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}} \left[\alpha(n) f(S) \leq f(S') \text{ and } g \text{ predicts that } f(S) > f(S')\right] \geq \frac{1}{25},\] where
$\alpha(n) = \frac{n^{1/3}}{O(\kappa\log n)+(1-\kappa)n^{1/3}}$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given a submodular function $f$ with curvature 1, we may convert it
to a submodular function with curvature $\kappa$ by setting
$f_{\kappa}(X)=\kappa f(X)+(1-\kappa)|X|$. This idea allows us to easily modify
the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sub_lower}.
Suppose that $\mathcal{ALG}$ uses $\ell \leq n^c$ training examples for some constant $c$. We apply Theorem~\ref{thm:bh_lb} with $k = 2^t$ where $t = c\log n + 3$. Let $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{M}$ be the families that are guaranteed to exist.
Again, $\text{rank}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}$ denotes the rank function of a matroid
$M_{\mathcal{B}} \in \mathcal{M}$. Now we define
$\text{rank}^{\kappa}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}(A)=\kappa\cdot\text{rank}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}(A)+
(1-\kappa)|A|$.
Let the underlying distribution $\mathcal{D}$ on $2^{[n]}$ be the uniform distribution on $\mathcal{A}$.
Then for all $\mathcal{B}\subseteq\mathcal{A}$ and $A\in\mathcal{A}$, if $A\in\mathcal{B}$, then
$\text{rank}^{\kappa}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}(A)=8\kappa\log k+(1-\kappa)|A|
= 8\kappa\log k+(1-\kappa)n^{1/3}$,
and if $A\notin\mathcal{B}$, then
$\text{rank}^{\kappa}_{M_{\mathcal{B}}}(A)=\kappa n^{1/3}+(1-\kappa)|A|=n^{1/3}$.
Therefore, $r_{high}/r_{low}= \frac{n^{1/3}}{8\kappa\log k+(1-\kappa)n^{1/3}}$.
As in the previous proof, $\mathcal{ALG}$ has no information about pairs
of sets which are not in the training set.
The rest of the proof is similar to the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sub_lower}.
\end{proof}
\section{Learning $k$-submodular functions} \label{ksubmodular}
In this section, we consider $k$-submodular functions under membership queries.
In this model, there is no restriction on the sets we can query, but we must
learn the function up to comparisons with probability 1 (perhaps with a separation
condition).
We start with a simple result about boolean submodular functions, i.e., submodular
functions with range in $\{0,1\}$.
\begin{theorem}
Given a boolean submodular function $f$, with $\frac{3n}{2}$ comparison
oracle calls, we can learn $f$ exactly.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use the well-known structural result that any boolean submodular function can be
represented exactly by a disjunction.
Given the elements of the ground set $x_1,\dots,x_n$,
then $f=\vee_{x\in S} x$, for some unknown subset $S$ of the ground set.
Without loss of generality, we assume that $f(\emptyset)=0$.
Then for each $x_i$, we call $g(x_i,\emptyset)$. If the output is 0, then $f(x_i)=0$,
otherwise $f(x_i)=1$.
It is clear that $S=\{x\mid f(x)=1\}$. Therefore, we now have an exact expression for
$f$.
\end{proof}
Now we move to $k$-submodular functions, which are submodular functions with range in
$[k]$. First, we need the following definition.
\begin{definition}
A pseudo-boolean $k$-DNF is a DNF $f(x_1,\dots,x_n)=\max_{t=1}^s (a_t \vee_{i\in A_t} x_i)$,
where $a_t$ are constants, $A_t\subseteq [n]$, and $|A_t|\leq k$ for $t\in [s]$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:n^k}
Given a $k$-submodular function $f$, with $O(n^k)$ comparison oracle calls,
we can learn $f$ up to comparisons.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We use the result from Raskhodnikova and Yaroslavtsev, which states that any $k$-submodular
function can be represented as a pseudo-boolean $2k$-DNF with constants $a_t \in [k]$
\cite{raskhodnikova2013learning}.
So let $f=\max_{t=1}^s (a_t \vee_{i\in A_t} x_i)$ for constants $a_t$ and sets $A_t$.
Now, for all $A_t$, define a new variable
$y_t=\wedge_{i\in A_t} x_i$. There are $\leq{2n\choose k}=s$ such variables.
Then $f(x_1,\dots x_n)=\max_{t=1}^s (a_t y_t)$. In other words, $f(S)$ takes the value of
the maximum $a_t$ such that $\{x_i\mid i\in A_t\}\subseteq S$.
Now we can learn $f$ up to comparisons by sorting all $y_i$, which can be done with
$\leq s \log{s}$ comparison oracle calls. Since $f$ can only take on values in
$\{0,\dots, k\}$, this will give us $k'\leq k+1$ buckets $B_1,\dots B_{k'}$,
where for all $i,j\in [s]$, $f(y_i)\leq f(y_j)$ iff $i'\leq j'$,
where $y_i\in B_{i'}$, $y_j\in B_{j'}$.
On a comparison query $(A,B)$, we output the set which has a subset in the bucket with the
largest index. I.e., set $x_A=\text{argmax}_i (\exists S\subseteq A\mid S\in B_i)$
and $x_B=\text{argmax}_i (\exists S\subseteq B\mid S\in B_i)$, and then $f(A)\leq f(B)$
iff $x_A\leq x_B$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:n^k/alpha}
Given a monotone $k$-submodular function $f$ and a parameter $\alpha$ which divides $2k$, there is an algorithm that learns $f$ well enough to predict accurately whether or not $f(S) \geq f(S')$ whenever $f(S) > \alpha f(S')$ or $f(S') > \alpha f(S)$ using $O\left(\frac{k}{\alpha}n^{k/\alpha}\log n\right)$ comparison oracle calls. The algorithm's running time is $O\left(\frac{k}{\alpha}n^{k/\alpha}\log n\right)$, and each prediction takes $O\left(\frac{k}{\alpha}n^{k/\alpha}\right)$ steps.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
First, let $S \subseteq [n]$ be such that $|S|>2k/\alpha$. We claim that there exists some $Q \subseteq S$ such that $f(Q) \leq f(S) \leq \alpha f(Q)$. To see this, define the set \[S_0 = \begin{cases} S &\text{ if } |S| \leq 2k\\
S' &\text{ otherwise}\end{cases},\] where $S' \subseteq S$ is a set of size $2k$ such that $f(S) = f(S')$. We know that such a set exists from the argument in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:n^k}. Now, let $\mathcal{P} = \{S_1, \dots, S_{\alpha}\}$ be a partition of $S_0$, where $|S_i| \leq |S_0|/\alpha \leq 2k/\alpha$. Then we have that \begin{align*}f(S) = f(S_0) &\leq \sum_{i = 1}^{\alpha} f(S_i) &(\text{by subadditivity})\\ &\leq \alpha \max_{i \in [\alpha]} \{f(S_i)\}.\end{align*}
Let $S_0^* = \max_{i \in [\alpha]} \{f(S_i)\}$. Since $S_0^* \subset S$, we know by monotonicity that $f(S_0^*) \leq f(S) \leq \alpha f(S_0^*)$.
Now, suppose that using comparison queries, we sort all $S \subseteq [n]$ of size at most $2k/\alpha$ into buckets $B_1, \dots, B_{k'}$, where $k' \leq k+1$. Such that for all $i<j \leq k'$, if $S,S' \in B_i$, then $f(S) = f(S')$, if $Q \in B_i$ and $Q' \in B_j$, then $f(Q) < f(Q')$. This takes $O\left(\frac{k}{\alpha}n^{k/\alpha}\log n\right)$ queries.
We are now ready to describe how to predict on two sets $(S,S')$. First, we find \[i = \underset{i \in [k']}{\text{argmax}} \{B_i \ | \ \exists Q \in B_i, Q \subseteq S\}, j = \underset{j \in [k']}{\text{argmax}} \{B_j \ | \ \exists Q \in B_j, Q \subseteq S'\}.\] If $i \leq j$, then we output $f(S) \leq f(S')$ and otherwise, we output $f(S) > f(S')$.
We claim that, without loss of generality, $f(S) > \alpha f(S')$, then we predict correctly. To see this, let $Q \subseteq S$ be a subset in $\max_{i \in [k']}\{B_i \ | \ \exists Q \in B_i, Q \subseteq S\}$ and $Q' \subseteq S'$ be a subset in be a subset in $\max_{i \in [k']}\{B_i \ | \ \exists Q \in B_i, Q \subseteq S'\}$. Then we know that \[\alpha f(Q') \leq \alpha f(S') < f(S) \leq \alpha f(Q),\] so $f(Q') < f(Q)$. Therefore, we output the correct ordering.
For any $S$, the running time to find $\max_{i \in [k']}\{B_i \ | \ \exists Q \in B_i, Q \subseteq S'\}$ is $O\left(\frac{k}{\alpha}n^{k/\alpha}\right)$, since there are $O(n^{k/\alpha})$ sets in the buckets, and it takes $O\left(\frac{k}{\alpha}\right)$ steps to check if any subset $Q$ of size at most $2k/\alpha$ is a subset of $S$.
\end{proof}
\section{Proofs from Section~\ref{sec:otherCombinatorial}}\label{app:other_combinatorial}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:general_valuation}] The interaction function allows us to express $f \in F_k$ as a linear function in $n^k$-dimensional space. In particular, let $S_1, \dots, S_{n^k}$ be an ordering of all subsets of $[n]$ of size at most $k$ and define $\chi_k(S)$ to be a vector in $\mathbb{R}^{n^k}$ whose $i^{th}$ component is 1 if $S_i \cap S \not= \emptyset$ and 0 otherwise. Next, let $\vec{g}_k$ be a vector in $\mathbb{R}^{n^k}$ whose $i^{th}$ component is $g(S_i)$. Then $f(S) = \vec{g}_k \cdot \chi_k(S).$
This suggests a straightforward adjustment to Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}: If we know that the underlying valuation function $f$ is in $F_k$, then we can map each sample $S \subseteq [n]$ to $\chi_k(S)$ and attempt to learn linear threshold functions $w_{ij}, \theta_{ij}$ over $\mathbb{R}^{n^k}$ rather than $\mathbb{R}^n$ for all $i,j \in {\cal S}_1$.
Note the sample complexity dependence on $\epsilon$ drops from $\frac{1}{\epsilon^3}$ (in Theorem \ref{thm:general}) to $\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}$ since we only need to
attempt to learn $w_{ij},\theta{ij}$ for adjacent $S_i,S_j\in {\cal S}_1$ in the ordered list, because it is not required $f(S_i)$
and $f(S_j)$ need to be sufficiently far apart to guarantee successfully learning $w_{ij}$ and $\theta_{ij}$.
This implies the union bound is over $m$ events instead of $m^2$ events.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:Fourier_sparse}]
We know that for any $S \subseteq [n]$, $f(S) = \sum_{T \subseteq [n]} \hat{f}(T) \chi_{T}(S),$ where $\chi_T(S) = (-1)^{|T \cap S|}.$ Since the Fourier support of $f$ is contained in $\mathcal{P}$, this equation simplifies to $f(S) = \sum_{T \subseteq \mathcal{P}} \hat{f}(T) \chi_{T}(S).$ Let $T_1, \dots, T_{|\mathcal{P}|}$ be an ordering of $\mathcal{P}$, and let $\vec{w} \in \mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{P}}$ be defined such that $w[i] = \hat{f}(T_i)$. By assumption, $\vec{w}$ has $k$ non-zero entries. If we map $S$ to $\mathbb{R}^{\mathcal{P}}$ by defining $v(S)$ to be a vector such that the $i^{th}$ component is $\chi_{T_i}(S)$, then $f(S) = \vec{w} \cdot v(S)$.
Therefore, in Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning}, we may attempt to learn linear threshold functions $w_{ij}, \theta_{ij}$ over $\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{P}|}$ rather than $\mathbb{R}^n$ for all $i,j \in {\cal S}_1$. Since the VC dimension of all $k$-sparse halfspaces in $\mathbb{R}^{|\mathcal{P}|}$ is $k \log |\mathcal{P}|$, we can learn these linear separators to the precision required in the proof of Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} by using $\tilde O\left(\frac{k}{\epsilon^3}\right)$ examples in time polynomial in $|\mathcal{P}|^{\Theta (k)}$, $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$ \cite{feldman2014open}.
For the same reason as in Theorem \ref{thm:general_valuation}, the dependence on $\epsilon$ in the sample complexity can be lowered to $\frac{1}{\epsilon^2}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} By ignoring the sparsity of the linear separators, we can learn them using $\tilde O\left(\frac{|\mathcal{P}|}{\epsilon^3}\right)$ examples in time polynomial in $|\mathcal{P}|$, $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:coverage}]
To begin with, we rely on the following result from \cite{Sketching}.
\begin{theorem}{\cite{Sketching}}\label{thm:sketching}
For any coverage function $c: 2^{[n]} \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$, there exists a coverage function $\hat{c}$ on a universe $U'$ with $|U'| \leq \frac{27n^2}{\epsilon^2}$ such that for all $S \in 2^{[n]}$, $c(S)/(1+\epsilon) \leq \hat{c}(S) \leq c(S)$ with probability at least $1-2^{n+1}e^{-n}$.
\end{theorem}
We also use the following lemma from \cite{feldman2014learning}.
\begin{lemma}{\cite{feldman2014learning}}\label{lem:coverage_linear}
A function $c: 2^{[n]} \to \mathbb{R}_{\geq 0}$ is a coverage function on some universe $U$ if and only if there exist non-negative coefficients $\alpha_S$ for every $S \subseteq [n]$, $S \not= \emptyset$ such that $c(T) = \sum_{S \subseteq [n], S\not= \emptyset} \alpha_S \cdot \textsf{\emph{OR}}_S(T)$, and at most $|U|$ of the coefficients $\alpha_S$ are non-zero.
\end{lemma}
Here, $\textsf{OR}_S: 2^{[n]} \to \{0,1\}$ is defined such that for any $T \subseteq [n]$, $\textsf{OR}_S(T) = 0$ if and only if $T \subseteq S$.
Now, let $S_1, \dots, S_{2^n-1}$ be an ordering of $2^{[n]} \setminus \emptyset$ and for $S \subseteq [n]$, let $v(S) \in \{0,1\}^{2^n-1}$ be the vector defined as $v(S)[i] = \textsf{OR}_{S_i}(S)$. We know from Theorem~\ref{thm:sketching} and Lemma~\ref{lem:coverage_linear} that with probability at least $1-2^{n+1}e^{-n}$, there exists a vector $\vec{\alpha} \in \mathbb{R}^{2^n-1}$ such that for all $S \subseteq [n]$ and $\epsilon \in (0,1)$, $c(S)/(1+\epsilon) \leq \vec{\alpha} \cdot v(S) \leq c(S).$ Moreover, from Lemma~\ref{lem:coverage_linear}, we know that $\vec{\alpha}$ has at most $\frac{27 n^2}{\epsilon^2}$ non-zero entries. Therefore, with probability at least $1-2^{n+1}e^{-n}$, for any $S,S' \subseteq [n]$, if $(1+\epsilon)c(S) \leq c(S')$, then $v(S) \cdot \vec{\alpha} \leq c(S) \leq c(S')/(1+\epsilon) \leq v(S') \cdot \vec{\alpha}$. This means that in Algorithm 1, for each $S_i,S_j \in {\cal S}_1$ such that $c(S_i) \leq c(S_j)$, we can solve for a linear separator $\alpha_{ij}, \theta_{ij}$ such that $v(S) \cdot \alpha_{ij} < \theta_{ij}$ if $c(S) \leq c(S_i)$ and $v(S) \cdot \alpha_{ij} > \theta_{ij}$ if $c(S) \geq c(S_j)$. With probability at least $1-2^{n+1}e^{-n}$, such a linear threshold function will exists for all $S_i,S_j$ such that $(1+\epsilon) c(S_i)\leq c(S_j)$.
It is well known that the VC dimension of the class of linear threshold functions $(\vec{w}, w_0)$ over $\mathbb{R}^d$ such that $||\vec{w}||_0 \leq r$ has VC dimension $O(r\log d)$ (ex. \cite{neylon2006sparse}). Therefore, the class of linear threshold functions Algorithm 1 learns over has VC dimension $O(|U'| \log (2^n - 1)) = O(n^3/\epsilon^2)$. Therefore, we change the size of ${\cal S}_2$ to be \[|{\cal S}_2| = O\left(\frac{m^2}{\epsilon}\left[\frac{n^3}{\epsilon^2} \log \frac{1}{\epsilon} + \log\frac{1}{\delta m^2}\right]\right),\] where $m = \frac{1}{\epsilon} \log \frac{1}{\epsilon \delta}$. Moreover, we need to map each $S \in {\cal S}_2$ to $\mathbb{R}^{2^n-1}$ in order to learn the linear separators $\alpha_{ij}, \theta_{ij}$. To do this, let $S_1, \dots, S_{2^n-1}$ be an ordering of $2^{[n]} \setminus \emptyset$. Then we define the mapping $v: 2^{[n]} \to \mathbb{R}^{2^n-1}$ such that for all $S \subseteq [n]$, the $i^{th}$ component of $v(S)$ is $\textsf{OR}_{S_i}(S)$. With these changes, the analysis of Algorithm 1 in Section~\ref{sec:multiplicativeError} holds, with $\alpha(n) = 1+\epsilon$.
\end{proof}
\section{Application to Other Combinatorial Functions}\label{sec:otherCombinatorial}
We can extend Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} to learn over many other classes of combinatorial functions up to pairwise comparisons, including valuation functions with limited nonlinear interactions \cite{vainsencher2011bundle}, Fourier sparse set functions \cite{stobbe2012learning}, and coverage functions \cite{Sketching,feldman2014learning}. We summarize the function classes we investigate in the following sections, providing a brief motivation and a description of our guarantees.
\subsection{Valuation Functions with Limited Nonlinear Interactions} \label{sec:nonlinear}
A valuation function $f$ is simply a set function such that $f(\emptyset) = 0$. We show that if, intuitively speaking, the underlying valuation function expresses nonlinear interactions between sets of size at most $k$ (i.e. it is a function with \emph{$k$-limited nonlinear interactions}), then Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} learns $f$ up to comparisons using a sample of size $\tilde{O}(n^k / \epsilon ^3)$. Notably, we do not require, on input $S$ and $S'$, that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ be sufficiently far apart in order to guarantee that the learned comparator will predict correctly with high probability. This is in contrast to the previous results, where in order the guarantee that the learned comparator will predict correctly, we required that $c f(S) < f(S')$ for $c$ sufficiently large.
To define what we mean by limited nonlinear interactions, we use the notion of an \emph{interaction function} \cite{vainsencher2011bundle}. Let $f: 2^{[n]} \to \mathbb{R}$ be a valuation function and let $g: 2^{[n]} \setminus \emptyset: \to \mathbb{R}$ be defined such that for all $S \subseteq [n]$, \[f(S) = \sum_{T \subseteq [n] : S \cap T \not= \emptyset} g(T).\] The function $g$ is called the \emph{interaction function of $f$}. Vainsencher et al.\ proved that every valuation function $f$ has a unique interaction function $g$ such that $g(\emptyset) = 0$ \cite{vainsencher2011bundle}. We then say that $f$ has degree $k$ if for all $T \in 2^{[n]}$ such that $|T| > k$, $g(T) = 0$ and we define $F_k$ to be the set of valuation functions $f$ of degree at most $k$. Intuitively, $F_k$ contains all valuation functions that express nonlinear interactions between subsets of size at most $k$.
We note that $F_k$ contains many natural valuation functions. A valuation function $f$ likely falls in $F_k$ when the $n$ objects in the ground set either form instances of $j$-wise complements or $j$-wise substitutes, where $j$ is at most $k$. For example, stamps are typically produced as members of a small collection under a unified theme, such as recently released movies or commemorations of a country's leaders or monuments. A stamp collector will likely value a set $S$ of stamps from the same collection more than she will value any stamp in $S$ on its own, and thus her valuation function is supermodular. Moreover, if $k$ is an upper bound on the size of any collection she has her eye on, then it possible to show that her valuation function will fall in $F_k$.
Vainsencher et al.\ suggested sensor placement as another natural application domain. Each problem instance consists of a set of $n$ possible points where sensors may be placed, and the valuation function is determined by the amount of area covered by a particular selection of sensor placements. If at most $k$ sensors cover any point in the domain, then it is easy to see that the valuation function is submodular and falls in $F_k$.
With these motivations in mind, we now summarize our guarantees in Theorem~\ref{thm:general_valuation} regarding the performance of Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} when we know that the underlying valuation function $f$ is a member of $F_k$. The proof can be found in Section~\ref{app:other_combinatorial}.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:general_valuation}
For all $1\leq k\leq n$,
the class of functions in $F_k$ is comparator-learnable with sample complexity and runtime polynomial in $n^k$, $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$,
and with no separation factor, using Algorithm \ref{alg:active_learning}.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Fourier Sparse Set Functions} \label{sec:fourier}
We can extend Algorithm~\ref{alg:active_learning} to general combinatorial functions with Fourier support contained in a set $\mathcal{P} \subseteq 2^{[n]}$. Moreover, we achieve even better sample complexity if we are guaranteed that the size of the Fourier support is bounded by a constant $k \leq |\mathcal{P}|$. Again, we do not need to require that $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ be separated by a sufficiently large multiplicative factor in order to guarantee that the learned comparator predicts correctly with high probability.
An important example of a function with sparse Fourier support is the cut function of a graph $G = (V,E)$, equipped with a weight function $w:E \to \mathbb{R}$. This function is defined as $f_G(A) = \sum_{s \in A, t \in V\setminus A} w(s,t).$ Stobbe and Krause show that the Fourier support of $f$ is contained in $\mathcal{P} = \{ S \ | \ |S| = 2\} \cup \emptyset$ \cite{stobbe2012learning}.
We show that we can learn $f$ up to comparisons using $\tilde O\left(\frac{|V|^2}{\epsilon^3}\right)$ examples in time polynomial in $|V|$, $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$.
Building on this, the binary function $f_G(A,B)= \sum_{s \in A, t \in B} w(s,t)$ can be seen as a function over $\{0,1\}^{2n}$ with Fourier support contained in $\mathcal{P} = \{ S \ | \ |S| \leq 2\}$. Therefore, we can learn $f$ up to comparisons using $\tilde O\left(\frac{|V|^2}{\epsilon^3}\right)$ examples in time polynomial in $|V|$, $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$. In analysis of social networks, one might wish to learn the function $f_G(A,B)$ up to comparisons as a means to order the influence of individuals and groups in that network.
We now present our main result for learning Fourier sparse set functions, the proof of which can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:other_combinatorial}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:Fourier_sparse}
For all $k \geq 1$,
the class of functions with at most $k$ nonzero Fourier coefficients and support contained in $\mathcal{P} \subseteq 2^{[n]}$ is comparator-learnable with sample complexity polynomial in $k$, $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$, running time polynomial in $|\mathcal{P}|^{\Theta(k)},$ $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$, and with no separation. Alternatively, this class is also comparator-learnable using running time and sample complexity polynomial in $|\mathcal{P}|,$ $1/\epsilon$, and $1/\delta$ and with no separation.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Coverage Functions}
Coverage functions form a subset of the class of submodular functions, and have applications in combinatorial optimization, machine learning, and algorithmic game theory. A coverage function $f$ is defined on $[n]$, and each element in $[n]$ corresponds to a subset of a universe $U$, whose elements have nonnegative weights. The value of $f$ on $S \subseteq [n]$ is the weight of the union of the corresponding subsets in $U$.
We combine structural results specific to coverage functions from \cite{Sketching} and \cite{feldman2014learning} to prove that coverage functions are comparator-learnable with multiplicative separation $(1+\epsilon)$, using $\tilde{O}(n^3/\epsilon^5)$ queries, given access to an ERM oracle for learning linear separators. In particular, we prove the following theorem, the proof of which can be found in Appendix~\ref{app:other_combinatorial}.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:coverage}
The class of coverage functions is comparator-learnable with multiplicative separation $(1+\epsilon)$ and sample complexity polynomial in $n, 1/\epsilon,$ and $1/\delta$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Preliminaries}
\subsection{Combinatorial Functions}
Throughout this paper, we study different classes of combinatorial functions.
All functions we study are defined over subsets of a ground set $[n]=\{1,\dots,n\}$ and map $2^{[n]}$ to $\mathbb{R}$.
We use $\chi(S)$ to represent the indicator function of the set $S$, so $(\chi(S))_i=1$ if and only if $i\in S$, otherwise
$(\chi(S))_i=0$.
We define three important function classes here and defer the rest of the definitions to their respective sections.
\noindent\textbf{Subadditive functions}.
A function $f$ is \textit{subadditive} if and only if
$f(S\cup S')\leq f(S)+f(S')$, for all $S,S'\subseteq [n]$.
Intuitively, the value of a set is at most the sum of its parts.
\noindent\textbf{Submodular functions}.
A function $f$ is submodular if and only if $f(T\cup\{i\})-f(T)\leq f(S\cup\{i\})-f(S)$ for all $S\subseteq T\subseteq [n]$.
Submodular functions model valuations that satisfy diminishing returns.
Submodularity can also be thought of as the discrete analog of convex functions.
\noindent\textbf{XOS functions}.
A function $f$ is XOS if and only if $f(S)=\max_{j=1\dots k} w_j^T\chi(S)$ where $w_{j} \in \mathbb{R}^n_{\geq 0}$. Alternatively, an XOS function is a MAX of SUM trees. For example, several vacation sites might offer overlapping amenities, and a vacationer might value the amenities differently depending on the site. She will likely then choose the site that has the maximum sum value for the amenities offered there, which means that her valuation function is XOS.
\subsection{Learning Model}
We now define our notion of learnability up to comparisons.
Let $f$ be an unknown function from some class $\mathcal{F}$ (for instance, the class of submodular functions)
and suppose that sets are drawn from some distribution ${\cal D}$ over $2^{[n]}$. Moreover, suppose that we have access to a pairwise comparison oracle which, on input $S,S' \in 2^{[n]}$, returns 1 if $f(S) \leq f(S')$ and 0 otherwise. Clearly, we cannot hope to learn $f$ well in absolute terms in this model. Rather, our goal is to produce a hypothesis $g$ such that for most pairs $S,S' \sim D$, either $g$ predicts correctly which of $f(S)$ or $f(S')$ is larger, or $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are separated by less than a multiplicative $\alpha(n)$ factor.
We formally define this learning model as follows.
\begin{definition}[comparator-learnable with separation $\alpha(n)$]
A class $\mathcal{F}$ of functions is \textit{comparator-learnable with multiplicative
separation $\alpha(n)$}
if for all $\epsilon,\delta \in (0,1)$ and all $f\in \mathcal{F}$, given a sample of sets over a
distribution $\mathcal{D}$ with size polynomial
in $n,~\frac{1}{\epsilon}$, and $\frac{1}{\delta}$, and given access to a pairwise comparison oracle,
then there exists an algorithm which outputs a pairwise function $g$ with the following guarantee: with probability
at least $1-\delta$, for $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, the probability that $\alpha(n) f(S) \leq f(S')$ yet $g$ incorrectly predicts that $f(S) > f(S')$ is at most $\epsilon$.
\end{definition}
In Section \ref{sec:multiplicativeError}, we present a general algorithm
which can be used to efficiently comparator-learn over a variety of combinatorial function classes
with separation $\alpha(n)$, where the value of $\alpha(n)$ depends on the complexity of the function class at hand.
For example, for fully additive functions, $\alpha(n) = 1$, and for submodular functions that are close to being fully additive, i.e. those with small curvature $\kappa$, we have that $\alpha(n) = \frac{1}{1-\kappa}$. Meanwhile, for complex function classes, such as monotone submodular, $\alpha(n) = \sqrt{n}$.
We note that even when given access to real-valued labeled examples, we do not know how to learn a function that approximates a monotone submodular function up to any multiplicative factor better than $\sqrt{n}$. In fact, we prove a nearly-matching lower bound for monotone submodular functions, namely that it is not possible to comparator-learn over this function class with separation $o(n^{1/3}/\log n)$.
Next, in Section \ref{sec:additiveError}, we introduce a related definition:
comparator-learnable with \emph{additive} separation $\beta$.
In this case, for most pairs $S,S' \sim \mathcal{D}$, we guarantee that the learned comparator either predicts correctly which of $f(S)$ or $f(S')$ is larger, or $f(S)$ and $f(S')$ are separated by less than an additive $\beta$ factor.
Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:otherCombinatorial}
we show that for certain highly structured function classes, we are able to learn with no separation. In other words, the learned comparator will predict accurately on a large fraction
of \emph{all} pairs, not just pairs which are sufficiently far apart.
|
\section{Introduction}
Finding solutions of large linear systems of equations is a fundamental issue, underpinning most areas of mathematical sciences and quantitative research.
For instance, consider partial differential equations arising in various areas of physics, mechanics and electro-magnetics.
These have commonly to be solved numerically, and a spatial discretization of such a problem naturally leads to solving a large sparse or structured linear system~\cite{Young2014}.
In principle, two strategies to solve linear systems exist.
First, there are \textit{direct methods} \cite{Davis2006} like Cholesky factorization or Gaussian elimination.
Those methods provide a (numerically) exact solution of the system by performing a finite number of computations.
However, these algorithms can be computationally expensive, in particular as the full set of computations has always to be performed to obtain a problem solution, even if a coarser approximation thereof would be sufficient.
A second strategy is to use \textit{iterative methods} \cite{Elman1994,Saad2003,Young2014}, such as the Jacobi method or gradient descent.
Unlike for direct methods, the result after every step of an iterative algorithm may be interpreted as an approximate solution to the problem, which keeps getting improved until a desired stopping criterion, e.g., a predefined precision, is reached.
As in practice the specification of the system to be solved is hardly ever exact, this ability to stop at suitable approximate solutions renders iterative methods generally less costly in terms of running time.
For instance, the complexity of direct Gaussian elimination for a system of size $n$ is $\mathcal{O}(n^3)$.
In contrast, the iterative Jacobi method takes only $\mathcal{O}(Nn^2)$ time.
Here, $N$ is the number of iterations needed, which can usually be kept small.
However, when the system size $n$ is very large, effectively all classical direct and iterative methods become computationally prohibitive, unless the matrix is known to have a special structure (banded, Toeplitz, semiseparable, etc.).
Methods which provide faster means for solving linear systems are thus highly demanded.
\subsection{Background and Related work}
The success of any iterative update scheme in solving a linear system depends on two intertwined factors.
On the one hand, we would like to design our iterations such that each update brings us as close as possible to the true solution.
On the other hand, we would like to make each iteration computationally as cheap as possible.
Let us initially consider the first of these two objectives here.
Trivially, the update that would bring us closest to the true solution entails finding the correct solution directly, and thus requires only one iteration.
However, this is clearly not feasible, if our initial problem evaded direct solution methods.
A more realistic scheme, aiming to bring us as close as possible to the desired solution would be conjugate gradient descent, which tries to find good search directions at each step using gradient information.
The downside of an approach like gradient descent is that each step can be computationally very costly, e.g., as in general all coordinates have to be updated at each step.
This bring us back to the second objective mentioned above: making each iteration as computationally cheap as possible.
On this end of the methodological spectrum there are approaches like (canonical) coordinate descent.
Here the idea is to keep the updates very sparse and only update one (or a small number of $k$) coordinates at a time, thereby facilitating cheap iterations.
However, as this imposes quite strong restrictions on the allowed search directions, this results in general in a large number of iterations needed, possibly outweighing the gain in computational complexity for each iteration.
Recently, Spielman and Teng~\cite{Spielman2004} provided a seminal contribution and showed that one can construct iterative algorithms to solve symmetric, diagonally dominant (SDD) systems in nearly-linear running time.
Here, \textit{nearly-linear} refers to a complexity of the form $\mathcal{O}(\ell\log^c\ell \log(\varepsilon^{-1}))$, where $\ell$ is the number of nonzero entries in the system matrix, $c$ is an arbitrary positive constant, and $\varepsilon$ is a desired accuracy to be reached.
These results have been further improved and simplified in the last decade \cite{Cohen2014,Kelner2013,Koutis2010,Koutis2011,Koutis2012,Lee2013}, and there is now a substantial literature on solving SDD systems effectively in nearly-linear time.
Interestingly, all these algorithms follow essentially the same paradigm.
The problem is first reduced to solving a system of the form $Lx = b$, where $L$ is the Laplacian matrix of an undirected graph.
The Laplacian system is then solved efficiently using graph theoretic techniques.
\subsection{Main contributions}
We provide a sparse matrix factorization that enables the construction of fast iterative algorithms.
Namely, using our $k$-sparse matrix factorization allows for cheap iterative updates in efficient directions.
The key question we address is in how far cheap, coordinate descent like updates can also be performed in more flexible search directions.
As we show in the following the answer is indeed affirmative.
If the iterative updates are performed along directions $q_i$ that can be assembled into a $k$-sparse decomposable matrix $Q=[q_1,\ldots,q_n]$, then we can always perform cheap iterative updates, despite the fact that the search direction may not have sparse support, i.e., $Q$ might be a dense matrix.
This significantly enlarges the array of possible search directions and paves the way for efficient algorithms that can benefit from both cheap updates and well-chosen search directions.
Remarkably our $k$-sparse factorization is applicable for a variety of matrices with seemingly disparate structures.
In particular, we can design iterative algorithms for sparse, hierarchical, semiseparable, or Laplacian matrices, with a complexity similar to specially tailored algorithm for those respective classes.
In the case of Laplacian systems (and therefore all SDD systems through the usual reduction), our approach differs from previous work in that we take a different, matrix-theoretic approach, rather than relying purely on graph-theoretic machinery to achieve a nearly-linear complexity.
Finally, we show that this algorithm can be applied to solve Laplacian systems in nearly linear time, thereby establishing a connection to the previous literature.
Rather than emphasizing one particular application and providing detailed simulations for our algorithms, the focus of the present paper is on the theoretical development of a new sparse matrix factorization and its algebraic properties, which may then be used in different contexts.
Note that both sparse and dense systems are in principle amenable for a $k$-sparse decomposition.
Therefore, in principle, the target systems for our $k$-sparse matrix factorization and the associated iterative solution strategy may be dense or sparse.
For instance, Laplacian systems, which serve as our final application example in this paper, are typically sparse systems.
Nevertheless, the theory developed is equally applicable to dense systems as will become apparent when discussing hierarchical matrices.
Of course, in the case of very large dense systems, one may have to find efficient representations or approximations for storing such data (e.g., using hierarchical matrices~\cite{Hackbusch1999,Hackbusch2015}, or semiseparable matrices~\cite{Vandebril2007,Vandebril2008}).
This is a challenge in its own right, not addressed in the present manuscript.
\subsection{Outline of the paper}
In Section 2, we first review some preliminaries for iteratively solving linear systems and set up some notation
In Section 3, we then motivate and define our $k$-sparse matrix factorization.
We highlight some properties of this factorization and show how it enables an iteration of the form (\ref{eq0}) to be computed in $\mathcal{O}(k)$ time.
We then discuss, how these cheap iterations can be utilized to construct fast iterative solvers for linear systems.
In Section 4, we review several examples of $k$-sparsely factorizable matrices, including some sparse matrices, hierarchical matrices, semi-separable matrices, as well as the incidence matrices of trees.
Of particular interest here are hierarchical matrices \cite{Hackbusch1999,Boerm2003,Grasedyck2003}, which are an example of $k$-sparse factorizable matrices for which $k$ does not depend on the size of the matrix.
In Section 5, we present fast iterative solvers for systems of hierarchical matrices, based on $k$-sparse decompositions.
In Section 6 we then show how similar techniques can be applied if the system matrix is the incidence matrix of a graph, and how this naturally leads to an algorithm for solving a Laplacian system in nearly-linear time.
Section 7 concludes the paper and discusses possible avenues for future work.
To improve readability, some technical proofs are reported in the appendix.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:prelim}
For simplicity of notation we will consider only real vectors and matrices, although generalizations to the complex case are straightforward.
In the sequel, the index variable $t$ will be reserved to denote the $t$-th iterate of a vector ($x$, or $y$ respectively).
Otherwise, an indexed vector $v_i$ is to be interpreted as the $i$th column vector of a set of column vectors (usually associated with a corresponding matrix $V=[v_1,v_2,\ldots]$).
From an abstract point of view, we consider the problem of finding the minimal norm vector $x$ within an affine space $\mathcal X$.
Let $v \in \mathcal X$ be any point in our affine space.
Then by updating $x$ within this search space along a set $\{q_i\}$ of chosen search directions spanning $\mathcal X - v$, one can find the minimal norm solution of $x$.
More precisely, starting from an $x_0 \in \mathcal X$ we iteratively solve:
\begin{flalign}\label{eq:affine_search}
\min \;&\|x\| \\
\text{s.t. }& x- v \in \text{span}(\{q_i\}).\nonumber
\end{flalign}
As we review in next section, this problem is closely connected to iteratively solving a linear system, and the natural updates are of the form:
\begin{equation}\label{eq0}
x_{t+1} = x_t - \frac{x_t^Tq_i}{q_i^Tq_i} q_i
\end{equation}
The goal of this work is to show that if the search directions for problem \eqref{eq:affine_search} are such that they correspond to the columns $q_i$ of a matrix $Q$ that is $k$-sparsely factorizable, then all iterative updates of the form \eqref{eq0} can be performed in $\mathcal{O}(k)$ time.
Here $k$ is usually much smaller than the dimension of the search space, thereby facilitating fast iterative updates schemes, as we will see in the subsequent sections.
\subsection{Underdetermined systems}
Given a compatible linear system $Ax = b$, we are looking for the optimal solution of the following optimization problem:
\begin{flalign}
\min \;&\|x\| \\
\text{s.t. }& Ax=b, \nonumber
\end{flalign}
where $\|x\| := \sqrt{x^Tx}$.
We denote this optimal solution by $x^*$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq1}
x^* := \arg\min_{s.t. Ax = b} \|x\|,
\end{equation}
This problem can be readily solved as follows.
Suppose we are given a matrix $Q$ where the columns $q_i$ form a basis of the null space, $\text{null}(A)$, of $A$.
If $x_0$ is a feasible solution to $Ax = b$, we can write (\ref{eq1}) as
\begin{equation}\label{eq:aff}
x^* := \arg\min_{s.t.\ x = x_0 + Q y} \|x\|,
\end{equation}
for some unknown vector $y$.
Consequently, we may compute increasingly accurate approximations of $x^*$ by iteratively updating $x$ according to:
\begin{equation}
x_{t+1} = x_t + \alpha_t^* q_i \qquad \text{with} \qquad \alpha_t^* = \arg\min_{\alpha_t \in \mathbb{R}} \|x_t + \alpha_t q_i\| = - \frac{ x_t^T q_i}{q_i^T q_i}.
\end{equation}
Thus each iteration is of the form (\ref{eq0}).
We remark that these updates may be interpreted in the context of a (randomized) Kacmarz scheme as discussed in the Appendix.
If we start with a feasible solution $x_0$, each iterate $x_t$ is an exact solution of $Ax=b$, since all updates added to $x_0$ are in the null space of $A$.
Therefore, the above iterative method converges to the optimal $x^*$.
\subsection{Overdetermined and square systems}
\label{overdetcase} Iteration (\ref{eq0}) also appears naturally when iteratively solving an overdetermined system:
\begin{equation}
\argmin_{y} \|Ay-b\|.
\end{equation}
By simply making the substitution $x=Ay-b$, we can transform the above into the equivalent problem:
\begin{flalign}\label{eq:overdetermined}
\min \;&\|x\| \\
\text{s.t. }& x+b \in \text{Im}(A),\nonumber
\end{flalign}
i.e., we are again trying to find the minimum norm solution of $x$ within an affine space.
Now an arbitrary $y_0$ will provide a starting point $x_0 = Ay_0-b$ for an iterative update procedure, and the search directions can be set to $Q=A$.
Let $e_i$ denote the $i$-th unit coordinate vector.
It is now easy to see that our update rule \eqref{eq0} for $x$ amounts to dual updates in $y$ in coordinate descent form:
$$y_{t+1} = y_t - \dfrac{(Ay_t -b)^Tq_i}{\|q_i\|^2}e_i = y_t + \alpha_t^* e_i$$
Hence, we can iteratively construct the solutions in $y$ and $x$ by keeping track of the stepsizes $\alpha^*_t$ in the directions of $Q$.
One may of course alternatively choose $Q=AS$, for any full-row-rank matrix $S$.
The case of a square invertible system corresponds to the overdetermined scenario in which the minimum-norm solution $x$ is zero.
Most of our results for the underdetermined case can thus be simply recast, \textit{mutatis mutandis}, to the overdetermined or square invertible setting, and vice versa.
\section{A new sparse matrix factorization for fast iterative updates}
\subsection{A $k$-sparse matrix factorization enabling efficient updates for iterative algorithms}
We are now prepared to introduce the notion of $k$-sparse matrix factorization.
Our motivation for this factorization is that it should enable fast iterative updates of the form \eqref{eq0}, i.e., we want to compute \textit{any} iteration
$$x_{t+1} = x_t - \frac{x_t^Tq_i}{q_i^Tq_i} q_i,$$
in $\mathcal{O}(k)$ time, if $q_i$ is a column of the $k$-sparsely factorizable matrix $Q= [q_1, q_2, \ldots]$.
The underlying idea here is akin to the case where $q_i$ is a sparse vector with only $k$ non-zero entries.
Then just $k$ non-zero products need to be computed.
Hence, the computational cost of the update is $\mathcal{O}(k)$.
However, in order to solve a generic linear system efficiently, we need to ensure that we can find a set of vectors $\{q_1,\ldots,q_n\}$ such that \textit{all} necessary iterative updates can be performed with this complexity.
This will be the key ingredient of our results on linear solvers presented in Section \ref{sec:iterative_solvers}.
\begin{definition}[Support and sparsity of vectors and matrices]
The support of a vector ${v = \left(v^1, \ldots, v^m\right)^T \in \mathbb{R}^m}$ is the set of indices of the nonzero entries of $v$:
$$\mathrm{supp}(v) = \{i \in \{1,\ldots, m\} : v^i \neq 0\}.$$
A vector $v \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is said to be $k$-sparse, if the size of its support, $|supp(v)|$, is less than or equal to $k$. Similarly, a matrix is said to be \textit{$k$-column} (\textit{$k$-row}) \textit{sparse} if each of its columns (rows) is $k$-sparse.
\end{definition}
Suppose that $x_t$ is not stored in the canonical basis, but in a different set of coordinates encoded by a matrix $C$.
That is, instead of performing iterations \eqref{eq0} on $x_t$, we keep track of a vector $y_t$ such that $x_t=Cy_t$.
To yield a sparse update, we may choose $C$ such that $q_i$ is sparse in this representation, i.e., $q_i=C d_i$, where $d_i$ is a $l$-sparse vector.
This leads to an iteration of the form:
\begin{equation*}
Cy_{t+1} = Cy_t - \dfrac{x_t^Tq_i}{q_i^Tq_i}Cd_i
\end{equation*}
Using this representation, every update would be sparse in that it would only effect $l$ components of $y$.
However, this is not enough to perform each iteration (\ref{eq0}) fast, as one also needs to compute the scalar product $x_t^Tq_i$, which in the new basis becomes $y_t^T C^TCd_i$, i.e., the iteration in terms of $y_t$ is of the form:
\begin{equation*}
y_{t+1} = y_t - \dfrac{y_t^TC^TCd_i}{d_i^TC^TCd_i}d_i
\end{equation*}
To bound the complexity of this operation, one must understand the sparsity pattern of $C^TC$, which is dictated by how the supports of the columns of $C$ overlap.
Observe that the entry $[C^TC]_{ij}$ contains the scalar products between the $i^{th}$ and the $j^{th}$ column of $C$.
Whence, if every column of $C$ overlaps in support with at most $c$ other columns, then every column of $C^TC$ contains at most $c$ non-zero entries.
If we can find a matrix for which this is true, then $C^TCd_i$ is a $k=cl$ sparse vector, since $d_i$ is $l$-sparse, and $y_t C^TCd_i$ is computed in time $\mathcal{O}(k)$.
If we compile all such vectors $q_i$ into a matrix $Q$, then we say that $Q=CD$ is a $k$-sparse factorization.
While this reasoning provides us with some intuition, this definition must in fact be improved to reach tighter complexity bounds.
First, we can exploit the symmetry of $C^TC$, by noting that it can be decomposed as $C^TC= U^T+U$, where $U$ is an upper-triangular matrix.
Observe that the number of non-zero entries in the $i$th column of $U^T$ (or $i$th row of $U$) is bounded by the number of columns $c_j$ that overlap with $c_i$ for $j \geq i$.
Second, two columns of $U^T$ may have their non-zero entries at the same positions.
Therefore, the support of the sum of two columns does not necessarily increase.
To bound the complexity we need to look at the size of the union of supports of all columns $u_j$ of $U^T$, for which $j$ belongs to the support of $d_i$.
This number can indeed be much lower than the approximate estimate $cl$ above.
This justifies the following definition.
\begin{definition}
\label{defi22}
Suppose a matrix $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}$ has a factorization $Q=CD$. Let us denote the columns of $C\in \mathbb R^{m\times p}$ and $D \in \mathbb R^{p\times n}$ by $c_i$ and $d_j$, respectively.
We define the forward-overlap $FO(c_i)$ of a column $c_i$ to be the list of columns $c_j$, with $j \geq i$, that have a support overlapping with the support of $c_i$.
We call the factorization $Q=CD$ \emph{$k$-sparse} if $\left|\cup_{i \in \mathrm{supp}(d_j)} FO(c_i)\right| \leq k$ for all $j$ (see Figure \ref{fig2} for an illustration).
Without loss of generality each column of $C$ and each row of $D$ is supposed to be nonzero.
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}[tb!]
\center
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Schematic1}
\caption{(a) An example of $8$-sparse factorization. (b) Illustration of the forward overlap of all columns $i \in \text{supp}(d_5)$}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The example in Figure \ref{fig2} shows an 8-sparse factorization of the given matrix $Q$.
For instance, one can easily check that the forward overlap of column $c_{12}$ is $FO(c_{12}) = \{c_{12}, c_{13}, c_{16}, c_{20}\}$, and e.g.
$$\left|\cup_{i \in supp(d_5)}FO(c_i)\right| = \left|\{c_{11}, c_{12}, c_{13}, c_{15}, c_{16}, c_{19}, c_{20}\}\right| = 7\leq k = 8.$$
To gain some further intuition, let us consider an alternative definition of a sparse factorization.
We define a partial order on the columns of $C$ with the following properties.
First, only columns $c_i$ with overlapping support are comparable.
Second, every subset $T_i= \{c_i,\ldots\}$ spanning a column $q_i$ has an upper set of at most $k$ elements.
The upper set is here defined as the union of $T_i$ and all columns of $C$ larger than any element of $T_i$ in the partial order.
Indeed the factorization $Q=CD$ expresses nothing but the fact that every column $q_i$ is a linear combination of a set of columns of $C$ with coefficients given by entries of $i$th column of $D$.
The following properties of a $k$-sparse factorization are worth noting.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Any $m$-by-$n$ matrix $Q$ is $\min(m,n)$-sparsely factorizable with either $Q=QI$ or $Q=IQ$.
Similarly, it is easy to see from an SVD that every rank $k$ matrix is $k$-sparse factorizable.
\item \label{proper2} If $Q = CD$ is a $k$-sparse factorization, then for every column $c_i$ of $C$, $|FO(c_i)|\leq k$, $C$ is $k$-row sparse and each column of $D$ is $k$-sparse.
\item Conversely, a matrix $C$ such that $|FO(c_i)| \leq k$ for all columns $c_i$ is trivially $k$-sparsely factorizable. A $k$-column sparse matrix $D$ is also trivially $k$-sparsely factorizable.
\item If $Q = CD$ is a $k$-sparse factorization and $F$ is $f$-column sparse, then $QF = C(DF)$ is a $kf$-sparse factorization of $QF$.
\item If $Q_1 = C_1D_1$ is a $k_1$-sparse factorization and $Q_2 = C_2D_2$ is a $k_2$-sparse factorization, then the matrix $(Q_1^T\: Q_2^T)^T$ is $(k_1 + k_2)$-sparsely factorizable.
In order to see this, we write
$$\begin{pmatrix} Q_1 \\ Q_2\end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} C_1 & \\ & C_2\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}D_1 \\ D_2\end{pmatrix}.$$
In particular, if $Q_2$ is the identity, the compound matrix is $(k_1+1)$-sparsely factorizable.
\end{enumerate}
The following theorem establishes the running time of $N$ iterations of the form (\ref{eq0}), when the vectors $q_i$ are the columns of a $k$-sparsely factorizable matrix.
The proof of the theorem is given in the appendix.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1}
Let $Q \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times n}, C \in \mathbb{R}^{m \times p}$ and $D \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times n}$ be matrices such that $Q = CD$ is a $k$-sparse factorization of $Q$, and consider iterations of the form (\ref{eq0}) that start from an arbitrary vector $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^m$.
If every $q_i$ in \eqref{eq0} is a column of $Q$, then the computational complexity of running $N$ iterations of \eqref{eq0} is:
$$\mathcal{O}(Nk + (m+n)k^2).$$
With the same complexity, we can compute a $y_N$ such that $x_N = x_0 + Qy_N$, where $x_N$ denotes the vector resulting from the $N$ first iterations.
By applying sufficiently many iterations of form \eqref{eq0} we thus obtain both the solution to the primal problem in $x$, as well as the solution to the dual problem in $y$.
\end{theorem}
The remarkable point about Theorem \ref{thm1} is that the running time of \emph{each iteration} is merely $\mathcal{O}(k)$, even if some columns of $Q$ are full.
Hence, if $k \ll m$, then the cost per iteration can be largely reduced through the use of a $k$-sparse factorization, and the overhead term $(m+n)k^2$ is more than compensated.
\subsection{Ensuring fast convergence by randomized updates}\label{sec:convergence}
From our discussion above, we know that after sufficiently many iterations \eqref{eq0} over all columns of $Q$, $x_t$ converges to:
\begin{equation}\label{minnorm}
x^* = \argmin_{x \in x_0 + \textrm{Im } Q} \|x\|_2
\end{equation}
However, to ensure that we can construct an efficient algorithm based on such cheap updates, we need to guarantee that the required number of updates is not too large, as this would undermine the purpose of the fast updates.
Stated differently, we need the convergence rate of our iterations to be not too slow.
Remarkably, one can indeed ensure a sufficient convergence rate using a random sampling of the columns of $Q$.
To this end, at each iteration randomly select a column $q_i$ with probability proportional to $\|q_i\|$.
This guarantees a convergence rate of the form
$$
\mathbb{E} \|x_{t} - x^*\|^2_2 = \left( 1-\dfrac{\sigma^2_{\min}(Q)}{\|Q\|^2_\textrm{Frob}} \right)^t \|x_0 - x^*\|^2_2,
$$
where $\|Q\|_\textrm{Frob}= \sqrt{\trace Q^TQ}$ is the Frobenius norm and $\sigma^2_{\min}(Q)=\lambda_{\min}(Q^TQ)$ is the smallest nonzero squared singular value~\cite{Strohmer2009,Gower2015}.
The proof of this result is provided in the appendix.
There we also discuss interpretations of the here presented scheme in terms of a randomized Kacmarz or randomized coordinate descent method -- with a particular choice of update directions.
The above results states that the expected error in computing $x^*$ is decreased by an order of magnitude, e.g., by a factor of $\delta^{-1} = 10$ after a number of iterations given by
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Ncondnum}
N_1 = \dfrac{-\log(\delta^{-1})}{\log(1-\sigma^2_{\min}(Q) / \|Q\|^2_\textrm{Frob})} \approx \mathcal{O}(\|Q\|^2_\textrm{Frob}/\sigma^2_{\min}(Q))\end{equation}
The main challenge for the construction of a fast algorithm is thus to find a matrix $Q$ spanning the desired search space, with efficient $k$-sparse factorization and low `condition number' $\|Q\|_\textrm{Frob}/\sigma_{\min}(Q)$.
Note that scaling each column of $Q$ by a different scalar will not change whether or not the updates will converge.
Neither, will it change the complexity of each update (as columns of $Q$ only matter for their directions).
However, scaling the column may change the `condition number' of $Q$, and hence the bound on the convergence time.
\subsubsection{The underdetermined case} \label{sec:underdetermined_convergence}
Let us develop the above reasoning somewhat further for the underdetermined case.
One seeks the minimum-norm solution $x^*$ to $Ax=b$, where $A$ is an $n$-by-$m$ matrix with full-row-rank.
Therefore it can be decomposed as $A =\begin{pmatrix} E & F \end{pmatrix}$, where $E$ is an invertible $n \times n$ submatrix of $A$.
A matrix $Q$ whose columns span the null space of $A$ can then be constructed as:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq10}
Q = \begin{pmatrix} E^{-1}F \\ -I_{m-n} \end{pmatrix},
\end{equation}
where $I_{m-n}$ is the identity matrix of dimension $m-n$.
We clearly have $AQ = 0$, and thus the columns of $Q$ belong to the null space of $A$.
The rank of $Q$ is $m-n$, which is the dimension of $\text{null}(A)$.
Moreover, we have that $\sigma_{\min}^2(Q)=\lambda_{\min}( F^TE^{-T}E^{-1}F + I_{m-n} ) \geq 1$.
The number of steps to decrease the error by one order of magnitude is therefore at most of the order of:
\begin{equation}
N_1 = \mathcal O \left (\dfrac{\|Q\|_\textrm{Frob}^2}{\sigma_{\min}^2(Q)} \right) = \mathcal O(\|E^{-1}F\|_\textrm{Frob}^2+m)
\label{eq:Ncondnum2}
\end{equation}
Note that from the elementary properties of sparse factorization that if $E^{-1}=CD$ is $k_0$-sparsely factorizable, $F$ is $f$-column sparse, then $E^{-1}F$ is $k_0f$-sparsely-factorizable and $Q$ is $k=(kf+1)$-sparsely-factorizable:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq11}
Q = \tilde{C}\tilde{D} = \begin{pmatrix} C & 0 \\ 0 & I_{m-n}\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix} DF \\ -I_{m-n}\end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation}
Hence, we have a good complexity if we can find an invertible square submatrix $E$ such that $\|E^{-1}F\|_\textrm{Frob}$ is small, and the resulting $Q$ is $k$-sparsely factorizable, for low $k$.
We still have to find a fairly good initial guess, however.
A simple initial solution is given by $x_0=(\begin{smallmatrix} E^{-1}b \\ 0 \end{smallmatrix})$, which can be shown to fulfill the following error bound:
\begin{flalign*}
\|x_0\|^2 &=\|E^{-1}b\|^2 =\|E^{-1}Ax^*\|^2 =\left \| \begin{pmatrix} I & E^{-1}F \end{pmatrix} x^* \right \|^2 \\
&\leq \left \|\begin{pmatrix} I & E^{-1}F \end{pmatrix}\right \|_\text{Frob}^2 \|x^*\|^2 = \mathcal{O}(n + \|E^{-1}F\|^2_\text{Frob}) \|x^*\|^2.
\end{flalign*}
Overall, reducing the initial relative error
$$\epsilon_0 =\|x_0-x^*\|/\|x^*\| \leq 1 + \|x_0\| / \|x^*\| =\mathcal{O}\left(\sqrt{n + \|E^{-1}F\|^2_\text{Frob}}\right)$$
to a prescribed value $\epsilon$, requires thus a reduction by $\mathcal O (\log (n + \|E^{-1}F\|^2_\text{Frob})/2 + \log \epsilon^{-1})$ orders of magnitude, which is also in $\mathcal O (\log (m + \|E^{-1}F\|^2_\text{Frob}) + \log \epsilon^{-1})$ given that $n \leq m$.
In summary, denoting $\kappa= m+\|E^{-1}F\|^2_\text{Frob}$, we find that it takes $N_1 = \mathcal O (\kappa)$ iterations to decrease the error by an order of magnitude.
Further, it takes $\mathcal O (\log (\kappa \epsilon^{-1}))$ orders of magnitude to achieve relative accuracy $\epsilon^{}$.
Following Theorem~\ref{thm1}, the total complexity is thus $\mathcal O (\kappa \log (\kappa \epsilon^{-1}) k + m k^2)$.
\section{Classes of sparsely factorizable matrices}
Many modern and classical methods aim at exploiting particular structure in the system matrix for fast algorithms.
Table \ref{tab:comparision} provides an overview of results known from the literature and the $k$-sparse factorization approach presented in this paper.
Interestingly, our $k$-sparse matrix factorization approach provides good complexity results for a range of different matrix types, and might thus be seen as a general
framework for seemingly different matrix structures.
We will now discuss some classes in more detail.
Let us start with some intuitive examples first.
A simple case is the overdetermined system $Ay=b$ where $A$ is $k$-column-sparse.
In this case, taking $Q=A= I A$ as a trivial $k$-sparse factorization, and our algorithm can be seen as a randomized Kacmarz scheme for the normal equation $A^Tx = A^Tb$, which keeps track of the updates in the $x$ coordinates but also in the $y$ coordinates.
In the space of $y$, this is simply coordinate descent with a cost $\mathcal O(k)$, as discussed in Section \ref{overdetcase}.
The total cost amounts to $\mathcal O (Nk)$ as the overhead cost becomes irrelevant when $C$ in the $Q=CD$ decomposition is the identity.
If $A$ is $k$-row-sparse and invertible then $Q=I A^T$ is a $k$-sparse factorization.
In this case a trivial modification of the algorithm in the proof of Theorem \ref{thm1} simply coincides again with a randomized Kacmarz scheme~\cite{Strohmer2009} (see Appendix).
\begin{table}[bt!]
\centering
\caption{Complexity of solving (compatible) structured linear systems with a $k$-sparse matrix factorization approach compared to known results in the literature.}
\label{tab:comparision}
\begin{tabular}{c|c|c}
Structure & k-sparse factorization & Literature \\
\hline
$k$ row/column sparse & $\mathcal{O}( N k)$& $\mathcal{O}( N k)$ (randomized Kacmarz \cite{Strohmer2009}) \\
Hierarchical & $\mathcal{O}( N \log(n)+ n \log^2(n))$& $\mathcal{O}( n \log^2(n))$ (direct method \cite{ambikasaran})\\
semiseparable & $\mathcal{O}( N \log(n)+ n \log^2(n))$& $\mathcal{O}(n)$ \cite{Vandebril2007,Vandebril2008}\\
Laplacian & $\mathcal O (m \log^2 n \log\log n \log(m \epsilon^{-1}))$ & \cite{Kelner2013} (similar to this paper) \\
& (Thm. \ref{thmLaplacian})& \cite{Cohen2014} (fastest algorithm) \\
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\subsection{Hierarchical matrices}
In the following, we will discuss hierarchical $\mathcal{H}_r$-matrices~\cite{Hackbusch2015}, originally introduced by Hackbusch~\cite{Hackbusch1999}, and show that they are $k$-sparsely factorizable.
Importantly, in this case $k$ depends only on the height and the degree of the hierarchical structure.
\subsubsection{Definition of an $\mathcal{H}_r$-matrix}\label{sec:31}
As the name suggests, $\mathcal{H}_r$-matrices are intimately related to hierarchical structures.
As a hierarchy may be aptly represented as a tree we introduce these matrices here with the help of (tree-)graphs.
As we will see this also enables us to establish a connection to graph-theoretic algorithms for solving Laplacian systems in subsequent sections.
\begin{figure}
\center
\includegraphics[width = \textwidth]{Schematic2}
\caption{(a) A dendrogram of $I = \{1, \ldots, 8\}$ of height $h=3$ and degree $d=2$. (b) The $\mathcal{P}$-partitioning of an $8 \times 8$ matrix where $\mathcal{P}$ is the dendrogram of $\{1, \ldots, 8\}$ in (a).}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{definition}[Dendrogram]
A \emph{dendrogram} is a hierarchical partitioning $\mathcal P$ of the set $\{1,\ldots,n\}$.
Every dendrogram comprises a sequence of increasingly finer partitions $P_h, \ldots, P_0$ starting from the coarsest (global) partition $P_h$ given by the whole set, up to the finest (singleton) partition $P_0$ into $n$ sets.
A dendrogram is conveniently represented by a rooted directed tree.
The nodes of this tree at height $i$ are the subsets of partition $P_i$.
Thus the root ($i=h$) is the full set while the leaves ($i=0$) are the $n$ single-element subsets.
The children (out-neighbours) of a node at height $i$ correspond to the subsets of this node as specified by the next lower partition $P_{i-1}$.
We call $h$ the \emph{height} of the dendrogram, and the maximum number of children of a node in the tree is denoted as \emph{maximum degree} $d$.
\end{definition}
Figure \ref{fig1}a shows an example of a dendrogram with height 3 and maximum degree 2.
For simplicity of notation and without loss of generality, we suppose throughout the paper that every node of a dendrogram has consecutive elements.
A dendrogram $\mathcal{P}$ induces a hierarchical block segmentation of a matrix $E\in \mathbb R^{n \times n}$ as follows.
Let us denote the degree of the root node by $t\leq d$.
The rows and columns of $E$ are first block-partitioned according to the partition $P_{h-1}$:
\begin{equation}\label{Ematrix}
E = \left(\begin{array}{cccc} E_{I_1 \times I_1} & E_{I_1 \times I_2} & \hdots & E_{I_1 \times I_t} \\ E_{I_2 \times I_1} & E_{I_2 \times I_2} & \hdots & E_{I_2 \times I_t} \\ \vdots & \vdots & \vdots & \vdots \\ E_{I_t \times I_1} & E_{I_t \times I_2} & \hdots & E_{I_t \times I_t} \end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
where $I_1, \ldots, I_t$ are the elements of partition $P_{h-1}$.
The diagonal blocks $E_{I_i \times I_i}$, are recursively sub-partitioned according to $P_{h-2}$, etc.
This partitioning of $E$ is called \emph{$\mathcal{P}$-partitioning}.
See Figure~\ref{fig1}(b) for an illustration.
\begin{definition}(Elementary block)
We use the term \emph{elementary block} to refer to a sub-matrix of $E$ generated by the $\mathcal{P}$-partitioning that is not further subdivided.
In other words it is a block of the form $E_{I_i \times I_j}$ where $I_i$ and $I_j$ are either two different sets in the same partition $P_k$, or two single-element sets of the finest partition $P_0$.
\end{definition}
\begin{definition}(Hierarchical Matrix)
An $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix is a square matrix, structured according to the dendrogram $\mathcal{P}$, for which the elementary blocks have rank at most $r\in \mathbb N$.
We use the shorthand $\mathcal{H}_r$ when the dendrogram is clear from the context.
Note that a sub-matrix $E_{I_i \times I_i}$ of an $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix $E$, where $I_i$ is a set of some partition $P_k$, is an $\mathcal{H}_r$-matrix as well.
\end{definition}
\subsubsection{Sparse factorization property}
In the following, we prove that $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrices are $k$-sparsely factorizable, and express $k$ in terms of the rank $r$, maximum degree $d$ and height $h$.
Recall that an $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix $E$ is of the form \eqref{Ematrix}.
Every non-elementary block $E_{I_i \times I_i}$ on the diagonal is recursively of the same form until the diagonal block is just a scalar.
Hence, every diagonal non-elementary block is a hierarchical matrix, too.
Further, note that every column of the full matrix $E$ is built by concatenating the corresponding columns of the $E_{I_i \times I_j}$ blocks.
For example, the first column of $E$ can be built by stacking up the first columns of $E_{I_1 \times I_1}, E_{I_2 \times I_1}, \ldots, E_{I_t \times I_1}$.
We can thus build a $k$-sparse factorization $E=CD$ as follows.
As every off-diagonal elementary block $E_{I_i \times I_j}$ has a rank of at most $r$, there is a matrix $D_{ij}$ such that the elementary block can be decomposed as $E_{I_i \times I_j} = C_{ij}D_{ij}$, where $C_{ij}$ has at most $r$ columns.
Thus, we know how to express all the elements in the off-diagonal blocks using this factorization.
Hence, if we knew a sparse decomposition of the diagonal blocks $E_{I_i \times I_i} = C_{ii} D_{ii}$, we could assemble the whole matrix $E$ by appropriate concatenation of the matrices $C_{ij}$.
To factorize the diagonal blocks we apply this construction recursively.
To make the recursion well defined, if the diagonal block $E$ is a scalar (a $1 \times 1$ matrix), we define $E = CD$, where $C$ is an arbitrary nonzero scalar, for instance we take $C = E$ and take $D=1$.
Decomposing the columns of $E$ in this recursive way, we obtain a sparse factorization $E = CD$.
We illustrate this for the case $t = 3$, hereafter.
For each $i \in \{1, 2, 3\}$, let each diagonal block $E_{I_i \times I_i} = C_{ii}D_{ii}$ be a $k_i$-sparse decomposition (recursively), and recall that each elementary block $E_{I_i \times I_j}$ $(i \neq j)$ can be factorized as $E_{I_i \times I_j} = C_{ij}D_{ij}$.
Then a $k$-sparse factorization of $E$ is given by:
\begin{flalign} E
&= \label{Cmatrix}
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}
C_{11} & C_{12} & C_{13} & & & & & & \\
& & & C_{22} &C_{21} & C_{23} & & & \\
& & & & & & C_{33} & C_{31} & C_{32}
\end{pmatrix}}_{C}
\underbrace{\begin{pmatrix}D_{11} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & D_{12} & 0 \\
0 & 0 & D_{13} \\
\hline 0 & D_{22} & 0 \\
D_{21} & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & D_{23} \\
\hline 0 & 0 & D_{33} \\
D_{31} & 0 & 0\\
0 & D_{32} & 0
\end{pmatrix}}_{D},
\end{flalign}
where $C_{11}, C_{22}, C_{33}$ are recursively defined according to the diagonal blocks of $E$.
Having thus found a possible factorization, the question remains what sparsity, $k$, it affords.
To answer this question, let us first consider the columns of $C$ necessary to build the first columns of $E$, and the union of their forward overlaps.
There are two types of columns in $C$ needed to build up the first block of columns in $E$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item the columns in the $\begin{pmatrix}C_{11} & 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}^T$ block.
Their forward-overlap is $k_1+r(l-1)$, where $k_1$ is the sparsity of the factorization of $C_1$, and the $r(l-1)$ term accounts for the overlap with the $(l-1)$ $r$-column matrices $C_{12}$ and $C_{13}$.
\item The columns in the blocks $\begin{pmatrix}0 & C_{21} & 0\end{pmatrix}^T$ and $\begin{pmatrix}0 &0 & C_{31} \end{pmatrix}^T$.
Their forward overlap is $r(l-1)$ at most.
\end{enumerate}
As this argument holds for any column of $E$, the factorization $E=CD$ is $k$-sparse for $k=\max_i k_i +r(l-1)$, where $k_i$ is determined recursively from the decomposition of the diagonal block $E_{I_i \times I_i}$.
Unravelling the recursion over all $h$ levels, we find that $k=rd(d-1)(h + 1)$, where $d$ is the maximal degree of the dendrogram, as before.
Throughout the paper, in a $k$-sparse factorization $E = CD$ of an $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix, the matrix $C$ is supposed to be of the generic form \eqref{Cmatrix}, for an accordingly determined degree $d$.
We will call this type of matrix a \textit{C-matrix}.
In the Appendix we prove that the number $p$ of columns of $C$ in the recursive construction in \eqref{Cmatrix} is bounded by $p \leq rd^2n$.
We formalize the above findings in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm41}
Let $E \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ be an $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix with a dendrogram $\mathcal{P}$ of height $h$ and maximum degree $d$.
Then, there are matrices $C \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times p}$ and $D \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times n}$ such that $p \leq rd^2n$ and the factorization $E = CD$ is $k$-sparse for $k = rd(d-1)(h+1)$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Semiseparable matrices}
Another important matrix class which has received much attention in the literature are semi-separable matrices, whose inverses are given by tridiagonal matrices~\cite{Vandebril2008,Vandebril2007} and thus can be solved in linear time.
\begin{definition}\cite{Vandebril2005}
\label{defi600}
An $n \times n$ matrix $E$ is called $(p,q)$-semiseparable if the following relations are satisfied: $$\text{rank}(E(1: i+q-1, i:n)) \leq q \text{ and } \text{rank}(E(i:n, 1: i+p-1)) \leq p$$ for all feasible $1 \leq i \leq n$.
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:semsep}
An $n \times n$ matrix that is $(p,q)$-semiseparable is an $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix where $r = \max\{p,q\}$ and $\mathcal{P}$ is a binary dendrogram.
\end{theorem}
The proof is given in the appendix.
It follows directly that semi-separable matrices are $k$-sparsely factorizable, too.
We note that, due to their remarkable structural properties, algorithms solving semiseparable systems in linear time are well known in the literature \cite{Vandebril2007, Vandebril2008}.
\subsection{Reduced incidence matrices of trees and their inverse}
In what follows, we define a reduced incidence matrix of a tree, and show that it is $k$-sparsely factorizable as it is an $\mathcal{H}_1(\mathcal{P})$-matrix where $\mathcal{P}$ is a binary dendrogram ($d = 2$).
We remark that, to the best of our knowlege, this connection between hierarchical matrices and incidence matrices of trees has no been reported in the literature so far.
The importance of this observation arises in the context of Laplacian systems, as we will see in a later section.
We first give the definitions of an incidence matrix of a graph and of a reduced incidence matrix of a tree.
\begin{definition}[Incidence matrix, reduced incidence matrix]
\label{defi39}
Let $G$ be a positively weighted undirected graph on $n$ nodes and $m$ edges with an arbitrary direction chosen for each edge. An incidence matrix $B \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times m}$ of $G$ is a node-by-edge matrix such that given an edge $e_i$ of $G$ from node $i_1$ to node $i_2$ with weight $w_i$, the $i$th column of $B$ takes value $-\sqrt{w_i}$ at the source node $i_1$, value $\sqrt{w_i}$ at the target node $i_2$ and value $0$ at any other node.
A reduced incidence matrix of a graph $G$ is an incidence matrix of $G$ from which one row has been removed.
\end{definition}
To reveal the hierarchical structure in the reduced incidence matrix of a tree, one has to recursively split the nodes of the tree in a balanced way.
A classic way to do so is provided by the tree-vertex-separator lemma.
\begin{lemma}[Tree Vertex Separator Lemma, \cite{Jordan1869,Chung1990}]
\label{lem3}
For any forest $T$ with $n \geq 2$ nodes, one can divide $T$ into two forests both of at most $2n/3$ nodes, by removing at most one node $d$, which can be computed in $\mathcal{O}(n)$ time.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proposition}
\label{prop1}\label{prop47}
A reduced incidence matrix of an $n$-edge tree is, for some ordering of the nodes and edges, an upper-triangular $\mathcal{H}_1(\mathcal{P})$-matrix for a binary dendrogram $\mathcal{P}$ with height $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$. The inverse of the reduced incidence matrix is, for the same ordering of nodes and edges, also an upper-triangular $\mathcal{H}_1(\mathcal{P})$-matrix. The dendrogram $\mathcal{P}$ and both hierarchical matrices can be computed in time $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$.
Thus, a $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$-sparse factorization of (the inverse of) such a hierarchical matrix is computable in time $\mathcal{O}(n \log^2 n)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Note that in this proof we consider $T$ as an undirected tree with root $v$.
A tree $T$ of $n$ nodes has $n-1$ edges, and hence is described by an $n$-by-$(n-1)$ incidence matrix.
By convention we assign an arbitrary direction to each edge, encoded by the signs of the entries in the incidence matrix.
However, the chosen direction does not play any role for the results in the following.
By removing a row from the incidence matrix, we obtain a square reduced incidence matrix of dimension $n-1$.
We now split the tree $T$ into two forests $T_1$ and $T_2$ following the procedure of the Tree Vertex Separator Lemma.
Each of $T_1$, $T_2$ will accordingly have no more than $2n/3$ nodes.
We assign the separator node $d$ (if any) to $T_2$.
We now order the nodes in our reduced incidence matrix in two blocks according to this split:
\begin{equation*}
E = \begin{pmatrix}{E}_{I_1 \times I_1} & {E}_{I_1 \times I_2} \\ 0 & {E}_{I_2 \times I_2}\end{pmatrix},
\end{equation*}
where $E_{I_i \times I_i}$ (for $i=1,2$) is the reduced incidence matrix of $T_i$ and $E_{I_1 \times I_2}$ is a rank-$1$ matrix with at most one non-zero entry corresponding to the edge linking $d$ to its father.
Here, the indices of the edges have been assigned as follows: an edge connecting node $i$ and $j$ is indexed by $j$, if $j$ is one step further away from the root than $i$ (i.e. $j$ is the `child' of $i$).
We repeat this argument recursively and thereby create a dendrogram $P$ on the nodes of $T$ of height $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$, and a corresponding upper triangular $\mathcal{H}_1(\mathcal{P})$-matrix structure for $E$.
From the ordering of edges, we see that the $i$th node is always incident to the $i$th edge, thus the diagonal entry of $E$ is $\pm \sqrt{w_i}$, making it easily invertible.
Indeed, the inverse of $E$ can be computed recursively as
$$E^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} {E}_{I_1 \times I_1}^{-1} & F \\ 0 & {E}_{I_2 \times I_2}^{-1}\end{pmatrix} ,$$
with $F=-E_{I_1 \times I_1}^{-1}E_{I_1 \times I_2}^{} E_{I_2 \times I_2}^{-1}$.
Note that we may write $F= uv^T$ as it is clearly of rank one at most, thus leading to an upper-triangular $\mathcal{H}_1(\mathcal{P})$-matrix for $E^{-1}$ as well.
Both for $E$ and $E^{-1}$, every of the $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$ steps of the recursion takes $\mathcal{O}(n)$, required to finding the tree vertex separators and (in case of $E^{-1}$) computing $u$ and $v$, solutions of triangular systems.
Therefore we get a total cost of $\mathcal{O}(n \log n)$.
Finally, using the procedure outlined above we can decompose $E^{-1}=CD$.
Using $E_{I_1 \times I_1}^{-1} = C_{11}D_{11}$ and $E_{I_2 \times I_2}^{-1} = C_{22}D_{22}$, we recursively construct:
\begin{equation*}
E^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} C_{11} & & u \\ & C_{22} & \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} D_{11} & \\ & D_{22} \\ & v^T \end{pmatrix}.
\end{equation*}
By unfolding this recursion we can see that this leads to a forward-overlap of size $\mathcal{O}(\log(n))$ in $C$, and an $\mathcal{O}(\log(n))$ column-sparse matrix $D$. Similarly, a $\mathcal{O}(\log n)$-sparse factorization can be obtained for $E$.
\end{proof}
\section{Fast iterative linear solvers on hierarchical systems}\label{sec:iterative_solvers}
To illustrate the usefulness of our results, in the following we showcase two concrete application scenarios in which the above developed theory can be employed.
\subsection{A strategy for solving underdetermined systems}
In the following, we focus again on the case of an underdetermined system $Ax=b$.
We devise a strategy that assumes a decomposition of the $n$-by-$m$ full-rank matrix $A$ (with $n < m$) of the form $A =\begin{pmatrix} E & F \end{pmatrix}$, where $E$ is an invertible $n \times n$ submatrix of $A$.
In particular, let us consider the case where $E^{-1}$ is hierarchical.
We can then combine Theorem \ref{thm1} and the subsequent discussion, and Theorem~\ref{thm41} to obtain the following result.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm32}
Let $A = \begin{pmatrix}E & F \end{pmatrix}$ be an $n \times m$ matrix with $n < m$, where $E \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n}$ is invertible and $E^{-1}$ is an $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix with an associated dendrogram $\mathcal{P}$ of maximum degree $d$ and height $h$. Further, let $F \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times (m-n)}$ be $f$-column sparse.
Then, we can compute an approximation of $x^* := \arg\min_{s.t. Ax = b} ||x||$ by applying $N$ iterations of the form (\ref{eq0}), in time
$$\mathcal{O}(N frd^2h + mf^2r^2d^4h^2) + Cost(CD),$$
where $Cost(CD)$ is the cost of computing a $(rd^2(h+1))$-sparse factorization of $E^{-1}$. The number of iterations to gain one order of magnitude on the error is at most $N_1 = \mathcal{O}(\|E^{-1}F\|_\text{Frob}^2+m)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Following Theorem \ref{thm41}, let $E^{-1} = CD$ be a $k$-sparse factorization with $k = rd(d-1)(h+1)=\mathcal O(rd^2h)$.
By the second elementary property of the sparse factorization (see Property 2 on page \pageref{proper2}), we know that $C$ is $k$-row sparse and that each column of $D$ is $k$-sparse.
A feasible solution to $Ax = b$ is then given by $x_0 = (\begin{smallmatrix} E^{-1}b \\ 0 \end{smallmatrix})$ where $E^{-1}b= CDb$ is computed in $\mathcal{O}(kn)$ time.
Now, consider the matrix $Q$ given in (\ref{eq10}).
From our discussion above we know that the columns of $Q$ are a basis of $\text{null}(A)$ and that the matrix $Q$ is $(kf+1)$-sparsely factorizable.
Let $Q = \tilde{C}\tilde{D}$ be the $(kf+1)$-sparse factorization given in (\ref{eq11}).
We start from the vector $x_0$ and iteratively pick a column $q$ of $Q$ and perform an iteration of the form $(\ref{eq0})$.
Theorem \ref{thm1} with $Q, \tilde{C}$ and $\tilde{D}$ then shows that the running time is given by
$$\mathcal{O}(N fk + mf^2k^2) + Cost(CD).$$
\end{proof}
\subsection{Square hierarchical systems}
The present technique can be also applied to solve square systems $Ax=b$, where $A$ is hierarchical and invertible.
\begin{theorem}
The system $Ay=b$, where $A$ is an invertible $n$-by-$n$ $\mathcal{H}_r(\mathcal{P})$-matrix with $\mathcal{P}$ a dendrogram of degree $d$ and height $h$, can be solved iteratively in time $$\mathcal{O}(N rd^2h + nr^2d^4h^2) + Cost(CD),$$ where $N$ is the number of iterations and $Cost(CD)$ is the running time needed to compute a $k$-sparse factorization of $A$ with $k = rd(d-1)(h+1)$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
In section \ref{overdetcase}, page \pageref{overdetcase}, we explain how to solve an overdetermined system using iterations (\ref{eq0}).
Trivially, we can use the presented method for the square system $Ay = b$.
Following the notations of Theorem \ref{thm1}, here $Q = A$, $m = n$ and the running time is
$$\mathcal{O}(Nk + nk^2) + Cost(CD).$$
We moreover use Theorem \ref{thm41} which states
$k = rd(d-1)(h+1)$ to deduce that the running time is
$$\mathcal{O}(Nrd^2h + nr^2d^4h^2) + Cost(CD).$$
\end{proof}
In particular, if $A$ is an $\mathcal{H}_1(\mathcal{P})$-matrix (rank $r=1$) with a binary ($d=2$) dendrogram $\mathcal{P}$ of height $h=\mathcal{O}(\log n)$ (e.g., $A$ could be the reduced incidence matrix of a tree), then this running time becomes
$$\mathcal{O}(N\log n + n\log^2n),$$
where we have used Proposition \ref{prop1} which states that a sparse factorization of $A$ is computed in time $\mathcal{O}(n\log^2n)$.
As far as we know, this is the best iterative method in terms of cost per iteration ($\log n$).
Most standard method would exhibit a cost of $\mathcal{O}(n)$ per iteration, the cost of a matrix-vector product.
However, for solving squared hierarchical systems a direct method exists that solves such a problem in $\mathcal{O}(n \log^2 n)$ \cite{ambikasaran}.
\section{Solving Laplacian systems in nearly linear time}
\label{section5}
In the following we demonstrate how the approach outlined above can be used to solve Laplacian systems.
\subsection{Minimum norm solution for a system with reduced incidence matrix}
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor51}
Let $A$ be a reduced incidence matrix of a connected undirected graph on $n$ nodes and $m$ edges.
Then, the minimal norm solution $x^*$ of a compatible system $Ax = b$ can be computed with relative accuracy $\epsilon = \|x_t - x^*\| / \| x^*\|$ in $\mathcal{O}(m\log^2 (n) \log \log (n) \log (m \epsilon^{-1}))$ time.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Note that every edge in the graph corresponds to one column of $A$, and thus every spanning tree is associated with a submatrix $E$ which is invertible by construction~\cite{Strang1986}.
Choosing an invertible (sub-)matrix $E$ such that $A =\begin{pmatrix}E & F\end{pmatrix}$ is therefore equivalent to selecting a spanning tree of $G$.
We now claim that we can choose $E$, i.e., choose an appropriate spanning tree, such that $\|E^{-1}F\|_\textrm{Frob}^2=\mathcal{O}(m \log n \log \log n)$.
For any choice of spanning tree, we define the root as the node whose row has been removed from the incidence matrix $A$ to obtain a reduced incidence matrix.
We choose the (arbitrary) orientation on the edges so as to go from root to leaves.
We also order the nodes from root to leaves (topological order) and edges so that any edge has the same index as its destination.
Let us call the \textit{unweigted, directed} adjacency matrix of this spanning tree $T_E$.
With the choices made above $T_E$ is upper triangular.
Then we can write $E=(I-T_E)\sqrt{W_{T_E}}$ where $W_{T_E}$ is the diagonal matrix weights on the edges.
Using a Neumann series expansion we can see that $E^{-1}=W^{-1/2}_{T_E} (I+T_E+T_E^2 + T_E^3 + \ldots + T_E^h)$ where $h$ is the height of the tree.
The columns of $E^{-1}$ encode the paths between root and leaves, with entries given by the (positive) inverse square root of the edge-weights.
Since $F$ is a (reduced) incidence matrix, each column $i$ of $E^{-1}F$ is the (weighted) difference between two columns of $E^{-1}$.
In fact, each column $i$ of $E^{-1}F$ describes the (signed) path in the tree between the extremities of edge $i$, on which each edge $e$ has weight $\sqrt{w_i/w_e}$.
Therefore the squared Frobenius norm of $E^{-1}F$ is the so-called stretch of the tree in the graph with \emph{inverse} weights, i.e. weight $w^{-1}_e$ on each edge $e$ of the graph, as already noticed in \cite{Kelner2013}. Using the algorithm in Ref. \cite{Abraham2012} we can therefore find a spanning tree with reduced incidence matrix $E$ such that $\|E^{-1}F\|^2_\textrm{Frob}= \mathcal{O}(m \log n \log \log n)$, where $m$ is the number of edges in the graph.
The incurred computational cost for is $\mathcal{O}(m \log n \log \log n)$~\cite{Abraham2012}.
From Proposition \ref{prop47}, it follows that $E^{-1}$ is an $\mathcal{H}_1(\mathcal{P})$-matrix, with is a binary dendrogram $\mathcal P$ of height $h = \mathcal{O}(\log n)$, and parameters $r=1$, $d=2$.
A sparse decomposition of $E^{-1}$ can thus be computed in time $\mathcal{O}(n\log^2n)$.
Using Theorem \ref{thm32}, we can thus compute the minimal norm solution $x^*$ of $Ax = b$ in nearly linear time.
More precisely, following Section \ref{sec:underdetermined_convergence} we define $\kappa=\|E^{-1}F\|_\text{Frob}^2+m$, which is $\mathcal O (m \log n \log \log n)$. We then find that $N_1=\mathcal{O}(\kappa)$ iterations, each of which costs $k=\mathcal O (\log n)$, suffice to gain one order of magnitude, and the overall cost to achieve a relative accuracy $\epsilon$ is $\mathcal O (\kappa \log(\kappa \epsilon^{-1}) + m k^2)$, which in this case reduces to $\mathcal O (m \log^2 n \log \log n \log (m\epsilon^{-1}))$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Solving Laplacian systems}
The above corollary provides the critical step in solving a compatible Laplacian system $L\chi=c$, where $L$ is the Laplacian of the same graph, as we show now.
For a given incidence matrix $B$ the Laplacian is defined as $L=BB^T$ , or equivalently as the node-by-node matrix with entries $L_{ij}=-w_{ij}$ for every edge $ij$ of weight $w_{ij}$, $L_{ij}=0$ if $i$ is not adjacent to $j$, and the weighted degree $L_{ii}=\sum_k w_{ik}$ on diagonal entries.
Such a system $L\chi=c$ can be solved in two steps:
\begin{enumerate}
\item solve $Bx=c$ so that $x$ is in the image of $B^T$;
\item solve the compatible, overdetermined system $B^T\chi=x$.
\end{enumerate}
This strategy of splitting the problem of solving a Laplacian system into 2 parts is in line with the approach followed by Kelner et al.~\cite{Kelner2013}.
However, their algorithm relies on graph-theoretic notions and a specific data structure construction, rather than a matrix decomposition.
Note that the first step in the procedure above is equivalent to finding the minimum-norm solution of $Bx=c$.
Any solution of $Bx=c$ is of the form $x=B^T\chi+v$, for some $v$ such that $Bv=0$.
This implies that $v$ is orthogonal to $B^T\chi$, and thus $B^T\chi+v$ has a norm larger than $B^T\chi$, with the minimum norm solution given by $v=0$.
The goal is therefore to solve $Bx=c$ in the minimum norm sense.
Since the columns of $B$ sum to zero, we can remove an arbitrary row without affecting the solution, i.e., we can `ground' the system.
Let us call $A$ the so-obtained reduced incidence matrix of the graph, and $b$ the vector obtained from $c$ by removing one entry.
Now we have to solve $Ax=b$, which can be done efficiently as discussed above.
The second step outlined above then requires finding the solution of a compatible overdetermined system.
This can be found by solving the square invertible triangular subsystem $E^Ty=x_E$ where $E$ is the reduced incidence matrix of the spanning tree used to solve $Ax = b$ (see the proof of Corollary \ref{cor51}) and $x_E$ is the corresponding part of vector $x$.
Solving this triangular system takes $\mathcal{O}(n)$ time, from leaves to root.
We remark that when solving a semi-definite positive system $L\chi=c$, the $L$-pseudo-norm $\|\chi\|_L^2=\chi^TL\chi$ is often used as the error norm.
Note that all $\|\chi\|_L^2$ vanishes only if vector $\chi$ has identical entries.
The relative accuracy of the solution $\chi$ is accordingly defined as $\epsilon = \|\chi-\chi^*\|_L/\|\chi^*\|_L$.
Putting these pieces together, we obtain the following theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thmLaplacian}
Given a Laplacian matrix $L$ of a connected graph with $m$ edges and a zero-sum vector $c$, the (compatible) system $L\chi=c$ can be solved within time $\mathcal{O}(m \log^2 n \log \log n \log (m \epsilon^{-1}))$ with relative accuracy $\epsilon$, as measured in the $L$-pseudo-norm.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
From Corollary \ref{cor51} we find an approximate solution $x^* +\Delta x$ to the
problem $Bx=c$, with $\|\Delta x\|/\|x^*\| \leq \delta$, in time
$\mathcal{O}(m \log^2 n \log \log n \log (n \delta^{-1}))$.
We then find the approximate solution $\chi^*+\Delta \chi$ as $E^{-T}(x_E^*+\Delta x_E)$, where $x_E$ denotes the restriction of the $m$-dimensional vector $x$ to the $n$ entries corresponding to $E$.
The incurred error $\Delta \chi$ can be bounded, using $L=BB^T$ and $B=(E \,\,\, F)$:
\begin{flalign}
\|\Delta \chi\|^2_L&=\|E^{-T} \Delta x_E\|^2_L =\|(I \,\,\,\,\, E^{-1}F)^T \Delta x_E\|^2 \leq \mathcal{O}(m \log n \log \log n) \|\Delta x\|^2
\end{flalign}
Moreover the exact solution fulfills $\|\chi^*\|^2_L=\|x^*\|^2$ by definition of $x=B^T\chi$.
Thus, we see that the relative accuracy on $x$ in terms of $\|.\|_L$ is
$$
\frac{\|\Delta \chi\|^2_L}{\|\chi^*\|^2_L}=\mathcal{O}(m\log n \log \log n )\frac{\|\Delta x\|^2}{\|x^*\|^2}
$$
Therefore we can choose $\delta^{-1}=\mathcal{O}(\sqrt{m\log n \log \log n} ) \epsilon^{-1}$, for any required accuracy level $\epsilon$.
The proof is concluded by Corollary \ref{cor51}.
\end{proof}
We remark that the computational complexity of our final algorithm could be reduced further, by using some of the computational techniques discussed in \cite{Koutis2010,Koutis2011,Kelner2013}, which are beyond the scope of this paper, however.
For instance, one could employ a preconditioning to change the norm of $\|E^-{1}F\|$ and thereby obtain a better initial estimate for $\hat x_0$.
Indeed using such a preconditioning recursively, Kelner et al. are able to obtain an algorithm with a total complexity of $\mathcal{O} (m \log^2 n \log \log n \log \epsilon^{-1})$~\cite{Kelner2013}.
Note, however, that Kelner et al.~\cite{Kelner2013} employ quite different means to establish this result.
Instead of a matrix factorization, the core tool invoked is an efficient data-structure which enables fast updates.
Our $k$-sparse matrix factorization approach may thus be seen as an alternative perspective on the problem of solving Laplacian systems.
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper we have considered the problem of finding the minimum norm vector $x$ within an affine space, which arises naturally when solving an under- or overdetermined linear system.
We have shown that this problem can be solved very efficiently in an iterative manner by choosing the matrix of search directions $Q= [q_1,\ldots,q_m]$ in an appropriate way.
Specifically, if there exists a $k$-sparse matrix factorization of $Q$, each iterative update of the form $x_{t+1} = x_t - \frac{x_t^Tq_i}{q_i^Tq_i} q_i$ can be computed in $\mathcal{O}(k)$ time, enabling us to construct fast algorithm for solving linear systems.
The notion of a $k$-sparse matrix factorization is indeed central to these findings, as it ensures the existence of a computationally efficient update scheme despite the fact that $Q$ might be full, i.e., the search directions are not formed by sparse vectors.
We have shown that some important classes of matrices are $k$-sparsely factorizable, and in particular that in the case of hierarchical matrices $k$ does not depend on the size of the matrix, but merely on the depth of the hierarchy.
From this, we have deduced an iterative method with fast iterations that approximates the minimal norm solution of underdetermined linear systems.
In particular, this approach can be applied when the coefficient matrix is the incidence matrix of a connected graph.
This leads naturally to a method to solve Laplacian systems in nearly-linear time.
In this context, our work provides a complementary algebraic perspective to the problem of solving Laplacian system, and connects combinatorial and graph-theoretic notions with the problem of finding a $k$-sparse matrix factorization.
An important direction for future work is to characterise the general class of matrices that can be sparsely factorized in more detail, and see how it can be extended beyond the matrices discussed within the present manuscript.
For instance, solvers based on tensor decompositions~\cite{Kressner2010,Ballani2013,Oseledets2012} have been presented in the literature, which assume that the linear system under study has an inherent Kronecker-product~\cite{Kressner2010,Ballani2013} or tensor-train~\cite{Oseledets2012} representation (or at least can be well approximated by such a structure).
It would be interesting to investigate in how far these matrix structures are also amenable to a $k$-sparse factorization.
Other avenues for future work include investigating possible parallelization of the here presented techniques, or combining them with other randomized update schemes ~\cite{Gower2015,Gower2015a} than the here considered randomized Kacmarz updates~\cite{Strohmer2009}.
For instance, it would be interesting to see in how far block updates (instead of single coordinate updates), could lead to more efficient iterative algorithms.
\bibliographystyle{siamplain}
|
\section{Introduction and Background}
\label{sec1}
An index coding problem consists of one transmitter, $M$ receivers $\{R_1,R_2,\ldots,R_M\}$ and $K$ independent messages
$\{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_K\}$, where $x_i\in\mathbb{F}_q^{p_i},~ x_i=(x_{i,1},x_{i,2},\ldots,x_{i, p_i }),~x_{i,j} \in \mathbb{F}_q$ for
$i \in \{1,2,\ldots,K \}$ and $j \in \{1,2,\ldots,p_i\}$. Each receiver $R_i$ is identified with $\{\mathcal{W}_i,\mathcal{K}_i\}$, where $\mathcal{W}_i \subseteq \{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_K\}$ is the set of wanted messages and $\mathcal{K}_i \subseteq \{x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_K\}$ is the set of known messages to receiver $R_i$. The messages in the set $\mathcal{K}_i$ are also called side information or antidotes to receiver $R_i$. The transmitter has all the $K$ messages and it also knows the set of wanted and known messages of each receiver. An index code is a mapping defined as follows:
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{C}: \mathbb{F}^{p_1+p_2+\ldots+p_K}_q \rightarrow \mathbb{F}^N_q,
\end{align*}
where $N$ is the length of index code. That is, the index code $\mathfrak{C}$ maps $K$ messages $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_K$ into $N$ code symbols $y_1$,$y_2,\ldots$,$y_N$ ($y_i\in \mathbb{F}_q$ for $i=1,2,\ldots,N$). If $p_1=p_2=\cdots=p_K$, then the index code is called symmetric rate vector index code. If $p_1=p_2=\cdots=p_K=1$, then the index code is called scalar index code. The index coding problem is to design an index code such that the number of transmissions broadcasted by the transmitter is minimized and all the receivers get their wanted messages by using the index code broadcasted and their known information.
Instead of one transmitter and $M$ receivers, the index coding problem can also be viewed as $M$ source-receiver pairs with all $M$ sources connected with all $M$ receivers through a common finite capacity channel \cite{MCJ} and all source-receiver pairs connected with either zero of infinite capacity channels. This problem is called multiple unicast index coding problem (MUICP).
The problem of index coding with side information was introduced by Birk and Kol \cite{BiK}. Bar-Yossef \textit{et al.} \cite{YBJK} studied the class of index coding problems in which each receiver demands only a unique message and the number of receivers equals the number of messages. Ong and Ho \cite{OnH} classified binary index coding problem depending on the demands and side information of the receivers. An index coding problem is called unicast if the demand sets of the receivers are disjoint.
For the unicast index coding problem, it was shown that the length of an optimal linear index code is equal to the minrank of the side information graph \cite{YBJK} of the index coding problem and finding the minrank is NP hard \cite{minrank}.
Maleki \textit{et al.} \cite{MCJ} found the capacity of symmetric MUICP with neighboring antidotes. In a symmetric MUICP with equal number of $K$ messages and source-receiver pairs, each receiver has a total of $U+D=A<K$ antidotes, corresponding to the $U$ messages before and $D$ messages after its desired message. In this setting, the $k$th receiver $R_{k}$ demands the message $x_{k}$ having the antidotes
\begin{equation}
\label{antidote}
{\cal K}_k= \{x_{k-U},\dots,x_{k-2},x_{k-1}\}\cup\{x_{k+1}, x_{k+2},\dots,x_{k+D}\}.
\end{equation}
The symmetric capacity of this index coding problem setting is
\begin{flushleft}
$C=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{~~~1\qquad\quad\ ~~~~ \mbox{if}~~~~A=K-1}\\
{\frac{U+1}{K-A+2U}} ~~~~~~~ \mbox{if}~~~~A\leq K-2\qquad $per message,$
\end{array}
\right.$
\end{flushleft}
where $U,D \in$ $\mathbb{Z},$ $0 \leq U \leq D$, and $U+D=A<K$.
\vspace{-10pt}
\begin{align}
\label{capacity}
\end{align}
In the setting given in \cite{MCJ} with one-sided antidote cases, i.e., the cases where $U$ is zero,
the $k$th receiver $R_{k}$ demands the message $x_{k}$ having the antidotes,
\begin{equation}
\label{antidote1}
{\cal K}_k =\{x_{k+1}, x_{k+2},\dots,x_{k+D}\},
\end{equation}
\noindent
for which \eqref{capacity} reduces to
\begin{equation}
\label{capacity1}
C=\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{~~1 ~~~~~~~~~~ \mbox{if} ~~ D=K-1}\\
{\frac{1}{K-D}} ~~~~~~~ \mbox{if} ~~D\leq K-2 ~~~~~\text{per message}.
\end{array}
\right.
\end{equation}
The set of messages neither known nor demanded by $R_k$ contribute interference ($\mathcal{I}_k$) at the receiver $R_k$, where
\begin{align}
\label{interference}
\mathcal{I}_k=\{x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{k-1},x_{k+D+1},x_{k+D+2},\ldots,x_K\}.
\end{align}
The reciprocal of the capacity is called the optimal length of an index coding problem. That is, at least $\frac{1}{C}$ code symbols are required to convey one wanted message to each receiver.
In a scalar linear code, the messages in an index coding problem take value from a finite field $\mathbb{F}_q$. A $K$-tuple $(x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_K)\in\mathbb{F}_q^K$ of messages is denoted by $\mathbf{x}$. A scalar linear index code of length $N$ $(<K)$ is represented by an encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}$ $(\in \mathbb{F}_q^{K\times N})$, where the $j$th column contains the coefficients used for mixing messages $x_1,x_2,\ldots,x_K$ to get the $j$th code symbol and the $i$th row $L_i$ $(\in \mathbb{F}_q^{1\times N})$ contains the coefficients used for mixing message $x_i$ in the $N$ code symbols. A codeword of the index code is
\begin{align*}
[y_1~y_2~\ldots~y_N]=\mathbf{xL}=\sum_{i=1}^{K}x_iL_i.
\end{align*}
In this paper, the $m\times m$ identity matrix is denoted by $\mathbf{I}_{m}$. For a subset $I=\{i_1,i_2,\ldots,i_l\} \subseteq \{1,2,\ldots,K\}$, let $x_I=\{x_{i_1},x_{i_2},\ldots,x_{i_l}\}$ and $L_I=\{L_{i_1},L_{i_2},\ldots,L_{i_l}\}$. All the subscripts in this paper are to be considered $modulo \ K$. The set of rows $\{L_{k+1},L_{k+2},\cdots,L_{k+N}\}$ for $k=1,2,\ldots,K$ (all subscripts are $modulo \ K$) are called adjacent rows in the matrix $L_{K \times N}$.
\subsection{Contributions}
\begin{itemize}
\item In this paper, we give a construction of $0-1$ (binary) matrices with a given size $m \times n~(m \geq n)$, such that any $n$ adjacent rows in the matrix are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\medskip
\item For the neighboring antidote symmetric MUICP, Maleki \textit{et al.} \cite{MCJ} proved the existence of capacity achieving codes by using Vandermonde matrices over large fields. The size of the field in their construction depends on the number of messages $K$. In this paper, using the proposed matrix construction, we give capacity achieving scalar linear codes for given $K$ and $D$ over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$, which is independent of $K$.
\medskip
\item In \cite{MRarXiv}, we proposed a vector linear index code construction that constructs a sequence of MUICPs with two-sided antidotes with a vector linear index code starting from a given one-sided antidote MUICP with a known scalar linear index code. The construction given in this paper along with the construction in \cite{MRarXiv} gives a capacity achieving vector linear code for two-sided neighboring antidote problems with every $K,U$ and $D$ and the constructed codes are independent of field size.
\medskip
\end{itemize}
In \cite{MRRarXiv}, we proposed the construction of capacity achieving scalar linear index codes for one-sided antidote problem for $K$ and $D$ satisfying some conditions. In this paper, we construct capacity achieving scalar linear index codes for arbitrary $K$ and $D$ and the constructed codes are independent of field size.
\section{Construction of the optimal length index codes over $\mathbb{F}_q$}
In this section, we give a method to construct a $K \times (K-D)$ encoding matrix for one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP with $K$ messages and $D$ antidotes.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma1}
Consider a MUICP with $K$ messages and $K$ receivers. Receiver $R_k$ wants the message $x_k$ and its antidotes and interference are given by \eqref{antidote1} and \eqref{interference} respectively. Let $\mathbf{L}$ be a $K\times (K-D)$ encoding matrix for this index coding problem. Then, the receiver $R_k$ can decode $x_k$ if and only if
\begin{align}
\label{ind}
L_{k}\notin \mathsf{span}\; L_{{\cal{I}}_k} ~~ \text{for~each} ~~k\in\{1,2,\ldots,K\},
\end{align}
where $L_{{\cal{I}}_k}=\{L_{1},L_2,\ldots,L_{k-1},L_{k+D+1},L_{k+D+2},\ldots,L_{K}\}.$
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The received vector $y$ can be written as
\begin{align}
\nonumber
y&=x_{{\cal{K}}_k}L_{{\cal{K}}_k}+x_kL_k+x_{{\cal{I}}_k}L_{{\cal{I}}_k}, \text{ or}
\\ z&=y-x_{{\cal{K}}_k}L_{{\cal{K}}_k}=x_kL_k+x_{\mathcal{I}_k}L_{\mathcal{I}_k},
\label{decoding}
\end{align}
where $z$ can be computed by $R_k$ using its antidotes $x_{{{\cal{K}}_k}}$.
Assume that \eqref{ind} is satisfied for $k$. This implies that $L_k$ is not in the span of $\{L_{1},L_2,\ldots,L_{k-1},L_{k+D+1},\ldots,L_{K}\}$. Then, $z$ can be expressed as the following linear combination
\begin{align*}
z=&a_kL_{k}+a_{1}L_{1}+a_{2}L_{2}+\ldots+a_{k-1}L_{k-1}
\\&+a_{k+D+1}L_{k+D+1}+a_{k+D+2}L_{k+D+2}+\ldots+a_{K}L_{K},
\end{align*}
where $a_k$ is unique and $x_k=a_k$.
If, on the contrary, $L_{k}$ does not satisfy \eqref{ind}, then $a_{k}$ will no longer be unique and consequently $x_{k}$ can not be decoded by $R_k$. This implies that $\mathbf{L}$ is not an index code encoding matrix which contradicts the assumption. This completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma2}
In the index coding problem mentioned in Lemma \ref{lemma1}, if every $K-D$ adjacent rows of the encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}$ are linearly independent, then the receiver $R_k$ can decode $x_k$ and all $K-D-1$ interfering messages in ${{\cal{I}}_k}$ for $k=1,2,\ldots,K$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
If every $K-D$ adjacent rows of the encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}$ are linearly independent, then \eqref{decoding} is a set of $K-D$ linearly independent equations with $K-D$ unknowns. The unknowns in \eqref{decoding} are $x_k$ and $K-D-1$ interfering messages in ${{\cal{I}}_k}$. Hence, by solving $K-D$ equations in \eqref{decoding}, the receiver $R_k$ can decode $x_k$ and all $K-D-1$ interfering messages in ${{\cal{I}}_k}$ for $k=1,2,\ldots,K$.
\end{proof}
Rectangular circulant matrix defined below is used in the construction of matrices with a given size $m \times n~(m \geq n)$, such that any $n$ adjacent rows in the matrix are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def1}
Let $\lambda$ and $\mu$ be two positive integers and $\lambda$ divides $\mu$. The following rectangular circulant matrix is denoted by $\mathbf{C}_{\mu \times \lambda}$.
\end{definition}
$$\mathbf{C}_{\mu \times \lambda}=\left.\left[\begin{array}{*{20}c}
\mathbf{I}_\lambda \\
\mathbf{I}_\lambda \\
\vdots \\
\mathbf{I}_\lambda \\
\mathbf{I}_\lambda
\end{array}\right]\right\rbrace \frac{\mu}{\lambda}~\text{number~of}~ \mathbf{I}_\lambda~\text{matrices}$$
If $\lambda=\mu$, then $\mathbf{C}_{\mu \times \lambda}=\mathbf{I}_{\lambda}$. In the matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\mu \times \lambda}$, every set of $\lambda$ adjacent rows are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$. In the rectangular circulant matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\mu \times \lambda}^{\mathsf{T}}$, every set of $\lambda$ adjacent columns are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$. Let the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\mu \times (t\mu+\lambda)}$ (for some integer $t$) be the column concatenation of $\mathbf{C}_{\mu \times \lambda}$ with $t$ identity matrices $\mathbf{I}_{\mu}$. In the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\mu \times (t\mu+\lambda)}$, every set of $\mu$ adjacent columns are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\subsection{Construction of an encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$}
In this subsection we present our construction of encoding matrices which will be referred as {\bf CONSTRUCTION} henceforth.
\begin{center}
{\bf CONSTRUCTION}
\end{center}
For a given $K$ and $D$ let
\begin{align}
\nonumber
&\lambda_1=(K-D)~modulo~D,
\nonumber
\\& \lambda_2=D~modulo~\lambda_1,
\nonumber
\\& \lambda_3= \lambda_1~modulo~\lambda_2,
\nonumber
\\& ~~~~\cdots
\nonumber
\\& \lambda_i= \lambda_{i-2}~modulo~\lambda_{i-1}
\nonumber
\\& ~~~~\cdots
\nonumber
\\& \lambda_{l}= \lambda_{l-2}~modulo~\lambda_{l-1}
\label{chain}
\end{align}
\noindent
where $\lambda_l$ divides $ \lambda_{l-1}$ for some integer $l.$
Depending upon whether $l$ is even or odd we have the following two cases.
{\bf Case I: $l$ is an even integer}
For this case the structure of the encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ in terms of rectangular circulant matrices is shown in Fig. \ref{fig1} and in Fig. \ref{fig3}. Both these figures give the same encoding matrix.
\begin{itemize}
\item Start with the rectangular circulant matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{\mathsf{T}}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_l \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{(1)}$ (this is a rectangular circulant matrix because $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$).
\item Concatenate the rectangular circulant matrix $\mathbf{C}_{(\lambda_{l-2}-\lambda_l)\times \lambda_{l-1}}$ ($\lambda_{l-1}$ divides $(\lambda_{l-2}-\lambda_l)$) to the rows of the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_l \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{(1)}$ to obtain the concatenated matrix of size $\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-1}$. Let this concatenated matrix be $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{(2)}.$
\item Concatenate the rectangular circulant matrix $\mathbf{C}_{(\lambda_{l-3}-\lambda_{l-1})\times \lambda_{l-2} }^{\mathsf{T}}$ ($\lambda_{l-2}$ divides $(\lambda_{l-3}-\lambda_{l-1})$) to the columns of the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{(2)}$ to obtain the matrix of size $\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-3}$. Let this concatenated matrix be $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-3}}^{(3)}.$
\item Repeat the above procedure until we get $K \times (K-D)$ matrix. The construction of $K \times (K-D)$ matrix by the above procedure is guaranteed by \eqref{chain}.
\item The sequence of construction of the matrices can be summarized as given below:
\begin{align}
\label{seq1}
\nonumber
&\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{\mathsf{T}}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_l \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{(1)}\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{(2)}\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow\\&\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}
\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{2} \times \lambda_{3}}^{(l-2)}\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{2} \times \lambda_{1}}^{(l-1)}\rightarrow
\mathbf{D}_{D \times \lambda_{1}}^{(l)}
\nonumber
\\&\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{D \times (K-D)}^{(l+1)}\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{K \times (K-D)}^{(l+2)}=\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)} .
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
If $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$ and $l$ is an even number, then the construction starts with a fat (number of columns greater than number of rows) matrix and the construction proceeds by constructing alternate tall (number of rows greater than number of columns) and fat matrices.
{\bf Case II: $l$ is an odd integer}
For this case the structure of the encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ in terms of rectangular circulant matrices is shown in Fig. \ref{fig2} and in Fig. \ref{fig3}. Both these figures give the same encoding matrix.
\begin{itemize}
\item Start with the rectangular circulant matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{(1)}$ (this is a rectangular circulant matrix because $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$).
\item Concatenate the matrix $\mathbf{C}_{(\lambda_{l-2}-\lambda_l) \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{\mathsf{T}}$ to the columns of the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{(1)}$ to obtain the concatenated matrix of size $\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l-2}$. Let this concatenated matrix be $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l-2}}^{(2)}.$
\item Concatenate the $\mathbf{C}_{(\lambda_{l-3}-\lambda_{l-1}) \times \lambda_{l-2}}$ to the rows of the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l-2}}^{(2)}$ to obtain the matrix of size $\lambda_{l-3} \times \lambda_{l-2}$. Let this concatenated matrix be $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-3} \times \lambda_{l-2}}^{(3)}.$
\item Repeat the above procedure until we get $K \times (K-D)$ matrix. The construction of $K \times (K-D)$ matrix by the above procedure is guaranteed by \eqref{chain}.
\item The sequence of construction of the matrices can be summarized as given below:
\begin{align}
\label{seq2}
\nonumber
&\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{(1)}\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l-2}}^{(2)}\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow \\&
\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}
\rightarrow \cdots \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{2} \times \lambda_{3}}^{(l-2)}\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{2} \times \lambda_{1}}^{(l-1)}\rightarrow
\mathbf{D}_{D \times \lambda_{1}}^{(l)}
\nonumber
\\&\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{D \times (K-D)}^{(l+1)}\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{K \times (K-D)}^{(l+2)}\rightarrow\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}.
\end{align}
\end{itemize}
If $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$ and $l$ is an odd number, then the construction starts with a tall matrix and proceeds by constructing alternate fat and tall matrices.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.60]{matrix4.eps}\\
\caption{Encoding matrix if $l$ is even.}
\label{fig1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.60]{matrix3.eps}\\
\caption{Encoding matrix if $l$ is odd.}
\label{fig2}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.56]{matrix2.eps}\\
~If $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$ and $l$ is an even integer, then $\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{\mathsf{T}}$.\\
If $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$ and $l$ is an odd integer, then ~$\mathbf{S}=\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}$
\caption{Encoding matrix.}
\label{fig3}
\end{figure*}
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma3}
Let $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$ be the binary matrix obtained during CONSTRUCTION for a given $K$,$D$ and for some integer $1 \leq t \leq l+2$. Note that the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t-1}}^{(t+1)}$ which is $[\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}:\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}:\cdots:\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}:\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}]$ is a column concatenation of $t$ identity matrices of size $\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t}$ with the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$. In the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t-1}}^{(t+1)}$, ~every $\lambda_{l-t}$ adjacent columns are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The proof is by induction on $t$. For $t=1$, the columns of the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{(1)}$ are independent which follows from the CONSTRUCTION.
Let the Lemma be true for $t$. By induction hypothesis every set of $\lambda_{l-t+1}$ rows are independent in $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$ and we prove that every set of $\lambda_{l-t}$ columns are independent in $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t-1}}^{(t+1)}$ as follows.
The matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t-1}}^{(t+1)}$ comprises of $\lambda_{l-t-1}$ columns. If we select $\lambda_{l-t}$ adjacent columns from the first $\lambda_{l-t-1}-\lambda_{l-t}$ columns of the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t-1}}^{(t+1)}$, the selected columns are columns of the $\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}$ (in a different order) and hence they are linearly independent.
If we select $\lambda_{l-t}$ adjacent columns in such a way that $\lambda_{l-t}-m$ columns from $\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}$ and $m$ columns from $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$ ($m \leq \lambda_{l-t+1}$), then the selected $\lambda_{l-t}$ columns can be written as $\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t}$ matrix as given below
\begin{align}
\label{matrix3}
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{0}&\mathbf{B}\\
\mathbf{A}&\mathbf{C}\\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
where $[\mathbf{0}~\mathbf{A}]^\mathsf{T}$ is a $\lambda_{l-t} \times (\lambda_{l-t}-m)$ matrix corresponding to $\lambda_{l-t}-m$ columns of $\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}$ and $[\mathbf{B}~\mathbf{C}]^\mathsf{T}$ is a $\lambda_{l-t} \times m$ matrix corresponding to $m$ columns of $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$. The matrix $\mathbf{A}$ is an identity matrix of size $(\lambda_{l-t}-m) \times (\lambda_{l-t}-m)$.
The matrix $\mathbf{B}$ of dimension $m \times m$ is an identity matrix because the CONSTRUCTION gaurantees that the first $\lambda_{l-t+1}$ rows in $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$ are $\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t+1}}$. The matrix given in \eqref{matrix3} is a full rank matrix follows from the fact that it is a triangular matrix with $\mathbf{A}$ and $\mathbf{B}$ being identity matrices over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$.
If we select $\lambda_{l-t}$ adjacent columns in such a way that $m$ columns from $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$ ($m \leq \lambda_{l-t}$) and $\lambda_{l-t}-m$ columns from $\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}$, then the selected $\lambda_{l-t}$ columns can be written as $\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t}$ matrix as given below
\begin{align}
\label{matrix4}
\begin{bmatrix}
\textbf{E}&\mathbf{G}\\
\mathbf{F}&\mathbf{0}\\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
where $[\mathbf{G}~\mathbf{0}]^\mathsf{T}$ is a $\lambda_{l-t} \times (\lambda_{l-t}-m)$ matrix corresponding to $\lambda_{l-t}-m$ columns of $\mathbf{I}_{\lambda_{l-t}}$ and $[\mathbf{E}~\mathbf{F}]^\mathsf{T}$ is a $\lambda_{l-t} \times m$ matrix corresponding to $m$ columns of $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-t} \times \lambda_{l-t+1}}^{(t)}$. The matrix $\mathbf{G}$ is an identity matrix of size $(\lambda_{l-t}-m) \times (\lambda_{l-t}-m)$. The matrix $\mathbf{F}$ is a full rank matrix follows from induction hypothesis.
The matrix given in \eqref{matrix4} is a full rank matrix follows from the fact that it is a triangular matrix with $\mathbf{G}$ and $\mathbf{F}$ having full rank over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Examples}
\begin{example}
Consider a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP with $K=21, D=4$. For this index coding problem, we have $\lambda_1=1$ and $l=1.$
An encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{21 \times 17}$ for this index coding problem is obtained in the following steps $\mathbf{C}_{4 \times 1}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{4 \times 1}^{(1)}
\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{4 \times 17}^{(2)} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{21 \times 17}=\mathbf{L}_{21 \times 17}$ by concatenating suitable rectangular circulant matrices.
The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{21 \times 17}$ is given below.
\begin{small}
\arraycolsep=3pt
\setlength\extrarowheight{-3.0pt}
{
$$L_{21 \times 17}=\left[\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\hline
\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & |\color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & |\color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & |\color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}}& |\color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\end{array}\right]$$
}
\end{small}
The scalar index code is
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{C}=\{&x_1+x_{18},~~~~ x_2+x_{19}, ~~~~ x_3+x_{20},\\& x_4+x_{21},
~~~~ x_5+x_{18}, ~~~~ x_6+x_{19}, \\&x_7+x_{20}, ~~~~ x_8+x_{21}, ~~~~ x_9+x_{18}, \\& x_{10}+x_{19}, ~~~ x_{11}+x_{20}, ~~~ x_{12}+x_{21},\\&
x_{13}+x_{18}, ~~~ x_{14}+x_{19}, ~~~ x_{15}+x_{20}, \\& x_{16}+x_{21},
~~~ x_{17}+x_{18}+x_{19}+x_{20}+x_{21}\}.
\end{align*}
The receivers decode their wanted message by using the code symbols given in Table \ref{table1} and their antidotes.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength\extrarowheight{3.5pt}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Rx} & {$\mathcal{W}_k$} & \textbf{Code symbols used to decode} $\mathcal{W}_k$\\
\hline
\textbf{$R_1$} & $x_1$ & $x_1+x_{18},~x_5+x_{18}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_2$} & $x_2$& $x_2+x_{19},~x_6+x_{19}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_3$} & $x_3$ & $x_3+x_{20},~x_7+x_{20}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_4$} & $x_4$ & $x_4+x_{21},~x_8+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_5$} & $x_5$ & $x_5+x_{18},~x_9+x_{18}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_6$} & $x_6$ & $x_6+x_{19},~x_{10}+x_{19}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_7$} & $x_7$ & $x_7+x_{20},~x_{11}+x_{20}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_8$} & $x_8$ & $x_8+x_{21},~x_{12}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_9$} & $x_9$ & $x_9+x_{18},~x_{13}+x_{18}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{10}$} &$x_{10}$ & $x_{10}+x_{19},~x_{14}+x_{19}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{11}$} & $x_{11}$ & $x_{11}+x_{20},~x_{15}+x_{20}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{12}$} & $x_{12}$ & $x_{12}+x_{21},~x_{16}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{13}$} & $x_{13}$ & $x_{13}+x_{18},~x_{14}+x_{19},~x_{15}+x_{20}$,\\
~&~&$x_{16}+x_{21},~x_{17}+x_{18}+x_{19}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{14}$} & $x_{14}$ & $x_{14}+x_{19},~x_{15}+x_{20},~x_{16}+x_{21}$, \\
~&~&$x_{17}+x_{18}+x_{19}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{15}$} & $x_{15}$ & $x_{15}+x_{20},~x_{16}+x_{21},$\\
~&~&$x_{17}+x_{18}+x_{19}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{16}$} & $x_{16}$ & $x_{16}+x_{21},x_{17}+x_{18}+x_{19}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{17}$} & $x_{17}$ & $x_{17}+x_{18}+x_{19}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{18}$} & $x_{18}$ & $x_1+x_{18}$\\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{19}$} & $x_{19}$ & $x_2+x_{19}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{20}$} & $x_{20}$ & $x_3+x_{20}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{21}$} & $x_{21}$ & $x_4+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\vspace{5pt}
\caption{}
\label{table1}
\end{table}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Consider a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP with $K=21, D=17$.
For this index coding problem, we have $\lambda_1=4,\lambda_2=1$ and $l=2$.
An encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{21 \times 4}$ for this index coding problem is obtained in the following steps $\mathbf{C}_{4 \times 1}^{\mathsf{T}}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{1 \times 4}^{(1)}
\rightarrow\mathbf{D}_{17 \times 4}^{(2)} \rightarrow \mathbf{L}_{21 \times 4}$ by concatenating suitable rectangular circulant matrices.
The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{21 \times 4}$ is given below.
\begin{small}
\arraycolsep=3pt
\setlength\extrarowheight{-2.0pt}
{
$$L_{21 \times 4}=\left[\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\hline
\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}}\\
\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}}\\
\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}}\\
\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}}\\
\color{red}{\textbf{1}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\end{array}\right]$$
}
\end{small}
The scalar index code is
\begin{align*}
\mathfrak{C}=\{&x_1+x_{5}+x_9+x_{13}+x_{17}+x_{21},\\& x_{2}+x_6+x_{10}+x_{14}+x_{18}+x_{21},\\&
x_{3}+x_7+x_{11}+x_{15}+x_{19}+x_{21}, \\&
x_4+x_{8}+x_{12}+x_{16}+x_{20}+x_{21}\}.
\end{align*}
The receivers decode their wanted message by using the code symbols given in Table \ref{table2} and their antidotes.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength\extrarowheight{2.2pt}
\begin{small}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Rx} & {$\mathcal{W}_k$} & \textbf{Code symbols used to decode} $\mathcal{W}_k$\\
\hline
\textbf{$R_1$} & $x_1$ & $x_1+x_{5}+x_9+x_{13}+x_{17}+x_{21},$ \\
~ & ~ & $x_{2}+x_6+x_{10}+x_{14}+x_{18}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_2$} & $x_2$& $x_{2}+x_6+x_{10}+x_{14}+x_{18}+x_{21}$,\\
~ &~&$x_{3}+x_7+x_{11}+x_{15}+x_{19}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_3$} & $x_3$ & $x_{3}+x_7+x_{11}+x_{15}+x_{19}+x_{21}$, \\
~ & ~& $x_4+x_{8}+x_{12}+x_{16}+x_{20}+x_{21}$\\
\hline
\textbf{$R_4$} & $x_4$ & $x_4+x_{8}+x_{12}+x_{16}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_5$} & $x_5$ & $x_1+x_{5}+x_9+x_{13}+x_{17}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_6$} & $x_6$ & $x_{2}+x_6+x_{10}+x_{14}+x_{18}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_7$} & $x_7$ & $x_{3}+x_7+x_{11}+x_{15}+x_{19}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_8$} & $x_8$ & $x_4+x_{8}+x_{12}+x_{16}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_9$} & $x_9$ & $x_1+x_{5}+x_9+x_{13}+x_{17}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{10}$} &$x_{10}$ & $x_{2}+x_6+x_{10}+x_{14}+x_{18}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{11}$} & $x_{11}$ & $x_{3}+x_7+x_{11}+x_{15}+x_{19}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{12}$} & $x_{12}$ & $x_4+x_{8}+x_{12}+x_{16}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{13}$} & $x_{13}$ & $x_1+x_{5}+x_9+x_{13}+x_{17}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{14}$} & $x_{14}$ & $x_{2}+x_6+x_{10}+x_{14}+x_{18}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{15}$} & $x_{15}$& $x_{3}+x_7+x_{11}+x_{15}+x_{19}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{16}$} & $x_{16}$ &$x_4+x_{8}+x_{12}+x_{16}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{17}$} & $x_{17}$ & $x_1+x_{5}+x_9+x_{13}+x_{17}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{18}$} & $x_{18}$ & $x_{2}+x_6+x_{10}+x_{14}+x_{18}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{19}$} & $x_{19}$ & $x_{3}+x_7+x_{11}+x_{15}+x_{19}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{20}$} & $x_{20}$ & $x_4+x_{8}+x_{12}+x_{16}+x_{20}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_{21}$} & $x_{21}$ & $x_1+x_{5}+x_9+x_{13}+x_{17}+x_{21}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{small}
\vspace{5pt}
\caption{}
\label{table2}
\end{table}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{ex3}
Consider a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP with $K=44, D=17$.
For this index coding problem, we have $\lambda_1=10,\lambda_2=7,\lambda_3=3,\lambda_4=1$ and $l=4$.
An encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{44 \times 27}$ for this index coding problem is obtained in the following steps $\mathbf{C}_{3 \times 1}^{\mathsf{T}}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{1 \times 3}^{(1)}
\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{7 \times 3}^{(2)} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{7 \times 10}^{(3)} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{17 \times 10}^{(4)} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{17 \times 27}^{(5)} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{44 \times 27}=\mathbf{L}_{44 \times 27}$ by concatenating suitable rectangular circulant matrices.
The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{44 \times 27}$ is given in Fig. \ref{ex3matrix}.
\begin{figure*}
\arraycolsep=1.3pt
\setlength\extrarowheight{-1.0pt}
\begin{small}
{
$$L_{44 \times 27}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccccccccccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 &1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} &{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}& {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}& {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}& {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} &{\color{red}\textbf{ 0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}}& {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |\underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{red}\textbf{1}}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{green}\textbf{1}} & {\color{green} \textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} &|{\color{blue}\textbf{1}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{0}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{green}\textbf{0}} &{\color{green}\textbf{1}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & |{\color{blue}\textbf{0}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{1}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{1}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & |{\color{blue}\textbf{0}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{0}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{1}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{1}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & |{\color{blue}\textbf{1}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{0}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & |{\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{1}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & |{\color{blue}\textbf{0}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{1}} & {\color{blue}\textbf{0}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & |{\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{1}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & |\underline{{\color{blue}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{blue}\textbf{0}}} & \underline{{\color{blue}\textbf{1}}}\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & |{\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{0}} & {\color{green}\textbf{1}} & |\textbf{1} & \textbf{1} & \textbf{1}\\
\end{array}
\right]$$
}
\end{small}
\caption{Encoding matrix for the MUICP in Example \ref{ex3}.}
\label{ex3matrix}
\end{figure*}
\end{example}
\begin{example}
\label{ex4}
Consider a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP with $K=44, D=27$.
For this index coding problem, we have $\lambda_1=17,\lambda_2=10,\lambda_3=7,\lambda_4=3,\lambda_5=1$ and $l=5$.
The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{44 \times 17}$ for this index coding problem is obtained in the following steps $\mathbf{C}_{3 \times 1}\triangleq\mathbf{D}_{3 \times 1}^{(1)}
\rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{3 \times 7}^{(2)} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{10 \times 7}^{(3)} \rightarrow \mathbf{D}_{10 \times 17}^{(4)} \rightarrow \mathbf{L}_{44 \times 17} $ by concatenating suitable rectangular circulant matrices.
The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{44 \times 17}$ is given in Fig. \ref{ex4matrix}.
\begin{figure*}
\arraycolsep=1.6pt
\setlength\extrarowheight{-3.0pt}
\begin{small}
{
$$L_{44 \times 17}=\left[
\begin{array}{ccccccccccccccccc}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\hline
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 1 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 1 & 0 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 1 & 0 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 1 & 0\\
0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0& 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 1\\
\hline
{\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\color{green}{\textbf{1}} &\color{green}{\textbf{0}}& \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{1}}& \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} &\color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}& \color{green}{\textbf{1}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}& \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{1}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}}& |\color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}& \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{1}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}& \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}} & \color{green}{\textbf{1}} & \color{green}{\textbf{0}}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\underline{\color{green}{\textbf{0}}} & \underline{\color{green}{\textbf{0}}}& \underline{\color{green}{\textbf{0}}} & \underline{\color{green}{\textbf{0}}} & \underline{\color{green}{\textbf{0}}} & \underline{\color{green}{\textbf{0}}} & \underline{\color{green}{\textbf{1}}}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}}& \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & |\textbf{1}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & |\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}}& \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & |\textbf{1}\\
{\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{0}} & {\color{red}\textbf{1}} & |\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}}& \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & |\textbf{1}\\
\end{array}
\right]$$
}
\end{small}
\caption{Encoding matrix for the MUICP in Example \ref{ex4}.}
\label{ex4matrix}
\end{figure*}
\end{example}
\subsection{Main Results}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm1}
Consider a symmetric MUICP with $K$ messages and $K$ receivers. Receiver $R_k$ wants the message $x_k$ and its antidotes are given by \eqref{antidote1}. For this index coding problem, the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given by {\bf CONSTRUCTION} as in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} is an encoding matrix over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ and the code generated is of optimal length.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
If $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$ and $l$ is an even integer, then the sequence of construction of the matrices is given by \eqref{seq1}. The matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}^{\mathsf{T}}$ is a rectangular circulant matrix and every adjacent $\lambda_l$ columns of this matrix are linearly independent. In the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-1}}^{(2)}$, every $\lambda_{l-1}$ rows are linearly independent (Definition \ref{def1}). Similarly, in the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-2} \times \lambda_{l-3}}^{(3)}$, every $\lambda_{l-2}$ columns are linearly independent (Lemma \ref{lemma3}). The sequence of construction of the matrices in \eqref{seq1} guarantees that in the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig1} every $K-D$ adjacent rows are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$. Thus, for the given MUICP, the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig1} is an encoding matrix over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ according to Lemma \ref{lemma1}.
If $\lambda_l$ divides $\lambda_{l-1}$ and $l$ is an odd integer, then the sequence of construction of the matrices is given by \eqref{seq2}. The matrix $\mathbf{C}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l}}$ is a rectangular circulant matrix and every $\lambda_l$ adjacent rows are linearly independent.~~In the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-1} \times \lambda_{l-2}}^{(2)}$,~~every $\lambda_{l-1}$ columns are linearly independent (Definition \ref{def1}). Similarly, in the matrix $\mathbf{D}_{\lambda_{l-3} \times \lambda_{l-2}}^{(3)}$, every $\lambda_{l-2}$ rows are linearly independent (Lemma \ref{lemma3}). The sequence of construction of the matrices in \eqref{seq2} guarantees that in the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig2} every $K-D$ adjacent rows are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$. Thus, for the given MUICP, the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig2} is an encoding matrix over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ according to Lemma \ref{lemma1}.
The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ encodes $K$ messages into $K-D$ code symbols. Thus, the rate achieved by this code is $\frac{1}{K-D}$ and is equal to the capacity of the given MUICP. Hence, the code generated by the encoding matrix in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} is of optimal length.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
In \cite{BiK}, Birk and Kol defined partial clique and gave a coding scheme for a given index coding problem based on the partial cliques of the side information graph. A directed graph $G(V,E)$ is a $k$-partial clique $Clq(s,k)$ iff $\vert V \vert=s$, outdeg$(v) \geq (s-1-k)$, $\forall \ v \in V$, and there exists a $\ v \in V$ such that outdeg$(v)=(s-1-k)$. It can be observed that the side information graph of one-sided MUICP with $K$ messages and $D$ neighboring antidotes is a $(K-D-1)$-partial clique. An optimal index code for this $(K-D-1)$-partial clique can be obtained by using a $K-D$ erasure correcting MDS code. However, by using MDS codes, the size of the field depends on the number of messages $K$. The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ in {\bf CONSTRUCTION} is an encoding matrix over every field. Hence, the optimal length of a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP is independent of field size. However, when an MDS code exists as an index coding problem with $K$ messages and $D$ antidotes the antidotes need not be neighboring antidotes.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The capacity achieving code is a scalar linear code for a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP. The optimal length of a scalar linear code is called the \textit{minrank} of side information graph \cite{YBJK}. The optimal length of one-sided MUICP is independent of field size. Thus, the \textit{minrank} of the side information graph of a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP is independent of field size.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The index code construction in Theorem \ref{thm1} enables each receiver $R_k$ to decode not only its required message $x_k$ but also all its interfering messages in $\mathcal{I}_k$ (Lemma \ref{lemma2}).
\end{remark}
\begin{lemma}
Let $D$ be a positive integer. Consider a symmetric MUICP with $K$ messages and $K$ receivers. Receiver $R_k$ wants the message $x_k$ and its antidotes are given by
\begin{align*}
{\cal K}_k =\{x_{k+1}, x_{k+2},\dots,x_{k+D}\}.
\end{align*}
The encoding matrix constructed in Theorem \ref{thm1} for this index coding problem can be written as
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}=\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{I}_{K-D}\\
\mathbf{P}\\
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align*}
where $\mathbf{P}=\mathbf{D}_{D \times (K-D)}$. Consider a symmetric MUICP with $K$ messages and $K$ receivers. Receiver $R_k$ wants the message $x_k$ and its antidotes are given by
\begin{align}
\label{dual}
{\cal K}_k =\{x_{k+1}, x_{k+2},\dots,x_{k+K-D}\}.
\end{align}
Then, an encoding matrix for this index coding problem can be given as
\begin{align*}
\mathbf{L}_{K \times D}=\begin{bmatrix}
\mathbf{I}_{D}\\
\mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}}\\
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the matrix $\mathbf{P}$, every $D$ adjacent columns are linearly independent according to the construction procedure given in {\bf CONSTRUCTION}. Hence, in the matrix $\mathbf{P}^{\mathsf{T}}$, every $D$ adjacent rows are linearly independent. In the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times D}$, every $D$ adjacent rows are linearly independent (Lemma \ref{lemma3}). According to Lemma \ref{lemma1}, the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times D}$ is an encoding matrix for the MUICP with the antidotes given in \eqref{dual}.
\end{proof}
Consider the setting with $K$ receivers and $K$ messages and the $k$th receiver $R_{k}$ demanding the message $x_{k}$ having the side information given in \eqref{vantidotesa}.
\begin{equation}
\label{vantidotesa}
{\cal K}_k= \{x_{k+t+1}, x_{k+t+2},\dots,x_{k+t+D}\}
\end{equation}
where $t \in \{0,1,2,\ldots,K-D-1\}$. If $t=0$, then this setting is equal to symmetric MUICP with neighboring side information. The cases of $t \neq 0$ corresponds to consecutive side-information but not neighboring.
\begin{lemma}
Consider a symmetric MUICP with $K$ messages and $K$ receivers. Receiver $R_k$ wants the message $x_k$ and its antidotes are given by \eqref{vantidotesa}. For this index coding problem, the capacity is given by
\begin{align*}
C=\frac{1}{K-D}~~\text{per~~message}.
\end{align*}
For this index coding problem, the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given by {\bf CONSTRUCTION} as in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} is an encoding matrix over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ and the generated code is of optimal length.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The sequence of construction of the matrices in {\bf CONSTRUCTION} guarantees that in the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} every $K-D$ adjacent rows are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ (Lemma \ref{lemma3}). Thus, for the given MUICP, the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} is an encoding matrix over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ according to Lemma \ref{lemma1}. The index code construction enables the receiver $R_k$ to decode all other $K-D$ messages which are not in its antidotes. The reciver $R_k$ can decode the message $x_{k+t}$. The message $x_{k+t}$ is the neighboring message to the $D$ adjacent antidotes given in \eqref{vantidotesa}. Hence, the capacity of symmetric MUICP with consecutive antidotes can not be greater than the capacity of symmetric MUICP with neighboring antidotes ($C \leq \frac{1}{K-D}$). The matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} is an encoding matrix for the given symmetric MUICP with consecutive antidotes. Hence, the capacity of this index coding problem is atleast $\frac{1}{K-D}$ ($C \geq \frac{1}{K-D}$). This completes the proof of capacity. The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ encodes $K$ messages into $K-D$ code symbols. Thus, the rate achieved by this code is $\frac{1}{K-D}$ and is equal to the capacity of the given MUICP. Hence, the code generated by the encoding matrix in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} is of optimal length.
\end{proof}
Consider the setting with $K$ receivers and $K$ messages and the $k$th receiver $R_{k}$ demanding the message $x_{k}$ having the side information given in \eqref{vantidotea}.
\begin{equation}
\label{vantidotea}
{\cal K}_k= \{x_{k+t_k+1}, x_{k+t_k+2},\dots,x_{k+t_k+D}\}
\end{equation}
where $t_k \in \{0,1,2,\ldots,K-D-1\}$ and $k=\{1,2,\ldots,K\}$. If $t_1=t_2=\ldots=t_K$, then this setting is equal to symmetric MUICP with consecutive one-sided side information. If $t_1=t_2=\ldots=t_K=0$, then this setting is equal to symmetric MUICP with neighboring side information.
\begin{lemma}
Consider a MUICP with $K$ messages and $K$ receivers. Receiver $R_k$ wants the message $x_k$ and its antidotes are given by \eqref{vantidotea}. In this index coding problem, the $D$ antidotes are not symmetric but consecutive. The matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given by {\bf CONSTRUCTION} is an encoding matrix for this index coding problem.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The sequence of construction of the matrices in {\bf CONSTRUCTION} guarantees that in the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} every $K-D$ adjacent rows are linearly independent over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ (Lemma \ref{lemma3}). In this MUICP, every receiver has $D$ consecutive antidotes. Thus, for the given MUICP, the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given in Fig. \ref{fig1} and Fig. \ref{fig2} is an encoding matrix over every field $\mathbb{F}_q$ according to Lemma \ref{lemma1} and Lemma \ref{lemma2}.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The capacity of symmetric MUICP with neighboring antidotes is given in \eqref{capacity}. The $K$ messages in this index coding problem are taking values from a field uniformly and independent. Let $m$ be an integer relatively prime to $K$. Define the mapping $\pi$ as
\begin{align*}
\pi: k\rightarrow mk
\end{align*}
for $k=1,2,\ldots,K$.
This mapping creates a new index coding problem with $K$ messages and $K$ receivers. Receiver $R_{\pi(k)}$ wants the message $x_{\pi(k)}$ and its antidotes are given by
\begin{align}
\label{antidoteper}
\mathcal{K}_k=\{x_{\pi(k+1)},x_{\pi(k+2)},\ldots,x_{\pi(k+D)}\}
\end{align}
This new index coding problem is not a consecutive antidote MUICP. We can generate $\phi(K)$(Euler's totient function) such new index coding problems. The side information graph of this new MUICP is isomorphic to the side information graph of symmetric one sided neighboring antidote MUICP. Hence, the capacity of the new MUICP is equal to that of the symmetric MUICP with neighboring antidotes. Let the rows of the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}$ given by {\bf CONSTRUCTION} be $\{L_1,L_2,\ldots,L_K\}$. Define the matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}^{\pi}$ to be a $K \times (K-D)$ matrix with rows $\{L_{\pi(1)},L_{\pi(2)},\ldots,L_{\pi(K)}\}$. The matrix $\mathbf{L}_{K \times (K-D)}^{\pi}$ is an encoding matrix for the MUICP with antidotes given by \eqref{antidoteper}.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}
Consider a one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP with $K=7, D=3$. For this index coding problem, we have $\lambda_1=1$ and $l=1.$ The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{7 \times 4}$ is given below.
\arraycolsep=3pt
\setlength\extrarowheight{-2.0pt}
{
$$\mathbf{L}_{7 \times 4}=\left[\begin{array}{*{20}c}
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}}\\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\end{array}\right]$$
}
Let $m=2$. The mapping $\pi$ is given below.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength\extrarowheight{2.2pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{$k$} & $1$ & $2$ & $3$ & $4$ & $5$ & $6$ & $7$\\
\hline
\textbf{$\pi(k)$} & $2$ & $4$ & $6$ & $1$ & $3$ & $5$ & $7$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{experm1}
\vspace{5pt}
\caption{}
\end{table}
\vspace{-10pt}
The new MUICP is described in the following table.
\begin{table}[h]
\centering
\setlength\extrarowheight{2.2pt}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Rx} & {$\mathcal{W}_k$} & $\mathcal{K}_k$\\
\hline
\textbf{$R_1$} & $x_1$ & $x_3,x_{5},x_7$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_2$} & $x_2$& $x_{4},x_6,x_{1}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_3$} & $x_3$ & $x_{5},x_7,x_{2}$\\
\hline
\textbf{$R_4$} & $x_4$ & $x_6,x_{1},x_{3}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_5$} & $x_5$ & $x_7,x_{2},x_4$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_6$} & $x_6$ & $x_{1},x_3,x_{5}$ \\
\hline
\textbf{$R_7$} & $x_7$ & $x_{2},x_4,x_{6}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\vspace{5pt}
\caption{}
\label{experm2}
\end{table}
\vspace{-10pt}
The encoding matrix $\mathbf{L}_{7 \times 4}^{\pi}$ for the new MUICP defined in Table \ref{experm2} is given below.
\arraycolsep=3pt
\setlength\extrarowheight{-2.0pt}
{
$$\mathbf{L}_{7 \times 4}^{\pi}=\left[\begin{array}{*{20}c}
0 & 0 & 0 & 1 \\
1 & 0 & 0 & 0 \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
0 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}}\\
0 & 0 & 1 & 0 \\
\color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{0}} & \color{blue}{\textbf{1}} & \color{red}{\textbf{1}} \\
\end{array}\right]$$
}
\end{example}
\subsection{Optimal length index codes for two-sided antidote MUICPs}
In \cite{MRarXiv}, we proposed a vector linear index code construction which constructs a vector linear index code for two-sided neighboring antidote MUICPs starting from a given one-sided neighboring antidote MUICP with a known scalar linear index code. The construction given in Theorem \ref{thm1} along with our construction in \cite{MRarXiv} gives a capacity achieving vector linear index codes for two-sided neighboring antidote problems for every $K,U$ and $D$. If a scalar linear index code $\mathfrak{C}$ for the one-sided antidote problem is defined in the field $\mathbb{F}_q$, the construction procedure in \cite{MRarXiv} gives the construction of vector linear code for the two-sided antidote index coding problem in the same field $\mathbb{F}_q$. Thus, the construction given in Theorem \ref{thm1} along with our construction in \cite{MRarXiv} gives capacity achieving vector linear codes for two-sided neighboring antidote problems for every $K,U$ and $D$. The index codes so constructed are independent of field size.
\section{conclusion}
In this paper, a capacity achieving scalar linear coding scheme is proposed for one-sided neighboring antidotes MUICPs. Some of the interesting directions of further research are as follows:
\begin{itemize}
\item Recently, it has been observed that in a noisy index coding problem it is desirable for the purpose of reducing the probability of error that the receivers use as small a number of transmissions from the source as possible and linear index codes with this property have been reported in \cite{TRCR}, \cite{KaR}. While the report \cite{TRCR} considers fading broadcast channels, in \cite{AnR1} and \cite{AnR2} AWGN channels are considered and it is reported that linear index codes with minimum length (capacity achieving codes or optimal length codes) help to facilitate to achieve more reduction in probability of error compared to non-minimum length codes for receivers with large amount of side-information. These aspects remain to be investigated for the constructed class of scalar linear codes.
\item In this paper, we proved that for the one-sided neighboring antidote symmetric MUICPs, the minrank of the side information graph is independent of the field size. We conjecture that for any unicast index coding problem with independent messages, the minrank of the side information graph is independent of the field size.
\end{itemize}
\section*{Acknowledgment}
The authors would like to thank Lakshmi Prasad Natarajan for useful suggestions and pointing out a mistake in Lemma \ref{lemma3} in the previous version.
This work was supported partly by the Science and Engineering Research Board (SERB) of Department of Science and Technology (DST), Government of India, through J.C. Bose National Fellowship to B. Sundar Rajan.
|
\section{Introduction}
Currently, there is a problem restricting the development of augmented reality browser, cross-platform operability including poor working mode hardware limitations and the importance of cognitive research is not enough. In order to improve the mobile augmented reality browser user experience, by analyzing the initial needs of users, to find the user's cognitive rules, this paper aims to establish a new augmented reality browser system, optimize the design of new systems. With software developed and optimized interface design, augmented reality browser user experience has been significantly improved.
However, the track mark and registered on the basis of the establishment of visualization and interaction on the basis of augmented reality. The system does not flag will stop working in a complex outdoor environments. One paper proposed a new approach, through the use of semantic web technology, in four aspects described in the context of the relationship between data and between. Using their new method to build context-aware framework for improving the efficiency push personalized service. However, the required application layer visualization of augmented reality is still further research in this paper.
Physical volume has been frequently used in the estimate body composition \cite{01}. Measurements traditionally require complex and expensive equipment companies, such as body scanning laser displacement plethysmograph \cite{02}\cite{03} underwater immersion gold \cite{04}. the use of two-dimensional pictures can help in simplifying the Measurement of the BV. photogrammetry is the use of photographic methods that can be employed to find the volume of irregularly shaped body in \cite{05}. There are two basic methods of photogrammetry of, mono- and stereo. Single refers to the use of only one camera, and stereo refers to the use of two or more cameras that can be used to capture the shoulder of depth perception. the use of such photographic method of measuring the exchange. There are ways to estimate BV presented by the body can be represented suppose the levels ellipse and the areas and the perimeters of the ellipse can be calculated from the axis carefully measured our photo \cite{06}. Although the cross-section in a different body completely elliptical shares are not shown in later studies like yours \cite{07}, we have the oval approximation them in our study and develop an automated image processing method of the extract cross sectional oval for the hands and feet and hands trunk of the body.
We will these pixels on the elliptical cross section of the entire volume of the body is represented in pixels. We also show that the volume expressed in this manner can be effectively used to predict body composition. Compared to other full-body scanners and other companies calculation method \cite{08}, our method is easy to use, we only use a camera to capture images of the back and sides. It also saves complex and expensive installation cost of the system. In addition to BV, the shape and contours of the body can provide useful information on body composition. Individuals can also visually estimated using visual cues from the body shape \cite{09}. Cornell et al. Presents a body shape assessment scale analysis of women's figures \cite{10}. Development In this study, nine body shape assessment scales, from the front and side views.
\section{The Proposed System}
Because of current hardware limitations of mobile phones, such as image recognition, image recognition and real-time needs of high-speed computing, computer side must be addressed. Mobile device over the wireless network and enhance the exchange of data between servers reality. To make up for mobile devices with limited data processing capacity, distributed architecture for mobile augmented reality system. Perform different computing tasks at the client and server respectively. Backend cloud scene offline and online learning recognition process server computing. In addition to tracking, user location, and comments have also been rendered mobile phones. Through mutual exchange and processing of data, we can provide a mixed interactive experience enables mobile phone platforms to customers. First, the real-world image sequences and camera feature points extracted from the captured image. The feature point data and the user's location is sent to the cloud server over the wireless network. Target information is to quickly identify the server in the cloud, and sent to the mobile phone sample training after completion. Finally, the real object rendering around virtual items to enhance the display. With the help of the posture sensor data, the mobile client allows accurate tracking, which means that the label is always moving virtual and the real object. Figure 1 shows the system framework balls.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{system.png}
\caption{Overview of System Workflow}
\end{figure}
After the request is sent navigation, POI label is a scene in the first choice, then the path becomes a fool navigation scheme. By drawing a shortest path from the current location to a specified location on a floor plan, route guidance service is to provide users with a fool. To facilitate the users to access the destination location information by using different modes of transport, not only has many navigation modes, such as walking, by bus, to choose from, but also for each navigation mode to draw a path in this scenario. Users can query the node information, such as bus stations, subway stations, intersections, etc., through the path. First, find a user wants to know the building arrived at the scene pointed out that real estate. Then by interacting with three-dimensional model, further details of the building and deepening understanding. Architectural details of the building structure, type of area, sales prices and property information, is present in the two-dimensional image or text label. In order to bring a more intuitive browsing experience users can zoom or rotate a three-dimensional model by touch control during the interaction. Marbury provide context aware services such as navigation mode selection, path and path node checks. Figure 5. Identification and browsing in POI scene 4 modular structure and context-aware services.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=18cm]{interaction.png}
\caption{Face based Interaction System}
\end{figure}
This step is to produce the outline of the back and sides of the mask. Since the background is green, a hue threshold value is used to automatically distinguish between green area (body) from the green area (background). In order to obtain a clean side of the body contour, silhouette image in the back of the legs must be completely hidden behind the other front leg. In the image analysis, shown in FIG. 1, the back and sides of the contour image used. In order to facilitate the extraction of the body mask, participants wearing tight shorts and tank tops (F), and standing in front of a green background. In the following outline, arms participant leaves the body, feet shoulder width apart; and on the side, arms close to the body to the participants, with feet together. Focus and position of the camera is fixed. The generated body mask (e.g., the side and the back masks shown in Fig. 2) is further rotated to ensure that the body is in straight standing position. This is achieved by drawing a vertical line passing centroid computed using the smallest bounding rectangle containing the body mask) and continuously rotating the image until the maximum area symmetry is obtained on both sides of this vertical line (obtained when the difference in pixel count between left and right halves of the body mask separated by this vertical line is minimum).
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=12cm]{eq1.png}
\end{figure}
We support the real-time communication between the client and the server, the data will automatically store all the data streams in the database. Or, if you do not provide wireless network services, user data can be temporarily stored on the mobile device. On the network data stream may be different, the corresponding time sensitivity. Data, such as user profiles and exercise program, do not change very often, it does not affect the quality and quantity of stroke rehabilitation exercises. On the other hand, some of the data stream is a very sensitive time, including recovery record and intervention guidance, reminders and encouragement. These are very important to complete the design of the user stroke and exercise therapists have a better control of the patient's self-practice, so these data are needed in real-time delivery. In this system, the data stream is usually text-based, has a very small size, such as a few KB, so it is easy to ensure the real-time conversion, even in a wireless environment. The user can interact with the system in two ways, namely the proposed rehabilitation program, or computer-related Web access. Access methods may have different functions, depending on the user privileges assigned category. For example, by the mobile application, users can stroke rehabilitation exercises, view their practice and history, and access to visual, auditory and tactile feedback in real time during the exercise. However, the therapist can only view user profiles and resume recording, if they choose Web access method used to make decisions and rehabilitation exercise program.
\section{System Evaluation}
Recommendation mobile application has been tested in a variety of network conditions, to evaluate its performance and stability. Specifically, the four wireless connection, a 50MB / s Wi-Fi, 4G LTE and a very low speed wireless has been used in the experiment. The first three cases, the application will automatically send user data to the server in real time, and in the last case, the data will be stored in the local phone or tablet, and after flow whenever a wireless connection is available. The size of the data stream only a few KB, so it is clear that such a small data streams can be easily in real-time, even if conditions are not met in the radio. When a wireless connection is not good, the user data stored in the local reasons, as the fourth case, to ensure the security of the data stream. Loss of health-related data in the transmission process is unstable network we want to reduce the risk.
Changes have been developed two game programs and meet the different preferences, users from the wind. Specifically, the user can choose to play the game "monkey" game or "little astronaut" in the past a user can control a little monkey named "climb a tree" Looking for bananas and in the latter user control a small aerospace members perform spatial tasks. Figure 2 shows armstrokes two screenshots of the game. Game art is a fragment from a network resource [14,15]. Users through different rehabilitation exercise control of the game in animated characters. For example, the object of the forearm rotational movement is caused by the rotation of the monkey. In addition, real-time visual, audio and tactile feedback has been included in the game interactive and the user can select a different option in the game configuration. After each exercise test, the recovery results are displayed to the user, and automatically uploaded to the server. Users can also view their training history via the network. The data collected includes: date and time of exercise test; the test of time; the number of completed actions; motion distribution and performance.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\centering
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.2in]{1.png}
\caption{TSC System from \cite{11}}
\end{subfigure}%
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.2in]{2.png}
\caption{ISMO System from \cite{12}}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.2in]{3.png}
\caption{EUC System from \cite{03}}
\end{subfigure}
~
\begin{subfigure}[b]{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[height=1.2in]{2.png}
\caption{FCO System from \cite{08}}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Quantified metrics by comparing with other VR based systems}
\end{figure*}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose a new collaborative practice-based naming system and mobile devices to provide real-time support for the recovery. Through it, we can not only relates to stroke survivors, their caregivers, therapists and doctors play an important role in the rehabilitation process. As a feedback capacitor-based mobile application, called armstrokes, we proposed to provide rehabilitation through interactive games limb rehabilitation. Users can get real-time stroke of visual, audio and tactile feedback about their practice results, and see their performance. Caregivers, therapists and doctors can immediately monitor the rehabilitation process and practice outcomes for patients through the system, and then follow the patient through treatment such as reminders, encouragement and warning.
\bibliographystyle{asmems4}
|
\section{Introduction}
Johansen's (1988, 1991) likelihood ratio (LR) test for cointegration rank is a
very popular econometric technique. However, it is rarely applied to systems
of more than three or four variables. On the other hand, there exist many
applications involving much larger systems. For example, Davis (2003)
discusses a possibility of applying the test to the data on seven aggregated
and individual commodity prices to test Lewbel's (1996) generalization of the
Hicks-Leontief composite commodity theorem. In a recent study of exchange rate
predictability, Engel, Mark, and West (2015) contemplate a possibility of
determining the cointegration rank of a system of seventeen OECD exchange
rates. Banerjee, Marcellino, and Osbat (2004) emphasize the importance of
testing for no cross-sectional cointegration in panel cointegration analysis
(see Breitung and Pesaran (2008) and Choi (2015)), and the cross-sectional
dimension of modern macroeconomic panels can easily be as large as forty.
The main reason why the LR test is rarely used in the analysis of relatively
large systems is its poor finite sample performance. Even for small systems,
the test based on the asymptotic critical values does not perform well (see
Johansen (2002)). For large systems, the size distortions become overwhelming,
leading to severe over-rejection of the null in favour of too much
cointegration\ as shown in many simulation studies, including Ho and Sorensen
(1996) and Gonzalo and Pitarakis (1995, 1999).
In this paper, we study the asymptotic behavior of the sample canonical
correlations that the LR statistic is based on, when the number of
observations and the system's dimensionality go to infinity simultaneously and
proportionally. We show that the empirical distribution of the squared sample
canonical correlations almost surely converges to the so-called
\textit{Wachter distribution} which also arises, albeit with different
parameters, as the limit of the empirical distribution of the squared sample
canonical correlations between two independent high-dimensional white noises
(see Wachter (1980)). Our analytical findings explain the observed
over-rejection of the null hypothesis by the LR test, shed new light on the
workings and limitations of the Bartlett-type correction approach to the
problem (see Johansen (2002)), and lead us to propose a very simple graphical
device, similar to the scree plot, for a preliminary analysis of the validity
of cointegration hypotheses in large vector autoregressions.
The basic framework for our analysis is standard. Consider a $p$-dimensional
VAR in the error correction form
\begin{equation}
\Delta X_{t}=\Pi X_{t-1}
{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}}
\Gamma_{i}\Delta X_{t-i}+\Phi D_{t}+\varepsilon_{t},\label{model
\end{equation}
where $D_{t}$ and $\varepsilon_{t}$ are vectors of deterministic terms and
zero-mean Gaussian errors with unconstrained covariance matrix, respectively.
The LR statistic for the test of the null hypothesis of no more than $r$
cointegrating relationships between the $p$ elements of $X_{t}$ against the
alternative of more than $r$ such relationships is given by
\begin{equation}
LR_{r,p,T}=-
{\displaystyle\sum_{i=r+1}^{p}}
\log\left( 1-\lambda_{i}\right) \text{,}\label{LR statistic
\end{equation}
where $T$ is the sample size, and $\lambda_{1}\geq...\geq\lambda_{p}$ are the
squared sample canonical correlation coefficients between residuals in the
regressions of $\Delta X_{t}$ and $X_{t-1}$ on the lagged differences $\Delta
X_{t-i},$ $i=1,...,k-1,$ and the deterministic terms.
In the absence of the lagged differences and deterministic terms, the
$\lambda$'s are the eigenvalues of $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime
S_{00}^{-1},$ where $S_{00}$ and $S_{11}$ are the sample covariance matrices
of $\Delta X_{t}$ and $X_{t-1},$ respectively, while $S_{01}$ is the cross
sample covariance matrix. More substantively, $\lambda_{1}$ is the largest
possible squared sample correlation coefficient between arbitrary linear
combinations of the entries of $\Delta X_{t}$ and the entries of $X_{t-1},$
$\lambda_{2}$ is the largest squared correlation among linear combinations
restricted to be orthogonal to those yielding $\lambda_{1}$, and so on (see
Muirhead (1982), ch. 11).
Johansen (1991) shows that the asymptotic distribution of $LR_{r,p,T}$ under
the asymptotic regime where $T\rightarrow\infty$ while $p$ remains fixed, can
be expressed in terms of the eigenvalues of a matrix whose entries are
explicit functions of a $p-r$-dimensional Brownian motion. Unfortunately, for
relatively large $p$, this asymptotics does not produce good finite sample
approximations, as evidenced by the over-rejection phenomenon mentioned above.
Therefore, in this paper, we consider a \textit{simultaneous} asymptotic
regime $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$ where both $p$ and $T$ diverge to infinity
so that
\begin{equation}
p/T\rightarrow c\in\left( 0,1\right] ,\label{asymptotic regime
\end{equation}
while $p$ remains no larger than $T$. Our Monte Carlo analysis shows that the
corresponding asymptotic approximations are relatively accurate even for such
small sample sizes as $p=10$ and $T=20$.
The basic specification for the data generating process (\ref{model}) that we
consider has $k=1$. In the next section, we discuss extensions to more general
VARs with low-rank $\Gamma_{i}$ matrices and additional common factor terms.
We also explain there that our main results hold independently from whether a
deterministic vector $D_{t}$ with fixed or slowly-growing dimension is present
or absent from the VAR.
Our study focuses on the behavior of the empirical distribution function
(d.f.) of the squared sample canonical correlations
\begin{equation}
F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) =\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{p}}
\mathbf{1}\left\{ \lambda_{i}\leq\lambda\right\} ,\label{empirical d.f.
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{1}\left\{ \cdot\right\} $ denotes the indicator function. We
find that, under the null of $r$ cointegrating relationships, as
$p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$ while $r/p\rightarrow0,$ almost surely (a.s.),
\begin{equation}
F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) \Rightarrow W\left( \lambda
;c/(1+c),2c/(1+c)\right) ,\label{convergence
\end{equation}
where $\Rightarrow$ denotes the weak convergence of d.f.'s (see Billingsley
(1995), p.191), and $W\left( \lambda;\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\right) $ denotes
the \textit{Wachter }d.f. with parameters $\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{2}$. The
\textit{Wachter distribution} was derived by Wachter (1980) as the limit of
the empirical distribution of the eigenvalues of the multivariate beta matrix
of growing dimension and degrees of freedom. It has a simple density, which is
introduced in the next section, and, for $\gamma_{2}>\gamma_{1}$ and/or
$\gamma_{2}<1-\gamma_{1},$ point masses at zero and/or one, respectively.
The a.s. weak convergence (\ref{convergence}) and the fact that the squared
sample canonical correlations are no larger than unity imply the a.s.
convergence of averages $\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{p}}
f\left( \lambda_{i}\right) $ for any $f$ which is bounded and continuous on
$\left[ 0,1\right] $. By definition, the likelihood ratio statistic scaled
by $1/(pT)$ has this form (with omitted first $r$ summands), where
$f(\lambda)=-\log\left( 1-\lambda\right) $ is continuous but unbounded
function. Therefore, (\ref{convergence}) can guarantee an a.s. asymptotic
lower bound for the scaled LR statistic. For the LR statistic scaled by
$1/p^{2},$ we have, almost surely
\begin{equation}
\lim_{p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty}\inf LR_{r,p,T}/p^{2}\geq-\frac{1}{c}\in
\log\left( 1-\lambda\right) \mathrm{d}W\left( \lambda
;c/(1+c),2c/(1+c)\right) .\label{bound
\end{equation}
In contrast, we show that, under the (standard) asymptotic regime
where\linebreak$T\rightarrow\infty$ while $p$ is held fixed$,$ $LR_{r,p,T
/p^{2}$ concentrates around $2$ for relatively large $p$.\footnote{Similar to
(\ref{bound}), our weak convergence results only guarantee that $2 $ is a
lower bound, but we conjecture that it is also the limit of the scaled LR
statistic as first $T\rightarrow\infty$ and then $p\rightarrow\infty$. This
conjecture is supported by Monte Carlo evidence.} A direct calculation reveals
that $2$ is smaller than the lower bound (\ref{bound}), for all $c>0$, with
the gap growing as $c$ increases. That is, the standard asymptotic
distribution of the LR statistic is centered at a too low level, especially
for relatively large $p$. This explains the tendency of the asymptotic LR test
to over-reject the null.
The reason for the poor centering delivered by the standard asymptotic
approximation is that it classifies terms $\left( p/T\right) ^{j}$ in the
asymptotic expansion of the likelihood ratio statistic as $O\left(
T^{-j}\right) .$ When $p$ is relatively large, such terms can substantially
contribute to the finite sample distribution of the statistic, but will be
ignored as asymptotically negligible. In contrast, the \textit{simultaneous}
\textit{asymptotics} classifies all terms $\left( p/T\right) ^{j}$ as
$O(1).$ They are not ignored asymptotically, which improves the centering of
the simultaneous asymptotic approximation relative to the standard one.
It is possible to use bound (\ref{bound}), with $c$ replaced by $p/T$, to
construct a Bartlett-type correction factor for the standard LR test. As we
show below, for $p/T<1/3,$ the value of such a theoretical correction factor
is very close to the simulation-based factor described in Johansen, Hansen and
Fachin (2005). However, for larger $p/T$, the values diverge, which may be
caused by the fact that Johansen, Hansen and Fachin's (2005) simulations do
not consider combinations of $p$ and $T$ with $p/T>1/3,$ and the functional
form that they use to fit the simulated correction factors does not work well
uniformly in $p/T$.
The weak convergence result (\ref{convergence}) can be put to a more direct
use by comparing the quantiles of the empirical distribution of the squared
sample canonical correlations with the quantiles of the limiting Wachter
distribution. Under the null, the former quantiles plotted against the latter
ones should form a 45$^{\circ}$ line, asymptotically. Deviations of such a
Wachter quantile-quantile plot from the line indicate violations of the null.
Creating Wachter plots requires practically no additional computations beyond
those needed to compute the LR statistic, and we propose to use this simple
graphical device for a preliminary analysis of cointegration in large VARs.
To the best of our knowledge, our study is the first to derive the limit of
the empirical d.f. of the squared sample canonical correlations between random
walk $X_{t-1}$ and its innovations $\Delta X_{t}$. Wachter (1980) shows that
$W\left( \lambda;\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\right) $ is the weak limit of the
empirical d.f. of the squared sample canonical correlations between $q$- and
$m$-dimensional independent Gaussian white noises with the size of the sample
$n,$ when $q,m,n\rightarrow\infty$ so that $q/n\rightarrow\gamma_{1}$ and
$m/n\rightarrow\gamma_{2}$. Yang and Pan (2012) show that Wachter's (1980)
result holds without the Gaussianity assumption for i.i.d. data with finite
second moments.
Our proofs do not rely on those previous results. The values of parameters
$\gamma_{1}$ and $\gamma_{2}$ in (\ref{convergence}) imply that the limiting
d.f. for the case of $T$ observations of $p$-dimensional random walk and its
innovations, that we consider in this paper, is the same as the limiting d.f.
for the case of $T+p$ observations of two independent white noises - one
$p$-dimensional and the other $2p$-dimensional. It is tempting to think that
there exists a deep connection between the two cases, even though we were
unable to uncover it so far.
Our paper opens up a new direction for the asymptotic analysis of panel VAR
cointegration tests based on the sample canonical correlations. One such test
is developed in Larsson and Lyhagen (2007). It generalizes Larsson, Lyhagen,
and Lothgren (2001) and Groen and Kleibergen (2003) by allowing for cross-unit
cointegration, which is important from the empirical perspective. Larsson and
Lyhagen (2007) are reluctant to recommend their test for large VARs and
suggest that for the analysis of relatively large panels it may be better to
rely on tighter parameterized models, such as that of Bai and Ng (2004). In
the recent review of the panel cointegration literature, Choi (2015) expresses
a related concern that, with the large number of cross-sectional units,
\textquotedblleft Larsson and Lyhagen's test may not work well even with the
Bartlett's correction.\textquotedblright\
We speculate that the Larsson-Lyhagen test, as well as Johansen's LR test,
based on the \textit{simultaneous} asymptotics would work well in panels with
comparable cross-sectional and temporal dimensions. The results of this paper
can be used to describe only the appropriate centering of the corresponding
test statistics. The next step would be to derive the \textit{simultaneous}
asymptotic distribution of scaled deviations of such statistics from the
centering values. We conjecture that the \textit{simultaneous} asymptotic
distribution of $LR_{r,p,T}$ is Gaussian, as is often the case for averages of
regular functions of eigenvalues of large random matrices (see Bai and
Silverstein (2010) and Paul and Aue (2014)). We are currently undertaking work
to validate this conjecture.
The rest of this paper is structured as follows. In Section 2, we prove the
convergence of $F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $ to the \textit{Wachter} d.f.
and use this result to derive the asymptotic lower bound for $LR_{r,p,T}.$
Section 3 derives the sequential limit of the empirical d.f. of the squared
sample canonical correlations as, first $T\rightarrow\infty$ and then
$p\rightarrow\infty$. It then uses differences between the obtained sequential
asymptotic limit and the simultaneous limit derived in Section 2 to explain
the over-rejection phenomenon, and to design a theoretical Bartlett-type
correction factor for the LR statistic in high-dimensional VARs. Section 4
contains a Monte Carlo study that confirms good finite sample properties of
the Wachter asymptotic approximation. It also illustrates the proposed Wachter
quantile-quantile plot technique using a relatively high-dimensional
macroeconomic panel. Section 5 concludes and points out directions for future
research. All proofs are given in the Appendix.
\section{Convergence to the Wachter distribution}
Consider the following basic version of (\ref{model}
\begin{equation}
\Delta X_{t}=\Pi X_{t-1}+\Phi D_{t}+\varepsilon_{t
\label{econometricians model
\end{equation}
with $d_{D}$-dimensional vector of deterministic regressors $D_{t}$. Let
$R_{0t}$ and $R_{1t}$ be the vectors of residuals from the OLS regressions of
$\Delta X_{t}$ on $D_{t},$ and $X_{t-1}$ on $D_{t},$ respectively. Defin
\begin{equation}
S_{00}=\frac{1}{T
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
R_{0t}R_{0t}^{\prime},\text{ }S_{01}=\frac{1}{T
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
R_{0t}R_{1t}^{\prime},\text{ and }S_{11}=\frac{1}{T
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
R_{1t}R_{1t}^{\prime},\label{SSS
\end{equation}
and let $\lambda_{1}\geq...\geq\lambda_{p}$ be the eigenvalues of
$S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}.$
The main goal of this section is to establish the a.s. weak convergence of the
empirical d.f. of the $\lambda$'s to the Wachter d.f., under the null of $r$
cointegrating relationships, when $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$. The Wachter
distribution with d.f. $W\left( \lambda;\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\right) $ and
parameters $\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\in\left( 0,1\right) $ has densit
\begin{equation}
f_{W}\left( \lambda;\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi\gamma_{1
}\frac{\sqrt{\left( b_{+}-\lambda\right) \left( \lambda-b_{-}\right)
}{\lambda\left( 1-\lambda\right) }\label{densityW
\end{equation}
on $\left[ b_{-},b_{+}\right] \subseteq\left[ 0,1\right] $ wit
\begin{equation}
b_{\pm}=\left( \sqrt{\gamma_{1}(1-\gamma_{2})}\pm\sqrt{\gamma_{2
(1-\gamma_{1})}\right) ^{2},\label{support boundaries
\end{equation}
and atoms of size $\max\left\{ 0,1-\gamma_{2}/\gamma_{1}\right\} $ at zero,
and $\max\left\{ 0,1-(1-\gamma_{2})/\gamma_{1}\right\} $ at unity.
We shall assume that model (\ref{econometricians model}) may be misspecified
in the sense that the true data generating process is described by the
following generalization of (\ref{model}
\begin{equation}
\Delta X_{t}=\Pi X_{t-1}
{\displaystyle\sum_{i=1}^{k-1}}
\Gamma_{i}\Delta X_{t-i}+\Psi F_{t}+\varepsilon_{t},\label{general model
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_{t},$ $t=1,...,T,$ are still i.i.d. $N(0,\Sigma)$ with
arbitrary $\Sigma>0,$ $\operatorname*{rank}\Pi=r,$ but $k$ is not necessarily
unity, and $F_{t}$ is a $d_{F}$-dimensional vector of deterministic or
stochastic variables that does not necessarily coincide with $D_{t}$. For
example, some of the components of $F_{t}$ may be common factors not observed
and not modelled by the econometrician. Further, we do not put any
restrictions on the roots of the characteristic polynomial associated with
(\ref{general model}). In particular, explosive behavior and seasonal unit
roots are allowed. Finally, no constraints on $F_{t},$ and the initial values
$X_{1-k},...,X_{0}$, apart from the asymptotic requirements on $d_{F}$ and $k$
as spelled out in the following theorem, are imposed.
\begin{theorem}
\label{main}Suppose that the data are generated by (\ref{general model}), and
let $\lambda_{i},$ $i=1,...,p,$ be the eigenvalues of $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1
S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1},$ where $S_{ij}$ are as defined in (\ref{SSS}).
Further, let $F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $ be the empirical d.f. of the
$\lambda$'s, and let $\Gamma=\left[ \Gamma_{1},...,\Gamma_{k-1}\right] $. I
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p}\left( d_{D}+d_{F}+r+k+\operatorname*{rank}\Gamma\right)
\rightarrow0\label{wistles
\end{equation}
as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$ while $p$ remains no larger than $T$, then,
almost surely
\begin{equation}
F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) \Rightarrow W\left( \lambda
;c/(1+c),2c/(1+c)\right) .\label{5again
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
Condition (\ref{wistles}) requires the number $d_{D}$ of deterministic
regressors in the econometrician's model (\ref{econometricians model}), the
dimensionality $d_{F}$ of $F_{t}$, the number $r$ of the cointegrating
relationships under the null, the order $k$ of the data generating VAR, and
the dimensionality of the union of the column spaces of the matrix
coefficients on \textquotedblleft further lags\textquotedblright\ in
(\ref{general model}) to be either fixed or growing less than proportionally
to the dimensionality $p$ or, equivalently, to the sample size $T$. This
condition rules out situations where some or all lags which are omitted from
the econometrician's model (\ref{econometricians model}) have full rank
coefficients $\Gamma_{i}$. The simplest special situation where (\ref{wistles
) is clearly satisfied corresponds to the pure random walk data $\Delta
X_{t}=\varepsilon_{t}$.
The reason why the limit of the empirical d.f. $F_{p,T}(\lambda)$ does not
change when the data generating process (\ref{general model}) changes so that
(\ref{wistles}) remains true is that the corresponding changes in the matrix
$S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}$ have rank that is less than
proportional to $p$ (and to $T$). By the so-called rank inequality (Theorem
A43 in Bai and Silverstein (2010)), the L\'{e}vy distance between the
empirical d.f. of eigenvalues corresponding to versions of $S_{01}S_{11
^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}$ that differ by a matrix of rank $R$ is no
larger than $R/p,$ which converges to zero as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty.$
Since the L\'{e}vy distance metrizes the weak convergence (see Billingsley
(1995), problem 14.5), the limiting d.f. is not affected. For further details,
see the proof of Theorem \ref{main} in the Appendix.
\begin{remark}
In standard cases where $D_{t}$ is represented by $\left( 1,t\right) ,$ it
is customary to impose restrictions on $\Phi$ so that there is no quadratic
trend in $X_{t}$ (see Johansen (1995), ch. 6.2). Then, the LR test of the null
of $r$ cointegrating relationships is based on the eigenvalues of
$S_{01}^{\ast}S_{11}^{\ast-1}S_{01}^{\ast\prime}S_{00}^{\ast-1},$ defined
similarly to $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}$ by replacing
$X_{t-1}$ with $\left( X_{t-1}^{\prime},t\right) ^{\prime}$ and regressing
$\Delta X_{t}$ and $\left( X_{t-1}^{\prime},t\right) ^{\prime}$ on constant
only to obtain $R_{0t}$ and $R_{1t}.$ The empirical distribution function of
so modified eigenvalues still converges to $W\left( \lambda
;c/(1+c),2c/(1+c)\right) $ because the difference between matrices
$S_{01}^{\ast}S_{11}^{\ast-1}S_{01}^{\ast\prime}S_{00}^{\ast-1}$ and
$S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}$ has small rank.
\end{remark}
Figure \ref{illustrationmain} shows quantile plots of the Wachter distribution
with parameters $\gamma_{1}=c/(1+c)$ and $\gamma_{2}=2c/(1+c)$ for different
values of $c$. For $c=1/5,$ the dimensionality of the data constitutes 20\% of
the sample size. The corresponding Wachter limit of $F_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) \,$is supported on $\left[ 0.04,0.74\right] $. In
particular, we expect $\lambda_{1}$ be larger than $0.7$ for large $p,T$ even
in the absence of any cointegrating relationships. For $c=1/2,$ the upper
boundary of support of the Wachter limit is unity. This accords with Gonzalo
and Pitarakis' (1995, Lemma 2.3.1) finding that as $T/p\rightarrow2, $
$\lambda_{1}\rightarrow1.$ For $c=4/5,$ the Wachter limit has mass $3/4$ at unity
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=3.301in,
width=4.0776in
{illustrationMain.eps
\caption{Quantile functions of $W\left( \lambda;c/\left( 1+c\right)
,2c/\left( 1+c\right) \right) $ for $c=1/5,$ $c=1/2,$ and $c=4/5.$
\label{illustrationmain
\end{figure}
Wachter (1980) derives $W\left( \lambda;\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\right) $ as
the weak limit of the empirical d.f. of eigenvalues of the $p$-dimensional
beta\footnote{For the definition of the multivariate beta see Muirhead (1982),
p.110.} matrix $B_{p}\left( n_{1}/2,n_{2}/2\right) $ with $n_{1},n_{2}$
degrees of freedom as $p,n_{1},n_{2}\rightarrow\infty$ so that $p/n_{1
\rightarrow\gamma_{1}/\gamma_{2}$ and $p/n_{2}\rightarrow\gamma_{1
/(1-\gamma_{2}). $ The eigenvalues of multivariate beta matrices are related
to many important concepts in multivariate statistics, including canonical
correlations, multiple discriminant ratios, and MANOVA. In particular, the
squared sample canonical correlations between $q$- and $m$-dimensional
independent Gaussian samples of size $n$ are jointly distributed as the
eigenvalues of $B_{q}\left( m/2,(n-m)/2\right) ,$ where $q\leq m$ and $n\geq
q+m$. Therefore, their empirical d.f. weakly converges to $W\left(
\lambda;\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\right) $ with $\gamma_{1}=\lim q/n$ and
$\gamma_{2}=\lim m/n,$ as mentioned above. Since the squared canonical
correlations in Theorem \ref{main} are between random walk and its innovations
rather than independent white noises, the convergence to the Wachter
distribution came to us as a pleasant surprise.
In the context of multiple discriminant analysis, Wachter (1976b) proposes to
use a quantile-quantile (qq) plot, where the multiple discriminant ratios are
plotted against quantiles of $W\left( \lambda;\gamma_{1},\gamma_{2}\right)
$, as a simple graphical method that helps one \textquotedblleft recognize
hopeless from promising analyses at an early stage.\textquotedblright\ A plot
that clearly deviates from the 45$^{\circ}$ line suggests that the data are at
odds with the null hypothesis of the homogeneous population, and a further
analysis of the heterogeneity is useful. Nowadays, such qq plots are called
\textit{Wachter plots} (see Johnstone (2001)).
Theorem \ref{main} implies that the Wachter plot can be used as a simple
preliminary assessment of cointegration hypotheses in large VARs. As an
illustration, Figure \ref{wachterplot} shows a Wachter plot of the simulated
sample squared canonical correlations corresponding to a $20$-dimensional
VAR(1) model (\ref{econometricians model}) with $\Pi=\operatorname*{diag
\left\{ -I_{3},0\times I_{17}\right\} $ so that there are three white noise
and seventeen random walk components of $X_{t}$. No deterministic terms are
included. We set $T=200$ so that $c=1/10$. The graph clearly shows three
canonical correlations that destroy the 45$^{\circ}$ line fit, so that the
null hypothesis of no cointegration is compromised
\begin{figure}[h
\centering
\includegraphics[
trim=0.000000in 0.000000in 0.000000in 0.015797in,
height=3.2621in,
width=5.6031in
{WachterPlot.eps
\caption{Wachter plot of the squared canonical correlations corresponding to
20-dimensional series with 3 components being white noises and the other
components being independent random walks. $p=20,T=200.$
\label{wachterplot
\end{figure}
\bigskip
Theorem \ref{main} does not provide any explanation to the fact that exactly
three canonical correlations deviate from the 45$^{\circ}$ line in Figure
\ref{wachterplot}. To interpret deviations of the Wachter plots from the
45$^{\circ}$ line, it is desirable to investigate behavior of $F_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) $ under various alternatives. So far, we were able to obtain a
clear result only for the \textquotedblleft extreme\textquotedblrigh
\ alternative, where $X_{t}$ is a vector of independent white noises. Under
such an alternative,
\begin{equation}
F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) \Rightarrow W\left( \lambda
;c/(2-c),1/(2-c)\right) .\label{white noise
\end{equation}
We plan to publish a full proof of this and some related results elsewhere.
Interestingly, for $c=1/2,$ the Wachter limits (\ref{5again}) and
(\ref{white noise}) corresponding to random walk and white noise nulls,
respectively, coincide. Hence, as $c$ approaches $1/2,$ not only the largest
sample canonical correlation converges to one and the LR test breaks down, but
also the Wachter plot looses the ability to differentiate between opposite
cointegration hypotheses. For smaller values of $c,$ however, the Wachter
limits (\ref{5again}) and (\ref{white noise}) become well separated. We
provide Monte Carlo analysis of the behavior of $F_{p,T}\left( \lambda
\right) $ under some alternative hypotheses in Section~4 below.
The almost sure weak convergence of $F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $
established in Theorem \ref{main} implies the almost sure convergence of
bounded continuous functionals of $F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) .$ An
example of such a functional is the scaled Pillai-Bartlett statistic for the
null of no more than $r$ cointegrating relationships (see Gonzalo and
Pitarakis (1995)
\[
\frac{1}{Tp}PB_{r,p,T}=\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=r+1}^{p}}
\lambda_{j},
\]
which is asymptotically equivalent to the LR statistic under the standard
asymptotic regime where $p$ is fixed and $T\rightarrow\infty$. Since, by
definition, $\lambda_{j}\in\left[ 0,1\right] ,$ we hav
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{Tp}PB_{r,p,T}
{\displaystyle\int}
f(\lambda)\mathrm{d}F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) -\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{r}}
\lambda_{j},\label{PBrepresentation
\end{equation}
where $f$ is the bounded continuous functio
\[
f(\lambda)=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
0 & \text{for }\lambda<0\\
\lambda & \text{for }\lambda\in\left[ 0,1\right] \\
1 & \text{for }\lambda>1.
\end{array}
\right. .
\]
As long as $r/p\rightarrow0$ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty,$ the second term on
the right hand side of (\ref{PBrepresentation}) converges to zero. Therefore,
Theorem \ref{main} implies that $PB/\left( Tp\right) $ almost surely
converges to
{\displaystyle\int}
f(\lambda)\mathrm{d}W\left( \lambda;c/(1+c),2c/(1+c)\right) .$ A direct
calculation based on (\ref{densityW}), which we report in the Supplementary
Appendix, yields the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{PB}Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{main}, as $p,T\rightarrow
_{c}\infty,$ almost surely
\[
PB_{r,p,T}/\left( Tp\right) \rightarrow2c/\left( 1+c\right) +\max\left\{
0,2-1/c\right\} .
\]
\end{corollary}
A similar analysis of the LR statistic is less straightforward becaus
\[
\frac{1}{Tp}LR_{r,p,T}=-\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=r+1}^{p}}
\log(1-\lambda_{j}),
\]
and $\log\left( 1-\lambda\right) $ is unbounded on $\lambda\in\left[
0,1\right] .$ In fact, for $c>1/2,$ $LR_{r,p,T}$ is ill-defined because a
non-negligible proportion of the squared sample canonical correlations exactly
equal unity. However for $c<1/2,$ we can obtain the almost sure asymptotic
lower bound on $LR_{r,p,T}/\left( Tp\right) .$ Note that for such $c,$ the
upper bound of the support of $W\left( \lambda;c/(1+c),2c/(1+c)\right) $
equals $b_{+}=c\left( \sqrt{2}-\sqrt{1-c}\right) ^{-2}<1$. Let
\begin{equation}
\overline{\log}\left( 1-\lambda\right) =\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
0 & \text{for }\lambda<0\\
\log(1-\lambda) & \text{for }\lambda\in\left[ 0,b_{+}\right] \\
\log(1-b_{+}) & \text{for }\lambda>b_{+}.
\end{array}
\right. \label{truncated log
\end{equation}
Clearly, $\overline{\log}\left( 1-\lambda\right) $ is a bounded continuous
function an
\[
\frac{1}{Tp}LR_{r,p,T}\geq-\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=r+1}^{p}}
\overline{\log}(1-\lambda_{j}).
\]
Hence, we have the following a.s. lower bound on $LR_{r,p,T}/\left(
Tp\right) $ (the corresponding calculations are reported in the Supplementary Appendix).
\begin{corollary}
\label{LRsim}Under the assumptions of Theorem \ref{main}, for $c<1/2,$ as
$p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty,$ almost surely
\[
\lim_{p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty}\inf\frac{1}{Tp}LR_{r,p,T}\geq\frac{1+c}{c
\ln\left( 1+c\right) -\frac{1-c}{c}\ln\left( 1-c\right) +\frac{1-2c}{c
\ln\left( 1-2c\right) .
\]
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark}
\label{conjectureRemark}We conjecture that the lower bound reported in the
corollary is, in fact, the a.s. limit of $LR_{r,p,T}/\left( Tp\right) .$ To
prove this conjecture, one needs to show that $\lambda_{r+1}$ is almost surely
bounded away from unity so that the unboundedness of $\log\left(
1-\lambda\right) $ is not consequential. We leave this as an important topic
for future research.
\end{remark}
Corollaries \ref{PB} and \ref{LRsim} suggest appropriate \textquotedblleft
centering points\textquotedblright\ for PB and LR statistics scaled by
$1/\left( Tp\right) $ for relatively large and comparable $p$ and $T.$ As we
show in the next section, the standard asymptotic distribution of the scaled
PB and LR statistics are likely\footnote{We only establish lower bounds on the
concentration points. However, Monte Carlo evidence suggests that these bounds
are in fact the points of concentration.} to concentrate around very different
points when $p$ becomes large. As will be seen below, this difference sheds
new light on the over-rejection phenomenon discussed above and on the workings
and limitations of the Bartlett correction for the LR statistic. To study the
concentration of the standard asymptotic distributions of the scaled PB and LR
statistics as $p$ grows, we will consider the \textit{sequential} asymptotic
regime, where first $T\rightarrow\infty,$ and then $p\rightarrow\infty$.
\section{Sequential asymptotics and its consequences}
\subsection{Sequential asymptotics}
To obtain useful results under the sequential asymptotics, we shall study
eigenvalues of the scaled matri
\begin{equation}
\frac{T}{p}S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}.\label{RawMatrix
\end{equation}
Note that under the simultaneous asymptotic regime $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty,$
the asymptotic behavior of the scaled and unscaled eigenvalues is the same up
to the factor $c^{-1}$. However, as first $T\rightarrow\infty$ while $p$
remains fixed, the unscaled eigenvalues converge to zero, while scaled ones do
not. We shall denote the empirical d.f. of eigenvalues of the scaled matrix as
$F_{p,T}^{(s)}\left( \lambda\right) $.
Without loss of generality, we focus on the case of simple data generating
process
\begin{equation}
\Delta X_{t}=\varepsilon_{t},\text{ }t=1,...,T,\text{ and }X_{0
=0,\label{Random Walk DGP
\end{equation}
and on the situation, where the econometrician does not include any
deterministic regressors in his or her model, that is $d_{D}=0$. There is no
loss of generality in such simplifications because, as follows from Lemma
\ref{misspec} and the rank inequality used in the proof of Lemma \ref{rank} in
the Appendix, the L\'{e}vy distance between the versions of $F_{p,T
^{(s)}\left( \lambda\right) $ that correspond to the simplified and the
general cases is bounded from above by a fixed multiple of $\left(
d_{D}+d_{F}+r+k+\operatorname*{rank}\Gamma\right) /p$. We shall assume that
the latter expression goes to zero as $p\rightarrow\infty.$ Therefore,
whatever the sequential asymptotic limit of $F_{p,T}^{(s)}\left(
\lambda\right) $ is under the above simplification, it must also be the
sequential asymptotic limit under the general case. For simplicity, in the
rest of this section, we shall assume that $r=0,$ and will consider statistics
$LR_{0,p,T} $ rather than more general $LR_{r,p,T}.$
Under the above simplifications, Johansen's (1988, 1991) results imply that,
as $T\rightarrow\infty$ while $p$ is held fixed, the eigenvalues of the scaled
matrix (\ref{RawMatrix}) jointly converge in distribution to the eigenvalues
o
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p}\int_{0}^{1}\left( \mathrm{d}B\right) B^{\prime}\left( \in
_{0}^{1}BB^{\prime}\mathrm{d}u\right) ^{-1}\int_{0}^{1}B\left(
\mathrm{d}B\right) ^{\prime},\label{JohansenLimit
\end{equation}
where $B$ is a $p$-dimensional Brownian motion. We denote the eigenvalues of
(\ref{JohansenLimit}) as $\lambda_{j}^{(\infty)},$ and their empirical d.f. as
$F_{p,\infty}\left( \lambda\right) .$
It is not unreasonable to expect that, as $p\rightarrow\infty$, $F_{p,\infty
}\left( \lambda\right) $ becomes close to the limit of the empirical
distribution of eigenvalues of (\ref{RawMatrix}) under a simultaneous, rather
than sequential, asymptotic regime $p,T\rightarrow_{\gamma}\infty,$ where
$\gamma$ is close to zero. We shall denote such a limit as $F_{\gamma}\left(
\lambda\right) .$ This expectation turns out to be correct in the sense that
the following theorem holds.
\begin{theorem}
\label{Levy} Let $F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) $ be the weak limit as
$\gamma\rightarrow0$ of $F_{\gamma}\left( \lambda\right) .$ Then, as
$p\rightarrow\infty,$ $F_{p,\infty}\left( \lambda\right) $ weakly converges
to $F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) ,$ in probability.
\end{theorem}
Importantly, the weak limit $F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) $ is not the Wachter
d.f. Instead, the following proposition holds.
\begin{proposition}
\label{MPproposition} $F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) $ corresponds to a
distribution supported on $\left[ a_{-},a_{+}\right] $ with
\begin{equation}
a_{\pm}=\left( 1\pm\sqrt{2}\right) ^{2},\label{MP boundaries
\end{equation}
and having densit
\begin{equation}
f\left( \lambda\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi}\frac{\sqrt{\left( a_{+
-\lambda\right) \left( \lambda-a_{-}\right) }}{\lambda}.\label{MP density
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
A reader familiar with Large Random Matrix Theory (see Bai and Silverstein
(2010)) might recognize that $F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) $ is the cumulative
distribution function of the continuous part of a special case of the
Marchenko-Pastur distribution (Marchenko and Pastur (1967)). The general
Marchenko-Pastur distribution has densit
\[
f_{MP}\left( \lambda;\kappa,\sigma^{2}\right) =\frac{1}{2\pi\sigma^{2
\kappa}\frac{\sqrt{\left( a_{+}-\lambda\right) \left( \lambda-a_{-}\right)
}}{\lambda
\]
over $\left[ a_{-},a_{+}\right] $ with $a_{\pm}=\sigma^{2}\left( 1\pm
\sqrt{\kappa}\right) ^{2}$ and a point mass $\max\left\{ 0,1-1/\kappa
\right\} $ at zero. Density (\ref{MP density}) is two times $f_{MP}\left(
\lambda;\kappa,\sigma^{2}\right) $ with $\kappa=2$ and $\sigma^{2}=1.$ The
multiplication by two is needed because the mass $1/2$ at zero is not a part
of the distribution $F_{0}$.
Recall that, as $T\rightarrow\infty$ while $p$ remains fixed, the LR statistic
converges in distribution to $p$ times the trace of matrix
(\ref{JohansenLimit})
\begin{equation}
LR_{0,p,T}\overset{d}{\rightarrow}
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{p}}
\lambda_{j}^{(\infty)}\text{ as }T\rightarrow\infty.\label{Tlimit
\end{equation}
On the other hand, according to Theorem \ref{Levy}, for any $\delta_{1
,\delta_{2}>0\ $\ and all sufficiently large $p,
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{p}}
\lambda_{j}^{(\infty)}\geq\int\lambda\mathrm{d}F_{0}\left( \lambda\right)
-\delta_{1}\right) \geq1-\delta_{2}.\label{plimit
\end{equation}
A direct calculation, which we report in the Supplementary Appendix, shows
that $\int\lambda\mathrm{d}F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) =2.$ Hence, we have
the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
\label{Table reduction}As first $T\rightarrow\infty,$ and then $p\rightarrow
\infty,$ the lower probability bound on $LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) $
is unity in the following sense. As $T\rightarrow\infty$ while $p$ is held
fixed, $LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) $ converges in distribution to
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{p}}
\lambda_{j}^{(\infty)}/\left( 2p\right) .$ Further, for any $\delta
_{1},\delta_{2}>0$\ and all sufficiently large $p,$ the probability that
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{p}}
\lambda_{j}^{(\infty)}/\left( 2p\right) $ is no smaller than $1-\delta_{1}$
is no smaller than $1-\delta_{2}.$
\end{corollary}
The reason why we only claim the lower bound on $LR_{0,p,T}/\left(
2p^{2}\right) $ is that Theorem \ref{Levy} is silent about the behavior of
the individual eigenvalues $\lambda_{j}^{(\infty)},$ the largest of which may,
in principle, quickly diverge to infinity. We suspect that $2$ is not just the
lower bound, but also the probability limit of
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{p}}
\lambda_{j}^{(\infty)}/p$, so that the sequential probability limit of
$LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) $ is unity. Verification of this conjecture
requires more work, similar to that discussed in Remark \ref{conjectureRemark}.
Corollary \ref{Table reduction} is consistent with the numerical finding of
Johansen, Hansen and Fachin (2005, Table 2) that, as $T$ becomes large while
$p$ is being fixed, the sample mean of the LR statistic is well approximated
by a polynomial $2p^{2}+\alpha p$ (see also Johansen (1988) and Gonzalo and
Pitarakis (1995)). The value of $\alpha$ depends on how many deterministic
regressors are included in the VAR. Our theoretical result captures only the
`highest order' sequential asymptotic behavior of the LR statistic, which
remains (bounded below by) $2p^{2}$ independent on the number of the
deterministic regressors.
Another piece of numerical support for $2p^{2}$ being not only the lower bound
but also the first order sequential asymptotic approximation to the LR
statistic is provided by the tables of the asymptotic critical values for
Johansen's LR test (see, for example, MacKinnon, Haug and Michelis (1999)).
The critical values in such tables become uncomfortably large for $p>4$. Of
course, the reason for such an unpleasant growth is that those critical values
are of order $2p^{2}$.
The transformatio
\[
LR_{0,p,T}\mapsto LR_{0,p,T}/p-2p
\]
makes the LR statistic `well-behaved' under the sequential asymptotics. The
division by $p$ reduces the `second order behavior' to $O_{\mathrm{P}}(1),$
while subtracting $2p$ eliminates the remaining explosive `highest order
term'. We report the corresponding transformed 95\% critical values alongside
the original ones in Table \ref{CV}.
The transformed critical values resemble 97-99 percentiles of $N(0,1)$. Since
the LR test is one-sided, the resemblance is coincidental. However, we do
expect the sequential asymptotic distribution of the transformed LR statistic
(as well as its simultaneous asymptotic distribution) to be normal (possibly
with non-zero mean and non-unit variance). Our expectation is based on the
fact that $LR_{0,p,T}/p$ behaves as the eigenvalue average (see (\ref{Tlimit
)), which is a special case of the so-called linear spectral statistic. The
asymptotic normality of linear spectral statistics for relatively simple
classes of high-dimensional random matrices is a well established result in
the Large Random Matrix Theory (see Bai and Silverstein (2010)). Extending it
to the linear spectral statistics of matrices of form (\ref{JohansenLimit}) is
left as an important direction for future research
\begin{table}[tbp] \centering
\begin{tabular}
[c]{l|l|l}\hline
$p$ & Unadjusted CV & CV/$p-2p$\\\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$1$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$4.13$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$2.13$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$2$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$12.32$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$2.16$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$3$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$24.28$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$2.09$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$4$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$40.17$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$2.04$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$5$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$60.06$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$2.01$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$6$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$83.94$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$1.99$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$7$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$111.79$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$1.97$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$8$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$143.64$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$1.96$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$9$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$179.48$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$1.94$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$10$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$219.38$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$1.94$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$11$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$263.25$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$1.93$}\\
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{$12$} & \multicolumn{1}{|c|}{$311.09$} &
\multicolumn{1}{|c}{$1.92$}\\\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The 95\% asymptotic critical values (CV) for Johansen's LR test.
The unadjsuted values are taken from the first column of Table II in
MacKinnon, Haug and Michelis (1999). }\label{CV
\end{table
\subsection{Over-rejection phenomenon, and the Bartlett correction}
In this subsection, let us assume that the following conjecture holds.
\begin{conjecture}
\label{conjecture}The simultaneous and sequential asymptotic lower bounds for
the scaled LR statistics derived in Corollaries \ref{LRsim} and
\ref{Table reduction} represent the corresponding simultaneous and sequential
asymptotic limits. Specifically, for $c<1/2$
\begin{equation}
\lim_{p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty}\frac{1}{2p^{2}}LR_{0,p,T}=\frac{1+c}{2c^{2
}\ln\left( 1+c\right) -\frac{1-c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left( 1-c\right) +\frac
{1-2c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left( 1-2c\right) ,\label{simlim
\end{equation
\begin{equation}
\operatorname*{plim}_{p\rightarrow\infty}\lim_{T\rightarrow\infty}\frac
{1}{2p^{2}}LR_{0,p,T}=1.\label{seqlim1
\end{equation}
\end{conjecture}
Figure \ref{overrejection} plots the right hand side of (\ref{simlim}) against
the value of $c\in\left[ 0,1/2\right) .$ As demonstrated by the Monte Carlo
analysis of the next section, in finite samples with comparable values of $p$
and $T$, simultaneous asymptotics provides a better approximation to the
finite sample behavior of the LR statistic than the sequential asymptotics.
Therefore, `typical' finite sample values of the LR statistic are concentrated
around the solid line in Figure \ref{overrejection}, and above the dashed
line, which represents the points of concentration of the `standard'
asymptotic critical values for the LR test. In other words, the standard
asymptotic distribution of the LR statistic is centered at a too low level.
This leads to the over-rejection of the null of no cointegration
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=3.0087in,
width=3.7152in
{overrejection1.eps
\caption{The asymptotic limits (under Conjecture \ref{conjecture}) of the
scaled LR statistic $L_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) .$ Dashed line:
sequential asymptotic limit. Solid line: simultaneous asymptotic limit.
\label{overrejection
\end{figure}
Gonzalo and Pitarakis (1995) propose an interesting approach to address the
problem. Using Monte Carlo, they find that, in contrast to the LR test, the
Pillai-Bartlett test based on the PB statistic\ under-rejects the null.
Therefore, they propose to test cointegration hypotheses using the average of
the LR and PB statistics. According to Corollary \ref{PB}, under the
simultaneous asymptotics $PB/\left( 2p^{2}\right) \rightarrow1/\left(
1+c\right) ,$ almost surely. This convergence holds independent on whether
Conjecture \ref{conjecture} is true or not.
The fact that $\left( 1+c\right) ^{-1}$ is smaller than one, explains the
under-rejection of the test based on the PB statistic. More interestingly, the
average of the simultaneous asymptotic limits of the LR and PB statistics
(divided by $2p^{2}$) turns out to be numerically close to one, and hence to
the point of the concentration of the standard critical values (divided by
$2p^{2}$), at least for $c<1/3.$ Figure \ref{PBaver} shows such an average.
This explains the much better performance of the (LR+PB)/2 test relative to
the LR test in Gonzalo and Pitarakis' (1995) Monte Carlo experiments
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=3.0467in,
width=3.7637in
{PBaverage.eps
\caption{The almost sure limits (under Conjecture \ref{conjecture}) of the
scaled LR, PB, and (LR+PB)/2 statistics under the simulataneous asymptotic
regime.
\label{PBaver
\end{figure}
A more systematic and popular approach to addressing the over-rejection
problem is based on the Bartlett-type correction of the LR statistic. It was
explored in much detail in various important studies, including Johansen
(2002). The idea is to scale the LR statistic so that its finite sample
distribution better fits the asymptotic distribution of the unscaled
statistic. Specifically, let $E_{p,\infty}\left( LR\right) $ be the mean of
the asymptotic distribution under the fixed-$p$, large-$T$ asymptotic regime.
Then, if the finite sample mean, $E_{p,T}\left( LR\right) $, satisfie
\begin{equation}
E_{p,T}\left( LR\right) =E_{p,\infty}\left( LR\right) \left(
1+\frac{a(p)}{T}+o\left( \frac{1}{T}\right) \right)
,\label{Bartlett theory
\end{equation}
the scaled statistic is defined as $LR/\left( 1+a(p)/T\right) .$ By
construction, the match between the scaled mean and the original asymptotic
mean is improved by an order of magnitude. Although, as shown by Jensen and
Wood (1997) in the context of unit root testing, the match between higher
moments does not improve by an order of magnitude, it may become substantially
better (see Nielsen (1997)).
A theoretical analysis of the adjustment factor $1+a(p)/T$ can be rather
involved. In general, $a(p)$ will depend not only on $p$, but also on all the
parameters of the VAR. However, for Gaussian VAR(1) without deterministic
terms, under the null of no cointegration, $a(p)$ depends only on $p$.
For $p=1,$ the exact expression for $a(p)$ was derived in Larsson (1998).
Given the difficulty of the theoretical analysis of $a(p),$ Johansen (2002)
proposes to numerically evaluate the Bartlett correction factor $BC_{p,T
\equiv E_{p,T}\left( LR\right) /E_{p,\infty}\left( LR\right) $ by
simulation. Johansen, Hansen and Fachin (2005) simulate $BC_{p,T}$ for various
values of $p\leq10$ and $T\leq3000$ and fit a function of the for
\[
BC_{p,T}^{\ast}=\exp\left\{ a_{1}\frac{p}{T}+a_{2}\left( \frac{p}{T}\right)
^{2}+\frac{1}{T}\left[ a_{3}\left( \frac{p}{T}\right) ^{2}+b\right]
\right\}
\]
to the obtained results. For relatively large values of $T,$ the term
$\frac{1}{T}\left[ a_{3}\left( \frac{p}{T}\right) ^{2}+b\right] $ in the
above expression is small. When it is ignored, the fitted function becomes
particularly simple
\[
\widetilde{BC}_{p,T}=\exp\left\{ 0.549\frac{p}{T}+0.552\left( \frac{p
{T}\right) ^{2}\right\} .
\]
Our simultaneous and sequential asymptotic results shed light on the workings
of $\widetilde{BC}_{p,T}.$ Given that Conjecture \ref{conjecture} holds
\[
\frac{\lim_{p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty}LR_{0,p,T}}{p\lim_{T\rightarrow
\infty,p\rightarrow\infty}LR_{0,p,T}}=\frac{1+c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left( 1+c\right)
-\frac{1-c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left( 1-c\right) +\frac{1-2c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left(
1-2c\right) .
\]
Therefore, for non-negligible $p/T,$ we expect $BC_{p,T}$ to be well
approximated by
\[
\widehat{BC}_{p,T}=\frac{1+\hat{c}}{2\hat{c}^{2}}\ln\left( 1+\hat{c}\right)
-\frac{1-\hat{c}}{2\hat{c}^{2}}\ln\left( 1-\hat{c}\right) +\frac{1-2\hat{c
}{2\hat{c}^{2}}\ln\left( 1-2\hat{c}\right) ,
\]
where $\hat{c}=p/T$ is the finite sample analog of $c.$
Figure \ref{bartlettnew} superimposes the graphs of $\widehat{BC}_{p,T}$ and
$\widetilde{BC}_{p,T}$ as functions of $\hat{c}.$ For $p/T\leq0.3,$ there is a
strikingly good match between the two curves, with the maximum distance
between them $0.0067$. For $p/T>0.3$ the quality of the match quickly
deteriorates. This can be explained by the fact that all $p,T$-pairs used in
Johansen, Hansen and Fachin's (2005) simulations are such that $p/T<0.3$
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=3.0415in,
width=3.7567in
{BartlettNew.eps
\caption{Bartlett correction factors as functions of $p/T.$ Solid line: the
factor based on simultaneous asymptotics. Dashed line: numerical approximation
from Johansen, Hansen and Fachin (2005).
\label{bartlettnew
\end{figure}
Further, the good match between $\widetilde{BC}_{p,T}$ and $\widehat{BC
_{p,T}$ observed for $p/T<0.3$ would be impossible had Johansen, Hansen and
Fachin's (2005) specified the Bartlett correction factor as a linear function
of $p/T$. Note that the standard theoretical choice for the Bartlett
correction factor, $1+a(p)/T$ from (\ref{Bartlett theory}), can be viewed as a
linear function of $p/T$ with a slope possibly varying with $p$. This is
obvious when $a(p)/T$ is represented as $\frac{p}{T}\beta(p)$ with
$\beta(p)=a(p)/p$. Figure \ref{bartlettnew} shows that such theoretical
correction factors cannot work well uniformly with respect to $p/T$. Uniformly
good correction factors must include terms $\left( p/T\right) ^{j}$ with
$j>1$. Under the fixed-$p,$ large-$T$ asymptotics, such terms are of lower
order than $1/T,$ but under the simultaneous asymptotics, they are of order
$O(1)$.
Although the Bartlett-type correction approach may deliver good results for
high-dimensional systems with carefully chosen correction factor, we believe
that tests based on the simultaneous asymptotics of the appropriately scaled
and centered LR statistic would be preferable for relatively large $p$.
\section{Monte Carlo and some examples}
In this section, we describe results of small-scale Monte Carlo experiments
that assess the finite sample quality of the Wachter asymptotic approximation.
In addition, we illustrate the Wachter qq plot technique using a macroeconomic
dataset of relatively high dimensions.
\subsection{Monte Carlo experiments}
First, we generate pure random walk data with zero starting values for
$p=10,T=100$ and $p=10,T=20.$ Throughout this section, the analysis is based
on 1000 Monte Carlo replications. The generated random walk data are
ten-dimensional so that there are ten corresponding squared sample canonical
correlations, $\lambda$. Figure \ref{mcboxplot} shows the Tukey boxplots
summarizing the MC distribution of each of the $\lambda_{i},$ $i=1,...,10$
(sorted in the ascending order throughout this section)$.$ The boxplots are
superimposed with the quantile function of the Wachter limit with $c=1/10$ for
the left panel and $c=1/2$ for the right panel. Precisely, for $x=i,$ we show
the value the $100\left( i-1/2\right) /p$ quantile of the Wachter limit. For
$i=1,2,...,10,$ these are the 5-th,15-th,...,95-th quantiles of $W\left(
\lambda;c/\left( 1+c\right) ,2c/\left( 1+c\right) \right) .$
Even for such small values of $p$ and $T,$ the theoretical quantiles track the
location of the MC distribution of the empirical quantiles very well. The
smallest sample canonical correlation is an exception. Its distribution lies
mostly below the corresponding theoretical quantile.
The dispersion of the MC distributions around the theoretical quantile is
quite large for the chosen small values of $p$ and $T.$ To see how such a
dispersion changes when $p$ and $T$ increase while $p/T$ remains fixed, we
generated pure random walk data with $p=20,T=200$ and $p=100,T=1000$ for
$p/T=1/10$, and with $p=20,T=40$ and $p=100,T=200$ for $p/T=1/2.$ Instead of
reporting the Tukey boxplots, we plot only the 5-th and 95-th percentiles of
the MC distributions of the $\lambda_{i},$ $i=1,...,p$ against $100\left(
i-1/2\right) /p$ quantiles of the corresponding Wachter limit. The plots are
shown on Figure \ref{mcqqplot}
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=2.5417in,
width=5.61in
{MCboxplot.eps
\caption{The Tukey boxplots for 1000 MC simulations of ten sample squared
canonical correlations correponding to pure random walk data. The boxplots are
superimposed with the quantile function of the Wachter limit.
\label{mcboxplot
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=5.3696in,
width=5.9084in
{MCqqplot.eps
\caption{The qq Wachter plots for pure random walk data. The dashed line is
the 45$^{\circ}$ line. The solid lines are the 5-th and the 95-th percentiles
of the MC distributions of $\lambda_{i},$ which are plotted against
$100(i-1/2)/p$ quantiles of the Wachter limit
\label{mcqqplot
\end{figure}
We see that the [5\%,95\%] ranges of the MC distributions of $\lambda_{i}$ are
still considerably large for $p=20.$ These ranges become much smaller for
$p=100.$ Interestingly, the distribution of $\lambda_{1}$ remains below the
Wachter limit even for $p=100.$ This does not contradict our theoretical
results because a weak limit of the empirical distribution of $\lambda$'s is
not affected by an arbitrary change in a finite (or slowly growing) number of
them. In fact, we find it somewhat surprising that only the distribution of
$\lambda_{1}$ is not well-alligned with the derived theoretical limit. Our
proofs are based on several low rank alterations of the matrix $S_{01
S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}$, and there is nothing in them that
guarantee that only one eigenvalue of $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime
S_{00}^{-1}$ behaves in a \textquotedblleft special\textquotedblright\ way. In
future work, it would be interesting to investigate the behavior of
$\lambda_{1}$ and other extreme eigenvalues of $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1
S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}$ theoretically.
Next, we explore the effect of the deterministic regressor on the quality of
the Wachter approximation. We generate data with and without constant in the
data generating process (\ref{general model}). That is, we consider two cases:
$F_{t}=1$ and $F_{t}=0.$ The coefficient $\Psi$ on $F_{t}$ is a $N(0,I_{p})$
vector independent across different MC replications. We also consider two
models (\ref{econometricians model}) contemplated by the econometrician: one
with $D_{t}=1$, and the other with $D_{t}=0.$ If $F_{t}\neq D_{t},$ the
econometrican's model is misspecified. Figure \ref{mcmisspec} shows the
Wachter plots similar to those reported in Figure \ref{mcqqplot}. The
dimensions of the data are $p=20$ and $T=100.$
If the data generating process (DGP) contains constant ($F_{t}=1$), but the
econometrician does not include it in his or her model, then the largest
$\lambda,$ $\lambda_{p},$ start to significantly deviate from the 45$^{\circ}$
line on the Wachter plot (lower right panel). If the econometrician's model is
over-specified (lower left panel), there are no dramatic deviations from the line
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=5.4034in,
width=5.7674in
{MCqqDeterministic.eps
\caption{The qq Wachter plots for $p=20$ and $T=100.$ The data generating
process (DGP) is (\ref{general model}) with $k=1,\Pi=0,$ and either $F_{t}=1$
(constant in DGP) or $F_{t}=0 $ (no constant in GDP). The econometrician's
model is (\ref{econometricians model}) with $\Pi=0$ and either $D_{t}=1$
(constant in model) or $D_{t}=0$ (no constant in model).
\label{mcmisspec
\end{figure}
Our next Monte Carlo experiment simulates data that are not random walk.
Instead, the data are stationary VAR(1) with zero mean, zero initial value,
and $\Pi=\rho I_{p}.$ We consider three cases of $\rho:0,$ $0.5,$ and $0.95.$
Figure \ref{mcalternatives} shows the Wachter plots with solid lines
representing 5th and 95-th percentiles of the MC distributions of $\lambda
_{i}$ plotted against the $100(i-1/2)/p$ quantiles of the corresponding
Wachter limit. The dashed line correspond to the null case where the data are
pure random walk (shown for comparison)
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=5.2866in,
width=5.642in
{MCqqAlternatives.eps
\caption{The qq Wachter plots for stationary data $X_{t}=\rho X_{t-1
+\varepsilon_{t}.$ Solid lines: 5 and 95 percentiles of the MC distribution of
$\lambda_{i}$ plotted against $100(i-1/2)/p$ quantile of the Wachter limit.
Dashed lines correspond to 5 and 95 percentiles of the MC distribution of
$\lambda_{i}$ for pure random walk data (the null).
\label{mcalternatives
\end{figure}
The lower panel of the figure corresponds to the most persistent alternative
with $\rho=0.95.$ Samples with $p=20$ seem to be too small to generate
substantial differences in the behavior of Wachter plots under the null and
under such persistent alternatives. The less persistent alternative with
$\rho=0.5$ is easily discriminated against by the Wachter plot for $p/T=1/10$
(left panel). The discrimination power of the plot for $p/T=1/5$ (central
panel) is weaker. For $p/T=1/2$ there is still some discrimination power left,
but the location of the Wachter plot under alternative \textquotedblleft
switches\textquotedblright\ the side relative to the 45$^{\circ}$ line.
The plots easily discriminate against white noise ($\rho=0$) alternative for
$c=1/10$ and $c=1/5,$ but not for $c=1/2.$ In accordance to the result that we
announced above, and plan to publish elsewhere, the Wachter limit for $c=1/2$
approximates equally well the empirical distribution of the squared sample
canonical correlations based on random walk and on white noise data.
Results reported in Figure \ref{mcalternatives} indicate that for relatively
small $p$ and $p/T,$ Wachter plots can be effective in discriminating against
alternatives to the null of no cointegration, where the cointegrating linear
combinations of the data are not very persistent. Further, tests of no
cointegration hypothesis that may be developed using simultaneous asymptotics
would probably need to be two-sided. It is because the location of the Wachter
plot under the alternative may \textquotedblleft switch
sides\textquotedblright\ relative to the 45$^{\circ}$ depending on the
persistence of the data under the alternative. Finally, cases with $c$ close
to 1/2 must be analyzed with much care. For such cases, the behavior of the
sample canonical correlations become similar under extremely different random
walk and white noise data generating processes. Furthermore, the largest
sample canonical correlations are close to unity, which can result in an
unstable behavior of the LR statistic.
Our final MC experiment studies the finite sample behavior of the scaled LR
statistic $LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) .$ We simulate pure random walk
data with $p=10$ and $p=100$ and $T$ varying so that $p/T$ equals
1/10,2/10,...,5/10. Corollary \ref{LRsim} shows that the simultaneous
asymptotic lower bound on $LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) $ has for
\begin{equation}
\frac{1+c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left( 1+c\right) -\frac{1-c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left(
1-c\right) +\frac{1-2c}{2c^{2}}\ln\left( 1-2c\right)
.\label{simultaneous lower bound
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{mclr} shows the Tukey boxplots of the MC distributions of
$LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) $ corresponding to $p/T=1/10,...,5/10$ with
$p=10$ (left panel), and $p=100$ (right panel). The boxplots are superimposed
with the plot of the line representing the above displayed formula for the
lower bound (with $c$ replaced by $p/T$). For the case $p=10,$ we also show
(horizontal dashed line) the 95\% asymptotic critical value (scaled by
$1/(2p^{2})$) of the standard Johansen trace test taken from MacKinnon et al
(1999, Table II). For $p=100,$ critical values for the standard test are not
available, and we show the dashed horizontal line at unit height instead. This
is the sequential asymptotic lower bound on $LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right)
$ as established in Corollary \ref{Table reduction}
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=3.096in,
width=5.866in
{MClr.eps
\caption{The Tukey boxplots for the MC distributions of $LR_{0,p,T}/\left(
2p^{2}\right) $ for various $p/T$ ratios. The boxplots are superimposed with
the simultaneous asymptotic lower bound on $LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right)
.$ Dashed line in the left panel correspond to 95\% critical value for the
satandard asymptotic Johansen trace test (taken from MacKinnon et al (1999,
Table II)). Dashed line in the right panel has ordinate equal one.
\label{mclr
\end{figure}
The reported results support our conjecture that the simultaneous asymptotic
lower bound (\ref{simultaneous lower bound}) is, in fact, the simultaneous
asymptotic limit of $LR_{0,p,T}/\left( 2p^{2}\right) $ for $c<1/2.$
Interestingly, the bound is located near the \textquotedblleft
center\textquotedblright\ of the MC distribution of the scaled LR statistic
even for the case $c=1/2.$
The left panel of Figure \ref{mclr} illustrates the \textquotedblleft
over-rejection phenomenon\textquotedblright. The horizontal dashed line that
corresponds to the 95\% critical value of the standard test is just above the
interquartile range of the MC distribution of $LR_{0,p,T}/\left(
2p^{2}\right) $ for $c=1/10,$ is below this range for $c\geq3/10,$ and is
below all 1000 MC replications of the scaled LR statistic for $c=5/10$.
Although the lower bound (\ref{simultaneous lower bound}) seems to provide a
very good centering point for the scaled LR statistic, the MC distribution of
this statistic is quite dispersed around such a center for $p=10.$ As
discussed above, we suspect that the scaled statistic centered by
(\ref{simultaneous lower bound}) and appropriately rescaled has Gaussian
simultaneous asymptotic distribution. Optimistically, the Tukey plots on
Figure \ref{mclr}, that correspond to $c<1/2$, look reasonably symmetric
although some skewness is present for the left panel where $p=10.$
\subsection{Examples}
Our first example uses $T=103$ quarterly observations (1973q2-1998q4, with the
initial observation 1973q1) on bilateral US dollar log nominal exchange rates
for $p=17$ OECD countries: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark,
Finland, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Korea, Netherlands, Norway, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. The data are as in Engel, Mark,
and West (2015), and were downloaded from Charles Engel's website at http: //
www.ssc.wisc.edu / \symbol{126}cengel /. That data are available for a longer
time period up to 2008q1, but we have chosen to use only the \textquotedblleft
early sample\textquotedblright\ that does not include the Euro period.
Engel, Mark, and West (2015) point out that log nominal exchange rates are
well modelled by random walk, but may be cointegrated, which can be utilized
to improve individual exchange rate forecasts relative to the random walk
forecast benchmark. They propose to estimate the common stochastic trends in
the exchange rates by extracting a few factors from the panel. In principle,
the number of factors to extract can be determined using Johansen's test for
cointegrating rank, but Engel, Mark, and West (2015) do not exploit this
possibility, referring to Ho and Sorensen (1996) that indicates poor
performance of the test for large $p.$
Figure \ref{erfigure} shows the Wachter plot for the log nominal exchange rate
data. The squared sample canonical correlations are computed as the
eigenvalues of $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1},$ where $S_{ij}$
are defined as in (\ref{SSS}) with $R_{0t}$ and $R_{1t}$ being the demeaned
changes and the lagged levels of the log exchange rates, respectively. The
dashed lines correspond to the 5-th and 95-th percentiles of the MC
distribution of the squared canonical correlation coefficients under the null
of no cointegration. Precisely, we generated data from model
(\ref{econometricians model}) with $p=17,$ $T=103$, $\Pi=0,$ $D_{t}=1,$ and
$\Phi$ being i.i.d. $N(0,I_{p})$ vectors across the MC repetitions. Log
exchange rates for 1973q1 was used as the initial value of the generated series
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=3.0848in,
width=4.0499in
{ERfigure.eps
\caption{The Wachter plot for the bilateral US log nominal excahnge rates of
17 OECD countries. Dashed lines: 5\% and 95\% quantiles of the MC distribution
of the squared sample canonical correlations under the null of no
cointegration.
\label{erfigure
\end{figure}
The figure shows a mild evidence for cointegration in the data with the
largest five $\lambda$'s being close to the corresponding 95-th percentiles of
the MC distributions. If we interpret this as the existence of five
cointegrating relationships in the data, we would be lead to conclude that
there are twelve stochastic trends. Recall, however, that the ability of the
Wachter plot to differentiate against highly persistent cointegration
alternatives with $p/T\approx1/5$ is very low, so there well may be many more
cointegrating relationships in the data. Whatever such relationships are, the
deviations from the corresponding long-run equilibrium are probably highly
persistent as no dramatic deviations from the 45$^{\circ}$ line are present in
the Wachter plot.
Very different Wachter plots (shown in Figure \ref{ipcpi}) correspond to the
log industrial production (IP) index data and the log consumer price index
(CPI) data for the same countries plus the US. These data are still the same
as in Engel, Mark, and West (2015). We used the long sample 1973q2:2008q1
$(T=140)$ because the IP and CPI data are not affected by the introduction of
the Euro to the same degree as the exchange rate data. For the CPI data, we
included both intercept and trend in model (\ref{econometricians model}) for
the first differences because the level data seem to be quadratically
trending. The plots clearly indicate that the IP and CPI data are either
stationary or cointegrated with potentially many cointegrating relationships,
short run deviations from which are not very persistent
\begin{figure}[ptb
\centering
\includegraphics[
height=2.6308in,
width=5.2589in
{IPCPI.eps
\caption{The Wachter plots for the industrial production indices and consumer
price indices of 18 OECD countries. Dashed lines: 5\% and 95\% quantiles of
the MC distribution of the squared sample canonical correlations under the
null of no cointegration.
\label{ipcpi
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we consider the simultaneous, large-$p,$ large-$T$, asymptotic
behavior of the squared sample canonical correlations between $p$-dimensional
random walk and its innovations. We find that the empirical distribution of
these squared sample canonical correlations almost surely weakly converges to
the so-called \textit{Wachter distribution} with parameters that depend only
on the limit of $p/T$ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty.$ In contrast, under the
sequential asymptotics, when first $T\rightarrow\infty$ and then
$p\rightarrow\infty,$ we establish the convergence in probability to the
so-called Marchenko-Pastur distribution. The differences between the limiting
distributions allow us to explain from a theoretical point of view the
tendency of the LR test for cointegration to severely over-reject the null
when the dimensionality of the data is relatively large. Furthermore, we
derive a simple analytic formula for the Bartlett-type correction factor in
systems with relatively large $p/T$ ratio.
We propose a quick graphical method, the Wachter plot, for a preliminary
analysis of cointegration in large-dimensional systems. The Monte Carlo
analysis shows that the quantiles of the Wachter distribution constitute very
good centering points for the finite sample distributions of the corresponding
squared sample canonical correlations. The quality of the centering is
excellent even for such small $p$ and $T$ as $p=10$ and $T=20.$ However, for
such small values of $p$ and $T,$ the empirical distribution of the squared
sample canonical correlation can considerably fluctuate around the Wachter
limit. As $p$ increases to 100, the fluctuations become numerically very small.
Our analysis leaves many open questions. First, it is very important to study
the fluctuations of the empirical distribution around the Wachter limit. We
conjecture that linear combinations of reasonably smooth functions of the
squared sample canonical correlations, including the $\log(1-\lambda)$ used by
the LR statistic, will be asymptotically Gaussian after appropriate centering
and scaling. The centering can be derived from the results obtained in this
paper. A proof of the asymptotic Gaussianity would require different methods
from those used here. We are currently investigating this research direction.
Further, it would be important to remove the Gaussianity assumption on the
data. We believe that the existence of the finite fourth moments is a
sufficient condition for the validity of the Wachter limit. Next, it would be
interesting to study the simultaneous asymptotic behavior of a few of the
largest sample canonical correlations. This may lead to a modification of
Johansen's maximum eigenvalue test.
Another interesting direction of research is to study situations where the
number of cointegrating relationships under the null is growing proportionally
with $p$ and $T.$ The simultaneous asymptotics of the empirical distribution
of the squared sample canonical correlations under various alternatives, as
well under the null in VAR(k) with $k>1$, also deserves further study.
Still another, totally different, research direction is to investigate the
quality of bootstrap when $p$ is large. Our own very preliminary analysis
indicates that the currently available non-parametric bootstrap procedures
(see, for example, Cavaliere, Rahbek, and Taylor (2012)) do not work well for
$p/T$ as large as, say, 1/3. However, further analysis is needed before we can
claim any specific results. We hope that this paper opens up an interesting
and broad area for future research.
\section{Appendix}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{main}}
\subsubsection{Reduction to pure random walk data.}
Let $G\left( \lambda\right) $ and $\tilde{G}\left( \lambda\right) $ be
distribution functions that may depend on $p$ and $T$ and are possibly random.
We shall call them asymptotically equivalent if the a.s. weak convergence
$G\left( \lambda\right) \Rightarrow F\left( \lambda\right) $ to some
non-random d.f. $F(\lambda)$ implies similar a.s. weak convergence for
$\tilde{G}(\lambda),$ and vice versa. Let $S_{i}$ and $\tilde{S}_{i}$ with
$i=0,1,2$ be, possibly random, matrices that may depend on $p$ and $T$ such
that $S_{i}$ and $\tilde{S}_{i}$ are a.s. positive definite for $i=0,1.$
Below, we shall often refer to the following auxiliary lemma.
\begin{lemma}
\label{rank}If, almost surely, $\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{rank}\left(
S_{i}-\tilde{S}_{i}\right) \rightarrow0$ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$ for
$i=0,1,2,$ then $G\left( \lambda\right) $ and $\tilde{G}(\lambda)$ are
asymptoically equivalent, where $G\left( \lambda\right) $ and $\tilde
{G}\left( \lambda\right) $ are the empirical d.f. of eigenvalues of
$S_{2}S_{1}^{-1}S_{2}^{\prime}S_{0}^{-1}$ and $\tilde{S}_{2}\tilde{S}_{1
^{-1}\tilde{S}_{2}^{\prime}\tilde{S}_{0}^{-1},$ respectively.
\end{lemma}
\paragraph{Proof of Lemma \ref{rank}.}
Let $R=\operatorname*{rank}\left( S_{2}S_{1}^{-1}S_{2}^{\prime}S_{0
^{-1}-\tilde{S}_{2}\tilde{S}_{1}^{-1}\tilde{S}_{2}^{\prime}\tilde{S}_{0
^{-1}\right) .$ The a.s. convergence $\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{rank}\left(
S_{i}-\tilde{S}_{i}\right) \rightarrow0$ implies the a.s. convergence
$R/p\rightarrow0.$ On the other hand, by the rank inequality (Theorem A43 in
Bai and Silverstein (2010)), $\mathcal{L}\left( G,\tilde{G}\right) \leq
R/p,$ where $\mathcal{L}\left( G,\tilde{G}\right) $ is the L\'{e}vy distance
between $G\left( \lambda\right) $ and $\tilde{G}(\lambda).$ Recall that the
L\'{e}vy distance metrizes the weak convergence. Therefore, the almost sure
convergence $\mathcal{L}\left( G,\tilde{G}\right) \rightarrow0$ yields the
asymptotic equivalence of $G\left( \lambda\right) $ and $\tilde{G
(\lambda).\square$
Now, let $S_{0}=S_{00},S_{1}=S_{11},$ and $S_{2}=S_{01},$ and le
\[
\tilde{S}_{0}=\frac{1}{T
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
\Delta X_{t}\Delta X_{t}^{\prime},\text{ }\tilde{S}_{1}=\frac{1}{T
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
X_{t-1}X_{t-1}^{\prime},\text{ and }\tilde{S}_{2}=\frac{1}{T
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
\Delta X_{t}X_{t-1}^{\prime}.
\]
Since $R_{0t}$ and $R_{1t},$ which enter the definition (\ref{SSS}) of
$S_{ij}$, are the residuals in the regressions of $\Delta X_{t}$ on $D_{t}$
and $X_{t-1}$ on $D_{t}$, respectively, we hav
\[
\max_{i=0,1,2}\operatorname*{rank}\left( S_{i}-\tilde{S}_{i}\right) \leq
d_{D}.
\]
By assumption, $d_{D}/p\rightarrow0$ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty,$ so that by
Lemma \ref{rank}, $F_{p,T}(\lambda)$ is asymptotically equivalent to the
empirical d.f. of eigenvalues of $\tilde{S}_{2}\tilde{S}_{1}^{-1}\tilde{S
_{2}^{\prime}\tilde{S}_{0}^{-1}.$ Therefore, we may and will replace $R_{0t}$
and $R_{1t}$ in the definitions (\ref{SSS}) of $S_{ij}$ by $\Delta X_{t}$ and
$X_{t-1},$ respectively, without loss of generality. Furthermore, scaling
$S_{ij}$ by $T$ does not change the product $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1}S_{01}^{\prime
}S_{00}^{-1},$ and thus, in the rest of the proof, we shall work wit
\begin{equation}
S_{00}
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
\Delta X_{t}\Delta X_{t}^{\prime},\text{ }S_{01}
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
\Delta X_{t}X_{t-1}^{\prime},\text{ and }S_{11}
{\displaystyle\sum_{t=1}^{T}}
X_{t-1}X_{t-1}^{\prime}.\label{SSSnew
\end{equation}
Next, we show that, still without loss of generality, we may replace the data
generated process (\ref{general model}) by pure random walk with zero initial
value. Indeed, let $X=[X_{-k+1},...,X_{T}],$ where $X_{-k+1},...,X_{0}$ are
arbitrary and $X_{t}$ with $t\geq1$ are generated by (\ref{general model}).
Further, let $\tilde{X}_{-k+1},...,\tilde{X}_{0}$ be zero vectors, $\tilde
{X}_{t}
{\displaystyle\sum_{s=1}^{t}}
\varepsilon_{t}$ for $t\geq1,$ and $\tilde{X}=[\tilde{X}_{-k+1},...,\tilde
{X}_{T}].$
\begin{lemma}
\label{misspec}$\operatorname*{rank}\left( X-\tilde{X}\right) \leq2\left(
r+\operatorname*{rank}\Gamma+k+d_{F}\right) .$
\end{lemma}
A proof of this lemma is given in the Supplementary Appendix. It is based on
the representation of $X_{t}$ as a function of the initial values,
$\varepsilon$ and $F$ (see Theorem 2.1 in Johansen (1995)), and requires only
elementary algebraic manipulations. Lemmas \ref{misspec} and \ref{rank}
together with the assumption (\ref{wistles}) imply that replacing $\Delta
X_{t}$ and $X_{t-1}$ in (\ref{SSSnew}) by $\Delta\tilde{X}_{t}$ and $\tilde
{X}_{t-1},$ respectively, does not change the weak limit of $F_{p,T
(\lambda).$ Hence, in the rest of the proof of Theorem \ref{main}, without
loss of generality, we shall assume that the data are generated b
\begin{equation}
\Delta X_{t}=\varepsilon_{t},\text{ }t=1,...,T,\text{ with }X_{0
=0.\label{RW DGP
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Block-diagonalization}
Assuming that $\lambda$'s are the eigenvalues of $S_{01}S_{11}^{-1
S_{01}^{\prime}S_{00}^{-1}$ with $S_{ij}$ satisfying (\ref{SSSnew}) and
(\ref{RW DGP}), we can interpret them as the squared sample canonical
correlations between lagged values of a random walk $X_{t-1}$ and its current
innovations $\varepsilon_{t}$. Since the sample canonical correlations are
invariant with respect to the multiplication of the data by any invertible
matrix, we assume without loss of generality that the variance of
$\varepsilon_{t}$ equals $\Sigma=I_{p}/T.$ Further, we assume that $T$ is
even. The case of odd $T$ can be analyzed similarly, and we omit it to save space.
Let $\varepsilon=[\varepsilon_{1},...,\varepsilon_{T}]$ and let $U$ be the
upper-triangular matrix with ones above the main diagonal and zeros on the
diagonal. Then $\varepsilon U=\left[ X_{0},...,X_{T-1}\right] ,$ so that
\begin{equation}
S_{00}=\varepsilon\varepsilon^{\prime},\text{ }S_{01}=\varepsilon U^{\prime
}\varepsilon^{\prime},\text{ and }S_{11}=\varepsilon UU^{\prime
\varepsilon^{\prime}.\label{SSSu
\end{equation}
We shall show that the empirical d.f. of the $\lambda$'s, $F_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) ,$ is asymptotically equivalent to the empirical d.f. $\hat
{F}_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $ of eigenvalues of $CD^{-1}C^{\prime
A^{-1},$ where
\[
C=\varepsilon\Delta_{2}^{\prime}\varepsilon^{\prime},\text{ }D=\varepsilon
\Delta_{1}\varepsilon^{\prime},\text{ and }A=\varepsilon\varepsilon^{\prime},
\]
$\Delta_{1}$ is a diagonal matrix
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{1}=\operatorname*{diag}\left\{ r_{1}^{-1}I_{2},...,r_{T/2}^{-1
I_{2}\right\} ,\label{D1
\end{equation}
and $\Delta_{2}$ is a block-diagonal matrix
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{2}=\operatorname*{diag}\left\{ r_{1}^{-1}\left( R_{1}-I_{2}\right)
,...,r_{T/2}^{-1}\left( R_{T/2}-I_{2}\right) \right\} .\label{D2
\end{equation}
Here $I_{2}$ is the 2-dimensional identity matrix, and $r_{j},R_{j}$ are
defined as follows. Let $\theta=-2\pi/T.$ Then for $j=1,2,...
\[
r_{j+1}=2-2\cos j\theta,\text{ }R_{j+1}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
\cos j\theta & -\sin j\theta\\
\sin j\theta & \cos j\theta
\end{array}
\right) ,
\]
whereas $r_{1}=4,$ $R_{1}=-I_{2}.$
\begin{lemma}
\label{Lemma 1}The distribution functions $F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $
and $\hat{F}_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $ are asymptotically equivalent.
\end{lemma}
\paragraph{Proof of Lemma \ref{Lemma 1}.}
Let $V$ be the circulant matrix (see Golub and Van Loan (1996, p.201)) with
the first column $v=\left( -1,1,0,...,0\right) ^{\prime}.$ Direct
calculations show that $UV=I_{T}-le_{T}^{\prime}$ and $VU=I_{T}-e_{1
l^{\prime},$ where $e_{j}$ is the $j$-th column of $I_{T},$ and $l$ is the
vector of ones. Using these identities, it is straightforward to verify tha
\begin{align}
U & =\left( V+e_{1}e_{1}^{\prime}\right) ^{-1}-le_{1}^{\prime},\text{
and}\label{identity1}\\
UU^{\prime} & =\left( V^{\prime}V-\left( e_{1}-e_{T}\right) \left(
e_{1}-e_{T}\right) ^{\prime}+e_{T}e_{T}^{\prime}\right) ^{-1}-ll^{\prime
}.\label{identity2
\end{align}
Now, let us define
\[
C_{1}=\varepsilon\left( U+le_{1}^{\prime}\right) ^{\prime}\varepsilon
^{\prime}\text{ and }D_{1}=\varepsilon\left( UU^{\prime}+ll^{\prime}\right)
\varepsilon^{\prime}.
\]
Using identities (\ref{SSSu}) for $S_{ij}$ and Lemma \ref{rank}, we conclude
that $F_{p,T}(\lambda)$ is asymptotically equivalent to $F_{p,T}^{(1)}\left(
\lambda\right) $, where $F_{p,T}^{(1)}\left( \lambda\right) $ is the
empirical d.f. of the eigenvalues of $C_{1}D_{1}^{-1}C_{1}^{\prime}A^{-1}.$
Further, (\ref{identity1}) and (\ref{identity2}) yiel
\begin{align*}
C_{1} & =\varepsilon\left( V+e_{1}e_{1}^{\prime}\right) ^{-1
\varepsilon^{\prime}\text{ and }\\
D_{1} & =\varepsilon\left( V^{\prime}V-\left( e_{1}-e_{T}\right) \left(
e_{1}-e_{T}\right) ^{\prime}+e_{T}e_{T}^{\prime}\right) ^{-1}\varepsilon
^{\prime}.
\end{align*}
Applying Lemma \ref{rank} one more time, we obtain the asymptotic equivalence
of $F_{p,T}^{(1)}(\lambda)$ and $F_{p,T}^{(2)}\left( \lambda\right) ,$ where
$F_{p,T}^{(2)}\left( \lambda\right) $ is the empirical d.f. of the
eigenvalues of $C_{2}D_{2}^{-1}C_{2}^{\prime}A^{-1}$ wit
\begin{equation}
C_{2}=\varepsilon V^{-1}\varepsilon^{\prime}\text{ and }D_{2}=\varepsilon
\left( V^{\prime}V\right) ^{-1}\varepsilon^{\prime}.\label{C2D2
\end{equation}
As is well known (see, for example, Golub and Van Loan (1996), chapter 4.7.7),
$T\times T$ circulant matrices can be expressed in terms of the discrete
Fourier transform matrice
\[
\mathcal{F}=\left\{ \exp\left( \mathrm{i}\theta\left( s-1\right) \left(
t-1\right) \right) \right\} _{s,t=1}^{T
\]
with $\theta=-2\pi/T.$ Precisely
\[
V=\frac{1}{T}\mathcal{F}^{\ast}\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F
v\right) \mathcal{F},\text{ and }V^{\prime}V=\frac{1}{T}\mathcal{F}^{\ast
}\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) \mathcal{F},
\]
where $w=\left( 2,-1,0,...,0,-1\right) ^{\prime}$ and the star superscript
denotes transposition and complex conjugation. For the $s$-th diagonal
elements of $\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}v\right) $ and
$\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) ,$ we hav
\[
\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}v\right) _{s}=-1+\exp\left\{
\mathrm{i}\theta\left( s-1\right) \right\} ,\text{ and
\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) _{s}=2-2\cos\left(
s-1\right) \theta.
\]
Note that $\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) _{s
=\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) _{T+2-s}$ for $s=2,3,...$ If
$T$ is even, as we assumed above, then there are $T/2-1$ pairs $\left(
s,T+2-s\right) $, and there is one pair $\left( 1,T/2+1\right) $ that
correspond t
\[
\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) _{1}=0,\operatorname*{diag
\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) _{T/2+1}=4.
\]
Define a permutation matrix $P$ so that the equal diagonal elements of
$P^{\prime}\operatorname*{diag}\left( \mathcal{F}w\right) P$ are grouped in
adjacent pairs. Precisely, let $P=\left\{ p_{st}\right\} $, wher
\[
p_{st}=\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l
1\text{ if }t=2s-1\text{ for }s=1,...,T/2\\
1\text{ if }t=2\left( T-s+2\right) \operatorname{mod}T\text{ for
}s=T/2+1,...,T\\
0\text{ otherwise
\end{array}
\right.
\]
and let $W$ be the unitary matri
\[
W=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
I_{2} & 0\\
0 & I_{T/2}\otimes Z
\end{array}
\right) \text{ with }Z=\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
1 & 1\\
\mathrm{i} & -\mathrm{i
\end{array}
\right) ,
\]
where $\otimes$ denotes the Kronecker product. Further, let $Q=\frac{1
{\sqrt{T}}WP^{\prime}\mathcal{F}$. As is easy to check, $Q$ is an orthogonal
matrix. Furthermore
\[
V=Q^{\prime}\left( \Delta_{2}^{-1}+2e_{1}e_{1}^{\prime}\right) Q,\text{ and
}VV^{\prime}=Q^{\prime}\left( \Delta_{1}^{-1}-4e_{1}e_{1}^{\prime}\right) Q,
\]
where $\Delta_{1}$ and $\Delta_{2}$ are as defined in (\ref{D1}) and
(\ref{D2}). Combining this with (\ref{C2D2}) and using Lemma \ref{rank} once
again, we obtain the asymptotic equivalence of $F_{p,T}^{(2)}(\lambda)$ and
$F_{p,T}^{(3)}\left( \lambda\right) ,$ where $F_{p,T}^{(3)}\left(
\lambda\right) $ is the empirical d.f. of the eigenvalues of $C_{3}D_{3
^{-1}C_{3}^{\prime}A^{-1}$ wit
\[
C_{3}=\varepsilon Q^{\prime}\Delta_{2}Q\varepsilon^{\prime}\text{ and
D_{3}=\varepsilon Q^{\prime}\Delta_{1}Q\varepsilon^{\prime}.
\]
Because of the rotational invariance of the Gaussian distribution, the
distributions of $\varepsilon Q^{\prime}$ and $\varepsilon$ are the same.
Hence, $F_{p,T}^{(3)}\left( \lambda\right) $ is asymptotically equivalent to
$\hat{F}_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) ,$ and thus, $\hat{F}_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) $ is asymptotically equivalent to $F_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) $.$\square$
\subsubsection{A system of equations for the Stieltjes transform}
Our proof of the almost sure weak convergence of $\hat{F}_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) $ to the Wachter distribution consists of showing that the
Stieltjes transform of $\hat{F}_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $
\begin{equation}
\hat{m}_{p,T}(z)=\int\frac{1}{\lambda-z}\hat{F}_{p,T}\left( \mathrm{d
\lambda\right) ,\label{mhat def
\end{equation}
almost surely converges pointwise in $z\in\mathbb{C}^{+}=\left\{
\zeta:\mathfrak{I}\zeta>0\right\} $ to the Stieltjes transform $m(z)$ of the
Wachter distribution. To establish such a convergence, we show that, if $m$ is
a limit of $\hat{m}_{p,T}(z)$ along any \textit{subsequence} of
$p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty,$ then it must satisfy a system of equations with
unique solution given by $m(z)$. The almost sure convergence of $\hat{F
_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $ (and thus, also of $F_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) $) to the Wachter distribution follows then from the
Continuity Theorem for the Stieltjes transforms (see, for example, Corollary 1
in Geronimo and Hill (2003)).
We shall write $\hat{m}$ for the Stieltjes transform $\hat{m}_{p,T}(z)$ to
simplify notation. Let
\begin{equation}
M=CD^{-1}C^{\prime}-zA\text{ and }\tilde{M}=C^{\prime}A^{-1
C-zD.\label{MMtilde
\end{equation}
Then by definition (\ref{mhat def}), $\hat{m}$ must satisfy the following
equation
\begin{align}
\hat{m} & =\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ AM^{-1}\right]
,\label{equation2}\\
\hat{m} & =\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ D\tilde{M}^{-1}\right]
.\label{equation4
\end{align}
Let us study the above traces in detail. Defin
\[
\varepsilon_{(j)}=\left[ \varepsilon_{2j-1},\varepsilon_{2j}\right] ,\text{
}j=1,...,T/2.
\]
We now show that the traces in (\ref{equation2}) and (\ref{equation4}) can be
expressed as functions of the terms having form $\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime
}\Omega_{j}\varepsilon_{(j)},$ where $\Omega_{j}$ is independent from
$\varepsilon_{(j)}.$ Then, we argue that
\[
\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}\Omega_{j}\varepsilon_{(j)}-\frac{1}{T
\operatorname*{tr}\left[ \Omega_{j}\right] I_{2
\]
a.s. converge to zero, and use this fact to derive equations that the limit of
$\hat{m},$ if it exists, must satisfy.
First, consider (\ref{equation2}). Note tha
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ AM^{-1}\right] =\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{T/2}}
\operatorname*{tr}\left[ \varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon
_{(j)}\right] .\label{germ of eq2
\end{equation}
Let us introduce new notation
\[
\Delta_{1j}=r_{j}^{-1}I_{2},\text{ }\Delta_{2j}=r_{j}^{-1}\left( R_{j
-I_{2}\right) ,
\
\[
C_{j}=C-\varepsilon_{(j)}\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime},\text{
}D_{j}=D-\varepsilon_{(j)}\Delta_{1j}\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime},
\
\[
A_{j}=A-\varepsilon_{(j)}\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime},\text{ and }M_{j
=C_{j}D_{j}^{-1}C_{j}^{\prime}-zA_{j}.
\]
In addition, le
\begin{align*}
s_{j} & =\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}D_{j}^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)},u_{j
=\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}D_{j}^{-1}C_{j}^{\prime}M_{j}^{-1}\varepsilon
_{(j)},\\
v_{j} & =\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}M_{j}^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)},\text{ and }\\
w_{j} & =\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}D_{j}^{-1}C_{j}^{\prime}M_{j}^{-1
C_{j}D_{j}^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)}.
\end{align*}
A straightforward algebra that involves multiple use of the
Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula (see Golub and Van Loan (1996), p.50)
\begin{equation}
\left( V+XWY\right) ^{-1}=V^{-1}-V^{-1}X\left( W^{-1}+YV^{-1}X\right)
^{-1}YV^{-1},\label{identity
\end{equation}
and the identit
\begin{equation}
\Delta_{2j}\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}=\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}\Delta_{2j}=\Delta
_{1j},\label{delta identities
\end{equation}
establishes the following equalit
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)}=v_{j}-[v_{j},u_{j}^{\prime
}]\Omega_{j}[v_{j},u_{j}^{\prime}]^{\prime},\label{stem of eq2
\end{equation}
wher
\[
\Omega_{j}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
\frac{1}{1-z}I_{2}+v_{j} & \frac{1}{1-z}r_{j}\Delta_{2j}^{\prime
+u_{j}^{\prime}\\
\frac{1}{1-z}r_{j}\Delta_{2j}+u_{j} & \frac{z}{1-z}r_{j}I_{2}-s_{j}+w_{j
\end{array}
\right) ^{-1}.
\]
A derivation of (\ref{stem of eq2}) can be found in the Supplementary Appendix.
Let us define
\begin{align*}
\hat{s} & =\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ D^{-1}\right] ,\text{
\hat{u}=\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}\right]
,\\
\hat{v} & =\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ M^{-1}\right] ,\text{ and
}\\
\hat{w} & =\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1
CD^{-1}\right] .
\end{align*}
We have the following lemma, where $\left\Vert \cdot\right\Vert $ denotes the
spectral norm. Its proof is given in the Supplementary Appendix.
\begin{lemma}
\label{Rigour1}For all $z\in\mathbb{C}^{+},$ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty, $
we hav
\begin{align*}
& \max_{j=1,...,T/2}\left\Vert s_{j}-\hat{s}I_{2}\right\Vert
\overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0,\text{ }\max_{j=1,...,T/2}\left\Vert u_{j}-\hat
{u}I_{2}\right\Vert \overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0\\
& \max_{j=1,...,T/2}\left\Vert v_{j}-\hat{v}I_{2}\right\Vert
\overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0,\text{ }\max_{j=1,...,T/2}\left\Vert w_{j}-\hat
{w}I_{2}\right\Vert \overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0.
\end{align*}
\end{lemma}
The lemma yields an approximation to the right hand side of (\ref{stem of eq2
), which we use in (\ref{germ of eq2}) and (\ref{equation2}) to obtain the
following result.
\begin{proposition}
\label{the second equation}There exists $\zeta>0$ such that, for any $z$ with
zero real part, $\mathfrak{R}z=0$, and the imaginary part satisfying
$\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$ we hav
\begin{equation}
\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{f_{1}\left( \varphi\right)
}{\left( 1-z\right) f_{1}\left( \varphi\right) +f_{2}\left(
\varphi\right) }\mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1),\text{ where}\label{asyeq1
\end{equation
\begin{align*}
f_{1}\left( \varphi\right) & =\left( \hat{w}-\hat{s}-4\sin^{2
\varphi\right) \hat{v}-\hat{u}^{2},\\
f_{2}\left( \varphi\right) & =\hat{w}-\hat{s}-4\sin^{2}\varphi\left(
1-\hat{u}-\hat{v}\right) ,
\end{align*}
and $o(1)\overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0$, as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty.$
\end{proposition}
\paragraph{Proof of Proposition \ref{the second equation}.}
Consider a $2\times2$ matrix $\hat{S}_{j}$ that is obtained from
$\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)}$ by replacing $s_{j
,v_{j},u_{j}$ and $w_{j}$ in (\ref{stem of eq2}) with $\hat{s}I_{2},\hat
{v}I_{2},\hat{u}I_{2},$ and $\hat{w}I_{2},$ respectively. We hav
\[
\hat{S}_{j}=\hat{v}I_{2}-[\hat{v}I_{2},\hat{u}I_{2}]\hat{\Omega}_{j}[\hat
{v}I_{2},\hat{u}I_{2}]^{\prime},
\]
wher
\[
\hat{\Omega}_{j}=\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
\frac{1}{1-z}I_{2}+\hat{v}I_{2} & \frac{1}{1-z}r_{j}\Delta_{2j}^{\prime
+\hat{u}I_{2}\\
\frac{1}{1-z}r_{j}\Delta_{2j}+\hat{u}I_{2} & \frac{z}{1-z}r_{j}I_{2}+(\hat
{w}-\hat{s})I_{2
\end{array}
\right) ^{-1}.
\]
A simple algebra and the identity $\Delta_{2j}+\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}=-I_{2} $
yiel
\begin{align}
\hat{\Omega}_{j} & =\frac{1-z}{\delta_{j}}\tilde{\Omega}_{j},\text{
where}\label{Omega}\\
\tilde{\Omega}_{j} & =\left(
\begin{array}
[c]{cc
\frac{z}{1-z}r_{j}I_{2}+(\hat{w}-\hat{s})I_{2} & -\frac{1}{1-z}r_{j
\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}-\hat{u}I_{2}\\
-\frac{1}{1-z}r_{j}\Delta_{2j}-\hat{u}I_{2} & \frac{1}{1-z}I_{2}+\hat{v}I_{2
\end{array}
\right) ,\label{Omegatilde
\end{align}
an
\[
\delta_{j}=\left( \hat{w}-\hat{s}\right) \left( 1+\hat{v}-z\hat{v}\right)
+r_{j}\left( \hat{u}+z\hat{v}-1\right) -\left( 1-z\right) \hat{u}^{2}.
\]
By definition,
\begin{align*}
\left\vert \hat{s}\right\vert & \leq\frac{p}{T}\left\Vert D^{-1}\right\Vert
,\left\vert \hat{u}\right\vert \leq\frac{p}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left\Vert
D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}\right\Vert ,\\
\left\vert \hat{v}\right\vert & \leq\frac{p}{T}\left\Vert M^{-1}\right\Vert
,\text{ and }\left\vert \hat{w}\right\vert \leq\frac{p}{T}\operatorname*{tr
\left\Vert D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}CD^{-1}\right\Vert .
\end{align*}
In the proof of Lemma \ref{Rigour1}, we show that the norms $\left\Vert
D^{-1}\right\Vert ,$ $\left\Vert D^{-1}C^{\prime}\right\Vert ,$ and
$\left\Vert M^{-1}\right\Vert $ almost surely remain bounded as
$p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty.$ Hence, $\hat{s},$ $\hat{u},$ $\hat{v},$ and
$\hat{w}$ are also almost surely bounded. Further, by definition
\[
r_{j}\Delta_{2j}=R_{j}-I_{2}\text{ and }r_{j}\Delta_{2j}^{\prime
=R_{j}^{\prime}-I_{2},
\]
where $R_{j}$ is an orthogonal matrix, so that $\left\Vert r_{j}\Delta
_{2j}\right\Vert $ and $\left\Vert r_{j}\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}\right\Vert $ are
clearly bounded uniformly in $j.$ Therefore, the norm of matrix $\tilde
{\Omega}_{j}$ almost surely remains bounded as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$,
uniformly in $j.$ Regarding $\delta_{j},$ which appear in the denominator on
the right hand side of (\ref{Omega}), the Supplementary Appendix establishes
the following result.
\begin{lemma}
\label{small delta lemma}There exists $\zeta>0$ such that, for any $z$ with
$\mathfrak{R}z=0$ and $\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$ almost surely
\[
\lim\inf_{p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty}\max_{j=1,...,T/2}\left\vert \delta
_{j}\right\vert >c^{2}/\left( 1-c^{2}\right) .
\]
\end{lemma}
The above results imply that, for $z$ with $\mathfrak{R}z=0$ and
$\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$ $\left\Vert \hat{\Omega}_{j}\right\Vert $ almost surely
remains bounded as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$, uniformly in $j.$ Therefore, by
Lemma \ref{Rigour1}
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)}=\hat{S}_{j
+o(1),\label{approximation1
\end{equation}
where $o(1)\overset{a.s.}{\rightarrow}0$ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty,$
uniformly in $j.$
A straightforward algebra reveals tha
\[
\hat{S}_{j}=\frac{\left( \hat{w}-\hat{s}-r_{j}\right) \hat{v}-\hat{u}^{2
}{\delta_{j}}.
\]
Using this in equations (\ref{approximation1}) and (\ref{germ of eq2}), we
obtai
\begin{align*}
\hat{m} & =\frac{2}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=0}^{T/2-1}}
\frac{\left( \hat{w}-\hat{s}-r_{j+1}\right) \hat{v}-\hat{u}^{2}
{\delta_{j+1}}+o(1)\\
& =\frac{2}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{T/2-1}}
\frac{f_{1}\left( j\pi/T\right) }{\left( 1-z\right) f_{1}\left(
j\pi/T\right) +f_{2}\left( j\pi/T\right) }+o(1),
\end{align*}
where, in the latter expression, the term corresponding to $j=0$ is included
in the $o(1)$ term to take into account the special definition of $r_{1}.$
As follows from Lemma \ref{small delta lemma} and the boundedness of $\hat
{s},\hat{u},\hat{v},$ and $\hat{w},$ the derivative
\[
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}\varphi}\frac{f_{1}\left( \varphi\right)
}{\left( 1-z\right) f_{1}\left( \varphi\right) +f_{2}\left(
\varphi\right)
\]
almost surely remains bounded by absolute value as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty,$
uniformly in $\varphi\in\left[ 0,2\pi\right] .$ Therefor
\[
\frac{2}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{T/2-1}}
\frac{f_{1}\left( j\pi/T\right) }{\left( 1-z\right) f_{1}\left(
j\pi/T\right) +f_{2}\left( j\pi/T\right) }=\frac{2}{\pi c}\int_{0}^{\pi
/2}\frac{f_{1}\left( \varphi\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi}{\left( 1-z\right)
f_{1}\left( \varphi\right) +f_{2}\left( \varphi\right) }+o(1).
\]
The statement of Proposition \ref{the second equation} now follows by noting
that the latter integral is one quarter of the integral over $\left[
0,2\pi\right] .\square$
A similar analysis of equation (\ref{equation4}) gives us another proposition,
describing $\hat{m}$ as function of $\tilde{s},\tilde{u},\tilde{v},$ and
$\tilde{w},$ wher
\begin{align*}
\tilde{s} & =\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ A^{-1}\right] ,\text{
}\tilde{u}=\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ A^{-1}C\tilde{M}^{-1}\right]
,\\
\tilde{v} & =\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ \tilde{M}^{-1}\right]
,\text{ and }\\
\tilde{w} & =\frac{1}{T}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ A^{-1}C\tilde{M
^{-1}C^{\prime}A^{-1}\right] .
\end{align*}
We omit the proof because it is very similar to that of Proposition
\ref{the second equation}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{the fourth equation}There exists $\zeta>0$ such that, for any $z$ with
$\mathfrak{R}z=0$ and $\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$ we hav
\begin{equation}
\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{g_{1}}{\left( 1-z\right)
g_{1}+g_{2}\left( \varphi\right) }\mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1),\text{
where}\label{asyeq2
\end{equation
\begin{align*}
g_{1} & =\left( \tilde{w}-\tilde{s}-1\right) \tilde{v}-\tilde{u}^{2},\\
g_{2}\left( \varphi\right) & =\tilde{v}-4\sin^{2}\varphi\left( \tilde
{s}+1-\tilde{u}-\tilde{w}\right) ,
\end{align*}
and $o(1)\overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0$, as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty.$
\end{proposition}
Although we now have two asymptotic equations for $\hat{m},$ (\ref{asyeq1})
and (\ref{asyeq2}), they contain many unknowns: $\hat{s},\hat{u},\hat{v
,\hat{w},$ and the corresponding variables with tildes. The following result
establishes simple relationships between the unknowns with hats and tildes.
\begin{lemma}
\label{connections}We have the following three identitie
\begin{equation}
\hat{u}=\tilde{u},\text{ }z\tilde{v}+\hat{s}=\hat{w},\text{ and }z\hat
{v}+\tilde{s}=\tilde{w}.\label{connection identities
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\paragraph{Proof of Lemma \ref{connections}.}
The identity $\hat{u}=\tilde{u}$ is established by the following sequence of
equalitie
\begin{align*}
T\hat{u} & =\operatorname*{tr}D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}=\operatorname*{tr
D^{-1}C^{\prime}\left( CD^{-1}C^{\prime}-zA\right) ^{-1}\\
& =\operatorname*{tr}\left( C-zA\left( C^{\prime}\right) ^{-1}D\right)
^{-1}=\operatorname*{tr}\left( C^{\prime}-zD\left( C\right) ^{-1}A\right)
^{-1}\\
& =\operatorname*{tr}A^{-1}C\left( C^{\prime}A^{-1}C-zD\right)
^{-1}=\operatorname*{tr}A^{-1}C\tilde{M}^{-1}=T\tilde{u}.
\end{align*}
The relationship $z\tilde{v}+\hat{s}=\hat{w}$ is obtained as follow
\begin{align*}
T\left( z\tilde{v}+\hat{s}\right) & =\operatorname*{tr}D^{-1}\left(
zI_{p}\left( C^{\prime}A^{-1}CD^{-1}-zI_{p}\right) ^{-1}+I_{p}\right) \\
& =\operatorname*{tr}D^{-1}\left( -I_{p}+C^{\prime}A^{-1}CD^{-1}\left(
C^{\prime}A^{-1}CD^{-1}-zI_{p}\right) ^{-1}+I_{p}\right) \\
& =\operatorname*{tr}D^{-1}\left( I_{p}-DC^{-1}A\left( C^{\prime}\right)
^{-1}z\right) ^{-1}\\
& =\operatorname*{tr}D^{-1}C^{\prime}\left( CD^{-1}C^{\prime}-Az\right)
^{-1}CD^{-1}=T\hat{w}.
\end{align*}
The identity $z\hat{v}+\tilde{s}=\tilde{w}$ is obtained similarly to
$z\tilde{v}+\hat{s}=\hat{w}$ by interchanging the roles of $D,C$ and
$A,C^{\prime}$.$\square$
The identities (\ref{connection identities}) imply the following equalit
\[
\left( 1-z\right) f_{1}\left( \varphi\right) +f_{2}\left( \varphi\right)
=\left( 1-z\right) g_{1}+g_{2}\left( \varphi\right) .
\]
We denote the reciprocal of the common value of the right and left hand sides
of this equality as $\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right) .$ A direct calculation
shows tha
\begin{equation}
\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right) =\left( \left( 1-z\right) \left(
z\tilde{v}\hat{v}-\hat{u}^{2}\right) +z\tilde{v}+4\sin^{2}\varphi\left(
z\hat{v}+\hat{u}-1\right) \right) ^{-1},\label{hfunction
\end{equation}
and the asymptotic relationships (\ref{asyeq1}) and (\ref{asyeq2}) can be
written in the following for
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l
\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right)
\left( \left( z\tilde{v}-4\sin^{2}\varphi\right) \hat{v}-\hat{u
^{2}\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1)\\
\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right)
\left( \left( z\hat{v}-1\right) \tilde{v}-\hat{u}^{2}\right)
\mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1)
\end{array}
\right. .\label{system of two
\end{equation}
This can be viewed as an asymptotic system of two equations with four
unknowns: $\hat{m},\tilde{v},\hat{v},$ and $\hat{u}.$ We shall now complete
the system by establishing the other two asymptotic relationships connecting
these unknowns.
Multiplying both sides of the identit
\begin{equation}
MA^{-1}=CD^{-1}C^{\prime}A^{-1}-zI_{p}\label{another identity
\end{equation}
by $AM^{-1},$ taking trace, dividing by $p$, and rearranging terms, we obtai
\begin{equation}
1+z\hat{m}=\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ CD^{-1}C^{\prime
M^{-1}\right] .\label{equation1
\end{equation}
Next, we analyze (\ref{equation1}) similarly to the above analysis of
(\ref{equation2}). That is, first, we note tha
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ CD^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}\right] =\frac
{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{T/2}}
\operatorname*{tr}\left[ \Delta_{2j}^{\prime}\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime
D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)}\right] .\label{germ of eq1
\end{equation}
Then elementary algebra, based on the Sherman-Morrison-Woodbury formula
(\ref{identity}), yield
\begin{align}
\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)} &
=r_{j}\left( r_{j}I_{2}+s_{j}\right) ^{-1}s_{j}\Delta_{2j}\left( v_{j}-
\left[ v_{j},u_{j}^{\prime}\right] \Omega_{j}\left[ v_{j},u_{j}^{\prime
}\right] ^{\prime}\right) \label{stem of eq1}\\
& +r_{j}\left( r_{j}I_{2}+s_{j}\right) ^{-1}\left( u_{j}-\left[
u_{j},w_{j}\right] \Omega_{j}\left[ v_{j},u_{j}^{\prime}\right] ^{\prime
}\right) .\nonumber
\end{align}
Multiplying both sides of (\ref{stem of eq1}) by $\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}$ and
replacing $s_{j},u_{j},v_{j},$ and $w_{j}$ by $\hat{s}I_{2},\hat{u}I_{2
,\hat{v}I_{2},$ and $\hat{w}I_{2},$ respectively, yields an asymptotic
approximation to $\Delta_{2j}^{\prime}\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime
D^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)},$ which can be used in
(\ref{germ of eq1}) and (\ref{equation1}) to produce the following result. Its
proof, as well as the proof of (\ref{stem of eq1}), are given in the
Supplementary Appendix.
\begin{proposition}
\label{the first equation}There exists $\zeta>0$ such that, for any $z$ with
$\mathfrak{R}z=0$ and $\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$ we hav
\begin{equation}
1+z\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right)
\left( 2\hat{u}\sin^{2}\varphi+z\tilde{v}\hat{v}-\hat{u}^{2}\right)
\mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1),\text{ where}\label{asyeq3
\end{equation}
$o(1)\overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0$, as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty.$
\end{proposition}
One might think that the remaining asymptotic relationship can be obtained by
using the identity
\begin{equation}
\tilde{M}D^{-1}=C^{\prime}A^{-1}CD^{-1}-zI_{p},\label{parallel identity
\end{equation}
which parallels (\ref{another identity}). Unfortunately, following this idea
delivers a relationship equivalent to (\ref{asyeq3}). Therefore, instead of
using (\ref{parallel identity}), we consider the identit
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ C^{\prime}M^{-1}\right] =\frac{1
{p}\operatorname*{tr}\left[ DD^{-1}C^{\prime}M^{-1}\right]
,\label{last identity
\end{equation}
which yield
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{T/2}}
\operatorname*{tr}\left[ \Delta_{2j}\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}M^{-1
\varepsilon_{(j)}\right] =\frac{1}{p
{\displaystyle\sum_{j=1}^{T/2}}
\operatorname*{tr}\left[ \Delta_{1j}\varepsilon_{(j)}^{\prime}D^{-1
C^{\prime}M^{-1}\varepsilon_{(j)}\right] .\label{germ of eq4
\end{equation}
Then, we proceed as in the above analysis of (\ref{germ of eq1}) and
(\ref{germ of eq2}) to obtain the remaining asymptotic relationship. The proof
of the following proposition is given in the Supplementary Appendix.
\begin{proposition}
\label{the last equation}There exists $\zeta>0$ such that, for any $z$ with
$\mathfrak{R}z=0$ and $\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$ we hav
\begin{equation}
0=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right) \left(
4\hat{v}\sin^{2}\varphi+2\hat{u}\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1),\text{
where}\label{asyeq4
\end{equation}
$o(1)\overset{a.s}{\rightarrow}0$, as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty.$
\end{proposition}
Summing up the results in Propositions \ref{the second equation},
\ref{the fourth equation}, \ref{the first equation}, and
\ref{the last equation}, the unknowns $\hat{m},\hat{v},\tilde{v},$ and
$\hat{u}$ must satisfy the following system of asymptotic equation
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l
\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right)
\left( \left( z\tilde{v}-4\sin^{2}\varphi\right) \hat{v}-\hat{u
^{2}\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1)\\
\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right)
\left( \left( z\hat{v}-1\right) \tilde{v}-\hat{u}^{2}\right)
\mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1)\\
1+z\hat{m}=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right)
\left( 2\hat{u}\sin^{2}\varphi+z\tilde{v}\hat{v}-\hat{u}^{2}\right)
\mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1)\\
0=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\hat{h}\left( z,\varphi\right) \left(
4\hat{v}\sin^{2}\varphi+2\hat{u}\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi+o(1)
\end{array}
\right. .\label{Asymptotic system
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Solving the system}
Recall that the unknowns $\hat{m},\hat{v},\tilde{v},$ and $\hat{u}$ in the
asymptotic relationships (\ref{Asymptotic system}) depend on $p,T.$ The
definition (\ref{mhat def}) of $\hat{m}$ implies that $\left\vert \hat
{m}\right\vert $ is bounded by $\left( \mathfrak{I}z\right) ^{-1}.$ Further,
as shown in the proof of Proposition \ref{the second equation}, $\hat{u}$ and
$\hat{v}$ are a.s. bounded by absolute value, and it can be similarly shown
that $\tilde{v}$ is a.s. bounded by absolute value. Therefore, there exist a
subsequence of $p,T$ along which $\hat{m},\hat{v},\tilde{v},$ and $\hat{u}$
a.s. converge to some limits $m,v,y,$ and $u.$
These limits must satisfy a non-asymptotic system of equation
\begin{equation}
\left\{
\begin{array}
[c]{l
m=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \left( \left(
zy-4\sin^{2}\varphi\right) v-u^{2}\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi\\
m=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \left( \left(
zv-1\right) y-u^{2}\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi\\
1+zm=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \left(
2u\sin^{2}\varphi+zvy-u^{2}\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi\\
0=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \left( 2v\sin
^{2}\varphi+u\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi
\end{array}
\right. ,\label{the system
\end{equation}
wher
\[
h\left( z,\varphi\right) =\left[ \left( 1-z\right) \left( zvy-u^{2
\right) +zy+4\sin^{2}\varphi\left( zv+u-1\right) \right] ^{-1}.
\]
Let us consider, until further notice, only such $z$ that have zero real part,
$\mathfrak{R}z=0$, and the imaginary part satisfying $\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$
for some $\zeta>0$. Let us solve system (\ref{the system}) for $m.$ Adding two
times the last equation to the first one, and subtracting the second equation
we obtai
\begin{equation}
0=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \left(
y+2u\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi.\label{zero
\end{equation}
Note that $\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi\neq0.$
Otherwise, from the second equation of (\ref{the system}), we have $m=0,$
which cannot be true because $\hat{m}$ is the Stieltjes transform of the
empirical distribution of the squared canonical correlations, all of which lie
between zero and one. Indeed, clearly, for any $0\leq\lambda\leq1$ and $z$
with $\mathfrak{R}z=0,
\[
\mathfrak{I}\left( \frac{1}{\lambda-z}\right) =\frac{\mathfrak{I}z
{\lambda^{2}+\left( \mathfrak{I}z\right) ^{2}}\geq\frac{\mathfrak{I
z}{1+\left( \mathfrak{I}z\right) ^{2}}.
\]
Therefore, $\mathfrak{I}\hat{m}\geq\mathfrak{I}z/\left( 1+\left(
\mathfrak{I}z\right) ^{2}\right) ,$ and $\hat{m}$ cannot converge to $m=0$.
Since $\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi\neq0,$
(\ref{zero}) yields
\begin{equation}
y+2u=0\label{reduction1a
\end{equation}
with $y\neq0$ and $u\neq0$ (if one of them equals zero, the other equals zero
too, and $m=0$ by the second equation of (\ref{the system}), which is
impossible). Since $u\neq0,$ the last equation implies that $v\neq0$ as well.
Further, subtracting from the third equation the sum of $z$ times the second
and $u/v$ times the last equation, and using (\ref{reduction1a}), we obtai
\begin{equation}
1=\frac{1}{2\pi c}\int_{0}^{2\pi}h\left( z,\varphi\right) \frac{u}{v}\left(
2zv+u\right) \left( zv-v-1\right) \mathrm{d}\varphi.\label{germ of red2
\end{equation}
This equation, together with the second equation of (\ref{the system}) yiel
\begin{equation}
m=\frac{v\left( 2zv+u-2\right) }{\left( 1+v-zv\right) \left(
2zv+u\right) }.\label{reduction2
\end{equation}
Next, for the integrand in the last equation of (\ref{the system}), we hav
\begin{align}
& h\left( z,\varphi\right) \left( 2v\sin^{2}\varphi+u\right) =\frac{1
{2}\frac{v}{zv+u-1}\label{hsimplified}\\
& +h\left( z,\varphi\right) \frac{u}{2}\left( \frac{\left( 1-z\right)
v\left( 2zv+u\right) +2\left( 2zv+u-1\right) }{zv+u-1}\right) .\nonumber
\end{align}
This assumes that
\begin{equation}
zv+u-1\neq0.\label{non-degeneracy
\end{equation}
If not, then
\[
h\left( z,\varphi\right) =\left[ \left( 1-z\right) \left( zvy-u^{2
\right) +zy\right] ^{-1
\]
would not depend on $\varphi$ and the last equation of (\ref{the system})
would imply that $u+v=0.$ The latter equation and the equality $zv+u-1=0$
would yield $v=-\left( 1-z\right) ^{-1},$ which when combined with the
second equation of (\ref{the system}) would give us $m=-c^{-1}\left(
1-z\right) ^{-1},$ which cannot be true because $m,$ being a limit of
$\hat{m}$, must satisfy $\mathfrak{I}m\geq0$ for $\mathfrak{I}z>0.$
Equations (\ref{germ of red2}), (\ref{hsimplified}), and the last equation of
(\ref{the system}) imply tha
\begin{equation}
u=\frac{2c}{2c-1-\left( 1-z\right) v\left( 1-c\right)
-2zv.\label{reduction3
\end{equation}
Combining this with (\ref{reduction2}) yield
\begin{equation}
m=v\frac{1-c}{c}.\label{reduction4
\end{equation}
Finally, elementary calculations given in the Supplementary Appendix show tha
\begin{equation}
\left( \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\frac{1}{x+2\sin^{2}\varphi
\mathrm{d}\varphi\right) ^{2}=\frac{1}{x\left( x+2\right) },\label{fact
\end{equation}
where $x\in\mathbb{C}\backslash\left[ -2,0\right] $. Using (\ref{fact}),
(\ref{germ of red2}), and the definition of $h\left( z,\varphi\right) $, we
obtain the following relationshi
\begin{align}
& \left( \frac{2cv\left( zv+u-1\right) }{u\left( 2zv+u\right) \left(
zv-v-1\right) }\right) ^{2}\label{ugly}\\
& =\frac{4\left( zv+u-1\right) ^{2}}{u\left( \left( 1-z\right) \left(
-2zv-u\right) -2z\right) \left( -u+uz+2\right) \left( u+2vz-2\right)
},\nonumber
\end{align}
that holds as long a
\[
\frac{u\left( \left( 1-z\right) \left( -2zv-u\right) -2z\right)
}{2\left( zv+u-1\right) }\in\mathbb{C}\backslash\left[ -2,0\right] .
\]
The latter inclusion holds because otherwise $h\left( z,\varphi\right) $ is
not a bounded function of $\varphi,$ which would contradict Lemma
\ref{small delta lemma}.
Using (\ref{reduction3}) in (\ref{ugly}), and simplifying, we find that there
exist only three possibilities. Eithe
\begin{equation}
v=-\frac{1}{1-z},\label{possibility1
\end{equation}
o
\begin{equation}
1-\left( c+cz-1\right) v+z\left( 1-z\right) \left( 1-c\right)
v^{2}=0,\label{possibility2
\end{equation}
o
\begin{equation}
\frac{c}{1-c}-\left( c+cz-z\right) v+z\left( 1-z\right) \left(
1-c\right) v^{2}=0.\label{possibility3
\end{equation}
Equation (\ref{possibility1}) cannot hold because otherwise, (\ref{reduction4
) would imply that $\mathfrak{I}m<0,$ which is impossible as argued above.
Equation (\ref{possibility2}) taken together with (\ref{reduction3}) implies
tha
\[
u+zv-1=0,
\]
which was ruled out above. This leaves us with (\ref{possibility3}), so that,
using (\ref{reduction4}), we ge
\begin{equation}
m=\frac{-\left( z-c-cz\right) \pm\sqrt{\left( z-c-cz\right) ^{2}-4c\left(
1-z\right) z}}{2z\left( 1-z\right) c}.\label{second possibility
\end{equation}
For $z\in\mathbb{C}^{+}$ with $\mathfrak{R}z=0,$ the imaginary part of the
right hand side of (\ref{second possibility}) is negative when `$-$' is used
in front of the square root. Here we choose the branch of the square root,
with the cut along the positive real semi-axis, which has positive imaginary
part. Since $\mathfrak{I}m$ cannot be negative, we conclude tha
\begin{equation}
m=\frac{-\left( z-c-cz\right) +\sqrt{\left( z-c-cz\right) ^{2}-4c\left(
1-z\right) z}}{2z\left( 1-z\right) c}.\label{the limit
\end{equation}
But the right hand side of the above equality is the value of the limit of the
Stieltjes transforms of the eigenvalues of the multivariate beta matrix
$B_{p}\left( p,\left( T-p\right) /2\right) $ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c
\infty.$ This can be verified directly by using the formula for such a limit,
given for example in Theorem 1.6 of Bai, Hu, Pan and Zhou (2015). As follows
from Wachter (1980), the weak limit of the empirical distribution of the
eigenvalues of the multivariate beta matrix $B_{p}\left( p,\left(
T-p\right) /2\right) $ as $p,T\rightarrow_{c}\infty$ equals $W\left(
\lambda;c/\left( 1+c\right) ,2c/\left( 1+c\right) \right) $.
Equation (\ref{the limit}) shows that, for $z$ with $\mathfrak{R}z=0$ and
$\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta,$ any converging subsequence of $\hat{m}$ converges to
the same limit. Hence, $\hat{m}$ a.s. converges for all $z$ with
$\mathfrak{R}z=0$ and $\mathfrak{I}z>\zeta.$ Note that $\hat{m}$ is a sequence
of bounded analytic functions in the domain $\left\{ z:\mathfrak{I
z>\delta\right\} ,$ where $\delta$ is an arbitrary positive number.
Therefore, by Vitaly's convergence theorem (see Titchmarsh (1939), p.168)
$\hat{m}$ a.s. converges to $m,$ described by (\ref{the limit}), for any
$z\in\mathbb{C}^{+}.$ The almost sure convergence of $\hat{F}_{p,T}\left(
\lambda\right) $ (and thus, also of $F_{p,T}\left( \lambda\right) $) to the
Wachter distribution follows from the Continuity Theorem for the Stieltjes
transforms (see, for example, Corollary 1 in Geronimo and Hill (2003)).
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{Levy}}
First, let us show that the weak limit $F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) $ of
$F_{\gamma}\left( \lambda\right) $ as $\gamma\rightarrow0$ exists and equals
the continuous part of the Marchenko-Pastur distribution with density
(\ref{MP density}). By definition and Theorem \ref{main}, $F_{\gamma}\left(
\lambda\right) $ is the (scaled) Wachter d.f. $W\left( \gamma\lambda
;\gamma/\left( 1+\gamma\right) ,2\gamma/\left( 1+\gamma\right) \right) .$
Therefore, by (\ref{densityW}) and (\ref{support boundaries}), the density,
$f_{\gamma}(\lambda)$, and the boundaries of the support, $\left[ \hat{b
_{-},\hat{b}_{+}\right] ,$ of the distribution $F_{\gamma}$ equal
\[
f_{\gamma}(\lambda)=\frac{1+\gamma}{2\pi}\frac{\sqrt{\left( \hat{b
_{+}-\lambda\right) \left( \lambda-\hat{b}_{-}\right) }}{\lambda\left(
1-\gamma\lambda\right) },\text{ and
\
\[
\hat{b}_{\pm}=\left( \sqrt{2}\mp\sqrt{1-\gamma}\right) ^{-2}.
\]
As $\gamma\rightarrow0,$ $\hat{b}_{\pm}\rightarrow a_{\pm},$ where $a_{\pm
}=\left( 1\pm\sqrt{2}\right) ^{2}$ as in (\ref{MP boundaries}), and
$f_{\gamma}(\lambda)$ converges to the density given by (\ref{MP density}).
This implies the weak convergence of $F_{\gamma}\left( \lambda\right) $ to
$F_{0}\left( \lambda\right) $ with $F_{0}$ supported on $\left[ a_{-
,a_{+}\right] $ and having density (\ref{MP density}).
To establish the theorem, it remains to show that, as $p\rightarrow\infty$,
$F_{p,\infty}(\lambda)$ weakly converges to $F_{0}(\lambda),$ in probability.
Recall that the weak convergence is metrized by the L\'{e}vy distance
$\mathcal{L}\left( \cdot,\cdot\right) $. We need to show that for any
$\delta>0,$ there exists $p_{0}$ such that (s.t.) for all $p>p_{0},
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \mathcal{L}\left( F_{0},F_{p,\infty}\right) <\delta\right)
>1-\delta.\label{need to show
\end{equation}
Let $\gamma>0$ be so small tha
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\left( F_{0},F_{\gamma}\right) <\delta/4.\label{Levy1
\end{equation}
For any $p,$ let $T_{\gamma}$ be the smallest even integer satisfying
$p/T_{\gamma}\leq\gamma.$ That is
\[
T_{\gamma}=\min_{T\in2\mathbb{Z}}\left\{ T:p/T\leq\gamma\right\} .
\]
For any $T_{\infty}>T_{\gamma},$ by the triangle inequality, we hav
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\left( F_{0},F_{p,\infty}\right) \leq\mathcal{L}\left(
F_{0},F_{\gamma}\right) +\mathcal{L}\left( F_{\gamma},F_{p,T_{\gamma
}\right) +\mathcal{L}\left( F_{p,T_{\gamma}},F_{p,T_{\infty}}\right)
+\mathcal{L}\left( F_{p,T_{\infty}},F_{p,\infty}\right) ,\label{triangle
\end{equation}
where $F_{p,T_{\gamma}}$ and $F_{p,T_{\infty}}$ denote the empirical
distributions of eigenvalues o
\begin{equation}
\frac{T}{p}CD^{-1}C^{\prime}A^{-1},\label{RawMatrixAgain
\end{equation}
with $T=T_{\gamma}$ and $T=T_{\infty},$ respectively.
By Theorem \ref{main}, $\mathcal{L}\left( F_{\gamma},F_{p,T_{\gamma}}\right)
$ a.s. converges to zero as $p\rightarrow\infty.$ Therefore, for all
sufficiently large $p$, we hav
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \mathcal{L}\left( F_{\gamma},F_{p,T_{\gamma}}\right)
<\delta/4\right) >1-\delta/4.\label{Levy2
\end{equation}
Further, as shown by Johansen (1988, 1991), for any $p,$ as $T_{\infty
}\rightarrow\infty,$ the eigenvalues of (\ref{RawMatrixAgain}) with
$T=T_{\infty}$ jointly converge in distribution to those o
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{p}\int_{0}^{1}\left( \mathrm{d}B\right) B^{\prime}\left( \in
_{0}^{1}BB^{\prime}\mathrm{d}u\right) ^{-1}\int_{0}^{1}B\left(
\mathrm{d}B\right) ^{\prime}.\label{JohansenLimitAgain
\end{equation}
Therefore, for any $p$ and all sufficiently large $T_{\infty},$ we hav
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \mathcal{L}\left( F_{p,T_{\infty}},F_{p,\infty}\right)
<\delta/4\right) >1-\delta/4.\label{Levy4
\end{equation}
Let us denote the sum of $\mathcal{L}\left( F_{0},F_{\gamma}\right) ,$
$\mathcal{L}\left( F_{\gamma},F_{p,T_{\gamma}}\right) ,$ and $\mathcal{L
\left( F_{p,T_{\infty}},F_{p,\infty}\right) $ as $\mathcal{L}_{\gamma
,p,T_{\infty}}.$ By (\ref{triangle}), we hav
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{L}\left( F_{0},F_{p,\infty}\right) \leq\mathcal{L}_{\gamma
,p,T_{\infty}}+\mathcal{L}\left( F_{p,T_{\gamma}},F_{p,T_{\infty}}\right)
.\label{two terms
\end{equation}
Inequalities (\ref{Levy1}), (\ref{Levy2}), and (\ref{Levy4}) show that for any
$\delta>0,$ there exists $\gamma_{\delta}>0$ such that (s.t.) for any positive
$\gamma<\gamma_{\delta},$ there is a $p_{\gamma}$ s.t. for any $p>p_{\gamma},$
there is a $T_{p}$ s.t. for any $T_{\infty}>T_{p}
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \mathcal{L}_{\gamma,p,T_{\infty}}<3\delta/4\right) >1-\delta
/2.\label{Levy124
\end{equation}
The subscripts in $\gamma_{\delta},$ $p_{\gamma}$ and $T_{p}$ signify
dependence on the value of the corresponding parameter. Inequalities
(\ref{Levy124}) and (\ref{two terms}) would establish (\ref{need to show}) as
long as we are able to show that for any $\delta>0,$ there exists
$\tilde{\gamma}_{\delta}>0$ s.t. for any positive $\gamma<\tilde{\gamma
}_{\delta}, $ there is a $\tilde{p}_{\gamma}$ s.t. for any $p>\tilde
{p}_{\gamma}$ \textit{and any} $\tilde{T}_{p},$ there exists $T_{\infty
}>\tilde{T}_{p}$ s.t
\begin{equation}
\Pr\left( \mathcal{L}\left( F_{p,T_{\gamma}},F_{p,T_{\infty}}\right)
<\delta/4\right) >1-\delta/2.\label{Levy3
\end{equation}
Let us denote $\xi=\sqrt{T}\varepsilon,$ where $\varepsilon$ is a $p\times T$
matrix with i.i.d. $N(0,1/T)$ entries, as defined in Section 2. We shall
assume that, as $p,T$ change, $\xi$ represents $p\times T$ sections of a fixed
infinite array of i.i.d. standard normal random variables. Conside
\[
M_{p,T}=\frac{T}{p}\left( \frac{\xi\xi^{\prime}}{T}\right) ^{-1/2}\frac
{\xi\Delta_{2}^{\prime}\xi^{\prime}}{T}\left( \frac{\xi\Delta_{1}\xi^{\prime
}}{T}\right) ^{-1}\frac{\xi\Delta_{2}\xi^{\prime}}{T}\left( \frac{\xi
\xi^{\prime}}{T}\right) ^{-1/2}.
\]
So defined matrix $M_{p,T}$ is identical to the real symmetric matrix
$\frac{T}{p}A^{-1/2}CD^{-1}C^{\prime}A^{-1/2}.$ The above definition is
formulated in terms of $\xi$ to clarify that $M_{p,T}$ depends on $T$ not only
via the term $T/p,$ but also through $A,C,$ and $D.$ Note that $F_{p,T_{\gamma
}}$ and $F_{p,T_{\infty}}$ are the empirical distributions of eigenvalues of
$M_{p,T_{\gamma}}$ and $M_{p,T_{\infty}},$ respectively. The following lemma
is established in the Supplementary Appendix.
\begin{lemma}
\label{alpha12} For any $\tau>0$ there exists $\gamma_{\tau}>0$ s.t. for any
positive $\gamma<\gamma_{\tau}$, there is a $\tilde{p}_{\gamma}$ s.t. for any
$p>\tilde{p}_{\gamma}$ and any $\tilde{T}_{p},$ there exists $T_{\infty
}>\tilde{T}_{p}$ s.t. with probability larger than $1-\tau,$ $M_{p,T_{\gamma
}-M_{p,T_{\infty}}$ can be represented as the sum of two real symmetric
matrices $S$ and $R$
\[
M_{p,T_{\gamma}}-M_{p,T_{\infty}}=S+R,
\]
where $\left\Vert S\right\Vert \leq K\sqrt{\gamma},$ $\operatorname*{rank
R\leq\tau p$, and $K$ is an absolute constant.
\end{lemma}
Finally, let $F_{SR}$ be the empirical distribution of eigenvalues of
$M_{p,T_{\gamma}}-S=M_{p,T_{\infty}}+R.$ Then, by Theorem A45 (norm
inequality) of Bai and Silverstein (2010)
\[
\mathcal{L}\left( F_{p,T_{\gamma}},F_{SR}\right) \leq\left\Vert S\right\Vert
\leq K\sqrt{\gamma},
\]
whereas by their Theorem A43 (rank inequality)
\[
\mathcal{L}\left( F_{SR},F_{p,T_{\infty}}\right) \leq\frac{1}{p
\operatorname*{rank}R\leq\tau.
\]
Therefore, by Lemma \ref{alpha12} and the triangle inequality, for any
$\tau>0$ there exists $\gamma_{\tau}>0$ s.t. for any positive $\gamma
<\gamma_{\tau}$, there is a $\tilde{p}_{\gamma}$ s.t. for any $p>\tilde
{p}_{\gamma}$ and any $\tilde{T}_{p},$ there exists $T_{\infty}>\tilde{T}_{p}$
s.t
\[
\Pr\left( \mathcal{L}\left( F_{p,T_{\gamma}},F_{p,T_{\infty}}\right)
<\tau+K\sqrt{\gamma}\right) >1-\tau.
\]
For $\tau=\delta/8,$ this inequality implies (\ref{Levy3}) with $\tilde
{\gamma}_{\delta}=\min\left\{ \gamma_{\tau},\left( \delta/8K\right)
^{2}\right\} .$ Combining (\ref{Levy3}) with (\ref{Levy124}) yields
(\ref{need to show}), which completes the proof.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{secIntro}
According to Knuth \cite{Knuth}, floating point arithmetic has been
used since Babylonia (1800 B.C.). It
played an important role in the beginning of modern computing,
as in the work of Zuse in the late 1930s. Today we have several models for floating point
arithmetic. Some of these models are based on algebraic
structures, like Kulisch's Ringoids \cite{Kulisch}.
Others models validate numerical software
and lead to automated proofs of results
about floating point arithmetic \cite{Boldo}.
There are also models based on continuous mathematics, which are used
intuitively. For example, when analysing algorithms based
on the floating point operations $\wrm{op} \in \wset{+,-,*,/}$,
executed with machine precision $\epsilon$,
one usually argues that
\pbDef{defEpsArg}
\wfl{x \, \rm{op} \, y} = \wlr{\, x \,\wrm{op} \, y \, } \wlr{1 + \delta}
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{1cm} \wabs{\delta} \leq \epsilon,
\peDef{defEpsArg}
where $\wfl{z}$ is the rounded value of $z$.
Equation \pRef{defEpsArg} is called ``the $\wlr{1 + \epsilon}$ argument.''
It may not apply in the presence of underflow,
but lead to many results in the
hands of Wilkinson \cite{WilkinsonA,WilkinsonB}.
The effectiveness of the $(1 + \epsilon)$ argument is illustrated
by Equation 3.4 in Higham \cite{Higham}, which
expresses the dot product $\hat{d}_n$ of the vectors
$\wvec{x},\wvec{y} \in \wrn{n}$ as
\pbDef{highamsDot}
\hat{d}_n = x_1 y_1 \wlr{1 + \theta_n} +
x_2 y_2 \wlr{1 + {\theta_n}'} + x_3 y_3 \wlr{1 + \theta_{n-1}}
+ \dots + x_n y_n \wlr{1 + \theta_2}.
\peDef{highamsDot}
The $\theta_k$ above are bounded in terms of the
unit roundoff $u$ as
\pbDef{highamsTheta}
\wabs{\theta_k} \leq \frac{k u}{1 - k u} =: \gamma_k,
\peDef{highamsTheta}
and Equations \pRef{highamsDot} and \pRef{highamsTheta} are a good
example of the use of continuous mathematics to analyze
floating point operations. They express well the effects of rounding
errors on dot products, and will suffice for most people
interested in their numerical evaluation.
The purpose of this article is to simplify and extend
the results about floating point arithmetic obtained
using the $(1 + \epsilon)$ argument. We argue that
by thinking of the set of floating point
numbers as a subset of the real numbers we can
use techniques from continuous mathematics to derive and prove
non trivial results about floating point arithmetic.
For instance, we show that in many circumstances we
can replace Higham's $\gamma_k$ by its linearized
counterpart $k u$ and still obtain rigorous bounds.
For us, the replacement of $\gamma_k$ by $k u$
is interesting because it leads to simpler
versions of our articles \cite{Masc,MascCam,arxiv}, and arguments
by other people could be simplified as well. We could,
for example, replace some of Wilkinson's $1.06$ factors by $1$.
In fact, we can even replace $\gamma_k$ by $k u / \wlr{1 + k u}$
when estimating the effects
of rounding errors in the evaluation of the sum
$\wfl{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k}$
of $n + 1$ numbers. Instead of
\pbTClaim{naiveSum}
\wabs{\wfl{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} -
\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} \leq \frac{n u}{1 - n u} \sum_{k=0}^n \wabs{x_k},
\peTClaim{naiveSum}
we prove the sharper bound
\pbTClaim{sharpSumB}
\wabs{\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} - \sum_{k=0}^n x_k}
\leq \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k},
\peTClaim{sharpSumB}
for arithmetics with subnormal numbers, when we
round to nearest with unit roundoff $u$ and $20 n u \leq 1$.
This bound grows slightly less than linearly
with $n u$, that is, the right hand side is a strictly concave function of
$n u$. Due to this concavity, we can rigorously
conclude from Equation \pRef{sharpSumB} that
\pbTClaim{sharpSumS}
\wabs{ \wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} \leq n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k},
\peTClaim{sharpSumS}
and Equation \pRef{sharpSumS} is simpler than Equation \pRef{naiveSum}.
When $x_k \geq 0$, Equation \pRef{sharpSumS} can be improved to
\pbTClaim{sharpSumSB}
x_k \geq 0 \Rightarrow
\wabs{ \wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} - \sum_{i = 0}^n x_k} \leq u \sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k x_i,
\peTClaim{sharpSumSB}
which is also simple and does not have higher order terms in $u$.
We also analyze dot products, and derive simple and rigorous bounds like
\pbTClaim{sharpDotIntro}
\wabs{ \wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} \leq
\wlr{n + 1} u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} \leq \wlr{n + 1} u \sqrt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k^2} \sqrt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k^2},
\peTClaim{sharpDotIntro}
provided that $\sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}$ is not too small,
for the formal concepts of small presented in the statement of our
results.
The bound in Equation \pRef{sharpSumB} is new, and was derived with the theory introduced
in the present article, but Equations \pRef{sharpSumS} and
\pRef{sharpDotIntro} are not new. Actually,
stronger versions of them were already proved by C.-P. Jeannerod and S. Rump in \cite{Rump1} and \cite{Rump2},
and we present them here only as an improvement of the older results in \cite{Higham}.
When comparing the content of these references with
the present work, please note that there is a slight difference in our bound \pRef{sharpDotIntro}
and similar bounds in them: our dot products
involve $n + 1$ pairs of numbers, whereas the sums and
dot products in \cite{Higham,Rump1,Rump3} are defined for $n$ numbers, or pairs of numbers.
Therefore, to leading order in $u$, Equation \pRef{sharpDotIntro} states exactly
the same as the analogous equations (3.7) in \cite{Higham}:
\pbDef{HighamFoo}
\wabs{ \wvec{x}^{\wtr{}} \wvec{y} - \wfl{\wvec{x}^{\wtr{}} \wvec{y}}} \leq
n u \wabs{\wvec{x}}^{\wtr{}} \wabs{\wvec{y}} + \wfc{O}{u^2},
\peDef{HighamFoo}
because $n$ in \cite{Higham} is the same as $n + 1$ for us. Our contribution
is to show that there is no need for the $\wfc{O}{u^2}$ term in Equation \pRef{HighamFoo}
or the 1.06 factor in Wilkinson's Equation 6.11 \cite{WilkinsonB},
implicit in his exponent $t_2$.
We also extend it to situations in which we may have underflow because,
as one may expect after reading \cite{DemmelA,DemmelB,HighamSum,Higham,Neumaier}, the
bounds above must be corrected in order to handle underflow or
arithmetics without subnormal numbers. In the rest of the article we describe such
corrections.
Equations \pRef{sharpSumS} and \pRef{sharpSumSB} are simpler than Equation \pRef{naiveSum},
but the proofs we present for them are definitely not.
However, we hope that after our bounds are validated
via the usual peer review process or by automated tools,
people will be able to use them without reading their
complicated proofs. For this reason we divided the article
in three parts (besides this introduction.)
In Section \ref{secDef} we define the terms which allow
us to treat floating point numbers as particular cases
of real numbers. In Section \ref{secSharp} we illustrate the use of the definitions
in Section \ref{secDef} to derive sharper and simpler bounds for the effects
on rounding errors in fundamental operations in floating point
arithmetic, like sums, products, square roots and dot products.
Readers should focus on Section \ref{secSharp}. It would
be nice if they could find better proofs for the results stated
in that section. In fact, we are glad that after we posted the first
version of this manuscript M. Lange and S. Rump \cite{Rump3}
derived stronger versions of some results presented here,
using more direct arguments.
This does not contradict the effectiveness
of the use of continuous mathematics to analyze
floating point arithmetic. Our point is that
we can deduce the results thinking in continuous terms,
and their formal proofs is just the last step
in the discovery process.
In the last part of the article we prove our results.
We try to handle all details in our proofs,
and this makes them long and tedious. For this reason, we wrote
two versions of the article. We plan to publish the long one,
and the very long one will be available at arxiv.org.
While reading any of these versions, we ask the reader
not to underestimate how easily ``short and intuitive''
arguments about floating point arithmetic can be wrong.
For example, in the appendix of our article \cite{Extended}
we argue that we can gain intuition about what would happen
if we were to round upward instead of to nearest by replacing
$u$ by $2u$. This argument is correct in that context, because
we verified each and every floating point operation in our
computations. However, this intuitive argument is
not rigorous in general. In fact, by replacing $u$ by $2u$ in the bounds
for rounding to nearest in the present article one will not
obtain rigorous bounds for arithmetics which round upward
or downward.
\iftoggle{LatexFull} {
Finally, this extended version of the article is meant to
be read using a software like the Adobe Acrobat Reader,
so that you can click on the hyperlinks (anything in blue)
and follow them. For example, the statement of our
lemmas end with a blue triangle. By clicking
on this triangle you will access the proof of the corresponding
result, and by clicking on the ``back button''
you will return to the statement. Please, do use this feature
of your reader in order to select which arguments
to follow in more detail. Otherwise, you will find this article
to be unbearably long.
}
\section{Definitions}
\label{secDef}
This section presents models of floating point arithmetic
which extend the floating point operations to all real
numbers. In the same way that one can use complex
analysis to study integer arithmetic,
and Sobolev spaces and distributions to learn about regular
solutions of differential equations, by thinking of the
set of floating point numbers as a subset of the set
of real numbers we can use abstract
arguments from optimization theory, point set topology
and convex analysis to
reason about the floating point arithmetics implemented
in real computers.
Most of our floating point numbers have the form
$x = \pm \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}$ where
$\beta \in \wset{2, 3, 4, \dots}$ is the base,
$e$ is an integer exponent, the exponent $\mu$ is a positive integer, and
the remainder $r$ is an integer in $[0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu} )$.
We also define zero as a floating point
number and, finally, our models account for
subnormal numbers $s = \pm \beta^{e}r $, for
an integer $r \in [1, \beta^{\mu})$.
We now define floating point numbers more formally.
\pbLongDefBT{longDefBase}{Base}
A base is an integer greater than one.
\peLongDef{longDefBase}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefEps}{Unit roundoff}
The unit roundoff associated to the base $\beta$ and
the positive integer exponent $\mu$ is $u := u_{\beta,\mu} := 1/\wlr{2 \beta^\mu}$
(We omit the subscript from $u_{\beta,\mu}$ when
$\beta$ and $\mu$ are evident given the context.)
\peLongDef{longDefEps}
The unit roundoff is our measure of rounding errors.
It is equal to half the distance from $1$ to the next floating
point number. Some authors express their results in terms of ulps (units in the
last place) or the machine precision,
and our $u$ correspond to half of the ulp or the machine epsilon used by them.
However, the reader must be aware that there are conflicting definitions
of these terms in the literature, and there is
no universally accepted convention.
A choice must be made, and we prefer to follow Higham \cite{Higham}
and use the unit roundoff $u$ in Definition \ref{longDefEps}.
Our models are based on {\it floating point systems},
which are subsets of $\wrone{}$ to which we round real numbers.
The simplest floating point systems are the perfect ones,
which are defined below.
\pbLongDefBT{longDefMinusSet}{Minus set}
For $\wcal{A} \subset \wrone{}$, we define $-\wcal{A} := \wset{-x, \ \wrm{for} \ x \in \wcal{A}}$.
\peLongDef{longDefMinusSet}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefSign}{Sign function}
The function
$\wrm{sign}: \wrone{} \rightarrow \wrone{}$ is given by
$\wsign{0} := 1$ and $\wsign{x} = \wabs{x}/x$ for $x \neq 0$,
that is, we define the sign of $0$ as one.
\peLongDef{longDefMinusSet}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefBinade}{Equally spaced range (E)}
The equally spaced range associated to the integer exponent $e$,
the base $\beta$ and the positive exponent $\mu$ is
\[
\wfpbin_{e,\beta,\mu} := \wset{\beta^e \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r} \ \ \wrm{for} \ \ r = 0,1,2,3,\dots, \wlr{\beta -1 } \beta^{\mu} - 1}
\]
(We write simply $\wfpbin_{e}$ when $\beta$ and $\mu$ are evident given the context.)
\peLongDef{longDefBinade}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefPerfect}{Perfect system}
The perfect floating point system associated to the base $\beta$ and the positive exponent $\mu$ is
\[
\wfpsc := \wfpsc_{\beta,\mu} := \wset{0} \,
\bigcup \, \wlr{\bigcup_{e = -\infty}^{\infty} \wfpbin_{e,\beta,\mu}}
\bigcup \, \wlr{\bigcup_{e = -\infty}^{\infty} - \wfpbin_{e,\beta,\mu}}.
\eqno \eod
\]
\peLongDefX{longDefPerfect}
Perfect floating point systems are convenient for proofs, but ignore
underflow and overflow and are not practical. It is our opinion that
the best compromise to handle overflow is to
assume that it does not happen, that is, to formulate
models which do not take overflow into account and shift the
burden to handle overflow to the users of the model.
This opinion is not due to laziness, but to the fact
that verifying the absence of overflow in particular cases is
simpler than dealing with floating point systems in which there
is a maximum element.
Underflow is more subtle than overflow, and it may
be difficult to avoid it even in simple cases. Therefore,
handling underflow in each particular case would be too
complicated, and it is a better compromise to have models
that take underflow into account.
Such models are formulated by limiting the range of the exponents
$e$ in Definition \ref{longDefPerfect}.
\pbLongDefBT{longDefMPFR}{MPFR system}
The MPFR system associated to the base $\beta$,
the positive integer $\mu$ and the integer exponent $\wfpemin < -\mu$ is
\[
\wfpsm := \wfpsm_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu} := \wset{0} \,
\bigcup \, \wlr{\bigcup_{e = \wfpemin}^{\infty} \wfpbin_{\beta,\mu}}
\bigcup \, \wlr{\bigcup_{e = \wfpemin}^{\infty} - \wfpbin_{\beta,\mu}}.
\eqno \eod
\]
\peLongDefX{longDefMPFR}
The name MPFR is a tribute to the MPFR library \cite{MPFR},
which has been very helpful in our studies
of floating point arithmetic. This library does not use subnormal numbers,
but allows for very wide exponent ranges (the
minimal exponent is $1- 2^{30}$ in the default configuration.)
As a result, underflow is very unlikely and when it does happen
its consequences are minimal.
\pbLongDefBT{longDefSubNormal}{Subnormal numbers}
\index{subnormal number}
The set of positive subnormal numbers associated to
the base $\beta$, the positive integer exponent $\mu$
and the integer exponent $\wfpemin$ is
$\wfps_{\wfpemin} := \wfps_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu} :=
\wset{\beta^{\wfpemin} r, \ \ \wrm{with} \ \ r = 1,2,\dots, \beta^{\mu} - 1}$.
\peLongDef{longDefSubNormal}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefIEEE}{IEEE system}
The IEEE system associated to the base $\beta$, the
positive exponent $\mu$ and the integer exponent $\wfpemin$, with $\wfpemin < -\wfpmu$, is
\[
\wfpsi := \wfpsi_{\wfpemin, \beta, \mu} := \wset{0} \,
\bigcup \, \wfps_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu} \,
\bigcup \, -\wfps_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu} \,
\bigcup \, \wlr{\bigcup_{e = \wfpemin}^{\infty} \wfpbin_{e,\beta,\mu}} \,
\bigcup \, \wlr{\bigcup_{e = \wfpemin}^{\infty} -\wfpbin_{e,\beta,\mu}}.
\]
The elements of $\wfps_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu} \cup - \wfps_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$
are the subnormal numbers for $\wfpsi$.
\peLongDef{longDefIEEE}
The name IEEE is due to the
IEEE 754 Standard for floating point arithmetic \cite{IEEE},
which contemplates subnormal numbers.
\pbLongDefBT{defFloatSys}{Floating point system}
\index{floating point system}
There are three kinds of floating point systems:
\begin{itemize}
\item The perfect ones in Definition \ref{longDefPerfect}, which
do not contain subnormal numbers.
\item The unperfect ones, which can be either
\begin{itemize}
\item The IEEE systems in Definition \ref{longDefIEEE},
which have subnormal numbers, or
\item The MPFR systems in Definition \ref{longDefMPFR},
which do not have subnormal numbers.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
For brevity, we refer to ``the floating point system $\wfpf$'' as ``the system $\wfpf$,''
and throughout the article the letter $\wfpf$ will always refer to a floating
point system.
\peLongDef{longDefFloatSys}
Please pay attention to the technical detail that,
in order to avoid pathological cases, our
definitions require that $\beta \geq 2$ and $\mu > 0$,
so that the mantissas of our floating point numbers
have at least two bits and $u \leq 1/4$. Additionally, the minimum exponent
$\wfpemin$ for unperfect systems is smaller than $-\mu$, so that
$1$ and $1/\beta$ are floating point numbers. By limiting the exponent range,
we also limit the size of the smallest positive floating
point numbers, which are quantified by the numbers
$\wfpa$ and $\wfpnu$ below.
\pbLongDefBT{longDefAlpha}{Alpha}
For a perfect system we define $\wfpa := 0$;
the IEEE system $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$ has $\wfpa := \beta^{\wfpemin}$, and
$\wfpa := \beta^{\wfpemin + \wfpmu}$ for the MFPR system $\wfpsm_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$
(Informally, the set of non negative elements of a system begins at $\alpha$.)
\peLongDef{longDefAlpha}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefNu}{Nu}
For a perfect system we define $\wfpnu := 0$ and
the unperfect system $\wfpf_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$ has $\wfpnu := \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$.
(Informally, the {\bf N}ormalized range for a system is formed by the numbers $z$ with
$\wabs{z} \geq \nu$, and $\nu$ is the Greek {\bf N}.)
\peLongDef{longDefNu}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefERange}{Exponent for F}
Any integer $e$ is an exponent for a perfect system,
and $e \in \wz{}$ is an exponent for the unperfect system
$\wfpf_{\wfpemin}$ if $e \geq \wfpemin$.
\peLongDef{longDeERange}
This article is about rounding to nearest, as we now formalize.
\pbLongDefBT{longDefRound}{Rounding to nearest}
A function $\wflm: \wrone{} \rightarrow \wrone{}$ rounds to nearest
in the floating point system $\wfpf$ if $\wfl{z} \in \wfpf$ and
$\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \wabs{x - z}$ for $x \in \wfpf$ and $z \in \wrone{}$.
\peLongDef{longDefRound}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefTies}{Breaking ties}
When $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$,
we say that $\wflm$ breaks ties downward if,
for $x \in \wfpf$ and $z \in \wrone{}$,
$\wabs{x - z} = \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \Rightarrow x \geq \wfl{z}$.
Similarly, $\wflm$ breaks ties upward if
$\wabs{x - z} = \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \Rightarrow x \leq \wfl{z}$.
\peLongDef{longDefTies}
We now model the numerical sum $\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k}$ of $n+1$
real numbers. For technical reasons, it is important to allow for
the use of different rounding functions in the evaluation of the partial
sums $s_k = \wlr{\sum_{i = 0}^{k-1} y_i} + y_{k}$.
With this motivation, we state the last definitions in this section.
\pbLongDefBT{longDefTuple}{Rounding tuples}
A tuple of functions
$\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$
if its elements
round to nearest in $\wfpf$. In this case we say that $\wflmt$ is
a rounding $n$-tuple, $n$ is $\wflmt$'s dimension and $\wfpf$ is
$\wflmt$'s range.
\peLongDef{longDefTuple}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefProj}{Projection}
Let $\wcal{A}$ be a set and $\wcal{A}^n$ the Cartesian product
$\wcal{A} \times \dots \times \wcal{A}$ with $n$ factors.
For $k = 1,\dots,n$, we define $\wrm{P}_k: \wcal{A}^n \rightarrow \wcal{A}^k$ as
the projection on the first $k$ coordinates, that is
$\wfc{\wrm{P}_k}{x_1,\dots,x_n} := \wlr{x_1,\dots,x_k}$.
When $\wcal{A}$ is a vector space with zero element $\wvec{0}$, we define
$P_0: \wcal{A}^n \rightarrow \wset{\wvec{0}}$ as
$\wfc{\wrm{P}_0}{x_1,\dots,x_n} := \wvec{0}$.
\peLongDef{longDefProj}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefPSum}{Floating point sum}
Let $\wcal{R}$ be the set of all functions from $\wrone$ to $\wrone{}$,
and $f_0$ its zero element.
We define $S_0: \wset{0} \times \wset{f_0} \rightarrow \wrone{}$
as $\wfpsumkf{0}{0,f_0} := 0$.
For $n > 0$ we define $S_n: \wrn{n} \times \wcal{R}^n \rightarrow \wrone{}$
recursively as
$\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z}, \, \wflmt}
\, := \, \wflk{n}{\wfc{S_{n-1}}{\wrm{P}_{n-1} \wvec{z}, \wrm{P}_{n-1} \wflmt} + z_{n}}.
$
\peLongDef{longDefPSum}
As a convenient notation, given a rounding $n$-tuple $\wflmt$ we write
\[
\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} := \wfc{S_n}{\wlr{x_0 + x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4,\dots,x_n},\wflmt},
\]
and when $\wflmt = \wset{\wflm,\wflm,\dots,\wflm}$ has all its elements equal to $\wflm$ we write
\[
\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} := \wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k}.
\]
We ask the reader to forgive us for the inconsistency in these
expressions: neither $\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k}$ nor
$\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k}$ is the value of a
function $\wfc{\wflmt}{s}$ at $s = \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k$, but rather the
value obtained by rounding the partial sums using the elements of $\wflmt$.
Note also that $\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k}$ is defined in terms of $x_0 + x_1$, that is, the first
term in the sum is treated differently from the others. The same
detail is present in Equation \pRef{highamsDot}, in which
$x_1 y_1$ and $x_2 y_2$ are treat differently from the other terms.
We emphasize that we define ``the floating point sum of $n + 1$ real numbers'',
and not the ``the sum of $n+1$ floating point numbers.'' As a result,
our rounded sums apply to all real numbers, not only to the ones
in the system $\wfpf$, in the spirit of the first paragraph of this section.
Dot products are similar to sums:
\pbLongDefBT{longDefFpDot}{Dot product}
The dot product of the vectors $\wvec{x},\wvec{y} \in \wrn{n + 1}$
evaluated with the rounding tuples $\wflmt = \wset{\wflm_1,\dots,\wflm_n}$
and $\wrm{R} = \wset{\wrm{r}_0,\dots,\wrm{r}_n}$ is
\[
\wfc{\wrm{dot}_{\wflmt,\wrm{R}}}{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} :=
\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^n \wflrk{r}{k}{x_k y_k}}
\eqno \eod
\]
\peLongDefX{longDefFpDot}
We also analyze dot products evaluated with the
fused multiply add operations available in modern hardware and programming languages:
\pbLongDefBT{longDefFmaDot}{Fma dot product}
The fma dot product of the vectors $\wvec{x}, \wvec{y} \in \wrn{n+1}$
evaluated with the rounding tuple $\wflmt = \wset{\wflm_0,\dots,\wflm_n}$ is
\[
\wfc{\wrm{fma}_{\wflmt}}{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k y_k} :=
\wfpsumkf{n+1}{\wlr{x_0 y_0, x_1 y_1, x_2 y_2, \dots, x_n y_n},\wflmt}.
\eqno \eod
\]
\peLongDefX{longDefFmaDot}
\section{Sharp error bounds}
\label{secSharp}
This section presents sharper versions of the $(1 + \epsilon)$ argument. In summary,
we argue that when rounding to nearest
with unit roundoff $u$,
in many situations we can use
\pbTClaim{bestEps}
\epsilon = \frac{u}{1 + u}
\peTClaim{bestEps}
in the $(1 + \epsilon)$ argument, and this
value is better than $u$ or $u/(1 - u)$.
The section has four parts. The first part
describes the advantages of the $\epsilon$ in
Equation \pRef{bestEps} when dealing with
a few floating point operations. The next one
generalizes our results to sums of many numbers, by proving
the bound \pRef{sharpSumB}.
Section \ref{secCumSum} presents
bounds on the errors in sums which are expressed in
terms of $\sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k x_i}$.
Section \ref{secDot} is about dot products.
It shows that by working with real numbers from the start
it is easy to adapt results derived for sums in order
to obtain bounds for the errors in dot products.
\subsection{Basics}
\label{secBasics}
This section is about the $(1 + \epsilon)$ argument
for a few floating point operations.
When rounding a floating point number,
our first lemma states that the $\epsilon$ in Equation \pRef{bestEps} can
be used when the real number $z$ is in the normal range, ie.,
the absolute value of $z$ is greater than the number
$\wfpnu$ in Definition \ref{longDefNu}.
\pbLemmaBT{lemUNear}{A better epsilon}
If $\wrm{fl}$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$ and $\wabs{z} \geq \wfpnu_{\wfpf}$ then
\pbTClaim{rhoNear}
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \frac{\wabs{z} u}{1 + u}.
\peTClaim{rhoNear}
In particular, if $\wfpf$ is perfect then
Equation \pRef{rhoNear} holds for all $z \in \wrone{}$.
\peLemma{lemUNear}
Lemma \ref{lemUNear} is sharp in the sense that for any $\epsilon$ smaller than
$u/\wlr{1+u}$ there exists a real number $z$ near $1 + u$ for
which Equation \pRef{rhoNear} does not hold. It has been known for
a long time \cite{Knuth}, but it leads to bounds
slightly stronger than the ones in \cite{Higham} for instance, because
\[
\frac{u}{1 + u} < u < \frac{u}{1 - u}
\]
and when the result of the operation
$x \, \wrm{op} \, y \neq 0$ is in the normal range we have the bound
\pbDef{nearRound}
\frac{1}{1 + u} \leq
\frac{\wfl{x \, \wrm{op} \, y}}{x \, \wrm{op} \, y} \leq \frac{1 + 2 u}{1 + u},
\peDef{nearRound}
instead of the usual bound
\pbDef{usualRound}
1 - u \leq \frac{ \wfl{x \, \wrm{op} \, y}}{x \, \wrm{op} \, y} \leq \frac{1}{1 - u}.
\peDef{usualRound}
As a result, we could use the same argument as Higham to
conclude that in a perfect floating point system
\pbDef{sharpSum}
\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} = \wlr{x_0 + x_1} \xi_0^n + \sum_{i = 2}^n x_k \xi_k^{n - i + 1}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{0.5cm}
\frac{1}{1 + u} \leq \xi_k \leq \frac{1 + 2u}{1 + u}
\peDef{sharpSum}
and
\[
\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k y_k} = x_0 y_0 \xi_0^{n + 1} + \sum_{i = 1}^n x_k y_k \xi_k^{n - i + 2}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{0.5cm}
\frac{1}{1 + u} \leq \xi_k \leq \frac{1 + 2u}{1 + u}.
\]
The underlying reason as to why
\pbDef{concF}
\wfc{f}{u} := \frac{1 + 2 u}{1 + u}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{is \ a \ better \ upper\ bound \ than} \hspace{0.5cm}
\wfc{h}{u} := \frac{1}{1 - u}
\peDef{concF}
is the difference between concavity and convexity.
The function $\wfc{f_\tau}{x} := \wfc{f}{u}^{\tau}$ has second derivative
\[
\wdsf{f_\tau}{u} = \frac{\tau \wfc{f_{\tau-2}}{u}}{\wlr{1 + u}^4} \wlr{\tau - 3 - 4 u}
\]
and is concave for $\tau \leq 3 + 4 u$. On the other hand, $\wfc{h_{\tau}}{x} := \wfc{h}{u}^{\tau}$ has second
derivative
\[
\wdsf{h_{\tau}}{u} = \tau \wlr{\tau + 1} \wfc{h_{\tau-2}}{u}
\]
and is convex for all $\tau > 0$ and $0 < u < 1$. As a result, we can linearize
rigorously an upper bound based on $f_{\tau}$, with $0 \leq \tau \leq 3 + 4 u$,
whereas linearizing an upper bound based on $h_{\tau}$ is
correct only to leading order. For instance,
using the bound \pRef{nearRound} we can prove the next corollary,
and similar results combining multiplications and divisions,
but we could not prove such results based only on the usual bound \pRef{usualRound}.
\pbCorolBT{corFourProd}{Three products} Let $x,y,z$ and $w$ be real numbers. If
$\hat{p}_1 := \wfl{x * y}$,
$\hat{p}_2 := \wfl{\hat{p}_1 * z}$ and
$\hat{p}_3 := \wfl{\hat{p}_2 * w}$,
$p_i \neq 0$, and $\wabs{p_i}$ satisfy Equation \pRef{rhoNear} for
$k = 1$, $2$ and $3$ then
\[
1 - k u \leq \frac{\hat{p}_k}{p_k} \leq 1 + k u,
\]
for $p_1 := x * y$, $p_2 := x * y * z$ and $p_3 := x * y * z * w$.
\peFullCorol{corFourProd}
Lemma \ref{lemUNear} also yields a simple proof of a well known
result about square roots when $\beta = 2$ \cite{Cody,Kahan}, and solves
an open problem for arbitrary bases $\beta$ \cite{BoldoB}:
\pbCorolBT{corSqrt}{Square roots}
For the base $\beta = 2$, if $x \in \wfpf$ is such that $x^2 \geq \wfpnu$ and
$\wfl{x^2}$ and $\wfl{\sqrt{\wfl{x^2}}}$ are evaluated
rounding to nearest then $\wfl{\sqrt{\wfl{x^2}}} = \wabs{x}$.
Moreover,
\pbDef{thSqrt}
\wfl{ \frac{\wabs{x}}{ \wfl{\sqrt{\wfl{x^2}}} }} \leq 1
\peDef{thSqrt}
for a general base $\beta$, under the same hypothesis on $\wrm{fl}$ and $x$.
\peCorol{corSqrt}
The next two lemmas show that there are other conditions
besides $\wabs{z} \geq \wfpnu$ in which we can use
the bound in Equation \pRef{rhoNear}:
\pbLemmaBT{lemSmallSum}{Exact sums}
If $x, y \in \wfpf$ are such that $\wfpa \leq \wabs{x + y} \leq \beta \wfpnu$ then
$z := x + y \in \wfpf$, that is, the sum $x + y$ is exact.
In particular, $z$ satisfies Equation \pRef{rhoNear}.
\peLemma{lemSmallSum}
\pbLemmaBT{lemIEEESum}{IEEE sums}
Let $\wfpsi$ be an IEEE system
and $x,y \in \wfpsi$. If $0 < \wabs{x + y} \leq \beta \nu$
then $\wabs{x + y} \geq \wfpa$,
and $z := x + y \in \wfpsi$ and satisfies Equation \pRef{rhoNear}.
\peLemma{lemIEEESum}
The last two lemmas combined with Lemma \ref{lemUNear} imply that
we can use the bound \pRef{rhoNear} for every real number $z$ which
is the sum of two floating point numbers in an IEEE system.
This is yet another instance in which subnormal numbers lead to
simpler results, and corroborates Demmel's arguments \cite{DemmelA,DemmelB}
and the soundness of the decision to include subnormal numbers
in the IEEE standard for floating point arithmetic \cite{IEEE}.
Another instance is the fundamental Sterbenz's Lemma, which
must be modified by the inclusion of the term $\wfpa$ in
its hypothesis in order to hold for MPFR systems:
\pbLemmaBT{lemSterbenz}{Sterbenz's Lemma}
If $a,b \in \wfpf$ and $\wfpa \leq b - a \leq a$ then
$b - a \in \wfpf$.
\peFullLemma{lemSterbenz}
\subsection{Norm one bounds}
\label{secOneNorm}
This subsection extends Lemma \ref{lemUNear} to sums with many parcels.
Our results are described by the next lemma and its corollaries.
In particular, we show that underflow does not affect
sums of positive numbers. Therefore,
there is no need for terms involving the smallest positive
floating point number when bounding the errors in such sums.
\pbLemmaBT{lemNormOneBound}{Norm one bound}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in a perfect system,
$20 n u \leq 1$ and $y_0,\dots y_n \in \wrone{}$ then
\pbTClaim{normOneBound}
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
} \leq
\frac{n u}{1 + n u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{y_k}.
\peTClaim{normOneBound}
\peLemma{lemNormOneBound}
\pbCorolBT{corNormOneIEEE}{IEEE norm one bound}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in an IEEE system $\wfpsi$,
$20 n u \leq 1$ and $y_0,\dots, y_n \in \wfpsi$
then Equation \pRef{normOneBound} is satisfied.
\peFullCorol{corNormOneIEEE}
\pbCorolBT{corNormOneMPFR}{MPFR norm one bound}
If $\wflmt$
rounds to nearest in a MPFR system $\wfpsm$,
$20 n u \leq 1$, $\wvec{y} \in \wfpsm^{n+1}$
and $y_k \geq 0$ for all $k$
then Equation \pRef{normOneBound} holds.
\peFullCorol{corNormOneMPFR}
\pbCorolBT{corNormOneUnperfect}{Unperfect norm one bound}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in an unperfect system,
$y_0,\dots,y_n \in \wrone{}$ and $20 n u \leq 1$ then
\pbTClaim{thSharpSumUnperfect}
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
} \leq
\frac{n \alpha}{2} + \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \wlr{\frac{n \wfpa}{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{y_k}}.
\peTClaim{thSharpSumUnperfect}
If, additionally, $u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{y_k} \geq \wfpa$
then Equation \pRef{normOneBound} is satisfied.
\peCorol{corNormOneUnperfect}
Note that Corollaries \ref{corNormOneIEEE} and \ref{corNormOneMPFR} have
different hypothesis regarding the floating point numbers $y_0,\dots,y_n$:
in the IEEE case, in which we have subnormal numbers, Equation \pRef{normOneBound}
holds for all such $y_k$. In the MPFR case, due to the absence of subnormal numbers,
we must assume that $y_k \geq 0$, for
Equation \pRef{normOneBound} does not hold for instance when $\beta = 2$, $x_0 = 3 \wfpa/2$,
$x_1 = -\wfpa$, $n = 1$ and we break ties upward.
Note also that the number $\wfpa$ in Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfect}
for an IEEE system is much smaller than the
$\wfpa$ for the corresponding MPFR system.
The next example shows that the bound \pRef{normOneBound} is sharp:
\pbExampleBT{exSharpSum}{The norm one bound is sharp}
If $\wrm{fl}$ rounds to nearest in the perfect system $\wfpsc_{2,\mu}$,
breaking ties downward, and $x_0 := 1$ and $x_k := u$ for $k = 1, \dots,n$ then
\[
\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} = 1 = \sum_{k=0}^n x_k - n u =
\sum_{k=0}^n x_k - \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k.
\]
If $\wrm{fl}$ breaks ties upward for the same $x_k$ and $2 n u < 1$ then
\[
\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} = 1 + 2 n u = \sum_{k=0}^n x_k + n u = \sum_{k=0}^n x_k
+ \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k.
\eqno \eod
\]
\pePlainExampleX{exSharpSum}
As in Lemma \ref{lemUNear}, the bound
\pRef{normOneBound} has concavity properties which
allow us to linearize rigorously bounds resulting from
a couple of its applications:
\pbLemmaBT{lemConvexity}{Convexity} For $k \in \wn{}$ and $i = 1,\dots,k$, let $n_i$ be a
positive number and define functions $f_k, g_k: (0,\infty) \rightarrow \wrone{}$ by
\[
\wfc{f_k}{u} =
\prod_{i = 1}^k \frac{1 + 2 n_i u}{1 + n_i u}
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
\wfc{g_k}{u} =
\prod_{i = 1}^k \frac{1}{1 + n_i u}.
\]
The functions $f_k$ are strictly concave for $k = 1$, $2$ and $3$
and the functions $g_k$ are convex for all $k$.
In particular, for $k \leq 3$,
\[
1 - \wlr{\sum_{i = 1}^k n_i} u \leq \wfc{g_k}{u} \leq \wfc{f_k}{u} \leq 1 + \wlr{\sum_{i = 1}^k n_i} u.
\pFullLink{lemConvexity}
\]
\peLemmaX{lemConvexity}
As a final point for this section, we note that Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound} implies that
\pbTClaim{sharpSumNearMax}
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k =0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
} \leq
\frac{n \wlr{n + 1} u}{1 + n u} \max_{k = 0,\dots,n} \wabs{y_k},
\peTClaim{sharpSumNearMax}
and it is natural to ask whether the quadratic term in $n$
in the right hand side of Equation \pRef{sharpSumNearMax} is necessary. The next
example shows that bounds in terms of $\max \wabs{y_k}$ do need
a quadratic term in $n$ (or large constant factors):
\pbExampleBT{exQuadGrowth}{Quadratic growth}
If $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in the perfect system $\wfpsc_{2,\mu}$,
breaking ties downward,
$y_0 := 1 + u$ and $y_k := 1 + 2^{\wfloor{\wfc{\log_2}{k + 1}}} u$
for $k = 1,\dots, n := 2^m - 1$, where $m \in \wn{}$ is such that $2^m u < 1$,
then
\[
\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} = \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k - \frac{n^2 + 2 n + 3}{3} u \leq
\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k - \frac{n^2 + 2 n + 3}{6} u \max_{k = 0,\dots, n} \wabs{y_k}.
\pFullLink{exQuadGrowth}
\]
\peExampleX{exQuadGrowth}
\subsection{Cumulative bounds}
\label{secCumSum}
Although Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound} leads to the simple bound
\pRef{sharpSumS} on the error in the evaluation of sums,
it is not as good from the qualitative
view as the result one would obtain from the version
of Higham's Equation 3.4 for sums, or from our Equation \pRef{highamsDot}.
We believe that Higham and Wilkinson would write this equation as
\pbDef{wilkSum}
\wfl{\sum_{k = 1}^n x_k} = \wlr{x_1 + x_2} \wlr{1 + \theta_{n-1}} + x_3 \wlr{1 + \theta_{n-2}}
+ \dots + x_n \wlr{1 + \theta_1}.
\peDef{wilkSum}
for $\theta_n$ in Equation \pRef{highamsTheta}.
In fact, Wilkinson presents an expression similar to Equation \pRef{wilkSum}
for sums using a double precision accumulator in page 117 of \cite{WilkinsonB}.
Equation \pRef{wilkSum} gives a better intuition regarding the effects of rounding
errors in the corresponding sum than the bound
in Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound}. Therefore, it is natural to look for bounds that
take into account the stronger relative influence of the first
parcels in Equation \pRef{wilkSum}.
The next examples are relevant in this context.
\pbExampleBT{exSharpSumNearB}{Minimum cumulative bound}
If $\wrm{fl}$ rounds to nearest in the perfect system $\wfpsc_{2,\mu}$,
breaking ties downward,
and $x_k := u^{-k}$ for $k = 1,\dots,n$ then
\[
\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} = u^{-n} = \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k - \kappa_n u \sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k x_i
\]
for
\[
1 - u < \kappa_n
:= \frac{\wlr{1 - u}\wlr{{1 - u^{n}}}}{1 - u^{n} - n u^{n+1} \wlr{1 - u}}
< \wlr{1 - u} \wlr{1 + u^n} < 1.
\pFullLink{exSharpSumNearB}
\]
\peExampleX{exSharpSumNearB}
\pbExampleBT{exSharpSumNearC}{Maximum cumulative bound}
If $\wrm{fl}$ rounds to nearest in the perfect system $\wfpsc_{\beta,\mu}$,
breaking ties upward,
$1 = e_1 < e_2 \dots < e_n$ are integer exponents,
$x_0 := u$, $x_1 := 1$,
and $x_k := \beta^{e_k} \wlr{1 + u} - \beta^{e_{k-1}} \wlr{1 + 2 u}$
for $k = 2,\dots, n$ then
\pbDef{ssBnC}
\wfl{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} \leq
\sum_{i = 0}^n x_i + \tau_n u \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k x_k,
\peDef{ssBnC}
for
\[
\tau_n := \frac{1}{1 + u \wlr{\frac{\beta - 2}{\beta - 1} + \frac{n}{\beta^{n} - 1}}}.
\]
Additionally, if $e_k = k - 1$ for $k \geq 1$ then
we have equality in Equation \pRef{ssBnC}.
\peFullExample{exSharpSumNearC}
These examples indicate that there is an asymmetry between the upper and lower
bounds on the errors $\delta := \wfl{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} - \sum_{i = 0}^n x_i$
in terms of $\sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k x_k$:
The constants $\kappa_n$ in Example \ref{exSharpSumNearB} and $\tau_n$ in Example \ref{exSharpSumNearC} are
equal to $1/\wlr{1 + u}$ for $n = 1$ but as $n$ increases,
$\kappa_n$ decreases toward $1 - u$ whereas $\tau_n$ increases toward $1$.
Therefore, the worst lower and upper values for
$\delta$ are reached in different
situations, and are due to distinct causes.
In fact, the lower bound for $\delta$ in the next Lemma
is a straightforward consequence of the convexity of the functions
$\wlr{1 + u}^{-k}$ and Equation
\pRef{sharpSum}, whereas the upper bound is a non
trivial consequence of the concavity of $\wlr{1 + 2u}/\wlr{1 + u}$.
\pbLemmaBT{lemPositiveBound}{Positive cumulative bound}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in a perfect system,
$y_0,y_1,\dots y_n \in \wrone{}$, with $y_k\geq 0$ for $k = 0,\dots,n$,
and $20 n u \leq 1$ then
\pbTClaim{thPositiveBound}
- \frac{u}{1 + u} \sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k y_k
\leq
\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^n y_k}
- \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
\leq \tau_n u \sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k y_k,
\peTClaim{thPositiveBound}
for $\tau_n$ in Example \ref{exSharpSumNearC}.
\peLemma{lemPositiveBound}
\pbCorolBT{corPositiveUnperfect}{Unperfect cumulative bound}
If $\wflmt$ rounds to nearest in an unperfect system $\wfpf$,
$20 n u \leq 1$, $\wvec{y} \in \wfpf^{n+1}$ and
$y_k \geq 0$, then Equation \pRef{thPositiveBound} holds.
\peCorol{corPositiveUnperfect}
The next example shows that Lemma
\ref{lemPositiveBound} does not apply to sums of numbers with mixed signs,
and Lemma \ref{lemSignedSum} and its corollary show that the example
is nearly worst possible.
\pbExampleBT{exSignedSumB}{Mixed signs}
If $\wrm{fl}$ rounds to nearest in a
perfect system $\wfpsc_{2,\mu}$,
breaking ties upward,
$x_0 := u$, $x_1 := 1$,
$x_k := - 2^{1 - k} \wlr{1 + 3 u}$ for $k > 1$
and $2^n u \leq 1$ then
\pbDef{thXSSA}
\wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k = 2 \wlr{1 - 2^{- n}} u =
\frac{\kappa_n u}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k x_i},
\peDef{thXSSA}
for
\[
1 - u \leq \kappa_n :=
\frac{\wlr{1 - 2^{-n}}\wlr{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u}}{\wlr{1 - 2^{-n}} \wlr{1 + 3u} - n u} \leq 1.
\pFullLink{exSignedSumB}
\]
\peExampleX{exSignedSumB}
\pbLemmaBT{lemSignedSum}{Signed cumulative bound}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in a perfect system,
$y_0,y_1,\dots y_n \in \wrone{}$ and $20 n u < 1$ then
\pbTClaim{thSignedSum}
\wabs{ \,
\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^n y_k}
- \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
} \leq
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n-2}u} \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i}.
\peTClaim{thSignedSum}
\peLemma{lemSignedSum}
\pbCorolBT{corSignedSum}{Unperfect signed cumulative bound}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in an unperfect system,
$y_0,y_1,\dots y_n \in \wrone{}$ and $20 n u \leq 1$ then
\pbTClaim{thCorSignedSum}
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
} \leq
\wlr{1 + 2 n u} \frac{n \alpha}{2} +
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i},
\peTClaim{thCorSignedSum}
If, additionally, $u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i} \geq n \alpha$
then
\pbTClaim{thCorSignedSumL}
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
} \leq
\frac{3}{2}\wlr{1 + \frac{n u}{2}} u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i}.
\peTClaim{thCorSignedSumL}
\peCorol{corSignedSum}
\subsection{Dot products}
\label{secDot}
This section presents bounds on the errors in the numerical evaluation of dot products.
These bounds are derived from the ones for sums
presented in Section \ref{secOneNorm}. This derivation is possible
because some of our previous bounds apply to general real numbers,
and a numerical dot product is simply a numerical sum of real numbers,
which may or may not be floating point numbers. If our analysis of
sums were restricted to floating point numbers then the extensions
presented here would be harder to derive. For example, the
next corollaries follow directly from Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound}
and the Definition \ref{longDefFmaDot} of numerical dot products
using fused multiply adds (these corollaries are proved in the extended
version of the article):
\pbCorolBT{corFmaPerfect}{Dot prod. with fma}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{0},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
rounds to nearest in a perfect system,
$20 n u \leq 1$ and $\wvec{x},\wvec{y} \in \wrn{n+1}$ then
\pbTClaim{thSharpFmaDotNear}
\wabs{
\, \wf{\wrm{fma}_{\wflmt}}{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k
\,
} \leq
\frac{\wlr{n + 1} u}{1 + \wlr{n + 1} u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}.
\peTClaim{thSharpFmaDotNear}
\peFullCorol{corFmaPerfect}
\pbCorolBT{corFmaUnperfect}{Unperfect Dot prod. with fma}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{0},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$ rounds to nearest in an unperfect system,
$20 n u \leq 1$ and $\wvec{x},\wvec{y} \in \wrn{n+1}$ then
\[
\wabs{
\, \wf{\wrm{fma}_{\wflmt}}{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k
\,
} \leq
\wlr{n + 1} \frac{\alpha}{2}
\]
\pbTClaim{thFmaUnperfect}
+ \frac{\wlr{n + 1} u}{1 + \wlr{n + 1} u} \wlr{\frac{\wlr{n + 1} \wfpa}{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}}.
\peTClaim{thFmaUnperfect}
If, additionally, $ u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} \geq \wfpa$
then Equation \pRef{thSharpFmaDotNear} holds.
\peFullCorol{corFmaUnperfect}
When we evaluate dot products rounding each product $x_k y_k$, the
bounds are slightly worse, but can still be obtained
with the theory in Section \ref{secOneNorm}:
\pbCorolBT{corDotPerfect}{Dot prod.}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
and $\wrm{R} = \wset{\wrm{r}_0,\dots,\wrm{r}_n}$
round to nearest in a perfect system,
$20 n u \leq 1$ and $\wvec{x},\wvec{y} \in \wrn{n+1}$ then
\pbTClaim{thSharpDotNear}
\wabs{
\, \wfc{\wrm{dot}_{\wflmt,\wrm{R}}}{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k
\,
} \leq \beta_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} \leq \wlr{n + 1} u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k},
\peTClaim{thSharpDotNear}
where
\[
\beta_n := \frac{n + 1 + 3 n u}{1 + \wlr{n + 1} u + n u^2} \leq \frac{n + 1}{1 + n u/2}
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
\beta_n \leq \frac{n + 1}{1 + \wlr{n - 3} u}.
\pFullLink{corDotPerfect}
\]
\peCorolX{corDotPerfect}
\pbCorolBT{corDotIEEE}{IEEE dot prod.}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
and $\wrm{R} = \wset{\wrm{r}_0,\dots,\wrm{r}_n}$
round to nearest in an IEEE system,
$20 n u \leq 1$ and $\wvec{x},\wvec{z} \in \wrn{n+1}$ then
\pbTClaim{thSharpDotNearIEEEB}
\wabs{
\, \wfc{\wrm{dot}_{\wflmt,\wrm{R}}}{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k
\,
} \leq
1.05 \wlr{n + 1} \frac{\wfpa}{2} + \beta_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k},
\peTClaim{thSharpDotNearIEEEB}
for $\beta_n$ in Corollary \ref{corDotPerfect}.
If, additionally, $u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} \geq \wfpa$
then
\[
\wabs{\, \wfc{\wrm{dot}_{\wflmt,\wrm{R}}}{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k
\,
}
\leq \frac{3}{2} \wlr{n + 1} u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}.
\pFullLink{corDotIEEE}
\]
\peCorolX{corDotIEEE}
\pbCorolBT{corDotMPFR}{MPFR dot prod.}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$
and $\wrm{R} = \wset{\wrm{r}_0,\dots,\wrm{r}_n}$
round to nearest in a MPFR system,
$20 n u \leq 1$ and
$\wvec{x},\wvec{z} \in \wrn{n+1}$ then
\pbTClaim{thSharpDotNearMPFRB}
\wabs{
\, \wfc{\wrm{dot}_{\wflmt,\wrm{R}}}{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k
\,
} \leq
\frac{\wlr{2.05 n + 1.05}\wfpa}{2} + \beta_n \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k},
\peTClaim{thSharpDotNearMPFRB}
for $\beta_n$ in Corollary \ref{corDotPerfect}.
If, additionally, $u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} \geq \wfpa$
then the last equation in Corollary \ref{corDotIEEE} is satisfied.
\peFullCorol{corDotMPFR}
Finally, in all bounds above we can use the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality
and replace the terms $\sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}$ by
$\wvnorm{x}{}_2 \wvnorm{y}{}_2$.
With this replacement, we can compare our bounds to the ones in
\cite{DemmelA} and \cite{Neumaier}.
\section{Proofs}
\label{secProofs}
This section we prove our main results.
Section \ref{secAuxDefs} contains more definitions
and Section \ref{secAuxLemmas} presents more lemmas.
In Section \ref{secProp} we state basic results
about floating point systems and rounding to nearest. We call such results
by ``Propositions,'' because they are obvious and readers should
be able to deduce them with little effort.
Section \ref{secLemmas} begins with the proofs of the main lemmas,
and after that we prove some of the corollaries.
The extended version of the article contains the
proofs of the remaining lemmas and corollaries and the propositions,
and the verification of the examples.
\subsection{More definitions}
\label{secAuxDefs}
The proofs of our bounds on the errors in sums use the following definitions:
\pbLongDefBT{longDefTightFunction}{Tight function}
Let $\wcal{A}$ and $\wcal{B}$ be topological spaces and $\wcal{R}$ a set.
A function $f: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wcal{B}$ is
tight if for every sequence
$\wset{\wlr{a_k,r_k}, k \in \wn{}} \subset \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R}$ such that
$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} a_k$
there exists $r \in \wcal{R}$
and a subsequence $\wset{\wlr{a_{n_k},r_{n_k}}, k \in \wn{}}$
with
$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{f}{a_{n_k},r_{n_k}} = \wfc{f}{a,r}$.
\peLongDef{longDefTightFunction}
\pbLongDefBT{longDefTightSet}{Tight set of functions}
Let $\wcal{A}$ and $\wcal{B}$ be topological spaces and let
$\wcal{R}$ be a set of functions from $\wcal{A}$ to $\wcal{B}$.
We say that $\wcal{R}$ is tight if the function
$f: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wcal{B}$ given
by $\wfc{f}{a,r} := \wfc{r}{a}$ is tight.
\peLongDef{longDefTightSet}
\subsection{More lemmas}
\label{secAuxLemmas}
\pbLemmaBT{lemUNearS}{Sharp epsilons}
Suppose $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$ and $e$ is an exponent for $\wfpf$.
If $\wabs{z} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}$ with
$w \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\mu}]$ then
\pbTClaim{rHat}
\wfl{z} = \wsign{z} \beta^{e}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}
\hspace{0.3cm}
\wrm{for} \hspace{0.3cm} \ r \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}] \cap \wz{}
\hspace{0.3cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.3cm}
\wabs{r - w} \leq 1/2.
\peTClaim{rHat}
Moreover,
\pbTClaim{uNearSA}
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{z}} \leq \frac{u}{1 + \max \wset{1, 2 w} u} \leq \frac{u}{1 + u}
\peTClaim{uNearSA}
and
\[
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{z}} \leq \frac{u}{1 + \wlr{2 r - 1} u}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{\wfl{z}}} \leq \frac{u}{1 + 2 r u}.
\pLink{lemUNearS}
\]
\peLemmaX{lemUNearS}
\pbLemmaBT{lemOpt}{Compactness}
Let $\wcal{R}$ be a set, $\wcal{L} \subset \wrone{} \setminus \wset{0}$,
$\wcal{A},\wcal{B} \subset \wrn{n}$, $\wcal{X} \subset \wrn{m}$ and
$\wcal{K} \subset \wcal{A}$.
Define $\wcal{Z} := \wcal{A} \cup \wcal{B}$.
If the functions
$f: \wcal{Z} \times \wcal{X} \rightarrow \wrone{}$,
$h: \wcal{Z} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wcal{X}$,
and $\wfc{g}{\wvec{z},r} := \wfc{f}{\wvec{z}, \wfc{h}{\wvec{z},r}}$
and $\varphi \in \wrone{}$ are such that
\begin{itemize}
\item $\wcal{K}$ is compact and for $\wvec{z} \in \wcal{A}$ there exist $\lambda \in \wcal{L}$
such that $\lambda \wvec{z} \in \wcal{K}$.
\item If $\lambda \in \wcal{L}$, $\wvec{z} \in \wcal{A}$, $\lambda \wvec{z} \in \wcal{K}$ and
$r \in \wcal{R}$ then $\wfc{h}{\lambda \wvec{z},r'} = \lambda \wfc{h}{\wvec{z},r}$
for some $r' \in \wcal{R}$.
\item $f$ is upper semi-continuous and $\wfc{f}{\lambda \wvec{z}, \lambda \wvec{x}} \geq \wfc{f}{\wvec{z},\wvec{x}}$
for $\wvec{z} \in \wcal{A}$ and $\lambda \in \wcal{L}$.
\item $h$ is tight, in the sense of Definition \ref{longDefTightFunction}.
\item $\wfc{g}{\wvec{z},r} \leq \varphi$ for $\wlr{\wvec{z},r} \in \wcal{B} \times \wcal{R}$.
\end{itemize}
then either $\wfc{g}{\wvec{z},r} \leq \varphi$ for all
$\wlr{\wvec{z},r} \in \wcal{Z} \times \wcal{R}$
or there exist $\wlr{\wvec{z}^*,r^*} \in \wcal{K} \times \wcal{R}$ such that
$\wfc{g}{\wvec{z}^*,r^*} \geq \wfc{g}{\wvec{z},r}$ for all $\wlr{\wvec{z},r} \in \wcal{Z} \times \wcal{R}$.
\peLemma{lemOpt}
Lemma \ref{lemOpt} is a compactness argument. Its purpose
is to show that either there exists examples for which the
relative effects of rounding errors
are the worst possible or these errors are small.
It is necessary because floating point systems are
infinite and we cannot take this existence for granted.
The intuition behind Lemma \ref{lemOpt} is simple.
The vector $\wvec{z}$ represents the input to
computation. The vector $\wfc{h}{\wvec{z},r}$ is obtained
by rounding functions of $\wvec{z}$ using the rounding functions
$r \in \wcal{R}$. The bad set $\wcal{B}$ represents situations like underflow or very poor scaling,
and its elements are handled separately.
For $\wvec{z}$ outside of the bad set, we can use scaling
by powers of $\beta$ (represented by $\lambda \in \wcal{L}$)
to reduce the analysis of $\wfc{f}{\wvec{z},\wvec{x}}$ to
real numbers $\wvec{z}$ in the compact set $\wcal{K}$. We can then deal
with the discontinuity in rounding by analyzing
all functions which round to nearest
(represented by $\wcal{R}$) instead of a single function. In the end,
as in the applications of the classic Banach-Alaoglu Theorem,
by using compactness and continuity in their full generality,
we can analyze the existence of maximizers for the relative effects of
rounding errors. We can then exploit the implications of maximality in order
to describe precisely such maximizers.
\subsection{Propositions}
\label{secProp}
In this section we present auxiliary results about floating point systems.
We believe readers will find most of them to be trivial,
and they are presented only to make our arguments more precise.
In all propositions $\beta$ is a base, $\mu$ is a positive integer,
$\wfpf$ is a floating point system associated to $\beta$ and $\mu$,
$z \in \wrone{}$, $x \in \wfpf$,
and $u$, $\wfpemin{}$, $\wfpa$ and $\wfpnu$ are the numbers
related to this system in Definitions \ref{longDefEps},
\ref{longDefPerfect}, \ref{longDefMPFR}, \ref{longDefIEEE},
\ref{longDefAlpha} and \ref{longDefNu}, Finally
the function $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$.
\pbPropBT{propOrder}{Order by the exponent}
Let $d$ and $e$ be integers and $v,w \in \wrone{}$,
with $v < \wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\wfpmu}$ and $w \geq 0$.
If $d < e$ then $\beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + v} < \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + w}$.
\peFullProp{propOrder}
\pbPropBT{propNormalForm}{Normal form}
If $z \in \wrone{}$ is different from zero then there exist
unique $e \in \wz{}$ and $w \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\wfpmu})$
such that $z = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + w}$.
\peFullProp{propNormalForm}
\pbPropBT{propIntegerForm}{Integer form}
If $\wfpf$ is unperfect and $x \in \wfpf$ then
there exists $e,r \in \wz{}$ with $e \geq \wfpemin$
such that $x = \beta^e r$ and
\begin{itemize}
\item $r = 0$ if and only if $x = 0$.
\item $0 < \wabs{r} < \beta^{\mu}$ if and only if $x$ is subnormal
and $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system.
\item $\beta^{\mu} \leq \wabs{r} < \beta^{1 + \mu}$ if and only if $\wabs{x} \in \wfpbin_e$.
\end{itemize}
\peFullProp{propIntegerForm}
\pbPropBT{propSymmetry}{Symmetry}
$\wfpf$ is symmetric, that is, $x \in \wfpf \Leftrightarrow -x \in \wfpf \Leftrightarrow \wabs{x} \in \wfpf$.
\peFullProp{propSymmetry}
\pbPropBT{propNu}{The minimality of nu}
Let $x$ be a floating point number.
If $\wabs{x} \geq \nu$ and $x \neq 0$ then $x$ is normal, that is, there exists
an exponent $e$ for $\wfpf$ such that $\wabs{x} \in \wfpbin_{e}$.
If $0 < \wabs{x} < \nu$ then $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin}$ and $x$ is subnormal,
that is, $\wabs{x} \in \wfps_{\wfpemin}$.
Conversely, if $e,r \in \wz{}$ and $z = \beta^{e} r$ with
$\wabs{r} \leq \beta^{1 + \mu}$ and $\wabs{z} \geq \wfpnu$ then $z \in \wfpf$.
\peFullProp{propNu}
\pbPropBT{propSubnormalSum}{Subnormal sum}
Let $\wfpsi$ be an IEEE system.
If $x,y \in \wfpsi$ are subnormal then $x + y \in \wfpsi$.
\peFullProp{propSubnormalSum}
\pbPropBT{propCriticalSum}{Critical sum}
If $e$ is an exponent for $\wfpf$ and
$x \in \wfpf$ and $z \in \wrone{}$ are such that
$\wabs{x + z} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r + 1/2}$ with
$r \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$
then $\wabs{z} \geq \beta^{e}/2$.
\peFullProp{propCriticalSum}
\pbPropBT{propRoundIdentity}{Identity}
If $x \in \wfpf$ then $\wfl{x} = x$.
\peFullProp{propRoundIdentity}
\pbPropBT{propRoundMonotone}{Monotonicity}
If $z \leq w$ then $\wfl{z} \leq \wfl{w}$, and if $x \in \wfpf$ then
\begin{itemize}
\item $x > \wfl{z} \Rightarrow x > z$,
\item $x < \wfl{z} \Rightarrow x < z$,
\item $\wabs{x} > \wabs{\wfl{z}} \Rightarrow \wabs{x} > \wabs{z}$,
\item $\wabs{x} < \wabs{\wfl{z}} \Rightarrow \wabs{x} < \wabs{z}$.
\end{itemize}
\peFullProp{propRoundMonotone}
\pbPropBT{propRoundMinus}{Symmetric rounding}
$\wflr{m}{z} := - \wfl{-z}$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$.
\peFullProp{propRoundMinus}
\pbPropBT{propRoundNormal}{Normal rounding}
Let $e$ be an exponent for $\wfpf$. If $\wabs{z} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + w}$,
with $w \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\wfpmu})$, then $\wfl{z} \in \wset{a,b}$ for
\[
a := \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + \wfloor{w}} \in \wfpf
\hspace{0.7cm}
\wrm{and}
\hspace{0.7cm}
b := \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + \wceil{w}} \in \wfpf,
\]
and
\pbDef{thRoundNormal}
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} = \min \wset{\wabs{z - a}, \, \wabs{z - b}} \leq \frac{\wabs{b - a}}{2} \leq \beta^e/2.
\peDef{thRoundNormal}
If $z < m := \wlr{a + b}/2$ then
$\wfl{z} = \min \wset{a,b}$, and if $z > m$ then $\wfl{z} = \max \wset{a,b}$.
In particular, if $r \in \wz{}$ and $\wabs{r - w} < 1/2$ then
$\wfl{z} = \wsign{z} \beta^e \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}$.
\peFullProp{propRoundNormal}
\pbPropBT{propRoundSubnormal}{Subnormal rounding}
Let $\wfpsi = \wfpsi_{\wfpemin}$ be an IEEE system.
If $\wabs{z} \leq \nu$ then $\wfl{z} \in \wset{a,b}$ for
\[
a := \beta^{\wfpemin} \wfloor{\beta^{-\wfpemin} z} \in \wfpsi
\hspace{0.7cm}
\wrm{and}
\hspace{0.7cm}
b := \beta^{\wfpemin} \wceil{ \beta^{-\wfpemin} z} \in \wfpsi
\]
and
\[
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} = \min \wset{z - a, b - z} \leq \frac{b - a}{2} \leq \wfpa/2.
\]
If $z < m:= \wlr{a + b}/2$ then
$\wfl{z} = a$, and if $z > m$ then $\wfl{z} = b$.
If $r \in [-\beta^{\mu}, \beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$ then $\wfl{z} = \beta^{\wfpemin}{r}$
for $\beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{r - 1/2} < z < \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{r + 1/2}$ and
$\wfl{\beta^{\wfpemin}\wlr{ r + 1/2}} \in \wset{ \beta^{\wfpemin} r, \beta^{\wfpemin}\wlr{r+1}}$.
\peFullProp{propRoundSubnormal}
\pbPropBT{propRoundBelowAlpha}{Rounding below alpha}
If $\wabs{z} < \wfpa/2$ then $\wfl{z} = 0$.
If $\wabs{z} = \wfpa/2$ then $\wfl{z} \in \wset{0, \wsign{z} \wfpa}$
and if $\wfpa/2 < \wabs{z} \leq \wfpa$ then $\wfl{z} = \wsign{z} \wfpa$.
In particular, if $\wabs{z} \leq \wfpa$ then $\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \wfpa / 2$.
\peFullProp{propRoundBelowAlpha}
\pbPropBT{propRoundAdapt}{Perfect adapter}
Let $\wfpsc_{\beta,\mu}$ be a perfect system and
$\wfpf_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$ an unperfect one.
If $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$ then
there exists $\wflmx$ which rounds to nearest in $\wfpsc$
and is such that $\wflx{z} = \wfl{z}$ for
$z$ with $\wabs{z} \geq \nu_{\wfpf}$.
\peFullProp{propRoundAdapt}
\pbPropBT{propRoundIEEEX}{IEEE adapter}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$ rounds to nearest in
the IEEE system $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$ and $\wfpsc_{\beta,\mu}$ is a perfect system
then there exists $\wflmtx = \wset{\wflmxk{1},\dots,\wflmxk{n}}$
which rounds to nearest in $\wfpsc$ and is such that
$\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} = \wflmtxf{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k}$ for
all $\wvec{x} \in \wfpsi^{n+1}$. In particular, $\wfltx{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} \in \wfpsi$.
\peFullProp{propRoundIEEEX}
\pbPropBT{propRoundMPFRX}{MPFR adapter}
If $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$ rounds to nearest in
the MPFR system $\wfpsm_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$ and $\wfpsc_{\beta,\mu}$ is a perfect system
then there exists $\wflmtx = \wset{\wflmxk{1},\dots,\wflmxk{n}}$
which rounds to nearest in $\wfpsc$ and is such that
$\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k} = \wflmtxf{\sum_{k=0}^n x_k}$ for
$\wvec{x} \in \wfpsm^{n+1}$ with $\wflt{\sum_{i = 0}^{k-1} x_i} + x_k \geq 0$ for $k = 0,\dots,n$.
\peFullProp{propRoundMPFRX}
\pbPropBT{propFlat}{Flatness}
Let $e$ be an exponent for $\wfpf$ and $z$ with $\wabs{z} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}$
for $w \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu})$. On the one hand, if
$w = \wfloor{w} + 1/2$ then
\[
\wabs{w - y} < \beta^{e}/2 \ \Rightarrow \ \wfl{y}
\in \wset{ \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wfloor{w}}, \,
\wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wceil{w}}}.
\]
On the other hand, if $w - \wfloor{w} \neq 1/2$
then there exists $\delta > 0$ such that if
$\wflmk{1}$ and $\wflmk{2}$ round to nearest in $\wfpf$
and $\wabs{y - z} < \delta$ then $\wflk{1}{y} = \wflk{2}{z}$.
\peFullProp{propFlat}
\pbPropBT{propSumScale}{Scaled sums}
Suppose $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$ rounds
to nearest in a perfect system $\wfpsc$ and $\wfpsumk{k}$ is the sum in Definition \ref{longDefPSum}.
If $\wvec{z} \in \wrn{n}$, $\sigma \in \wset{-1,1}$ and $m \in \wz{}$ then there exist
$\wflmtx = \wset{\wflmxk{1},\dots,\wflmxk{n}}$ which round
to nearest in $\wfpsc$ such that
$\wfpsumkf{k}{\sigma \beta^m \, \wvec{z}, \, \wflmt} \, =
\, \sigma \beta^m \, \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}, \, \wflmtx}$
for $k = 1,\dots,n$.
\peFullProp{propSumScale}
\pbPropBT{propWholeIsTight}{Whole is tight}
The set of all functions which round to nearest in $\wfpf$ is tight.
\peFullProp{propWholeIsTight}
\pbPropBT{propSumsAreTight}{Sums are tight}
Let $\wcal{R}$ be a tight set of functions
which round to nearest in $\wfpf$ and $\wfpsumk{k}$ the sum in Definition \ref{longDefPSum}.
The function $T_n: \wrone{}^{n} \times \wcal{R}^n \rightarrow \wrn{n+1}$ given by
\[
\wfc{T_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} :=
\wlr{\wfpsumkf{0}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}, \,
\wfpsumkf{1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}, \,
\wfpsumkf{2}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}, \,
\dots,
\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}}
\]
is tight.
\peFullProp{propSumsAreTight}
\subsection{Lemmas}
\label{secLemmas}
This section presents the proofs of the Lemmas other than
\ref{lemSterbenz} and \ref{lemConvexity}, which are proved
in the extended version of the article.\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemUNear}
If $z= 0$ then $\wfl{z} = z = 0$ by Prop. \ref{propRoundIdentity} and
Equation \pRef{rhoNear} holds.
If $z \neq 0$ then, by Prop. \ref{propNormalForm},
$z = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu{}} + w}$,
with $e \in \wz{}$ and $r \in \wrone{}$ with $w \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\wfpmu{}})$.
When $\wfpf$ is unperfect
$\wfpnu = \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$ and, by Prop. \ref{propOrder}, $e \geq \wfpemin$ because $\wabs{z} \geq \wfpnu$.
Therefore, $e$ is an exponent for $\wfpf$
and Lemma \ref{lemUNear} follows from Lemma \ref{lemUNearS}.
Finally, Lemma \ref{lemUNear} applies to all $z$ when $\wfpf$
is perfect because $\nu = 0$ in this case.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemUNear}\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemSmallSum} If $\wfpf$
is perfect then $\wfpa = \wfpnu = 0$ and Lemma \ref{lemSmallSum} holds
because $0 \in \wfpf$. It is clear that the Lemma also holds when $x = 0$ or $y =0$,
and from now on we suppose that $x,y \neq 0$ and $\wfpf$ is unperfect.
In this case $\wfpnu = \beta^{\wfpemin + \wfpmu}$, and
we can assume that $\wabs{y} \geq \wabs{x}$ because $x + y = y + x$.
Moreover, $x + y \in \wfpf \Leftrightarrow -(x + y) \in \wfpf$
by Prop. \ref{propSymmetry} and we
can also assume that
\pbDef{SNSA}
\wfpa \leq x + y \leq \beta \nu = \beta^{1 + \wfpemin + \wfpmu}
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
y > 0.
\peDef{SNSA}
If $y$ is subnormal then $0 < \wabs{x} \leq y < \nu$,
$x$ is also subnormal by Prop. \ref{propNu} and
Lemma \ref{lemSmallSum} follows from Prop. \ref{propSubnormalSum}.
Therefore, we can assume that $y$ is normal, that is,
\pbDef{SNSY}
y = \beta^{\wfpemin + e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + r_y}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{0.5cm}
e \geq 0
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.5cm}
r_y \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\wfpmu}) \cap \wz{}.
\peDef{SNSY}
On the one hand, if $x > 0$ then Equation \pRef{SNSA} leads to $y < \beta^{1 + \wfpemin{} + \wfpmu}$
and Equation \pRef{SNSY} yields $e = 0$.
Prop. \ref{propIntegerForm} and the assumption $0 < \wabs{x} \leq y$ lead to
\[
x = \beta^{\wfpemin} r_x
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{1cm}
r_x \in \wz{}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.5cm}
1 \leq r_x \leq \beta^{\wfpmu} + r_y,
\]
and Equations \pRef{SNSA} and \pRef{SNSY} imply that
\[
x + y = \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + r_x + r_y}
\leq \beta^{1 + \wfpemin + \wfpmu} \ \
\Rightarrow x + y \geq \nu \ \ \wrm{and} \ \ r_x + r_y \leq \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\wfpmu},
\]
and Prop. \ref{propNu} with $r = \beta^{\mu} + r_x + r_y$ shows that $x + y \in \wfpf$.
On the other hand, if $x < 0$ then Prop. \ref{propIntegerForm} and the assumption
$0 < \wabs{x} \leq y$ lead to
\[
x = -\beta^{\wfpemin + d} r_x
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{0.5cm}
0 \leq d \leq e,
\hspace{0.5cm}
r_x \in \wz{}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.5cm}
1 \leq r_x < \beta^{1 + \wfpmu}.
\]
It follows that
$
x + y = \beta^{\wfpemin + d} \wlr{\beta^{e - d} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + r_y} - r_x}
= \beta^{\wfpemin} r
$
for
\[
r := \beta^d \wlr{\beta^{e - d} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + r_y} - r_x} \in \wz{}.
\]
Since $x < 0$, using \pRef{SNSA} and the identity $\wfpnu = \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$ we deduce that
\[
0 < r = \beta^{-\wfpemin} \wlr{x + y} < \beta^{-\wfpemin} \beta \wfpnu = \beta^{1 + \mu}.
\]
When $\wfpf$ is a MPFR system we have that $\wfpa = \wfpnu$, Equation
\pRef{SNSA} implies that $x + y \geq \wfpnu$ and the
equation above and Prop. \ref{propNu} show that $x + y \in \wfpf$.
Finally, when $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system we either have (i)
$r \geq \beta^{\mu}$, in which case $x + y \geq \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu} = \wfpnu$
and $x + y \in \wfpf$ by Prop. \ref{propNu}, or
(ii) $r < \beta^{\mu}$, and $x + y \in \wfps_{\wfpemin}$
is a subnormal number, which belongs to $\wfpf$.
Therefore, $x + y \in \wfpf$ in all cases and we are done.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemSmallSum}\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemIEEESum}
By Prop. \ref{propIntegerForm},
$x = \beta^{d} r$ and $y = \beta^{e} s$ for $d,e,r,s \in \wz{}$ such that
$d, e \geq \wfpemin$. It follows that
$z = \beta^{\wfpemin} t$ for
$t := \beta^{d - \wfpemin} r + \beta^{e - \wfpemin} s \in \wz{}$.
We have that
$\wabs{t} \geq 1$ because $t \in \wz{} \setminus \wset{0}$ and
$\wabs{z} = \beta^{\wfpemin} \wabs{t} \geq \beta^{\wfpemin} = \wfpa$,
and $z \in \wfpf$ by Lemma \ref{lemSmallSum}.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemIEEESum}\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemNormOneBound}
This proof illustrates the use of optimization to
bound rounding errors. We define
$z_1 := y_0 + y_1$, $z_{k} := y_k$ for $k > 1$
and use the sums $\wfpsumk{k}$ in Definition \ref{longDefPSum},
the set $\wcal{R}$ of all $n-$tuples which round to nearest
and the function
\pbDef{defEta}
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} := \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} + z_k}},
\peDef{defEta}
from $\wrn{n} \times \wcal{R}$ to $\wrone{}$.
We show that Example \ref{exSharpSum} is the worst case for the ratio
\pbDef{ssNQ}
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} :=
\frac{\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}}{\sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k}}.
\peDef{ssNQ}
This ratio is related to Equation \pRef{normOneBound} because
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} =
\wabs{\sum_{k = 1}^n \wlr{\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} - \wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} - z_k}} \leq
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}
\]
and
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} \leq \wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \sum_{k=1}^n \wabs{z_k} \leq
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \sum_{k=0}^n \wabs{y_k}.
\]
Therefore, to prove Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound} it suffices to show that
\pbTClaim{ssNT}
\sup_{\wlr{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \in \wlr{\wrn{n} \setminus \wset{0}} \times \wcal{R}} \wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = \theta_n u
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{for} \hspace{1cm}
\theta_n := \frac{n}{1 + n u}.
\peTClaim{ssNT}
The ratio $q_n$ can be written as
$\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = \wfc{f}{\wvec{z},\wfc{h}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}}$
for
\[
\wfc{h}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} := \wlr{\wfpsumkf{0}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}, \wfpsumkf{1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt},\dots,\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}} \in \wrn{n+1}
\]
and
\[
\wfc{f}{\wvec{z},\wvec{x}} :=
\frac{\sum_{k= 1}^n \wabs{x_k - \wlr{x_{k-1} + z_k}}}{\sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k}}.
\]
The function $f$ is continuous for $\wvec{z} \neq 0$ and satisfies
$\wfc{f}{\lambda \wvec{z},\lambda \wvec{x}} = \wfc{f}{\wvec{z},\wvec{x}}$ for $\lambda \neq 0$,
and Prop. \ref{propSumScale}, \ref{propWholeIsTight} and \ref{propSumsAreTight} show that
$h$ satisfies the requirements of Lemma \ref{lemOpt}.
We can then apply this Lemma to prove that either (i) $\sup q_n \leq \theta_n u$ or (ii) $q_n$
has a maximizer $\wlr{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*}$. In case (ii) we use the properties
of this maximizer to prove that it is no worse than what is described in
Example \ref{exSharpSum}.
For instance, this example tells us that
$\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*} \geq \theta_n u$
and if $q$ has a partial derivative with respect
to $z_k$ at $\wvec{z}^*$ then this derivative is zero.
We prove Equation \pRef{ssNT} by induction.
For $n = 1$, this equation follows from Lemma \ref{lemUNear}.
Let us then assume that $n > 1$ and Equation \pRef{ssNT} is valid for $\wvec{z} \in \wrn{m}$ and
rounding tuples $\wflmt = \wset{\wflmk{1},\dots,\wflmk{m}}$ when $m < n$ and
show that it also holds for $n$.
To apply Lemma \ref{lemOpt}, let us
define the numbers
\pbDef{ssA}
a:= \frac{1 + \wlr{1 + 2u} \theta_{n-1} - \wlr{1 + u} \theta_n}{1 + u}
= \frac{\wlr{n - 1} \wlr{3 + 2 n u} u }{\wlr{1 + n u} \wlr{1 + \wlr{n-1} u} \wlr{1 + u}} > 0
\peDef{ssA}
(recall that $n \geq 2$) and
\pbDef{ssB}
b := \theta_n - \theta_{n-1} = \frac{1}{\wlr{1 + n u} \wlr{1 + \wlr{n-1} u}} > 0,
\peDef{ssB}
and split $\wrn{n} \setminus \wset{\wvec{0}}$ as the union of the set
\pbDef{ssDefD}
\wcal{B} := \wset{ \wvec{z} \in \wrn{n} \ \ \wrm{with} \ \ b \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{z_n} > a \wabs{z_1} \ }
\peDef{ssDefD}
and the cone
$\wcal{A} := \wset{\lambda \wvec{z}, \ \wrm{with} \ \wvec{z} \in \wcal{K}, \ \lambda \in \wrone{} \setminus \wset{0}}$,
for
\pbDef{ssDefK}
\wcal{K} := \wset{ \wvec{z} \in \wrn{n} \ \ \wrm{with} \ \ 2/3 \leq z_1 \leq 2 \beta / 3
\ \ \wrm{and} \ \ b \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{z_k} \leq a z_1 \ }.
\peDef{ssDefK}
We claim that $\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \leq \theta_n u$ for $\wvec{z} \in \wcal{B}$
and $\wflmt \in \wcal{R}$.
In fact, writing
$\hat{s}_k := \wfc{S_k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}$ and $s_k := \sum_{i = 1}^k z_i$
for $k = 0,\dots,n$
and using Equation \pRef{ssNT} with
$\wflmtx := \wset{\wflmk{2}, \dots, \wflmk{n}}$
and $\tilde{\wvec{z}} := \wlr{\hat{s}_1 + z_2, z_3, \dots,z_n}$
we obtain by induction that
\pbDef{ssTemp}
\sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{\hat{s}_k - \hat{s}_{k-1} - z_k} \leq
\theta_{n-1} u \wlr{ \wabs{\hat{s}_1 + z_2} + \sum_{k = 3}^n \wabs{z_k}}.
\peDef{ssTemp}
Keeping in mind that $z_1 = s_1$, we have that
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_1 - s_1} + \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{\hat{s}_k - \hat{s}_{k-1} - z_k} \leq
\wlr{\wabs{\hat{s}_1 - s_1} + \theta_{n-1} u \wabs{\hat{s}_1}} +
\theta_{n-1} u \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{z_k},
\]
and Lemma \ref{lemUNear}, the definitions \pRef{defEta}, \pRef{ssA} and \pRef{ssB} of $\eta$, $a$ and $b$
and $\hat{s}_0 = 0$ yield
\[
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\hat{s}_k - \hat{s}_{k-1} - z_k} \leq
\wlr{1 + \theta_{n-1} \wlr{1 + 2 u} } \frac{u \wabs{s_1}}{1+ u} + \theta_{n-1} u \sum_{k=2}^n \wabs{z_k}
\]
\[
=
u \wlr{\wlr{1 + \wlr{1 + 2 u} \theta_{n-1} - \wlr{1 + u} \theta_n} \frac{\wabs{z_1}}{1 + u}
- \wlr{\theta_n - \theta_{n-1}} \sum_{z = 2}^n \wabs{z_k}}
+ \theta_n u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k}
\]
\[
= u \wlr{a \wabs{z_1} - b \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{z_k}} +
\theta_n u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k}.
\]
The definitions \pRef{ssNQ} and \pRef{ssDefD} of $q$ and $\wcal{B}$ and this equation imply that
$\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \leq \theta_n u$,
and, indeed, $\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \leq \theta_n u$ for $\wvec{z} \in \wcal{B}$
and $\wflmt \in \wcal{R}$.
As a result, Lemma \ref{lemOpt} shows that either (i) the supremum of
$q_n$ is at most $\theta_n u$ or (ii) there exists $\wvec{z}^* \in \wcal{K}$ and
$\wflmt{}^* \in \wcal{R}$ with
\[
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt{}^*} =
\sup_{\wlr{\wvec{z},\wflmt{}} \in \wlr{\wrn{n} \setminus \wset{\wvec{0}}} \times \wcal{R}}
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt{}^*}.
\]
In case (i) we are done and we now analyze case (ii).
Let us define $\hat{s}^*_k := \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*}$, and $s^*_k := \sum_{i = 1}^k z^*_k$,
for $k = 0,\dots, n$. Since $\wvec{z}^* \in \wcal{K}$, the
definitions of $a$ and $b$ lead to
\[
\sum_{k=2}^n \wabs{z_k^*} \leq \frac{\wlr{n - 1} \wlr{3 + 2 n u}}{1 + u} u z^*_1.
\]
Using Lemma \ref{lemUNear}, the hypothesis $20 n u \leq 1$ and induction we deduce that
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}^*_k - z^*_1} \leq \wabs{\hat{s}^*_k - \wlr{ \wlr{\hat{s}^*_1 + z^*_2} + \sum_{i=3}^n z^*_i}}
+ \wabs{\hat{s}^*_1 - s^*_1} + \sum_{i = 2}^n \wabs{z^*_i}
\]
\[
\leq \frac{\wlr{n - 1} u}{1 + \wlr{n-1} u} \wlr{\wabs{\hat{s}_1^* + z_2^*} + \sum_{i=3}^n \wabs{z_i^*}}
+ \frac{u}{1 + u} z^*_1 + \frac{\wlr{n - 1} \wlr{3 + 2 n u}}{1 + u} u z^*_1
\]
\[
\leq
\wlr{\frac{n - 1}{1 + \wlr{n-1} u} \wlr{1 + 2 u + \wlr{n - 1} \wlr{3 + 2 n u} u}
+ 1 + \wlr{n - 1} \wlr{3 + 2 n u}} \frac{u}{1 + u} z^*_1
\]
and, since $s^*_1 = z^*_1$ and $20 n u \leq 1$,
\pbDef{ssSk}
\wabs{\hat{s}_k^* - z_1^*} \leq \kappa n u z_1^* \leq \kappa z_1^*/20,
\peDef{ssSk}
for
\[
\kappa :=
\wlr{\frac{1}{1 + n u} \wlr{1 + \wlr{3 + 2 n u} n u} + 3 + 2 n u} \frac{1}{1 + u}
\]
\pbDef{ssTheta}
\leq
\frac{1}{1 + \frac{1}{20}} \wlr{1 + \frac{1}{20} \wlr{3 + \frac{1}{10}}}+ 3 + \frac{1}{10} = \frac{21}{5}.
\peDef{ssTheta}
Since $2/3 \leq z^*_1 \leq 2 \beta /3$, Equations \pRef{ssSk} and \pRef{ssTheta} lead to
\[
\frac{1}{\beta} \leq \frac{1}{2} < \frac{158}{300} \leq \frac{79}{100} z^*_1 \leq \hat{s}^*_k \leq \frac{121}{100} z^*_1 \leq
\frac{121}{150}\beta < \beta
\]
for $1 < k \leq n$, and since $\hat{s}_1^* = \wflk{1}{z^*_1}$ and
$2/3 \leq z^*_1 \leq 2/3 \beta$ this equation also holds for $k = 1$.
Monotonicity (Prop. \ref{propRoundMonotone})
and the fact that $\hat{s}^*_k = \wflk{k}{\hat{s}_{k-1} + z_k}$ lead to
\pbDef{ssNZS}
1/\beta < \hat{s}_{k-1} + s_k^* < \beta \ \ \wrm{for} \ \ 1 \leq k \leq n.
\peDef{ssNZS}
We now explore the implications of $\wlr{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*}$ being a
maximizer of $q_n$. Example \ref{exSharpSum} shows
that $\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt{}^*} \geq \theta_n u$
and this implies that $z_k \neq 0$ for all $k$, because if $z_k = 0$ for some
$k$ then we would have
$\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt{}^*} = \wfc{q_{n-1}}{\tilde{\wvec{z}},\wflmtx}$
for $\tilde{\wvec{z}} \in \wrn{n-1}$ and $\wflmtx$ obtained by removing the $k$th
coordinate of $\wvec{z}^*$ and $\wflmk{k}$ from $\wflmt^*$, and
$\wfc{q_{n-1}}{\wflmtx,\tilde{\wvec{z}}} \leq \theta_{n-1} u < \theta_n u$,
contradicting the maximality of $\wlr{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*}$.
Therefore, $z^*_k \neq 0$ for $k = 1,\dots, n$,
and the denominator of $q_n$ has non zero partial derivatives at $\wvec{z}^*$.
Equation \pRef{ssNZS} shows that $\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k \neq 0$,
and Prop. \ref{propFlat} implies that
the numerator of $q_n$ will have a zero
partial derivative with respect to $z_k$ if
$\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k$ is not of the form
\pbDef{ssMid}
\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k = \beta^{e_k} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r_k + 1/2}
\hspace{0.7cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{0.7cm} e_k \in \wz{}
\ \ \wrm{and} \ \
r_k \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}),
\peDef{ssMid}
and this would imply that the derivative of $q_n$
is well defined and different from zero.
By the maximality of $\wlr{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*}$, we conclude that
Equation \pRef{ssMid} is valid.
Combining this equation with Equation \pRef{ssNZS}
we conclude that
we can write $\wset{1,2,\dots,n} = \wcal{L} \cup \cal{H}$
(for low and high) so that
the exponents in $e_k$ Equation \pRef{ssMid} are
$e_k = - \mu -1$ for $k \in \wcal{L}$ and
$e_k = -\mu$ for $k \in \wcal{H}$. Since $\beta^{-\mu}/2 = u$, this leads to
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
k \in \wcal{L}\ & \Rightarrow & \ \frac{1 + u}{\beta} \leq \hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k \leq \frac{\beta - u}{\beta},\\
\nonumber
k \in \wcal{U}\ & \Rightarrow & \ 1 + u \leq \hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k \leq \beta - u,
\end{eqnarray}
As a result, Prop. \ref{propCriticalSum} implies that
\pbDef{ssZlh}
k \in \wcal{L} \Rightarrow \wabs{z^*_k}\geq u/\bet
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
k \in \wcal{H} \Rightarrow \wabs{z^*_k}\geq u,
\peDef{ssZlh}
and Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} yields
\pbDef{ssEk}
k \in \wcal{L} \Rightarrow \wabs{\hat{s}_k^* - \wlr{\hat{s}_{k-1}^* + z^*_k}} = u/\beta
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.5cm}
k \in \wcal{H} \Rightarrow \wabs{\hat{s}_k^* - \wlr{\hat{s}_{k-1}^* + z^*_k}} = u.
\peDef{ssEk}
We now show that if $1 \in \wcal{L}$ then we
obtain a contradiction to the maximality of $\wlr{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*}$. Indeed,
let $m \in [1,n]$
be the last index such that $k \in \wcal{L}$ for $1 \leq k \leq m$.
If $m = n$ then $k \in \wcal{L}$ for all $k \in [1,n]$ and
the inequality $z_1^* \geq 2 / 3$ and Equations \pRef{ssZlh} and \pRef{ssEk}
and the fact that $2 \beta / 3 - u > 1$ imply that
\[
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*} / \wlr{\theta_n u} =
\frac{\frac{n u / \beta}{2/3 + \wlr{n - 1} u / \beta}}{\frac{n u}{1 + n u}}
=
\frac{1 + n u}{\wlr{\frac{2 \beta}{3} - u} + n u} < 1,
\]
and this contradicts the maximality of $\wlr{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*}$.
For $m < n$ we have
\[
\sum_{k = 1}^{m} \wabs{z^*_k} \geq
\sum_{k = 1}^{m} z^*_k =
\wlr{\hat{s}^*_{m} + z^*_{m+1}} -
\wlr{\sum_{k=1}^{m} \wlr{\hat{s}^*_{k} - \wlr{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k}}} - z^*_{m+1}
\]
\[
\geq \wlr{1 + u} - \wlr{m u / \beta} - \wabs{z^*_{m+1}}.
\]
Let $\ell$ be the size of $\wcal{L}$ and $h$ the size of $\wcal{H}$.
Equations \pRef{ssZlh} and \pRef{ssEk}, the identity $n = \ell + h$ and the hypothesis $20 n u \leq 1$ lead to
\[
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*} - \theta_n u
\leq \frac{\ell u / \beta + h u}{1 + u - m u / \beta - \wabs{z^*_{m+1}} + (\ell - m) u / \beta + \wabs{z^*_{m+1}} + \wlr{h-1} u}
- \frac{n u}{1 + n u}
\]
\[
= - u \frac{\xi} {\wlr{1 + n u}\wlr{\beta - 2 m u + \ell u + \beta h u}},
\]
for
\[
\xi := \wlr{\beta - 1} \ell - 2 h m u - 2 \ell m u
= \ell \wlr{\wlr{\beta - 1} - \wlr{\frac{m}{\ell}} \wlr{2 h u} - 2 m u}
\geq 0.8 \ell > 0,
\]
and, again, $\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*} < \theta_n u$.
Therefore, by the maximality of $\wlr{\wflmt^*,\wvec{z}^*}$ we must have $z_1^* \geq 1$, and Equation
\pRef{ssMid} shows that $z_1^* \geq 1 + u$ and Equations \pRef{ssZlh} and \pRef{ssEk}
lead to
\pbDef{nobL}
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*} \leq \frac{\ell u / \beta + h u}{1 + u + \ell u / \beta +\wlr{h - 1} u}
= \frac{\ell u / \beta + h u}{1 + \ell u / \beta + h u}.
\peDef{nobL}
Since $n = \ell + h$, $\theta_n = \wlr{\ell + h}/\wlr{1 + \wlr{\ell + h} u}$ and
\[
\frac{\ell + h}{1 + \wlr{\ell + h} u} - \frac{\ell / \beta + h}{1 + \ell u / \beta + h u}
= \frac{\wlr{\beta - 1} \ell}{\wlr{1 + \wlr{\ell + h} u}\wlr{\beta + \ell u + \beta h u}} \geq 0,
\]
Equation \pRef{nobL} implies
that $\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt^*} \leq \theta_n u$ and we are done.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemNormOneBound}\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemPositiveBound}
Let us define $z_1 := y_0 + y_1$ and $z_{k} := y_k$ for $k > 1$.
Using Lemma \ref{lemUNear} and induction in $n$ we can show that
\[
\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \geq \sum_{k=1}^n \wlr{1 + u}^{-\wlr{n - k + 1}} z_k
= \frac{1}{1 + u} \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \wlr{1 + u}^{-\wlr{n - k}} z_k.
\]
The convexity of the
functions $\wlr{1 + u}^{-\wlr{n - k}}$, which have value $1$ and
derivative $- \wlr{n - k}$ at $u = 0$, lead to
\[
\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \geq
\frac{1}{1 + u} \wlr{\sum_{k=1}^n z_k - u \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \wlr{n - k} z_k}
\]
\[
= \frac{1}{1 + u} \wlr{\wlr{1 + u} \sum_{k=1}^n z_k - u \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k}
= \sum_{k=1}^n z_k - \frac{u}{1+u} \sum_{k=1}^n \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k,
\]
and the lower bound in Equation \pRef{thPositiveBound} follows from the identities
\[
\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i = \sum_{i=1}^k z_i,
\hspace{0.6cm}
\wflt{\sum_{k=0}^{n} y_k} = \wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}
\hspace{0.6cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.6cm}
\sum_{k = 1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k y_i = \sum_{k = 1}^n \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k.
\]
In order to prove the second inequality in Equation \pRef{thPositiveBound},
we proceed as in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound}
(We ask the reader to look at the first two paragraphs
of that proof.) This time we consider only the rounding tuple
$\wflmt := \wset{\wflm,\dots,\wflm}$ where $\wflm$ rounds to nearest
and breaks all ties upward, because our function
\pbDef{snbQ}
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}} :=
\frac{\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z}}}{\sum_{k = 1}^n \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k}
\peDef{snbQ}
for
\pbDef{ssnbNum}
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z}} := \wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} - \sum_{k=1}^n z_k
= \sum_{k=1}^n \wlr{\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} - \wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} - z_k}
\peDef{ssnbNum}
is clearly maximized by the rounding tuple $\wflmt$ for which all ties
are broken upward.
We prove by induction that
\pbDef{snbUpper}
\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}} \leq \tau_n u := \frac{u}{1 + u \wlr{\frac{\beta - 2}{\beta - 1} + \frac{n}{\beta^{n} - 1}}}.
\peDef{snbUpper}
For $n = 1$ Equation \pRef{snbUpper} follows
from Lemma \ref{lemUNear}. Let us then assume it holds for $n - 1$ and prove
it for $n$ using Lemma \ref{lemOpt} to show that either Equation \pRef{snbUpper}
holds or there exists a maximizer for $q_n$, which we then analyze.
With this purpose, define
\pbDef{snbCAB}
a := \frac{1 + \wlr{n - 1} \wlr{1 + 2 u} \tau_{n - 1} - n \wlr{1 + u} \tau_{n}}{1 + u}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.5cm}
b := \tau_{n} - \tau_{n-1}.
\peDef{snbCAB}
In order to prove that $a$ and $b$ are positive, note that
\[
\tau_n = \frac{1}{1 + u \phi_n}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.5cm}
\tau_{n-1} := \frac{1}{1 + u \wlr{\phi_n + \delta_n}}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{for} \hspace{0.5cm}
\phi_n := \frac{\beta - 2}{\beta - 1} + \frac{n}{\beta^{n} - 1}
\]
and
\[
\delta_n := \frac{n-1}{\beta^{n-1} - 1} - \frac{n}{\beta^n - 1}
= \frac{n \wlr{\beta - 1} - \wlr{\beta - \beta^{1 - n}}}{\beta^{n} \wlr{1 - \beta^{1 - n}}\wlr{1 - \beta^{-n}}} > 0.
\]
For $\beta,n \geq 2$ we have that $\delta_n > 0$, and
the positivity of $\delta_n$ implies that
\[
b = \tau_n - \tau_{n-1} = u \delta_n \tau_{n-1} \tau_n > 0.
\]
For $n = 2$ the software Mathematica shows that
\[
a = u \frac{\beta - 1 + u \wlr{\beta - 2}}{\wlr{1 + u}^2 \wlr{\beta + 1 + \beta u}} > 0.
\]
Mathematica also shows that when $\beta = 2$
\[
a = u \frac{\wlr{2^{n} \wlr{n - 2} + 2}\wlr{2^n - n - 1}}{\wlr{1 + u} \wlr{2^n - 1 + n u} \wlr{2^n - 2 + 2 \wlr{n - 1} u}},
\]
which is positive for $n \geq 3$.
For $\beta = 3$ we have
\[
a = \frac{u \wlr{u + 2} \wlr{3^n - 2 n - 1} \wlr{\wlr{2 n - 3} 3^{n} + 3}}
{\wlr{1 + u} \wlr{2 \wlr{3^n - 1} + u \wlr{3^n + 2 n -1}}\wlr{2 \times 3^{n} - 6 + u \wlr{3^n + 6 n - 9 } }},
\]
which is also positive for $n \geq 3$.
Finally, for $\beta \geq 4$ and $n \geq 3$
\[
n \delta_n \leq n \frac{\wlr{n - 1} \wlr{\beta - 1}}{\wlr{1 - \beta^{1 - n}} \wlr{1 - \beta^{-n}}} \beta^{-n}
\leq \frac{3 \times 2 \times 4^{-3}}{\wlr{1 - 4^{-2}}\wlr{1 - 4^{-3}}} = \frac{32}{315} < 0.2,
\]
and the software Mathematica also shows that
\[
a = \frac{\wlr{n - 3} + \wlr{1 - \wlr{n - 1 + n u} \delta_n} + \phi_n \wlr{1 + \wlr{\delta_n + \phi_n + n - 2}u} }
{\wlr{1 + u} \wlr{1 + u \phi_n} \wlr{1 + u \wlr{\phi_n + \delta_n}}}
\]
and this number is positive for $n \geq 3$ because $\wlr{n - 1 + n u} \delta_n \leq n \delta_n \leq 0.2$.
Therefore, $a$ and $b$ are positive and the set
\[
\wcal{K} := \wset{\wvec{z} \in \wrn{n}\setminus \wset{0} \ \wrm{with} \ 2 / 3 \leq z_1 \leq 2 \beta / 3, \ \
z_k \geq 0 \ \ \wrm{and} \
b \sum_{k = 2}^{n} \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k \leq a \, z_1}
\]
is compact. We now split $\wset{\wvec{x} \in \wrn{n} \setminus \wset{\wvec{0}} \ \wrm{with} \ x_k \geq 0 }$
as the union of the set
\pbDef{snbD}
\wcal{B} := \wset{\wvec{z} \in \wrn{n} \ \wrm{with} \ \ z_k \geq 0 \ \
\ \wrm{and} \ \ b \sum_{k = 2}^{n} \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k > a\, z_1}
\peDef{snbD}
and the cone
\[
\wcal{A} :=
\wset{\lambda \wvec{x} \ \wrm{with} \ \wvec{x} \in \wcal{K} \ \wrm{and} \ \lambda \in \wrone{}, \ \lambda > 0}
\]
and show that
$\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}} \leq \tau_n u $ for $\wvec{z} \in \wcal{B}$. In fact, for
such $\wvec{z}$, let us write
$\hat{s}_k := \wfc{S_k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}$
for $k = 0,\dots,n$.
Using induction, Lemma \ref{lemUNear},
and the definitions of $a$, $b$,
and keeping in mind that $s_1 = z_1$, we deduce that
\[
\sum_{k = 1}^n \wlr{\hat{s}_k - \wlr{\hat{s}_{k-1} + z_k}}
= \wlr{\hat{s}_{1} - s_{1}} +
\wlr{\wlr{\hat{s}_2 - \wlr{\hat{s}_1 + z_2}} + \sum_{k = 3}^n \wlr{\hat{s}_k - \wlr{s_{k-1} - z_k}}}
\]
\[
\leq
\frac{u}{1 + u} z_1 +
\tau_{n-1} u \wlr{ \wlr{n-1} \wlr{\hat{s}_1 + z_2} + \sum_{k = 3}^n \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k}
\]
\[
= \frac{u}{1 + u} z_1 +
\tau_{n-1} u \wlr{ \wlr{n-1} \hat{s}_1 + \sum_{k = 2}^n \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k}
\]
\[
\leq
\wlr{1 + \wlr{1 + 2 u} \wlr{n-1} \tau_{n-1}} \frac{u z_1}{1 + u}
+ \tau_{n-1} u \sum_{k = 2}^n \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k
\]
\[
= \wlr{1 + \wlr{1 + 2 u} \wlr{n-1} \tau_{n-1} - n \wlr{1 + u} \tau_{n}}
\frac{u z_1}{1 + u}
\]
\[
- \wlr{\tau_{n} - \tau_{n-1}} u \sum_{k = 2}^n \wlr{n - k + 1 } z_k
+ \tau_{n} u \wlr{n z_1 + \sum_{k = 2}^n \wlr{n - k + 1 } z_k},
\]
and it follows that
\[
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z}} \leq
\wlr{a z_1 - b
\sum_{k = 2}^n \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k} u + \tau_{n} u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wlr{n - k + 1 } z_k.
\]
By the definition of $\wcal{B}$ the term in parenthesis above is
negative and this equation shows that $\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}} \leq \tau_{n} u$ for
$\wvec{z} \in \wcal{B}$.
According to Lemma \ref{lemOpt} we have that either
(i) Equation \pRef{snbUpper} holds or (ii) $q_n$ has
a maximizer $\wvec{z}^* \in \wcal{K}$.
In case (i) we are done and we
now suppose that there exists such $\wvec{z}^{*}$.
Define $\hat{s}^*_k := \wfc{S_k}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt}$ for $k = 0,\dots,n$.
The same argument used in the proof of Lemma
\ref{lemNormOneBound} to deduce that $z_k^* \neq 0$ and Equation
\pRef{ssMid} shows that $z^*_k \neq 0$ for $k = 1,\dots, n$,
and
\pbDef{snbDecomp}
\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k = \beta^{d_k} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r_k + 1/2}
\hspace{0.3cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{0.3cm}
d_k \in \wz{}
\hspace{0.3cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.3cm}
r_k \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}.
\peDef{snbDecomp}
Since $\wflm$ break ties upward, we have that
\pbDef{snbRUp}
\hat{s}^*_{k} = \beta^{d_k} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r_k + 1},
\peDef{snbRUp}
If the $r_k$ in Equation \pRef{snbDecomp} were all zero then,
since $\hat{s}_{0}^* = 0$ and
\[
\frac{1}{\beta} < 2/3 \leq z_1^* \leq \frac{2 \beta}{3} < \beta,
\]
Equation \pRef{snbDecomp} would yield $z_1^* = \beta^{-\mu}\wlr{\beta^\mu + 1/2} = 1 + u$ and,
for $k > 1$, Equations \pRef{snbDecomp} and \pRef{snbRUp} would
lead to $\hat{z}^*_k = \beta^{d_k + \mu}\wlr{1 + u} - \beta^{d_{k-1} + \mu} \wlr{1 + 2 u}$
and the $z_k^*$ would correspond to the $x_k$ in Example \ref{exSharpSumNearC} with
$e_k = d_k + \mu$ (take $x_0 = 0$ and $x_1 = z^*_1$). Therefore, by
the last line in the statement of Example \ref{exSharpSumNearC}, in order to
complete this proof it suffices to show that $r_k = 0$ for all $k$, and
this is what we do next.
We start with $k < n$ and after that we
handle the case $k = n$. Let us define $r_{0} := 0$, assume that
$r_{i} = 0$ for $i < k < n$ and show that $r_k = 0$.
Take $\delta_k := \min\wset{1,r_k}$ and $\wvec{z}' \in \wrn{n}$
given by $z_i' := z_i^*$ for $i < k$ or $i > k + 1$ and
\[
z_k' := z_k^* - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
z_{k+1}' := z_{k+1}^* + \beta^{d_k} \delta_k.
\]
We now prove that $\delta_k = 0$ by showing that $\wvec{z}' = \wvec{z}^*$.
If $\delta_k = 0$ then $\wvec{z}' = \wvec{z}^*$
and $\wvec{z}$ is in the domain of $q_n$.
If $\delta = 1$ then $z'_{k+1} > 0$ and showing that
$z_k' \geq 0$ suffices to prove that $\wvec{z}'$ is in the
domain of $q_n$. Indeed,
Equations \pRef{snbDecomp} and \pRef{snbRUp} and $r_{k-1} = 0$ lead to
\[
z_k' := \beta^{d_k} \wlr{\beta^\mu + r_k + 1/2} - \beta^{d_{k-1}} \wlr{\beta^\mu + 1} - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k
\]
\[
= \beta^{d_k} \wlr{\beta^\mu + \wlr{r_k - \delta_k} + 1/2} - \beta^{d_{k-1}} \wlr{\beta^\mu + 1}.
\]
Equations \pRef{snbDecomp}, \pRef{snbRUp} and $z_k^* \geq 0$ imply that
\[
\hat{s}_{k}^* = \wfl{\hat{s}_{k-1}^* + z_k} \geq \hat{s}_{k-1}^* + \beta^{d_k}/2 > \hat{s}_{k-1}^*,
\]
Prop. \ref{propOrder} leads to $d_k \geq d_{k-1}$. Moreover, $\delta_k \leq r_k$ by definition
and it follows that if $d_k > d_{k-1}$ then $\beta^{d_k}/2 \geq \beta^{d_{k-1}}$ and $z_k' \geq 0$.
If $d_k = d_{k-1}$ then $\hat{s}^*_{k} > \hat{s}^*_{k-1}$
implies that $\beta^{\mu} + r_k + 1 > \beta^{\mu} + 1$, $r_k > 1$,
and $r_k - \delta_k \geq 1$ and $z_k' \geq 0$. Therefore, $\wvec{z}'$
is on the domain of $q_n$.
We now analyze $\eta$ defined in Equation \pRef{ssnbNum} and
show that all parcels in $\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z}^*}$ and
$\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z}'}$ are equal.
Since we break ties upward, Equation \pRef{snbRUp} shows that
\[
\wfl{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z_k'} = \wfl{\beta^{d_k} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wlr{r_k - \delta_k} + 1/2}} =
\beta^{d_k} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wlr{r_k - \delta_k} + 1}
\]
\pbDef{ssNBA}
= \beta^{d_k} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r_k + 1} - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k
= \wfl{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z^*_k} - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k
= \hat{s}^*_k - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k.
\peDef{ssNBA}
It follows that
\[
\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_{k+1}' =
\wfl{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z_k'} + z_{k+1}' =
\]
\[
\wlr{\hat{s}^*_k - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k} + \wlr{z_{k+1}^* + \beta^{d_k} \delta_k} =
\hat{s}^*_k + z_{k+1}^* = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} + z_{k+1}^*.
\]
This equation leads to
\[
\wfpsumkf{k+1}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} =
\wfl{ \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_{k+1}'} =
\wfl{\hat{s}^*_k + z_{k+1}^*} =
\wfpsumkf{k+1}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt},
\]
and
\[
\wfpsumkf{k+1}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfc{S_{k}}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_{k+1}'} =
\wfpsumkf{k+1}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfc{S_{k}}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} + z_{k+1}^*}.
\]
Therefore, $\wfpsumkf{i}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{i}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt}$
for $i < k$ and $i \geq k + 1$. It follows that
\[
\wfpsumkf{i}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfc{S_{i-1}}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_i'} =
\wfpsumkf{i}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfc{S_{i-1}}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} + z^*_i}
\]
for $i <k$ and $i \geq k + 1$. For $i = k$, the definition $z_k' := z_k^* - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k$
and Equation \pRef{ssNBA} yield
\[
\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_k'} =
\wfl{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z_k'} - \wlr{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z_k'} =
\]
\[
= \wlr{\wfl{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z_k^*} - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k}
- \wlr{\hat{s}^*_{k-1} + z_k^* - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k}
\]
\[
= \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} + z^*_k},
\]
Therefore, all parcels in the numerators $\eta$ in Equation \pRef{ssnbNum}
are equal for $\wvec{z}^*$ and $\wvec{z}'$.
Let us now analyze the denominator $D_n$ of $q_n$. Note that
\[
\wlr{n - k + 1} z_k' + \wlr{n - k} z_{k+1}' =
\]
\[
\wlr{n - k + 1} \wlr{z_k^* - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k}
+ \wlr{n - k} \wlr{z_{k+1}^* + z_k^* + \beta^{d_k} \delta_k}
\]
\[
= \wlr{n - k + 1} z_k^* + \wlr{n - k} z^*_{k+1} - \beta^{d_k} \delta_k.
\]
Moreover, $z_i' = z_i^*$ for $i \not \in \wset{k,k+1}$ and
\[
\wfc{D_n}{\wvec{z}'} -
\wfc{D_n}{\wvec{z}^*} =
\wlr{\sum_{i = 1}^n \wlr{n - i - 1} z_i'} - \wlr{\sum_{i = 1}^n \wlr{n - i - 1} z_i^*} =
\]
\[
\wlr{\wlr{n - k - 1} z_k' + \wlr{n - k} z_{k+1}'}
-
\wlr{\wlr{n - k - 1} z_k^* + \wlr{n - k} z_{k+1}^*} = -\beta^{d_k} \delta_k.
\]
Since the numerators of $\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}'}$ and
$\wfc{q_n}{\wvec{z}^*}$ are equal and $\wvec{z}^*$ is maximal
this equation implies that $\beta^{d_k} \delta_k \leq 0$.
Therefore, $\delta_k = \min \wset{1,r_k} = 0$, and $r_k = 0$.
Finally, for $k = n$, define
$\wvec{z}'$ with $z_k' = z_k^*$ for $k < n$ and
$z_n' = z_n^* - \beta^{d_n} r_n$. As before,
$\wvec{z}'$ is in the domain of $q_n$
and
$\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt}$
for $k < n$. For $k = n$, Equation \pRef{snbDecomp} leads to
\[
\wfpsumkf{n-1}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_n' =
\hat{s}^*_{n-1} + z_n^* - \beta^{d_n} r_n
= \beta^{d_n} \wlr{\beta^\mu + 1/2}.
\]
We break ties upward, $\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} = \wfl{\wfpsumkf{n-1}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_n'} =
\beta^{d_n} \wlr{\beta^\mu + 1}$ and
\[
\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfpsumkf{n- 1}{\wvec{z}',\wflmt} + z_n'} =
\beta^{d_n} \wlr{\beta^\mu + 1} - \beta^{d_n} \wlr{\beta^\mu + 1/2} =
\]
\[
\beta^{d_n} / 2 = \beta^{d_n} \wlr{\beta^\mu + r_n + 1} - \beta^{d_n} \wlr{\beta^\mu + r_n + 1/2}
\]
\[
= \wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfpsumkf{n- 1}{\wvec{z}^*,\wflmt} + z_n^*},
\]
and the numerator of $q_n$ in \pRef{ssnbNum} would not change if were to
replace $\wvec{z}^*$ by $\wvec{z}'$. However, the denominator would be reduced by $\beta^{d_n} r_n$,
and this would contradict the maximality of $\wvec{z}^*$. Therefore $r_n = 0$.
In summary, $r_k = 0$ for all $k$, the $z_k^*$ are as the $x_k$
in Example \ref{exSharpSumNearC} and we are done.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemPositiveBound} \\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemSignedSum}
Let us write $z_1 := y_0 + y_1$, $z_k := y_k$ for $k > 1$,
$s_k := \sum_{i = 1}^k z_i$ and $\hat{s}_k = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}$ for $k = 0,\dots,n$.
We prove by induction that
\pbDef{sspA}
\wabs{\hat{s}_n - s_n} \leq \frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i =1}^n z_i},
\peDef{sspA}
which is equivalent to Equation \pRef{thSignedSum}.
For $n = 1$, Equation \pRef{sspA} follows from Lemma \ref{lemUNear}.
We now prove Equation \pRef{sspA} for $n \geq 2$, assuming that it holds for $n - 1$.
For $\wvec{w} \in \wrn{n-1}$ with
$w_1 = \hat{s}_1 + z_2$ and $w_k = y_{k+1}$ for $k > 1$, we obtain by induction that
$\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{w},\wflmtx} = \hat{s}_{k+1}$ for $\wflmtx = \wset{\wflmk{2},\dots,\wflmk{n}}$,
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_n - \wlr{\hat{s}_1 + z_2} - \sum_{k=3}^n z_k} \leq
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - 3} u} \wlr{\sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{ \wlr{\hat{s}_1 + z_2} + \sum_{i = 3}^k z_i}}
\]
and
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_n - s_n} - \wabs{\hat{s}_1 - z_1} \leq
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - 3} u} \wlr{
\wlr{n - 1} \wabs{\hat{s}_1 - z_1} + \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}}.
\]
Since $\hat{s}_1 = \wflk{1}{z_1}$, Lemma \ref{lemUNear} leads to
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_n - s_n} \leq
\frac{u}{1 + u} \wabs{z_1} +
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - 3} u} \wlr{
\wlr{n - 1} \frac{u}{1 + u} \wabs{z_1} + \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}}.
\]
\[
= \frac{u}{1 + u} \wlr{1 + \frac{\wlr{n - 1}u}{1 - \wlr{n - 3} u}} \wabs{z_1} +
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - 3} u} \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}.
\]
\[
\leq
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}
\]
\pbDef{lssB}
+ \wlr{\frac{1}{1 + u} \wlr{1 + \frac{\wlr{n - 1} u}{1 - \wlr{n - 3}u}} - \frac{1}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u}} u \wabs{z_1}
\peDef{lssB}
The software Mathematica shows that
\[
\frac{1}{1 + u} \wlr{ 1 + \frac{\wlr{n - 1} u}{1 - \wlr{n - 3} u}} - \frac{1}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u}
= - \frac{\wlr{n -1} u^2}{\wlr{1 + u}\wlr{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} \wlr{1 - \wlr{n - 3} u}},
\]
and this number is negative for $n \geq 2$ because $n u < 1$. As a result,
Equation \pRef{lssB} implies Equation \pRef{sspA} and we are done.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemSignedSum}\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemUNearS} Let us start with $z > 0$
and define $m := \wlr{\wfloor{w} + \wceil{w}}/2$.
By Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal}, there are three possibilities :
\begin{itemize}
\item If $w < m$ then $r = \wfloor{w}$ satisfies Equation \pRef{rHat}.
\item If $w > m$ then $r = \wceil{w}$ satisfies Equation \pRef{rHat}.
\item If $w = m$ then $r_1 := \wfloor{w}$ and $r_2 := \wceil{w}$
satisfy $r_i \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\wfpmu{}})$,
$\wabs{r_i - w} \leq 1/2$ and
$\wfl{z} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu{}} + r}$
for $r \in \wset{r_1,r_2}$. Therefore, Equation \pRef{rHat} is also
satisfied.
\end{itemize}
According to Definition \ref{longDefEps}, $2 u \times \beta^{\wfpmu{}} = 1$ and
Equation \pRef{rHat} yields
\pbDef{unsA}
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{z}} =
\frac{\wabs{r - w}}{\beta^{\wfpmu{}} + w} =
\frac{2 u \wabs{r - w}}{1 + 2 w u} \leq
\frac{u}{1 + 2 w u}.
\peDef{unsA}
When $w \geq 1/2$, this equation implies that
\[
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{z}} \leq \frac{u}{1 + \max \wset{1,2 w} u},
\]
and when $w < 1/2$, Equation \pRef{rHat} and the fact that $r$ is integer
imply that $r = 0$ and
\[
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{z}} = \frac{w}{\beta^{\wfpmu{}} + w} = \frac{2 w u}{1 + 2 w u}
<
\frac{u}{1 + u} =
\frac{u}{1 + \max \wset{1, 2 w} u},
\]
and we have verified Equation \pRef{uNearSA}.
Equation \pRef{unsA} also leads to
\[
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{z}} \leq
\frac{u}{1 + 2 w u} \leq
\frac{u}{1 + 2 \wlr{r - 1/2} u}
=
\frac{u}{1 + \wlr{2 r - 1} u}
\]
and
\[
\wabs{\frac{\wfl{z} - z}{\wfl{z}}} =
\frac{\wabs{r - w}}{\beta^{\wfpmu} + r} =
\frac{2 u \wabs{r - w}}{1 + 2 r u}
\leq \frac{u}{1 + 2 r u}.
\]
This proves the last equation in Lemma \ref{lemUNearS} and we are done with $z > 0$.
To prove Lemma \ref{lemUNearS} for $z < 0$,
use the argument above for $z' = -z$ and the function $\wrm{m}$ in
Prop. \ref{propRoundMinus}.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemUNearS}\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemOpt}
Let us define
$\psi := \sup_{\wlr{\wvec{z},r} \in \wcal{Z} \times \wcal{R}} \wfc{g}{\wvec{z},r}$.
If $\psi \leq \varphi$ then $\wfc{g}{\wvec{z},r} \leq \varphi$ for
all $\wlr{\wvec{z},r} \in \wcal{Z} \times \wcal{R}$ and we
are done. Let us then assume that $\varphi < \psi$
and let
$\wset{\wlr{\wvec{z}_k, r_k}, k \in \wn{} } \subset \wcal{Z} \times \wcal{R}$
be a sequence such that $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{g}{\wvec{z}_k, r_k} = \psi$
and $\wfc{g}{\wvec{z}_k,r_k} > \varphi$. It follows that
$\wvec{z}_k \in \wcal{A}$ for each $k$ and
there exists $\lambda_k \in \wcal{L}$ and $r_k' \in \wcal{R}$
for which $\wvec{z}_k' := \lambda_k \wvec{z}_k \in \wcal{K}$
satisfies $\wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_k', r_k'} = \lambda_k \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_k, r_k}$.
Since the sequence $\wvec{z}_k'$ is contained in the compact set $\wcal{K}$, it
has a subsequence which converges to $\wvec{z}^* \in \wcal{K}$,
and we may assume that this subsequence is $\wvec{z}_k'$ itself.
The scaling properties of $f$ lead to
\[
\wfc{f}{\wvec{z}_k',\wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_k',r_k'}}
= \wfc{f}{\lambda_k \wvec{z}_k, \lambda_k \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_k,r_k}}
\geq
\wfc{f}{\wvec{z}_k,\wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_k,r_k}} = \wfc{g}{\wvec{x}_k, r_k}
\]
and
\[
\liminf_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{f}{ \wvec{z}_{k}', \ \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_{k}', r_{k}'}}
\geq \liminf_{k \rightarrow \infty } \wfc{g}{\wvec{z}_k, r_k} =
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty } \wfc{g}{\wvec{z}_k, r_k} = \psi.
\]
Since $h$ is tight, there exists $r^* \in \wcal{R}$
and a subsequence $\wvec{z}_{n_k}'$
such that $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_{n_k}',r_{n_k}'} = \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}^*,r^*}$.
By the upper semi-continuity of $f$ and the maximality of $\psi$ we have
\[
\psi \geq \wfc{g}{\wvec{z}^*,r^*} =
\wfc{f}{\wvec{z}^*, \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}^*, r^*}}
\]
\[
\geq
\limsup_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{f}{ \wvec{z}_{n_k}', \ \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_{n_k}', r_{n_k}'}}
\geq
\liminf_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{f}{ \wvec{z}_{k}', \ \wfc{h}{\wvec{z}_{k}', r_{k}'}}
\geq \psi.
\]
Therefore, $\wfc{g}{\wvec{z}^*, r^*} = \psi$ and we are done.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemOpt}\\
\subsection{Corollaries}
\label{secCorol}
In this section we prove some of the corollaries stated in the article.
The remaining corollaries are proved in the extended version.\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corSqrt}
$\wfl{x^2} \geq \nu$ by Monotonicity (Prop. \ref{propRoundMonotone}),
and Lemma \ref{lemUNear} yield
\pbDef{sqrtA}
\wabs{z - \wabs{x}} \, \wlr{z + \wabs{x}} = \wabs{z^2 - x^2} =
\wabs{\wfl{x^2} - x^2} \leq \frac{\wabs{x}^2 u}{1 + u}
\peDef{sqrtA}
for $z := \sqrt{\wfl{x^2}} > 0$. It follows that $\delta := \wabs{z - \wabs{x}}/\wabs{x}$
satisfies
\[
\delta \leq \frac{u}{1 + u} \frac{\wabs{x}}{\wabs{x} + z} \leq \frac{u}{1 + u} < u = \beta^{-\mu}/2 \leq \frac{1}{4}
\ \ \ \Rightarrow \ \ 1 - \delta > 0.
\]
Equation \pRef{sqrtA} leads to
\[
\frac{u}{1 + u} \geq \delta
\frac{z + \wabs{x}}{\wabs{x}} \geq \delta \frac{2 \wabs{x} - \wabs{z - \wabs{x}}}{\wabs{x}} = \delta \wlr{2 - \delta} > 0,
\]
and
\[
1 - \delta =
\sqrt{\wlr{1 - \delta}^2} = \sqrt{1 - \delta \wlr{2 - \delta}} \geq \sqrt{1 - \frac{u}{1 + u}} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + u}},
\]
and
\pbDef{sqrtPsi}
\delta \leq 1 - \frac{1}{\sqrt{1 + u}} = \frac{u}{2} \psi
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{for} \hspace{0.5cm}
\psi := \frac{2}{u} \frac{\sqrt{1 + u} - 1}{\sqrt{1 + u}} = \frac{2}{1 + u + \sqrt{1 + u}} < 1.
\peDef{sqrtPsi}
Let $\wfpsc$ be the complete system
with the same $\beta$ and $\mu$ as $\wfpf$. By Prop. \ref{propRoundAdapt}
there exists $\wflmx$ which rounds to nearest in $\wfpsc$ and is such that
$\wflx{w} = \wfl{w}$ for $w$ with $\wabs{w} \geq \nu_{\wfpf}$. In particular,
$\wfl{x^2} = \wflx{x^2}$.
Since $\nu < 1$ and $x^2 \geq \nu$ we have that
$\wabs{x} \geq \nu$ and by Prop. \ref{propNu}
there exists an exponent $e$ for $\wfpf$ and
$r \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$ such that
$\wabs{x} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}$.
This implies that $\beta^{e + \mu} \leq \wabs{x} < \beta^{e + \mu + 1}$.
The numbers $\beta^{2 e + 2 \mu}$ and $\beta^{2 e + 2 \mu + 2}$
are in $\wfpsc$ (although $\beta^{2 e + 2 \mu}$ may not be in $\wfpf$)
and, by the monotonicity of $\wflmx$,
\[
\beta^{2 e + 2 \mu} \leq \wfl{x^2} = \wflx{x^2} \leq \beta^{2 e + 2 \mu + 2},
\]
and $\beta^{e + \mu} \leq \sqrt{\wfl{x^2}} = z = \sqrt{\wfl{x^2}} \leq \beta^{e + \mu + 1}$.
By Prop. \ref{propOrder} and Prop. \ref{propNormalForm},
$z = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}$ with $0 \leq w \leq \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$. As a result,
\[
\delta = \frac{\wabs{\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w} - \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}}}
{\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}} = \frac{\wabs{w - r}}{\beta^{\mu} + r},
\]
and recalling that $2 u \beta^{\mu} = 1$ and using Equation \pRef{sqrtPsi} we obtain
\pbDef{sqrtDR}
\wabs{w - r} \leq \frac{1}{4} \psi \wlr{1 + \beta^{-\mu} r} = \frac{1}{4} \psi \wlr{1 + 2 r u}.
\peDef{sqrtDR}
There are two possibilities: either
\pbDef{sqrtCRA}
\frac{1}{4} \psi \wlr{1 + 2 r u} < \frac{1}{2}
\peDef{sqrtCRA}
or
\pbDef{sqrtCRB}
\frac{1}{4} \psi \wlr{1 + 2 r u} \geq \frac{1}{2}.
\peDef{sqrtCRB}
In case \pRef{sqrtCRA} $\wabs{w - r} < 1/2$ by Equation \pRef{sqrtDR},
Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} shows that $\wfl{z} = \wabs{x}$
and Corollary \ref{corSqrt} holds for $x$. For instance, if
$\beta = 2$ then $2 r u < 2 \wlr{2 - 1} 2^{\mu} u = 1$ and $r$ satisfies
Equation \pRef{sqrtCRA} because $\psi < 1$.
Therefore, we have proved Corollary \ref{corSqrt} for $\beta = 2$.
In order to complete the proof for the
cases in which Equation \pRef{sqrtCRB} is valid,
it suffices to show that
\pbDef{sqrtCond}
\frac{\wabs{x}}{\wfl{z}} = \frac{\wabs{x}}{\wfl{\sqrt{\wfl{x^2}}}} < 1 + u = \beta^{-\mu} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + 1/2},
\peDef{sqrtCond}
because this equation implies that
$\wfl{\wabs{x}/\sqrt{\wfl{z}}} \leq 1$ by Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} and monotonicity.
We first show that Equation \pRef{sqrtCond} is valid when
\pbDef{sqrtH}
\zeta := 1 + 2 r u > \wlr{1 + u}^{3/2} + 1 + u.
\peDef{sqrtH}
In fact, for $\psi$ in Equation \pRef{sqrtPsi}, Equation \pRef{sqrtH} is equivalent to
\[
\zeta > \frac{1 + u}{1 - \frac{\psi}{2} \wlr{1 + u}},
\hspace{0.7cm}
\frac{\zeta}{1 + u} - \frac{\psi}{2} \zeta - 1 > 0
\hspace{0.7cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.7cm}
\zeta - \frac{\psi}{2} \zeta u - u > \frac{\zeta}{1+u},
\]
and can also be written as
\pbDef{sqrtHB}
1 + u > \frac{\zeta}{\zeta - \frac{\psi}{2} \zeta u - u}
\hspace{0.7cm} \wrm{or} \hspace{0.7cm}
\frac{1 + 2 r u}{1 + 2 r u - \frac{\psi}{2}\wlr{1 + 2 r u} u - u} < 1 + u.
\peDef{sqrtHB}
Since $w \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}]$, Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal}
implies that $\wfl{z} \geq \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w - 1/2}$ and
\[
\frac{\wabs{x}}{\wfl{z}} \leq \frac{\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}}{\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w - 1/2}}
= \frac{1 + 2 r u}{1 + 2 w u - u},
\]
because $2 u \beta^{\mu} = 1$. Equations \pRef{sqrtDR} shows that $w \geq r - \psi \wlr{1 + 2 r u} / 4$
and
\pbDef{sqrtHC}
\frac{\wabs{x}}{\wfl{z}} \leq \frac{1 + 2 r u}{1 + 2 r u - \frac{\psi}{2} \wlr{1 + 2 r u} u - u}.
\peDef{sqrtHC}
Equations \pRef{sqrtHB} and \pRef{sqrtHC} lead to Equation \pRef{sqrtCond}.
Therefore, Equation \pRef{sqrtH} implies Equation \pRef{sqrtCond} and
Corollary \ref{corSqrt} is valid when Equation \pRef{sqrtH} is satisfied.
In the case opposite to Equation \pRef{sqrtH} we have that
\pbDef{sqrtTRPA}
2 r u \leq \wlr{1 + u}^{3/2} + u = 1 + \frac{5}{2} u + \frac{3}{8 \sqrt{1 + \xi_1}} u^2
\peDef{sqrtTRPA}
for some $\xi_1 \in [0,u]$. Since $r$ is integer and $2 u = \beta^{-\mu}$, Equation \pRef{sqrtTRPA} implies that
\pbDef{sqrtTRA}
r < \beta^{\mu} + \frac{5}{4} + \frac{3}{16} u < \beta^{\mu} + 2 \Rightarrow r \leq \beta^{\mu} + 1.
\peDef{sqrtTRA}
Moreover, Equation \pRef{sqrtCRB} leads to
\[
r \geq \beta^{\mu} \frac{2 - \psi}{\psi} = \beta^{\mu} \wlr{u + \sqrt{1 + u}} =
\beta^{\mu} \wlr{1 + \frac{3}{2} u - \frac{1}{8 \wlr{1 + \xi_2}^{3/2}} u^2}
\]
for some $\xi_2 \in [0,u]$, and since $r$ is integer and $2 u = \beta^{-\mu}$,
we have that
\pbDef{sqrtTR}
r \geq \beta^{\mu} + \frac{3}{4} - \frac{1}{16 \wlr{1 + \xi_2}^{3/2}} u
\Rightarrow r \geq \beta^{\mu} + 1.
\peDef{sqrtTR}
Equations \pRef{sqrtTRA} and \pRef{sqrtTR} show that
there is just one $r$ left: $r = \beta^{\mu} + 1$, which corresponds
to $\wabs{x} = \beta^{e} \wlr{2 \beta^{\mu} + 1}$. It follows that
\[
x^2 = \beta^{2 e}\wlr{4 \beta^{2 \mu} + 4 \beta^{\mu} + 1} =
\beta^{2 e + \mu}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wlr{3 \beta^{\mu} + 4 + \beta^{-\mu}}}.
\]
If $\beta \geq 5$ then $3 \beta^{\mu} + 4 + \beta^{-\mu} < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$
and Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} implies that
\[
\wfl{x^2} = 4 \beta^{2 e + \mu}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + 1}
\Rightarrow z = \sqrt{\wfl{x^2}} = 2 \beta^{e + \mu} \sqrt{1 + \beta^{-\mu}}
\]
\[
= 2 \beta^{e + \mu} \wlr{1 + \frac{1}{2} \beta^{-\mu} - \frac{\theta_5}{2} \beta^{-\mu}},
\]
where, for some $\xi_5 \in [0,\beta^{-\mu}]$,
\[
0 \leq \theta_5 := \frac{1}{4 \wlr{1 + \xi_5}^{3/2}} \beta^{-\mu} \leq \frac{1}{4} \times \frac{1}{5} = \frac{1}{20}.
\]
Therefore,
$z := \sqrt{\wfl{x^2}} = \beta^{e} \wlr{2 \beta^{\mu} + 1 - \theta_5}$
and the bound $\wabs{\theta_5} \leq 1/20$ and Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} imply that
$\wfl{z} = \beta^{e} \wlr{2 \beta^{\mu} + 1} = \wabs{x}$
and we are done with the case $\beta \geq 5$.
For $\beta = 3$, the critical $x$ is $3^{e} \wlr{2 \times 3^{\mu} + 1}$ and
\[
x^2 = 3^{2 e}\wlr{4 \times 3^{2 \mu} + 4 \times 3^{\mu} + 1}
=
3^{2 e + \mu + 1}\wlr{3^{\mu} + 3^{\mu - 1} + 1 + \wlr{\frac{1}{3} + 3^{-\mu-1}}}
\]
The bound
\[
\frac{1}{3} + 3^{-\mu-1} \leq \frac{1}{3} + \frac{1}{9} = \frac{4}{9} < 1/2
\]
and Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} lead to
\[
\wfl{x^2} = 3^{2 e + \mu + 1}\wlr{3^{\mu} + 3^{\mu - 1} + 1}
= 4 \times 3^{2 e + 2 \mu}\wlr{1 + \frac{3}{4} \times 3^{-\mu}}
\]
and
\[
z := \sqrt{\wfl{x^2}} = 2 \times 3^{e + \mu}\wlr{1 + \frac{3}{8} \times 3^{-\mu} - \frac{\theta_3}{2} \times 3^{-\mu}}
= 3^{e}\wlr{2 \times 3^{\mu} + \frac{3}{4} - \theta_3}
\]
where, for some $\xi_3 \in [0,1/3]$,
\[
0 \leq
\theta_3 := \frac{1}{4 \wlr{1 + \xi_3}^{3/2}} \times \frac{9}{16} \times 3^{-\mu} \leq \frac{3}{64}.
\]
Since $3/4 - 3 / 64 = 45 / 64 > 1/2$, Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} shows that
$\wfl{z} = \wabs{x}$ when $\beta = 3$.
Finally, for $\beta = 4$, we care about $x = 4^{e} \wlr{2 \times 4^{\mu} + 1}$ and
\[
x^2 =
4^{2 e}\wlr{4 \times 4^{2 \mu} + 4 \times 4^{\mu} + 1}
=
4^{2 e + 1 + \mu}\wlr{4^{\mu} + 1 + 4^{-\mu - 1}},
\]
$4^{-\mu - 1} < 1/2$ and Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} yields
\[
\wfl{x^2} = 4^{2 e + 1 + \mu}\wlr{4^{\mu} + 1} =
4^{2 e + 1 + 2 \mu}\wlr{1 + 4^{-\mu}}.
\]
It follows that
\[
z := \sqrt{\wfl{x^2}} = 2 \times 4^{e + \mu}\sqrt{1 + 4^{-\mu}} =
2 \times 4^{e + \mu} \wlr{1 + \frac{1}{2} \times 4^{-\mu} - \frac{\theta_4}{2} \times 4^{-\mu}}
\]
where, for some $\xi_4 \in [0,1/4]$,
\[
0 < \theta_4 := \frac{1}{4 \sqrt{1 + \xi_4}} \, 4^{-\mu} < \frac{1}{16}.
\]
Therefore, $z = 4^{e + 1} \wlr{2 \times 4^{\mu} + 1 - \theta_4}$,
$\wfl{z} = \wabs{x}$ and we are done.
\peProof{Corollary}{corSqrt} \\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corNormOneUnperfect}
Let $\wfpsc$ be the perfect system corresponding to $\beta$ and $\mu$
and $\wflmtx$ the rounding tuple
in Prop. \ref{propRoundIEEEX} or \ref{propRoundMPFRX}, depending
on whether $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system or a MPFR system.
As in the proof of Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound}, we define
$z_1 := y_0 + y_1$, $z_k := y_k$ for $2 \leq k \leq n$,
$s_k := \sum_{i = 1}^k z_i$ and $\hat{s}_k := \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{x},\wflmt}$
for $k = 0,\dots,n$. We also
use the set $\wcal{T}$ of indexes $k$ in $[1,n]$ such that
$\wabs{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} + z_k} < \tau$
for
\[
\tau := \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
r := \beta^{\mu} \frac{\beta - 1}{2}.
\]
Note that $\tau \in \wfpbin_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf$ because
$r$ is integer and $r < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$.
The threshold $\tau$ was chosen
because $\wfpnu = \beta^{\wfpemin + \wfpmu}$,
\pbDef{nouTau}
\tau = \frac{\beta + 1}{2} \wfpnu < \beta \nu
\peDef{nouTau}
and Prop. \ref{propRoundBelowAlpha} shows that
\pbDef{sseeeA}
\wabs{z} \leq \beta \wfpnu \Rightarrow \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \wfpa / 2,
\peDef{sseeeA}
where $\wfpa = \beta^{\wfpemin}$ for IEEE systems and
$\wfpa = \wfpnu = \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$ for MPFR systems.
Let $m \in [0,n]$ be the size of $\wcal{T}$.
We prove by induction that
\[
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt}
:= \sum_{k=1}^n \wabs{\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} - \wlr{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} + z_k}}
\]
satisfies
\pbTClaim{thSharpSumUnperfectPV}
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \leq
\frac{m \alpha}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} \wlr{\frac{m \alpha}{2} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k}}.
\peTClaim{thSharpSumUnperfectPV}
If $m = 0$ then $\wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx}$
and Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfectPV} follows from Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound}.
Assuming that Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfectPV} holds for $m - 1$,
let us show that it holds for $m$. If $\wabs{s_1} < \tau$ then
the sum $\wlr{\hat{s}_1 + z_2} + \sum_{k = 3}^n z_k$ has $n - 1$
parcels and there are $m - 1$ indices in $[2,n] \cap \wcal{T}$.
As a result $(n-1) - (m-1) = n - m$, Equation \pRef{sseeeA}, the identity $s_1 = z_1$ and induction yield
\[
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} =
\wabs{\hat{s}_1 - s_1} +
\wlr{\sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{\hat{s}_k - \wlr{\hat{s}_{k-1} + z_k}}}
\]
\[
\leq
\frac{\alpha}{2} + \wlr{\frac{\wlr{m - 1}\alpha}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} \wlr{
\frac{\wlr{m - 1}\alpha}{2} +
\wabs{\hat{s}_1 + z_2} + \sum_{k = 3}^n \wabs{z_k}}}
\]
\[
\leq
\frac{m \alpha}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} \wlr{
\wlr{ \wabs{\hat{s}_1 - s_1} - \frac{\alpha}{2}} +
\frac{m \wfpa}{2} +
\wabs{s_1} + \sum_{k = 2}^n \wabs{z_k}}
\]
\[
\leq
\frac{m \alpha}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} \wlr{ \frac{m \wfpa}{2} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k}}.
\]
Therefore, Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfectPV} holds when $\wabs{s_1} < \tau$.
Let us then assume that $\wabs{s_1} \geq \tau$ and define
$\ell \in [2,n]$ as the first index such that
$\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell - 1} + z_{\ell}} < \tau$,
\pbDef{IEEESpq}
S := \sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{z_k},
\hspace{1cm}
p := \ell - 1
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
q := n - m - \ell + 1.
\peDef{IEEESpq}
Monotonicity and $\tau \in \wfpf$ implies that
$\wabs{\hat{s}_\ell} = \wabs{\wflk{\ell}{\hat{s}_{\ell - 1} + z_{\ell}}} \leq \tau$
and the proof of Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound}, Equation \pRef{sseeeA} and induction yield
\[
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} =
\sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{\hat{s}_{k} - \wlr{s_{k - 1} + z_k}} +
\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell} - \hat{s}_{\ell - 1} - z_{\ell}} +
\sum_{k = \ell + 1}^{n} \wabs{\hat{s}_{k} - \wlr{\hat{s}_{k-1} + z_k}}
\]
\[
\leq
\frac{p u}{1 + p u} S +
\frac{\wfpa}{2} +
\wlr{ \frac{\wlr{m - 1}\alpha}{2} + \frac{q u}{1 + q u} \wlr{
\frac{ \wlr{m - 1} \alpha }{2} +
\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell} + z_{\ell + 1}} + \sum_{k = \ell + 2}^n \wabs{z_k}}}
\]
\pbDef{ssIEEEA}
\leq
\frac{p u}{1 + p u} S +
\frac{m \alpha}{2} +
\frac{q u}{1 + q u} \wlr{\frac{\wlr{m - 1}\alpha}{2} + \tau + \sum_{k = \ell + 1}^n \wabs{z_k}}.
\peDef{ssIEEEA}
If $S \geq 7 \tau / 6$ then
\[
\frac{p}{1 + p u} S + \frac{q}{1 + q u} \tau
\leq \wlr{\frac{p}{1 + p u} + \frac{6}{7} \frac{q}{1 + q u}} S
\leq \frac{\wlr{p + q} u}{1 + \wlr{p + q} u} S - \Delta S
\]
for
\[
\Delta := \frac{p + q}{1 + \wlr{p + q} u} - \wlr{\frac{p}{1 + p u} + \frac{6}{7} \frac{q}{1 + q u}}.
\]
The software Mathematica shows that
\[
\Delta = q \frac{1 + q u - 6 \wlr{2 + q u + p u} p u }{\wlr{1 + p u} \wlr{1 + q u} \wlr{1 + \wlr{p + q} u}}
\]
and the hypothesis $20 n u \leq 1$ implies that $\Delta \geq 0$.
Therefore, if $S \geq 7 \tau / 6$ then Equation \pRef{ssIEEEA} leads to
\[
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \leq \frac{m \alpha}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{p + q} u}{1 + \wlr{p + q} u} \wlr{\frac{m \alpha}{2} + S +\sum_{k = \ell + 1}^n \wabs{z_k}},
\]
and Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfectPV} follows from Equation \pRef{IEEESpq}. We can
then assume that $S < 7 \tau / 6$ and, for $1 \leq k < \ell$,
Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound} leads to
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_k} \leq \wabs{s_k} + \wabs{\hat{s}_k - s_k} \leq \wlr{1 + \frac{k u}{1 + k u}} S <
1.05 \times \frac{7}{6} \frac{\beta + 1}{2} \nu
< \frac{2}{3} \wlr{\beta + 1} \nu \leq \beta \wfpnu,
\]
and Equation \pRef{sseeeA} implies that $\wabs{\hat{s}_{k} - \wlr{\hat{s}_{k} + z_k}} \leq \wfpa/2$
for $1 \leq k < \ell$. It follows that
\pbDef{ssIEEEBA}
\sum_{k=1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{\hat{s}_{k} - \wlr{s_{k - 1} - z_k}}
\leq \wlr{\ell - 1} \wfpa / 2 = p \wfpa / 2.
\peDef{ssIEEEBA}
The identity $u \nu = \wfpa/2$ for IEEE systems
and the inequality $u \nu = u \wfpa \leq \wfpa/4$ for MPFR systems,
the hypothesis $20 n u \leq 1$ and
the fact that
\[
\sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{z_k} \geq \wabs{z_1} = \wabs{s_1} \geq \tau = \wlr{\beta + 1} \nu / 2 \geq \frac{3}{2} \nu
\]
imply that
\[
\frac{p \wfpa}{2} \leq \frac{p \wfpnu u}{2} \leq
\frac{2}{3} \wlr{1 + p u} \frac{p u}{1 + p u} \sum_{k = 1}^{\ell -1} \wabs{z_k}
\]
\[
\leq \frac{2}{3} \times \frac{21}{20} \times \frac{p u}{1 + p u} \sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{z_k} =
\frac{7}{10} \frac{p u}{1 + p u} \sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{z_k}.
\]
Using induction as in Equation \pRef{ssIEEEA}
and the bounds in the previous equation and in Equation \pRef{ssIEEEBA},
and recalling that $\wabs{z_1} \geq \tau$, we obtain
\[
\wfc{\eta}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \leq \frac{p \wfpa}{2} + \frac{\alpha}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{m - 1} \alpha}{2} + \frac{qu}{1 + q u} \wlr{\frac{\wlr{m - 1} \wfpa}{2} + \tau + \sum_{k = \ell + 1}^n \wabs{z_k}}
\]
\pbDef{IEEEUfa}
\leq
\frac{7}{10} \frac{p u}{1 + p u}\sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k} +
\frac{m \alpha}{2} + \frac{q u}{1 + q u} \wlr{\frac{m \wfpa}{2} + \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{z_k}}.
\peDef{IEEEUfa}
According to the software Mathematica,
\[
\frac{p + q}{1 + \wlr{p + q} u} - \wlr{\frac{q}{1 + q u} + \frac{7}{10} \frac{p}{1 + p u}}
= p \frac{3 + 3 p u - 7 \wlr{2 + q u + p u} q u}{10 \wlr{1 + p u} \wlr{1 + q u} \wlr{1 + \wlr{p + q} u}},
\]
and this number is positive due to the hypothesis $20 n u \leq 1$. As a result,
Equation \pRef{IEEEUfa} implies Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfectPV}
and this concludes the inductive proof of Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfectPV}.
This equation leads to
\pbDef{nouF}
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k \,} \leq
\frac{m \alpha}{2} + \frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} \wlr{\frac{m \wfpa}{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{y_k}},
\peDef{nouF}
and implies Equation \pRef{thSharpSumUnperfect} because $0 \leq m \leq n$.
Finally, when the additional condition in Corollary \ref{corNormOneUnperfect} holds
we have that
\[
\sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{y_k} \geq \theta \frac{\wlr{1 + n u}^2}{u} \wfpa
\]
for $1 > \theta := \frac{1}{\wlr{1 + n u}^2} \geq \wlr{20/21}^2 > 0.9$ and
the software Mathematica shows that
\[
\frac{n u}{1 + n u} \theta \frac{\wlr{1 + n u}^2}{u} \wfpa
- \wlr{\frac{m \wfpa}{2} + \frac{\wlr{ n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - mu} u}
\wlr{\frac{m \wfpa}{2} + \theta \frac{\wlr{1 + n u}^2}{u} \wfpa}}
\]
\[
= \wfpa m \frac{2 \theta - 1 + 2 u \wlr{ \wlr{\theta - 1} n + m}}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u}
\geq \wfpa m \frac{0.8 - 2 u \wlr{0.1 n - m}}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u}
> 0,
\]
and Equation \pRef{normOneBound} follows from Equation \pRef{nouF}.
\peProof{Corollary}{corNormOneUnperfect}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corSignedSum}
Define $z_1 := y_0 + y_1$ and $z_k := y_k$ for $2 \leq k \leq n$,
$s_k := \sum_{i = 1}^k z_i$ and
$\hat{s}_{k} := \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{x},\wflmt}$ for $k = 0, \dots, n$.
Let $\wfpsc$ be the perfect system corresponding to
$\beta$ and $\mu$ and $\wflmtx$
the rounding tuple in Props. \ref{propRoundIEEEX} or \ref{propRoundMPFRX},
depending on whether $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system or a MPFR system.
By definition of $\wflmtx$, we have that
$\wflk{k}{s_{k-1} + z_k} = \wflxkf{k}{s_{k-1} + z_k}$
when $\wabs{s_{k-1} + z_k} \geq \wfpnu$.
Let $\wcal{T}$ be the set
of indexes $k$ in $[1,n]$ such that
$\wabs{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} + z_k} < \wfpnu$
and $m \in [0,n]$ its size.
We prove by induction that
\pbTClaim{csi}
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k = 1}^n z_k} - \sum_{k = 1}^n z_k
\,
} \leq
\wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{n - m} u} m \frac{\alpha}{2} +
\frac{1 - m u / 2}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}.
\peTClaim{csi}
When $m = 0$ we have that $\hat{s}_n = \wfpsumkf{n}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx}$ and
Equation \pRef{csi} follows from Lemma \ref{lemSignedSum}.
Assuming that Equation \pRef{csi} holds for $m - 1$, let us
prove it for $m$. Let $\ell$ be the last element of $\wcal{T}$
(Note that $\ell \geq m$.)
It follows that $\wabs{\hat{s}_{k - 1} - z_k} \geq \nu$
for $k > \ell$ and
$\hat{s}_k = \wflxkf{k}{\hat{s}_{\ell} + \sum_{i = \ell + 1}^k z_i}$ for $k > \ell$.
The proof of Lemma \ref{lemSignedSum} shows that
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_{n} - \wlr{\hat{s}_{\ell} + \sum_{k = \ell + 1}^n z_k}} \leq
\frac{u}{1 - \wlr{\wlr{n - \ell} - 2} u}
\sum_{k = \ell + 1}^n \wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell} + \sum_{i = \ell + 1}^k z_i}
\]
\[
\leq \frac{u}{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u}
\sum_{k = \ell + 1}^n \wlr{\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell} - s_{\ell}} + \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}}
\]
\pbTClaim{csib}
= A u \wlr{\wlr{n - \ell} \wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell} - s_{\ell}} + \sum_{k= \ell + 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}},
\peTClaim{csib}
for
\[
A := \frac{1}{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u}.
\]
Moreover, $\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell - 1} + z_\ell} < \wfpnu$ and, by induction
and Prop. \ref{propRoundBelowAlpha},
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell} - s_{\ell}} \leq
\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell} - \hat{s}_{\ell - 1} - z_{\ell}} +
\wabs{\hat{s}_{\ell - 1} - s_{\ell - 1}}
\]
\[
\leq
\frac{\alpha}{2} + \wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{\ell - m} u} \wlr{m - 1 } \frac{\alpha}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{1 - \wlr{m - 1} u/2} u}{1 - \wlr{\ell - 3} u} \sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{\sum_{i = 1}^k z_i}
\]
\pbTClaim{cisc}
= \wlr{m + 2 \wlr{\ell - m} \wlr{m - 1} u} \frac{\alpha}{2} +
C u \sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{\sum_{j = 1}^k z_j}.
\peTClaim{cisc}
for
\[
C := \frac{1 - \wlr{m - 1} u / 2}{1 - \wlr{\ell - 3} u}.
\]
Combining Equations \pRef{csib} and \pRef{cisc} we obtain
\[
\wabs{\hat{s}_n - s_n} \leq
\wabs{\hat{s}_n - \wlr{\hat{s}_{\ell} + \sum_{k=\ell + 1}^n z_k}}
+ \wabs{\hat{s}_\ell - s_{\ell}} \leq
\]
\[
\leq
\wlr{1 + A \wlr{n - \ell} u} \wabs{\hat{s}_\ell - s_{\ell}} + A u \sum_{k=\ell + 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i =1}^k z_i}
\]
\pbTClaim{cisd}
\leq
D \wlr{m + 2 \wlr{\ell - m} \wlr{m - 1} u} \frac{\alpha}{2}
+ D C u \sum_{k = 1}^{\ell - 1} \wabs{\sum_{i =1}^k z_i}
+ A u \sum_{k=\ell + 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i =1}^k z_i},
\peTClaim{cisd}
for
\[
D := 1 + A \wlr{n - \ell} u = \frac{1 + 2 u}{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u}.
\]
We now show that $Q < 1$ for
\[
Q := \frac{D \wlr{m + 2 \wlr{\ell - m} \wlr{m - 1} u}}
{
\wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{n - m} u} m
}
=
\frac{\wlr{1 + 2 u}\wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{\ell - m}\wlr{1 - 1/m}u}}
{\wlr{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u}{\wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{n - m} u}}} .
\]
It easy to see that $Q < 1$ when $\ell = n$. Since $20 n u \leq 1$,
when $\ell < n$ we have
\[
Q < \frac{\wlr{1 + 2 u}\wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{\ell - m} u} }
{\wlr{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u}{\wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{n - m} u}}}
\]
\[
= \frac{1 + \wlr{2 \ell - 2 m + 2} u + 4 \wlr{\ell - m} u^2}
{
1 + \wlr{n + \ell - 2 m + 2} u - 2 \wlr{n - \ell - 2} \wlr{n - m} u^2
}
\]
\[
=
\frac{1 + \wlr{2 \ell - 2 m + 2} u + 4 \wlr{\ell - m} u^2}
{1 + \wlr{2 \ell - 2 m + 2} u + \wlr{n - \ell} \wlr{1 - 2
\frac{\wlr{n - \ell - 2}}{n - \ell} \wlr{n - m} u} u}
\]
\[
\leq \frac{1 + \wlr{2 \ell - 2 m + 2} u + 0.2 u}
{
1 + \wlr{2 \ell - 2 m + 2} u + \wlr{1 - 0.1} u
} < 1.
\]
Therefore, $Q < 1$ and, equivalently,
\pbDef{csad}
D \wlr{m + 2 \wlr{\ell - m} \wlr{m - 1} u} \leq \wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{n - m} u} m.
\peDef{csad}
Moreover,
\[
D C = \frac{1 + 2 u}{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u} \frac{1 - \wlr{m - 1} u / 2}{1 - \wlr{\ell - 3} u}
= \frac{\wlr{1 + 2 u} \wlr{1 - \wlr{m - 1} u / 2}}{1 - \wlr{n - 5} u + \wlr{\ell - 3}\wlr{n - \ell - 2} u^2 }.
\]
Note that the function $\wf{h}{\ell} := \wlr{\ell - 3}\wlr{n - \ell - 2}$ is concave.
Therefore its minimum in the interval $[1,n]$ is at the endpoints. Since
$\wfc{h}{1} = \wf{h}{n} = - 2 \wlr{n - 3}$, we have
\[
D C \leq \frac{\wlr{1 + 2 u} \wlr{1 - \wlr{m - 1} u / 2}}{1 - \wlr{n - 5} u - 2 \wlr{n - 3} u^2 },
\]
and the software Mathematica shows that
\[
\frac{\wlr{1 + 2 u} \wlr{1 - \wlr{m - 1} u / 2}}{1 - \wlr{n - 5} u - 2 \wlr{n - 3} u^2 }
- \frac{1 - m u / 2}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u }
= - u \frac{1 - 2 u - m u + n u}{2 \wlr{1 + 3 u - n u}\wlr{1 + 2 u - n u}} < 0,
\]
where the last inequality follows from the hypothesis $20 n u \leq 1$.
Therefore,
\[
D C \leq \frac{1 - m u / 2}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u }.
\]
Not also that, since $\ell \geq m$ and $20 n u \leq 1$,
\[
A - \frac{1 - m u/2}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} =
\frac{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u - \wlr{1 - m u /2} \wlr{1 - \wlr{ n - \ell - 2} u}}{\wlr{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} \wlr{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u}}
\]
\[
= - \frac{\ell - m / 2 \wlr{1 - \wlr{ n - \ell - 2} u}}{\wlr{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} \wlr{1 - \wlr{n - \ell - 2} u}} u < 0,
\]
and
\[
A \leq \frac{1 - m u / 2}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u }.
\]
The bounds on $DC$ and $A$ above, combined with Equations
\pRef{cisd} and \pRef{csad} imply Equation \pRef{csi}, and we
completed the inductive proof of this equation.
Finally, when $u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{ \sum_{i = 0}^n y_i} \geq n \wfpa$
Equation \pRef{csi} leads to
\[
\wabs{
\, \wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n y_k
\,
} \leq \theta_{m} u \sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i},
\]
for
\[
\theta_{m} := \wlr{1 + 2 \wlr{n - m} u} \frac{m}{2n } + \frac{1 - m u / 2}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u}.
\]
The derivative of $\theta_m$ with respect to $m$ is
\[
\frac{1 - u \wlr{4 m - 2} - 2 u^2 \wlr{n^2 - 2 m n + 4 m - 2 n}}{2 n \wlr{1 + 2 u - n u}},
\]
and it is positive because $20 m u \leq 20 n u \leq 1$. Thus, $\theta_m$ is maximized for
$m = n$ and
\[
\theta_m \leq \frac{m}{2} + \frac{1 - n u / 2}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} =
\frac{3 - 2 \wlr{n - 1} u}{2 \wlr{1- \wlr{n -2} u}},
\]
and Equation \pRef{thCorSignedSumL} holds because
\[
\frac{3 - 2 \wlr{n - 1} u}{2 \wlr{1- \wlr{n -2} u}} - \frac{3}{2} \wlr{1 + \frac{n u}{2}}
= - u \frac{8 + n \wlr{1 - 3 \wlr{n - 2} u}}{1 - \wlr{n - 2} u} < 0
\]
when $20 n u \leq 1$.
\peProof{Corollary}{corSignedSum}\\
\iftoggle{LatexFull}{
\section{Extended version}
\label{secExtend}
In this part of the article we prove Lemmas \ref{lemSterbenz}
and \ref{lemConvexity},
the corollaries which were not proved in the previous sections,
and the propositions. We try to prove every
assertion we make, no matter how trivial it may sound.
In all propositions $\wfpf$ is a floating point
system, $z \in \wrone{}$, $x \in \wfpf$,
$\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$,
and $u$, $\wfpemin{}$, $\mu$ $\wfpa$ and $\wfpnu$ are the numbers
related to this system in Definitions \ref{longDefEps},
\ref{longDefPerfect}, \ref{longDefMPFR}, \ref{longDefIEEE},
\ref{longDefAlpha} and \ref{longDefNu}.
\subsection{Proofs of Lemmas \ref{lemSterbenz} and \ref{lemConvexity}}
\label{secExtLem}
In this section we prove Lemmas \ref{lemSterbenz} and \ref{lemConvexity}.\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemSterbenz}
If $b - a < \beta \nu$ then Lemma \ref{lemSterbenz} follows from
Lemma \ref{lemSmallSum}. Therefore, we can assume that $b - a \geq \beta \nu$.
Prop. \ref{propNormalForm} implies that $a = \beta^{d}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}$
and $b = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + s}$ with $d,e \in \wz{}$ and
$r,s \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu})$. Since $a \leq b \leq 2 a$
and $\beta \geq 2$,
\[
\beta^{d}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r} \leq \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + s} \leq
2 \beta^{d}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r} \leq \beta^{d + 1}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}.
\]
Prop. \ref{propOrder} shows that $d \leq e \leq d + 1$ and
either (i) $e = d$ or (ii) $e = d + 1$. In case (i)
$b - a = \beta^{e} \wlr{s - r} \geq \beta \nu$.
Since $0 \leq s - r < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$ and $b - a \geq \nu$,
Prop. \ref{propNu} implies that $b - a \in \wfpf$.
In case (ii) $0 < b - a = \beta^{d} t$
for $t := \wlr{ \wlr{\beta - 1 } \beta^{\mu} + \beta s - r} > 0$ and
\[
b - a \leq a \Rightarrow t \leq \beta^{\mu} + r < \beta^{1 + \mu}.
\]
This bound, the assumption $b - a \geq \beta \nu$ and Prop.
\ref{propNu} imply that $z \in \wfpf$.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemSterbenz}\\
\pbProofB{Lemma}{lemConvexity}
The function $g_k$ has first derivative
\[
\wdf{g_k}{u} = -\wfc{g_k}{u} \sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{n_i}{1 + n_i u}
\]
and second derivative
\[
\wdsf{g_k}{u} = \wfc{g_k}{u} \wlr{ \wlr{\sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{n_i}{1 + n_i u}}^2 + \sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{n_i^2}{\wlr{1 + n_i u}^2}} > 0,
\]
and, therefore, it is convex. Similarly, the function $f_k$ has first derivative
\[
\wdf{f_k}{u} = \wfc{f_k}{u} \sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{n_i}{\wlr{1 + n_i u} \wlr{1 + 2 n_i u}}
\]
and second derivative
\[
\wdsf{f_k}{u} = \wfc{f_k}{u} \wlr{ \wlr{\sum_{i = 1}^k \frac{n_i}{\wlr{1 + n_i u} \wlr{1 + 2 n_i u}}}^2 -
\sum_{i=1}^k \frac{n_i^2 \wlr{3 + 4 n_i u}}{\wlr{\wlr{1 + n_i u} \wlr{1 + 2 n_i u}}^2}}.
\]
It follows that
\pbDef{dsf}
\wdsf{f_k}{u} =
-\wfc{f_k}{u} \wvec{v}^\wtr{} \wlr{3 \wvec{I} - \mathds{1} \mathds{1}^{\wtr{}}} \wvec{v}
- 4 \wfc{f_k}{u} u \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{n_i^3}{\wlr{\wlr{1 + n_i u} \wlr{1 + 2 n_i u}}^2},
\peDef{dsf}
where $\wvec{I}$ is the $k \times k$ identity matrix, $\mathds{1} \in \wrn{k}$ is the vector
with all entries equal to $1$ and $\wvec{v} \in \wrn{k}$ has entries
\[
v_i := \frac{n_i}{\wlr{1 + n_i u} \wlr{1 + 2 n_i u}}.
\]
The $k \times k$ symmetric matrix $\wvec{M} = 3 \wvec{I} - \mathds{1} \mathds{1}^{\wtr{}}$ has a $(k-1)$
dimensional eigenspace associated to
the eigenvalue $3$ which is orthogonal to $\mathds{1}$,
and $\mathds{1}$ is an eigenvector with
eigenvalue $3 - k$. Therefore, $\wvec{M}$ is positive semidefinite for $k \leq 3$,
Equation \pRef{dsf} implies that
\[
\wdsf{f_k}{u} \leq
- 4 \wfc{f_k}{u} u \sum_{i=1}^k \frac{n_i^3}{\wlr{\wlr{1 + n_i u} \wlr{1 + 2 n_i u}}^2} < 0
\]
and we are done.
\peProof{Lemma}{lemConvexity}\\
\subsection{Proofs of the remaining corollaries}
\label{secExtCor}
In this section we prove the corollaries which were
not proved in the previous sections.\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corFourProd} Corollary \ref{corFourProd} is
a consequence of the convexity of $\wlr{1 + u}^{-k}$ and
the concavity of $f^k$ for $k \leq 3$ and $f$ in \pRef{concF}, which yield
\[
1 - k u \leq \frac{1}{\wlr{1 + u}^k} \leq \wlr{\frac{1 + 2 u}{1 + u}}^k \leq 1 + k u
\]
for $k = 1$, $2$ and $3$.
\peProof{Corollary}{corFourProd}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corNormOneIEEE}
Let $\wflmtx$ be the rounding tuple in Prop. \ref{propRoundIEEEX}.
If the $y_k$ are floating point numbers
then $\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmtx}$ for all $k$
and Corollary \ref{corNormOneIEEE} follows from Lemma
\ref{lemNormOneBound}.
\peProof{Corollary}{corNormOneIEEE}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corNormOneMPFR}
Let $\wflmtx$ be the rounding tuple in Prop. \ref{propRoundMPFRX}.
If all $y_k$ are non negative floating point numbers
then $\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmtx}$ for all $k$ and
Corollary \ref{corNormOneMPFR} follows from Lemma
\ref{lemNormOneBound}.
\peProof{Corollary}{corNormOneMPFR} \\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corPositiveUnperfect}
If $\wfpf$ is a MPFR system, let $\wflmtx$ be
the rounding tuple in Prop. \ref{propRoundMPFRX}.
Since all $y_k$ belong to $\wfpsm$ and are non negative
we have that $\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmtx}$ for all $k$
and Corollary \ref{corPositiveUnperfect} follows from Lemma
\ref{lemPositiveBound}.
If $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system,
let $\wflmtx$ be rounding tuple in Prop. \ref{propRoundIEEEX}.
Since all $y_k$ are floating point numbers,
$\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{y},\wflmtx}$ for all $k$
and Corollary \ref{corPositiveUnperfect} follows from Lemma
\ref{lemPositiveBound}.
\peProof{Corollary}{corPositiveUnperfect}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corFmaPerfect}
In a perfect system, the dot product of $n + 1$ numbers evaluated
using a fma, as in Definition \ref{longDefFmaDot},
is the floating point sum of the $(n + 2)$ real numbers
$p_0 := 0$ and $p_k := x_{k-1} y_{k-1}$ for $k > 0$,
and Equation \pRef{thSharpFmaDotNear} follows from
Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound} applied to the $p_k$.
\peProof{Corollary}{corFmaPerfect}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corFmaUnperfect}
In an unperfect systems, the dot product of $n + 1$ numbers evaluated
using a fma, as in Definition \ref{longDefFmaDot},
is the floating point sum of the $(n + 2)$ real numbers
$p_0 := 0$ and $p_k := x_{k-1} y_{k-1}$ for $k > 0$,
and Corollary \ref{corFmaUnperfect} follows from
Corollary \ref{corNormOneUnperfect} applied to the $p_k$.
\peProof{Corollary}{corFmaUnperfect}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corDotPerfect}
The dot product is the floating point sum of the floating point numbers
$p_k := \wflrk{r}{k}{x_k y_k}$. In a perfect system, Lemma
\ref{lemUNear} shows that
\[
p_k = x_k y_k + \theta_k \frac{u}{1 + u} x_k y_k
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{with} \hspace{1cm} \wabs{\theta_k} \leq 1,
\]
and Lemma \ref{lemNormOneBound} implies that
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n p_k}
= \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k}.
\]
It follows that
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k }
\leq
\sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k - x_k} +
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n p_k}
\leq \beta_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}
\]
for
\[
\beta_n := \frac{1}{1 + u} \wlr{1 + \frac{n}{1 + n u} \wlr{1 + 2 u}}
= \frac{n + 1 + 3 n u}{1 + \wlr{n + 1} u + n u^2}.
\]
Finally, note that for $n \geq 1$ and $20 n u \leq 1$,
\[
\beta_n - \frac{n + 1}{1 + n u/2} =
- u \frac{\wlr{n - 2} \wlr{n - 1 - n u}}{\wlr{1 + n u/2} \wlr{1 + \wlr{n+1}u + n u^2}} \leq 0,
\]
and
\[
\beta_n - \frac{n + 1}{1 + \wlr{n - 3} u} =
- u \frac{n + 4 + 10 n u - 2 n^2 u}{\wlr{1 + \wlr{n + 1} u + n u^2}\wlr{1 + \wlr{n - 3} u}} < 0.
\]
\peProof{Corollary}{corDotPerfect}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corDotIEEE}
The dot product is the sum of the
$n + 1$ floating point numbers $p_k := \wflrk{r}{k}{x_k y_k}$, and
Corollary \ref{corNormOneIEEE} shows that
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} \leq \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k}.
\]
We also have
\[
\wabs{p_k - x_k y_k} \leq \frac{u}{1 + u} \wabs{x_k y_k} + \frac{\wfpa}{2}
\]
and
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} \leq
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k - x_k y_k}
\]
\[
\leq \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k - x_k y_k}
\]
\[
\leq \frac{n u}{1 + n u} \wlr{ \frac{1 + 2 u}{1 + u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} + \wlr{n + 1} \frac{\alpha}{2}} +
\frac{\wlr{n+1} \alpha}{2} + \frac{u}{1 + u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}
\]
\[
= \beta_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} + b \frac{\alpha}{2}
\]
for $\beta_n$ in Corollary \ref{corDotPerfect} and
\[
b := \wlr{n + 1} \wlr{1 + \frac{n u}{1 + n u}} = \wlr{n + 1} \frac{1 + 2 n u}{1 + n u} < 1.05 \wlr{n + 1},
\]
because $20 n u \leq 1$. Finally, if $ u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} \geq \wfpa$ then
\[
\beta_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} + b \frac{\alpha}{2} \leq
\theta_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{for} \hspace{1cm}
\theta_n := \beta_n + \frac{n + 1}{2} \frac{1 + 2 n u}{1 + n u},
\]
and the software Mathematica shows that
\[
\theta_n - 3 \frac{n +1}{2} = - u \frac{n^2 - 3 n + 2 + n u \wlr{1 + n}}{2 \wlr{1 + u} \wlr{1 + n u}}
\]
which is negative for $n \geq 1$. This proves
the last equation in Corollary \ref{corDotIEEE}.
\peProof{Corollary}{corDotIEEE}\\
\pbProofB{Corollary}{corDotMPFR}
The dot product is the sum of the
$n + 1$ floating point numbers $p_k := \wflrk{r}{k}{x_k y_k}$, and
the proof of Corollary \ref{corNormOneUnperfect} shows that
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} \leq \frac{m \wfpa}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} \wlr{\frac{m \wfpa}{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k}},
\]
for some $m \in [0,n]$. We also have that
\[
\wabs{p_k - x_k y_k} \leq \frac{u}{1 + u} \wabs{x_k y_k} + \frac{\wfpa}{2}
\]
and
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} \leq
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n p_k} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k - x_k y_k}
\]
\[
\leq \frac{m \wfpa}{2} +
\frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u}
\wlr{\frac{m \wfpa}{2} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k}} + \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{p_k - x_k y_k}
\]
\pbDef{MPRFBA}
\leq \frac{\wlr{n - m} u}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u}
\wlr{ \frac{1 + 2 u}{1 + u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} + \wlr{m + n + 1} \frac{\wfpa}{2}} +
\peDef{MPRFBA}
\[
\frac{\wlr{m + n+1} \wfpa}{2} + \frac{u}{1 + u} \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}
\leq \beta_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} + b \frac{\wfpa}{2}
\]
for $\beta_n$ in Corollary \ref{corDotPerfect} and
\[
b := \frac{n^2 + n - m^2 -m}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} u + \wlr{m + n + 1} \leq \frac{n \wlr{n + 1} u}{1 + n u} + 2 n + 1 \leq 2.05n + 1.05.
\]
Finally, if $ u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k} \geq \wfpa$,
then
\[
\wabs{\wflt{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} - \sum_{k = 0}^n x_k y_k} \leq
\gamma_n u \sum_{k = 0}^n \wabs{x_k y_k}
\]
for
\[
\gamma_n := \beta_n + \frac{1}{2} \wlr{\frac{n^2 + n - m^2 -m}{1 + \wlr{n - m} u} u + \wlr{m + n + 1}}.
\]
The derivative of $\gamma_n$ with respect to $m$ is
\[
- \frac{1 + 2 n u + u}{\wlr{1 + \wlr{n - mu} u}^2} < 0
\]
and $\gamma_n$ is maximized for $m = 0$, in which case
it is equal to the $\theta_n$ in the proof of Corollary \ref{corDotIEEE}.
This proves the last statement in Corollary \ref{corDotMPFR}.
\peProof{Corollary}{corDotMPFR}\\
\subsection{Numbers}
\label{secNumbers}
This section contains new propositions about real and integer numbers,
and the proofs of propositions related to these numbers stated
in the main part of the article.
\subsubsection{Propositions}
\label{secNumbersProps}
This sections presents more propositions regarding real and integer numbers.
\pbPropBT{propNormalFormCont}{Continuity of the normal form}
If $e$ is integer, $\wabs{z} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}$ with
$0 < w < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$ and
\[
\wabs{y - z} < \beta^{e} \min \wset{w, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu} - w}
\]
then $y = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v}$ with $0 < v < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$
and $\wabs{v - w} = \beta^{-e} \wabs{y - z}$.
\peFullProp{propNormalFormCont}
\pbPropBT{propNormalFormDis}{Discontinuity of the normal form}
If $e$ is integer and $\wabs{z} = \beta^{e + \mu}$ with $\wabs{y - z} < \beta^{e + \mu - 1} \wlr{\beta - 1}$
then we have three possibilities:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $\wabs{y} < \wabs{z}$ and
$y = \wsign{z} \beta^{e - 1} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}$ with
\[
0 < v = \wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\mu} - \beta^{1 - e} \wabs{y - z} < \wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\mu}.
\]
\item[(ii)] $\wabs{y} = \wabs{z}$ and $y = z$.
\item[(iii)] $\wabs{y} > \wabs{z}$ and
$y = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}$ with $0 < w = \beta^{-e} \wabs{y - z} < \beta^{\mu - 1} \wlr{\beta - 1}$.
\end{itemize}
\peProp{propNormalFormDis}
\subsubsection{Proofs}
\label{secNumbersProof}
In this section we prove the propositions regarding integer and real numbers.\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propOrder} Since $d,e\in \wz{}$ and $d < e$ we have
that $e - d \geq 1$ and
\[
\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + w} - \beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + v} \geq
\beta^{d} \wlr{\wlr{\beta^{e - d} - 1} \beta^{\wfpmu} - v} \geq
\beta^{d} \wlr{\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\wfpmu} - v} > 0,
\]
and this shows that $\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + w} > \beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + v}$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propOrder}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propNormalForm}
The integer exponent $e := \wfloor{\wfc{\log_{\beta}}{\wabs{z}}} - \wfpmu$ satisfies
\[
\wfc{\log_{\beta}}{\wabs{z}} - \wfpmu - 1 < e \leq \wfc{\log_{\beta}}{\wabs{z}} - \wfpmu
\hspace{1.0cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1.0cm}
{\beta}^{- \wfpmu - 1} \wabs{z} < {\beta}^{e} \leq \wabs{z} {\beta}^{-\wfpmu}.
\]
The equation above shows that
$w := {\beta}^{-e} \wabs{z} - {\beta}^{\wfpmu}$ satisfies $0 \leq w < \wlr{\beta - 1}{\beta}^{\wfpmu}$
and $z = \wsign{z} {\beta}^{e}\wlr{{\beta}^{\wfpmu} + w}$. If
$z = \wsign{z} {\beta}^{d} \wlr{{\beta}^{\wfpmu} + v}$
with $d \in \wz{}$ and $0 \leq v < \wlr{\beta - 1} {\beta}^{\wfpmu}$ then
\[
{\beta}^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + w} = \wabs{z} = {\beta}^{d} \wlr{{\beta}^{\wfpmu} + v},
\]
and Prop. \ref{propOrder} implies that $d = e$, and the equation above implies that $v = w$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propNormalForm}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propNormalFormCont}
We have that
\[
\wabs{1 - \frac{y}{z}} < \frac{\beta^{e} w}{\wabs{z}} = \frac{w}{\beta^{\mu} + w} < 1
\ \ \Rightarrow \frac{y}{z} > 0 \Rightarrow y \neq 0,
\]
and Prop. \ref{propNormalForm} yield $d$ and $v \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu})$ such
that $y = \wsign{y} \beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v}$. The inequality
\[
\frac{\wsign{y} \beta^{d}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v}}{\wsign{z} \beta^{e}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}} = \frac{y}{z} > 0
\]
implies that $\wsign{y} = \wsign{z}$. Moreover,
\[
\beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v} = \wabs{y} \leq \wabs{z} + \wabs{y-z} < \wabs{z} + \beta^{e} \wlr{\wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\mu} - w} = \beta^{e + 1 +\mu}
\]
and Prop. \ref{propOrder} implies that $d \leq e$. Similarly,
\[
\beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v} = \wabs{y}\geq \wabs{z} - \wabs{y-z} > \wabs{z} - \beta^{e} w = \beta^{e + \mu},
\]
and $d \geq e$. Therefore $d = e$,
$y = \wsign{y} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v}$ and
$\wabs{y - z} =\beta^{e} \wabs{w - z}$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propNormalFormCont}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propNormalFormDis}
We have that
\[
\wabs{1 - \frac{y}{z}} < \frac{\beta - 1}{\beta} < 1
\ \ \Rightarrow \frac{y}{z} > 0 \Rightarrow y \neq 0,
\]
and Prop \ref{propNormalForm} yields $d \in \wz{}$ and $w \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu})$ such
that $y = \wsign{y} \beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}$. The inequality
\[
\frac{\wsign{y} \beta^{d}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w}}{\wsign{z} \beta^{e + \mu}} = \frac{y}{z} > 0
\]
implies that $\wsign{y} = \wsign{z}$. We also have that
\[
\beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w} = \wabs{y} \leq \wabs{z} + \wabs{y-z} < \wabs{z} + \beta^{e + \mu - 1} \wlr{\beta - 1}
= \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^\mu + \beta^{\mu - 1} \wlr{\beta - 1} }
\]
and Prop. \ref{propOrder} implies that $d \leq e$. It $\wabs{y} \geq \wabs{z}$ then
Prop. \ref{propOrder} implies that $d \geq e$. It follows that $d = e$ and the conditions
in items (ii) and (iii) in Prop. \ref{propNormalFormDis} are satisfied. If $\wabs{y} < \wabs{z}$ then
Prop. \ref{propOrder} implies that $d < e$ and
\[
\beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + w} = \wabs{y} \geq \wabs{z} - \beta^{e + \mu - 1} \wlr{\beta - 1} =
\beta^{e - 1} \wlr{\beta^{\mu + 1} - \wlr{\beta^{\mu + 1} - \beta^{\mu}}} =
\beta^{e - 1 + \mu}
\]
and Prop. \ref{propOrder} imply that $d \geq e - 1$. Therefore $d = e - 1$
and the conditions in item (i) in Prop. \ref{propNormalFormDis} are satisfied.
\peProof{Proposition}{propNormalFormDis}\\
\subsection{Floating point systems}
\label{secfloatSys}
In this section we present more definitions related to floating point systems
and more propositions about them. We prove the propositions regarding
floating point systems stated in the previous sections and the propositions
stated here. In most definitions, propositions and proofs in this section
$\wfpf$ is a floating point system,
$\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$, $z,w \in \wrone{}$ and $x,y \in \wfpf$,
and the numbers $\wfpa$ and $\wfpnu$ are as in Definitions
\ref{longDefAlpha} and \ref{longDefNu}, and the
exceptions are stated explicitly.
\subsubsection{Propositions}
\label{floatSysProps}
This section presents more propositions regarding floating point systems.
\pbPropBT{propAlpha}{Minimality of alpha}
$\wfpa \in \wfpf$ and if $x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0}$ then $\wabs{x} \geq \wfpa$.
\peProp{propAlpha}
\pbPropBT{propEmptyNormalRange}{Empty normal range}
If $e$ is an exponent for $\wfpf$ and $r$ is an integer with $r \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu})$
then $\wfpf \cap \wlr{\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}, \, \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r + 1}} = \emptyset$.
\peFullProp{propEmptyNormalRange}
\pbPropBT{propEmptySubnormalRange}{Empty subnormal range}
Let $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin}$ be an IEEE system. If $r \in \wz{}$
and $-\beta^{\mu} \leq r < \beta^{\mu}$
then $\wlr{\beta^{\wfpemin} r, \, \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{r+ 1}} \cap \wfpsi_{\wfpemin} = \emptyset$.
\peFullProp{propEmptySubnormalRange}
\pbPropBT{propSysScale}{Scale invariance}
If $\wfpf$ is perfect then $x \in \wfpf$ if and only if $\beta x \in \wfpf$.
If $\wfpf$ is unperfect and $x \in \wfpf$ then $\beta x \in \wfpf$.
\peProp{propSysScale}
\subsubsection{Proofs}
\label{floatSysProofs}
In this section we prove the propositions regarding floating point systems.\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propIntegerForm}
According to Definitions \ref{longDefMPFR} and \ref{longDefIEEE} of MPFR system
and IEEE system, we have three possibilities: (i) $x = 0$, in which case
$x = \beta^{\wfpemin} r$ for $r = 0$,
(ii) $x$ is subnormal, and $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system
and $x = \beta^{\wfpemin} r$ with $\wabs{r} \in [1,\beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$ and
(iii) $x \in \wfpbin_{e}$ for some $e \geq \wfpemin$,
and $x = \beta^{\wfpemin + e} r$ with $\wabs{r} \in [\beta^{\mu},\beta^{1 + \mu}) \cap \wz{}$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propIntegerForm}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propSymmetry}
In the three possible cases, Definitions \ref{longDefPerfect}, \ref{longDefMPFR}
and \ref{longDefIEEE}, the floating point systems are clearly symmetric.
\peProof{Proposition}{propSymmetry}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propNu}
If $\wfpf$ is a perfect system or a MPFR system and $x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0}$ then
$\wabs{x} \in \wfpbin_{e}$ for some exponent $e$ for $\wfpf$ by
Definitions \ref{longDefPerfect} and \ref{longDefMPFR}.
If $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin}$ then
$\nu = \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$ and $x$ with $\wabs{x} \geq \nu$
is not subnormal. As a result, by definition of IEEE system, $\wabs{x} \in \wfpbin_{e}$ for
some exponent $e$ for $\wfpf$. If $0 < \wabs{x} < \wfpnu$ then
$\wfpf$ is not perfect, because $\wfpnu = 0$ for perfect systems.
Moreover, $\wabs{x} \not \in \wfpbin_{e}$
for $e \geq \wfpemin$ and, by Definition \ref{longDefMPFR},
$\wfpf$ is not a MPFR system.
Therefore, $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system and $x$ is subnormal.
Regarding the converse part, if $r$ is a multiple of $\beta$
then we can replace $e$ by $e + 1$ and $r$ by $r/\beta$ and $z$ stays the same.
Therefore, we can assume that $r$ is not a multiple of $\beta$. In particular,
$\wabs{r} < \beta^{1 + \mu}$.
By symmetry (Prop. \ref{propSymmetry}), it suffices to show that $\wabs{z} \in \wfpf$
when $\wabs{z} \geq \wfpnu$. If $\wfpf$ is perfect then $\wabs{z} \in \wfpbin_{e}$
and Prop. \ref{propNu} holds. Therefore, we can assume that $\wfpf$ is unperfect.
In this case $\wfpnu = \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$ by Definition \ref{longDefNu} and
$\beta^{e} \wabs{r} \geq \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$;
actually $\beta^{e} \wabs{r} > \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$ because $r$ is not
a multiple of $\beta$. Since $0 < \wabs{r} < \beta^{1 + \mu}$,
there exists a first integer $d > 1$ such that $\beta^d \wabs{r} \geq \beta^{1 + \mu}$.
Dividing $\beta^{d-1} \wabs{r}$ by $\beta^{\mu}$ we obtain that
$\beta^{d-1} \wabs{r} = \beta^{\mu} q + p$ for $p,q \in \wz{}$ with $q \geq 0$ and $0 \leq p < \beta^{\mu}$.
The definition of $d$ yields $\beta^{1 + \mu} > \beta^{d - 1} \wabs{r} = \beta^{\mu} q + p$
and
\[
s := \wlr{q - 1} \beta^\mu + p < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}.
\]
Moreover,
\[
\beta^{1 + \mu} q + \beta p = \beta^{d} \wabs{r} \geq \beta^{1 + \mu} \Rightarrow
q \geq 1 - p/\beta^\mu > 0 \ \ \Rightarrow q \geq 1 \ \ \Rightarrow s \geq 0.
\]
As a result, $\wabs{r} = \beta^{1 - d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + s}$
with $s \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu})$
and Prop. \ref{propOrder} leads to
\[
\wabs{z} \geq \wfpnu \Rightarrow \beta^{e + 1 - d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + s} \geq \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{\beta^\mu + 0}
\]
\[
\Rightarrow e + 1 - d \geq \wfpemin \Rightarrow \wabs{z} = \beta^{e + 1 - d} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + s} \in \wfpbin_{e + 1 - d} \subset \wfpf.
\]
\peProof{Proposition}{propNu}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propSubnormalSum}
Prop. \ref{propSymmetry} states that
$x + y \in \wfpsi \Leftrightarrow -\wlr{x + y} \in \wfpsi$,
and it suffices to show that $\wabs{x + y} \in \wfpsi$.
Since $x$ and $y$ are subnormal,
$x = \wsign{x} \beta^{\wfpemin} r_x$ with
$r_x \in [1,\beta^{\wfpmu}) \cap \wz{}$ and
$y = \wsign{y} \beta^{\wfpemin} r_y$ with
$r_y \in [1,\beta^{\wfpmu}) \cap \wz{}$.
If $\wsign{x} = - \wsign{y}$ then $\wabs{x + y} = \beta^{\wfpemin} \wabs{r_x - r_y}$
and $\wabs{x + y}$ is either $0$ or subnormal, because
\[
\wabs{r_x - r_y} < \max \wset{r_x,r_y} < \beta^{\wfpmu}.
\]
If $\wsign{x} = \wsign{y}$ then $\wabs{x + y} = \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{r_x + r_y}$
with $1 < r_x + r_y < 2 \beta^{\wfpmu} \leq \beta^{1 + \mu}$. If $r_x + r_y < \beta^{\wfpmu}$ then
$x + y$ is subnormal, otherwise $\wabs{x + y} \geq \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu} = \wfpnu$
and Prop. \ref{propNu} implies that $\wabs{x + y} \in \wfpsi$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propSubnormalSum}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propCriticalSum}
Let us start with $s := x + z > 0$.
If $x \leq \beta^{e + \mu}$ then Prop. \ref{propCriticalSum} holds
because $z = s - x \geq \beta^{e} \wlr{r + 1/2} \geq \beta^{e} / 2$.
If $x \geq \beta^{e + \mu + 1}$ then
\[
z := s - x \leq \beta^e \wlr{r + 1/2 + \beta^{\mu} - \beta^{\mu + 1}}
= - \beta^{e} / 2 - \wlr{ \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu} - \wlr{r + 1}}
\leq -\beta^{e}/2,
\]
because $r \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$,
and again $\wabs{z} \geq \beta^e/2$.
Therefore, we only need to analyze the case $\beta^{e + \mu} < x < \beta^{e + \mu + 1}$.
In this case, by Prop. \ref{propNormalForm}, $x = \beta^{d} \wlr{\beta^\mu + t}$ for
$d \in \wz{}$ and $t \in [0,\wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$.
Prop. \ref{propOrder} implies that $d = e$ and
\[
z = s - x = \beta^{e} \wlr{r - t + 1/2} \ \ \Rightarrow \ \
\wabs{z} \geq \beta^{e} \wabs{r - t + 1/2} \geq \beta^{e}/2,
\]
because $r - t \in \wz{}$, and we are done with the case $x + z > 0$.
Finally, when $x + z < 0$ the argument
above for $-x$ and $-z$ and leads to $\wabs{z} = \wabs{-z} \geq \beta^e/2$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propCriticalSum}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propAlpha}
If $\wfpf$ is perfect then $\alpha = 0 \in \wfpf$ and Prop. \ref{propAlpha} is trivial.
If $\wfpf$ is the MPFR system
$\wfpsm_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$ then $\alpha = \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu} \in \wfpbin_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf$
and if $x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0}$ then $\wabs{x} \in \wfpbin_{e}$ for some $e \geq \wfpemin$.
By definition of $\wfpbin_{e}$, $\wabs{x} = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}$
with $r \geq 0$ and $\wabs{x} \geq \alpha$.
Finally, if $\wfpf$ is the IEEE system $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$ then
$\alpha = \beta^{\wfpemin} \in \wfpbin_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf$ and if $x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0}$ then
$\wabs{x} \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0}$ and
either (i) $\wabs{x} \in \wfps_{\wfpemin}$ or (ii) $\wabs{x} \in \wfpbin_{e}$ with $e \geq \wfpemin$.
In case (i), $\wabs{x} = \beta^{\wfpemin} r$ for $r \in \wz{} \setminus {0}$ and $\wabs{x} \geq \alpha$.
As for the MPFR system, in case (ii) $\wabs{x} \geq \alpha$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propAlpha}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propEmptyNormalRange}
We show that if $z \in \wlr{\beta^{e}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}, \ \beta^{e}\wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r + 1}}$
then $z \not \in \wfpf$.
By Prop. \ref{propOrder} and \ref{propNormalForm},
there exists $w$ with $r < w < r + 1$ such that $z = \beta^{e}\wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + w}$.
$z \not \in - \wfpbin_{d}$ because $z > 0$.
Prop. \ref{propOrder} implies that if $d > e$ then $z < y$ for
$y \in \wfpbin_{d}$ and if $d < e$ then $z > y$ for $y \in \wfpbin_{d}$.
Therefore, $z \not \in \bigcup_{d \neq e} \wfpbin_{d}$.
Moreover, if $y \in \wfpbin_{e}$ then
$y = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\wfpmu} + s}$ with $s \in \wz{}$ and
$y \neq z$ because $w \not \in \wz{}$. As a result,
$z \not \in \bigcup_{d \in \wz{}} \wlr{\wfpbin_{d} \cup -\wfpbin_{d}}$.
This proves that $z \not \in \wfpf$ when
$\wfpf$ is a perfect or MPFR system. Finally,
if $\wfpf$ is an IEEE system $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin}$ then
$e \geq \wfpemin$ because $e$ is an exponent for $\wfpf$,
and $z > y$ for all $y \in \wfps_{\wfpemin} \cup -\wfps_{\wfpemin}$.
This shows that $z \not \in \wfps_{\wfpemin} \cup -\wfps_{\wfpemin}$ and
$z \not \in \wfpf$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propEmptyNormalRange}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propEmptySubnormalRange}
We show that if $z \in \wlr{\beta^{\wfpemin}r, \ \beta^{\wfpemin}\wlr{r + 1}}$
then $z \not \in \wfpsi$.
We have that $\wabs{z} < \beta^{\wfpemin} \max \wset{\wabs{r},\wabs{r + 1}} \leq \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu}$
and $\wabs{z} \not \in \bigcup_{e = \wfpemin}^{\infty} \wfpbin_{e}$.
Moreover, $w := \beta^{-\wfpemin} z$
is such that $r < w < r + 1$
and $z = \beta^{\wfpemin} w$. It follows that $w \not \in \wz{}$
and $\wabs{z} \not \in \wfps_{\wfpemin}$,
and combining the arguments above and symmetry (Prop. \ref{propSymmetry}) we conclude that $z \not \in \wfpsi$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propEmptySubnormalRange}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propSysScale}
Since $\wcal{A}_e := \wset{\beta x, x \in \wfpbin_{e}} = \wfpbin_{e + 1}$,
the set $\wfpsc$ in Definition \ref{longDefPerfect} is such that
$x \in \wfpsc$ if and only if $\beta x \in \wfpsc$.
For the MPFR system $\wfpsm_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$, if $x \in \wfpsm$ then
$\wabs{x} \in \wfpbin_{e}$ for some $e \geq \wfpemin$, $\wabs{\beta x} \in \wfpbin_{e +1} \subset \wfpsm$
and $\beta x \in \wfpsm$ by symmetry (Prop. \ref{propSymmetry}.)
For the IEEE system $\wfpsi_{\wfpemin,\beta,\mu}$, if $x \in \wfpsi$ then
either $x \in \wfpbin_{e}$ for some $e \geq \wfpemin$,
and the argument used in the MFPR case applies to $x$, or
$x = \wsign{x} \beta^{\wfpemin} r$ with $r \in [0,\beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$.
If $\beta r < \mu$ then $\wabs{\beta x} = \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{\beta r} \in \wfps_{\wfpemin}$
and $\beta x \in \wfpsi$ by symmetry. If $\beta r \geq \beta^\mu$ then
$s = \beta r - \beta^{\mu} \in [0, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}) \cap \wz{}$
and $\wabs{\beta x} = \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + s} \in \wfpbin_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpsi$
and $s \in \wfpsi$ by symmetry.
\peProof{Proposition}{propSysScale}\\
\subsection{Rounding}
\label{secRounding}
This section proves the propositions about rounding to nearest stated
previously, and states and proves more propositions about rounding.
\subsubsection{Propositions}
\label{secRoundingProps}
In this section we state more propositions regarding rounding to nearest.\\
\pbPropBT{propRoundSign}{Propagation of the sign}
If $\wfl{z} \neq 0$ then $\wsign{\wfl{z}} = \wsign{z}$. For
a general $z \in \wrone{}$, $\wfl{z} = \wsign{z} \wabs{\wfl{z}}$.
\peFullProp{propRoundSign}
\pbPropBT{propRoundScale}{Rounding after scaling}
Let $m$ be an integer. If $\wfpf$ is perfect then the function
$\wflr{s}{z} := \beta^{-m} \wfl{\beta^m z}$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$.
\peProp{propRoundScale}
\pbPropBT{propRoundOnInterval}{Rounding in an interval}
If $a,b \in \wfpf$ and $a \leq z \leq b$ then $\wfl{z} \in [a,b]$
and $\wabs{\wfl{z}- z} \leq (b - a)/2$. Moreover, if $z < m := (a + b)/2$ then
$\wfl{z} < b$ and if $z > m$ then $\wfl{z} > a$.
\peFullProp{propRoundOnInterval}
\pbPropBT{propRoundCombination}{Combination}
For $\wcal{A}_1, \wcal{A}_2 \subset \wrone{}$ with
$\wcal{A}_1 \cup \wcal{A}_2 = \wrone{}$,
let $f_i: \wcal{A}_i \rightarrow \wrone{}$
be such that, for $z_i \in \wcal{A}_i$ and $x \in \wfpf{}$,
$\wfc{f_i}{z_i} \in \wfpf$ and $\wabs{z_i - \wfc{f_i}{z_i}} \leq \wabs{z_i - x}$. The function
$\wflm: \wrone{} \rightarrow \wrone{}$ given by
$\wfl{z} = \wfc{f_1}{z}$ for $z \in \wcal{A}_1$ and
$\wfl{z} = \wfc{f_2}{z}$ for $z \in \wcal{A}_2 \setminus \wcal{A}_1$ rounds
to nearest in $\wfpf$.
\peProp{propRoundCombination}
\pbPropBT{propRoundExtension}{Extension}
If $\wcal{A} \subset \wrone{}$ and $f: \wcal{A} \rightarrow \wrone{}$ is such that,
for $z \in \wcal{A}$ and $x \in \wfpf$, $\wfc{f}{z} \in \wfpf$ and
$\wabs{z - \wfc{f}{z}} \leq \wabs{z - x}$
then there exists a function $\wflm$ which rounds to
nearest in $\wfpf$ and is such that $\wfl{z} = \wfc{f}{z}$ for $z \in \wcal{A}$.
\peProp{propRoundExtension}
\subsubsection{Proofs}
\label{secRoundingProofs}
In this section we prove the propositions regarding rounding to nearest.\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundIdentity}
By definition of rounding to nearest,
$0 = \wabs{x - x} \geq \wabs{\wfl{x} - x}$. Therefore, $\wfl{x} = x$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundIdentity}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundMonotone}
Let us show that if $\wfl{z} > \wfl{w}$ then $z > w$.
Indeed, in this case we have that
\[
\wabs{\wfl{w} - z} \geq \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \geq \wfl{z} - z > \wfl{w} - z.
\]
Therefore, $\wabs{\wfl{w} - z} > \wfl{w} - z$ and this implies that $z > \wfl{w}$.
It follows that
\[
z - \wfl{w} = \wabs{\wfl{w} - z} \geq \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \geq \wfl{z} - z \ \ \Rightarrow \ \
z \geq \frac{\wfl{z} + \wfl{w}}{2}.
\]
Similarly,
\[
\wabs{w - \wfl{z}} \geq \wabs{w - \wfl{w}} \geq w - \wfl{w} > w - \wfl{z}
\ \ \Rightarrow \ \ w \leq \wfl{z},
\]
and
\[
\wfl{z} - w = \wabs{\wfl{z} - w} \geq \wabs{\wfl{w} - w} \geq w - \wfl{w} \ \ \Rightarrow \ \
w \leq \frac{\wfl{z} + \wfl{w}}{2}.
\]
As a result, $w \leq \wlr{\wfl{z} + \wfl{w}}/2 \leq z$. Moreover, $w \neq z$ because
$\wfl{z} \neq \wfl{w}$. Therefore, $z > w$ as we have claimed. Logically, we have
proved that $z \leq w \Rightarrow \wfl{z} \leq \wfl{w}$.
When $x \in \wfpf$ we have that $\wfl{x} = x$ (Prop. \ref{propRoundIdentity})
and the argument above shows that $\wfl{z} > x \Rightarrow z > x$ and
$x > \wfl{z} \Rightarrow x > z$. Moreover,
\[
\wabs{x} > \wabs{\wfl{z}}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} > \wfl{z}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} > z
\]
and using the function $\wrm{m}$ in Prop. \ref{propRoundMinus} we obtain
\[
\wabs{x} > \wabs{\wfl{z}}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} > -\wfl{z}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} > \wflr{m}{-z}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} > -z.
\]
Therefore, $\wabs{x} > \wabs{\wfl{z}} \Rightarrow \wabs{x} > \max \wset{z,-z} = \wabs{z}$.
Finally, if $\wabs{x} < \wabs{\wfl{z}}$ then either
(i) $\wfl{z} < 0$ or (ii) $\wfl{z} > 0$. In both cases
Prop. \ref{propRoundSign} shows that $\wsign{z} = \wsign{\wfl{z}}$.
In case (i) $z$ is positive and
\[
\wabs{x} < \wabs{\wfl{z}}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} < \wfl{z}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} < z = \wabs{z}.
\]
and in case (ii) $z$ is negative and
\[
\wabs{x} < \wabs{\wfl{z}}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} < -\wfl{z}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} < \wflr{m}{-z}
\Rightarrow
\wabs{x} < -z = \wabs{z}.
\]
Therefore, $\wabs{x} < \wabs{\wfl{z}} \Rightarrow \wabs{x} < \wabs{z}$ in both
cases and we are done.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundMonotone}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundMinus}
If $x \in \wfpf$ and $z \in \wrone{}$ then $-x \in \wfpf$ by symmetry and
\[
\wabs{\wflr{m}{z} - z} = \wabs{ \wlr{-\wfl{-z}} - z} =
\wabs{\wfl{-z} - \wlr{-z}} \leq \wabs{\wlr{-x} - \wlr{-z}} = \wabs{x - z}.
\]
Therefore, $\wabs{\wflr{m}{z} - z} \leq \wabs{x -z}$ and $\wrm{m}$ rounds to nearest.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundMinus}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundNormal}
Let us start with $z > 0$.
$w \leq \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$ and if $\wfloor{w} = \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$ then
$a = b = \beta^{e + 1 + \wfpmu} \in \wfpbin_{e + 1}$, and this
implies that $a,b \in \wfpf$ because $e + 1$ is also an exponent for $\wfpf$.
Similarly, if $\wceil{w} = \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$ then $b \in \wfpbin_{e+1} \subset \wfpf$.
If $\wceil{w} < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}$ then $0 \leq \wfloor{w} \leq \wceil{w} < \wlr{\beta - 1}\beta^{\mu}$ and
$a,b \in \wfpbin_{e} \subset \wfpf$. Therefore, in all cases, $a,b \in \wfpf$.
If $w \in \wz{}$ then $\wfloor{w} = \wceil{w}$ and $z = a = b \in \wfpf$ and
$\wfl{z} = a = b = m$ because $\wfl{x} = x$ when $x \in \wfpf$ by Prop. \ref{propRoundIdentity}.
If $w \not \in \wz{}$ then $\wceil{w} = \wfloor{w} + 1$,
Prop. \ref{propEmptyNormalRange} shows that $(a,b) \cap \wfpf = \emptyset$,
Equation \pRef{thRoundNormal} follows from Prop. \ref{propRoundOnInterval},
and we also have that $(b - a) / 2 \leq \beta^{e}/2$.
For the last paragraph in Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal},
we either have (i) $r \leq w$ or (ii) $r > w$.
In case (i)
\[
r \leq w \leq r + \wabs{w - r} < r + 1/2 \Rightarrow \wfloor{w} = r, \ \ \wceil{w} = r + 1
\]
and
\[
\frac{1}{2} \wlr{ \wfloor{w} + \wceil{w} } = r + 1/2 > w.
\]
This implies that $a = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r}$,
$b = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r + 1}$ and $z < \wlr{a + b}/2$,
and the results in the previous paragraph show that
$\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r} = a = \wfl{z}$.
In case (ii), $r > w \geq 0 \Rightarrow r \geq 1$ and
\[
r - 1/2 \leq w < r \Rightarrow \wfloor{w} = r - 1, \ \ \wceil{w} = r
\hspace{0.2cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.2cm}
\frac{1}{2} \wlr{ \wfloor{w} + \wceil{w} } = r - 1/2 < w.
\]
This implies that $a = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + r - 1}$,
$b = \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^u + r}$ and $z > \wlr{a + b}/2$,
and the results in the first paragraph of this proof show that
$\beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^u + r} = b = \wfl{z}$.
Finally, for $z < 0$ the arguments above for $\tilde{z} = -z$ and $\wflmx$ equal to the function
$\wrm{m}$ in Prop. \ref{propRoundMinus} and symmetry (Prop. \ref{propSymmetry}) prove
Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} for $z$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundNormal}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundSubnormal}
Recall that $\nu = \beta^{\wfpemin+ \mu} \in \wfpbin_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpsi$,
and by symmetry $-\nu \in \wfpsi$. Let us write $w := \beta^{-\wfpemin} z$ and
$r :=\wfloor{w}$. We have that $a = \beta^{\wfpemin} r$
and if $r = w$ then $a = b = z$ and $\wfl{z} = z$ by Prop. \ref{propRoundIdentity}
and Prop. \ref{propRoundSubnormal} is valid. Let us then assume that $r \neq w$.
This implies that $w \not \in \wz{}$, $r < \beta^{\mu}$, $r + 1 = \wceil{w}$
and $b = \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{r + 1}$.
We have that $a \in \wfpf$ because
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
w < 1 - \beta^{\mu} & \Rightarrow & r = -\beta^{\mu} \Rightarrow a = -\nu \in - \wfpbin_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf, \\
\nonumber
1 - \beta^{\mu} < w < 0 & \Rightarrow & 1 - \beta^{\mu} \leq r < 0 \Rightarrow a \in -\wfps_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf, \\
\nonumber
0 < w < 1 & \Rightarrow & r = 0 \Rightarrow a = 0 \in \wfpf, \\
\nonumber
1 < w < \beta^{\mu} & \Rightarrow & 1 \leq r < \beta^{\mu} \Rightarrow a \in \wfps_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf,
\end{eqnarray}
and $b \in \wfpf$ because
\begin{eqnarray}
\nonumber
-\beta^{\mu} < w < -1 & \Rightarrow & 1 - \beta^{\mu} < r + 1 \leq -1 \Rightarrow b \in -\wfps_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf, \\
\nonumber
-1 < w < 0 & \Rightarrow & r + 1 = 0 \Rightarrow b = 0 \in \wfpf, \\
\nonumber
0 < w < \beta^{\mu } - 1 & \Rightarrow & 1 \leq r + 1 < \beta^{\mu} \Rightarrow b \in \wfps_{\wfpemin} \subset \wfpf, \\
\nonumber
\beta^{\mu} - 1 < w < \beta^{\mu} & \Rightarrow & r + 1 = \beta^{\mu} \Rightarrow b = \nu \in \wfpbin_{\wfpemin} \in \wfpf.
\end{eqnarray}
Therefore, by monotonicity $\wfl{z} \in [a,b] \cap \wfpf$ and Prop. \ref{propEmptySubnormalRange}
implies that $\wfl{z} \in \wset{a,b}$. It follows that
\[
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} = \min \wset{z - a, b - z} \leq
\frac{b - a}{2} = \frac{\beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{r + 1} - \beta^{\wfpemin} \wlr{r}}{2} = \wfpa /2.
\]
Finally, if $z < m$ then $\wabs{b - z} > \wabs{a - z} \Rightarrow \wfl{z} = a$ and
if $z > m$ then $\wabs{a - z} > \wabs{b - z} \Rightarrow \wfl{z} = b$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundSubnormal}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundBelowAlpha}
Note that, by Prop. \ref{propAlpha}, if
$x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0,\pm \wfpa}$ then $\wabs{x} > \wfpa$.
When $\wabs{z} < \alpha /2$, if $x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0}$ then
Prop. \ref{propAlpha} implies that $\wabs{x} \geq \wfpa$ and
\[
\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{x} - \wabs{z} \geq \wfpa - \wabs{z} > \wfpa / 2 > \wabs{z - 0},
\]
and $\wfl{z} = 0$ because $0 \in \wfpf$.
When $\wabs{z} = \wfpa/2$,
$\wabs{z - 0} = \wabs{z - \wsign{z} \wfpa} = \wfpa / 2$
and $\wabs{z - \wlr{-\wsign{z}}} = 3 \alpha/2$. As a result,
if $x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0,\pm \alpha}$ then
\[
\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{x} - \wabs{z} > \wfpa - \wfpa / 2 = \wfpa/2 = \wabs{z - 0},
\]
and the bounds above imply that $\wfl{z} \in \wset{0, \wsign{z} \wfpa}$.
When $\wfpa/2 < \wabs{z} < \wfpa$, $\wabs{z - \wsign{z} \wfpa} = \wfpa - \wabs{z} < \wfpa/2$,
$\wabs{z - 0} = \wabs{z} > \wfpa/2$ and
\[
\wabs{z - \wlr{-\wsign{z}} \wfpa} = \wabs{z} + \wfpa > \wfpa / 2.
\]
Moreover, if $x \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{0,\pm \wfpa}$ has the same sign as $z$ then
$x > \wfpa$ and
\[
\wabs{x - z} = x - z = \wlr{x - \wfpa} + \wlr{\wfpa - z} > \wabs{\wsign{z} \wfpa - z}.
\]
and if $x$ has the opposite sign of $z$ then
$\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{x} > \wfpa > \wabs{\wsign{z} \wfpa - z}$,
and the bounds in this paragraph imply that $\wfl{z} = \wsign{z} \wfpa$.
Finally, if $\wabs{z} = \wfpa$ then $\wfl{z} = z = \wsign{z} \wfpa$ by Prop.
\ref{propRoundIdentity}.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundBelowAlpha}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundAdapt}
Let $\wcal{A}$ be the set
$\wset{z \in \wrone{} \ \wrm{with} \ \wabs{z} \geq \nu_{\wfpf}}$
and $f: \wcal{A} \rightarrow \wrone{}$ the
function $\wfc{f}{z} = \wfl{z}$.
We claim that if $x \in \wfpsc$ and $z \in \wcal{A}$ then
$\wabs{z - \wfc{f}{z}} \leq \wabs{x - \wfc{f}{z}}$.
In fact, if $x \in \wfpf$ then $\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} = \wabs{\wfc{f}{z} - z}$,
because $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$.
If $x \not \in \wfpf$ then
\[
x \in \wfpsc \setminus \wfpf \subset
\wlr{\bigcup_{e = -\infty}^{+\infty} \wlr{ \wfpbin_{e} \bigcup -\wfpbin_e} \setminus
\bigcup_{e = \wfpemin}^{+\infty} \wlr{\wfpbin_{e} \bigcup - \wfpbin_e}}
= \bigcup_{e = -\infty}^{\wfpemin- 1} \wlr{\wfpbin_{e} \bigcup - \wfpbin_e}
\]
and
\[
\wabs{x} < \beta^{\wfpemin - 1} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}}
= \beta^{\wfpemin + \mu - 1} = \nu_{\wfpf}.
\]
since $\nu_{\wfpf} \in \wfpf$, if $z \geq \nu_{\wfpf}$ then
$z \geq \wabs{x} \geq x$ and
\[
\wabs{x - z} = z - x = \wabs{\nu_{{\wfpf}} - z} + \wabs{\nu_{\wfpf} - x}
\geq \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} + \wabs{\nu_{\wfpf} - x} > \wabs{\wfc{f}{z} - z}.
\]
Similarly, $\nu_{\wfpf} \in \wfpf$ and if $z \leq - \nu_{\wfpf}$ then
$z \leq - \wabs{x} \leq x$ and
\[
\wabs{x - z} = x - z = \wabs{-\nu_{{\wfpf}} - z} + \wabs{-\nu_{\wfpf} - x}
\geq \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} + \wabs{-\nu_{\wfpf} - x} > \wabs{\wfc{f}{z} - z},
\]
Therefore, $\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{\wfc{f}{z} - z}$ in all cases.
To complete the proof it suffices to take the extension of $f$
to $\wrone{}$ given by Prop. \ref{propRoundExtension}.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundCompletion}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundIEEEX}
For $k = 1,\dots,n$ let $\wflmx_{k}$ be the adapter
of $\wflm_k$ in Prop. \ref{propRoundAdapt}.
On the one hand, by the definition of $\wflmx_k$, we have that
if $x,y \in \wfpf$ and $\wabs{x + y} \geq \nu_{\wfpsi}$ then
\pbDef{priee}
\wflk{k}{x + y } = \wflxkf{k}{x + y}.
\peDef{priee}
On the other hand, Lemma \ref{lemIEEESum} shows that
Equation \pRef{priee} holds when $\wabs{x + y} \leq \nu_{\wfpsi}$.
Therefore, Equation \pRef{priee} holds for all $x,y \in \wfpsi$.
For $\wvec{x} \in \wfpsi^{n+1}$ define $\wvec{z} \in \wrn{n}$
as $z_1 := x_0 + x_1$ and $z_k := x_k$ for $2 \leq k < n$.
We now prove by induction
that $\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx}$.
By definition, $\wfpsumkf{0}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = 0 = \wfpsumkf{0}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} $.
Let us then analyze $k > 0$ assuming that
$\wfpsumkf{k - 1}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} = \wfpsumkf{k - 1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \in \wfpsi$.
Using Equation \pRef{priee} we deduce that
\[
\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} =
\wflxkf{k}{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} + z_{k}}
= \wflk{k}{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{x},\wflmt} + z_{k}} =
\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \in \wfpsi
\]
and we are done.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundIEEEX}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundMPFRX}
For $k = 1,\dots,n$, let $\wflmxk{k}$ be the adapter
of $\wflmk{k}$ in Prop. \ref{propRoundAdapt}.
By the definition of $\wflmxk{k}$ we have that
if $x,y \in \wfpf$ and $\wabs{x + y} \geq \wfpa_{\wfpsi} = \nu_{\wfpsi}$ then
\pbDef{prmp}
\wflk{k}{x + y } = \wflxkf{k}{x + y},
\peDef{prmp}
and, of course, this equation is also satisfied when $x + y = 0$.
For $\wvec{x} \in \wfpsi^{n+1}$ define $\wvec{z} \in \wrn{n}$
as $z_1 := x_0 + x_1$ and $z_k := x_k$ for $2 \leq k < n$.
We now prove by induction that if $y_k := \wfpsumkf{k - 1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} + z_k \geq 0$
for $k = 0,\dots,n$ then
$\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx}$.
By definition, $\wfpsumkf{0}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = 0 = \wfpsumkf{0}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} $.
Let us then analyze $k > 0$ assuming that
$\wfpsumkf{k - 1}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} = \wfpsumkf{k - 1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \in \wfpsm$.
The assumption that $y_k \geq 0$ and Prop. \ref{propAlpha} implies
that either $y_k = 0$ or $y_k \geq \wfpa_{\wfpsm} = \wfpnu_{\wfpsm}$, and in both
cases Equation \pRef{prmp} holds for $x + y = y_k$.
It follows that
\[
\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} =
\wflxkf{k}{\wfpsumkf{k-1}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} + z_{k}}
= \wflxkf{k}{y_k}
= \wflk{k}{y_k} =
\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} \in \wfpsm,
\]
and we are done.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundMPFRX}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propFlat}
If $w = 0$ then we can take $\delta = \beta^{e-1}/2$,
because in this case $z \in \wfpbin_{e} \subset \wfpf$ and $\wflk{1}{z} = z$
by Prop. \ref{propRoundIdentity} and,
according to Prop. \ref{propNormalFormDis},
if $\wabs{y - z} < \delta$ then either
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $y = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v}$
with
\[
0 \leq v = \beta^{-e} \wabs{y - z} < \beta^{-e} \delta < 1/2 \Rightarrow \wfloor{v} = 0
\]
and $\wflk{2}{y} = \wflk{1}{z} = z$ by Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal}, or
\item[(ii)] $y = \wsign{z} \beta^{e - 1} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v}$
for
\[
\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu} - \beta^{1 - e} \wabs{y - z} = v <
\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu} \Rightarrow
\]
\[
\wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu} - 1/2 < v < \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}
\Rightarrow \wceil{v} = \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}
\]
and, by Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal},
\[
\wflk{2}{y} = \wsign{z} \beta^{e - 1} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu}} =
\wsign{z} \beta^{e + \mu} = z = \wflk{1}{z}
\]
\end{itemize}
Let us then assume that $w > 0$ and write $m := \wfloor{w} + 1/2$
and show that
\[
\delta = \beta^{e} \min \wset{w, \, \wlr{\beta - 1} \beta^{\mu} - w, \, 1/2 - \wabs{m - w}, \, \wabs{m - w}}
\]
is a valid choice. Note that $\delta > 0$, because
$\wabs{m - w} \leq 1/2$ for a general $w$ and $w \neq 1/2$ for
the particular $w$ we discuss here.
If $\wabs{y - z} < \delta$ then Prop. \ref{propNormalFormCont} implies that
$y = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + v}$ with
\[
\wabs{v - w} = \beta^{-e} \wabs{y - z} < \beta^{-e} \delta \leq \min \wset{ 1/2 - \wabs{m - w}, \wabs{m - w}}.
\]
On the one hand, if $w < m$ then $\wabs{m - w} = m - w$,
\[
\wfloor{w} = m - 1/2 < m - \wlr{\wabs{w - m} + \wabs{v - w}} \leq v
\leq w + \wabs{w - v} < w + \wabs{m - w} = m,
\]
$\wfloor{v} = \wfloor{w}$
and Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} implies that
$\wflk{2}{y} = \wflk{1}{z} = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wfloor{w}}$.
On the other hand, if $w > m$ then $\wabs{m - w} = w - m$,
\[
m = w - \wabs{w - m} < w - \wabs{w - v}
\leq
v
\leq
m + \wlr{\wabs{w - m} + \wabs{v - w}} < m + 1/2 = \wceil{w},
\]
$\wceil{v} = \wceil{w}$
and Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} implies that
$\wflk{2}{y} = \wflk{1}{z} = \wsign{z} \beta^{e} \wlr{\beta^{\mu} + \wceil{w}}$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propFlat}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propSumScale}
For $k = 1,\dots,n$ Props. \ref{propRoundMinus} and \ref{propRoundScale}
show that the function
$\wflxkf{k}{z} := \sigma \beta^{-m} \wflk{k}{\sigma \beta^m z}$
rounds to nearest in $\wfpsc$, and we define $\wflmtx := \wset{\wflmxk{1},\dots,\wflmxk{n}}$.
We now prove by induction in $k = 0, \dots, n$ that
\pbDef{sumSPFoo}
\wfpsumkf{k}{\sigma \beta^m \wvec{z},\wflmt} = \sigma \beta^m \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx},
\peDef{sumSPFoo}
For $k = 0$,
$\wfpsumkf{0}{\sigma \beta^m \wvec{z},\wflmt} = 0 = \sigma \beta^m \wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx}$
by definition. Assuming that \pRef{sumSPFoo} holds for $k \geq 0$ we have that
\[
\wfpsumkf{k+1}{\sigma \beta^m \wvec{z},\wflmt} =
\wflk{k+1}{\wfpsumkf{k}{\sigma \beta^m \wvec{z},\wflmt} + \sigma \beta^m z_k}
\]
\[
= \wflk{k+1}{\sigma \beta^m \wlr{\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} + z_k}}
= \sigma \beta^m \wflxkf{k+1}{\wfpsumkf{k}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx} + z_k}
=
\wfpsumkf{k+1}{\wvec{z},\wflmtx},
\]
and we are done.
\peProof{Proposition}{propSumScale}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundSign}
Prop. \ref{propRoundIdentity} shows that $\wfl{0} = 0$. Therefore,
if $\wfl{z} \neq 0$ then either (i) $z > 0$ or (ii) $z < 0$. In case (i)
\[
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \wabs{0 - z} \Rightarrow
z - \wfl{z} \leq z \Rightarrow \wfl{z} \geq 0 \Rightarrow \wsign{\wfl{z}} = 1 = \wsign{z}.
\]
In case (ii)
\[
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \wabs{0 - z} \Rightarrow
\wfl{z} - z \leq -z \Rightarrow \wfl{z} \leq 0.
\]
Since $\wfl{z} \neq 0$ this implies that $\wsign{\wfl{z}} = -1 = \wsign{z}$.
It follows that if
$\wfl{z} \neq 0$ then $\wfl{z} = \wsign{\wfl{z}} \wabs{\wfl{z}} = \wsign{z} \wabs{\wfl{z}}$
and it is clear that this equality also holds when $\wfl{z} = 0$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundSign}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundScale}
Suppose $x \in \wfpf{}$ and $z \in \wrone{}$.
When $\wfpf$ is perfect we have that
$\beta^{m} x \in \wfpf$ by Prop. \ref{propSysScale}
and since $\wflm$ rounds to nearest we have
\[
\wabs{\wflr{s}{z} - z} \, = \, \wabs{ \wlr{\beta^{-m} \wfl{\beta^m z}} - z}
\, = \, \beta^{-m} \wabs{\wfl{\beta^m z} - \wlr{\beta^{m} z}}
\]
\[
\leq \, \beta^{-m} \wabs{\wfl{\beta^m z} - \wlr{\beta^{m} x}}
\, = \, \wabs{ \wlr{\beta^{-m} \wfl{\beta^m z}} - x}
\, = \, \wabs{\wflr{s}{z} - x}.
\]
Therefore, $\wrm{s}$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundScale}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundOnInterval}
Since $x = a,b \in \wfpf$, the definition of rounding to nearest yields
$\wabs{z - a} \geq \wabs{z - \wfl{z}}$ and $\wabs{z - b} \geq \wabs{z - \wfl{z}}$.
If $y < a$ then $y < z$ and
\[
\wabs{z - y} = z - y > z - a = \wabs{z - a} \geq \wabs{z - \wfl{z}}
\ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \wabs{z - y} > \wabs{z - \wfl{z}}
\]
Therefore, $\wfl{z} \neq y$. Similarly,
if $y > b$ then $y > z$ and
\[
\wabs{z - y} = y - z > b - z = \wabs{z - b} \geq \wabs{z - \wfl{z}}
\ \ \Rightarrow \ \ \wabs{z - y} > \wabs{z - \wfl{z}}
\]
As a result, $\wfl{z} \neq y$ and
$\wfl{z} \in \wrone{} \setminus \wlr{\wset{y < a} \cup \wset{y > b}} = [a,b]$.
If $z \leq m$ then
\[
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \wabs{a - z} = z - a \leq m - a = \delta := \wlr{b - a}/2.
\]
and if $z \geq m$ then
\[
\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \wabs{b - z} = b - z \leq b - m = \delta.
\]
Therefore, $\wabs{\wfl{z} - z} \leq \delta$.
If $ z < m$ then
\[
\wfl{z} \leq \wabs{\wfl{z} - z} + \wlr{z - a} + a \leq \delta + z < \delta + m = b,
\]
and $\wfl{z} < b$. If $ z > m$ then
\[
\wfl{z} \geq b - \wlr{b - z} - \wabs{z - \wfl{z}} \geq z - \delta > m - \delta = a,
\]
and $\wfl{z} > a$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundOnInterval}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundCombination}
If $z \in \wrone{}$ then either (i) $z \in \wcal{A}_1$ or
(ii) $z \in \wcal{A}_2 \setminus \wcal{A}_1$. In case (i), for $x \in \wfpf$ we
have that $\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{\wflk{1}{z} - z}$ by hypothesis.
Therefore, $\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{\wflk{1}{z} - z} = \wabs{\wfl{z} - z}$ in case (i).
In case (ii), for $x \in \wfpf$ we
have that $\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{\wflk{2}{z} - z} = \wabs{\wfl{z} - z}$.
As a result, $\wabs{x - z} \geq \wabs{\wfl{z} - z}$ in both cases and $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundCombination}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propRoundExtension}
We assume that there exists
$f_2: \wrone{} \rightarrow \wrone{}$ which
rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$.
Take $\wcal{A}_1 = \wcal{A}$ and $\wcal{A}_2 = \wrone \setminus \wcal{A}$.
Prop. \ref{propRoundCombination} with $f_1 = f$
implies that there exists $\wflm$ which rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$ and is such that
$\wfl{z} = \wfc{f}{z}$ for $z \in \wcal{A}$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propRoundExtension} \\
\subsection{Tightness}
\label{secTight}
In this section we prove the propositions regarding tightness,
and present and prove additional propositions about this subject.
\subsubsection{Propositions}
\label{secTightProps}
In this section we present additional propositions regarding tightness.
\pbPropBT{propTightContinuous}{Tightness and continuity}
Let $\wcal{A}$, $\wcal{B}$ and $\wcal{C}$
be topological spaces and $\wcal{R}$ a set.
If $g: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{B} \rightarrow \wcal{C}$ is continuous
and $h: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wcal{B}$ is tight
then $f: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wcal{C}$
given by $\wfc{f}{a, r} = \wfc{g}{a,\wfc{h}{a,r}}$ is tight.
In particular, if $\wcal{R}$ is a tight set of functions
from $\wcal{A}$ to $\wcal{B}$ then the function
$f: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wcal{B}$ given by
$\wfc{f}{a,r} = \wfc{g}{a,\wfc{r}{a}}$ is tight.
\peProp{propTightContinuous}
\pbPropBT{propTightChain}{Tight chain rule}
Let $\wcal{A}$, $\wcal{B}$ and $\wcal{C}$ be topological spaces and
let $\wcal{T}$ and $\wcal{U}$ be sets. If the functions
$h: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{T} \rightarrow \wcal{B}$ and
$g: \wcal{B} \times \wcal{U} \rightarrow \wcal{C}$
are tight then the function
$f: \wcal{A} \times \wlr{\wcal{T} \times \wcal{U}} \rightarrow \wcal{C}$ given by
$\wfc{f}{a, \wlr{t,u}} := \wfc{g}{\wfc{h}{a,t}, u}$
is tight.
\peProp{propTightChain}
\subsubsection{Proofs}
\label{secTightProofs}
This section contains the proofs of the propositions regarding tightness.\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propWholeIsTight}
Let $\wcal{R}$ be the set of all functions
which round to nearest in $\wfpf$ and let
$\wcal{S} = \wset{\wlr{z_k, \wflm_k}, k \in \wn{}} \subset \wrone{} \times \wcal{R}$
be a sequence with $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} z_k = z$.
Props. \ref{propRoundSubnormal}, \ref{propRoundBelowAlpha} and \ref{propFlat}
imply that there exist
$a,b \in \wfpf$ and
$\delta > 0$ such that if $\wabs{y - z} < \delta$ then
$\wfl{y} \in \wset{a,b}$ for $\wflm \in \wcal{R}$.
Let $m \in \wn{}$ be such that $k > m \Rightarrow \wabs{z_k - z} < \delta$
and define
$\wcal{A} := \wset{k \geq m \ \wrm{with} \ \wflk{k}{z_k} = a}$
and
$\wcal{B} := \wset{k \geq m \ \wrm{with} \ \wflk{k}{z_k} = b}$.
Since $\wcal{A} \bigcup \wcal{B} = \wset{k \geq m, k \in \wn{}}$
is infinite, $\wcal{A}$ or $\wcal{B}$ is infinite.
By exchanging $a$ and $b$ if necessary, we may assume that $\wcal{A}$
is infinite, and $\wset{\wlr{z_{n_k}, \wflm_{n_k}}, n_k \in \wcal{A}}$
is a subsequence of $\wcal{S}$.
We claim that the function $\wflm: \wrone{} \rightarrow \wrone{}$ given
by $\wfl{w} = \wflk{m}{w}$ for $w \neq z$ and $\wfl{z} = a$ rounds to
nearest in $\wfpf$. Indeed, if $z' \in \wfpf \setminus \wset{z}$ and $w \in \wrone{}$ then
\[
\wabs{w - \wfl{z'}} = \wabs{w - \wflk{m}{z'}} \geq \wabs{z' - \wflk{m}{z'}} = \wabs{z' - \wfl{z'}}
\]
because $\wflmk{m}$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$, and
\[
\wabs{w - \wfl{z}} = \wabs{w - a} =
\wabs{w - \wflk{n_k}{z_k}}
\geq \wabs{z_k - \wflk{n_k}{z_k}}
= \wabs{z_k - a}
= \wabs{z_k - \wfl{z}}.
\]
because the $\wflmk{n_k}$ round to nearest in $\wfpf$. Taking the limit $k \rightarrow \infty$
in the equation above we obtain $\wabs{w - \wfl{z}} \geq \wabs{z - \wfl{z}}$,
and $\wflm$ rounds to nearest in $\wfpf$. Finally,
\[
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{\varphi}{z_{n_k},\wflmk{n_k}} =
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wflk{n_k}{z_{n_k}} =
a = \wfl{z}
\]
and $\wcal{R}$ is tight.
\peProof{Proposition}{propWholeIsTight}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propSumsAreTight}
For $n = 0$,
$\wfc{T_0}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = 0$ and Prop. \ref{propSumsAreTight} follows
from Prop. \ref{propTightContinuous},
because constant functions are continuous.
Assuming that Prop. \ref{propSumsAreTight} holds for $n \geq 0$,
let us show that it holds for $n + 1$. By induction
and Prop. \ref{propTightContinuous} the function
$h: \wrn{n+1} \times \wcal{R}^n \rightarrow \wrn{n+1} \times \wrone{}$
given by $\wfc{h}{\wvec{w},\wflmt} := \wlr{\wfc{T_n}{\wrm{P}_n \wvec{w}, \wflmt},w_{n+1}}$
is tight. The function $g: \wlr{\wrn{n+1} \times \wrone} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wrn{n+2}$
given by $\wfc{g}{\wlr{\wvec{w},z}, \wflm} := \wlr{\wvec{w}, \wfl{w_{n+1} + z}}$
is also tight by Prop. \ref{propTightContinuous} because
$\wcal{R}$ is tight.
Finally, Prop. \ref{propSumsAreTight} follows
from Prop. \ref{propTightChain} for $f = T_n$, $g$ and $h$ because
$\wfc{T_{n+1}}{\wvec{z},\wflmt} = \wfc{g}{\wfc{h}{\wvec{w},\wrm{P}_n \wflmt},\wflmk{n+1}}$.
\peProof{Proposition}{propSumsAreTight}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propTightContinuous}
Let $\wset{\wlr{a_k, r_k}, k \in \wn{}} \subset \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R}$ be a sequence with
$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty}a_k = a$. Since $h$ is tight,
there exists $r \in \wcal{R}$ and a subsequence
$\wset{\wlr{a_{n_k}, r_{n_k}}, k \in \wn{}}$ such that
$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{h}{a_{n_k}, r_{n_k}} = \wfc{h}{a,r}$.
By continuity of $g$,
\[
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{f}{a_{n_k},r_{n_k}} =
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{g}{a_{n_k}, \wfc{h}{a_{n_k},r_{n_k}}} = \wfc{g}{a,\wfc{h}{a,r}} = \wfc{f}{a,r},
\]
and $f$ is tight. To handle the particular case, note that when
$\wcal{R}$ is set of tight functions as in the hypothesis the function
$h: \wcal{A} \times \wcal{R} \rightarrow \wcal{B}$ given by
$\wfc{h}{a,r} = \wfc{r}{a}$ is tight.
\peProof{Proposition}{propTightContinuous}\\
\pbProofB{Proposition}{propTightChain}
Let $\wset{\wlr{a_k,\wlr{t_k,u_k}}, k \in \wn{}}
\subset \wcal{A} \times \wlr{\wcal{T} \times \wcal{U}}$ be a sequence such that
$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} a_k = a$.
Since $h$ is tight, there exists $t \in \wcal{T}$
and a subsequence $\wset{\wlr{a_{n_k}, t_{n_k}}, k \in \wn{}}$ of
$\wset{\wlr{a_k,t_k}, k \in \wn{}}$ such that
$b_{n_k} := \wfc{h}{a_{n_k}, t_{n_k}}$ satisfies
$\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} b_{n_k} = \wfc{h}{a,t} =: b$.
Since $b_{n_k}$ converges to $b$ and $g$ is tight, there exists
$u \in \wcal{U}$ and
a subsequence $\wset{\wlr{b_{m_k},u_{m_k}}, k \in \wn{}}$ of
$\wset{\wlr{b_{n_k},u_{n_k}}, k \in \wn{}}$
such that
\[
\wfc{g}{b,u} =
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{g}{b_{m_k},u_{m_k}}
= \lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{g}{\wfc{h}{a_{m_k}, t_{m_k}},u_{m_k}}.
\]
This leads to
\[
\wfc{f}{a,\, \wlr{t,u} \, } =
\wfc{g}{\wfc{h}{a,t}, \, u} =
\wfc{g}{b, \, u} =
\]
\[
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{g}{\wfc{h}{a_{m_k}, \, t_{m_k}}, \, u_{m_k}}
=
\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \wfc{f}{a_{m_k}, \, \wlr{t_{m_k}, u_{m_k}}},
\]
and $f$ is tight.
\peProof{Proposition}{propTightChain}\\
\subsection{Examples}
\label{secExample}
In this section we verify the examples 2 to 5.
Example 1 needs no verification.\\
\pbVerifyB{exQuadGrowth} Our parcels are
$y_0 := 1$ and $y_k := 1 + 2^{\wfloor{\wfc{\log_2}{k+1}}} u$ for $k = 1, \dots, n := 2^m - 1$
and we break ties downward. If $1 \leq 2^{\ell} - 1 \leq k < 2^{\ell + 1} - 1$
then $y_k = 1 + 2^{\ell} u$ and we now show by induction that, for $k \geq 1$,
\pbDef{exqgI}
\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i = k + 1 + \frac{4^{\ell} + 2}{3} u + \wlr{k + 1 - 2^{\ell}} 2^{\ell} u
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
\wfl{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i} = k + 1.
\peDef{exqgI}
Indeed, for $k = 1$ we have $\ell = 1$ and $y_0 + y_1 = 2 + 2 u$, the first
equality in Equation \pRef{exqgI} is clearly correct and the second
holds because we break ties downward.
If $\wfl{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i} = k + 1$ and $2^{\ell} - 2 \leq k < 2^{\ell + 1} - 2$
then $y_{k+1} = 1 + 2^{\ell} u$ and
\[
\wfl{\sum_{i = 0}^{k+1} y_i} = \wfl{k + 1 + 1 + 2^{\ell} u}
= k + 2 + 2^{\ell} u = k + 2 = \wlr{k+1} + 1,
\]
because $k + 2 \geq 2^{\ell}$ and we break ties downward.
Therefore, $\wfl{\sum_{i = 0}^k y_i} = k + 1$.
Let us now assume that the first Equation in \pRef{exqgI} holds for
$k$ and show that it holds for $k+1$.
When $2^{\ell} - 1 \leq k < 2^{\ell + 1} - 2$ we have that
$2^{\ell} - 1 \leq k + 1 < 2^{\ell + 1} - 1$ and
\pbDef{exqgIA}
\sum_{i = 0}^{k+1} y_i =
\wlr{\sum_{i = 0}^{k} y_i} + y_{k+1} =
k + 1 + \frac{4^{\ell} + 2}{3} u + \wlr{k + 1 - 2^{\ell}} 2^{\ell} u + 1 + 2^{\ell} u
\peDef{exqgIA}
\[
= \wlr{k + 1} + 1 + \frac{4^{\ell + 1} + 2}{3} u + \wlr{\wlr{k + 1} + 1 - 2^{\ell+1}} 2^{\ell+1} u
\]
and the first equality in Equation \pRef{exqgI} holds for $k + 1$. For $k = 2^{\ell + 1} - 2$, we have that
\[
2^{\ell + 1} - 1 = k + 1 < 2^{\wlr{\ell + 1} +1} - 1
\]
and Equation \pRef{exqgIA} leads to
\[
\sum_{i = 0}^{k+1} y_i = k + 2 + \frac{4^{\ell} + 2}{3} u + 4^{\ell} u
= \wlr{k + 1} + 1 + \frac{4^{\ell + 1} + 2}{3} u + \wlr{\wlr{k + 1} + 1 - 2^{\ell}} 2^{\ell + 1} u
\]
because $k + 2 - 2^{\ell + 1} = 0$,
and the first equality in Equation \pRef{exqgI} is satisfied for $k + 1$.
Finally, for $n = 2^m - 1$ we have that $\ell = m$ and
\[
\frac{1}{u} \wlr{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k - \wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n y_k}} =
\frac{4^{m} + 2}{3} = \frac{\wlr{n + 1}^2 + 2}{3} = \frac{n^2 + 2n + 3}{3}.
\]
The last equation in Example \ref{exQuadGrowth} follows from the equation above and
the fact that $y_k < 2$ when $2^m u < 1$.
\peVerify{exQuadGrowth}\\
\pbVerifyB{exSharpSumNearB} Let us define $\rho := u^{-k}$.
Since $x_k = \rho^k$ and we break ties downward, we have
$\wfl{\sum_{i = 0}^k x_i} = \rho^k$ and
\[
\sum_{i = 0}^k x_i = \frac{\rho^{k+1} - 1}{\rho -1}
\hspace{0.2cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.2cm}
\sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k x_i = \frac{\rho^{n+2} - \rho^2 - n \wlr{\rho - 1}}{\wlr{\rho -1}^2}
= \frac{1}{u^n} \frac{1 - u^n - n u^{n+1} \wlr{1 - u}}{\wlr{1 - u}^2}.
\]
It follows that
\[
\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k - \wfl{\sum_{k = 0}^n x_k} = \frac{\rho^{n+1} - 1}{\rho - 1} - \rho^n =
\frac{\rho^n - 1}{\rho - 1} = \frac{1}{u^{n-1}} \frac{1 - u^n}{1 - u} = \kappa_n u \sum_{k=1}^n \sum_{i = 0}^k x_i
\]
for
\[
\kappa_n := \frac{\wlr{1 - u}\wlr{{1 - u^{n}}}}{1 - u^{n} - n u^{n+1} \wlr{1 - u}}.
\]
If $2 n u < 1$ then $1 - u \leq \kappa_n \leq \wlr{1 - u} \wlr{1 + u^n}$ because
\[
0 < \frac{\kappa_n}{1 - u} - 1 =
\frac{n u^{n+1} \wlr{1 - u}}{1 - u^{n} - n u^{n+1} \wlr{1 - u}}
= u^n \frac{n u \wlr{1 - u}}{1 - u^n - n u^{n+1} \wlr{1 - u}} < u^n.
\]
\peVerify{exSharpSumNearB} \\
\pbVerifyB{exSharpSumNearC}
Recall that $x_0 := u$, $x_1 := 1$ and
\[
x_k := \beta^{e_k} \wlr{1 + u} - \beta^{e_{k-1}} \wlr{1 + 2 u}
\]
for $k \geq 2$, with $0 = e_1 < e_2 \dots < e_n \in \wz{}$.
Induction using the basic properties of rounding to nearest in Prop. \ref{propRoundNormal} shows that
\[
s_k := \sum_{i = 0}^k x_i = \beta^{e_k} \wlr{1 + u} - u \sum_{i=1}^{k-1} \beta^{e_i},
\hspace{1.5cm}
\hat{s}_{k} := \wfl{\sum_{i = 0}^k x_i} = \beta^{e_k} \wlr{1 + 2u}
\]
for $k \geq 1$ and
\[
\sum_{k = 1}^n s_k = \wlr{1 + u} \sum_{k = 1}^n \beta^{e_k} - u \sum_{k =1}^n \sum_{i = 1}^{k - 1} \beta^{e_i}
= \wlr{1 + u} \sigma_{n} - u \sum_{k = 1}^n \sigma_{k - 1},
\]
for $\sigma_k := \sum_{i = 1}^{k} \beta^{e_i}$ (we assume that $\sum_{i}^k a_k = 0$ when $k < i$.)
Therefore
\[
\hat{s}_{n} - s_{n} = \wlr{\beta^{e_n} + \sum_{k = 1}^{n-1} \beta^{e_k}} u
= u \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \beta^{e_k} = u \sigma_n,
\]
and
\pbDef{exncA}
\frac{\hat{s}_{n} - s_{n}}{\sum_{k=1}^n s_k} =
\frac{\sigma_n u}{\sigma_n + u \wlr{\sigma_n - \sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \sigma_k}}
= \frac{u}{1 + u \wlr{1 - \sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1} v_k }}
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{for} \hspace{0.5cm}
v_k := \frac{\sigma_k}{\sigma_n}.
\peDef{exncA}
Note that
\[
\sigma_{\wlr{k+1}} - 1 = \sum_{i = 1}^{k + 1} \beta^{e_i} - 1 =
\sum_{i = 2}^{k + 1} \beta^{e_i}
\geq \beta \sum_{i = 2}^{k + 1} \beta^{e_{\wlr{i-1}}}
= \beta \sum_{i = 1}^{k} \beta^{e_{i}}
= \beta \sigma_k.
\]
Since $\sigma_0 = 0$ and $1/\sigma_n = v_1 = \sigma_1 / \sigma_n$,
dividing the last equation by $\sigma_n$ we obtain
\pbDef{excnLPA}
v_1 + \beta v_k - v_{k+1} \leq 0 \hspace{1cm} \wrm{for} \ \ k = 1,\dots, n - 2,
\hspace{0.5cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{0.5cm}
v_1 + \beta v_{n-1} \leq 1.
\peDef{excnLPA}
We end the verification of Example \ref{exSharpSumNearC}
using a duality argument to prove that
\pbDef{lpineq}
\sum_{k = 1}^{n - 1} v_k \leq \frac{1}{\beta - 1} - \frac{n}{\beta^n - 1}.
\peDef{lpineq}
This equation combined with Equation \pRef{exncA} shows that the value of $\tau_n$ mentioned in
Example \ref{exSharpSumNearC} is appropriate.
We use basic facts about duality in linear programming \cite{Chvatal}
applied to the problem with variables $v_k$, objective function $\sum_{k = 1}^{n-1} v_k$ and
constraints given by $v_k \geq 0$ and Equation \pRef{excnLPA}.
This problem can be written as
\pbDef{excnLP}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\wrm{maximize} & \wones{}^{\wtr} \wvec{v} & = & \sum_{k = 1}^{n-1} v_k & & & & \\
\wrm{subject \ to} & \wvec{A} \wvec{v} & \leq & \wvec{e}, & & v_k & \geq & 0.
\end{array}
\right.
\peDef{excnLP}
where the matrix $A$ has $a_{11} := \beta + 1$, $a_{i1} = 1$ for $1 < i < n$,
$a_{ii} = \beta$ for $2 \leq i < n$, $a_{i,i+1} = -1$ for $1 \leq i < n-1$ and
the remaining $a_{ij}$ are $0$. The vector $\wones$ has all its entries equal to $1$
and $e_i = 0$ for $1 \leq i < n - 1$ and $e_{n-1} = 1$.
This problem has a feasible solution
\[
v_k = \frac{\beta^{k} - 1}{\beta^{n}- 1},
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{for} \hspace{1cm} k = 1,\dots,n-1
\]
and
\pbDef{excnVal}
\sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} v_k = \frac{1}{\beta^n - 1} \wlr{\frac{\beta^{n} - 1}{\beta - 1} - n}
= \frac{1}{\beta - 1} - \frac{n}{\beta^n - 1}.
\peDef{excnVal}
Its dual has $n - 1$ variables, which we call $y_1, \dots, y_{n-1}$, and is
\pbDef{excnDual}
\left\{
\begin{array}{cccccccc}
\wrm{minimize} & \wvec{e}^{\wtr} \wvec{y} & = & y_{n-1} & & & & \\
\wrm{subject \ to} & \wvec{A}^{\wtr} \wvec{y} & \geq & \wones{},& \ \ & y_k & \geq & 0.
\end{array}
\right.
\peDef{excnDual}
We claim that the vector $\wvec{y} \in \wrn{n-1}$ with entries
\[
y_{n-1} = \frac{1}{\beta - 1} - \frac{n}{\beta^n - 1}
\hspace{1cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1cm}
y_{k} = \beta^{n - k - 1} y_{n-1} + \frac{1}{\beta - 1} \ \ \ \wrm{for} \ k = 1 \dots n - 2,
\]
is a feasible solution of the dual problem.
Indeed, $y_{n-1} \geq 0$ because
\[
\frac{\beta^n - 1}{\beta - 1} = \sum_{k = 0}^{n-1} \beta^k \geq n,
\]
and the other entries of $\wvec{y}$ are clearly non negative because $y_{n-1} \geq 0$.
The first inequality in the system $\wvec{A}^{\wtr} \wvec{y} \geq \wones{}$
is satisfied because
\[
\wlr{\beta + 1} y_1 + \sum_{k = 2}^{n-1} y_k =
\wlr{\wlr{\beta + 1} \beta^{n-2} + \sum_{k=2}^{n-2} \beta^{n-k-1} + 1} y_{n-1} + \frac{\beta + n-2}{\beta - 1}
\]
\[
= \wlr{\sum_{k=0}^{n-1} \beta^k} y_{n-1} + \frac{\beta + n-2}{\beta - 1}
\]
\[
= \frac{\beta^{n} - 1}{\beta - 1} \wlr{\frac{1}{\beta - 1} - \frac{n}{\beta^n - 1}} + \frac{\beta + n-2}{\beta - 1}
= \frac{\beta^{n} - \beta}{\wlr{\beta - 1}^2} + 1 \geq 1,
\]
and the remaining inequalities are satisfied as equalities, because
\[
- y_{k-1} + \beta y_k =
-\beta^{n - k} y_{n-1} - \frac{1}{\beta - 1} +
\beta \beta^{n - k - 1} y_{n-1} + \frac{\beta}{\beta - 1} = 1.
\]
The value of the objective function of the dual problem for $\wvec{y}$, $y_{n-1}$,
is equal to the value of the objective function of the primal problem in \pRef{excnVal}.
Therefore, this is the optimal value of both problems
and Equation \pRef{lpineq} holds.
The linear programming problem
above also shows that the worst case in Equation \pRef{ssBnC} is achieved
for $e_k = k - 1$, because these exponents lead to the $v_k$ in the solution
of the primal problem.
\peVerify{exSharpSumNearC}\\
\pbVerifyB{exSignedSumB}
Recall that $x_0 := u$, $x_1 := 1$ and $x_k := - 2^{1 - k} \wlr{1 + 3 u}$
for $k > 1$. It follows by induction that
\[
\sum_{i = 0}^k x_i = 2^{1 - k} \wlr{1 + 3 u} - 2 u
\hspace{1.0cm} \wrm{and} \hspace{1.0cm}
\wfl{\sum_{i=0}^k x_i} = 2^{1 - k} \wlr{1 + 2 u}.
\]
Since $2^{n} u \leq 1$, we have
\[
\sum_{k = 1}^n \wabs{\sum_{i = 0}^k x_i} = 2 \wlr{1 - 2^{-n}} \wlr{1 + 3u} - 2 n u > 0,
\]
and Equations \pRef{thXSSA} follows from the expressions above.
Finally, since $2^{-n} \geq u$, we have that $n u < 1$ and
\[
\kappa_n - \wlr{1 - u} =
u \frac{\wlr{2^{-n} - u} n + 3 \wlr{1 - 2^{-n}}u }{\wlr{1 - 2^{-n}} \wlr{1 + 3u} - n u} > 0
\]
and
\[
1 - \kappa_n =
u \frac{1 - 2^{-n} \wlr{n + 1}}{\wlr{1 - 2^{-n}} \wlr{1 + 3u} - n u} \geq 0.
\]
\peVerify{exSignedSumB}\\
}
|
\section*{1. Introduction}
\par\q The Bernoulli numbers $\{B_n\}$ and
Bernoulli polynomials $\{B_n(x)\}$ are
defined by
$$B_0=1,\ \sum_{k=0}^{n-1}\b nkB_k=0\ (n\ge 2)\qtq{and}
B_n(x)=\sum_{k=0}^n\b nkB_kx^{n-k}\ (n\ge 0).$$
The Euler numbers $\{E_n\}$ and Euler polynomials $\{E_n(x)\}$ are
defined by
$$E_0=1, \ E_n=-\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}E_{n-2k}\ (n\ge 1)
\ \t{and}\ E_n(x)=\f 1{2^n}\sum_{r=0}^n\b nr(2x-1)^{n-r}E_r\ (n\ge
0),$$
where $[a]$ is the greatest integer not exceeding $a$. In [S6] the author introduced the sequence $\{U_n\}$ given by
$$U_0=1\qtq{and}U_n=-2\sum_{k=1}^{[n/2]}\b n{2k}U_{n-2k}\ (n\ge 1).$$
It is well
known that $B_{2n+1}=0$ and $E_{2n-1}=U_{2n-1}=0$ for any positive integer
$n$. $\{B_n\}$, $\{E_n\}$ and $\{U_n\}$ are important sequences and they have many
interesting properties and applications. See [EMOT], [IR], [MOS] and
[S2-S7].
\par It is easily seen that ([S8])
$$\aligned&\b{-\f 12}k^2=\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k},\ \b{-\f
13}k\b{-\f 23}k=\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}, \\&\ \b{-\f 14}k\b{-\f
34}k=\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k},\ \b{-\f 16}k\b{-\f
56}k=\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k}.\endaligned\tag 1.1$$ In 2003,
Rodriguez-Villegas [RV] conjectured that for any prime $p>3$,
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}\e
\Ls{-1}p\mod{p^2},\q\sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\e\Ls
{-3}p\mod{p^2},\tag 1.2
\\&\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}\e \Ls{-2}p\mod{p^2},
\q \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} \f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k}\e
\Ls{-1}p\mod{p^2},\tag 1.3\endalign$$ where $\sls ap$ is the
Legendre symbol. (1.2) and (1.3) were later confirmed by Mortenson
[M1-M2]. Let $\Bbb Z$ be the set of integers. For a prime $p$ let
$\Bbb Z_p$ denote the set of rational numbers whose denominator is
not divisible by $p$. For $a\in\Bbb Z_p$ let
$\ap\in\{0,1,\ldots,p-1\}$ be given by $a\e\ap\mod p$. Let $p>3$ be
a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $a\not\e 0\mod p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. In
[S9-S11] the author showed that
$$\align&\q\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\e (-1)^{\ap}
+p^2t(t+1)E_{p-3}(-a)\mod{p^3}, \tag 1.4
\\&\q\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}k\b
ak\b{-1-a}k\e (-1)^{\ap}
a(a+1)+p^2t(t+1)(a(a+1)E_{p-3}(-a)-1)\mod{p^3},\tag 1.5
\\&\q\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{2k-1}\tag 1.6
\\&\qq\e -(2a+1)(2t+1)-p^2t(t+1)(4+(2a+1)B_{p-2}(-a))\mod {p^3},
\\&\q\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f {2a+1}{2k+1}
\e 1+2t+p^2t(t+1)B_{p-2}(-a))\mod {p^3},\tag 1.7
\\&\q\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f 1k\b ak\b{-1-a}k
\e -\f 23p^2t(t+1)B_{p-3}(-a)
-2\f{B_{p^2(p-1)}(-a)-B_{p^2(p-1)}}{p^2(p-1)} \mod {p^3},\tag 1.8
\\&\q\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak(-2)^k\e (-1)^{\ap}-ptE_{p-2}(-a)\mod {p^2},
\tag 1.9
\\&\q\ \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f {(-1)^{k-1}}k\b ak\e
\f{B_{p^2(p-1)}(-a)-B_{p^2(p-1)}}{p^2(p-1)}
-\f{a-\ap}2B_{p-2}(-a)\mod{p^2}.\tag 1.10\endalign$$ We note that
Tauraso[T2] obtained a congruence for $\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f 1k\b
ak\b{-1-a}k\mod{p^2}$, and he proved that ([T1])
$$\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b{-1/2}k\e H_{\f{p-1}2}\mod{p^3},$$
where $H_n=1+\f 12+\cdots +\f 1n$. Z.W. Sun proved that ([Su1])
$$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\f{\b{2k}k^2}{16^k}=\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{-\f
12}k^2\e 1+(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}-p^2E_{p-3}\mod{p^3}.$$ Recently, using
the fact
$$\b{a-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-a-1}{\f{p-1}2}
\e\cases \f {pt}{\ap}\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap\le \f{p-1}2$,}
\\\f{p(t+1)}{\ap}\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$}
\endcases\tag 1.11$$
and the
method in [S9-S11] Mao and Sun [MS] obtained congruences for $
\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k$ and $\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b
ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{2k+1}$ modulo $p^2$. In particular, they proved
$$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\e \Ls
p3\f{2^p+1}3\mod {p^2},\
\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{(2k+1)64^k}\e \Ls
{-1}p2^{p-1}\mod{p^2},
\\&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{(2k+1)432^k}\e
\Ls p3\f{3^p+1}4\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$
\par Let $p>3$ be a prime and $a\in\Bbb Z_p$ with
$a\not\e 0\mod p$. In this paper we establish congruences for
$$\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}k, \q\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}k\b
ak\b{-1-a}k \qtq{and}\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b
ak\b{-1-a}k}{2k-1}\mod {p^2}$$ and some transformation formulas for
congruences modulo $p^2$. For instance, for $\ap<\f p2$ we have
$$\align&\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}k\e -2\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}
\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b ak \mod{p^2} \\&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k
\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak(-2)^k\mod {p^2},
\\&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}{2k-1}\e
2(a-\ap)-(2a+1)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k\mod{p^2}.
\endalign$$
As consequences and applications we obtain some new congruences modulo $p^2$. Here
are three typical examples:
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{(2k-1)64^k} \e
(-1)^{\f{p+1}2}\f{p+1}2\mod{p^2},\tag 1.12
\\&\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{k\cdot 64^k}
\e
6q_p(2)-p\big(3q_p(2)^2+2(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}E_{p-3}\big)\mod{p^2},\tag
1.13
\\&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}
\e (-1)^{[\f p4]}\big(1+P_{p-\sls 2p}\big)\mod{p^2}.\tag 1.14
\endalign$$
where $q_p(a)=(a^{p-1}-1)/p$ and $\{P_n\}$ is the Pell sequence given by
$P_0=0,\ P_1=1$ and $P_{n+1}=2P_n+P_{n-1}\ (n\ge 1).$
We note that (1.13) is equivalent to a conjecture made by the author's brother Z.W. Sun
in [Su2].
\section* {2. Congruences for $\sum_{k=1}^{\f{p-1}2}
\f 1k\b ak\b{-1-a}k\mod {p^2}$}
\par\q For any positive integer $n$ and variable $a$ let
$$S_n(a)=\sum_{k=1}^n\f 1k\b ak\b{-1-a}k.$$
By [S9, (2.1)],
$$S_n(a)-S_n(a-1)=\f 2a\b{a-1}n \b{-a-1}n-\f 2a.\tag 2.1$$
Let $p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. Using (2.1)
we see that
$$\align &S_n(a)-S_n(a-\ap)
\\&=\sum_{k=0}^{\ap-1}(S_n(a-k)-S_n(a-k-1))
=\sum_{k=0}^{\ap-1}\f 2{a-k}\Big\{\b{a-k-1}n \b{k-a-1}n-1\Big\}
\\&=\sum_{k=0}^{\ap-1}\f 2{pt+\ap-k}
\Big\{\b{pt+\ap-k-1}n \b{-pt-(\ap-k)-1}n-1\Big\} .\endalign$$ Hence
$$S_n(a)-S_n(pt)=\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f 2{pt+r}
\Big\{\b{pt+r-1}n \b{-pt-r-1}n-1\Big\}.\tag 2.2$$
\par For any positive integer $n$ define $H_n=\sum_{k=1}^n\f 1k$.
For convenience we also define $H_0=0$.
\pro{Lemma 2.1}
Let $p>3$ be a prime, $r\in\{1,2,\ldots,p-1\}$ and $t\in\Bbb
Z_p$. Then
$$\align &\b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}
\\&\e\cases
\f{pt}r+\f{p^2t}r\Big(2q_p(2)+H_{\f{p-1}2-r}\Big)-\f{p^2t^2}{r^2}\mod{p^3}
&\t{if $r<\f p2$,}
\\\f{p(t+1)}r+\f{p^2(t+1)}r\Big(2q_p(2)+H_{r-\f{p+1}2}\Big)-\f{p^2t(t+1)}{r^2}\mod{p^3}
&\t{if $r>\f p2$.}\endcases\endalign$$
\endpro
Proof. We first assume $r<\f p2$. It is clear that
$$\align &{\big(\f{p-1}2\big)!}^2
\b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}
\\&={\big(\f{p-1}2\big)!}^2\b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\b{pt+r+\f{p-1}2}{\f{p-1}2}
\\&=(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\f{pt}{pt+r}(pt-1)\cdots\Big(pt-\big(\f{p-1}2-r\big)\Big)(pt+1)(pt+2)\cdots
\Big(pt+\f{p-1}2+r\Big)
\\&=(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\f{pt}{pt+r}((pt)^2-1^2)((pt)^2-2^2)\cdots
\Big((pt)^2-\big(\f{p-1}2-r\big)^2\Big)
\\&\q\times\prod_{s=0}^{r-1}\Big(pt+\f{p-1}2-s\Big)
\Big(pt+\f{p-1}2+s+1\Big)
\\&\e (-1)^r\f{pt}{pt+r}{\Big(\f{p-1}2-r\Big)!}^2
\ \prod_{s=0}^{r-1}\Big(\f{p-1}2-s\Big) \Big(\f{p-1}2+s+1\Big)
\\&=(-1)^r\f{pt}{pt+r}\Big(\f{p-1}2-r\Big)!\Big(\f{p-1}2+r\Big)!
=(-1)^r\f{pt}{pt+r}\cdot\f{(p-1)!}{\b{p-1}{\f{p-1}2-r}}
\\&\e
(-1)^r\f{pt}{pt+r}\cdot\f{(p-1)!}{(-1)^{\f{p-1}2-r}(1-pH_{\f{p-1}2-r})}
\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}2}(p-1)!\cdot pt\f{(r-pt)(1+pH_{\f{p-1}2-r})}{r^2}
\\&\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}2}(p-1)!\cdot pt\Big(\f 1r-\f{pt}{r^2}+\f{pH_{\f{p-1}2-r}}r\Big)
\mod{p^3}.
\endalign$$
Since
$$\f{(p-1)!}{{(\f{p-1}2)!}^2}=\f{(p-1)\cdots(p-\f{p-1}2)}{(\f{p-1}2)!}
\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}2}\big(1-pH_{\f{p-1}2}\big)\e
(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}(1+2pq_p(2))\mod {p^2},$$ from the above we deduce
that
$$\align\b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}&\e (1+2pq_p(2))pt
\Big(\f 1r-\f{pt}{r^2}+\f{pH_{\f{p-1}2-r}}r\Big)
\\&\e pt\Big(\f 1r+\f{p(2q_p(2)+H_{\f{p-1}2-r})}r-\f{pt}{r^2}\Big)\mod
{p^3}.\endalign$$ This yields the result in the case $r<\f p2$.
\par Now assume $r>\f p2$. Set $t'=-t-1$ and $r'=p-r$. We see that
$$\align \b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}
&=\b{p(t+1)-(p-r)-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-p(t+1)+p-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}
\\&=\b{pt'+r'-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt'-r'-1}{\f{p-1}2}.\endalign$$
Since $r'<\f p2$, from the above we deduce that
$$\align &\b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}
\\&=\b{pt'+r'-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt'-r'-1}{\f{p-1}2}
\e \f{pt'}{r'}+\f{p^2t'}{r'}\Big(2q_p(2)+H_{\f{p-1}2-r'}\Big)
-\f{p^2{t'}^2}{{r'}^2}
\\&=\f{p(t+1)}{r-p}-\f{p^2(t+1)}{p-r}\Big(2q_p(2)+H_{r-\f{p+1}2}\Big)-\f{p^2(t+1)^2}
{(p-r)^2}
\\&\e \f{p(t+1)(r+p)}{r^2}+\f{p^2(t+1)}r\Big(2q_p(2)+H_{r-\f{p+1}2}\Big)
-\f{p^2(t+1)^2}{r^2} \mod{p^3}.\endalign$$ This yields the result in
the case $r>\f p2$. Hence the lemma is proved.
\par We remark that Lemma 2.1 improves Mao and Sun's (1.11).
\pro{Theorem 2.1} Let $p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$ and
$a\not\e 0\mod p$. Then
$$ \sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}k+2\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}
\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b ak\e\cases 0\mod {p^2}&\t{if $\ap\le \f{p-1}2$,}
\\pB_{p-2}(-a)\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$}
\endcases$$
and
$$\align &\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}
\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b ak \\&\e
-\f{B_{2p-2}(-a)-B_{2p-2}}{2p-2}+2\f{B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}}{p-1}-\f
{a-\ap}2B_{p-2}(-a)\mod {p^2}.\endalign$$
\endpro
Proof. Set $t=(a-\ap)/p$. By [S3, Theorem 5.2],
$\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f 1{k^2}\e 0\mod p$. Thus,
$$\align S_{\f{p-1}2}(pt)&=\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f
1k\b{pt}k\b{-pt-1}k =\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{pt}{k^2}\b{pt-1}{k-1}
\b{-pt-1}k
\\&\e \sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{pt}{k^2}
\b{-1}{k-1}\b{-1}k =-pt\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f 1{k^2}\e
0\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ For $1\le \ap\le \f{p-1}2$, from (2.2) and
Lemma 2.1 we see that
$$\align S_{\f{p-1}2}(a)&=S_{\f{p-1}2}(pt)
+\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{2(r-pt)}{r^2-p^2t^2}
\Big\{\b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}-1\Big\}
\\&\e 2\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{r-pt}{r^2}\Big(\f{pt}r-1\Big)
\e 2\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\Big( \f{2pt}{r^2}-\f 1r\Big)
\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ For $\ap>\f{p-1}2$, from (2.2) and Lemma 2.1
we deduce that
$$\align S_{\f{p-1}2}(a)&=S_{\f{p-1}2}(pt)
+\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{2(r-pt)}{r^2-p^2t^2}
\Big\{\b{pt+r-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-pt-r-1}{\f{p-1}2}-1\Big\}
\\&\e 2\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}
\f{r-pt}{r^2}\Big(\f{pt}r-1\Big)+2\sum_{r=(p+1)/2}^{\ap}
\f{r-pt}{r^2}\Big(\f{p(t+1)}r-1\Big)
\\&=2\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{r-pt}{r^2}\Big(\f{p(t+1)}r-1\Big)
-2\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{r-pt}{r^2}\cdot \f pr
\\&\e 2\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\Big( \f{2pt}{r^2}-\f 1r\Big)+2p\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}
\f 1{r^2}-2p\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f 1{r^2}\mod {p^2}.
\endalign$$
By [S3, Theorem 5.2], $\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f 1{r^2}\e 0\mod p$. By
[S9, (3.4)] and Fermat's little theorem, $\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f
1{r^2}\e \f 12B_{p-2}(-a)\mod p$. From the above we deduce that
$$ S_{\f{p-1}2}(a)-2\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\Big( \f{2pt}{r^2}-\f 1r\Big)
\e\cases 0\mod {p^2}&\t{if $\ap\le \f{p-1}2$,}
\\pB_{p-2}(-a)\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$.}
\endcases\tag 2.3$$
Putting $n=p-1$ and $b=-1$ in [S9, Lemma 3.1] and
then applying [S3, Theorem 5.1] we get
$$\align \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^k}k\b{a}k
&\e -pt\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f 1{k^2}-\sum_{r=1}^{\ap} \f
1r+2pt\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f 1{r^2} \e \sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\Big(
\f{2pt}{r^2}-\f 1r\Big) \mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ This together with
(2.3) yields the the first part.
\par Putting $b=p-1$ and $x=-a$ in [S3, Theorem 3.1] and then
applying [S3, Theorem 2.2 (with $k=p^2-1$ and $n=2$)] we deduce that
$$\align \f{B_{p^2(p-1)}(-a)-B_{p^2(p-1)}}{p^2(p-1)}
&=\f{B_{(p^2-1)(p-1)+p-1}(-a)-B_{(p^2-1)(p-1)+p-1}}{(p^2-1)(p-1)+p-1}
\\&\e (p^2-1)\f{B_{p-1+p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1+p-1}}{p-1+p-1}-(p^2-2)
\f{B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}}{p-1}
\\&\e -\f{B_{2p-2}(-a)-B_{2p-2}}{2p-2}+2\f{B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}}{p-1}
\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ This together with (1.10) ([S9, Theorem 3.1])
yields the remaining part. The proof is now complete.
\pro{Theorem 2.2} Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then
$$\align &\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{k\cdot 64^k}
\e
6q_p(2)-p\big(3q_p(2)^2+2(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}E_{p-3}\big)\mod{p^2},\tag i
\\&\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}{k}}{k\cdot 27^k}
\e 3q_p(3)-p\Big(\f 32q_p(3)^2 +2\Ls p3U_{p-3}\Big)\mod{p^2},\tag ii
\\&\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{k\cdot 432^k}
\e 4q_p(2)+3q_p(3)-p\Big(2q_p(2)^2+\f 32q_p(3)^2+5\Ls
p3U_{p-3}\Big)
\mod{p^2}.
\tag iii
\endalign$$
\endpro
Proof. From [S4, Lemma 2.5] we know that
$E_{2n}=-4^{2n+1}\f{B_{2n+1}\sls 14}{2n+1}$. Thus,
$E_{p-3}=-4^{p-2}\f{B_{p-2}\sls 14}{p-2}$ $\e \f 18B_{p-2}\sls
14\mod p$. Now taking $a=-\f 14$ in Theorem 2.1 we see that
$$\align &\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{-1/4}k\b{-3/4}k}k+2
\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b{-1/4}k\\&
\e\cases 0\mod p &\t{if
$p\e 1\mod 4$,}
\\ pB_{p-2}\ls 14\e 8pE_{p-3}\mod p&\t{if $p\e 3\mod 4$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
By [S9, Theorem 3.2],
$$-2\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b{-1/4}k \e
6q_p(2)+p(-3q_p(2)^2-2(2-(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}) E_{p-3})\mod{p^2}.$$ Hence
(i) is true by (1.1).
\par Taking $a=-\f 13$ in Theorem 2.1 and applying the fact $B_{p-2}(\f
13)\e 6U_{p-3}\mod p$ ([S6]) we see that
$$\align &\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{-1/3}k\b{-2/3}k}k+2
\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b{-1/3}k\\& \e\cases 0\mod p &\t{if
$p\e 1\mod 3$,}
\\ pB_{p-2}\ls 13\e 6pU_{p-3}\mod p&\t{if $p\e 2\mod 3$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
By [S9, Theorem 3.3],
$$-2\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b{-1/3}k \e
3q_p(3)-p\Big(\f 32q_p(3)^2+\big(3-\sls p3\big)
U_{p-3}\Big)\mod{p^2}.$$ Thus (ii) holds by (1.1).
\par Taking $a=-\f 16$ in Theorem 2.1 and applying the fact $B_{p-2}(\f
16)\e 30U_{p-3}\mod p$ ([S6]) we see that
$$\align &\sum_{k=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{-1/6}k\b{-5/6}k}k+2
\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b{-1/6}k\\& \e\cases 0\mod p &\t{if
$p\e 1\mod 3$,}
\\ pB_{p-2}\ls 16\e 30pU_{p-3}\mod p&\t{if $p\e 2\mod 3$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
By [S9, Theorem 3.4],
$$\align &-2\sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\f{(-1)^{k-1}}k\b{-1/6}k
\\& \e 4q_p(2)+3q_p(3)-p\Big(2q_p(2)^2+\f 32q_p(3)^2+5
\big(3-2\sls p3\big) U_{p-3}\Big)\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ Thus (iii)
holds by (1.1).
\section*{3. Congruences for $\sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}
\b ak\b{-1-a}k$ and $\sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}k \b
ak\b{-1-a}k\mod{p^2}$}
\par Let $p$ be a prime greater than $3$, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. From [S11, p.3299] we know that for any positive integer $n$,
$$\sum_{k=0}^n\b ak\b{-1-a}k-(-1)^{\ap}\sum_{k=0}^n\b{pt}k\b{-1-pt}k
=2\sum_{k=0}^{\ap-1}(-1)^k\b{a-k-1}n\b{k-a-1}n.$$ For $n<p$ we see
that
$$\align \sum_{k=0}^n\b{pt}k\b{-1-pt}k
&=1+\sum_{k=1}^n\f{pt}k\b{pt-1}{k-1} \b{-1-pt}k\\&\e
1+pt\sum_{k=1}^n\f 1k\b{-1}{k-1}\b{-1}k=1-ptH_n\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$
Taking $n=\f{p-1}2$ in the above and then applying (1.11) or Lemma
2.1 we deduce the following lemma due to Mao and Sun.
\pro{Lemma 3.1 ([MS, (3.5)]} Let $p>3$ be a prime,
$a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $a\not\e 0\mod p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. Then
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\e (-1)^{\ap}(1-ptH_{\f{p-1}2})+2p
\sum_{k=0}^{\ap-1}(-1)^{k}\f{t+\delta_k}{\ap-k}\mod{p^2},$$ where
$\delta_k=1$ or $0$ according as $\ap-k>\f{p-1}2$ or not.
\endpro
\pro{Theorem 3.1} Let $p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $a\not\e
0\mod p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. Then
$$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k
\\&\e\cases \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak(-2)^k\mod {p^2}&\t{if $\ap\le
\f{p-1}2$,}
\\\big(1+\f 1t\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak(-2)^k-(-1)^{\ap}\f 1t
\mod {p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$ and $t\not\e 0\mod p$,}
\\(-1)^{\ap}-pE_{p-2}(-a)\mod {p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$ and $t\e 0\mod p$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
\endpro
Proof. Note that
$$\aligned \sum_{k=0}^{\ap-1}(-1)^{\ap-k}\f{t+\delta_k}{\ap-k}
&=\sum\Sb 0\le k\le \ap-1\\\ap-k<\f p2\endSb (-1)^{\ap-k}\f t{\ap-k}
+\sum\Sb 0\le k\le \ap-1\\\ap-k>\f
p2\endSb(-1)^{\ap-k}\f{t+1}{\ap-k}
\\&=\sum\Sb 1\le r\le \ap\\r<\f p2\endSb(-1)^r\f tr+
\sum\Sb 1\le r\le \ap\\r>\f p2\endSb(-1)^r\f {t+1}r
\\&=\cases \sum_{r=1}^{\ap}(-1)^r\f tr&\t{if $\ap\le\f{p-1}2$,}
\\\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}(-1)^r\f {t+1}r-\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}
\f{(-1)^r}r&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$.}
\endcases\endaligned$$
From [L] we know that $H_{\f{p-1}2}\e -2q_p(2)\mod p$ and $H_{[\f
p4]}\e -3q_p(2)\mod p$. Thus,
$$\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{(-1)^r}r
=\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f{(-1)^r+1}r-H_{\f{p-1}2} = H_{[\f
p4]}-H_{\f{p-1}2} \e -q_p(2)\mod p.$$ Hence applying Lemma 3.1 we
obtain
$$\align\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k
&\e (-1)^{\ap}(1+2ptq_p(2))+2pt(-1)^{\ap}\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{(-1)^r}r
\\&\q+\cases
0\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap\le \f{p-1}2$,}
\\2p(-1)^{\ap}\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{(-1)^r}r+2p(-1)^{\ap}q_p(2)\mod{p^2}
&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
By [S11, p.3306],
$$\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{(-1)^r}r+q_p(2)\e -\f 12 (-1)^{\ap}E_{p-2}(-a)
\mod p.$$ Thus,
$$\aligned \sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k
\e\cases
(-1)^{\ap}(1+2pt\big(\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{(-1)^r}r+q_p(2)\big)
\\\qq\e
(-1)^{\ap}-ptE_{p-2}(-a)\mod {p^2}\qq\q\ \t{if $\ap\le \f{p-1}2$,}
\\(-1)^{\ap}(1+2p(t+1)\big(\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f{(-1)^r}r+q_p(2)\big)
\\\qq\e
(-1)^{\ap}-p(t+1)E_{p-2}(-a)\mod {p^2}\q \t{if $\ap>
\f{p-1}2$.}\endcases\endaligned\tag 3.1$$ By [S11, Theorem 3.1],
$$ (-1)^{\ap}-ptE_{p-2}(-a)
\e \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak(-2)^k\mod {p^2}.$$ Thus, the result is
true for $\ap\le\f{p-1}2$. For $\ap>\f{p-1}2$ and $t\not\e 0\mod p$
we have
$$\align \sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k
&\e (-1)^{\ap}+\f{t+1}t(-ptE_{p-2}(-a))
\\&\e (-1)^{\ap}+\f{t+1}t\Big(\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b ak(-2)^k-(-1)^{\ap}\Big)
\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ This yields the result in this case. The proof
is now complete.
\pro{Theorem 3.2} Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}
\e (-1)^{[\f p4]}\big(1+P_{p-\sls 2p}\big)\mod{p^2}.$$
\endpro
Proof. Clearly
$$\align \sum_{r=1}^{\langle-1/4\rangle_p}\f{(-1)^r}r
&=\sum_{r=1}^{\langle-1/4\rangle_p}\f{(-1)^r+1}r-\sum_{r=1}^{\langle-1/4\rangle_p}\f
1r
=\cases H_{[\f p8]}-H_{[\f p4]}&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 4$,}
\\H_{[\f {3p}8]}-H_{[\f {3p}4]}&\t{if $p\e 3\mod 4$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
From [S1, Theorems 3.3 and 3.4] we know that
$$\align &H_{[\f p8]}\e -4q_p(2)-2\f{P_{p-\sls 2p}}p\mod p,\
\\&H_{[\f {3p}8]}=H_{[\f p8]}+\sum_{\f p8<k<\f{3p}8}\f 1k\e H_{[\f p8]}
+4\f{P_{p-\sls 2p}}p\e -4q_p(2)+2\f{P_{p-\sls 2p}}p\mod p.
\endalign$$
We also have $H_{[\f{3p}4]}=H_{p-1}-\sum_{k=1}^{[p/4]}\f 1{p-k} \e
H_{[\f p4]}\e -3q_p(2)\mod p$. Thus,
$$\align\sum_{r=1}^{\langle-1/4\rangle_p}\f{(-1)^r}r
=\cases H_{[\f p8]}-H_{[\f p4]}\e -q_p(2)-2 \f{P_{p-\sls 2p}}p\mod
p&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 4$,}
\\H_{[\f {3p}8]}-H_{[\f {3p}4]}\e -q_p(2)
+2\f{P_{p-\sls 2p}}p\mod p&\t{if $p\e 3\mod 4$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
Taking $a=-1/4$ in (3.1) we see that $t=(
(-1)^{\f{p-1}2}-2)/4$ and so
$$\align&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{64^k}
\\&=\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b{-1/4}k\b{-3/4}k
\\&\e \cases(-1)^{\ap}(1+2pt(-2)\f{P_{p-\sls
2p}}p)=(-1)^{\f{p-1}4}(1+P_{p-\sls 2p})\mod p&\t{if $p\e 1\mod 4$,}
\\(-1)^{\ap}(1+2p(t+1)\cdot 2\f{P_{p-\sls
2p}}p)=(-1)^{\f{p-3}4}(1+P_{p-\sls 2p})\mod p&\t{if $p\e 3\mod 4$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
This proves the theorem.
\par It is well known that ([MOS]) for any positive integer $n$,
$$\aligned &B_{2n}\Ls 12=(2^{1-2n}-1)B_{2n},\ B_{2n}\Ls 13=\f{3-3^{2n}}{2\cdot 3^{2n}}B_{2n},\q
\\&B_{2n}\Ls 14=\f{2-2^{2n}}{4^{2n}}B_{2n},\
B_{2n}\Ls 16=\f{(2-2^{2n})(3-3^{2n})}{2\cdot 6^{2n}}B_{2n}.
\endaligned\tag 3.2$$
Let $p>3$ be a prime. From (3.2) and the well-known fact
$pB_{p-1}\e p-1\mod p$ (see [IR]) one can easily deduce the
following known congruences (see [L],[GS]):
$$\align&B_{p-1}\Ls 12-B_{p-1}\e 2q_p(2)\mod p,
\q B_{p-1}\Ls 13-B_{p-1}\e\f 32q_p(3)\mod p,\tag 3.3
\\&B_{p-1}\Ls 14-B_{p-1}\e 3q_p(2)\mod p,\tag 3.4
\\&B_{p-1}\Ls 16-B_{p-1}\e 2q_p(2)+\f 32q_p(3)\mod p.\tag 3.5
\endalign$$
In [GS] Graville and Sun showed that
$$B_{p-1}\Ls 1{12}-B_{p-1}\e 3\f{S_{p-\sls 3p}}p+3q_p(2)+\f
32q_p(3)\mod p,\tag 3.6$$ where $\{S_n\}$ is given by $S_0=0,\
S_1=1$ and $S_{n+1}=4S_n-S_{n-1}$ $(n\ge 1)$.
\pro{Theorem 3.3} Let $p>3$ be a prime. Then
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{432^k}
\e (-1)^{\f {p-1}2}\Big(1+\Ls 3pS_{p-\sls 3p}\Big)\mod{p^2}.$$
\endpro
Proof. It is well known that ([MOS])
$$E_n(x)=\f 2{n+1}\Big(B_{n+1}(x)-2^{n+1}B_{n+1}\Ls x2\Big)
=\f{2^{n+1}}{n+1}\Big(B_{n+1}\Ls{x+1}2-B_n\Ls x2\Big).\tag 3.7$$ For
$a\in\Bbb Z_p$ we know that $B_{p-1}(a)-B_{p-1}\in\Bbb Z_p$ and
$pB_{p-1}\e p-1\mod p$ (see [IR,S2,S3]). Thus,
$$\aligned E_{p-2}(-a)&=\f 2{p-1}\Big(B_{p-1}(-a)-2^{p-1}B_{p-1}
\Big(-\f a2\Big)\Big)
\\&=\f 2{p-1}\Big(B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}-2^{p-1}
\Big(B_{p-1} \Big(-\f
a2\Big)-B_{p-1}\Big)-\big(2^{p-1}-1\big)B_{p-1}\Big)
\\&\e -2\Big(B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}-\Big(B_{p-1} \Big(-\f
a2\Big)-B_{p-1}\Big)+q_p(2)\Big)\mod p.\endaligned\tag 3.8$$ Taking
$a=-\f 16$ in (3.8) and then applying (3.5) and (3.6) we get
$$E_{p-2}\Ls 16\e -2\Big(B_{p-1}\Ls 16-B_{p-1}-\Big(B_{p-1}\Ls 1{12}
-B_{p-1} \Big)+q_p(2)\Big)\e 6\f{S_{p-\sls 3p}}p\mod p.\tag 3.9$$
Now applying (3.1) we deduce that
$$\align
\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b{-\f 16}k\b{-\f 56}k \e\cases
(-1)^{\f{p-1}6}+\f p6E_{p-2}\sls 16\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}2}+S_{p-\sls
3p}\mod {p^2}&\t{if $6\mid p-1$,}
\\(-1)^{\f{5p-1}6}-\f p6E_{p-2}\sls 16\e (-1)^{\f{p-1}2}-S_{p-\sls
3p}\mod {p^2}&\t{if $6\mid p-5$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
This together with (1.1) yields the result.
\pro{Theorem 3.4} Let
$p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $a\not\e 0\mod p$ and
$t=(a-\ap)/p$. Then
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}k\b ak\b{-1-a}k
\\&\e\cases (-1)^{\ap}a(a+1)-\f 12pt(2a(a+1)E_{p-2}(-a)+2a+1)\mod
{p^2}&\t{if $\ap\le \f{p-1}2$,}
\\(-1)^{\ap}a(a+1)-\f 12p(t+1)(2a(a+1)E_{p-2}(-a)+2a+1)\mod
{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$.}
\endcases\endalign$$\endpro
Proof. By [S11, Lemma 2.4],
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^n(k-a(a+1))\b ak\b{-1-a}k
\\&=-a(a+1)\b{a-1}n\b{-2-a}n =-a(a+n+1)\b{a-1}n\b{-1-a}n.\endalign$$
Taking $n=\f{p-1}2$ in the above identity and then applying Lemma
2.1 and (3.1) we deduce that
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}k\b ak\b{-1-a}k
- a(a+1)\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k
\\&=-a\Big(a+\f{p-1}2+1\Big)\b{a-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-1-a}{\f{p-1}2}
\\&\e \cases -a(a+\f 12)\f{pt}{\ap}\e -\f{2a+1}2pt\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap\le
\f{p-1}2$,}
\\-a(a+\f 12)\f{p(t+1)}{\ap}\e -\f{2a+1}2p(t+1)\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f{p-1}2$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
This together with (3.1) yields the result.
\pro{Theorem 3.5} Let $p$ be a prime greater than $3$. Then
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{k\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{27^k}\e
-\Ls p3\f{4-3p+2^{p+2}}{54} \mod {p^2}.$$
\endpro
Proof. From (3.3), (3.5) and (3.8) we derive that
$$\aligned E_{p-2}\Ls 13&\e-2\Big(B_{p-1}\Ls 13-B_{p-1}-\Big(B_{p-1}\Ls
16-B_{p-1}\Big)+q_p(2)\Big)
\\&\e -2\Big(\f 32q_p(3)-2q_p(2)-\f 32q_p(3)+q_p(2)\Big)=2q_p(2)\mod
p. \endaligned\tag 3.10$$
Now taking $a=-\f 13$ in Theorem 3.4 and then applying (1.1) and
(3.10) we deduce the result.
\section*{4. Congruences for $\sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}\f 1{2k+1}\b
ak\b{-1-a}k$ and $\sum_{k=0}^{\f{p-1}2}\f 1{2k-1}\b ak\b{-1-a}k$
$\mod {p^2}$} \pro{Lemma 4.1 ([MS])} Let $p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb
Z_p$, $a\not\e 0\mod p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. Then
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f{2a+1}{2k+1}
\e 1+2t+4ptq_p(2)+2pt\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f 1r+2p\sum\Sb 1\le r\le \ap
\\r>\f p2\endSb\f 1r\mod{p^2}.$$
\endpro
\pro{Theorem 4.1 } Let $p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $a\not\e
0\mod p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. Then
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f{2a+1}{2k+1}
\\&\e \cases 1+2t+4ptq_p(2)-2pt(B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1})\mod {p^2}&\t{if
$\ap\le \f{p-1}2$,}
\\1+2t+4p(t+1)q_p(2)-2p(t+1)(B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1})\mod {p^2}&\t{if
$\ap>\f{p-1}2$.}\endcases\endalign$$
\endpro
Proof. By [S3, Lemma 3.2],
$$\aligned\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f 1r&\e \sum_{r=1}^{\ap}r^{p-2}
\e (-1)^{p-1}\f{B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}}{p-1}+(-a+\ap)B_{p-2} \\& \e
-(B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1})\mod p.\endaligned\tag 4.1$$ Thus, for $\ap\le
\f{p-1}2$ the result follows from Lemma 4.1.
\par Now assume $\ap>\f{p-1}2$. As $H_{\f{p-1}2}\e -2q_p(2)\mod p$,
we see that
$$\sum\Sb 1\le r\le \ap
\\r>\f p2\endSb\f 1r=\sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f 1r-\sum_{r=1}^{(p-1)/2}\f
1r\e \sum_{r=1}^{\ap}\f 1r+2q_p(2)\mod p.$$ Hence the result follows
from the above and Lemma 4.1.
\pro{Corollary 4.1} Let $p>3$ be a
prime. Then
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}k}{(2k+1)27^k}
\e \Ls p3(2-2^{p+1}+3^p)\mod{p^2}.$$
\endpro
Proof. As $t=-\f 13$ or $-\f 23$ according as $p\e 1\mod 3$ or $p\e
2\mod 3$, taking $a=-\f 13$ in Theorem 4.1 and then applying (3.3)
yields
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f 1{2k+1}\b{-\f 13}k\b{-\f 23}k
\e \Ls p3(1-4pq_p(2)+3pq_p(3))=\Ls p3(2-2^{p+1}+3^p)\mod p.$$ This
together with (1.1) gives the result.
\pro{Theorem 4.2 } Let $p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$ and $a\not\e
0\mod p$. Then
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f 1{2k-1}
\\&\e\cases -(2a+1)+2(a-\ap)(1+(2a+1)E_{p-2}(-2a))\mod{p^2}
&\t{if $\ap<\f p2$,}
\\2a+1+2(p+a-\ap)(1+(2a+1)E_{p-2}(-2a))\mod{p^2}
&\t{if $\ap>\f p2$.}\endcases
\endalign$$
\endpro
Proof. By [S10, Lemma 3.1],
$$\aligned &\sum_{k=0}^n\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f{(2a(a+1)+1)k-a(a+1)}{4k^2-1}
\\&=\f{a(a+1)}{2n+1}\b{a-1}n\b{-2-a}n=\f{a(a+n+1)}{2n+1}\b{a-1}n\b{-a-1}n.
\endaligned\tag 4.2$$
Set $t=(a-\ap)/p$. By Lemma 2.1,
$$\align &\f 1p\b{a-1}{\f{p-1}2}\b{-a-1}{\f{p-1}2}
\\&\e \cases
\f{t}{\ap}+\f{pt}a(2q_p(2)+H_{\f{p-1}2-\ap})-\f{pt^2}{a^2} \mod
{p^2}&\t{if $\ap<\f p2$,}
\\\f{t+1}{\ap}+\f{p(t+1)}a(2q_p(2)+H_{\ap-\f{p+1}2})-\f{pt(t+1)}{a^2} \mod
{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f p2$.}\endcases\endalign$$ For $\ap<\f p2$, using
(4.1) and the fact $B_n(1-x)=(-1)^nB_n(x)$ ([MOS]) we see that
$$H_{\f{p-1}2-\ap}\e -\Big(B_{p-1}\big(\f 12+a\big)-B_{p-1}\Big)
=-\Big(B_{p-1}\big(\f 12-a\big)-B_{p-1}\Big)\mod p.$$ For $\ap>\f
p2$, using (4.1) we see that
$$H_{\ap-\f{p+1}2}\e -\Big(B_{p-1}\big(\f 12-a\big)-B_{p-1}\Big)
\mod p.$$
Thus, taking $n=\f{p-1}2$ in (4.2) and applying the above we obtain
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b{-1-a}k\f{(2a(a+1)+1)k-a(a+1)}{4k^2-1}
\\&\e \cases (a+\f{p+1}2)\Big(
\f{t(pt+\ap)}{\ap}+pt\big(2q_p(2)+B_{p-1}-B_{p-1}\big(\f
12-a\big)\big)-\f{pt^2}{a} \Big)\mod
{p^2}\\\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\t{if $\ap<\f p2$,}
\\(a+\f{p+1}2)\Big(\f{(t+1)(pt+\ap)}{\ap}+p(t+1)
\big(2q_p(2)+B_{p-1}-B_{p-1}\big(\f 12-a\big))\\\
\qq\q\qq-\f{pt(t+1)} {a}\Big) \mod {p^2}\q\t{if $\ap>\f
p2$}\endcases
\\&\e t'\Big(\f p2+\f{2a+1}2\Big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)+B_{p-1}-B_{p-1}\big(\f
12-a\big)\big)\Big)\mod {p^2},
\endalign$$ where $t'=t$ or $t+1$ according as $\ap<\f p2$ or $\ap>\f p2$. As
$$\f
1{2k-1}=4\f{(2a(a+1)+1)k-a(a+1)}{4k^2-1}-(2a+1)\f{2a+1}{2k+1},$$
from the above and Theorem 4.1 we see that
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f 1{2k-1}\b ak\b {-1-a}k
\\&=4\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b {-1-a}k\f{(2a(a+1)+1)k-a(a+1)}{4k^2-1}
\\&\q-(2a+1)\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\b ak\b {-1-a}k\f{2a+1}{2k+1}
\\&\e 2pt'+2(2a+1)t'\Big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)+B_{p-1}-B_{p-1}\big(\f
12-a\big)\big)\Big)
\\&\q-(-1)^{t'-t}(2a+1)-2(2a+1)t'\big(1+p\big(2q_p(2)-B_{p-1}(-a)+B_{p-1}\big)\big)
\\&=-(-1)^{t'-t}(2a+1)+2pt'+2(2a+1)pt'\Big(B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}\big(\f
12-a\big)\Big)\mod{p^2}.
\endalign$$
By (3.7),
$$E_{p-2}(-2a)=\f{2^{p-1}}{p-1}\Big(B_{p-1}\big(-a+\f
12\big)-B_{p-1}(-a)\Big)\e B_{p-1}(-a)-B_{p-1}\Big(\f
12-a\Big)\mod{p}.\tag 4.3$$ Now combining the above gives the
result. \pro{Theorem 4.3} Let $p$ be a prime greater than $3$. Then
$$\align
&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{4k}{2k}}{(2k-1)64^k} \e
(-1)^{\f{p+1}2}\f{p+1}2\mod{p^2},\tag i
\\&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{2k}k\b{3k}{k}}{(2k-1)27^k}
\e \f 19\Ls p3\big(2^{p+1}-7-6p\big)\mod{p^2},\tag ii
\\&\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b{3k}k\b{6k}{3k}}{(2k-1)432^k}
\e -\f 19\Ls p3\big(2^{p+1}+2+3p\big)\mod {p^2}.\tag iii\endalign$$
\endpro
Proof. It is well known that ([MOS])
$$B_n(1-x)=(-1)^nB_n(x)\qtq{and}E_n(1-x)=(-1)^nE_n(x).$$
For $m=3,4,6$ we see that $\langle -\f 1m\rangle_p=\f{p-1}m$ or
$\f{(m-1)p-1}m$ according as $p\e 1\mod m$ or not.
Using (4.3) we see that $E_{p-2}\sls 12\e B_{p-1}\sls
14-B_{p-1}\sls 34\e 0\mod p$. Now taking $a=-\f 14$ in Theorem 4.2
and then applying (1.1) yields (i).
Using (3.10) we see that $E_{p-2}\sls 23=-E_{p-2}\sls 13\e -2q_p(2)\mod
p$. Taking $a=-\f 13$ in Theorem 4.2 and then applying (1.1) yields
(ii). Taking $a=-\f 16$ in Theorem 4.2 and then applying (3.10) and
(1.1) yields (iii). The proof is now complete.
\pro{Theorem 4.4} Let $p>3$ be a prime, $a\in\Bbb Z_p$, $a\not\e
0\mod p$ and $t=(a-\ap)/p$. Then
$$\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}{2k-1}
\e\cases 2pt-(2a+1)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k\mod{p^2} \q\t{if
$\ap<\f p2$,}
\\2p(t+1)-\f{2a+1}{2t+1}
-(2a+1)\big(1+\f 1{2t+1}\big)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k\mod{p^2}
\\\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\q\t{if $\ap>\f p2$ and $t\not\e -\f 12\mod p$,}
\\2a+1+p(1+(2a+1)E_{p-2}(-2a))\mod{p^2}\\\qq\qq\qq\qq\qq\q\t
{if $\ap>\f p2$ and $t\e -\f 12\mod p$.}
\endcases$$
\endpro
Proof. By (1.9),
$$\align \sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k&\e (-1)^{\langle
2a\rangle_p}-(2a-\langle 2a\rangle_p)E_{p-2}(-2a)
\\&=\cases 1-(2a-2\ap)E_{p-2}(-2a)\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap<\f p2$,}
\\-1-(2a-2\ap+p)E_{p-2}(-2a)\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f p2$.}
\endcases\endalign$$
Thus, from Theorem 4.2 we deduce that
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}{2k-1}+
(2a+1)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k
\\&\e\cases 2(a-\ap)\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap<\f p2$,}
\\2(p+a-\ap)+(2a+1)pE_{p-2}(-2a)\mod{p^2}&\t{if $\ap>\f p2$.}
\endcases
\endalign$$
This shows that the result is true for $\ap<\f p2$. Now assume
$\ap>\f p2$. From the above we have
$$1+\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k\e -(2t+1)pE_{p-2}(-2a)\mod
{p^2}.$$ Hence for $t\not\e -\f 12\mod p$,
$$\align &\sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}{2k-1}+
(2a+1)\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k
\\&\e
2(p+a-\ap)-\f{2a+1}{2t+1}\Big(1+
\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k\Big)\mod{p^2}.
\endalign$$
This yields the result in this case. For $t\e -\f 12\mod p$, from
the above we have $a-\ap=pt\e -\f p2\mod{p^2}$ and
$\sum_{k=0}^{p-1}\b{2a}k(-2)^k\e -1\mod{p^2}$. Hence
$$\align \sum_{k=0}^{(p-1)/2}\f{\b ak\b{-1-a}k}{2k-1}
&\e 2a+1+2(p+a-\ap)+(2a+1)pE_{p-2}(-2a) \\&\e
2a+1+p(1+(2a+1)E_{p-2}(-2a))\mod{p^2}.\endalign$$ This yields the
result in this case. The proof is now complete.
\par\q
\newline{\bf Acknowledgment}
\par\q
\newline The author is supported by the National
Natural Science Foundation of China (grant No. 11371163).
|
\section{Introduction}
One of the most puzzling and long-standing problems in particle physics is related to the absence of an expected CP violation in the strong interactions: {\em The strong CP problem}. It is in this context and more precisely within the Peccei-Quinn mechanism~\cite{Peccei:1977hh,Peccei:1977ur,Weinberg:1977ma,Wilczek:1977pj} that axions, low-mass pseudoscalar particles with properties similar to those of neutral pions, have been introduced. Soon after the theoretical prediction of axions, it was moreover realized that such particles could be dark matter candidates in cosmology~\cite{Preskill:1983,Abbott:1983,Dine:1983}. Axions with masses on the order of $10^{-6}$~eV would behave as cold dark matter~\cite{Kawasaki:2013ae,Sikivie:2006ni,DiValentino:2014zna}, while for $m_a\agt60\times 10^{-3}$~eV they would attain thermal equilibrium at the QCD phase transition during the early universe expansion, or even later~\cite{Turner:1986tb,Masso:2002np}. In the latter case, axions would contribute to the cosmic radiation density and potentially to the cosmic hot-dark-matter density along with massive neutrinos~\cite{Archidiacono:2013cha}.
The strongest bound on the axion mass comes from the observations of neutrinos originating from supernova (SN) SN1987A (cf. Refs.~\cite{Turner:1987by,Brinkmann:1988vi,Burrows:1988ah,Keil:1997,Raffelt:2006cw}). The relevant process of axion emission in a SN core is the nucleon--nucleon ($N$--$N$) axion bremsstrahlung, illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:process}, which involves the axion-nucleon coupling. Such an additional source of energy loss could potentially enhance the cooling, which in turn may reduce the associated neutrino flux. Our particular object of interest here is the protoneutron star (PNS), which forms when the imploding stellar core of a massive star reaches supersaturation density; the later ejection of the stellar mantle is subject to the explosion mechanism, and constitutes the SN problem. The PNS is initially hot and lepton rich, in which properties it differs from the final SN remnant: the neutron star. The deleptonization of the PNS is determined by the emission of neutrinos of all flavors, which decouple from matter at the neutrinospheres of last scattering, on a timescale of the order of 10--30~s. The observed duration of the neutrino burst from SN1987A was ${\mathcal O}$(10~s), in qualitative agreement with the expectations from ``standard'' SN models (for a recent review cf. Ref.~\cite{Janka:2012}). As a consequence, the upper bound on axion masses ranges between $5 \times 10^{-2}-6 \times 10^{-3}$~eV depending on the axion model~\cite{Keil:1997}. However, the sparse data sample of neutrino events from SN1987A and the currently still poor understanding of the nuclear medium at SN conditions suggest taking this limit as general guideline rather than a hard constraint.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.21\textwidth]{fig-process}\label{fig:process_a}}
\hfill
\subfigure[]{
\includegraphics[width=0.21\textwidth]{fig-OPE-process}\label{fig:process_b}}
\caption{Example diagrams for the axion production through $N$--$N$ axion bremsstrahlung ($N=$ neutron or proton). The shaded region in \ref{fig:process_a} represents bulk nuclear interactions and \ref{fig:process_b} shows the contribution of the OPE approximation.}
\label{fig:process}
\end{figure}
Following this observation, we conduct for the first time consistent general relativistic neutrino radiation hydrodynamics simulations of the PNS deleptonization phase up to 40~s, with accurate three-flavor Boltzmann neutrino transport. We include $N$--$N$ axion bremsstrahlung at the level of the vacuum one-pion exchange (OPE) approximation taking, however, into account many-body effects. The latter suppress the rate of axion emission towards high densities~\cite{Raffelt:1991pw,Raffelt:1995,Janka:1996}. Similarly, the emission of neutrino--antineutrino pairs from $N$--$N$ bremsstrahlung can be calculated in the vacuum OPE approximation~\cite{Friman:1979}, with the addition of many-body effects~\cite{Hannestad:1997gc}. Beyond the OPE approach, medium modifications further suppress the rate with increasing density as shown recently using a chiral effective field theory approach~\cite{Bartl:2014,Bartl:2016} as well as based on the Fermi-liquid approach~\cite{Fischer:2016b}.
In this work we aim at studying the impact of the axion emission on the PNS evolution, as well as on the associated neutrino signal. Our results are in qualitative agreement with earlier studies~\cite{Keil:1997}. Current and future underground neutrino detectors guarantee a high statistics for the next galactic SN event within the sensitivity range (see Ref.~\cite{Mirizzi:2015eza} for a recent review). Therefore, based on our new SN simulations, we calculate the neutrino events for the water-Cherenkov detector Super-Kamiokande and its future megatonne upgrade, as well as for the Cherenkov detector in the antarctic ice, Icecube.
The plan of our work is as follows. In Sec.~II, we introduce our SN model AGILE-BOLTZTRAN and we discuss our reference simulation without axions. In Sec.~III, we present the theoretical framework for the calculation of the axion emission rate, which is implemented in Sec.~IV into our SN simulations for which we discuss the evolution in comparison to the reference case. We explore the sensitivity of our results to the stellar model and to nucleon degeneracy. In Sec.~V, we study the impact of the axion emission on the observable neutrino signal in large underground detectors and show that values of $m_a \gtrsim 8 \times 10^{-3}$~eV can be probed. The paper closes with the summary in Sec.~VI.
\section{Core-collapse SN simulations
\subsection{Core-collapse SN model}
\label{SNmodel}
\begin{table}[htp!]
\centering
\caption{Neutrino reactions considered, including references.}
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\hline
\hline
& Weak process & References \\
\hline
1 & $e^- + p \rightleftarrows n + \nu_e$ & \cite{Reddy:1998,Horowitz:2001xf} \\
2 & $e^+ + n \rightleftarrows p + \bar\nu_e$ & \cite{Reddy:1998,Horowitz:2001xf} \\
3 & $e^- + (A,Z) \rightleftarrows (A,Z-1) + \nu_e$ & \cite{Juodagalvis:2010} \\
4 & $\nu + N \rightleftarrows \nu' + N$ & \cite{Bruenn:1985en,Mezzacappa:1993gm,Horowitz:2001xf} \\
5 & $\nu + (A,Z) \rightleftarrows \nu' + (A,Z)$ & \cite{Bruenn:1985en,Mezzacappa:1993gm} \\
6 & $\nu + e^\pm \rightleftarrows \nu' + e^\pm$ & \cite{Bruenn:1985en},
\cite{Mezzacappa:1993gx} \\
7 & $e^- + e^+ \rightleftarrows \nu + \bar{\nu}$ & \cite{Bruenn:1985en} \\
8 & $N + N \rightleftarrows \nu + \bar{\nu} + N + N $ & \cite{Hannestad:1997gc} \\
9 & $\nu_e + \bar\nu_e \rightleftarrows \nu_{\mu/\tau} + \bar\nu_{\mu/\tau}$ & \cite{Buras:2002wt,Fischer:2009} \\
10 & $(A,Z)^* \rightleftarrows (A,Z) + \nu + \bar\nu$ & \cite{Fuller:1991,Fischer:2013} \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\\
$\nu=\{\nu_e,\bar{\nu}_e,\nu_{\mu/\tau},\bar{\nu}_{\mu/\tau}\}$ and $N=\{n,p\}$
\label{tab:nu-reactions}
\end{table}
In this study the spherically symmetric core-collapse supernova model AGILE-BOLTZTRAN is employed. It is based on general relativistic neutrino radiation hydrodynamics with angle-and energy-dependent three flavor Boltzmann neutrino transport ~\cite{Liebendoerfer:2001a,Liebendoerfer:2001b,Liebendoerfer:2002,Liebendoerfer:2004,Liebendoerfer:2005a}. Here we adopt the nuclear equation of state (EoS) from Ref.~\cite{Hempel:2009mc}, henceforth denoted as HS. Nuclei are treated within the modified nuclear statistical equilibrium approach for several 1000 nuclear species based on tabulated and partly calculated nuclear masses. The transition to homogeneous matter, with neutrons and protons only at densities in excess of normal nuclear matter density ($\rho_0$) and towards high temperatures around $T\simeq10-20$~MeV, is modeled intrinsically via a geometrical excluded volume approach based on the relativistic mean-field (RMF) framework. Here we select the RMF parametrization DD2 from Ref.~\cite{Typel:2005}; the final EoS is henceforth denoted as HS(DD2). In addition, lepton and photon contributions are calculated using the EoS from Ref.~\cite{Timmes:1999}.
The set of weak reactions considered is listed in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions}. For the weak processes with nucleons, both for charged-current absorption (reactions (1) and (2) in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions}) and for neutral-current scattering (reaction (4) in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions}), we employ here the elastic approximation~\cite{Bruenn:1985en}. Medium modifications for the charged current reactions~(1) and (2) in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions} are taken into account at the mean-field level. Therefore, the non-relativistic expressions of Ref~\cite{Reddy:1998}, Eq.\ (34), are modified in terms of mean-field potentials given by the nuclear EoS HS(DD2), neglecting medium dependent masses. Our medium modifications for the charged current reactions are introduced in Ref.~\cite{MartinezPinedo:2012}. They determine spectral differences between $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$~\cite{MartinezPinedo:2012,Roberts:2012,Horowitz:2012}, in particular for simulations of the PNS deleptonization. Moreover, the elastic (only momentum transfer) rate expressions for neutrino nucleon scattering of Ref.~\cite{Bruenn:1985en} are modified by the multiplicative neutrino energy-dependent factors of Ref.~\cite{Horowitz:2001xf}, which mimic modifications of the neutrino spectra due to inelastic contributions and weak magnetism corrections. Inelastic contributions are known to reduce both $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$ opacity, weak-magnetism corrections tend to generally increases differences between neutrinos and antineutrinos. Both effects have been commonly included in core-collapse SN simulations~\cite{Liebendoerfer:2005a,Buras:2005rp,Huedepohl:2010}. Beyond the mean-field effects, e.g. correlations are not considered here. They can be treated at the level of the random-phase approximation (RPA) as well as considering two-particle reactions, known as modified Urca processes \cite{Roberts:2012}. In the simulations, these effects result in small corrections of the neutrino fluxes and spectra during the late-time evolution of the deleptonization of the nascent PNS (see sec.~\ref{SNref}), in particular when neutrinos decouple at high densities.
Weak processes with heavy nuclei, i.e. electron captures, scattering and nuclear (de)excitation -- reactions (3), (5) and (10) in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions} -- are only important when nuclei are abundant. This is only the case during the core-collapse phase, when the temperature and the entropy per baryon are low. Once the entropy rises during the early post bounce evolution due to the presence of the bounce shock wave, material dissociates into bulk nuclear matter (neutrons, protons and light nuclei), and even into fully dissociated matter (neutrons and protons only). Consequently, during the post-bounce phase weak reactions with neutrons and protons are of relevance, including the PNS deleptonization after the explosion onset has been launched.
\subsection{Reference simulation -- evolution and neutrino signal}
\label{SNref}
Our SN simulations are launched from the 18.0~M$_\odot$ and 11.2~M$_\odot$ pre-collapse progenitors of Ref.~\cite{Woosley:2002zz}, henceforth denoted as s18 and s11.2 respectively. Both stellar models were evolved consistently through all SN phases. The neutrino signal as well as the SN shock dynamics and the neutrinospheres (for all flavors) are illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_ref} and \ref{fig:shock_spheres} for s18. The evolution is in qualitative agreement with s11.2 for which results are partly discussed in Ref.~\cite{MartinezPinedo:2014}.
\subsubsection{Stellar core collapse}
The stellar core collapse is triggered by the loss of pressure from the degenerate electron gas, as the electrons are captured on protons bound in heavy nuclei. It is therefore essential to include electron-capture rates based on detailed microscopic nuclear models, as discussed in details in the literature~\cite{Hix:2003,Langanke:2003ii}, for the deleptonization during core collapse. These rates determine the lepton fraction ($Y_L$) of the stellar core, which equals the electron fraction $Y_e$ until neutrinos become trapped, after which $Y_e<Y_L$. The further evolution of the electron fraction $Y_e$ beyond neutrino trapping is mainly determined by the nuclear symmetry energy~\cite{Fischer:2014}.
Since nuclear electron captures produce only $\nu_e$, the $\nu_e$ luminosity and the average energy rise during core collapse (see Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_ref}). An additional source of neutrinos was proposed in Ref.~\cite{Fuller:1991}, via the de-excitation of excited nuclear states and the emission of neutrino pairs; reaction~(10) in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions}. It is based on the presence of excited nuclear states due to the temperatures reached during collapse on the order of few MeV. This has been recently explored in SN simulations~\cite{Fischer:2013}. However, the (de)excitation rates are much smaller than those of electron captures and consequently the observed luminosities are small compared to those of $\nu_e$. Hence the influence on the core-collapse evolution is negligible.
\subsubsection{Core bounce and post bounce evolution}
In the final phase of the stellar core collapse, the density exceeds $\rho_0$ when the strong short-range repulsive nuclear force counterbalances gravity. This halts the collapse with the formation of a strong hydrodynamics shock wave (green solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:shock_spheres}). It propagates rapidly to large radii on the order of 50--180~km, with the PNS enclosed. The latter is initially very dilute, being hot and lepton rich. In these two latter properties the PNS differs from the final SN remnant, i.e.\@ a neutron star.
The deleptonization burst in the upper-left panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_ref} is associated with the bounce shock propagation across the $\nu_e$-sphere of last inelastic scattering (black solid line in Fig.~\ref{fig:shock_spheres}) where a large number of electron captures on free protons releases this $\nu_e$-burst. The shock stalling due to this energy loss, accompanied by the dissociation of infalling heavy nuclei from the still gravitationally unstable layers above the stellar core, results in the post-bounce mass accretion phase. Thereby a thick low-density layer of accumulated material develops at the PNS surface, in which $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$ decouple. The high magnitude of their luminosities -- on the order of $10^{52}$~erg~s$^{-1}$ -- is determined by the mass accretion rate. On the other hand, the heavy-lepton flavor neutrinos decouple at generally higher densities due to the absence of charged-current absorption reactions. The different coupling strength to matter is reflected in the hierarchy of their average energies during the accretion phase, $\langle E_{\bar\nu_{\mu/\tau}} \rangle>\langle E_{\nu_{\mu/\tau}} \rangle>\langle E_{\bar\nu_{e}} \rangle>\langle E_{\nu_{e}} \rangle$ (cf. Ref.~\cite{Raffelt:2001} and the bottom panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_ref}).
\subsubsection{Shock revival and explosion onset}
The evolution of the $\nu_e$ and $\bar\nu_e$ luminosities during the mass accretion phase reflects oscillations of the bounce shock and hence of the mass accretion rate at the PNS surface~\cite{Miller:1993,Buras:2005rp}. These are in part associated with the enhanced neutrino heating treatment which we apply here in order to trigger the SN explosion onset, i.e. the expansion of the bounce shock to increasingly larger radii. Thereby the heating rates for reactions~(1) and (2) of Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions} are increased inside the heating region. This method has been employed previously~\cite{Fischer:2009af,MartinezPinedo:2012}; it compares well with other artificially neutrino-driven explosion methods~\cite{Ugliano:2012,Perego:2015}, which is necessary because in spherically symmetric simulations neutrino-driven explosions cannot be obtained except for very light progenitor stars~\cite{Kitaura:2006,Melson:2015}. Here, it results in the slow but continuous expansion of the bounce shock to increasingly larger radii (see Fig.~\ref{fig:shock_spheres}), with the onset of the explosion around $t=0.25$~s post bounce for the s18 and at about $t=0.15$~s for s11.2. The explosion shock reaches radii around 1000~km at about $t=0.5$~s post bounce. Once the explosion proceeds, we switch back to the standard rates.
\subsubsection{PNS deleptonization}
In spherically symmetric models, with the shock revival mass accretion vanishes completely at the PNS surface, and the neutrino fluxes turn rapidly from accretion dominated towards diffusion (see Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_ref}). It has been demonstrated in multidimensional simulations that there is an extended transition period during which the presence aspherical flows enhances the luminosities above the diffusion limit~\cite{Mueller:2014}. However, the long-term evolution of the nascent PNS cannot be studied in multi-dimensional simulations. Here, the neutrino fluxes drop by one order of magnitude during the first second after the explosion onset and they become increasingly similar towards later times of the PNS deleptonization. Fig.~\ref{fig:shock_spheres} illustrates the evolution of the corresponding neutrinospheres. Moreover the initial neutrino energy hierarchy is broken, with $\langle E_{\nu_{\mu/\tau}} \rangle\simeq\langle E_{\bar\nu_{e}} \rangle>\langle E_{\nu_{e}} \rangle$. This is due to the reduced importance of charged current absorption reactions for $\bar\nu_e$ during the PNS deleptonization phase. Instead, the opacity of heavy lepton flavor neutrinos and $\bar\nu_e$ are determined by the same set of weak processes, dominated by elastic scattering on neutrons. Hence their spectra become increasingly similar, unlike $\nu_e$ in which the opacity is continuously dominated by charged-current absorption on neutrons. This property is a general feature of the PNS deleptonization and has been recognized and analyzed~\cite{Fischer:2012a}.
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{h18a-neutrino}
\caption{(color online) Evolution of neutrino energy luminosities (top panel) and average energies (bottom panel) for the reference simulation of s18.}
\label{fig:neutrinos_ref}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{h18a-shock-spheres}
\caption{(color online) Evolution of shock radius and neutrinospheres for the reference simulation of s18. The inlay shows the density at the corresponding neutrinospheres.}
\label{fig:shock_spheres}
\end{figure}
Note that the PNS deleptonization phase is mildly independent from the details of the SN explosion mechanism and the ejection of the stellar mantle. On the other hand, PNS convection as well correlations of the nuclear medium that influence the weak processes, both of which modify the PNS deleptonization~\cite{Roberts:2012f,Roberts:2012,Mirizzi:2015eza}, are not included here.
\section{Axion production}
To study the effect of the additional axion cooling on the neutrino signal, we have to evaluate the axion production rate in a newly born SN environment and the energy carried away by those axions. In general, axions can be produced through electromagnetic processes, namely the Primakoff production~\cite{Payez:2014xsa} and the axion-electron bremsstrahlung~\cite{Ellis:1987pk}, and through nuclear processes, specifically the $N$--$N$ axion bremsstrahlung:
\begin{eqnarray}
N_1 + N_2 \longrightarrow N_3 + N_4 + a\,,
\label{eq:brems}
\end{eqnarray}
shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:process}, where $N_i $ are nucleons (protons or neutrons) and $ a $ is the axion field. In this work we will focus on the process \eqref{eq:brems}, which is the dominant axion production mechanism in the hot and dense environment characterizing the core of a newly born SN~\cite{Turner:1987by}.
The process \eqref{eq:brems} is induced by the axion-nucleon interaction described by the following Lagrangian term,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:axion_N_coupling}
\mathcal{L}_{a N}=\sum_{i=p,n} \frac{g_{a i}}{2m_N}\,\overline N_i \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 N_i\partial^\mu a,
\end{eqnarray}
with axion-nucleon couplings defined as follows,
\begin{equation}
g_{ai} =C_i \frac{m_N}{f_a} = 1.56 \times 10^{-7} \left(\frac{m_a}{\textrm{eV}} \right)C_i~,
\label{eq:coupl}
\end{equation}
where $f_a$ is the Peccei-Quinn energy scale, $C_i$ are model dependent constants and $ m_N$ is the nucleon mass (we assume $ m_n\simeq m_p $). In the right-hand side of the previous equation we used the relation between $f_a$ and the axion mass $m_a$,
\begin{equation}
m_a = 0.60~{\rm eV} \left(\frac{10^7 {\rm GeV}}{f_a}\right)~.
\label{eq:mass}
\end{equation}
In the case of the hadronic axion model or KSVZ (Kim-Shifman-Vainshtein-Zakharov)~\cite{Kim:1979if,Shifman:1979if} and DFSZ (Dine-Fischler-Srednicki-Zhitnitsky)~\cite{Dine:1981rt,Zhitnitsky:1980tq}, the constants $C_i$ have recently been computed with remarkable accuracy combining next-to-leading order chiral perturbation theory with Lattice QCD~\cite{diCortona:2015ldu}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{Eq:lattice_couplings}
&& C_p^{\rm (KSVZ)}=-0.47\pm 0.03\,, \nonumber \\
&& C_n^{\rm (KSVZ)}=-0.02\pm 0.03\,. \nonumber \\
&& C_p^{\rm (DFSZ)}=\left(-0.182\pm 0.025\right)-0.435\cos^2\beta\,, \nonumber \\
&& C_n^{\rm (DFSZ)}=\left(-0.16\pm 0.025\right)+0.414\cos^2\beta\,,
\end{eqnarray}
where $ \tan\beta $ is the ratio between the Higgs doublets in the DFSZ model.
Interestingly, from the above expressions we notice that neither model allows the proton coupling to vanish within the errors, while the coupling to neutrons is compatible with zero in the KSVZ model and also in the DFSZ model if $\cos^2 \beta\sim 0.4$. Therefore, as a benchmark for our analysis, we will consider only interactions with protons in our simulations though we will provide all the necessary relations for the most general case.
The nuclear axion bremsstrahlung rate is highly uncertain, mostly due to the lack of understanding of the nuclear interactions; approximations are commonly applied based on vacuum physics. A fundamental consequence of the nucleon-axion interaction (\ref{eq:axion_N_coupling}) is that the nucleon spins flip in collisions and so spin-conserving interactions do not contribute to the axion bremsstrahlung production (cf. Ref.~\cite{Raffelt:2006cw}). Any description of the nuclear interaction in relation to the axion emission process has to account for these results.
Progress in this direction has been possible with the introduction of the spin-density structure function formalism~\cite{Iwamoto:1982zp,Raffelt:1991pw}. The functions describe the correlations of the spin density operators (see, e.g., \cite{Iwamoto:1982zp,Raffelt:1991pw,Janka:1996}). They contain the nuclear part of the matrix element squared and include all the expected many-body effects. However, practically the matrix elements can only be calculated in specific frameworks, the most widely used being the OPE potential, which describes the two nucleon interaction with the exchange of a pion (see the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:process}).
This interaction is described by the following effective vertex,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{L}_{\pi N}=(2 m_N f_{ij}/m_{\pi})\overline N_i \gamma_5 N_j \pi~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $f_{ij}\sim 1$ is a phenomenological constant ($i,j=n,p$) which depends on whether the mediator is a $\pi^0$ or a $\pi^\pm$, being $f_{np}=\sqrt 2 f_{nn}=-\sqrt 2f_{pp}$, as required by the isospin invariance. In general, the nucleon-pion interaction has the derivative form $(f_{ij}/m_{\pi})\overline N_i \gamma_\mu\gamma_5 N_j\partial^\mu \pi$, typical of the (pseudo-) Goldstone modes, just as the axion. However, this interaction can be made pseudoscalar (as in the main text), after an opportune chiral rotation of the nucleon fields. Yet, this operation cannot be performed for both pion and axion fields simultaneously (for more details cf. Ref.~\cite{Brinkmann:1988vi} and references therein).
Though the OPE approximation is a good starting point for the description of the axion bremsstrahlung, it does oversimplify the nuclear dynamics and overestimates the emission rate~\cite{Hanhart:2000ae}. Here, we refer the reader to the extended literature~\cite{Raffelt:1991pw,Raffelt:1993ix,Janka:1995ir,Keil:1997,Hanhart:2000ae,Raffelt:2006cw} for the peculiarities of the axion emission rate in a nuclear medium. In general, a reliable framework to extract the details of the axion emission rate from a SN core is still missing and we rely on approximate descriptions in order to better compare with previous works. In the present study, we follow the procedure described in Ref.~\cite{Keil:1997} and implement the derived rate in our numerical SN model. The procedure assumes a modified OPE potential to account for many-body effects and the subsequently reduced axion production rate with increasing density. However, we remark that even this approximation is subject to essentially unquantifiable uncertainties.
In Ref.~\cite{Keil:1997}, the volume axion rate is calculated as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_a(T,\rho,\mu_n,\mu_p)=Q_a^{(1)}{\rm min} \left[ 1,\frac{\Gamma_\sigma^{\rm max}}{\Gamma_\sigma^{(1)}} \right]~,
\label{eq:Qa_gamma}
\end{eqnarray}
as a function of temperature $T$, density $\rho$ and the nucleon chemical potentials $\mu_{n,p}$, where the overall magnitude is determined via the following relation,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
Q_a^{(1)} &=& \int \frac{d^3p_a}{2E_a(2\pi)^3} \prod_{i=1,4} \frac{d^3p_i}{2E_i(2\pi)^3}~E_a f_1 f_2 (1-f_3) (1-f_4)
\sum_\text{spins} \vert \mathcal{M} \vert ^2
\delta^4(p_1+p_2-p_3-p_4-p_a) \nonumber
\\
&\simeq& 64\left(\frac{f}{m_\pi}\right)^4
\left(\frac{m_N^{5/2}\,T^{13/2}}{\rho}\right)
\left\{
\left(1-\frac{\xi}{3}\right)\,g_{\rm an}^2\,I(y_n,y_n) +
\left(1-\frac{\xi}{3}\right)\,g_{\rm an}^2\,I(y_p,y_p)
\right.
\nonumber
\\
&&
\left.
+ \frac{4(15-2\xi)}{9}\left(\frac{g_{\rm an}^2+g_{\rm ap}^2}{2}\right)\,I(y_n,y_p) +
\frac{4(6-4\xi)}{9}\left(\frac{g_{\rm an}+g_{\rm ap}}{2}\right)^2\,I(y_n,y_p)
\right\}~.
\label{eq:Qa}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
In Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa_gamma}, the term
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma_\sigma^{(1)}=10 \, {\rm MeV}\, \left( \frac{m_N}{938\,{\rm MeV}}\right)^2 \rho_{14}\,T_{\rm MeV}^{1/2}\,,
\end{eqnarray}
describes the lowest-order effective spin fluctuation rate~\cite{Keil:1997}, with $ \rho_{14}=\rho/10^{14}~\text{g cm}^{-3} $ and $ T_{\rm MeV}=T/ \text{MeV}$. Finally, following Ref.~\cite{Keil:1997}, we select an average value of $\Gamma_\sigma^{\rm max}=60~{\rm MeV}$ which accounts for the saturation of $\Gamma_\sigma$.
The matrix elements $|\mathcal{M}|^2$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa} are calculated in the vacuum OPE framework. The fitting functions $I(y_1,y_2)$ are given in Eq.~(13) of Ref.~\cite{Keil:1997}, with nucleon degeneracy $y_i=\mu_i^0/T$ and nucleon chemical potentials $\mu_i^0 = \mu_i-m_i$, where we are assuming bare nucleons masses. Finally, the degeneracy parameter $\xi$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa} attains the values $\xi=0$ and $\xi=1$ in the limits of fully degenerate and non-degenerate nucleons respectively; it is defined as follows~\cite{Brinkmann:1988vi,Keil:1997},
\begin{eqnarray}
\xi= \langle |\hat{\textbf{ k}}\cdot \hat{\textbf{l}}|^2 \rangle~,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\textbf{k}=\textbf{p}_2-\textbf{p}_4$ and $\textbf{l}=\textbf{p}_2-\textbf{p}_3$ indicate the momentum transfers ($ \textbf{p}_i $ is the nucleon momentum) in the direct and exchange scattering diagrams. The effective spin fluctuation rate in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Qa_gamma}), with the saturation term, suppresses the OPE production rate at high densities, correcting the ill behaving OPE approximation at short distance. Moreover, the derivation of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa} is based on the assumption of freely streaming axions once they are produced, i.e. the possibility of any reabsorption and/or scattering of axions after they are produced is ignored. This is a condition easily satisfied for axions with coupling to nucleons in the range we are interested in, $g_{ai}\simeq 10^{-10}$, as in this case the typical axion mean free path is several orders of magnitude larger than the SN radius~\cite{Burrows:1990pk}.
Possible effects of the medium induced modification of the nuclear mass have also been neglected. Axions are produced mostly from regions with high temperature while high density, though relevant, has a minor impact on the production rate. Numerical estimates show that most of the axion emission happens in the first couple of seconds during the PNS deleptonization, in a narrow region at the PNS center, where the density is never high enough to induce a modification of the nuclear mass by more than 30\%.
\begin{table*}[htp]
\centering
\caption{Data from PNS deleptonization}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccc}
\hline
\hline
Progenitor & $M_{\rm B}^{\rm PNS}$ & $M_{\rm G}^{\rm PNS}$ & $g_{\rm ap}$ & $\xi$ & $\text{max}\left(L_{e,a}\right)$ & $t(\text{max}\left(L_{{\rm e},a}\right))$ & $L_{{\rm e},\nu}(10~\rm s)$ & $T_c(10~\rm s)$ & $E_\nu^{\rm tot}\vert_{t=20~\rm s}$ & $E_a^{\rm tot}\vert_{t=20~\rm s}$ \\
& $[$M$_\odot]$ & $[$M$_\odot]$ & $[10^{-10}]$ & & $[10^{51}$~erg~s$^{-1}]$ & $[$s$]$ & $[10^{51}$~erg~s$^{-1}]$ & $[$MeV$]$ & $[10^{53}$~erg$]$ & $[10^{53}$~erg$]$ \\
\hline
s18 & 1.62 & 1.46 & 0 & - & 0 & - & 3.8 & 38.6 & 2.0 & - \\
& & & 9 & 1 & 30.0 & 1.6 & 1.6 & 16.6 & 1.16 & 0.95 \\
& & & 9 & 0 & 37.2 & 1.5 & 1.4 & 15.8 & 1.17 & 0.95 \\
& & & 6 & 0 & 20.0 & 1.8 & 1.9 & 18.6 & 1.27 & 0.78 \\
\hline
s11.2 & 1.29 & 1.19 & 0 & - & 0 & - & 2.6 & 32.4 & 1.25 & - \\
& & & 9 & 1 & 7.4 & 2.3 & 1.5 & 19.8 & 1.06 & 0.32 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:data}
\end{table*}
\bigskip
\section{PNS evolution -- shortened deleptonization with axions}
In order to study the role of axions we implement the process~\eqref{eq:brems} into our SN model. Due to the generally low axion-nucleon coupling we assume that the emitted axions are freely streaming~\cite{Burrows:1988ah}, i.e.\@ no axion transport is required. We treat axions as a separate particle species in addition to baryons, leptons and photons. Hence axions cannot contribute to the equation of state, e.g, to energy density, entropy and pressure; however, they contribute to the cooling via the associated energy losses. The axion luminosity is calculated by integrating the local energy-loss rate Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa_gamma},
\begin{equation}
L_{{\rm e},a} = \int_0^M dm\,Q_a(T,\rho,\mu_n,\mu_p)~,
\label{eq:La}
\end{equation}
over the enclosed baryon mass $m$ from the core towards the surface $M$. The associated losses are then treated as an additional sink term in the equation of energy conservation. It is evident that this expression depends only on the choice of ($g_{\rm ap}$, $\xi$) and $\Gamma_\sigma^{\rm max}$, besides the local conditions ($T,\rho,Y_e$). The dimensional analysis of \eqref{eq:Qa} gives a rough estimate of the local energy loss rate from axion production. Assuming $\Gamma_\sigma^{\rm max}/\Gamma_\sigma^{(1)}>1$ we estimate the total energy loss from axion emission,
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
L_{{\rm e},a} \sim 2.6\times 10^{51}
\,
\left(\frac{2\times10^{14} ~\rm g~cm^{-3}}{\rho}\right)
\left(\frac{T}{10~{\rm MeV}}\right)^{13/2}
\left(\frac{g_{\rm ap}}{10^{-10}}\right)^2
\left(\frac{Y_p}{0.1}\right)^2
\left(\frac{M}{0.5~{\rm M}_\odot}\right)
\,
{\rm erg}~{\rm s}^{-1}~,
\label{eq:La_dim}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
where we assumed $m_\pi=135$~MeV and $m_N=938$~MeV for the pion mass and nucleon mass respectively. Furthermore, we assumed $g_{\rm an}=0$ and the relation $I(y_p,y_p)\propto (Y_p)^2$ valid for abundance of targets with $Y_p=Y_e$.
Eq.~\eqref{eq:La_dim} can be estimated using the average temperature and density. Notice, however, that Eq.~\eqref{eq:La_dim} ignores the axion feedback on the temperature, which is quite relevant for the axion couplings we are considering here, as clear from Fig.~\ref{fig:axion}. It should therefore be taken only as an estimate of the axion luminosity and of its dependence on the relevant physical quantities.
Due to the restriction to spherical symmetry, quantitative estimates about the role of axions in the supernova explosion dynamics, i.e. during the accretion phase prior to the revival of the stalled bounce shock, are not meaningful. The total energy released in neutrinos of all flavors during the accretion phase in our simulations is $E_\nu^{\rm tot}=0.7(+0.01)\times 10^{53}$~erg for s18 and $E_\nu^{\rm tot}=0.3(+0.008)\times 10^{53}$~erg for s11.2. Values in parentheses refer to the energy released during stellar collapse including the $\nu_e$-deleptonization burst between 5--20~ms post bounce. For comparison, we list the total energy emitted in neutrinos during the PNS deleptonization in Table~\ref{tab:data} -- the lines with $g_{\rm ap}=0$ correspond to the reference simulations. The PNS deleptonization phase corresponds to the period of the SN when most of the trapped neutrinos are being released. In the present study we are interested in the impact of the additional source of energy loss from axion emission on the structure and evolution of the PNS during the deleptonization, i.e.\@ after the explosion onset.
\subsection{Comparison with the reference simulation}
In accordance with previous studies we neglect the neutron channel $g_{\rm an}=0$. It leaves $g_{\rm ap}$ as free parameter such that $g_{\rm an}/g_{\rm ap}$=0. In addition we assume non-degenerate protons ($\xi=1$) and as representative value of the axion-proton coupling strength we select $g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10}$ (comparable with the SN1987A bound) with a the saturation of $\Gamma_\sigma^{\rm max}=60$~MeV. This value of the $g_{\rm ap}$ corresponds to $m_a \simeq 3 \times 10^{-2}$~eV or $f_a \simeq 4.8 \times 10^{8}$~GeV [see Eqs.~\eqref{eq:coupl}--\eqref{eq:mass}].
\begin{figure}[b!]
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{h18a-axion}
\caption{(color online) Radial profiles of selected quantities at 1~s post bounce (see text for definitions).}
\label{fig:axion}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htp!]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{fullstatehydro}
\caption{(color online) Evolution of selected quantities -- from top to bottom: temperature, density, electron and neutrino abundances -- during the PNS deleptonization, comparing our reference simulations (left panels) with the simulation including axions (right panels) with ($g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10}, \xi=1$).}
\label{fig:hydro}
\end{figure*}
The SN simulations discussed below are launched with this parameter setup, unless stated otherwise. In Figure~\ref{fig:axion} we illustrate radial profiles of the total neutrino and axion luminosities in graphs~(a) and (b) as well as the local axion emission rate $Q_a$ in graph~(d), corresponding to conditions obtained at about 1~s post bounce during the early PNS deleptonization. The steeply rising neutrino luminosity corresponds to the region of neutrino decoupling (where all weak process have ceased), outside of which all the neutrino luminosity remains constant (see region marked by the gray-shaded area in graph (a)). The same holds for the axion emission, i.e.\@ the axion luminosity rises in the region where $Q_a>0$, and as $Q_a\to 0$ the axion luminosity remains constant, with no more axion production (marked by the gray-shaded area in graphs~(b) and (d)). Here it becomes evident that, unlike neutrinos, axions are emitted mainly from the PNS interior. It corresponds to the region with high densities and in particular with the highest temperatures. Note the high power of $T$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa} which explains this strong temperature dependence of the axion emission rate. With increasing distance from the center, the matter density, and consequently also the density of protons, reduces; it drops rapidly below $\rho\sim 10^{14}$~g~cm$^{-3}$ between $R=10$--$15$~km as illustrated at the example of radial profiles of selected quantities in Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro} graphs~(a) and (b). Consequently the axion emission rate drops rapidly to vanishing values with distance from the center [see Fig.~\ref{fig:axion})(d)].
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\subfigure[~Energy and number luminosities]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{h18a-lumin-gap}\label{fig:h18a_lumin_gap}}
\\
\subfigure[~Average neutrino energies]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{h18a-rms-gap}\label{fig:h18a_rms_gap}}
\caption{(color online) Neutrino signal for the simulations based on s18, comparing reference run (green dash-dotted lines) and simulations with axions for different values of ($g_{\rm ap},\xi$). The inlay in the top panel shows the ratios of $L_{\rm e,\nu}$ for the simulations with axions relative to the reference run with $g_{\rm ap} = 0$.}
\label{fig:neutrinos_s18}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\subfigure[~Energy and number luminosities]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{h11c-lumin-gap}\label{fig:h11c_lumin_gap}}
\\
\subfigure[~Average neutrino energies]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{h11c-rms-gap}\label{fig:h11c_rms_gap}}
\caption{(color online) Neutrino signal for s11.2, comparing the reference run (green dash-dotted lines) and the simulation with axions with $g_{\rm ap} = 9\times 10^{-10}$ and $\xi=1$ (solid blue lines); same setup as Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_s18}.}
\label{fig:neutrinos_s11.2}
\end{figure}
Moreover, we also explore the impact of variations of the saturation value $\Gamma_\sigma^{\rm max}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:axion}(c): in addition to our primary choice of 60~MeV we select 30~MeV and 120~MeV as representative lower and upper bounds leading to strong and weak suppression of the axion emission rate towards high density. Correspondingly we find a low (large) axion luminosity for $\Gamma_\sigma^{\rm max}=30 (120)$~MeV in Fig.~\ref{fig:axion}(b).
During the subsequent PNS evolution the axion luminosity rises slowly, as illustrated in the top panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_s18}, according to the PNS contraction accompanied by the rise of the central density and temperature. The axion luminosity reaches a maximum value that corresponds to the decrease of the central temperature, see top panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro}(a), between 1--2~s post bounce. From the comparison with the reference simulation, left panel in Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro}(a), it becomes evident that core cooling starts significantly earlier for the case with additional axion cooling. In particular, the core temperature rise due to the PNS contraction of the reference simulation is never obtained for the simulation with axions. Instead, the gravitational binding energy gain is carried away efficiently by axions instantaneously. The resulting accelerated cooling from axion inclusion leads to core temperatures on the order of $T\simeq 1$~MeV at about 30~s post bounce, while for the reference simulation core temperatures are still in excess of 30~MeV. In Table~\ref{tab:data} we list the values of the maximum luminosities and the corresponding post bounce times, together with the central temperature $T_c$ obtained at $t=10$~s.
The faster cooling and the associated more compact PNS structure shortens the deleptonization timescale, with faster decreasing core neutrino abundances $Y_\nu$ and electron fraction $Y_e$ illustrated in the two bottom panels in Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro}(a). Note that the PNS deleptonization is determined by the decoupling of neutrinos of all flavors at the PNS surface. In particular, high matter temperatures prevent neutrinos from efficient decoupling~\cite{Tubbs:1975jx,Yueh1976a,Yueh:1976b,Yueh:1977b}. Essential therefore is final-state Pauli blocking for electrons (charged-current reaction (1) in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions}) and neutrons (neutral-current scattering reaction (4) in Table~\ref{tab:nu-reactions}), for both of which the opacity reduces with increasing temperature. Hence only towards late times, with decreasing temperature, neutrinos can decouple also at high densities. The enhanced cooling for the simulation with axions affects not only the core temperature. The temperature at the PNS surface is also significantly lower than for the reference model. This is a feedback from the faster core contraction. It allows neutrinos to decouple deeper inside the PNS surface at generally higher density. This has important consequences for the neutrino signal, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_s18}, which results in reduced neutrino energy fluxes ($L_{{\rm e},\nu}$) and number fluxes ($L_{{\rm N},\nu}$) as well as the average energies, in comparison to the reference model; their ratio is shown in the bottom panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:h18a_lumin_gap}. It becomes increasingly important towards late times when PNS structure differences become large, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro}.
At about 10~s the neutrino luminosity is reduced by a factor of 2 (see Table~\ref{tab:data} and Fig.~\ref{fig:h18a_lumin_gap}) and at 20~s the reduction exceeds one order of magnitude. In Table~\ref{tab:data} we also list the total energy emitted via neutrinos and axions, from which it becomes clear that $E_\nu^{\rm tot}\simeq E_a^{\rm tot}$ for the selected axion emission parameters. We also explored different values of the axion-proton coupling, i.e.\@ $g_{\rm ap}=1-10\times 10^{-10}$. Only for largest values of $g_{\rm ap}$ the energy loss from axion emission is competing with those of neutrinos; for the smallest values $g_{\rm ap}=1-3\times 10^{-10}$ the impact is in fact negligible. In order to illustrate the impact for smaller values of $g_{\rm ap}$ in Fig.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_s18} we also show the neutrino signal for the case ($g_{\rm ap}=6\times 10^{-10},\xi=0$). The reduced axion cooling, in comparison to ($g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10},\xi=0$), results in somewhat smaller impact on the neutrino signal with slightly less reduced neutrino fluxes and average energies towards late times. The associated losses are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:data} also for this model, with slightly higher core temperature $T_c$ and generally lower axion losses $E_a^{\rm tot}$ compared to the case with $g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10}$.
Towards later times, the axion emission rate decreases as a consequence of the continuously reducing core temperature due to the strong temperature-dependence of $Q_a$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa}. Hence the axion luminosity reduces accordingly (see Fig.~\ref{fig:h18a_lumin_gap}) and consequently axions cannot contribute anymore to the cooling. In addition, at about 30~s post bounce we reach temperatures of the order of about $T\sim1$~MeV, where neutrinos decouple basically at all densities. This corresponds to the domain where the transition from neutrino diffusion to freely streaming takes place and where the nuclear medium starts to modify weak processes significantly at densities in excess of nuclear saturation density, e.g., the modified Urca processes start to dominate the further cooling. Since none of them are included into the current simulation setup it is not meaningful to follow the evolution any longer.
\subsection{Dependence on the stellar model}
In addition to s18 -- with the baryon ($M_{\rm B}^{\rm PNS}$) and gravitational masses ($M_{\rm G}^{\rm PNS}$) of the PNS at the end of our simulations listed in Table~\ref{tab:data} -- we also consider s11.2 with a significantly lighter PNS (see Table~\ref{tab:data}). The reference simulation of s11.2 without axions has been published in Ref.~\cite{MartinezPinedo:2014}. Comparing these PNS properties with those from the simulations with axions: differences obtained are on the oder of $10^{-4}$ from a slightly different mass ejection associated with the neutrino-driven wind ejected from the PNS surface during the PNS deleptonization.
Simulation results for s11.2 are in qualitative agreement with those of s18, as illustrated in Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro}(b). However, quantitative differences arise in the magnitude of the axion luminosity and associated enhanced PNS cooling, i.e.\@ for the same value of $g_{\rm ap}$ the PNS deleptonization timescale is somewhat less reduced compared to the reference run ($g_{\rm ap}=0$). This is related to the axion emission rate (integrand of Eq.~\eqref{eq:La}) and in particular to the smaller enclosed mass inside the PNS. Moreover, the central densities and the core temperatures are lower compared to the more massive s18, in particular in the region where axions are produced according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa}; see therefore also the peak axion luminosities of s11.2 in Table~\ref{tab:data} as well as the evolution of neutrino and axion luminosities in Fig.~\ref{fig:h11c_lumin_gap} in comparison to s18. This results in a significantly lower total energy loss from axion emission ($E_a^{\rm tot}$) compared to the more massive progenitor model.
The generally less pronounced impact on the PNS evolution for this lighter stellar model results also in a less pronounced impact on the PNS structure as well as on the evolution of neutrino luminosities and average energies. For s11.2 axions carry away less efficiently heat from the their core (see Table~\ref{tab:data}) -- here $E_\nu^{\rm tot}\simeq 3\times E_a^{\rm tot}$. This qualitative feature has already been reported in Ref.~\cite{Keil:1997}. Consequently the impact on the reduced PNS deleptonization timescale is weaker and the reduction of the neutrino fluxes and average energies if less pronounced, as illustrated in Figs.~\ref{fig:h11c_lumin_gap} and \ref{fig:h11c_rms_gap}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{eta}
\caption{(color online) Degeneracy for protons ({\em left panel}) and neutrons ({\em right panel}) for the simulation with axions ($g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10}$, $\xi=1$) at selected post bounce times corresponding to the PNS profiles illustrated in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro}~(a).}
\label{fig:eta}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Role of degeneracy}
Up to this point we compared and analyzed simulation results with $g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10}$ and zero proton degeneracy, i.e.\@ $\xi=1$. In order to study the role of degeneracy, we select in addition $\xi=0$ as degenerate limit for the same value of $g_{\rm ap}$ in the simulation of s18 (see Table~\ref{tab:data}). We find, in agreement with the earlier study in Ref.~\cite{Keil:1997}, that for the axion emission degeneracy plays only a marginal role with negligible impact on the overall PNS evolution as well as on the neutrino and axion luminosities (see therefore the red lines in Figs.~\ref{fig:h18a_lumin_gap} and \ref{fig:h18a_rms_gap}). This can be understood since protons, unlike neutrons, are only partly degenerate (if at all, $y=\mu^0/T < 0$). Degenerate and non-degenerate approximations have been compared in Ref.~\cite{Brinkmann:1988vi} (see their Fig.~2) from which it becomes clear that for $y=-1$ both approaches coincide. In support Fig.~\ref{fig:eta} illustrates radial profiles of $y$ at selected post bounce times during the PNS deleptonization corresponding to the conditions shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:hydro}~(a), for protons (left panel) and neutrons (right panel). Note that the nucleon chemical potentials $\mu^0_p$ and $\mu^0_n$ don't include the rest masses.
Towards late times when the temperature decreases neutrons become highly degenerate, however, the proton degeneracy also decreases. Nevertheless late times correspond to conditions when the axion production becomes negligible due to the low temperatures (note again the strong temperature dependence of the axion production rate Eq.~\eqref{eq:Qa}), mildly independent from properties of the contributing protons.
\section{Impact on the observable neutrino signal}
In this section we will show how the modification of the SN neutrino signal due to the emission of axions would affect the observable neutrino signal in large underground detectors
\subsection{Overview of the calculation}
The $\nu$ event rate $N_e$ at Earth can be expressed symbolically as follows~\cite{Fogli:2004ff},
\begin{equation}
N_e= F_\nu \otimes \sigma_e \otimes R_e \otimes \varepsilon~,
\end{equation}
where the oscillated $\nu$ flux at Earth is convoluted with the interaction cross section $\sigma_e$ in the detector for the production of an electron or a positron, as well as the energy-resolution function $R_e$ of the detector and the detection efficiency $\varepsilon$. Since we will always show energy-integrated quantities (e.g.\@ the neutrino light curves) the energy resolution plays no role. Therefore we will neglect its effect. Moreover we assume $\varepsilon=1$ above the threshold.
\subsubsection{Original neutrino fluxes}
The bare $\nu$ distributions obtained from the supernova simulations, i.e. without neutrino oscillations considered, are parametrized in energy and time as follows,
\begin{equation}
F^0_\nu = \phi_\nu(t) f_\nu(E,t) = \frac{L_{\rm e,\nu}(t)}{\langle E_\nu(t) \rangle} f_\nu(E,t)~,
\end{equation}
with $\nu =\{\nu_e, \bar\nu_e, \nu_x (=\nu_\mu,\nu_\tau)\}$ and where $\phi_\nu(t)$ is the \emph{energy-integrated} neutrino number flux for each post-bounce time $t$ in terms of $L_\nu(t)$ and $\langle E_\nu(t) \rangle$. The function $f_\nu (E,t)$ is the energy spectrum, normalized such that $\int dE f_\nu(E,t) =1$. A useful parameterization of this spectrum is given in terms of a quasi-thermal distribution known as $\alpha$-fit~\cite{Keil:2002in},
\begin{eqnarray}
f_\nu(E,t) &=& \frac{1}{\langle E_\nu(t) \rangle} \frac{(1+\alpha_\nu(t))^{(1+\alpha_\nu(t))}}{\Gamma(1+\alpha_\nu(t))} \left(\frac{E}{\langle E_\nu(t) \rangle} \right)^{\alpha_\nu(t)}
\nonumber \\
&\times& \exp\left\{-(1+\alpha_\nu(t))\frac{E}{\langle E_\nu(t) \rangle} \right\}~,
\label{eq:spectrum}
\end{eqnarray}
with the energy-shape parameter $\alpha_\nu(t)$ given as follows,
\begin{equation}
\alpha_\nu(t)= \frac{2 \langle E_\nu(t) \rangle^2 - \langle E_\nu(t)^2 \rangle}{\langle E_\nu(t)^2 \rangle-\langle E_\nu(t) \rangle^2}~.
\label{eq:alpha}
\end{equation}
It is given in terms of the root-mean square neutrino energies $\langle E^2 \rangle$ and the average neutrino energies $\langle E \rangle$, which in turn are determined via the neutrino transport from the SN simulations (see Fig.~\ref{fig:alpha}).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.48\textwidth]{h18a-alpha-gap}
\caption{(color online) Dimensionless energy-shape parameter Eq.~\eqref{eq:alpha} for s18 comparing the reference case without axions and the simulation with axions ($g_{\rm ap}= 9 \times 10^{-10}, \xi=1$).}
\label{fig:alpha}
\end{figure}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fluxes} we show the time-integrated $\nu$ energy spectra Eq.~\eqref{eq:spectrum} evaluated at neutrino freeze-out conditions for the different species for s18, separated into accretion phase ($t\in [0,0.3]$~s) in Fig.~\ref{fig:fluxes_ref_acc} and PNS deleptonization phase in Fig.~\ref{fig:fluxes_ref_del}. It is well known that flavor differences among the different neutrino species are large during the accretion phase, while during the deleptonization the neutrino fluxes of different flavors become rather similar (especially in the antineutrino sector) (see sec.~\ref{SNref}). This would diminish the impact of neutrino oscillation effects on the neutrino signal.
\begin{table*}[!t]
\caption{Spectral-fit parameters for the neutrino and antineutrino fluxes for s.18 integrated over the accretion phase ($t < 0.3$~s) for the reference case ($g_{\rm ap}= 0$) and over the deleptonization phase, comparing the reference case with ($g_{\rm ap}= 6 \times 10^{-10},\xi=0$) and ($g_{\rm ap}= 9 \times 10^{-10},\xi=1$).}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rlcccccc}
\hline
& Model/setup & $\mean{E_{\nu_e}}$ (MeV) & $\mean{E_{\nu_x}}$ (MeV) & $\Phi_{\nu_e}^0 (10^{56} {\rm s}^{-1})$ & $\Phi_{\nu_x}^0 (10^{56} {\rm s}^{-1})$ & ${\alpha}_{\nu_e}$ & ${\alpha}_{\nu_x}$ \\
\hline \hline
accretion ($t \le 0.3$~s) & ref. run ($g_{\rm ap}=0$) & 8.80 & 14.08 & 9.76 & 3.84 & 2.91 & 1.72 \\
deleptonization ($t> 0.3$~s) & ref. run ($g_{\rm ap}=0$) & 6.65 & 9.05 & 8.73 & 10.06 & 2.15 & 1.38 \\
deleptonization ($t> 0.3$~s) & ($g_{\rm ap}=6 \times 10^{-10},\xi=0$) & 6.22 & 8.20 &7.58 & 8.00 & 2.12 & 1.31 \\
deleptonization ($t> 0.3$~s) & ($g_{\rm ap}=9 \times 10^{-10},\xi=1$) & 6.11 & 7.91 &7.18 & 7.39 & 2.12 & 1.29 \\
\hline
\\
\hline
& Model/setup & $\mean{E_{\bar\nu_e}}$ (MeV) & $\mean{E_{\bar\nu_x}}$ (MeV) & $\Phi_{\bar\nu_e}^0$ $(10^{56} {\rm s}^{-1})$ & $\Phi_{\bar\nu_x}^0 $ $(10^{56} {\rm s}^{-1}$) & ${\alpha}_{\bar\nu_e}$ & ${\alpha}_{\bar\nu_x}$ \\
\hline
\hline
accretion ($t \le 0.3$~s) & ref. run ($g_{\rm ap}=0$) & 11.27 & 14.08 & 8.32 & 3.84 & 3.51 & 1.72 \\
deleptonization ($t> 0.3$~s) & ref. run ($g_{\rm ap}=0$) & 8.82 & 9.05 & 7.66 & 10.06 & 1.54 & 1.38 \\
deleptonization ($t> 0.3$~s) & ($g_{\rm ap}=6 \times 10^{-10},\xi=0$) & 7.96 & 8.20 & 5.99 & 8.00 & 1.41 & 1.31 \\
deleptonization ($t> 0.3$~s) & ($g_{\rm ap}=9 \times 10^{-10},\xi=1$) & 7.69 & 7.91 &5.45 & 7.39 & 1.38 & 1.29 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{tab:fluxes}
\end{table*}
In Figs.~\ref{fig:fluxes_gap9} and \ref{fig:fluxes_gap6} we consider the corresponding integrated spectra during the deleptonization phase in the presence of axion emission for $g_{\rm ap} = 9 \times 10^{-10}$ ($m_a \simeq 3 \times 10^{-2}$~eV, $f_a \simeq 4.8 \times 10^{8}$~GeV) and $g_{\rm ap} = 6 \times 10^{-10}$ ($m_a \simeq 8 \times 10^{-3}$~eV, $f_a \simeq 7.3 \times 10^{8}$~GeV) respectively. It becomes evident that for the models with axion emission the spectra are shifted towards lower energies with respect to the reference case. Based on the present description of axion emission, their spectra remain unknown. Nevertheless, they could be extracted directly from the SN simulation following, e.g., Eq.~(8) of Ref.~\cite{Raffelt:2011ft}. This would result in average axion energies far in excess of the average neutrino energies, since axions are produced in hotter and deeper SN regions. In Table~\ref{tab:fluxes} we report the parameters of the time-integrated SN neutrino spectra for the simulations distinguishing between the accretion ($t\leq 0.3$~s) and the deleptonization phase ($t>0.3$~s).
\subsubsection{Flavor conversions}
\begin{figure}[htp!]
\subfigure[~Ref. case ($g_{\rm ap}=0$) -- mass accretion phase]{
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Spectra-ref-Accr}
\label{fig:fluxes_ref_acc}}
\\
\subfigure[~Ref. case ($g_{\rm ap}=0$) -- PNS deleptonization phase]{
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Spectra-ref-cool}
\label{fig:fluxes_ref_del}}
\\
\subfigure[~($g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10},\xi=1$) -- PNS deleptonization phase]{
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Spectra-9x1-cool}
\label{fig:fluxes_gap9}}
\\
\subfigure[~($g_{\rm ap}=9\times 10^{-10},\xi=1$) -- PNS deleptonization phase]{
\includegraphics[width=0.425\textwidth]{Spectra-6x0-cool}
\label{fig:fluxes_gap6}}
\caption{Time-integrated neutrino energy spectra for s18.}
\label{fig:fluxes}
\end{figure}
The initial neutrino distributions are in general modified by flavor conversions $F^0_\nu \to F_\nu$. We assume a standard $3\nu$ framework where the mass spectrum of neutrinos is parameterized in terms of two mass-squared differences, whose
values are obtained from a $3\nu$ global analysis of the neutrino data~\cite{Capozzi:2016rtj},
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta m^2_{\rm atm} &=& m_3^2 -m_{1,2}^2 = 2.50 \times 10^{-3} \textrm{eV}^2~,\\
\Delta m^2_{\rm \odot} &=& m_2^2 -m_1^2 = 7.37 \times 10^{-5} \textrm{eV}^2~,
\end{eqnarray}
where according to the sign of $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}$ one distinguishes a normal (NH, $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}>0$) or an inverted (IH, $\Delta m^2_{\rm atm}<0$) mass ordering. The flavor eigenstates $\nu_{e,\mu,\tau}$ are a linear combination of the mass eigenstates $\nu_{1,2,3}$ by means of three mixing angles. Their best-fit values according to the global analysis are (for the NH case),
\begin{eqnarray}
\sin^2 \theta_{12} = 0.297~, \;\;\; \sin^2 \theta_{13} = 0.0214~.
\end{eqnarray}
The value of the mixing angle $\theta_{23}$ is not relevant in our context since we are assuming equal $\nu_\mu$ and $\nu_\tau$ fluxes. For IH case the best-fit values are similar to the ones quoted before.
Neutrino flavor conversions in SNe are a fascinating and complex phenomenon where different effects would contribute to profoundly modify the original neutrino fluxes (see Ref.~\cite{Mirizzi:2015eza} for a recent review). Indeed, in the deepest SN regions ($r \lesssim 10^3$~km) the neutrino density is sufficiently high to produce a self-induced refractive term for the neutrino propagation, associated with $\nu$--$\nu$ interactions. These would produce surprising collective effects in the flavor dynamics that are currently under investigation~\cite{Chakraborty:2016yeg}. At larger radii ($r \sim 10^4$--$10^5$~km) neutrino fluxes would be further processed by the ordinary Mikheeyev-Smirnov-Wolfenstein (MSW) matter effects~\cite{Wolfenstein:1977ue,Mikheev:1986gs}. The sensitivity of the matter effects to the SN dynamics has been discussed in the literature; notably concerning the shock-wave propagation and the matter density fluctuations. Furthermore, if neutrinos cross the Earth before their detection, this could induce additional oscillation effects. In the following, we neglect all these complications, since the main signature of the axion emission would be the overall reduction of the cooling time on the $\nu$ light curve. Oscillation effects would be sub-leading (cf. Ref.~\cite{Wu:2015}). Moreover, from Figs.~\ref{fig:neutrinos_s18} and \ref{fig:neutrinos_s11.2} one realizes the spectral differences among the different $\nu$ species are reduced at $t\gtrsim 5$~s when axion emission plays a major role. Therefore we simply assume that neutrino fluxes can only undergo the traditional MSW flavor conversions along a static density profile. In this case the dependence on $\theta_{13}$ of the flavor conversions disappears. The oscillated $\bar\nu_e$ flux that we consider for the detection is decomposed as follows~\cite{Borriello:2012zc},
\begin{eqnarray}
&{\rm NH}:& F_{\bar\nu_e} = \cos^2 \theta_{12} F^0_{\bar\nu_e} + \sin^2 \theta_{12} F^0_{\bar\nu_x}~, \\
&{\rm IH}:& F_{\bar\nu_e} = F^0_{\bar\nu_x}~.
\end{eqnarray}
In the following, for definitiveness we will show our results only in the NH case.
\subsubsection{Neutrino detection}
There are several experiments which aim at detecting SN neutrinos with a high statistics (see Ref.~\cite{Mirizzi:2015eza} for a list of current and future experiments). The presently largest underground detectors with the necessary sensitive to observe SN neutrinos are the water-Cherenkov Super-Kamiokande and the Cherenkov experiment in antartic ice IceCube. These are mostly sensitive to electron antineutrinos through the inverse beta decay process, ${\bar\nu_e}+p \to n+ e^+$. Moreover, a megatonne water-Cherenkov detector is a realistic future possibility in view of current efforts towards precision long-baseline oscillation experiments. We consider these three detectors as references in our study. For the inverse-beta-decay process, we take the differential cross section from Ref.~\cite{Strumia:2003zx}. The total cross section grows approximatively as $E^2$. For Super-Kamiokande we take a 22.5-kton fiducial mass, while for a future megatonne Cherenkov detector, we assume 400~kton.
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{SK-event-sig}
\caption{(color online) {\em Left panel:} Super-Kamiokande neutrino event rate based on s18 at selected SN distance -- 10~kpc (top panel), 0.2~kpc (middle panel) and 25~kpc (bottom panel) -- comparing the reference model and simulations with axions included ($g_{\rm ap}= 9 \times 10^{-10}, \xi=1$) and ($g_{\rm ap}= 6 \times 10^{-10},\xi=0$). {\em Right panel:} Corresponding ratios relative to the reference case.}
\label{fig:SuperK}
\label{fig:SK}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{Mton-event-sig}
\caption{(color online) Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:SK} but for the 400 kton Water Chereknov detector.}
\label{fig:Mton}
\label{fig:MT}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[t!]
\includegraphics[width=0.9\textwidth]{IC-event-sig}
\caption{(color online) Same as Fig.~\ref{fig:SK} but for the IceCube detector.}
\label{fig:ice}
\label{fig:IC}
\end{figure*}
A galactic-SN $\nu$ burst would be detectable in Icecube by a sudden, correlated increase in the photomultiplier count rate on a timescale of the order of 10~s (see Ref.~\cite{Abbasi:2011ss} for a recent description). In its complete configuration and with its data acquisition system, IceCube has 5160 optical modules~\cite{Abbasi:2011ss} and an effective detection volume of about 3 Mton. For this reason it represents the largest running detector for SN neutrinos. The reaction process in the antartic ice would be the inverse beta decay. However, Icecube being a coarse-grained detector would only pick up the average Cherenkov glow of the ice, being unable of reconstructing the signal on an event-by-event basis like a water-Cherenkov detector. The detection rate is given as follows~\cite{Dighe:2003be,Serpico:2011ir},
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal R}_{\bar\nu_e} = \int_{0}^{\infty} dE F_{\bar\nu_e} E_{\rm rel} (E) \sigma_e(E)~,
\end{equation}
where $E_{\rm rel} (E)$ is the energy released by a neutrino of energy $E$ and $\sigma_e(E)$ is the cross section for the inverse beta decay process. All other detector parameters (angular acceptance range, average quantum efficiency, number of useful Cherenkov photons per deposited neutrino energy unit, average lifetime of Cherenkov photons, effective photo-cathode detection area) have been fixed to the fiducial values adopted in Ref.~\cite{Dighe:2003be,Serpico:2011ir}, to which we refer to for further details.
We also remind the reader that if an efficient $\nu_e$ detector such as a large liquid Argon Time Projection Chamber becomes available, it would have unique capabilities for reconstructing the $\nu_e$ light curve~\cite{Mirizzi:2015eza}. The axion effect which we will now show on the $\bar\nu_e$ signal would be similar for the $\nu_e$ burst.
\subsection{Axion impact on the ${\bar\nu_e}$ light curve}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:SK} we show the $\bar\nu_e$ light curve during the deleptonization phase simulated for Super-Kamiokande for the fiducial case of s18 assuming different distances for the SN to occur: in the Galactic Center at $d= 10$~kpc (upper panel), for the lucky case of a close-by SN at 0.2~kpc (central panel), and the pessimistic case of $d=25$~kpc (lower panel). For the case with $d= 10$~kpc we use 1~s time bins, for $d= 0.2$~kpc we choose 100~ms time bins, and for $d= 25$~kpc the time binning is 2~s. We compare the reference run (continuous curve) with the case of axion emission with ($g_{\rm ap}= 9 \times 10^{-10},\xi=1$) and ($g_{\rm ap}= 6 \times 10^{-10},\xi=0)$. The counts in each bin follow a Gaussian distribution, with a mean given by the observed number of events and a standard deviation (indicating the 68\% confidence level) given by $\sigma=\sqrt{N}$. This latter is also plotted as vertical bars in each time bin. We see that the two cases with different $g_{\rm ap}$ produce rather close light curves, while the deviation with respect to the standard expectation becomes pronounced at $t \gtrsim 2$~s.
In order to compare the standard case and the case in the presence of axion one has to perform a statistical test under the null hypothesis that there is no relation between the two distributions. At this regard one has to calculate the $p$-value, which is the probability of observing an effect given that the null hypothesis is true. Statistical significance is attained when a $p$-value is less than a given significance level. Assuming that the distributions in the two cases follow Gaussian statistics, the significance level can be expressed in terms of number of standard deviations $n_\sigma$. Discrepancy in the distributions at the level of $2-3\sigma$ indicates a possible hint of axions. At this regard, in order to quantify the difference between the standard case and the presence of axion emission in Fig.~\ref{fig:SuperK} we plot it in terms of the number of standard deviations $n_\sigma$. We realize that in the case of a SN at $d= 10$~kpc the difference can be as large as $\sim 3 \sigma$ for the case with ($g_{\rm ap}= 6 \times 10^{-10},\xi=0$) (dot-dashed curve) and reach $\sim 4 \sigma$ for ($g_{\rm ap}= 9 \times 10^{-10},\xi=1$) (dashed curve). Such notable effect cannot be mimicked by other known effects. Notice, however, that in order to claim a possible hint of axion, other effects need to be taken into account. In particular, the impact of the neutron star mass and of the nuclear EoS on the neutrino cooling time need to be investigated. In the case of the explosion of a close-by SN, like Betelgeuse and Antares (at $d \lesssim 0.2$~kpc) we see that the statistical significance in the case of axion emission would be spectacular. Conversely, for a distant SN $d=25$~kpc the difference would be at most $\sim 2 \sigma$, preventing us from having a robust hint of axion emission.
In order to show the physics potential for axion emission of a future Mton class water Cherenkov detector, in Fig.~\ref{fig:MT} we show the $\bar\nu_e$ light curve during for a 400~kton water Cherenkov detector in the same format as in Fig.~\ref{fig:SK}. Due to the remarkable improvement in the statistics we used a narrow time binning. In particular, for the case with $d= 10$~kpc we use a 0.25~s time bins, for $d= 0.2$~kpc we select 0.1~ms time bins, and for $d= 25$~kpc the time binning is 1~s. We realize that the improvement with respect to Super-Kamiokande is impressive. In particular, the effect of axion emission would be always distinguishable from the standard expectations also for a distant galactic SN at more than $5 \sigma$
as shown in the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:Mton}.
We comment here that in the case of an extragalactic SN explosion within 1~Mpc, a Mton class detector would collect $\mathcal{O}(10)$ events~\cite{Kistler:2011}. It would be comparable to the neutrino signal detected from SN1987A. In this case one could not perform a detailed study of the $\nu$ light-curve, like the one presented above. However, from the comparison of the total number of events and from the duration of the burst with the expectation from different SN models one would potentially confirm the SN1987A results.
Finally in Fig.~\ref{fig:IC}, we present the event rate of Icecube. The average value of the photomultiplier background noise is represented as horizontal short-dotted curve, with typical error estimates of 280~s$^{-1}$ in each optical module~\cite{Serpico:2011ir}. We realize that also this detector has good capabilities to detect the effect of an axion extra-cooling on the ${\bar\nu}_e$ light curve. For the case with $d= 10$~kpc we use a 1~s time bin, for $d= 0.2$~kpc we apply 100~ms time bins, and for
$d= 25$~kpc the time binning is 2~s. Remarkably, from the right panel of Fig.~\ref{fig:IC} one sees that for a SN at $d= 10$~kpc in case of ($g_{\rm ap}= 9 \times 10^{-10},\xi=1)$ the difference with respect to the standard case is at more than $5 \sigma$ and for ($g_{\rm ap}= 6 \times 10^{-10},\xi=0)$ it is at $4 \sigma$ level. Only in the case of a faraway SN at $d= 25$~kpc the axion effect is below $3 \sigma$. In this sense Icecube and Super-Kamiokande have similar capabilities.
\section{Summary and conclusions}
In this survey we review the impact of axion emission in core-collapse SNe from $N$--$N$ bremsstrahlung. The process acts as additional sink and contributes to the cooling of the nascent PNS, which is the central objects in core collapse SNe. PNSs are initially hot and lepton rich, they deleptonize via the emission of neutrinos of all flavors once the supernova explosion has been launched. Unlike neutrinos, which decouple mainly at the PNS surface, axions originate from the PNS interior. This is due to the strong temperature dependence of the axion production rate. Moreover, the axion emission rate is proportional to the number density of nucleons. Hence the local production rate drops to zero towards the PNS surface primarily with decreasing temperature and also with decreasing proton abundance. Note that throughout this study we only consider axion-proton coupling (with finite $g_{\rm ap}$) neglecting axion-neutron coupling.
We implement the associated cooling process in simulations of the PNS deleptonization. We confirm a correlation between $g_{\rm ap}$ and deleptonization timescale, i.e. large(small) values of $g_{\rm ap}$ result in fast(slow) deleptonization of the PNS. The magnitude of the shortened deleptonization depends on the value of $g_{\rm ap}$. Axion emission carries away heat efficiently from the PNS interior which results in a generally more compact structure and lower temperatures in comparison to the reference case, so that neutrinos decouple deeper inside of the PNS surface layer at higher density with lower fluxes and smaller average energies. Our findings are in qualitative agreement with previous studies~\cite{Keil:1997}. For the smallest values of $g_{\rm ap}$ explored here ($g_{\rm ap}=1-1.5\times 10^{-10}$) the impact on the neutrino fluxes and average neutrino energies as well as their evolution is negligible; for largest values ($g_{\rm ap}=6-10\times 10^{-10}$) we find a significant shortening of the PNS deleptonization and a reduction of the associated timescale of neutrino emission, however, still in agreement with SN1987A. From our sensitivity study we find that values of the axion mass $m_a \gtrsim 8 \times 10^{-3}$~eV can be probed from a future SN explosion. We stress that this value has to be taken as indicative. Indeed, in order to obtain a sharp bound one has to perform an appropriate statistical test comparing different SN models and account for possible effects that can impact the neutrino cooling time.
The suppression of axion emission due to many-body effects towards increasing density may be important. We treat this via the saturation of the lowest-order effective spin fluctuation rate. Comparing our results with those of the parametric study of axion emission of Ref.~\cite{Keil:1997} (see their Fig.~6) -- the authors focused mainly on simulation results obtained without saturation -- we find that for the same value of the axion-proton coupling the reduction of total neutrino energy loss is significantly smaller, up to a factor 2 when saturation effects are included. Currently large uncertainties regarding the nuclear medium at supersaturation density and at high temperatures prevents us to predict quantitatively the suppression of axion emission due to many-body effects. Even chiral-effective field theory as ab-initio approach to describe dilute neutron matter is applicable only up to normal nuclear matter density, and hence cannot provide further constraints~\cite{Hebeler:2010a,Steiner:2012,Tews:2013}. Such state of matter may be accessible in future heavy-ion collider facilities, e.g., FAIR at the GSI in Darmstadt (Germany) and NICA in Dubna (Russia). However, with a better understanding of the axion-nucleon coupling, it may be possible to determine the magnitude of many-body effect from the detection of the neutrino signal of the next Galactic SN explosion. Note that the generally weak axion losses from low-mass PNSs make it only possible to deduce such analysis for SN explosions of massive or at least intermediate-mass progenitor stars, with typical neutrino losses on the order of $2.5-3.0\times 10^{53}$~erg confirmed by the neutrino detection of SN1987A. Then, neutrino losses significantly below this range would point to additional losses, e.g., axions with large matter coupling and/or small suppression due to weak many-body effects.
Moreover, we explored the neutrino signal in currently operating and future planned underground neutrino detectors for galactic events, with significant reduction of the event rate due to the emission of axions observable. From the magnitude of suppression it is in principle possible to deduce axion parameters, e.g., mass and couplings. This requires ''good'' supernova models with reliable predictions for the neutrino fluxes and spectra as well as their evolution, in particular for the PNS deleptonization phase from which most neutrinos will be detected. Therefore, the accurate treatment of neutrino transport, e.g., based on Boltzmann transport or in the diffusion limit is essential. At this regards we have shown that the statistics will not be a limiting issue for a typical SN. Currently large uncertainties originate from the unknown super-saturation density EoS, which affects not only the PNS evolution with fast(slow) contraction for soft(stiff) EoS~\cite{Fischer:2016a} but also medium modifications, e.g., correlations which modify weak interactions~\cite{Yakovlev:2001,Blaschke:2004}. All these aspects go beyond our present study and require further investigations.
We conclude mentioning that the physics potential of a SN neutrino observation is complementary to the reach of planned ALP searches, particularly the International Axion Observatory (IAXO) searching for conversions in photons of axions coming from the Sun~\cite{helioscope:2011}. We remind the reader that IAXO is sensitive to generic axion-like particles coupled to photons and has the potential to probe the QCD axion region up to masses $m_a \gtrsim 10^{-2}$~eV~\cite{2013arXiv1311.0029E}. We have seen that in principle with a galactic SN one could probe also smaller values of the mass. Conversely, if an axion signal were to be found by IAXO, this would change the current SN picture. An axion emission would strongly modify the emitted neutrino fluxes and have impact on the diffuse neutrino background and on the stellar nucleosynthesis.
\section*{Acknowledgements}
The authors thank Irene Tamborra for useful discussions. The work of A.M. is supported by the Italian Ministero dell'Istruzione, Universit\`a e Ricerca (MIUR) and Istituto Nazionale di Fisica Nucleare (INFN) through the ``Theoretical Astroparticle Physics'' projects. The work of A.P. was supported by the German Science Foundation (DFG) within the Collaborative Research Center SFB 676 ``Particles, Strings and the Early Universe.'' T.F. acknowledges support from the Polish National Science Center (NCN) under grant number DEC-2011/02/A/ST2/00306. S.C. acknowledges partial support by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft through Grant No. EXC 153 (Excellence Cluster Universe") and by the European Union through the Initial Training Network Invisibles," Grant No. PITN-GA-2011-289442.
|
\section{Introduction}
Given a pair of sentences, the goal of recognizing text entailment (RTE) is to determine whether the hypothesis can reasonably be inferred from the premises. There were three types of relation in RTE, Entailment (inferred to be true), Contradiction (inferred to be false) and Neutral (truth unknown).A few examples were given in Table~\ref{RTEexamples}.
\begin{table}[]
\small
\centering
\label{my-label}
\begin{tabular}{|l|l|l|}
\hline
\textbf{P} & The boy is running through a grassy area. & \\ \hline
& The boy is in his room. & C \\ \cline{2-3}
\textbf{H} & A boy is running outside. & E \\ \cline{2-3}
& The boy is in a park. & N \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Examples of three types of label in RTE, where P stands for Premises and H stands for Hypothesis}
\label{RTEexamples}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=8cm, width=16cm]{emnlp-architecture.eps}
\caption{Architecture of Bidirectional LSTM model with Inner-Attention}
\label{arc}
\end{figure*}
Traditional methods to RTE has been the dominion of classifiers employing hand engineered features, which heavily relied on natural language processing pipelines and external resources. Formal reasoning methods ~\cite{bos2005recognising} were also explored by many researchers, but not been widely used because of its complexity and domain limitations.
Recently published Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI\footnote{http://nlp.stanford.edu/projects/snli/}) corpus makes it possible to use deep learning methods to solve RTE problems. So far proposed deep learning approaches can be roughly categorized into two groups: sentence encoding-based models and matching encoding-based models. As the name implies, the encoding of sentence is the core of former methods, while the latter methods directly model the relation between two sentences and didn't generate sentence representations at all.
In view of universality, we focused our efforts on sentence encoding-based model. Existing methods of this kind including: LSTMs-based model, GRUs-based model, TBCNN-based model and SPINN-based model. Single directional LSTMs and GRUs suffer a weakness of not utilizing the contextual information from the future tokens and Convolutional Neural Networks didn't make full use of information contained in word order. Bidirectional LSTM utilizes both the previous and future context by processing the sequence on two directions which helps to address the drawbacks mentioned above. ~\cite{tan2015lstm}
A recent work by ~\cite{rocktaschel2015reasoning} improved the performance by applying a neural attention model that didn't yield sentence embeddings.
In this paper, we proposed a unified deep learning framework for recognizing textual entailment which dose not require any feature engineering, or external resources. The basic model is based on building biLSTM models on both premises and hypothesis. The basic mean pooling encoder can roughly form a intuition about what this sentence is talking about. Obtained this representation, we extended this model by utilize an Inner-Attention mechanism on both sides. This mechanism helps generate more accurate and focused sentence representations for classification. In addition, we introduced a simple effective input strategy that get ride of same words in hypothesis and premise, which further boosts our performance. Without parameter tuning, we improved the art-of-the-state performance of sentence encoding-based model by nearly 2\%.
\section{Our approach}
In our work, we treated RTE task as a supervised three-way classification problem. The overall architecture of our model is shown in Figure~\ref{arc}. The design of this model we follow the idea of Siamese Network, that the two identical sentence encoders share the same set of weights during training, and the two sentence representations then combined together to generated a "relation vector" for classification. As we can see from the figure, the model mainly consists of three parts. From top to bottom were: (A). The sentence input module; (B). The sentence encoding module; (C). The sentence matching module. We will explain the last two parts in detail in the following subsection. And the sentence input module will be introduced in Section~\ref{ssec:InputStrategy}.
\subsection{Sentence Encoding Module}
Sentence encoding module is the fundamental part of this model. To generate better sentence representations, we employed a two-step strategy to encode sentences. Firstly, average pooling layer was built on top of word-level biLSTMs to produce sentence vector. This simple encoder combined with the sentence matching module formed the basic architecture of our model. With much less parameters, this basic model alone can outperformed art-of-state method by a small margin. (refer to Table~\ref{ComPerf}). Secondly, attention mechanism was employed on the same sentence, instead of using target sentence representation to attend words in source sentence, we used the representation generated in previous stage to attend words appeared in the sentence itself, which results in a similar distribution with other attention mechanism weights. More attention was given to important words.\footnote{Recently, ~\cite{yang2016hierarchical} proposed a Hierarchical Attention model on the task of document classification also used for but the target representation in attention their mechanism is randomly initialized.}
The idea of "Inner-attention" was inspired by the observation that when human read one sentence, people usually can roughly form an intuition about which part of the sentence is more important according past experience. And we implemented this idea using attention mechanism in our model. The attention mechanism is formalized as follows:
\begin{eqnarray*}
& M = tanh(W^yY + W^hR_{ave}\otimes e_L) \\
& \alpha = softmax(w^TM) \\
& R_{att} = Y\alpha^T
\end{eqnarray*}
where $Y$ is a matrix consisting of output vectors of biLSTM, $R_{ave}$ is the output of mean pooling layer, $\alpha$ denoted the attention vector and $R_{att}$ is the \emph{attention-weighted} sentence representation.
\subsection{Sentence Matching Module}
Once the sentence vectors are generated. Three matching methods were applied to extract relations between premise and hypothesis.
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\item Concatenation of the two representations
\item Element-wise product
\item Element-wise difference
\end{itemize}
This matching architecture was first used by ~\cite{mou2015recognizing}.
Finally, we used a SoftMax layer over the output of a non-linear projection of the generated matching vector for classification.
\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:Experiments}
\subsection{DataSet}
To evaluate the performance of our model, we conducted our experiments on Stanford Natural Language Inference (SNLI) corpus ~\cite{bos2005recognising}. At 570K pairs, SNLI is two orders of magnitude larger than all other resources of its type. The dataset is constructed by crowdsourced efforts, each sentence written by humans. The target labels comprise three classes: Entailment, Contradiction, and Neutral (two irrelevant sentences). We applied the standard
train/validation/test split, containing 550k, 10k, and 10k samples, respectively.
\subsection{Parameter Setting}
The training objective of our model is cross-entropy loss, and we use minibatch SGD with the Rmsprop ~\cite{tieleman2012lecture} for optimization. The batch size is 128. A dropout layer was applied in the output of the network with the dropout rate set to 0.25. In our model, we used pretrained 300D Glove 840B vectors~\cite{pennington2014glove} to initialize the word embedding. Out-of-vocabulary words in the training set are randomly initialized by sampling values uniformly from (−0.05, 0.05). All of these embedding are not updated during training . We didn't tune representations of words for two reasons:
1. To reduced the number of parameters needed to train.
2. Keep their representation stays close to unseen similar words in inference time, which improved the model's generation ability.
The model is implemented using open-source framework Keras.\footnote{http://keras.io/}
\subsection{The Input Strategy}
\label{ssec:InputStrategy}
In this part, we investigated four strategies to modify the input on our basic model which helps us increase performance, the four strategies are:
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\item Inverting Premises~\cite{sutskever2014sequence}
\item Doubling Premises~\cite{zaremba2014learning}
\item Doubling Hypothesis
\item Differentiating Inputs (Removing same words appeared in premises and hypothesis)
\end{itemize}
Experimental results were illustrated in Table~\ref{InputSgy}. As we can see from it, doubling hypothesis and differentiating inputs both improved our model's performance.While the hypothesises usually much shorter than premises, doubling hypothesis may absorb this difference and emphasize
the meaning twice via this strategy. Differentiating input strategy forces the model to focus on different part of the two sentences
which may help the classification for Neutral and Contradiction examples as we observed that our model tended to assign unconfident instances to
Entailment. And the original input sentences appeared in Figure~\ref{arc} are:
\begin{small}
\textbf{Premise:} \emph{Two man in polo shirts and tan pants immersed in a pleasant conversation about photograph.}
\textbf{Hypothesis:} \emph{Two man in polo shirts and tan pants involved in a heated discussion about Canon.}
\textbf{Label:} \emph{Contradiction}
\end{small}
While most of the words in this pair of sentences are same or close in semantic, It is hard for model to distinguish the difference between them, which resulted in labeling it with Neutral or Entailment. Through differentiating inputs strategy, this kind of problems can be solved.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{|c|}{\textbf{Input Strategy}} & \textbf{Test Acc.} \\ \hline
Original Sequences & 83.24\% \\ \hline
Inverting Premises & 82.60\% \\ \hline
Doubling Premises & 83.66\% \\ \hline
Doubling Hypothesis & 82.83\% \\ \hline
Differentiating Inputs & \textbf{83.72\%} \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison of different input strategies}
\label{InputSgy}
\end{table}
\subsection{Comparison Methods}
In this part, we compared our model against the following art-of-the-state baseline approaches:
\begin{small}
\begin{itemize}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\item \textbf{LSTM enc:} 100D LSTM encoders + MLP. ~\cite{bowman2015large}
\item \textbf{GRU enc:} 1024D GRU encoders + skip-thoughts + cat, -. ~\cite{vendrov2015order}
\item \textbf{TBCNN enc:} 300D Tree-based CNN encoders + cat, $\circ$ , -. ~\cite{mou2015recognizing}
\item \textbf{SPINN enc:} 300D SPINN-NP encoders + cat, $\circ$ , -. ~\cite{bowman2016fast}
\item \textbf{Static-Attention:} 100D LSTM + static attention. ~\cite{rocktaschel2015reasoning}
\item \textbf{WbW-Attention:} 100D LSTM + word-by-word attention. ~\cite{rocktaschel2015reasoning}
\end{itemize}
\end{small}
The \emph{\textbf{cat}} refers to concatenation, \emph{\textbf{-}} and \textbf{$\circ$} denote element-wise difference and product, respectively.
Much simpler and easy to understand.
\begin{table}[]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|c|}
\hline
\textbf{Model} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Params}} & \multicolumn{1}{l|}{\textbf{Test Acc.}} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{3}{|l|}{\textit{\textbf{Sentence encoding-based models}}} \\ \hline
LSTM enc & 3.0M & 80.6\% \\ \hline
GRU enc & 15M & 81.4\% \\ \hline
TBCNN enc & 3.5M & 82.1\% \\ \hline
SPINN enc & 3.7M & 83.2\% \\ \hline
Basic model & \textbf{2.0M} & 83.3\% \\
\textit{+ Inner-Attention} & 2.8M & 84.2\% \\
\textit{+ Diversing Input} & 2.8M & \textbf{85.0\%} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{3}{|l|}{\textit{\textbf{Other neural network models}}} \\ \hline
Static-Attention & 242K & 82.4\% \\ \hline
WbW-Attention & 252K & 83.5\% \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Performance comparison of different models on SNLI.}
\label{ComPerf}
\end{table}
\subsection{Results and Qualitative Analysis}
Although the classification of RTE example is not solely relying on representations obtained from attention, it is still instructive to analysis Inner-Attention mechanism as we witnessed a large performance increase after employing it. We hand-picked several examples from the dataset to visualize. In order to make the weights more discriminated, we didn't use a uniform colour atla cross sentences. That is, each sentence have its own color atla, the lightest color and the darkest color denoted the smallest attention weight the biggest value within the sentence, respectively. Visualizations of Inner-Attention on these examples are depicted in Figure~\ref{VisAtt}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[height=4cm, width=7.6cm]{emnlp2016-attention.eps}
\caption{Inner-Attention Visualizations.}
\label{VisAtt}
\end{figure}
We observed that more attention was given to Nones, Verbs and Adjectives. This conform to our experience that these words are more semantic richer than function words. While mean pooling regarded each word of equal importance, the attention mechanism helps re-weight words according to their importance. And more focused and accurate sentence representations were generated based on produced attention vectors.
\section{Conclusion and Future work}
In this paper, we proposed a bidirectional LSTM-based model with Inner-Attention to solve the RTE problem. We come up with an idea to utilize attention mechanism within sentence which can teach itself to attend words without the information from another one. The Inner-Attention mechanism helps produce more accurate sentence representations through attention vectors. In addition, the simple effective diversing input strategy introduced by us further boosts our results. And this model can be easily adapted to other sentence-matching models.
Our future work including:
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parsep}{0pt}
\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
\item Employ this architecture on other sentence-matching tasks such as Question Answer, Paraphrase and Sentence Text Similarity etc.
\item Try more heuristics matching methods to make full use of the sentence vectors.
\end{enumerate}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
We thank all anonymous reviewers for their hard work!
|
\section{Introduction}
Circumbinary planets are a fascinating new regime of planets to be studied. While we have been drawn to them for decades in science fiction, it has only been in the past several years that such planets have begun to be discovered, leading to a new and exciting field of study. Orbiting two stars, circumbinary planets experience strong short-term variations in stellar irradiation over the course of their orbits owing to the motion of their host binary stars. Such variation is interesting when we begin to consider the possible effects on climate patterns for planets in these systems.
\par Binary stars are common in our galaxy. With the fraction of single stars with planets being at least 50\% \citep{Fress13}, we can say that planets are also a common occurrence in our galaxy. If we only consider planets which are 4 times the radius of Neptune (hereafter $R_{\mathrm{N}}$)\footnote{$R_{\mathrm{N}}$ = 3.88$R_{\mathrm{\oplus}}$ ; $R_{\mathrm{J}}$ = 11.2$R_{\mathrm{\oplus}}$}, the same study finds that just over 8\% of single stars are host to such objects. If circumbinary planets were to form at a similar rate, we could assume them to be just as common. In fact, \citet{ABUNDANCE_CB} finds that the fraction of binary stars with planets larger than 6 R$_{\oplus}$ is at least 10\% for coplanar circumbinary systems, a rate even higher than that for single-star systems. This makes circumbinary planets an extremely interesting field of study, since we can expect them to be quite numerous.
\par As of writing, there have been 10 transiting circumbinary planets discovered around main sequence stars. The first was Kepler 16b \citep{KEP16b}. Following this were the discoveries of Kepler 34b and 35b \citep{KEP34_KEP35}, Kepler 47b and 47c \citep{KEP47}, Kepler 38b \citep{KEP38b}, Kepler 64b \citep{KEP64b_1,KEP64b_2}, Kepler 413b \citep{KEP413b}, Kepler 453b \citep{KEP453b}, and KOI 2939b \citep{KOI2939b}. With the exception of the most recent planet, which is Jupiter-sized, all are between approximately 0.75 - 2.25 $R_{\mathrm{N}}$. This agrees with studies which conclude that planets larger than 10 $R_{\mathrm{\oplus}}$ are uncommon around binary stars \citep{ABUNDANCE_CB}.
\par Many upcoming missions will provide opportunities to search for and discover new circumbinary planets. The Gaia mission is expected to discover between tens and hundreds of new circumbinary planets \citep{GAIA_CB}, depending on the abundance of giant circumbinary planets. In addition, microlensing has been shown as an effective way to discover circumbinary planetary candidates, with studies predicting that this is a sufficient method for candidate detection \citep{Microlens_CB}.
\par Atmospheric modeling is one of the most important ways we can gain insights into the circulation patterns of exoplanets. Through the use of models of varying complexities, we can learn about a planet's temperature structure and circulation and make predictions for observational signatures of various types of temperature structures due to, for example, shifted hot spots, seasonal effects, clouds, and composition. In this paper we study the atmospheres of circumbinary planets through the use of both a one-dimensional Energy Balance Model and a three-dimensional General Circulation Model in order to learn about the effects of flux variation on short timescales. Such a study for these types of planets has not been done previously, with the only similar study being of habitable zones around binary stars for hypothetical Earth-like planets \citep{Forgan13}.
\par By piecing together all of the information we have about the known set of circumbinary planets, and by studying them further through the use of models, we can begin to understand where such planets are similar to and different from their single-star counterparts. By modeling both a known circumbinary planet and a single-star planet with an equivalent constant irradiation, we then study the temperature and wind circulation patterns in the atmospheres of both planets in order to make comparisons between the two atmospheres. Through this work we are then able to answer the question of how a quickly varying stellar irradiation affects the atmosphere of a giant planet and make further statements as to the detectability of any differences between single-star and circumbinary planets.
\par In Section \ref{2_Method} we discuss the methods and models used in this work, with particular emphasis on model parameters. The results of our work, including various known and theoretical planets, is presented in Section \ref{3_Results}. Conclusions are given in Section \ref{4_Conclusions}.
\section{Method}
\label{2_Method}
We begin with a one-dimensional Energy Balance Model (Section \ref{EBM}) to study the general behavior of a planet's atmosphere over long periods of time. We use a three-dimensional General Circulation Model (Section \ref{GCM}) for more in depth studies of a specific planet in order to confirm results from the one-dimensional model. The benefits of using the Energy Balance Model (hereafter EBM) are that it is relatively simple, allowing us to model the atmosphere over many more planetary orbits and for a wide range of configurations. While the General Circulation Model (hereafter GCM) is beneficial in order to obtain more realistic and detailed three-dimensional results, it is much more computationally expensive. By using both models we are therefore able to obtain a better understanding of the effects of the varying irradiation pattern both in high detail and over a wider parameter space. We focus on Neptune-like planets, and all model parameters are derived based on this fact.
\subsection{Calculation of Orbits and Resulting Irradiation}
\label{orbits}
\par We calculate orbits by assuming Keplerian motion, which is a good approximation over the short number of orbits we model. For the known circumbinary systems, observations over multiple planetary orbits support our choice for Keplerian motion. Both stars are placed on Keplerian orbits around their center of mass, with the planet on a Keplerian orbit around this same center of mass. Assuming the planet is approximately Neptune-like in mass, it is not massive enough to significantly perturb the stellar orbits away from Keplerian motion over the timescales we consider. Our assumption of planet mass is based on the measured radii of known circumbinary planets, and mass-radius models and observations which do not predict a planet of this size to be dense enough to be terrestrial \citep{{MR_3},{MR_2},{MR_1}}.
\par For all known systems, the irradiation pattern is non-repeating over timescales of both the stellar orbits and the planetary orbits. General patterns do emerge which depend on the location of the more luminous star or stars relative to the planet. As shown in Figure \ref{FluxCurves}, planets with more massive secondary stars (top two panels) experience a greater variation in their stellar irradiation pattern over a given planetary orbit, while those with lower mass secondaries (bottom two panels) have stellar irradiation patterns which become much simpler, beginning to resemble simple sinusoidal curves. Further, planets on longer period orbits experience less extreme irradiation patterns (smaller amplitude variations) as the motions of the stars become less important simply due to the larger distance between the planets and the stars. This can also be seen in Figure \ref{FluxCurves} when comparing the left two panels to the right two panels.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\epsscale{1.35}
\plotone{FluxCurves.eps}
\caption{Flux variation for several different systems. For (a), (b), and (d), The primary stellar mass is set to 1 M$_{\odot}$ and the stellar separation is set to 0.1 AU (see section \ref{grid}) with zero eccentricity for all orbits. Plot (c) shows the irradiation variation for the planet Kepler 47b (see Table \ref{47b_data} for system parameters). Note that for planets on close orbits around equal mass binary systems (plot a) the irradiation pattern has both a higher amplitude and is more irregular than for planets on more distant orbits around a system mostly dominated by one star (plot d). For each system, the overall variation in flux is due to the motion of the binary stars relative to the location of the planet. For the case of Kepler 47b (plot c), there is a secondary super-imposed long period variation due to the planet's slight eccentricity. }
\label{FluxCurves}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Energy Balance Model}
\label{EBM}
Historically, EBMs have been used to predict the long-term climate of terrestrial-like planets \citep[see][]{North81,Forgan13,Vladilo15}. EBMs are designed to be relatively simple, yet complex enough to encapsulate the relevant physics of atmospheric heating. The simplicity of these models comes from their single dimension in space, latitude. For terrestrial planets, models predict the planet's surface temperature - so there is no need to study the various heights in the atmosphere. EBMs calculate the temperature at each point in latitude space, evolving it forward in time to represent the evolution of the surface or atmospheric temperature over a period of time
\par Previous works have been applied to Earth-like planets only - here we make modifications to account for the thicker atmosphere of Jovian-like planets. When modeling planets dominated by a thick atmosphere, we decide to modify the coefficients in such a way that we are integrating over the range of pressures in the atmosphere in which heating takes place. This lets us gain insight into the temperature of the thermal (infrared emission) photosphere of the planet. This choice becomes important as we discuss observables in section \ref{obs}.
\par The general form of the EBM is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{EBMeq}
C\frac{\partial T}{\partial t} -\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\left(D\left(1-x^2\right)\frac{\partial T}{\partial x}\right)=S\left(1-A\right)-I.
\end{equation}
Here $x\equiv\sin\varphi$ is the single dimension in the model, with $\varphi$ being latitude. $T$ is the local temperature at some time. C is the atmosphere's heat capacity per unit area; D is the diffusivity of the atmosphere, S is the stellar irradiation, A is the atmosphere's albedo, and I is the cooling function of the atmosphere. In the next few sections we discuss all parameters and their physical roles in the model, as well as our modifications to account for the specific cases we study. The adopted values are listed in Table \ref{EBMparams}.
\subsubsection{C: Heat Capacity Per Unit Area}
As discussed in the introduction, most of the currently known circumbinary planets are approximately Neptune-sized, ranging from 0.768 $R_{\mathrm{N}}$ (Kepler 47b, \cite{KEP47}) to 2.20 $R_{\mathrm{N}}$ (Kepler 34b, \cite{KEP34_KEP35}), with a single outlier at 1.52 $R_{\mathrm{J}}$ (KOI 2939b, \cite{KOI2939b}) . For this reason, we chose to use a Neptune-like composition for all planets modeled in this work. This approximation allows better comparison across systems by minimizing free parameters.
\par Previous work on circumbinary planets using EBMs \citep{Forgan13} focuses on hypothetical Earth-like planets. Here we seek to model the known planets, with much of their mass and radius being dominated by atmosphere. Because of this, we do not need to take into account the fraction of the planet covered in ice, water, and solid surfaces as is often done with EBMs. Therefore, our heat capacity is calculated based on our choice of atmospheric composition with a mean molecular weight of 2.5 g/mol \citep{PSC}, a value commonly used for Neptune. This corresponds to a specific gas constant of 3.2$\times$10$^7$ erg g$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$, which we can covert to heat capacity per unit area at the pressure level (thermal photosphere, 0.12 bar) we are studying. $C$ is then set to 4.154$\times$10$^{10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$.
\subsubsection{D: Diffusivity}
\label{Diff_EBM}
The diffusivity coefficient ($D$) encapsulates the atmospheric transport of heat from the equator towards the cooler poles. For Earth-like planets, the diffusivity coefficient is set based on empirically fitting models to reproduce the observed temperature structure on Earth. In a similar way, we can use more sophisticated models of gas planets to predict how meridional heat transport occurs. This is discussed in depth in section \ref{GCMdiff}. The diffusion constant could in principle be set as a function of $x$ (latitude), but we use a constant value in this work, which we find is able to capture the relevant physics without adding more unknowns into the model.
\par Using results of a preliminary GCM (model details are discussed in Section \ref{GCM}), we obtain an initial estimate of the diffusion coefficient based on the rate of energy transport in this preliminary model. This served as a base value which was then varied over multiple runs of the EBM in order to obtain a latitudinal temperature structure which corresponded to the results of the GCM. As a result, we use a diffusion coefficient of 4$\times$10$^3$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$. For comparison, typical values of diffusivity used for Earth-like planets are of order $10^2$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$.
\par It is of importance to note that this value is the least constrained of the parameters used here. Small variances have little affect on the resulting temperature structures. However, extremely large values of the diffusion coefficient (greater than of order 10$^4$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$) correspond to efficient heat transport to the poles, where it is then radiated out to space, leading to an global cooling effect. Similarly, extremely low values of the diffusion coefficient (smaller than of order 10$^2$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$) correspond to heat being trapped near the equator, leading to an global heating effect.
\subsubsection{S(1-A): Stellar Irradiation and Albedo}
\label{SandA_EBM}
Stellar irradiation ($S$) is set by the motions of the binary stars in the system. The time ($t$) dependence of this parameter is determined by the specific planetary and stellar orbits for any given system. The spatial ($x$) dependence of this parameter is rooted in the fact that the equator receives more irradiation than the poles for zero (or very low) obliquity systems, represented by a factor of cosine of latitude in the received irradiation. Based on the small angular separation of the two stars in the planet's sky, we do not need to account for two separate substellar points, and instead treat them as one point, again letting us make the claim that the equator is heated more than the poles.
\par As discussed in Section \ref{orbits} and demonstrated in Figure \ref{FluxCurves}, the binary mass fraction and the planet's semi-major axis play a large role in the stellar irradiation. Additionally, we ignore the effects of stellar eclipses, as they occur on time scales which are short relative to the radiative timescale of the atmosphere.
\par Albedo ($A$), or the amount of light reflected off the top of the atmosphere, is set to 0.3. This value has been used for Neptune previously (such as in \cite{LiuSch10}), so we find it appropriate to use due to other parameters being set to Neptune values as well.
\subsubsection{I: Cooling Function}
The cooling function determines the planet's outgoing radiation for any given point in latitude. Again, we examine results from the preliminary GCM to determine the appropriate amount of outgoing radiation necessary to produce the temperature structure seen in this more complicated model. As the cooling function represents the outgoing flux, we can represent it as
\begin{equation}
I(T)=\frac{\sigma T^4}{\alpha},
\end{equation}
where $\alpha$ is a constant related to the optical thickness of the atmosphere, determined by the GCM. Our initial parameter guess from the preliminary GCM reproduces the expected temperatures in the EBM without any further fine tuning. Based on results for outgoing radiation and temperature structure from the GCM, an $\alpha$ value of 1.682 is used.
\begin{deluxetable}{cc}
\tabletypesize{\small}
\tablecaption{Energy Balance Model parameters \label{EBMparams}}
\tablewidth{0.5\textwidth}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value Adopted}}
\startdata
Heat Capacity, C & 4.154$\times$10$^{10}$ erg cm$^{-2}$ K$^{-1}$ \\
Diffusivity Coefficient, D & 4$\times$10$^3$ erg cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ \\
Albedo, A & 0.3 \\
Cooling Function, I & $I(T)=\sigma T^4 / \alpha$ \\
Cooling $\alpha$ & 1.682
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\subsection{General Circulation Model}
\label{GCM}
\par GCMs are three dimensional climate models which calculate temperature and winds at every point in latitude, longitude, and pressure space using basic information about the planet we seek to model - such as atmospheric composition, solar irradiation, size, and rotation rate. Because of their complexity, these models can be used to predict observational signatures in the form of infrared radiation for a wide array of planet types and provide a base for detailed study of planetary atmospheres.
\par We use the GCM detailed in \cite{RM12}, with a modification to account for the variation in stellar irradiation, calculated as discussed in section \ref{SandA_EBM} and \ref{orbits}. The model is built upon the primitive equations of meteorology, which are a standard reduction of the Navier-Stokes equations including assumptions of inviscid flow, vertical hydrostatic equilibrium, and small vertical flow and scales relative to the horizontal components. See \cite{Vallis2006} for further explanation. Heating is treated using double gray radiative transfer such that the incoming radiation (optical) and the outgoing radiation (infrared) each have their own absorption coefficient. For a more detailed description of the model, see \cite{RM12} and sources within. See Table \ref{GCMparams} for a list of parameters used for a Neptune-like planet.
\begin{deluxetable}{cc}
\tabletypesize{\small}
\tablecaption{General Circulation Model Parameters \label{47bprop}}
\tablewidth{0.5\textwidth}
\tablehead{
\colhead{Parameter} & \colhead{Value Adopted}}
\startdata
Planet density, $\rho_{\mathrm{N}}$ & 1.64 g/cm$^3$ \\
Rotation rate, $\Omega_{\mathrm{N}}$ & 1.08$\times$10$^{-4}$ s$^{-1}$ \\
Specific gas constant, R & 3.2$\times$10$^7$ erg g$^{-1}$ K$^{-1}$ \\
Optical absorption, $\kappa_{vis}$ & 8.14$\times10^{-4}$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ \tablenotemark{a}\tablenotetext{a}{Adapted to our model formulation from \cite{LiuSch10}}\\
Infrared absorption, $\kappa_{IR}$ & 1.49$\times10^{-2}$cm$^2$g$^{-1}$ \tablenotemark{a} \\
Internal heat flux, F$_{int}$ & 0.433 W m$^{-2}$ \tablenotemark{a} \\
Irradiated flux, F$_{irr}$ & Varies - Section \ref{SandA_EBM}
\enddata
\tablecomments{Values with a subscript N are set to accepted parameters for Neptune. We chose density as the constant parameter across various Neptune-like planets. The radius of the each planet is set from observations, and density is used to obtain a mass and gravitational acceleration for use in the General Circulation Model.}
\label{GCMparams}
\end{deluxetable}
\subsubsection{GCM Heat Transport - applications to the EBM}
\label{GCMdiff}
Using equations adapted from \cite{ClimateBook}, we can relate the heat transport in the EBM to the heat transport in the GCM by writing
\begin{equation}
\Phi\equiv - D\frac{\partial T}{\partial \varphi},
\end{equation}
where D is the diffusion coefficient defined in section \ref{Diff_EBM}. $\Phi$, given by
\begin{equation}
\Phi=\frac{1}{R_p}\int_0^{P_s}v\left(c_pT+gz\right)\frac{dP}{g}
\end{equation}
relates to the rate of energy transport across latitude bands, calculated as 2$\pi R_p^2\Phi\cos\varphi$. In all of the above, $R_{\mathrm{p}}$ denotes the radius of the planet, $P$ the pressure of a given level, $P_{\mathrm{s}}$ the representative bottom boundary pressure, $T$ the temperature at that pressure level, and $g$ the gravitational acceleration. Using output of the GCM, $\Phi$ can be computed for a planet of our chosen composition as a function of latitude, $\varphi$. We can then compute the diffusion coefficient $D$ as a function of latitude. For simplicity, we adopt an average value, which as discussed above, has been determined to be sufficient for 1D models
\section{Results}
\label{3_Results}
In the following sections we study the planet Kepler 47b using both the EBM and the GCM. First, by running the one-dimensional EBM, we obtain limits on the atmosphere's temperature variations due to the time varying flux. By then running the three-dimensional GCM, we can further study how these variances may or may not affect the planet's circulation.
\par We then extend our results to all known circumbinary systems as well as a grid of hypothetical circumbinary systems in order to thoroughly examine which regions of parameter space are host to planets which are most affected by their orbit around a binary star system. To compare our results to a single-star system, we calculate an equivalent single-star case in which the total luminosity of both stars is held unmoving at the center of mass. This allows for a direct comparison between a single-star case and a circumbinary case with all other variables the same.
\subsection{Kepler 47b}
Kepler 47 is a multi-planet binary system, with two confirmed Neptune-sized planets \citep{KEP47}. We initially decided to study Kepler 47b in the most detail due to a comparable radiative time scale of the atmosphere and timescale over which the irradiation is varying (similar to the orbital period of the stars). The radiative timescale describes how quickly or slowly a planet's atmosphere is able to respond to changing environmental conditions, therefore a planet which has a radiative timescale nearly that of the short scale changes in irradiation may have interesting coupling between the variation in stellar heating and the atmospheric response. Atmospheres with longer radiative timescales will be unaware of the varying flux, and we can expect them to then respond to the average irradiation, while those with shorter radiative timescales will respond very quickly to changes in stellar flux. System parameters are given in Table \ref{47bprop}.
\par The irradiation pattern for Kepler 47b is shown in the bottom left panel of Figure \ref{FluxCurves} and is fairly regular with two superimposed sinusoidal patterns. The shorter of the two periods is due to the motions of the host stars, and the other, longer period, sinusoidal pattern is due to the slight eccentricity of the planetary orbit. This eccentricity is set to the upper limit given in \citet{KEP47} in order to test the combined effect of eccentricity and binary motions.
\begin{deluxetable}{cccc}
\tabletypesize{\small}
\tablecaption{Kepler 47 System Parameters \label{47bprop}}
\tablewidth{0.5\textwidth}
\startdata
\cutinhead{\textbf{Stellar Properties}}
Parameter & Primary Star & Secondary Star \\ [3pt] \hline
Mass (M$_{\odot}$) & 1.043 & 0.362 \\
Radius (R$_{\odot}$) & 0.964 & 0.3506 \\
Temperature (K) & 5636 & 3357 \\
\cutinhead{\textbf{Stellar Orbit}}
Stellar Separation (AU) & 0.0836 \\
Orbital Period (Earth Days) & 7.448 \\
Eccentricity& 0.0234 \\
\cutinhead{\textbf{Planet b Properties}}
Radius (R$_{Nept}$) & 0.767 \\
Semimajor Axis (AU) & 0.2956 \\
Orbital Period (Earth days) & 49.514 \\
Eccentricity & \textless 0.035
\enddata
\tablecomments{All values have been adopted from \cite{KEP47}. We chose to adopt the upper limit for the planet's eccentricity in order to maximize any variations.}
\label{47b_data}
\end{deluxetable}
\subsubsection{Kepler 47b - EBM}
Using the EBM, we run both the circumbinary case with flux varying according the motions of the stars relative to the planet, and a single-star case set up as described above. Both models run for 20 planetary orbits (where one orbit is 49.5 Earth days, see Table \ref{47bprop}), which serves to give us a long enough base-line for comparison between the two cases. The atmosphere equilibrates over the first planetary orbit, so for this reason we do not include the first orbit in our analysis.
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\epsscale{1.4}
\centering
\plotone{Kep47b.eps}
\caption{Results of the Energy Balance Model for the circumbinary planet Kepler 47b. The top curve represents the stellar irradiation pattern received by the planet over the course of the 4 planetary orbits plotted. The bottom two plots represent the evolution of the thermal photosphere's temperature over time. For the middle plot, the absolute temperature is plotted. We see peaks in temperature at appropriate delays after peaks in irradiation due to the time lag of the atmosphere. The bottom plot shows the relative changes in temperature as compared to the equivalent single-star case for Kepler 47b. We see maximum positive and negative changes of 2 Kelvin, implying that the overall effect of the binary stars is minimal for this case.}
\label{EBM_47b}
\end{figure*}
As the EBM is a one-dimensional model, the output represents the temperature across all latitude bands evolved forward in time. Shown in the middle frame of Figure \ref{EBM_47b} is the model output at the thermal (outgoing) photosphere in the circumbinary case through the fifth planetary orbit. We find that peaks in temperature correspond to peaks in irradiation after accounting for the expected delay due to the radiative lag of the atmosphere. For this system, the radiative timescale corresponds to approximately 0.14 planetary orbits, or approximately 7 days.
\par As shown, times of peak temperature are only a few Kelvin warmer than other times. This is reasonable, as we can not expect a direct comparison between changes in irradiation and atmospheric temperature because the atmosphere dampens out the irradiation changes. A direct comparison between flux and temperature ($\Delta F\rightarrow \sigma\Delta T^4$) suggests changes of order tens of Kelvin, so our results of a few Kelvin is reasonable.
\par By eye, we can see that the circumbinary planet shows variations we would not expect for planets receiving a constant amount of irradiation over the course of its orbit. We would like to quantify how different a circumbinary planet is from its equivalent single-star case, so we define a parameter $\eta$ representing the mean of the absolute value of the fractional difference in temperature for the circumbinary case as compared to the single-star case.
\par For Kepler 47b, we find an $\eta$ of 0.2\%. The bottom frame of Figure \ref{EBM_47b} shows the temperature deviations over the first through fifth planetary orbits as compared to the single-star case, demonstrating that for the case of Kepler 47b, the maximum deviation away from the single-star model is 6K, which is less than 1\%.
\subsubsection{Kepler 47b - GCM}
In order to determine the magnitude of these temperature variations on the planet's circulation, we study this planet with the full three-dimensional GCM. We do not expect that a mean deviation of 0.2\% is large enough to excite noticeable changes in the planet's circulation, however, we explore the possibility here for completeness. Figure \ref{GCMplots} shows the full three-dimensional model results for both the circumbinary case (left) and the single-star case (right). The top row shows the temperature of both cases at a snapshot in time, and the bottom row shows the zonal (East-West direction) winds for both cases at the same point in time.
\par GCM results suggest differences in temperatures and wind speeds for the circumbinary case compared to the single-star case which are less than 1 K and 1 m/s, respectively, at any given point in time. We find that for $\eta\approx$ 0.002 (as calculated from the EBM), the irradiation pattern due to the binary motion does not cause noticeable changes in planetary circulation as compared to the equivalent single-star case, unsurprisingly.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plottwo{47b_var_temp.eps}{47b_con_temp.eps}
\plottwo{47b_var_wind.eps}{47b_con_wind.eps}
\caption{GCM results for the circumbinary case (left) and the single-star case (right) at a single point in time for Kepler 47b. The top panel shows the temperature of the thermal photosphere, and the bottom panel shows the east-west winds at the thermal photosphere. We see no discernible difference between the circumbinary case and the single-star case.}
\label{GCMplots}
\end{figure}
\par A further comparison of the zonal-averaged temperature at the equator from the GCM (an average temperature across the latitude band sitting at the equator), the equator temperature of the EBM, and the irradiation temperature at the equator (T=$(S(t)/\sigma)^{(1/4)}$) over the course of one orbit shows that the GCM produces temperature variations of even smaller amplitudes than those found in the EBM (Figure \ref{EBM_GCM}). Comparing both to the amplitudes of the temperature variations we could expect if the atmosphere responded immediately to changes in irradiation, we see that the atmosphere in both models does indeed dampen out the irradiation changes. The results of this comparison allows us to determine that any atmospheric effects due to the irradiation pattern exhibited in the Kepler 47 system are negligible and become even less pronounced when we use the GCM, which more correctly models the heating and cooling of the atmosphere as compared to the EBM.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{EBM_GCM_Temp.eps}
\caption{Temperature predictions from the General Circulation Model (Purple), Energy Balance Model (Blue), and Irradiation Temperature (Black) for Kepler 47b. We see smaller amplitudes in temperature variation as we move from the least complicated prediction (black body) to the most complex model (general circulation) suggesting that the atmosphere is efficient at dampening out the irradiation pattern. Note that peaks between the black body and other models are offset due to the delayed response of the atmosphere.}
\label{EBM_GCM}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Expanding Models to More Planets}
\label{grid}
We seek to draw a conclusion for a wider range of circumbinary planets, and so we start by looking at the 10 circumbinary planets which have been confirmed. For relevant orbital parameters, see sources \cite{KEP16b} (Kepler 16b), \cite{KEP34_KEP35} (Kepler 34b and 35b), \cite{KEP47} (Kepler 47b and 47c), \cite{KEP38b} (Kepler 38b), \cite{KEP64b_1,KEP64b_2} (Kepler 64b), \cite{KEP413b} (Kepler 413b), \cite{KEP453b} (Kepler 453b), and \cite{KOI2939b} (KOI2939b). For each system, we run circumbinary-case models and single-star models for 20 orbits and calculate their $\eta$ value using the EBM. Resulting $\eta$ values are shown in Figure \ref{FracDiff_known}.
\par Due to each system's unique orbital parameters and host stars, planets such as Kepler 16b and Kepler 64b can lay close to each other in the shown parameter space, but experience different effects due to their binary stars. In this case, both of the stars in the Kepler 64 system are at least twice as massive as those in the Kepler 16 system, causing the stars to move through their orbits much faster. This causes the variations in irradiation to be much more extreme (see Figure \ref{FluxCurves} for a demonstration of the variation in flux across different systems).
\par Here we also see that Kepler 35b experiences the most extreme variations over the single-star case, at an $\eta$=0.0051, or 0.51\%. This matches our expectations that this planet should experience the most variations due to its closer proximity to two nearly equal mass stars. Figure \ref{FluxCurves} demonstrates this through the differences in irradiation patterns for stars near and far from equal mass stars. Although not shown in Figure \ref{FracDiff_known}, Kepler 47c and KOI 2939b experience the smallest variations with $\eta$=0.00013 (0.013\%) and 0.00088 (0.088\%) respectively due to their large orbital distances of 0.989 AU and 2.72 AU.
\par Though there are only 10 announced circumbinary planets as of writing, we also wish to expand these results to a wider array of possible circumbinary planets. To do so, we develop a grid of hypothetical planets with a set stellar separation of 0.1 AU (corresponds to slightly less than the average stellar separation for the known systems), a set primary star mass of 1.0 $M_{\odot}$ (corresponds to the average primary star mass of the known systems), and then vary the planetary semi-major axis and the secondary star mass. Further, because we are only focused on studying circumbinary planets orbiting two main-sequence stars, we can apply main sequence scaling relations based on a fully radiative approximation to convert stellar mass to luminosity,
\begin{equation}
\frac{L}{L_{\odot}}=\left(\frac{M}{M_{\odot}}\right)^{10.1/2}
\end{equation}
and update the orbital periods of the stars and planet as necessary by Kepler's laws with P=$2\pi\sqrt{a^3/(G(M_1+M_2))}$. While low mass stars are generally fully convective, and this is likely to then over predict the luminosity of such a star, low mass stars will contribute minimally to the total luminosity of the system, and as such it is sufficient to simplify the general set of mass luminosity relations to one relation for all stars. Additionally, all orbits are set to zero eccentricity so that the only variation produced is due to the motions of the binary stars, and not dependent on orbital eccentricity.
\par We then run a grid of planets for 0.2 AU \textless $a_{\mathrm{p}}$\textless 0.5 AU and 0.1 $M_{\mathrm{\odot}}$ \textless $M_{\mathrm{2}}$\textless 1.0 $M_{\mathrm{\odot}}$ to examine the ranges where atmospheric variation over the single-star case may become important. For each system, we calculate its $\eta$ value. Results are shown in the top left of Figure \ref{Grid}. We see the expected trend of planets on close orbits around a binary system of equal-mass stars exhibiting a greater variance over its equivalent single-star case (larger $\eta$), with planets far away from systems dominated by one of the stars being much more similar to their equivalent single-star case (smaller $\eta$).
\par We note that the systems close into two equal-mass stars are unlikely to be stable (see \cite{stable}) but we find it informative to model these systems regardless. From \cite{stable}, we take the limit of stability (a$_{\mathrm{critical}}$) for zero eccentricity stellar orbits to be
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\frac{a_{\mathrm{critical}}}{a_{\mathrm{stars}}}=(1.60\pm0.04)+(4.12\pm0.09)\left(\frac{M_2}{M_1}\right) \\
+(-5.09\pm0.11)\left(\frac{M_2}{M_1}\right)^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
when $M_{\mathrm{2}}$ / $M_{\mathrm{1}}$ is no greater than 0.5. For higher mass ratios we adopt the value of $a_{\mathrm{critical}}$=2.37 from \cite{stable89}.
\par No planet within the region of stability reaches an $\eta$ value much greater than 0.01 (1\% variations), which would imply that their atmospheres are similar to that of a single-star planet, with only slight changes in temperature for small periods of time. We do not expect that these systems will exhibit circulation differences, and therefore make the overarching conclusion that the atmospheres of circumbinary planets exhibit no strong or noticeable effects due to their unique irradiation patterns.
\begin{figure}
\epsscale{1.0}
\plotone{KnownPlanets.eps}
\caption{$\eta$ values for 7 of the 10 known circumbinary systems as of writing. Kepler 34b, Kepler 47c and KOI2939b are excluded due to their large semi-major axes, placing all three off the right of the plot. All have $\eta$ values less than 0.1\%.}
\label{FracDiff_known}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[ht]
\epsscale{1.05}
\plotone{obliquity_diff.eps}
\caption{$\eta$ values for the grid of models with $M_{\mathrm{primary}}$ and $a_{\mathrm{stars}}$ held constant at 1.0 $M_{\mathrm{\odot}}$ and 0.1 AU respectively. The top left represents no seasons, or 0 degrees obliquity. The red curve gives the approximate limit of stability as established in \cite{stable, stable89} with appropriate errors. Grey dots represent the planets shown in Figure \ref{FracDiff_known}. Each other frame represents a different obliquity, corresponding to stronger seasons, where the results of the zero obliquity case have been subtracted away to demonstrate which regions of parameter space are most affected by the introduction of seasons. As seasonal variation is made stronger due to an increased axial tilt, we see that planets far away from a system with an equal mass ratio become more like their single-star comparisons (shifts towards smaller $\eta$ values) and planets close in to nearly all types of mass ratios experience more variation over their single-star comparisons (shifts towards larger $\eta$ values), though it is noted that these fall within the region of instability and are therefore physically unimportant.}
\label{Grid}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Introduction of Obliquity}
Seasons are an additional way in which we could produce variations over the single-star case. When orbiting two stars, the relative strength of a given season depends on which star is closest to the planet for the longest amount of time during that season. Therefore, we could expect hot summers and cold summers in a system with a low mass ratio. This is something not seen on a planet with only one star, so we investigate if the addition of a seasonal pattern (implemented by adding an axial tilt) can serve to excite large differences in a circumbinary planet's atmosphere.
\par We introduce seasons in the typical way \citep{ClimateBook} where the daily averaged stellar irradiation at a given latitude varies with time as
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\bar{S}(\phi,t)=\frac{F}{\pi}[H(t)\sin\varphi\sin\delta(t)+\sin H(t)\cos\varphi\cos\delta(t)]
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\sin\delta(t)=\sin\psi\sin\lambda(t)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\cos H(t)=-\tan\varphi\tan\delta(t),
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
with $F$ the calculated flux, based on the location of the stars relative to the planet (see Section \ref{SandA_EBM}); $H$ is the hour angle at sunset; $\varphi$ is the latitude; and $\delta$ is the declination of the substellar point. Because there are two substellar points, one for each star, $\delta$ is further defined as the point directly in between the two substellar points - though the separation of the stars has been found to be negligible regardless. Further, $\psi$ gives the obliquity (tilt of the orbital axis); and $\lambda$ represents the angle of the planet's orbit relative to some standard `zero' point.
\par As before, we start by looking at the planet Kepler 47b. Using an obliquity of 30$^{\degree}$, and running this through the EBM, we begin to see the seasonal variation we expect with hotter summers in one hemisphere while there is a colder winter in the other hemisphere. Figure \ref{seasonstemp} shows the results for this case. We see no strong difference in the general seasonal pattern as compared to an equivalent single-star case with the same axial tilt.
\begin{figure*}
\epsscale{1.2}
\plotone{Kep47b_30d.eps}
\caption{Temperature map for Kepler 47b with a 30$^{\degree}$ obliquity. The typical seasonal pattern is present, with warm summers in the northern hemisphere while there is a cold winter in the southern hemisphere at the same time and vice-versa. While each summer/winter pattern is slightly different than the previous, this is not a strong effect. We find no additional variation over the single-star case as compared to the zero obliquity models.}
\label{seasonstemp}
\end{figure*}
\par Setting up the hypothetical models as before, with the same grid of stellar and planet orbital properties, we now vary the planetary obliquity between 0$^{\degree}$ (no axial tilt, same as before) and 90$^{\degree}$ (planet rotating completely on its side). In Figure \ref{Grid} we show results for obliquities of 15$^{\degree}$, 45$^{\degree}$, and 75$^{\degree}$ with the zero obliquity case subtracted off in order to focus only on the additional temperature variations caused by the seasons.
Compared to the zero obliquity case shown in the top left of Figure \ref{Grid}, we see the most additional variation for planets close in to any type of binary system (left region of subplots in Figure \ref{grid}). However, these planets are on unstable orbits (compare to the red line of stability in the 0$^{\degree}$ obliquity case), and are therefore unimportant to this discussion. The next region with significant additional differences are those planets far away from a equal mass binary system (top left of plots in Figure \ref{grid}). In this region, we expect planets to exhibit temperature patterns similar to their equivalent single-star case since they are far enough away from their hosts that the motions of the stars become less important as compared to their axial tilt. As with the zero obliquity case in Section \ref{grid}, we conclude that the atmospheres of circumbinary planets with any axial tilt are no different that their equivalent single-star case. Seasons are no more extreme for circumbinary planets than single-star planets.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{4_Conclusions}
\par We conclude that the temperature structures and wind patterns within the atmosphere of a circumbinary planet are negligibly different from its equivalent single-star case. This has important implications for future work, both with considerations of habitability and, more importantly to this work, continuing modeling effort of these planets.
\subsection{Modeling of Circumbinary Planets}
\par We find a a maximum deviation in temperature of approximately 1\% for circumbinary planets on stable orbits. Based on our further modeling of Kepler 47b, a planet which experiences deviations of 0.2\%, we do not expect a deviation of 1\% to be large enough to lead to differences in circulation patterns. Therefore we conclude that the atmospheres of circumbinary planets, in all reasonably stable orbital configurations, are negligibly different from their equivalent single-star cases. Going forward, it is therefore reasonable to model circumbinary planets as their equivalent single-star case for studies of atmospheric circulation.
\subsection{Habitability of Circumbinary Planets}
\par Although the ten known circumbinary planets are all of sufficient size to be considered gaseous, we can extend our results to make certain assumptions about the potential for habitability of moons or terrestrial planets within the habitable zone of binary star systems. We conclude that circumbinary planets should not be discounted as potential hosts for life, as their atmospheres should be of a similar nature to the single-star planets we know so well, though much more work can be done in order to study any possible circulation differences of circumbinary terrestrial planet atmospheres specifically.
\subsection{Observables}
\label{obs}
\par With our growing ability to observe planetary atmospheres, it becomes interesting to consider if we could measure the temperature variations of a circumbinary planet's atmosphere. During a secondary eclipse, we are able to determine the planet's thermal emission - emission which originates from the depth in the atmosphere which we have studied in this work. Ideally, by observing several different secondary eclipses and noting the positions of the stars relative to the planet at these points, we can predict the expected temperature differences between the two events and test the predictions based on the observations.
\par In reality, we do not expect these temperature variations to be large. For Kepler 47b, the maximum temperature variations between different points in orbit are of order a few Kelvin as predicted by the GCM. This is quite far out of the reach of current ground based efforts, which have errors of 100s of Kelvin \citep{Ground_1,Ground_2}. Recent best efforts to measure thermal emission from an exoplanet using Spitzer phase curves have achieved errors of only 20-60K \citep{Knutson09, Knutson12, Maxted13,Spitzer_Wasp14,Zellem14}, but this would still not be small enough to measure the extremely small temperature differences of a circumbinary planet with any certainty. While JWST will be even more powerful than Spitzer for atmospheric characterization \citep{JWST_Conf}, it is unlikely it will have the precision necessary (only a few Kelvin) in order to definitively say whether the expected small amplitude temperature variations are present in the atmospheres of circumbinary planets.
\bibliographystyle{apj}
|
\section{Conclusion}
The original residual networks have two defects, 1) Incompatibility between \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition. 2) Difficulty for networks to converge with depths beyond 1000-layer using ``msra'' initializer. In this paper we introduce the weighted residual networks to make very deep residual networks \emph{converge faster} and reach a \emph{higher performance} with \emph{little more computation and GPU memory burden} than the original residual networks. All the residuals are added to the highway signal gradually by the learned slowly growing-up weights to promise convergence. Experiments on CIFAR-10 have demonstrated the effectiveness of the weighted residual networks for very deep models. It enjoys a consistent improvements over accuracy and convergence with the increasing depths from 100+ layers to 1000+ layers.
The weighted residual networks are simple and easy to implement while having surprising practical effectiveness, which makes it particular useful for complicated residual networks in research community and real applications.
\section{Experiments}
In this section we present and analyze the experiment results on CIFAR-10 to demonstrate the effectiveness of the weighted residual networks.
\begin{figure}[H]
\subfigure[training curve]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/train_8_55.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[test curve]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/test_8_55.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[training curve]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/train_110_1100.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[zoom in at training curve]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{0.475\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/train_110_1100_zoom.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\vspace{-0.3cm}
\caption{Comparisons of the original residual networks and the weighted residual networks on the CIFAR-10. The \texttt{bold lines} denote the weighted residual networks and the \texttt{dashed lines} denote the original residual networks. The \textbf{top left} figure is the training entropy loss and the \textbf{top right} figure is the corresponding test accuracy on shallow networks. The \textbf{bottom left} figure records the training entropy loss for very deep networks and the \textbf{bottom right} figure is the zoomed version for more details.}
\label{figure:4figure}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-1.6cm}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{figures/test_all.pdf}
\caption{Test accuracy on CIFAR-10. The original 1192-layer residual network fails to reach a meaningful result in the training stage and we do not report it.}
\label{figure:test_all}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results}
\textbf{Convergence.} Firstly we experiment on shallow networks (layer number $<$ 100). As it is shown in Figure \ref{figure:4figure}(a) and Figure \ref{figure:4figure}(b), both of the weighted residual networks and the original residual networks have very similar performance of convergence and final accuracy on shallow networks.
Then we conduct experiments on very deep networks (layer number $>$ 100). In Figure \ref{figure:4figure}(c), the weighted residual network shows much better performance on convergence in the training stage. In fact, networks with depths beyond 1000 layers still converge faster than the 112-layer networks in Figure \ref{figure:4figure}(d). As contrary, the original residual network does not converge well and the 1192-layer network even does not converge at all as we did not apply the ``warm up'' strategy. However, even equipped with ``warm up'', the original 1192-layer residual network ends with over-fitting and reaches a worse performance than the 112-layer network as it is reported in \cite{he2015deep}.
\noindent\textbf{Accuracy.} The overall test accuracy of deep networks on CIFAR-10 is reported in Figure \ref{figure:test_all}. The \texttt{blue histograms} denote the performance of the original networks. The accuracy decreases after the layer number is larger than 100. However, for the weighted residual networks, which are denoted as \texttt{yellow histograms}, the performance enjoys a consistent improvement with the increasing depths from 10+ layers to 1000+ layers.
The weighted residual networks can always \emph{converge faster} and reach a \emph{higher performance} when there are \emph{more layers} throughout our experiments.
\subsection{Comparison with the State-of-the-art}
In this subsection we compare the weighted residual networks (\textbf{WResNet}) with other recently proposed models. Mainly there are two kinds of models, first of which focus on enlarging the feature dimension and we call them \texttt{wide models}, the second of which focus on depths and we call them \texttt{deep models}. Note that 1001-layer Pre-activation \cite{he2016identity} is both deep (1000+ layers) and wide ($4\times$ feature dimension) model. The results are presented in Table \ref{table:othermodels}. All these models, except for Highway \cite{srivastava2015training}, share similar structures with ResNet \cite{he2015deep}, including three feature blocks.
\begin{table}
\caption{Test accuracy(\%) on CIFAR-10.}
\begin{tabular}{p{2.0cm}<{\centering}|p{2.2cm}<{\centering}|p{1.5cm}<{\centering}|p{2.0cm}<{\centering}|p{1.5cm}<{\centering}|p{1.5cm}<{\centering}}
\hline
Type & method & depth & feature dim. & epochs & acc.(\%) \\
\hline
&Highway & 32 & - & - & 91.2 \\
&Pre-activation & 164 & 64-128-256 & 200 & 94.5 \\
wide models &WideDim & 28 & 160-320-640 & 200 & 95.8 \\
&RiR & 18 & 96-192-384 & 82 & 95.0 \\
\hline
&ResNet & 1202 & 16-32-64 & 164 & 92.1 \\
&Pre-activation & 1001 & 64-128-256 & 200 & 95.4 \\
deep models &Dropout & 1202 & 16-32-64 & 300 & 95.1 \\
&\textbf{WResNet} & 1192 & 16-32-64 & 164 & 94.9 \\
&\textbf{WResNet-d} & 1192 & 16-32-64 & 164 & 95.3 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:othermodels}
\end{table}
Pre-activation \cite{he2016identity} adapted a \texttt{conv1-conv3-conv1} bottle-neck structure and enlarged the feature dimension by $4\times$. Apparently a $4\times$ wider model enjoys a higher performance but costs more GPU memory. As the GPU memory (12GB for one GTX TITAN X) resource is limited, it is important to tune the model width and depth economically for a very accurate model. WideDim \cite{wide2016deep} and RiR \cite{targ2016resnet} are two other methods to enlarge the feature dimension for higher accuracy. A clear tendency is that a wider feature is better for higher performance. WideDim adapted a $10\times$ feature dimension and reached a very high performance (95.8\%) on CIFAR-10. Dropout \cite{huang2016deep} realized stochastic depth networks by applying the dropout operation on the residual signal at exactly the same GPU memory cost. The only defect resides that it needs much more epochs (about $2\times$) to converge at a good performance.
The weighted residual networks make very deep networks training converge faster and reach a good performance while bringing little more computation and GPU memory burden. As time and GPU resource is limited, we have not tuned the model width (feature dim.) or more training epochs and we are meant to explore the effectiveness of the weighted residuals in \emph{training very deep models}. Yet with shorter feature dim., the weighted residual networks still perform much better than the original residual networks and reach a quite meaningful accuracy as shown in Table \ref{table:othermodels}.
We further apply dropout on the residuals with \emph{dropout\_ratio} = \{0.2,0.4,0.6\} for three blocks as proposed by \cite{huang2016deep}. The performance of this model is named as \textbf{WResNet-d}. With only about half training epochs of \cite{huang2016deep}, the weighted residual networks with dropout reach a relative very high performance (95.3\%).
\subsection{Analysis}
We provide more insights into the weighted residual networks by presenting more details information of results in this subsection.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/bar.pdf}
\caption{The residual weight values from a trained 1192-layer model on CIFAR-10.}
\label{figure:weight}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\subfigure[8k iterations]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{1\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/hist_8000.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[16k iterations]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{1\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/hist_16000.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[32k iterations]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{1\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/hist_32000.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\subfigure[64k iterations]
{
\begin{minipage}[b]{1\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/hist_64000.pdf}
\end{minipage}
}
\caption{Evolution of the distribution of the residual weight values in the training stage of a 1192-layer weighted residual network on CIFAR-10.}
\label{figure:evolution}
\end{figure}
The initial learning rate for the residual weights is set to 0.001 for all models and the residual weights are initialized with zeros. Figure \ref{figure:weight} shows the learned residual weight values in each element-wise addition layer in a 1192-layer model. It comprises two parts divided by a visible sharp boundary around the 800-layer and the latter residuals have larger weights. It may imply the residuals from the later layers are more important than earlier layers on the final decisions. We will explore this phenomenon in the future work.
We have also plotted the evolution history of the distribution of the residual weight values as show in Figure \ref{figure:evolution}. At the 8k iteration, the distribution is relative uniform. As more and more training iterations, the distribution begins to concentrate around two peaks. In the 64k iteration, most of the residual weight values are around $0.2$ and $-0.2$ in a symmetry mode indicating that the branched residual signals have equal probability to enhance/weaken the highway signals, which verifies our hypothesi. Therefore the learned residual weights can solve the incompatibility between \texttt{ReLU} activation and element-wise addition appropriately.
\section{Introduction}
The state-of-the-art model for image classification is built on inception and residual structure \cite{russakovsky2015imagenet,szegedy2016inception,he2015deep}. Lots of works devoted on residual networks are emerging recently \cite{he2016identity,targ2016resnet,huang2016deep,wide2016deep}. Very deep convolutional networks \cite{krizhevsky2012imagenet,simonyan2014very}, especially with residual units, have shown compelling accuracy and nice convergence behaviors on many challenging computer vision tasks \cite{he2015deep,dai2015instance,ren2015faster}. Since \emph{vanishing gradients} problem is well handled by batch normalization \cite{ioffe2015batch} and highway signal propagation \cite{srivastava2015training}, networks with 100+ layers are being developed and trained, even 1000+ layers structure still yields meaningful results when combined with adequate dropout as shown in \cite{huang2016deep} . He \emph{et al.} \cite{he2016identity} also introduced the pre-activation structure to allow the highway signal to be directly propagated through the very deep networks. However they seemed to harness the features with a larger dimension (4$\times$) and adapted multiple $1 \times 1$ convolutional layers to substitute $3 \times 3$ convolutional layers for convergence with 1000+ layers.
A typical convolutional unit is composed of one convolutional layer, one batch normalization layer and one \texttt{ReLU} layer, all of which are performed sequently \cite{ioffe2015batch}. For a residual unit, a central question is how to combine the residual signal and the highway signal, where element-wise addition was proposed in \cite{he2015deep}. A natural idea is to perform addition after \texttt{ReLU} activation. However, this leads to a non-negative output from residual branch, which limits the representative ability of the residual unit meaning that it can only enhance the highway signal.
He \emph{et al.} \cite{he2015deep} firstly proposed to perform addition between batch normalization and \texttt{ReLU}. In \cite{he2016identity}, they further proposed to inverse the order of the three layers, performing batch normalization and \texttt{ReLU} before convolutional layers.
The question is due to that \texttt{ReLU} activation can only generate positive value which is incompatible with element-wise addition in the residual unit.
As it is non-convex optimization to solve deep networks, an appropriate initialization is important for both faster convergence and a good local minima. The ``xavier'' \cite{glorot2010understanding} and ``msra'' \cite{he2015delving} are popular used for deep networks initialization. However, for networks with depths beyond 100 layers, neither ``xavier'' nor ``msra'' works well. The paper of \cite{he2015deep} proposed to ``warm up'' the network with small learning rate and then restore the learning rate to normal value. However, this hand-craft strategy is not that useful for very deep networks, where even a very low learning rate (0.00001) still is not enough to promise convergence and restoring the learning rate has a chance to get rid of the initial convergence \cite{szegedy2016inception}.
Generally speaking, there are two defects embedded in the training of the original residual networks
\begin{itemize}
\item Incompatibility of \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition.
\item difficutly for networks to converge with depths beyond 1000-layer using ``msra'' initializer.
\end{itemize}
The third point resides that a better mode to combine the residuals from different layers are necessary to train very deep networks. For very deep networks, not all layers are that important as 1000-layer networks often perform not much better than 100-layer networks. In fact, lots of layers serve as redundant information and very deep networks tend to over-fit on some tasks.
In this paper, we introduce the weighted residual networks, which learn to combine residuals from different layers effectively and efficiently. All the residual weights are initialized at zeros and optimized with a very small learning rate (0.001), which allows all the residual signals to gradually add to the highway signal. With a group of gradually growing-up residual weights, the 1192-layer residual networks converge even much faster than the 100-layer networks. Finally, the distribution of the learned residual weights is in a symmetry mode ranging in $[-0.5,0.5]$, which implies the incompatibility of \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition can be appropriately handled. The networks are optimized by projected stochastic gradient descent with exactly the same training epochs to original residual networks.
We conduct experiments on CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning} to verify the practicability of the weighted residual networks. Training with the weighted residual networks can \emph{converge much faster} and reach a \emph{higher performance} with \emph{negligible more computation and GPU memory cost} than the original residual networks. The weighted residual networks with depths beyond 1000 layers still converge faster than shallower networks and enjoy a consistent improvement over accuracy with increasing depths from 100+ layers to 1000+ layers without resorting to any hand-craft strategy such as ``warm up'' \cite{he2015deep}. After applying dropout on the residuals, our weighted residual networks reach a very high accuracy (95.3\%) on CIFAR-10 using a 1192-layer model with the same training epochs to the original residual networks (about 164 epochs, 64k iterations).
The contributions of our work presented in this paper have four folds:
\begin{itemize}
\item We propose the weighted residual networks, which learn to combine the residuals from each residual unit. The weighted residual networks converge much faster in the training stage and reach a higher accuracy than the original residual networks at little more computation and GPU memory cost.
\item The incompatibility of \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition can be addressed appropriately by weighted residuals and we clear all the obstacles on the information highway to allow the highway signal to enjoy a unhindered propagation.
\item The residuals are gradually added to the highway signal to make the training process more reliable, even networks with depths beyond 1000 layers can converge very fast without the ``warm up'' strategy.
\item We modify the down-sampling step to make the spatial size and feature dimension consistent between highway signal and branched residual signal, without resorting to zero-padding or extra converting matrix.
\end{itemize}
The weighted residual networks are simple and easy to implement while having surprising practical effectiveness, which makes it particular useful for complicated residual networks in research community and real applications.
\section{Weighted Residual Networks}
Firstly we will give a brief introduction to the residual networks. The residual networks build the information highway by allowing earlier feature representation to flow unimpededly and directly to the following layers \emph{without} any modification. A residual unit performs the following computation:
\begin{equation}\label{equation:start}
\ve x_{i+1} = \texttt{ReLU}(\ve x_i + \Delta L_i(\ve x_i,\theta_i))
\end{equation}
Here $\ve x_i$ is the input highway signal to the $i$-th residual unit. $\theta_i$ is the filter parameters for the residual unit and it is initialized by ``msra'', $\Delta L_i$ is the residual function, which is realized by a stack of two $3 \times 3$ convolutional layers. Typically, one convolutional layer should be followed by one batch normalization layer to keep the signal with non-zero variance and one \texttt{ReLU} layer for non-linearity activation. The highway should be clean and unhindered. As it is shown in \cite{he2016identity}, obstacles on the highway, such as constant scaling and dropout, will make the optimization difficult. A typical residual unit is depicted in Figure \ref{figure:head_2}.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/head/head_2.pdf}
\caption{Diagrammatic sketch of a residual unit. The residual function comprises of two $3 \times 3$ convolution layers. Each Convolutional layer (\texttt{Conv}) is followed by a batch normalization layer (\texttt{BN}) and a \texttt{ReLU} layer (\texttt{ReLU}). The weights of convolutional layers are initialized by ``msra''. The highway signal and the residual signal are combined by element-wise addition.}
\label{figure:head_2}
\end{figure}
The original residual networks stated above have two defects
\subsubsection*{Incompatibility of \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition.}
The highway signal and the residual signal which is produced by the residual function are combined by the element-wise addition. However, the element-wise addition is operated between the \texttt{BN} layer and the \texttt{ReLU} layer after the second \texttt{Conv} layer. This is mainly due to the \texttt{ReLU} activation function, which produces \emph{non-negative output}. The output of \texttt{ReLU} operation is not compatible with element-wise addition as it can only enhance the highway signal, which limits the representability of the residual function, which is meant to take values in $(-\infty,+\infty)$. One can of course resort to designing other activation function which can take values in a larger range or a symmetry mode around zero.
\subsubsection*{Initialization of very deep networks.}
Very deep networks with depths beyond 1000 layers, even equipped with residual structure, batch normalization and \texttt{ReLU}, still do not converge in the training stage as shown in Figure \ref{figure:4figure}. The paper of \cite{he2015deep} proposed to ``warm up'' the network training with a little learning rate for several epochs and then restore it to the normal learning rate in order to facilitate the initial convergence. However, for deeper networks, even very little learning rate may not work well \cite{szegedy2016inception}.
In very deep networks, the residuals from each block are added together and make the training hard to converge. One may want to zero all the residuals to start the training. However, \emph{the weights of the convolutional layers} in residual functions should be initialized by ``msra'' which has little probability to produce all-zero weights.
\subsection{Weighted Residuals}
To address the incompatibility of \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition and to get a better initialization for very deep networks, we introduce the weighted residual networks. Formally in a weighted residual networks unit, the computation of the signal is
\begin{equation}\label{start}
\ve x_{i+1} = \ve x_i + \lambda_i\Delta L_i(\ve x_i,\theta_i), \lambda_i \in (-1,1),
\end{equation}
where $\theta_i$ is the filter parameters and it is initialized by ``msra'' , $\lambda_i$ is the weight scalar for the residual and it is initialized by zero with a very small learning rate. The \texttt{ReLU} activation is removed from the highway and $\Delta L_i$ is realized by two \texttt{Conv-BN-RelU}s.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/head/head_1.pdf}
\caption{Diagrammatic sketch of a weighted residual unit. We move the \texttt{ReLU} from highway to the branchway, which allows the highway signal to flow unobstructedly through the very deep networks. The residual signal is weighted by a scalar which is initialized by zero in the training stage. In our experiments, the overall convergence is promised when all the residuals are gradually added to the highway signal. The weight takes values in $(-1,1)$ to overcome the limitation of the \texttt{ReLU} activation function.}
\label{figure:head_1}
\end{figure}
For any deep blocks, the feature representation $\ve x_{i+k}$ in the $(i+k)$-th layer can be expressed as a summation of the input layer representation $\ve x_i$ and a series of weighted residual functions,
\begin{equation}
\ve x_{i+k} = \ve x_i + \sum_{j=1}^{k}\lambda_{i+j}\Delta L_{i+j}(\ve x_{i+j},\theta_{i+j}), \lambda_{i+j} \in (-1,1).
\end{equation}
In the back-propagation stage, the gradient of any layer does not vanish when filter parameter $\theta_{i+j}$ is \emph{arbitrarily small}. Note that the pre-activation structure proposed in \cite{he2016identity} also has a similar property by converting the order of \texttt{Conv-BN-RelU} to \texttt{BN-RelU-Conv}.
In Figure \ref{figure:weigts_dist} we visualize the distribution of the learned residual weights in a 1192-layer model. The residual weight values range around (-0.5,0.5) in a symmetry mode, which means the branched residual signal has equal probability to enhance/weaken the highway signal, which means the incompatibility between \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition is appropriately addressed by the learned residual weights.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/hist_64000.pdf}
\caption{Distribution of the learned residual weights in a 1192-layer model.}
\label{figure:weigts_dist}
\end{figure}
\vspace{-0.8cm}
\subsection{Modification to the structure.}
At the beginning of a new block in the original residual networks, the highway signal is down-sampled by a stride-2 convolution layer while the branched residual signal also need to be halved by a stride-2 convolution layer. When performing the element-wise addition, zeros-padding or convert matrix is necessary to make a matched feature dimension between the two signals.
In our networks as it is shown in Figure \ref{figure:stride}, we directly halve the feature size at the beginning and the following layers are performed as stated in the previous sections.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth]{figures/stride/stride.pdf}
\caption{At the beginning of each new block, the feature map is halved by a \texttt{conv-3-stride-2} layer.}
\label{figure:stride}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Optimization.}
Given training images and its corresponding ground truth labels $\{I_i,y_i\}$, the loss function is the summation of the negative likelihood and the regularized term
\begin{equation}\label{loss}
\begin{split}
-\frac{1}{|\mathcal{I}|}\sum_{i \in \mathcal{I}}\log p_{y_i}(I_i,\theta,\lambda)+\frac{1}{2}||\theta||_2^2+\frac{1}{2}||\lambda||_2^2, \\
s.t. ~~each~elemenet~of~ \lambda \in (-1,1).
\end{split}
\end{equation}
where $\theta$ is the network parameters which is initialized by ``msra'', $\lambda$ is the weight vector for the residuals and is initialized by all-zeros. We apply projected \texttt{SGD} to this typical constraint optimization problem. In the $(t+1)$-th iteration, the updated $\lambda^{t+1}_i$ is projected to the convex set $S$
\begin{equation}\label{lambda}
\lambda^{t+1}_i=P_S(\lambda^t_i+\Delta\lambda^t_i)
\end{equation}
where the convex set $S=(-1,1)$ and $\Delta\lambda^t_i$ is the gradient of the loss function in Equation \ref{loss} with regard to $\lambda^t_i$, which is effectively computed by back-propagation \cite{hecht1989theory} in deep networks.
\subsection{Implementation details.}
\subsubsection*{Dataset.}
CIFAR-10 \cite{krizhevsky2009learning} is a dataset of color images all coming with the same size of $32 \times 32$, which consists of 50k training images and 10k testing image in 10 classes. We train our deep model on the \emph{train} set and evaluate the finally trained models on the \emph{test} set. We follow the same residual architecture as proposed in \cite{he2015deep}.
Our code is built on the open source deep learning framework Caffe \cite{jia2014caffe}. We use a weight decay of 0.0001 and momentum of 0.9 with batch size of 128. The initial learning rate is 0.1 without ``warm up'' for any model. The initial learning rate for residual weights is set to 0.001. The filter parameters are initialized by ``msra'' \cite{he2015delving}. The residual weights are set to all-zeros. We are not meant to push the state-of-the-art performance on CIFAR-10 so we follow the same training strategy as \cite{he2015deep}. All the models are trained for 64k iterations and the learning rate is divided by 10 at 32k and 48k iterations. We also adapt the simple data augmentation as it is shown in \cite{lee2014deeply}: 4 pixels are padded around the training images with zero-values and a translated or mirrored $32\times32$ crop is fed into the networks. We do not have \emph{val} set and the model at the end of training is used to perform on the \emph{test} set. In the test stage, the original $32\times32$ images are evaluated.
The network contains three blocks and the feature map is halved twice. There are totally $6n+4$ layers as it is shown in Table \ref{table:layers}. We compare $n=\{1, 3,9,18,48,100,198\}$, which leads to 10, 22, 58, 112, 292, 604 and 1192-layer networks.
\begin{table}[H]
\centering
\caption{Our weighted residual network comprises of three blocks similar to \cite{he2015deep}. The first block is started with a $3 \times 3$ convolutional layer with stride 1. The latter two blocks are started with a $3 \times 3$ convolutional layer with stride 2. There are $6n+4$ layers in the whole networks (with the final \texttt{FC} layer).}
\vspace{3mm}
\begin{tabular}{p{2cm}<{\centering}|p{2cm}<{\centering}|p{2cm}<{\centering}|p{2cm}<{\centering}}
\hline
feature size & 32 $\times$ 32 & 16 $\times$ 16 & 8 $\times$ 8 \\
\hline
filter number & 16 & 32 & 64 \\
\hline
layer number & 2n+1 & 2n+1 & 2n+1 \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\label{table:layers}
\end{table}
\section{Related works}
The residual networks have attracted lots of researchers and many works on it have appeared \cite{he2016identity,targ2016resnet,huang2016deep,wide2016deep,shah2016deep}. In the following paragraphs we will review some related works.
The residual networks simplify the highway networks \cite{srivastava2015training} using identity skip connection, which allows information to flow directly and bypass complex layers. The residual networks consist of many residual units. There are two information flows in a residual unit. The highway signal goes through the identity skip connection and the branched residual signal is realized by \texttt{Conv-BN-ReLU-Conv-BN}. The two flows are combined at the end of a residual unit by element-wise addition and then it goes through a \texttt{ReLU} layer for activation. This simple structure is quite powerful and achieved a surprising performance on the imageNet challenge \cite{russakovsky2015imagenet} with 150-layer networks \cite{he2015deep}.
In the original residual networks, the two flows are added up before \texttt{ReLU} activation for a numerical reason that \texttt{ReLU} can only produce \emph{non-negative output}, which means the branched residual signal can only enhance the highway signal. However, intuitively it is not a natural solution as the branched residual signal needs to be ``activated''.
He \emph{et al.} \cite{he2016identity} proposed to handle the incompatibility between \texttt{ReLU} and element-wise addition by re-arranging these layers to \texttt{BN-ReLU-Conv-BN-ReLU-Conv} and named it ``pre-activation'' structure. When applying the ``pre-activation'' structure, special attention should be taken on the first and the last residual unit of the networks.
To train ``residual'' networks, it is natural to fit on the ``residual'' only, which means when the branched residual signal is not presented, the highway signal should still make meaningful results. Under this condition, the branched residual signal can focus on fitting the ``residual'' in a residual unit. Huang \emph{et al.} \cite{huang2016deep} proposed a dropout residual network, which randomly drops the branched residual signal in each residual unit. Therefore, when the branched residual signal is presented in a residual unit, it can focus on fitting the ``residual''. As this model can be treated as an ensemble of models with different depths, they named it ``stochastic depth networks''.
In the convolutional networks, the depth and width are both important for a high performance in image classification \cite{wide2016deep,he2015deep}. The \texttt{conv1-conv3-conv1} bottleneck structure which used a feature dimension $4\times$ larger than \texttt{conv3-conv3} reached a higher performance \cite{he2016identity}. Zagoruyko \emph{et al.} \cite{wide2016deep} used \texttt{conv3-conv3} with feature dimension $10\times$ larger and reached the highest performance on CIFAR-10 (4.10\%). However, a larger feature dimension costs much more GPU memory and leads a shallower structure. There is a balance between depth and width.
In this paper, we mainly focus on models with depth beyond 100+ layers. We mean to explore how to train a very deep model effectively instead of tuning a more accurate model. |
\section{Active monitor injection to increase detection rate}
\labe{sec:active_control}
Now we consider design a sequence of active monitor injection to the control input and increase the false data alarm rate under attack. Assume the active monitor injection model is:
\begin{align}
\tilde{u}_k=u_k+\delta_k, \ k=1, 2,\cdots, T, \delta_k \in \Delta U
\label{u}
\end{align}
where $\Delta U$ is the set of feasible $\delta_k$ such that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\tilde{x}_{k+1}=A\tilde{x}_k+B\tilde{u}_k +w_k,\\
&\tilde{y}_k=C\tilde{x}_k +v_k,\\
&\text{with corresponding definition of}\ \tilde{\hat{x}}_k, \tilde{z}_k, \tilde{e}_k,
\label{actives}
\end{split}
\end{align}
$\sum \limits_{k=1}^{T} \|\tilde{y}_k - y_k\| \leq \epsilon$ (For infinite horizon injection, $T\to\infty$, $\lim \limits_{k\to \infty} \|\tilde{y}_k - y_k\| \leq \epsilon$), i.e., the normal system state state should not change much because of the control input injection $\delta_k$.
\FM{The definition of "feasible $\delta_k$" can be other constraints based on different design requirements}
When system is under attack and we apply the active monitor control input~\eqref{u}, the system model is:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\tilde{x}'[k+1]=\mathbf{A}\tilde{x}'_{k}+\mathbf{B}\tilde{u}'_{k}+\mathbf{B}^{a}\tilde{u}^{a}_{k}+w_{k},\\
&\tilde{y}'_{k}=\mathbf{C}\tilde{x}'_{k}+\Gamma y^{a}_{k}+v_{k},\\
&\text{with corresponding definition of}\ \tilde{\hat{x}}'_k, \tilde{z}'_k, \tilde{e}'_k.
\end{split}
\label{activeas}
\end{align}
Then with active monitor injection, the difference of residues between normal and attacked systems is:
\begin{align}
\Delta \tilde{z}_k = \tilde{z}'_k - \tilde{z}_k.
\end{align}
The system needs to maximize $\Delta \tilde{z}_k$ for increasing detection rate, while the deception false data injection can cause a large state error:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\max_{\delta_k} \min_{B^a, u_k^a, \Gamma, y^a_k} \quad& \sum\limits_{k=1}^{T}\|\Delta \tilde{z}_k\|_2\\
\text{subject to}\quad& ~\eqref{actives}, ~\eqref{activeas},\ \Delta \tilde{z}_k = \tilde{z}'_k - \tilde{z}_k\\
\quad& \delta_k \in \Delta U, \ k=1,2,\cdots, T,\\
\quad& \sum\limits_{k=1}^{T}\|\tilde{x}'_k - \tilde{x}_k\| \geq a
\end{split}
\label{detect}
\end{align}
In the worst case, all sensors and actuators are compromised, the problem reduces to:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\max_{\delta_k} \min_{u_k^a, y^a_k} \quad& \sum\limits_{k=1}^{T}\|\Delta \tilde{z}_k\|_2\\
\text{subject to}\quad& ~\eqref{actives}, ~\eqref{activeas},\ \Delta \tilde{z}_k = \tilde{z}'_k - \tilde{z}_k\\
\quad& \delta_k \in \Delta U, \ k=1,2,\cdots, T,\\
\quad& \sum\limits_{k=1}^{T}\|\tilde{x}'_k - \tilde{x}_k\| \geq a, \ B^a=\mathbf{I}, \Gamma=\mathbf{I},
\end{split}
\label{detect}
\end{align}
\subsection{When sensor and actuator packets are both injected}
\label{sec:actuator_inject}
We will derive the condition for a feasible coding matrix when the attacker can mount deception attacks to both sensor packets and actuator packets.
\begin{theorem}
Given an attacked system model~\eqref{attackmodel}, assume that the attacker designs a sequence of stealthy sensor and actuator data injection $(y^a_k, u^a_k), k=0,1,\dots$, that $u^a_k$ is bounded and drives the estimation error to infinity $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\Delta e_k\|_2 \to \infty$. If there exists an invertible matrix $\Sigma$ such that $y_k^a-\Sigma^{-1} y_k^a\neq 0$ for any $y_k^a$,
then after injecting $(y^a_k, u^a_k)$ the estimation residue change satisfies $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\Delta z'_k\|_2 \to \infty$, by coding sensor outputs~\eqref{sig_y} with $\Sigma$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The dynamics of change of estimation error, residuals between the normal and compromised system is described as~\eqref{delta_z},
where $y^a_k, u_k^a$ is the injected sequence to sensor and actuator packets, respectively. Since $\|\Delta z_{k+1}\|_2 \leq M$ for all $k=0, 1,\dots$, any pair of $(y^a_{k+1}, u^a_k)$ must satisfy
\begin{align}
y^a_{k+1}=-CA\Delta e_k - CBu^a_k+ \epsilon_k,\ \|\epsilon_k\|_2 \leq M.
\label{yak}
\end{align}
For bounded $u^a_k$, the injection sequence satisfies that $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|y^a_k\|_2 \to \infty$ to make sure $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\Delta e_k\|_2 \to \infty$. When coded sensor values are injected as~\eqref{sig_ya}, and the estimator decodes the value as
\begin{align*}
\tilde{y}'_k=\Sigma^{-1} Y'_k=Cx_k+v_k+\Sigma^{-1} y^a_k
\end{align*}
the coded system with the original design of Kalman filter is equivalent to be injected by a sequence of pair $(\Sigma^{-1}y^a_{k+1}, u^a_k)$. It is worth noting that the actuator data is not coded, and $u^a_k$ keeps the same for both the original and coded system.
The dynamics of the change of estimation error, residuals between the normal and compromised coded system are as following
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
&\Delta e'_{k+1} = (A-KCA) \Delta e'_{k} - K\Sigma^{-1}y^{a}_{k+1}+(B-KCB)u_k^a,\\
&\Delta z'_{k+1}=CA\Delta e'_k+ \Sigma^{-1}y^a_{k+1}+C B u^a_k.
\end{split}
\end{align*}
Without loss of generality, we assume that $\Delta e_0 =0$, then
\begin{align*}
\Delta e_k &=\sum_{j=1}^{k} (A-KCA)^{k-j} (- K y^{a}_{j}+(B-KCB)u_{j-1}^a),\\
\Delta e'_k &=\sum_{j=1}^{k} (A-KCA)^{k-j} (- K\Sigma^{-1}y^{a}_{j}+(B-KCB)u_{j-1}^a).
\end{align*}
Plug in the expression of $\Delta e'_k$ in the equation of $\Delta z'_{k+1}$, with $CBu^a_k=-y^a_{k+1}-CA\Delta e_k + \epsilon_k$, we have
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Delta z'_{k+1}=& CA\sum_{j=1}^{k} (A-KCA)^{k-j} (- K\Sigma^{-1}y^{a}_{j}\\
& +(B-KCB)u_{j-1}^a)+\Sigma^{-1}y^a_{k+1}+C B u^a_k\\
=&CA\sum_{j=1}^{k} (A-KCA)^{k-j}K(I-\Sigma^{-1})y^a_j\\
&+(\Sigma^{-1}-I) y^a_{k+1}+ \epsilon_k.
\end{split}
\label{z_uy}
\end{align}
Hence, for $\Sigma \neq I$, $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|y^a_{k+1}\|_2 \to \infty$, we have $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\Delta z'_k\|_2 \to \infty$ for $\Delta z'_k$ defined in~\eqref{z_uy}.
\end{proof}
\section{Both sensors and actuators are compromised}
A necessary condition for~\eqref{attackmodel} to cause unbounded system state $x[k]$:
\begin{theorem}[\cite{falsedata}]
The reachable region $\mathcal{R}$ is unbounded only if there exists a vector $v \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ and a matrix $L^{a} \in \mathbb{R}^{q\times n}$, such that\\
1. v is an eigenvector of $A+B^{a}L^{a}$, the corresponding eigenvalue of which is $\lambda$;\\
2. $Cv$ belongs to the column space of $\Gamma$ or $\lambda=0$.
\label{nece}
\end{theorem}
A necessary and sufficient condition for stealth attack when both sensors and actuators are attacked is provided by~\cite{accstealth}:
\begin{theorem
For the given model~\eqref{attackmodel}, there exist a non-zeros attack pair sequence $u^a_{k},y^a_{k}, k\in \{1,2, \cdots\}$ which can cause the unbounded error while maintaining a small residue condition~\ref{residue}, if and only if
\begin{align}
span\{CQ_{ca}\} \subset span\{\Gamma\}
\label{saspan}
\end{align}
where $Q_{ca}$ is the controllability matrix of the pair $(A,B^a)$.
\label{saiff}
\end{theorem}
\section{Algorithm to Compute A Coding Matrix}
\label{algorithm}
In this section we propose an algorithm to compute a set of feasible coding matrices for the case there exists a sequence of sensor data injections to cause unbounded state estimation error, i.e., the system has unstable eigenvectors of $A$.
The coded sensor values should increase the difference between estimation residue of the normal and attacked system -- $\|\Delta z'_k\|_2$ as $k \to \infty$, which is equivalent to keep $\|Cv-\Sigma^{-1} Cv\|_2$ or $\|C\tilde{v}- \Sigma^{-1}C\tilde{v}\|_2$ for multiple unstable eigenvectors nonzero, by the proof of Theorem~\ref{code} and Lemma~\ref{code_lemma}. The system satisfies that $(A, C)$ is detectable, then with an invertible coding matrix $\Sigma$ and the decoded sensor value $\tilde{y}'_k$ defined in~\eqref{y_decode}, $\tilde{y}'_k=y_k$ when $y^a_k=0$. Hence, the state estimator still converges to the true state without attacks and the coding scheme does not sacrifice the performance of state estimator.
For multiple unstable eigenvectors, when we do not know the exact linear combination result of $\tilde{v}$ applied by the attacker to design the injection sequence, we can not guarantee that $\Sigma$ works for the exact injected sequence $y^a_k$ by finding a feasible coding matrix with respect to a specific vector $v$. According to Theorem~\ref{code} and Lemma~\ref{code_lemma}, the coding matrix should work for any possible injection sequence $y^a_k$ designed based on unstable eigenvectors of the system matrix $A$. Hence, we consider to find a coding matrix based on the concept of a rotation matrix without specific knowledge about the value of injected data to sensors.
\begin{definition}
A Givens rotation is a $n\times n$ rotation matrix, with $1$'s on the diagonal, $0$'s elsewhere, except the intersections of the $i$th and $j$th rows and columns corresponding to a rotation in the $(i,j)$ plane in $n$ dimensions. It takes the following form
\begin{align}
G(i,\ j,\ \theta)=\begin{bmatrix}1&\cdots&0&\cdots&0&\cdots&0\\ \vdots &\ddots &\vdots& &\vdots& &\vdots \\
0&\cdots & c &\cdots & -s & \cdots &0 \\ \vdots & &\vdots&\ddots&\vdots& &\vdots \\
0&\cdots&s&\cdots&c&\cdots&0 \\ \vdots& &\vdots& &\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\ 0&\cdots&0&\cdots&0&\cdots&1
\end{bmatrix},
\label{grotate}
\end{align}
where $c=\cos \theta$, $s=\sin \theta $.
\end{definition}
The product $G(i,j,\theta) x$ represents a counterclockwise rotation of the vector $x\in \mathbb{R}^p$ in the $i,j$ plane of $\theta$ radians. Hence, only the $i$-th and $j$-th elements of $x$ will be changed. Given system model~\eqref{system}, there are multiple ways to choose a rotation matrix as a coding matrix in general. If a rotation matrix can guarantee that the direction of any possible stealthy injection is changed, it must rotate all nonzero elements in the vector space
\begin{align}
span(Cv_1, \dots, Cv_u)
\label{inject_space}
\end{align}
The following algorithm provides a design process of a rotation matrix given system matrix $A$.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{\textbf{: Compute a feasible coding matrix $\Sigma$}}
\textbf{Input}: System model parameters $A,C$, unstable eigenvalues and eigenvectors $\lambda_i, v_i,\ i=1,\dots, u$ of $A$.
\\\textbf{Initialization}: Calculate vectors $Cv_i \in \mathbb{R}^p$ for all unstable eigenvectors $i=1,\dots, u$. Construct the standard basis $(e_{p_1},\ e_{p_2}, \dots, e_{p_l})$, $e_{p_j} \in \mathbb{R}^p$ for the vector space defined as~\eqref{inject_space}, where $1\leq p_1 < p_2 \dots < p_l \leq p$, and $e_{p_j}$ is a vector with the $p_j$-th element as $1$ and all the other elements as $0$. Define rotation step as $r=1$, uncovered unstable dimension set as $S=\{p_1, p_2,\dots, p_l\}$.
\\\textbf{Iteration}: When $S\neq \phi $\\
If more than two elements are left in the set $S$: randomly picking up a rotation radian $\theta \in (0, \frac{\pi}{2}]$, rotation dimension $p_i, p_j \in S$, let $S=S\setminus \{p_i, p_j\}$;\\
Else: randomly picking a rotation radian $\theta \in (0, \frac{\pi}{2}]$ with uniform distribution, rotation dimension $p_i\in S$, $ p_j \in \{1,\dots,p \}$ and $p_j \neq p_i$, let $S=S\setminus \{p_i\}$. \\
Get the rotation matrix $G_r=G(p_i,p_j,\theta)$ as defined in~\eqref{grotate}.
Let $r=r+1$.
\\\textbf{Return}: A feasible transform matrix $\Sigma = G_1 G_2 \dots G_r$.
\label{calculate_g}
\end{algorithm}
The existence condition of a feasible coding matrix designed as a rotation matrix is then explained in the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}
When the dimension of matrix $C$ of the system~\eqref{system} satisfies that $p \geq 2$, there always exists a feasible givens rotation matrix $\Sigma$ that satisfies the condition of Theorem~\ref{code} or Lemma~\ref{code_lemma} for the system.
\label{exist}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
According to the definition of a Givens matrix~\eqref{grotate} and the process of calculating a feasible rotation matrix, when $p \geq 2$, we apply Algorithm~\ref{calculate_g}. Since every rotation has an angle $\theta \in (0,\ \frac{\pi}{2}]$ and there are no two rotations in the same plane, vector $\Sigma Cv$ is not in the same direction with $Cv$. Hence, Algorithm~\ref{calculate_g} provides a feasible rotation matrix.
\end{proof}
The coding scheme proposed in this work is a low cost approach from computation perspective. Specifically, the proposed coding scheme requires only $O(n^3+p^3)$ multiplications and additions, where n and p denote the number of plant states and sensors respectively. As we clarify now in the new version of the manuscript (in Section IV), this is significantly lower than the computation cost for even basic encryption and coding schemes that involve computation of highly complex non-linear primitives~\cite{foundation_encrypt,encrypt_sensor,correct_code1977}.
The coding scheme proposed in this work is also a low cost approach from communication perspective. The coding scheme proposed in this work does not require additional bits for each plaintext message of the sensor measurements, while an encryption method introduces communication overhead for each sensor message transmitted in the communication channel~\cite{encrypt_key}. The sensor outputs coding approaches proposed in this work aim to change the value transmitted over the communication channel instead of correcting errors on bit level compared with error-correcting additional coding bits~\cite{correct_code1977}. Hence, the communication overhead of the proposed scheme in this work is relatively low.
\begin{remark}
The rotation matrix $\Sigma$ calculated by Algorithm~\ref{calculate_g} is a sparse matrix in general, since a rotation matrix has many $0$ elements, and Algorithm~\ref{calculate_g} is a polynomial heuristic algorithm. This means the coding process is computationally efficient.
\end{remark}
For systems with structural constraints, two potential schemes can be considered. One is that the structure of $\Sigma$ is also limited and we design a coding matrix $\Sigma$ with an additional constraint that some components $\Sigma$ must be $0$ because of the sparsity of the sensors the system equipped with. Another scheme is distributed coding that multiple coding matrices are applied for the whole system. This is a revenue for future work.
\section{Appendix}
\label{appendix}
\textit{Proof of Theorem~\ref{code}}
\begin{proof}
Assume the vector $y^{*}$ satisfies $y^{*} =Cv$
$v$ is a reachable state of the controllability matrix associated with (A-KCA, K), Collarary~\ref{stealth_fi} holds, so there exists a sequence of injections $y^{a}_0, ..., y^{a}_{n-1}$, such that:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta e_{k+1} = (A-KCA) \Delta e_{k} - Ky^{a}_{k+1},
\Delta e_{n-1}=v,
\end{split}
\label{ya}
\end{align}
where $n$ is the dimension of state space.
Define
\footnotesize
\begin{align*}
M=\max_{k=0,\dots,n-1}\|\Delta z_k\|, y^a_{n+i}=y^a_i -\lambda^{i+1}y^*, i=0,1,\dots,
\end{align*}
\normalsize
it is shown by~\cite{false_injection} that $\|\Delta z_{n+i}\| =\|\Delta z_i\| \leq M, i=0,1,\dots$ for the system before sensor output transformation.
Considering an invertible matrix $\Sigma$, let
\begin{align}
\Delta y=\Sigma Cv-y^*, y*=a Cv, \forall a\in \mathbb{R}.
\label{delta_y}
\end{align}
With the condition~\eqref{Sigma_c}, $\Sigma Cv-Cv \neq 0$ implies $\Sigma Cv- aCv\neq 0$.
Thus $\Delta y \neq 0$ holds if $\Sigma$ satisfies Theorem 2.
When the attacker
injects the above stealth sequence $y^a_k, k=0,1,\dots$ to $Y_k$ of~\eqref{sig_y},
for the coded sensor output system, $\Delta e'_0=-K'y^a_0$,
the dynamics of $\Delta e'_k, \Delta z'_k$ satisfy:
\footnotesize
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta e'_{k+1} = \tilde{A} \Delta e'_{k} - K'y^{a}_{k+1},\Delta z'_{k+1}=\Sigma CA\Delta e'_k+ y^a_k,\\
& \Delta e'_{n-1}= v+\Delta v,\tilde{A}=A-K'\Sigma CA,
\end{split}
\label{ez}
\end{align}
\normalsize
where $n$ is the dimension of state space.
Note that $n$ is a finite number, and the injection $y^a_k$ are finite in the first $n-1$ steps, thus both
$\Delta e'_k, \Delta z'_k$ are finite in the first $n-1$ steps.
In the following proof, we will show that when $\Delta y \neq 0$, $\Delta z'_k$ will increase as $k$ goes to infinity.
We start from calculating $\Delta e'_k$ and get $\Delta z'_k$ according to~\eqref{ez}. Since $\lambda, v$ is an eigenvalue and corresponding eigenvector of $A$, we plug in
$Av=\lambda v$, $K'\Sigma CAv=\lambda K'\Sigma Cv$
in the following proof. For $k=n$ and $k=n+1$, $\Delta e'_k$ satisfies:
\footnotesize
\begin{align*}
\Delta e'_n
=&\tilde{A} \Delta e'_{n-1} - K'y^{a}_{n}
=\Delta e'_{0}+\lambda v +\tilde{A}\Delta v-\lambda K'\Delta y,\\
\Delta e'_{n+1
=&\Delta e'_{1} +\lambda^2 v-\lambda^2 K' \Delta y
+\tilde{A}^2\Delta v-\lambda\tilde{A} K'\Delta y.
\end{align*}
\normalsize
Next we show equation~\eqref{delta_e} holds for $i=0,1,2,\dots$:
\footnotesize
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Delta e'_{n+i}
=&\Delta e'_{i} +\lambda^{i+1} v-\lambda^{i+1} K'\Delta y
+\tilde{A}^{i+1}\Delta v-\lambda\tilde{A}^i K' \Delta y,
\end{split}
\label{delta_e}
\end{align}
\normalsize
The above equation~\eqref{delta_e} is true for $i=0$, by induction, assume~\eqref{delta_e} holds for $i$, then for $i+1$, we have:
\footnotesize
\begin{align*}
\Delta e'_{n+i+1}
&=\tilde{A} \Delta e'_{n+i} - K'y^{a}_{n+i+1}
=\tilde{A}\Delta e'_{n+i} - K'y^{a}_{i+1}+\lambda^{i+2} K'y^*\\
&=\tilde{A} \Delta e'_{i} - K'y^{a}_{i+1}+\lambda^{i+2}K'y^*
+\tilde{A}\lambda^{i+1} v+\tilde{A}\lambda^{i+1} K' \Delta y\\
&\ \ +\tilde{A}^{i+2}\Delta v-\lambda\tilde{A}^{i+1} K' \Delta y \\
&=\Delta e'_{i+1} +\lambda^{i+2}v-\lambda^{i+2} K' \Delta y
+\tilde{A}^{i+2}\Delta v
-\lambda\tilde{A}^{i+1} K' \Delta y.
\end{align*}
\normalsize
Thus we prove that~\eqref{delta_e} holds for $i=0,1,\dots$.
Then plug~\eqref{delta_e} into~\eqref{ez} to calculate $\Delta z'_{n+i}$, we have:
\footnotesize
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
&\Delta z'_{n+i}
=\Delta z'_{i}-\lambda^{i}\Sigma CAK' \Delta y
+\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{i}\Delta v
-\lambda\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{i-1} K' \Delta y,
\end{split}
\end{align*}
\normalsize
and this shows the relation between $\Delta z'_{n+i}$ and $\Delta z'_{i}$. To show how $\Delta z'_{n+i}$ changes when $i$ goes to infinity, we compare $\Delta z'_{n+i}$ with
$\Delta z'_j$, $0\leq j\leq n-1$ in the following proof.\\
Let $n+i=kn+j, k \geq 1, 0\leq j\leq n-1,$
then:
\footnotesize
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
\Delta z'_{kn+j
=&\Delta z'_{(k-1)n+j}-\lambda^{(k-1)n+j}\Sigma CAK' \Delta y\\
&+\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{(k-1)n+j}\Delta v
-\lambda\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{(k-1)n+j-1} K' \Delta y\\
=&\Delta z'_{j}-\sum\limits_{t=0}^{k-1}[\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{tn+j}\Delta v
-\lambda\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{tn+j-1} K' \Delta y]\\
&-\sum\limits_{t=0}^{k-1}\lambda^{tn+j}\Sigma CAK' \Delta y.
\end{split}
\label{deltaz_inf}
\end{align*}
\normalsize
For $0\leq j \leq n-1$, $\|\Delta z'_j\|$ is bounded.
Under the condition $(A,\Sigma C)$ is detectable, a steady state Kalman filter exists. When we design a steady state kalman filter gain matrix $K'$ for the transformed observer space, such that $\tilde{A}=A-K'\Sigma CA$ is a stable matrix, the last term satisfies:
\begin{center}
$\|\sum\limits_{t=0}^{k-1}[\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{tn+j}\Delta v
-\lambda\Sigma CA\tilde{A}^{tn+j-1} K'\Delta y]\|_2\leq b$,
\end{center}
where b is some constant scalar.
When $\Sigma CAK' \Delta y \neq 0$, with the unstable eigenvalue $\lambda$ satisfying $\|\lambda\|_2 \geq 1$, we have:
\begin{center}
$\|\sum\limits_{t=0}^{k-1}\lambda^{tn+j}\Sigma CAK' \Delta y\|_2 \to \infty \ as\ k\to\infty$.
\end{center}
Under the condition $\Sigma Cv$ is not parallel with $Cv$, when $y*=\epsilon Cv$, $\epsilon \in \mathbb{R}$, we guarantee that $\Delta y =\Sigma Cv-y* \neq 0$.
\end{proof}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:conclusion}
In this work, we have proposed a method of coding sensor outputs to detect stealthy data injection attacks that designed by an intelligent attacker with system model knowledge. We show the conditions of a feasible coding scheme to detect a stealthy injection sequence with statistical detectors, and develop an efficient algorithm to compute such feasible coding matrices. The sensor coding scheme is valid for the scenarios where the attacker is capable to estimate the coding matrix via measuring sensor outputs and actuator inputs. Simulation examples show that the adaptive injection sequence designed based on an estimated coding matrix cannot pass the detector without knowledge of the coding matrix applied by the system in general. In the future, we will explore a coding scheme for a system with structural constraints.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}
Cyber-physical systems (CPSs) integrate computation and communications to interact with physical processes. Many applications are considered as CPSs, including high confidence medical devices, energy conservation, environmental control, and safety critical infrastructures--such as water supply systems, electric power, and communication systems~\cite{cps}. Therefore, security is a critical aspect of these systems, and CPSs involve additional challenges in control layer. The problem of secure control is defined, and reasons for mechanisms of information security, sensor network security alone are not sufficient for the security of CPSs are analyzed~\cite{secure_control}.
The key challenges of CPSs securities are summarized in~\cite{secure_challenge}.
Novel attack-detection algorithms in cyber security area can be designed, by understanding how attacks affect state estimation and control of the system. Two algorithms to maximize the utility of encrypted devices placed to increase system security are proposed to reduce the cost of communication cost in power grids~\cite{sa_protection}. Tools are developed to protect state-estimation components from stealthy attacks from an intelligent attacker with a partial model of the system~\cite{cs_se}.
Researchers have explored fault detection, isolation and reconfiguration (FDIR) methods to ensure systems' safety and robustness~\cite{survey_fault}. Although active techniques have been designed to tackle various types of attacks, fundamental limitations still exist~\cite{limit_activedetection}. With a limited number of sensor and actuator compromised by the attacker, i.e., some elements of the injection vector is restricted to be zero, resilient state estimators have been designed by previous work. Fawzi et al.\ propose estimation and control schemes of noise free linear systems~\cite{est-control}. Pajic et al.\ present a robust state estimation method in presence of attacks to no more than half of the sensors for systems with noise and modeling errors~\cite{arse}. In contrast, we examine a different case where the attacker can inject an arbitrary vector to the communication between sensors and the estimator/detector/controller component, thus no element of the injection vector is constrained to be zero.
The monitoring system can detect malicious behaviors in general. Coding and decoding schemes to estimate the state of a scalar stable stochastic linear system with noisy measurements are designed in~\cite{Dey_estcode}. A distributed methodology for detecting and isolating multiple sensor faults in interconnected CPS is proposed in~\cite{Reppa_fd}. A class of false data injection attacks against state estimators in power grid is analyzed in~\cite{fdi_PowerGrids}. Sequential detection techniques of sensor networks are discussed in~\cite{Nay_sd}. Miao et al.\ design stochastic game approaches for replay attacks detections~\cite{game_replay} and secure control of CPSs~\cite{Miao_game}.
However, with knowledge of the system model, an intelligent cyber attacker is able to carefully design a data injection sequence, such that the state estimation error increases without triggering the alarm of the monitor~\cite{false_injection},~\cite{accstealth}. Manandhar et al.\ design the Euclidean detector to overcome the limitation of $\chi^2$ detector for fault detection in smart grid~\cite{Mana_kffd}. However, the design of Euclidean detector is based on the voltage signal model of smart grid and whether it works for a general linear system model has not been shown yet. In this work, we consider the detection problem of false data injection attacks for a general linear system model. To address the computational overhead of encryptions on embedded architectures~\cite{encrypt_sensor}, we propose an alternative low cost method to code the sensor measurements for detection. With the coding scheme, no additional detector is required for the system to detect stealthy data injected by an attacker with the knowledge of system model. Compared with error-correcting coding schemes~\cite{correct_code1977}, the sensor outputs coding approaches proposed in this work aim to change the value transmitted over the communication channel instead of correcting errors on bit level. Moreover, the coding scheme proposed in this work does not require additional bits for each plaintext message of the sensor measurements, while an encryption method introduces communication overhead for each sensor message transmitted in the communication channel~\cite{encrypt_key}. We assume that the coding matrix is distributed between sensors and the estimator/detector of the system correctly like an secret encryption key~\cite{encrypt_sn}, and measurement of individual sensor is not corrupted before coded. With the coding matrix, the values sent over the communication channel are changed, without additional bits for encryption overhead~\cite{correct_code1977}, and the scheme is low-cost compared with the scheme of encrypting all sensor outputs.
The contributions of this work are summarized as follows:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The main contribution of this work is a low cost method of coding sensor outputs to detect stealthy false data injection attacks.
We show that the system can detect the original stealthy sensor injections by coding the sensor outputs according to certain conditions.
\item We also design an algorithm to compute such coding matrices, and show that in general, multiple feasible coding matrices exist.
\item When the attacker can estimate the coding scheme according to several measurements of sensor and actuator values, we show that it is difficult to get the exact coding matrix in general. Moreover, in this case, the system can either change a new coding matrix or randomly use a set of coding matrices within a time length before the attacker has enough measurements for a good estimation. We design a heuristic algorithm to decide the time length of updating a coding matrix.
\end{enumerate}
The paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{sec:prob} we describe the system and attack models. The conditions that a feasible coding matrix should satisfy are presented in Section~\ref{sec:stealth}. An algorithm to find a feasible coding matrix based on rotation matrix is developed in Section~\ref{algorithm}. A time-varying coding scheme is designed in Section~\ref{Sig_t}. Section~\ref{sec:simulation} shows illustrative examples. Conclusions are given in Section~\ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{System And Attack Model}
\label{sec:prob}
\begin{figure}[b!]
\vspace{-8pt}
\centering
\includegraphics [width=0.38\textwidth]{system_1.pdf}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{System diagram, where the system is equipped with an estimator, a detector and a controller. The attacker can inject arbitrary false data vector $y^a_k$ to sensor outputs and $u^a_k$ to actuator inputs.}
\label{fig_sys}
\end{figure}
We will introduce a discrete-time linear time-invariant (LTI) system model, a data injection attack model, and the attacked system model in this section.
The system architecture is shown in Figure~\ref{fig_sys}.
\iffalse The choice of linear controller does not affect the design of detection method in the following sections, and without loss of generality we can consider the optimal LQG controller as an example in the system diagram. \fi
\subsection{Linear system model}
\label{sys_model}
Assume that the CPS is composed of a discrete time LTI system with the following form:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
x_{k+1}=Ax_{k}+Bu_{k}+w_{k},\quad
y_{k}=Cx_{k}+v_{k},
\end{split}
\label{system}
\end{align}
where $x_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{n}$ is the system state vector, $u_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{m}$ is the control input, and $y_{k} \in \mathbb{R}^{p}$ is the sensor observations at time $k$. We do not have specific restrictions for the linear control input $u_k$ here, since the choice of a linear controller does not affect the detection of false data injection, and we will explain the reason later. We assume that $w_{k}\sim N(0,Q)$ and $v_{k}\sim N(0,R)$ are identical independent (i.i.d.) Gaussian noises.
The optimal Kalman filter used to estimate state $\hat{x}_{k|k}$ is:
\begin{align*}
&\hat{x}_{0|-1}=0,\ \ P_{0|-1}=\Theta,
P_{k+1|k}=AP_kA^T+Q,\\
&K_{k+1}=P_{k+1|k}C^T(CP_{k+1|k}C^T+R)^{-1},\\
&P_{k+1}=(I-K_{k+1}C)P_{k+1|k},\\
&z_{k+1}=y_{k+1}-C(A\hat{x}_ {k}+Bu_k),\\
&\hat{x}_{k+1|k}=A\hat{x}_k+Bu_k,\quad
\hat{x}_{k+1}=\hat{x}_{k+1|k}+K_kz_{k+1}.
\end{align*}
Under the assumption that $(A,B)$ is stabilizable, $(A,C)$ is detectable, we get a steady state Kalman filter, with the error covariance matrix $P$ and Kalman gain matrix $K$:
\begin{align*}
P \triangleq \lim \limits_{k \to \infty} P_{k|k-1}, K\triangleq PC^T(CPC^T+R)^{-1}.
\end{align*}
Without attacks, the estimation residue $z_{k}$ follows a Gaussian distribution $N\sim (0, CPC^{T}+R)$.
Define the quantities $g_{k}$ as
$g_{k}=z_{k}^{T}P^{-1}z_{k}$,
where $P$ is the error covariance matrix of Kalman filter, then $g_k$ satisfies a $\chi^{2}$ distribution with $p$ degrees of freedom. A $\chi^{2}$ failure detector considers the standardized residue sequence
$\eta_{k}= P^{-\frac{1}{2}}z_{k}$
for a monitoring system, and assumes that there exists a $\delta_{\eta}$ such that
$\lim_{k\to \infty} \|E{\eta_{k}}\| \leq \delta_{\eta}.$
We denote $\alpha$ as the threshold for detecting a fault, meaning that the alarm is triggered when $g_{k}> \alpha.$
\subsection{False data injection attack model}
The system model under sensor data injection attack is described as~\eqref{attackmodel}
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
x'_{k+1}&=Ax'_{k}+B(u'_k+u^a_k)+w_{k}, \\
y'_{k}&=Cx'_{k}+y^{a}_{k}+v_{k},
\end{split}
\label{attackmodel}
\end{align}
where $y^a_k \in \mathbb{R}^p$, $u^a_k \in \mathbb{R}^m$ are arbitrary vectors injected to sensor outputs, actuator inputs by the attacker at time $k$ respectively. When $u^a_k=0$, only sensor values are changed by the attacker.
Assume the adversary has knowledge of the system model described in Section~\ref{sys_model}, and is able to inject data over communication network between sensors and the estimator/detector/controller.
\iffalse
In particular, $y^a_k \in \mathbb{R}^m$ is an arbitrary vector designed by the attacker and no element is restricted to be zero.
\footnote{An attack model restricting attacks on some sensors and actuators is:
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
x'_{k+1}=Ax'_{k}+Bu'_{k}+B^{a}u^{a}_{k}+w_{k},
y'_{k}=Cx'_{k}+C^a y^{a}_{k}+v_{k},
\end{split}
\end{align*}
where $C^a=diag(c^a_{1},\dots, c^a_{p})$, $c^a_{i}=1$ if the $i$-th sensor can be compromised, $y^{a}_{k}$ is the bias introduced by the attacker. Similarly, $B^{a}=diag(b^a_{1},\dots, b^a_{m})$, $b^a_j=1$ if the attacker inject to the $j$-th actuator.}
\fi
Without attack, according to the system dynamics and the definition of Kalman filter, the estimation error is
\begin{align*}
&e_{k} \triangleq x_k-\hat{x}_k,\\
&e_{k+1} = (A-KCA) e_{k}-Kv_k+ (I-KC)w_k.
\end{align*}
When matrix $(A-KCA)$ is stable and $\mathbb{E}w_k=\mathbb{E}v_k=0$, the expectation of estimation error converges to $0$ with a static Kalman filter, i.e., $\lim_{k\to\infty} \mathbb{E}[e_k]\to 0$. Meanwhile, the residual $z_k$ stays in the subspace that does not trigger the alarm with a high probability.
To illustrate how the sensor injection sequence $y^a_k$ will affect the estimation and monitoring system, we examine how the estimation error and residue will change with $y^a_k$. Denote the estimation residuals of attacked system as
\begin{align*}
z'_{k}=y'_{k+1}-C(A\hat{x}'_ {k}+Bu'_k),
\end{align*}
where $\hat{x}'_{k}$ is the state estimation of the compromised system. Similarly, we define the estimation error under attack as
\begin{align*}
e'_{k} \triangleq x'_k-\hat{x}'_k,
\end{align*}
The probability that the sensor injection sequence $y^a_k,\ k=0,1,\dots$ is detectable is given by
\begin{align*}
Pr(g'_{k}=(z'_{k})^{T}P^{-1}z'_{k} >\alpha \ \text{for any}\ k).
\end{align*}
The difference between the normal and the compromised systems can be captured by:
\begin{align}
\Delta e_{k} \triangleq e'_{k}-e_{k}, \quad \Delta z_{k} \triangleq z'_{k}-z_{k}.
\label{e}
\end{align}
The dynamics of the above difference vectors satisfy
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta e_{k+1} = (A-KCA) \Delta e_{k} - Ky^{a}_{k+1}+(B-KCB)u_k^a,\\
&\Delta z_{k+1}= CA\Delta e_k+ y^a_k+CBu_k^a,
\end{split}
\label{delta_z}
\end{align}
Hence the difference vectors between normal and compromised systems, $\Delta z_{k}(y^{a}, u^a), \Delta e_{k}(y^{a},u^a)$, are functions of the injection sequences $y^{a}\triangleq (y^{a}_0, y^{a}_1,\dots)$, $u^a \triangleq(u^a_0, u^a_1,\dots)$.
To simplify the notations, we concisely denote these vectors as $\Delta z_{k}, \Delta e_{k}$, respectively.
The objectives of the attacker include increasing the estimation error $e'_k$ without triggering the alarm, and destabilizing the system with infinite state estimation error $e'_k$ in the long run. Note that these types of attacks on control systems have been illustrated in the recent years. For instance, the estimated trajectories of Unmanned Ground Vehicle (UGV)~\cite{arse} and Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) navigation systems~\cite{accstealth} under stealthy data injection attacks (e.g., by GPS spoofing) deviate from the actual trajectories of the autonomous vehicles before being detected. Thus the attacker's objective is equivalent to increasing $\|\Delta e_k\|_2$ (the difference between estimation error of the normal and compromised systems) to infinity without increasing $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ much as time goes by. Since computing the detecting statistic of compromised system $g'_{k}$ is to integrate a Gaussian distribution on an ellipsoid, the stealthy requirement can be approximated by keeping $\|z'_k\|_2$ small. Residues of the normal system $z_k$ are bounded, and the attacker should keep the change of residues bounded make the injection stealthy. It means the following inequality should hold
\begin{align}
\|\Delta z_{k}\|_2 \leq M,
\label{residue}
\end{align}
where $M$ is a residue norm change threshold designed by the attacker. The compromised estimation residue should be close to that of the normal system, to deceive the monitoring system.
\footnote{The relation between the scale or norm of the injection sequence and the alarm trigger threshold $\alpha$ is shown in Theorem 1 in~\cite{accstealth}.}
When $y^{a}_k$ can be an arbitrary vector, a necessary and sufficient condition for a stealthy injection $y^a_k$ that can increase $\|e'_k\|_2$, $\|x'_k\|_2$ to infinity while keep $\|z'_k\|_2$, $\|\Delta z_{k}\|_2$ bounded is derived in~\cite{accstealth},~\cite{false_injection}. The condition that $Cv \in span (I)$, i.e., there exists $y^{*}$ satisfying $y^{*} =Cv$ is always satisfied by the attack model~\eqref{attackmodel}. Hence, we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition
There exists a stealthy sequence $y^a_k, k=0, 1, \dots,$ given the attacked system model~\eqref{attackmodel}, if and only if matrix $A$ has an unstable eigenvalue $\lambda$ and the corresponding eigenvector $v$, such that
$v \in span (Q_{oa})$, where $Q_{oa}$ is the controllability matrix associated with the pair $(A-KCA, K)$.
\label{stealth_fi}
\end{proposition}
\section{Redundant Controller/Sensor}
\subsection{random select controller/sensor}
Assume we have m controllers $(C_{1}, ..., C_{M})$, each designed by some stable or optimal requirement, not necessarily resilient for attack. The advantage of redundant controllers/sensors is : random pick controller can decrease the probability that the active controller is included in the nonzero element of $B^{a}, \Gamma$ (or the disclosure/disruption resource of the system,~\cite{attackmodel}).
\textbf{Can we apply "access key" for actuators and sensors that every step only some keys are feasible?}
Consider an extreme case, at time k, the system uniformly pick one active controller and the attacker also uniformly pick one controller to compromise, no false data injection to sensors ($\Gamma = 0$), then the probability that the active controller is safe is $P=1-\mathbf{C}_{m}^{1}\times \frac{1}{m^{2}} = 1-\frac{1}{m}$, and actually we have $B^{a}=0$. The necessary condition for the existence of unbounded reachable region is:\\
1. v is an eigenvector of $A$, the corresponding eigenvalue of which is $\lambda$;\\
2. $Cv=0$ or $\lambda=0$.
Note that this depends on the system model~\eqref{system}, if the system is observable, then with at least probability $P = 1-\frac{1}{m}$ (since the theorem is a necessary condition) there is no attack $\zeta^{a}$ satisfies : $\|z\|_{k} \leq 1$ and $\lim_{k \to \infty} \|x\|=\infty$, which means the attacker must take a risk to be detected if it wants to bring large bias to the system.
\section{How to define the probability of }
\section{Both Sensors and Actuators are vulnerable}
\label{sec:sen_act}
\begin{definition}
A Givens rotation is a $n\times n$ rotation matrix, with $1$'s on the diagonal, $0$'s elsewhere, except the intersections of the $i$th and $j$th rows and columns corresponding to a rotation in the $(i,j)$ plane in $n$ dimensions. It takes the following form
\begin{align}
G(i,\ j,\ \theta)=\begin{bmatrix}1&\cdots&0&\cdots&0&\cdots&0\\ \vdots &\ddots &\vdots& &\vdots& &\vdots \\
0&\vdots & c &\cdots & -s & \cdots &0 \\ \vdots & &\vdots&\ddots&\vdots& &\vdots \\
0&\cdots&s&\cdots&c&\cdots&0 \\ \vdots& &\vdots& &\vdots&\ddots&\vdots \\ 0&\cdots&0&\cdots&0&\cdots&1
\end{bmatrix},
\end{align}
where $c=\cos \theta$, $s=\sin \theta $ appear
\end{definition}
The dynamics of change of estimation error, residuals between the normal and compromised system is
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta e_{k+1} = (A-KCA) \Delta e_{k} - Ky^{a}_{k+1},\\
&\Delta z_{k+1}=CA\Delta e_k+ y^a_k,
\end{split}
\end{align}
\subsection{When Sensor Networks Have Structural Constraints}
\section{Coding Sensor Outputs For Detecting Stealth Sensor Data Injection}
\label{sec:stealth}
Existing statistical detectors, active monitor schemes (design some additive control input $u^d_k$) and fault detection filters have limitations, that even actuators are not compromised, they cannot detect stealthy sensor data injection attacks. It is necessary to design some inexpensive techniques to compensate for the vulnerability of the system under intelligent sensor data injection attacks. It has been shown that by only compromising sensors, attackers can induce infinite estimation error without being detected under monitoring systems like a
$\chi^2$ detector~\cite{accstealth}. Therefore, we first discuss the case of stealthy sensor false data injection attacks in this section.
\subsection{Limitations of existing approaches
\textbf{The limitation of active monitor approach}:
Under the assumption that actuators work appropriately for the attacked system~\eqref{attackmodel}, the challenge here is whether adding $u^d_k$ to the pre-designed linear control input $u_k$ (such as optimal LQG control) can help to detect stealthy sensor data injections.
For instance, consider a new control input
\begin{align}
\tilde{u}_k=u_k+u^d_k,
\label{ud}
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{align}
where $u^d_k$ is some random authentication signal or a constant value. It is worth noting that active monitor approaches do not help for detecting sensor data injection attacks described in model~\eqref{attackmodel} .
\begin{lemma}
There exists no active monitor in the form~\eqref{ud} that can increase the detection probability of a stealthy sensor data injection sequence, for the system~\eqref{system} equipped with a Kalmen Filter and a $\chi^2$ detector.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We denote the difference between estimation residual and estimation error of the normal and compromised system for the system with the controller~\eqref{ud} as $\Delta \tilde{z}_{k+1}$ and $\Delta \tilde{e}_{k+1}$, respectively. By the definition of $\Delta \tilde{z}_{k+1}$ and $\Delta \tilde{e}_{k+1}$ and a similarly calculation process to get~\eqref{delta_z}, we have
$\Delta \tilde{e}_{k}=\Delta {e}_{k}$, and $\Delta \tilde{z}_{k+1}=CA \Delta \tilde{e}_k+y^a_{k+1}+CBu^a_k$.
Any additional control input $u^d_k$ will be eliminated by the deduction of $\tilde{z}_{k+1}$ and $\tilde{z}'_{k+1}$ to get $\Delta z_{k+1}$.
The active control input does not increase the norm of $\Delta \tilde{z}_{k+1}$ compared with $\Delta z_{k+1}$, which means there exists no linear form of $\tilde{u}_k$ as described above that can increase $\|\Delta z_{k+1}\|_2$ under $y^a_k$ for the system~\eqref{attackmodel}.
\end{proof}
The limitations of active monitors for a unified LTI model are explained in Theorem 4.7 of~\cite{limit_activedetection}
\footnote{A different case when adding exogenous Gaussian distribution control input can detect replay attacks is discussed in~\cite{replay}.}.
From this perspective, different linear controllers are equivalent under stealth sensor data injection attacks, and we do not restrict the controller model for designing our detection techniques.
\textbf{The limitation of fault detection filter}:
Besides Kalman filter, observer-based fault detection filters for LTI systems with unknown error have been developed. The design requirements usually include robustness to unknown inputs and sensitivity to faults.
\iffalse therefore, we examine the usual type of fault detection filter for the stealth described by~Theorem~\ref{stealth_fi}. \fi
Such filters generate a different residue from $z_k$ of Kalman filter. Consider the following form of residual generator and residual evaluator (including a threshold and a decision logic unit, see~\cite{fd_continuous} for details)~\cite{fd_continuous}:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\hat{x}_{k+1}&= A\hat{x}_k+Bu_k + H(y_k-\hat{y}_k),\\
\hat{y}_k&=C\hat{x}_k, \quad
r_k=V(y_k-\hat{y}_k),
\end{split}
\label{fd_filter}
\end{align}
where $\hat{x}_k \in \mathbb{R}^n$ and $\hat{y}_k \in \mathbb{R}^p$ represent the state and output estimation vectors, respectively, and $r_k$ is the residual signal.
This fault detector shares the same limitation with Kalman filter, i.e., the intelligent sensor data injection attack is stealth for the filter described as~\eqref{fd_filter}, since the residue is still observer based difference between $y_k$ and $\hat{y}_k$.
\iffalse The injection sequence designed for with $Cv$ also works. \fi
\subsection{Coding sensor outputs to detect stealth data injection}
Since existing monitoring systems cannot detect intelligent false data injection attacks, and encryption method has a constraint of significant computation overhead, we propose a design of \textit{coding the sensor outputs} to detect stealth sensor data injection attacks. An intelligent attacker designs the sequence $y^a_k$ carefully to keep the change of residue $\|\Delta z_k\|_2 \leq M$, where $M$ is a constant. Thus, the objective of a detecting approach is equivalent to increasing $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ as fast as possible under a stealthy data injection sequence, and $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ should increase to infinity as time goes to infinity.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.42\textwidth]{transform2.pdf}
\vspace{-8pt}
\caption{System diagram when coding sensor outputs with a matrix $\Sigma$ that satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{code}. The attacker can inject arbitrary false data vector $y^a_k$ to sensor outputs.}
\label{fig_trans}
\end{figure}
The necessary and sufficient conditions for stealth false sensor data injection in~Corollary~\ref{stealth_fi} assume that the attacker knows $(A,B,C,K)$. Parameters $A$ and $B$ are related to physical dynamics that may not be altered, while $C$ is related to the sensor measurements, corresponding specific physical states.
Without changing the physical setup, we still can manipulate the sensor outputs. To violate the attacker's design,
we consider the method of transforming sensor outputs as shown in Figure~\ref{fig_trans}--instead of sending the output vector $\mathbf{y}_k=Cx_k+v_k$ to the estimator/controller/detector, sensors transmit the value
\begin{align}
Y_k =\Sigma (Cx_k +v_{k}), C\in \mathbb{R}^{p\times n},
\label{sig_y}
\end{align}
where $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{p\times p}$ is an invertible matrix. We assume that the measurement of individual sensor is not corrupted yet before coding, and injection sequence appears in the communication between sensors to the estimator/controller/detector. One can think of $\Sigma$ as an inexpensive code, and compare $\Sigma$ with an encryption key. By encrypting only the coding matrix channel once, the coding approach saves encryption cost compared with encrypting all sensor outputs for every time $k$.
We assume that the attacker does not know the matrix $\Sigma$ at least before estimating the matrix based on knowledge of matrices $(A,B,C,K)$ and sensor and actuator values, since the coding matrix $\Sigma$ is not fixed by the physical model of the system and can be time-varying, calculated in polynomial time when a new coding matrix is needed (an algorithm will be proposed in the next section). We assume that the attacker cannot access the coding matrix directly if he/she only applies eavesdropping techniques to the unencrypted communication channel and the process of distributing $\Sigma$ is protected. We will propose a time-varying coding scheme later in this work. When the attacker has designed a sequence of stealthy attack signal $y^{a}_k$ for the original system without the knowledge of the coding matrix $\Sigma$, the false sensor value after coding changes to:
\begin{align}
Y'_k =\Sigma Cx_k + y^{a}_{k}+\Sigma v_{k}.
\label{sig_ya}
\end{align}
Since $\Sigma$ is an invertible matrix, when the state estimator receives $Y_k$ or $Y'_k$, the encoded packet is decoded as
\begin{align}
\tilde{y}'_k= \Sigma^{-1}Y'_k=y_k+\Sigma^{-1}y^a_k,
\label{y_decode}
\end{align}
And we still use the same Kalman filter and $\chi^2$ detector on the decoded sensor outputs. Similar as the definitions of $\Delta e_k$ and $\Delta z_k$~\eqref{delta_z} for sensor outputs before coding, we define $\Delta e'_k$ and $\Delta z'_k$ as the change of state estimation and residue for coded sensor outputs without attack~\eqref{sig_y} and under attack~\eqref{sig_ya}, respectively. With $\Sigma$, a stealth data injection designed for~\eqref{system} (with parameters $(A,B, C,K)$), $\|\Delta z'_k\|_2$ increases to infinity as $k \to \infty$ under certain conditions.
In the following theorem, we show the sufficient conditions that $\Sigma$ should satisfy for any stealth sequence of $y^a_k, k=0,1,\dots$ that satisfies Theorem~\ref{stealth_fi}.
\begin{theorem}
Given an attacked system model~\eqref{attackmodel}, assume that $(A,C)$ is detectable, $u^a_k=0,$ and the attacker designs a sequence of sensor data injection $y^a_k, k=0,1,\dots$, based on one unstable eigenvector $v \in span (Q_{oa})$, where $Q_{oa}$ is the controllability matrix associated with the pair $(A-KCA, K)$. If there exists an invertible matrix $\Sigma$, and the direction of $\Sigma Cv$ is not the same with that of $Cv$, i.e.,
\begin{align}
\frac{(Cv)'\Sigma Cv}{\|\Sigma Cv\|_2\|Cv\|_2} \neq 1,
\label{Sigma_c}
\end{align}
then after injecting $y^a_k$ the estimation residue change satisfies $\lim_{k\to\infty}\|\Delta z'_k\|_2 \to \infty$, by coding sensor outputs~\eqref{sig_y} with $\Sigma$.
\label{code}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Given a system under data injection attacks as~\eqref{attackmodel}, we assume that the system has one unstable eigenvector $v$ with corresponding eigenvalue $\lambda$. According to the definition in equation~\eqref{e}, the dynamics of $\Delta e_{k}, \Delta z_k$ satisfy~\eqref{delta_z} with $u^a_k=0$.
For coded sensor outputs~\eqref{sig_ya}, after decoding
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\Delta e'_{k+1}&=(A-KCA )\Delta e'_{k} - K\Sigma^{-1} y^{a}_{k+1},\\
\Delta z'_{k+1}&=CA\Delta e'_k+ \Sigma^{-1}y^a_{k+1},
\end{split}
\label{ez}
\end{align}
The proof of \textit{Theorem $1$} in~\cite{accstealth} shows that under a stealthy sensor data injection sequence, the only component of $\Delta e_k$ that goes to infinity eventually depends on the unstable eigenvector, denoted as
$c_k v, \lim_{k \to \infty} c_k =\infty,$
and $\Delta e_k$ can be decomposed as
$\Delta e_k=c_k v+\epsilon_{1k}, \|\epsilon_{1k}\|_2 \leq M_1.$
To keep $\Delta z_k$ bounded as $k \to \infty$, any stealthy injection sequence $y^a_k$ must satisfy
\begin{align}
y^a_{k+1}=- c_k\lambda Cv+ \epsilon_{2k}, \|\epsilon_{2k}\|_2 \leq M_2, k=0,1,2,\dots,
\label{ya}
\end{align}
where $M_2$ is a constant such that $\|\Delta z_k\|_2 \leq M$ for all $k$.
We assume that the attacker does not know $\Sigma$, and designs an injection sequence for the original system~\eqref{system} as described in~\eqref{ya}. Similarly as $\Delta e_k$, the only component of $\Delta e'_k$ that can goes to infinity is $c_k v$, since matrix $A$ is not changed by the coding matrix $\Sigma$. However, with any $y^a_k$ in~\eqref{ya}, $\Delta z'_k$ can be decomposed as
\begin{align}
\Delta z'_k=c_k\lambda(Cv-\Sigma^{-1} Cv) + \epsilon_{3k}, k=0,1,2,\dots,
\label{sig_z}
\end{align}
where $\epsilon_{3k}$ is a bounded vector components of $\Delta z'_k$.
When $\Sigma$ satisfies equation~\eqref{Sigma_c}, $ \Sigma Cv-Cv \neq 0$. With $c_k \to \infty$, $\|\Delta z'_k\| \to \infty$ as $k \to \infty$.
\end{proof}
We call a matrix $\Sigma$ that satisfies the conditions of Theorem~\ref{code} a feasible coding matrix. Theorem~\ref{code} shows that even the attacker knows system parameters $(A,B,C,K)$, without changing the physical structure or altering $A,B$, we can utilize the sensor data to get different residues for detecting.
Leveraging sensor outputs is the key reason to detect a stealth sensor data injection.
It is worth noting that here we do not constrain specific structure of the matrix $\Sigma$ besides conditions in Theorem~\ref{code}. For an LTI system, $\Sigma C$ is simply a linear transform of the original sensor measurement. When $A$ has several unstable eigenvectors satisfying Corollary~\ref{stealth_fi}, the following lemma extends the result of Theorem~\ref{code}.
\begin{lemma}
Given an attacked system~\eqref{attackmodel} with $(A,C)$ detectable and a set of unstable eigenvectors $v_1, \dots, v_u \in span (Q_{oa})$, where $Q_{oa}$ is the controllability matrix associated with the pair $(A-KCA, K)$, if $\Sigma$ is an invertible matrix, and
\begin{align}
\frac{(C\tilde{v})'\Sigma C\tilde{v}}{\|\Sigma C\tilde{v}\|_2\|C\tilde{v}\|_2} \neq 1,
\end{align}
for any linear combinations of $v_1, \dots, v_u$ -- $\tilde{v}$, then $\Sigma$ is a feasible coding matrix to increase $\|\Delta z'_k\|_2$ for any stealth data injection to attacked system~\eqref{attackmodel}.
\label{code_lemma}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
When matrix $A$ has a set of unstable eigenvectors $v_1,\dots, v_u$ with corresponding eigenvalues $\lambda_1,\dots, \lambda_u$, similar as the proof of Theorem~\ref{code}, a stealthy injection sequence takes the form
\begin{align*}
y^a_k= \sum_{i=1}^{u}c_{ik} \lambda_i C v_i + \epsilon_{2k}, \|\epsilon_{2k}\|_2 \leq M_2, k=0,1,2,\dots,
\end{align*}
and the change of residual is defined as
\begin{align*}
\Delta z'_k &=\sum_{i=1}^{u}c_{ik}\lambda_i(Cv_i-\Sigma^{-1} Cv_i) + \epsilon_{3k},\\
&=C(\sum_{i=1}^{u}c_{ik}\lambda_i v_i)-\Sigma^{-1}C(\sum_{i=1}^{u}c_{ik}\lambda_i v_i), k=0,1,2,\dots.
\end{align*}
Hence, we consider $\tilde{v}=\sum_{i=1}^{u}c_{ik}\lambda_i v_i$ as a linear combination of all the unstable eigenvectors, the conclusion holds with the coding matrix $\Sigma$ satisfying all the constraints.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
When the attacker is able to learn $\Sigma$ by analyzing sensor outputs and actuator inputs, the system can send a new $\Sigma$ before the attacker figures out the current applied coding matrix. The process of learning $\Sigma$ from the perspective of an attacker will be discussed in Section~\ref{Sig_t}.
\end{remark}
\iffalse
When $(A,\Sigma C)$ is detectable, there exists a steady state Kalman filter with parameter $K'$ for the coded system, and the corresponding fault detector.
Hence, when the attacker designs a stealth injection sequence without knowledge of $\Sigma$, the system can detect it by increasing $\|\Delta z'_k\|_2$ with $\Sigma$.
\fi
\iffalse
Assume the corresponding Kalman filter with sensor output $Y_k$ has a steady state estimation error covariance matrix $P'$ and a Kalman gain matrix $K'$ that satisfy
\begin{center}
$K'=P'C^T\Sigma^T(\Sigma CP'C^T\Sigma^T+\Sigma R)^{-1}.$
\end{center}
\fi
\section{Time-Varying Coding Scheme When the Attacker Estimates the Coding Matrix}
\label{Sig_t}
The coding scheme in this work is effective for the cases that sensor values are not manipulated by the attacker before they are coded by matrix $\Sigma$.
We also assume that the attacker does not know when the system starts to apply $\Sigma$ for transforming sensor output values, and aims to inject a stealthy sequence $y^a_k$ to the sensor communication channel with respect to the original system. If the attacker is powerful enough to update the system model and acquire the knowledge of the coding design after some time steps, the system should constantly apply a time-varying coding scheme, and the time length for updating the coding matrix depends on the learning ability of the attacker and detecting requirements of the system.
Each time the system updates the coding matrix, it will cost the attacker some time to figure out the transformed sensor outputs values. Since it is sufficiently fast to compute a feasible transform based on the algorithm, the system can even generate new coding matrices during the running process. Before the attacker learns $\Sigma$ or the coded observer parameter $\Sigma C$, the false data injection sequence is not stealthy for the coded system. We assume that the attacker cannot directly acquire the coding matrix during its communication process, similar as the secrecy requirement of a key for encryption sensor nodes~\cite{encrypt_key, encrypt_sn}. We assume that the sensors and controller are synchronized, which is a standard assumption in safety-critical control systems. Thus, with the same notion of time, both sensors and the controller can use the same random generator to (re)generate the coding matrix or exploit some of the existing schemes for secret key distribution. In addition, they will be able to synchronously switch from using one matrix to the newly created/obtained ones. Various protocols of key distributions have been proposed according to the properties of the systems~\cite{encrypt_key, key_protocol}.
\subsection{The time length an attacker needs to learn $\Sigma$}
To learn the matrix $\Sigma$ that distributed secured between sensors and the controller/estimator/detector, we assume that the attacker is able to eavesdrop the sensor outputs and actuator inputs via the communication channel for estimating $\Sigma$, instead of directly capturing the matrix $\Sigma$. Since $y^a_k$ is designed by the attacker, the sensor information received by the attacker is then the true sensor measurements under the coding scheme $Y_k=\Sigma y_k$. System dynamics from the perspective of an attacker are
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
x_k=&A^k x_0+\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} A^{k-j-1}(Bu_j+w_j),\\
Y_k=&\tilde{C} A^k x_0+\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \tilde{C}A^{k-j-1}(Bu_j+w_j) +y^a_k+v_k,
\end{split}
\label{at_ss}
\end{align}
where $\tilde{C}=\Sigma C$.
When the attacker does not have any knowledge about the structure of the coding matrix $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times p}$, there are $p^2$ variables for estimating $\Sigma$. Meanwhile, in general initial state $x_0$ can only be acquired via estimation, and there are $n$ variables additionally in~\eqref{at_ss}.
Without loss of generality, we initialize $k=0$ as the time that attacker starts to observe the system's sensor outputs and actuator inputs to update the knowledge of the system coding scheme. It is worth noting that for designing a sequence of stealthy injection data, the attacker needs to know the model of the system, including the estimator and statistics detector, while the values of sensor outputs or actuator inputs are not necessary for the attacker. When the attacker starts to record sensor and actuator communicational packets at an arbitrary time $k$, the corresponding system state $x_0$ can not be directly retrieved by the attacker. Hence, $\Sigma \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times p}$ and $x_0 \in \mathbb{R}^n$ are variables to be estimated.
We examine a simpler case to estimate the the coding matrix first---how many steps of sensor values the attacker need to measure for the following noise-free LTI system
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
x_{k+1}=&Ax_k+Bu_k,\quad
\bar{y}_k=Cx_k.
\end{split}
\label{nf_sys}
\end{align}
The sensor outputs coded by $\Sigma$ at time $k$ are
\begin{align}
\bar{Y}_k=\tilde{C} A^k x_0+\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \tilde{C}A^{k-j-1}Bu_j,\quad \bar{Y}_k \in \mathbb{R}^{p}.
\end{align}
We define the attacker's observation $Y_{\Sigma,N}$ during time $k=0,1,\dots, N$ when the system applies $\Sigma$, and the corresponding noise-free measurements $\bar{Y}_{\Sigma, N}$ as
\begin{align*}
Y_{\Sigma, N}=\begin{bmatrix}Y_0|Y_1|\cdots|Y_N\end{bmatrix},\quad
\bar{Y}_{\Sigma, N}=\begin{bmatrix}\bar{Y}_0|\bar{Y}_1|\dots|\bar{Y}_N \end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
The observed sensor values from the perspective of the attacker are bilinear equations with respect to $\Sigma$ and $x_0$. Consider the noise-free dynamics of sensor measurements as the following
\begin{align}
\bar{Y}_{\Sigma,N}=\Sigma C \begin{bmatrix} x_0&\cdots&A^N x_0+\sum_{j=0}^{N-1} A^{N-j-1}Bu_j\end{bmatrix}
\label{YN}
\end{align}
where $[\bar{Y}_1,\dots, \bar{Y}_N],\quad [u_0,\dots, u_N]$ is eavesdropped by the attacker and $(A,B,C)$ is within the knowledge space of the attacker. To write the above equation as a standard form of bilinear equations regarding to vectors, we denote the coding matrix $\Sigma$ as
\begin{align*}
\Sigma=\begin{bmatrix} \Sigma_{11} & \Sigma_{12}&\cdots &\Sigma_{1p}\\ \vdots &\vdots &\ddots & \vdots \\ \Sigma_{p1} & \Sigma_{p2} & \cdots & \Sigma_{pp} \end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}\sigma_1\\ \vdots \\ \sigma_{p} \end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
where $\sigma_i \in \mathbb{R}^{1 \times p},\ i \in\{1,\dots, p\}$ is the $i$-th row of matrix $\Sigma$.
We also vectorize $\bar{Y}_{\Sigma, N} \in \mathbb{R}^{p \times (N+1)}$ $(Y_{\Sigma, N})\in \mathbb{R}^{p \times (N+1)}$ as $\bar{d} \in \mathbb{R}^{p(N+1)}$
$(d \in \mathbb{R}^{p(N+1)})$
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\text{vec}(\bar{Y}_{\Sigma, N}) =\begin{bmatrix}[\bar{Y}_0]_1\\ \vdots \\ [\bar{Y}_0]_p \\ \vdots \\ [\bar{Y}_N]_p\end{bmatrix}
=\begin{bmatrix}\bar{d}_1 \\ \vdots \\ \bar{d}_p \\ \vdots \\ \bar{d}_{p(N+1)}\end{bmatrix} \in \mathbb{R}^{p(N+1)},
\end{split}
\label{vecY}
\end{align}
where $[\cdot]_j$ means the $j$-the element of a vector, and $\bar{d}_i \in \mathbb{R}$.
Then equation~\eqref{YN} can be written as the following $p(N+1)$ equations
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\sigma_i C x_0=[\bar{Y}_0]_i=\bar{d}_i,\\
&\sigma_i (CA^k) x_0 + \sigma_i \left(C\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} A^{k-j-1}Bu_j\right) = [\bar{Y}_k]_i=\bar{d}_{pk+i}, \\
\end{split}
\label{bilinear}
\end{align}
In particular, define coefficient matrices
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
T_0=C,\ T_{k}= CA^k,
S_0=0,\ S_{k}=C\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} A^{k-j-1}Bu_j,
\end{split}
\end{align*}
for $k=1,\dots, N$.
For the case of a noise-free system, the attacker is possible to solve the bilinear problem~\eqref{bilinear} only after observing enough time steps of $\bar{Y}_k$.
\begin{remark}
By the property of bilinear equations~\cite{bilinear}, the attacker needs at least $N \geq \text{max} \{n, p\}-1$ measurements of sensor and actuator values to calculate the exact coding matrix $\Sigma$ and true initial state $x_0$ when there is no noise.
\end{remark}
With noises in practical, we have
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\sigma_i C x_0 + [v_0]_i=[Y_0]_i=d_i,\\
&\sigma_i (CA^k) x_0 + \sigma_i \left(C\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} A^{k-j-1}(Bu_j+ w_j)\right)+[v_k]_i \\
=& [Y_k]_i=d_{pk+i},\quad i=1,\dots, p,\ k=1,\dots, N,
\end{split}
\label{equal_bilinear}
\end{align}
where $[Y_k]_i$ and $d_i$ are defined similar as $[\bar{Y}_k]_i$ an $\bar{d}_i $ in vectorization~\eqref{vecY}. Under the assumption that both $w_k$, $v_k$ are i.i.d. Gaussian noise, for any $k$, their expectations satisfy
\begin{align*}
& \mathbb{E}\left [ \sigma_i (C\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} A^{k-j-1} w_j)+[v_k]_i \right]=0.
\end{align*}
Then the noise-free and noisy sensor values satisfy that $ \mathbb{E} Y_{\Sigma, N} = \bar{Y}_{\Sigma, N}.$
Hence, when the attacker observes noisy sensor outputs $Y_{\Sigma, N}$, the objective of retrieving the coding matrix $\Sigma$ without the knowledge of $x_0$ is equivalent to finding $\sigma_1,\dots, \sigma_p, x_0$ that fit for the noise-free equation set~\eqref{bilinear}. With even Gaussian noise, it becomes difficult to numerically find an exact solution of the true coding matrix, and the problem is then to minimize the total error between the left and right sides of the equations. The problem of estimating $\Sigma, x_0$ is described as Problem~\ref{estlemma}.
\begin{problem}
The problem of estimating $\Sigma, x_0$ in the minimum mean square error perspective is defined as
the following bilinear programming problem
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
\underset{\sigma_1,\dots, \sigma_p, x_0}{\text{minimize}}\quad &\sum_{k=0}^{N} \sum_{i=1}^{p}\left\|\sigma_i T_k x_0 + \sigma_i S_k- d_{pk+i} \right\|_2\\%\|\Sigma CAK'\Delta y\|_2 \\
\text{subject to}\quad
& \text{rank}(\Sigma = \begin{bmatrix}\sigma_1 \\ \vdots \\ \sigma_p\end{bmatrix})=p.
\end{split}
\label{est_bil}
\end{align}
\label{estlemma}
\vspace{-8pt}
\end{problem}
When there exists an invertible matrix $\Sigma$ that satisfies the equations defined in~\eqref{equal_bilinear}, the above bilinear optimization problem~\eqref{est_bil} has an optimal cost $0$. However, the optimal solution $\Sigma^*$ does not need to be the true coding matrix $\Sigma$, since there is noise and the objective function of problem~\eqref{est_bil} does not include noise of each time step.
The rank constraint of problem~\eqref{est_bil} is non-convex, and in practice the attacker does not know how many measurements return the best estimation before calculating $\Sigma^*$ given all existing measurements. Hence, we design the following heuristic algorithm for the attacker, which ignores the rank constraint first, and checks whether $\Sigma$ is full rank every step till a feasible solution is reached.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Algorithm of estimating $\Sigma$ for the attacker}
\textbf{Inputs:} {System's parameter $(A,B,C)$, design of Kalman Filter $K$, the threshold $\alpha$ of $\chi^2$ detector, algorithm stopping condition--estimation error $\epsilon$.}\\
\textbf{Initialization:} {Initialize the value of estimation error $Er > \epsilon$, and the estimation of coding matrix $\hat{\Sigma}$ as a n identical matrix.}\\
\textbf{While $Er > \epsilon$ or $\hat{\Sigma}=I$.}\\
1). Read one new sensor and actuator observation, and update parameters of problem~\eqref{est_bil}; \\
2). Solve problem~\eqref{est_bil}. If the optimal solutions $\sigma^*_1, \dots, \sigma^*_p$ satisfy the full rank constraints, let $Er$ be the value of the optimal cost, and $\hat{\Sigma}= \Sigma^*=\begin{bmatrix}(\sigma^*_1)^T \dots (\sigma^*_p)^T\end{bmatrix}^T$.\\
\textbf{Return:} {Estimation result of $\hat{\Sigma}$.}
\label{attacker_alg}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{remark}
It is worth noting that a bilinear equation usually has multiple solutions, and Algorithm~\ref{attacker_alg} returns different optimal solutions $\hat{\Sigma}$ under different sensor and actuator measurements time $N$. Under this situation, it is not clear for the attacker to decide how many time steps to measure and which optimal solution to choose, even when the optimal cost of problem~\eqref{est_bil} is $0$. Even for a simple two dimensional system $A$, multiple solutions exist and do not converge to one estimation after $20$ steps of measurements, which we will show in simulation.
\end{remark}
To summarize, there are two main challenges for the attacker to estimate the true coding matrix, the first one is because multiple solutions exist for bilinear equations or bilinear optimization problems. The second one comes from the noise in the communication channel, that even the attacker find a feasible solution to the bilinear equation set~\eqref{equal_bilinear}, it is only an unbiased estimation instead of the true coding matrix.
\subsection{When the estimated $\hat{\Sigma} \neq \Sigma$}
After the attacker estimates a coding scheme $\hat{\Sigma}$ and considers it as the true coding matrix the system is applying, the easiest way to keep stealthy is to inject $\hat{\Sigma} y_k^a,$ where $y_k^a$ is a stealthy data injection designed for the original system without coding. However, as discussed above, when there exists noise, the attacker is not able to calculate the exact coding matrix the system is applying. When $\hat{\Sigma}\neq \Sigma$, the injection sequence $\hat{\Sigma} y_k^a$ can only extend the time length before detected and cannot pass the detector. Then the system needs to evaluate how long the attacker needs to measure the sensor outputs and how long the attacker can stay stealthy by applying a new injection sequence, in order to decide the time length of changing the coding matrix.
\begin{definition}
An estimated coding matrix $\hat{\Sigma}$ calculated by the attacker is called a feasible estimation of $\Sigma$ that keeps the attacker stealthy for time $k=0, \dots,T$ while causing $e$ error, if and only if for all sequence of injections $\hat{\Sigma}y_k^a$ designed by the attacker according to the estimated coding matrix $\hat{\Sigma}$, the dynamics of $\Delta e'_k, \Delta z'_k$ satisfy that
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
&\Delta e'_{k+1}=(A-KCA )\Delta e_{k} - K\Sigma^{-1} \hat{\Sigma} y^{a}_{k+1},\\
&\Delta z'_{k+1}=CA\Delta e_k+ \Sigma^{-1} \hat{\Sigma} y^a_{k+1}, \\
&\underset{k=1,\dots, T}{\text{max}}\|\Delta e_k\|_2 \geq e, \ \underset{k=1,\dots, T}{\text{max}}\|\Delta z_k \|_2 \leq M,
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $\Sigma$ is the true coding matrix the system is applying.
\end{definition}
Define the time length of keeping stealthy with injection sequence $y^a_k, k=1,\dots, T_s,$ for a system~\eqref{system} as
\begin{align}
T_s (y^a_k) =\underset{k}{\text{inf}}\{k: \|\Delta z_k (y^a_k) \|_2 > M\}.
\end{align}
The attacker increases the time length of keeping stealthy when $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k) > T_s (y^a_k)$. However, the attacker does not have a guarantee about $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)$ without the knowledge of the true coding matrix, since $\Delta z_k(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)$ is affected by both $\Sigma$ and $\hat{\Sigma}$. There exists a trade-off between the time $N$ the attacker takes to measure sensor and actuator values to estimate a better $\hat{\Sigma}$ and the time the attacker starts to apply a new injection sequence $\hat{\Sigma} y^a_k$. If the measuring time $N$ is large, it is possible that the system already triggers the alarm before the attacker successfully recovers the coding scheme. If the attacker does not have enough measurements for a good estimation and then applies the estimated $\hat{\Sigma}$ to design a new injection sequence $\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k$, $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)$ will not be much larger than $T_s (y^a_k)$ and the malicious behavior will still be detected quickly by the system.
It is worth noting that the system can not decide whether $\Sigma$ is easy to be estimated by the attacker by only checking $\|\Delta z_k (y^a_k) \|_2, k=1,\dots, T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)$. When $\|\Delta z_k (y^a_k) \|_2$ stays in a small range for a long time and $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)$ is large, the reason may be the original injection sequence $y^a_k$ also has a large time length of keeping stealthy $T_s(y^a_k)$. Define the stealthy time increasing proportion for an estimated $\hat{\Sigma}(N)$ calculated after measuring time $N$ as
\begin{align}
\alpha(N_{\Sigma})=\frac{T_s( \hat{\Sigma}(N)y^a_k)-T_s(y^a_k)}{T_s (y^a_k)}
\end{align}
where $\hat{\Sigma}(N)$ is estimated from $N$ steps measurements of sensor and actuator values. As we will show in Section~\ref{sec:simulation}, $\alpha(N_{\Sigma})$ increases with an increasing $N_{\Sigma}$ for a fixed $\Sigma$ in general. When the attacker is able to estimate the coding matrix and inject $(\hat{\Sigma}(N)y^a_k)$ to stay stealthy for a longer time, the system needs to apply a new coding matrix before the attacker has enough measurements to estimate an $\hat{\Sigma}(N)$ that reaches the threshold $\tilde{\alpha}(N_{\Sigma})$ of the increasing time proportion $\alpha(N_{\Sigma})$. From the perspective of the system, a heuristic way to decide the time length $N_{\Sigma}$ of changing $\Sigma$ is as Algorithm~\ref{change_time}.
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Heuristic Algorithm for choosing $N_{\Sigma}$}
\textbf{Inputs:}{Coded system's parameter $(A,B,C,K, \Sigma)$, $\chi^2$ detector threshold $\alpha$, time step $t_s$ for increasing $N_{\Sigma}$, threshold proportion $\tilde{\alpha}(N_{\Sigma})$.}\\
\textbf{Initialization:}{Initialize the value of $\hat{\Sigma}$ as an identical matrix, let $N_{\Sigma}=0$, calculate $\alpha(N_{\Sigma})$}\\
\textbf{While $\alpha(N_{\Sigma})<\tilde{\alpha}(N_{\Sigma})$}\\
1). Estimate $\hat{\Sigma}$ with $t_s$ steps of new sensor and actuator values, and update $\alpha(N_{\Sigma})$. \\
2). Let $N_{\Sigma}=N_{\Sigma}+t_s$, and save sensor and actuator values for next iteration.\\
\textbf{Return:} {Measurement time length $N_{\Sigma}$ for estimating $\Sigma$.}
\label{change_time}
\end{algorithm}
\section{Illustrative Examples}
\label{sec:simulation}
\subsection{Coding scheme detect stealthy data injection}
We show the effects of coding sensor outputs by examples of two-dimensional LTI systems.
\iffalse
Figures include comparisons of the change of estimation residues $\Delta z_k$ (for system $(A,B,C,K)$) and $\Delta z'_k$ (for system $(A,B,\Sigma C, K')$).
By comparing the change of estimation error $\Delta e_k$ and $\Delta e'_k$, we show that estimation error of a coded system does not necessarily increase faster than the original system.
\fi
Consider a detectable 2-dimensional linear system with parameters:
\begin{center}
$\mathbf{A}=\begin{bmatrix}0.8&0\\0.5&1\end{bmatrix}, \mathbf{B}=\begin{bmatrix}1\\0.5\end{bmatrix},
\mathbf{C}=\begin{bmatrix}2&0.5\\0&1\end{bmatrix}, \mathbf{D}=0,$
\end{center}
where $A$ has an unstable eigenvalue $\lambda=1$ and eigenvector $v=[0\ 1]^T$.
One stealth attack sequence is:
$y_0^a =[0.0588\ 0.0588 ]^T$, $y^a_1=[0.1286\ -0.9706]^T$,
$y_k=y_{k-2}^a-y_0^a, k \geq 2$.
Multiple solutions of feasible coding matrices that satisfy Theorem~\ref{code} exist in general. For instance, for the above system, $\Sigma_1=\begin{bmatrix}2&-0.5\\-0.5&1\end{bmatrix}$ and $\Sigma_2=\begin{bmatrix}1&-1\\2&0\end{bmatrix}$ are both feasible.
Figure~\ref{residue_1} shows the comparison result of $\|\Delta z_k\|_2, \|\Delta z'_k\|_2$ when there is injection attacks for the original and coded systems, and $\|\Delta z'_k\|_2$ increases with time $k$ after coded by $\Sigma_1$, while without coding $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ is bounded.
\begin{figure}[b!]
\vspace{-5pt}
\centering
\includegraphics [width=0.38\textwidth]{residue_1.pdf}
\vspace{-10pt}
\caption{Comparison of $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ of the original system and $\|\Delta z'_k\|_2$ of the coded system with $\Sigma_1$.
\label{residue_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics [width=0.38\textwidth]{deltaz_1.pdf}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{Comparison of norm of residue change between the original system and coded system, $\Delta z_k$ and $\Delta z'_k$, for $\Sigma_2$ that satisfies Theorem~\ref{code}.}
\label{deltaz_1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics [width=0.40\textwidth]{deltae_1.pdf}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{Comparison of norm of estimation error change between the original system and coded system,
$\Delta e_k$ and $\Delta e'_k$, for $\Sigma_2$ that satisfies Theorem~\ref{code}.}
\label{deltae_1}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{deltaz_1} shows that for the sensor outputs transformed by $\Sigma_2$, $\Delta z'_k$ increases with time $k$, while the original system $\Delta z_k$ stays inside a bounded range. For the transformed sensor outputs, the change of the estimation error $\Delta e'_k$ increases even slower than $\Delta e_k$ under data injection attack as shown in Figure~\ref{deltae_1}. By comparing the change of estimation error $\Delta e_k$ and $\Delta e'_k$, we show that estimation error of a coded system does not necessarily increase faster than the original system.
\subsection{When the attacker tries to estimate the coding matrix}
In this example, the system applies the coding matrix designed based on Algorithm~\ref{calculate_g}, a scaled rotation matrix $2*G(1,2, \frac{\pi}{4})$ with a rotation radian $\theta=\frac{\pi}{4}$ in the $(1,2)$ plane
$\Sigma=\begin{bmatrix}0.7 & 0.5 \\-0.5 & 0.7 \end{bmatrix}.$
When the attacker estimates $\Sigma$ according to $N=20$ steps of sensor and actuator measurements via Algorithm~\ref{attacker_alg}, the estimated result is $\hat{\Sigma}$ and the attacker designs a new injection sequence $\hat{\Sigma} y^a_k$ based on $\hat{\Sigma}$
\begin{align*}
\hat{\Sigma}=\begin{bmatrix}2.80&-0.15\\-0.89&0.05 \end{bmatrix}
\end{align*}
In Figure~\ref{delta_zs}, we compare the residue change for: the original system under injection sequence $y^a_k$, the coded system under data injection $y^a_k$, and the coded system under injection sequence $\hat{\Sigma} y^a_k$. Assume the threshold for $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ is set as $M=2$, in Figure~\ref{delta_zs} we can see that the attack will be detected after injecting a sequence of data $y^a_k$ (designed for the original system) for $12$ seconds to the coded system, i.e., $T_s(y^a_k)=12$. In contrast, $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)=50$ seconds, however, $\hat{\Sigma}$ is estimated via $N=20$ seconds of measurements of sensor and actuator values. Hence, the attacker does not have enough time to get such $\hat{\Sigma}$ before being detected.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-8pt}
\centering
\includegraphics [width=0.38\textwidth]{delta_zs_2.pdf}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{Comparison of norm of estimation residue change between the original system---$\Delta z_k$, coded system---$\Delta z'_k$ when the system applies $\Sigma$ and the attacker injects $y^a_k$ designed for the original system, and the sensor data injection sequence designed with estimated coding matrix--- $\Delta z_{sk}$ when the attacker injects $\hat{\Sigma} y^a_k$ and the true coding matrix is $\Sigma$. When $M=2$, $T_s(y^a_k)=12$ seconds, $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)=50$ seconds.}
\label{delta_zs}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Number of measurements to estimate the coding matrix}
Figure~\ref{normzs_N} shows how the estimation of $\hat{\Sigma}$ changes with the number measurement steps $N$. In general, when $N$ increases, the difference between $\hat{\Sigma}$ and $\Sigma$ decreases, and the norm of residue change $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ increases slower with sensor injection sequence $\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k$. However, as shown in Figure~\ref{normzs_N}, for both $N=25$ and $N=200$, $\|\Delta z_k\|_2$ are almost the same, hence, the attacker does not infer a better coding matrix to keep stealthy with a greater measurement time. Comparing the time of keeping stealthy with estimated coding matrix, we have $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)=20$ for $N=2$, $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)=30$ for $N=5$, and approximately $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)=51$ for $N\geqslant 25$. From the perspective of the system, if we set the threshold $\tilde{\alpha} (N_{\Sigma})=1.5$ in this case, and $\frac{T_s( \hat{\Sigma}(N)y^a_k)-T_s(y^a_k)}{T_s (y^a_k)}=\frac{30-12}{12}=1.5$, by the heuristic Algorithm~\ref{change_time}, the system can change the coding matrix every $5$ seconds.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-8pt}
\centering
\includegraphics [width=0.38\textwidth]{normzs_N.pdf}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{Comparison of norm of estimation residue change when the attacker designs a sensor injection sequence according to $\hat{\Sigma}$ estimated with different measurement number $N$. When attacker injects $\hat{\Sigma}y_k^a$ and the system applies coding, the detection time, i.e., the time $\|\Delta z_{sk}\|_2 \geqslant 2$ is labeled for different measurement time $N$: $N=2,T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)=20$; $N=5, T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)=30$. For $N=25$ and $N=200$, $T_s(\hat{\Sigma}y^a_k)$ are almost the same value: $51$.}
\label{normzs_N}
\vspace{-10pt}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
The $\bm k$-linear spin-orbit splitting of electron states in zinc-blende-type quantum wells (QWs)
is usually discussed in terms of the Rashba spin-orbit coupling stemming from structure inversion asymmetry (SIA)~\cite{Vasko1979,Bychkov84,Sherman03b} and the Dresselhaus spin-orbit coupling originating from $\bm k$-cubic terms in the bulk crystal spectrum
(also named BIA contribution)~\cite{Dresselhaus55,Dyakonov86} and interface inversion asymmetry (IIA)~\cite{Ivchenko96,Krebs98,Vervoort99,Nestoklon06,Tarasenko2015}, or their interplay~\cite{Zawadzki04,Cartoixa06,Nestoklon08,Winkler2012,Alexeev13,Volkov13,Volkov14,Belkov08,Tarasenko09,Volkl2011,Poshakinskiy2013}. Here, $\bm k$ is the electron wave vector. Although it is well known that all QW structures are strained in a varying degree depending on the lattice mismatch between the QW and the buffer layer and strain may also give rise to $\bm k$-linear spin-orbit coupling in bulk crystals~\cite{Pikus_OO,Pikus88}, the effect of strain on spin splitting is commonly neglected. This is largely due to the fact that, in the most studied GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures, the lattice mismatch does not exceed $0.5\%$ and the whole epilayer adopts the GaAs substrate lattice parameter.
Recently it has been demonstrated experimentally that strain may give a significant contribution
to spin splitting in real lattice-mismatched heterostructures~\cite{Matsuda11}, but there is a lack of
theoretical studies of this effect. The effect of lattice mismatch on spin splitting
is expected to be more pronounced in QWs of any crystallographic orientation other than (001) since
shear strain occurring in low-symmetry heterostructures directly couples
the conduction-band and valence-band states~\cite{Pikus_OO,Pikus88}.
Here, we combine the envelope function theory and atomistic tight-binding calculations and
prove that this strain-induced effect can be large as to dominate the spin properties of some
lattice-mismatched (110)-grown structures. The strain-induced spin-orbit coupling is already
sizeable for a GaAs/AlGaAs QW when the lattice mismatch is supported by the GaAs well.
The calculations performed for a InGaAs-based QW yield that the strain is the major source of
spin-orbit coupling in the conduction subbands. The resulting Dresselhaus constant of the spin-orbit
splitting in InGaAs-based QWs considerably exceeds that in GaAs/AlGaAs structures and, more importantly,
can be of different sign depending on the buffer layer used.
\section{Effective Hamiltonian}
The effective Hamiltonian describing $\bm k$-linear spin splitting of electron states in a (110)-grown QW
may be generally presented as a sum of three contributions~\cite{Nestoklon12}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Hso}
H_{so} = \beta\sigma_z k_x + \alpha_+(\sigma_x k_y - \sigma_y k_x) + \alpha_-(\sigma_x k_y + \sigma_yk_x) \,,
\end{equation}
where $\sigma_j$ ($j=x,y,z$) are the Pauli matrices,
$x \parallel [1\bar{1}0]$ and $y \parallel [00\bar{1}]$ are the in-plane axes, and $z \parallel [110]$ is the growth axis.
The first term on the right-hand side of Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hso} is the $\bm k$-linear Dresselhaus term which originates from BIA and IIA. This term will be drastically affected by strain. The second term describes the isotropic Rashba spin-orbit coupling stemming from SIA. The third term emerges if both the atomic structure of the QW interfaces and the QW structure inversion asymmetry are taken into account. Both the second and the third terms vanish in symmetrically
grown QWs.
Atomistic tight-binding calculations carried out recently for (110) GaAs/Al$_{0.7}$Ga$_{0.3}$As QWs~\cite{Nestoklon12} revealed that the values of $\beta$ and $\alpha_+$ are in a good agreement with the results of the envelope function calculations and $\alpha_-$, which is absent in the isotropic Rashba model, is an order of magnitude smaller than $\alpha_+$. We note that misfit strain was ``switched off'' in the calculations of Ref.~\onlinecite{Nestoklon12} since it is rather weak in GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures.
The deformation of a bulk zinc-blende-type crystal leads to a $\bm k$-linear spin splitting of the electron spectrum~\cite{Pikus88}.
The corresponding bulk Hamiltonian written in the cubic axes $\tilde{x} \parallel [100]$, $\tilde{y} \parallel [010]$, and $\tilde{z}\parallel [001]$ has the form
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm str} = \frac12 \left( C_3 \, \vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\varphi} + C_3' \, \vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\psi} \right),
\end{equation}
where $C_3$ and $C_3'$ are material constants, $\vec{\varphi}$ and $\vec{\psi}$ are the pseudovectors constructed from the
components of the strain tensor $\vec{\varepsilon}$ and the wave vector $\bm k$,
\begin{equation}
\vec{\varphi} = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
\varepsilon_{\tilde{x}\tilde{y}} k_{\tilde{y}} - \varepsilon_{\tilde{x}\tilde{z}} k_{\tilde{z}} \\
\varepsilon_{\tilde{y}\tilde{z}} k_{\tilde{z}} - \varepsilon_{\tilde{x}\tilde{y}} k_{\tilde{x}} \\
\varepsilon_{\tilde{x}\tilde{z}} k_{\tilde{x}} - \varepsilon_{\tilde{y}\tilde{z}} k_{\tilde{y}}
\end{array}
\right] , \;
\vec{\psi} = \left[
\begin{array}{c}
(\varepsilon_{\tilde{y}\tilde{y}}-\varepsilon_{\tilde{z}\tilde{z}}) k_{\tilde{x}} \\
(\varepsilon_{\tilde{z}\tilde{z}}-\varepsilon_{\tilde{x}\tilde{x}}) k_{\tilde{y}} \\
(\varepsilon_{\tilde{x}\tilde{x}}-\varepsilon_{\tilde{y}\tilde{y}}) k_{\tilde{z}}
\end{array}
\right] .
\end{equation}
In the $(xyz)$ coordinate frame relevant to (110)-grown structures, the scalar products $\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\varphi}$
and $\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\psi}$ assume the form
\begin{align}
\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\varphi} &= \frac12 (\varepsilon_{zz}-\varepsilon_{xx})(\sigma_x k_z - \sigma_z k_x) \nonumber \\
&- \varepsilon_{xy} (\sigma_y k_x + \sigma_z k_y) - \varepsilon_{yz} (\sigma_x k_y - \sigma_y k_x) \nonumber \,, \\
\vec{\sigma} \cdot \vec{\psi} &= \frac12 (\varepsilon_{xx} - 2\varepsilon_{yy} + \varepsilon_{zz})(\sigma_x k_z + \sigma_z k_x) \nonumber \\ & - \varepsilon_{xz} (\sigma_x k_x - 2 \sigma_y k_y + \sigma_z k_z ) \,.
\end{align}
Lattice mismatch in a (110)-grown structure leads to the emergence of the strain tensor components
$\varepsilon_{xx}=\varepsilon_{yy}$ and $\varepsilon_{zz}$ while the off-diagonal components (in the QW coordinate frame) do not occur. The strain tensor can be decomposed in two parts: isotropic part which induces only a change of the band positions, effective mass, and the bulk Dresselhaus constant and anisotropic part with the zero trace which gives rise to $\bm k$-linear spin-orbit coupling. Taking into account that electrons are confined in a QW along the $z$ direction, i.e., $\langle k_z \rangle = 0$, one obtains the strain-induced contribution to the spin Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}
H_{\rm srt}^{\rm QW} = \frac14 \left( C_3 - C_3' \right) (\varepsilon_{xx} - \varepsilon_{zz}) \sigma_z k_x,
\end{equation}
which corresponds to an additional contribution $\beta_{\text{str}}$ to the Dresselhaus constant, see Eq.~\eqref{eq:Hso},
\begin{equation}
\beta_{\text{str}} = \frac14 \left( C_3 - C_3' \right) (\varepsilon_{xx} - \varepsilon_{zz}) \,.
\end{equation}
It is interesting to compare $\beta_{\text{str}}$ with the usual Dresselhaus constant $\beta$ for a standard (110)-grown
GaAs/Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As QW. The deformation constants for GaAs obtained from the ab initio calculations of Ref.~\cite{Chantis08}
are $C_3 \sim 4-8$ eV$\cdot$\AA{} and $C_3' \sim 2$ eV$\cdot$\AA{}. Recent experimental estimations give $C_3 \approx 8.1$ eV$\cdot$\AA{}
and $C_3'$ is negligibly small~\cite{Beck06}. The typical values of $\beta$ are in the range $7$ -- $15$~meV$\cdot$\AA~\cite{Nestoklon12}
while the lattice mismatch is $\epsilon = \varepsilon_{xx}-\varepsilon_{zz} \sim 1 \cdot 10^{-3}$. Assuming that misfit strain is supported by the GaAs well, we conclude that the strain-induced spin-orbit coupling is only few times smaller than the regular BIA term in such AlGaAs heterostructures.
Conversely, in a In$_{0.2}$Ga$_{0.8}$As/GaAs QW, where the strain $\epsilon \sim 0.02$ is typically 20 times larger and the deformation constant $C_3$ is also larger (see below), the strain-induced spin splitting dominates over the other mechanisms.
To conclude this section, we note that in addition to the renormalization of the Dresselhaus term, non-symmetric strain near interfaces
in realistic structures may also produce electric field independent contributions to the $\alpha_+$ and $\alpha_-$ Rashba terms.
\section{Tight-binding calculations}\label{sec:TB}
To calculate the electron dispersion in a QW and extract the parameters of spin-orbit coupling we use the well-established $sp^3d^5s^*$ tight-binding method~\cite{Jancu98,Nestoklon12}. The method is described in a number of papers and will not be repeated here. Instead, we focus in this section on the procedure of strain incorporation into tight binding.
We use the standard crystallographic coordinate system with a cation atom located at the origin and one of its neighboring anions
located at $(a_0/4,a_0/4,a_0/4)$, with $a_0$ being the lattice constant. Note, that the opposite choice of the coordinate frame leading to the opposite sign of the bulk Dresselhaus constant $\gamma_c$ is also utilized in literature.
The strain is microscopically calculated in the valence force field (VFF) approximation~\cite{Keating66} which is able to provide reliable results for small and intermediate strains~\cite{Steiger11}. To model realistic structures we set the lateral lattice constant fixed to mimic the lattice-matched growth on a substrate. Then, we keep the lateral periodic boundary conditions fixed and vary the positions of atoms using the conjugate gradient method to minimize the VFF elastic energy.
After the minimization we obtain the atomic positions for the fully relaxed structure. This allows us to extract a microscopic strain tensor acting on atomic orbitals using an approach similar to that described in Ref.~\onlinecite{Pryor98}, as explained below.
For each atom we calculate the ``local strain tensor'' based on the positions of its 4 neighboring atoms.
For a cation C surrounded with 4 anions $\text{A}_i$ ($i = 1 ... 4$) located at arbitrary
positions, the local strain acting on the cation is defined according to the following procedure.
First, the nominal anion positions $\boldsymbol{r}_{0i}$ are determined from the bond lengths corresponding
to the $\text{CA}_i$ bulk lattice parameters in the absence of bond bending. After the structure relaxation, this nominal tetrahedron determined by $\boldsymbol{r}_{0i}$ transforms into the actual one given by the real positions of the atoms $\boldsymbol{r}_{i}$.
The nominal and actual tetrahedrons can be uniquely characterized by three vectors $\boldsymbol{R}_{j}$ and $\boldsymbol{R}_{(0)j}$
($j = 1 ... 3$), respectively. We choose them as follows:
$\boldsymbol{R}_{(0)1} = \boldsymbol{r}_{(0)2} - \boldsymbol{r}_{(0)1}$,
$\boldsymbol{R}_{(0)2} = \boldsymbol{r}_{(0)4} - \boldsymbol{r}_{(0)3}$, and
$\boldsymbol{R}_{(0)3} = [\boldsymbol{r}_{(0)4} + \boldsymbol{r}_{(0)3} - \boldsymbol{r}_{(0)2} -\boldsymbol{r}_{(0)1}]/2$.
Then, we calculate the matrix $\bm T$ connecting the nominal and strained sets, $\boldsymbol{R}_j = \bm T \boldsymbol{R}_{0j}$.
The local strain tensor $\bm \varepsilon$ is then defined by the polar decomposition $\bm T= (1 + \bm \varepsilon) \bm R$,
where $\bm R$ is the orthogonal matrix of rotation.
One may check that, for a homogeneously strained bulk binary compound, this approach reproduces the classical definition of strain tensor.
However, the approach allows one to generalize the concept of the strain tensor to the atomic scale.
We notice that the tensor $\bm \varepsilon$ does not fully describe the local atomic
configuration: It is uniquely defined by the relative coordinates of four anions
surrounding a given cation (or, vice versa, by the cation relative coordinates
surrounding a given anion) while the change in the cation position does not
affect $\bm \varepsilon$. To account for the cation position change we additionally introduce
an internal strain vector $\boldsymbol{u}$ defined as the displacement of the cation from the
point equidistant from the surrounding anions and scaled to the unstrained interatomic distance.
For homogeneously strained bulk crystal, the strain tensor $\bm \varepsilon$ and the strain vector $\boldsymbol{u}$
are proportional to each other and related by the Kleinman parameter~\cite{Keating66}. However, this is not generally the case
for equilibrium atom positions in a structure with different chemical bonds.
The local strain tensor $\bm \varepsilon$ and the local strain vector $\boldsymbol{u}$ are then incorporated into the tight-binding Hamiltonian. The strain contribution to the tight-binding Hamiltonian has three rather distinct parts. The first one is a scaling of the transfer matrix elements due to the change in the bond lengths~\cite{Jancu98}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:tme_strain}
V_{n_1,n_2;\, ijk} = V_{n_1,n_2;\, ijk}^0
\left( \frac{d_{n_1,n_2}}{d_{n_1,n_2}^0} \right)^{n_{ijk}},
\end{equation}
here $n_1$ and $n_2$ are the indices denoting two neighboring atoms, $ijk$ encodes the corresponding Slater off-diagonal parameter,
$V_{n_1,n_2;\, ijk}^0$ is the transfer matrix element in the unstrained bulk binary compound,
$d_{n_1,n_2}$ and $d_{n_1,n_2}^0$ are the relaxed interatomic distance and the chemical bond length in the corresponding unstrained compound, and $n_{ijk}$ is the power law scaling exponent~\cite{Jancu98}. For calculations here we use a new set of tight-binding parameters listed in Table~\ref{tbl:tb_par}.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular*}{\linewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}l|rrr}
\hline
\hline
&InAs&GaAs&AlAs\\
\hline
$ a $& $ 6.0580$& $ 5.6500$& $ 5.6600$ \\
\hline
$ E_{s}^a$& $ -6.0738$& $ -5.9820$& $ -6.5474$ \\
$ E_{s^*}^a$& $ 17.2502$& $ 19.4477$& $ 18.9475$ \\
$ E_{s}^c$& $ 0.2582$& $ -0.3803$& $ 0.3883$ \\
$ E_{s^*}^c$& $ 17.2393$& $ 19.4548$& $ 18.9438$ \\
$ E_{p}^a$& $ 2.8784$& $ 3.3087$& $ 2.9314$ \\
$ E_{d}^a$& $ 11.7833$& $ 13.2015$& $ 12.4961$ \\
$ E_{p}^c$& $ 5.6829$& $ 6.3801$& $ 5.7735$ \\
$ E_{d}^c$& $ 11.7991$& $ 13.2055$& $ 12.4992$ \\
\hline
$ ss\sigma$& $ -1.5096$& $ -1.6874$& $ -1.8436$ \\
$ s^*_as_c\sigma$& $ -2.0155$& $ -2.1059$& $ -1.7884$ \\
$ s_as^*_c\sigma$& $ -1.1496$& $ -1.5212$& $ -1.3059$ \\
$ s^*s^*\sigma$& $ -3.3608$& $ -3.7170$& $ -3.6128$ \\
$ s_ap_c\sigma$& $ 2.2807$& $ 2.8846$& $ 2.5778$ \\
$ s_cp_a\sigma$& $ 2.6040$& $ 2.8902$& $ 2.7962$ \\
$ s^*_ap_c\sigma$& $ 1.9930$& $ 2.5294$& $ 2.1581$ \\
$ s^*_cp_a\sigma$& $ 2.0708$& $ 2.3883$& $ 2.2397$ \\
$ s_ad_c\sigma$& $ -2.8945$& $ -2.8716$& $ -2.5624$ \\
$ s_cd_a\sigma$& $ -2.3175$& $ -2.2801$& $ -2.3841$ \\
$ s^*_ad_c\sigma$& $ -0.6393$& $ -0.6568$& $ -0.8046$ \\
$ s^*_cd_a\sigma$& $ -0.5949$& $ -0.6113$& $ -0.7492$ \\
$ pp\sigma$& $ 3.6327$& $ 4.4048$& $ 4.1971$ \\
$ pp\pi$& $ -0.9522$& $ -1.4471$& $ -1.3146$ \\
$ p_ad_c\sigma$& $ -1.1156$& $ -1.6035$& $ -1.6473$ \\
$ p_cd_a\sigma$& $ -1.3426$& $ -1.6260$& $ -1.7603$ \\
$ p_ad_c\pi$& $ 1.2101$& $ 1.8423$& $ 1.7647$ \\
$ p_cd_a\pi$& $ 1.5282$& $ 2.1421$& $ 2.1100$ \\
$ dd\sigma$& $ -0.8381$& $ -1.0885$& $ -1.2241$ \\
$ dd\pi$& $ 1.9105$& $ 2.1560$& $ 2.1770$ \\
$ dd\delta$& $ -1.3348$& $ -1.8607$& $ -1.7585$ \\
\hline
$\Delta_a/3 $& $ 0.1558$& $ 0.1745$& $ 0.1721$ \\
$\Delta_c/3 $& $ 0.1143$& $ 0.0408$& $ 0.0072$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Tight-binding parameters used in calculations.}\label{tbl:tb_par}
\end{table}
The second contribution, also introduced in Ref.~\onlinecite{Jancu98}, is the shift of on-site energies proportional to
the hydrostatic component of strain,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:hydr_strain}
\delta E_{\beta} = E_{\beta} - E_{\beta}^0 = - \alpha_{\beta} (E_{\beta}^0 - E_{\text{ref}} ) \frac{\operatorname{Tr}\varepsilon}3 \,,
\end{equation}
where $E_{\beta}^0$ are the on-site energies in the absence of strain (Table~\ref{tbl:tb_par}), $\alpha_{\beta}$ are the deformation parameters given in Table~\ref{tbl:strain_par}, and the index $\beta$ enumerates the orbitals. We define the energy shifts with respect to the reference energy $E_{\text{ref}} = E_{s^*}-6E_{\left\langle1,0,0\right\rangle}$, where $E_{\left\langle1,0,0\right\rangle}=\hbar^2(2\pi/a)^2/2m_0$ and $a$ is the lattice constant. The introduction of $E_{\text{ref}}$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:hydr_strain} allows us to avoid the recalculation of the deformation parameter $\alpha_{\beta}$ for heterostructures with band offsets.
The present gauge-invariant formulation is, in the linear limit, strictly equivalent to the one used in Refs.~\onlinecite{Jancu98,Jancu07} for the free electron crystal.
The choice made for the reference energy is motivated by the aim to keep the positions of the $s^*$ orbitals the same as in the free electron approximation.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular*}{\linewidth}{@{\extracolsep{\fill}}l|rrr}
\hline
\hline
&InAs&GaAs&AlAs\\
\hline
$ \alpha_s^a $& $ 0.5603$& $ 0.0000$& $ 0.9720$ \\
$ \alpha_p^a $& $ 1.9539$& $ 1.6257$& $ 1.8880$ \\
$ \alpha_d^a $& $ 1.7005$& $ 2.4531$& $ 2.0600$ \\
$ \alpha_s^c $& $ 0.5603$& $ 0.0000$& $ 0.9720$ \\
$ \alpha_p^c $& $ 1.9539$& $ 1.6257$& $ 1.8880$ \\
$ \alpha_d^c $& $ 1.7005$& $ 2.4531$& $ 2.0600$ \\
\hline
$n_{ss\sigma} $& $ 5.4002$& $ 4.5619$& $ 2.0880$ \\
$n_{sp\sigma} $& $ 4.4014$& $ 3.0363$& $ 5.7560$ \\
$n_{sd\sigma} $& $ 6.8053$& $ 3.1594$& $ 4.4720$ \\
$n_{ss^*\sigma} $& $ 5.8401$& $ 3.2676$& $ 2.8600$ \\
$n_{s^*p\sigma} $& $ 6.8116$& $ 6.9229$& $ 3.2240$ \\
$n_{pp\sigma} $& $ 6.9787$& $ 6.2602$& $ 5.1560$ \\
$n_{pp\pi} $& $ 6.0189$& $ 7.0824$& $ 2.7960$ \\
$n_{pd\sigma} $& $ 2.7559$& $ 3.5344$& $ 5.5920$ \\
$n_{pd\pi} $& $ 6.0212$& $ 7.3976$& $ 4.8080$ \\
\hline
$\pi_{001} $& $ 0.0952$& $ 0.1476$& $ 0.1000$ \\
$\pi_{111} $& $ 0.1456$& $ 0.1588$& $ 0.1160$ \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular*}
\caption{Deformation tight-binding parameters used in calculations.
Other parameters are $\alpha_{s^*}=2.0$ and $n_{s^*s^*\sigma}=n_{s^*d\sigma}=n_{dd\sigma}=n_{dd\pi}=n_{dd\delta}= 2.0$
}\label{tbl:strain_par}
\end{table}
The third contribution is related to the strain-induced splitting of the on-site energies of the degenerate orbitals $p$ and $d$~\cite{Jancu07,Boykin10,Niquet09,Zielinski12}. The contribution has not been analyzed in detail so far. In Ref.~\onlinecite{Jancu07}, a simplified approach has been considered: The splittings were assumed to be proportional to the strain tensor. Here, we generalize this approach by introducing the corrections proportional to the local strain tensor $\bm \varepsilon$ and the local strain vector $\vec{u}$.
Using the method of invariants one can show that the corresponding contribution to
the $p$-orbital same-atom block in the tight-binding Hamiltonian in the basis of the
functions $p_x$, $p_y$, and $p_z$ has the form
\begin{equation}\label{ham_str_n_int}
\delta H=
\left(\begin{array}{ccc}
\lambda_1(\sqrt3\varepsilon_1-\varepsilon_2)
&\lambda_2\varepsilon_{xy} + \xi u_z
&\lambda_2\varepsilon_{zx} + \xi u_y\\
\lambda_2\varepsilon_{xy}+\xi u_z
&-\lambda_1(\sqrt3\varepsilon_1+\varepsilon_2)
&\lambda_2\varepsilon_{yz} +\xi u_x\\
\lambda_2\varepsilon_{zx}+\xi u_y
&\lambda_2\varepsilon_{yz}+\xi u_x
&2\lambda_1\varepsilon_2
\end{array}\right),
\end{equation}
where $\varepsilon_1 = \sqrt{3}(\varepsilon_{xx}-\varepsilon_{yy})$, $\varepsilon_2=2\varepsilon_{zz}-\varepsilon_{xx}-\varepsilon_{yy}$,
and $\lambda_j$ ($j=1,2$) are parameters, and we assume $\xi = \pm\lambda_{2}$ for anions and cations, respectively. To make the parametrization space more compact we assume that the parameters $\lambda_j$ for anions and cations are connected to each other by
\begin{align}
\lambda_{1}^a & = \frac12 (E_{p}^a-E_{\text{ref}}^a) \pi_{100} \,,\;
\lambda_{1}^c = \frac12 (E_{p}^c-E_{\text{ref}}^c) \pi_{100} \,, \\
\lambda_{2}^a & = -\frac83 (E_{p}^a-E_{\text{ref}}^a) \pi_{111} \,,\;
\lambda_{2}^c = -\frac83 (E_{p}^c-E_{\text{ref}}^c) \pi_{111} \,. \nonumber
\end{align}
The deformation parameters $\pi_{100}$ and $\pi_{111}$ for several binary compounds are listed in Table~\ref{tbl:strain_par}.
We note that similar splitting occurs for the $d$ orbitals as well. However, to fit the conduction-band and valence-band deformation-potential constants at the $\Gamma$ point of the Brillouin zone it is sufficient to consider the splitting of the $p$ orbitals.
Therefore, to simplify calculations we neglect the splitting of the $d$ orbitals. We keep in mind that for fitting simultaneously the deformation-potential constants at the $\Gamma$, $X$ and $L$ points a complete set of parameters should be used.
The determination of the strain-related parameters of the tight-binding Hamiltonian is a challenging task because of the small number of available well documented deformation-potential constants. In fact, the deformation-potential constants at the Brillouin zone center do not provide enough information to uniquely determine all the tight-binding parameters. We expect that any parametrization providing the correct values of the conduction-band deformation-potential constant $a_c$ and the valence-band deformation-potential constants
$a_v$, $b$ and $d$ yields satisfactory results the strain-induced spin-orbit coupling. Therefore, we adopt the approach
described in Ref.~\onlinecite{Raouafi16} and numerically fit the strain-related tight-binding parameters to to reproduce the recommended values of the deformation-potential constants in the Brillouin zone center given in Ref.~\onlinecite{Meyer}.
The obtain parameters are presented in Table~\ref{tbl:strain_par}. Table~\ref{tbl:kp_par} summarize the band gaps $E_g$, the effective electron masses at the $\Gamma$ point $m_e$, the Dresselhaus constants $\gamma_c$, and the deformation-potential constants $a_c$, $a_v$, $b$, $d$, and $C_3$ for some bulk binary and ternary compounds obtained from the tight-binding calculations with the parameters listed in Table~\ref{tbl:tb_par} and Table~\ref{tbl:strain_par}.
For alloys, the tight-binding needs a special care to be taken to reproduce the band gap bowing properly~\cite{Shim98}.
Here, we use an original interpolation scheme \cite{Nestoklon16} to construct the alloy A$_x$B$_{1-x}$C tight-binding parameters
in the virtual crystal approximation from the tight-binding parameters of the binary compounds AC and BC.
First, the lattice constant of the alloy is found as the linear interpolation between the binaries.
Then, we calculate the strain contributions as described above and construct the parameters of the AC and BC
materials strained to the lattice constant of the alloy. Finally, the tight-binding parameters of the alloy are determined
as the linear interpolations of the parameters of the strained binary materials. We note that, unlike the approach
from Ref.~\onlinecite{Shim98}, this procedure provides the correct bowing without the introduction of additional parameters.
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c|rrrrr}
\hline\hline
& GaAs & AlAs & InAs & Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As & In$_{0.2}$Ga$_{0.8}$As \\
\hline
$E_g$ & $1.519$ & $3.130$ & $0.417$ & $2.000$& $1.207$\\
$m_e$ & $0.0665$ & $0.158$ & $0.0235$& $0.0904$& $0.0519$\\
$-\gamma_c$ & $24.21 $ & $9.12 $ & $45.39$ & $16.04 $& $28.61$ \\
\hline
$a_c$ & $-7.17$ & $-5.64$ & $-5.08$ & $-6.74$ & $-6.62$\\
$a_v$ & $ 1.60$ & $ 2.47$ & $ 1.00$ & $ 1.63$ & $ 1.22$ \\
$b$ & $-2.00$ & $-2.30$ & $-1.80$ & $-0.74$ & $-1.35$ \\
$d$ & $-4.80$ & $-3.40$ & $-3.60$ & $-4.39$ & $-4.53$ \\
$C_3$ & $ 8.12$ & $-3.34$ & $104.5$ & $-2.65$ & $15.10$ \\
\hline\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The band gaps $E_g$ (in eV), the effective electron masses at the $\Gamma$ point $m_e$ (in the units of free electron mass), the bulk Dresselhaus constants $\gamma_c$ (in eV$\cdot$\AA$^3$) \cite{Note1}, the deformation-potential constants $a_c$, $a_v$, $b$ and $d$ (in eV), and
$C_3$ (in eV$\cdot$\AA) computed using the tight-binding parameters from Table~\ref{tbl:tb_par} and Table~\ref{tbl:strain_par}.
}\label{tbl:kp_par}
\end{table}
We also note that the standard $sp^3d^5s^*$ tight-binding model~\cite{Jancu98} does not take into
account the spin-orbit coupling of the $p$ and $d$ orbitals which yields the major contribution
to the $C_3'$ constant~\cite{Pikus88}. The missing of $C_3'$ has the same origin
as the missing of the $\bm k$-linear spin splitting of the $\Gamma_8$ valence band in the bulk
crystal~\cite{Pikus88,Boykin98}. Possible solution of this problem proposed by
Boykin~\cite{Boykin98} is based on the consideration of second-nearest neighboring atoms
and has no straightforward extension to strained heterostructures.
\section{Results}
We use the procedure described in Ref.~\onlinecite{Nestoklon12} to extract the constants
of the spin-orbit Hamiltonian \eqref{eq:Hso} from the tight-binding calculations for
GaAs-based and InGaAs-based QW structures. As distinct from previous calculations,
we now include the atomistic strain as described in Section~\ref{sec:TB}. The results
show that the constants $\alpha_{\pm}$ related to structure inversion asymmetry are almost
independent of the strain present in the QW. Therefore, we focus below on the
Dresselhaus parameter $\beta$ and consider symmetric QWs.
\subsection{GaAs/AlGaAs quantum wells}
The Dresselhaus constant $\beta$ as a function of the QW thickness determined for
AlGaAs/GaAs/AlGaAs QWs with different strain configurations is shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:AlGaAs}.
Here, we present the results for the same structures but lattice-matched either to GaAs
(solid line) or to AlAs (dashed line)~\footnote{The coordinate system is changed with respect to the
one used in Ref.~\cite{Nestoklon12} which results in the opposite sign of the Dresselhaus constant.}.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig1}%
\caption{Dresselhaus constant $\beta$ as a function of the QW thickness (in monolayers, ML) calculated for
Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As/GaAs/Al$_{0.3}$Ga$_{0.7}$As QWs with different strain configurations.
Solid line shows the results for QW structures with the lattice constant corresponding to GaAs,
$a_0=5.65$~\AA. Dashed line shows the results for QWs lattice-matched to AlAs with the lattice constant
$a_0=5.66$.
}
\label{fig:AlGaAs}
\end{figure}
From Fig.~\ref{fig:AlGaAs} one may conclude that the widely adopted consideration of GaAs/AlGaAs heterostructures as unstrained systems is not completely satisfied for the analysis of spin splitting. The ratio of the Dresselhaus constants $\beta$ for the structures lattice-matched to GaAs and AlAs would exceed a factor 2 for a 50-\AA-wide QW while the strain itself is only $1\cdot10^{-3}$.
Note that the observed dependence of $\beta$ on the QW thickness actually reflects the redistribution of electron presence probability between the well and the barriers.
\subsection{InGaAs/GaAs quantum wells}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Fig2}%
\caption{Dresselhaus constant $\beta$ as a function of the QW thickness calculated for
GaAs/In$_{0.2}$Ga$_{0.8}$As/GaAs QWs grown on GaAs buffer layer (solid lines) and
In$_{0.2}$Ga$_{0.8}$As buffer layer (dashed lines).}\label{fig:InGaAs}
\end{figure}
While the strain contribution to the spin splitting in GaAs/AlGaAs QWs is still a correction,
it is natural to expect that in heterostructures grown from compounds with a significant lattice mismatch,
like InGaAs/GaAs QWs, the strain contribution dominates the spin splitting.
In addition to larger lattice mismatch, the deformation constant $C_3$ in InAs is about an order of magnitude larger than that in GaAs,
see Table~\ref{tbl:kp_par}. The large value of $C_3$ can be explained from the $\bm k$$\cdot$$\bm p$ perturbation theory
for bulk crystals where the major contribution to $C_3$ is given by~\cite{Pikus88}
\begin{equation}\label{eq:C3}
C_3 = \frac43 \frac{C_2 P \Delta}{E_g(E_g+\Delta)} \,,
\end{equation}
where $C_2$ is the interband deformation-potential constant, $P$ is the Kane matrix element, and $\Delta$ is the spin-orbit splitting of the valence band. The growth of $C_3$ for InAs as compared to that for GaAs is caused by the decrease in $E_g$ and the increase in $C_2$.
To elaborate this expectation we calculate the Dresselhaus constant $\beta$ for GaAs/In$_{0.2}$Ga$_{0.8}$As/GaAs QW
structures lattice-matched to GaAs and In$_{0.2}$Ga$_{0.8}$As. The dependence of the Dresselhaus constants on the QW thickness
for both strain configurations are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:InGaAs}. The range of spin splittings is significantly larger than
that in GaAs/AlGaAs structures and the Dresselhaus constant has a different dependence on the QW thickness.
Importantly, the sign of $\beta$ is opposite for the QW structures lattice-matched to GaAs and InGaAs layers. In the first case, $\beta$ tends to zero for narrow wells and saturates to the constant $\beta_{\rm srt}$ of the strained bulk InGaAs layer for wide wells. In the latter case, the behavior is opposite: $\beta$ tends to the constant $\beta_{\rm srt}$ of the strained bulk GaAs layer for narrow wells and vanishes for wide wells. The effect of quantum confinement given by $\langle k_z^2 \rangle$, which is important for GaAlAs QWs,
is masked by the interplay between the strain and the electron probability of presence in the well and the barriers. Actually, the expected positive value of $\beta$ for thick unstrained wells (dashed line in Fig.~\ref{fig:InGaAs}) is recovered only for very large thicknesses ($>60$ ML).
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we have performed atomistic calculations of the spin-orbit splitting of electron subbands in III-V (110)-grown quantum wells and revealed the important role of strain which naturally occurs in heterostructures. The strain contribution to the spin-orbit
coupling noticeably renormalizes the Dresselhaus constant in GaAs/AlGaAs QWs, which are commonly treated as nearly unstrained, and dominates the spin splitting in InGaAs/GaAs QWs with a rather large lattice constant mismatch. Strain engineering thus opens a way to control the spin splittings in two-dimensional electron gas in semiconductor heterostructures.
\paragraph*{Acknowledgments.} This work was partly supported by the Russian-French International Laboratory ILNACS and the
RFBR (projects 14-02-00123 and 15-32-20828).
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:1}
It is well known that dark matter accounts for about 85\% of the matter content of the universe and roughly 27\% of the entire energy density. Moreover, it is common knowledge that dark matter played an important role in the expansion history of the universe, specially in the formation of structures we observe today, such as galaxies and cluster of galaxies. The presence of dark matter has been ascertained through its gravitation effects by several observations as shown in Fig.\ref{evidence}. Unfortunately we dispose of no solid evidence for dark matter based on its interaction with ordinary matter that collider, direct detection and indirect detection methods reply upon. Thus, the puzzling question is: What is the nature of dark matter? We know dark matter is out there, but what kind of particle is dark matter made of? In more specific terms, we would like to know at some point the spin, mass and quantify the interaction strength of the dark matter particles with the standard model ones if any. Those are all open questions which might take a very long time to be answered even if a robust dark matter signal is observed today \cite{Roszkowski:2016bhs}. As Max Planck (1858-1947) once said ``An experiment is a question which science poses to Nature, and a measurement is the recording of Nature's
answer'', and indeed we have recorded many important answers along the past decades that helped us rule out what dark matter particles mostly likely cannot be, as well as identify some properties dark matter particles could have that would yield a signal within reach of current and planned experiments, while simultaneously fitting the observations.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{evidences.jpeg}
\caption{Collection of the five most important evidences for dark matter: structure formation, galaxy rotation curves, cluster collisions, Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) and Gravitational lenses.}
\label{evidence}
\end{figure}
A variety of observations going from structure formation to Cosmic Microwave Background data helped us infer some properties of the dark matter particles: (i) Structure formation tell us that dark matter particles could not have had a large free-streaming during the period of structure formation which took place around $10^{12}$~sec or so \cite{Cornell:2013rza}. Hence if dark matter particles belonged to a thermal history throughout the universe expansion, they cannot be very light ($\ll 1\, keV$); (ii) additionally, searches for electrically charged stable particles have occurred with null results, which resulted into stringent limits on models often called charged or milicharged dark matter \cite{SanchezSalcedo:2010ev}, which lead us to believe that dark matter is effectively electrically neutral; (iii) Among other observations, the precise measurement of the power spectrum of the cosmic microwave background radiation infers that the cold dark matter component of the universe should account for 27\% of the energy budget of the universe \cite{Ade:2015xua}. This is very important because large regions of parameter space from a multitude of models have been ruled out, since they predict overabundant dark matter; (iv) We do observe gravitational effects of the dark matter in our universe today, so dark matter particles should be stable at cosmological scales. It means that their lifetime should be much larger than the age of the universe ($\sim 4 \times 10^{17}$ sec). Though much stronger constraints can be derived using gamma-ray, neutrino and cosmic-ray data \cite{Audren:2014bca,Queiroz:2014yna,Baring:2015sza,Mambrini:2015sia,Giesen:2015ufa}; (v) Cluster collisions indicate that dark matter particles are not strongly interacting particles \cite{Clowe:2006eq}. Actually the constraint from these collisions are rather loose leaving room for strongly interacting scenarios \cite{Hochberg:2014dra,Hansen:2015yaa}.
Anyways, if one could wish for a dark matter candidate easy to be incorporated in particle physics models, and able to address the five Nature's answers above, plus predicting signals within sensitivity of current or future experiments, which candidate would that be? The answer is WIMPs (Weakly Interacting Massive Particles). I would not dare to say they are the best dark matter candidates, but they are without shadow of a doubt the most popular, and are the focus of this brief review. The question in order is, how do we search for these particles? The three main methods to search for WIMPs are known as: collider, direct and indirect detection which we will review below and highglight some recent developments.
\section{Collider Searches}
Since dark matter particles are assumed to be electrically neutral and cosmologically stable, at colliders they are simply refereed as missing energy. Some sort of heavy neutrinos. Hence, collider searches for dark matter are based on the detection of the visible counterpart of the signal, such as jets and charged leptons. An important aspect regarding collider searches for dark matter that needs to be stressed is the fact that colliders generally speaking offer a complementary and important probe for dark matter, but they cannot determine if what they see is the dark matter of the universe, since any neutral particle that decays outside the detector can be seen as missing energy. Only direct and indirect detection methods provide a way to confirm whether a potential signal is truly due to dark matter. Fig.\ref{monoX} illustrates what is often referred as mono-X searches, which accounts for mono-Z,mono-H, mono-jet searches for dark matter. They all have their virtues and setbacks when comes down to probing the parameter space of dark matter models.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{monoX.jpeg}
\caption{Mono-X searches for dark matter exhibited for the case of s-channel vector mediators.}
\label{monoX}
\end{figure}
The common approach in this endeavour is to use effective operators to describe the interaction between the dark matter particle and fermions. In the case of Dirac and Majorana fermions mediated by a vector boson, as shown in Fig.\ref{monoX}, the relevant operators are,\\
Dirac Fermion: $\frac{1}{\Lambda^2} \bar{\chi}\gamma_{\mu}\chi \bar{q}\gamma_{\mu} q$ + $\frac{1}{\Lambda^2} \bar{\chi}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5\chi \bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5 q$,\\
Majorana Fermion: $\frac{1}{\Lambda^2} \bar{\chi}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5\chi \bar{q}\gamma_{\mu}\gamma_5 q$.\\
The use of effective operators makes the interpretations among collider, direct and indirect detection observables fairly simpler than in the context of simplified dark matter models or UV complete theories. However, its simplicity comes at a price, which is the loss of resonance effects and overestimated limits in the regime which the momentum transfer is larger than the mediator mass. Let me explain better. Ignoring the width in the propagator for now, in the case of vector currents, the simplified lagrangian $L \supset [g_{\chi}\bar{\chi}\gamma_{\mu}\chi + g_q \bar{q}\gamma_{\mu} q]Z^{\prime}$ in the limit $M_{Z^{\prime}} \gg Q$, where Q is the momentum transfer, results into a signal amplitude proportional to,
\begin{equation}
\frac{g_q g_{\chi}}{M_{Z^{\prime}}^2 -Q ^2} \sim \frac{g_q g_{\chi}}{M_{Z^{\prime}}^2}\left(1+ \frac{Q^2}{M_{Z^{\prime}}^2}\right).
\end{equation}
That said one can differentiate three regimes:\\
(i) {\it Effective field theory is valid}\\
In the effective field theory approach one can match the unknown scale to the mediator mass, with $\Lambda=\frac{M_{Z^{\prime}}}{\sqrt{g_q g_{\chi}}}$. So that $\Lambda$ encompasses the couplings and the mediator mass as well as the quantum number of $\chi$ under the new gauge group which $Z^{\prime}$ is originated from. This matching is valid when $M_{Z^{\prime}} \gg Q$. For the LHC at 13TeV, it means that the effective theory approach is robust for mediators as heavy as 10TeV \cite{Abercrombie:2015wmb}.\\
(ii) {\it Effective field theory underestimates observables}\\
When $M_{Z^{\prime}} \sim Q$, the $Z^{\prime}$ is produced on shell, leading to large production rates. In this regime the use of effective theory yields underestimated limits. Note that in many particle physics models, mainly those related to vector mediators, the right relic abundance is obtained through resonance effects. Therefore, the effective field theory approach actually fails twice. \\
(iii) {\it Effective field theory breaks down}\\
When $Q > M_{Z^{\prime}}$, the effective field theory approach breaks down, overestimating the signals and bounds.\\
Thus, one has to carefully interpret LHC data to constrain dark matter models through effective operators. To avoid misuse, missing transverse energy searches from the LHC are planned to be interpreted in terms of simplified dark matter models. See \cite{Boveia:2016mrp} for more details. Keep in mind that, in a given particle physics model, specially those that rely on s-channel production mechanisms, mono-X searches often do not provide the most efficient way to probe dark matter models. Instead, dijet and dilepton resonance searches give rise to the most restrictive bounds. For recent and extensive discussions on the topic see \cite{DeSimone:2016fbz,Englert:2016joy,Alves:2015mua}. I will now discuss dark matter searches that are subject to larger uncertainties, namely direct and indirect detection.
\section{Direct Detection}
Since the presence of dark matter in our galaxy is inferred through its gravitational effects by a multitude of observations, direct detection experiments hope to observe dark matter scattering off nuclei targets, which are placed in underground laboratories to shield the detector from cosmic-rays induced events. These searches for dark matter are based on measuring the energy deposited by a dark matter particle in the scattering process with nuclei as it is schematically shown in Fig.\ref{DD}. The dark matter- nuclei scattering rate can be written as,
\begin{equation}
\overbrace{\frac{dR}{dE} (E,t)}^{Scatt.\, Rate} = {\color{yellow} \underbrace{N_T }_{Target\, Dependence}} {\color{green} \overbrace{\frac{\rho_{\chi}}{m_{\chi}}}^{Number\, density}} {\color{red} \int_{v_{min}}}{\color{blue} \underbrace{\frac{d\sigma }{dE}(v,E)}_{Diff.\,\, Cross\, Section}}\,{\color{red} v \overbrace{f_E(\overrightarrow{v},t)}^{veloc.\, distribution} d^3\overrightarrow{v}},
\end{equation}where $N_T$ is the number of target nuclei per kilogram of the detector, $\rho_{\chi}$ the local dark matter density ($\rho_{\chi} = 0.3\, GeV/cm^3$), $m_{\chi}$ the dark matter mass, $\overrightarrow{v}$ the velocity of the dark matter particle relative to the Earth, $f_E(\overrightarrow{v},t)$ velocity distribution of the dark matter in the frame of the Earth, i.e. the probability of finding a dark matter particle with velocity $v$ at a time $t$, and $v_{min}=\sqrt{m_N E/(2\mu^2)}$ is the minimum dark matter speed which can cause a recoil of energy detectable by a given experiment, with $\mu = m_{\chi} m_N/ (m_{\chi} + m_N)$ being the dark matter-nucleus reduced mass ($m_N$ is the nucleus mass), $d\sigma/dE(v,E)$ the differential cross-section for the dark matter-nucleus scattering as follows,
\begin{equation}
\frac{d\sigma}{dE} = \frac{m_N}{2\mu^2 v^2} (\sigma_{SI} F^2(q) + \sigma_{SD} S(q)),
\end{equation}with $F^2(q),S(q)$ being the spin-independent and spin-dependent form factors respectively listed in \cite{Duda:2006uk}.
The key aspect of direct detection searches for dark matter is not the measurement of the recoil energy itself, but how this energy is distributed. In Fig.\ref{DD} ( adapted from \cite{Undagoitia:2015gya}), I show how one could separate signal from background using ionization yield as used in Germanium detectors, e.g. SuperCDMS \cite{Agnese:2015nto}, charge/light x recoil energy collection as done in experiments such as XENON1T and LUX which use liquid XENON \cite{Aprile:2015uzo,Akerib:2015rjg} and charge/light ratio x pulse shape as performed in liquid Argon detectors as Darkside \cite{Agnes:2015ftt}. Hence, using discriminating variables one can disentangle signal from background and concretely search for dark matter scatterings. Be aware that there are important basic concepts (and/or assumptions) built-in those searches, namely:
\begin{itemize}
\item There is a smooth halo of dark matter particles in our galaxy described by a Maxwell Velocity distribution.
\item Due to the rotation of the Galactic Disk the solar system experiences an effective WIMP
Wind, which leads to an annual Modulation due to Earth's orbital motion.
\item The nucleus is treated as a hard sphere described by the Helm form factor \cite{Duda:2006uk}.
\item The scattering is elastic.
\end{itemize}
There are multiple studies where the impact of different velocity distributions , form factors and ineslatic scatterings are analysed. However, both cosmological simulations including baryons and lattice QCD studies seem to tell us that the dark matter-scattering process is well described by a Maxwellian velocity and Helm form factor \cite{Sloane:2016kyi,Kelso:2016qqj,Anand:2013yka}. The elasticity of the scattering has something do with the particle physics model in the case where excited dark matter states exist \cite{TuckerSmith:2001hy} though.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{dark_matter_detection.png}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{tereza.jpeg}
\caption{{\it Left}: Illustrative dark matter-nucleus scattering which direct detection experiments are based on. {\it Right:} Possible signal-background discriminating variables used in Germanium, liquid XENON and liquid ARGON detectors.}
\label{DD}
\end{figure}
In summary, if a signal (e.g. annual modulation and/or excess of nuclear recoil events) is observed, we can related the scattering cross section and mass of the dark matter particle to its local density. For this reason direct detection can truly discover the dark matter particle that permeates our galaxy.
\section{Indirect Detection}
Dark matter particles that populate our universe in galactic and extragalactic scales may self-annihilate and produce a flux of gamma-rays, cosmic-rays, neutrinos, anti-matter which can appear as an excess over the expected background. The flux originated from dark matter annihilation should be proportional to the number density squared of particles, i.e. $\rho_{\chi}^2/m_{\chi}^2$, to the annihilation cross section $\sigma v$, to the element of volume of the sky observed accounted by $\Omega$, and the number of particles of interest produced per annihilation ($dN/dE$). Hence, it can we written as,
\begin{equation}
\overbrace{\frac{d\Phi}{d\Omega dE}}^{Diff. Flux} = {\color{blue} \frac{ \overbrace{ \sigma v }^{Anni.\, Cross\, Section}}{8\pi m_{\chi}^2}} \times {\color{green} \underbrace{\frac{dN}{dE}}_{Energy\, Spectrum}} \times {\color{red} \int_{l.o.s} ds} {\color{red} \underbrace{\rho^2 (\overrightarrow{r}(s,\Omega))}_{Dark\, Matter\, Distribution}},
\label{eq:flux}
\end{equation}where $\Omega$ is truly the solid angle of the region of interest, $dN/dE$ is the energy spectrum (e.g. the number of photons produced per annihilation in case of gamma-rays), and $\rho (\overrightarrow{r}(s,\Omega))$ is the dark matter density which should integrated over the line of sight (l.o.s) from the observer to the source, which is often assumed to be described by either a Navarro-Frenk-White,
\begin{equation}
\rho(r) \propto \frac{r_s}{r[1+ r/r_s]^2},
\end{equation}or Einasto profile,
\begin{equation}
\rho(r) \propto exp \left[ \frac{-2.0}{\alpha} \left(\, (r/r_s)^{\alpha}-1 \right) \right],
\end{equation}where $r_s=20$~kpc is the scale radius of the halo, and $\alpha=0.17$.
From Eq.\ref{eq:flux} we see that indirect detection is sensitive to the dark matter density distribution, annihilation cross section and mass. These are complementary information to collider and direct detection searches. For example, if a signal is seen in direct detection and the mass and scattering cross section are inferred with a certain precision we can use this information to determine the dark matter density profile through indirect detection. Note that, the task to pinpoint the dark matter quantum numbers is much more difficult, since in a particle physics model, the direct and indirect detection observables are not necessarily strongly correlated. Even after including some collider input, the nature of dark matter may remain unknown. Only in cases where there are strong correlations between the parameters that set the collider, direct and indirect detection observables the nature of dark matter particle can be unveiled.
Anyhow, indirect search for dark matter has evolved tremendously due to the amount of data at our disposal. Today, we have a much better understanding of cosmic-ray propagation \cite{Profumo:2013yn}, better handle on the energy spectrum with the inclusion of electroweak and QCD corrections \cite{Ciafaloni:2010ti,Bringmann:2012vr,Bringmann:2015cpa}, and the catalog of gamma-ray sources has vastly enlarged, for instance, and we hope that the recent improvements in the three aforementioned methods will help us unmask the nature of dark matter. After reviewing basic aspects of indirect dark matter detection we will briefly discuss recent signals which have been attributed to dark matter annihilations or decays.
\subsection{Gamma-ray Excesses}
Due to the dim signal expected from dark matter annihilation and sizeable uncertainties in the astrophysical background, indirect detection searches for dark matter give rise to a multitude of excesses, which later led to a better understanding of the associated background. Nowadays, we have two excesses in the gamma-ray band, which have been attributed to dark matter annihilation. One observed in the galactic center \cite{Hooper:2010mq,TheFermi-LAT:2015kwa} and other in the recently discovered dwarf galaxy known as Reticulum II \cite{Geringer-Sameth:2015lua}. Both excesses can be explained by the same dark matter particle annihilating into $\bar{b}b$ quarks with $\sigma v \sim 10^{-26} cm^3s^{-1}$, $m_{\chi} \sim 30$GeV. Which is an intriguing coincidence. Although, due to the large uncertainties concerning the dark matter content in this dwarf galaxy is unclear whether the Reticulum II anomaly is actually supporting the galactic center excess \cite{Drlica-Wagner:2015xua}. Moreover, the dark matter properties that can accommodate these excesses should also produce an a gamma-ray signal in other dwarf galaxies, for instance. Current results from Fermi-LAT collaboration already rules out most of the region in the annihilation cross section {\it vs} mass plane that can accommodate the excesses \cite{Ackermann:2015zua}. With the discovery of nearby dwarf galaxies and better statistics, dwarf galaxies are the most promising method to test whether those signals are actually arising as a result of dark matter annihilation. In the foreseeable future we should start seeing excesses in dwarf galaxies, otherwise the upcoming limits based on a stack of dwarf galaxies will place severe limits on the dark matter interpretation of the galactic center excess as shown in Fig.\ref{dwarfproj}. From a more optimistic view though, we might actually be on the verge of a dark matter discovery.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{dwarfs.jpeg}
\label{dwarfproj}
\caption{10 Years limit projections from the observation of dwarf galaxies using Fermi-LAT. Taken from \url{http://fermi.gsfc.nasa.gov/science/mtgs/symposia/2015/program/monday/session1/JRacusin.pdf}}
\end{figure}
\subsection{keV Line Emission}
A $3.5$~keV line emission has been observed in both stack of 73 clusters of galaxies \cite{Bulbul:2014sua}, galactic center \cite{Jeltema:2014qfa}, in the M31 galaxy and the Perseus galaxy cluster using using data from the XMM-Newton satellite \cite{Boyarsky:2014jta}. The galaxy cluster teams argue that we there should be no atomic
transitions in thermal plasma at this energy, thus such x-ray emission should have an exotic origin such as from dark matter decay with a lifetime of $6-8\times 10^{25}$~sec and mass of $7$~keV, as naturally predicted in sterile neutrino models \cite{Dodelson:1993je,Abazajian:2014gza}. However, \cite{Jeltema:2014qfa} disputed these observations with the suggestive title ``dark matter searches going bananas'' in reference to a possible unaccounted potassium x-ray emission that could absorb the signal. Instead of getting into the debate driven by the authors, let me comment on the facts. In \cite{Jeltema:2014qfa}, the authors focused on the 3-4keV energy range and adopted a public version of the tool used to model the line emission, differently from the previous papers.
As similarly occurs at colliders, when an experiment such ATLAS observes a strong signal, e.g. the diphoton excess, the event should be checked (seen) by CMS and vice-versa. In the context of indirect dark matter, what we do is to look at a different target, since the same dark matter producing the $3.5$~keV line in clusters should be present in dwarf galaxies for instance. That is exactly what the groups have done later on. They both looked at the Draco dwarf galaxy since it is a classical target for dark matter searches. In \cite{Ruchayskiy:2015onc} they reported null result from Draco, however they affirm that to be consistent with
the 3.5 keV line observed in the stack of galaxy clusters at 95\% C.L. In \cite{Jeltema:2015mee}, on the order hand, the authors concluded that the non-observation of a x-ray line in Draco actually excludes the 3.5 keV line at 99\% C.L. Moreover, in \cite{Phillips:2015wla} the authors re-analysed the x-ray emission lines claimed in \cite{Jeltema:2014qfa}, and concluded that in fact the 3.5~keV feature can indeed be absorbed and there is no need to invoke new physics effects. Unfortunately, there is not enough x-ray data from other dwarfs so that one could perform a stacked analysis to bring the hammer down on this debate. Future observations of Astro-H are expected to clarify the nature of the x-ray line emission.
After discussing debatable indirect detection signals from dark matter, I will focus now on the observation of dwarf galaxies using Fermi-LAT as a method to probe gamma-ray and neutrino lines from dark matter annihilation.
\subsection{Gamma-ray Limits on Neutrino Lines From Dark Matter Annihilation}
Dark matter particles might self-annihilate into standard model particles such quarks, charged leptons and neutrinos. Quarks and charged leptons produce a significant amount of continuous gamma-ray emission after final state radiation and hadronization processes are accounted for, which does not occur for final state neutrinos. Thus, if you have a pair of dark matter particles, in the WIMP mass regime, annihilating purely into neutrinos, which detector would you use to search for this dark matter particle? Probably the first thing that comes to mind is IceCube, Super-K etc. Nevertheless, monochromatic neutrinos from dark matter annihilations are accompanied by a gamma-ray spectrum generated by electroweak corrections. Thus we can use gamma-ray telescopes to probe this dark matter particle. It turns out as displayed in Fig.5 that gamma-rays indeed, for masses above $200$~GeV, result into the strongest limits \cite{Queiroz:2016zwd}. It is known that final state tau leptons produce a harder gamma-ray spectrum than electrons. Therefore, the electron-neutrino and tau-neutrino final states yield different gamma-ray spectra, since a electron-neutrino is converted to an electron via W exchange, whereas a tau-neutrino is converted to a tau lepton via W exchange (right side of Fig.5). In other words, if we ever reach this level of precision to discriminate the difference between the $\nu_{e,\mu}$ the $\nu_{\tau}$ curves, gamma-rays offer a promising avenue to distinguish final state neutrino flavors, which is something not possible at neutrino detectors. Note that this result does not undervalue the role of neutrino telescopes as far as detecting dark matter annihilations into neutrinos is concerned, since only them are capable of determining whether the signal is truly a neutrino line. What this result is showing us is that if a neutrino line is observed in Icecube/Super-K in the mass range of interest, gamma-ray telescopes should also see the corresponding gamma-ray counterpart. There are caveats though, for instance if the annihilation on shell species which then decay into neutrinos, softening the gamma-ray yield. Anyway, leaving such particular cases aside, Fig.\ref{neutrinoline} shows that have already entered into a new era where gamma-ray detectors are actually more sensitive than neutrino detectors to neutrino lines from dark matter annihilation.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{neuann.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.5]{neutrinoline.jpeg}
\label{neutrinoline}
\caption{Dark matter annihilation purely into neutrinos also gives rise to a continuous gamma-ray emission which can be probed with Fermi-LAT, H.E.S.S. and CTA. Notice that in principle, one could distinguish the neutrino flavors using gamma-rays.}
\end{figure}
Another interesting outcome of the inclusion of electroweak corrections has to do with gamma-ray line searches as I discuss below.
\subsection{Extending Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. Limits on Gamma-ray Lines}
Knowing that the Fermi-LAT energy limit is 500GeV. Is Fermi-LAT sensitive to a $2$~TeV dark matter particle annihilating into two photons? At first sight no. Although, gamma-rays may also radiate $W^{\pm}$ gauge bosons which then decay and generate gamma-rays at lower energies, below $500$~GeV, i.e. within Fermi-LAT sensitivity. Thus one can derive new limits, though not as restrictive as those coming from spectral line analysis, on a mass region previously not probed by Fermi-LAT in the context of gamma-ray line searches. The same idea can be applied to H.E.S.S. instrument, whose energy limit extends up to $20$~TeV. In Fig.6, along with the unitary bound taken from \cite{Beacom:2006tt}, I show that both Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. limits can be extended to masses much larger than their energy limit using gamma-ray observations of dwarf galaxies for Fermi-LAT, and galactic center for H.E.S.S.. In particular, these are the first limits on gamma-ray lines from dark matter
annihilation for masses above 20TeV. For more details see \cite{Profumo:2016idl}.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{Fermilines.pdf}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{Hesslines2.pdf}
\label{gammaline}
\caption{The Fermi-LAT and H.E.S.S. limits are represented by dotted curves in both figures, whereas the constraints for higher masses taking advantage of electroweak corrections are displayed in color.}
\end{figure}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
I thank the organizers of Moriond 2016 for the invitation to give the dark matter overview talk, and putting together great physicists in a lovely environment. I am grateful to Yann Mambrini, Stefano Profumo and Christoph Weniger for their collaboration in some of the results presented in this overview. I also thank Carlos Yaguna for his collaboration and proof-reading the manuscript. I am thankful to the organizers of the ``Dark Matter in the Milky Way'' program in Mainz for the mind-blowing workshop during which this review was partly written.
\section*{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
Gromov-Witten theory started as an attempt to provide a rigorous mathematical foundation for the so-called A-model topological string theory of Calabi-Yau varieties.
Even though it can be defined for all the K\"ahler/symplectic manifolds, the theory on Calabi-Yau varieties remains the most difficult one.
In fact, a great deal of techniques were developed for non-Calabi-Yau varieties during the last twenty years. These techniques have only limited bearing
on the Calabi-Yau cases. In a certain sense, Calabi-Yau cases are very special too. There are two outstanding problems for the Gromov-Witten theory of Calabi-Yau varieties
and they are the focus of our investigation.
More than twenty years ago, physicists Bershadsky-Cecotti-Ooguri-Vafa \cite{BCOV} studied the higher genus B-model theory. One of the consequences of their investigation is the following mathematical
conjecture.
{\bf Modularity Conjecture: }{\em Suppose that $X$ is a Calabi-Yau manifold/orbifold and $\cF^{GW}_g$ is the genus $g$ generating function of its Gromov-Witten theory.
Then $\cF^{GW}_g$ is a quasi-modular form in an appropriate sense (see Definition \ref{def:qmf}, Definition \ref{def:amf} and Remark \ref{rem:qmf} ).}
One of main intellectual advances of the field during the last several years was the realization that the modularity conjecture should be extended to orbifold quotients $[X/G]$ of a Calabi-Yau manifold/orbifold $X$.
When $X$ is a Calabi-Yau hypersurface of weighted projective space, there is another famous duality from physics as follows. Suppose $X_W=\{W=0\}\subset \mathbb{P}(w_1, \cdots, w_n)$
is a degree $d$ hypersurface. $X_W$ is a Calabi-Yau orbifold iff $d=\sum_i w_i$.
Let $G_W$ be the group of diagonal matrices preserving $W$. $G_W$ is nontrivial and it contains a special matrix $J=(\exp(2\pi \sqrt{-1}w_1/d), \cdots, \exp(2\pi \sqrt{-1} w_n/d))$. $J$ acts trivially on $X_W$.
In addition to $W$, we can choose a so-called {\em admissible group} $\langle J \rangle \subset G \subset G_W$. Then, $\tilde{G}=G/\langle J \rangle$ acts faithfully on $X_W$.
There are two curve counting theories built out
of data $(W, G)$: the Gromov-Witten theory of an orbifold $[X_W/\tilde{G}]$ and the FJRW theory of $(W, G)$ \cite{FJR, FJR2}. Let $\cF_g^{\rm GW}, \cF_g^{\rm FJRW}$ be the generating functions of
each theory. Define {\em partition functions}
$$\cD_{\rm GW}=\sum_{g\geq0} \hbar^{g-1} \cF_g^{\rm GW}, \ \cD_{\rm FJRW}=\sum_{g\geq0} \hbar^{g-1} \cF^{\rm FJRW}_g.$$
The second outstanding problem for Calabi-Yau varieties is the following conjecture \cite{W, R}.
{\bf Landau-Ginzburg/Calabi-Yau correspondence Conjecture: }{\em There is a differential operator $\hat{}\cU$ built out of genus zero data (the quantization of symplectic transformation in the sense of
Givental) such that up to an analytic continuation
$$\cD_{\rm GW}=\cU(\cD_{\rm FJRW}).$$}
The above two conjectures are central for our understanding the GW-theory of Calabi-Yau varieties. For example, they are at the heart of a recent
spectacular advance in physics \cite{HKQ} to compute higher genus Gromov-Witten invariants of the quintic 3-fold up to genus 51!
It is clear that both conjectures are difficult. In \cite{CHR}, it was proposed to put both conjectures into a single framework using {\em global mirror symmetry}. Here, the word {\em global} refers to the global property of the B-model. The traditional version of mirror symmetry is
{\em local} in the sense that we study a neighborhood of so-called {\em a large complex structure limit}. Global
mirror symmetry emphasizes the idea of moving away from a large complex structure limit. In fact, we want to move around
the entire B-model moduli space and study all the interesting limits including (not exclusively) the large complex limit. One of the special ones is the Gepner limit, corresponding to
FJRW theory. Therefore, the knowledge of the Gepner limit (FJRW theory) will yield a wealth of information
at the large complex structure limit (GW theory). This provides an effective way to compute higher-genus Gromov-Witten invariants of Calabi-Yau hypersurfaces, which is a central and yet difficult problem in geometry and physics. Furthermore, one can study global properties of the
entire family. The global properties of B-model naturally lead to the
modularity of Gromov-Witten theory, a remarkable bonus of {\em global mirror symmetry}.
This was exactly the way that BCOV discovered the modularity more than twenty years ago. Since then, there has been steady progress in
physics on the modularity conjecture \cite{ABK, HK, HKQ, HKK, ASYZ}. In a sense, the mathematicians are finally catching up! However, the recent mathematical development did not follow
the physical blueprint. Recall that the physical discussion for last 15 years focused on the Calabi-Yau
B-model (see a mathematical formulation in \cite{CS}). An unexpected twist of recent events in mathematics is the development of
the above framework in the set-up of
the Landau-Ginzburg model over $[X/G]$, a related but much larger model.
The main result of this article is to prove both conjectures
for $(W, G_W)$ (Theorem \ref{thm:main})
in the case that $W$ is a Fermat polynomial.
\begin{theorem}
Suppose that $W$ is a Fermat polynomial with $d=\sum_i c_i$ (hence $X_W$ defines a Calabi-Yau hypersurface). Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] LG/CY correspondence conjecture holds for the pair $(W, G_W)$.
\item[(2)] The modularity conjecture holds for $[X_W/\tilde{G}_W]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
We would like to mention that there are two other parts of LG/CY correspondences, {\em cohomological corespondence} and {\em genus zero correspondence}.
The cohomological correspondence was solved for an arbitrary admissible pair $(W, G)$ by Chiodo-Ruan \cite{CHR3}. The genus zero correspondence for Fermat polynomial $W$ was solved by
Chiodo-Iritani-Ruan \cite{CHR2, CIR} for the pair $(W, \langle J \rangle)$ (see wall-crossing proof in \cite{RR}) and by Lee-Priddis-Shoemaker \cite{PS, PLS} for the pair $(W, SL_W)$. The all-genus correspondence for simple elliptic singularities was solved by Krawitz-Shen \cite{KSh} and Milanov-Ruan \cite{MR}.
There are also very interesting versions for complete intersections by Clader \cite{CL} and non-Calabi-Yau cases by Acosta \cite{AC}. Our focus is the higher genus correspondence as we stated in the theorem.
However, an intermediate
step is a proof of the genus zero correspondence for the pair $(W, G_W)$. The modularity conjecture was solved in dimension one\cite{MR, MRS, SZ} (see \cite{Coates-Iritani:Fock} for a related work on compact toric orbifolds).
Let's spell out our general strategy. The original version of the LG/CY correspondence is a conjectural statement
connecting the GW theory of $X_W$ and the FJRW theory of $(W, \langle J \rangle)$. The computation of higher-genus
Gromov-Witten invariants is a very difficult problem, which we hope to solve using the LG/CY correspondence. However, we can improve the situation by taking a certain
maximal quotient $[X_W/\tilde{G}_W]$. By the Berglund-H\"ubsch-Krawitz LG-to-LG mirror symmetry \cite{BH, Kr}, $[X_W/\tilde{G}_W]$ should be mirror to the large
complex structure limit of the B-model family of the dual polynomial $W^T$ (a Fermat polynomial is self-dual). The Gepner limit in the B-model family is mirror to the FJRW theory of
$(W, G_W)$ \cite{HLSW}. The B-model family of $W^T$ corresponds to miniversal deformation of $W^T$. Its genus zero theory is
known as Saito's Frobenius manifold theory \cite{KS}. Saito's Frobenius manifold is generically semi-simple and Givental has
defined a higher-genus potential function on the semi-simple locus \cite{G1}. Namely, we have a rigorous mathematical definition of the B-model theory
in this case for all genera. Using Teleman's
solution of the Givental conjecture \cite{Te}, the higher genus theory of a semi-simple GW-theory is determined by the genus zero theory. Therefore, the all-genus
LG/CY correspondence is reduced to the genus zero correspondence. On the other hand, there is no such reduction for CY cases such as $X_W$.
We should mention that the extension of the Givental-Teleman higher genus function to non-semisimple locus is a well-known difficult problem
and has been solved recently by Milanov \cite{Mi}.
We shall implement our strategy in two steps:
(i) a construction of the global LG B-model of $W^T$, and (ii) two mirror symmetry theorems connecting the B-model at the large complex structure
limit to GW-theory and the B-model at the Gepner limit to FJRW-theory.
We have applied the above strategy successfully for quotients of elliptic curves by $\Z_3, \Z_4, \Z_6$ \cite{KSh, MR}. But the B-model construction in \cite{MR}
does not generalize to higher dimensions. In this article, we develop the higher dimensional theory
using a different approach.
The main results of this article have been reported in various conferences during last five years. We apologize for
the long delay.
The article is organized as follows. In the Section 2, we will review the global CY-B-model to motivate our global LG-B-model
construction and the appearance of quasi-modular forms in Gromov-Witten theory. Sections 3-5 form the technical core of
the paper where we construct the global LG-B-model. We should mention that many ingredients were already in the literature \cite{He}. The two mirror symmetric theorems as well as the proof of the main theorem will be presented in Sections 6 and 7.
The proof of the main theorem (Theorem \ref{thm:main})
will be presented in the Section 7.
We thank Rachel Webb for careful reading of our manuscript
and for helpful comments.
Y.~R.~would like to thank Albrecht Klemm from whom he learned a great deal about the modularity conjecture.
Y.~S.~would like to thank Si Li and Zhengyu Zong for helpful discussions.
The work of H.~I.~is partially supported by JSPS Grant-In-Aid
16K05127, 16H06337, 25400069, 26610008, 23224002.
The work of T.~M.~is partially supported by JSPS Grant-In-Aid 26800003
and by the World Premier International Research Center Initiative (WPI Initiative),
MEXT, Japan.
The work of Y.~R.~ is partially supported by NSF grants DMS 1159265
and DMS 1405245.
The work of Y.~S.~is partially supported by NSF grant DMS 1159156.
\section{Global CY-B-model and quasi-modular form}
We are primarily working in the LG-setting.
In this section, we review some basic properties expected
for the Calabi-Yau B-model to motivate our construction.
In the process, quasi-modular forms appear naturally in GW-theory.
We follow closely the presentation of Dolgachev-Kondo \cite{DK}.
The B-model on a Calabi--Yau manifold $X$ concerns
the moduli space of complex structures (possibly with a marking) on $X$.
Traditionally, the moduli space is studied by its Hodge structure.
Let us start from the abstract set-up.
Let $V$ be a real-vector space and let $V_\C = V\otimes_\R \C$
denote the complexification of $V$.
An {\em Hodge structure of weight $k$} on $V$ is
the direct sum decomposition of $V_\C$:
$$V_{\C}=\bigoplus_{p+q=k} V^{p,q}$$
that satisfies $\overline{V^{p,q}}=V^{q,p}$.
A {\em polarization} is a $(-1)^k$-symmetric
non-degenerate bilinear form $Q \colon V\times V \to \R$,
where $(-1)^k$-symmetricity means $Q(x,y) = (-1)^k Q(y,x)$.
Furthermore, we require that $Q$ satisfies the conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $Q(x,y)=0$ for all $x\in V^{p,q}, y\in V^{p',q'}$ with
$(p,q) \neq (q',p')$;
\item[(ii)] $i^{p-q}(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}Q(x,\bar{x})>0$
for all non-zero $x\in V^{p,q}$
\end{itemize}
where $Q$ is extended to a complex bilinear form on $V_\C$.
We can associate the {\em Hodge filtration}
\[
0\subset F^k\subset F^{k-1}\subset \dots \subset F^0=V_{\C},
\]
by $F^p=H^{p,k-p} \oplus H^{p+1, k-p-1} \oplus \cdots
\oplus H^{k,0}$.
The above Hodge filtration defines a {\em flag} of $V_{\C}$.
We can recover the Hodge decomposition from the flag by
\[
H^{p,q} = F^p \cap \overline{F^{k-p}}.
\]
Alternatively, when we have a polarization $Q$, we can also write
\[
H^{p,q}=\{x\in F^p: Q(x,\bar{y})=0, \forall y\in F^{p+1}\}.
\]
Take a decreasing sequence ${\bf m}=(\dim V \ge
m_1\ge m_2 \ge \cdots \ge m_k\ge 0)$
of integers in the range $[0,\dim V]$
and denote by $Fl({\bf m}, V_{\C})$ the partial flag variety
consisting of flags $(F^k \subset F^{k-1} \subset \cdots \subset F^0= V_\C)$
of linear subspaces with $\dim F^p = m_p$, $1\le p\le k$.
A polarized Hodge structure of weight $k$ defines a point
$(F^k\subset F^{k-1} \subset \cdots \subset F^0=V_\C)
\in Fl({\bf m}, V_{\C})$
satisfying the following conditions
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $V_{\C}=F^p\oplus \overline{F^{k-p+1}}$ for all $1\le p\le k$;
\item[(ii)] $ Q(F^p, F^{k-p+1})=0$ for all $1\le p\le k$;
\item[(iii)] $(-1)^{k(k-1)/2}Q(Cx, \bar{x})>0$ for all
non-zero $x\in V_\C$, where $C$ is the real
endomorphism of $V_\C$ such that $C|_{H^{p,q}} = i^{p-q} \id_{H^{p,q}}$,
called the \emph{Weil operator}.
\end{itemize}
We denote by $\D_{\bf{m}}(V,Q)$ the subspace of $Fl({\bf m}, V_\C)$
satisfying the above conditions.
The space $\D_{\bf{m}}(V,Q)$ is called the \emph{period domain}
of $(V,Q)$ of type ${\bf m}$.
By choosing a basis of $V$ and that of $F_p$, the subspace $F_p$ can be represented
by a complex matrix $\Pi_p$ of size $r\times m_p$, which is
called the \emph{period matrix}.
An additional important structure is the integral structure:
it is a free $\Z$-module
$\Lambda \subset V$ of rank $\dim V$ such that
the polarization $Q$ takes values in $\Z$ on $\Lambda$.
\begin{example}
\label{exa:Hodgestr}
Let $X$ be a compact K\"ahler manifold of dimension $k$.
The middle cohomology $H^k(X,\R)$ carries a natural Hodge structure
of weight $k$ via
the Hodge decomposition $H^k(X,\C) = \bigoplus_{p+q =k} H^{p,q}(X)$.
A polarization on $H^k(X,\R)$ is given by the intersection form
$Q(\alpha,\beta) = \int_X \alpha \cup \beta$ and
the integral structure is given by $\Lambda=H^k(X, \Z)$.
\end{example}
Let $f\colon \cX \rightarrow T$ be a family of $k$-dimensional
compact complex manifolds such that the total space $\cX$ is K\"ahler.
As we saw in Example \ref{exa:Hodgestr}, the middle cohomology
$H^k(X_t,\R)$ of each fiber $X_t = f^{-1}(t)$ carries a polarized
Hodge structure of weight $k$ for $t\in T$.
Let $V$ be a real vector space $V$ and let $Q_0$ be a
$(-1)^k$-symmetric pairing on $V$.
An isomorphism
\[
\varphi_{t}\colon (V, Q_0) \cong (H^k(X_t, \R), \text{intersection pairing}).
\]
is called a \emph{marking} of $X_t$.
By pulling back the Hodge structure on $H^k(X_t,\R)$ by $\varphi_t$,
we obtain a $Q_0$-polarized Hodge structure of weight $k$ on $V$.
We analytically continue the marking $\varphi_t$ in $t$ so that
it is flat with respect to the Gauss-Manin connection.
Then $\varphi_t$ is extended to a multi-valued period map
\[
\phi \colon T \dashrightarrow \D_{\bf{m}} = \D_{\bf{m}}(V,Q_0),
\quad
t\mapsto (\varphi_t^{-1}(F^p_t))
\]
where $F^p_t$ denotes the Hodge flag on $H^k(X_t,\C)$ and
$\D_{\bf{m}}$ denotes the period domain of type
${\bf m} = (m_p)$ with $m_p = \dim F^p_t$
(which is independent of $t$).
The period map becomes single-valued on the universal cover of $T$.
The multi-valuedness of the period map
is measured by the \emph{monodromy representation}
\[
\alpha\colon
\pi_1(T, t_0)\rightarrow G_{\Lambda}:=\Aut(\Lambda, Q|_{\Lambda}).
\]
Let $\Gamma$ be the image of $\alpha$.
We obtain a single valued period map
\[
\bar{\phi}\colon
T\rightarrow \D_{\bf{m}}/\Gamma\rightarrow
\D_{\bf m}/G_\Lambda.
\]
The global Torelli theorem is a statement that
$\bar\phi(t_1) = \bar\phi(t_2)$ in $\D_{\bf{m}}/G_\Lambda$
implies $X_{t_1} \cong X_{t_2}$,
which is basically true in dimension one and two.
It is unknown if the global Torelli theorem holds in higher dimensions.
Another important property is whether or not
$\D_{\bf{m}}/G_\Lambda$ is a hermitian symmetry space,
which makes the connection to number theory.
Again, this is the case in dimension one and two and false in higher dimension.
When $X$ is Calabi-Yau, $F^k=H^{k,0}$ is one-dimensional.
An element of $H^{k,0}$ is a
{\em holomorphic $(k,0)$ form or a Calabi-Yau form}.
$F^k$ induces a holomorphic line bundle
\[
\cL\rightarrow \D_{\bf{m}}.
\]
In physics literature, $\cL$ is called a {\em vacuum} line bundle.
It is equivariant with respect to the $G_{\Lambda}$ action and hence descends
to $\D_{\bf{m}}/G_{\Lambda}$.
We use the same $\cL$ to denote its pull back to $T$.
Using $\cL$, we can define the {\em modular form}.
\begin{definition}\label{def:qmf}
We call an analytic (holomorphic) section $\Psi$ of $\cL^{w}$
a {\em (holomorphic) modular form of weight $w$} of $T$.
Alternatively, $\Psi$ can be viewed as an analytic function
on the total space of $\cL$ such that $\Psi(zv)=z^{-w}\Psi(v)$.
We call a holomorphic function $\psi$ on $\D_{\bf m}$ a {\em quasi-modular form}
if it is the holomorphic part of a ``non-holomorphic'' modular form.
In other words, there is a (non-holomorphic) modular form $\Psi$ and
functions $h_1, \dots, h_k$ (anti-holomorphic generators)
such that $\Psi$ is a polynomial of $h_1, \cdots, h_k$
with holomorphic functions as coefficients and $\psi$ as the constant term.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:qmf}
The above definition is unsatisfactory since it also includes other objects such as mock modular forms. We use it as the working
definition of this paper because of the lack of a better definition. The main point of BCOV's paper is that B-model GW-theory generating
function should be a {\em almost holomorphic }section of $\cL^k$ and hence almost holomorphic modular form. Here, the almost holomorphic
means that its anti-holomorphic generators satisfy the so-called {\em holomorphic anomaly equation}. The A-model GW-theory generating function
corresponds to the holomorphic part of B-model generating function. An important future problem is to study these anti-holomorphic generators,
which will lead to a definition closer to that in number theory.
\end{remark}
\begin{example}[{\cite[\S 4]{DK}}]
A Hodge structure of weight 1 on $V$ gives rise to a decomposition
\[
V_{\C}=V^{1,0}+V^{0,1}
\]
such that $\overline{V^{1,0}} = V^{0,1}$.
In this case $V$ is necessarily even dimensional; we set
$2g = \dim_\R V$.
A polarization on $V$ is given by a symplectic form $Q$ that satisfies
the following conditions:
\begin{itemize}
\item $Q|_{V^{1,0}}=0$, $Q|_{V^{0,1}}=0$ and;
\item $i Q(x, \bar{x})>0$, $\forall x\in V^{1,0}\setminus \{0\}$.
\end{itemize}
It is easy to check that $H(x,y)=-iQ(x, \bar{y})$ (or $Q(x,y)=iH(x, \bar{y})$)
defines a hermitian form on $V_{\C}$ of signature $(g,g)$
\cite[Lemma 4.2]{DK}.
Let $G(g, V_{\C})$ be the Grassmannian of $g$-dimensional subspaces
of $V_{\C}$.
Set
\[
G(g, V_{\C})_H=\{W\in G(g, V_{\C}) : Q|_{W}=0, H|_{W}>0\}.
\]
Then we have a one-to-one correspondence between Hodge structures
on $V$ with polarization form $Q$ and points in $G(g,V_\C)_H$
\cite[Theorem 4.3]{DK}.
Choose a symplectic basis of $V$. Then we can find a unique
basis $w_1,\dots,w_g$ of $W$ of the form
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
\vert & & \vert \\
w_1 & \dots & w_g \\
\vert & & \vert
\end{pmatrix}
=
\begin{pmatrix}
Z \\
I_g
\end{pmatrix}
\]
where $I_g$ is the identity matrix of size $g$.
The $g\times g$-matrix $Z$ must satisfy
\[
Z^T=Z, \quad
\Im(Z)=\frac{1}{2i}(Z-\bar{Z})>0.
\]
Therefore we can identify the period domain $\D_{(2g,g)}$ of
polarized Hodge structures of weight $1$ with the space
\[
\cZ_g=\{Z\in \operatorname{Mat}_{g}(\C): Z^T=Z, \Im(Z)>0\}.
\]
This is the {\em Siegel upper half plane of degree $g$}.
The dimension is given by $g(g+1)/2$.
Suppose that $V$ has an integral structure $\Lambda$
such that the symplectic form $Q$ induces a perfect
pairing $\Lambda\times \Lambda \to \Z$.
In this case, the automorphisms group $G_\Lambda
= \Aut(\Lambda,Q)$ equals $Sp(2g,\Z)$.
When we choose an integral symplectic basis of $V$,
an element $M\in Sp(2g,\Z)$ acts on the period domain
$\D_{(2g,g)} \cong \cZ_g$ by
\[
M(Z)=(AZ+B) (CZ+D)^{-1}
\]
where we write
$M =
\begin{pmatrix}
A&B\\
C&D
\end{pmatrix}$.
Suppose that $\cX\rightarrow T$ is a one-dimensional family of elliptic curves.
The middle cohomology $H^1(X_t)$ of each fiber has a Hodge structure
of weight 1 (with $g=1$).
In this case, the period domain is the upper half plane $\cZ_1 \cong \mathbf{H}$
and the monodromy group $\Gamma$ is a subgroup of $SL(2,\Z)$.
Suppose that $\cX$ is not a constant family.
Then, the universal cover of $T$ is an open subset of $\mathbf{H}$ and we have
$T \subset \mathbf{H}/\Gamma$.
We would like to consider a modular form on the period domain.
Note that we can consider $\D_{2,1}$ as a sub-domain of $\PP(V_{\C})$.
Then the vacuum line bundle $\cL$ is the pull-back of the tautological
line bundle of $\PP(V_{\C})$.
Let $\omega$ be a holomorphic $(1,0)$-form.
Choose a symplectic basis (marking) $A, B$ of $H_1(X_t,\Z)$.
The periods
\[
\alpha=\int_B \omega, \quad \beta=\int_A \omega
\]
define a homogeneous coordinate system on $\D_{(2,1)}$.
The inhomogeneous coordinate is $\tau=\alpha/\beta\in \mathbf{H}$.
Moreover, the total space of $\cL$ (minus the zero-section)
can be identified as
$(V_{\C}\setminus \{0\})/\Gamma$, where
an element $\begin{pmatrix} a & b \\ c & d \end{pmatrix} \in
\Gamma$ acts by
\[
\begin{pmatrix}
\alpha \\
\beta
\end{pmatrix}
\longmapsto
\begin{pmatrix}
a\alpha+b\beta \\
c\alpha+d\beta
\end{pmatrix}
\]
By definition, a modular form of weight $k$ is a holomorphic function
\[
f\colon V_{\C} \setminus \{0\}\rightarrow \C
\]
such that
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] $f$ is invariant under the $\Gamma$-action;
\item[(ii)] $f(z v_0, z v_1)=z^{-k}f(v_0, v_1).$
\end{itemize}
We can normalize $\omega$ so that $\omega(A)=1$.
This corresponds to considering the section
\[
\tau\mapsto (\tau,1)
\]
of $\cL$.
Set $F(\tau)=f(\tau,1)$.
Under a fractional linear transformation
$\tau \mapsto (a\tau+b)/(c\tau+d)$, $F(\tau)$ changes as
\begin{align*}
F\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d}\right)
& =f\left(\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d},1\right)
=(c\tau+d)^{k}f(a\tau+b, c\tau+d) \\
& =(c\tau+d)^{k}f(\tau,1) =(c\tau+d)^{k}F(\tau)
\end{align*}
which agrees with the usual definition of modular forms.
The above example can be generalized to higher rank cases.
The $(1,0)$-part $V^{1,0}$ defines a rank $g$ bundle $\cV$
over the Siegel upper half space $\cZ_g$. Set $\cL=\det( \cV)$.
A {\em Seigel modular form} $f$ of weight $k$ is a section of $\cL^k$.
Similarly, we can work out its inhomogeneous presentation.
It corresponds to a function $F\colon \cZ_g\rightarrow \C$ such that
\[
F\left(\frac{A\tau+B}{C\tau+D}\right)=\det
\begin{pmatrix}
A&B\\
C&D
\end{pmatrix}^k F(\tau)
\]
for $\tau\in \cZ_g$ and
$\begin{pmatrix}
A&B\\
C&D
\end{pmatrix} \in Sp(2g, \Z)$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Next, we consider the B-model moduli space of a K3 surface.
Let $X$ be an algebraic K3 surface.
The second cohomology group $H^2(X, \Z)$
is a free abelian group of rank 22 and the intersection form
is even unimodular of signature $(3,19)$.
Let $\omega$ be an ample class.
We consider the Hodge structure on the primitive cohomology
$V=H^2_{\rm prim}(X, \Z)$ which is defined to be
the orthogonal complement of $\omega$.
The Hodge structure on $V_{\C}$ is of weight $2$, of type $(1,19,1)$
and polarized by the intersection form $Q$.
The Hodge filtration is:
\[
0\subset F^2=H^{2,0}(X)\subset F^1=H^{2,0}(X)+
H^{1,1}_{\rm prim}(X)\subset F^0=H^2_{\rm prim}(X, \C).
\]
Note that the Hodge filtration is completely determined by $F^2$ since
$F^1=(F^2)^{\perp}$.
Therefore the period domain $\D_{(21,20,1)}(V,Q)$ is identified with
the complex manifold
\[
\D_{(21,20,1)}(V,Q)=\{\C v\in \PP(V_{\C}) : Q(v,v)=0, Q(v, \bar{v})>0\}.
\]
The integral structure $\Lambda$ is again given by $H^2_{\rm prim}(X, \Z)$.
The monodromy group $\Gamma$ is a subgroup of
$\Aut(\Lambda, Q|_{\Lambda})$.
This can be generalized to the so-called lattice polarized K3 surfaces.
Let $M$ be an even lattice of signature $(1, r-1)$.
An $M$-polarized K3 surface is a pair $(X,j)$
of an algebraic K3 surface $X$ and a primitive embedding
$j\colon M\rightarrow \Pic(X)$ of lattices such that the image of $j$
contains an ample class.
If $M$ is of rank one, it reduces to the previous case.
A family of $M$-polarized K3 surfaces is a family $\pi\colon Y\rightarrow T$
of K3 surfaces equipped with primitive embeddings
$j_t\colon M\rightarrow H^2(X_t, \Z)$ containing an ample class on $X_t$
and depending continuously on $t$.
Let $L_{K3}$ denote the K3 lattice, that is, a lattice isomorphic to $H^2(X,\Z)$.
We fix a primitive embedding $M \hookrightarrow L_{K3}$
and write $N=M^{\perp}$ for the orthogonal complement of $M$.
The period domain for $M$-polarized K3 surfaces is given by
\[
\D_M=\{\C v\in \PP(N_{\C}) : Q(v,v)=0, Q(v, \bar{v})>0\}.
\]
The space $\D_M$ is a hermitian symmetric space and
of great interest to number theorist.
The modular form in this context is referred to as
an \emph{automorphic form} in the literature.
There is an inhomogeneous description for $\D_M$ similar
to that for the upper half plane.
Suppose that $e,f\in N$ span a hyperbolic lattice, i.e.~
$Q(e, e)=Q(f,f)=0, Q(e,f)=1$.
Consider the decomposition
\[
N_\R=V_0 \oplus \R f\oplus \R e.
\]
with $V_0$ the orthogonal complement of $\R f \oplus \R e$
in $N_\R$. Note that $(V_0,Q)$ is of signature $(1,19-r)$.
We can identify $\D_M$ with the complex manifold
\[
\{ z\in V_0 \otimes \C : Q(\Im z, \Im z)>0\}
\]
via the map
\[
z\mapsto w(z)=z + f - \frac{1}{2} Q(z,z)e.
\]
Using the above map, we can figure out the automorphic factor ---
a generalization of $(c\tau+d)^{k}$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}
Suppose that $X$ is a Calabi-Yau 3-fold. We obtain a Hodge structure of weight 3
\[
0\subset F^3=H^{30}\subset F^2=H^{30}+H^{21}\subset F^1=H^{30}+H^{21}+H^{12}\subset F^0=V_{\C}.
\]
on $V=H^3(X,\R)$.
The polarization $Q$ is symplectic in this case.
The moduli space of complex structures $M_X$
on $X$ is smooth of dimension $h=\dim H^{2,1}(X)$.
The period domain $\D_{\bf{m}}$ for
$\mathbf{m}=(2h+2, 2h+1, h+1, 1)$ is not a hermitian symmetric space in general.
The relation to number theory is not clear.
However, we can define a modular form formally as a section of $\cL^{k}$.
What is lacking is a inhomogeneous description similar to the upper half plane.
However, we can again use the periods to define a convenient coordinate system.
The monodromy group $\Gamma$ can be viewed as a subgroup of $Sp(2h+2, \Z)$.
One can conveniently forget about $F^3, F^2$.
Then, we obtain a weight 1 Hodge structure
\[
0\subset F^2\subset F^0.
\]
This defines an embedding of the moduli space of complex structures
into the Siegel upper half plane
\[
i\colon M_X \rightarrow \cZ_{h+1}/\Gamma.
\]
However, the image of above embedding is generally complicated.
\end{example}
\section{Global Landau-Ginzburg B-model at genus zero}
\label{sec:twdR}
In this section we construct the genus-zero data
(Saito structure) of the global B-model over a deformation space of
quasi-homogeneous polynomials.
This is given as a vector bundle formed by the
twisted de Rham cohomology, equipped with the Gauss-Manin
connection and the higher residue pairing.
In many ways, the material in this section is already standard
to the experts (see, e.g.~\cite{KS,MS, Sabbah:tame,He});
the (only) novel point in our construction is that we restrict
ourselves to
relevant and marginal deformations so that the resulting
structure is global and algebraic.
\subsection{A family of polynomials}
\label{subsec:family_poly}
Let $x_1,\dots,x_n$ be variables of degrees
$c_1,\dots, c_n$ with $0<c_i<1$, $c_i\in \Q$.
Let $\cM_{\rm mar}$ denote the space of all weighted
homogeneous polynomials of degree one.
\[
\cM_{\rm mar} = \{f \in \C[x_1,\dots,x_n] :\deg f =1 \}.
\]
Here the subscript ``mar'' means marginal deformations
following the terminology in physics.
We recall the following standard fact:
\begin{proposition}[\cite{Dimca:topics}]
\label{prop:regular}
For a weighted homogeneous polynomial $f\in \cM_\mar$,
the following conditions are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $f(x) =0$ has an isolated singularity at the origin;
\item $\partial_{x_1} f(x),\dots, \partial_{x_n} f(x)$ form a regular
sequence in $\C[x_1,\dots,x_n]$.
\end{enumerate}
For such $f$, the dimension of the Jacobi ring
\[
\Jac(f):= \C[x_1,\dots,x_n]/(\partial_{x_1} f, \dots \partial_{x_n} f)
\]
is independent of $f$ and is given by
\[
N := \frac{(1-c_1) (1-c_2) \cdots ( 1-c_n)}{c_1c_2\cdots c_n}.
\]
Moreover polynomials $f$ satisfying
the conditions (1) and (2) form a (possibly empty) Zariski open
subset of $\cM_\mar$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}
We say that a weighted homogeneous polynomial
$f\in \cM_\mar$ is \emph{regular} if
one of the equivalent conditions in Proposition \ref{prop:regular}
holds.
Let $\cM_\mar^\circ \subset \cM_\mar$ denote the Zariski open
subset consisting of regular homogeneous polynomials.
We denote by $\cM$ the space of
polynomials of degree $\le 1$ with regular leading terms:
\[
\cM := \left\{ f \in \C[x_1,\dots,x_n] :
f = \sum_{0<d\le 1} f_d, \ \deg(f_d) = d, \
f_1 \in \cM_\mar^\circ\right\}.
\]
\end{definition}
We will henceforth assume that $\cM_\mar^\circ$ is nonempty.
For a point $t \in \cM$, we write $f(x;t) \in \C[x_1,\dots,x_n]$
for the polynomial represented by $t\in \cM$.
Setting $X := \C^n \times \cM$, we have the following diagram:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:universal_polynomial}
\begin{CD}
X @>{f(x;t)}>> \C \\
@V{\pi}VV @. \\
\cM
\end{CD}
\end{equation}
where $\pi \colon X = \C^n\times \cM \to \cM$ is the projection
to the second factor.
The space $\cO(\cM)$ of regular functions on $\cM$ is graded
as follows.
A finite cover of $\C^\times$ acts on $\cM$ by
$\lambda \cdot f := \lambda^{-1} f(\lambda^{c_1} x_1,\dots,\lambda^{c_n} x_n)$;
this action induces the action on functions $\varphi \in \cO(\cM)$ by
$(\lambda \cdot \varphi)(f) = \varphi(\lambda^{-1} \cdot f)$.
We say that $\varphi \in \cO(\cM)$ is of degree $d\in \Q$
if $\lambda \cdot \varphi = \lambda^d \varphi$.
The grading on $\cO(\cM)$ and $\deg x_i = c_i$ together define
a grading on $\cO(X) = \cO(\cM \times \C^n)$.
The universal polynomial $f(x;t)\in \cO(X)$
is of degree one with respect to this grading.
What is important for us is the fact that
$\cO(\cM)$ and $\cO(X)$ are \emph{non-negatively} graded.
We introduce the \emph{critical scheme} $C \subset X$ as follows:
\[
\cO_C = \cO_X/
( \partial_{x_1} f(x;t),\dots, \partial_{x_n} f(x;t) ).
\]
Proposition \ref{prop:regular} implies that $(\pi_*\cO_C)|_{\cM_\mar^\circ}$
is a locally free cohrerent sheaf of rank $N$; we will see that
$\pi_*\cO_C$ is also locally free in Corollary \ref{cor:Jacobi_ring} below.
\begin{remark}\label{group:cc}
A group of coordinate changes on $\C^n$ acts on the
parameter space $\cM$ and our global B-model is equivariant
with respect to the group.
Let $G$ be the group of ring automorphisms of $\C[x]=\C[x_1,\dots,x_n]$
preserving the degree filtration $\C[x]^{\le d}=\{f \in\C[x]: \deg f \le d\}$.
Then $G$ acts on $\cM$ and the diagram \eqref{eq:universal_polynomial}.
The quotient stack $[\cM/G]$ should be viewed
as a genuine moduli space.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
In practice, it is convenient to work with a family of polynomials
of the following form:
for a weighted homogeneous polynomial $f_0(x)$ of degree one
and a set of homogeneous polynomials $\phi_\alpha(x)$,
we can consider a family $f(x;t) = f_0(x)+ \sum_\alpha t_\alpha \phi_\alpha(x)$.
For such a family,
we say that the deformation parameter $t_\alpha$ is \emph{relevant}
(resp.~\emph{marginal}, \emph{irrelevant}) if $\deg \phi_\alpha<1$
(resp.~$\deg \phi_\alpha =1$, $\deg \phi_\alpha >1$).
We can assign the degree of parameters as
$\deg t_\alpha := 1-\deg \phi_\alpha(x)$.
The above space $\cM$ includes only \emph{relevant and marginal}
deformations. When we construct a miniversal deformation
(see \S\ref{subsec:Frobenius}), we choose
homogeneous polynomials $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ such that
$[\phi_1],\dots,[\phi_N]$ form a basis of the Jacobi ring
$\Jac(f_0)$; in this case the deformation family may also
contain irrelevant directions.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The twisted de Rham cohomology}
\label{subsec:tw_deRham}
We are interested in the hypercohomology of the twisted
de Rham complex:
\[
\cF = \R^n \pi_*
\left(\Omega^\bullet_{X/\cM}[z],zd_{X/\cM}+df(x;t) \wedge\right)
\]
where $f(x;t) \colon X\to \C$ is the universal polynomial in the
diagram \eqref{eq:universal_polynomial}.
Since $\pi$ is affine, this is:
\[
\cF \cong \Omega^n_{X/\cM}[z]/(z d_{X/\cM} + df(x;t) \wedge)
\Omega^{n-1}_{X/\cM}[z].
\]
The fiber of $\cF$ at a single polynomial $f$ is called the
\emph{Brieskorn lattice} \cite{Brieskorn} of $f$.
A presentation of the Brieskorn lattice as a twisted
de Rham cohomology group was given in \cite{SaitoK:higher_residue};
this is also called the \emph{filtered de Rham cohomology}
(see \cite{MS}).
We introduce the grading on $\cF$ given by the grading
on $\cO(X)$ together with $\deg (d x_i)= c_i$, $\deg z=1$.
This is well-defined since the differential
$z d_{X/\cM} + df(x;t) \wedge$ is of degree one.
The module of global sections of $\cF$ is again non-negatively graded.
\begin{proposition}
\label{H:vb}
The sheaf $\cF$ is a locally free
$\mathcal{O}_\cM[z]$-module of rank $N$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let us fix an affine open subset $U\subset \cM_\mar^\circ$
such that $(\pi_*\cO_C)|_U$ is a free $\cO_U$-module.
Choose quasi-homogeneous polynomials $\psi_i \in \cO(U)[x_1,\dots,x_n]$,
$1\le i\le N$ which induce a basis of $(\pi_*\cO_C)|_U$.
We claim that $\psi_i dx$, $1\le i\le N$ form a
basis of $\cF$ over $\cM_\rel \times U$, i.e.~the map
\[
\phi \colon
\left( \cO_{\cM_\rel \times U}[z]\right)^{\oplus N} \to \cF|_{\cM_\rel\times U}
\]
sending $(v_i)_{i=1}^N$ to the class of $\sum_{i=1}^N v_i \psi_i dx$
is an isomorphism, where we set
$dx = dx_1 \wedge \cdots \wedge dx_n$.
First we prove the surjectivity.
Suppose by induction that the submodule $\cF(\cM_\rel \times U)^{\le k}$ of degree
less than or equal to $k$ is contained in the image of $\phi$.
Every homogeneous element $\omega \in \Omega^n_{X/\cM}[z]$
of degree $\le(k+1)$ can be written as
$\omega = \sum_{i=1}^n v_i \psi_i dx+ df \wedge \alpha$
for some $\alpha \in \Omega^{n-1}_{X/\cM}[z]$.
By taking the homogeneous component if necessary, we may
assume that $\alpha$ is homogeneous of degree $\le k$.
Then $[\omega] = [\omega - (z d + df\wedge)\alpha]
= \sum_{i=1}^N v_i [\psi_i dx]- z [d \alpha]$.
By induction hypothesis, $[d\alpha]$ is in the image
of $\phi$ and thus $\omega$ is also in the image.
Let us prove the injectivity of $\phi$.
Suppose that $\phi(v) = 0$ for some $v = ( v_1,\dots, v_N)$.
By definition there exists $\alpha \in \Omega^{n-1}_{X/\cM}[z]$
such that $\sum_{i=1}^N v_i \psi_i dx = (zd + df \wedge) \alpha$.
Expand $v_i$ and $\alpha$ in powers of $z$:
\[
v_i = \sum_{k\ge 0} v_{i,k} z^k, \quad
\alpha = \sum_{k\ge 0} \alpha_k z^k
\]
where the sum is finite.
Comparing with the coefficient of $z^0$, we have
$\sum_{i=1}^N v_{i,0} \psi_i = df \wedge \alpha_0$.
Since $\psi_i$, $1\le i\le N$ form a basis of the Jacobi ring,
we have $v_{i,0}=0$ for all $i$. Therefore $df \wedge \alpha_0 = 0$.
Because $\partial_{x_1} f(x;t),\dots,\partial_{x_n} f(x;t)$
form a regular sequence,
there exists $\beta_0 \in \Omega^{n-2}_{X/\cM}$ such that
$\alpha_0 = df \wedge \beta_0$.
Setting $\alpha' = \alpha - (zd + df \wedge) \beta_0
= \sum_{k\ge 1} \alpha'_k z^k$, we have
\[
\sum_{i=1}^N \sum_{k\ge 1} z^k v_{i,k} \psi_i
= (zd + d F \wedge) \alpha'.
\]
Comparing with the coefficient of $z^1$, we obtain $v_{i,1}= 0$ for all $i$.
We can repeat this argument inductively to show that
$v_{i,0}= v_{i,1} = \cdots = 0$.
\end{proof}
Since we can identify the restriction $\cF|_{z=0}$
with $(\pi_* \cO_C) dx$, we obtain:
\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:Jacobi_ring}
The sheaf $\pi_*\cO_C$ is a locally free $\cO_\cM$-module
of rank $N$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{The Gauss-Manin connection and the higher residue pairing}
Here we introduce two important structures on the twisted
de Rham cohomology $\cF$: the Gauss-Manin connection
$\nabla$ and the higher residue pairing $K$.
The \emph{Gauss-Manin connection} $\nabla$ is a map
\[
\nabla \colon \cF \to z^{-1} \Omega_\cM^1 \otimes_{\cO_{\cM}}
\cF \oplus z^{-2} \cO_{\cM}[z]dz
\]
defined by the formula:
\begin{align*}
\nabla_{\vec{v}} [\phi(x,t,z) dx]
& =
\left[ \vec{v} \phi(x,t,z) + \frac{\vec{v}(f(x;t))}{z} \phi(x,t,z) dx\right] \\
\nabla_{\partial_z} [\phi(x,t,z) dx]
& = \left[ \left(\parfrac{\phi(x,t,z)}{z} - \frac{f(x;t)}{z^2}
\phi(x,t,z)
- \frac{n}{2} \frac{\phi(x,t,z)}{z}
\right) dx \right]
\end{align*}
where $\phi(x,t,z) \in \cO_{X}[z]$, $dx = dx_1\wedge
\cdots \wedge dx_n$ and $\vec{v}$ is a vector field on $\cM$.
One can easily check that this is well-defined; moreover
it satisfies the Leibnitz rule:
\[
\nabla( g(t,z) \omega) = d g(t,z) \omega + g(t,z) \nabla \omega,
\qquad g(t,z) \in \cO_{\cM}[z], \ \omega\in \cF
\]
and the flatness condition $\nabla^2=0$.
The \emph{higher residue pairing} of K.~Saito \cite{SaitoK:higher_residue}
is a map
\[
K \colon \cF \otimes_{\cO_\cM} \cF \to \cO_\cM[z]
\]
which we expand in the form
\[
K(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \sum_{p=0}^\infty z^{p}
K^{(p)} (\omega_1,\omega_2).
\]
The higher residue pairing is uniquely
characterized by the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item
$zK(\omega_1,\omega_2) = K(z\omega_1,\omega_2)
=-K(\omega_1,z\omega_2)$;
\item
$K^{(0)}(\omega_1,\omega_2) $ is the residue pairing on the Jacobi
algebra of $f$:
\[
K^{(0)}(\omega_1,\omega_2) = \Res_{X/\cM} \left[
\frac{\phi_1(x,t,0) \phi_2(x,t,0) dx}{
\partial_{x_1}f(x;t), \dots, \partial_{x_n} f(x;t)}\right]
\]
where $\omega_i = \phi_i(x,t,z) dx$;
\item $K(\omega_1,\omega_2)(z) = K(\omega_2,\omega_1)(-z)$; i.e.,~
$K^{(p)}$ is skew symmetric for $p$ odd and symmetric for $p$ even;
\item
$K$ is flat with respect to the Gauss-Manin connection:
\ben
\xi K(\omega_1,\omega_2) =
K(\nabla_{\xi}\omega_1,\omega_2) - K(\omega_1,\nabla_{\xi}\omega_2),
\een
where $\xi=z\vec{v}$ (with $\vec{v}$ a vector field on $\cM$)
or $z^2\partial/\partial z$.
\end{enumerate}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:oscillatory}
The Gauss-Manin connection is defined in such a way that
oscillatory integrals
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:oscillatory}
\cF \ni
[\phi dx] \longmapsto
(-2\pi z)^{-n/2}\int_\Gamma \phi(x) e^{f(x;t)/z} dx
\end{equation}
define solutions
(i.e.~intertwine the Gauss-Manin connection with the
standard differential), where $\Gamma$ is a cycle in
$H_n(\C^n, \{x\in \C^n: \Re (f(x)/z) \ll 0\};\Z)$.
The prefactor $(-2\pi z)^{-n/2}$ here should be viewed as
a shift of weights by $n/2$; this is introduced in order to
make the Gauss-Manin connection compatible with
the Dubrovin connection on the A-side under mirror symmetry.
This in turn results in the shift of the higher residue pairing $K_f$
by the factor of $z^n$.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
We call the triple $(\cF,\nabla,K)$ consisting of the twisted de Rham
cohomology, the Gauss-Manin connection and the higher residue
pairing the \emph{Saito structure} of the family
\eqref{eq:universal_polynomial} of polynomials.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
The Saito structure gives a \emph{TEP structure} in the
sense of Hertling \cite{He2}.
\end{remark}
\section{Opposite subspaces}
In this section, we introduce opposite subspaces
for the Saito structure $(\cF,\nabla,K)$.
For a marginal polynomial $f$, we obtain a one-to-one correspondence
between homogeneous opposite subspaces and splittings
(opposite filtration) of the Hodge filtration on the vanishing cohomology.
We also observe that the complex-conjugate
opposite subspace yields a positive-definite Hermitian bundle
with connection, called the Cecotti-Vafa structure.
The notion of opposite filtrations were originally used in
the work of M.~Saito \cite{MS} to construct a flat structure
(Frobenius structure) \cite{KS,Du} on the base of miniversal
deformations (see also \S\ref{subsec:Frobenius}).
Most of the materials in this section are again not new;
similar (and in fact more general) results have been
obtained by Saito \cite{MS} and Hertling \cite{He2}.
Since we restrict ourselves to weighted homogeneous polynomials,
our presentation has the advantage of being more explicit and elementary.
\subsection{Symplectic vector space and semi-infinite VHS}
Let us recall that we sometimes identify the points $t\in \cM$
with the corresponding polynomials $f = f(x;t)$, so the points
in $\cM$ are functions.
Recall the sheaf $\cF$ of twisted de Rham cohomology groups from
\S \ref{subsec:tw_deRham}.
Proposition \ref{H:vb} implies that $\mathcal{F}$ is the sheaf
of sections of a vector bundle $\HH_+ $ on $\cM$,
whose fiber over a deformation $f\in \cM$ is given by
the infinite-dimensional vector space
\ben
\HH_+(f):=
H_{\rm twdR}(f):=\Omega^n_{\C^n}[z]/(zd+df\wedge)
\Omega^{n-1}_{\C^n}[z]\cong \Jac(f)[z].
\een
We introduce the free $\C[z,z^{-1}]$-module
\ben
\HH(f):=H_{\rm twdR}(f)\otimes_{\C[z]}\C[z,z^{-1}]
\een
and its completion
\ben
\widehat{
\HH}(f):=H_{\rm twdR}(f)\otimes_{\C[z]}\C(\!(z)\!).
\een
The spaces $\HH(f)$, $\hHH(f)$ are
equipped with the symplectic form
\[
\Omega(\omega_1,\omega_2) =
\Res_{z=0} K_f(\omega_1,\omega_2) dz
\]
where $K_f$ is the restriction of the higher residue pairing to the
fiber of the sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ at $f$.
Note that $\HH_+(f)$ is a Lagrangian
(i.e.~maximally isotropic) with respect to $\Omega$.
The spaces $\HH(f)$, $\hHH(f)$ are the B-model
analogues of Givental's symplectic space \cite{Givental:symplectic}.
The Gauss-Manin connection induces a flat connection $\nabla$ on
the bundle $\HH = \bigcup_f \HH(f)$
and the symplectic form $\Omega$ is flat with respect to $\nabla$.
Over a contractible subset $U$ of the marginal locus $\cM_\mar^\circ$,
we can identify all fibers $\HH(f)$ via parallel transport\footnote
{The parallel transport is well-defined only over the marginal locus; the
parallel transport along relevant deformations involves infinitely many
negative powers of $z$, and only makes sense after
tensoring $\HH$ with the ring of holomorphic functions
on $\{z\in \C^\times\}$ over $\C[z,z^{-1}]$.}
with a single symplectic space $\cH$; then we can regard
$f\mapsto \HH_+(f)$ as a family of Lagrangian subspaces in $\cH$
parametrized by $f\in U$.
This is an example of the \emph{semi-infinite variation of Hodge structure}
(semi-infinite VHS) in the sense of Barannikov \cite{Barannikov:quantum}
(see also \cite{CIT}).
The main property of the semi-infinite VHS is the
Griffiths transversality:
\[
\nabla_{\vec{v}} \HH_+(f) \subset z^{-1} \HH_+(f) \qquad
\text{for $\vec{v} \in T\cM$}
\]
for the semi-infinite flag $\cdots \subset z \HH_+(f) \subset \HH_+(f) \subset
z^{-1} \HH_+(f) \subset \cdots$.
In the $z$-direction, we also have $\nabla_{z\partial_z} \HH_+(f)
\subset z^{-1} \HH_+(f)$.
\subsection{Definition and first properties}\label{opposite-section}
\begin{definition}[\cite{Barannikov:quantum, CIT}]
We say that a Lagrangian subspace $P\subset \HH(f)$ is
{\em opposite} if $\HH(f) = \HH_+(f)\oplus P$ and
$z^{-1}P\subset P$.
\end{definition}
The vector space $\HH(f)$ can be identified with the space of
sections of a vector bundle over $\{z\in \C^\times\}$
and the subspace $\HH_+(f)$ corresponds to the extension
of the vector bundle across $0$.
In this viewpoint, the data of an opposite subspace $P$
corresponds to an extension of the bundle
across $\infty$ such that the resulting bundle over $\PP^1$ is trivial.
\begin{proposition}\label{good-basis}
If $P$ is an opposite subspace, then the following properties
hold:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(1)]
The vector space $\HH_+(f)\cap zP$ has dimension $N$.
\item[(2)]
If $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N$ is a basis of $\HH_+(f)\cap
zP$, then $K(\omega_i,\omega_j)\in \C$.
\item[(3)] Let $\{\omega_i\}$ and $\{\omega^i\}$ be dual bases of
$\HH_+(f)\cap zP$ with respect to the residue pairing
$K_f^{(0)}$. Then
\ben
\{\omega_i z^k\}_{i=1,\dots,N}^{k=0,1,\dots}
\quad\mbox{and}\quad
\{\omega^i (-z)^{-k-1}\}_{i=1,\dots,N}^{k=0,1,\dots}
\een
are bases of respectively $\HH_+(f)$ and $P$ dual with
respect to the symplectic pairing.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
The proof of the above proposition is straightforward, so it will be omitted.
Motivated by Proposition \ref{good-basis}, for a given opposite
subspace $P$ we will refer to a basis of
$\HH_+(f)\cap zP$ as a {\em good basis}. Note that a
$\C[z]$-basis $\{\omega_i\}$ of
$\HH_+(f)$ is good if and only if $K(\omega_i,\omega_j)\in
\C$.
Similarly, one can define the notion of an opposite subspace and a good
basis for the completion $\hHH(f)$ and its Lagrangian
subspace $\hHH_+(f):=\HH_+(f)\otimes_{\C[z]} \C[\![z]\!]$.
Proposition \ref{good-basis} still holds, except for property (3),
which takes the following form. Put $H:=\hHH_+(f)\cap zP$,
then
\begin{equation}\label{opposite-good}
\hHH_+(f)= H[\![z]\!],\quad P=H[z^{-1}]z^{-1}.
\end{equation}
An opposite subspace $P\subset \HH(f)$ at $f\in \cM$ can be extended
to a family of opposite subspaces in a neighbourhood $U$
of $f\in \cM$ by parallel transport
(see the discussion in \S\ref{subsec:Frobenius} and
\cite[\S 2.2]{CIT}).
We regard this family of opposite subspaces
as a subbundle of $\HH= \bigcup_f \HH(f)$ and
denote it again by $P$. The Gauss-Manin connection induces a flat
connection on the finite-dimensional bundle $zP/P$ and
the identification
\[
\HH_+ \cap z P \cong z P/P
\]
induces a trivialization $\HH_+ \cong (zP/P)[z]$ over $U$
by a flat bundle $zP/P$.
With respect to this trivialization, the Gauss-Manin connection
is of the form:
\[
\nabla = d + \frac{1}{z} C
\]
with $C \in \End(zP/P)\otimes \Omega^1_\cM$ independent
of $z$. This fact is crucial in the construction of a Frobenius
(flat) structure. See \S \ref{subsec:Frobenius} for more details.
\subsection{Homogeneous opposite subspaces over the marginal moduli}
In this subsection we assume that $f$ lies in the marginal moduli
$\cM_\mar^\circ$, i.e.~$f$ is a weighted homogeneous polynomial
of degree 1.
The operator
\beq
\label{grading-op}
z\partial_z+\operatorname{Lie}_\xi,\quad \xi:=
\sum_{i=1}^n c_i x_i\partial_{x_i},
\eeq
where $\operatorname{Lie}$ denotes the Lie derivative,
defines a grading on $\Omega^n_{\C^n}[z,z^{-1}]$.
Since the twisted de Rham differential $zd + df(x;t)\wedge$
is homogeneous (of degree 1), the twisted de Rham cohomology
$\HH(f)$ inherits the grading.
We say that an opposite subspace $P\subset \HH(f)$ is
\emph{homogeneous}
if $(z\partial_z+\operatorname{Lie}_\xi)P\subset P$.
We would like to establish one-to-one correspondence between homogeneous
opposite subspaces and splittings of the Steenbrink's Hodge filtration
of the vanishing cohomology $\frh:=H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(1);\C)$.
\begin{remark}
An opposite subspace $P$ is homogeneous if and only if
$P$ is preserved by the Gauss-Manin connection in the $z$-direction,
i.e.~$\nabla_{z\partial_z} P \subset P$.
This implies that the Gauss-Manin connection has a logarithmic
singularity at $z=\infty$ with respect to the extension of the bundle $\HH_+(f)$
across $\infty$ defined by $P$; this corresponds to the notion of
TLEP structure \cite{He}.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Steenbrink's Hodge structure for
weighted-homogeneous singularities}\label{S-PHS}
Given a holomorphic form $\omega\in
\Omega_{\C^n }(\C^n)$ we recall
the so-called {\em geometric section} (see \cite{AGV})
\ben
s(\omega,\lambda):=\int\frac{\omega}{df} \quad \in \quad H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(\lambda);\C),
\een
where $\omega/df$ denotes a holomorphic $(n-1)$-form $\eta$ defined in
a tubular neighborhood of $f^{-1}(\lambda)$ such that
$\omega=df\wedge\eta$; the restriction of $\eta$ to $f^{-1}(\lambda)$
is well-defined.
By definition, Steenbrink's Hodge filtration
\cite{Steenbrink:quasihomogeneous, Stn} on $\frh$ is given by
\ben
F^p\frh:=\{A\in \frh\ |\ A=s(\omega,1) \ \mbox{for
some}\ \omega\ \mbox{such that}\
\operatorname{deg}(\omega)\leq n-p\},
\een
where $\operatorname{deg}(\omega)$ denotes the maximal degree of a
homogeneous component of $\omega$.
This is an exhaustive filtration; in particular every cohomology class
of $f^{-1}(1)$ can be represented by a geometric section.
The vector space $\frh=H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(1);\C)$ is equipped with a
linear transformation $M\in \End(\frh)$, called the {\em classical monodromy}, which
corresponds to the monodromy of the
Gauss--Manin connection around $\lambda=0$.
Using the fact that $f$ is
weighted-homogeneous, it is easy to see that if $A=s(\omega,1)$ for
some homogeneous form $\omega$, then $M(A) =
e^{-2\pi\sqrt{-1}\, \operatorname{deg}(\omega)} A.$ Let us decompose
$\frh=\frh_1\oplus \frh_{\neq 1}$, where
$\frh_1$ is the invariant subspace of $M$ and
$\frh_{\neq 1}$ is the remaining part of the spectral
decomposition of $\frh$ with respect to $M$.
Following Hertling (see \cite[Ch.~10]{He}) we introduce the
non-degenerate bilinear form
\ben
S(A,B) = (-1)^{(n-1)(n-2)/2}\langle A, \operatorname{Var}\circ \nu(B)\rangle ,\quad
A,B\in \frh,
\een
where $\nu$ is a linear operator such that $\nu=(M-1)^{-1}$ on
$\frh_{\neq 1}$ and $\nu=-1$ on $\frh_1$, and
the variation operator
\ben
\operatorname{Var}\colon H^n(f^{-1}(1);\C)\to H_n(f^{-1}(1);\C)
\een
is an isomorphism constructed via the composition of
the Lefschetz duality
\ben
H^n(f^{-1}(1);\C)\cong
H_n(f^{-1}(1),\partial f^{-1}(1);\C)
\een
and the isomorphism
$H_n(f^{-1}(1),\partial f^{-1}(1)) \cong
H_n(f^{-1}(1))$
mapping a relative cycle
$\gamma$ to an absolute cycle
$\widetilde{M}(\gamma) - \gamma$, where $\widetilde{M}:
f^{-1}(1)\to f^{-1}(1)$ is the geometric monodromy
fixing the boundary (see \cite[Ch.~1.1, 2.3]{AGV}).
Combining the results of Hertling (see \cite[Ch.~10]{He}) and
Steenbrink (see \cite{Stn}) we get the following:
the filtration $\{F^p\frh\}_{p=0}^{n-1}$,
the form $S$, and the real subspace
$\frh_\R:=H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(1),\R)$ give rise to
a (pure) Polarized Hodge Structures on $\frh_{\neq 1} $ and
$\frh_1$ of weights respectively $n-1$ and $n$.
More precisely, put
$\frh_s=\operatorname{Ker}(M-s\operatorname{Id})$;
then $F^p \frh = \bigoplus_{s\in S^1} F^p \frh_s$ with
$F^p \frh_s = F^p \frh \cap \frh_s$ and
\ben
&
\text{(a)}
&
\frh_{s}=F^p\frh_{s}\oplus
\overline{F^{m+1-p}\frh}_{\bar s},\quad \forall p\in \Z,\\
&
\text{(b)}
&
S(u,v) = (-1)^m S(v,u), \\
&
\text{(c)}
&
S(F^p\frh, F^{m+1-p}\frh) = 0,\\
&
\text{(d)}
&
\sqrt{-1}^{2p-m}S(u,\overline{u})>0\quad \mbox{for}\quad
u\in F^p\frh_{s}\cap
\overline{F^{m-p}\frh}_{\bar s}\setminus{0},
\een
where $m=n-1$ for $s\neq 1$ and $m=n$ for $s=1$.
Note that $S(\frh_s,\frh_t) =0$ unless $t =\bar{s}$
and that $\overline{\frh_s} = \frh_{\bar{s}}$.
\subsubsection{The polarizing form and the higher-residue pairing}
\label{pf-hrp}
We will identify the vector space $\frh=H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(1);\C)$
with a fiber of
the local system underlying the Gauss-Manin connection
$(\HH_+(f) = \cF|_{f},\nabla_{z\partial_z})$.
Then we describe the higher residue pairing in terms of
the polarizing form $S$ on $\frh$.
Recall that oscillatory integrals \eqref{eq:oscillatory}
give solutions of the Gauss-Manin connection, and therefore
the local system underlying the Gauss-Manin connection
is dual to the space
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:space_Lefschetz}
V_{f,z} := \varprojlim_{M} H_n(\C^n, \{ x\in \C^n : \Re(f(x)/z)\le -M\})
\end{equation}
of Lefschetz thimbles (twisted by $(-2\pi z)^{-n/2}$).
By the relative homology exact sequence,
we can easily see that this is isomorphic
to $H_{n-1}(f^{-1}(1))$; hence fibers of the Gauss-Manin
local system should be identified with $\frh$.
To make this identification explicit, we use the Laplace transformation.
When $z<0$ and the integration cycle $\Gamma$
in \eqref{eq:oscillatory} is a Lefschetz thimble of $f$ lying over
the straight ray $[0,\infty)$,
we may rewrite the oscillatory integral
\eqref{eq:oscillatory}
as the Laplace transform of a period
\[
(-2\pi z)^{-n/2}\int_0^\infty e^{\lambda/z}
\int_{\Gamma_\lambda} s(\omega,\lambda)
\]
where $\Gamma_\lambda$ is a vanishing cycle in $f^{-1}(\lambda)$
such that $\Gamma = \bigcup_{\lambda \in [0,\infty)} \Gamma_\lambda$.
This can be viewed as the pairing of the vanishing cycle
$\Gamma_1\subset f^{-1}(1)$
and the cohomology class $\widehat{s}(\omega,z)$ of $f^{-1}(1)$
given by:
\[
\widehat{s}(\omega,z) := (-2\pi z)^{-n/2} \int_0^\infty e^{\lambda/z}
s(\omega,\lambda) d\lambda
\]
where we identified $H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(\lambda);\C)\cong \frh$
via the parallel transport along the integration path
(with respect to the Gauss-Manin connection), so that $s(\omega,\lambda)$
takes values in $\frh$.
Thus the map $[\omega]\mapsto \widehat{s}(\omega,z)$ defines
a flat identification between $\HH_+(f)|_z$ and $\frh$.
For a homogeneous form $\omega\in \Omega^n_{\C^n}(\C^n)$,
the geometric section $s(\omega,\lambda)$ satisfies
the homogeneity
$s(\omega,\lambda) = \lambda^{\deg(\omega)-1} s(\omega,1)$, and
therefore we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:s_hat}
\widehat{s}(\omega,z) = (-2\pi z)^{-n/2} (-z)^{\deg(\omega)}
\Gamma(\deg \omega) s(\omega,1).
\end{equation}
Thus $\widehat{s}(\omega,z)$ makes sense as a Laurent polynomial
of $z$ (with fractional exponents) taking values in $\frh$.
We verify the following lemma directly.
\begin{lemma}
\label{van-cohom}
The map
\[
\HH_+(f) = \cF|_f \longrightarrow \frh[z^{\pm 1/d}] , \quad
[\omega] \longmapsto \widehat{s}(\omega,z)
\]
is well-defined and intertwines the Gauss-Manin connection $\nabla_{z\partial_z}$
with the standard differential $z\partial_z$, where $d$ is a common denominator
of $c_1,\dots,c_n$ and $n/2$. This induces an isomorphism
$\HH_+(f)|_{z} \cong \frh$ between fibers for every $z\in \C^\times$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Let us first check that the map passes to the quotient
$\HH_+(f) = \Omega^n_{\C^n}(\C^n)[z]/
(z d + df\wedge) \Omega^{n-1}_{\C^n}(\C^n)[z]$.
If $\omega$ is a homogeneous $(n-1)$-form of degree $m$, then the image of
$z d\omega + df\wedge\omega$ is
\beq\label{kernel-image}
\Gamma(m) s(d\omega,1) - \Gamma(m+1) s(df\wedge\omega,1).
\eeq
multiplied by $(-2\pi z)^{-n/2} (-z)^{m} z$.
On the other hand
\ben
s(d\omega,\lambda) = \int \frac{d\omega}{df} = \partial_\lambda
\int\omega =\partial_\lambda s(df\wedge \omega,\lambda).
\een
Using homogeneity, $s(df\wedge \omega,\lambda) = \lambda^m
s(df\wedge\omega,1)$. Hence
$
s(d\omega,1) = m\, s(df\wedge \omega,1),
$
so the expression \eqref{kernel-image} vanishes. This proves that the
map in the Lemma passes to the quotient.
Next we show that the map intertwines the Gauss-Manin connection with
$z\partial_z$. For a homogeneous form $\omega$ of degree $m$,
the image of $\nabla_{z\partial_z} [\omega] = [-(f/z + n/2) \omega]$
is
\[
(-2\pi z)^{-n/2} (-z)^{m}
\left(\Gamma(m+1) s(f\omega,1) - \frac{n}{2} \Gamma(m) s(\omega,1)
\right)
\]
which equals $z\partial_z \widehat{s}(\omega,z) = (m-n/2) \widehat{s}(\omega,z)$
since $s(f\omega,1) = s(\omega,1)$.
The last statement follows by comparing the ranks: the map is
surjective since every class on $f^{-1}(1)$ is represented by a
geometric section, and Proposition \ref{H:vb} shows that
the rank of $\HH_+(f)$ equals the Milnor number $N = \dim \frh$.
\end{proof}
Let us denote by $\widehat{s}(\omega,z)^*:=
\widehat{s}(\omega, e^{-\pi\sqrt{-1}} z)$
the analytic continuation along the semi-circle
$\theta \mapsto e^{-\sqrt{-1}\theta}z $, $0\leq \theta\leq \pi$.
The relation between the polarizing form $S$ and the higher residue
pairing $K$ has been determined by Hertling
(see \cite[Ch.~10]{He},
\cite[\S 7.2(f); \S 8, Step 2]{He2}).
We follow the presentation in \cite{Mi2}.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite{He,He2}, \cite[Lemma 3.3]{Mi2}}]
\label{thm:SandK}
The polarizing form $S$ and the higher residue pairing $K_f$ are
related by the formula:
\begin{align} \label{SandK}
K_f(\omega_2,\omega_1) & =
-S(\widehat{s}(\omega_1,z)^*, \nu^{-1}
\widehat{s}(\omega_2,z) )
\end{align}
where in the right-hand side we use the determination
of $\widehat{s}(\omega_i,z)$ given canonically for
$z\in \R_{<0}$ via formula \eqref{eq:s_hat}.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
We give a brief explanation for the above formula \eqref{SandK}.
Pham \cite[2\`eme, \S 4]{Pham} identified the higher residue pairing with
the dual of the intersection pairing between
the relative homologies $V_{f,z}$ and $V_{f,-z}$
from \eqref{eq:space_Lefschetz}
(see also \cite[\S 8]{He2}, \cite[Definition 2.18]{CIT}).
This intersection pairing can then be identified with the Seifert form
$\langle A, \operatorname{Var}(B)\rangle$
on $\frh$ by a topological argument
in \cite[Ch.~2.3]{AGV}, \cite[2\`eme, \S 3.2]{Pham}.
Note that the right-hand side of \eqref{SandK}
is induced by the Seifert form.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{Splitting of the Hodge structure}
\label{si-section}
Following M.~Saito \cite{MS}, we use opposite filtrations on $\frh$
to construct homogeneous opposite subspaces for $\HH_+(f)$
(see also \cite[Theorem 7.16]{He}).
\begin{definition}
An \emph{opposite filtration} on $\frh = H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(1);\C)$ is an
increasing $M$-invariant filtration $\{U_p\frh\}_{p\in \Z}$
such that
\ben
&
\text{(a)}
&
U_p\frh=0
\quad \mbox{for}\quad p\ll 0
\quad
\mbox{and}
\quad
U_p\frh=\frh
\quad \mbox{for}\quad p\gg 0,\\
&
\text{(b)}
&
\frh = \bigoplus_{p\in \Z} F^p\frh\cap
U_p\frh,\\
&
\text{(c)}
&
S(U_p\frh , U_{m-1-p}\frh) = 0, \quad \forall p\in \Z,
\een
where $m=n-1$ for $s\neq 1$ and $m=n$ for $s=1$.
\end{definition}
Let $\psi \colon \frh \to \HH(f)[z^{\pm 1/d}]$ denote
the map inverse to the map $[\omega] \mapsto \widehat{s}(\omega,z)$
in Lemma \ref{van-cohom}.
This is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psi}
\psi(A) = \frac{(2\pi)^{n/2}}{\Gamma(\deg \omega)}
(-z)^{-\deg \omega + n/2} [\omega]
\end{equation}
when $A = s(\omega,1) \in \frh$ for some
homogeneous form $\omega \in \Omega^n_{\C^n}(\C^n)$.
The image $\psi(A)$ is homogeneous of degree $n/2$ and
is flat with respect to the Gauss-Manin connection.
Take $s = e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} \alpha}$ with
$0\le \alpha <1$.
Note that $\psi(A) \in z^{\alpha -n/2} \HH(f)$ for $A \in \frh_s$.
The Hodge filtration $F^p \frh_s$
can be described in terms of the Lagrangian subspace $\HH_+(f)$ as
\[
F^p \frh_s = \{ A \in \frh_s : \psi(A) \in z^{p + \alpha - n/2} \HH_+(f) \}
\]
since, for $A = s(\omega,1)\in \frh_s$, every homogeneous component
$\omega_j$ of $\omega$ satisfies $\fracp{-\deg \omega_j} = \alpha$
and we have
\[
-\deg \omega_j + \frac{n}{2} \ge p + \alpha - \frac{n}{2}
\Longleftrightarrow \ceil{\deg \omega_j} \le n-p.
\]
Conversely, $\HH_+(f)$ can be reconstructed from $F^p\frh$ as
\[
\HH_+(f) = \sum_{0\le \alpha<1}
\sum_{p\in \Z} z^{-p -\alpha +n/2} \psi( F^p \frh_s) [z]
\qquad \text{with $s= e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} \alpha}$.}
\]
The correspondence between homogeneous opposite subspaces $P
\subset \HH(f)$
and opposite filtrations $U_p \frh$ is given similarly. We require
that $P$ and $U_p\frh$ are related by
\begin{align}
\label{eq:opposite_correspondence}
\begin{split}
U_p \frh_s &= \{ A \in \frh_s : \psi(A) \in z^{p+\alpha - n/2} z P \} \\
P & = \sum_{0\le \alpha<1}
\sum_{p\in \Z} z^{-p-\alpha +n/2} z^{-1} \psi( U_p \frh_s) [z^{-1}]
\qquad \text{with $s= e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} \alpha}$.}
\end{split}
\end{align}
\begin{proposition}[{\cite{MS}, \cite[Ch~7.4]{He}}]
The formulas \eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence} establish
one-to-one correspondence between homogeneous opposite subspaces $P$ and
opposite filtrations $\{U_p \frh\}_{p\in \Z}$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Given an opposite filtration $\{U_p\frh\}$, we prove that
the subspace $P$ defined by the second formula
of \eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence} is an opposite subspace.
It is obvious that $P$ is homogeneous.
Using the decomposition $\frh_s = \bigoplus_{p\in \Z}
(F^p\frh_s \cap U_p \frh_s)$, we can rewrite
\begin{align}
\label{eq:P_H+_decomp}
\begin{split}
\HH_+(f) &= \bigoplus_{0\le \alpha<1} \bigoplus_{p\in \Z}
z^{-p -\alpha + n/2} \psi(F^p\frh_s \cap U_p \frh_s) [z] \\
P & = \bigoplus_{0\le \alpha <1} \bigoplus_{p\in \Z}
z^{-p-\alpha + n/2} z^{-1} \psi(F^p \frh_s \cap U_p\frh_s)[z^{-1}]
\end{split}
\end{align}
where the summand indexed by $\alpha$ is generated by elements
$\omega \in \HH(f)$ with $\alpha = \fracp{-\deg \omega}$.
This decomposition clearly shows $\HH(f) = \HH_+(f) \oplus P$.
The Lagrangian property of $P$ follows from the property (c)
of the opposite filtration: using
the fact that $\psi$ is inverse to $[\omega]\mapsto \widehat{s}(\omega,z)$
and equation \ref{SandK},
we have
\begin{align*}
& K(z^{-p-\alpha+\frac{n}{2}} z^{-1} \psi(U_p\frh_s),
z^{-q-\beta + \frac{n}{2}} z^{-1} \psi(U_q \frh_t)) \\
& = z^{-p-q-\alpha-\beta +n-2} S(U_q\frh_t, \nu^{-1}
U_p \frh_s)
= z^{-p-q-\alpha-\beta+n-2} S(U_q\frh_t, U_p\frh_s)
\end{align*}
when $s =e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} \alpha}$ and $t = e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} \beta}$
with $\alpha,\beta \in [0,1)$,
and this is nonzero only if $-p-q-\alpha-\beta+n\le 0$ by the property (c).
This means $K(P,P) \subset z^{-2} \C[z^{-1}]$ and thus $P$ is Lagrangian.
In the opposite direction, we start from a homogeneous opposite subspace
$P \subset \HH(f)$.
The filtration $U_p\frh_s$ defined by the first formula
of \eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence} is
an increasing filtration since $P \subset zP$.
The homogeneity of $P$ implies that the finite-dimensional
space $\HH_+(f) \cap zP$ is spanned by homogeneous elements.
The map $A \mapsto (-z)^{-p-\alpha+n/2} \psi(A)$
identifies
$U_p \frh_s \cap F^p\frh_s$
with the homogeneous component of
$zP \cap \HH_+(f)$ of degree $n-p-\alpha$
(when $s = e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} \alpha}$, $\alpha\in [0,1)$).
Setting $z=-1$ and using the isomorphy of the map
$\frh \cong \HH_+(f) \cap zP \cong \HH(f)|_{z=-1}$,
$A\mapsto \psi(A)|_{z=-1}$
in Lemma \ref{van-cohom}, we conclude the decomposition
$\frh_s = \bigoplus_{p\in \Z} F^p\frh_s \cap U_p\frh_s$,
i.e.~property (b) for opposite filtrations holds.
The property (a) follows from (b), and the property (c) follows from
the Lagrangian property of $P$ by reversing the above argument.
\end{proof}
An opposite filtration $\{U_p \frh\}_{p\in \Z}$ induces
a homogeneous opposite subspace $P$ \eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence}
and an isomorphism
$\sigma = \sigma_{U_\bullet} \colon \frh \xrightarrow{\cong}
\HH_+(f) \cap zP$
by the formula (cf.~\eqref{eq:P_H+_decomp})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:sigma_splitting}
\sigma(A) = (-z)^{-p-\alpha+\frac{n}{2}} \psi(A) \qquad
\text{for $A\in F^p \frh_s \cap U_p \frh_s$}
\end{equation}
where $s = e^{2\pi \sqrt{-1} \alpha}$,
$\alpha \in [0,1)$ and $\psi$ is given in \eqref{eq:psi}.
The map $\sigma_{U_\bullet}$ gives a splitting of the
projection $\HH_+(f) \to \HH_+(f)|_{z=-1} \cong \frh$.
The higher residue pairing takes values in $\C$ on the image of
$\sigma$. We compute the precise values for later purposes.
\begin{lemma}
\label{sigma-K}
Let $\sigma$ be the splitting \eqref{eq:sigma_splitting}
associated to an opposite filtration $U_\bullet$.
If $A \in F^p\frh_s \cap U_p \frh_s$ with $s=e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\alpha}$,
$\alpha\in [0,1)$ and $B \in \frh$ is arbitrary,
then
\[
K_f(\sigma(A), \sigma(B)) = C(s) \sqrt{-1}^{2p-m} S(A,B)
\]
where we set $m=n-1$ if $s\neq 1$ and $m=n$ if $s=1$, and
\[
C(s) = \begin{cases}
2 \sin(\pi \alpha) & \text{if $\alpha \neq 0$;} \\
1 & \text{otherwise.}
\end{cases}
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
We may assume that $B\in F^q\frh_t \cap U_q\frh_t$
with $t=e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\beta}$ and $\beta\in [0,1)$.
Combining the fact that $\psi$ is inverse to $[\omega]\mapsto \widehat{s}(\omega,z)$
and Theorem \ref{thm:SandK}, we find
\[
K_f(\sigma(A),\sigma(B))
= - S(e^{-\pi\sqrt{-1}(-q-\beta+\frac{n}{2})}
(-z)^{-q-\beta + \frac{n}{2}} B, \nu^{-1} (-z)^{-p-\alpha+\frac{n}{2}} A).
\]
This pairing vanishes unless $\alpha+\beta\equiv 0 \mod \Z$
and $p+q +\alpha+\beta =n$.
If $\alpha \neq 0$, this equals
\[
-e^{\pi\sqrt{-1}(m-p +1-\alpha)} (\sqrt{-1})^{-m-1}
(e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\alpha}-1)
(-1)^m S(A,B)
\]
by $\nu^{-1} A= (e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} \alpha} -1)A$, $\beta=1-\alpha$ and
$p+q=n-1=m$; if $\alpha=0$, this equals
\[
- e^{\pi\sqrt{-1}(m-p)} (\sqrt{-1})^{-m} (-1)(-1)^m S(A,B)
\]
by $\nu^{-1}A= -A$, $\alpha=\beta=0$, $p+q=n=m$. The conclusion
follows easily.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
When we regard $\HH_+(f)$ as a vector bundle over $\C$ and
$zP$ as the extension data across $\infty$, the filtration
$U_p\frh$ \eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence}
on the space $\frh$ of flat sections is determined by pole orders at $z=\infty$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The complex conjugate opposite subspace}
Over the marginal locus,
the vector bundle $\HH\to \cM_\mar^\circ$ has a natural real
structure coming from the space of real semi-infinite cycles
\[
V_{f,z} = \varprojlim_{M\in \R_+}
H_n(\C^n, \{x: \Re(f(x)/z)< -M\};\R)
\cong \R^N,
\]
where the homology groups form an inverse system with respect to the
natural order on $\R_+$ and the limit is the projective (or
inverse) limit of vector spaces. The vector spaces $V_{f,z}$ form a
real vector bundle on $\cM_\mar^\circ \times \C^\times$ equipped with a
flat Gauss--Manin connection. For each $f\in \cM_\mar$, let us
denote by $\HH(f;\R)\subset \HH(f)$ the real
vector subspace consisting of $\omega$ such that
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:reality_condition}
(-2\pi z)^{-n/2} \int_{\alpha} e^{f/z} \omega \in
\R \qquad \forall \alpha\in V_{f,z}, \quad \forall z \in S^1
\end{equation}
or equivalently,
\[
\widehat{s}(\omega,z) \in \frh_\R \qquad \forall z\in S^1
\]
where $S^1=\{|z|=1\}$ is the unit circle.
Let $\kappa\colon \HH(f)\to \HH(f)$ be the complex conjugation
corresponding to the real subspace $\HH(f;\R)$.
The main properties of the complex conjugation $\kappa$ can be
summarized as follows (see \cite{Iritani:ttstar} for generalities
on the real structure in a semi-infinite VHS).
Let us denote by
\[
\gamma\colon \C[z,z^{-1}]
\to \C[z,z^{-1}], \quad
\gamma(g)(z):=\overline{g(\overline{z}^{-1})}
\]
the complex conjugation corresponding to the real subspace consisting
of Laurent polynomials that take real values on $|z|=1$.
By definition, we have
\ben
\kappa(g\omega) = \gamma(g)\kappa(\omega).
\een
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:realstr_awayfrom_marginal}
The definition \eqref{eq:reality_condition} for $[\omega]$ to be real
extends to non-marginal polynomials $f\in \cM\setminus \cM^\circ_\mar$;
however our algebraic model $\HH(f)$ is not necessarily closed under the
real involution $\kappa$. In general, $\kappa$ is defined on the
analytification $\HH(f)^{\rm an} = \HH(f) \otimes_{\C[z,z^{-1}]}
\cO^{\rm an}(\C^\times)$ and $\HH(f;\R)$ can be only
defined as a subspace of
$\HH(f)^{\rm an}$, where $\cO^{\rm an}(\C^\times)$ denotes
the ring of holomorphic functions on $\C^\times$.
\end{remark}
Complex conjugation in the vanishing cohomology $\frh$ gives a
natural splitting of the Steenbrink's Hodge filtration:
\beq\label{U-conj}
U_p\frh_s := \overline{F^{m-p}\frh}_{\bar s} \qquad
\text{for $p\in \Z$, $|s|=1$},
\eeq
where $m=n-1$ for $s\neq 1$ and $m=n$ for $s=1$.
\begin{proposition}\label{kappa-h}
Let $f\in \cM_\mar^\circ$ be a marginal deformation.
The subspace $z^{-1} \kappa(\HH_+(f))$ is opposite and
corresponds to the complex conjugate opposite filtration \eqref{U-conj}
under \eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence}.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Let $\sigma \colon \frh \to \HH(f)$ be the
splitting \eqref{eq:sigma_splitting}
defined by the complex conjugate filtration \eqref{U-conj}.
It suffices to show that $\sigma(\frh)$ is $\kappa$-invariant;
indeed this implies $\sigma(\frh)[z^{-1}] = \kappa(\sigma(\frh)[z])
= \kappa (\HH_+(f))$.
We will prove that
\begin{equation}
\label{kappa-A}
\kappa(\sigma(A)) = \sigma(\overline{A})
\qquad
\forall A \in \frh.
\end{equation}
Recall from the definition of $\widehat{s}(\omega,z)$ in
\S\ref{pf-hrp} that
we have
\[
(-2\pi z)^{-n/2} \int_\Gamma e^{f/z} \omega = \int_{\Gamma_1}
\widehat{s}(\omega,z)
\]
and thus the map $[\omega]\mapsto \widehat{s}(\omega,z)$
intertwines the complex conjugation $\kappa$ on $\HH(f)|_{S^1}$
with the standard complex conjugation on $\frh$.
This implies $\psi(\overline{A}) = \kappa(\psi(A))$ since $\psi$
is inverse to the map $[\omega]\mapsto \widehat{s}(\omega,z)$.
For $A \in F^p \frh_s \cap U_p\frh_s$ with $s=e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\alpha}$,
$0\le \alpha <1$, we have
\[
\kappa(\sigma(A)) = \kappa( z^{-p-\alpha + \frac{n}{2}} \psi(A))
= z^{p+\alpha-\frac{n}{2}} \psi(\overline{A}).
\]
Here $\overline{A} \in F^q \frh_{\bar{s}} \cap U_q\frh_{\bar{s}}$
for $q$ with
$p+\alpha -\frac{n}{2} = -q-\fracp{-\alpha}+\frac{n}{2}$.
Therefore, the above quantity equals
$z^{-q-\fracp{-\alpha}+\frac{n}{2}} \psi(\overline{A})
=\sigma(\overline{A})$.
The proposition is proved.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Opposite subspaces for Fermat polynomials}
In this subsection we will assume that
\ben
f(x)=x_1^{N_1+1}+\cdots + x_n^{N_n+1}
\een
is a Fermat polynomial. The higher residue pairing $K_f$
factorizes into a tensor product of the higher residue pairings of the
summands $x_i^{N_i+1}$. Using a simple degree count it is easy to see
that the forms (see also \cite[Theorem 2.10]{HLSW})
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Fermat_goodbasis}
x_1^{i_1}\cdots x_n^{i_n} dx_1\cdots dx_n,\quad 0\leq i_s\leq N_s-1
\end{equation}
form a good basis, i.e., if we denote by $H\subset \HH_+(f)$
the subspace spanned by the above forms, then $P=z^{-1}H[z^{-1}]$ is
an opposite subspace.
\begin{proposition}
The complex conjugate subspace $\kappa(\HH_+(f))$ equals the subspace $zP$
spanned by the forms \eqref{eq:Fermat_goodbasis} over $\C[z^{-1}]$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Since $P$ is an opposite subspace, we have
$\HH_+(f)=H[z]$. Therefore, it is enough to prove that
$\kappa(H)\subset H$. On the other hand, note that if $f=f_1\oplus
f_2$ is a direct sum of the quasi-homogeneous functions
$f_i\colon \C^{n_i}\to \C$, then the direct product of
cycles defines an isomorphism
\[
H_{n_1}(\C^{n_1},\{\Re(f_1/z)\ll 0\})\otimes
H_{n_2}(\C^{n_2},\{\Re(f_2/z)\ll 0\})\cong
H_{n}(\C^n, \{\Re(f/z)\ll 0\}).
\]
Moreover, if $\omega_i\in \HH_+(f_i)$, $i=1,2$, then
$\omega_1\wedge\omega_2\in \HH_+(f)$ and
\ben
\kappa(\omega_1\wedge \omega_2) = \kappa_{f_1}(\omega_1)\wedge
\kappa_{f_2}(\omega_2),
\een
where on the RHS we use the index $f_i$ ($i=1,2$) to indicate that the
conjugation is in the corresponding twisted de Rham cohomology. This
observation reduces the proof of our Proposition to the case $n=1$,
i.e., we may assume that $f(x)=x^{N+1}$. The oscillatory integrals are
very easy to compute explicitly and we can verify directly that
\ben
\kappa\left( \frac{x^i dx}{\Gamma\left(\tfrac{i+1}{N+1}\right)} \right) =
\frac{x^{N-1-i}dx}{\Gamma\left(\tfrac{N-i}{N+1}\right)}.
\een
Alternatively, we could argue that the opposite subspace $P$
corresponds to a splitting of the Steenbrink's Hodge filtration of $f$.
However, in this case $\frh_1=0$ and $F^p\frh=0$
for $p>0$ and $F^p\frh=\frh$ for $p\leq 0$.
Note that there is a unique monodromy invariant filtration $U_\bullet$ which
gives a splitting: $U_p\frh = \frh$ for $p\geq 0$ and
$U_p\frh = 0$ for $p<0$. Using Proposition \ref{kappa-h}, we
get that $P=\kappa( \HH_+(f))z^{-1}$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark}
The results of this section can be generalised to any invertible polynomial.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The Cecotti-Vafa structure}\label{CV}
Cecotti and Vafa introduced $tt^*$-geometry for
$N=2$ supersymmetric quantum field theories
\cite{Cecotti-Vafa:top_anti_top, Cecotti-Vafa:classification}.
This structure has been studied in mathematics by Dubrovin
\cite{Dubrovin:top_anti_top}, Hertling \cite{He2} and
many others.
The Cecotti-Vafa structure for isolated hypersurface singularities has been
introduced in \cite{He2}. We describe the structure
for weighted homogeneous polynomials
using the complex conjugate opposite subspaces.
\begin{proposition}
If $f\in \cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$, then the subspace $
z^{-1}\kappa(\HH_+(f))$ is an opposite subspace and
\ben
h(\omega_1,\omega_2) = K^{(0)}(\kappa(\omega_1),\omega_2)
\een
is a positive-definite Hermitian pairing on
\ben
\K(f):=\HH_+(f)\cap \kappa(\HH_+(f)).
\een
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
According to Proposition \ref{kappa-h}, $z^{-1} \kappa(\HH_+(f))$
is an opposite subspace. Thus we have the corresponding
splitting (see \eqref{eq:sigma_splitting})
\ben
\sigma\colon \frh\to \HH_+(f)\cap \kappa(\HH_+(f)).
\een
Moreover, using formula \eqref{kappa-A}, we have
\ben
h(\omega,\omega) = K^{(0)}(\sigma(\overline{A}),\sigma(A)),
\een
where $\omega=\sigma(A)$. Let us assume that $A\in
F^p\frh_s\cap U_p\frh_s$.
Then using Lemma \ref{sigma-K}, we get that the above pairing is
\ben
C(s) \sqrt{-1}^{2p-m}S(\overline{A},A).
\een
Recalling that $F^p\frh$ is a Polarized Hodge Structure (see
property (d) in Section \ref{S-PHS}),
we get that the above number is a positive real number.
\end{proof}
By Remark \ref{rem:realstr_awayfrom_marginal},
we can extend the real structure $\kappa$ over the whole space
$\cM$ by extending scalars.
Following the notation there, we write
$\HH_+(f)^{\rm an} = \HH_+(f) \otimes_{\C[z]} \cO^{\rm an}(\C)$.
Because the oppositeness is an open condition,
the subspace $z^{-1} \kappa(\HH_+(f)^{\rm an})$
is opposite to $\HH_+(f)^{\rm an}$ for $f$
in a neighborhood of $\cM_\mar^\circ$.
Moreover, the Hermitian form $h(\omega_1,\omega_2)
= K(\kappa(\omega_1), \omega_2)$ on
the vector space
\[
\K(f) := \HH_+(f)^{\rm an} \cap z \kappa(\HH_+(f)^{\rm an})
\]
is positive definite for $f$ in a neighborhood of $\cM_\mar^\circ$.
On the other hand, Sabbah \cite[\S 4]{Sabbah:FL} proved that the
Brieskorn lattice of any cohomologically tame function on a smooth affine manifold
with only isolated critical points satisfies these properties,
i.e.~the oppositeness and the positive-definiteness of $h$.
Therefore we have a globally defined Hermitian
$C^\infty$ vector bundle $\K\to \cM$ whose fiber at $f\in \cM$
is $\K(f)$.
The Gauss--Manin connection $\nabla$ on $\HH$ induces a family of flat
connections of $\K$ depending on a parameter $z\in \C^\times$,
which will be called the {\em Cecotti--Vafa connection}.
Namely, let us pick a $C^\infty$-frame $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N$
for $\K$.
The deformation space $\cM$, being a Zariski open subset of a standard complex
vector space, has a natural holomorphic coordinate system
$\sigma=(\sigma_1,\dots, \sigma_{N'})$ and the vector fields
\ben
\partial/\partial \sigma_1,\dots,\partial/\partial \sigma_{N'},
\partial/\partial \overline{\sigma}_1,\dots,\partial/\partial \overline{\sigma}_{N'}
\een
give a frame for the complexified tangent bundle
$T^\C\cM:=T\cM\otimes_\R\C$.
The properties $\nabla_X \HH_+(f) \subset z^{-1} \HH_+(f)$,
$\nabla_{z\partial_z} \HH_+(f) \subset z^{-1} \HH_+(f)$
imply that
\begin{align*}
\nabla_X (\kappa \HH_+(f)) & =
\kappa(\nabla_{\overline{X}} \HH_+(f))
\subset z \kappa(\HH_+(f)) \\
\nabla_{z\partial_z} \kappa(\HH_+(f)) & =
\kappa(\nabla_{-z\partial_z} \HH_+(f))
= z \kappa(\HH_+(f))
\end{align*}
for a complexified vector field $X \in T^\C\cM$,
where we used $\nabla_X\kappa =
\kappa \nabla_{\overline{X}}$
and $\kappa (z^{-1}\omega) = z \kappa(\omega)$.
From these properties we get that in the frame $\{\omega_i\}$
the Gauss--Manin connection takes the form
\begin{align*}
\nabla_i \omega_a & = \sum_{b=1}^N \Big(\Gamma_{ia}^b(\sigma) + z^{-1}
C_{ia}^b(\sigma)\Big) \omega_b \\
\nabla_{\bar\imath} \omega_{a} & = \sum_{b=1}^N
\Big(\Gamma_{\bar\imath a}^{ b}(\sigma) + z
\widetilde{C}_{\bar\imath a}^{ b}(\sigma)\Big) \omega_{ b} \\
\nabla_{z\partial_z} \omega_a & = \sum_{b=1}^N \Big(
-U_a^b(\sigma)z^{-1}+Q_a^b(\sigma)+\widetilde{U}_a^b(\sigma) z\Big)
\omega_b
\end{align*}
where $\nabla_i:=\nabla_{\partial/\partial \sigma_i}$,
$\nabla_{\bar\imath}:=\nabla_{\partial/\partial \overline{\sigma}_i}$,
and the connection matrices are $C^\infty$ functions in
$\sigma$. It is easy to prove that
\ben
D = d+\sum_{i=1}^{N'} \Big(\Gamma_i d\sigma_i
+\Gamma_{\bar\imath}d\overline{\sigma}_i\Big)
\een
is compatible with the Hermitian metric $h$
and its $(0,1)$ part defines the holomorphic structure on
$\K \cong \HH_+/z\HH_+$
and its $(1,0)$ part defines the anti-holomorphic structure
on $\K \cong \kappa(\HH_+)/z^{-1} \kappa(\HH_+)$.
Here $\Gamma_i,\Gamma_{\bar\imath}\in \End(\K)$ are defined by
$\Gamma_i\omega_a=\sum_b \Gamma_{ia}^b\omega_b$ and
$\Gamma_{\bar\imath}\omega_a=\sum_b \Gamma_{\bar\imath a}^b\omega_b$.
Using the compatibility of the
Gauss--Manin connection with the complex conjugation
\[
\nabla_{\overline{X}} = \kappa \nabla_X \kappa,\quad
\nabla_{z\partial_z} = -\kappa \nabla_{z\partial_z} \kappa
\]
we get the following relations between the connection matrices
\[
\widetilde{C}_{\bar\imath} = \kappa C_i \kappa, \quad
\widetilde{U} = \kappa U \kappa,\quad
\widetilde{Q} = -\kappa Q \kappa.
\]
\begin{remark}
When we choose $\{\omega_i\}$ to be a frame that
is holomorphic under the identification $\K \cong \HH_+/z\HH_+
\cong \bigcup_f \Jac(f) \cdot dx$, then we have
$\Gamma_{\bar\imath} =0$.
Moreover the operators $C_i$ and $U$ above correspond to
the multiplication on $\Jac(f) \cdot dx$ by $\partial_{\sigma_i} f(x;\sigma)$ and $f$, respectively. In particular,
$U=0$ along the marginal locus $\cM_\mar^\circ$.
\end{remark}
\section{Quantization and Fock bundle}
Using Givental's quantization formalism \cite{G2}, we define a vector
bundle of Fock spaces on the moduli space $\mathcal{M}_{\rm
mar}^\circ$. The main motivation for our definition is to provide a
convenient language to state mirror symmetry as well as to investigate
the transformation properties under analytic continuation of
Givental's total ancestor potential.
\subsection{Givental's quantization formalism}
Let $H$ be a complex vector space of dimension $N$ equipped with a non-degenerate bi-linear
pairing $(\ ,\ )$. Givental's quantization is based on the vector
space $\mathcal{H}=H(\!(z)\!)$ equipped with the following
symplectic structure:
\ben
\Omega(\mathbf{f}_1(z),\mathbf{f}_2(z)) = \Res_{z=0}
(\mathbf{f}_1(-z),\mathbf{f}_2(z)) dz.
\een
The Lie algebra of infinitesimal symplectic transformations $A$ of
$\mathcal{H}$ is naturally identified with the Poisson Lie algebra of
quadratic Hamiltonians via
\ben
A\mapsto h_A(\mathbf{f}):=\frac{1}{2}\Omega(A\mathbf{f},\mathbf{f}).
\een
Note that $\mathbf{f}\mapsto A\mathbf{f}$ can be interpreted as a
vector field on $\mathcal{H}$. This vector field is Hamiltonian with
Hamiltonian $h_A$ if and only if $A$ is an infinitesimal symplectic
transformation.
The symplectic vector space has a natural polarization
$\mathcal{H}=\mathcal{H}_+\oplus \mathcal{H}_-$, where
$\mathcal{H}_+:=H[\![z]\!]$ and $\mathcal{H}_-:=H[z^{-1}]z^{-1}$ are
Lagrangian subspaces. The polarization allows us to use the so-called
{\em canonical quantization} to represent quadratic Hamiltonians by
differential operators. In coordinates, the representation can be
constructed as follows. Let $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and
$\{\phi^i\}_{i=1}^N$ be bases of $H$ dual with respect to the pairing
$(\ ,\ )$. Then the linear functions on $\mathcal{H}$ defined by
\ben
p_{k,i}(\mathbf{f})= \Omega(\mathbf{f},\phi_i z^k),\quad
q_{k,i}(\mathbf{f})=\Omega(\phi^i(-z)^{-k-1},\mathbf{f}),\quad 1\leq i\leq N,k\geq 0,
\een
form a Darboux coordinate system. We define
$\widehat{A}:=\widehat{h}_A$, where a function in $p_{k,i}$ and
$q_{k,i}$ is quantized by the rules
\ben
p_{k,i}\mapsto \hbar^{1/2}\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{k,i}},\quad
q_{k,i}\mapsto \hbar^{-1/2} q_{k,i}
\een
and normal ordering, i.e., all differentiation operations should
preceed the multiplication ones.
If $R$ is a symplectic transformation of $\mathcal{H}$ of the form
$1+R_1 z+R_2 z^2+\cdots$, where $R_k\in {\rm End}(H)$, then we can
formally define $A=\log R$ and $\widehat{R}=e^{\widehat{A}}.$
Let us introduce the quadratic differential operator
\ben
V_R:=\sum_{k,\ell=0}^\infty\sum_{i,j=1}^N
(V_{k\ell}\phi^j,\phi^i)
\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_{k,i}\partial q_{\ell,j}},
\een
where $V_{k\ell}\in {\rm End}(H)$ are defined by
\ben
\sum_{k,\ell=0}^\infty V_{k\ell} z^kw^\ell = \frac{1-R(z)R^t(w)}{z+w}.
\een.
\begin{proposition}\label{R-action}
Let $\cF=\cF(\hbar;\mathbf{q})$ be a formal power series
in $\mathbf{q}=(q_{k,i})$ with coefficients in
$\C_\hbar=\C(\!(\hbar)\!)$ such that
$\widehat{R}^{-1}\cF$ is well defined. Then
\ben
\widehat{R}^{-1}\cF=
\left.
\Big(e^{\frac{\hbar}{2}\, V_R}\cF\Big)
\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto R(z)\mathbf{q}},
\een
where $R(z)\mathbf{q}$ is defined by identifying $\mathbf{q}$ with a
vector $\sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{i=1}^N q_{k,i}\phi_i z^k\in H[\![z]\!]$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{From an opposite subspace to a Frobenius structure}
\label{subsec:Frobenius}
Let us denote by $\mathcal{L}\to \cM_\mar^\circ$ the line bundle whose
fiber over a point $f\in \cM_\mar^\circ$ is the space of elements in
$\HH_+(f)$ of minimal degree; i.e.,
$\mathcal{L}_f=\C\, dx_1\cdots dx_n$.
We refer to $\mathcal{L}$ as the {\em vacuum line bundle}.
Assume now that $f\in \cM_{\rm mar}$ is a given point, $\omega\in
\mathcal{L}_f$ is a non-zero form, and $P$ is a homogeneous opposite
subspace of $\HH_+(f)$. Let us choose a good basis of homogeneous
forms $\{\omega\}_{i=1}^N\subset \HH_+(f)\cap Pz$ and define $\phi_i\in
\operatorname{Jac}(f)$ such that\footnote
{The differential form $\phi_i \omega$ depends on the choice of
a representative of $\phi_i \in \Jac(f)$, but the class of
$\phi_i \omega$ in $\HH_+(f)/z\HH_+(f)$ does not.}
\ben
\omega_i \equiv \phi_i \, \omega \mod z\HH_+(f),\quad
1\leq i\leq N.
\een
We construct a miniversal unfolding of $f$ by
\ben
F(x,t)=f(x)+\sum_{i=1}^N t_i\phi_i(x),\quad t=(t_1,\dots,t_N)\in B_f,
\een
where $B_f\subset \mathbb{C}^N $ is a sufficiently small ball
representing the holomorphic germ at $0$ of $\C^N$ and $\phi_i(x)$ is
a homogeneous polynomial representing $\phi_i\in
\operatorname{Jac}(f)$. Let us assign a degree
to $t_i$ such that $F(x,t)$ is weighted homogeneous of degree 1, and let us
split the deformation parameters $t$ into 3 groups: relevant $t^{\rm
rel}=(t_1,\dots,t_{N_{\rm rel}})$, marginal $t^{\rm mar}=(t_{N_{\rm
rel}+1},\dots,t_{N_{\rm rel} + N_{\rm mar} }),$ and irrelevant $
t^{\rm irr}=(t_{N_{\rm rel} + N_{\rm mar} +1},\dots,t_N)$, depennding
on whether their degrees are
respecively $>0$, $=0$, or $<0$.
There is a natural way to construct a Frobenius structure on
$B_f$. Let us outline
the construction referring for more details to \cite{He, KS, ST}. To
begin with, we choose an appropriately small Stein domain
$X_f\subset \C^n\times B_f$ around $0$ (see \cite{AGV}). Let
us denote by $F\colon X_f\to \C$ the miniversal unfolding
of $f$ and put
$\widehat{\mathcal{F}}:=\mathbb{R}^n\varphi_*(\widehat{\Omega}_{\rm
twdR},\widehat{d}_{\rm twdR})$ for the hypercohomology of the
twisted de Rham complex
\ben
(\widehat{\Omega}_{\rm twdR}^\bullet,\widehat{d}_{\rm twdR}):=
(\Omega^\bullet_{X_f/B_f}[\![z]\!],zd_{X_f/B_f}+dF\wedge),
\een
where $\varphi\colon X_f\subset \C^n\times B_f \to B_f$ is the natural
projection. Following the argument in Section \ref{sec:twdR} it is
easy to prove that after decreasing $B_f$ if necessary,
$\widehat{\mathcal{F}}$ is a
trivial vector bundle on $B_f$, whose fiber over a point $s\in B_f$
\ben
\hHH_+(F):=
\Omega^n_{X_f}[\![z]\!]/(zd+dF\wedge)
\Omega^{n-1}_{X_f}[\![z]\!],\quad F=F(x,s),
\een
is a free $\C[\![z]\!]$-module of rank the Milnor number $N$.
Put
\ben
\hHH(F):=\hHH_+(F) \otimes_{\C[\![z]\!]}
\C(\!(z)\!).
\een
This way we obtain vector bundles
$\hHH_+\subset\hHH$ on $B_f$. For a given holomorphic
function $g(x,z)\in \mathcal{O}_{X_f}(X_f)\otimes \C(\!(z)\!)$ let us denote by
\ben
[g(x,z)dx]_F=:\int e^{F(x)/z}g(x,z) dx
\een
the equivalence class of the form $g(x,z)dx_1\cdots dx_n$ in the de Rham
cohomology group $\hHH(F)$.
\subsubsection{Extension in the relevant and marginal directions}
There is a unique way to extend $\omega_i=[g_i(x,z)dx]_f$ to sections
$\widetilde{\omega}_i$ of $\widehat{\HH}_+|_{\{t^{\rm irr}=0\}}$ so that they give
a good basis in each fiber $\widehat{\HH}_+(F)$ for $F\in \{t^{\rm
irr}=0\}\subset B_f$.
The extension can be constructed by Birkhoff factorization as
follows. Let us denote by $G_i$ the section of $\widehat{\HH}_+$ obtained
by flat extension of $\omega_i$ with respect to the Gauss--Manin
connection. The Gauss--Manin connection $\nabla$ gives rise to a
system of differential equations
\ben
z\nabla_{\partial/\partial t_i} [g_j(x,z)dx]_F=\sum_{k=1}^N
\Gamma_{ij}^k(t,z) [g_k(x,z)dx]_F,\quad 1\leq i\leq N_{\rm rel}+N_{\rm mar}.
\een
Since $f$ is weighted-homogeneous, the
functions $g_i(x,z)$ are polynomials in $z$. In particular, the connection
matrix $\Gamma$ is holomorphic at $(t,z)=(0,0)$. Let us pick a
fundamental solution $\Phi(t,z)$; i.e., a $N\times N$ non-degenerate
matrix solving the differential equations
\beq\label{GM:system}
z\partial_{t_i} \Phi(t,z) = \Gamma_i(t,z)\Phi(t,z),\quad 1\leq i\leq
N_{\rm rel}+N_{\rm mar},
\eeq
where $\Gamma_i(t,z)$ is the matrix whose $(j,k)$-entry is
$\Gamma_{ij}^k(t,z)$ and satisfying $\Phi(0,z)=1$. We have
\ben
[g_i(x,z)dx]_F = \sum_{j=1}^N \Phi_{ij}(t,z) G_j.
\een
Note that $\Phi(t,z)$ is a holomorphic matrix for $z\in
\C^*:=\mathbb{P}^1\setminus{\{0,\infty\}}$ that has a Birkhoff
factorization at $t=0$, so $\Phi(t,z)$ must have a Birkhoff
factorization for all $t\in B_f$ provided we choose $B_f$ sufficiently
small. Put $\Phi(t,z)=\Phi_+(t,z)^{-1}\Phi_-(t,z)$, where $\Phi_-(t,z)$ is
holomorphic for $z\in \mathbb{P}^1\setminus{\{0\}}$ (with
$\Phi_-(t,\infty)=1$) and $\Phi_+(t,z)$ is holomorphic for
$z\in \mathbb{P}^1\setminus{\{\infty\}}$. One can check that the forms
\ben
\widetilde{\omega}_i = \sum_{j=1}^N (\Phi_+(t,z))_{ij}[g_j(x,z)dx]_F
,\quad 1\leq i\leq N,
\een
give rise to a good basis. Moreover, the good basis
$\widetilde{\omega}_i=[\widetilde{g}_i(x,t^{\rm rel},t^{\rm
mar};z)dx]_F$ depends polynomially on $x,t^{\rm rel}$ and $z$
(because these variables have positive degrees) and
analytically in $t^{\rm mar}$.
\subsubsection{Extension in the irrelevant directions}
If we want to extend in the irrelevant directions, then the above
argument becomes much more involved, because the system
\eqref{GM:system} might fail to be convergent and holomorphic in $z$. To offset this
difficulty one can take the formal Laplace transform, solve the
resulting system, and then obtain $\widetilde{\omega}_i$ via the
inverse Laplace transform. The details are quite delicate, so we refer
to \cite{He, MS}. An alternative way to proceed is the perturbative
approach of \cite{LLS}. The main idea is to look for a good basis that
depends formally on the irrelevant parameters, i.e., we are looking
for a good basis of the form
\ben
\widetilde{\omega}_i =[\widetilde{g}_i(x,t,z)dx]_F,\quad
\widetilde{g}_i\in \C\{t^{\rm mar}\}[x,t^{\rm rel}][\![t^{\rm \irr},z]\!],
\een
where $\C\{a\}$ is the ring of convergent power series in
$a$. According to \cite{LLS}, first we have to find the extension
$\widetilde{\omega}=\widetilde{g}(x,t,z) dx$ of the volume
form $\omega\in \mathcal{L}_f-\{0\}$ by solving the following
equation in $\hHH_+(f)$ :
\ben
J(t,z):=e^{(F(x,t)-f(x,t_{\rm rel},t_{\rm
mar}))/z}\widetilde{g}(x,t,z) dx \in \omega+H[\![z^{-1}]\!]z^{-1},
\een
where $H=\HH_+(f)\cap zP$ is the vector space spanned by the
good basis $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N$.
The extension of the remaining forms is obtained from the period map
\beq\label{period-map}
TB_f[\![z]\!] \to
\hHH_+,\quad \partial_{t_i}\mapsto z\nabla_{\partial_{t_i}} [\widetilde{\omega}]
\eeq
as the image of the {\em flat} vector fields. The latter are the vector
fields corresponding to the coordinate system on $B_f$ given by the
coefficients in front of $z^{-1}$ of $J(t,z)$.
We define a Frobenius structure on $B_f$ for which a basis of flat vector
fields corresponds via the period map \eqref{period-map} to the good
basis $\{\widetilde{\omega}_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and the flat pairing
corresponds to $K_F^{(0)}$. Let us point out that the extension
$\widetilde{\omega}$ of the volume form $\omega$ is a {\em primitive form}
in the sense of K. Saito. Slightly abusing the terminology we will
sometimes refer to the sections of $\mathcal{L}$ as primitive forms,
keeping in mind that they do become primitive only after an
appropriate extension.
\subsection{The total ancestor potential}
Given $f\in \cM_{\rm mar}$, $\omega\in
\mathcal{L}_f\setminus{\{0\}}$, an opposite subspace
$P\subset \HH(f)$, and a good basis $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset
\HH_+(f)\cap Pz$, let us construct a miniversal unfolding space $B_f$
equipped with a Frobenius structure as explained above. Using the flat
structure we trivialize the tangent and the co-tangent bundle
\ben
T^*B_f\cong T B_f \cong B_f\times T_0 B_f \cong B_f\times {\rm Jac}(f),
\een
where the first isomorphism uses the non-degenerate pairing, the
2nd one uses the flat Levi-Civita connection, and the last one is
induced from the period isomorphism $T_0B_f\cong \HH_+(f)/z
\HH_+(f)$ and the isomorphism
\beq\label{Jac-triv}
{\rm Jac}(f)\cong
\HH_+(f)/z
\HH_+(f),\quad \phi(x)\longmapsto \phi(x) \omega \mod z\HH_+(f).
\eeq
Note that $\phi_i\in {\rm Jac}(f)$ are the elements corresponding
to the good basis $\omega_i$ via the isomorphism \eqref{Jac-triv}.
Let us introduce the Fock space
\ben
\C_\hbar[\![q_0,q_1+\mathbf{1},q_2,\dots]\!]
= \C(\!(\hbar)\!)[\![q_0,q_1+\mathbf{1},q_2,\dots]\!]
\een
of formal power series in
$\mathbf{q}=(q_{k,i})_{i=1,\dots,N}^{k=0,1,\dots}$. We denote
$q_k=\sum_{i=1}^N q_{k,i}\phi_i$. The shift $q_1+\mathbf{1}$ means
that the element $\mathbf{1}\in {\rm Jac}(f)$ should be written as $\mathbf{1}
= \sum_i a_i \phi_i$ and in the formal power series the variables
$q_{1,i}$ are shifted to $q_{1,i}+a_i$.
On the other hand, if $F$ is a generic deformation of $f$, then the
critical values of $F$ give rise to the so-called {\em canonical} coordinate system
$u=(u_1,\dots,u_N)$, defined locally near $F$, in which the Frobenius
multiplication and the pairing are diagonal
\ben
(\partial_{u_i},\partial_{u_j}) =
\delta_{i,j}/\Delta_i,\quad \partial_{u_i}\bullet \partial_{u_j}=\delta_{i,j}\partial_{u_j} .
\een
Let us denote by
\ben
\Psi_F\colon \C^N \to
T_F B \cong {\rm Jac}(f),\quad \Psi_F(e_i) =\sqrt{\Delta_i}\partial_{u_i}
\een
the trivialization of the tangent bundle at a generic $F$.
The total ancestor potential
is an element of the Fock space defined by
\ben
\cA_F(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) := \widehat{\Psi}_F \widehat{R}_F
\prod_{i=1}^N \mathcal{D}_{\rm pt} (\hbar\Delta_i;{}^i\mathbf{q}\sqrt{\Delta_i}),
\een
where $R_F$ is a symplectic transformation of
$\C^N(\!(z)\!)$ of the type
$1+R_1z+\cdots$, which will be defined below. We have a different set
of formal variables ${}^i\mathbf{q}=({}^iq_0,{}^iq_1,\dots)$ which is
related to the previous one by
\ben
\sum_{i=1}^N {}^iq_k \Psi_F(e_i) = q_k,\quad k\geq 0.
\een
By definition the quantization $\widehat{\Psi}_F$ acts by the above
substitution. Finally, $\mathcal{D}_{\rm pt}$ is the
Witten--Kontsevich tau function:
\ben
\mathcal{D}_{\rm pt} (\hbar;\mathbf{q})=
\exp \Big( \sum_{g,n=0}^\infty \frac{\hbar^{g-1}}{n!}
\int_{\overline{\cM}_{g,k}} \prod_{i=1}^n (\mathbf{q}(\psi_i)+\psi_i)\Big),
\een
where $\mathbf{q}=(q_k)_{k\geq 0}$ is a sequence of formal variables
and $\mathbf{q}(\psi_i)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty q_k \psi_i^k$ (with $\psi_i$
the 1st Chern class of the line bundle of $i$-th marked point cotangent lines) is a
cohomology class on $\overline{\cM}_{g,k}$. Note that the dilaton
shift is incorporated here, so the function is an element of
$\C_\hbar[\![q_0,q_1+1,q_2,\dots]\!]$.
The operator $R_F$ is in general defined as a formal solution of the
Gauss--Manin connection near the irregular singular point $z=0$. In
the case of singularity theory, however, we have an alternative
description in terms of a stationary phase asymptotic. Namely, let
$\beta_i\subset \C^n$ be the cycle swept by the vanishing
cycle vanishing at the critical point of $F$ corresponding to the
critical value $u_i$, then the stationary phase asymptotic
\beq\label{asymptotic}
(-2\pi z)^{-1/2}\int_{\beta_i} e^{F(x)/z} \widetilde{\omega}_a \sim
(\Psi_F R_F(z) e_i,\phi_a)e^{u_i/z},\quad z\to 0,
\eeq
where $\phi_a\in {\rm Jac}(f)$ corresponds to the flat vector field
determined by $\widetilde{\omega}_a$.
According to Milanov \cite{Mi}, the total ancestor potential $\cA_F$
extends analytically for all $F\in B_f$. In particular, we have a well
defined limit
\ben
\cA_{f,\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots, \omega_N}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})
:=\lim_{F\to f} \cA_F (\hbar;\mathbf{q}).
\een
Let us describe the dependence of the total ancestor potential on the
choices of $\omega$ and $\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N$. Assume that
$\omega'\in \mathcal{L}_f-\{0\}$, $P'\subset \HH(f)$ is
an opposite subspace, and $\{\omega_i'\}_{i=1}^N\subset
\HH_+(f)\cap P'z $ is a good basis. It is convenient to split the general
formula into two cases. The first case is the following:
if $P'=P$, then
\beq\label{fr-change}
\omega_j' = \sum_{i=1}^N \omega_i B_{ij},\quad \omega'=c\omega
\eeq
for some invertible matrix $B=(B_{ij})_{i,j=1}^N$ and some non-zero constant $c$.
The second case is the following: if $\omega'=\omega$ and
\ben
\omega_i'\equiv \omega_i\equiv \phi_i \omega
\mod z\HH_+(f),\quad 1\leq i\leq N,
\een
where $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset \operatorname{Jac}(f)$.
Let us denote by $R(f,z)$ the linear operator
in $\Jac(f)(\!(z)\!)$ whose matrix $(R_{ij}(f,z))_{i,j=1}^N$
with respect to the basis $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ is defined by
\beq\label{gb-change}
\omega'_j(f)=\sum_{i=1}^N \omega_i (f) R_{ij}(f,z),\quad 1\leq j\leq N.
\eeq
Let us recall Givental's quantization formalism for
\ben
H=\operatorname{Jac}(f),\quad
(\psi_1,\psi_2):=K^{(0)}(\psi_1\omega,\psi_2\omega),\quad
\psi_1,\psi_2\in \operatorname{Jac}(f).
\een
Note that $R(f,z)$ is a symplectic transformation of
$\mathcal{H}=H(\!(z^{-1})\!)$ of the type $1+R_1(f)z+R_2(f)z^2+\cdots$.
\begin{proposition}\label{anc-change}
a) The transformation of the total ancestor potential under the change
\eqref{fr-change} is given by
\ben
\cA_{f,\omega'}^{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'}(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) =
\cA_{f,\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(\hbar c^{-2}; c^{-1} B \mathbf{q}) ,
\een
where $(c^{-1}B\mathbf{q})_{k,i}=\sum_{j=1}^N c^{-1}B_{ij}q_{k,j}$.
b) The transformation of the total ancestor potential under the change
\eqref{gb-change} is given by
\ben
\cA_{f,\omega}^{\omega'_1,\dots,\omega'_N}(\hbar ;
\mathbf{q}) =(R(f,z)^t)^\wedge
\cA_{f,\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(\hbar; \mathbf{q}),
\een
where $R(f,z)^t$ is the transpose of $R(f,z)$ with respect to the residue pairing.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Let us denote by
\ben
\mathcal{A}_F'(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) = \widehat{\Psi}_F'\widehat{R}_F'\,
\prod_{i=1}^N \mathcal{D}_{\rm pt}(\hbar\Delta_i';{}^i\mathbf{q} \sqrt{\Delta'_i})
\een
the total ancestor potential corresponding to the Frobenius structure
determined by the primitive form $\omega'$ and the good basis
$\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'$.
Let $\tau=(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_N)$ and
$\tau'=(\tau_1',\dots,\tau_N')$ be the flat coordinates on $B_f$ corresponding
respectively to the good bases $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and
$\{\omega_i'\}_{i=1}^N.$ By definition
\ben
z\nabla_{\partial/\partial \tau_i} \omega =\omega_i,\quad
z\nabla_{\partial/\partial \tau'_i} \omega' =\omega'_i,\quad 1\leq
i\leq N.
\een
\medskip
a)
Recalling the change \eqref{fr-change} we get the following relations
\ben
\tau_i=\sum_{j=1}^N c^{-1}B_{ij} \tau_j',\quad
\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_j'} = \sum_{i=1}^N
c^{-1}B_{ij}\frac{\partial}{\partial \tau_i}.
\een
The matrix of $\Psi'_F\colon \mathbb{C}^N\to
\operatorname{Jac}(f)$ with respect to the bases
$\{e_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset \mathbb{C}^N$ and
$\{\phi_i'\}_{i=1}^N\subset \operatorname{Jac}(f)$,
$\phi_i'=\partial/\partial \tau_i'$ has entries $(\Psi'_F)_{ki}$ defined by
\ben
\Psi'_F e_i = \sum_{k=1}^N \phi_k'\, (\Psi'_F)_{ki},\quad
(\Psi'_F)_{ki} = \sqrt{\Delta_i} \, \partial \tau'_k/\partial u_i.
\een
Similarly, $\Psi_F$ is represented by a matrix with entries
$(\Psi_F)_{ki}=\sqrt{\Delta_i} \,\partial \tau_k/\partial u_i.$
Note that $\sqrt{\Delta_i'} = c^{-1}\sqrt{\Delta_i}$, $R'_F=R_F$, and
$\Psi_F'=B^{-1}\,\Psi_F$. Using also that the quantized action
$\widehat{R}_F$ commutes with the rescaling
\ben
\hbar\mapsto \hbar c^{-2},\quad {}^iq_k\mapsto {}^iq_k c^{-1},
\een
we get
\ben
\mathcal{A}'_F(\hbar;\mathbf{q} ) = \mathcal{A}_F(\hbar c^{-2}, c^{-1} B\mathbf{q}).
\een
Taking the limit $F\to f$ completes the proof of part a).
\medskip
b) The entries of the matrix of the linear operator $\Psi'_{F}R_F'$ with respect to
the bases $\{e_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset \mathbb{C}^N$ and
$\{\phi_a\}_{a=1}^N$ are by definition the stationary phase
asymptotics
\ben
(-2\pi z)^{-n/2} \int_{\beta_i} e^{(F-u_i)/z} \widetilde{\omega}'_b \,
\eta^{ab}\ \sim\
(\Psi'_FR'_F)_{ai},\quad z\to 0,
\een
where $\{\widetilde{\omega}_a'\}$ is the extension of the good basis
$\{\omega_a'\}_{a=1}^N$ to a good basis on $B_f$ and
$(\eta^{ab})_{a,b=1}^N$ is the inverse matrix of the matrix of the
residue pairing $(\eta_{ab})_{a,b=1}^N$, $\eta_{ab} = (\phi_a,\phi_b)$. Similarly,
\ben
(-2\pi z)^{-n/2} \int_{\beta_i} e^{(F-u_i)/z} \widetilde{\omega}_b\, \eta^{ab} \ \sim\
(\Psi_FR_F)_{ai},\quad z\to 0.
\een
Let us denote by $\widetilde{R}(F,z)$ the symplectic transformation of
$\operatorname{Jac}(f)(\!(z)\!)$ whose entries
$\widetilde{R}_{ab}(F,z)$ with respect to the basis
$\{\phi_a\}_{a=1}^N$ are given by
\ben
\widetilde{\omega}'_b = \sum_{a=1}^N \widetilde{\omega}_a \, \widetilde{R}_{ab}(F,z).
\een
By definition $\lim_{F\to f} \widetilde{R}_{ab}(F,z) = R_{ab}(f,z).$
Comparing the above asymptotic expansions, we get
\ben
(\Psi'_FR'_F)_{ai} = \sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^N \eta^{a\mu}
\widetilde{R}_{\nu\mu}(F,z) \eta_{\nu b} \, (\Psi_F R_F)_{bi}.
\een
Note that the matrix of the transpose $\widetilde{R}(F,z)^t$ with
respect to the residue pairing has entries
\ben
(\widetilde{R}(F,z)^t)_{ab} = \sum_{\mu,\nu=1}^N \eta^{a\mu}
\widetilde{R}_{\nu\mu}(F,z) \eta_{\nu b}.
\een
We get that $\Psi'_FR'_F = \widetilde{R}(F,z)^t \Psi_F R_F$, so
\ben
\mathcal{A}'_F(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) = (\widetilde{R}(F,z)^t)^\wedge\,
\mathcal{A}_F(\hbar;\mathbf{q}).
\een
Taking the limit $F\to f$ completes the proof. \qed
\subsection{The abstract Fock bundle}
Recall that a series of the form
\[
\sum_{g\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{\kappa=(k_1,i_1),\dots,(k_r,i_r)}\
c^{(g)}_\kappa \hbar ^{g-1} t_{k_1,i_1}\cdots t_{k_r,i_r},\quad
t_{k,i}=q_{k,i}+\delta_{k,1} a_i,
\]
is called {\em tame} if $c^{(g)}_\kappa\neq 0$ only for $\kappa$ satisfying the
$(3g-3+r)$-jet constraint
\ben
k_1+\cdots + k_r \leq 3g-3+r.
\een
It is known that Givental's total ancestor potential
$\mathcal{A}_{f,\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})$
is tame (see \cite{G4}). Motivated by Proposition \ref{anc-change} we
define a vector bundle
$\widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame}$ on $\mathcal{M}_{\rm
mar}^\circ$ whose fibers are the Fock spaces
$\C_\hbar[\![q_0,q_1+\mathbf{1},q_2,\dots]\!]_{\rm
tame}$ of tame series\footnote
{Note that elements of $\C[\![\hbar]\!]$ are tame, but $\hbar^{-1}$ is
not tame; hence $\C_\hbar[\![q_0,q_1+\mathbf{1},q_2,\dots]\!]_{\rm tame}$
is not a $\C_\hbar$-algebra (only a $\C[\![\hbar]\!]$-algebra).}
and the transition functions are given
by the transformation laws of Proposition \ref{anc-change} (with
$c=1$). Following Costello-Li's interpretation \cite{CS}
of Givental's quantization formalism, we will
identify each fiber of $\widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame}$ with a highest
weight module of a certain Weyl algebra, which in particular yields
an intrinsic definition of $\widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame}$.
\subsubsection{The Weyl algebra and the Fock space}
Let us fix $f\in \cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$.
The Weyl algebra of $\HH(f)$ is defined by
\ben
\mathcal{W}(f)=\bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty
\Big( \HH(f)^{\otimes n}\otimes \C_\hbar \Big)/ I,
\een
where $\C_\hbar = \C(\!(\hbar)\!)$ and
$I$ is the two sided ideal generated by the elements
\ben
a\otimes b-b\otimes a -\hbar \, \Omega(a,b),\quad a,b\in \HH(f).
\een
The Lagrangian subspace $\HH_+(f)$ determines the following Fock space
\ben
\mathbb{V}(f):=\mathcal{W}(f)/\mathcal{W}(f) \HH_+(f).
\een
\begin{lemma}\label{Fock-coords}
If $P$ is an opposite subspace, then
the natural map
\ben
\phi_{P}\colon \bigoplus_{n=0}^\infty
\Big(\operatorname{Sym}^n(P)\otimes
\C_\hbar \Big) \to \mathbb{V}(f),\quad a_1\cdots
a_n\mapsto a_1\otimes\cdots \otimes a_n,
\een
induces an isomorphism.
\end{lemma}
\proof
The map is well defined and injective because $P$ is
Lagrangian. The surjectivity follows from the Wick's formula (see \cite{K2}). Namely,
given $a_1,\dots, a_n\in \HH(f)$ we have the following identity
in $\mathbb{V}(f)$:
\ben
a_1\otimes \cdots \otimes a_n = \sum \Big(\prod_{s=1}^{n'}
\Omega(a_{i_s'}^+,a_{i_s''}^-)\Big) a_{j_1}^-\otimes \cdots \otimes a_{j_{n''}}^-,
\een
where the sum is over all possible ways to select pairs
$(i_1',i_1''),\dots, (i_{n'}',i_{n'}'')\subset \{1,2,\dots,n\}$ such that $i_s'<i_s''$ and
$i_1'<\cdots <i_{n'}'$ and $\{j_1,\dots,j_{n''}\} =
\{1,2,\dots,n\}\setminus \{ i_1',\dots ,i_{n'}',i_1'',\dots
,i_{n'}''\}$, and where $a^-\in P$ (resp. $a^+\in \HH_+(f)$) denotes the
projection of $a$ on $P$ (resp. $\HH_+(f)$) along
$\HH_+(f)$ (resp. $P$).
\qed
\subsubsection{The tame Weyl algebra and the tame Fock space}
If $P\subset \HH(f)$ is an opposite subspace, then using the
vector spaces isomorphism
\ben
\mathcal{W}(f)=\bigoplus_{r,s=0}^\infty P^{\otimes r}\otimes
\HH_+(f)^{\otimes s} \otimes \C_\hbar
\een
we can write an element of $\mathcal{W}(f)$ as a finite sum of terms
of the form
\beq\label{weyl:mon}
c^{(g)}_{I,J} \hbar^{g-1}\omega^{i_1}(-z)^{-k_1-1}\cdots
\omega^{i_r}(-z)^{-k_r-1}\otimes
\omega_{j_1}z^{\ell_1}\cdots \omega_{j_s}z^{\ell_s},
\eeq
where $\{\omega^i\}$ and $\{\omega_j\}$ are dual bases of
$\HH_+(f)\cap zP$, and the coefficient $c^{(g)}_{I,J}$ is a
constant depending on $g$ and the
multi-indexes $I=\{(i_1,j_1),\dots,(i_r,k_r)\}$ and
$J=\{(j_1,\ell_1),\dots,(j_s,\ell_s)\}$. The {\em tame} Weyl algebra
$\mathcal{W}_{\rm tame} (f)$
is defined as the vector subspace of $\mathcal{W}(f)$ spanned by
monomials of the type \eqref{weyl:mon} such that
\beq\label{def:tame}
k_1+\dots+k_r - r\leq 3(g-1+s/2).
\eeq
Finally, we need to introduce the completion of $\mathcal{W}_{\rm
tame} (f)$
\ben
\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm tame} (f):=\varprojlim_m \mathcal{W}_{\rm
tame} (f)/\mathcal{W}^m_{\rm tame} (f),
\een
where the decresing filtration $\{\mathcal{W}^m_{\rm tame} (f)\}_{k=0}^\infty$ is
defined as the span of all terms of the type \eqref{weyl:mon} such that
\ben
k_1+\cdots+k_r+\ell_1+\cdots+\ell_s+r+s\geq m.
\een
Equivalently, the elements of $\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm tame}
(f)$ are arbitrary infinite sums of terms of the type \eqref{weyl:mon}
satisfying the tameness condition \eqref{def:tame}.
We can prove the following proposition by an argument similar to
the proof of the fact that tame functions are preserved
by the upper-triangular Givental group action \cite{G4}.
\begin{proposition}\label{w:tame}
The tame Weyl algebra $\mathcal{W}_{\rm tame} (f)$ and its completion
$\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm tame} (f)$ are independent of the choices
of an opposite subspace and a good basis. Moreover, the multiplication
induced from $\mathcal{W}(f)$ is well defined, so both
$\mathcal{W}_{\rm tame} (f)$ and
$\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm tame} (f)$ are
associative algebras.
\end{proposition}
Let $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset \operatorname{Jac}(f)$ be a fixed
basis, let $P\subset \HH(f)$ be an opposite subspace, and let $\omega\in
\mathcal{L}_f-\{0\}$. Given these data, we can uniquely construct a good
basis $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset \HH_+(f)\cap Pz$ such that
\ben
\omega_i\equiv \phi_i \omega \mod z\HH_+(f)
\een
and so that there is an isomorphism
\ben
\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}\colon
\C_\hbar[q_0,q_1,\dots]\to \mathbb{V}(f)
\een
defined by
\ben
\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(q_{k_1,i_1}\cdots q_{k_1,i_1}):=
(\omega^{i_1}z^{-k_1-1})\otimes\cdots\otimes (\omega^{i_n}z^{-k_n-1}),
\een
where $\{\omega^i\}_{i=1}^N$ is a basis of $\HH_+(f)\cap
zP$ dual to $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N$ with respect to the
residue pairing $K_f^{(0)}$.
Let us define
\ben
\sigma_{\omega,P}^{\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N} := e^{-\omega
z/\hbar}\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N} \colon
\C_\hbar[q_0,q_1,\dots]\to \mathbb{V}(f),
\een
where we use that $\mathbb{V}(f)$ is a $\mathcal{W}(f)$-module on
which $\omega z$ acts locally nilpotently. Note that
\ben
[-\omega z , \omega^i (-z)^{-k-1}] = \hbar \Res_{z=0}
K_f(-\omega z,\omega^i(-z)^{-k-1}) dz = -\hbar \delta_{k,1} a_i,
\een
where $a_i$ are the coordinates of $\mathbf{1}$, i.e.,
$\mathbf{1}=\sum_{i=1}^N a_i \phi_i$.
Therefore the operator $e^{-\omega z/\hbar}$ acts as the shift
$q_1 \mapsto q_1- \mathbf{1}$, and we have
\[
\sigma_{\omega,P}^{\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N} (g(q_0,q_1,q_2,\dots))
= \Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(g(q_0,q_1-\mathbf{1},q_2,\dots))
\]
for any $g\in \C_\hbar[q_0,q_1,\dots]$.
It follows that
$\sigma_{\omega,P}^{\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N}$ induces an isomorphism
between the completed tame Fock spaces
\beq\label{Fock-triv}
\sigma_{\omega,P}^{\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N} \colon \C_\hbar
[\![q_0,q_1+\mathbf{1},q_2\dots]\!]_{\rm tame}
\to \widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame}(f),
\eeq
where $\widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm
tame}(f):=\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm
tame}/\widehat{\mathcal{W}}_{\rm tame}\HH_+(f) $.
\subsubsection{The total ancestor potential and the abstract Fock space}\label{ancestor-F}
It turns out that the dependence of the
isomorphism $\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}$ on the choice of an opposite subspace and a good
basis is controlled by Givental's symplectic loop group
quantization. Let us assume that we have two opposite filtrations $P'$ and
$P$ and $\{\omega_i'\}_{i=1}^N\subset \HH_+(f)\cap P'z$ and
$\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset \HH_+(f)\cap Pz$ are
corresponding good bases.
\begin{lemma}\label{change-B}
If $P'=P$ and the transition between the good bases is given by
\eqref{fr-change}, then
\ben
\Phi_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'}^{-1}\circ
\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}\mathcal{F}(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) =
\mathcal{F}(\hbar;B\mathbf{q}).
\een
\end{lemma}
\noindent
It remains only to investigate the case when $P'$ and
$P''$ are different. Let us choose $\omega\in
\mathcal{L}_f-\{0\}$. Using Lemma \ref{change-B} we may reduce the
general case to the case when $\omega_i\equiv\omega_i'\equiv
\phi_i\omega \mod z \HH_+(f)$.
In order to compare with Givental's formalism put
$H:=\operatorname{Jac}(f)$, and denote by $(\ ,\ )$ the pairing
on $H$ induced by the residue pairing $K_f^{(0)}$. Let $R(f,z)$ be the
symplectic transformation of $H(\!(z)\!)$ defined by \eqref{gb-change}.
\begin{lemma}\label{change-R}
The following formula holds
\ben
\Phi_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'}^{-1}\circ
\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N} (\cF) =
(R(f,z)^t)^\wedge\cF,
\een
where $R(f,z)^t$ is the transopse of $R(f,z)$ with respect to the residue pairing.
\end{lemma}
\proof
It enough to prove that if the Lemma is true for some $\cF$, then it is
true for $q_{k,i}\cF$ for all $k\geq 0$, $1\leq i\leq N$.
Recalling Proposition \ref{R-action} and that $R(f,z)^t =
R(f,-z)^{-1}$, we get
\ben
(R(f,z)^t)^\wedge\cF(\mathbf{q}) =
\left.
\Big( e^{\frac{\hbar}{2} V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q})}
\, \cF\Big)\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto R(f,-z)\mathbf{q}},
\een
where the 2nd order differential operator
\ben
V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q}) = \sum_{k,\ell=0}^\infty
(V_{k\ell} \phi^j,\phi^i)\frac{\partial^2}{\partial q_{k,i}\partial q_{\ell,j}}
\een
is given by
\ben
V_{k\ell} = \sum_{a=0}^\ell (-1)^{a+k+\ell+1} R_{k+1+a} R_{\ell-a}^t.
\een
By definition,
\ben
\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N} (q_{k,i}\cF) = \omega^i(-z)^{-k-1} \Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N} (\cF)
\een
and $\omega^i(-z)^{-k-1} $ is given by
\ben
\sum_{j=1}^N \Big( \sum_{a=0}^k R_{ij;a}(f)
(-1)^a \omega'^{j} (-z)^{-(k-a)-1} + \sum_{a=k+1}^\infty R_{ij;a}(f)
(-1)^a \omega'^{j} (-z)^{a-k-1}\Big).
\een
By definiton, if $k-a\geq 0$, then
\ben
\Phi^{-1}_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'} \circ \omega'^{j}
(-z)^{-(k-a)-1} = q_{k-a,j} \circ \Phi^{-1}_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'}
\een
and if $a\geq k+1$, then
\ben
\Phi^{-1}_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'} \circ \omega'^{j} (-z)^{a-k-1} =
(-1)^{a+k+1} \hbar \sum_{j'=1}^N (\phi^j,\phi^{j'})
\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{a-k-1,j'} }\circ
\Phi^{-1}_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'} .
\een
Therefore $\Phi^{-1}_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'}
\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N} (q_{k,i}\cF)$ can be written as the sum
of
\ben
\sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{a=0}^k R_{ij;a}(f)
(-1)^a q_{k-a,j} \left.
\Big( e^{\frac{\hbar}{2} V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q})}
\, \cF\Big)\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto R(f,-z)\mathbf{q}}
\een
and
\ben
\sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{a=k+1}^\infty R_{ij;a}(f)
(-1)^{k+1}\hbar
\sum_{j'=1}^N (\phi^j,\phi^{j'})
\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{a-k-1,j'} }\
\left.
\Big( e^{\frac{\hbar}{2} V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q})}
\, \cF\Big)\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto R(f,-z)\mathbf{q}} .
\een
Note that
\ben
\sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{a=0}^k R_{ij;a}(f)
(-1)^a q_{k-a,j} = (R(f,-z)\mathbf{q})_{k,i}.
\een
A straightforward computation shows that
\ben
\sum_{j=1}^N \sum_{a=k+1}^\infty R_{ij;a}(f)
(-1)^{k+1}\hbar
\sum_{j'=1}^N (\phi^j,\phi^{j'})
\frac{\partial}{\partial q_{a-k-1,j'} }\
\left.
\Big(\mathcal{G}(\mathbf{q})\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto
R(f,-z)\mathbf{q}} \Big)
\een
equals
\ben
\left.
\Big(
\frac{\hbar}{2}[V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q}),q_{k,i}]
\mathcal{G}\Big)\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto R(f,-z)\mathbf{q}}.
\een
Finally, for $\Phi^{-1}_{\omega_1',\dots,\omega_N'}
\Phi_{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N} (q_{k,i}\cF)$ we get
\ben
\left.
\Big( \Big(q_{k,i}+
\frac{\hbar}{2}[V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q}),q_{k,i}]\Big)
e^{\frac{\hbar}{2} V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q})}
\, \cF\Big)\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto R(f,-z)\mathbf{q}} =
\left.
\Big(
e^{\frac{\hbar}{2} V(\partial_\mathbf{q},\partial_\mathbf{q})}
\, (q_{k,i}\cF)\Big)\right|_{\mathbf{q}\mapsto R(f,-z)\mathbf{q}}.
\een
The above expression is precisely $(R(f,z)^t)^\wedge (q_{k,i}\cF)$.
\qed
\medskip
Comparing the transformation laws for the total ancestor potential
(see Proposition \ref{anc-change}) and the transformation laws in
Lemma \ref{change-B} and Lemma \ref{change-R}, we get that
\ben
\cA(\hbar,f,\omega):=\sigma^{\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N}_{\omega,P}
(\cA_{f,\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(\hbar;\mathbf{q}))
\een
is a vector in $\widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame}(f)$ independent of the
choice of the basis $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and the choice of the
opposite subspace $P$. We refer to $\cA(\hbar,f,\omega)$ as
the {\em global ancestor potential} of $f$.
Let us denote by $\widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame}$ the
vector bundle on $\cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$
whose fiber over a point $f\in \cM_{\rm mar}$ is the completed tame Fock
space $\widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm mar}(f).$ We call it the {\em
completed tame Fock bundle} or simply the {\em abstract Fock bundle}.
The global ancestor potential may be viewed as a holomorphic function
\ben
\cA\colon \mathcal{L}\setminus{\{0\}}\to \widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame},\quad
(f,\omega)\mapsto \cA(\hbar,f,\omega).
\een
Note that the above map is not a map of vector bundles. Nevertheless, we
have the following symmetry, which in some sense allows us to think of
$\hbar$ as a coordinate along the fiber of $\mathcal{L}$.
\begin{corollary}\label{scale-c}
The global ancestor potential has the following scaling property:
\ben
\cA(\hbar,f,c\,\omega) = \cA(\hbar c^{-2},f, \omega)
,\quad \forall c\in \C\setminus{\{0\}}.
\een
\end{corollary}
\proof
The statement is a Corollary of Proposition \ref{anc-change}, a) and
Lemma \ref{change-B}.
\qed
\subsection{Abstract modular forms}
Motivated by Corollary \ref{scale-c} and the generalized definition of
a quasi-modular form in the theory of the period maps (see Definition
\ref{def:qmf}), we would like to introduce the notion of a
quasi-modular form for the moduli space $\cM^\circ_{\rm mar}$.
\begin{definition}\label{def:amf}
We say that a function
\ben
\cA:\cL-\{0\} \to \widehat{\mathbb{V}}_{\rm tame},
\een
is an {\em abstract modular form} if $\cA(\hbar,f,c\,\omega) =
\cA(\hbar c^{-2},f,\omega)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
According to Corollary \ref{scale-c}, the global ancestor potential is
an abstract modular form.
\end{remark}
In order to compare Definitions \ref{def:amf} and \ref{def:qmf}, let
us trivialize the abstract Fock bundle over an open subset
$\mathcal{U}\subset \cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$. Let us denote by $\Jac$
the vector bundle over $\cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$ whose fiber over $f$ is the
Jacobi algebra of $f$. Assume that $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ is a frame for $\Jac|_{\mathcal{U}}$,
$\omega$ is a frame for $\mathcal{L}|_{\mathcal{U}}$, and
$P \subset \HH|_{\mathcal{U}}$ is a sub-bundle such that
$P(f)\subset \HH(f)$ is an opposite subspace for
all $f\in \mathcal{U}$. The isomorphism
\eqref{Fock-triv} is a trivialization of the abstract Fock bundle.
Let $\cA(\hbar,f,\omega)$ be an abstract modular form. Put
\ben
\cA(\hbar; f,\omega,\mathbf{q}):=
(\sigma^{\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N}_{\omega,P(f)})^{-1}
(\cA(\hbar,f,\omega)).
\een
Suppose that we have the following genus expansion
\ben
\cA(\hbar;f,\omega,\mathbf{q})=
\exp\left(
\sum_{g=0}^\infty \hbar^g \cF_g(f,\omega,\mathbf{q})\right).
\een
The scaling property of $\cA$ is equivalent to
\ben
\cF_g(f,c\,\omega,c\, \mathbf{q}) =
c^{2-2g} \cF_g(f,\omega,\mathbf{q}),
\een
so the coefficients of $\cF_g(f,\omega,\mathbf{q})$ in front of the
$\mathbf{q}$-monomials can be interpreted as sections of $\cL^{2g-2+\operatorname{deg}}|_{\cU}$, where
$\operatorname{deg}$ is the degree of the corresponding $\mathbf{q}$-monomial.
The notion of quasi-modularity is contained in Definition
\ref{def:amf} as follows.
Given an abstract modular form $\cA$ and a
chart $\mathcal{U}$ such that $\Jac|_{\mathcal{U}}$ is trivial,
we can choose the complex conjugate opposite
sub-bundle $\kappa(\HH_+)z^{-1}$ to obtain coordinate expressions
$\widetilde{\cF}_g(f,\omega,\mathbf{q})$. The latter depends
non-holomorphically on $f$, but its coefficients transform as modular forms in the
sense of Definition \ref{def:qmf}. Choosing a different opposite
sub-bundle $P \subset \HH$ with a holomorphic trivialization
of $\HH_+\cap P z$, we can obtain another coordinate expression
$\cF_g(f,\omega,\mathbf{q})$ for $\cA$. The change of the opposite
subspace is given by a matrix $B(f)$ and a symplectic
transformation $R(f,z)=1+R_1(f)z+R_2(f)z^2+\cdots$
(see Section \ref{ancestor-F}).
Recalling Lemma \ref{change-B} and Lemma \ref{change-R},
we get that the coefficients of $\widetilde{\cF}_g(f,\omega,\mathbf{q})$
are polynomial expressions of the coefficients of $\cF_l(f,\omega,\mathbf{q})$,
$l\le g$,
with coefficients in $\C[B,R_1,R_2,\dots]$, where
$\mathbb{C}[B,R_1,R_2,\dots]$ is the polynomial ring on the
entries of the matrices $B(f),R_1(f),R_2(f),\dots$.
The entries of these matrices depend non-holomorphically on $f$, so following the
terminology in Definition \ref{def:qmf}, we call them {\em anti-holomorphic
generators}. Let us point out that finding explicit formulas for the
anti-holomorphic generators is in general a difficult problem (see the
example in Section \ref{example:e6}).
\begin{remark}
We explain a relationship of the Fock bundle in the present paper
to the Fock sheaf in \cite{Coates-Iritani:Fock}.
Given an opposite subspace $P$,
a section of the Fock sheaf in \cite{Coates-Iritani:Fock} can be locally
identified with a function on the Givental Lagrangian cone
of the form $Z = \exp(\sum_{g=0}^\infty \hbar^{g-1} F_g)$
(this is similar to the trivialization \eqref{Fock-triv}).
The total space of $\cL-\{0\}$ over $\cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$ can be
identified with a finite-dimensional slice of the Givental cone, and a coordinate
expression $\cA(\hbar;f,\omega,\mathbf{q})
= (\sigma^{\phi_1,\dots,\phi_N}_{\omega,P})^{-1} \cA(\hbar,f,\omega)$
of the abstract ancestor potential corresponds to the jet of the potential
$Z$ at the point $(f,-z \omega)$. This is related to the
\emph{jetness} in \cite{Coates-Iritani:Fock}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{The holomorphic anomaly equations}
Let us pick local holomorphic frames $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ and $\omega $ for
respectively ${\rm Jac}$ and $\mathcal{L}$.
Let us choose a local holomorphic coordinate system
$\sigma=(\sigma_1,\dots,\sigma_{N'})$ on $\cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$, so that each
$\phi_i=\phi_i(x,\sigma )$ is a weighted-homogeneous polynomial
depending holomorphically on $\sigma$. We define the {\em hybrid
ancestor potential} $\cA_f(\hbar,\mathbf{q})$ to be the
coordinate expression
$\cA_{f,\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(\hbar,\mathbf{q})$ of the
global ancestor potential with respect to the opposite subspace
$\kappa(\HH_+)z^{-1}$ (see Section \ref{ancestor-F}). The
hybrid ancestor potential depends non-holomorphically on $f$. We would
like to derive differential equations for $\cA_f(\hbar,\omega)$, which following the physics
literature will be called {\em holomorphic anomaly equations}, that govern the
non-holomorphic dependence on $f$.
Let us begin with several remarks about the Cecotti-Vafa connection from Section
\ref{CV}. For given $f\in \cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$, we have a vector spaces isomorphism
\ben
\Jac(f)\cong \mathbb{K}(f),\quad \phi_a\mapsto \omega_a,
\een
which allows us to interpret all connection matrices and the complex
conjugation $\kappa$ as endomorphisms and a complex conjugation of
$\Jac(f)$. Note that $C_i$ is the operator of
multiplication by $\partial f/\partial \sigma_i$ and $U$ is the operator of multiplication
by $f$. In particular, $\widetilde{U}=U=0$ because $f$ is weighted-homogeneous, so
it vanishes in $\Jac(f)$.
The next observation is that $\{\omega_a\}_{a=1}^N$ is a
holomorphic frame for $\mathbb{K}$, because the transition functions
in this frame are the same as the transition functions of $\Jac\otimes
\mathcal{L}$ in the frame $\{\phi_a\otimes \omega\}$ and the latter is
by definition holomorphic. This observation implies that the
connection matrices satisfy
$\Gamma_{\bar\iota}=0$ and $\Gamma_i=h^{-1}\partial h$, where
$\partial$ is the holomorphic de Rham differential on $\cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$
and $h=(h_{ab})$ is the matrix of the Hermitian pairing
\ben
h_{ab} = K^{(0)}(\kappa(\omega_a),\omega_b).
\een
Finally, let us point out that the operators
$z\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota},$ $1\leq
i\leq N'$ are infinitesimal symplectic transformations of
$\Jac(f)(\!(z^{-1})\!)$. This can be proved by using the
compatibility of the Gauss--Manin connection with the higher residue
pairings and the fact that up to a holomorphic factor, the quantity
\ben
K(\omega_i,\omega_j) = K^{(0)}(\omega_i,\omega_j)
\een
is the Grothendick residue of
$\phi_i(x,\sigma)\phi_j(x,\sigma)$, so it must be holomorphic in $\sigma\in
\cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$.
\begin{proposition}\label{han}
The hybrid ancestor potential satisfies the following differential equations
\ben
\partial_{\overline{\sigma}_i} \cA_f (\hbar,\mathbf{q}) =
(z\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota}^t)^\wedge
\cA_f (\hbar,\mathbf{q}) ,\quad 1\leq i\leq N',
\een
where ${}^t$ is conjugation with respect to the residue pairing.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Let us fix $f\in \cM_{\rm mar}^\circ$ and denote by $P(F)$ ($F\in B_f$) the
holomorphic extension of the opposite subspace
$\kappa(\HH_+(f))$ to a family of opposite subspaces on the
parameter space $B_f$ of a miniversal unfolding of $f$.
Let us fix arbitrary holomorphic frames $\{\phi_a\}_{a=1}^N$ and $\omega$ of
$\Jac$ and $\mathcal{L}$ on $\cM_{\rm mar}^\circ\cap B_f$. For every $f'\in \cM_{\rm mar}^\circ\cap
B_f$ we have two opposite subspaces in $\HH(f')$: the complex conjugate subspace
$\kappa(\HH_+(f'))z^{-1}$ and the holomorphic
opposite subspace $P(f')$. Let us denote by
$\{\omega_a\}_{a=1}^N\subset \mathbb{K}(f')$
and $\{\widetilde{\omega}_a\}_{a=1}^N\subset \HH_+(f')\cap
P(f')z$ the good bases such that
\ben
\omega_a \equiv \widetilde{\omega}_a\equiv \phi_a\omega
\mod z\HH_+(f').
\een
According to Proposition \ref{anc-change}, b), the ancestor potentials
\ben
\cA_{f'}(\hbar,\mathbf{q}):=\cA_{f',\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})\quad
\mbox{and}\quad
\widetilde{\cA}_{f'}(\hbar,\mathbf{q}):=
\cA_{f',\omega}^{\widetilde{\omega}_1,\dots,\widetilde{\omega}_N}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})
\een
are related by
\ben
\cA_{f'}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})=(R(f',z)^t)^\wedge \,
\widetilde{\cA}_{f'}(\hbar;\mathbf{q}),
\een
where the symplectic transformation $R(f',z)$ of
$\Jac(f')(\!(z^{-1})\!)$ is represented in the basis
$\{\phi_a\}_{a=1}^N$ of $\Jac(f')$ by the matrix
$(R_{ab}(f',z))_{a,b=1}^N$ that describes the change
\beq\label{R-def}
\omega_b(f') = \sum_{a=1}^N
\widetilde{\omega}_a(f')R_{ab}(f',\sigma),\quad 1\leq b\leq N.
\eeq
Since $\widetilde{\cA}_{f'}$ depends holomorphically on $f'$,
we just need to find the derivatives of $R(f',z)$ with respect to
$\overline{\sigma}'_i$, where $\sigma'=(\sigma_1',\dots,\sigma_{N'}')$
denotes the coordinates of $f'$. Differentiating \eqref{R-def} with
respect to $\overline{\sigma}'_i$ we get
\ben
\sum_{k=1}^N \omega_k(f') (\Gamma_{\bar\iota b}^k +
\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota b}^k z) =
\sum_{a,k=1}^N \widetilde{\omega}_a(f')R_{ak}(f',\sigma)
(\Gamma_{\bar\iota b}^k +
\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota b}^k z)
\een
for the LHS and
\ben
\sum_{a=1}^N \widetilde{\omega}_a(f')\partial_{\overline{\sigma}_i} R_{ab}(f',z)
\een
for the RHS. Comparing the coefficients in front of
$\widetilde{\omega}_a$ we get
\ben
\partial_{\overline{\sigma}_i} R_{ab}(f',z) =
\sum_{k=1}^N
R_{ak}(f',\sigma)
(\Gamma_{\bar\iota b}^k +\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota b}^k z) .
\een
In matrix form the above equation becomes
$\partial_{\overline{\sigma}_i} R(f',z) = R(f',z)
(\Gamma_{\bar\iota}+ z \widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota}).$ Although quantization of
symplectic transformations is only a projective representation, when
restricted to the subgroup of symplectic transformations of the type
$R_0+R_1z+\cdots$ the quantization becomes a representation. Therefore
\ben
\partial_{\overline{\sigma}_i} (R(f',z)^t)^\wedge =
(\Gamma^t_{\bar\iota}+ z \widetilde{C}^t_{\bar\iota})^\wedge
(R(f',z)^t)^\wedge.
\een
It remains only to use that the frame $\{\omega_a\}_{a=1}^N$ is holomorphic, so
$\Gamma_{\bar \iota}=0.$\qed
\begin{remark}
Note that by definition, the quantization of the infinitesimal symplectic
transformation $z \widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota}^t$ is
the following differential operator
\ben
\sum_{a,b=1}^N \Big(
\frac{\hbar}{2} \widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota}^{ab}\frac{\partial^2}{\partial
q_{0,a}\partial q_{0,b}} -
\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota a}^b q_{k,a}\frac{\partial}{\partial
q_{k+1,b}} \Big),
\een
where
\ben
\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota}^{ab}:=(\widetilde{C}_{\bar\iota}\phi^a,\phi^b)=
\overline{(C_i \kappa(\phi^a),\kappa(\phi^b))}
\een
is symmetric in $a$ and $b$. Here $\{\phi^a\}_{a=1}^N$ is a basis of
$\Jac(f)\cong \mathbb{K}(f)$ dual to $\{\phi_a\}_{a=1}^N$ with respect to
the residue pairing. From this explicit formula we see that our
differential equations have the same form as the BCOV
holomorphic anomaly equations (see \cite{BCOV}, formula (3.17)).
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
The holomorphic anomaly equation was also studied in
\cite[\S 9.3]{Coates-Iritani:Fock}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Fermat simple elliptic singularity of type $E_6^{(1,1)}$ }\label{example:e6}
We would like to give an example in which our construction gives an
elegant way to investigate the modular properties of the total
ancestor potential.
Put
\ben
f(x,Q) = x_1^3+x_2^3+x_3^3-\frac{1}{Q} x_1x_2x_3,\quad Q(1-3^3Q^3)\neq 0.
\een
This family of polynomials represents a transversal slice to the orbits
of the group of coordinate changes, so it could be viewed as an open
chart in the marginal moduli space (see Remark \ref{group:cc}).
Let us introduce the functions
\ben
f_0(Q) & = & 1+\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(3k)!}{(k!)^3} Q^{3k},\\
f_1(Q) & = & \log Q + \sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac{(3k)!}{(k!)^3}
Q^{3k}(\log Q + h_{3k}-h_k), \\
g(Q,\overline{Q})
& = &
-\frac{ (Df_1)\overline{f}_0+(Df_0)\overline{f}_1
}{
f_1 \overline{f}_0+ f_0\overline{f}_1
},
\een
where $D=Q\partial_Q Q = (Q+Q^2\partial_Q)$ and
$h_\ell=1+\frac{1}{2}+\cdots + \frac{1}{\ell}$ are the harmonic
numbers. Note that $f_0$ and $f_1$ are solutions to a 2nd order
Fuchsian equation defined by the differential operator
\beq\label{hge}
(Q\partial_Q)^2 - 3^3 Q^3 (Q\partial_Q+1)(Q\partial_Q+2).
\eeq
We are going to choose two sets of good bases $\{\omega_e^{\rm KS}\}$
and $\{\omega_e^{\rm GW}\}$, where the index set for $e$ is
splitted into the following 4 groups:
\ben
\{(0,0,0),\, (1,1,1)\}\sqcup \{ (1,0,0),\, (2,0,0)\}\sqcup \{ (0,1,0),\,
(0,2,0)\}\sqcup \{ (0,0,1),\, (0,0,2)\} .
\een
The following set of forms is a good basis for the complex conjugate
opposite subspace:
\ben
& \omega^{\rm KS}_{0,0,0} & = dx/Q,\\
& \omega^{\rm KS}_{1,1,1} & = (x_1x_2x_3 + g(Q,\overline{Q}) z) dx/Q \\
& \omega^{\rm KS}_{m\, e_i} & = x_i^m dx/Q,\quad 1\leq m\leq 2,\quad
1\leq i\leq 3,
\een
where $e_i$ is the $i$th coordinate vector in $\mathbb{Z}^3$.
Another good basis is computed from mirror symmetry at the large
radius limit point $Q=0$
\ben
& \omega_{0,0,0}^{\rm GW} & = \sqrt{-1}\, \frac{dx}{Qf_0(Q)}, \\
& \omega_{1,1,1}^{\rm GW} & = \sqrt{-1}\, \Big(x_1x_2x_3 - z
\frac{Df_0}{f_0} \Big)\,
f_0(Q)\operatorname{det}(I_0)^{-1}\, \frac{dx}{Q}, \\
& \omega_{m e_i}^{\rm GW} & = \sqrt{-1}\, (1-3^3Q^3)^{m/3} \, x_i^m
\frac{dx}{Q} ,\quad m=1,2,
\een
where
\ben
I_0 = \begin{bmatrix}
f_0(Q) & Df_0(Q) \\
f_1(Q) & Df_1(Q)
\end{bmatrix}
\een
is the Wronskian matrix of the differential equation \eqref{hge}.
The details of both computations will be presented
in a future investigation.
Let us pick $\omega = \omega_{0,0,0}^{\rm GW}$ to be a frame for the
vacuum line bundle and denote by $\cA_f^{\rm KS}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})$
and $\cA_f^{\rm GW}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})$ the total ancestor potentials
corresponding respectively to the good bases $\{\omega_i^{\rm KS}\}$ and
$\{\omega_i^{\rm GW}\}$. Let us define
\ben
t:=2\pi\sqrt{-1}\tau/3:=f_1(Q)/f_0(Q).
\een
Using the positive definite Hermitian pairing on $\mathbb{H}_+(f)\cap
\kappa(\HH_+(f))$, it is easy to check that $t+\overline{t}<0$, i.e.,
$\operatorname{Im}(\tau)>0$. Note that
\ben
(\omega_{0,0,0}^{\rm KS},\dots, \omega_{0,0,2}^{\rm KS}) =
(\omega_{0,0,0}^{\rm GW},\dots, \omega_{0,0,2}^{\rm GW})\,
R(Q,\overline{Q},z)\, B(Q),
\een
where the matrices $R$ and $B$ are block-diagonal
\begin{align*}
R & =\operatorname{Diag}(R^{(1)},R^{(2)},R^{(3)},R^{(4)}),\\
B & =\operatorname{Diag}(B^{(1)},B^{(2)},B^{(3)}, B^{(4)}),
\end{align*}
where the blocks $R^{(i)}$ and $B^{(i)}$ are given by the following
formulas:
\ben
R^{(1)}=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & z/(t+\overline{t}) \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}, \quad
R^{(2)} = R^{(3)}=R^{(4)}=
\begin{bmatrix}
1 & 0 \\
0 & 1
\end{bmatrix}
\een
and
\begin{align*}
B^{(1)} = &
-\sqrt{-1} \,
\begin{bmatrix}
f_0 &0 \\
0 & \operatorname{det}(I_0)/f_0
\end{bmatrix},\\
B^{(2)} = B^{(3)}=B^{(4)} = &
-\sqrt{-1} \,
\begin{bmatrix}
(1-3^3Q^3)^{-1/3} & 0 \\
0 & (1-3^3Q^3)^{-2/3}
\end{bmatrix}.
\end{align*}
Recalling Proposition \ref{anc-change}, we get that
\beq\label{antiholo-compl}
\widetilde{\cA}_{\tau}(\hbar;\mathbf{q}):=(R(Q,\overline{Q},z)^t)^\wedge
\,
\cA_f^{\rm GW}(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) = \cA_f^{\rm KS}(\hbar;B^{-1}\mathbf{q}).
\eeq
Let $\Sigma=\mathbb{P}^1-\{Q(1-3^3Q^3)=0\}$
be the domain of the
deformation parameter $Q$. The function $\tau$ gives an
identification between the unniversal covering of $\Sigma$ and the
upper-half plane $\mathbf{H}$. It is easy to check that the monodromy
transformations of $\tau$ are given by
\ben
\tau\mapsto g(\tau)=\frac{a\tau+b}{c\tau+d},\quad
g=\begin{bmatrix}
a & b\\
c & d
\end{bmatrix}\in \Gamma(3).
\een
Under the analytic continuation the primitive form $\omega$ and
$B^{-1}$ are transformed respectively to
\ben
\omega\mapsto \omega (c\tau+d)^{-1} \quad \mbox{and}\quad
B^{-1}\mapsto B^{-1} J(g,\tau) (c\tau+d)^{-1},
\een
where
\ben
J(g,\tau) = \operatorname{Diag}(
1,(c\tau+d)^2,\underbrace{c\tau+d,\dots,c\tau+d}_\text {6 times }).
\een
The analytic continuation of the identity \eqref{antiholo-compl}
yields
\ben
\widetilde{\cA}_{g(\tau)} (\hbar;\mathbf{q}) =
\widetilde{\cA}_{\tau} (\hbar(c\tau+d)^2;J(g,\tau) \mathbf{q}) .
\een
Comparing the coefficients in front of the monomials in $\mathbf{q}$
we get that the coefficients of the total ancestor potential
$\widetilde{\cA}_{\tau} (\hbar;\mathbf{q}) $ transform as modular
forms on $\Gamma(3)$.
\begin{remark}
The potential $\widetilde{\cA}_{\tau}
(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) $ coincides with the anti-holomorphic completion
constructed in an ad hoc way in \cite{MR}. Recalling also the mirror
symmetry established in Theorem \ref{CY-LG:mirror_sym}, we recover
the main result of \cite{MR}: the Gromov--Witten invariants of the
elliptic orbifold $\mathbb{P}^1_{3,3,3}$ are quasi-modular forms.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Slightly generalizing the above argument, we would like to investigate the
total ancestor potential $\cA_f^{\rm GW}(\hbar;\mathbf{q})$ as a
formal series in $q_{k,i}$, $k>0$, whose coefficients are analytic
functions of $\tau_i:=q_{0,i}$, $1\leq i\leq N$. Recalling the results
of Looijenga (see \cite{Lo}), we may identify each relevant deformation parameter
$\tau_i$ with an appropriate $\theta$-function. We expect that under
this identification, the GW invariants will turn into quasi-Jacobi
forms. We will address this problem in a future investigation.
\end{remark}
\section{Mirror symmetry for orbifold Fermat CY hypersurfaces}
In the last three sections, we have constructed a global B-model
generating function which is modular in an appropriate generalized
sense, but non-holomorphic. In the remaining part of this paper we
will prove two mirror theorems for Fermat type polynomials satisfying
a CY condition. Namely, we will prove that the generating
functions of certain GW-theory/FJRW-theory invariants are holomorphic
limits of the global B-model generating function. In this section, we
will establish the mirror theorem for GW-theory.
Let $W:=x_1^{d_1}+\cdots + x_n^{d_n}$ where $d_1,\dots,d_n\in \mathbb{Z}$ are positive integers satisfying
\ben
\frac{1}{d_1}+\cdots +\frac{1}{d_n} = 1.
\een
Let $D:=\operatorname{lcm}(d_1,\dots,d_n)$ and $w_i:=D/d_i.$ Let $G$ be the group
\ben
G=\{t\in (\mathbb{C}^*)^n \ |\ t_1^{d_1}=\cdots =t_n^{d_n} \}.
\een
We define two orbifolds
\ben
\mathbf{P} := [(\mathbb{C}^n\setminus{\{0\}})/G]=\mathbb{P}(w_1, \cdots, w_n)
\een
and a suborbifold Calabi--Yau (CY) hypersurface
\ben
Y=[Z/G],\quad Z=\{x_1^{d_1}+\cdots + x_n^{d_n}=0\}\subset \mathbb{C}^n\setminus{\{0\}}.
\een
The above quotients are taken in the category of orbifold groupoids or
equivalently in the category of smooth Deligne--Mumford stacks.
We remark that here $$Y=[X_W/\tilde{G}_W].$$
\subsection{Orbifold Gromov--Witten theory}
Let $Y$ be an orbifold groupoid whose coarse moduli space $|Y|$ is a projective
variety. Let us denote by $H:=H_{\rm CR}(Y,\mathbb{C})$ the Chen--Ruan cohomology
of $Y$. Then
$$\dim H=N:=(d_1-1)\cdots (d_n-1).$$
Our main interest is in the orbifold Gromov--Witten (GW)
invariants of $Y$
\beq\label{GW-inv}
\lan \phi_{i_1}\psi^{\ell_1},\dots,\phi_{i_k}\psi^{\ell_k}\ran_{g,k,d},
\eeq
where $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N$ is a basis of $H$ and $d\in
\operatorname{Eff}(Y)\subset H_2(|Y|;\mathbb{Z})$ is an effective curve
class. The invariants are defined through the intersection theory on
the moduli space $\overline{\cM}_{g,k}(Y,d)$. The latter is the moduli
space of degree-$d$ stable
orbifold maps
$$f\colon (C,(z_1,g_1),\dots,(z_k,g_k))\to Y,$$ where $C$ is a genus-$g$
nodal curve equipped with an orbifold structure, $n$
marked points $z_1, \cdots, z_k$, and a choice of a generator $g_i\in
\Aut_C(z_i)$ for each $i$. The evaluation at the $i$-th marked point
$(f(z_i),f(g_i))$ determines an evaluation map $\operatorname{ev}_i\colon
\overline{\cM}_{g,k}(Y,d)\to IY$, where $IY$ is the inertia orbifold of
$Y$. Let us denote by $\psi_i=c_1(L_i)$, $1\leq i\leq k$, the descendant
classes, where $L_i$ is the line bundle on $\overline{\cM}_{g,k}(Y,d)$
formed by the cotangent lines of the coarse space of $C$ at the
$i$-th marked point (see \cite{Ts}). By definition the GW invariant
\eqref{GW-inv} is obtained by pairing the cohomology class
\ben
\operatorname{ev}_1^*(\phi_{i_1})\psi_1^{\ell_1}\cup\cdots \cup
\operatorname{ev}_1^*(\phi_{i_k})\psi_k^{\ell_k}
\een
with the virtual fundamental cycle $[\overline{\cM}_{g,k}(Y,d)]^{\rm
virt}$. The invariant takes its value in the Novikov ring
$\mathbb{C}[\![Q]\!]$. Let us fix an ample $\mathbb{Z}$-basis
$\{L^{(i)}\}_{i=1}^r$ of $\operatorname{Pic}(|Y|)$. We embed
\ben
\mathbb{C}[\![Q]\!]\subset \mathbb{C}[\![Q_1,\dots,Q_r]\!],\quad
Q^d\mapsto Q_1^{\langle c_1(L^{(1)}),d\rangle}\cdots Q_r^{\langle c_1(L^{(r)}),d\rangle}
\een
For further details on orbifold GW theory we refer to \cite{AGrV} for
the algebraic approach and to \cite{CR} for the analytic approach.
\subsubsection{Givental's cone}
Let us introduce a set of formal variables $\mathbf{t}=\{t_{k,i}\}$, $1\leq i\leq N$,
$k\geq 0$. The generating function
\ben
\mathcal{F}^{(g)}_Y(\mathbf{t}) =
\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\sum_{d\in \operatorname{Eff}(Y)}
\frac{Q^d}{k!}
\lan \mathbf{t}(\psi),\dots,\mathbf{t}(\psi)\ran_{g,k,d}
\een
is called the {\em genus-$g$ total descendant potential}. Here we
write
$$\mathbf{t}(\psi) = \sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_{i=1}^N
t_{k,i}\phi_i\psi^k$$ and expand the correlator multiniearly as a
formal power series in $\mathbf{t}$ whose coefficients are the GW
invariants \eqref{GW-inv}.
Following Givental \cite{G2} we introduce the symplectic vector space
\ben
\mathcal{H}_Y=H_{\rm CR}(Y;\mathbb{C}[\![Q]\!])(\!(z^{-1})\!),\quad
\Omega(f,g) = \Res_{z=0} (f(-z),g(z))dz,
\een
where $(\ ,\ )$ is the orbifold Poincar\'e pairing.
The subspaces $\mathcal{H}_Y^+:=H_{\rm CR}(Y;\mathbb{C}[\![Q]\!])[z]$
and $\mathcal{H}_Y^-:=H_{\rm
CR}(Y;\mathbb{C}[\![Q]\!])[\![z^{-1}]\!]z^{-1}$ are Lagrangian
subspaces and define a polarization
$\mathcal{H}_Y=\mathcal{H}_Y^+\oplus \mathcal{H}_Y^-$, which allows us
to identify $\mathcal{H}_Y\cong T^*\mathcal{H}_Y^+.$ By definition,
Givental's cone $\mathcal{L}_Y$ is the graph of the differential
$d\mathcal{F}^{(0)}_Y$. Explicitly,
\ben
\mathcal{L}_Y = \left\{ -z+\mathbf{t} + \sum_{k=0}^\infty \sum_{i=1}^N
\frac{\partial \mathcal{F}^{(0)}_Y}{\partial t_{k,i}} (\mathbf{t}) \,
\phi^{i}(-z)^{-k-1}\ \Big|\ \mathbf{t}(z)\in \mathcal{H}_Y^+
\right\},
\een
where $\{\phi^i\}\subset H$ is a basis dual to $\{\phi_i\}$ with
respect to the Poincar\'e pairing. The above definition should be
understood in the formal sense, i.e., $\mathcal{L}_Y$ is the formal
germ at $\mathbf{t}=0$ of a cone in $\mathcal{H}_Y$.
\subsubsection{The $J$-function and the calibration}
Let us fix $\tau\in H.$ It is convenient to introduce the notation
\ben
\llangle[\Big]\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_k\rrangle[\Big]_{g,k}(\tau) =
\sum_{m=0}^\infty \sum_{d\in \operatorname{Eff}(Y)}
\frac{Q^d}{m!}
\lan\alpha_1,\dots,\alpha_k,\tau,\dots,\tau\ran_{g,k+m,d},
\een
where $\alpha_s=\phi_{i_s}\psi^{\ell_s}$, $1\leq s\leq k$, are arbitrary
insertions. By definition, Givental's J-function of $Y$ is
\ben
\widetilde{J}_Y(\tau,Q,z) =
z+\tau+
\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\sum_{i=1}^N
\sum_{d\in {\rm Eff}(Y)}
Q^d\, \llangle[\Big]\phi_i\psi^k\rrangle[\Big]_{0,1,d}(\tau)\, \phi^i z^{-k-1}.
\een
Note that
\ben
\widetilde{J}_Y(\tau,Q,-z) = -z+\tau+d_{-z+\tau}\mathcal{F}^{(0)}_Y
\ \in \ \mathcal{L}_Y.
\een
Recall also the calibration series $S(\tau,Q,z)=1+S_1(\tau,Q)z^{-1}+\cdots$ defined by
\ben
(S(\tau,Q,z)\phi_i,\phi_j) = (\phi_i,\phi_j)+
\sum_{k=0}^\infty
\sum_{d\in {\rm Eff}(Y)}
Q^d\,\llangle[\Big]
\phi_i\psi^k,\phi_j\rrangle[\Big]_{0,2,d}(\tau)\, z^{-1-k}.
\een
Let us denote by $\widetilde{L}_\tau$ the tangent space to
$\mathcal{L}_Y$ at $\widetilde{J}(\tau,Q,-z)$, then we have
\ben
\widetilde{J}(\tau,Q,-z)=-z\, S(\tau,Q,z)^{-1} \, 1,\quad \widetilde{L}_\tau =
S(\tau,Q,z)^{-1} \mathcal{H}_Y^+.
\een
\subsubsection{Quantum cohomology}
The quantum cup product $\bullet_\tau$ is defined by
\ben
(\phi_a\bullet_\tau\phi_b,\phi_c) = \llangle[\Big]
\phi_a,\phi_b,\phi_c\rrangle[\Big]_{0,3}(\tau).
\een
Let us fix $\epsilon \ll 1$, assume that the Novikov variables
$|Q_i|\leq \epsilon$ $(1\leq i\leq r)$, and denote by $B\subset H$ the
open subset of $\tau\in H$ for which the
quantum cup product is convergent. In the absence of convergence, we
think of $B$ as a formal analytic germ at $Q=0$ and $\tau=0$. Let us introduce
also the {\em Euler vector field}
\ben
E = \sum_{i=1}^N (1-\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR}(\phi_i) )
t_i\partial_{t_i} + c_1(Y),
\een
where $\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR}$ denotes the Chen--Ruan
degree. Finally, let
\ben
\theta:H\to H,\quad \theta(\phi_i) =
\Big( \frac{\operatorname{dim}_\mathbb{C}(Y)}{2}-
\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR}(\phi_i)\Big) \phi_i
\een
be the so-called {\em Hodge grading operator}.
By definition the quantum (or Dubrovin's) connection is the connection
$\nabla$ on the trivial $H$-bundle with base $B\times\mathbb{C}^*$
defined by
\ben
\nabla = d + \Big( -z^{-1}\theta+z^{-2}E\bullet \Big) dz - \sum_{i=1}^N
z^{-1} (\phi_i\bullet) dt_i.
\een
It is known that the gauge transformation defined by the calibration
$S(\tau,Q,z)$ acts on $\nabla$ as follows:
\ben
S(\tau,Q,z)^{-1} \nabla S(\tau,Q,z) = d + \Big( -z^{-1}\theta+z^{-2}\rho\Big) dz,
\een
where $\rho:=c_1(Y)\cup$ is the operator of classical cup product multiplication
by $c_1(Y)$. In particular $\nabla$ is a flat connection.
\subsubsection{The total ancestor potential}
Let $\tau\in H$ be an arbitrary parameter. The ancestor GW invariants
\ben
\llangle[\Big]
\phi_{i_1}\bar{\psi}^{\ell_1},\dots,\phi_{\ell_k}\bar{\psi}^{\ell_k}\rrangle[\Big]_{g,k,d}(\tau):=
\sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{1}{m!}
\langle \phi_{i_1}\bar{\psi}^{\ell_1},\dots,\phi_{i_k}\bar{\psi}^{\ell_k},\tau,\dots,\tau\rangle_{g,k+m,d}
\een
are defined in the same way as the descendant ones except that instead
of the descendant classes $\psi_i$ $(1\leq i\leq k)$ we use
$\bar{\psi}_i:={\rm ft}^*\psi_i$, where ${\rm ft}\colon
\overline{\cM}_{g,k+m}(Y,\beta)\to \overline{\cM}_{g,k}$ is the map
that forgets the map to $Y$, the orbifold structure on the domain
curve, the last $m$ marked points, and it contracts all unstable
components. If $\overline{\cM}_{g,k}=\emptyset$, i.e., $2g-2+k\leq 0$,
then the ancestor invariant is by definition $0$. Let us point out
that in general the dependence on $\tau$ is only formal, i.e., the
ancestor invariant is a formal power series in $\tau$.
The generating function
\ben
\overline{\cF}_{\tau,Q}^{(g)}(\mathbf{t}) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \sum_{d\in
\operatorname{Eff}(Y)} \frac{Q^d}{n!}\,
\llangle[\Big] \mathbf{t}(\bar{\psi}),\dots, \mathbf{t}(\bar{\psi})\rrangle[\Big]_{g,k,d}(\tau)
\een
is called the {\em genus-$g$ total ancestor potential} and
\ben
\mathcal{A}_{\tau,Q}^Y(\hbar;\mathbf{t}) := \exp \Big(
\sum_{g=0}^\infty \overline{\cF}_{\tau,Q}^{(g)}(\mathbf{t}) \, \hbar^{g-1}\Big)
\een
is called the {\em total ancestor potential} of $Y$.
The relation between ancestors and descendants is completely
determined by the calibration $S(\tau,z)$ and the genus-1 primary
potential of $Y$ (see \cite{G2} for more details). Thanks to the divisor
equation we have the following symmetry
\ben
\mathcal{A}_{\tau,Q}^Y = \mathcal{A}_{\tau-\sum_{i=1}^r P_i\log Q_i,1}^Y,
\een
where $P_i=c_1(L^{(i)})$ and $Q=1$ means $Q_i=1$ for all
$i$. Therefore, without loss of generality we may set $Q_i=1$ for all
$i$ and work with $\mathcal{A}^Y_\tau:=\cA_{\tau,1}^Y$.
\subsection{$I$-function}
Let us return to the case when $Y$ is the orbifold Fermat CY
hypersurface.
\subsubsection{Combinatorics of the inertia orbifold}
Let
\ben
&&
v_i = (0,\dots,d_i,\dots,0)\in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}\quad (1\leq i\leq n-1) \\
&&
v_n = (-d_n,\dots,-d_n)\in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}.
\een
Let $\Sigma$ be the fan consisting of all subcones of
$\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n$, where $\tau_i$ is the cone in
$\mathbb{R}^{n-1}$ spanned by the $(n-1)$ rays (without $v_i$)
\ben
v_1,\dots,\check{v}_i,\dots, v_n.
\een
Note that $\mathbf{P}$ is the toric orbifold corresponding to the fan
$\Sigma$, so according to the general theory (see \cite{BCS}) the connected components
of $\mathbf{P}$ are parametrized by the set
\ben
\operatorname{Box}(\Sigma) = \{ c\in \mathbb{Q}^n\ |\
0\leq c_i < 1,\
\operatorname{supp}(c)\subset \sigma,\
\sum_{i=1}^n c_i v_i \in \mathbb{Z}^{n-1}\
\mbox{for some}\ \sigma\in \Sigma \}
\een
where $\operatorname{supp}(c)$ is the set of all $v_i$ such that $\ c_i\neq 0$.
We have
\ben
I\mathbf{P} = \coprod_{c\in \operatorname{Box}(\Sigma) } \mathbf{P}_c,
\quad \text{where} \quad
\mathbf{P}_c = [\{x_1c_1=\cdots = x_n c_n=0\}/G].
\een
The dimension of $\mathbf{P}_c$ is one less than the number of $i$ such that $c_i=0.$
The orbifold $\mathbf{P}_c$ is non-reduced and it has a generic
stabilizer
\ben
G_c := \prod_{i: c_i\neq 0} \boldsymbol{\mu}_{d_i}.
\een
In particular, the order $|G_c|=\prod_{i: c_i\neq 0} d_i$.
The inertia orbifold $IY$ is a suborbifold of $I\mathbf{P}$, we have
\ben
\dim(Y_c) = \dim(\mathbf{P}_c) -1,
\een
so the twisted sectors are parametrized by $c\in
\operatorname{Box}(\Sigma)$ such that $\dim(\mathbf{P}_c)>0$; i.e., $c$
has at least 2 entries that are 0. We denote the set of all such $c$ by
$\operatorname{Box}_Y(\Sigma)$.
\subsubsection{Cohomology and Poincar\'e pairing}
The coarse moduli spaces of $Y$ and $\mathbf{P}$ are respectively
$\mathbb{P}^{n-2}$ and $\mathbb{P}^{n-1}$. Indeed, the map
\beq\label{pi-map}
\pi_{\mathbf{P}}\colon (\mathbb{C}^n\setminus{\{0\}})\times G \to
(\mathbb{C}^n\setminus{\{0\}})\times \mathbb{C}^*,
\quad (x,t)\mapsto (x,t_1^{d_1})
\eeq
induces a map of orbifolds that maps the pair $(|Y|,|\mathbf{P}|)$
homeomorphically onto $(\mathbb{P}^{n-2},\mathbb{P}^{n-1})$. Let us
define $L=\pi_{\mathbf{P}}^*\mathcal{O}_{\mathbb{P}^{n-2}}(1)$ and
$p=c_1(L)\in H^2(Y,\mathbb{Z})$. A basis in $H_{\rm CR}(Y;\mathbb{C})$
can be fixed as follows:
\ben
p^k\mathbf{1}_c,\quad 0\leq k\leq \dim(Y_c),\quad c\in \operatorname{Box}_Y(\Sigma),
\een
where $\mathbf{1}_c$ is the unit in $H(Y_c;\mathbb{C})$.
Given a cohomology class $p^k\mathbf{1}_c \in H^{2k}(Y_c;\mathbb{C})$,
the orbifold Poincar\'e pairing $(p^k\mathbf{1}_c,p^{k'}\mathbf{1}_{c'} )$
is non-zero if and only if
\ben
k+k'=\dim(Y_c),\quad c_i+c_i' \equiv 0 \ \operatorname{mod}\Z, \quad
1\leq i\leq n.
\een
If $(k,c)$ and $(k',c')$ satisfy the above conditions, then we have
\ben
(p^k\mathbf{1}_c,p^{k'}\mathbf{1}_{c'} ) = \frac{1}{|G_c|}.
\een
Finally,
\ben
H_2(|Y|;\mathbb{Z})\cong \mathbb{Z},\quad \beta\mapsto d:=\langle c_1(\mathcal{O}(1)),\beta\rangle.
\een
\subsubsection{The $J$-function of $Y$}
Given $d\in \mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0}$ and $\nu\in (\mathbb{Z}_{\geq 0})^n$
we define
\ben
I_{d,\nu}(z) =
\frac{\Gamma(1+d+pz^{-1})}{\Gamma(1+pz^{-1})}\,
\prod_{i=1}^n
\frac{\Gamma(1-c_i+(p/d_i)z^{-1})}{\Gamma(1-c_i+k_i+(p/d_i)z^{-1})}\,
\mathbf{1}_c z^{d-|\nu|-|k|},
\een
where $k_i\in \mathbb{Z}$ and $0\leq c_i< 1$ are defined uniquely by
the identity
\ben
\frac{\nu_i-d}{d_i} = -k_i+c_i
\een
and we put $|\nu|=\nu_1+\cdots +\nu_n$ and $|k|=k_1+\cdots +k_n$.
Put
\ben
I_Y(t,Q,z) = e^{p\log Q/z}
\sum_{d=0}^\infty
\sum_{\nu\in \mathbb{Z}^n_{\geq 0}}
I_{d,\nu}(z)\,Q^d \frac{t^\nu}{\nu!} ,
\een
where
\ben
t^\nu=t_1^{\nu_1}\cdots t_n^{\nu_n},\quad \nu!=\nu_1!\cdots \nu_n!.
\een
Note that
\ben
I_Y(t,Q,z) = f_0(Q)\mathbf{1} + z^{-1} f_1(t,Q)
+z^{-2}f_2(t,Q)+\cdots\ ,
\een
where $f_k(t,Q)\in H_{\rm CR}(Y;\mathbb{C})$ $(k\geq 1)$ and
\ben
f_0(Q) = 1+\sum_{d=1}^\infty \frac{(dD)!}{(dw_1)!\cdots (d w_n)!}\, Q^d,
\een
where $D=\operatorname{lcm}(d_1,\dots,d_n)$ and $w_i=D/d_i$.
It will be convenient for our purposes to modify slightly Givental's
$J$-function and to work with
\ben
J_Y(\tau,Q,z) = e^{p\log Q/z} \widetilde{J}_Y(\tau,Q,z)=
\widetilde{J}_Y(\tau+P\log Q,1,z),
\een
where the 2nd equality is a consequence of the {\em divisor equation}.
The suborbifold $Y\subset \mathbf{P}$ is cut out by the section
$x_1^{d_1}+\cdots+x_n^{d_n}$ of the convex line bundle
$\pi_{\mathbf{P}}^*\mathcal{O}(1)$, where $\pi_{\mathbf{P}}\colon\mathbf{P}\to \mathbb{P}^{n-1}$ is
the map induced from \eqref{pi-map}. We
may recall Theorem 25 in \cite{CCIT} and get the following formula for
the $J$-function of $Y$.
\begin{proposition}\label{CCIT}
If $\tau=f_1(t,Q)/f_0(Q)$, then $J_Y(\tau,1,z) f_0(Q)= z I_Y(t,Q,z)$.
\end{proposition}
The $I$-function is known to be a solution to a Picard--Fuchs differential
equation in $Q$, so it has a non-zero radius of convergence as a power
series at $Q=0$. Let $\Delta$ be the disc of convergence, $\Delta^*:=\Delta-\{0\}$, and
$\pi\colon \widetilde{\Delta^*} \to \Delta^*$
be the universal cover of $\Delta^*$. The function
$\tau$ in Proposition \ref{CCIT} defines a map
\beq\label{mirror-map}
\tau\colon \mathbb{C}^n\times \widetilde{\Delta^*} \to H,\quad (t,Q) \mapsto \tau(t,Q):=f_1(t,Q)/f_0(Q)
\eeq
which will be called the {\em mirror map}.
\subsection{Mirror symmetry for $\mathcal{D}$-modules}
Let us introduce the following family of polynomials:
\ben
f(x,t,Q) = \sum_{i=1}^n (x_i^{d_i}+t_i x_i) -\frac{1}{Q} x_1\cdots
x_n,
\een
where
\ben
(t,Q)\in \mathbb{C}^n\times
(\mathbb{P}^1\setminus{\{0,a_1,\dots,a_r,\infty\} }),
\een
where $a_i$ are the values of $Q$ for which the polynomial has a
non-isolated singularity.
\begin{remark}
The radius of the disc $\Delta$ is precisely
$\operatorname{max}_{1\leq i\leq r} |a_i|.$
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{The twisted de Rham cohomology and the quantum
$\cD$-module }
The main goal of this section is to construct an isomorphism between
the sheaf $\mathcal{F}$ of the twisted de Rham cohomology and quantum
$\cD$-module.
Let $\mathcal{D}$ be the sheaf of differential operators
\ben
\cO_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^* }[z] \Big\langle z\frac{\partial}{\partial
t_1},\dots,z\frac{\partial}{\partial t_n},
zQ\frac{\partial}{\partial Q} \Big\rangle.
\een
We would like to construct a $\mathcal{D}$-module isomorphism
\ben
\pi^*(\cF|_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*}) \cong \tau^* (\cO_B\otimes H[z]),
\een
where $\pi \colon \mathbb{C}^n\times \widetilde{\Delta^*}\to
\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*$ is the universal covering, $\tau$ is the
mirror map, and $B\subset H$ is the domain of convergence for the
quantum cohomology.
The $\cD$-module structures on the LHS and the RHS of the above
isomorphism are induced respectively from the Gauss--Manin
connection and the Dubrovin's connection, i.e.,
\ben
z\partial_{t_a} \mapsto z\partial_{ t_a} - \sum_{i=1}^N
\frac{\partial \tau_i}{\partial t_a}(t,Q)\, \phi_i \bullet,\quad
zQ \partial_{Q} \mapsto zQ\partial_Q - \sum_{i=1}^N
Q\frac{\partial \tau_i}{\partial Q}(t,Q)\, \phi_i \bullet,
\een
where $\tau(t,Q)=:\tau_1(t,Q)\phi_1+\cdots +\tau_N(t,Q)\phi_N$. Put
\ben
I^\be_Y(t,Q,z) := (z\partial_t)^\be I_Y(t,Q,z),\quad \be=(\be^{(1)}, \cdots, \be^{(n)})\in \mathbb{Z}^n_{\geq 0},
\een
where
\ben
(z\partial_t)^\be = (z\partial_{t_1})^{\be^{(1)}}\cdots (z\partial_{t_n})^{\be^{(n)}} .
\een
Let $|\be|:=\be^{(1)}+\cdots+\be^{(n)}$.
The Taylor's series of $I^\be_Y(t,Q,z)$ at $Q=t=0$ takes the form
\ben
I^\be_Y(t,Q,z)=e^{p\log Q/z}\sum_{d=0}^\infty\sum_{\nu\in
\mathbb{Z}^n_{\geq 0}} Q^d \frac{t^\nu}{\nu!}
I_{d,\nu+\be}(z) z^{|\be|}.
\een
We will need the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{Idnu}
Let $d\geq 0$ and $\nu \in \mathbb{Z}^n_{\geq 0}$.
a) If $m=(1,\dots,1)\in \mathbb{Z}^n$, then
\ben
I_{d+1,\nu+\be+m}(z)\, z^{|\be|+n} = (1+d+pz^{-1})I_{d,\nu+\be}(z)\, z^{|\be|+1}.
\een
b) If $e_i\in \mathbb{Z}^n$ is the vector with a non-zero entry equal to $1$ only at
the $i$-th place, then
\ben
I_{d,\nu+\be+d_i e_i}(z) = d_i^{-1}(d-\nu_i-\be^{(i)}+pz^{-1})I_{d,\nu+\be}(z) z^{-d_i+1}.
\een
\end{lemma}
The proof follows immediately from the definitions and it is
omitted. We also need the following Lemma, which is a corollary of
Proposition \ref{H:vb}.
\begin{lemma}
The sheaf $\cF|_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*}$ is a free
$\cO_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*}[z]$-module of rank
$N.$
\end{lemma}
The main result of this subsection can be stated as follows.
\begin{proposition}\label{Dmod-iso}
The assignment
\ben
x^\be dx/Q\mapsto S(\tau,1,-z)\, I^\be_Y(t,Q,z) ,
\een
where $\tau=\tau(t,Q)$ is the mirror map, induces an isomorphism of
$\mathcal{D}$-modules
\ben
\Mir\colon \pi^*(\cF|_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*}) \to
\tau^* (\cO_B\otimes H[z]).
\een
\end{proposition}
\proof
According to Proposition \ref{CCIT}, $S(\tau,1,-z)\, I^\be_Y(t,z) \in H[z]$.
To prove that we have an induced map $\Mir$ we have to prove that
$\Mir$ maps
\ben
(zd+df\wedge) x^\be dx_1\cdots \check{dx_i}\cdots dx_n
\een
to $0$ for all $i=1,2,\dots,n$ and $\be=(\be^{(1)},\dots,\be^{(n)})\in\mathbb{Z}^n_{\geq 0}$. The above form takes the form
\ben
(z\be^{(i)} x^{\be-e_i}+d_i x^{\be+(d_i-1)e_i}+t_i x^\be-Q^{-1} x^{\be+m-e_i}) dx,
\een
where $m,e_i\in \mathbb{Z}^n$ are the same as in Lemma
\ref{Idnu}. Shifting $\be\mapsto \be+e_i$ we get
\ben
(z(\be^i+1) x^{\be}+d_i x^{\be+d_ie_i}+t_i x^{\be+e_i}-Q^{-1} x^{\be+m}) dx.
\een
It is enough to prove that $\Mir$ maps the above form to
$0$. Recalling the definition of $\Mir$ we get that the
above form is mapped to
\ben
\sum_{d,\nu} \Big(
z(e^{(i)}+1) I_{d,\nu+\be}z^{|\be|}+d_i I_{d,\nu+\be+d_ie_i}z^{|\be|+d_i}+t_i
I_{d,\nu+\be+e_i}z^{|\be|+1}-Q^{-1} I_{d,\nu+\be+m}z^{|\be|+n}\Big)
Q^d\frac{t^\nu}{\nu!}.
\een
The terms in the brackets are transformed as follows: for the 2nd one
we apply Lemma \ref{Idnu}, b); for the 3rd term we shift the index
$\nu\mapsto \nu-e_i$ and use that
\ben
t_i\frac{t^{\nu-e_i}}{(\nu-e_i)!} = \nu_i \frac{t^\nu}{\nu!};
\een
for the 4th term we first shift the index $d\mapsto d+1$ and then
recall Lemma \ref{Idnu}, a). We get
\ben
\sum_{d,\nu}
((\be^{(i)}+1)+(d-\nu_i-\be^{(i)}+pz^{-1})+\nu_i-(1+d+pz^{-1}))I_{d,\nu+\be}(z)\,
z^{|\be|+1}Q^d\frac{t^\nu}{\nu!} = 0.
\een
To prove that $\Mir$ is a $\mathcal{D}$-module morphism
we need only to verify that
\ben
\Mir(zQ\partial_Q [x^\be dx/Q]) = zQ\partial_Q \Mir([x^\be dx/Q]).
\een
Since
\ben
\Mir(zQ\partial_Q [x^\be dx/Q] )= \sum_{d,\nu}
(I_{d+1,\nu+\be+m} z^{|\be|+n} -I_{d,\nu+\be} z^{|\be|+1})Q^d\frac{t^\nu}{\nu!}
\een
the above identity follows from Lemma \ref{Idnu}, a).
Finally, since
\beq\label{IY}
I_Y(t,Q,z) = f_0(Q) S(\tau,1,-z)^{-1}\, \mathbf{1} ,
\eeq
the map $\Mir$ is surjective. Since both sheaves are free
$\cO_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \widetilde{\Delta^*}}[z]$-modules of rank
$N$, the map must be an isomorphism.
\qed
\subsection{Pairing matches}
Let us introduce the following pairing
\beq\label{GW-hrp}
\widetilde{K}(\omega_1,\omega_2) =
-(\Mir(\pi^*\omega_1),\Mir(\pi^*\omega_2)^*),
\quad \omega_1,\omega_2\in \cF|_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*},
\eeq
where $*$ is the involution in $H[z]$ induced from $z\mapsto
-z$, and $(\ ,\ )$ is the Poincar\'e pairing.
It is convenient to expand in the powers of $z$
\ben
\widetilde{K}(\omega_1,\omega_2)=:\sum_{p\in \mathbb{Z}}^\infty \widetilde{K}^{(p)}(\omega_1,\omega_2) z^{p}.
\een
The main goal in this section, which is one of the key ingredients in
the proof of our mirror symmetry theorem, is the following
proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{hrp=K}
The pairing $\widetilde{K}$ coincides with K. Saito's higher resdiue pairing.
\end{proposition}
The main idea of the proof is to use Hertling's formula \eqref{SandK} in order to
obtain a formula for Saito's pairing similar to \eqref{GW-hrp}.
\subsubsection{The mirror map for vanishing cohomology }
Recall the notation from Sections \ref{S-PHS} and \ref{pf-hrp}. Let us
fix a polynomial $f_0$ corresponding to a reference point in
$\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*$ and define for all $f$ sufficiently
close to $f_0$ a linear isomorphism
\beq\label{psi-iso}
\Psi:\mathfrak{h}=H^{n-1}(f^{-1}(1);\mathbb{C})\to H=H_{\rm
CR}(Y;\mathbb{C}),
\eeq
such that
\beq\label{psi-def}
\Psi ( \widehat{s}(\omega_\be,z) )=
(-z)^{-\theta}I^\be_Y(t,Q,z),
\eeq
where $\omega_\be=x^\be dx/Q$ is a fixed set of weighted-homogeneous forms that induces a
trivialization of $\cF|_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*}$. Using that the
isomorphism in Proposition \ref{Dmod-iso} is a $\mathcal{D}$-module
isomrphism we can check that $\Psi$ is independent of $t$ and
$Q$. Note that the homogeneity of the $I$-function can be written in
the form
\ben
(z\partial_z+\sum_{i=1}^n (1-1/d_i)t_i\partial_{t_i} +
\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR}) \, I^\be_Y(t,z) =
(\operatorname{deg}(\omega_\be)-1) \, I^\be_Y(t,z) .
\een
From this equation we get that $\Psi$ is independent of $z$ as
well.
\begin{remark}
The map $\Psi$ is multivalued in $f$. It can be viewed as a trivialization of the pullback via
$\pi:\mathbb{C}^n\times \widetilde{\Delta^*}\to
\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*$ of
the vanishing cohomology bundle.
\end{remark}
\subsubsection{The polarization form and the Poincar\'e pairing}
Let us introduce the following bilinear form on $H$:
\ben
\chi(a,b) := S(\Psi^{-1}(a),\nu^{-1} \Psi^{-1}(b)) ,
\een
where $S$ is the polarization form of Steenbrink's Hodge structure
(see Section \ref{S-PHS}).
\begin{lemma}\label{M_mar}
The claim in Proposition \ref{hrp=K} is equivalent to the identity
\ben
\chi(a,e^{-\pi\sqrt{-1}\theta}b) = (a, b),\quad a,b\in H.
\een
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let us first establish that $p\cup$ is an infinitesimal symmetry of
$\chi$. Let us denote by $M_{\rm mar}$ the
monodromy transformation of $\mathfrak{h}$ of the Gauss--Manin
connection around $Q=0$ in counter clockwise direction. The analytic
continuation around $Q=0$ transforms the RHS of \eqref{psi-def} into
\ben
(-z)^{-\theta}\ e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1} p/z}\, I^\be_Y(t,Q,z) =
e^{-2\pi\sqrt{-1} p}\,
(-z)^{-\theta}I^\be_Y(t,Q,z).
\een
Therefore,
\ben
\Psi\circ M_{\rm mar}^{-1} = e^{-2\pi\sqrt{-1}p} \circ \Psi.
\een
In particular, $M_{\rm mar}$ is unipotent and there is uniquely defined nilpotent
operator $N_{\rm mar}:=-\frac{1}{2\pi\sqrt{-1} } \log M_{\rm mar}.$
By definition
\ben
\chi(a,b)=(-1)^{(n-1)(n-2)/2}
\langle \Psi^{-1}(a),\operatorname{Var}\circ \Psi^{-1}(b)\rangle.
\een
Since the form
$\langle\cdot,\operatorname{Var}(\cdot)\rangle$ is
$M_{\rm mar}$-invariant and
\ben
\Psi(N_{\rm mar}\, A) = p\,\Psi(A),\quad A\in \mathfrak{h},
\een
we get that $\chi(p\cup a,b)+\chi(a,p\cup b)=0.$ Using this property
we can complete the proof as follows. By definition
\ben
\widehat{s}(\omega_\be,z) =
\Psi^{-1} ((-z)^{-\theta}I^\be_Y(t,Q,z) ) =
e^{\log Q \, N_{\rm mar}}\, \Psi^{-1}
((-z)^{-\theta}\widetilde{I}^\be_Y(t,Q,z)) ,
\een
where $I^\be_Y(t,Q,z) =: e^{p\log Q/z} \widetilde{I}^\be_Y(t,Q,z)$.
Recalling formula \eqref{SandK} we get
\beq\label{K-ext}
K(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) = -
\chi(e^{\pi\sqrt{-1}\theta} (-z)^{-\theta}\widetilde{I}^{\be''}_Y(t,Q,-z),(-z)^{-\theta}\widetilde{I}^{\be'}_Y(t,Q,z)),
\eeq
In order to complete the proof, we just have to notice that
\eqref{GW-hrp} can be written as
\ben
\widetilde{K}(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) =
-
((-z)^{-\theta} \widetilde{I}_Y^{\be''}(t,Q,-z),(-z)^{-\theta}
\widetilde{I}_Y^{\be'}(t,Q,z) ),
\een
where we used that $S(\tau,1,z)$ is a symplectic transformation, so
\ben
S(\tau,1,z)^t S(\tau,1,-z)=1.\qed
\een
\medskip
We will compute $\chi$ by specializing \eqref{K-ext} to $t=Q=0$, i.e.,
we will express $\chi$ in terms of the limit of the higher residue
pairing at $t=Q= 0$.
To begin with, let us compute the Chen--Ruan product of $Y$.
Put $\phi_i=\mathbf{1}_{(0,\dots,1/d_i,\dots,0)}$, where the non-zero
entry is on the $i$-th place. Let
\ben
\phi_\be:=\phi_1^{\be^{(1)}}\cdots \phi_n^{\be^{(n)}},
\een
where $\be=(\be^{(1)},\dots,\be^{(n)})$ is a sequence of non-negative integers and
the monomial on the RHS is defined via the Chen--Ruan cup product.
\begin{lemma}\label{CR-product}
The following formula holds
\ben
\phi_\be=
(d_1^{-\ell_1}\cdots d_n^{-\ell_n})\,p^\ell\mathbf{1}_c,\quad c=(c_1,\dots,c_n),
\een
where the numbers $\ell:=\ell_1+\cdots +\ell_n$ and $c_i$ are defined by
\ben
\frac{\be^{(i)}}{d_i}=\ell_i+c_i,\quad 0\leq c_i<1,\quad \ell_i\in
\mathbb{Z}.
\een
\end{lemma}
\proof
Note that at $Q=0$ the $J$-function of $Y$ is
\ben
\widetilde{J}_Y(\widetilde{\tau},0,z)= ze^{\widetilde{\tau}\cup_{\rm CR} /z},
\quad
\widetilde{\tau}:= t_1 \phi_1+\cdots + t_n\phi_n,
\een
where $\cup_{\rm CR}$ denotes the Chen--Ruan product. Note also
that $\tau(t,Q) = p\log Q + \widetilde{\tau} + O(Q)$ and that the calibration
$S(0,0,z)=1$. Recalling Proposition \ref{CCIT} we get that the
vector $\widetilde{I}_Y^\be(0,0,z) $ is polynomial in $z$ and that its
free term
\ben
\widetilde{I}_Y^\be(0,0,0)=(d_1^{-\ell_1}\cdots
d_n^{-\ell_n})\,p^\ell\mathbf{1}_c
\een
must coincide with
$z^{-1}(z\partial_t)^\be \widetilde{J}_Y(t,0,z)|_{t=0}=\phi_\be$.
\qed
Choosing $\be=(\be^{(1)},\dots,\be^{(n)})$ appropriately we can
arrange that the vectors $\phi_\be$ give a basis of the Chen--Ruan cohomology. Note that the
Chen--Ruan degree of $\phi_\be$ is
$$\deg_{\rm CR}\phi_\be=\operatorname{deg}(\be):=\sum_{i=1}^n
{\be^{(i)}\over d_i}.$$
\begin{lemma}
We have
\ben
\chi(\phi_{\be''},e^{-\pi\sqrt{-1}\theta} \phi_{\be'}) =
(\phi_{\be'},\phi_{\be''}).
\een
\end{lemma}
\proof
Recalling \eqref{K-ext} we get
\beq\label{K-chi}
\left.
K(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) \right|_{t=Q=0} =
-
z^{-n+\operatorname{deg}(\be')+\operatorname{deg}(\be'')+2}
\chi(\phi_{\be''},e^{-\pi\sqrt{-1}\theta} \phi_{\be'}).
\eeq
We need to check that the higher residues
$-K^{(p)}(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''})|_{t=Q=0}$ vanish for $p>0$ and
coincide with the Poinare pairing $(\phi_{\be'},\phi_{\be''})$ for
$p=0$. Using that $\chi(p\cup a,b)+\chi(a,p\cup b)=0$, we may
reduce the proof to the case when $\phi_{\be'}$ is not divisible by $p$,
i.e., $0\leq \be'^{(i)}\leq d_i-1$. Finally, let us assume also that $t=0$. The rest of
the proof is splitted into four steps.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Step 1.}
We claim that if $K(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''})|_{Q=0}\neq 0$,
then $\be'^i+\be''^i \equiv 0 \mod d_i$.
Put $\eta_i:=e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}/d_i}$, then the rescaling
\ben
(x_1,\dots,x_i,\dots,x_n)\mapsto (x_1,\dots,\eta_ix_i,\dots,x_n),\quad
Q\mapsto \eta_i Q,
\een
defines an automorphism of $\HH_+(f)$. It is easy to see that the
higher residue pairing $K$ is invariant under the rescaling. We have
\ben
K(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) = z^r\sum_{m=0}^\infty K_{\be',\be'',m} Q^m,
\een
where
$r:=\operatorname{deg}(\omega_{\be'})+\operatorname{deg}(\omega_{\be''}) -
n$. Rescaling the above identity we get that
\ben
\eta_i^{\be'^{(i)}+\be''^{(i)}}K(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) = z^p\sum_{m=0}^\infty K_{\be',\be'',m} Q^m\eta_i^m.
\een
It follows that $\be'^{(i)}+\be''^{(i)} \equiv m \mod d_i$, so if the pairing
$K(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''})|_{Q=0}\neq 0$, then $\be'^{(i)}+\be''^{(i)}\equiv 0
\mod d_i$.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Step 2.}
We claim that if $K(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''})|_{Q=0}\neq 0$, then
$\operatorname{deg}(\phi_{\be'})+ \operatorname{deg}(
\phi_{\be''})=n-2.$ To prove this, recall that
$\phi_{\be''}=(d_1^{-\ell_1''}\cdots d_n^{-\ell_n''})\,p^{\ell''}\mathbf{1}_{c''}$, where $0\leq \ell''\leq
\operatorname{dim}(Y_{c''})$, $0\leq c_i'' < 1$ are defined by
\ben
\ell''=\sum_{i=1}^n \ell_i'',\quad e_i''/d_i=\ell_i''+c_i'',\quad
\ell_i\in \mathbb{Z}.
\een
Using that $\be'^{(i)}+\be''^{(i)}\equiv 0 \mod d_i$ we get that
\ben
\frac{\be'^{(i)}}{d_i}+\frac{\be''^{(i)}}{d_i} =
\begin{cases}
\ell_i''+1, & \mbox{ if } c_i''\neq0,\\
\ell_i'', & \mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\een
Recall that $\operatorname{dim}(Y_{c''})+2$ is the number of $i$ such that $c_i''=0$. Therefore,
\ben
\operatorname{deg}(\phi_{\be'})+\operatorname{deg}(\phi_{\be''}) =
\operatorname{deg}(\be')+\operatorname{deg}(\be'') = n-2+ \ell''- \operatorname{dim}(Y_{c''})\leq n-2.
\een
This proves that $K^{(r)}(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''})|_{Q=0}$ could be
non-zero only if $r=0$, $\ell''= \operatorname{dim}(Y_{c''})$, and
$\operatorname{deg}(\omega_{\be'})+\operatorname{deg}(\omega_{\be''}) =n.$
It remains only to check that
\beq\label{res:po}
K^{(0)}(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) = -(\phi_{\be'},\phi_{\be''}).
\eeq
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Step 3.}
We claim that it is enough to verify \eqref{res:po} in the case
when $\be'^{(i)}+\be''^{(i)} = d_i$ for $n-2$ values
of $i$ and $\be'^{(i)}=\be''^{(i)}=0$ for the remaining two other values. Indeed,
we may assume again that $0\leq \be'^{(i)}\leq d_i-1$ and write
$\phi_{\be''}=(d_1^{-\ell_1''}\cdots d_n^{-\ell_n''})\,p^{\ell''}\mathbf{1}_{c''}$ as we did above. Since the set
$I(c''):=\{i\ |\ c_i''=0\}$ contains $\operatorname{dim}(Y_{c''})+2$ elements we can choose a
subset $J\subset I(c'')$ with $\ell''$ elements. Note that $\be'^{(j)}=0$
for all $j\in J$, because $\be'^{(j)}+d_jc_j''=0 \mod d_j$. Let us
define $\widetilde{\be}\,''^{(i)}=d_i c_i''$ $(1\leq i\leq n)$ and
\ben
\widetilde{\be}\,'^{(j)}=
\begin{cases}
d_j, & \mbox{ if } j\in J \\
\be'^{(j)}, & \mbox{ otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\een
Using the relation $d_jx_j^{d_j} = Q^{-1} x_1\cdots x_n$ in
$\operatorname{Jac}(f)$ we get
\ben
K^{(0)}(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) =
\Big(\prod_{i\notin J}d_i^{-\ell''_i}\Big)
K^{(0)}(\omega_{\widetilde{\be}\,'},\omega_{\widetilde{\be}\,''}).
\een
Similarly, using the relation $d_i\phi_i^{d_i}=p$ in the Chen--Ruan cohomology,
we get
\ben
(\phi_{\be'},\phi_{\be''}) =
\Big(\prod_{i\notin J}d_i^{-\ell''_i}\Big)
(\phi_{\widetilde{\be}\,'},\phi_{\widetilde{\be}\,''}),
\een
which completes the proof of our claim.
\medskip
\noindent
{\bf Step 4.}
Due to permutation symmetry of our computation, it is enough to
consider only the case $\be'^{(i)}+\be''^{(i)} = d_i$ for $1\leq i\leq n-2$. By
definition
\ben
K^{(0)}(\omega_{\be'},\omega_{\be''}) =
\Res
\frac{
Q^{n-2}
x_1^{d_1}\cdots x_{n-2}^{d_{n-2} } dx_1\cdots dx_n }{
(Qd_1 x_1^{d_1-1} -x_2\cdots x_n)\cdots (Qd_n x_n^{d_n-1} -x_1\cdots
x_{n-1}) }.
\een
Since $x_i^{d_i} = (x_1\cdots x_n)/(d_i Q)$ in the Jacobi ring of $f$,
the above residue turns into
\ben
\frac{1}{d_1\dots d_{n-2} }\,
\Res
\frac{
(x_1\cdots x_n)^{n-2} dx_1\cdots dx_n }{
(Qd_1 x_1^{d_1-1} -x_2\cdots x_n)\cdots (Qd_n x_n^{d_n-1} -x_1\cdots
x_{n-1}) }.
\een
Since the Poincar\'e pairing $(\phi_{\be'},\phi_{\be''})$ equals $1/(d_1\cdots
d_{n-2})$, to complete the proof we have to verify that the above
residue is $-1$ when $Q=0$.
In order to compute the residue, recall that
\beq\label{Hess-res}
\Res \Big(
\frac{df_{x_1}}{f_{x_1}} \wedge \cdots \wedge \frac{df_{x_n}}{f_{x_n}}\Big)
=
\Res
\Big(
\frac{
\operatorname{det}(\operatorname{Hess}(f)) }{
f_{x_1}\cdots f_{x_n} } \, dx_1\cdots dx_n \Big)=
N.
\eeq
On the other hand $df_{x_1}\wedge\cdots\wedge df_{x_n}$ is given by
\ben
(d_1 x_1^{d_1-1} dx_1 -Q^{-1} d(x_2\cdots x_n) ) \wedge \cdots \wedge
(d_n x_n^{d_n-1} dx_1 -Q^{-1} d(x_1\cdots x_{n-1}) ).
\een
This wedge product can be computed explicitly as follows:
\begin{align}\label{Hess-wedge}
\sum_{m=0}^{n}\sum_{1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_m\leq n}
(1+m-n)\, Q^{-n+m}\,
\left(
\prod_{s=1}^m d_{i_s}(d_{i_s}-1) x_{i_s}^{d_{i_s}+n-m-2}
\right)\times \\
\notag
\times
(x_{j_1}\cdots x_{j_{n-m}})^{n-m-2}\,
dx_1\wedge \cdots \wedge dx_n,
\end{align}
where $\{j_1,\dots,j_{n-m}\}=\{1,2,\dots,n\}\setminus
\{i_1,\dots,i_m\}$. In the derivation of the above formula we used the
following simple fact: if $g(y_1,\dots,y_k)=y_1\cdots y_k$, then
\ben
\operatorname{det}(\operatorname{Hess}(g)) = (-1)^{k}(1-k)\, (y_1\cdots y_k)^{k-2}.
\een
This formula is applied for $k=n-m$ and $(y_1\cdots
y_k)=(x_{j_1},\dots,x_{j_{n-m}}).$ Note that the term with $m=n-1$ in
\eqref{Hess-wedge} vanishes, while the term with $m=n$ reads
\ben
\prod_{i=1}^n d_i(d_i-1) x_i^{d_i-2} dx_1\wedge \cdots \wedge dx_n.
\een
The contribution of this term to the residue \eqref{Hess-res} is
analytic at $Q=0$ and it vanishes at $Q=0$ of order at least 2.
Therefore, we may assume that the summation range for $m$ in
\eqref{Hess-wedge} is up to $n-2$. Using the relations in the Jacobi
ring of $f$ we get
\ben
d_i(d_i-1)x_i^{d_i+n-m-2} =(d_i-1) x_i^{n-m-2} \, (x_1\cdots
x_n)\, Q^{-1} .
\een
The sum \eqref{Hess-wedge} is transformed into
\begin{align}\notag
\sum_{m=0}^{n-2}\sum_{1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_m\leq n}
(1+m-n)\,
\left(
\prod_{s=1}^m (d_{i_s}-1)
\right)\times \\
\notag
\times
Q^{-n}\,
(x_1\cdots x_n)^{n-2}\,
dx_1\wedge \cdots \wedge dx_n,
\end{align}
Note that the sum on the first line can be computed explicitly. We
have the following identity:
\ben
\sum_{m=0}^n \sum_{1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_m\leq n}
(d_{i_1}-1)\cdots(d_{i_m}-1)
x^{1-n+m} = x^{1-n} (x(d_1-1)+1)\cdots (x(d_n-1)+1).
\een
Differentiating with respect to $x$ and setting $x=1$ we get
\ben
\sum_{m=0}^n \sum_{1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_m\leq n}
(d_{i_1}-1)\cdots(d_{i_m}-1) (1-n+m) = 0;
\een
therefore,
\ben
\sum_{m=0}^{n-2} \sum_{1\leq i_1<\cdots <i_m\leq n}
(d_{i_1}-1)\cdots(d_{i_m}-1) (1-n+m) = -(d_1-1)\cdots (d_n-1) = -N.
\een
Restricting the identity \eqref{Hess-res} to $Q=0$ gives
\ben
\left.
\Res\,
\frac{Q^{-n}\,
(x_1\cdots x_n)^{n-2}}
{f_{x_1}\cdots f_{x_n}}\,
dx_1\wedge \cdots \wedge dx_n\right|_{Q=0} = -1. \qed
\een
\subsection{Mirror symmetry in genus $0$}
We enumerate the elements of the basis $\{p^k\mathbf{1}_c\}$ of
$H^*(Y,\mathbb{C})$ in an arbitrary way and denote by $\phi_i$ the
$i$th element. It is convenient to enumerate in such a way that
\ben
\phi_a=\mathbf{1}_{e_a/d_a},\quad 1\leq a\leq n,
\een
where $e_a$ is the $a$-th coordinate vector in $\mathbb{Z}^n$.
Let $\tau=(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_N)$ be the linear coordinates on
$H^*(Y,\mathbb{C})$ corresponding to the basis $\{\phi_i\}$ and put
$\partial_i:=\partial/\partial \tau_i$ $(1\leq i\leq N)$.
\subsubsection{The big quantum cohomology of $Y$}
Let us fix a constant $Q\in \Delta^*$ and specify a value of $\log Q$,
so that the mirror map $\mathbb{C}^n\to H, t\mapsto \tau(t,Q)$ is
analytic. In this way $\mathbb{C}^n$ is identified with an analytic
subvariety $\Sigma$ of $H^*(Y,\mathbb{C})$.
The linear coordinates $(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_n)$ form a coordinate
system on $\Sigma$, because on $\Sigma$ we have
\ben
\tau_a = t_a \ (\operatorname{mod}\ Q),\quad 1\leq a\leq n.
\een
\begin{lemma}\label{S-diff}
There are differential operators
\ben
P_i(z,t,Q; z\partial_{t_1},\dots,z\partial_{t_n})\in
\mathbb{C}\{Q\}[z,t]\langle z\partial_{t_1},\dots,z\partial_{t_n}\rangle,\quad
1\leq i\leq N,
\een
such that
\ben
P_i \, J_Y(\tau,1,z) \quad \in \quad z \, \phi_i + H[\![z^{-1}]\!],
\een
where $\tau=\tau(t,Q)$. Moreover, for any choice of such differential operators, we have
\ben
P_i \, J_Y(\tau,1,-z) = -z S(\tau,1,z)^{-1}\phi_i.
\een
\end{lemma}
\proof
Put
\ben
J^\be_Y(t,Q,z) := (z\partial_t)^\be J_Y(\tau(t,Q),1,z)=zI^\be_Y(t,Q,z)/f_0(Q).
\een
Using the quantum differential equations, we get
\ben
J^\be_Y(t,Q,z)
=
z(z\partial_t)^\be S(\tau,1,-z)^{-1} 1 =z S(\tau,1,-z)^{-1}\, \prod_{a=1}^n
(z\partial_{t_a} -M_a)^{\be^{(a)}} 1,
\een
where $M_a=\partial_{t_a}\bullet_t$ is the operator of quantum multiplication by $\partial_{t_a}$.
Let us choose a set of indexes $\be=(\be^{(1)},\dots,\be^{(n)})$ such that the
cohomology classes $\phi_\be:=\widetilde{I}^\be_Y(0,0,0)$ form a basis of
$H^*(Y,\mathbb{C})$. For example, for a given basis vector $p^k\mathbf{1}_c$ if we define
\ben
\be^{(1)}=(k+c_1)d_1, \quad \be^{(2)}=c_2d_2,\quad\dots,\quad \be^{(n)}=c_n d_n,
\een
then $\phi_\be=d_1^{-k} p^k \mathbf{1}_c . $
In order to prove the existance of the differential operators $P_i$,
it is enough to prove that the determinant
of the matrix $C$ whose columns are $\prod_{a=1}^n
(z\partial_{t_a}-M_a)^{\be^{(a)}}1$ is independent of $z$ and $t$. Under
this assumption, the inverse of the matrix $C$ has entries in
$\mathbb{C}\{Q\}[z,t]$, so the columns of $zS(\tau,Q,-z)^{-1}$ can be written
as linear combinations of $J^\be_Y(t,Q,z)$ with coefficients
in $\mathbb{C}\{Q\}[z,t]$, which is what we have to prove.
Note that
\ben
(z\partial_z +E+\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR}) \widetilde{I}^\be_Y(t,Q,z) = \operatorname{deg}(\be) \widetilde{I}^\be_Y(t,Q,z) ,
\een
where $\operatorname{deg}(\be) :=\sum \be^{(i)}/d_i$. The determinant
$\Delta_I(t,z)$ of the matrix with columns $\widetilde{I}^\be_Y(t,Q,z)$ satisfies the
following differential equation
\ben
(z\partial_z+E) \Delta_I(t,z) = \Big(\sum_e \operatorname{deg}(e) -
\operatorname{Tr}( \operatorname{deg}_{\rm
CR})\Big)\Delta_I(t,z) =0.
\een
Similarly, the calibration $S(\tau,Q,-z)$ is known to satisfy the
differential equation
\ben
(z\partial_z+E+\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR} )S(\tau,Q,-z) = S(\tau,Q,-z) \operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR}.
\een
Hence, the determinant also satisfies
\ben
(z\partial_z+E)\operatorname{det}(S(\tau,Q,-z)) = 0.
\een
We get $(z\partial_z+E)\operatorname{det}(C)=0$. However, the matrix
$C$ depends holomorphically on $t$ and $z$ at $t=z=0$, so
$\operatorname{det}(C)$ is a constant independent of $t$ and $z$.
Let us assume that $\widetilde{P}_i$ $(1\leq i\leq N)$ is another set
of differential operators such that $\widetilde{P}_i\,
J_Y(\tau(t,Q),1,z) \in z\phi_i+ H[\![z^{-1}]\!]$. Using that the
calibration solves the quantum differential equations we get
\ben
\widetilde{P}_i\, J_Y(\tau,1,z)z^{-1} =S(\tau,1,-z)^{-1}
g(t,Q,z),\quad g\in H[z].
\een
The projection of the LHS of the above identity on $H[z]$ is by
definition $\phi_i$, so on the RHS we must have $g=\phi_i$.
\qed
\bigskip
Note that in the proof of Lemma \ref{S-diff}, we obtained an explicit
algorithm to find differential operators $P_i$ from the
$I$-function. Namely, let us choose a set of $N$ indices $\be$ such that
the vectors $\widetilde{I}^\be_Y(0,0,0)$ give a basis of $H$. The matrix $A(t,Q,z)$ whose columns are the
vectors $\widetilde{I}^\be(t,Q,z)/f_0(Q)$ has a Birkhoff factorization $A_-(t,Q,z)
A_+(t,Q,z)$ with $A_-=1+O(z^{-1})$. The entries of the $i$-th column of the matrix
$A_+(t,Q,z)^{-1}$ determine the coefficients of a differential
operator $P_i$ that has the required properties. In particular, the
$I$-function determines explicitly $S(\tau,1,-z)=A_-(t,Q,z)^{-1}$ for all $\tau\in
\Sigma$ and the operators $M_a(t,Q)$, $(1\leq a\leq n)$ of
quantum multiplication by $\partial_{t_a}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{reconstr}
The big quantum cohomology of $Y$ is uniquely determined by the
polynomials $P_i$, $1\leq i\leq N$ and the flatness of the Dubrovin's
connection.
\end{lemma}
\proof
Let us denote by $\Omega_i(\tau,Q)$ the linear operator of
quantum multiplication by $\phi_i\bullet_{\tau,Q}$. Lemma \ref{S-diff} implies that
\ben
\Omega_i(\tau,Q) = P_i(0,t,Q;-M_1,\dots,-M_n),\quad \tau=\tau(t,Q)\in \Sigma.
\een
so the restriction of the multiplication operators to $\Sigma$ is also
uniquely determined. Note that $\Omega_i(0,0)$ generate the orbifold
cohomology. In fact, using that the J-function at $Q=0$ is
$e^{\tau/z}$ we get that
\ben
\Omega_1(0,0)^{\nu_1}\cdots \Omega_n(0,0)^{\nu_n} = \Big(\prod_{i=1}^n
d_i^{-\ell_i}\Big) \, p^\ell \mathbf{1}_c,
\een
where the numbers $c=(c_1,\dots,c_n)$, $\ell_1,\dots,\ell_n$, and
$\ell:=\ell_1+\cdots +\ell_n$ are uniquely defined by
\ben
\nu_i/d_i = \ell_i + c_i,\quad \ell_i\in \mathbb{Z},\quad 0\leq c_i<1.
\een
The matrix $A=A(t,Q;\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_n)$ with columns
\ben
P_i(0,t,Q;-\Omega_1,\dots,-\Omega_n)\,\mathbf{1},\quad 1\leq i\leq N
\een
is non-degenerate, because at $t=Q=0$ it reduces to the identity
matrix. The quantum multiplication is commutative; therefore,
$\Omega_i(\tau,Q) A$ coincides with the matrix
$B=B(t,Q;\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_n)$ whose columns are given by
\ben
P_i(0,t,Q;-\Omega_1,\dots,-\Omega_n)\,\phi_i,\quad 1\leq i\leq N.
\een
Here $A$ and $B$ are viewed as functions in $t,Q$ and the entries of
the matrices $\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_n$. It follows that
$\Omega_i(\tau,Q)=BA^{-1}$ is a rational function
$R_i(\tau,Q;\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_n)$ in the entries of $\Omega_a$
$(1\leq a\leq n)$. Using the flatness of Dubrovin's
connection we get
\ben
\partial_i \Omega_a= \partial_a\Omega_i = \partial_a
R_i(\Omega_1,\dots,\Omega_n),
\een
and we get that the restriction of all higher order derivatives in $\tau$ of
$\Omega_a(\tau,Q)$, $1\leq a\leq n$ to $\Sigma$ are uniquely
determined. In particular, we can express the higher order derivatives in $\tau$ of
$\Omega_a(\tau,Q)$ at $\tau=0$ in terms of the polynomials $P_i$,
which completes the proof. \qed
\subsubsection{The mirror isomorphism}
Let us fix $Q\in \Delta^*$ and define
\ben
f:=f(x,0,Q)=\sum_{i=1}^n x_i^{d_i}
-\frac{1}{Q}x_1\cdots x_n.
\een
Let us embed $\mathbb{C}^N\subset B_f$ via $t\mapsto f(x,t,Q)$. Put
\ben
\omega_i=\sqrt{-1}\, \Mir^{-1}(\phi_i)
\quad \in \quad \cF|_{\mathbb{C}^n\times \{Q\} },
\een
where the scalar $\sqrt{-1}$ is chosen, so that the Poincar\'e
pairing matches the residue pairing $K^{(0)}$ (see Proposition
\ref{hrp=K}).
According to Proposition \ref{hrp=K}, the forms $\omega_i$ form a good
basis, i.e., $K(\omega_i,\omega_j)\in \mathbb{C}$. Let us assume
that $\phi_1=1$ and define $\omega:=\omega_1$ to be the
primitive form.
The good basis $\{\omega_i\}_{i=1}^N$ extends uniquely to a good basis over the space
$B_f$ of miniversal deformations of $f$ and it determines a flat
coordinate system $\tau=(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_N)$ on $B_f$ such that
\ben
\sum_{i=1}^N \tau_i(t)\phi_i = \tau(t,Q),\quad \forall t\in \mathbb{C}^n.
\een
We can use the map $\Mir$ to obtain a reconstruction of the Frobenius
structure on $B_f$ similar to the reconstruction of the big quantum
cohomology given by Lemmas \ref{S-diff} and \ref{reconstr}. Namely,
using Proposition \ref{Dmod-iso}, it is easy to verify that
the statements of both lemmas remain the same if we replace
$J_Y(\tau,1,z)$ with the primitive form $\omega$ and Dubrovin's
connection with the Gauss--Manin connection. Note that since $\Mir$ is
a $\cD$-module isomorphism, we can use the same set of differential
operators $P_i$ for both reconstructions. Therefore, we can uniquely
extend the mirror map $\mathbb{C}^n\to H$, $t\mapsto \tau(t,Q)$ to an isomorphism of
Frobenius structures, i.e., we have the following proposition.
\begin{proposition}\label{ms-0}
The map
\beq\label{full-mm}
B_f\to H:=H_{\rm CR}^*(Y;\mathbb{C}),\quad
\tau=(\tau_1,\dots,\tau_N)\mapsto \sum_{i=1}^N \tau_i\phi_i
\eeq
induces an isomorphism of the germ of the Frobenius structure of
$B_f$ at $\tau=0$ and the quantum cohomology of $Y$ .
\end{proposition}
\begin{remark}
The map $\Mir$ is defined in terms of an extended $I$-function
of $Y$ depending on the relevant deformation parameters
$t_1,\dots,t_n$. Using the results of \cite{CCIT} we can
extend the $I$-function even further to include all deformation
parameters. This would give us an appropriate extension of the map
$\Mir$, which will provide us directly with a trivialization of
$TB_f[\![z]\!] \cong B\times H[\![z]\!]$ that intertwines the
Gauss--Manin connection and the Dubrovin connection. The advantage of
using a reconstruction argument is that, after analyzing the reconstruction scheme more carefully, we can prove the convergence
of the Frobenius multiplication on $TB_f$ in the irrelevant
direction.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Mirror symmetry in higher genus}
Proposition \ref{ms-0} implies that the quantum cohomology of $Y$ is
semi-simple. Therefore, we can recall Givental's higher genus
reconstruction \cite{G1,G2} proved by Teleman \cite{Te}. Let
$\tau=\tau(0,Q)\in H$ be the value of the mirror map \ref{mirror-map}
at $t=0$, put $f:=f(x,0,Q)$, and recall the good basis
\ben
\omega_i=\sqrt{-1}\,
\Mir^{-1}(\phi_i)|_{t=0} \quad \in\quad \mathbb{H}_+(f),\quad
1\leq i\leq N,
\een
where $\{\phi_i\}_{i=1}^N\subset H$ is a fixed basis with $\phi_1=\mathbf{1}$.
The higher genus mirror symmetry for $Y$ can be stated as follows.
\begin{theorem}\label{CY-LG:mirror_sym}
The total ancestor potentials of $Y$ and $f$ are related by the
following formula:
\ben
\cA^Y_\tau(\hbar;\mathbf{q}) =
\mathcal{A}_{f,\omega}^{\omega_1,\dots,\omega_N}(\hbar;\mathbf{q}),
\een
where
\ben
\omega:=\omega_1=\sqrt{-1} \, \frac{dx_1\cdots dx_n}{Qf_0(Q)}.
\een
\end{theorem}
\subsection{A-model opposite subspace}
Let $f=f(x,0,Q)$, $Q\in \Delta^*$. Recall also the notation
$\mathfrak{h}$ and $\mathfrak{h}^*$ for respectively the middle
cohomology and homology of $f$. The opposite subspace $P\subset
\mathbb{H}_+(f)$ that corresponds to the good basis of GW theory can
be characterized as follows.
The group $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{d_i}$ of $d_i$th roots of 1 acts naturally on
$\mathbb{C}^n\times \Delta^*$ via
\ben
\eta.((x_1,\dots,x_n),Q):= ((x_1,\dots,\eta x_i,\dots,x_n),\eta Q).
\een
The function $f$ is invariant under this action, so the vanishing
homology and cohomology bundles on $\Delta^*$ become naturally
$\boldsymbol{\mu}_{d_i}$-equivariant bundles. Let us a define a linear map
\ben
L_i :\mathfrak{h}\to \mathfrak{h}, \langle L_i(A),\alpha\rangle =
\langle A, \eta_i^{-1}\cdot \alpha_{\eta_i Q}\rangle ,
\een
where $\eta_i=e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}/d_i}$, $\eta_i^{-1}\cdot$ is the
$\boldsymbol{\mu}_{d_i}$-equivariant action, and $\alpha_{\eta_iQ}$ is the parallel
trasnport of the cycle $\alpha$ along the arc $Qe^{\sqrt{-1}\theta}$, $0\leq
\theta \leq 2\pi /d_i$. Note that $L_i^{d_i}=M_{\rm mar}^{-1}$, where
$M_{\rm mar}$ is the monodromy transformation of $\mathfrak{h}$
corresponding to a closed loop around $Q=0$ in counter clockwise
direction. Recall that
$M_{\rm mar}=e^{-2\pi\sqrt{-1} N_{\rm mar}}$ (see Lemma \ref{M_mar}),
where $N_{\rm mar}$ is a nilpotent operator. In particular, we can define
$M_{\rm mar}^{1/d_i}:= e^{-(2\pi\sqrt{-1}/d_i)N_{\rm mar}}$. Note that
the linear operators $L_i$ and $M_{\rm mar}$ pairwise
commute for $1\leq i\leq n$. Therefore, the map $\eta_i\mapsto L_i\circ
M_{\rm mar}^{1/d_i}$ gives a representation of $\boldsymbol{\mu}_{d_i}$ on
$\mathfrak{h}$ for each $i=1,2,\dots,n$. Since the operators defininig
the representations pairwise commute we have a joint spectrum
decomposition
\beq\label{Galois-decomp}
\mathfrak{h} = \bigoplus_{\be=(\be^{(1)},\dots,\be^{(n)})} \mathfrak{h}_\be,\quad
\mathfrak{h}_\be = \{ v\in \mathfrak{h}_\be\ :\ L_iv = \eta_i^{-\be^{(i)}}v, \
1\leq i\leq n\}.
\eeq
where the direct sum is over $\be=(\be^{(1)},\dots,\be^{(n)})$ such that $0\leq \be^{(i)}\leq
d_i-1$ and $\mathfrak{h}_\be\neq \{0\}$.
Let us recall the definition of a {\em weight filtration} (see
\cite{Schm}, Lemma 6.4). Given a triple $(V,m,N)$ consisting of a
vector space $V$, a positive integer $m$ (called {\em weight}), and a nilpotent operator
$N$ such that $N^m=0$, there is a unique increasing filtration
$0=W_{-1}\subset W_{0}\subset \cdots \subset W_{2m} =
V$, called a {\em weight filtration}, such that
$N(W_\ell)\subset W_{\ell-2}$ and $N^l :\operatorname{Gr}^W_{m+\ell}\to
\operatorname{Gr}^W_{m-\ell}$ is an isomorphism for all $\ell$.
Put
\ben
N_\be=N_{\rm mar}|_{\mathfrak{h}_\be},\quad m_\be:= n+|\{i\ :\
\be^{(i)}\neq 0\}|-2\lceil \deg(\be)\rceil,
\een
where $|S|$ denotes the number of elements in a set $S$ and
$\deg(\be):=\sum_{i=1}^n \be^{(i)}/d_i$. Let us define
$W_\bullet^\be$ to be the weight filtration corresponding to the tripple
$(\mathfrak{h}_\be,m_\be,N_\be)$.
\begin{proposition}
The opposite filtration $\{U_\bullet\}$ of $\mathfrak{h}$, which
corresponds to the GW opposite subspace $P$ via
\eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence} is given by the formula
\ben
U_\ell = \bigoplus_\be W^\be_{2\ell},
\een
where the direct sum over $\be$ is the same as in \eqref{Galois-decomp}.
\end{proposition}
\proof
Our argument is based on mirror symmetry. Recall the isomorphism
\eqref{psi-def}
\ben
\Psi:\mathfrak{h}\to H.
\een
We will find the images of the opposite filtration and the various
weight filtrations under $\Psi$ and see that the desired relation is
obvious.
By definition the one-to-one correspondence,
\eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence} associates to every
$A\in F^\ell\mathfrak{h}_s\cap U_\ell\mathfrak{h}_s$ with
$s=e^{2\pi\sqrt{-1}\alpha}$, $0\leq \alpha<1$, a homogeneous form $\omega \in
\mathbb{H}_+(f)\cap Pz$ of degree
$
\operatorname{deg}(\omega) = n-\ell-\alpha,
$
such that
\ben
\widehat{s}(\omega,z) = (-z)^{-\ell-\alpha+\frac{n}{2}} \, A,
\een
where we used that for every fixed $z$ the map $\psi$ in
\eqref{eq:opposite_correspondence} is the inverse to $\widehat{s}(\
,z)$.
By definition
\ben
\Psi(\widehat{s}(\omega,z) ) = (-z)^{-\theta} S(\tau,1,-z)^{-1} \, \Mir (\omega),
\een
where $\tau=\tau(0,Q)$ is the image of the mirror map.
On the other hand, due to homegeneity
\ben
(-z)^{-\theta} S(\tau,1,-z)^{-1} (-z)^\theta
\een
is independent of $z$ and
\ben
(-z)^{-\theta} \Mir(\omega) = (-z)^{\operatorname{deg}(\omega)
-\frac{n}{2}} \Mir(\omega).
\een
We get
\ben
\Psi(A) = S(\tau,1,1)^{-1}\, \ \Mir(\omega).
\een
Therefore, $\Psi (F^\ell\mathfrak{h}_s\cap U_\ell\mathfrak{h}_s)$ is the
span of all $S(\tau,1,1)^{-1}\phi\in H$ such that $\phi$ is a homogeneous
class satisfying
\ben
\lceil \operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR} (\phi)\rceil= n-1-\ell,\quad
\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR} (\phi)+\alpha\in \mathbb{Z}.
\een
Recall the homogeneity condition for $S(\tau,Q,z)$:
\ben
(z\partial_z + E) S(\tau,Q,z) = [\theta,S(\tau,Q,z)].
\een
It follows that $S(\tau,1,1)=1+\sum_{k=1}^\infty S_k(\tau,1)$, where
each operator $S_k(\tau,1)$ increases the degree by $k$.
Since
\ben
U_\ell=\bigoplus_{\ell'\geq \ell} \bigoplus_{s} F^{\ell'}\mathfrak{h}_s\cap
U_{\ell'}\mathfrak{h}_s,
\een
we get that $\Psi(U_\ell)$ is spanned by homogeneous classes $\phi$ in
$H$ such that
\beq\label{U-deg}
\lceil \operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR} (\phi)\rceil\geq n-1-\ell.
\eeq
Let us determine the images of the weight filtrations.
We already proved that $\Psi\circ N_{\rm mar} = p\cup \, \Psi$
(see Lemma \ref{M_mar}). Using the identity
\ben
L_i\widehat{s}(\omega_\be,z) = \eta_i^{-\be^{(i)}}
\widehat{s}(\omega_\be,z)|_{Q\mapsto \eta_iQ},
\een
where $\omega_\be= x^\be dx/Q$ and the definition of $\Psi$ (see
\eqref{psi-def}), it is easy to check that
$\Psi\circ (L_iM_{\rm mar}^{1/d_i}) = J_i \circ \Psi$,
where $J_i:H\to H$ is the linear operator defined by
\ben
J_i (p^k\mathbf{1}_c) = e^{-2\pi\sqrt{-1} c_i} \, p^k\mathbf{1}_c.
\een
Therefore, we have $\Psi(\mathfrak{h}_\be)=H(Y_\be;\mathbb{C})$, where
$Y_\be$ is the twisted sector corresponding to $c=(c_1,\dots,c_n)$, with
$c_i=\be^{(i)}/d_i$. The weight filtration of the triple $(H(Y_\be;\mathbb{C})
,m_\be,p\cup)$ is straightforward to find. We get that $\Psi(W^\be_{2\ell})$
is spanned by homogeneous classes $\phi\in H$, such that
\ben
\operatorname{deg}(\phi)\geq \frac{1}{2}\Big( \operatorname{dim}(Y_\be)+m_\be\Big)-\ell,
\een
where if $\phi$ is a class of (usual) real degree $2i$, then
$\operatorname{deg}(\phi)=i$. Note that
\beq\label{wt-deg}
\operatorname{deg}_{\rm CR}(\phi) =\operatorname{deg}(\phi)
+\deg(\be).
\eeq
Comparing the inequalities \eqref{U-deg} and \eqref{wt-deg} we see
that they are equivalent when
$m_\be=n+|\{i\ :\ \be^{(i)}\neq 0\}|-2\lceil\deg(\be)\rceil.$
\qed
\section{Mirror symmetry for Fermat CY singularities}
Now we discuss the mirror symmetry on the LG side.
In \cite{HLSW}, He-Li-Shen-Webb identified the FJRW ancestor potential (LG A-model) of invertible quasi-homogeneous polynomial singularities to the Saito-Givental ancestor potential (LG B-model) of the mirror polynomials, by using Givental-Teleman's \cite{G1, Te} unique higher genus formula for semisimple Frobenius manifolds and matching Frobenius manifolds on both sides via WDVV equations and a perturbative formula in \cite{LLS}.
In this section, inspired from toric geometry, we establish a mirror symmetry statement of $\mathcal{D}$-module structures and opposite subspaces between FJRW theory and Saito's theory for Fermat CY singularities.
For Fermat CY singularities, our result recovers He-Li-Shen-Webb's result. More general cases remain unknown due to the lack of a toric model.
\subsection{FJRW theory of Fermat CY singularities}
As before, we consider the Landau-Ginzburg side of the Fermat polynomial of Calabi-Yau type
$$W=x_1^{d_1}+\cdots+x_n^{d_n}, \quad \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{d_i}=1.$$
Let $G_W$ be the group of diagonal symmetries of $W$, so
$$G_W:=\left\{(\lambda_1,\dots,\lambda_n)\in(\mathbb{C}^*)^n\Big\vert\,W(\lambda_1x_1,\dots,\lambda_nx_n)=W(x_1,\dots,x_n)\right\}\cong\prod_{i=1}^{n}\boldsymbol{\mu}_{d_i}.$$
For each $\gamma\in G_W$, there exist unique $\{\Theta_\gamma^{(i)}\in [0, 1)\cap\mathbb{Q}\}$, such that
$$\gamma=\left(\exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1} \Theta_\gamma^{(1)}),\cdots, \exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1} \Theta_\gamma^{(n)})\right).$$
A mathematical construction of the LG model for a generic pair $(W,G_W)$ is given by Fan, Jarvis, and Ruan \cite{FJR, FJR2}, based on a proposal of Witten \cite{W2}. More generally, the group $G_W$ can be replaced by any subgroup that contains the exponential grading element
\begin{equation}\label{exponential-element}
j_W:=\left(\exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1}/d_1), \cdots, \exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1}/d_n)\right).
\end{equation}
In this paper, we only focus on the pair
$$\left(W=x_1^{d_1}+\cdots+x_n^{d_n}, \quad G_W\right).$$
Its {\rm FJRW} theory consists of a graded vector space $H_W$ (called {\rm FJRW} state space), and a Cohomological Field Theory $\{\Lambda^W_{g,k}\}$.
We recall some basics in this section and refer the readers as to \cite{FJR} for more details.
Each $\gamma\in G_W$ acts on $\C^n$ by homothesis and we denote ${\rm Fix}(\gamma)\subset\C^n$ the fix locus of $\gamma$. Let $W_\gamma$ be the restriction of $W$ on ${\rm Fix}(\gamma)$.
Each $\gamma$-twisted sector $H_\gamma$ consists of $G_W$-invariant part of the middle-dimensional relative cohomology for $W_\gamma$.
$$H_{\gamma}:=\left( H^*({\rm Fix}(\gamma), (\Re W_\gamma)^{-1} (-\infty, -M); \C)\right)^{G_W}, \quad M\gg0.$$
Here $H_\gamma$ is called \emph{narrow} if ${\rm Fix}(\gamma)={\bf 0}\in \C^n$ and is called \emph{broad} otherwise.
Each narrow sector is canonically isomorphic to $\C$,
$$H_\gamma:=H^*(\{\bf 0\}, \emptyset; \C)\cong\C.$$
We denote $\one_\gamma$ the canonical generator in $1\in\C\cong H_\gamma$.
In particular, since $W$ is Fermat CY singularity, the {\rm FJRW state space} is given by
\begin{equation*}
H_{W}=\bigoplus_{\gamma\in\mathscr{N}} H_{\gamma}\cong\bigoplus_{\gamma\in \mathscr{N}}\mathbb{C}\cdot \one_\gamma,
\end{equation*}
where $\gamma$ belongs to the set of narrow elements
\begin{equation}\label{narrow-element}
\mathscr{N}:=\left\{\gamma\in G_W\Big| 1\leq d_j\Theta_\gamma^{(j)}\leq d_j-1,\forall 1\leq j\leq n\right\}.
\end{equation}
The cardinality of $\mathscr{N}$ is $N:=\prod_{j=1}^{n}(d_j-1)$, hence $H_{W}$ is a vector space of rank $N$.
Moreover, $(H_{W}, \deg_W)$ is a graded vector space, where
\begin{equation}\label{fjrw-degree}
\deg_{W}\one_\gamma:=\sum_{j=1}^n\left(\Theta_\gamma^{(j)}-\frac{1}{d_j}\right).
\end{equation}
For each $\gamma\in\mathscr{N}$, we define its involution $\gamma'\in\mathscr{N}$ by
$$\Theta_{\gamma'}^{(j)}:=1-\Theta_{\gamma}^{(j)}.$$
Let $\delta_{(-)}^{(-)}$ be the Kronecker symbol. Then $H_W$ has a non-degenerate pairing $\eta_W$, where
\begin{equation}\label{fjrw-pairing}
\eta_W(\one_\alpha,\one_{\beta})=\delta_{\alpha}^{\beta'}, \quad \forall \alpha, \beta\in\mathscr{N}.
\end{equation}
The triple $(H_W, \deg_W, \eta_W)$ has a Cohomological Field Theory $\{\Lambda^W_{g,k}\}$ \cite[Definition 4.2.1]{FJR}, which consists of multilinear maps
$$\Lambda^W_{g,k}: H_W^{\otimes k}\to H^*(\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,k}, \C).$$
Here the stability condition is $2g-2+k>0$.
Letting $\gamma_j\in \mathscr{N}$, $\ell_j\geq0$, and $\bar{\psi}_j\in H^*(\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,k}, \mathbb{C})$ be the $j$-th $\bar{\psi}$-class, we have the following \emph{FJRW invariant}
\begin{equation}\label{fjrw-inv}
\lan\one_{\gamma_1}\bar{\psi}_1^{\ell_1},\cdots,\one_{\gamma_k}\bar{\psi}_k^{\ell_k}\ran_{g,k}^{W}
:=\int_{\overline{\mathcal{M}}_{g,k}}\Lambda_{g,k}^{W}(\one_{\gamma_1},\cdots, \one_{\gamma_k}) \prod_{j=1}^k\bar{\psi}_j^{\ell_j}\,.
\end{equation}
Similarly as in GW theory, for any $\tau\in H_W$, we can define a formal function
\begin{equation}\label{formal-fjrw}
\llangle[\Big]\one_{\gamma_1}\bar{\psi}_1^{\ell_1},\cdots,\one_{\gamma_k}\bar{\psi}_k^{\ell_k}\rrangle[\Big]_{g,k}^{W}(\tau):=\sum_{m\geq0}\frac{1}{m!}\lan\one_{\gamma_1}\bar{\psi}_1^{\ell_1},\cdots,\one_{\gamma_k}\bar{\psi}_k^{\ell_k}, \tau, \cdots, \tau\ran_{g,k+m}^{W}.
\end{equation}
We remark that here the stable condition is $2g-2+k+m>0$.
The quantum multiplication $\bullet_\tau$ is given by
$$\eta_W\left(\one_\alpha\bullet_\tau\one_\beta, \one_\gamma\right)=\llangle[\Big]\one_\alpha,\one_\beta,\one_\gamma\rrangle[\Big]_{0,3}^W(\tau).$$
The product $\bullet_\tau$ has an identity $\one:=\one_{j_W}$ with $j_W$ defined in \eqref{exponential-element}.
Again we introduce a set of formal variables $\mathbf{t}=\{t_{k,i}\}$, $1\leq i\leq N$,
$k\geq 0$. We introduce a genus-$g$ generating function
\ben
\overline{\cF}^{(g)}_{\tau, W}(\mathbf{t}) =
\sum
\frac{1}{k!}
\llangle[\Big] \mathbf{t}(\bar{\psi}),\dots,\mathbf{t}(\bar{\psi})\rrangle[\Big]_{g,k}^W(\tau)
\een
and the \emph{total ancestor potential}
\ben
\mathcal{A}_\tau^W(\hbar;\mathbf{t}) := \exp \left(
\sum_{g=0}^\infty \hbar^{g-1}\,\overline{\cF}_{\tau,W}^{(g)}(\mathbf{t})\right).
\een
\subsubsection{J-function}
Let $\mathcal{H}_W:=H_W(\!(z^{-1})\!)$ be the infinite vector space. Let us consider the Darboux coordinate s
$${\bf p}(z)=\sum_{k\geq0}\sum_{\alpha}p_k^{\alpha}\one_\alpha z^{-k-1}, \quad {\bf q}(z)=\sum_{k\geq0}\sum_{\alpha}q_k^{\alpha}\one_\alpha z^{k}.$$
We may write an element in $\mathcal{H}_W$ as
$$f(z)=\sum_{k\geq0}\sum_{\alpha} q_{k}^{\alpha}\one_{\alpha} z^k+\sum_{k<0}\sum_{\alpha} p_{k}^{\alpha}\one_{\alpha} z^k.$$
The infinite dimensional vector space $\mathcal{H}_W$ is equipped with a symplectic pairing
$$\Omega_W\Big(f(z), g(z)\Big)={\rm Res}_{z=0}\,\eta_W(f(-z), g(z))dz.$$
We have $\mathcal{H}_W=\mathcal{H}_W^+\oplus\mathcal{H}_W^-$ where $\mathcal{H}_W^+=H_W[\![z]\!]$ and $\mathcal{H}_W^{-}:=z^{-1}H_W[z^{-1}]$ are Lagrangian subspaces.
Since $\mathcal{H}\cong T^*\mathcal{H}_W^+$, after the \emph{dilation shift}
${\bf q}(z)=-z\one+{\bf t}(z),$
the graph of the genus zero generating function $\overline{\cF}_W^{(0)}$ defines a formal germ of Lagrangian submanifold $\mathcal{L}_W$ in $\mathcal{H}_W$,
$$\mathcal{L}_W: =\left\{ ({\bf p, q})\in T^*\mathcal{H}_W^+: {\bf p}=d_{\bf q}\overline{\cF}_W^{(0)}\right\}.$$
For each $\tau\in H_W$, we can define an FJRW J-function
\begin{equation}\label{lg-j-function}
J_{\rm FJRW}(\tau,z):=z+\tau+\sum_{k=0}^\infty\sum_\gamma\llangle[\Big]\one_\gamma\bar\psi^k\rrangle[\Big]_{0,1}^W(\tau)\ \one_{\gamma'}\,z^{-k-1}.
\end{equation}
It is standard to check that
\begin{lemma}\label{j-function-cone}
The J-function $J_{\rm FJRW}(\tau,-z)$ belongs to $\mathcal{L}_W$.
\end{lemma}
We define the calibration operator $S_W(\tau,z)$ in FJRW theory by
$$\eta_W(S_W(\tau, z)\one_\alpha, \one_\beta)=\eta_W(\one_\alpha,\one_\beta)+\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\llangle[\Big]\one_\alpha\bar\psi^k,\one_\beta\rrangle[\Big]^{W}_{0,2}(\tau)\,z^{-k-1}.$$
Again, use String Equation, we can also rewrite the J-function as follows:
\begin{equation}\label{j-func-s}
J_{\rm FJRW}(\tau,-z)=-z\,S_W(\tau, z)^{-1}\one.
\end{equation}
\subsection{I-function in FJRW theory}
Now we introduce an FJRW $I$-function $I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)$ in \eqref{I-function} via toric geometry. This $I$-function lies on the FJRW Langrangian cone, and Birkhoff factorization of the $I$-function will induce a mirror map \eqref{lg-mirror-map}.
\subsubsection{Toric setup and an {\rm FJRW} I-function.}
Let $\{b_0, b_1,\cdots, b_n\}$ be vectors in $\Z^n$ such that
$$b_0=(1,\cdots,1), \quad b_i^{(j)}=\delta_i^j\, d_i, \quad \forall j=1,\cdots,n.$$
Let $\mathfrak{S}$ is be a set of vectors in $\Z^n$, $$\mathfrak{S}=\mathfrak{R}\coprod \mathfrak{B}, \quad \mathfrak{R}=\{b_1, \cdots, b_n\}$$
and $\mathfrak{B}$ is a set of ghost vectors
\begin{equation}\label{good-basis-lg}
\mathfrak{B}:=\left\{b=(b^{(1)}, \cdots, b^{(n)})\in \Z^n\big| 0\leq b^{(j)}\leq d_j-2, \forall j=1,\cdots, n\right\}.
\end{equation}
In LG side, we have an exact \emph{fan sequence}
\begin{equation}\label{fan-sequence}
0\to \mathbb{L}\rightarrow \mathbb{Z}^\mathfrak{S} \xrightarrow{\varphi} \mathbb{Z}^n.
\end{equation}
For each $b\in \mathfrak{S}$, the map $\varphi$ in \eqref{fan-sequence} is defined by
$$\varphi(b)=b\in\Z^n.$$
Let $\sigma$ be the cone generated by the vectors $b_1,\cdots,b_n$, and $\Psi_{\rm LG}: \sigma\cap\mathbb{Z}^n\to\mathbb{Q}^\mathfrak{S}$, where $\Psi_{\rm LG}({\bf e})=\{\Psi_{\rm LG}^b({\bf e})\}$ and the rational coefficients of $b\in \mathfrak{S}$ are given by
$$\Psi_{\rm LG}^b({\bf e})=
\left\{
\begin{array}{ll}
{\bf e}^{(j)}/d_j, & b=b_j\in \mathfrak{R};\\
0, & b\in \mathfrak{B}.
\end{array}
\right.$$
Let $\nu({\bf e})=\sum_{b\in \mathfrak{S}}\nu_b({\bf e})\, b\in \mathbb{Q}^\mathfrak{S}$ be defined by
\begin{equation}\label{nu-index}
\nu({\bf e}):=-\Psi_{\rm LG}({\bf e}+b_0)+\sum_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}\nu_b({\bf e})\,\xi_b,
\end{equation}
where for each $b\in \mathfrak{B}$, $\nu_b({\bf e})\in\Z_{\geq0}$ and
$$\xi_b:=b-\sum_{c\in R}\Psi_{\rm LG}^{c}(b)c\in \mathbb{L}_\mathbb{Q}:=\mathbb{L}\otimes_{\mathbb{Z}}\mathbb{Q}.$$
Thus for each $j=1,\cdots, n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{nu-part}
\nu_j({\bf e})=-\frac{1}{d_j}\left({\bf e}^{(j)}+1+\sum_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}\nu_b({\bf e})\, b^{(j)}\right)\in\mathbb{Q}_{<0}.
\end{equation}
For each $\nu\in \mathbb{Q}^\mathfrak{S}$, we can assign an element $\gamma_{\nu}\in G_W$
\begin{equation}\label{toric-element}
\gamma_{\nu}=\left(\exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1}\langle-\nu_1\rangle),\cdots,\exp(2\pi\sqrt{-1}\langle-\nu_n\rangle)\right)\in G_W.
\end{equation}
Let $t^{(-)}: \mathbb{L}\to\mathbb{C}$ be a formal function given by
$$t^{\Psi_{\rm LG}({\bf e}+b_0)+\nu}:=\prod_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}t_b^{\nu_b}.$$
Recalling the definition of $\nu$ in \eqref{nu-index}, we define the box element $\Box_{\nu,z}$ to be
\begin{equation}\label{box-element}
\Box_{\nu,z}:=\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{n}\prod_{k=1}^{\lf-\nu_j\rf} \left(\nu_j+k\right)z}{\prod_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}\prod_{k=1}^{\nu_b}(kz)}.
\end{equation}
If there exists $j\in\{1,\cdots,n\}$ such that $-\nu_j\in\mathbb{Z}$, then $\Box_{\nu,z}=0$. Thus for $\Box_{\nu,z}\neq0$, we know $\gamma_\nu\in\mathscr{N}$, and it makes sense to introduce
\begin{equation}
I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t,z)=
\sum_{\nu\in\mathbb{Q}^S}
\left(\prod_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}t_b^{\nu_b}\right)
\,\Box_{\nu,z}
\,\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}
\in H_{W}[\![t]\!](\!(z)\!).
\end{equation}
Here $H_W[\![t]\!]:=H_W\otimes_{\C}\C[\![t_b;b\in \mathfrak{B}]\!]$.
Taking ${\bf e}=0$, we get the $I$-function in the LG side:
\begin{equation}\label{I-function}
I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)=
\sum_{\nu}
\left(\prod_{b\in \mathfrak{B}} t_b^{\nu_b}\right)\,\Box_{\nu,z}\,
\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}\quad\in H_W[\![t]\!](\!(z)\!).
\end{equation}
Now we assign the following degree:
$$\deg_W t_b=1-\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{b^{(j)}}{d_j}, \quad \deg_W z=1.$$
When we apply \eqref{nu-part} and \eqref{fjrw-degree}, we see that each term in $I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t,z)$ has degree
\begin{eqnarray*}
\deg_W \left(\prod_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}t_b^{\nu_b}
\,\Box_{\nu,z}
\,\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}\right)
&=&\sum_{b\in\mathfrak{B}}\nu_b\left(1-\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{b^{(j)}}{d_j}\right)+
\sum_{j=1}^{n}\lf-\nu_j\rf
-\sum_{b\in\mathfrak{B}}\nu_b
+\sum_{j=1}^{n}\left(\langle-\nu_j\rangle-\frac{1}{d_j}\right)\\
&=&\sum_{j=1}^{n}\frac{{\bf e}^{(j)}}{d_j}.
\end{eqnarray*}
This depends on ${\bf e}$ only, so we know $I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)$ is homogeneous of degree zero; i.e.,
\begin{equation}\label{i-func-deg}
\deg_W\left(I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)\right)=0.
\end{equation}
Following \cite[Section 2.3]{CCIT}, we say $F(y)$ is an \textit{$\mathcal{H}_W[\![y]\!]$-valued point} in the Lagrangian cone $\mathcal{L}_W$ if
\begin{equation}\label{lag-point}
F(y)=-z\one+{\bf t}(z)+\sum_{\gamma\in H_W}\llangle[\Big]\frac{\one_\gamma}{-z-\psi}\rrangle[\Big]^{W}_{0,1}({\bf t})\ \one_{\gamma'}\in \mathcal{H}_W[\![y]\!]
\end{equation}
for some ${\bf t}(z)\in \mathcal{H}_W^+[\![y]\!]$ such that ${\bf t}(z)|_{y=0}=0$.
The following result is known to experts.
\begin{proposition}
\label{lg:mirror}
The formal function $-z\,I_{\rm LG}^0(t,-z)$ is an $\mathcal{H}_W[\![t]\!]$-valued point in the Lagrangian cone $\mathcal{L}_W$.
\end{proposition}
One way to prove this statement is generalizing the method of twisted FJRW theory in \cite{CHR2}.
For the readers' convenience, we give a proof in Appendix \ref{appendix} using localization computation, following the method of Ross and Ruan \cite{RR}.
\subsubsection{Convergence of the I-function in LG side}
Let $e_i\in\Z^n$ be the $i$-th standard vector; i.e. $e_i^{(j)}=\delta_i^j$, $i=1,\cdots, n$.
Let $t_i$ be the parameter of $e_i$. From now on, we let $\sigma$ be the parameter of $b_0=(1,\cdots,1)\in\Z^n$.
We restrict $I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)$ to the following subspace of $\C^{\mathfrak{B}}\times\C\ni(\{t_b\}_{b\in\mathfrak{B}},z)$:
$$\C^{n+1}\times\C\ni (t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma,z).$$
We denote the restriction by
$I_{\rm LG}^0(t_1,\cdots, t_n, \sigma,z).$
From to \eqref{i-func-deg}, we know
$$\deg_W\left(I_{\rm LG}^0(t_1,\cdots, t_n, \sigma,z)\right)=0.$$
On the other hand, since
$$\deg_W t_i=1-\frac{1}{d_i}>0, \quad \deg_W (\sigma)=0, \quad \deg_W z=1, \quad 0\leq\deg_W\one_\gamma\leq n-2,$$
we can rewrite the function $I_{\rm LG}^0(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma,z)$ as
$$I_{\rm LG}^0(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma,z)=\sum_{k=0}I^W_{k}(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma)z^{-k+1}\in H_W[\![t_1,\cdots,t_n, \sigma]\!][\![z^{-1}]\!].$$
Hence $I^W_{0}(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma)$ is homogeneous of degree zero. If $D=l.c.m(d_1,\cdots, d_n)$, then
\begin{equation}\label{birkhoff-positive}
I^W_{0}(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma)=f_0^W(\sigma)\,\one:=\left(1+\sum_{m\geq1}\frac{\sigma^{mD}}{(mD)!}\prod_{j=1}^{n}\prod_{k=1}^{mD/d_j}\left(k-\frac{mD+1}{d_j}\right)\right)\one.
\end{equation}
The ratio test shows that $f_0^W(\sigma)$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $\sigma=0$. Further more, we have the following convergence result.
\begin{corollary}\label{convergence-cor}
For each $k\geq0$, $I^W_{k}(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma)\in H_W[t_1,\cdots,t_n]\{\sigma\}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
The polynomiality of $t_1, \cdots, t_n$ follows from degree counting and $\deg_W t_i>0$ for each $i=1,\cdots, n$. For any fixed homogeneous element in $H_W[t_1,\cdots,t_n]$, we can use the ratio test to obtain the analyticity of $\sigma$ a neighborhood of $\sigma=0$.
\end{proof}
More generally, recall that $W=x_1^{d_1}+\cdots+x_n^{d_n}$ is an element in $\mathcal{M}$ in \eqref{eq:universal_polynomial}.
We define
$$\mathfrak{B}_{\rm rel}=\{b\in\mathfrak{B}|\deg_W t_b>0\}, \quad \mathfrak{B}_{\rm mar}=\{b\in\mathfrak{B}|\deg_W t_b=0\}.$$
We may consider a neighborhood of $W\in\mathcal{M}$ consisting of
$$W+\sum_{b\in \mathfrak{B}_{\rm rel}\cap\mathfrak{B}_{\rm mar}}t_b x^b, \quad |t_b|<\delta\quad \textit{if}\quad b\in \mathfrak{B}_{\rm mar}.$$
We denote this neighborhood by $\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}$,
$$\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}\cong\C^{\mathfrak{B}_{\rm rel}}\times\Delta_\delta^{\mathfrak{B}_{\rm mar}}.$$
If $\delta$ is sufficiently small, then a discussion similar to that in Corollary \ref{convergence-cor} shows
\begin{equation}\label{convergence-i}
I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)|_{\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}}\in H_W\otimes_{\C}\mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}}[\![z^{-1}]\!].
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{Mirror map}
The Birkhoff factorization allows us to rewrite $I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)$ as
\begin{equation}\label{birkhoff-lg}
I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)=\mathfrak{L}(t,z)\Upsilon_{\rm LG}(t,z),
\end{equation}
with
$$\Upsilon_{\rm LG}(t,z)\in\mathcal{H}_W^+[\![t]\!] \quad \textit{and} \quad \mathfrak{L}(t,z):=1+\sum_{k\geq1}\mathfrak{L}_k(t)\,z^{-k}\in {\rm End}(H_W[\![t]\!])[\![z^{-1}]\!].$$
A mirror map $\tau: \C^{\mathfrak{B}}\to H_W[\![t]\!]$ is given by
\begin{equation}\label{lg-mirror-map}
\tau(t):=\mathfrak{L}_1(t)({\bf 1})\in H_W[\![t]\!].
\end{equation}
By \eqref{convergence-i}, the restriction of $I_{\rm LG}^0(t,z)$ to ${\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}}$ will imply
$$\Upsilon_{\rm LG}(t,z)|_{\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}}\in \mathcal{O}_{\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}} \cdot\one,$$
and the mirror map restricts to an analytic map
\begin{equation}\label{lg-map}
\tau: {\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}}\longrightarrow H_W.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}
In particular, if we restrict to the $(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma)$-plane, then
$$\Upsilon_{\rm LG}(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma,z)=f_0^W(\sigma)\,\one,$$
where $f_0^W(\sigma)$ is given in \eqref{birkhoff-positive}, and the mirror map restricts to
$$\tau(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma)=\frac{I^W_{1}(t_1,\cdots,t_n,\sigma)}{f_0^W(\sigma)}\in H_W^{\leq1}[t_1,\cdots,t_n]\{\sigma\}.$$
Here $H_W^{\leq1}$ are the elements of $H_W$ with $\deg_W\leq1$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Mirror symmetry to FJRW theory}
\iffalse
\subsubsection{A $\mathcal{D}$-module in {\rm FJRW} theory.}
The Gale dual of the sequence \eqref{fan-sequence} will induce a map
$$\pi:M_S^{\times}:=\{(c_b), b\in S, c_b\neq0\}\cong(\C^{\times})^S\rightarrow\mathbb{L}^{\times}\otimes\C^{\times}.$$
Thus we will consider the function
$$\Delta_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}:=c^{-\Psi_{\rm LG}({\bf e}+b_0)}\pi^* I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}.$$
\begin{lemma}
The set $\{\Delta_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}\}$ satisfies the following differential equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
z\frac{\partial}{\partial c_b}\Delta_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}&=&\Delta_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}+b},\\
z{\bf e}^i\Delta_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}-e_i}+\sum_{b\in S}b^i c_b \Delta_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}+b-e_i}&=&0.
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\end{proof}
As a corollary, we can obtain $\pi^* I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}$ by applying differential operator on $\pi^* I_{\rm LG}^{\bf 0}$:
$$\pi^* I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}=\left[c^{\Psi_{\rm LG}({\bf e}+b_0)} \prod_{b\in S}(z\frac{\partial}{\partial c_b})^{k_b} c^{-\Psi_{\rm LG}(b_0)} \right]\pi^* I_{\rm LG}^{\bf 0},$$
where ${\bf e}=\sum_{b\in S}k_b\,b.$ We rewrite the differential operators using $y$-variables and denote it by
$$I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}=P_{\bf e}(y, zy\frac{\partial}{\partial y}, z)\,I_{\rm LG}^{\bf 0}.$$
Use these differential operators and the Birkhoff factorization \eqref{birkhoff-lg}, we obtain
$$
I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(y,z)=L(\tau(y), z)^{-1} \Upsilon^{\bf e}_{\rm LG}(y,z),$$
where
$$\Upsilon^{\bf e}_{\rm LG}(y,z)=P_{\bf e}(y, z\tau^*\nabla, z) \Upsilon_{\rm LG}(y,z)$$
where $\nabla$ is the quantum connection on $H_W$??
Based on Proposition \ref{lg:mirror}, we define
\begin{equation}\label{mirror-lg-dmod}
\operatorname{Loc}_{W}: H_{\rm twdR}(W)\to \mathcal{H}_+, \quad [x^{\bf e} dx]\mapsto c^{-\Psi_{\rm LG}({\bf e}+b_0)}\Upsilon_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(\pi(c))
\end{equation}
This is a $\mathcal{D}$-module isomorphism.
\fi
\subsubsection{An isomorphism between $\mathcal{D}$-modules}
Let $\mathcal{T}_W$ be the tangent spaces of $\mathcal{L}_W$ and $d$ be the trivial connection.
We pull back via the mirror map in \eqref{lg-map} to get a $\mathcal{D}$-module over $\mathcal{M}_{{\rm LG}, \delta}$, which we denote again by $(\mathcal{T}_W, d)$.
Here
$$\mathcal{D}:=\C[z][\![t_b\colon b\in\mathfrak{B}]\!]\lan z\partial_{t_b}\colon b\in\mathfrak{B}\ran.$$
We obtain another $\mathcal{D}$-module over $H_W$, denoted by $(\mathcal{T}_W(-z), d)$. It is obtained by the following transformation
\begin{equation}\label{sign-change}
\mathcal{T}_W\xrightarrow{S_W(\tau,z)} \mathcal{H}_W^+\xrightarrow{z\mapsto -z} \mathcal{H}_W^+\xrightarrow{S_W(\tau,z)^{-1}}\mathcal{T}_W(-z).
\end{equation}
Now we construct a $\mathcal{D}$-module isomorphism between $(\hHH_+(W), \nabla)$ and $(\mathcal{T}_W(-z), d)$.
\begin{lemma}\label{gkz-lg}
The set $\{I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t, z)|{\bf e}\in \Z_{\geq0}^n\}$ satisfies the following differential equations:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&z\partial_{t_b} I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t, z)=I_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}+b}(t, z), \quad \forall b\in \mathfrak{B}; \label{gkz-lg1}
\\
&&z({\bf e}^{(i)}+1)\,I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t, z)+\sum_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}b^{(i)}t_b\,I_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}+b}(t, z)+\sum_{j=1}^n\,b_j^{(i)}\,I_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}+b_j}(t, z)=0.\label{gkz-lg2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Recalling \eqref{nu-part}, we will simply denote $\nu=\nu({\bf e})$, $\nu'=\nu({\bf e}+b)$ and $\nu''=\nu({\bf e}+b_j)$.
For the first equation, we shall compare the coefficient of $t_b^{\nu_b-1}\prod_{c\neq b}t_c^{\nu_c}$ on both sides. The corresponding vector $\{\nu_c'\}_{c\in \mathfrak{B}}$ on the right hand side should satisfy
\begin{equation}\label{gkz-lg1}
\nu_c'=\nu_c-\delta_c^b, \quad c\in \mathfrak{B}.
\end{equation}
Both coefficients are $0$ when $\nu_b=0$, and thus it is enough to match them when $\nu_b\geq1$.
When $\nu_b\geq1$, on the right hand side, similar to \eqref{nu-part}, we have
$$\nu_j'=-\frac{1}{d_j}\left({\bf e}^{(j)}+b^{(j)}+1+\sum_{c\in \mathfrak{B}}\nu_c' c^{(j)}\right)\in\mathbb{Q}_{<0}.$$
Equation \eqref{gkz-lg1} implies
$\nu_j'=\nu_j$ and
$$\Box_{\nu',z}=\frac{\prod_{j=1}^{n}\prod_{k=1}^{\lf-\nu_j'\rf}(\nu_j'z+kz)}{\prod_{c\in G}\prod_{k=1}^{\nu_c'}(kz)}=(\nu_bz)\Box_{\nu,z}.$$
Thus the coefficient of $t_b^{\nu_b-1}\prod_{c\neq b}t_c^{\nu_c}$ on the right hand side is
$$\Box_{\nu',z}\one_{\nu'}=(\nu_bz)\Box_{\nu, z}\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}.$$
Now let us prove the second identity. There are three terms and we will consider the coefficient of $\prod_{c\in \mathfrak{B}}t_c^{\nu_c}$ for a fixed vector $\nu=\{\nu_c\}_{c\in \mathfrak{B}}$. For each $b\in \mathfrak{B}$, the contribution from $I_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}+b}(t, z)$ comes from the vector $\{\nu_c'\}_{c\in \mathfrak{B}}$ such that
$$
\nu_c'=\nu_c-\delta_c^b, \quad \forall c\in \mathfrak{S}.
$$
For each $j$, the contribution from $I_{\rm LG}^{{\bf e}+b_j}(t, z)$ comes from the vector $\{\nu_c''\}_{c\in \mathfrak{B}}$ such that
$$
\nu_c''=\nu_c-\delta_c^j, \quad \forall c\in \mathfrak{S}.
$$
\iffalse
$$
\nu_c'=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\nu_c-\delta_c^b, &\textit{if} & c\in \mathfrak{B};\\
\nu_j, & \textit{if} & 1\leq c=j\leq n.
\end{array}
\right.
$$
$$
\nu_c''=
\left\{
\begin{array}{lll}
\nu_c, &\textit{if} & c\in G;\\
\nu_j-1, & \textit{if} & 1\leq c=j\leq n;\\
\nu_i, & \textit{if} & c=i\neq j, 1\leq i\leq n.
\end{array}
\right.$$
\fi
Thus
$$\Box_{\nu',z}\one_{\gamma_{\nu'}}=(\nu_bz)\Box_{\nu,z}\one_{\gamma_{\nu}},\quad \Box_{\nu'',z}\one_{\gamma_{\nu''}}=(\nu_jz)\Box_{\nu,z}\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}.$$
Put everything together, the coefficient of $\prod_{c\in \mathfrak{B}}t_c^{\nu_c}$ of the LHS in \eqref{gkz-lg2} is given by
$$\left(z({\bf e}^{(i)}+1)+\sum_{b\in \mathfrak{B}}b^{(i)}\nu_bz+\sum_{j=1}^{n}b_j^{(i)}\nu_jz\right)
\Box_{\nu,z}\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}.$$
Since $b_j^{(i)}=d_j\delta_j^i$, Equation \eqref{nu-part} implies that the formula above vanishes.
Finally, we check the constant term in equation \eqref{gkz-lg2}. The constant in the second term vanishes by definition. The remaining two terms give
$$\left(z({\bf e}^{(i)}+1)+\sum_{j=1}^{n}b_j^{(i)}\nu_jz\right)
\Box_{\nu, z}\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}=0.$$
This again follows from Equation \eqref{nu-part}, where now $\nu_b=0$ for all $b\in \mathfrak{B}$.
\end{proof}
Using \eqref{sign-change}, \eqref{gkz-lg1}, and Proposition \ref{lg:mirror}, we see that $-I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t, z)\in\mathcal{T}_W(-z)$.
\begin{proposition}\label{lg:d-module}
The following map
\begin{equation}\label{mirror-map-lg}
\operatorname{Mir}_{W}: \hHH_+(W)\to \mathcal{T}_W(-z), \quad \quad [x^{\bf e} dx]\mapsto -I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t,z).
\end{equation}
extends to a $\mathcal{D}$-module isomorphism between $(\hHH_+(W), \nabla)$ and $(\mathcal{T}_W(-z), d)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The surjectivity is obvious and the injectivity is a consequence of Equation \eqref{gkz-lg2}. The result follows since both $\mathcal{D}$-modules has the same rank.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Matching pairings.}
We extend the pairing $\eta_W$ in \eqref{fjrw-pairing} $\C[\![z]\!]$-linearly, and still denote the extension by $\eta_W: H_W[\![z]\!]\times H_W[\![z]\!]\to\C[\![z]\!].$ We define
$$\widetilde{K}_W: \hHH_+(W)\times \hHH_+(W)\to \C[\![z]\!],$$
by
$$\widetilde{K}_W\left(\omega_1,\omega_2\right):=\eta_W\left(\operatorname{Mir}_{W}(\omega_1),\operatorname{Mir}_{W}(\omega_2)^*\right).$$
For Fermat singularities $W:=x_1^{d_1}+\cdots+x_n^{d_n}$, we recall the set $\mathfrak{B}$ in \eqref{good-basis-lg}.
The set $\{[x^{b}dx]\in \hHH_+(W)\mid b\in\mathfrak{B}\}$ forms a good basis \cite[Theorem 2.10]{HLSW}, and
$$K_W([x^{b}dx], [x^{c}dx])=\delta_{b}^{c}.$$
We identify the set $\mathfrak{B}$ with $\mathscr{N}$, the set of indicies of narrow elements in FJRW theory, by a {\em shifting map} as follows.
\begin{equation}\label{shift-index}
{\rm Sh}:\mathfrak{B}\to\mathscr{N},
\end{equation}
such that ${\rm Sh}(b)=\gamma\in\mathscr{N},$ where $\Theta_\gamma^{(j)}=\frac{b^{(j)}+1}{d_j}$.
\begin{proposition}\label{lg:pairing}
For any $b, c\in\mathfrak{B}$, we have
$$K_W([x^b dx], [x^{c}dx])=\widetilde{K}_W([x^{b}dx], [x^{c}dx]).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
To prove the mirror map \eqref{mirror-map-lg} preserves the pairing, it suffices to verify
\begin{equation}\label{i-function-constant}
\eta_W\left(-I_{\rm LG}^{b}(t,z)\mid_{t=0}, -I_{\rm LG}^{c}(t, -z)\mid_{t=0}\right)=\delta_{b}^{c}.
\end{equation}
Now let us compute $I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t,z)$ when $t=0$. According to Equation \eqref{nu-part},
$$\nu=\sum_{j=1}^n\left(-\frac{{\bf e}^{(j)}+1}{d_j}\right)b_j.$$
Thus when $\mathbf{e}\in\mathfrak{B}$, using \eqref{box-element}, a direct calculation will show:
$$
I_{\rm LG}^{\bf e}(t=0,z)=
\one_{\gamma_{\nu}}
$$
And Equation \eqref{i-function-constant} follows.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Matching opposite subspaces.}
The vector space of the good basis
$$H_{\mathfrak{B}}:=\{[x^{b}dx]\in \hHH_+(W)\mid b\in\mathfrak{B}\}$$ induces an opposite subspace $P_{\mathfrak{B}}$ in $\hHH(W)$. Recalling \eqref{opposite-good} in Section \ref{opposite-section}, we have
$$P_{\mathfrak{B}}=H_{\mathfrak{B}}[z^{-1}]z^{-1}.$$
On the other hand, $H_W(\!(z)\!)$ has a natural opposite subspace $H_W[z^{-1}]z^{-1}.$ Then the restriction of $\operatorname{Mir}_{W}$ on $H_{\mathfrak{B}}$ is induced by the shifting map \eqref{shift-index}
$$\operatorname{Mir}_{W}: H_{\mathfrak{B}}\to H_W, \quad [x^{b}dx]\mapsto-\one_{{\rm Sh}(b)}.$$
It is easy to see that
\begin{proposition}\label{lg:opposite}
The map $\operatorname{Mir}_{W}$ matches the opposite subspaces $P_{\mathfrak{B}}$ with $H_W[z^{-1}]z^{-1}$.
\end{proposition}
\subsection{Proof of main theorem}
Recall our main theorem:
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:main}
Suppose that $W$ is a Fermat polynomial
$$W=x_1^{d_1}+\cdots+x_n^{d_n}, \quad \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{1}{d_i}=1.$$
Hence $X_W$ defines a Calabi-Yau hypersurface. Then,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(1)] LG/CY correspondence conjecture holds for the pair $(W, G_W)$.
\item[(2)] The modularity conjecture holds for $[X_W/\tilde{G}_W]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The proof of modularity conjecture follows directly from the definition of B-model generating function (Definition \ref{def:amf}), which is modular but non-holomorphic; and GW-mirror theorems (Theorem \ref{CY-LG:mirror_sym}), which express B-model generating function as the anti-holomorphic completion of GW-generating function. Although our main interest is GW-theory, a similar statement holds for FJRW-theory as well.
To prove the LG-CY correspondence, we need to consider the analytic continuation of holomorphic generating function of GW/FJRW-theory. This can be
done as follows. Using two mirror theorems (Theorem \ref{CY-LG:mirror_sym}, Proposition \ref{lg:d-module}, \ref{lg:pairing}, and \ref{lg:opposite}), we identify GW/FJRW-generating function to the local generating functions near large complex structure/Gepner limits
on the B-model moduli space. Now we can use the complex coordinates (not flat coordinates) on the B-model moduli space. The GW/FJRW-generating functions
were induced by the GW/FJRW-opposite subspaces. Now, we use the Gauss-Manin connection to parallel transport the GW-opposite subspace
at the large complex structure to the Gepner limit along a path. Note that Gauss-Manin connection preserves the Givental symplectic
vector space and Givental cone, so the parallel transport of an opposite subspace will remain Lagrangian and opposite. In such a way, we obtain a holomorphic generating function in
a neighborhood of a path connecting large complex limit to Gepner limit. Namely, we construct an analytic continuation of the GW-generating function. But the
analytic continuation of the GW-generating function to the Gepner limit is not the FJRW-generating function because the parallel transport of GW-opposite subspace is different
from FJRW-opposite subspace. By Lemma 5.6, the two generating functions differ by the quantization of the symplectic transformation mapping one opposite subspace to
other.
\end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Cellular automata were introduced in the late 1940's by von Neumann as
models of computation and of biological
organisms~\cite{vneumann:generalautomata}. We follow an algebraic
treatment, as in~\cite{ceccherini-coornaert:cag}: let $G$ be a
group. A \emph{cellular automaton} carried by $G$ is a $G$-equivariant
continuous map $\Theta\colon A^G\to A^G$ for some finite set
$A$. Elements of $A^G$ are called \emph{configurations}, and the
action of $G$ on $A^G$ is given by
\[g\cdot \phi=\phi(-\cdot g)\text{ for all }\phi\in A^G,g\in G.\]
One should think of $A$ as the stateset (e.g.\ ``\textsf{asleep}'' or
``\textsf{awake}'') of a microscopic animal; then $A^G$ is the
stateset of a homogeneous swarm of animals indexed by $G$, and
$\Theta$ is an evolution rule for the swarm: it is identical for each
animal by $G$-equivariance, and is only based on local interaction by
continuity of $\Theta$. For example, fixing $f,\ell,r\in G$ the
``front'', ``left'' and ``right'' neighbours, define $\Theta$ by
``sleep if the guy in front of you sleeps, unless both your neighbours
are awake'', or in formul\ae, set for all $\phi\in A^G,g\in G$
\[\Theta(\phi)(g)=\begin{cases}\textsf{asleep} & \text{ if }\phi(f g)=\textsf{asleep}\text{ and }\{\phi(\ell g),\phi(r g)\}\ni\textsf{asleep},\\ \phi(g) & \text{ else.}\end{cases}\]
Generally speaking, the \emph{memory set} of a cellular automaton is
the minimal $S\subseteq G$ such that $\Theta(\phi)(g)$ depends only on
the restriction of $\phi$ to $Sg$, and is finite.
Two properties of cellular automata received particular attention. Let
us call \emph{pattern} the restriction of a configuration to a finite
subset $Y\subseteq G$. On the one hand, there can exist patterns that
never appear in the image of $\Theta$. These are called \emph{Gardens
of Eden} (GOE), the biblical metaphor expressing the notion of
paradise the universe may start in but never return to.
On the other hand, $\Theta$ can be non-injective in a strong sense:
there can exist patterns $\phi'_1\neq\phi'_2\in A^Y$ such that,
however one extends $\phi'_1$ to a configuration $\phi_1$, if one
extends $\phi'_2$ similarly (i.e.\ in such a way that $\phi_1$ and
$\phi_2$ have the same restriction to $G\setminus Y$) then
$\Theta(\phi_1)=\Theta(\phi_2)$. These patterns $\phi'_1,\phi'_2$ are
called \emph{Mutually Erasable Patterns} (MEP). Equivalently there
are two configurations $\phi_1,\phi_2$ which differ on a non-empty
finite set and satisfy $\Theta(\phi_1)=\Theta(\phi_2)$. The absence of
MEP is sometimes called
\emph{pre-injectivity}~\cite{gromov:endomorphisms}*{\S8.G}.
Amenability of groups was also introduced by von Neumann, in the late
1920's in~\cite{vneumann:masses}; there exist numerous formulations
(see e.g.~\cite{wagon:banachtarski}), but we content ourselves with
the following criterion due to F\o lner (see~\cite{folner:banach})
which we treat as a definition: \emph{a discrete group $G$ is amenable
if for every $\epsilon>0$ and every finite $S\subset G$ there exists
a finite $F\subseteq G$ with $\#(S F)<(1+\epsilon)\#F$.} In words,
there exist finite subsets of $G$ that are arbitrarily close to
invariant under translation.
Cellular automata were initially considered on $G=\Z^n$. Celebrated
theorems by Moore and Myhill~\cites{moore:ca,myhill:ca} prove that, in
this context, a cellular automaton admits GOE if and only if it admits
MEP; necessity is due to Myhill, and sufficiency to Moore. This result
was generalized by Mach\`\i\ and Mignosi~\cite{machi-m:ca} to groups
of subexponential growth, and by Ceccherini-Silberstein, Mach\`\i\ and
Scarabotti~\cite{ceccherini-m-s:ca} to amenable groups.
\noindent Our main result is a converse to Myhill's theorem:
\begin{thm}\label{thm:main}
Let $G$ be a non-amenable group. Then there exists a cellular
automaton carried by $G$ that admits Gardens of Eden but no mutually
erasable patterns.
\end{thm}
There is a natural measure, the \emph{Bernoulli measure}, on the
configuration space $A^G$: for every pattern $\phi\in A^Y$ it assigns
measure $1/\#A^{\#Y}$ to the clopen set
$\{\psi\in A^G:\,\psi|Y=\phi\}$. Note that the $G$-action on $A^G$
preserves this measure. Hedlund proved
in~\cite{hedlund:endomorphisms}*{Theorem~5.4}, for $G=\Z$, that a
cellular automaton preserves Bernoulli measure if and only if it has
no GOE. This result was generalized by Meyerovitch to amenable
groups~\cite{meyerovitch:finiteentropy}*{Proposition~5.1}.
Combining these with Theorem~\ref{thm:main} and with the
aforementioned results by Ceccherini-Silberstein \emph{et al.} and the
main result of~\cite{bartholdi:moore}, we deduce:
\begin{cor}\label{cor:main}
Let $G$ be a group; then the following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item the group $G$ is amenable;\label{cor:1}
\item all cellular automata on $G$ that admit MEP also admit
GOE;\label{cor:2}
\item all cellular automata on $G$ that admit GOE also admit
MEP;\label{cor:3}
\item all cellular automata on $G$ that do not preserve Bernoulli
measure admit GOE.\qed\label{cor:4}
\end{enumerate}
\end{cor}
\subsection{Origins}
Schupp had already asked in~\cite{schupp:arrays}*{Question~1} in which
precise class of groups the theorems by Moore and Myhill hold.
Ceccherini-Silberstein \emph{et al.} conjecture
in~\cite{ceccherini-m-s:ca}*{Conjecture 6.2} that
Corollary~\ref{cor:main}(1--3) are equivalent.
The implication~(3$\Rightarrow$1) is the content of
Theorem~\ref{thm:main}. In case $G$ contains a non-abelian free
subgroup, it was already shown by Muller in his University of Illinois
1976 class notes, see~\cite{machi-m:ca}*{page 55}; let us review the
construction, in the special case
$G=\langle x,y,z|x^2,y^2,z^2\rangle$. Fix a finite field $\K$, and set
$A\coloneqq\K^2$. View $A^G$ as $\K^G\times\K^G$, on which $2\times2$ matrices
with co\"efficients in the group ring $\K G$ act from the left. Define
$\Theta\colon A^G\righttoleftarrow$ by
\[\Theta(\phi)=\begin{pmatrix}x & y+z\\ 0 & 0\end{pmatrix}\phi.\]
It obviously has gardens of Eden --- any pattern with non-trivial
second co\"ordinate --- and to show that it has no mutually erasable
patterns it suffices, since $\Theta$ is linear, to show that $\Theta$
is injective on finitely-supported configurations; this is easily
achieved by considering, in the support of a configuration $\phi$, a
position $g\in G$ such that $x g$ and $y g$ don't belong to the support
of $\phi$.
\subsection*{Acknowledgments}
I am very grateful to Tullio Ceccherini-Silberstein and to Alexei
Kanel-Belov for entertaining conversations and encouragement, and to
Dawid Kielak for having contributed an appendix to the text.
\section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}}
\noindent We begin with a combinatorial
\begin{lem}\label{lem:1}
Let $n$ be an integer. Then there exists a set $Y$ and a family of
subsets $X_1,\dots,X_n$ of $Y$ such that, for all
$I\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}$ and all $i\in I$, we have
\[\#\Big(X_i\setminus\bigcup_{j\in I\setminus\{i\}}X_j\Big)\ge\frac{\#Y}{(1+\log n)\#I}.\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
We denote by $\sym n$ the symmetric group on $n$ letters. Define
\[Y\coloneqq\frac{\{1,\dots,n\}\times\sym n}{(i,\sigma)\sim(j,\sigma)\text{ if $i$ and $j$ belong to the same cycle of }\sigma};
\]
in other words, $Y$ is the set of cycles of elements of $\sym
n$. Let $X_i$ be the natural image of $\{i\}\times\sym n$ in the
quotient $Y$.
First, there are $(i-1)!$ cycles of length $i$ in $\sym i$, given by
all cyclic orderings of $\{1,\dots,i\}$; so there are
$\binom n i(i-1)!$ cycles of length $i$ in $\sym n$, and they can be
completed in $(n-i)!$ ways to a permutation of $\sym n$; so
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lem:1}
\#Y=\sum_{i=1}^n\binom n i(i-1)!(n-i)!=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{n!}i\le(1+\log n)n!
\end{equation}
since $1+1/2+\dots+1/n\le 1+\log n$ for all $n$.
Next, consider $I\subseteq\{1,\dots,n\}$ and $i\in I$, and set
$X_{i,I}\coloneqq X_i\setminus\bigcup_{j\in
I\setminus\{i\}}X_j$. Then
$X_{i,I}=\big\{(i,\sigma):(i,\sigma)\nsim(j,\sigma)\text{ for all
}j\in I\setminus\{i\}\big\}$. Summing over all possibilities for the
length-$(j+1)$ cycle $(i,t_1,\dots,t_j)$ of $\sigma$ intersecting
$I$ in $\{i\}$, we get
\begin{equation}\label{eq:lem:2}
\begin{split}
\#X_{i,I}&=\sum_{j=0}^{n-\#I}\binom{n-\#I}j j!(n-j-1)!\\
&=\sum_{k\coloneqq n-j=\#I}^n(n-\#I)!(\#I-1)!\binom{k-1}{k-\#I}\\
&=(n-\#I)!(\#I-1)!\binom{n}{n-\#I}=\frac{n!}{\#I}.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Combining~\eqref{eq:lem:1} and~\eqref{eq:lem:2}, we get
\[\#X_{i,I}=\frac{n!}{\#I}=\frac{(1+\log n)n!}{(1+\log n)\#I}\ge\frac{\#Y}{(1+\log n)\#I}.\qedhere\]
\end{proof}
Let $G$ be a non-amenable group. To prove Theorem~\ref{thm:main}, we
construct a cellular automaton carried by $G$, with GOE but without
MEP. Since $G$ is non-amenable, there exists $\epsilon>0$ and
$S_0\subset G$ finite with $\#(S_0F)\ge(1+\epsilon)\#F$ for all finite
$F\subset G$. We then have $\#(S_0^k F)\ge(1+\epsilon)^k\#F$ for all
$k\in\N$. Let $k$ be large enough so that
$(1+\epsilon)^k>1+k\log\#S_0$, and set $S\coloneqq S_0^k$ and
$n\coloneqq\#S$. This set $S$ will be the memory set of our
automaton. We then have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:folner}
\begin{split}
\#(S F)&\ge(1+\epsilon)^k\#F>(1+k\log\#S_0)\#F\\
&\ge(1+\log n)\#F\text{ for all finite }F\subset G.
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Apply Lemma~\ref{lem:1} to this $n$, and identify $\{1,\dots,n\}$ with
$S$ to obtain a set $Y$ and subsets $X_s$ for all $s\in S$. We have
\[\#\bigg(X_s\setminus\bigcup_{t\in
T\setminus\{s\}}X_t\bigg)\ge\frac{\#Y}{(1+\log n)\#T}\text{ for
all }s\in T\subseteq S.
\]
Furthermore, since $n\ge2$ these inequalities are sharp; so we may
replace $Y$ and $X_s$ respectively by $Y\times\{1,\dots,k\}$ and
$X_s\times\{1,\dots,k\}$ for some $k$ large enough so that
$\#(X_s\setminus\bigcup_{t\in T\setminus\{s\}}X_t)\ge(\#Y+1)/(1+\log
n)\#T$ holds; and then we replace $Y$ by $Y\sqcup\{\cdot\}$. If for
$T\subseteq S$ and $s\in T$ we define
\[X_{s,T}\coloneqq X_s\setminus\bigcup_{t\in T\setminus\{s\}}X_t,\text{ then }
\#X_{s,T}\ge\frac{\#Y}{(1+\log n)\#T}\text{ for all }s\in T\subseteq S;\]
and furthermore we have obtained $\bigcup_{s\in S}X_s\subsetneqq Y$.
Let $\K$ be a large enough finite field (in a sense to be precised
soon), and set $A\coloneqq \K Y$. For each $s\in S$, choose a linear
map $\alpha_s\colon A\to\K X_s\subset A$, and for $T\ni s$ denote by
$\alpha_{s,T}\colon A\to\K X_{s,T}$ the composition of $\alpha_s$ with
the co\"ordinate projection $\pi_{s,T}\colon A\to\K X_{s,T}$, in such
a manner that, whenever $\{T_s: s\in S\}$ is a family of subsets of
$S$ with $\sum_{s\in S}\#X_{s,T_s}\ge\#Y$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eq:inj}
\bigcap_{s\in S}\ker(\alpha_{s,T_s})=0.
\end{equation}
This is always possible if $\K$ is large enough: indeed write each
$\alpha_s$ as a $\#Y\times\#Y$ matrix and each $\alpha_{s,T}$ as a
submatrix. The condition is then that various vertical concatenations
of submatrices have full rank, and the complement of these conditions
is a proper algebraic subvariety of $\K^{Y\times Y\times S}$ defined
over $\Z$, which is not full as soon as $\K$ is large enough.
Define now a cellular automaton with stateset $A$ and carrier $G$ by
\[\Theta(\phi)(g) = \sum_{s\in S}\alpha_s(\phi(s g)).\]
Clearly $\Theta$ admits gardens of Eden: for every $\phi\in A^G$, we
have $\Theta(\phi)(1)\in\K(\bigcup_{s\in S}X_s)\subsetneqq A$.
To show that $\Theta$ admits mutually erasable patterns, it is enough
to show, for $\phi\in A^G$ non-trivial and finitely supported, that
$\Theta(\phi)\neq0$. Let thus $F\neq\emptyset$ denote the support of
$\phi$. Define $\rho\colon S F\to(0,1]$ by
$\rho(g)\coloneqq1/\#\{s\in S:g \in s F\}$. Now
\[\sum_{f\in F}\Big(\sum_{s\in S}\rho(s f)\Big)=\sum_{g\in S F}\sum_{s\in S:g\in s F}\rho(g)=\sum_{g\in S F}1=\#(S F),
\]
so there exists $f\in F$ with
$\sum_{s\in S}\rho(s f)\ge\#(S F)/\#F\ge1+\log n$
by~\eqref{eq:folner}. For every $s\in S$, set
$T_s\coloneqq\{t\in S:s f\in t F\}$, so $\#T_s=1/\rho(s f)$. We obtain
\begin{align*}
\sum_{s\in S}\#X_{s,T_s}&\ge\sum_{s\in S}\frac{\#Y}{(1+\log n)\#T_s}\text{ by Lemma~\ref{lem:1}}\\
&=\sum_{s\in S}\frac{\#Y\rho(s f)}{1+\log n}\ge\#Y,
\end{align*}
so by~\eqref{eq:inj} the map
$A\ni a\mapsto(\alpha_{s,T_s}(a))_{s\in S}$ is injective. Set
$\psi\coloneqq\Theta(\phi)$. Since by assumption $\phi(f)\neq0$, we
get $(\pi_{s,T_s}(\psi(s f)))_{s\in S}\neq0$, so $\psi\neq0$ and we
have proven that $\Theta$ admits no mutually erasable patterns. The
proof is complete.
|
\section{Introduction}
The study of highly unstable nuclei around the neutron drip
line has been one of the most active research fields in nuclear physics in the past few decades (see Refs. \cite{Tani13,Mich09,nature486} and references therein). The properties of those isotopes heavier than oxygen are mostly unknown and rely on the theoretical extrapolation based
on models optimized for known nuclei. The predictions are also important inputs for the study of the astrophysical r-process.
A challenging problem that one realizes is the strong deviation between theory and experiment and between different models that may occur when one goes toward those extreme cases with large $N/Z$ ratio.
The deviation is mostly related to our limited understanding of the theoretical uncertainty and the underlying effective nuclear force \cite{0954-3899-41-7-074001,PhysRevC.89.054314,PhysRevC.71.054311, arXive.1501.03572,Dudek13}. Significant efforts have been devoted to optimize the single-particle spectroscopy and binding energy prediction of various mean-field models \cite{PhysRevC.89.054314,Xu2013247,Wu15,Goriely201568}. For examples, in recent studies, the uncertainties in predicting the location of neutron drip line as induced by the single-particle energy, pairing and the macroscopic symmetry energy at sub-saturation density are highlighted \cite{Afa15,Wang15,Chen15}. Extensive work has also been done in studying the pairing features of drip
line nuclei in relation to the coupling involving loosely bound orbitals as well as the continuum.
However, it is still difficult to constrain the property of the effective nuclear pairing interaction for which no universal form has been achieved.
The so-called density-dependent zero-range (or contact) pairing interaction has been widely used in nuclear mean field and density functional calculations due to its intrinsic simplicity.
In its simplest form, the zero-range $\delta$ interaction is given
by (see, e.g., Ref. \cite{Dobaczewski1206} and references therein)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:surface}
V_{pair}(\textbf{r},\textbf{r}^{\prime})= V_{0}\left(1-\eta\frac{\rho(\textbf{r})}{\rho_{0}}\right) \delta (\textbf{r}-\textbf{r}^{\prime})
\end{equation}
where $V_{0}$ is the pairing strength, $\rho(\textbf{r})$ is the isoscalar
nucleonic density and $\rho_{0}=0.16 fm^{-3}$. $\eta=0$, 0.5 and 1 correspond to the so-called
volume, mixed and surface pairing interactions, respectively. As it is defined, the surface pairing generates a pairing field peaked around the
nuclear surface whereas the volume pairing is mainly active inside the nucleus.
One question is how the density dependence of the zero range pairing interaction affects the pairing correlation.
To address this issue, extensive calculations have been done within the Hartree-Fock (HF) plus BCS
and Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov (HFB) approaches.
A systematic calculation of the odd-even staggering (OES) in binding energies has been done in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.79.034306} by using the HF+BCS approach with three different density dependent pairing forces as well as by using the HFB approach with the mixed pairing. No significant difference between different calculations was seen.
A mixed pairing force is used in the systematic studies of Refs. \cite{Wang15,nature486} and Monte Carlo calculations in the configuration space (seniority-zero) in Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.83.014319,Vol15}. A surface pairing was used in recent calculations on the electric dipole strength of the nucleus $^{120}$Sn \cite{Roc15} and the soft dipole excitations in neutron-rich O, Ca and isotopes \cite{Mat05}. Calculations with the volume pairing were also done in Ref. \cite{Mat05}. No noticeable difference between calculations with the two types of pairing forces of surface and volume was seen.
HFB calculations for the isotopic chain $^{100-132}$Sn was given in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.71.054303} where it was found that the pairing density was insensitive to the density dependence of the
pairing force.
As commented in Ref. \cite{Dobaczewski1206}, one may not be able to extract reliable information on the density
dependence of the effective pairing interaction from
available data on the OES in nuclear binding energy.
One may expect that the different density dependence of the pairing force
may lead to drastic differences of pairing fields at the nuclear surface in very neutron rich nuclei where weakly bound orbitals are coupled to the continuum, e.g., when one goes towards neutron-rich Sn isotopes beyond $N=82$ \cite{Dobaczewski2001361,Dobaczewski20021521,Dobaczewski01032002,Bennaceur2002}.
In Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.80.044328} the pairing
vibrations in $^{124,136}$Sn was analyzed with the HFB+QRPA approach where it was shown that neutron transition density and pairing vibration in the neutron-rich nucleus $^{136}$Sn is more sensitive to the density dependence of the pairing than that in $^{124}$Sn. A slight preference for the surface-peaked pairing was suggested in \cite{PhysRevC.79.034306} based on binding energy systematics. Calculations on the $\alpha$ clustering on the nuclear surface of heavy nuclei also favors surface-enhanced pairing interaction \cite{PhysRevC.81.064319,Ward2013}.
The density dependence of the pairing may also influence the pair transfer properties of neutron Sn and light semi-magic neutron-rich nuclei \cite{PhysRevC.71.064306, PhysRevC.84.044317,PhysRevC.82.024318}. The effect of the density dependence of the pairing force was also studied on the odd-even staggering in the charge radii in Ref. \cite{Fay00}, on the excitation energies and transition probabilities of the first $2^+$ states in Ref. \cite{Tolo11} and on the pair transfer probabilities of neutron-rich Cr isotopes in Ref. \cite{Grasso2013}. The transfer probabilities in those nuclei depend strongly on the density dependence and strengths of the pairing force and the persistence of the pairing correlation at drip line.
In Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.88.034314} HFB calculations were done with surface-peaked zero-range and finite-range pairing forces, where it suggests that pairing can even persist in nuclei beyond the drip line. Such pairing persistence can indeed be sensitive to the density dependence of the zero-range pairing \cite{PhysRevC.91.024305}. Systematic calculations over the nuclei chart in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.91.024305} are done in the harmonic oscillator space. It is expected that a more precise integration of the HFB equation (see, e.g., Refs. \cite{Dob04,Sch15,Pei08}) and a reliable treatment of the continuum may be obtained by calculation in the coordinate space, which allows a proper description of the asymptotic behavior of the loosely bound quasi-particle orbital of drip line nuclei.
In those nuclei the spatial structure of the quasi-particle orbitals may be sensitive to both the single-particle energy and the pairing correlation.
A related subject is the possible isospin dependence of the pairing force \cite{Mar07,Mar08,Yam09,Sag13,PhysRevC.91.047303,Yam12,Ber09,Ber12} and the OES of the binding energy \cite{PhysRevC.88.064329}, which has not been pinned down yet.
In this paper we are interested in examining systematically the effects of the density dependence of the pairing interaction on the OES in the binding energies of neutron-rich nuclei from calculations within the HFB approach in the coordinate space with a proper treatment of the continuum.
The OES will be compared with the calculated mean gaps of the corresponding even-even nuclei. The so-called volume, surface and mixed pairing force will be used. We are also interested in seeing how the calculations are influenced by the different choice of pairing strength. For that purpose we have used two schemes to determine the strengths of the pairing forces by reproducing the neutron pairing gap in the nucleus $^{120}$Sn as well as by fitting to available data on the OES of semi-magic nuclei with $Z\geq8$.
The paper is organized as follows. In Sec. \ref{sec:MF}, we briefly discuss the HFB framework and the blocking scheme for odd-$A$ nucleus. Calculated results for both even-$N$ and odd-$N$ semi-magic Sn, Ni, Ca and Pb isotopes are analyzed in Sec. \ref{sec:Res}. In Sec. \ref{var} we optimize the strength of the different pairing forces by fitting to the available experimental data on OES.
Then we compare in detail calculations for the OES of neutron-rich nuclei with different density-dependent pairing forces and pairing strengths.
Finally a summary is given in Sec. \ref{sec:con}.
\section{Formalism}
\label{sec:MF}
\subsection{Theory}
The HFB approach with effective zero-range pairing forces is a reliable and computational convenient way to study the nuclear pairing correlations in both stable and unstable nuclei.
The HFB framework has been extensively discussed in the literature \cite{ring2004nuclear,Dobaczewski1984103,PhysRevC.53.2809,bender2003self,Dobaczewski1206} and will only be briefly introduced here for simplicity.
In the standard HFB formalism, the Hamiltonian is reduced to
the mean field in the particle-hole channel and the pairing field in
the particle-particle channel as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:H}
\begin{pmatrix}
(H-\lambda) & \Delta \\
-\Delta^{*} & -(H-\lambda)^{*}
\end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}
U_{k}(r)\\
V_{k}(r) \end{pmatrix}= E_{k}
\begin{pmatrix}
U_{k}(r)\\
V_{k}(r)
\end{pmatrix} ,
\end{equation}
where $U_{k}$ and $V_{k}$ are the two components of the single quasi-particle
radial wave functions.
We have used $k = {\tau nlj}$ as a short-hand notation for the
quantum numbers of the system since we have assumed spherical symmetry where $n$, $l$, $j$ are the number of nodes, orbital angular momentum and total angular momentum, respectively. $\lambda$ is the chemical
potential. The self-consistent HFB equations allow one to compute energies and wave functions of the quasi-particles. The energy spectrum of HFB quasi-particles contains both discrete bound quasi-particle states with quasi-particle energy $E\leq \lambda$ and quasi-particle continuum with $E>\lambda$.
The local densities can be written
using the radial functions as
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho(r)&=&
\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}\sum_{k}(2j_k+1)V_k^2(r) + [U_{\delta}^2(r)-V_{\delta}^2(r)]\nonumber\\
\tilde{\rho}(r)&=&
\frac{1}{4\pi r^2}[\sum_{k}-(2j_k+1)U_k(r)
V_k(r) +U_{\delta}(r)V_{\delta}(r)]~~~~
\end{eqnarray}
where $\delta$ denotes the state that is to be blocked.
For a given odd-$A$ nucleus,
possible blocked configurations can be defined from the calculated low-lying
quasi-particle spectra in neighboring even-even nuclei and the occupation
probabilities of those orbitals. It may be useful to point out that, unlike the cases in deformed nuclei where all Nilsson orbitals are doubly degenerate if the effect of the time-odd field is omitted, one can have more than one pair within a given single-particle orbital. When one pair of $m$-orbital $\delta=nljm$ and its time reversal is being blocked, the degeneracy of the blocked orbital effectively becomes $2j_{\delta}-1$.
There are intensive ongoing studies on the blocking calculations of odd-$A$ nuclei, especially in the intermediate-mass and heavy nuclei regions. For examples, deformed one-quasi-particle states actinide and rare-earth nuclei were recently studied within covariant density functional theory in Ref. \cite{Afanasjev2011177}.
The systematics of one-quasiparticle configurations in neutron-rich Sr, Zr, and Mo isotopes was studied within the axial Gogny HFB approach based on the D1S and D1M forces by applying the equal filling approximation method in Ref \citep{PhysRevC.82.044318}. In Ref. \cite{Dobaczewski1504} the properties of nuclei in the nobelium region with $92 \leq Z \leq 104$ and $144\leq N \leq 156$ were calculated using the covariant, Skyrme and Gogny functionals. A self-consistent treatment of the blocking for the one-quasiparticle HFB state is done in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.113.162501} by taking into account beyond mean field effects using the Generator Coordinate Method. Systematic calculations on the one-quasiproton excitations in the rare-earth region are done within the Skyrme HFB approach in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.81.024316}. In an earlier paper \cite{Sakakihara2001649}, the charge radii as well as the odd-even staggering in isotope shifts of Sn, Ba, Yb, and Pb isotopes were calculated systematically within the Skyrme HFB approach. Extensive works have been done recently on blocking calculations within the BCS and HFB frameworks for binding energy calculations of odd-$A$ and odd-odd nuclei (see, e.g., Refs. \cite{PhysRevC.91.047303,PhysRevC.89.054314,PhysRevC.89.054320}). Most of above calculations are done within the harmonic oscillator instead of the coordinate space. The effects of pairing correlation on the neutron quasi-particle resonance in $^{47}$Si was analyzed recently in Ref. \cite{Kob15} in the coordinate space with scattering boundary condition. The Woods-Saxon potential was used for the
particle-hole channel.
\subsection{Numerical Implementation}
We evaluated the
coordinate-space solutions by using the HFB solver HFBRAD in a spherical box
\cite{Bennaceur200596}. In that code the model space is confined by the maximum value for the angular momentum of the quasi-particle orbitals, which is taken as $j_{max}=25/2$ in the present work for all nuclei heavier than oxygen. We take $j_{max}=21/2$ instead for the very light O isotopes to avoid numerical instability. All calculations are practically converged with $j_{max}=25/2$ for nuclei that we are interested in. A typical example is given in Fig. \ref{fig:Tin161_j} where the binding energies of different one-quasiparticle states in the drip line nucleus $^{161}$Sn is calculated.
We used the Skyrme
functional with the standard SLy4 parameter set \cite{Chabanat1998} in the particle-hole channel in that and all our following calculations.
We have also performed calculations for all Pb isotopes with $j_{max}=39/2$ using all three pairing forces. Noticeable difference between calculations with $j_{max}=25/2$ and $j_{max}=39/2$ are only seen in the binding energies calculated using the surface pairing wheres the OES and mean gaps are not noticeably influenced.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.4\textwidth]{Tin161_jmax.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Tin161_j} (color online) The convergence of the calculated ${}^{161}$Sn binding energy with different blocked levels as a function of $j_{max}$. Calculations are using the mixed pairing.
}
\end{figure}
It should be mentioned that we started this work by developing a blocking scheme for studying the properties of neutron-rich odd-$A$ nuclei. We realized at an early stage that it has been mostly implemented in the code HFBRAD, even though it is not mentioned in the original publication and, to our knowledge, the blocking scheme has not been tested in any earlier publication. In order to test the blocking algorithm within the HFBRAD algorithm, we compared its result with the prediction by the HFBTHO program \cite{Stoitsov20131592} since there is no other established blocking algorithm in coordinate space that is available to us. These two calculations do not necessary predict the same numerical results due to their different treatment of the nuclear continuum.
In both calculations the blocking is executed using the equal
filling approximation \cite{PhysRevC.78.014304,PhysRevC.81.024316}. The HFBTHO calculation is done in the configuration space defined by the harmonic oscillator with the frequency $\hbar\omega=1.2\times41/A^{1/3}$. We take in total $N_{max}=25$ major shells.
The calculation is done by constraining spherical symmetry (to avoid the bias from spontaneous symmetry breaking). Our calculations with HFBTHO show that none of the Sn isotopes considered in the present work is significantly deformed. But in certain cases like $^{121}$Sn, the deformation effect can influence the binding energy by a few tens of keV.
Comparison between calculations with the earlier versions of the two codes for $^{120}$Sn and two other heavier even-even nuclei were done in Ref. \cite{Dob04} with the volume and mixed pairing interactions. The results are in general close to each other. But it should be noted that, in that calculation, the pairing strengths used in the two codes are different in order to get the same pairing gap for $^{120}$Sn (see also Ref. \cite{Pei08}). In Table \ref{tab:Sn120er} we have done similar comparisons for $^{120}$Sn with the three different pairing interactions. In all calculations the pairing strengths are determined by reproducing the pairing gap in $^{120}$Sn. For the HFBTHO calculations we have used both the normal harmonic oscillator (HO) basis and the transformed harmonic oscillator (THO) basis. The calculations are similar to each other in most cases.
In agreement with Ref. \cite{Pei08}, the absolute values of the pairing strengths fitted for the THO calculations are slightly smaller than those for HO and HFBRAD calculations for all three pairing forces employed.
In general the differences between the two HFBTHO and HFBRAD codes get smaller if the THO basis with improved description of the continuum was employed in the former case (see, discussions in Ref. \cite{Dob04} and references therein).
However, they still did not converge to the same results. In particular, the THO calculations predict more neutron pairing energies than HFBRAD for all three interactions.
The largest deviations between the two codes are seen in calculations with the surface interaction where the neutron pairing energies differ by as much as 300-400 keV. This is related to the fact that the pairing wave functions are more dispersed for calculations with the surface interaction than those with the other two.
In Table \ref{tab:Sn121er} we compared
three calculations for the nucleus $^{121}$Sn with the lowest quasi-particle orbitals $d_{3/2}$, $h_{11/2}$ and $g_{7/2}$ being blocked. Only calculations with the mixed pairing is shown for simplicity. We take the same pairing strength for both calculations.
In this case it is seen that the largest relative differences between HFBRAD and HFBTHO appear in the calculated quasi-particle energies and the neutron pairing energies.
The neutron pairing gaps and the absolute values of the neutron pairing energies given by the THO calculations are slightly larger than those from HFBRAD in all three cases (with less than 2\% difference). In the former case, as in Table \ref{tab:Sn120er}, one needs a slightly smaller pairing strength in order to reproduce the same pairing gap as that of HFBRAD. But even in that case, the neutron pairing energy is still slightly overestimated.
\begin{sidewaystable}
\centering
\caption{\label{tab:Sn120er} Comparison between HFBRAD (with mesh size 0.1 fm) and HFBTHO calculations for the quasi-particle energies $E_{qp}$, neutron chemical potentials $\lambda_{n}$, neutron pairing energies $E^{n}_{pair}$, total radii, neutron kinetic energies $E^{n}_{kin}$, total spin-orbit energies $E^{tot}_{SO}$, direct Coulomb energies $E_{dir}$, and
total energies $E_{tot}$ in the nucleus $^{120}$Sn with different pairing interactions fitted to the average neutron pairing gaps $\Delta_{n} $ of $^{120}$Sn. HFBTHO calculations are done with both the HO and the THO bases.}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Volume pairing interaction} & \multicolumn{5}{c|}{Mixed pairing interaction} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{Surface pairing interaction} \\ \cline{2-16}
& \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{THO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HFBRAD} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff HO}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff THO}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{THO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HFBRAD} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff HO}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff THO}} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{THO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HFBRAD} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff HO}} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff THO}} \\ \cline{1-4} \cline{7-9} \cline{12-14}
Parameters & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{189.95} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{188.8} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{189.19} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{289.1} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{286.949} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{287.85} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{521.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{513.4} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{517.5} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \hline
$E_{qp}$ & 1.203 & 1.200 & 1.202 & -0.001 & 0.002 & 1.298 & 1.297 & 1.298 & 0.000 & 0.001 & 1.771 & 1.779 & 1.774 & 0.003 & -0.005 \\
$\lambda_{n}$ & -7.992 & -7.993 & -7.993 & -0.002 & 0.000 & -8.014 & -8.014 & -8.015 & -0.001 & -0.001 & -7.993 & -7.994 & -7.994 & -0.001 & 0.000 \\
$E^{n}_{pair}$ & -11.158 & -11.242 & -11.200 & -0.043 & 0.042 & -13.587 & -13.728 & -13.659 & -0.073 & 0.069 & -27.827 & -28.600 & -28.161 & -0.333 & 0.439 \\
$\Delta_{n} $ & 1.310 & 1.310 & 1.310 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 1.310 & 1.310 & 1.310 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 1.310 & 1.310 & 1.309 & -0.001 & -0.001 \\
Radius & 4.671 & 4.671 & 4.671 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 4.674 & 4.674 & 4.674 & 0.000 & 0.000 & 4.687 & 4.687 & 4.687 & 0.000 & 0.000 \\
$E^{n}_{kin}$ & 1340.994 & 1341.117 & 1341.177 & 0.183 & 0.060 & 1342.017 & 1342.160 & 1342.203 & 0.186 & 0.044 & 1345.629 & 1346.009 & 1345.865 & 0.236 & -0.145 \\
$E^{tot}_{SO}$ & -48.552 & -48.583 & -48.566 & -0.014 & 0.017 & -49.893 & -49.922 & -49.909 & -0.016 & 0.013 & -52.532 & -52.547 & -52.537 & -0.005 & 0.010 \\
$E_{dir}$ & 366.636 & 366.640 & 366.668 & 0.032 & 0.028 & 366.478 & 366.481 & 366.509 & 0.031 & 0.028 & 366.063 & 366.063 & 366.091 & 0.028 & 0.028 \\
$E_{tot}$ & -1018.497 & -1018.503 & -1018.558 & -0.061 & -0.055 & -1018.967 & -1018.971 & -1019.041 & -0.074 & -0.070 & -1020.546 & -1020.546 & -1020.733 & -0.187 & -0.187 \\
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{sidewaystable}
\begin{sidewaystable}
\caption{\label{tab:Sn121er} Comparison between HFBRAD (with two mesh sizes) and HFBTHO calculations for the quasi-particle energies $E_{qp}$, neutron chemical potentials $\lambda_{n}$, neutron pairing energies $E^{n}_{pair}$, average neutron pairing gaps $\Delta_{n} $, total radii, neutron kinetic energies $E^{n}_{kin}$, total spin-orbit energies $E^{tot}_{SO}$, direct Coulomb energies $E_{dir}$, and
total energies$E_{tot}$ of the blocked one-quasiparticle states in the nucleus $^{121}$Sn. Both calculations are done with the mixed pairing. HFBTHO calculations are done by imposing spherical symmetry. The differences between HFBTHO calculations with the THO basis and HFBRAD calculations with the mesh size of 0.1 fm are also given.}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{%
\begin{tabular}{l|rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr}
\hline
\hline
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{HFBTHO $d_{3/2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{HFBRAD $d_{3/2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{HFBTHO $h_{11/2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{HFBRAD $h_{11/2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff}} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{HFBTHO $g_{7/2}$} & \multicolumn{2}{c|}{HFBRAD $g_{7/2}$} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{\multirow{2}{*}{diff}} \\ \cline{2-5} \cline{7-10} \cline{12-15}
\multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{THO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.2} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.1} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{THO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.2} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.1} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{HO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{THO} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.2} & \multicolumn{1}{c|}{0.1} & \multicolumn{1}{c}{} \\ \hline
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$E_{qp}$} & 1.283 & 1.301 & 1.284 & 1.284 & -0.017 & 1.549 & 1.573 & 1.55 & 1.55 & -0.023 & 2.89 & 2.901 & 2.795 & 2.794 & -0.106 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\lambda_{n}$} & -7.731 & -7.734 & -7.739 & -7.739 & -0.005 & -7.992 & -7.99 & -7.986 & -7.985 & 0.005 & -7.627 & -7.628 & -7.633 & -7.633 & -0.005 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$E^{n}_{pair}$} & -10.266 & -10.829 & -10.511 & -10.514 & 0.315 & -9.522 & -10.063 & -9.738 & -9.742 & 0.321 & -11.277 & -11.878 & -11.491 & -11.49 & 0.388 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$\Delta_{n} $} & 1.118 & 1.148 & 1.132 & 1.132 & -0.016 & 1.092 & 1.122 & 1.105 & 1.105 & -0.016 & 1.171 & 1.201 & 1.182 & 1.182 & -0.019 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{Radius} & 4.686 & 4.686 & 4.686 & 4.686 & -0.000 & 4.687 & 4.687 & 4.687 & 4.687 & -0.000 & 4.685 & 4.685 & 4.685 & 4.685 & -0.000 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$E^{n}_{kin}$} & 1364.466 & 1365.149 & 1364.722 & 1364.73 & -0.419 & 1362.315 & 1363.082 & 1362.641 & 1362.651 & -0.431 & 1367.186 & 1367.928 & 1367.447 & 1367.451 & -0.477 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$E^{tot}_{SO}$} & -51.602 & -51.878 & -51.613 & -51.621 & 0.257 & -50.347 & -50.684 & -50.401 & -50.409 & 0.275 & -54.824 & -55.107 & -54.794 & -54.799 & 0.308 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$E_{dir}$} & 365.921 & 365.924 & 366.005 & 365.952 & 0.028 & 365.89 & 365.895 & 365.974 & 365.921 & 0.026 & 366.185 & 366.188 & 366.267 & 366.214 & 0.027 \\
\multicolumn{1}{l|}{$E_{tot}$} & -1025.394 & -1025.482 & -1025.477 & -1025.511 & -0.029 & -1025.124 & -1025.192 & -1025.199 & -1025.233 & -0.041 & -1023.922 & -1024.019 & -1024.059 & -1024.093 & -0.074 \\ \hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{sidewaystable}
\section{Systematic calculations on semi-magic nuclei}
\label{sec:Res}
To test the performance of the blocking approach,
firstly we have done systematic calculations on the ground states of neutron-rich semi-magic even-even nuclei and possible low-lying one-quasiparticle states in odd-$A$ semi-magic nuclei with the volume, mixed and surface pairing forces. The pairing strengths are fitted to give a
mean neutron gap of $1.31$MeV in ${}^{120}$Sn.
The strengths are -189.2, -287.85, -517.5 MeVfm$^3$ for the volume, mixed and surface pairing forces, respectively.
Calculations are done in a box with the size of $r=30$ fm and the step of $h=0.2$ and 0.1 fm in Sec. \ref{sec:Res} and \ref{var}, respectively. Only quasi-particle states with energy lower than 60 MeV are taken into account.
This is done in order to avoid the ultraviolet divergence problem.
No significant difference between the three pairing forces are seen for known nuclei. Only results calculated with the mixed pairing are shown below as examples.
In Fig. \ref{fig:Tin4_SN} we plotted the one-neutron separation energies for the low-lying states of the odd-$A$ Sn isotopes, which is defined as
\begin{equation}
S_n(\delta)=BE(Z,N; \delta) - BE(Z,N-1),
\end{equation}
where $BE(Z,N; \delta)$ denotes the calculated (positive) binding energy of the odd-$A$ ($N$) nucleus with the quasi-particle orbital $\delta$ being blocked.
The calculated quasi-particle energies in above Sn isotopes are shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Tin4_spe} and are compared to those of their neighboring even-even isotopes. $^{131}$Sn with blocked orbital of $1d_{5/2}$ and $0g_{7/2}$ and $^{147}$Sn with blocked orbital of $1f_{7/2}$ did not converge.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Tin5_SN.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Tin4_SN} (color online) The calculated one neutron separation energies of odd-$A$ Sn isotopes with different one-quasiparticle orbitals being blocked. The shown experimental data for the ground states are taken from Ref. \cite{AM12}.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Tin_chain45.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Tin4_spe} (color online) The calculated quasi-particle energies of different orbitals in both even and odd Sn isotopes.
}
\end{figure}
In $^{101}$Sn the lowest single (quasi-) particle orbital is calculated to be $1d_{5/2}$ meanwhile the $0g_{7/2}$ orbital is predicted to be around 2 MeV higher. On the other hand, the recent experiment \cite{PhysRevLett.105.162502} and systematic shell model calculations \cite{PhysRevC.86.044323} tend to suggest that those two orbitals are nearly degenerate.
There is still room for improvement for the spectroscopic quality of mean field theories, which, however, is still a challenging task \cite{PhysRevC.89.054314,PhysRevLett.113.252501,Afanasjev1409,Afanasjev4853}.
For $^{131}$Sn, the lowest single-neutron orbital is calculated to be $0h_{11/2}$ instead of $1d_{3/2}$, even though, as shown in Ref. \cite{PhysRevLett.109.032501}, the HFB calculation can reproduce well the observed odd-even staggering in the binding energies. These two orbitals are also observed to be nearly degenerate \cite{PhysRevC.70.034312} and can be well reproduced by the nuclear shell model \cite{PhysRevC.86.044323}.
As can be inferred from both Figs. \ref{fig:Tin4_SN}(a) and \ref{fig:Tin4_spe}(a), the isotopes just above the $N=50$ are dominated by the coupling within $1d_{5/2}$ while those close to $N=82$ the lowest configuration corresponds to $0h_{11/2}$. There is a strong mixture among the $1d_{3/2}$, $0g_{7/2}$ and $2s_{1/2}$ single-particle orbitals for nuclei around $N=62$. Similarly for nuclei around $N=72$, the orbitals $0h_{11/2}$, $1d_{3/2}$ and $2s_{1/2}$ have similar quasi-particle energies. This is consistent with the fact that the one-neutron separation energies of those orbitals are also calculated to be very close to each other. One challenging task for both nuclear shell model and energy density functional is to pin down the role played by the $2s_{1/2}$ orbital in middle-shell Sn isotopes \cite{PhysRevC.86.044323} due to its low degeneracy.
It is interesting to notice that the quasi-particle energy of the $2s_{1/2}$ orbital is calculated to be the lowest in most nuclei between $N=60$ and 67. Moreover, there is a noticeable difference between the calculated quasi-particle energies of the $2s_{1/2}$ orbitals in the odd-$A$ Sn isotopes and the neighboring even-even ones in that region. This may be related to the fact that the $2s_{1/2}$ orbital is completely blocked and does not participate in pairing correlation in the odd-$A$ isotopes.
For Sn isotopes above $N=82$, as can be seen from Figs. \ref{fig:Tin4_SN}(b) and \ref{fig:Tin4_spe}(b), the $1f_{7/2}$ and $2p_{3/2}$ are basically the only bound levels. The separation energy of the lowest $p_{1/2}$ orbital is practically zero for nuclei between $N=89$ and 109. The odd-$A$ system become unbound for $N>109$.
The neutron drip line may be defined by the chemical potential $\lambda_n$ and two-neutron separation energy, which give roughly the same results \cite{PhysRevC.91.014324,PhysRevC.91.024305}.
In Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.78.064305} it is commented that $\lambda_n$ cannot be used to define the one-neutron drip line when the HFB pairing correlation is vanishing. In our calculations as presented in Fig. \ref{fig:Tin4_SN}(b), one can see the big difference between the one-neutron separation energy and the absolute value of the chemical potential for nuclei between the positions of the predicted one-neutron and two-neutron drip lines for the corresponding odd-$A$ and even isotopes. It should also be mentioned that, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:Tin4_spe}(b), those even-even nuclei with $N>109$ are bound but they are composed of quasi-particle continuum with $E_{qp}>\lambda$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Ni_chain34_SN.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Ni4_SN} (color online) Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Tin4_SN} but for Ni isotopes. The chemical potential turns positive after $N=61$.
}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Nickel_chain34.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Ni4_spe} (color online) The calculated quasi-particle energies of different orbitals in both even and odd Ni isotopes.
}
\end{figure}
In Figs. \ref{fig:Ni4_SN} and \ref{fig:Ni4_spe} we plotted the results for Ni isotopes. In Fig. \ref{fig:Ni4_spe}(a) $^{67}$Ni with orbital $0f_{7/2}$, $^{71}$Ni with orbital $1p_{3/2}$, $^{77}$Ni with orbitals $1p_{1/2}$ and $0f_{5/2}$, and in Fig. \ref{fig:Ni4_spe}(b) $^{85}$ $^{87}$ Ni with orbitals $1d_{5/2}$ and $2s_{1/2}$ being blocked did not converge. For that isotopic chain, the two-neutron drip line is calculated to be around $N=61$. As can be seen from Fig. \ref{fig:Ni4_SN}, the $0g_{9/2}$ orbital is basically the only bound orbital as one approaches the $N=50$ shell closure from below. Beside that, one has the loosely bound $1p_{1/2}$, $0f_{5/2}$, $1d_{5/2}$ and $2s_{1/2}$ orbitals. The latter two are the only bound levels for Ni isotopes just above $N=50$ and determine the stability of those isotopes around $A=60$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Calcium_chain3M.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:C4_SN} (color online) The Calculated quasi-particle energies and one neutron separation energies $S_{n}$ of different orbitals in both even and odd Ca isotopes. }
\end{figure}
The results for Ca isotopes are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:C4_SN}. In Fig. \ref{fig:C4_SN}(a) $N=39$ and $N=41$ with blocking of $1p_{1/2}$ and $0f_{5/2}$ orbitals, respectively, did not converge.
For odd-$A$ Ca isotopes, the one-neutron drip line is calculated to be at $N=39-41$. Meanwhile, the even-even isotopes around $N=50$ and 50 are expected to be bound as a result of the coupling to quasi-particle continuum, in particular the $l=1$ $p_{3/2}$ orbital.
We have also done calculations for the lighter C and O isotopes. The one-neutron and two-neutron drip line for O isotopes are calculated to be at $N=17$ and $N=20$, respectively. $^{24}$O is the heaviest bound oxygen isotope that has been observed so far. The nucleus $^{25}$O has been detected to be unstable.
For the C isotopes, $^{21}$C is calculated to be the last bound odd-$A$ isotope, whereas the two-neutron drip line can be extended to $N=18$. On the experimental side, $^{21}$C is not expected to be bound \cite{Mos13,Lan85}. $^{22}$C has been expected to exhibit the neutron halo phenomenon in relation to the occupancy of the second $s_{1/2}$ orbital. A detailed Skyrme HFB calculation on $^{22}$C was also done in Ref. \cite{Ina14} by varying the central part of Skyrme potential.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Lead_SN56.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Pb} (color online) Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Tin4_SN} but for Pb isotopes below (a) and above (b) the $N=126$ shell closure.}
\end{figure}
The calculated one-neutron separation energies for odd-$A$ Pb isotopes are plotted in Fig. \ref{fig:Pb}. In this figure,$^{263}$Pb with orbital $0i_{11/2}$, $^{265}$Pb with orbitals $3s_{1/2}$ $2d_{5/2}$ and $0i_{11/2}$ being blocked did not converge. The ground-state one-neutron separation energies are rather well reproduced by the calculation. Noticeably differences appear around the shell closure $N=126$, where the calculation overestimated the separation energy of $p_{1/2}$ and underestimated that of $g_{9/2}$. The one-neutron and two-neutron drip lines are calculated to be near each other and are around the shell closure $N=184$.
The one-neutron drip line in Pb isotopes is much more extended than those in lighter nuclei shown above.
Our calculations show that the low-lying one-quasiparticle states in all above semi-magic nuclei upto the neutron drip line can be evaluated by using the HFBRAD code without much numerical difficulty.
In all our results for odd-$A$ isotopes shown above and in the following, we have done blocking calculations for all possible one-neutron quasi-particle configurations. The one gives the largest binding energy (lowest HFB energy) is assigned as the ground state.
\section{Optimization of the pairing strength}
\label{var}
For calculations shown above, the strengths of the three pairing forces are determined by fitting to the pairing gap in the even-even nucleus $^{120}$Sn.
As indicated in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.79.034306}, the global description power of the HFB calculation may be improved by fitting the strength of the pairing directly to available experimental data on OES. In Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.79.034306} two sets of HFB calculations on both spherical and deformed nuclei were done by using mixed pairing with two different pairing strengths. An optimized pairing strength was obtained by applying a linear approximation, which is slightly larger than the one determined by fitting to only $^{120}$Sn.
\begin{figure*}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.8\textwidth]{surf_vol_mix_fitted.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:error} (color online) The mean square deviations (in MeV$^2$) between theory and experiment, $\sigma^2$, for the OES of semi-magic O, Ca, Ni, Sn and Pb isotopes as a function of the pairing strength (in MeVfm$^3$) for surface (left), volume (middle) and mixed (right) pairing interactions. The dashed lines are the total values while the solid lines correspond to the deviations for each isotopic chain.}
\end{figure*}
In Fig. \ref{fig:error} we calculated the mean square deviations between calculation and experiment, defined as $\sigma^2=\Sigma(OES_{Calc.}-OES_{Expt.})^{2}/N$ where $N$ is the number of data points considered, as a function of the strength of the pairing for available semic-magic nuclei. The OES or the empirical pairing gap is extracted from the binding energies of neighboring nuclei by using the simple three-point formula \cite{PhysRevLett.81.3599,PhysRevC.63.024308,PhysRevC.91.024305}.
As can be inferred from the figure, it may be difficult to determine the density dependence of the pairing force since the three pairing forces used predict roughly the same minimal value for the root mean square deviation. One has $\sigma=282$ keV, 284 keV, 329 keV for the calculations with the mixed, surface and volume pairings, respectively, which correspond to pairing strengths $V_0=-295.3$, -473.4, -200.3 MeVfm$^3$. The strengths for the volume and mixed pairings thus determined are larger than those determined by fitting to the pairing gap in $^{120}$Sn whereas the strength of the surface pairing is slightly smaller than that in the latter case.
Another interesting thing is the different responses of the mean deviation to the pairing strength between light and heavy nuclei. For example, the O isotopes favors a strength that is smaller than heavy nuclei for calculations with the surface pairing. On the other hand, they favor larger pairing strengths than those of heavy nuclei for calculations with mixed and volume pairing interactions.
This is related to the fact, for calculations within the same cutoff and maximum $j$ value, calculations with the surface pairing tend to induce larger pairing gaps for light nuclei.
\subsection{Systematics of the OES}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Tin_SN.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Fit_SN} (color online) One-neutron separation energies for Sn isotopes calculated by using different pairing forces with strengths determined through global optimization.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{Ni_SN.eps}
\end{center}
\caption{\label{fig:Fit_Ni} (color online) Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Fit_SN} but for calculations on neutron-rich Ni isotopes.}
\end{figure}
We have re-calculated the one-neutron separation energies for all neutron-rich semi-magic nuclei with the optimized pairing strengths determined above.
In Figs. \ref{fig:Fit_SN} and \ref{fig:Fit_Ni} we plotted the results for neutron-rich Sn and Ni isotopes as examples.
In general, the choice of different density-dependent pairing forces are not expected to change noticeably the position of the two-neutron drip line in semi-magic nuclei.
A large difference is seen between the one-neutron drip line for Sn isotopes predicted by the surface pairing calculation and those with mixed and volume pairing forces. In the latter two cases, the one-neutron drip line is at $N=99$ while those nuclei with $N$ between 101 and 109 also show a separation energy that is close to zero. For calculations with the surface pairing, the one neutron drip line clearly appears earlier at $N=95$. For Ni and Ca isotopes, the one-neutron and two-neutron drip lines may shift slightly by two neutrons between calculations with different density dependences and pairing strengths.
As for the lightest O isotopes, the one-neutron and two neutron drip lines are the same in all our calculations with the two different pairing strengths.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Oxygen_surf_vol_mix.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Gap_O} (color online) HFB mean pairing gaps ($\Delta_n$) and OES from the three-point formula ($\Delta_{C}^{(3)}$) in neutron-rich O isotopes calculated using mixed, volume and surface interactions with pairing strengths fitted locally to the experimental neutron gap of ${}^{120}$Sn (left) and globally to all semi-magic isotopes (right).}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Calcium_surf_vol_mix.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Gap_Ca} (color online) Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Gap_O} but for Ca isotopes.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Nickel_surf_vol_mix.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Gap_Ni} (color online) Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Gap_O} but for Ni isotopes.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Tin_surf_vol_mix.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Gap_Sn} (color online) Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Gap_O} but for Sn isotopes.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth]{Lead_surf_vol_mix.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Gap_Pb} (color online) Same as Fig. \ref{fig:Gap_O} but for Pb isotopes.}
\end{figure}
As can already be inferred from Fig. \ref{fig:Fit_Ni}, the OES given by calculations with the surface pairing can be significantly larger than those from the other two pairing forces.
In Figs. \ref{fig:Gap_O} - \ref{fig:Gap_Pb} we compared the OES in above neutron-rich semi-magic nuclei extracted from the theoretical binding energies of neighboring nuclei as calculated with the three pairing forces with the two types of pairing strength.
The results are also compared with the HFB mean gap (see, e.g., Ref. \cite{Bennaceur200596} for the definition).
Firstly it is noted that the mean gaps as predicted by the surface pairing calculation with the global optimized pairing strength are systematically smaller than those with pairing strength locally fitted to $^{120}$Sn. This is expected and is related to the fact that the pairing strength for the former calculation is slightly smaller than the latter.
Another interesting phenomenon is that, in neutron-rich nuclei between O and Sn, noticeably large discrepancy is seen between calculations with the surface pairing and those with mixed and volume pairing forces if the
locally fitted pairing strength is used. The difference is already seen in stable O and Ca isotopes which indicate that the surface pairing calculations for those nuclei favor a smaller pairing strength (c.f., Fig. \ref{fig:error}).
A much smaller difference is seen in calculations with the global optimized pairing strength presented. This suggests that, in consistent with Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.80.044328}, those neutron-rich isotopes can be a sensitive probe for both the density-dependence and strength of the pairing force. For Sn isotopes, the difference already manifests itself around $N=90$ which are reachable on next generation radioactive ion beam facilities including FRIB.
The persistence of mean pairing gap around and beyond the drip line has been studied \cite{PhysRevC.88.034314}. This is more pronounced in calculations with the surface pairing than those with two other pairing forces. The OES and the mean gap are close to each other for nuclei not close to drip line. Deviations are seen for nuclei around the drip line where the OES tend to vanish. The pairing gap and the underlying correlation of the pairing wave function may be probed through pair transfer reaction instead.
A phenomenological study of the OES from measured binding energies has been done in Ref. \cite{PhysRevC.88.064329} where it was found that the OES in nuclei with $N>50$ show a decreasing behavior with increasing isospin. The OES may vanish around $N\sim 2Z$. A clear reduction of the calculated OES is seen in neutron-rich Ca, Ni and Sn isotopes with $N>2Z$. However, it may be more related to the fact that those nuclei involved are between the one-neutron and two-neutron drip ines. As for Pb isotopes, the one-neutron and two-neutron drip lines are both around $N=184$. The reduction of the mean gaps and OES there are mainly due to the shell effect.
The mean gaps and OES for Pb isotopes are relatively less sensitive to the different choice of density dependence. In particular, the OES as predicted by calculations with the globally optimized pairing strengths are practically the same for all the three pairing forces. There is a noticeable reduction of the mean gaps in calculations with the surface pairing when the globally optimized pairing strength is used.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:con}
We have done systematic calculations on the ground states of even-even neutron-rich semi-magic isotopes as well as the low-lying one-quasiparticle states in the neighboring odd-$A$ isotopes with three different zero-range pairing forces
by solving the Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov equations in coordinate space. The odd-$A$ nuclei are studied within the blocking scheme by assuming equal filling.
The OES in binding energy are studied in order to analyze the effect of the density dependence of the pairing force.
The strengths of the volume, mixed and surface pairing forces are determined in two different ways by fitting locally to the pairing gap in $^{120}$Sn and globally to available data on OES in semi-magic nuclei with $Z\geq $8. The mean deviations calculated with the three pairing forces are close to each other for the OES of known nuclei, from which one may not able to firmly pin down the density dependence of the pairing force. It is noticed that the description of the light O and Ca isotopes favors a strength that is smaller than heavy nuclei for calculations with the surface pairing. On the other hand, they favor larger pairing strengths than those of heavy nuclei for calculations with mixed and volume pairing interactions.
The choice of different density-dependent pairing forces are not expected to influence noticeably the position of the two-neutron drip line. But significant difference in the mean pairing gaps and OES can be seen between calculations with the surface pairing and the other two pairing forces. The pairing gap can persist even beyond the drip line for calculations with the surface pairing even though the OES tend to vanish. Moreover, there is a big gap between the calculated one-neutron and two-neutron drip lines in Ca and Sn isotopes. The position of the former can be sensitive to the density dependence of the pairing force.
\section*{Acknowledgement}
This work was supported by the Swedish Research Council (VR) under grant Nos. 621-2012-3805, and 621-2013-4323. The calculations were performed on resources provided by the Swedish National Infrastructure for Computing (SNIC) at NSC in Link\"oping and PDC at KTH, Stockholm.
|
\section{\underline{\uppercase{Supplemental Material}}}
\subsection{Details of the projected wavefunctions}
The orbitals for the Slater determinants $\Psi_{a=d_1,d_2,f}$ used in defining $\Psi_\mathrm{HLR}^\mathrm{ferm}$ and $\Psi_\mathrm{HLR}^\mathrm{bos}$ are obtained by diagonalizing mean-field hopping Hamiltonians of the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\hspace{-0.15in}
H_\mathrm{MF} = -\sum_{\mathbf{r}=(r_x,r_y)}&\,&\hspace{-0.15in}\biggl[t_{\hat{x}} e^{-i2r_y\phi}a_\mathbf{r}^\dagger a_{\mathbf{r}+\hat{x}} + t_{\hat{y}} a_\mathbf{r}^\dagger a_{\mathbf{r}+\hat{y}} \nonumber \\ &+& t_{\hat{x}+\hat{y}} e^{-i(2r_y+1)\phi}a_\mathbf{r}^\dagger a_{\mathbf{r}+\hat{x}+\hat{y}} + \mathrm{H.c.}\biggr]
\label{eq:MF}
\end{eqnarray}
and filling the lowest $N$ states. Throughout, we use a ``squarized'' version of the triangular lattice as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(c) with $r_x=0,1,\dots,L_x-1$ and $r_y=0,1,\dots,L_y-1$. Equation~\eqref{eq:MF} corresponds to a Landau-like gauge giving uniform flux $\phi$ through each triangle.
At $\rho=1/4$, we take $\phi=\pi/4$ for $d_{1,2}$ corresponding to $\nu=1$ [see the filled nearly flat band in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(b); there, $M=(\pi,\pi/4)$ and $X=(\pi,0)$]. The magnetic unit cell for $d_{1,2}$ thus consists of four sites along a line in the $y$ direction, which is very natural for our torus geometry. For the $f$ partons, $\phi=0$ [see the sharp Fermi surface in Fig.~\ref{fig:Fig1}(a)].
We choose completely isotropic hopping patterns $t_{\hat{x}}=t_{\hat{y}}=t_{\hat{x}+\hat{y}}=1$ for all partons except for the $48\times12, N=144$ system in Fig.~\ref{fig:strips} of the main text, where we take $t_{\hat{x}}=t_{\hat{y}}=1$ and $t_{\hat{x}+\hat{y}}=1.01$ for the $f$ partons to avoid degeneracies at the Fermi energy. The boundary conditions are taken to be periodic in the $y$ direction for all partons and antiperiodic in the $x$ direction for all partons except $d_2$; this produces a wavefunction with periodic boundary conditions in both directions.
\subsection{Details of the Monte Carlo simulations}
Given a wavefunction in coordinate space, $\phi(\alpha)$, the expectation value of the swap operator is given by \cite{Hastings10_PRL_104_157201, Grover11_PRL_107_067202}
\begin{equation}
\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_A\rangle = \sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\frac{|\phi(\alpha_1)|^2}{\mathcal{N}}\frac{|\phi(\alpha_2)|^2}{\mathcal{N}}\left[\frac{\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)}{\phi(\alpha_1)\phi(\alpha_2)}\right].
\end{equation}
Here $\alpha_1=(a_1,b_1)$ and $\alpha_2=(a_2,b_2)$ are configurations of the two copies 1 and 2 ($a$ refers to degrees of freedom in subregion $A$, whereas $b$ refers to degrees of freedom in the complement of $A$), while $\beta_1=(a_2,b_1)$ and $\beta_2=(a_1,b_2)$ are the swapped configurations, and $\mathcal{N}=\sum_{\alpha}|\phi(\alpha)|^2$ is the wavefunction normalization.
The mod/sign decomposition \cite{Grover11_PRL_107_067202} is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\label{eq:modsign}
\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_A\rangle &=& \langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle \langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{sign}}\rangle \\
\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle &=& \sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\frac{|\phi(\alpha_1)|^2}{\mathcal{N}}\frac{|\phi(\alpha_2)|^2}{\mathcal{N}}\left|\frac{\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)}{\phi(\alpha_1)\phi(\alpha_2)}\right|, \nonumber \\
\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{sign}}\rangle &=& \sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\frac{|\phi(\alpha_1)\phi(\alpha_2)\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)|}{\mathcal{M}}e^{i\theta(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)}, \nonumber
\end{eqnarray}
where $\theta(\alpha_1,\alpha_2)=\arg[\phi^*(\alpha_1)\phi^*(\alpha_2)\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)]$ and $\mathcal{M}=\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}|\phi(\alpha_1)\phi(\alpha_2)\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)|$. Hence, $S_2=S_{2,\mathrm{total}}=S_{2,\mathrm{mod}}+S_{2,\mathrm{sign}}$, with $S_{2,\mathrm{mod/sign}}=-\log\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod/sign}}\rangle$.
Since $\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle$ is the swap operator evaluated for the modulus of the wavefunction in this basis, i.e., $|\phi(\alpha)|$, $S_{2,\mathrm{mod}}$ is the entropy of the wavefunction $|\phi(\alpha)|$. On the other hand, $S_{2,\mathrm{sign}}$ can be interpreted as the component of the entropy \emph{as a result of} nontrivial signs in the wavefunction: For a positive wavefunction, most notably $|\phi(\alpha)|$, $S_{2,\mathrm{sign}}=0$ vanishes identically. [Note that $S_{2,\mathrm{sign}}$ is \emph{not} simply the entropy obtained after taking the sign of the wavefunction $\phi(\alpha)\to\phi(\alpha)/|\phi(\alpha)|$; it depends in a specific way on the amplitudes as well.]
For systems with a globally conserved $U(1)$ symmetry---such as particle number conservation present in the wavefunctions in this work---it affords to be smart when performing the Monte Carlo walks in Eq.~\eqref{eq:modsign}: Only configurations for which the total subregion occupations $N_A$ in the two copies are identical [i.e., $N_A(\alpha_1)=N_A(\alpha_2)=n_A$] give nonzero contributions. [If $N_A(\alpha_1)\neq N_A(\alpha_2)$, then $\phi(\beta_1)=\phi(\beta_2)=0$.] We have implemented two schemes for sampling ${\langle}\mathrm{SWAP}_A{\rangle}$, both of which allow the mod/sign factorization described above and which take advantage of the global particle number conservation (see also, e.g., Refs.~\cite{McMinis13_PRB_87_081108, McMinis13_PhDThesis, Clark16_FracChernVMC_PRB_93_035125} for similar schemes).
The first is the ``particle number trick'' explained in Ref.~\cite{Kim15_PRL_114_206402}, which we briefly review. In this case, we decompose the final measurement as a sum over the possible subregion particle occupation numbers $n_A$:
\begin{equation}
{\langle}\mathrm{SWAP}_A{\rangle} = \sum_{n_A} \left(P_{n_A}\right)^2\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle_{n_A} \langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{sign}}\rangle_{n_A}
\label{eq:sectored}
\end{equation}
Here, $\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod/sign}}\rangle_{n_A}$ are the mod/sign measurements restricted to the subspace with $n_A$ particles in subregion $A$ for both copies. [Formally, one just replaces all sums in the expressions in Eq.~\eqref{eq:modsign}---including those in the normalizations $\mathcal{N}$ and $\mathcal{M}$---with sums over the restricted subspace: $\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\to\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in n_A}\equiv\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\delta_{N_A(\alpha_1), n_A}\delta_{N_A(\alpha_2),n_A}$.] The quantities $P_{n_A}$ are simply the probabilities of finding $n_A$ particles in subregion $A$ for a single copy of the wavefunction,
\begin{equation}
P_{n_A} = \sum_{\alpha\in n_A}\frac{|\phi(\alpha)|^2}{\mathcal{N}} = \sum_\alpha\frac{|\phi(\alpha)|^2}{\mathcal{N}}\delta_{N_A(\alpha), n_A},
\end{equation}
and are obtainable in a straightforward single-copy simulation. In this scheme, we run separate swap simulations for each $n_A$ and compile the results according to Eq.~\eqref{eq:sectored}. Note that $\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle$ in Eq.~\eqref{eq:modsign} can be computed by performing the sum in Eq.~\eqref{eq:sectored} with $\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{sign}}\rangle_{n_A}=1$; thus, the scheme readily gives both $S_{2,\mathrm{mod}}$ and $S_{2,\mathrm{sign}}=S_{2,\mathrm{total}}-S_{2,\mathrm{mod}}$.
The second method is similar to the original decomposition in Eq.~\eqref{eq:modsign}, except that for both the mod and sign walks we only consider in our move scheme ``swappable'' configurations, i.e., those with $N_A(\alpha_1)=N_A(\alpha_2)=n_A$, but we allow $n_A$ to fluctuate throughout the simulation. Since the summands in the expressions in Eq.~\eqref{eq:modsign} are both proportional to $|\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)|$, it is legitimate to replace the sums in the numerators with sums over only the swappable configurations: $\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\to\sum'_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\equiv\sum_{n_A}\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2\in n_A}$. Furthermore, since for the sign walk it is the \emph{weights} which contain $|\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)|$, this replacement can also be performed in the expression for $\mathcal{M}$. The final expression for $\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{sign}}\rangle$ that we use for our simulations is thus given by that in Eq.~\eqref{eq:modsign} with $\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\to\sum'_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}$. The mod case, on the other hand, requires a bit more care since it is now the \emph{measurements} which contain $|\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)|$, so that the normalization $\mathcal{N}$ still contains an unrestricted sum over all configurations. This is easily remedied with a small amount of algebra to give
\begin{equation}
\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle = \left[\sum_{n_A}\left(P_{n_A}\right)^2\right]\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle',
\end{equation}
where the first factor in brackets is the overall probability that the two-copy system is swappable, and
\begin{equation}
\langle\mathrm{SWAP}_{A,\mathrm{mod}}\rangle' = \sideset{}{'}\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}\frac{|\phi(\alpha_1)|^2|\phi(\alpha_2)|^2}{\mathcal{N}'}\left|\frac{\phi(\beta_1)\phi(\beta_2)}{\phi(\alpha_1)\phi(\alpha_2)}\right|
\end{equation}
is the mod calculation that we perform only over the swappable subspace [with $\mathcal{N}'=\sum_{\alpha_1,\alpha_2}'|\phi(\alpha_1)|^2|\phi(\alpha_2)|^2$]. In this scheme, since we are explicitly enforcing that the visited configurations are swappable, care must be taken to maintain detailed balance when the total subregion occupation number changes in a proposed move. This consideration is valid for both the mod and sign walks.
\begin{figure}[b]
\centerline{
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=0.5\columnwidth]{central_charges.pdf}} \hspace{0.05in}
\subfigure{\includegraphics[height=0.5\columnwidth]{intercepts.pdf}}
}
\caption{(a) Central charge $c$ and (b) intercept $A$ fit parameters versus $L_y$ for the fermionic HLR and free fermion (FF) wavefunctions on the strip geometry (lines are a guide to the eye). In (a), ``$+$'' and ``$\times$'' symbols mark $N_\mathrm{slices}-1$ and $N_\mathrm{slices}$.}
\label{fig:fits}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\centerline{
\hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{total_48x4.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{mod_48x4.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{sign_48x4.pdf}} \hfill
\hfill
}
\centerline{
\hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{total_48x8.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{mod_48x8.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{sign_48x8.pdf}} \hfill
\hfill
}
\centerline{
\hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{total_36x16.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{mod_36x16.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{sign_36x16.pdf}} \hfill
\hfill
}
\centerline{
\hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{total_24x20.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{mod_24x20.pdf}} \hfill
\subfigure{\includegraphics[width=0.28\textwidth]{sign_24x20.pdf}} \hfill
\hfill
}
\caption{Data analogous to Fig.~\ref{fig:strips} of the main text [$48\times12, N=144$ ($N_\mathrm{slices} = 7$)] but for the following systems from top row to bottom row: $48\times4, N=48$ ($N_\mathrm{slices} = 3$); $48\times8, N=96$ ($N_\mathrm{slices} = 5$); $36\times16, N=144$ ($N_\mathrm{slices} = 9$); and $24\times20, N=120$ ($N_\mathrm{slices}$ is not well-defined for $L_x=24$, while $N_\mathrm{slices}=13$ for $L_y=20$ and large $L_x$). The top three rows, as well as Fig.~\ref{fig:strips}, contain the data whose resulting fit parameters are plotted in Fig.~\ref{fig:fits}.}
\label{fig:all_strips}
\end{figure*}
While the two schemes are closely related, they require more or less independent implementations. We have tested both implementations in the free fermion case, as well as against each other in the HLR case. However, we found that the first scheme, i.e., the particle number trick, suffers from ergodicity problems when applied to the HLR states in quasi-1D geometries such as the 4-leg ladder. We now prefer the second scheme as $(i)$ it generally works well in all geometries, and $(ii)$ it naturally explores all $n_A$ sectors according to their importance in the wavefunction instead of having to manually allocate computing time to each sector individually [cf.~Eq.~\eqref{eq:sectored}]. Still, the first scheme may be preferable in some instances.
\subsection{Strip geometry: Summary and complete data sets}
In Fig.~\ref{fig:fits}, we summarize our strip geometry simulations for $L_y=4,8,12$, and 16 with $L_x=48,48,48$, and 36, respectively, all at $\rho=1/4$. Figure~\ref{fig:fits}(a) shows the obtained central charge fit parameters $c_\mathrm{total}$, $c_\mathrm{mod}$, and $c_\mathrm{sign}$ for both the HLR and free fermion wavefunctions, while Fig.~\ref{fig:fits}(b) shows the corresponding intercepts $A$ [see Eq.~\eqref{eq:Cardy} of the main text]. The full data sets used to obtain these fits are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:all_strips} (and in Fig.~\ref{fig:strips} of the main text). In Fig.~\ref{fig:all_strips}, we also include data for a $24\times20, N=120$ system (bottom row). This system has nearly unit aspect ratio and is far from the quasi-1D limit. However, we still find the HLR and free fermion states to \emph{scale} nearly equivalently with $c_\mathrm{total}\approx15$, $c_\mathrm{mod}\approx3$, and $c_\mathrm{sign}\approx12$ in both cases. ($N_\mathrm{slices}$ is not particularly well-defined here for $L_x=24$; see caption of Fig.~\ref{fig:all_strips}.)
For the $48\times4$, $48\times8$, and $48\times12$ systems, we excluded the smallest four $X$ values from the fits, while for $36\times16$ and $24\times20$, we excluded the smallest three. Error bars in Fig.~\ref{fig:fits} and in the quoted $c$ values in Figs.~\ref{fig:strips} and \ref{fig:all_strips} are due to uncertainties in the fits only.
\end{document}
|
\section{Introduction}
There are three methods of trapping neutral atoms that have been in the past been described theoretically and applied in many experiments (see, for example, the reviews in \cite{gwo,bml,ms}). These are: magnetic traps, radiation-pressure traps, and optical dipole traps. In the present paper we analyze a different trap produced by the electromagnetic wave carrying orbital angular momentum. The atomic magnetic moment interacts with the magnetic field of such waves as in standard magnetic traps. However, in contrast to the traps in which the magnetic field is static, our trapping mechanism exploits in an essential way the {\em rotation} of the magnetic field. Rotation of the magnetic field is necessary since owing to the Earnshaw theorem static magnetic fields cannot trap particles with permanent magnetic moments. One method to overcome the limitations imposed by the Earnshaw theorem is to use diamagnetic levitating objects \cite{bg}. Another method is to employ the rotation of the magnets as in Levitrons$^\circledR$ \cite{mb,shr}. Our method may be viewed as an application of this last idea to atomic objects. The rotation of the atomic magnetic moment is achieved by placing the atom in the magnetic field of an electromagnetic wave endowed with orbital angular momentum. The rotating magnetic field of such a wave plays a similar role to the rotating electric field in the Paul trap \cite{paul}.
Our theoretical tool is the set of coupled Ehrenfest equations for the translational and spin degrees of freedom \cite{pe,sen}. They are derived from the Schr\"odinger-Pauli equation for a neutral particle endowed with the magnetic moment ${\bm\mu}=g{\bm s}$,
\begin{align}\label{sp}
i\hbar\frac{\partial}{\partial t}\Psi({\bm r},t) =\left(-\frac{\hbar^2\Delta}{2M}-g\bm{s}\!\cdot\!{\bm B}\right)\Psi({\bm r},t),
\end{align}
where $g$ is the gyromagnetic ratio and the spin vector $\bm s$ is built from the appropriate spin matrices. The sign of $g$ is positive or negative depending on whether the magnetic moment is parallel or antiparallel to the spin angular momentum. For the electron the spin operator contains Pauli matrices, ${\bm s}=\hbar/2\,{\bm\sigma}$ and the gyromagnetic ratio is $e/m_{el}$. The classical evolution equations are universal; they do not depend on the value of the spin.
We shall study the case when the magnetic field is a combination of the wave with the vortex line and a static component. We consider two cases: the running wave and the standing wave. The magnetic component of the electromagnetic field in these two cases is given by the formulas:
\begin{subequations}\label{field}
\begin{align}
&{\bm B}_{\rm run}({\bm r},t)=\left[\!\begin{array}{c}\label{run}
B_\perp k(y\cos\,\zeta-x\sin\zeta)\\
B_\perp k(x\cos\,\zeta+y\sin\zeta)\\
B_z
\end{array}\!\right],\\
&{\bm B}_{\rm st}({\bm r},t)=\left[\!\begin{array}{c}\label{st}
B_\perp k\cos(kz)[y\cos(\omega t)-x\sin(\omega t)]\\
B_\perp k\cos(kz)[x\cos(\omega t)+y\sin(\omega t)]\\
B_z
\end{array}\!\right],
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\zeta=\omega t-kz$, $k=\omega/c$ is the wave number, $B_\perp$ measures the strength of the vortex wave, and $B_z$ is the constant field. In order to preserve the correct dimension of $B_\perp$ we inserted a factor of $k$ in these formulas. The vortex part can be viewed as the paraxial approximation of either a Bessel beam or a Laguerre-Gauss beam with orbital angular momentum quantum number equal to 1. Of course, the magnetic fields (\ref{field}), together with their electric counterparts, are exact solutions of Maxwell's equations but the question is whether it is a good approximation of a realistic beam. One may explain this approximation by starting from the exact formulas for the Bessel or the Laguerre-Gauss beams. For Bessel beams the size of the waist is determined by the inverse of the transverse wave vector $1/k_\perp$ and for Laguerre-Gauss beams it is determined by the waist size parameter $w_0$ (see, for example \cite{ep}). The approximation leading to the formulas (\ref{field}) is essentially the paraxial approximation. It simply consists (cf. \cite{br,bb}) of the replacement of the exact solutions by the first term of the expansion in the following dimensionless parameter: the ratio of the distance from the beam center to the size of the beam waist. Therefore, our approximate formulas are valid for distances smaller that the beam waist.
Similar solutions of Maxwell equations have appeared before in our study of the trapping of charged particles by electromagnetic vortices \cite{br,bb,bbc,bbd}. However, this time in addition to a running wave, we consider also a standing wave. We show that the standing wave can trap particles also along the beam direction.
\section{The Ehrenfest equations}\label{eeq}
Let $\langle\bm r\rangle, \langle\bm p\rangle$ and $\langle\bm s\rangle$ be the average values of the position, momentum, and spin of a quantum particle whose wave function obeys the Schr\"odinger equation,
\begin{subequations}\label{avv}
\begin{align}
\langle\bm r\rangle&=\int\!d^3r\,\Psi^*(\bm r,t)\bm r\Psi(\bm r,t),\\
\langle\bm p\rangle&=\frac{\hbar}{i}\int\!d^3r\,\Psi(\bm r,t)\bm{\nabla}\Psi(\bm r,t),\\
\langle\bm s\rangle&=\int\!d^3r\,\Psi^*(\bm r,t)\bm s\Psi(\bm r,t).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Assuming that the magnetic field does not vary significantly on the scale characteristic of the probability distribution $|\Psi(\bm r,t)|^2$, we obtain the following generalization to the case of spinning particles of the Ehrenfest equations for the average values:
\begin{subequations}\label{eqs}
\begin{align}
\frac{d\langle\bm r\rangle}{dt}&=\frac{\langle{\bm p}\rangle}{M},\\
\frac{d\langle\bm p\rangle}{dt}&=g{\bm\nabla}\left[{\langle\bm s\rangle}\!\cdot\!{\bm B}(\langle\bm r\rangle,t)\right],\\
\frac{d\langle\bm s\rangle}{dt}&=-g{\bm B}(\langle\bm r\rangle,t)\times\langle\bm s\rangle.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
These equations in our two cases become (dropping the angle brackets):\\
Running wave
\begin{subequations}\label{eqs1}
\begin{align}
\frac{dx}{dt}&=\frac{p_x}{M},\quad\frac{dy}{dt}=\frac{p_y}{M},\quad
\frac{dz}{dt}=\frac{p_z}{M},\\
\frac{dp_x}{dt}&=b_\perp k\left(s_y\cos\zeta-s_x\sin\zeta\right),\\
\frac{dp_y}{dt}&=b_\perp k\left(s_x\cos\zeta+s_y\sin\zeta\right),\\
\frac{dp_z}{dt}&=b_\perp k^2[x(s_x\cos\zeta+s_y\sin\zeta)\nonumber\\
&-y(s_y\cos\zeta-s_x\sin\zeta)],\\
\frac{ds_x}{dt}&=b_zs_y-b_\perp k(x\cos\zeta+y\sin\zeta)s_z,\\
\frac{ds_y}{dt}&=-b_zs_x+b_\perp k(y\cos\zeta-x\sin\zeta)s_z,\\
\frac{ds_z}{dt}&=b_\perp k[x(s_x\cos\zeta+s_y\sin\zeta)\nonumber\\
&-y(s_y\cos\zeta-s_x\sin\zeta)],
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Standing wave
\begin{subequations}\label{eqs2}
\begin{align}
\frac{dx}{dt}&=\frac{p_x}{M},\quad\frac{dy}{dt}=\frac{p_y}{M},\quad
\frac{dz}{dt}=\frac{p_z}{M},\\
\frac{dp_x}{dt}&=b_\perp k\cos(\xi_z)\left(s_y\cos\omega t-s_x\sin\omega t\right),\\
\frac{dp_y}{dt}&=b_\perp k\cos(\xi_z)\left(s_x\cos\omega t+s_y\sin\omega t\right),\\
\frac{dp_z}{dt}&=-b_\perp k^2\sin(\xi_z)[x(s_y\cos\omega t-s_x\sin\omega t)\nonumber\\
&+y(s_x\cos\omega t+s_y\sin\omega t)],\\
\frac{ds_x}{dt}&=b_zs_y-b_\perp k\cos(\xi_z)(x\cos\omega t+y\sin\omega t)s_z,\\
\frac{ds_y}{dt}&=-b_zs_x+b_\perp k\cos(\xi_z)(y\cos\omega t-x\sin\omega t)s_z,\\
\frac{ds_z}{dt}&=b_\perp k\cos(\xi_z)[s_x(x\cos\omega t+y\sin\omega t)\nonumber\\
&-s_y(y\cos\omega t-x\sin\omega t)],
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $\xi_z=kz,\;b_\perp=gB_\perp$ and $b_z=gB_z$.
The similarity between the two sets of equations allows for the application of the same method to simplify both sets. The repeated occurrence of some combinations of the spin variables suggests the introduction of the following ``rotating'' dimensionless spin components:
\begin{subequations}\label{spin}
\begin{align}
&\mathfrak{s}_x=-[s_x\cos({\rm arg})+s_y\sin({\rm arg})]/\hbar,\\
&\mathfrak{s}_y=[s_y\cos({\rm arg})-s_x\sin({\rm arg})]/\hbar,\\
&\mathfrak{s}_z=-s_z/\hbar,
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where the argument of the trigonometric functions could be either $\zeta$ or $\omega t$. For the spin $\hbar/2$ particles the variables $\mathfrak{s}_i$ vary from -1/2 to 1/2 and $\mathfrak{s}_x^2+\mathfrak{s}_y^2+\mathfrak{s}_z^2=1/4$. Note that the sum of the squares of the spin expectation values yields 1/4 and not 3/4 as one might have thought. This is due to the difference between the square of an average value and the average value squared. In particular, for the Pauli matrices we obtain: $\langle\sigma_x^2+\sigma_y^2+\sigma_z^2\rangle=3$ but $\langle\sigma_x\rangle^2+\langle\sigma_y\rangle^2
+\langle\sigma_z\rangle^2=1$.
The equations of motion expressed in terms of the new spin variables are autonomous which significantly simplifies their analysis. In the dimensionless form these equations can be rewritten in the form:\\
Running wave
\begin{subequations}\label{eqsd1}
\begin{align}
\frac{d\xi_x}{d\tau}&=\eta_x,\quad\frac{d\xi_y}{d\tau}=\eta_y,\quad
\frac{d\xi_z}{d\tau}=\eta_z,\\
\frac{d\eta_x}{d\tau}&=\gamma\mathfrak{s}_y,\\
\frac{d\eta_y}{d\tau}&=-\gamma\mathfrak{s}_x,\\
\frac{d\eta_z}{d\tau}&=-\gamma(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_x+\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_y),\\
\frac{d\mathfrak{s}_x}{d\tau}&=-\alpha\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_z
-\beta\mathfrak{s}_y,\\
\frac{d\mathfrak{s}_y}{d\tau}&=-\alpha\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_z
+\beta\mathfrak{s}_x,\\
\frac{d\mathfrak{s}_z}{d\tau}&
=\alpha(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_x+\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_y).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
Standing wave
\begin{subequations}\label{eqsd2}
\begin{align}
\frac{d\xi_x}{d\tau}&=\eta_x,\quad\frac{d\xi_y}{d\tau}=\eta_y,\quad
\frac{d\xi_z}{d\tau}=\eta_z,\\
\frac{d\eta_x}{d\tau}&=\gamma\cos(\xi_z)\mathfrak{s}_y,\\
\frac{d\eta_y}{d\tau}&=-\gamma\cos(\xi_z)\mathfrak{s}_x,\\
\frac{d\eta_z}{d\tau}&=-\gamma\sin(\xi_z)
(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_y-\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_x),\\
\frac{d\mathfrak{s}_x}{d\tau}&=-\alpha\cos(\xi_z)\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_z
-\beta\mathfrak{s}_y,\\
\frac{d\mathfrak{s}_y}{d\tau}&=-\alpha\cos(\xi_z)\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_z
+\beta\mathfrak{s}_x,\\
\frac{d\mathfrak{s}_z}{d\tau}&=\alpha\cos(\xi_z)
(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_x+\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_y).
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where
\begin{subequations}\label{def}
\begin{align}
&\{\xi_x,\xi_y,\xi_z\}=k\{x,y,z\},\\
&\{\eta_x,\eta_y,\eta_z\}=\frac{\{p_x,p_y,p_z\}}{\sqrt{\hbar\omega M}},\\
&\tau=\omega t\sqrt{\frac{\hbar\omega}{Mc^2}},\\
&\alpha=\frac{gB_\perp}{\omega}\sqrt{\frac{Mc^2}{\hbar\omega}},\\
&\beta=(1+\frac{gB_z}{\omega})\sqrt{\frac{Mc^2}{\hbar\omega}},\\
&\gamma=\frac{gB_\perp}{\omega}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The same sets of evolution equations would result from the formula
\begin{align}
\frac{dA}{d\tau}=\{A,H\}
\end{align}
which determines the time evolution in classical Hamiltonian mechanics if we use the Pauli Hamiltonian and assume that the spin components obey the Poisson brackets for angular momentum, namely $\{\mathfrak{s}_i,\mathfrak{s}_j\}=\epsilon_{ijk}\mathfrak{s}_k$.
\section{Guiding of the particle by a running wave}
The running wave cannot trap the particle in the direction of the beam so that we may only study the guiding of particles along the beam. Before delving into the details we would like to exhibit a striking similarity between the motion in an electromagnetic wave with the orbital angular momentum of a charged particle studied in \cite{bbc} and the motion of an atom described by the Eqs. (\ref{eqsd1}). In Figs.~\ref{fig1} and \ref{fig2} we show typical trajectories in these two cases. The details of these trajectories are not important since the similarity is only qualitative. This similarity is just due to the fact that in both cases the electromagnetic field rotates around the beam axis.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.93]{Fig1.eps}
\caption{Trajectory of a charged particle in 3D and its projection on the $xy$-plane trapped by a beam with orbital angular momentum (Bessel beam). This trajectory was obtained by the numerical integration of the classical equations of motion with the Lorentz force.}\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.57]{Fig2.eps}
\caption{Trajectory of a neutral atom endowed with a magnetic moment in 3D and its projection on the $xy$-plane trapped by a uniform magnetic field and a beam with orbital angular momentum. This trajectory was obtained by the numerical integration of the Eqs. (\ref{eqsd1}).}\label{fig2}
\end{figure}
The equations of motion (\ref{eqsd1}) possess the following four constant of motion: the (dimensionless) energy in the $xy$-plane
\begin{align}\label{ham}
E_\perp=\frac{\eta_x^2+\eta_y^2}{2}
-\gamma(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_y-\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_x)
+\frac{\beta\gamma}{\alpha}\mathfrak{s}_z,
\end{align}
the spin squared $\mathfrak{s}^2$, the $z$-component of the total angular momentum $\alpha(\xi_x\eta_y-\xi_y\eta_x)+\gamma\mathfrak{s}_z$, and the generator $\xi_x\eta_y-\xi_y\eta_x-\eta_z$ of the symmetry transformation (the screw symmetry) of the electromagnetic running wave (\ref{run}).
The energy $E_\perp$ also plays the role of the Hamiltonian which generates through the Poisson brackets the evolution equations for the motion in the $\xi_x\xi_y$-plane and for the spin.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.75]{Fig3.eps}
\caption{The oscillations of $\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)$ around the mean value of $\mathfrak{s}_z=1/\sqrt{8}$ have a tiny amplitude equal to 0.00001. This plot was obtained by integrating numerically Eqs. (\ref{eqsd1}) for $\alpha=1,\;\beta=100$, and $\gamma=0.01$.}\label{fig3}
\end{figure}
In a typical realistic situation, as described in Sec.~\ref{real}, the ratio $\gamma/\alpha$ is much smaller than 1. This implies that the velocity changes at a much smaller rate than the spin. If we assume, in addition, that the initial velocity is small (cold atoms), we can solve explicitly the equations for the spin components. This procedure may be viewed as a Born-Oppenheimer approximation \cite{bo}, in which the spin is a fast variable and the position is a slow variable.
The solution of the equations for the spin keeping the position fixed has the form:
\begin{align}\label{spin1}
&\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathfrak{s}_x(\tau)\\
\mathfrak{s}_y(\tau)\\
\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)
\end{array}\right]=\left[\begin{array}{c}
\mathfrak{s}_x^0\\
\mathfrak{s}_y^0\\
\mathfrak{s}_z^0
\end{array}\right]\cos(\Omega\tau)+
\left[\begin{array}{c}
-\beta\mathfrak{s}_y^0-\chi_x\mathfrak{s}_z^0\\
\beta\mathfrak{s}_x^0-\chi_y\mathfrak{s}_z^0\\
\chi_x\mathfrak{s}_x^0+\chi_y\mathfrak{s}_y^0
\end{array}\right]\frac{\sin(\Omega\tau)}{\Omega}\nonumber\\
&\quad+\frac{\chi_y\mathfrak{s}_x^0-\chi_x\mathfrak{s}_y^0+\beta\mathfrak{s}_z^0}
{\Omega^2}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\chi_y\\
-\chi_x\\
\beta\end{array}\right](1-\cos(\Omega\tau)),
\end{align}
where $\Omega=\sqrt{\beta^2+\chi_x^2+\chi_y2}$ and $\chi_k=\alpha\xi_k^0$.
In Fig.~\ref{fig3} we show the oscillations of $\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)$ obtained directly from the explicit formula (\ref{spin1}) and by the numerical integration of the evolution equations (\ref{eqsd1}). The difference between the two plots is hidden in the line thickness. Having established that the explicit expression (\ref{spin1}) represents correctly the evolution of $\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)$, we may use this formula to obtain an estimate for the amplitude of the oscillation:
\begin{align}\label{sz}
\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)=\mathfrak{s}_z^0
+\frac{\alpha}{\beta}
\big\{(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_y^0-\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_x^0)
[\cos(\Omega\tau)-1]\nonumber\\
+(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_x^0+\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_y^0)\sin(\Omega\tau)
\big\}+\mathcal{O}\left(\frac{\alpha^2}{\beta^2}\right).
\end{align}
Thus the amplitude of the oscillations of $\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)$ around the initial value is controlled by the parameter $\alpha|\xi_\perp||\mathfrak{s}_\perp|/\beta$. As long as this parameter is very small, we may replace $\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)$ by its mean value $\bar{\mathfrak{s}}_z$. This parameter in Fig.~\ref{fig3} is equal to 0.00001 in perfect agrement with the numerical solution.
Upon the replacement of $\mathfrak{s}_z(\tau)$ by $\bar{\mathfrak{s}}_z$, Eqs. (\ref{eqsd1}) for the $xy$ variables become a linear set of equations with constant coefficients easily solvable by standard techniques. We shall write these equations, which determine the motion in the transverse plane, as a set of three equations for the complex variables $\xi_+=\xi_x+i\xi_y,\,\eta_+=\eta_x+i\eta_y$, and $\mathfrak{s}_+=\mathfrak{s}_x+i\mathfrak{s}_y$,
\begin{align}\label{eqs3}
\frac{d}{d\tau}\left[\begin{array}{c}
\xi_+(\tau)\\\eta_+(\tau)\\\mathfrak{s}_+(\tau)
\end{array}\right]
=\left[\begin{array}{ccc}
0&1&0\\0&0&-i\gamma\\-\alpha\bar{\mathfrak{s}}_z&0&i\beta
\end{array}\right]
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\xi_+(\tau)\\\eta_+(\tau)\\\mathfrak{s}_+(\tau)
\end{array}\right].
\end{align}
The general solution of these equations for the vector ${\bm V}(\tau)=\{\xi_+(\tau),\eta_+(\tau),\mathfrak{s}_+(\tau)\}$ has the form:
\begin{align}\label{gsol}
{\bm V}(\tau)=a_1{\bm v}_1e^{iw_1\tau}+a_2{\bm v}_2e^{iw_2\tau}+a_3{\bm v}_3e^{iw_3\tau},
\end{align}
where the frequencies $w_i$ are the roots of the characteristic equation:
\begin{align}\label{cheq}
w^3-\beta w^2+\delta=0,
\end{align}
and $\delta=\alpha\gamma\bar{\mathfrak{s}}_z$. The three vectors ${\bm v_i}$ and the coefficients $a_i$ are the following functions of the frequencies $w_i$ and the initial data:
\begin{subequations}\label{ai}
\begin{align}
{\bm v}_k&=\{1,iw_k,w_k^2/(i\gamma)\},\\
a_1&=\frac{w_2w_3\xi_+^0+i(w_2+w_3)\eta_+^0
+i\gamma\mathfrak{s}_+^0}{(w_1-w_2)(w_1-w_3)},\\
a_2&=\frac{w_1w_3\xi_+^0+i(w_1+w_3)\eta_+^0
+i\gamma\mathfrak{s}_+^0}{(w_2-w_1)(w_2-w_3)},\\
a_3&=\frac{w_1w_2\xi_+^0+i(w_1+w_2)\eta_+^0
+i\gamma\mathfrak{s}_+^0}{(w_3-w_1)(w_3-w_2)}.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
To demonstrate the quality of our approximation we show in Fig.~\ref{fig4} two indistinguishable orbits. One of them is the numerical solution of exact equations (\ref{eqsd1}) while the other is obtained from the approximate solution (\ref{gsol}). The agreement between the exact solution and the approximate one is not so perfect for smaller values of $\beta$. As shown in Fig.~\ref{fig5} the size of the orbit and the general characteristics are well reproduced, but the details differ.
The difference between the regular behavior of the trajectory in Fig.~\ref{fig4} and the knotted behavior in Fig.~\ref{fig5} is the result of an interplay between the contributions with different frequencies in the knotted solution. This property is controlled to a large extent by the initial conditions. To illustrate this point we show in Fig.~\ref{fig6} the (indistinguishable) trajectories, exact and approximate as in Fig.~\ref{fig4}. They are obtained for the same values of the parameters but for the following special initial conditions:
\begin{align}\label{scond}
\xi_+^0=\frac{i\gamma\mathfrak{s}_+^0}{w^2},\qquad
\eta_+^0=\frac{-\gamma\mathfrak{s}_+^0}{w},
\end{align}
where $w$ is any root of the characteristic equation (\ref{cheq}). These initial conditions are chosen to make two coefficients $a_i$ in (\ref{ai}) equal to zero so that only the frequency $w$ is left and the motion becomes regular. In Sec.~\ref{ex} we show that these special initial conditions chosen here in connection with the approximate formula (\ref{gsol}) produce in fact exact analytic solutions of the full equations.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig4.eps}
\caption{The trajectories of the particle obtained by solving numerically Eqs. (\ref{eqsd1}) and from the simple approximate formula (\ref{gsol}) obtained for $\alpha=3,\;\beta=100$, and $\gamma=0.03$. The initial values of all variables are: $\xi_x=0.0035,\;\xi_y=0,\;\xi_z=0,\;\eta_x=-0.00015,\;\eta_y=0.00015,\;\eta_z=0\;\mathfrak{s}_x=1/\sqrt{8},\;
\mathfrak{s}_y=0,\;\mathfrak{s}_z=1/\sqrt{8}$. The difference between two trajectories is hidden in the line thickness.}\label{fig4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.93]{Fig5.eps}
\caption{The trajectory of the particle obtained by solving numerically Eqs. (\ref{eqsd1}) and from the simple approximate formula (right) obtained for $\alpha=3, \beta=0.8$, and $\gamma=0.01$. The initial conditions are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig4}.}\label{fig5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.6]{Fig6.eps}
\caption{The trajectories of the particle obtained by solving numerically Eqs. and from the simple approximate formula obtained for the special initial conditions (\ref{scond}) which make the coefficients $a_1$ and $a_2$ equal to zero. The remaining variables are the same as in Fig.~\ref{fig5}. In contrast to Fig.~\ref{fig5}, the difference between the two trajectories is hidden now in the line thickness.}\label{fig6}
\end{figure}
A good estimate of the size of the orbit is the time average $\langle\cdot\rangle_t$ of the square of the distance of the particle from the wave center $d^2=\langle|\xi_+|^2\rangle_t=|a_1|^2+|a_2|^2+|a_3|^2$. We have chosen this measure because it has an explicit representation in terms of the parameters of the trap and the initial values, $d^2=N/D$,
\begin{subequations}\label{dist}
\begin{align}
N=&(2\beta^3\delta-9\delta^2)|\xi_+^0|^2 +(2\beta^4-12\beta\delta)|\eta_+^0|^2\nonumber\\
+&2\gamma^2\beta^2|\mathfrak{s}_+^0|^2
-2\beta^2\delta\Im(\xi_+^0\eta_+^{0*})\nonumber\\
-&6\gamma\beta\delta\Im(\xi_+^0\mathfrak{s}_+^{0*})
+\gamma(4\beta^3-18\delta)
\Re(\eta_+^0\mathfrak{s}_+^{0*}),\\
D=&4\beta^3\delta-27\delta^2.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[scale=0.55]{Fig7.eps}
\vspace{0.4cm}
\caption{Regions of stability shown as functions of the parameter $\beta$. For positive values of $\mathfrak{s}_z$ the stable region extends to the right of $\beta_+$,and for the negative values of $\mathfrak{s}_z$ it extends to the left of $\beta_-$}\label{fig7}
\end{figure}
Of course, the size of the orbit is meaningful only when the particle is trapped, i.e., all frequencies are real. The regions of stability are shown in Fig.~\ref{fig7}. The boundaries of these two disjoint regions can be found from the vanishing of the discriminant $\Delta$ of the polynomial (\ref{cheq}),
\begin{align}
\Delta=\delta(4\beta^3-27\delta).
\end{align}
The boundaries of the stability region follow from the formula for the discriminant:
\begin{align}
\beta_+=3(\delta/4)^{1/3},\qquad\beta_-=-3(|\delta|/4)^{1/3}.
\end{align}
Our simplified description is valid only when the parameter $\delta$ is small. The values of the parameters $\alpha,\,\beta$, and $\gamma$ in realistic situations will be discussed in Sec.~\ref{real}.
For small values of $\delta$ the roots of Eq.~(\ref{cheq}) are approximately equal to:
\begin{subequations}
\label{ai1}
\begin{align}
w_1&=w+O(\frac{\delta}{\beta}),\label{omega1}\\
w_2&=-w+O(\frac{\delta}{\beta}),\label{omega2}\\
w_3&=W+O(\frac{\delta}{\beta}),\label{omega3}
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
where $w=\sqrt{\delta/\beta}$ and $W=\beta$.
Dropping all small terms of the order of $w/W$, we obtain from (\ref{ai}) the following formula for the trajectory:
\begin{align}\label{ell}
\xi_+(\tau)=\xi_+^0\cos(w\tau)+\frac{\eta_+^0}{w}\sin(w\tau).
\end{align}
This is a parametric representation of an ellipse in the $xy$-plane.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{Fig8.eps}
\caption{Plots of the trajectories for fixed $\alpha=-2$ and $\gamma=-0.02$ while the value of $\beta$ changes from left to right as follows $\beta=\{-100,-50,-20,-5,-2\}$. The plots are obtained by the integration of the exact equations (\ref{eqsd1}).} \label{fig8}
\end{figure*}
The minor semi-axis $a_-$ and the major semi-axis $a_+$ of the ellipse (\ref{ell}) are the following functions of the initial data:
\begin{align}\label{sa}
a_\pm=\sqrt{h\pm\sqrt{h^2-m_z^2}},
\end{align}
where $h$ looks like the (dimensionless) Hamiltonian of an oscillator,
\begin{align}\label{hh}
h=\frac{1}{2}\left(((\eta_x^0)^2+(\eta_y^0)^2)/w^2
+(\xi_x^0)^2+(\xi_y^0)^2\right),
\end{align}
and $m_z$ looks like the $z$-component of the orbital angular momentum,
\begin{align}\label{mm}
m_z=(\xi_x^0\eta_y^0-\xi_y^0\eta_x^0)/w.
\end{align}
These simple formulas enable us to determine the shape of the trajectory for various values of the initial conditions, the strength of the magnetic field, and the wave frequency.
Our approximate description is based on the assumption that the variation of $\mathfrak{s}_z$ is small and can be replaced by the average value in Eqs.~(\ref{eqsd1}e) (\ref{eqsd1}f). The influence of fast oscillations of $\mathfrak{s}_z$ with the Larmor frequency $gB_z$ averages out because the orbital motion is slow.
In Fig.~\ref{fig8} we show the trajectories obtained by integrating numerically Eqs. (\ref{eqsd1}). The characteristic feature is the shrinking of the size of the orbits as one approaches the resonance between the Larmor frequency and the wave frequency. The shrinking of the size of the orbits is given by the formula (\ref{dist}) obtained from the approximate solution. For relatively large values of $\beta$, as used in Fig.~\ref{fig8}, the shrinking of the orbit size $d$ is well reproduced by the formula
\begin{align}\label{dapr}
d\approx|\eta_+^0|\sqrt{\beta/2\delta}.
\end{align}
We should remember that all our results are meaningful only when the formulas (\ref{field}) are valid, i.e. when the overall size of the trajectory does not exceed the range of validity of the paraxial approximation. If this condition is not satisfied, one would have to use a more accurate description of the electromagnetic beams using, for example, exact Laguerre-Gauss beams or Bessel beams.
\section{Full trapping of particles by a standing wave}\label{trap}
The running wave cannot trap particles in the direction of the wave propagation. This is due to the fact that the running wave has the screw symmetry which makes all positions along the $z$-axis equivalent. In contrast, the standing wave breaks this symmetry. In this case we do not have the constant of motion connected with the screw symmetry. The two constants of motion (the squared spin and the $z$-component of the angular momentum) are still valid but the third one requires a modification. Instead of the energy in the $xy$-plane we have now the full energy,
\begin{align}\label{tre}
E=\frac{\eta_x^2+\eta_y^2+\eta_z^2}{2}
-\gamma\cos(\xi_z)(\xi_x\mathfrak{s}_y-\xi_y\mathfrak{s}_x)
+\frac{\beta\gamma}{\alpha}\mathfrak{s}_z.
\end{align}
The equations of motion (\ref{eqsd2}) under a proper choice of parameters have fully localized solutions. The trapping is most effective near the nodes of the magnetic field, i.e. at all values $\xi_z=n\pi/2$ where the magnetic field vanishes ($n$ is an odd number). In addition, it turns out that the trajectories in the standing wave are localized much better in the {\em transverse direction} than the corresponding trajectories in the running wave. In Fig.~\ref{fig9} we show two trajectories obtained for the same values of the parameters and the initial data. The trajectory in the standing wave (left) shows perfect trapping while the trajectory in the running wave escapes from the trap. Moreover, for the chosen set of parameters two roots $w_i$ of Eq.~(\ref{cheq}) are complex. It is, therefore, not surprising on the basis of our analysis in the previous section that the trajectory in the running wave leaves the trap. What is unexpected is a perfect trapping by the standing wave for the same parameters when the running wave does not trap.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Fig9.eps}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{Plots of the trajectories in 3D obtained for the following set of the parameters and the initial values $\alpha=8,\;\beta=1,\;\gamma=0.8,\; \xi_x(0)=0.01,\;\xi_y(0)=0,\;\xi_z(0)=\pi/2,\;\eta_x(0)=0,\; \eta_y(0)=0.0001,\;\eta_z(0)=0.0004,\;\mathfrak{s}_x=0.354,\;
\mathfrak{s}_y=0,\;\mathfrak{s}_z=-0.354$. The left trajectory represents the motion in the standing wave, and the right one represents the motion in the running wave. The axes are labeled with the dimensionless coordinates (\ref{def}a).}\label{fig9}
\end{figure*}
The shape and the overall size of the trajectory depends very sensitively on the initial value of $\xi_z$. When this value departs even slightly from the node value, the trapping becomes less effective. In Fig.~\ref{fig10} we show a sixfold increase in the size of the orbit when the initial value of $\xi_z$ is changed from its node value $\pi/2$ by merely 0.03.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=1.2]{Fig10.eps}
\vspace{0.5cm}
\caption{Plots of the trajectories in 3D obtained for the same set of the parameters as in Fig.~\ref{fig9} except that the initial values of $\xi_z$ were taken as $\pi/2$ (left) and $\pi/2+0.03$ (right). The axes are labeled with the dimensionless coordinates (\ref{def}a).}\label{fig10}
\end{figure*}
\section{Exact analytic solutions}\label{ex}
We have already noticed that when the oscillations of $\mathfrak{s}_z$ have a small amplitude one may find trapped approximate analytic solutions that are close to numerical solutions. Of course, the equations of motion will possess a trapped solution only if $w$ is a real root of Eq. (\ref{cheq}). Continuing this line of thought, we shall now look for solutions that have no oscillations. It turns out that in this case we will obtain exact analytic solutions. The condition for the existence of such solutions is the vanishing of the right-hand side in Eqs.~(\ref{eqsd1}g) and (\ref{eqsd2}g). This will be achieved if the vectors $(\xi_x,\xi_y)$ and $(\mathfrak{s}_x,\mathfrak{s}_y)$ are perpendicular. This condition is satisfied owing to our conditions (\ref{scond}) imposed on the initial data in order to have only one frequency. Luckily, it so happens that the orthogonality condition is satisfied at all times and we obtain in this way exact analytic solutions.
We construct exact solutions starting from the evolution equations (\ref{eqsd1}) and (\ref{eqsd2}) and we rewrite them in the complexified form as in (\ref{eqs3}). In the case of the running wave the motion in the $z$-direction does not matter, while in the case of the standing wave we choose $z=0$. Then in both cases the equations for the motion in the $xy$-plane have the same form. Assuming the situation in which only one frequency is present, we look for solutions in the following form:
\begin{align}\label{form}
\left[\begin{array}{c}
\xi_+(\tau)\\\eta_+(\tau)\\\mathfrak{s}_+(\tau)
\end{array}\right]=e^{iw\tau}\left[\begin{array}{c}
\xi\\\eta\\\mathfrak{s}
\end{array}\right],
\end{align}
where $\xi,\eta$, and $\mathfrak{s}$ are time-independent complex numbers. Inserting this ansatz into (\ref{eqs3}) we obtain the following set of algebraic equations:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{align}\label{alg}
&iw\xi_+=\eta_+,\quad iw\eta_+=-i\gamma\mathfrak{s}_+,\\ &iw\mathfrak{s}_+=-\alpha\xi_+\mathfrak{s}_z+i\beta\mathfrak{s}_+.
\end{align}
\end{subequations}
The first two equations are satisfied by formulas (\ref{scond}), found previously in our simplified description. The third equation is satisfied provided $w$ is one of the roots of the characteristic equation (\ref{cheq}). The trajectories representing these solutions are circles orbited with frequency $w$. The radius of the circle depends on the parameters $\alpha,\,\beta,\,\gamma$, on the value of the spin in the transverse direction $\mathfrak{s}_+$, and on the choice of one of the three roots of the characteristic equations. When the spin tilts away from the $z$-axis, the radius increases. Returning to the original components $s_x$ and $s_y$, whose time evolution is governed by Eqs.~(\ref{eqs1}), we see that the spin vector precesses with the frequency of the wave as the particle moves along its orbit.
\begin{figure*}
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.72]{Fig11.eps}
\caption{Plots of the trajectories for the hydrogen atom when the values of $\beta$ approach the resonance value. The magnetic fields are $B_z$=3T and $B_\perp$=0.15T and the frequency is in the microwave range $\omega\approx 5\times 10^{11}$ chosen to approach the resonance value. The initial velocity corresponds to the temperature 10mK. From left to right the values of $\beta$ approach the resonance taking on the following values: $1000,400,200,100$. These trajectories are identical for the running wave and for the standing wave provided in the second case we choose $z=0$ and $v_z=0$.}\label{fig11}
\end{figure*}
For a complex root $w$ we still obtain an exact solution but the trajectory either shrinks or runs away, depending on the sign of the imaginary part of $w$. When for a given choice of parameters the characteristic equation has complex roots, even for the real root the circular trajectory becomes unstable.
\section{Realistic applications of the results}\label{real}
In this section we will apply our results to the analysis of solutions for the realistic values of the parameters. The most obvious application of the model described here is to the motion of the hydrogen atom. Unfortunately, the large mass of the atom makes the trapping difficult. Nevertheless for very cold atoms the trap may be effective. Also the huge magnetic moment of highly excited circular Rydberg atoms might be helpful.
In Fig.~\ref{fig11} we plot the trajectories for a microwave trap, $\omega\approx 5\times10^{11}$/s, in the vicinity of the resonance. The resonance regime is harder to achieve for optical frequencies, as seen in (\ref{def}e), since it would require magnetic fields of the order of $10^4$T. The characteristic feature of the orbits in the vicinity of the resonance is their rotation. This rotation is not present in our approximate solutions (\ref{ell}) and reflects the failure of this approximation near the resonance. The average size of the orbit, as seen in formula (\ref{dapr}), grows linearly with the initial velocity. Therefore, at some value of $v/c$ (depending on the values of all parameters) the simplified description of the electromagnetic wave becomes inapplicable.
It may seem that the trapping would work better for the positronium because its mass is much smaller. However, the average value of the magnetic moment vanishes for both orthopositronium and parapositronium \cite{ab}. It could be different from zero only for the superposition of ortho and para states. To create such a superposition, however, one would have to overcome the energy barrier of $7.6\times10^{-4}$ eV, and that would require very strong (many teslas) magnetic field.
\section{Conclusions}
We have shown, with the use of the Ehrenfest equations generalized to the case of spinning particles, that neutral particles endowed with a magnetic moment are trapped by the combination of a constant magnetic field and the rotating magnetic field of a wave carrying orbital angular momentum. We considered two cases: the running wave and the standing wave. In the first case the trapping takes place only in the plane perpendicular to the wave direction. In the second case we obtained full trapping in three dimensions. We analyzed in detail the solutions of the resulting sets of nonlinear ordinary differential equations that describe the time evolution of the average values of the particle coordinates and the magnetic moment. The most intricate properties of the solutions were found in the vicinity of the resonance when the wave frequency is approaching the Larmor precession frequency in the constant field. The phenomenon of trapping has been fully established but its efficiency is controlled by a small parameter: the ratio of the Larmor frequency to the wave frequency. For strong magnetic fields (a few teslas) and relatively low frequency (microwaves) this parameter may be of the order of 1. This is the resonance regime where the trapping is most effective. This regime may be hard to achieve but it seems to be feasible.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
Numerical calculations and all figures were done with the use of Mathematica \cite{math}. The first author acknowledges the support from the Polish National Science Center Grant No. 2012/07/B/ST1/03347.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{s-intro}
The digital technology that pervades every aspect of our lives is bringing communications more and more towards pictorial (two-dimensional) environments. The generalization to two dimensions of the formal study of all structures and special patterns of the strings is then gaining a growing interest in the scientific community.
The two-dimensional strings are called \emph{pictures} and they are represented by two-dimensional (rectangular) arrays over a finite alphabet $\Sigma$. The set of all pictures over $\Sigma$ is usually denoted by $\Sigma^{**}$.
Extending results from the formal (string) language theory to two dimensions is a very challenging task. The two-dimensional structure in fact imposes some intrinsic difficulties even in the basic concepts. For example, we can define two concatenation operations (horizontal and vertical concatenations) between two pictures, but they are only partial operations and do not induce a monoid structure to the set $\Sigma^{**}$. Moreover, for example, the definition of ``prefix" of a string can be extended to a picture by considering its rectangular portion in the top-left corner; nevertheless, if one deletes a prefix from a picture, the remaining part is not a picture anymore.
Several results from string language theory have been worthy extended to pictures. Many researchers
have investigated how the notion of recognizability by finite state automata
can be transferred to two dimensions to accept picture languages (\cite{AGM-Fund10,AGMR,AGM-IJFCS14,BH67,GR92,GR-book}).
A relevant notion on strings is the one of "border".
Given a string $s$, a \emph{bifix} or a \emph{border} of $s$ is a substring $x$ that is both prefix and suffix of $s$. A string $s$ is \emph{bifix-free} or \emph{unbordered} if it has no other bifixes, besides the empty string and $s$ itself.
Bifix-free strings are strictly related with the theory of codes \cite{BPR} and are involved in the data structures for pattern matching algorithms \cite{CR02,Gus97}. From a more applicative point of view, bifix-free strings are suitable as
synchronization patterns in digital
communications and similar communication protocols \cite{N73}.
In this framework, the \emph{cross-bifix-free codes} have been introduced in \cite{Bajic07}.
A set of strings $X$ is a cross-bifix-free code
when no
prefix of any string is the suffix of any other string in $X$;
it is {\em non-expandable} if
no other element can be added to $X$ without falsifying the property of the set.
Several efforts have been made in the last years in order to construct families of non-expandable cross-bifix-free codes.
A first family has been exhibited in \cite{Bajic14}. Subsequently, other families based on different approaches have been shown in \cite{BPP12,CKPW13},
with the aim of finding codes of bigger cardinality.
The notion of border extends very naturally from strings to pictures since it is not related to any scanning direction.
Informally, we can say that a picture $p$ is \emph{bordered}
if a copy $p'$ of $p$ can be overlapped on $p$ by putting a corner of $p'$ somewhere on some position in $p$.
Observe that, depending on the position of the corner of $p'$, several different types of picture overlaps are possible and some of them can be studied by reducing them to the string case.
We stay in the general situation when the overlaps can be made on any position in $p$ and therefore the borders can be of any size. This leads to a quite different scenario with respect to the string case. In fact, we have two pairs of symmetric cases; either $p$ can be overlapped by putting its top-left corner in a copy $p'$ (i.e. the bottom-right corner of $p'$ is inside $p$) or we can put the bottom-left corner of $p$ somewhere in some positions of its copy $p'$ (i.e. the top-right corner of $p'$ is inside $p$).
Unbordered pictures, in this general setting, were first investigated in \cite{AGM-CAI15}, where an algorithm for the construction of the set of all unbordered pictures of a fixed size is proposed.
Moving from pictures to sets of pictures, we consider the notion of \textit{non-overlapping set of pictures}. In a non-overlapping set of pictures, each picture is unbordered and moreover no picture can be overlapped on another one of the same set. This notion gives therefore the generalization of cross-bifix-free code of strings and provides families of picture codes. An example of a non-overlapping set of pictures was recently given in \cite{BBP16}; its cardinality is calculated using generalized Fibonacci sequences. Actually, it is quite easy to find "small" non-overlapping sets of pictures of a fixed size $(m,n)$; the challenge is, of course, to find "big" ones! More precisely, the aim is to find "big" non-overlapping sets of pictures which cannot be expanded and, at the same time, to provide a description for any size of the pictures.
In the same paper \cite{BBP16}, it is left as main open problem whether it is possible to construct a \emph{non-expandable non-overlapping} set of pictures (we will call it a NENO set, for short). A solution to this problem is a generalization to two dimensions of the above cited results on non-expandable cross-bifix-free sets of strings.
It constitutes the main contribution of this paper.
First, we show some necessary conditions which are satisfied by any non-overlapping set of pictures.
Subsequently, we identify some conditions which ensure that a set is non-overlapping non-expandable.
The focus is firstly on the properties that the frames of the pictures may have, and then on the internal part of the pictures.
This approach provides a construction in two main steps.
As an application we exhibit a family of NENO sets $Y(m,n)$, for any $m,n\geq 4$.
It is the first example in the literature.
\section{Preliminaries}\label{s-preli}
In this section
we recall all the definitions on strings and pictures needed in the rest of the paper. For more details see \cite{BPR} and \cite{GR-book}.
\subsection{Basic notations on strings}\label{ss-string}
A string is a sequence of zero or more symbols
from an alphabet $\Sigma$.
Let $s=s_1s_2 \ldots s_n$ be a string of length $n$ over $\Sigma$. The length of $s$ is denoted $|s|$.
A string $w$ of length $h$, $h\leq n$, is a substring (or factor) of $s$ if $s = uwv$ for $u, v\in\Sigma^*$. Moreover we say
that $w$ occurs at position $j$ of $s$ if $w=s_j \ldots s_{j+h-1}$.
A string $x$ of length $m<n$ is a \emph{prefix} of $s$ if $x$ is a substring that occurs in $s$ at position $1$;
it is a \emph{suffix} of $s$ if it is a substring that occurs in $s$ at position $n-m+1$.
A string $x$ that is both prefix and suffix of $s$ is called a \emph{border} or a \emph{bifix} of $s$.
The empty string and $s$ itself are \emph{trivial} borders of $s$. A string $s$ is \emph{unbordered} or \emph{bifix-free} if it has no borders unless the trivial ones.
Unbordered strings have received very much attention since they occur in many applications as message synchronization or string matching. In \cite{N73} P. T. Nielsen proposed a procedure to generate all bifix-free strings of a given length.
Finally, two strings $s$ and $s'$ {\em overlap} if there exists a string $x$ that is a suffix of $s$ and a prefix of $s'$, or vice versa; the string $x$ is their overlap and $|x|$ is the length of the overlap. We will equivalently say that $s$ overlaps $s'$.
\subsection{Basic notations on pictures}\label{ss-2d-notation}
A {\em picture} over a finite
alphabet $\Sigma$ is a two-dimensional rectangular array of
elements of $\Sigma$. Given a picture $p$, $|p|_{row}$ and $|p|_{col}$ denote the number of rows and columns, respectively while $size(p)=\left(|p|_{row},|p|_{col}\right)$ denotes the picture {\em size}. The pictures of size
$(m,0)$ or $(0,n)$ for all $m,n\geq 0$, called \emph{empty} pictures, will be never considered in this paper.
The set of all pictures over $\Sigma$ of fixed size $(m,n)$ is denoted by $\Sigma^{m,n}$, while
the set of all pictures over $\Sigma$ is denoted by $\Sigma^{**}$.
Let $p$ be a picture of size $(m,n)$. The set of coordinates $dom(p)=\{1, 2, \ldots, m\}\times \{1, 2, \ldots, n\}$ is referred to as the \emph{domain} of a
picture $p$.
We let $p{(i,j)}$ denote the symbol in $p$ at coordinates $(i,j)$.
We assume the top-left corner of the picture to be at position $(1,1)$.
Moreover, to easily detect border positions of pictures, we use initials of words ``top", ``bottom", ``left" and ``right"; then, for example, the
\emph{tl-corner} of $p$ refers to position $(1,1)$ while the \emph{br-corner} refers to position $(m,n)$.
Furthermore, we denote by
$r_F(p), r_L(p)\in \Sigma^n$ the first and the last row of $p$, respectively
and
by
$c_F(p), c_L(p)\in \Sigma^m$ the first and the last column of $p$, respectively. Then, the
{\em frame} of $p$ is
$frame(p)=(r_F(p), r_L(p), c_F(p), c_L(p))$.
For the sequel, it is convenient to extend the notation for the frame of a picture to languages.
Let $X\subseteq \Sigma^{m,n}$. Let us denote by
$R_F(X)\subseteq\Sigma^n$ the set
$R_F(X)=\{ r_F(p) \ | \ p\in X \}$ of the first rows of all pictures in $X$.
In a similar way,
$R_L(X)$, $C_F(X)$, and $C_L(X)$
will denote
the sets of the last rows,
of the first columns,
and
of the last columns of all pictures in $X$, respectively.
The {\em frame} of $X$ is the quadruple
$frame(X)=(R_F(X), R_L(X), C_F(X), C_L(X))$.
A {\em subdomain} of $dom(p)$ is
a set $d$ of the form $\{i, i+1, \ldots, i'\}\times \{j, j+1, \ldots,j'\}$, where
$1\leq i\leq i'\leq m,\ 1\leq j\leq j'\leq n$,
also specified by the pair $[(i, j), ({i'}, {j'})]$.
The portion of $p$ corresponding to positions in subdomain $[(i, j), ({i'}, {j'})]$
is denoted by $p[(i, j), ({i'}, {j'})]$.
Then, a non-empty picture $x$ is \emph{subpicture of $p$} if $x=p[(i, j), ({i'}, {j'})]$, for some $1\leq i\leq i'\leq m,\ 1\leq j\leq j'\leq n$; we say that $x$ {\em occurs} at position $(i,j)$ (its tl-corner).
Observe that the notions of subpicture generalizes very naturally to two dimensions the notion of substring. On the other hand, the notions of prefix and suffix of a string implicitely assume the left-to-right reading direction.
In two dimensions, there are 4 corners and 4 scanning-directions from a corner toward the opposite one. Hence, we introduce the definition of 4 different "prefixes" of a pictures, each one referring to one corner.
\begin{definition}\label{d-prefix}
Given pictures $p \in \Sigma^{m,n}$, $x \in \Sigma^{h,k}$,
with $1\leq h\leq m$, $1\leq k\leq n$,
$x$ is a \emph{tl-prefix} of $p$
if $x$ is a subpicture of $p$ occurring at position $(1,1)$,
$x$ is a \emph{tr-prefix} of $p$ if $x$ is a subpicture of $p$ occurring at position $(1,n-k+1)$,
$x$ is a \emph{bl-prefix} of $p$ if $x$ is a subpicture of $p$ occurring at position $(m-h+1,1)$,
$x$ is a \emph{br-prefix} of $p$ if $x$ is a subpicture of $p$ occurring at position $(m-h+1,n-k+1)$.
\end{definition}
Several operations can be defined on pictures (cf. \cite{GR-book}).
Two concatenation products are usually considered,
the {column} and the row concatenation.
The reverse operation on strings can be generalized to pictures and gives rise to two different mirror operations (called \emph{row}- and \emph{col}-\emph{mirror}) obtained by reflecting with respect to a vertical and a horizontal axis, respectively. Another operation that has no counterpart in one dimension is the \emph{rotation}.
The rotation of
a picture $p$ of size $(m,n)$, is the clockwise rotation of $p$ by $90^\circ$, denoted by $p^{90^\circ}$.
Note that $p^{90^\circ}$ has
size $(n,m)$.
All the operations defined on pictures can be extended in the usual way to sets of pictures.
We conclude by remarking that any string $s=y_1y_2\cdots y_n$ can be identified either with a single-row or with a single-column picture, i.e. a picture of size $(1,n)$ or $(n,1)$,
whereas any picture in $\Sigma^{m,n}$ can be viewed as a string of length $n$ on the alphabet of the columns $\Sigma^m$,
and as a string of length $m$ on the alphabet of the rows $\Sigma^n$.
\section{Non-overlapping sets of pictures}\label{s-non-ov}
In this section we set up all the necessary definitions and notations on non-overlapping pictures. The notion is strictly related to the one of "unbordered pictures" already introduced and studied in \cite{AGM-CAI15}. Here, we state directly the definition of non-overlapping pictures getting back the notion of unbordered picture as a particular case.
Recall that two strings overlap when the prefix of one of them is the suffix of the other one.
This notion can be extended very naturally to two dimensions by taking into account that now 4 different corners exist.
Informally, we say that two pictures $p$ and $q$ overlap when
we can find the same rectangular portion at a corner of $p$ and at the opposite corner of $q$.
Observe that there are two different kinds of overlaps depending on the pair of opposite corners involved.
\begin{definition}
Let $p\in\Sigma^{m,n}$ and $q\in\Sigma^{m',n'}$.
\\
The pictures $p$ and $q$ {\em tl-overlap} if there exists a picture $x\in\Sigma^{h,k}$, with $1\leq h\leq \min\{m, m'\}$
and $1\leq k\leq \min\{n, n'\}$,
which is a tl-prefix of $p$ and a br-prefix of $q$, or vice versa.
\\
The pictures $p$ and $q$ {\em bl-overlap} if there exists a picture $x\in\Sigma^{h,k}$, with $1\leq h\leq \min\{m, m'\}$
and $1\leq k\leq \min\{n, n'\}$,
which is a bl-prefix of $p$ and a tr-prefix of $q$, or vice versa.
\\
The pictures $p$ and $q$ {\em overlap} if they tl-overlap or they bl-overlap.
\\
The picture $x$ is said an {\em overlap} of $p$ and $q$, and its size $(h,k)$ is the {\em size of the overlap}.
\end{definition}
For the sequel it will be worthy to identify some special cases of picture overlaps and we list them in the definition below. Examples are given in Figure \ref{fig-overlap} where
the first pair of pictures tl-overlap, the second pair h-slide overlap, the third one v-slide overlap, and the last pair shows two pictures that frame overlap (and also bl-overlap).
\begin{definition}\label{d-ovlp2}
Let $p\in\Sigma^{m,n}$ and $q\in\Sigma^{m',n'}$, the
\begin{itemize}
\item $p$ and $q$ {\em properly overlap} if they have an overlap $x\in\Sigma^{h,k}$ with $x\neq p$ and $x\neq q$
\item $p$ and $q$ {\em h-slide overlap} if they have an overlap $x\in\Sigma^{h,k}$ with $h=m=m'$
\item $p$ and $q$ {\em v-slide overlap} if they have an overlap $x\in\Sigma^{h,k}$ with $k=n=n'$
\item $p$ and $q$ {\em frame overlap} if they have an overlap $x\in\Sigma^{h,k}$ with $h=1$ or $k=1$
\end{itemize}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\begin{picture}(120,25)(0,-5)
\put(2.5,11.5){$0$} \put(7.5,11.5){$1$} \put(12.5,11.5){$1$}
\put(2.5,6.5){$1$} \put(7.5,6.5){$1$} \put(12.5,6.5){$0$}
\put(2.5,1.5){$1$} \put(7.5,1.5){$0$} \put(12.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(0,15){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(0,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(15.5,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(17.5,6.5){$1$} \put(22.5,6.5){$0$}
\put(17.5,1.5){$1$} \put(22.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(7.5,-3.5){$0$} \put(12.5,-3.5){$1$} \put(17.5,-3.5){$1$} \put(22.5,-3.5){$0$}
\put(5.5,-5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(25.5,-5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(5.5,-5){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(5.5,10){\line(1,0){20}}
\put(37.5,11.5){$0$} \put(42.5,11.5){$1$} \put(47.5,11.5){$1$}
\put(37.5,6.5){$1$} \put(42.5,6.5){$1$} \put(47.5,6.5){$0$}
\put(37.5,1.5){$1$} \put(42.5,1.5){$0$} \put(47.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(35,0){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(35,15){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(35,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(50.5,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(52.5,11.5){$0$}
\put(52.5,6.5){$0$}
\put(52.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(40,-0.5){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(40,14.5){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(40,-0.5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(55,-0.5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(67.5,11.5){$0$} \put(72.5,11.5){$1$} \put(77.5,11.5){$1$}
\put(67.5,6.5){$1$} \put(72.5,6.5){$1$} \put(77.5,6.5){$0$}
\put(67.5,1.5){$1$} \put(72.5,1.5){$0$} \put(77.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(65,0){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(65,15){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(65,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(80.5,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(67.5,-3.5){$0$} \put(72.5,-3.5){$1$} \put(77.5,-3.5){$1$}
\put(65.5,10){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(65.5,-5){\line(1,0){15.5}}
\put(65.5,-5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(81,-5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(92.5,6.5){$0$} \put(97.5,6.5){$0$} \put(102.5,6.5){$1$} \put(107.5,6.5){$1$}
\put(92.5,1.5){$1$} \put(97.5,1.5){$1$} \put(102.5,1.5){$1$} \put(107.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(92.5,-3.5){$1$} \put(97.5,-3.5){$1$} \put(102.5,-3.5){$0$} \put(107.5,-3.5){$0$}
\put(90,-5){\line(1,0){20.5}}
\put(90,10){\line(1,0){20.5}}
\put(90,-5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(110.5,-5){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(107.5,11.5){$0$} \put(112.5,11.5){$1$} \put(117.5,11.5){$1$}
\put(112.5,6.5){$0$} \put(117.5,6.5){$0$}
\put(112.5,1.5){$1$} \put(117.5,1.5){$1$}
\put(105.5,15){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(105.5,0){\line(1,0){15}}
\put(105.5,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\put(120.5,0){\line(0,1){15}}
\end{picture}
\caption{}
\label{fig-overlap}
\end{figure}
The case when $p$ overlaps with itself
leads to the notions of border of a picture, self-overlapping and unbordered pictures (as investigated in \cite{AGM-CAI15}).
As for the overlaps, there are two different kinds of borders (\emph{tl-borders} and \emph{bl-border}) depending on the pair of opposite corners that hold the border. A tl-border is called a diagonal border in \cite{CroIK98}.
The notion of "non-overlapping" is naturally extended to sets of pictures in order to generalize the notion of cross-bifix-free sets of strings, introduced in \cite{Bajic07}.
Non-overlapping sets of pictures have been introduced and studied in \cite{BBP16}, where a first example of a non-overlapping set of matrices is presented. Here, we add the notion of "non-expandability" in order to consider sets of large cardinality. Notice that, in analogy to the case of cross-bifix-free sets of strings, we will consider set of pictures of fixed size.
\begin{definition}
A set of pictures $X\subseteq\Sigma^{m,n}$ is {\em non-overlapping} if for any $p, q\in X$, $p$ and $q$ do not properly overlap.
\\
Moreover, a set $X\subseteq\Sigma^{m,n}$ is {\em non-expandable non-overlapping}, {\em NENO} for short, if $X$ is non-overlapping and
for any $p\in\Sigma^{m,n}\setminus X$, there exists $q\in X$ such that $p$ and $q$ overlap.
\end{definition}
Note that it is not difficult to find a set of non-overlapping pictures of a fixed size $(m,n)$; the real challenge is to find sets of large cardinality and, more generally, to define families \emph{for any} size $(m,n)$.
In the sequel, we propose some conditions for NENO sets that will be used in Section \ref{s-fanta-neno} to show a family of NENO sets $Y(m,n)$, for any size $(m,n)$.
Observe that further examples can be simply obtained applying to a NENO set the operations of
rotation, col- and row-mirror operations, and permutation or renaming of symbols in $\Sigma$.
Let us now consider some properties which are necessarily satisfied by any non-overlapping set of pictures.
First, observe that any picture in a non-overlapping set is necessarily unbordered.
In order to show some properties on the frames of the pictures in a non-overlapping set, let us introduce the following definition.
Note that in a cross-non-overlapping pair $(S_1,S_2)$, it is not required that $S_1$ and $S_2$ are cross-bifix-free sets.
\begin{definition}\label{d-full}
Let $S_1$, $S_2 \subseteq \Sigma^n$ and $S_1\cap S_2=\emptyset$.
The pair $(S_1,S_2)$ is {\em cross-non-overlapping} if for any $s_1\in S_1$, $s_2\in S_2$, $s_1$ and $s_2$ do not overlap.\\
\end{definition}
\begin{theorem}
Let $X\subseteq\Sigma^{m,n}$.
If $X$ is non-overlapping then
the pairs $( R_F(X), R_L(X) )$ and $(C_F(X), C_L(X))$ are cross-non-overlapping.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Suppose by the contrary that there exist $s_1\in R_F(X)$, $s_2\in R_L(X)$, and $s_1$ and $s_2$ overlap.
Then any pictures $p_1, p_2\in X$ with $r_F(p_1)=s_1$ and
$r_L(p_2)=s_2$ are such that $p_1$ and $p_2$ overlap, against $X$ non-overlapping.
An analogous reasoning holds for the sets of columns.
\end{proof}
Some more properties can be stated in the case of the binary alphabet.
If $X$ is a non-overlapping set over a binary alphabet then the four corners of any picture in $X$ carry the same quadruple of symbols.
We state this simple necessary condition in the lemma below.
Let $corners(p)= (p(1,1), p(1,n), p(m,1), p(m,n))$, for any picture $p$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l-corner-non-ov-sets}
Let $\Sigma=\{ 0,1\}$ and $X\subseteq \Sigma^{m,n}$. If $X$ is a non-overlapping set then
only four cases are possible
a) $corners(p)=(0,0,1,1)$, for any picture $p\in X$
b) $corners(p)=(1,1,0,0)$, for any picture $p\in X$
c) $corners(p)=(1,0, 1,0)$, for any picture $p\in X$
d) $corners(p)=(0,1,0,1)$, for any picture $p\in X$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given an unbordered picture $p$, $corners(p)$ must be of the form a), b), c) or d) otherwise $p$ would have a border of size $(1,1)$.
Since any picture in a non-overlapping set is necessarily unbordered, we have that, for any $p \in X$, $corners(p)$ must be of the form a), b), c) or d).
The proof is completed by noting that, for any $p, q \in X$, it must be $corners(p)=corners(q)$; if the sets $corners(p)$ and $corners(q)$ were of two different forms among
a), b), c) or d), then $p$ and $q$ would have an overlap of size $(1,1)$ against the hypothesis that $X$ is non-overlapping.
\end{proof}
\section{The construction}\label{s-constr}
In this section we present some properties on non-expandable non-overlapping sets, from which it is possible to obtain a
a general method to construct a NENO set of pictures.
The focus will be firstly on the frames of the pictures in a NENO set and their properties related to the non-expandability of the set (see Theorem \ref{l-non-exp}).
Subsequently, we will present some further conditions on the internal part of the pictures in a NENO set (see Theorem \ref{l-non-ov}).
The obtained conditions, all together, will be sufficient to construct a NENO set.
Let us introduce the following definition on string sets.
\begin{definition}\label{d-full}
Let $S_1$, $S_2 \subseteq \Sigma^n$ and $S_1\cap S_2=\emptyset$.
The pair $(S_1,S_2)$ is {\em full} if for any $s\notin S_1\cup S_2$, there exist
$s_1\in S_1$, $s_2\in S_2$ such that $s$ and $s_1$ overlap, and $s$ and $s_2$ overlap.
\end{definition}
\begin{example}\label{e-righe-fanta}
Let $\Sigma=\{ 0, 1\}$ and let $S_1, S_2\subseteq\Sigma^n$ be the languages
$S_1=\{ 1^n\}$ and $S_2=\{ 0w0 \ |\ w\in \{ 0, 1\}^{n-2}\}$.
The pair $(S_1,S_2)$ is cross-non-overlapping, since the strings in $S_1$ do not contain occurences of symbol $0$.
Let us show that it is also
full.
Let $s$ be any string $s\notin S_1\cup S_2$.
Since $s\notin S_2$, three cases are possible,
$s=0x1$, $s=1y0$, or $s=1z1$.
If $s=0x1$ or $s=1y0$ then $s$ overlaps the string in $S_1$ and any string in $S_2$ with an overlap of length $1$.
If $s=1z1$ then $z$ contains at least one occurence of $0$, because $s\notin S_1$.
Then $s=1^k0r1$, for some $k\geq 1$ and $r\in\Sigma^*$.
Therefore, $s$ and $1^n$ overlap, and also $s$ and $0r10^k$ overlap, with $0r10^k\in S_2$.
\end{example}
\begin{example}\label{e-colonne-fanta}
Let $\Sigma=\{ 0, 1\}$ and let $S_3, S_4\subseteq\Sigma^m$ be the languages
$S_3=\{ 110^{m-2}\}$ and $S_4=\{ 1w0 \ |\ |w|=m-2, w\neq 0^{m-2}, 1w0$ with no suffix in $110^+\}$.
The pair $(S_3,S_4)$ is cross-non-overlapping. Indeed, consider $s'=110^{m-2} \in S_3$ and $s''=1w0 \in S_4$ and suppose that
there exists $u$ such that $s'=xu$ and $s''=uy$ or $s'=ux$ and $s''=yu$. In the first case, it must be $|u|=m-1$ and, hence, $w=0^{m-2}$ against the definition of $S_4$.
In the second case, it must be $|u| \geq 3$ and, hence, $w$ would have a suffix in $110^+$ against the definition of $S_4$.
Let us show that the pair $(S_3,S_4)$ is full.
Let $s$ be any string $s\notin S_3\cup S_4$.
If $s\in 0\Sigma^*$ or $s\in \Sigma^* 1$ then $s$ overlap the string in $S_3$ and any string in $S_4$ with an overlap of length $1$.
Consider the case that $s=1w0$.
Since $s\notin S_4$, $w=0^{m-2}$ or $w$ has a suffix in $110^+$.
In the first case $s=10^{m-1}$. Then $s$ and the string in $S_3$ overlap with an overlap of length $m-1$; and $s$
overlaps any string in $S_4$ that has $010$ as a suffix, with an overlap of length $2$.
In the second case
$s=1x110^k$ with $k\geq 1$, and $x\in\Sigma^*$.
Then $s$ and the string in $S_3$ overlap with an overlap of length $k+2$,
and $s$ and any string $10^k y0\in S_4$, for some $y$, overlap with an overlap of length $k+1$.
\end{example}
Recall that the frame of a language $X$
is the quadruple
$frame(X)$
of the sets of its first and last rows and columns,
$frame(X)=(R_F(X), R_L(X), C_F(X), C_L(X))$.
Note that not any quadruple of string languages can be the frame of a set of pictures, since their strings need to match in the lengths and in the corner positions.
Given four string languages $S_1, S_2\subseteq \Sigma^n$ and
$S_3, S_4\subseteq \Sigma^m$,
we say that the quadruple $(S_1,S_2,S_3,S_4)$ is {\em frame-compatible} if there exists a picture language $X\subseteq \Sigma^{m,n}$ such that
$frame(X)=(S_1,S_2,S_3,S_4)$.
In the case of non-overlapping sets of pictures,
the constrains are yet stronger.
As previously remarked (see Lemma \ref{l-corner-non-ov-sets}),
if $X$ is a non-overlapping set on $\Sigma=\{ 0, 1\}$, then all the pictures in $X$ have the same set of corners and, for this set, only four cases are possible,
following which symbols appear in the corners of pictures in $X$.
Hence, for example, a quadruple $(S_1,S_2,S_3,S_4)$ can be the frame of a non-overlapping set $X$ such that, for all $p \in X$, $corners(p)=(0,0,1,1)$,
if $S_1\subseteq 0\Sigma^* 0$,
$S_2\subseteq 1\Sigma^* 1$, and
$S_3, S_4\subseteq 0\Sigma^* 1$.
We give the following definition.
\begin{definition}
Let $X\subseteq \Sigma^{m,n}$.
$X$ is {\em frame-complete} if for any $p, q\in X$, $p$ and $q$ do not frame overlap, and
if for any picture $p \in \Sigma^{m,n}\setminus X$ there exists a picture $q\in X$ such that $p$ and $q$ frame overlap.
\end{definition}
Note that being frame-complete is a \emph{sufficient condition} for a set $X$ to be non-expandable with respect to the overlapping. Any picture not in the language overlaps on the frame of some picture in the language.
Frame-complete sets of pictures can be obtained thanks to the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}\label{l-non-exp}
Let $S_1, S_2\subseteq \Sigma^{n}$,
$S_3, S_4\subseteq \Sigma^{m}$
and $(S_1, S_2, S_3, S_4)$ be a quadruple of frame-compatible string languages.
\\
If the pairs $(S_1, S_2)$ and $(S_3, S_4)$
are cross non-overlapping and full
then the set $X$ of all the pictures $p$ with $frame(p)\in S_1 \times S_2\times S_3\times S_4$
is frame-complete.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The frame-compatibility of $(S_1, S_2, S_3, S_4)$ guarantees that $X$ is not empty.
Moreover, since the pairs $(S_1, S_2)$ and $(S_3, S_4)$
are cross-non-overlapping, then, for any $p,q \in X$, we are sure that $p$ and $q$ do not frame overlap.
Now let $p$ be any picture $p \in \Sigma^{m,n}\setminus X$.
Let us show that there exists a picture $q\in X$ such that $p$ and $q$ frame overlap.
The definition of $X$ implies that $frame(p)\notin S_1 \times S_2\times S_3\times S_4$.
Hence,
either $r_F(p)\notin S_1$, or
$r_L(p)\notin S_2$, or
$c_F(p)\notin S_3$, or
$c_L(p)\notin S_4$.
Suppose without loss of generality that $r_F(p)\notin S_1$.
If also $r_F(p)\notin S_2$ then there exists $s\in S_2$ such that $r_F(p)$ and $s$ overlap (because $(S_1,S_2)$ is full).
Consider any picture $q$ in $X$ with $r_L(q)=s$. Then, $p$ and $q$ frame overlap.
If $r_F(p)\in S_2$ then
consider any picture $q$ in $X$ with $r_L(q)= r_F(p)$. Then, $p$ and $q$ frame overlap (and also v-slide overlap).
\end{proof}
\begin{example}\label{e-verso-fantastica}
Let $\Sigma=\{ 0, 1\}$. Referring to the sets $S_1$, $S_2$, $S_3$, and $S_4$ in Examples \ref{e-righe-fanta} and
\ref{e-colonne-fanta}, let
$X(m,n)\subseteq\Sigma^{m,n}$, with $m,n \geq 4$,
be the set of all the pictures with
$R_F(X(m,n))=S_1$, $R_L(X(m,n))=S_2$,
$C_F(X(m,n))=S_3$, and $C_L(X(m,n))=S_4$.
The sets $R_F(X(m,n))$, $R_L(X(m,n))$, $C_F(X(m,n))$, $C_L(X(m,n))$ satisfy the conditions of Theorem \ref{l-non-exp} and therefore
$X(m,n)$ is frame-complete.
\end{example}
The next theorem states some sufficient conditions on a subset of a frame-complete set, so that the subset is NENO.
\begin{theorem}\label{l-non-ov}
Let $X\subseteq \Sigma^{m,n}$ be a frame-complete set.
If a subset $Y$ of $X$ is such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item [a)] $frame(Y)=frame(X)$
\item[b)] $Y$ is non-overlapping
\item[c)] for any $p\in X\setminus Y$ there exists $q\in Y$ such that $p$ and $q$ overlap
\end{enumerate}
then
$Y$ is a NENO set.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
The set $Y$ is non-overlapping by condition b).
Let us show that $Y$ is non-expandable.
Let $p$ be any picture $p\in\Sigma^{m,n}\setminus Y$, and let us show that there exists $q\in Y$ such that $p$ and $q$ overlap.
If $p\in X$ then condition c) implies the goal.
Suppose $p\notin X$.
Then there exists $x\in X$ such that $p$ and $x$ frame overlap, because $X$ is frame-complete.
Condition a) guarantees that there exists $q\in Y$ such that $frame(q)=frame(x)$ and hence $p$ and $q$ frame overlap, too.
\end{proof}
Previous Theorems \ref{l-non-exp} and \ref{l-non-ov} suggest a procedure to construct a NENO set.
The construction is accomplished in two main steps.
The first step
is the construction of
a frame-complete set $X$ of pictures. This can be accomplished by choosing a quadruple
$(S_1, S_2, S_3, S_4)$ of frame-compatible string languages, such that
the pairs $(S_1, S_2)$ and $(S_3, S_4)$
are cross non-overlapping and full,
and then defining
the set $X$ of all the pictures $p$ with $frame(p)\in S_1 \times S_2\times S_3\times S_4$.
The set $X$
is frame-complete, applying Theorem \ref{l-non-exp}.
The second step consists in selecting a subset $Y$ of $X$.
If the choice of $Y$ is done in a way that it satisfies conditions a), b), and c) in Theorem \ref{l-non-ov},
then Theorem \ref{l-non-ov} ensures that $Y$ is a NENO set.
The next section shows a family of NENO sets obtained by following this construction.
\section{A family of NENO sets}\label{s-fanta-neno}
In this section we exhibit a family of non-expandable non-overlapping sets.
They are obtained following the construction in Section \ref{s-constr}.
The first step is accomplished in Example \ref{e-verso-fantastica}, where the family of frame-complete sets $X(m,n)$, for $m, n\geq 4$, is presented.
The sets $X(m,n)$ were constructed by taking care of the frames of pictures.
Starting from $X(m,n)$, we will implement the second step of the construction, that is the extraction from $X(m,n)$, of some subset satisfying the
conditions
in Theorem \ref{l-non-ov}. This time, the focus in on the internal part of the pictures.
Observe that the second step of the construction needs to balance accurately two opposite operations.
On one side, one has to remove
from $X(m,n)$ those pictures that overlap other pictures in the set.
On the other hand, it is necessary not to remove ``too many" pictures, in order to achieve the non-expandability property.
The following family reaches this goal.
\begin{definition}\label{e-fantastica}
Let $\Sigma=\{ 0, 1\}$ and $m,n\geq 4$.
Let $S_1, S_2\subseteq\Sigma^n$, and $S_3, S_4\subseteq\Sigma^m$, be the languages
$S_1=\{ 1^n\}$,
$S_2=\{ 0w0 \ |\ w\in \{ 0, 1\}^{n-2}\}$,
$S_3=\{ 110^{m-2}\}$,
and $S_4=\{ 1w0 \ |\ |w|=m-2, w\neq 0^{m-2}, 1w0$ with no suffix in $110^+\}$.
Let
$X(m,n)\subseteq\Sigma^{m,n}$
be the set
of all the pictures with
$R_F(X(m,n))=S_1$, $R_L(X(m,n))=S_2$,
$C_F(X(m,n))=S_3$, and $C_L(X(m,n))=S_4$.
The set $Y(m,n)\subseteq X(m,n)$ is the set of all pictures $p\in X(m,n)$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item there exists no $2\leq j\leq n$ such that $p(2,j)=p(3,j)=\cdots =p(m-1,j)=0$
\item there exists no $(i,j)$, with $(i,j)\neq (1,1)$
such that $p(i,j)=p(i,j+1)=\cdots =p(i,n)=1$ and $p(i,j)p(i+1,j)\cdots p(m,j)\in 110^*$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{definition}
\begin{figure}
\hspace{10pt}
\begin{picture}(170,25)(0,0)
\put(2.5,26.5){$1$} \put(7.5,26.5){$1$} \put(12.5,26.5){$\ldots$} \put(17.5,26.5){$1$} \put(22.5,26.5){$1$}
\put(2.5,21.5){$1$}
\put(2.5,16.5){$0$
\put(2.5,11.5){$\vdots$
\put(2.5,6.5){$0$
\put(22.5,14.5){$x$}
\put(2.5,1.5){$0$} \put(12.5,1.5){$w$} \put(22.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(0,30){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(0,25){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(0,20){\line(1,0){5}}
\put(0,5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(0,0){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(0,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(5,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(20,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(25,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(37.5,26.5){$1$} \put(42.5,26.5){$1$} \put(47.5,26.5){$1$} \put(52.5,26.5){$1$} \put(57.5,26.5){$1$}
\put(37.5,21.5){$1$} \put(42.5,21.5){$0$} \put(47.5,21.5){$1$} \put(52.5,21.5){$0$} \put(57.5,21.5){$1$}
\put(37.5,16.5){$0$} \put(42.5,16.5){$0$} \put(47.5,16.5){$1$} \put(52.5,16.5){$0$} \put(57.5,16.5){$1$}
\put(37.5,11.5){$0$} \put(42.5,11.5){$1$} \put(47.5,11.5){$1$} \put(52.5,11.5){$1$} \put(57.5,11.5){$0$}
\put(37.5,6.5){$0$} \put(42.5,6.5){$1$} \put(47.5,6.5){$1$} \put(52.5,6.5){$0$} \put(57.5,6.5){$1$}
\put(37.5,1.5){$0$} \put(42.5,1.5){$1$} \put(47.5,1.5){$0$} \put(52.5,1.5){$0$} \put(57.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(35,30){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(35,25){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(35,20){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(35,15){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(35,10){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(35,5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(35,0){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(35,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(40,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(45,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(50,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(55,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(60,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(72.5,26.5){$1$} \put(77.5,26.5){$1$} \put(82.5,26.5){$1$} \put(87.5,26.5){$1$} \put(92.5,26.5){$1$}
\put(72.5,21.5){$1$} \put(82.5,21.5){$0$} \put(92.5,21.5){$1$}
\put(72.5,16.5){$0$} \put(82.5,16.5){$0$} \put(92.5,16.5){$1$}
\put(72.5,11.5){$0$} \put(82.5,11.5){$0$} \put(92.5,11.5){$0$}
\put(72.5,6.5){$0$} \put(82.5,6.5){$0$} \put(92.5,6.5){$1$}
\put(72.5,1.5){$0$} \put(77.5,1.5){$1$} \put(82.5,1.5){$0$} \put(87.5,1.5){$0$} \put(92.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(70,30){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(70,25){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(70,20){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(70,15){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(70,10){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(70,5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(70,0){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(70,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(75,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(80,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(85,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(90,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(95,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(107.5,26.5){$1$} \put(112.5,26.5){$1$} \put(117.5,26.5){$1$} \put(122.5,26.5){$1$} \put(127.5,26.5){$1$}
\put(107.5,21.5){$1$} \put(127.5,21.5){$1$}
\put(107.5,16.5){$0$} \put(117.5,16.5){$1$} \put(122.5,16.5){$1$} \put(127.5,16.5){$1$}
\put(107.5,11.5){$0$} \put(117.5,11.5){$1$} \put(127.5,11.5){$0$}
\put(107.5,6.5){$0$} \put(117.5,6.5){$0$} \put(127.5,6.5){$1$}
\put(107.5,1.5){$0$} \put(112.5,1.5){$1$} \put(117.5,1.5){$0$} \put(122.5,1.5){$0$} \put(127.5,1.5){$0$}
\put(105,30){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(105,25){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(105,20){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(105,15){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(105,10){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(105,5){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(105,0){\line(1,0){25}}
\put(105,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(110,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(115,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(120,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(125,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\put(130,0){\line(0,1){30}}
\end{picture}
\caption{}
\label{fig-fantastica}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{fig-fantastica} shows
a generic picture in $X(m,n)$, a picture in $Y(m,n)$, and two pictures which are in $X(m,n)$, but are not in $Y(m,n)$ because they violate condition 1 and 2, respectively.
Note that $X(m,n)\subseteq\Sigma^{m,n}$ in the definition
is the frame-complete set introduced in Example \ref{e-verso-fantastica}.
The set $Y(m,n)$ has been extracted from $X(m,n)$ in such a way that it satisfies the sufficient conditions in Theorem \ref{l-non-ov}.
More precisely, the conditions 1 and 2 in the definition of $Y(m,n)$ are designed in order to avoid the overlaps between two pictures in $Y(m,n)$.
In particular, condition 1 avoids bl-overlaps.
The bl-corner of a picture $p$ in $X(m,n)$ cannot be placed inside another picture $p'$ of $X(m,n)$, unless when it is placed on the $(m-1)$-th row (in all the other cases the $0$'s in the first column of $p$ would meet the $1$'s in the first row of $p'$).
Condition 1 avoids this possibility in the pictures in $Y(m,n)$.
In a similar way, condition 2 forbids tl-overlaps.
On the contrary, the pictures in $X(m,n)$ which do not satisfy conditions 1 and 2, i. e. the pictures in $X(m,n)\setminus Y(m,n)$, will necessarily overlap some pictures in $Y(m,n)$.
The following theorem shows, in a more accurate way, that $Y(m,n)$ satisfies the conditions a), b), and c) of Theorem \ref{l-non-ov}, and then $Y(m,n)$ is a NENO set.
\begin{theorem}\label{p-fanta-e-neno}
The language $Y(m,n)$ in Definition \ref{e-fantastica} is a NENO set, for any $m,n\geq 4$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $X(m,n)$ and $Y(m,n)$ be the languages defined in Definition \ref{e-fantastica}.
The set $X(m,n)$ is frame-complete, as shown in Example \ref{e-verso-fantastica}.
Let us show that $Y(m,n)$ satisfies the conditions a), b), and c), of Theorem \ref{l-non-ov}.
\begin{enumerate}
\item [a)] {\em $frame(Y(m,n))=frame(X(m,n))$ }
Since $Y(m,n)\subseteq X(m,n)$ then $frame(Y(m,n))\subseteq frame(X(m,n))$.
Let us show the inverse inclusion, namely, that for any $p\in X(m,n)$ there exists $q\in Y(m,n)$ and $frame(q)=frame(p)$.
It is trivial if $p\in Y(m,n)$. Suppose $p\in X(m,n)\setminus Y(m,n)$.
Then, $p$ does not satisfy condition 1 or condition 2 (or both) in Definition \ref{e-fantastica}.
It is possible to obtain a picture $q\in Y(m,n)$ with $frame(q)=frame(p)$, by exchanging some symbols in $p$.
More precisely,
for any $1\leq j\leq n$ such that $p(2,j)=p(3,j)=\cdots =p(m-1,j)=0$,
one can replace with $1$ one occurrence of $0$ among $p(3,j),\cdots , p(m-1,j)$.
This replacement reduces the violations of condition 1 and does not introduce any violation to condition 2.
Suppose now that there exists $(i,j)$, with $(i,j)\neq (1,1)$
such that $p(i,j)=p(i,j+1)=\cdots =p(i,n)=1$ and $p(i,j)p(i+1,j)\cdots p(m,j)\in 110^*$.
Recalling that $m,n\geq 4$, there always exists one position among
$(i,j)$, $(i,j+1), \cdots, (i,n)$ and $(i+1,j), \cdots , (m,j)$
that is not on the frame of $p$.
Exchanging the symbol in such position removes the violation
and does not introduce any violation to condition 1.
\item[b)] {\em $Y(m,n)$ is non-overlapping.}
Consider $p, q \in Y(m,n)$.
The pictures $p$ and $q$ cannot frame overlap, because the pairs
$(R_F(X(m,n))$, $R_L(X(m,n)))$, $(C_F(X(m,n))$, $C_L(X(m,n)))$ are cross-non-overlapping (as shown in Examples \ref{e-righe-fanta} and
\ref{e-colonne-fanta}).
The pictures $p$ and $q$ cannot h-slide overlap, because otherwise it would exist a position $(1,j)$ with $(i,j)\neq (1,1)$ violating condition 2.
The pictures $p$ and $q$ cannot v-slide overlap because the first column of any picture in $Y(m,n)$ is unbordered.
Moreover, $p$ and $q$ cannot tl-overlap with an overlap of size $(r,c)$ with $1 < r\leq m-1$
and $1 < c\leq n-1$.
Suppose by the contrary that there exists $x$ of size $(r,c)$ with $1 < r\leq m-1$
and $1 < c\leq n-1$, such that $x$ is a tl-prefix of $p$ and a br-prefix of $q$.
Finally, $p$ and $q$ cannot bl-overlap with an overlap of size $(r,c)$ with $1 < r\leq m-1$
and $1 < c\leq n-1$.
Suppose by the contrary that there exists $x$ of size $(r,c)$ with $1 < r\leq m-1$
and $1 < c\leq n-1$, such that $x$ is a bl-prefix of $p$ and a tr-prefix of $q$.
Since $r_F(q)=1^n$, $r$ cannot be strictly less than $m-1$.
On the other hand, if $r=m-1$ then the picture $q$ violates condition 1 in the column $j=n-c+1$.
\item[c)] {\em For any $p\in X(m,n)\setminus Y(m,n)$ there exists $q\in Y(m,n)$ such that $p$ and $q$ overlap.}
If $p\in X(m,n)\setminus Y(m,n)$ then $frame(p)\in S_1 \times S_2\times S_3\times S_4$, but
$p$ does not satisfy condition 1 or condition 2 (or both) in Definition \ref{e-fantastica}.
If $p$ does not satisfy condition 1 then let $j$ be the greatest index $2\leq j\leq n$ such that $p(2,j)=p(3,j)=\cdots = p(m-1,j)=0$.
Then there exists $q\in Y(m,n)$ with the bl-prefix of $q$ of size $(m-1, n-j+1)$ equal to the tr-prefix of $p$ of size $(m-1, n-j+1)$.
Note that since $j\neq 1$ the last column of $q$ can be constructed so that no violation of condition 2 appears in $q$, by inserting some occurrences of $0$'s where necessary. Furthermore, such $0$'s are not necessary in each position $q(2,n)$, $q(3,n)$, $\cdots, q(m-1,n)$ since the last column of $p$ cannot be in $1^+0^+$.
If $p$ satisfies condition 1, but not condition 2,
then
let $(i,j)$ the lowest among the rightmost positions
such that $p(i,j)=p(i,j+1)=\cdots =p(i,n)=1$ and $p(i,j)p(i+1,j)\cdots p(m,j)\in 110^*$.
Then there exists $q\in Y(m,n)$ with the tl-prefix of $q$ of size $(m-i+1, n-j+1)$ equal to the br-prefix of $p$ of size $(m-i+1, n-j+1)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proof}
We conclude the section with some remarks. Following the construction presented in Section \ref{s-constr}, for any $m,n\geq 4$,
we have extracted from the frame-complete set $X(m,n)$ a NENO set $Y(m,n)$, by imposing two conditions on the internal part of its pictures.
Such conditions are designed so that the pictures in $X(m,n)$ that satisfy them cannot overlap each other, whereas as soon as a picture in $X(m,n)$ does not satisfy a condition, it necessarily overlaps a picture in $Y(m,n)$.
Let us emphasize that not any conceivable
condition which avoids any overlap when satisfied, will necessarily imply a desired overlap when it is not satisfied.
As an example, consider the language $M(m,n)\subseteq X(m,n)$, defined by replacing in the definition of $Y(m,n)$, condition 1 with the following condition 1 bis.
\begin{description}
\item[1bis.] if there exists $(i,j)$, with $(i,j)\neq (1,n)$
such that $p(i,1)=p(i,2)=\cdots =p(i,j)=1$ then $p(i,j)p(i+1,j)\cdots p(m,j)$ has a suffix in $110^*$.
\end{description}
Condition 1bis seems to avoid bl-overlaps in a similar way as condition 1 does. Nevertheless,
one can show that $M(m,n)$ is non-overlapping, but it is not non-expandable.
A counter-example, for $m=n=5$, is the picture
$p=
\begin{array}{|ccccc|} \hline
1& 1& 1 & 1 & 1\\
1& 0& 1 & 1 & 1\\
0& 1& 0 & 1 & 0\\
0& 1& 0 & 0 & 1\\
0& 1& 0 & 1 & 0\\
\hline
\end{array}\, .$
The picture $p$ belongs to $X(m,n)\setminus M(m,n)$, but there is no picture $q\in X$ such that $p$ and $q$ overlap.
\section{Cardinality of non-overlapping sets of pictures}\label{s-counting}
In the previous sections we have discussed the construction of NENO sets and presented a family of NENO sets.
We consider now the question of how big is this family and how big a NENO set can be.
The question has been extensively investigated in the string case.
Let $C(n,q)$ denote the maximum size of a cross-bifix-free code of strings of length $n$ over an alphabet of cardinality $q$.
In \cite{CKPW13},
it is shown that
$C(n,q)\leq \frac{q^n}{2n-1}.$
The non-expandable cross-bifix-free sets of strings introduced in \cite{Bajic14,BPP12,CKPW13} have been compared with this bound.
Let us apply the upper bound on strings, in order to obtain a simple upper bound on the size of a non-overlapping set of pictures.
Let $C(m,n,q)$ denote the maximum size of a non-overlapping set of pictures of size $(m,n)$ over an alphabet of cardinality $q$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $m,n, q$ be integers and $N=\max\{m,n\}$. Then
\\
$$C(m,n,q)\leq \frac{q^{mn}}{2N-1}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $X\subseteq \Sigma^{m,n}$ and $|\Sigma|=q$.
Note that
$X$ can be viewed as a set $col(X)$ of strings of length $n$ on the alphabet of the columns $\Sigma^m$, and $|\Sigma^m| =q^m$.
The key observation is that if $X$ is non-overlapping then $col(X)$ is cross-bifix-free.
Actually, an overlapping of two strings in $col(X)$ would give a h-slide-overlap of two pictures in $X$.
Therefore, applying the upper bound given in \cite{CKPW13} on the cardinality of the cross-bifix-free sets of strings,
$|X|\leq \frac{ (q^{m})^n} {2n-1}.$
In an analogous manner,
$X$ can be viewed as a set $row(X)$ of strings of length $m$ on the alphabet of the rows $\Sigma^n$, and $|\Sigma^n| =q^n$.
Hence,
$|X|\leq \frac{ (q^{n})^m} {2m-1}.$
Finally,
$|X|\leq \min \{ \frac{ q^{mn}} {2n-1} , \frac{ q^{mn}} {2m-1} \} = \frac{ q^{mn}} {2N-1}.$
\end{proof}
Let us now evaluate the cardinality of the NENO sets $Y(m,n)$ introduced in
Definition \ref{e-fantastica}.
We are going to present a lower bound on the cardinality of $Y(m,n)$.
Let $\Sigma=\{ 0, 1\}$.
Define the set $Z(m,n)$ of all the pictures $z\in \Sigma^{m,n}$ with
$frame(z)\in frame(Y(m,n))$
and such that
\begin{description}
\item[1.] there exists no $2\leq j\leq n$ such that $p(2,j)=p(3,j)=\cdots =p(m-1,j)=0$
\item[2a.] there exists no $(i,j)$, with $(i,j)\neq (1,1)$
such that
$p(i,j)p(i+1,j)\cdots p(m,j)\in 110^*$.
\end{description}
Observe that
$Z(m,n)\subseteq Y(m,n)$, since the condition 2a implies condition 2 in the definition of $Y(m,n)$.
Therefore, $|Y(m,n)| \geq |Z(m,n)|$.
In the next theorem we will evaluate $|Z(m,n)|$, obtaining a lower bound on $|Y(m,n)|$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $Y(m,n)$ the NENO set in Definition \ref{e-fantastica}.
Then
$$|Y(m,n)| \geq \bigl( 2^{m-2} -1 \bigr ) ^{n-2} \cdot \ 2^{m-3}$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Let $\Sigma=\{ 0,1\}$ and $Z(m,n)\subseteq \Sigma^{m,n}$ be the set defined above.
We prove that $|Z(m,n)|= \bigl( 2^{m-2} -1 \bigr ) ^{n-2} \cdot \ 2^{m-3}$. This shows the statement since $Z(m,n)\subseteq Y(m,n)$ .
Define the sets
$I(m), L(m)\subseteq \Sigma^m$ as follows.
$I(m)=\{ 1y a \ | \ a\in\Sigma, y\neq 0^{m-2}$ and $1ya$ with no suffix in $110^* \}$
$L(m)=\{ 1x0 \ | \ x\neq 0^{m-2}$ and $1x0$ with no suffix in $110^+ \}$.
Consider any picture $z\in Z(m,n)$.
The first column of $z$ is $110^{m-2}$;
the internal columns of $z$, that is the columns with index $2\leq j\leq n-1$, are all strings in $I(m)$, while
the last column of $z$ is a string in $L(m)$.
Let us show that $|I(m)| = 2^{m-2}-1$.
The strings $1ya$ of length $m$ with a suffix in $110^+$ are $\sum_{i=0}^{m-3} 2^i = 2^{m-2}-1$, while
the strings $1ya$ of length $m$ with $y=0^{m-2}$ are $2$.
Therefore,
$|I(m)|= 2^{m-1} - \bigl( 2^{m-2}-1 \bigr) - 2 = 2^{m-2}-1$.
Let us show that $|L(m)| = 2^{m-3}$.
The strings $1x0$ of length $m$ with a suffix in $110^*$ are $\sum_{i=0}^{m-4} 2^i = 2^{m-3}-1$, while
the strings $1x0$ of length $m$ with $x=0^{m-2}$ is just $1$.
Therefore,
$|L(m)|= 2^{m-2} - \bigl( 2^{m-3}-1 \bigr) - 1 = 2^{m-3}$.
Any picture $z\in Z(m,n)$ is just the catenation of the column $110^{m-2}$ with $n-2$ columns in $I(m)$ and then a column in $L(m)$, with no other constrain.
Hence
$|Z(m,n)|= |I(m)|^{n-2} \cdot |L(m)|=
\bigl( 2^{m-2} -1 \bigr ) ^{n-2} \cdot \ 2^{m-3}$.
\end{proof}
\bibliographystyle{splncs03}
|
\section{Energy Preserving Discretizations of the Harmonic Oscillator
\label{C-N} }
Here the well-know fact that the Crank-Nicholson discretization conserves
the discrete analog of the energy for the harmonic oscillator is shown.
It is also shown that the methods introduced in \cite{WanBihloNave2015}
produce a discretization that is equivalent to the Crank-Nicholson
discretization.
\subsection{Conserving the Simple Energy}
The Crank-Nicholson discretization does preserve the simple
energy \eqref{Simple Conserved}:
\[
\frac{ u_{n+1}-u_n }{\Delta t} = - \omega \, \frac{v_{n+1}+v_n}{2} \,,\quad
\frac{ v_{n+1}-v_n }{\Delta t} = \omega \, \frac{u_{n+1}+u_n}{2} \,.
\]
This gives a discretization of the second order differential equation:
\begin{equation}\label{2-CN}
\frac{u_{n+2} - 2 \, u_{n+1} +u_n }{\Delta t^2} +
\omega^2 \frac{u_{n+2} + 2 \, u_{n+1} +u_n }{4} = 0 \,.
\end{equation}
Then
\begin{align*}
C_{n+1}^2 - C_n^2 & =
\frac{1}{2} \left(v_{n+1} + v_n\right) \, \left(v_{n+1} - v_n\right) +
\frac{1}{2} \left(u_{n+1} + u_n\right) \, \left(u_{n+1} - u_n\right) \\
& =
\frac{\Delta t \, \omega}{4} \,
\left(v_{n+1} + v_n\right) \,
\left(u_{n+1} + u_n\right) -
\frac{\Delta t \, \omega}{4} \,
\left(u_{n+1} + u_n\right) \,
\left(v_{n+1} + v_n\right) \equiv 0 \,,
\end{align*}
so $C_n$ is conserved. Write the system as
\begin{align*}
u_{n+1} + \frac{\Delta t \, \omega}{2} v_{n+1} & =
u_n - \frac{\Delta t \, \omega}{2} v_n \\
v_{n+1} - \frac{\Delta t \, \omega}{2} u_{n+1} & =
v_n + \frac{\Delta t \, \omega}{2} u_n
\,,
\end{align*}
so that the scheme is implicit, that is it involves the inversion of a
$2\times2$ matrix. The coefficient matrix is always invertible, so there
is no restriction on the size of $\Delta t$, that is, the scheme is
unconditionally stable.
\subsection{The Conservation Law First}
Following the discussion in \cite{WanBihloNave2015} it is easy to show that
the only reasonable discretization that conserves the simple conservation
law \eqref{Simple Conserved} is equivalent to the Crank-Nicholson
discretization First compute using \eqref{Simple Conserved} that
\[
C_{n+1}^2 - C_n^2 =
\left(u_{n+1}-u_n\right)
\left(u_n+u_{n+1}\right) +
\left( v_{n+\frac{3}{2}} - v_{n-\frac{1}{2}} \right)
\frac{v_{n-\frac{1}{2}}+2 v_{n+\frac{1}{2}}+v_{n+\frac{3}{2}}}{4} \,.
\]
Choosing
\[
\frac{u_{n+1}-u_n}{\Delta t} =
- \omega \frac{v_{n-\frac{1}{2}}+2 v_{n+\frac{1}{2}}+v_{n+\frac{3}{2}}}{4}
\]
and
\[
\frac{v_{n+\frac{3}{2}} - v_{n-\frac{1}{2}}}{2 \, \Delta t} =
\omega \frac{u_n+u_{n+1}}{2}
\]
will make the $C_n$ constant.
If $\alpha = \Delta t \, \omega / 2 $ then these equations can be written
\begin{align*}
u_{n+1} + \frac{\alpha}{2} v_{n+3/2} & =
u_n - \alpha v_{n+1/2} -\frac{\alpha}{2} v_{n-1/2} \,, \\
- 2 \, \alpha \, u_{n+1} + v_{n+3/2} & = 2 \, \alpha u_{n} +v_{n-1/2} \,.
\end{align*}
So the difference equations are implicit.
It is easy to check that $u_n$ satisfies the second order difference
equation \eqref{2-CN}. Unfortunately, this discretization produces the
same $u_n$ values as the Crank-Nicholson scheme but with a greater
computational cost. Setting
\[
v_n = \frac{v_{n+1/2}+v_{n-1/2}}{2} \,,
\]
converts this scheme along with it's conserved quantity to the
Crank-Nicholson scheme along with it's conserved quantity.
\section{Conservation Laws and Positive Solutions}
Conservation laws that say the total amount of some positive substance
is conserved play an important role in modeling using partial differential
equations, for example the Navier-Stokes equations
\cite{PeyretTaylor83}(equations 1.5, 1.6 and 1.7) can be put into this form.
To provided some insight into discretizing such conservation laws,
two important but simple cases will be considered. For a similar discussion
see Chapeter 11 in \cite{Oliver16}.
\subsection{Transport}
The transport equation in one dimension is given by
\[
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} +
\frac{\partial \, v \, \rho}{\partial x} = 0 \,,
\]
where $\rho = \rho(x,t)$ is a density and $v = v(x)$ is the velocity of
transport. An important assumption is that $\rho \geq 0$ as it typically
represents the density of some substance. The general solution of this
equation is
\[
\rho (x,t) = w(x-vt) \,,
\]
where $w(x) = \rho(x,0)$ is the initial data. This solution is
a right translation of $w(x)$. This equation also has an important
conservation law:
\[
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho (x,t) \, d x =
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} w(x) \, d x \,.
\]
The conserved quantity is the total amount of material being transported.
Also note that if $w(x) \geq 0$ then $\rho(x,t) \geq 0$ for all $t$. These
two properties are central to this discussion.
Our interest is in finite difference discretizations of equations that
have a similar conservation law and maintain the positivity of the solution.
We assume that $\Delta x > 0 $ and use two grids: a primary grid
$x_i = i \, \Delta x$ that has cells $[x_i,x_{i+1}]$ and a grid of
cell centers $x_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} = (i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}) \, \Delta x$ where $-\infty < i < \infty$.
Note that if $\rho$ is a density then it has spatial dimension $1/d^k$ in
a space of dimension $k$ suggesting that $\rho$ should be in a cells. If
a primary grid is chosen then the discretization of $\rho$ is
\[
\rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,.
\]
We will use the conservation of material
\[
\Delta x \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
\]
in a cell to discretize this equation as
\[
\Delta x \, \rho^{n+3/2}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} =
\Delta x \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
+ \Delta t \, v_i \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
- \Delta t \, v_{i+1} \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,.
\]
Rewrite this as
\[
\frac{\rho^{n+3/2}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} - \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\Delta t}
+ \frac{v_{i+1} \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} -v_i \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}
{\Delta x} = 0 \,,
\]
to see that the discretization is a first order approximation of the
differential equation. As an update of the density the equation becomes
\[
\rho^{n+3/2}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} =
\rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
+ \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, v_i \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
- \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, v_{i+1} \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,.
\]
Now if
\[
\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, v_i \geq 0 \,,\quad
1 - \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, v_{i+1} \geq 0 \,,
\]
that is if
\[
v_i \geq 0 \,,\quad
\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, v_{i+1} \leq 1 \,,
\]
then the discretization preserves the positivity of the discrete solution
and is the well known upwind scheme. This scheme is not useful if
the velocity $v = v(x)$ has both negative and positive values.
To fix this consider $v$ rather than $\rho$.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{Figures/dt=dx} &
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{Figures/RightTransport} \\
A & B \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{A: Left transport of a square wave $v \, \Delta t / \Delta x = -1$.
B: Right transport of a square wave with $v = 0.4167$. (See {\tt Transport.m})}
\label{Transport Figure}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
So consider the edges of the cells and compute the amount of material
being transferred between the neighboring cells, that is for each time
step $n$, for all $i$ compute the discrete solution as follows:
\begin{align*}
\text{if } v_i \geq 0 \text{ then} \quad &
\rho^{n+3/2}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} = \rho^{n+3/2}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
- v_i \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,;\\
& \rho^{n+3/2}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} = \rho^{n+3/2}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
+ v_i \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,; \\
\text{if } v_i \leq 0 \text{ then}\quad &
\rho^{n+3/2}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} = \rho^{n+3/2}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
- v_i \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,;\\
& \rho^{n+3/2}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} = \rho^{n+3/2}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
+ v_i \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \, \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,.
\end{align*}
If $v_i$ is positive then this removes some material from cell
$i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}$ and put it into cell $i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}$ and conversely if $v_i$
is negative. If $V = \max(|v_i|)$ then the most material that can
be removed from cell $i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}$ is
\[
V \, \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \rho^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,,
\]
so to keep $\rho \geq 0$ it must be that
\[
V \, \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x} \leq 1 \,.
\]
An interesting feature of this algorithm is that for
$v_i \, \Delta t / \Delta x = \pm 1$ it gives an exact solution
of solution as shown in Figure \ref{Transport Figure}.
This is an upwind scheme for velocities that change direction that
keeps that preserves $\rho \geq 0$ and conserves the amount material
being transported. As done in {\tt Transport.m} this scheme can be
implemented with out the conditional in the update loop.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{Figures/Collapse} &
\includegraphics[width=2.75in]{Figures/Expand} \\
A & B \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{A: Collapse with $v = -x$. B: Expand with $v = x$.
(See {\tt Transport.m})}
\label{Colapse Expand Figure}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Not all discretizations preserve positive solutions, for example
the Lax-Wendroff, Richtmyer, and MacCormac schemes do not for linear
equations (see {\tt Lax-Wendroff-Positive.nb}).
This can also be seen by by choosing initial data $f_i$ that are
all zero except for one $i$ where $f_i = 1$. For linear equations
the Richtmyer and MacCormac schemes produce the same solution as
the Lax-Wendroff scheme.
\subsection{Diffusion}
The diffusion equation in one dimension is given by
\[
\frac{\partial \rho}{\partial t} =
\frac{\partial}{\partial x} D \, \frac{\partial \rho}{\partial x} \,,
\]
where $\rho = \rho(x,t)$ is the heat density $D = D(x) \geq 0$ is the
diffusion coefficient. For this discussion $t \geq 0$ and $\rho$ is smooth
and zero for large values of $|x|$. Then integrating the differential
equation gives
\[
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \rho(x,t) \, dx = 0 \,.
\]
If $\rho(x,0) \geq 0$ then the solution of the equation is given by
convolution with a Gaussian so then $\rho(x,t)\geq 0 $ for $t \geq 0$.
The standard forward time center space finite difference discretization
of this equation is given by
\[
\frac{\rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} - \rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\Delta t} =
\frac{1}{\Delta x} \left(
D_{i+1} \frac{\rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{3}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} - \rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\Delta x}-
D_{i} \frac{\rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} - \rho_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\Delta x}
\right)
\]
or in computational form
\[
\rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} =
\rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} +
\frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x^2}
\left(
D_{i+1} \, \rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{3}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
-\left( D_{i+1} + D_{i} \right) \, \rho_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
+D_{i} \, \rho_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
\right).
\]
This algorithm will preserve positive solutions for
\[
\left( D_{i+1} + D_{i} \right) \, \frac{\Delta t}{\Delta x^2} \leq 1 \,,
\]
which is the standard stability constraint for this discretization.
\section{Introduction}
The main goal is to show that mimetic spatial discretizations can be
combined with explicit time discretizations to discretize both scalar
and vector second-order wave equations to produce stable second-order
accurate simulations. More importantly the wave equations can be used
to model wave motion in non-uniform and anisotropic materials.
For complex three dimensional nonlinear systems of partial differential
equations, implicit methods can be expensive and diffusive so it is likely
that explicit time discretizations provide significant computational advantages.
Mimetic discretizations have been used extensively to create simulation
programs for problems in continuum mechanics, see \cite{LipnikovMS14}
and the volume \cite{Koren2014} in which this paper is published. In
\cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011} it is shown that, in the spatial context,
one can introduce a staggered grid discretization of the gradient,
curl and divergence that satisfy all of the important properties of the
continuum operators. For example the discrete divergence of the discrete
curl operator is identically zero. Another is that the adjoint of the
discrete gradient is the minus the discrete divergence.
However, for time dependent properties like the conservation of energy,
many discretizations of time will not preserve the property although
sometimes they will preserve an approximation of the property
\cite{HairerLW05,NGI,EngleSD05,GansS00,Quispel08}. It appears that most
of the energy preserving methods are implicit, but by introducing additional
variables, explicit methods that conserve a modified energy are discussed
in \cite{Tao2016}.
Because of the properties of mimetic discrete gradient, curl and divergence
and the explicit leapfrog discretization of time, the derivation of the
conservation of energy for several different systems can be modified to
produce a conservation law that is a second order accurate approximation of
the continuum energy. The new conserved quantity can be written as
\[
C(t) = E(t) - \Delta t^2 \, R(t) \,,
\]
where $E$ is a constant multiple of the classical energy, $\Delta t$ is the
discrete time step and $R$ is positive. The minus sign introduces a constraint
on the time step that is less restrictive than a modest accuracy constraint.
The main result is that simulations show that the three dimensional scalar
wave equation and Maxwell's equations without sources, $Q(t)$ is constant
to less than one part in $10^{15}$. Additionally, for the scalar wave equation
the curl of the velocity is constant to less than one part in $10^{13}$ and
the divergence of the electric and magnetic fields are constant to less than
one part in $10^{13}$, see {\tt ScalarWave.m} and {\tt Maxwell.m}.
For an idea of the problems that discretizing Maxwell's equations see
\cite{ChristliebTang14}.
The leapfrog discretization requires that the differential equations
be written as a system of first order equations. The examples studied
are wave equations in the sense that all solutions of the ordinary or
partial differential equation will be oscillatory or constant in time.
Consequently the differential equations have time reversal symmetry
In Section \ref{Harmonic Oscillator} the discussion begins with the
harmonic oscillator for which it is well known that the implicit
Crank-Nicolson discretization conserves energy, see Appendix \ref{C-N}.
The oscillator is written as a first order system and discretized using
a leap-frog method. Then the energy for oscillator is modified to make a
conserved quantity. Simulation show that this new quantity is conserved
to one part in $10^{15}$, see {\tt StaggeredOscillator.m}.
The time step constraint for stability is far less restrictive than
the constraint for accuracy, suggesting that a staggered time step
mimetic spatial discretization for linear partial differential equations
will be computationally efficient.
In Section \ref{ODEs} the discussion of the harmonic oscillator is extended
to infinite (and finite) systems of ordinary differential equations that are
analogous to the harmonic oscillator. They are also shown to have conserved
quantities and their leap frog discretization also have an approximate
conserved quantity analogous to that for the harmonic oscillator. These
systems are set up to also be analogous to systems obtained from the spatial
discretization of continuum wave equations. The equations studied are more
general than linear Hamiltonian systems which is important for extending
the harmonic oscillator discretization to partial differential equations.
Simulations show that the new quantity is conserved to about 2 parts in
$10^{15}$, see {\tt SystemsODE.m}.
In Section \ref{1D Wave}, the scalar wave equation one space dimension is
written as a system of two first order equations and discretized using a
grid staggered in space and time. This is essentially a tutorial in how
to do staggered space time discretization like those used in Yee methods
\cite{Yee1966}. The conserved quantities are extended to cover this 1D case.
Simulation show that the new quantities is conserved to one part in
$10^{14}$, see {\tt OneDWave.m}.
In Section \ref{Second Order D0s} a double exact sequence of spatial
differential operators is described. The notion of an {\em exact sequence}
and {\em diagram chasing} in an exact sequence to define second order
differential operators play a critical role in mimetic discretizations.
The concept of an exact sequence comes from differential geometry and
requires a strong mathematics background to understand. The presentation
here is based on vector calculus and the first order differential operators
divergence ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot }$, curl or rotation ${\vec{\nabla} \times }$ and the gradient ${\vec{\nabla}}$
as was done in \cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011} which provides far more
details. The concept of a star operator used in differential geometry
is used to represent variable material properties.
Additionally, spatial units (meters, feet, $\cdots$) are
used to understand how to represent dependent physical variables in
an exact sequence. For continuum operators the double exact sequence
is the same as a single exact used in differential geometry. However in
the discrete setting the double exact sequence cannot be reduced to a
single sequence. A nice consequence of the use of the exact sequence
is that the second order operators generated can have spatially dependent
coefficients and will always be symmetric (self adjoint) and either
positive or negative as is required in many applications.
In Section \ref{Second Order Wave Equations} the second order differential
operators defined in the previous section are used to define three types of
wave equations with variable material properties. Next the second order
equations are written as a first order system that has the same properties
as systems in the previous sections. This then gives an automatic definition
of a conserved quantity and from this a definition of an energy. At the end
of the section Maxwell's equations are given as an example and also some
elastic or acoustic wave equation are fit into the mimetic framework.
In Section \ref{Mimetic Discretizations} primal and dual staggered grids in
3D are introduced. These grids are the same as those introduce by Yee
\cite{Yee1966} in 1966 to discretize Maxwell's equations. Consequently there
are two types of scalar fields and two types of discrete vector fields.
The differential operators divergence, gradient and curl are discretized as
in \cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011}. Because two grids are used there are two of
each of the first order discrete operators ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot }$, ${\vec{\nabla} \times }$ and ${\vec{\nabla}}$.
Additionally it is shown how to discretize the material properties. This
section continues by defining discrete inner products and adjoint operators
critical for understanding important properties of the discrete operators.
Note that the paper \cite{MohamedHiraniSataney16} also used a dual grid
differential form method to discretize the Navier-Stokes Equations.
For an introduction to the relationship of vector calculus to
differential forms see the notes \cite{Arapura99}.
In Section \ref{Scalar Wave 3d} the scalar wave equation is discretized
for constant scalar material properties and constant time the identity
for matrix material properties. This is actually a vary easy task.
From \cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011} we have simple programs that compute
the action of the divergence, curl on discrete vector fields and the
gradient on discrete scalar fields. As there are two types of fields
there are two types of each discreted operator. Additionally a with a bit
of algebra a conserved quantity similar to the ones in the previous sections
can be computed. Simulation show that the conserved quantity is
constant to one part in $10^{15}$, see {\tt ScalarWave.m}. Also the curl of
the velocity field is constant to one part in $10^{13}$. So everything
works in the case of the scalar wave equation with constant material
properties.
In Section \ref{E and M section} we show how to create a conserved quantity
for Maxwell's equations that is constant to one in $10^{15}$, and
also show that the divergence of the electric and magnetic fields
are constant to one part in $10^{13}$, see {\tt Maxwell.m}.
\subsection{Notes}
One complexity of mimetic spatial discretizations is caused by having
primary and dual grids. In fact we can interchange the primary and
dual grids and not change the discretization. This is what leads to there
being a primary gradient, curl, and divergence and dual gradient, curl and
divergence. We label the dual operators with a star $*$. This complexity
was already present in the paper by Yee \cite{Yee1966} which has evolved
into the FDTD discretization method \cite{wikiFDTD}.
As we proceed, we will discover that there are several minor problems that
need to resolved. For example our second order equations are not exactly
equivalent to first order system that we change them to. Additionally,
for the discrete equations there are problems in converting the initial
data for the second order equations to data for the first order equations.
Additionally, because our equations are linear if they conserve some quantity,
they will conserve infinitely many quantities and in thus we have a choice in
what the conserved quantity we study.
This paper was inspired by the paper \cite{WanBihloNave2015} and \cite{Yee1966}.
We note that in \cite{SchuhmannWeiland2001} (see equation (45)) the same
stability constraint was found as the one in this paper for conserving the
classical energy but modifying the discretization of Maxwell's equations.
In \cite{GaoZang13} an implicit (ADI) method is developed that has a modified
energy that is similar to ours but the added term has a plus sign.
For a finite element approach that produce many of the same results
that are in this paper see \cite{TaylorFournier10,BrezziBM14}.
There has been substantial effort made in creating discretizations for
continuum mechanics problems that exactly preserve energy and other
important properties. The paper \cite{Sanderse13} gives an overview of
energy conserving methods for Navier-Stokes equations and develops some
implicit Runge-Kutta methods for doing this. The thesis \cite{Capuano15}
address energy conservation for turbulent flows. For a differential forms
approach to discretization see \cite{PerotZusi14,Teixeira13} and additionally
for multisympletic time integration approach to Maxwell's equations see
\cite{StToDeMa2015}. For two dimensional problems see
\cite{ChenLL08,Perot2011,PalhaGerritsma16,Salmon07,VeigaLV15,MorinishiLCM98}.
The papers \cite{Tonti14, WanBihloNave2015} take a novel approach to
finding discrete models. For the latest, see the minisimposium at a
recent SIAM meeting \cite{SIAM}.
For function depending on three spatial variables and time, the
spatial variables will be discretized using mimetic finite
differences as described in \cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011} while
time variable will be discretized using the well known leapfrog
finite differences.
The extension of ideas closely related to the work here to logically
rectangular grids in 2-D is described in
\cite{AdjointHymanShashkov97, NaturalHymanShashkov97}.
For a finite-element approach to vector wave equations see
Section 2.3.2 of \cite{arnoldelastic2010}.
\section{The Harmonic Oscillator \label{Harmonic Oscillator}}
To motivate the results for the three dimensions scalar wave equation
and Maxwell's equations, conserved quantities that depends on the time
step are derived for finite difference discretizations of the simple
harmonic oscillator. First the second-order harmonic oscillator equation
is discretized and then a conserved quantity is derived.
Next the oscillator equation
is written as a first order system of ODEs and then discretize using a
staggered time grid and two similar conserved quantities are derived.
The first section in \cite{PalhaGerritsma15} has a complementary discussion
of energy conservation for the harmonic oscillator.
Appendix \ref{C-N} reviews the implicit Crank-Nicholson discretization
of the oscillator which conserves a natural discretization of the
continuum energy and that the methods used in \cite{WanBihloNave2015}
produce a discretization equivalent to the Crank-Nicholson method.
\subsection{The Harmonic Oscillator and Conserved Quantities}
The linear harmonic oscillator equation is given by
\[
u'' + \omega^2 u = 0 \,,
\]
where $u = u(t)$ is a smooth function of time $t$ and $u' = du/dt$,
$u'' = d^2u/dt^2$ and $\omega>0$ is a real constant.
The total energy or Hamiltonian which is the sum of the kinetic and
potential energies is
\[
E = \frac{(u')^2 + (\omega \, u)^2}{2} \,.
\]
This is conserved quantity because
\[
E' =
\left(u'' \, u' + \omega^2 u \, u' \right) =
\left(u'' + \omega^2 u \right) \, u' = 0 \,.
\]
To use a staggered time or leapfrog discretization, the oscillator equation
is written as a first order system by introducing $v = v(t)$ and requiring
\begin{equation}\label{First Order System}
u' = \omega \, v \,,\quad v' = -\omega \, u \,.
\end{equation}
The minus sign can be put in either equation.
The energy is a constant multiple of the quantity $C = C(t)$ where
\begin{equation}\label{Conserved Quantity Simple}
C = \frac{1}{2} \left( u^2 + v^2 \right)\,.
\end{equation}
This quantity is conserved because
\[
C' = u\,u' + v\,v' = u \, \omega \, v - v \, \omega \, u = 0 \,.
\]
Note that $C = E/\omega^2$.
The condition that $\omega > 0$ and not that $\omega \geq 0 $
is important because for $\omega = 0$ the second order equation
has the solutions $u(t) = t$ for which the energy is unbounded.
However, for $\omega = 0$ the system only has constant solutions
which have bounded energy.
Also because the system is linear with constant coefficients, the time
derivatives of $u$ and $v$ also satisfy the system thus creating an infinity
of conserved quantities.
\subsection{Discretizing the Second Order Oscillator Equation}
If $\Delta t > 0$ then a standard discretization of the second order
oscillator equation using the discrete times
$t^n = n \, \Delta t$, $-\infty < n < \infty$ is
\[
\frac{u^{n+1} -2 \, u^n + u^{n-1}}{\Delta t ^2} + \omega^2 \, u^n = 0 \,.
\]
Given the two initial conditions $u(0)$ and $u'(0)$ set $u^0 = u(0)$ and
$u^1 = u(0) + \Delta t \, u'(0)$. The discrete solution is then
\[
u^{n+1} = (2 -(\omega \Delta t)^2) u^n - u^{n-1} , n \geq 1 \,.
\]
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=3.00in]{Figures/PhasePlane}
\caption{Phase plane plots for the second order harmonic oscillator model
with $\omega = 1$ and $\Delta t = 3/2,\, 1 ,\, 1/2,\, 1/10$}.
\label{SecondOrderOsc}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
A natural proposal for a second-order accurate discrete conserved
quantity is
\[
C^n =
(u^n)^2 + \left( \frac{u^{n+1}-u^{n-1}}{2 \, \omega \, \Delta t} \right)^2 \,.
\]
A little algebra shows that $C^n$ is not conserved. However this computation
shows that
\[
C^n = \left(1-\left(\frac{\omega \, \Delta t}{2}\right)^2 \right) (u^n)^2 +
\left( \frac{u^{n+1}-u^{n-1}}{2 \, \omega \, \Delta t} \right)^2
\]
is conserved. The program {\tt Oscillator2ndOrder.m} produced
Figure \ref{SecondOrderOsc}, confirming that the algorithm is stable for
$0 < \Delta t /\omega < 2$ and that $C^n$ is constant to less than one
part in $10^{10}$.
{\em It is important that the constraint $\Delta t/\omega <2$ is less
restrictive than requiring an accurate solution and thus there seems
to be no advantage to using a discretization that is stable for all
$\Delta t$?
}
\subsection{Staggering the Time Discretization}
A time staggered grid is used to discretize the first order system
\eqref{First Order System} which is given by a primary grid
$t^n = n \, \Delta t$ and a dual grid $t^{n+1/2} = (n+1/2) \, \Delta t$,
where $\Delta t > 0$ and $-\infty < n < \infty$ is an integer.
The staggered or leapfrog discretization of the harmonic oscillator is
then given by
\begin{equation}\label{Main Difference Equations}
\frac{u^{n+1}-u^n}{\Delta t} = \omega \, v^{n+1/2} \,,\quad
\frac{v^{n+1/2}-v^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t} = -\omega \, u^{n} \,,
\end{equation}
The minus sign can be put in either equation, but it is important
to have an $omega$ in both equations. As before, the initial conditions
$u(0)$ and $u'(0)$ are given and then $u^0 = u(0)$ and
\[
\omega \, v^{1/2} = \frac{u^1 - u^0}{\Delta t} \approx u'(0) \,,
\]
that is, $v^{1/2} = u'(0)/\omega$. The division by $\omega$ will
cause problems later.
The update algorithm starts with $u^0$ and $v^{1/2}$ and then for
$n \geq 0$
\begin{align*}
u^{n+1} = u^n + \Delta t \, \omega \, v^{n+1/2} \,,\quad
v^{n+3/2} = v^{n+1/2} - \Delta t \, \omega \, u^{n+1} \,.
\end{align*}
Note that the second equation depends on the update in the first equation,
so the order of evaluation is critical.
This staggered grid discretization gives two standard single grid discretization
of the second order oscillator equation:
\[
\frac{u^{n+2} - 2 \, u^{n+1} +u^n }{\Delta t^2} + \omega^2 u^{n+1} = 0
\,;\quad
\frac{v^{n+3/2} - 2 \, v^{n+1/2} +v^{n-1/2} }{\Delta t^2} +
\omega^2 v^{n+1/2} = 0 \,.
\]
So the solution of the fractional step methods will be identical to the
solution of the second order equations.
Again a simple proposed conserved quantity for
\eqref{Main Difference Equations} is
\begin{equation}\label{Simple Conserved}
C^n = \frac{1}{2}
\left( (u^n)^2 +\left( \frac{v^{n+1/2}+v^{n-1/2)}}{2}\right)^2 \right) \,.
\end{equation}
A little algebra gives
\[
C^{n+1} - C^n = \frac{\omega^2 \, \Delta t^2 }{4} \,
\left((u^{n+1})^2 - (u^n)^2 \right) \,.
\]
So $C^n$ is {\em not} conserved. However, set
\[
\alpha = \frac{\omega \, \Delta t}{2} \,,
\]
and then the following two quantities are conserved:
\begin{equation}\label{Scaler Conserved n}
C^n = \frac{1}{2}
\left(
\left(1 - \alpha ^2 \right)
(u^n)^2 +\left( \frac{v^{n+1/2}+v^{n-1/2)}}{2}
\right)^2 \right) \,;
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}\label{Scaler Conserved n+1/2}
C^{n+1/2} = \frac{1}{2} \left(
\left(\frac{u^{n+1}+u^{n}}{2}\right)^2 +
\left(1 - \alpha^2 \right) (v^{n+1/2})^2 \right) \,.
\end{equation}
The important properties for the staggered scheme is that it is explicit,
second order accurate and stable for $ \omega \, \Delta t / 2 < 1$.
By modifying the discretization, a similar result was obtained in
\cite{SchuhmannWeiland2001}, Equation 45, for the Yee time discretization
of Maxwell's equations.
The code {\tt StaggeredOscillator.m} confirms that the two energies
are constant to one part in $10^{15}$. The phase plane plots for the
staggered grid and the second order equation are identical. The code
also estimates that for $\omega = 1$, $\Delta t < 2$ is required for
stability, but for such a large $\Delta t$ the numerical solution
is very inaccurate, as made clear in Figure \ref{SecondOrderOsc}.
\subsection{Summary}
If conserved quantities for the harmonic oscillator are allows to
depend on $\Delta t$ then it is possible to derive conserved quantities
that converges quadratically to the energy of the continuum differential
equation. The restriction on $\Delta t$ to keep the conserved quantity
positive is less stringent than the restriction for reasonably accurate
solutions. All discretizations considered are second order accurate.
\section{Systems of Ordinary Differential Equations \label{ODEs}}
The next task is to consider a special class of systems of linear ordinary
differential equations that are wave equations. Here the conservation laws
are easy to find by following the harmonic oscillator example but there are
some issues with unbounded solutions and initial conditions.
\subsection{Continuous Time} \label{Continuous Time}
Let $X$ and $Y$ be linear spaces (finite or infinite dimensional). It is
important that it is not assumed that $X$ and $Y$ have the same dimension.
If $f$ and $g$ are in $X$ then their inner product is $\langle f , g \rangle$
and the norm of $f$ is given by $\norm{f}^2 = \langle f , f \rangle$,
with the same notation for $Y$. Let $A$ be a linear operator
mapping $X$ to $Y$ with adjoint $A^*$. This is summarized by
\[
X \overset{A}{\rightarrow} Y \,,\quad
Y \overset{A^*}{\rightarrow} X \,,
\]
and if $f \in X$ and $g \in Y$ then
\[
\langle A \, f , g \rangle = \langle f, A^* \, g \rangle \,.
\]
Next, if $f = f(t) \in X$ and $g = g(t) \in Y$ then a generalization of the
harmonic oscillator is given by
\begin{equation} \label{Wave System}
f' = A \, g \,,\quad g' = - A^* \, f \,,
\end{equation}
or in matrix form
\[
\left[ \begin{matrix}
f' \\
g'
\end{matrix} \right]
=
\left[ \begin{matrix}
0 & A \\
- A^*& 0
\end{matrix} \right]
\left[ \begin{matrix}
f \\
g
\end{matrix} \right] \,.
\]
Because the matrix
\[
\left[ \begin{matrix}
0 & A \\
- A^*& 0
\end{matrix} \right]
\]
is skew adjoint, it must have purely imaginary spectra and the solutions of
this system must be made up of oscillatory waves and possibly constant
solutions. In particular all solutions are bounded in $t$.
Both $f$ and $g$ are solutions of a second order liner differential equation:
\[
f'' + A^* \, A f = 0 \,;\quad g'' + A \, A^* g \ = 0.
\]
An interesting special case applicable to Maxwell's equations is when
$A$ is self adjoint $A^* = A$.
The main difference between the system of equations \eqref{Wave System}
and the system \eqref{First Order System} for the harmonic oscillator is
that is was assumed that $\omega \neq 0$ while here $A$ is not assumed
to be invertible. {\em The analogous operators for the scalar wave equation
and Maxwell's equations are also not invertible.}
If $f \in X$ and $g \in Y$ then
\begin{align*}
\langle A^* \, A f , f \rangle = &
\langle A f , A f \rangle =
\langle f , A^* \, A f \rangle \, \\
\langle A \, A^* g , g \rangle = &
\langle A^* g , A^* g \rangle =
\langle g , A \, A^* g \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently both $A\,A^*$ and $A^* \, A$ are self-adjoint positive operators,
but they may not be positive definite. Also if $h \neq 0$ and
$A \, h = 0$ then $ g(t) = t\, h$ is an unbounded solution solution of
the second equation while if $A^*h = 0$ then $f(t) = t \, h$ is an
unbounded solution of the first equation. For this $f(t)$ the system
becomes $ h = A \, g(t) \,,\quad g'(t) = 0 \,. $ So $g(t) = k$ a constant
and then
$ \langle h , h \rangle = \langle h , A \, k \rangle = \langle A^* h , k \rangle = 0 $,
that is $h=0$ and then $f(t) = 0$ and $g(t) = k$ and $A \, k = 0$.
{\em So the unbounded solution of the second order equation is not a solution
of the system, an advantage of using the system}.
If $f$ and $g$ are vectors of the same length and $A$
is invertible then the system and second order equations are consistent.
There is also a problem with the initial conditions for the system
and the second order equations. If $A$ is an $n$ by $m$ matrix, then
$A^*$ is $m$ by $n$ matrix and consequently $A \, A^*$ is an $n$ by
$n$ matrix and $ A^* \, A$ is an $m$ by $m$ matrix. So the first of
the second order equation needs $2\,n$ initial conditions, and the second
of the second-order equations needs $2\,m$ initial conditions. The
system needs $n+m$ initial conditions.
If $n=m$ then the number of initial conditions
are the same for all three variants of the ordinary differential equations.
If $n \neq m$, then the three formulations of the ODE are not equivalent!
{\em The $n \neq m$ is far more analogous to the situation
for the scalar wave and Maxwell's equations than the $n=m$ case}.
\subsection{Continuous Time Conserved Quantities}
In the previous section it was assumed that that $\omega$ was nonzero
equations could be multiplied and divided by $\omega$. Here it
is not assumed that $A$ or $A^*$ are invertible, so the choice of
a conserved quantity need to be a bit more careful:
\[
C(t) = \frac{1}{2} \left( \norm{ f(t) }^2 + \norm {g(t) }^2 \right) \,,
\]
which is analogous to \eqref{Conserved Quantity Simple}.
Then the time derivative is
\[
C'(t) = \langle f'(t), f(t) \rangle + \langle g'(t), g(t) \rangle =
\langle A \, g(t), f(t) \rangle + \langle - A^* f(t), g(t) \rangle = 0 \,,
\]
so this quantity is conserved.
For the second order equations, an analog of the total energy that
is the sum of the kinetic plus the potential energy is given by
\begin{align}
\label{Continuum Total Energy}
E(t)
& = \frac{1}{2} \left( \norm{ f'(t) }^2 + \norm {A^* \, f(t) }^2 \right)
\nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \left( \norm{ A \, g(t) }^2 + \norm {g'(t) }^2 \right)
\nonumber \\
& = \frac{1}{2} \left( \norm{ f'(t) }^2 + \norm {g'(t) }^2 \right) \,,
\end{align}
is conserved because if $f, g$ are a solutions of the system then so are
$f'$ and $ g'$.
Note that the linearly growing solution has constant energy but $C(t)$ is
unbounded.
The $C(t$) type conserved quantities will used from now on.
\subsection{Staggered Time Discretization\label{Staggered Time Discretization}}
A leapfrog discretization for the first order system is
\[
\frac{f^{n+1} - f^n}{\Delta t} = A \, g^{n+1/2} \,,\quad
\frac{g^{n+1/2} - g^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t} = -A^* \, f^{n} \,.
\]
Assuming that $f^0$ and $g^{1/2}$ are given then for $n \geq 0$ the
leapfrog time stepping scheme is
\[
f^{n+1} = f^n + \triangle t \, A \, g^{n+1/2} \,,\quad
g^{n+3/2} = g^{n+1/2} - \triangle t \, A^* \, f^{n+1} \,.
\]
Again note that the order of evaluation is important.
If $f(0)$ and $f'(0)$ are given, then
\[
A \, g^{1/2} = f'(0) - \frac{\Delta}{2} A \, A^*\, f(0) \,,
\]
need to be solved for $g^{1/2}$. If $A$ is not invertible then it may not
be possible to solve this equation and then system is not consistent with
the second order equation. However, if $f(0)$ and $g(0)$ are given then
\[
\frac{g^{1/2}-g^{0}}{\Delta t/2} \approx - A^* \, f^0 \,,
\]
and then
\[
g^{1/2} = g^0 - \frac{\Delta t}{2} \, A^* \, f^0 \,.
\]
Both $f$ and $g$ satisfy a second order difference equation.
Also a second order average is important for computing
conserved quantites.
For $f$
\begin{align} \label{Second Order}
\frac{f^{n+1} - 2 f^n + f^{n-1}}{\Delta t^2}
& = - A \, A^* f^{n} \,. \nonumber \\
\frac{f^{n+1} + 2 \, f^{n} + f^{n-1}}{4}
& = f^{n} - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} A \, A^* f^{n} \,,
\end{align}
and for $g$
\begin{align} \label{Second Order Half}
\frac{g^{n+3/2} - 2 g^{n+1/2} + g^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t^2}
& = - A^* \, A \, g^{n+1/2} \,. \nonumber \\
\frac{g^{n+3/2} + 2 \, g^{n 1/2} + g^{n-1/2}}{4}
& = g^{n+1/2} - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} A^* \, A \, g^{n+1/2} \,.
\end{align}
For the equation for $f$ it is usual to specify $f(0)$ and $f'(0)$ and
the set $f^0 = f(0)$ and $f^1 \approx f(0) + \Delta t \, f'(0)$ with
a similar specification for $g$.
{\em When comparing this discretization to the simple oscillator
discretization it is important that $\omega > 0$, while here one or both or
the operators $A$ and $A^*$ may not be invertible.}
\subsection{Discrete Time Conserved Quantities}
To show that $A$ not being invertible is not serious problem a detailed
derivation of the conservation laws that are analogs of
\eqref{Scaler Conserved n+1/2} and \eqref{Scaler Conserved n} are given. Let
\begin{align*}
C_1^{n+1/2} & = \norm{\frac{f^{n+1} + f^{n}}{2}}^2 \,, \\
C_2^{n+1/2} & = \norm{ g^{n+1/2}}^2 \,, \\
C_3^{n+1/2} & = \Delta t^2 \norm{ A \, g^{n+1/2} }^2 \,.
\end{align*}
As before compute:
\begin{align*}
C_1^{n+1/2}- C_1^{n-1/2}
& = \langle \frac{f^{n+1} + 2 \, f^{n} + f^{n-1}}{4} , f^{n+1} - f^{n-1} \rangle \\
& = \langle f^{n} - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} A \, A^* f^{n} , f^{n+1} - f^{n-1} \rangle \,;
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C_2^{n+1/2}- C_1^{n-1/2}
& = \langle g^{n+1/2} + g^{n-1/2} , g^{n+1/2} - g^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& = \langle g^{n+1/2} + g^{n-1/2} , - \Delta t \, A^* f^n \rangle \\
& = - \Delta t \, \langle A \, g^{n+1/2} + A \, g^{n-1/2} , f^n \rangle \\
& = -\Delta t \, \langle \frac{f^{n+1}-f^{n-1}}{\Delta t} , f^n \rangle \\
& = \langle -f^n , f^{n+1}-f^{n-1} \rangle \,;
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C_3^{n+1/2}- C_1^{n-1/2} & = \Delta t^2
\langle A \, g^{n+1/2} - A \, g^{n-1/2} \,,\, A \, g^{n+1/2} + A \, g^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& = \Delta t^ 2 \langle A \left( g^{n+1/2} - g^{n+1/2} \right) \,,\, \frac{f^{n+1}-f^{n-1}}{\Delta t} \rangle \\
& = \Delta t^ 2 \langle - \Delta t \, A \, A^* f^{n} \,,\,
\frac{f^{n+1}-f^{n-1}}{\Delta t} \rangle \\
& = - \Delta t^ 2 \langle A \, A^* f^{n} \,,\, f^{n+1}-f^{n-1} \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently $C = C_1 + C_2 - C_3/4$ is a conserved quantity:
\[
C^{n+1/2} = \norm{\frac{f^{n+1} + f^{n}}{2}}^2 + \norm{ g^{n+1/2}}^2
- \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{ A \, g^{n+1/2} }^2 \,.
\]
This implies that
\[
C^{n+1/2} \geq \norm{\frac{f^{n+1} + f^{n}}{2}}^2 +
\left( 1 - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{A}^2 \right)
\norm{ g^{n+1/2}}^2 \,.
\]
So $C^{n+1/2} \geq 0$ for $\Delta t$ sufficiently small provided $\norm{A}$
is finite.
Next let
\begin{align*}
C_1^{n} & = \norm{\frac{g^{n+1/2} + g^{n-1/2}}{2}}^2 \,, \\
C_2^{n} & = \norm{f^{n}}^2 \,, \\
C_3^{n} & = \Delta t^2 \norm{ A^* \, f^{n} }^2 \,.
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C_1^{n+1}- C_1^{n}
& = \langle
\frac{g^{n+3/2} + 2 \, g^{n 1/2} + g^{n-1/2}}{4} \,,\,
g^{n+3/2} -g^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& = \langle
g^{n+1/2} - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} A^* \, A \, g^{n+1/2} \,,\,
g^{n+3/2} -g^{n-1/2} \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C_2^{n+1}- C_2^{n}
& = \langle f^{n+1}-f^{n} \,,\, f^{n+1}+f^{n} \rangle \\
& = \langle \Delta t \, A \, g^{n+1/2} \,,\, f^{n+1}+f^{n} \rangle \\
& = \Delta t \langle g^{n+1/2} \,,\, A^* f^{n+1}+A^* f^{n} \rangle \\
& = \Delta t \langle g^{n+1/2} \,,\,
-\frac{g^{n+3/2}- g^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t} \rangle \\
& = \langle - g^{n+1/2} \,,\,
g^{n+3/2}- g^{n-1/2} \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C_3^{n+1}- C_3^{n}
& = \Delta t^2
\langle
A^* f^{n+1}- A^* f^n \,,\, A^* f^{n+1}+ A^* f^n
\rangle \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle
A^* f^{n+1}- A^* f^n \,,\, \frac{g^{n+3/2}-g^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t}
\rangle \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle
\Delta t \, A^* A \, g^{n+1/2} \,,\, \frac{g^{n+3/2}-g^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t}
\rangle \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle
A^* A \, g^{n+1/2} \,,\, g^{n+3/2}-g^{n-1/2} \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently $C^n = C_1^n + C_2^n - C_3^n/4$ is a conserved quantity:
\[
C^n = \norm{f^{n}}^2
-\frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{ A^* \, f^{n} }^2
+\norm{\frac{g^{n+1/2} + g^{n-1/2}}{2}}^2 \,.
\]
This implies that
\[
\norm{C^n} \ge \left(1 - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{A^*}^2\right) \norm{f^n}^2
+ \norm{\frac{g^{n+1/2} + g^{n-1/2}}{2}}^2 \,,
\]
so $\norm{C^n}$ is positive for sufficiently small $\Delta t$.
Program {\tt SystemsODEs.m} tests these conservation laws for $A$ a
$2 \times 3$ random matrix showing that the energies are constant with
an error less that than one part in $10^{14}$.
\section{Discretizing the 1D Wave Equation\label{1D Wave}}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=5.00in]{Figures/Grid-xt}
\caption{Space-Time Staggered Grid}
\label{TimeSpaceGrid}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
The 1D scalar wave equation will be discretized by writing the equation
as a system of two first order equations and then using a staggared time
and spatial discretization. The time discretization is the same as
leapfrog discretization used before while the spatial
discretization is the mimetic discretization specialized to one dimension.
Most importantly, a conserved quantity $C$ is introduce that is not
the classical energy, but the conservation of $C$ implies the conservation
of the enery $E$. This will play an important role in 3D discretizations.
Let $u = u(t,x)$ be a smooth real valued function of the real variables
$x$ and $t$ such that $u(t,\pm \infty) = 0$.
Then let
$u_t = \partial u / \partial t$,
$u_x = \partial u / \partial x$,
$u_{tt} = \partial^2 u / \partial t^2$,
and
$u_{xx} = \partial^2 u / \partial x^2$.
The 1D wave equation is then
\[
u_{tt} = c^2 \, u_{xx} \,,
\]
where $c>0$.
The initial conditions for this equation are $u(0,x)$ and $u_t(0,x)$.
This equation can also be written as a system
\begin{equation} \label{Wave-1D-System}
u_t = c \, v_x \,,\quad v_t = c \, u_x \,,
\end{equation}
where again $v$ is smooth and $v(t,\pm \infty) = 0$. The
initial conditions are $u(0,x)$ and $v(0,x)$.
As before $v$ also satisfies a second order wave equation
\[
v_{tt} = c^2 \, v_{xx} \,.
\]
The inner product of two functions $f = f(x)$ and $g = g(x)$ is
\[
\langle f,g \rangle = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(x) \, g(x) \, dx \,.
\]
If $f(\pm \infty) = 0$ and $g(\pm \infty) = 0$ then integration by parts
gives $\langle f', g \rangle = \langle f, -g' \rangle$, so if
$A = \partial/\partial x$ then $-A^* = A$. So the wave equation has
the same form as the equations in the previous sections.
The usual energy $E = E(t)$ for the wave equation is the kinetic plus the
potential energies:
\[
E =
\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left( u_{t}^2 + c^2 \, u_{x}^2 \right) d x \,.
\]
Use integration by parts to see that
\begin{align*}
E'
= & \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left( u_t \, u_{tt} + c^2 \, u_x \, u_{tx} \right) \, d x \,. \\
= &\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left( u_t \, u_{tt} - c^2 \, u_{xx} u_t \right) \, d x = 0 \,,
\end{align*}
that is, the energy $E(t)$ is conserved.
A preferred conserved quantity is $C = C(t)$ where
\begin{equation} \label{Conserved 1D Wave}
C =
\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left( u^2 + v^2 \right) d x \,,
\end{equation}
because
\begin{align*}
C' & = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left( u \, u_t+ v \, v_t \right) d x \,, \\
& = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left( u \, c \, v_x + v \, c \, u_x \right) d x \,, \\
& = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
c \, \left( u \, v_x + v \, u_x \right) d x \,, \\
& = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
c \, \left( u \, v \right)_x d x \,, \\
& = 0 \,.
\end{align*}
Again note that if $u,v$ are solutions of the system \eqref{Wave-1D-System}
then so are $u_t$, $v_t$ and then \eqref{Conserved 1D Wave} implies that
a conserved quantity is given by the energy
\[
\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left( u_t^2 + v_t^2 \right) d x =
\frac{1}{2} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left( u_t^2 + c^2 u_x^2 \right) d x
= E \,.
\]
So if $C$ is conserved then so is $E$.
\subsection{A Staggered Discretization of the Wave Equation}
Let $\triangle t > 0$ and $\triangle x > 0$ be given and then the primary and
dual grids points are given by
\begin{align*}
\left(t^n,x_i\right) = & \left(n\,\triangle t, i \, \triangle x \right) \,, \\
\left(t^{n+1/2},x_{i+1/2}\right) = &
\left((n+1/2)\,\triangle t, (i+1/2) \, \triangle x \right) \,,
\end{align*}
where $ -\infty < n < \infty$ and $ -\infty < i < \infty$.
Then $u$ discretized on the primary grind and $v$ on the dual grid as
$u^n_i$ and $v^{n+1/2}_{i+1/2}$. Then the system \eqref{Wave-1D-System}
is discretized as
\begin{align}\label{Discretized System}
\frac{u^{n+1}_{i} - u^{n}_{i}}{\triangle t}
& = c \, \frac{v^{n+1/2}_{i+1/2} - v^{n+1/2}_{i-1/2}}{\triangle x}
\nonumber \\
\frac{v^{n+1/2}_{i+1/2} - v^{n-1/2}_{i+1/2}}{\triangle t}
& = c \, \frac{u^n_{i+1}-u^n_i}{\triangle x}
\end{align}
Assume that $u^0$ and $v^{{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ are given then the leapfrog
time stepping scheme is
\[
u^{n+1}_{i} =
u^{n}_{i} +
c \, \frac{\triangle t}{\triangle x} \left(v^{n+1/2}_{i+1/2} - v^{n+1/2}_{i-1/2}\right) \,,\quad
v^{n+3/2}_{i+1/2} =
v^{n+1/2} + c \, \frac{\triangle t}{\triangle x} \, \left(u^{n+1}_{i+1}-u^{n+1}_i\right)
\]
This implies that both $u$ and $v$ satisfy a discretization of the
second order wave equation:
\begin{align*}
\frac{u^{n+1}_{i} - 2\,u^{n}_{i} +u^{n-1}_{i}}{\triangle t^2}
& = \frac{1}{\triangle t} \left( \frac{u^{n+1}_{i} - \,u^{n}_{i}}{\triangle t} -
\frac{u^{n}_{i} - u^{n-1}_{i}}{\triangle t} \right) \\
& = \frac{c}{\triangle t} \left(
\frac{ v^{n+1/2}_{i+1/2} - v^{n+1/2}_{i-1/2} }{\triangle x} -
\frac{ v^{n-1/2}_{i+1/2} - v^{n-1/2}_{i-1/2} }{\triangle x} \right) \\
& = \frac{c}{\triangle x} \left(
\frac{ v^{n+1/2}_{i+1/2} - v^{n-1/2}_{i+1/2} }{\triangle t} -
\frac{ v^{n+1/2}_{i-1/2} - v^{n-1/2}_{i-1/2} }{\triangle t} \right) \\
& = \frac{c^2}{\triangle x} \left( \frac{u^n_{i+1}- u^n_{i}}{\triangle x}
- \frac{u^n_{i}- u^n_{i-1}}{\triangle x} \right) \\
& = c^2 \,\frac{u^n_{i+1}- 2 \, u^n_{i} +u^n_{i-1} }{\triangle x^2} \,.
\end{align*}
A similar calculation shows that
\[
\frac{v^{n+1/2}_{i-1/2}-2\,v^{n-1/2}_{i-1/2}+v^{n-3/2}_{i-1/2}}{\triangle t^2}
=
c^2 \, \frac{v^{n-1/2}_{i+1/2}-2\,v^{n-1/2}_{i-1/2}+v^{n-1/2}_{i-3/2}}{\triangle x^2} \,.
\]
The inner product of two grid functions
$a = (\cdot\cdot\cdot , a_{-1}, a_0 , a_1 , \cdot\cdot\cdot)$
and
$b = (\cdot\cdot\cdot , b_{-1}, b_0 , b_1 , \cdot\cdot\cdot)$:
is given by
\[
\langle a,b \rangle = \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty a_i \, b_i \quad,\,
\norm{a}^2 = \langle a,a \rangle \,.
\]
Similarly, if
$c = (\cdot\cdot\cdot , c_{-1/2}, c_{1/2} , c_{3/2} , \cdot\cdot\cdot)$
and
$d = (\cdot\cdot\cdot , d_{-1/2}, d_{1/2} , d_{3/2} , \cdot\cdot\cdot)$
then
\[
\langle c,d \rangle = \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty c_{i+1/2} \, d_{i+1/2} \quad,\,
\norm{c}^2 = \langle c,c \rangle \,.
\]
Also, the discrete analogs of the integration by parts formula will be needed
so let
\[
\delta(a)_{i+1/2} = a_{i+1}-a_i \,,\quad \delta(c)_{i} = c_{i+1/2}-c_{i-1/2} \,.
\]
Then the summation by parts formula is given by
\begin{align*}
\langle \delta(a) , c \rangle
& = \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty \left( a_{i+1} - a_i \right) c_{i+1/2} \\
& = \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty a_{i+1} c_{i+1/2}
- \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty a_i c_{i+1/2} \\
& = \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty a_{i} c_{i-1/2}
- \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty a_i c_{i+1/2} \\
& = - \sum_{i=-\infty}^\infty a_i \left( c_{i+1/2} - c_{i-1/2} \right) \\
& = - \langle a , \delta (c) \rangle
\end{align*}
The difference equations \eqref{Discretized System} can now be written
\begin{align}
\label{Vector Discretized System}
\frac{u^{n+1}_{i} - u^{n}_{i}}{\triangle t}
& = c \, \frac{\delta(v^{n+1/2})_{i}}{\triangle x} \,,
\nonumber \\
\frac{v^{n+1/2}_{i+1/2} - v^{n-1/2}_{i+1/2}}{\triangle t}
& = c \, \frac{\delta(u^n)_{i+1/2}}{\triangle x} \,.
\end{align}
To find a conserved quantity define:
\begin{align*}
C1(n) & = \norm{u^n}^2 \,; \\
C2(n) & = \norm{\frac{v^{n+1/2}+v^{n-1/2}}{2}}^2 \,; \\
C3(n) & = \norm{\delta(u^n)}^2 \,.
\end{align*}
Now
\begin{align*}
C1(n+1) - C1(n) & = \langle u^{n+1}-u^n , u^{n+1}+u^n \rangle \\
& =
c \, \frac{\triangle t}{\triangle x}
\langle \delta(v^{n+1/2}) ,
u^{n+1}+u^n \rangle \quad
\text{see} \eqref{Vector Discretized System} \\
& =
c \, \frac{\triangle t}{\triangle x} \langle v^{n+1/2} ,
- \delta(u^{n+1}+u^n) \rangle \\
& =
- c \, \frac{\triangle t}{\triangle x} \langle v^{n+1/2} ,
\delta(u^{n+1})+\delta(u^n) \rangle \\
& =
-\langle v^{n+1/2} , v^{n+3/2} - v^{n-1/2} \rangle \quad
\text{see} \eqref{Vector Discretized System} \,.
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C2(n+1) -C2(n)
& = \frac{1}{4} \langle
v^{n+3/2}+v^{n+1/2}+v^{n+1/2}+v^{n-1/2} ,
v^{n+3/2}+v^{n+1/2}-v^{n+1/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& = \frac{1}{4}
\langle v^{n+3/2}+2\,v^{n+1/2}+v^{n-1/2} , v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& =
\langle v^{n+1/2} , v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle +
\frac{1}{4}
\langle v^{n+3/2}-2\,v^{n+1/2}+v^{n-1/2} , v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& = \langle v^{n+1/2} , v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle +
c \, \frac{\triangle t}{4 \, \triangle x}
\langle \delta (u^{n+1}) - \delta (u^n) , v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& = \langle v^{n+1/2} , v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle +
\left( c \, \frac{\triangle t}{2 \, \triangle x}\right)^2
\langle \delta ( \delta (v^{n+1/2})) , v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
C3(n+1)- C3(n)
& = \langle
\delta ( u^{n+1}) - \delta ( u^n) , \delta ( u^{n+1} ) + \delta ( u^n )
\rangle \\
& = \langle
\delta ( u^{n+1} - u^n) , \delta ( u^{n+1} ) + \delta( u^n )
\rangle \\
& = c \, \frac{\triangle x}{\triangle t} \langle
\delta ( u^{n+1} ) - \delta ( u^n ) , v^{n+3/2} - v^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
& =
\langle \delta ( \delta ( v^{n+1/2} ) ) , v^{n+3/2} - v^{n-1/2} \rangle \\
\end{align*}
Consequently the quantity
\[
C(n) =
\norm{u^n}^2
-\left(\frac{c \, \triangle t}{2 \, \triangle x}\right)^2
\norm{\delta u^n }^2 +
\norm{\frac{v^{n+1/2}+v^{n-1/2}}{2}}^2 \,,
\]
is conserved.
A similar argument shows that
\[
C(n+1/2) =
\norm{ v^{n+1/2}}^2
-\left(\frac{c \, \triangle t}{2 \, \triangle x}\right)^2 \norm{ \delta \, v^{n+1/2} }^2
+ \norm{\frac{u^{n+1} + u^{n}}{2}}^2 \,.
\]
is a conserved quantity. The program {\tt OneDWave.m} shows that the
energies are constant to within an error of less than 10e-14.
The conserved quantity will be positive provided that
\[
\frac{c \, \triangle t}{2 \, \triangle x}
\frac{\norm{\delta u^n}}{\norm{u^n}} < 1 \,.
\]
But
\[
\frac{\norm{\delta u^n}}{\norm{u^n}} \leq \norm{\delta} \,,
\]
so the conserved quantity will be positive if
\[
c \, \frac{\triangle t}{ \triangle x} < \frac{2}{\norm{\delta}} \,.
\]
Because $\norm{\delta} = 2$ (see {\tt Normdelta.m}) this is the
Courant–Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) condition for stability.
\section{Second Order Differential Operators \label{Second Order D0s}}
The task is to describe all second order operators with variable coefficients
that are easily generated using diagram chasing and an exact sequence.
The notion of exact sequence is used extensively in differential geometry.
Perhaps the most important point
about using an exact sequence to generate second order differential operators
is that this guarantees that the operators will be self-adjoint and either
positive or negative. In fact, the exact sequence will be describe using
a double exact sequence in preparation for discretizing the operators.
The discretization will use two interlaced grids called primal and dual grids.
In this case one part of the double exact sequences will be functions on the
primal grid while another part will be functions on the dual grid. In the
continuum many of the differential operators are equivelent to another generated
operator, which will not be the case when the operators are discretized.
\subsection{Exact Sequences}
\begin{figure}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{CD}
{\mystack{0}{H_P}}
@>{\vec{\nabla}} >> {\mystack{1}{H_C}}
@>{\vec{\nabla} \times } >> {\mystack{2}{H_S}}
@>{\vec{\nabla} \cdot } >> {\mystack{3}{H_V}}
\\
@V{a}VV @V{{\bf A}}VV @AA{{\bf B}}A @AA{b}A @. \\
{\mystack{H_V}{3}}
@<{\vec{\nabla} \cdot } << {\mystack{H_S}{2}}
@<{\vec{\nabla} \times } << {\mystack{H_C}{1}}
@<{\vec{\nabla}} << {\mystack{H_P}{0}}
\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation*}
\caption{Continuum Exact Sequence Diagram}
\label{Exact-Sequences}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ll}
$\text{if }f \in H_P$ $\text{ then } {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_C$ &
$\text{if }f \in H_P$ $\text{ then } a \, f \in H_V$ \\
$\text{if }\vec{v} \in H_C$ $\text{ then } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_S$ &
$\text{if }\vec{v} \in H_C$ $\text{ then } {\bf A} \, \vec{v} \in H_S$ \\
$\text{if }\vec{w} \in H_S$ $\text{ then } {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_V$ &
$\text{if }\vec{w} \in H_C$ $\text{ then } {\bf B} \, \vec{w} \in H_S$ \\
& $\text{if }g \in H_P$ $\text{ then } b \, g \in H_V$ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{First order operators on the left, material property operators on
the right.}
\label{Basic Operators}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In the exact sequence diagram \ref{Exact-Sequences} the bottom row is the
same as the top row written in opposite order. For reasons which will
become clear,
$P$ stands for points,
$C$ stands for curves,
$S$ stands for surfaces,
$V$ stands for volumes.
In this diagram $H_P$ and $H_V$ are linear spaces of smooth scalar functions
depending on the spatial variables $(x,y,z)$ and $H_C$ and $H_S$ are linear
spaces of smooth vector functions that depend also on $(x,y,z)$.
All of the functions converge rapidly to zero as $x^2+y^2+z^2$ becomes large.
The first order differential operators gradient are ${\vec{\nabla}}$, curl or rotation
${\vec{\nabla} \times }$, and divergence ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot }$. The scalar functions $a$ and $b$ and also
the matrix valued functions ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf B}$ are also smooth function
of the spatial variables. These functions create mappings between the
spaces as given in Table \ref{Basic Operators} and will be used to describe
material properties.
Two important properties of exactness are that ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } = 0$ and
${\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\vec{\nabla}} = 0$. Additionally, exactness requires the existence of
local scalar and vector potentials. That is, if $\vec{v} \in H_C$ and
${\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} = 0$ then there an $f \in H_P$ so that ${\vec{\nabla}} f = \vec{v}$
and if $\vec{w} \in H_S$ and ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} = 0$ then there is an
$\vec{v} \in H_C$ so that $ \vec{w} = {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v}$.
The horizontal arrows represent the action of the differential operators
while the vertical arrows represent multiplication by scalar functions $a$ and
$b$ and by $3 \times 3$ matrices ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf B}$ that all known as
{\em star} operators in differential geometry and will be used to here to
represent properties of materials. All four functions must be
bounded and smooth, invertible with bounded inverse and ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf B}$
must be symmetric. The direction of the vertical arrows in the exact
sequences will be motivated later.
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|r|r||r|r|}
\hline
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Upper Row} &
\multicolumn{2}{|c|}{Bottom Row} \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{First Box} \\
\hline
$f \in H_P$
& $\vec{v} \in H_C$
& $\vec{w} \in H_S$
& $g \in H_V$ \\
${\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_C$
& ${\bf A} \vec{v} \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_V$
& $a^{-1} g \in H_P$ \\
${\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \vec{v} \in H_V$
& $a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g \in H_C$ \\
${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_V$
& $a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \vec{v} \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_C$
& ${\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g \in H_S$ \\
$a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g \in H_V$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Second Box} \\
\hline
$\vec{v} \in H_C$
& $\vec{w} \in H_S$
& $\vec{v} \in H_C$
& $\vec{w} \in H_S$ \\
${\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_S$
& ${\bf B}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_S$
& ${\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_C$ \\
${\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_S$
& ${\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_S$ \\
${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_S$
& ${\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_S$
& ${\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_C$ \\
${\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_S$
& ${\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w} \in H_S$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Third Box} \\
\hline
$\vec{w} \in H_S$
& $g \in H_V$
& $f \in H_P$
& $\vec{v} \in H_C$ \\
${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_V$
& $b^{-1} g \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_C$
& ${\bf B}^{-1} \vec{v} \in H_S$ \\
$b^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} {b^{-1}} g \in H_C$
& ${\bf B} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B}^{-1} \vec{v} \in H_V$ \\
${\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_C$
& ${\bf B} {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} g \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_V$
& $b^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B}^{-1} \vec{v} \in H_P$ \\
${\bf B} {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B} {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} g \in H_V$
& $b^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B}^{-1} \vec{v} \in H_C$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Fundamental second order differential operators. The
left two columns start with spaces in the top row in Figure
\ref{Exact-Sequences}
while the right two columns start with spaces in the bottom row.}
\label{General Fundamental Operators}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\subsection{Diagram Chasing and Second Order Operators}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|r|r|r|r|}
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{First Box} \\
\hline
$f \in H_P$
& $\vec{v} \in H_C$
& $\vec{w} \in H_S$
& $g \in H_V$ \\
$ {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\vec{\nabla}} g \in H_V$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Second Box} \\
\hline
$\vec{v} \in H_C$
& $\vec{w} \in H_S$
& $\vec{v} \in H_C$
& $\vec{w} \in H_S$ \\
${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{w} \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \in H_C$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{w} \in H_S$ \\
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Third Box} \\
\hline
$\vec{w} \in H_S$
& $g \in H_V$
& $f \in H_P$
& $\vec{v} \in H_C$ \\
$ {\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \in H_S$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\vec{\nabla}} g \in H_V$
& ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_P$
& ${\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{v} \in H_C$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The operators can be simplified by assuming that
$a = b = 1$ and that ${bf A} = {\bf B} ={\bf I}$, the identity
matrix.
}
\label{Simplified General Operators}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Table \ref{General Fundamental Operators} gives all of the possible second
order operators given by diagram chasing. As an example consider
$f \in H_P$ so that
${\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_C$ and then
${\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_S$ so that
${\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_V $ and finally
$a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \in H_S $.
The gives the upper left entry in Table \ref{General Fundamental Operators}.
The remaining operators are created similarly. For diagram chasing it is
important that the mappings $a$, $b$, ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf B}$ are invertible
while ${\vec{\nabla}}$, ${\vec{\nabla} \times }$ and ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot }$ are not invertible. Consequently to create
a second order operator, only going clockwise around a square in
Figure \ref{Exact-Sequences} is allowed. However it is possible to start and
any corner, so this gives twelve operators, four corners times three squares.
In the continuum some of these operators are essentially the same, for
example $a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}}$ and $b^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } B {\vec{\nabla}}$. The
assumption that ${\bf B}= {\bf A}$ and $b = a$ reduces the number of operators
to six. Finally, if $a = b = 1$ and ${\bf A} = {\bf B} = I$ the identity matrix
then the operators simplify to those in Table
\ref{Simplified General Operators} that is there are only three distinct
second order operators:
\[
{\Delta} f = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\vec{\nabla}} f \,; \quad \quad
{\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \,; \quad \quad
{\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} \,.
\]
\subsection{Additional Second Order Operators}
Note that in Table \ref{General Fundamental Operators}
there are two operators defined on $H_P$, four operators defined on $H_C$,
four operators defined on $H_S$ and two operators defined on $H_V$. If
linear operators are defined on the same space then linear combinations
of these operators are again linear operators. The two operators defined
on $H_P$ and the two defined on $H_V$ are essentially the same so linear
combinations are not interesting. For any operator in the {\em Top Row}
boxes, there is a similar operator in the {\em Bottom Row} that can
be obtained by interchanging $a$ with $b$ and ${\bf A}$ with ${\bf B}$.
For $\vec{v} \in H_C$ and for $\vec{w} \in H_S$ define
\begin{align}
{\bf VL}_1 (\vec{v}) & =
{\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} \, \vec{v} -
{\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \, \nonumber \\
{\bf VL}_2 (\vec{w}) & =
{\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} -
{\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \, \nonumber \\
{\bf VL}_3 (\vec{v}) & =
{\vec{\nabla}} \, b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, \vec{v} -
{\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \label{Vector Laplacians} \\
{\bf VL}_4 (\vec{w}) & =
{\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w}-
{\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \nonumber \\
\nonumber
\end{align}
Under the simplifying assumptions these operators become
\[
{\mathbf \Delta} \vec{v} = {\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{v} - {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \,,\quad
{\mathbf \Delta} \vec{w} = {\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} - {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{w} \,,
\]
which in Cartesian coordinates gives (see {\tt CurlCurl.nb})
the vector Laplacian
\[
{\mathbf \Delta} \left(v_1,v_2,v_3\right) = \left({\Delta} v_1,{\Delta} v_2,{\Delta} v_3\right) \,,\quad
{\mathbf \Delta} \left(w_1,w_2,w_3\right) = \left({\Delta} w_1,{\Delta} w_2,{\Delta} w_3\right) \,.
\]
\subsection{Using Spatial Units \label{Spatial Units}}
The spatial unit $d$ (e.g. meter, foot) and less so the temporal unit
$\tau$ (e.g. second, year) of the functions and operators used in the
differential equations play a critical roll in applying mimetic methods
to physical problems. So the spatial variables (e.g. $x$, $y$,$z$)
all have spatial dimension $d$ and the differential operators
${\vec{\nabla}}$, ${\vec{\nabla} \times }$, and ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot }$ all have dimension $1/d$. For scalar
and vector functions:
\begin{itemize}
\item those in $H_V$ have spatial units $1/d^3$;
\item those in $H_S$ have spatial units $1/d^2$;
\item those in $H_C$ have spatial units $1/d^1$;
\item those in $H_P$ have spatial units $1/d^0 = 1$.
\end{itemize}
In the exact sequence Figure \ref{Exact-Sequences}, the integers above or
below the $H$ spaces give the spatial dimensions of the functions
in the space. The subscripts $P$, $C$, $S$ and $V$ corresponds to
points having dimension 0, curves having dimension 1, surfaces having
dimension 2 and volumes having dimension 3. This in turn implies that
$a$ and $b$ must have dimension $1/d^3$ while the matrices $\bf A$ and
$\bf B$ must have dimension $1/d$.
\subsection{Inner Products}
Applying the mimetic ideas to physical problems requires the use of inner
products on the spaces $H_P$, $H_C$, $H_S$ and $H_V$. These will be used
to define adjoint operators and energy. The standard inner products on
scalar functions $f(x,y,z)$ and $g(x,y,z)$ and vector function
$\vec{v(x,y,z)}$ and $\vec{w(x,y,z)}$ are:
\[
\langle f , g \rangle =
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} f(x,y,z)\, g(x,y,z) \, dx \, dy \, dz \,;\quad
\langle \vec{v} , \vec{w} \rangle =
\int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \vec{v}(x,y,z) \cdot \vec{w}(x,y,z) \, dx \, dy \, dz \,.
\]
An important requirement for the inner product on the $H$ spaces is that they
do not have a spatial dimension. The inner product on our
function spaces must use a weight function to achieve this. Because
$dx$, $dy$ and $dz$ all have spatial dimension $d$ the integrand in the
definition of the inner products must have spatial dimension $1/d^3$.
Consequently:
\begin{itemize}
\item
for $f_1 \,, f_2 \in H_P$ set
$\langle f_1 , f_2 \rangle_P = \langle a \, f_1 , f_2 \rangle$
\item
for $\vec{v}_1 \,, \vec{v}_2 \in H_C$ set
$ \langle \vec{v}_1 , \vec{v}_2 \rangle_C =
\langle {\bf A} \vec{v}_1 , \vec{v}_2 \rangle$
\item
for $\vec{w}_1 \,, \vec{w}_2 \in H_S$ set
$\langle \vec{w}_1 , \vec{w}_2 \rangle_S =
\langle {\bf A}^{-1} \, \vec{w}_1 , \vec{w}_2 \rangle$
\item
for $g_1 \,, g_2 \in H_V$ set
$\langle g_1 , g_2 \rangle_V =
\langle a^{-1} \, g_1 , g_2 \rangle$
\end{itemize}
Additional inner products can be made by replacing $a$ by $b$ and
${\bf A}$ by ${\bf B}$. To be inner products it is important that
$a$ and $b$ are positive and that ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf B}$ are
symmetric and positive definite matrices.
\subsection{Adjoint Operators}
Adjoints are commonly defined for operators mapping a space into itself
but most of the operators used here are mapping between two different
spaces, so the adjoint is defined as in Section \ref{Continuous Time}.
The discussion in that section shows that if $X$, $Y$, and $Z$ are
linear spaces and $O_1$ and $O_2$ are linear operator such that:
\[
X \overset{O_1}{\rightarrow} Y \overset{O_2}{\rightarrow} Z
\quad
\text{then }
Z \overset{O_2^*}{\rightarrow}
Y \overset{O_1^*}{\rightarrow} X \,
\]
and
\[
(O_1 O_2)^* = O_2^* \, O_1^* \,.
\]
Also, $(O_1^*)^* = O_1$.
Because the diagram chasing gives operators as compositions of other
operators, this will be used many times.
Using the standard inner product it is known that
\[
{\vec{\nabla}}^* = - {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \,,\quad, {\vec{\nabla} \times }^* = {\vec{\nabla} \times } \text{ and } {\vec{\nabla} \cdot }^* = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot }
\]
while
\[
A^* = A \,,\quad B^* = B \,,\quad a^* = a \,,\quad b^* = b \,.
\]
The adjoints of the second order operators can now be computed
using weighted inner products. The results are summarized below.
For the gradient let $f \in H_P$ and $\vec{v} \in H_C$ so that
\begin{align*}
\langle {\vec{\nabla}} f , \vec{v} \rangle_C
& = \langle {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} f , \vec{v} \rangle \\
& = \langle {\vec{\nabla}} f , {\bf A} \, \vec{v} \rangle \\
& = - \langle f , {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} \vec{v} \rangle \\
& = - \langle a \, f , a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} \vec{v} \rangle \\
& = - \langle f , a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} \vec{v} \rangle_P
\end{align*}
For the curl let $\vec{v} \in H_C$ and $\vec{w} \in H_S$ so that
\begin{align*}
\langle {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} , \vec{w} \rangle_S
& = \langle {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} , \vec{w} \rangle \\
& = \langle {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} , {\bf A}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \rangle \\
& = \langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w} \rangle \\
& = \langle {\bf B} \, \vec{v} ,
{\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{v} \rangle \\
& = \langle \vec{v} , {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w} \rangle_C
\end{align*}
For the divergence let $\vec{w} \in H_S$ and $ g \in H_V$ so that
\begin{align*}
\langle {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} , g \rangle_V
& = \langle a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} , g \rangle \\
& = \langle {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} , a^{-1} g \rangle \\
& = - \langle \vec{w} , {\vec{\nabla}} ( a^{-1} g ) \rangle \\
& = - \langle {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w} , {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} ( a^{-1} g ) \rangle \\
& = - \langle \vec{w} , {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} ( a^{-1} g ) \rangle_S \\
\end{align*}
For the operator ${\bf A}$ let $\vec{v} \in H_C$ and $\vec{w} \in H_S$ so that
\begin{align*}
\langle {\bf A} \vec{v} , \vec{w} \rangle_S
& = \langle {\bf A}^{-1} {\bf A} \vec{v} , \vec{w} \rangle \\
& = \langle {\bf A} \vec{v} , {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{v} \rangle \\
& = \langle \vec{v} , {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{v} \rangle_C
\end{align*}
For the operator $a$ let $ f \in H_P$ and $g \in H_V$ so that
\begin{align*}
\langle a \, f , g \rangle_V
& = \langle a^{-1} a \, f , g \rangle \\
& = \langle a \, f , a^{-1} g \rangle \\
& = \langle f , a^{-1} g \rangle_P \\
\end{align*}
The same arguments give the adjoint operators for operators containing
$b$ and ${\bf B}$. In summary
\begin{align}
{\vec{\nabla}}^* & = - a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} &
{\vec{\nabla}}^* & = - b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B}
\,,\nonumber\\
{\vec{\nabla} \times }^* & = + {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1}&
{\vec{\nabla} \times }^* & = + {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1}
\,,\nonumber\\
{\vec{\nabla} \cdot }^* & = - {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} &
{\vec{\nabla} \cdot }^* & = - {\bf B} {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1}
\,,\nonumber\\
{\bf A}^* & = {\bf A}^{-1} &
{\bf B}^* & = {\bf B}^{-1}
\,, \label{Adjoints} \\
a^* & = a^{-1} &
b^* & = b^{-1}
\nonumber\,,
\end{align}
where
the column on the left contains differential operators from the
top row in Figure \ref{Exact-Sequences} and
the column on the right contains differential operators from the
bottom row in Figure \ref{Exact-Sequences}.
To keep the notation easy to read it has not been specified whether to use
$a$ or $b$ and whether to use ${\bf A}$ or ${\bf B}$ in the inner products
when computing adjoints. This is clear from the context.
Here are some examples from the first column in Table
\ref{General Fundamental Operators}:
\begin{align}
\left( a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} \right)^*
& = {\vec{\nabla}}^* \, {\bf A}^* \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot }^* \, {a^{-1}}^* \nonumber\\
& = a^{-1}\, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot }\, {\bf A}\, {\bf A}^{-1} \,
{\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, a^{-1} \, a \label{Example 1}\\
& = a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \,. \nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left({\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \right)^*
& = {\vec{\nabla} \times }^* \, {{\bf B}^{-1}}^* \, {\vec{\nabla} \times }^* \, {{\bf A}^{-1}}^* \nonumber\\
& = {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\bf B} \,
{\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\bf A} \label{Example 2} \\
& = {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, . \nonumber
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\left( {\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \right)^*
& = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot }^* \, {b^{-1}}^* \, {\vec{\nabla}}^* \, {\bf B}^* \nonumber \\
& = {\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, b^{-1} \, b \, b^{-1} \,
{\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, {\bf B}^{-1} \label{Example 3} \\
& = {\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \nonumber
\end{align}
\subsection{Positive and Negative Second Order Operators}
Arguments like those in the previous sections can be use to show that
the second order operators in \ref{General Fundamental Operators} are
either positive or negative, those that contain two curl operators are
positive while those that contain a gradient and divergence are negative.
Let $f \in H_P$ and then consider
\begin{align*}
\langle a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, f, f \rangle_P
& = \langle a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} f \, , {\vec{\nabla} \cdot }^* \, a \,f \rangle_S \\
& = - \langle {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, f, {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, a^{-1} \, a \,f \rangle_S \\
& = - \langle {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, f, {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, f \rangle_S \\
& \leq 0
\end{align*}
Let $\vec{v} \in H_C$ and then consider
\begin{align*}
\langle {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} ,
\vec{v} \rangle_C
& = \langle {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla} \times }^* {\bf A} \vec{v} \rangle_C \\
& = \langle {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} , {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} {\bf A} \vec{v} \rangle_C \\
& = \langle {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} , {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \rangle_C \\
& \geq 0
\end{align*}
Let $\vec{w} \in H_S$ and then consider
\begin{align*}
\langle {\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} , \vec{w} \rangle_S
& =
\langle b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} , {\vec{\nabla}}^* \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \rangle_P \\
& = - \langle b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} , b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \rangle_P \\
& = - \langle b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} , b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \rangle_P \\
& \leq 0
\end{align*}
\section{Second Order Wave Equations \label{Second Order Wave Equations}}
This section will describe all of the second order wave equations that
can be easily generated using the operators in Table
\ref{General Fundamental Operators}.
A general diagram chasing second order wave equation has the form
\[
\frac{\partial^2 W}{\partial t^2} = \mathscr{A} \, W \,,
\]
where $W = W(t,x,y,z)$ is a scalar or vector function and where $\mathscr{A}$
is $\pm$ an operator from Table \ref{General Fundamental Operators} with the
$+$ or $-$ chosen so that $\mathscr{A}$ is negative operator. This provides
12 possible wave equations. Another four equations are obtained
using the operators in \ref{Vector Laplacians}. Many of these equations are
equivalent as will discussed below.
First four types of wave equations are introduced and then reduced
to a easily recognized form for uniform material properties given by
assuming $a = 1$, $b = 1$, ${\bf A} = {\bf I}$ and ${\bf B} = {\bf I}$.
\subsection{Scalar and Vector Wave Equations}
For scalar wave equations choose $f = f(x,y,z,t) \in H_P$ to get
\begin{equation}\label{Second Order 1}
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2} = a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \,.
\end{equation}
Setting $f = a^{-1} \, g$ with $g \in H_V$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{Second Order 2}
\frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial t^2} = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g \,.
\end{equation}
For uniform material properties this becomes the standard scalar wave
equations
\[
\frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial t^2} = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\vec{\nabla}} f \,,\quad
\frac{\partial^2 g}{\partial t^2} = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\vec{\nabla}} g \,.
\]
For vector wave equations choose $\vec{v} \in H_C$ to get
\begin{equation}\label{Second Order 3}
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{v}}{\partial t^2} =
- {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \,.
\end{equation}
Setting $\vec{v} = {\bf A}^{-1} \vec{w}$ with $\vec{w} \in H_S$
\begin{equation}\label{Second Order 4}
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{w}}{\partial t^2} =
- {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \,.
\end{equation}
For uniform material properties these become
\[
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{v}}{\partial t^2} = - {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{w}}{\partial t^2} = - {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{w} \,,
\]
which are Maxwell's equations in uniform materials.
There is another type of vector wave equation which does not seem to have any
applications. For $\vec{w} \in H_S$ consider
\begin{equation}\label{Second Order 5}
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{w}}{\partial t^2} =
{\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \,.
\end{equation}
Setting $\vec{w} = {\bf B} \, \vec{v}$ with $\vec{v} \in H_C$
\begin{equation}\label{Second Order 6}
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{v}}{\partial t^2} =
{\vec{\nabla}} \, b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, \vec{v} \,.
\end{equation}
For uniform material properties these become
\[
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{w}}{\partial t^2} = {\vec{\nabla}} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{v}}{\partial t^2} = {\vec{\nabla}} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{v} \,.
\]
This converts the first column in Table \ref{General Fundamental Operators}
to the fourth column. Similarly column three can be converted to column two.
On the other hand, the full set of twelve operators offer useful flexibility
in modeling physical problems.
Additional second order wave equations can be made from the two term
second order operators ${\bf VL}_1$, ${\bf VL}_2$, ${\bf VL}_3$, and
${\bf VL}_4$ in \ref{Vector Laplacians}. For example
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{v}}{\partial t^2} =
{\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \vec{v} -
{\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \,.
\label{Curl Curl}
\end{equation}
For uniform material properties all of these equation become
\[
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{v}}{\partial t^2} =
{\vec{\nabla}} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{v} - {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \,,
\]
which is one of the forms of the elastic wave equation \cite{Igel06}.
\subsection{First Order Systems and Conserved Quantities}
There is a natural way to write the second order wave equations as
a system and then use this to define a conserved quantity that is the
energy in uniform material properties situation. The derivations rely
on the adjoint operators given in \ref{Adjoints}. It is also easy
to show that the classical energy is conserved as discussed in
Section \ref{Harmonic Oscillator}.
For equation \ref{Second Order 1}, because $f \in H_P$,
choose $\vec{w} \in H_S$ and then set
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{w}}{\partial t} = {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f
\,,\quad
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w}
\label{System 1}
\end{equation}
A conserved quantity is given by
\[
C = \frac{ \norm{f}_P^2 + \norm{\vec{w}}_S^2 }{2}
\]
because
\begin{align*}
\frac{d C}{d t}
& =
\langle f , \frac{d f}{d t} \rangle_P +
\langle \vec{w} , \frac{d \vec{w}}{d t} \rangle_S \\
& = \langle f , a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \rangle_P +
\langle \vec{w} , {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \rangle_S \\
& = \langle - {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} a \, f , \vec{w} \rangle_S +
\langle \vec{w} , {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \rangle_S \\
& = - \langle {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, f , \vec{w} \rangle_S +
\langle \vec{w} , {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \rangle_S \\
& = 0
\end{align*}
As discussed in Section \ref{Harmonic Oscillator} if $f$ and $\vec{w}$
are solutions of \eqref{System 1} then so are $f'$ and $\vec{w}'$ and
consequently the classical energy
\[
E = \frac{ \norm{f'}_P^2 + \norm{\vec{w}'}}{2}
= \frac{ \norm{f'}_P^2 + \norm{{\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} f }_S^2}{2}
\]
is conserved.
For equation \ref{Second Order 2}, because $g \in H_V$,
choose $\vec{v} \in H_C$ and then set
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} = {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} \, g \,,\quad
\frac{\partial g}{\partial t} = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \, \vec{v}\,.
\label{System 2}
\end{equation}
A conserved quantity is given by
\[
C = \frac{ \norm{g}_V^2 + \norm{\vec{v}}_C^2 }{2}
\]
because
\begin{align*}
\frac{d C}{d t} & =
\langle g , \frac{d g}{d t} \rangle_V +
\langle \vec{v} , \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} \rangle_C \\
& =
\langle g , {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \, \vec{v} \rangle_V +
\langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} \, g \rangle_C \\
& =
\langle - {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, a^{-1} \, g , \vec{v} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} \, g \rangle_C \\
& =
- \langle {\vec{\nabla}} \, a^{-1} \, g , \vec{v} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} \, g \rangle_C \\
& = 0
\end{align*}
As before, the energy
\[
E = \frac{ \norm{g'}_V^2 + \norm{ \vec{w}' }_S^2 }{2}
= \frac{ \norm{g'}_V^2 + \norm{ {\vec{\nabla}} \, a^{-1} g }_S^2 }{2}
\]
and is conserved.
For equation \ref{Second Order 3}, because $\vec{v} \in H_C$, choose
$\vec{u} \in H_C$ and then set
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial \vec{u}}{\partial t} = {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} = - {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{u} \,.
\end{equation*}
A conserved quantity is given by
\[
C = \frac{ \norm{\vec{v}}_C^2 + \norm{\vec{u}}_C^2 }{2}
\]
because
\begin{align*}
\frac{d C}{d t} & =
\langle \vec{v} , \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{u} , \frac{d \vec{u}}{d t} \rangle_C \\
& =
- \langle \vec{v} , {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{u} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{u} , {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \rangle_C \\
& = -
\langle {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\bf A} \vec{v} , \vec{u} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{u} , {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \rangle_C \\
& = -
\langle {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times }
\vec{v} , \vec{u} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{u} , {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} \rangle_C \\
& = 0
\end{align*}
To obtain an analog of the previous conserved energies set
\[
E = \frac{ \norm{\vec{u}'}_C^2 + \norm{\vec{v}'}_C^2 }{2}
= \frac{ \norm{ {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} }_C^2 +
\norm{ {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{u} }_C^2 }{2}
= \frac{ \norm{{\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{v} }_S^2 +
\norm{{\vec{\nabla} \times } \, \vec{u} }_S^2 }{2} \,.
\]
In this case the first order system is essentially Maxwell's equations
that will be studied later. In this case $C$ is the physical energy.
For equation \ref{Second Order 4},
because $\vec{v} \in H_C$, choose $\vec{u} \in H_C$ and then set
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial \vec{u}}{\partial t} =
- {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} =
{\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{u} \,.
\end{equation*}
Set
\[
C = \frac{ \norm{\vec{v}}_S^2 + \norm{\vec{u}}_S^2 }{2}
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d C}{d t} & =
\langle \vec{v} , \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} \rangle_S +
\langle \vec{u} , \frac{d \vec{u}}{d t} \rangle_S \\
& = - \langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, \vec{u} \rangle_S +
\langle \vec{u} , {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{v} \rangle_S \\
& = - \langle {\bf A} \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{v} , \vec{u} \rangle_S +
\langle \vec{u} , {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{v} \rangle_S \\
& = - \langle {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{v} , \vec{u} \rangle_S +
\langle \vec{u} , {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, \vec{v} \rangle_S \\
& = 0
\end{align*}
Again
\[
E = \frac{ \norm{\vec{v}'}_S^2 + \norm{\vec{u}'}_S^2 }{2}
\]
will be conserved.
For the next two equations, don't seem to have of any applications.
However, the operators in these equation appear in wave equations
that will be studied next.
For equation \ref{Second Order 5}, because $\vec{w} \in H_S$,
choose $f \in H_P$ and then set
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial \vec{w}}{\partial t} = {\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} f \,.
\end{equation*}
Set
\[
C = \frac{ \norm{\vec{w}}_C^2 + \norm{f}_P^2 }{2}
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d C}{d t} & =
\langle \vec{w} , \frac{d \vec{w}}{d t} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{f} , \frac{d \vec{f}}{d t} \rangle_P \\
& = \langle \vec{w} , {\bf B} \, {\vec{\nabla}} f \rangle_C +
\langle f , b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \rangle_P \\
& = \langle - b ^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B} \, {\bf B} ^{-1} \vec{w} , f \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{f} , b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \rangle_P \\
& = - \langle b ^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{w} , f \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{f} , b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \rangle_P \\
& = 0 \,.
\end{align*}
For equation \ref{Second Order 6},
because $\vec{v} \in H_C$,
choose $g \in H_V$ and then set
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial t} = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, \vec{v} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} = {\vec{\nabla}} \, b^{-1} \, g \,.
\end{equation*}
Set
\[
C = \frac{ \norm{\vec{v}}_C^2 + \norm{g}_V^2 }{2}
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d C}{d t}
& =
\langle \vec{v} , \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{g} , \frac{d \vec{g}}{d t} \rangle_V \\
& =
\langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla}} \, b^{-1} \, g \rangle_C +
\langle \vec{g} , {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, \vec{v} \rangle_V \\
& =
\langle - b \, b^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B} \vec{v} , g \rangle_V +
\langle \vec{g} , {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, \vec{v} \rangle_V \\
&
- \langle {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf B} \vec{v} , g \rangle_V +
\langle \vec{g} , {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, {\bf B} \, \vec{v} \rangle_V \\
& = 0
\end{align*}
Also first order systems can be made from the second order equations made
from the two term second order operators
${\bf VL}_1$, ${\bf VL}_2$, ${\bf VL}_3$ and ${\bf VL}_4$ given in
\ref{Vector Laplacians}. However this requires three first
order equations. For example, for ${\bf VL}_1$, because
$\vec{v} \in H_C$ let $g \in H_V$ and $\vec{u} \in H_C$ and then set
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial g}{\partial t} & = {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \vec{v} \\
\frac{\partial \vec{u}}{\partial t} & = {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \\
\frac{\partial \vec{v}}{\partial t} & =
{\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g - {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{u} \,.
\end{align*}
For a conserved quantity set
\[
C = \frac{\norm{\vec{v}}_C^2 + \norm{\vec{u}}_C^2 + \norm{g}_V^2}{2} \\,
\]
so that
\begin{align*}
\frac{d C}{d t} & =
\langle \vec{v} \, \frac{d \vec{v}}{d t} \rangle_C
+ \langle \vec{u} \, \frac{d \vec{u}}{d t} \rangle_C
+ \langle g \, \frac{d g}{d t} \rangle_V \\
& =
\langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g - {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{u} \rangle_C
+ \langle \vec{u} , {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v} \rangle_C
+ \langle g , {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \vec{v} \rangle_V \\
& =
\langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g \rangle -
\langle \vec{v} , {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{u} \rangle_C
+ \langle
{\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\bf B}^{-1} {\bf B} \vec{u} , \vec{v} \rangle_C
- \langle
{\bf A}^{-1} {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g , \vec{v} \rangle_V \\
& =
\langle \vec{v} , {\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g \rangle -
\langle \vec{v} , {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{u} \rangle_C
+ \langle {\bf A}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{u} , \vec{v} \rangle_C
- \langle
{\vec{\nabla}} a^{-1} g , \vec{v} \rangle_V \\
& = 0 \,.
\end{align*}
As before this implies that
\begin{align*}
E & = \frac{\norm{\vec{v}'}_C^2 + \norm{\vec{u}'}_C^2 + \norm{g'}_V^2}{2} \\
& = \frac{
\norm{\vec{v}'}_C^2 +
\norm{ {\bf B}^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{v}}_C^2 +
\norm{{\vec{\nabla} \cdot } {\bf A} \vec{v}}_V^2}{2}
\end{align*}
is conserved.
\subsection{Examples}
Examples for the scalar wave equation are common and will not be
discussed here. Maxwell equations for electrodynamics fits into
the diagram chasing paradigm easily. The equations for elastic
wave equations is much more difficult. The notation will be changed
that used in the applications.
\subsubsection{Maxwell's Equation} \label{Maxwell's Equation}
Maxwell's Equations
\[
\frac{\partial \vec{B}}{\partial t} + {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{E} = 0 \,,\quad
\frac{\partial \vec{D}}{\partial t} - {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{H} = {\vec J} \,.
\]
\[
\vec{B} = \mu \, H \,,\quad \vec{D} = \epsilon \, \vec{E} \,.
\]
provide an applied example that was studied by Yee \cite{Yee1966} with
essentially the same ideas that are used in this paper. Here $\vec{B}$,
$\vec{E}$, $\vec{D}$ and $\vec{H}$ are vector functions of $(x,y,z,t)$
while $\mu$ and $\epsilon$ are symmetric positive definite matrices that
depend only on the spatial variables.
The meaning of variables and their distance units are:
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|l|l|}
\hline
quantity & units & name & spaces \\
\hline
$\vec{E}$ & $1/d$ & electric field & $H_{CU}$\\
$\epsilon$& $1/d$ & permeability tensor & $ H_{CU} \rightarrow H_{SD} $ \\
$\vec{D}$ & $1/d^2$ & electric displacement & $H_{SD}$ \\
\hline
$\vec{H}$ & $1/d$ & magnetic field & $H_{CD}$\\
$\mu$ & $1/d$ & permittivity tensor & $H_{CD} \rightarrow H_{SU}$ \\
$\vec{B}$ & $1/d^2$ & magnetic flux & $H_{SU}$ \\
\hline
${\vec{\nabla} \times }$ & $1/d$ & curl operator & $H_{CU} \rightarrow H_{SU}$\\
${\vec{\nabla} \times }$ & $1/d$ & curl operator & $H_{CD} \rightarrow H_{SD}$\\
$\partial / \partial t$ & $1/\tau$ & time derivative & \\
\hline
$\vec{J}$ & $1/d^2$ & current & $\vec{J} \in H_{SD}$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Quantities and their units in Maxwell's equations. For details see
\cite{Crain17}.}
\label{Units}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{equation*}
\begin{CD}
{\mystack{1}{H_{CU}}}
@>{\vec{\nabla} \times } >> {\mystack{2}{H_{SU}}}
\\
@V{\epsilon }VV @AA{\mu}A @. \\
{\mystack{H_{SD}}{2}}
@<{\vec{\nabla} \times } << {\mystack{H_{CD}}{1}}
\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation*}
\caption{Maxwell Exact Sequences}
\label{Maxwell-Sequences}
\end{figure}
Representing Maxwell's equations using diagram chasing uses the center
square in Figure \ref{Exact-Sequences} which is reproduced in Figure
\ref{Maxwell-Sequences} using notation appropriate to Maxwell's equations,
that is, by setting ${\bf A} = \epsilon$ and ${\bf B} = \mu$.
Because in Figure \ref{Maxwell-Sequences} the upper left space and the lower
right space have the same labels as well as the upper right space has the
same label as as the lower left space they are relabeled with
$U$ and $D$ standing for up and down, that is, as $H_{CU}$, $H_{CD}$, $H_{SU}$
and $H_{SD}$. Maxwell's equations can be represented using
$\vec{E} \in H_{CU}$,
$\vec{H} \in H_{CD}$,
$\vec{B} \in H_{SU}$ and
$\vec{D} \in H_{SD}$.
Here it is assumed that $\vec{J} = 0 $, but if this is not the case then
$\vec{J} \in H_{SD}$. It is easy to check Maxwell's equation are
dimensionally consistent using the information in Table \ref{Units}.
Next eliminate $\vec{B}$ and $\vec{D}$ from the equation to get
\begin{equation} \label{Maxwell System}
\vec{E}' = \epsilon^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{H} \,,\quad
\vec{H}' = - \mu^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{E} \,.
\end{equation}
The system of first order equations can be written as either of two second
order equations:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{E}}{\partial t^2} =
\epsilon^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \mu^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{E} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{H}}{\partial t^2} =
- \mu^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \epsilon^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{H}\,.
\end{equation}
These equations are exactly \ref{Second Order 3}.
A conservation law was derived for \ref{Second Order 3} but an equivalent
derivation provides more physical insight. Consider the quantity
\begin{align*}
C & = \frac{\langle \vec{E} , \vec{E} \rangle_{CU} +
\langle \vec{H} , \vec{H} \rangle_{CD} }{2}\\
& = \frac{1}{2} \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \epsilon \, \vec{E} \cdot \vec{E} +
\mu \, \vec{H} \cdot \vec{H} \, dx \, dy \, dz \,,
\end{align*}
where the integrand is the standard energy density.
A vector identity can be used to see that the energy is constant:
\[
{\vec{\nabla}} \cdot ( \vec{E} \times \vec{H} ) =
({\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{E}) \cdot \vec{H} - \vec{E} \cdot ({\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{H}) \,.
\]
The time derivative of the energy is
\begin{align*}
Q' & = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left( \epsilon \, \vec{E}' \cdot \vec{E} +
\mu \, \vec{H}' \cdot \vec{H} \right) \, dx \, dy \, dz \,, \\
& = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} \left(
{\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{H} \cdot \vec{E}
-{\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{E} \cdot \vec{H}
\right) \, dx \, dy \, dz \,, \\
& = - \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } ( \vec{H} \times \vec{E} ) \, dx \, dy \, dz \,, \\
& = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } ( \vec{E} \times \vec{H} ) \, dx \, dy \, dz \,, \\
& = \int_{\mathbb{R}^3} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{S} \, dx \, dy \, dz \,, \\
& = 0 \,.
\end{align*}
where $\vec{S} = \vec{E} \times \vec{H} $ is called the Poynting vector
which has spatial units $1/d^2$. The last integral is zero because it
was assumed that $\vec{E}$ and $\vec{H}$ are zero far from the origin.
\subsubsection{Elastic Wave Equations}
\begin{table}[ht]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|l|c|l|}
\hline
quantity & units & name \\
\hline
$ t$ & $1$ & time \\
$ \vec{x}$ & $d$ & spatial position \\
$\vec{u}$ & $d$ & displacement \\
$\rho > 0$ & $1/d^3$ & density \\
$\sigma$ & $1/d^2$ & stress \\
$e$ & $1$ & strain \\
$C$ & $1/d^2$ & elastic properties \\
$\lambda>0$ & $1/d$ & Lam\'e parameter \\
$\mu > 0$ & $1/d$ & Lam\'e parameter \\
$Pa$ & $1/d^2$ & Pascal \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Quantities and their units in the elastic wave equations.}
\label{Elastic Units}
\end{center}
\end{table}
The start of this section is based on the discussion in \cite{Etgen87}
and a summary of the notation is given in Table \ref{Elastic Units}.
When there are no external forces the general elastic wave equation in
a material with spatially variable properties is given by Newton's law
applied to the displacements of the material:
\begin{equation}
\rho \frac{\partial^2 u_i}{\partial t^2} =
\sum_{j=1}^3 \frac{ \partial{\sigma_{i,j}}}{ \partial {x_j}}
\,,\quad 1 \leq i \leq 3
\label{General Elastic Wave Equation}
\end{equation}
where
$t$ is time,
$\vec{x}(t)$ are positions in the material,
$\vec{u} = \vec{u}(\vec{x},t)$, are are the displacements of the material
$\rho = \rho(\vec{x})$ is the density of the material,
and
$\sigma = \sigma(x)$ is the symmetric stress tensor
\[
\sigma_{i,j} = \sum_{k,l = 1}^3 C_{k,l,i,j} \, e_{k,l} \,.
\]
The strains are
\[
e_{i,j} = \frac{1}{2}
\left(
\frac{\partial u_i}{\partial x_j} + \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial x_i}
\right)
\]
which are dimensionless.
The material properties other than density are given by the
$C_{k,l,i,j}$ where $C = C(\vec{x})$ and where $C$ has the
symmetries $C_{k,l,i,j} = C_{l,k,i,j} = C_{k,l,j,i}$.
Consequently $C$ has only 21 independent entries \cite{Etgen87}.
The important message from this is that the right had side of
\ref{General Elastic Wave Equation}
is the sum of many terms that have a form
\[
\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} \, C_{1211} (\vec {x}) \,
\frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_1} \,,
\]
that is, the elastic parameters $C_{k,l,i.j}$ appear between two first
derivatives. If $C$ does depend on $\vec{x}$ then any other form of such
terms must contain a derivative of $C$. All of the mimetic second order
operators have this form!
The general elastic wave equation \ref{General Elastic Wave Equation} does not
fit into the mimetic frame work for two reasons. First the displacements have
dimension $d$ and all of the variables in the mimetic framework have
reciprocal spatial dimensions or are dimensionless. However the variable
$\vec{w} = \rho \, \vec{u}$ has dimension $1/d^2$ and thus
$\vec{w} \in H_S$. The next problem is that all of the differential
operators must be written in terms of ${\vec{\nabla}}$, ${\vec{\nabla} \times }$ and ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot }$. The
most general wave equations allowed are given by ${\bf VL}_2$ and
${\bf VL}_4$ in \ref{Vector Laplacians}. These two operators are
essentially the same so using ${\bf VL}_4$, the most general
wave equation that is mimetic is
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial^2 \vec{w}}{\partial t^2} =
{\bf A} \, {\vec{\nabla}} \, a^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} -
{\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\vec{\nabla} \times } \, {\bf A}^{-1} \, \vec{w} \,.
\label{Mimetic Elastic Wave Equation}
\end{equation}
In the case of constant material properties this equation should be the
standard equation in the literature \cite{Igel06}
\[
\rho \, \frac{\partial^2 \vec u}{\partial t^2} =
(\lambda + 2 \, \mu) {\vec{\nabla}} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \vec{u}
- \mu {\vec{\nabla} \times } {\vec{\nabla} \times } \vec{u} \,,
\]
where $\mu$ and $\lambda$ are constant scalars. If
$\bf A$ and $\bf B$ are scalers times the identity matrix
the previous equations are the same if
\[
{\bf A} = {\bf I} \,,\quad
a = \frac{\rho}{\lambda + 2 \, \mu} \,,\quad
{\bf B} = \frac{\rho}{\mu} {\bf I}\,.
\]
Equation \ref{Mimetic Elastic Wave Equation} is substantially
more general than the simple form of the elastic wave equation.
\section{Mimetic Discretizations \label{Mimetic Discretizations}}
Again, our discussion and notation will follow that in
\cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011}.
However, that work was set up to rigorously prove that the discrete operators
in mimetic discretizations have the same properties as the continuum operators
used in vector calculus. Here the focus will be on applying mimetic methods to
physical problems by adding a time variable and its discretization and focus
on how to use physical spatial units to correctly discretize physical problems.
\subsection{Primal and Dual Grids}
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c}
\psfig{figure=Figures/cells.PS,width=4.5in}
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\caption{The Primal and Dual Grids Taken From \cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011}
\label{Figure-Dual-Grid}}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c||c|c|}
\hline
units & primal & dual &units \\
\hline
$1$ &$s_{i,j,k}$ &$d^\star_{i,j,k}$ &$1/d^3$\\
\hline
&$t_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}$ &$n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}$ & \\
$1/d $ &$t_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}$ &$n^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}$ &$1/d^2$\\
&$t_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ &$n^\star_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ & \\
\hline
&$n_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ &$t^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ & \\
$1/d^2$ &$n_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ &$t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ &$1/d$ \\
&$n_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}$ &$t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}$ & \\
\hline
$1/d^3$ &$d_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ &$s^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ &$1$ \\
\hline
units & primal & dual &units \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Notation for the primal and dual, scalar and vector fields where
$-\infty < i < \infty$, $-\infty < j < \infty$ and $-\infty < k < \infty$.
\label{Table-Dual-Primal}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
Mimetic discretizations use primal and dual spatial grids as shown in
Figure \ref{Figure-Dual-Grid}. The points in the grids are given in
Table \ref{Table-Dual-Primal}. The grids are made up of cells,
faces of cells, edges of the faces and nodes that are the corners of the cells
as indicated in Table \ref{Table-Dual-Primal}.
\subsection{Primal and Dual Scalar and Vector Fields}
As summarized in Table \ref{Table-Dual-Primal} there two types of scalar
fields and also two type of vector fields on both the primal and dual grids.
On the primary grid there are scalar fields $s$
that do not have a spatial dimensions, vector fields $\vec t$ (for tangent)
that have dimension $1/d$, vector fields $\vec n$ (for normal) that have
units $1/d^2$, and scalar fields with dimension $1/d^3$ (as in densities)
while the dual grid has the same types of fields labeled with a superscript
star as in $s^\star$.
It is important that at each point in the grid there is a value from both
the primal and dual fields, but why not just take them to be the same?
Because their spatial dimensions are not the same. Historically, this appeared
in the Yee grid for Maxwell equations \cite{Yee1966} which is discuss in
Section \ref{E and M section}.
\subsection{Difference Operators}
The discrete gradient ${\mathcal G}$, curl or rotation ${\mathcal R}$ and divergence ${\mathcal D}$
are difference operators on a scalar or vector fields. The formulas for the
dual grid are obtained by making the changes $i \rightarrow i+1/2$,
$j \rightarrow j+1/2$ and $k \rightarrow k+1/2$.
\noindent {\bf The Gradient:}
If $s \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal N}}} $ is a discrete scalar field, then its gradient
${\mathcal G} s \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal E}}}$ is an edge vector field.
In terms of components
\begin{align}
({\mathcal G} s )_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} \equiv &
\frac{ s_{i+1,j,k}- s_{i,j,k} }{\triangle x} \,; \nonumber \\
({\mathcal G} s )_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} \equiv &
\frac{s_{i,j+1,k}-s_{i,j,k}}{\triangle y} \,; \\
({\mathcal G} s )_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \equiv &
\frac{s_{i,j,k+1}-s_{i,j,k}}{\triangle z} \,. \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf The Curl:}
If $\vec{t} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal E}}}$ is a discrete edge vector field, then its curl
${\mathcal R} {\vec t} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal F}}}$ is a discrete face vector field.
In terms of components
\begin{align}
({\mathcal R} {\vec t})_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} & \equiv
\frac{t_{i, j+1, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}- t_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle y}
- \frac{t_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+1}- t_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}}{\triangle z}
\,; \nonumber \\
({\mathcal R} {\vec t})_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} & \equiv
\frac{t_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+1}- t_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}}{\triangle z}
- \frac{t_{i+1, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}- t_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle x}
\,; \\
({\mathcal R} {\vec t})_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} & \equiv
\frac{t_{i+1, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}- t_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}}{\triangle x}
- \frac{t_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+1, k}- t_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}}{\triangle y}
\,. \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf The Divergence:}
If ${\vec n} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal F}}}$ is a discrete face vector field, then its
divergence ${\mathcal D} {\vec n} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal C}}} $ is a cell scalar field.
In terms of components
\begin{align}
({\mathcal D} {\vec n})_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} & \equiv
\frac{n_{i+1,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}- n_{i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle x}
\nonumber \\
& + \frac{n_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+1,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}- n_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle y}
\\
& + \frac{n_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+1}- n_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k}}{\triangle z}
\,. \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf The Star Gradient:}
If $s^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal N}}^\star}} $ is a discrete star scalar field then
its star gradient ${{\mathcal G}^\star} \, s^* \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal E}}^\star}}$ is a star edge vector field.
In terms of components
\begin{align}
({{\mathcal G}^\star} s^\star)_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} & \equiv
\frac{s^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-s^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} }{\Delta x}; \nonumber \\
({{\mathcal G}^\star} s^\star)_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} & \equiv
\frac{s^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-s^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} }{\Delta x}; \\
({{\mathcal G}^\star} s^\star)_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} & \equiv
\frac{s^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-s^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} }{\Delta x}; \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf The Star Curl:}
If $\vec{t}* \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal C}}^\star}}$ is a discrete star edge vector field then
its curl ${{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{t}* \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal F}}^\star}}$ is a discrete star face
vector field.
In terms of components
\begin{align}
({{\mathcal R}^\star } {\vec t^\star})_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} & \equiv
\frac{t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}-
t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}}{\triangle y}
- \frac{t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-
t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle z}
\,; \nonumber \\
({{\mathcal R}^\star } {\vec t^\star})_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} & \equiv
\frac{t^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-
t^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle z}
- \frac{t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}-
t^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}}{\triangle x}
\,; \\
({{\mathcal R}^\star } {\vec t^\star})_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} & \equiv
\frac{t^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-
t^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle x}
-
\frac{t^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-
t^\star_{i, j-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle y}
\,. \nonumber
\end{align}
\noindent {\bf The Star Divergence:}
If $\vec{n}^* \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal F}}^\star}}$ is a discrete star face vector field then
it divergence ${{\mathcal D}^\star } \vec{n}^* \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal C}}^\star}}$ is a discrete star cell field.
In terms of components
\begin{align}
({{\mathcal D}^\star } {\vec n^\star})_{i, j, k}
& \equiv
\frac{n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k}-
n^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k}}{\triangle x} \nonumber \\
& + \frac{n^\star_{i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k}-
n^\star_{i,j-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k}}{\triangle y} \\
& + \frac{n^\star_{i,j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}-
n^\star_{i,j,k-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle z} \,. \nonumber
\end{align}
\subsection{Multiplication Operators}
This is not correct? xxx
The simplest form of the multipication by the scaler functions $a = a(x,y,z)$ and $b=b(x,y,z)$
and the matrix functions ${\bf A}$ and ${\bf B}$ is given by assuming that ${\bf A}$ is scalar
function $A = A(x,y,z)$ times the idenity matrix and ${\bf B}$ is is scalar function
$B = B(x,y,z)$ times the idenity matrix and the multiplication is point wise. For ${\bf A}$
define $A$ on the edges in the primal grid to be
\begin{align*}
A_{(i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k)} & = A((i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}})\,\Delta x,j \,\Delta y ,k \, \Delta z ) \,, \\
A_{(i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k)} & = A(i\,\Delta x,(j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}) \,\Delta y ,k \, \Delta z ) \,, \\
A_{(i,j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}})} & = A(i\,\Delta x,j \,\Delta y ,(k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}) \, \Delta z ) \,,
\end{align*}
so that $\vec{n^\star} = {\bf A} \, \vec{t} $ is given by
\begin{align*}
n^\star_{(i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k)} & = A_{(i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k)} t_{(i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k)} \,, \\
n^\star_{(i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k)} & = A_{(i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k)} t_{(i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k)} \,, \\
n^\star_{(i,j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}})} & = A_{(i,j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}})} t_{(i,j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}})} \,.
\end{align*}
The formulas for multiplication by $a$, ${\bf B}$ and $b$ are similar
to the above as are the formulas for multiplication by $1/a$, ${\bf A}^{-1}$
${\bf B}^{-1}$ and $1/b$.
If $a$, $b$, $A$ and $B$ are the constant 1, then this says that the
quantities in Table \ref{Table-Dual-Primal} that are at the same point in the
grid are equal. Unfortunately, this is not dimensionally consistent! So the
functions $a$ and $b$ have to have spatial dimensions $1/d^3$ and
${\bf A}$ and ${\bf B}$ have to have spatial dimensions $1/d$.
\subsection{Dual Exact Sequences}
\begin{figure}
\begin{equation*}
\begin{CD}
{\real^{\vec{\mathcal N}}}
@>{\mathcal G} >> {\real^{\vec{\mathcal E}}}
@>{\mathcal R} >> {\real^{\vec{\mathcal F}}}
@>{\mathcal D} >> {\real^{\vec{\mathcal C}}}
\\
@V{a}VV @V{\bf A}VV @A{\bf B}AA @A{b}AA @. \\
{\real^{{\vec{\mathcal C}}^\star}}
@<{{\mathcal D}^\star } << {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal F}}^\star}}
@<{{\mathcal R}^\star } << {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal E}}^\star}}
@<{{\mathcal G}^\star} << {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal N}}^\star}}
\\
\end{CD}
\end{equation*}
\caption{Discrete Exact Sequences \label{Dual-Exact-Sequences} }
\end{figure}
The actions of the difference and multiplication operators are summarized in the double
exact sequence shown in Figure \ref{Dual-Exact-Sequences}.
A critical point here is that this diagram has a big difference from the
continuum diagram given in Figure \ref{Exact-Sequences}: the primal and dual
spaces such as ${\real^{\vec{\mathcal N}}}$ and ${\real^{{\vec{\mathcal N}}^\star}}$ are not the same as was the
case in the continuum. The upper row are discrete scalar and vector fields
on the primary grid while the lower row are vector and scalar fields on
the dual grid. What is important is that each of the difference operators increases
the spatial dimension of the grid quantities by one and the spatial dimensions
of the grid quantities are correctly handled by the multiplication operators.
If $c$ is a constant scalar field then a direct computation
\cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011} shows that:
\begin{equation}
{\mathcal G} c \equiv 0 \,,\quad
{\mathcal R} {\mathcal G} \equiv 0 \,,\quad
{\mathcal D} {\mathcal R} \equiv 0 \,,\quad
{{\mathcal G}^\star} c \equiv 0 \,,\quad
{{\mathcal R}^\star } {{\mathcal G}^\star} \equiv 0 \,,\quad
{{\mathcal D}^\star } {{\mathcal R}^\star } \equiv 0 \,.
\end{equation}
These realtionships are checked in {\tt MimeticTest.m}. These properties
are summarized by saying that the discretization is {\em exact} or that
that the sequences in Figure \ref{Dual-Exact-Sequences} are {\em exact}, see
\cite{RobidouxSteinberg2011} for a precise definition of {\em exact} and a proof that
the diagram is {\em exact}.
\subsection{Inner Products and Adjoint Operators}
To study conserved quantities an inner product is needed for each of the
eight linear spaces in the dual exact sequences Figure
\eqref{Dual-Exact-Sequences}.
An important property of the inner products is that they need to be
dimensionless.
\noindent If $s1, s2 \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal N}}}$ then
\[
\langle s1, s2 \rangle_\mathcal N =
\sum_{i,j,k} a_{i,j,k} \, s1_{i,j,k} \, s2_{i,j,k} \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z \,.
\]
If $s1^\star, s2^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal N}}^\star}}$ then
\[
\langle s1^\star, s2^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal N}^\star} = \sum_{i,j,k}
b_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,
s1^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,
s2^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z \,.
\]
If $\vec{t1}, \vec{t2} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal E}}}$ then
\begin{align*}
\langle \vec{t1}, \vec{t2} \rangle_\mathcal E =
\sum_{i,j,k} (
&A_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}\, t1_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} \, t2_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} + \\
&A_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}\, t1_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} \, t2_{i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k} + \\
&A_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}\, t1_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, t2_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
) \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z
\end{align*}
If $\vec{t1}^\star, \vec{t2}^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal E}}^\star}}$ then
\begin{align*}
\langle \vec{t1}^\star, \vec{t2}^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal E}^\star} =
\sum_{i,j,k} (
& B_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, t1^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, t2^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} + \\
& B_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, t1^\star_{i,+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}} j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, t2^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} + \\
& B_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} \, t1^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} \, t2^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} ) \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z
\end{align*}
If $\vec{n1}, \vec{n2} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal F}}}$ then
\begin{align*}
\langle \vec{n1}, \vec{n2} \rangle_\mathcal F =
\sum_{i,j,k} (
& B^{-1}_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, n1_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, n2_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} + \\
& B^{-1}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, n1_{i,+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}} j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \, n2_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} + \\
& B^{-1}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} \, n1_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} \, n2_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} ) \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z
\end{align*}
If $\vec{n1}^\star, \vec{n2}^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal F}}^\star}}$ then
\begin{align*}
\langle \vec{n1}^\star, \vec{n2}^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} =
\sum_{i,j,k} (
&A^{-1}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}\, n1^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}\, n2^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} + \\
&A^{-1}_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}\, n1^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k}\, n2^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} + \\
&A^{-1}_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}\, n1^\star_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}\, n2^\star_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
) \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z
\end{align*}
If $d1, d2 \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal C}}}$ then
\[
\langle d1, d2 \rangle_\mathcal N = \sum_{i,j,k}
b^{-1}_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,
d1_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,
d2_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z \,.
\]
If $d1^\star, d2^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal C}}^\star}}$ then
\[
\langle d1^\star, d2^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal C}^\star} =
\sum_{i,j,k} a^{-1}_{i,j,k} \, d1^\star_{i,j,k} \, d2^\star_{i,j,k} \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z \,.
\]
\subsection{Adjoint Operators}
We now note that the discrete difference operators satisfy adjoint
relationships analogous to the continuum differential operators
${\vec{\nabla}}$, ${\vec{\nabla} \times }$ and ${\vec{\nabla} \cdot }$. The best way to see why these formulas
are correct is to trace the actions of the operators around the
squares in Figure \eqref{Dual-Exact-Sequences}. The top row of operators
give us three formulas, the bottom row of operators give the same
formulas.
\noindent If $s \in \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal N}}}$ and $\vec{n}^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal F}}^\star}}$ then
\begin{equation} \label{Adjoint 1}
\langle {\bf A} \, {\mathcal G} \, s , \vec{n}^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} =
- \langle s , \frac{1}{a} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, \vec{n}^\star \rangle_\mathcal N
\end{equation}
If $\vec{t} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal E}}}$ and $\vec{t}^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal E}}^\star}}$ then
\begin{equation} \label{Adjoint 2}
\langle {\bf B}^{-1} \, {\mathcal R} \vec{t} , \vec{t}^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal E}^\star}
= - \langle \vec{t} \,, {\bf A}^{-1} {{\mathcal R}^\star } \vec{t}^\star \rangle_\mathcal E
\end{equation}
If $\vec{n} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal F}}}$ and $\vec{t}^\star \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal N}}^\star}}$ then
\begin{equation} \label{Adjoint 3}
\langle b^{-1} \, {\mathcal D} \vec{n} , s^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal N}^\star} =
- \langle \vec{n} \,, {\bf B} {{\mathcal G}^\star} \vec{s}^\star \rangle_\mathcal F
\end{equation}
The proofs of the adjoint formulas rely of summation by parts which
is illustrate by computing
\begin{align*}
\sum_{i,j,k}
\left(s_{i+1,j,k}-s_{i,j,k}\right) \, n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}
& = \sum_{i,j,k} s_{i+1,j,k} \, n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}
-\sum_{i,j,k} s_{i,j,k} \, n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} \\
& = \sum_{i,j,k} s_{i,j,k} \, n^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k}
-\sum_{i,j,k} s_{i,j,k} \, n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} \\
& = \sum_{i,j,k}
s_{i,j,k} \, \left( n^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} - n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} \right) \\
& = - \sum_{i,j,k}
s_{i,j,k} \, \left( n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} - n^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} \right)
\end{align*}
For an example, consider \eqref{Adjoint 1}:
\begin{align*}
& \langle {\bf A} \, {\mathcal G} \, s , \vec{n}^\star \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} = \\
& \sum_{i,j,k} \left(
\frac{s_{i+1,j,k}-s_{i,j,k}}{\triangle x} \, n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, j, k} +
\frac{s_{i,j+1,k}-s_{i,j,k}}{\triangle y} \, n^\star_{i, j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}, k} +
\frac{s_{i,j,k+1}-s_{i,j,k}}{\triangle z} \, n^\star_{i, j, k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
\right) \triangle x \triangle y \triangle z
\end{align*}
\begin{align*}
& \langle s , \frac{1}{a} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, \vec{n}^\star \rangle_\mathcal N = \\
& \sum_{i,j,k} s_{i,j,k} \,
\left( \frac{n^\star_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k}- n^\star_{i-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k}}{\triangle x}+
\frac{n^\star_{i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k}- n^\star_{i,j-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k}}{\triangle y}+
\frac{n^\star_{i,j,k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}- n^\star_{i,j,k-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle z} \right)
\triangle x \triangle y \triangle z \,.
\end{align*}
Three integration by parts will prove \eqref{Adjoint 1}. The remaining
formulas \eqref{Adjoint 2} and \eqref{Adjoint 3} can be proved in the same way.
\section{Discretizing the Scalar Wave Equation in 3D
\label{Scalar Wave 3d}}
The second order scalar wave equation \eqref{Second Order 1} can be written as
as first order system as in \eqref{System 1} which is
\begin{equation*}
\frac{\partial f}{\partial t} = a^{-1} {\vec{\nabla} \cdot } \, \vec{w} \,,\quad
\frac{\partial \vec{w}}{\partial t} = {\bf A} {\vec{\nabla}} f \,,
\end{equation*}
with $f \in H_P$ $\vec{w} \in H_S$. This system will be discretized using the
discrete operators described in Section \ref{Mimetic Discretizations}.
This amounts to making simple changes of the notation in Section
\ref{Staggered Time Discretization}: change
$f^n$ to $u^n$,
$g^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ to $v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ and
$A$ to $a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star }$ and $A^*$ to $-{\bf A} {\mathcal G}$.
So let $u \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal N}}}$ and $v \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal F}}^\star}}$ then define the time
discretization by
\[
\frac{u^{n+1} - u^{n}}{\triangle t} = a^{-1}\, {{\mathcal D}^\star } v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,,\quad
\frac{v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} - v^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle t} = {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^n \,.
\]
If $u^0$ and $v^{{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ are given then the leapfrog scheme for $n \geq 0$ is
\[
u^{n+1} = u^{n} + \triangle t \, a^{-1}\, {{\mathcal D}^\star } v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,,\quad
v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{3}{2}$}}} = v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} + \triangle t \, {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n+1} \,.
\]
As before a second order discrete equation and a second order average
will be needed
\begin{align*}
\frac{u^{n+1} - 2\, u^{n} + u^{n-1}}{\triangle t^2}
& = a^{-1}\,\frac{{{\mathcal D}^\star } v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}- {{\mathcal D}^\star } v^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle t} \\
& = a^{-1}\, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \frac{v^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}- v^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle t} \\
& = a^{-1}\, {{\mathcal D}^\star } {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^n \\
\frac{u^{n+1} + 2\, u^{n} + u^{n-1}}{4}
& = u^n + \frac{u^{n+1} - 2\, u^{n} + u^{n-1}}{4} \\
& = u^n + \frac{\triangle t^2}{4}\frac{u^{n+1} - 2\, u^{n} + u^{n-1}}{\triangle t^2} \\
& = u^n + \frac{\triangle t^2}{4} a^{-1}\, {{\mathcal D}^\star } {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^n
\\
\end{align*}
To find a conserved quantity let
\begin{align*}
C1_{n+1/2} & = \norm{\frac{u^{n+1} + u^{n}}{2}}_\mathcal N^2 \,, \\
C2_{n+1/2} & = \norm{ v^{n+1/2}}_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2 \,, \\
C3_{n+1/2} & = \Delta t^2 \norm{ a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} }_\mathcal N^2 \,.
\end{align*}
As before compute:
\begin{align*}
C1_{n+1/2}- C1_{n-1/2}
& = \langle \frac{u^{n+1} + 2 \, u^{n} + u^{n-1}}{4} , u^{n+1} - u^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = \langle u^{n} + \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n} , u^{n+1} - u^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal N \,; \\
& =
\langle u^{n} , u^{n+1} - u^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal N
+
\frac{\Delta t^2}{4}
\langle a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n}
, u^{n+1} - u^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal N \,;
\end{align*}
Using the adjoint equation \eqref{Adjoint 1} gives
\begin{align*}
C2_{n+1/2}- C1_{n-1/2}
& = \langle v^{n+1/2} + v^{n-1/2} , v^{n+1/2} - v^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = \langle v^{n+1/2} + v^{n-1/2} , \Delta t \, {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^n \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = - \Delta t \, \langle a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} + a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n-1/2} , u^n \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = -\Delta t \, \langle \frac{u^{n+1}-u^{n-1}}{\Delta t} , u^n \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = - \langle u^n , u^{n+1}-u^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal N \,;
\end{align*}
Also
\begin{align*}
C3_{n+1/2}- C1_{n-1/2} & = \Delta t^2
\langle a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} - a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n-1/2} \,,\, a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} + a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n-1/2} \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = \Delta t^ 2 \langle a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \left( v^{n+1/2} - v^{n+1/2} \right) \,,\, \frac{u^{n+1}-u^{n-1}}{\Delta t} \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = \Delta t^ 2 \langle - \Delta t \, a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, -{\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n} \,,\,
\frac{u^{n+1}-u^{n-1}}{\Delta t} \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = \Delta t^ 2 \langle a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n} \,,\, u^{n+1}-u^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal N \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently $C = C1 + C2 - C3/4$ is a conserved quantity:
\[
C_{n+1/2} = \norm{\frac{u^{n+1} + u^{n}}{2}}^2 + \norm{ v^{n+1/2}}^2
- \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{ a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} }^2 \,.
\]
This implies that
\[
C_{n+1/2} \geq \norm{\frac{u^{n+1} + u^{n}}{2}}^2 +
\left( 1 - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star }}^2 \right)
\norm{ v^{n+1/2}}^2 \,.
\]
So $C_{n+1/2} \geq 0$ for $\Delta t$ sufficiently small provided
$\norm{a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star }}$ is finite.
Next look for an analog $C_{n}$ of the scaler conserved quantity
\begin{align*}
C1_{n} & = \norm{\frac{v^{n+1/2} + v^{n-1/2}}{2}}_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2 \,, \\
C2_{n} & = \norm{u^{n}}_\mathcal N^2 \,, \\
C3_{n} & = \Delta t^2 \norm{{\bf A} {\mathcal G} \, u^{n} }_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2 \,.
\end{align*}
First compute
\begin{align*}
C1_{n+1}- C1_{n}
& = \langle
\frac{v^{n+3/2} + 2 \, v^{n 1/2} + v^{n-1/2}}{4} \,,\,
v^{n+3/2} -v^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& =
\langle v^{n+1/2} , v^{n+3/2} -v^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star}
+ \frac{\Delta t^2}{4}
\langle
{\bf A} {\mathcal G} \, a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} \,,\,
v^{n+3/2} -v^{n-1/2} \rangle{{\mathcal F}^\star}
\,.
\end{align*}
Using the adjoint equation \eqref{Adjoint 1} gives
\begin{align*}
C2_{n+1} - C2_{n}
& = \langle u^{n+1}-u^{n} \,,\, u^{n+1}+u^{n} \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = \langle \Delta t \, a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} \,,\, u^{n+1}+u^{n} \rangle_\mathcal N \\
& = \Delta t \langle v^{n+1/2} \,,\, -{\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n+1}-{\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n} \rangle \\
& = \Delta t \langle v^{n+1/2} \,,\,
-\frac{v^{n+3/2}- v^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t} \rangle \\
& = - \langle v^{n+1/2} \,,\,
v^{n+3/2}- v^{n-1/2} \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
Also
\begin{align*}
C3_{n+1}- C3_{n} & = \Delta t^2
\langle
{\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n+1}-{\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^n \,,\, {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n+1}+{\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^n \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^{n+1} - {\bf A} {\mathcal G} u^n \,,\, \frac{v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t}
\rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle
\Delta t \, {\bf A} {\mathcal G} a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} \,,\, \frac{v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t}
\rangle \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle
{\bf A} {\mathcal G} a^{-1} \, {{\mathcal D}^\star } \, v^{n+1/2} \,,\, v^{n+3/2}-v^{n-1/2} \rangle \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently $C_n = C1_n + C2_n - C3_n/4$ is a conserved quantity:
\[
C_n = \norm{u^{n}}^2
-\frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{ {\bf A} {\mathcal G} \, u^{n} }^2
+\norm{\frac{v^{n+1/2} + v^{n-1/2}}{2}}^2 \,.
\]
This implies that
\[
\norm{C_n} \ge \left(1 - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{{\bf A} {\mathcal G}}^2\right) \norm{u^n}^2
+ \norm{\frac{v^{n+1/2} + v^{n-1/2}}{2}}^2 \,,
\]
so $\norm{C_n}$ is positive for sufficiently small $\Delta t$ if
$\norm{ {\bf A} {\mathcal G} \, u^{n} }$ is finite.
The programs {\tt ScalarWave.m} and {\tt ScalarWaveStar.m} were used
to show that the energies $C_n$ and $C_{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}$ are constant to
less than 1 part in $10^{15}$ for the discretization descirbed above
and the one that changes ${\mathcal G}$ to ${{\mathcal G}^\star}$ and ${{\mathcal D}^\star }$ to
${\mathcal D}$.
\section{Maxwell's Equations \label{E and M section}}
Assume that ${\vec E} \in {\real^{\vec{\mathcal E}}}$ and $\vec{H} \in {\real^{{\vec{\mathcal E}}^\star}}$ so that,
using the notation in the previous sections, the Maxwell system
\ref{Maxwell System} will be discretized as
\[
\frac{{\vec E}^{n+1} - {\vec E}^n}{\triangle t} = \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \vec{H}^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,,\quad
\frac{\vec{H}^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} - \vec{H}^{n-{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}}{\triangle t} = - \mu^{-1} \, {\mathcal R} {\vec E}^n \,.
\]
where in Exact Sequence diagram \eqref{Dual-Exact-Sequences}
$A = \epsilon$ and $B = \mu$. Here $\epsilon$ and $\mu$
can be symmetric positive definate matrices. If
$\vec{E} = (Ex, Ey,Ez)$ and $\vec{H} = (Hx, Hy,Hz)$
then Table \ref{Table-Dual-Primal} shows that $Ex$ and $Hx$ are indexed as
\[
Ex^n_{i+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},j,k} \,,\quad Hx^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}_{i,j+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}},k+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
\]
just as in Yee's paper \cite{Yee1966}. If $\vec{E}^0$ and $\vec{H}^{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}$
are given then the leapfrog scheme for $n \geq 0$ is
\[
{\vec E}^{n+1} = {\vec E}^n
+ \triangle t \, \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \vec{H}^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}} \,,\quad
\vec{H}^{n+3/2} = \vec{H}^{n+{\mbox{\tiny $\frac{1}{2}$}}}
- \triangle t \, \mu^{-1} \, {\mathcal R} {\vec E}^{n+1} \,.
\]
To study conserved quantities for Maxwell's equations the second order
disctete difference and average will be needed:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\vec{E}^{n+1} - 2\, \vec{E}^{n} + \vec{E}^{n-1}}{\triangle t^2}
& = - \epsilon^{-1}\, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^n \\
\frac{\vec{E}^{n+1} + 2\, \vec{E}^{n} + \vec{E}^{n-1}}{4}
& = \vec{E}^n -
\frac{\triangle t^2}{4} \epsilon^{-1}\, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^n
\end{align*}
To find a conserved quantity $C_{n+1/2}$ let
\begin{align*}
C1_{n+1/2} & = \norm{\frac{\vec{E}^{n+1} + \vec{E}^{n}}{2}}_\mathcal E^2 \,, \\
C2_{n+1/2} & = \norm{ \vec{H}^{n+1/2}}_{{\mathcal E}^\star}^2 \,, \\
C3_{n+1/2} & = \Delta t^2 \norm{\epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} }_\mathcal E^2 \,.
\end{align*}
As before compute:
\begin{align*}
C1_{n+1/2}- C1_{n-1/2}
& = \langle \frac{\vec{E}^{n+1} + 2 \, \vec{E}^{n} + \vec{E}^{n-1}}{4} , \vec{E}^{n+1} - \vec{E}^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& = \langle \vec{E}^{n} - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \mu^{-1}
{\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n} , \vec{E}^{n+1} - \vec{E}^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal E \,; \\
& =
\langle \vec{E}^{n} , \vec{E}^{n+1} - \vec{E}^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal E
- \frac{\Delta t^2}{4}
\langle \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n}
, \vec{E}^{n+1} - \vec{E}^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal E \,;
\end{align*}
Using the adjoint equation \eqref{Adjoint 1} gives
\begin{align*}
C2_{n+1/2}- C1_{n-1/2}
& = \langle \vec{H}^{n+1/2} + \vec{H}^{n-1/2} \,, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} - \vec{H}^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = \langle \vec{H}^{n+1/2} + \vec{H}^{n-1/2} \,, - \Delta t \, \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^n \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = - \Delta t \, \langle \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} + \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n-1/2} , \vec{E}^n \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& = -\Delta t \, \langle \frac{\vec{E}^{n+1}-\vec{E}^{n-1}}{\Delta t} , \vec{E}^n \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& = - \langle \vec{E}^n , \vec{E}^{n+1}-\vec{E}^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal E \,;
\end{align*}
Also
\begin{align*}
C3_{n+1/2}- C1_{n-1/2} & = \Delta t^2
\langle \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} - \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n-1/2} \,,\, \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} + \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n-1/2} \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& = \Delta t^ 2 \langle \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \left( \vec{H}^{n+1/2} - \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \right) \,,\, \frac{\vec{E}^{n+1}-\vec{E}^{n-1}}{\Delta t} \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& =\Delta t^ 2 \langle - \Delta t \, \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n} \,,\,
\frac{\vec{E}^{n+1}-\vec{E}^{n-1}}{\Delta t} \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& = - \Delta t^ 2 \langle \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n} \,,\, \vec{E}^{n+1}-\vec{E}^{n-1} \rangle_\mathcal E \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently $C = C1 + C2 - C3/4$ is a conserved quantity:
\[
C_{n+1/2} =
\norm{\frac{\vec{E}^{n+1} + \vec{E}^{n}}{2}}_\mathcal E^2
+ \norm{ \vec{H}^{n+1/2}}_{{\mathcal E}^\star}^2
- \frac{\Delta t^2}{4}
\norm{ \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} }_\mathcal E^2 \,.
\]
This implies that
\[
C_{n+1/2} \geq
\norm{\frac{\vec{E}^{n+1} + \vec{E}^{n}}{2}}_\mathcal E^2 +
\left( 1 - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{\epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star }}^2 \right)
\norm{ \vec{H}^{n+1/2}}_{{\mathcal E}^\star}^2 \,.
\]
So $C_{n+1/2} \geq 0$ for $\Delta t$ sufficiently small provided
$\norm{\epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star }}$ is finite.
Next look for a conserved quantity $C_{n}$:
\begin{align*}
C1_{n} & = \norm{\frac{\vec{H}^{n+1/2} + \vec{H}^{n-1/2}}{2}}_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2 \,, \\
C2_{n} & = \norm{\vec{E}^{n}}_\mathcal E^2 \,, \\
C3_{n} & = \Delta t^2 \norm{\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \, \vec{E}^{n} }_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2 \,.
\end{align*}
First compute
\begin{align*}
C1_{n+1}- C1_{n}
& = \langle
\frac{\vec{H}^{n+3/2} + 2 \, \vec{H}^{n 1/2} + \vec{H}^{n-1/2}}{4} \,,\,
\vec{H}^{n+3/2} -\vec{H}^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& =
\langle \vec{H}^{n+1/2} , \vec{H}^{n+3/2} -\vec{H}^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star}
+ \frac{\Delta t^2}{4}
\langle
\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \, \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \,,\,
\vec{H}^{n+3/2} -\vec{H}^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star}
\,.
\end{align*}
Using the adjoint equation \eqref{Adjoint 1} gives
\begin{align*}
C2_{n+1} - C2_{n}
& = \langle \vec{E}^{n+1}-\vec{E}^{n} \,,\, \vec{E}^{n+1}+\vec{E}^{n} \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& = \langle \Delta t \, \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \,,\, \vec{E}^{n+1}+\vec{E}^{n} \rangle_\mathcal E \\
& = \Delta t \langle \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \,,\, -\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n+1}-\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \quad\text{(adjoint)} \\
& = \Delta t \langle \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \,,\,
-\frac{\vec{H}^{n+3/2}- \vec{H}^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = - \langle \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \,,\,
\vec{H}^{n+3/2}- \vec{H}^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \,.
\end{align*}
Also
\begin{align*}
C3_{n+1}- C3_{n} & = \Delta t^2
\langle
\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n+1}-\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^n \,,\, \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n+1}+\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^n \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^{n+1} - \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \vec{E}^n \,,\, \frac{\vec{H}^{n+3/2}-\vec{H}^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t}
\rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle
\Delta t \, \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \,,\, \frac{\vec{H}^{n+3/2}-\vec{H}^{n-1/2}}{\Delta t}
\rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \\
& = \Delta t^2 \langle
\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \epsilon^{-1} \, {{\mathcal R}^\star } \, \vec{H}^{n+1/2} \,,\, \vec{H}^{n+3/2}-\vec{H}^{n-1/2} \rangle_{{\mathcal F}^\star} \,.
\end{align*}
Consequently $C_n = C1_n + C2_n - C3_n/4$ is a conserved quantity:
\[
C_n = \norm{\vec{E}^{n}}_\mathcal E^2
-\frac{\Delta t^2}{4} \norm{ \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \, \vec{E}^{n} }_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2
+\norm{\frac{\vec{H}^{n+1/2} + \vec{H}^{n-1/2}}{2}}_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2 \,.
\]
This implies that
\[
\norm{C_n} \ge
\left(1 - \frac{\Delta t^2}{4}
\norm{\mu^{-1} {\mathcal R}}^2\right)
\norm{\vec{E}^n}_\mathcal E^2
+ \norm{\frac{\vec{H}^{n+1/2} + \vec{H}^{n-1/2}}{2}}_{{\mathcal F}^\star}^2 \,,
\]
so $\norm{C_n}$ is positive for sufficiently small $\Delta t$ if
$\norm{ \mu^{-1} {\mathcal R} \, \vec{E}^{n} }$ is finite.
The codes {\tt Maxwell.m} and {\tt MaxwellStar.m} confirm that our algorithms
conserve $C_{n+1/2}$ and $C_n$ to two parts in $10^{16}$. Additinally,
the divergence of the curl of the electric and magnetic fields are constant
to one part in $10^{14}$ when there are no sources.
|
\section{Introduction}\label{Section0}
A substantial advancement in astrometric measurements has been achieved by the astrometry mission {\it Hipparcos}
(launch: 8 August 1989) of European Space Agency (ESA), which has reached an accuracy of a milli-arcsecond (${\rm mas}$) in determining the angular positions
of about $10^5$ stars \cite{Hipparcos1,Hipparcos2}.
Meanwhile, the state-of-the-art angular observations have finally arrived at the level of a few micro-acrseconds ($\muas$) \cite{Kovalevsky,History_Astrometry}.
Especially, the stunning progress in astrometry has proceeded with the ESA mission {\it Gaia} \cite{GAIA} (launch: 19 December 2013) which
aims at an all-sky survey of more than $10^9$ stars of our galaxy and targets angular accuracy of up to
a few $\muas$ for bright stars in the final catalog scheduled for publication in 2022.
In view of these advancements it becomes obvious that future astrometry is going to force into the exciting areas of sub-$\muas$ or even nano-arcsecond (nas)
level of accuracy. To step up efforts toward sub-\muas-astrometry is of fundamental importance in astro\-nomy and astrophysics.
For example, an accuracy of about $10\,{\rm nas}$ in angular resolution would allow for direct measurement of
trigonometric parallaxes of stars belonging to galaxies of the Local Group which spans a diameter of about $10^7$ light-years, that means
would enable to determine spatial distances of extra-galactic objects independently of dynamical models of the Universe.
Moreover, also extremely high-precision tests of relativity, detection of dark-matter distributions within or outside of our galaxy,
determination of stellar and galactic kinematics, and finally even the discovery of one-Earth-mass exoplanets in the habitable zone of nearby Sun-like stars
would be possible by means of sub-$\muas$-astrometry. Recently, there are several mission proposals in this respect.
For instance, the mission NEAT \cite{NEAT1,NEAT2} has been proposed to ESA which intends to reach a precision of about $50\,{\rm nas}$
in angular resolution for being able to detect Earth-like exoplanets surrounding stars in the stellar neighborhood of the Sun.
Further space missions like ASTROD \cite{Astrod1,Astrod2}, LATOR \cite{Lator1,Lator2}, ODYSSEY \cite{Odyssey}, SAGAS \cite{Sagas}, or TIPO \cite{TIPO}
have been proposed to ESA which imply the determination of light trajectory through the Solar system on sub-\muas $\;$ or even at ${\rm nas}$ level of accuracy.
Also earth-bound telescopes are under consideration which aim at angular resolutions of about $10\,{\rm nas}$ \cite{nas_telescopes}.
But, although in view of the recent impressive achievements, the step from $\muas$-astrometry toward sub-$\muas$-level or even nas-level of accuracy in angular
resolution will surely be a long-term goal in the astronomical science. This is because the envisaged advancement toward space-based ${\rm nas}$-astrometry
implies many subtle effects and new kind of challenges which have not been encountered before:
What kind of optical technology would allow for nas-astrometry?
Is it technologically possible to measure the velocity of spacecraft (observer) with sufficient accuracy
allowing for a precise determination of aberrational effects? How accurate do we have to determine the ephemeris of the
Solar system bodies and could such precise ephemeris be provided? Is it possible to model accurate enough the influence of
interstellar medium on light propagation? How strong is the effect of gravitational waves on light propagation on nano-arcsecond level?
How is it possible to account for the gravitational light deflection caused by massive bodies located outside the Solar system?
Each of these and many other problems have to be clarified before ${\rm nas}$-astrometry becomes feasible. But certainly, the fundamental assignment
in astrometry remains to trace a lightray observed in the Solar system back to the celestial light source. The importance of this fact has also been
underlined recently by the ESA-Senior-Survey-Committee (SSC) in response of the selection of science themes for the L2 and L3 launch opportunities,
where it has been stated that "{\it SSC recommends that proper modeling tools, most notably the availability of a General Relativistic framework able
to model photon trajectories to the accuracy required should be given the proper attention to prove feasibility}" of high-precision astrometry \cite{SSC}.
According to this, the primary effort in any astrometrical framework concerns the precise description of the light trajectory, that is to say the determination
of the spatial coordinates of a light-signal as function of coordinate time, $\ve{x}\left(t\right)$, in some global coordinate system.
Accordingly, the principal purpose of this investigation is the determination of the trajectory of a light-signal propagating through the Solar system.
In the following four subsections it will be enlightened how one has to proceed in order to arrive that goal:
(A) the theory of light propagation, (B) the post-Newtonian expansion, (C) the state-of-the-art, and (D) the primary objective of this investigation.
\subsection{Theory of light propagation}\label{SS_1}
The determination of spatial coordinates of the light\-ray takes the most simple form in the flat Minkowskian space-time and
assuming a Cartesian coordinate system which covers the entire space, implying the metric tensor $\eta_{\alpha\beta}= {\rm diag}\left(-1,+1,+1,+1\right)$.
Suppose the light-signal is emitted at some initial time $t_0$ by a light source
located at some space-point $\ve{x}_0$, then the light trajectory is simply given by a straight line which is also called unperturbed light trajectory,
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_0 + c \left(t-t_0\right) \ve{\sigma}\,,
\label{Introduction_1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the unit-vector $\ve{\sigma}$ determines the direction of light-propagation and the sublabel "${\rm N}$" denotes Newtonian approximation.
In general relativity the four-dimensional space-time in the presence of matter is curved, that means is described by a semi-Riemannian manifold with
non-vanishing curvature tensor rather than a flat Minkowskian space-time, and a light trajectory is no longer a straight line but
propagates along a so-called null geodesic, which generalizes the concept of a straight light trajectory.
The four-coordinates $x^{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)$ of a light trajectory depend on some affine curve-parameter $\lambda$, and are determined by the
geodesic equation \cite{MTW,Brumberg1991},
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2 x^{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)}{d \lambda^2}
+ \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu}\,\frac{d x^{\mu}\left(\lambda\right)}{d \lambda}\,
\frac{d x^{\nu}\left(\lambda\right)}{d \lambda} = 0\,,
\label{Geodetic_Equation}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g_{\alpha\beta}\,\frac{d x^{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)}{d \lambda}\,\frac{d x^{\beta}\left(\lambda\right)}{d \lambda} = 0\,,
\label{Geodetic_Equation1}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\noindent
where (\ref{Geodetic_Equation}) represents the geodesic equation, while the isotropic condition (\ref{Geodetic_Equation1}) is an additional constraint
for a null geodesic, a term which refers to the fact that the invariant line element vanishes,
$ds^2 = d x_{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\,d x^{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right) = 0$, at any point along the light trajectory.
The Christoffel symbols in (\ref{Geodetic_Equation}) are related to the metric of curved space-time as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} &=& \frac{1}{2}\,g^{\alpha\beta}
\left(\frac{\partial g_{\beta\mu}}{\partial x^{\nu}}
+ \frac{\partial g_{\beta\nu}}{\partial x^{\mu}}
- \frac{\partial g_{\mu\nu}}{\partial x^{\beta}}\right),
\label{Christoffel_Symbols}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $g^{\alpha\beta}$ and $g_{\alpha\beta}$ are the contravariant and covariant components of the metric tensor, respectively, where the
metric signature $\left(-,+,+,+\right)$.
The geodesic equation (\ref{Geodetic_Equation}) represents a second-order differential equation, hence an unique solution implies the need of two initial values
for the lightray:
\begin{eqnarray}
x^{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)\bigg|_{\lambda=\lambda_0} &&\,,
\label{Initial_Value_A}
\\
\nonumber\\
\frac{d x^{\alpha}\left(\lambda\right)}{d \lambda}\bigg|_{\lambda=\lambda_0} &&\,.
\label{Initial_Value_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The equations in (\ref{Geodetic_Equation}) - (\ref{Geodetic_Equation1}) are valid in any reference system.
But in practical astrometry one is necessarily enforced to specify the reference systems for concrete observational data.
In line with the recommendations of the International Astronomical Union (IAU) \cite{IAU_Resolution1,IAU_Resolution2},
the Barycentric Celestial Reference System (BCRS) with coordinates $\left(ct,\ve{x}\right)$ is the standard global chart to be used in modern-day astrometry,
where $t$ is the BCRS coordinate-time and $\ve{x}$ are Cartesian-like spatial coordinates from the barycenter of the Solar system to some field-point.
Consequently, it becomes much preferable to exploit the freedom in the choice of scalar curve-parameter $\lambda$ and to rewrite the affinely parametrized
geodesic equation (\ref{Geodetic_Equation})
and the isotropic condition (\ref{Geodetic_Equation1}) in terms of BCRS coordinate-time \cite{MTW,Brumberg1991,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan}:
\begin{subequations}
\begin{equation}
\frac{d^2 x^{\alpha}\left(t\right)}{c^2 dt^2}
+ \Gamma^{\alpha}_{\mu\nu} \frac{d x^{\mu}\left(t\right)}{c dt}
\frac{d x^{\nu}\left(t\right)}{c dt}
= \Gamma^{0}_{\mu\nu} \frac{d x^{\mu}\left(t\right)}{c dt} \frac{d x^{\nu}\left(t\right)}{c dt} \frac{d x^{\alpha}\left(t\right)}{c dt},
\label{Geodetic_Equation2}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g_{\alpha\beta}\,\frac{d x^{\alpha}\left(t\right)}{c dt}\,\frac{d x^{\beta}\left(t\right)}{c dt} = 0\,.
\label{Geodetic_Equation3}
\end{equation}
\end{subequations}
\noindent
The zeroth component in (\ref{Geodetic_Equation2}) does not carry any new information because it vanishes identically.
In order to determine the solution of (\ref{Geodetic_Equation2}) it is advantageous to transform the initial conditions
in (\ref{Initial_Value_A}) - (\ref{Initial_Value_B}) into initial-boundary conditions \cite{Brumberg1991}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_0 &=& \ve{x}\left(t\right)\bigg|_{t=t_0}\,,
\label{Introduction_6}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{\sigma} &=& \frac{d \ve{x}\left(t\right)}{d ct}\bigg|_{t = - \infty}\,,
\label{Introduction_7}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
with (\ref{Introduction_6}) being the position of the light source at the moment $t_0$ of emission of the light-signal and (\ref{Introduction_7})
being the unit-direction of the lightray at past-null infinity. Then, the exact solution of (\ref{Geodetic_Equation2}) for the light trajectory
from the light source through the Solar system toward the observer can be written as follows,
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_0 + c \left(t-t_0\right) \ve{\sigma} + \Delta \ve{x}\left(t,t_0\right)\,,
\label{Introduction_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the term $\Delta \ve{x}\left(t,t_0\right)$ denotes gravitational corrections to the unperturbed light trajectory (\ref{Introduction_1}).
\subsection{Post-Newtonian expansion}\label{SS_2}
The correction terms $\Delta \ve{x}\left(t,t_0\right)$ in Eq.~(\ref{Introduction_5}) are highly complicated expressions which cannot be determined exactly
and one has to resort on approximation schemes. Such an approximation scheme is provided by the post-Newtonian expansion of the metric of Solar system, which
represents an expansion in terms of inverse power of the speed of light, up to terms of the order ${\cal O} \left(c^{-5}\right)$ given by:
\begin{equation}
g_{\alpha \beta} = \eta_{\alpha \beta} + h^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta} + h^{(3)}_{\alpha\beta} + h^{(4)}_{\alpha\beta} + {\cal O} \left(c^{-5}\right),
\label{post_Newtonian_metric_C}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $h^{(n)}_{\alpha\beta} = {\cal O} \left(c^{-n}\right)$ with $n=2,3,4$. The justification of such an expansion is based on the fact that the gravitational
fields in the Solar system are weak, $\left(G\,M_A\right) / \left(c^2\,P_A\right) \ll 1$, as well as the velocities of the Solar system bodies are slow,
$v_A / c \ll 1$, where $M_A$, $P_A$, and $v_A$ means mass, radius, and velocity, respectively, of some massive body $A$. For these reasons the
post-Newtonian expansion is also called weak-field slow-motion expansion. As outlined in \cite{MTW,Poisson_Will,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan,Expansion_2PN},
such an expansion is valid inside the near-zone of the Solar system, $\left|\ve{x}\right| \ll \lambda_{\rm gr}$, where $\lambda_{\rm gr} \sim 10^{17}\,{\rm meter}$
is a characteristic wavelength of gravitational waves emitted by the Solar system. The near-zone of Solar system is so
large that it still contains all Solar system bodies and even encompasses the nearest stars of the stellar neighborhood of the Sun.
Inserting the expansion (\ref{post_Newtonian_metric_C}) into (\ref{Geodetic_Equation2}) yields the geodesic equations for lightrays up to terms of the order
${\cal O}\left(c^{-5}\right)$. Accordingly, the expansion of the metric in (\ref{post_Newtonian_metric_C}) inherits a corresponding expansion of the lightray,
that means the corrections to the unperturbed lightray can formally be written as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \ve{x} &=& \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 2PN} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-5}\right),
\label{Light_Trajectory_2PN}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN} = {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ are 1PN corrections, $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN} = {\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$ are
1.5PN corrections, and $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 2PN} = {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$ are 2PN corrections to the unperturbed lightray.
In view of the fact that the post-Newtonian expansion of the metric (\ref{post_Newtonian_metric_C}) is only valid within the near-zone of the Solar system, the
post-Newtonian expansion of the lightray (\ref{Light_Trajectory_2PN}) allows for near-zone astrometry, in particular for reduction of astrometric observations
of all Solar system objects. The unique interpretation of astrometrical data of far objects, like stars or quasars,
is the subject of far-zone astrometry and necessitates the determination of light trajectory outside the near-zone of the Solar system. That
especially means, the light trajectory in the near-zone has to be aligned with the light trajectory in the far-zone by means of a so-called matching procedure
as described in detail in \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992,Will_2003,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan} which, however, will not be a topic of this investigation.
\subsection{State-of-the-art in the theory of light propagation}\label{SS_3}
A brief survey about the present status in the theory of light propagation in the gravitational field of massive bodies has recently been presented
\cite{Zschocke_1PN}. Here we will summarize and update that survey. In particular, we will restrict our review on those investigations where the explicit
time-dependence of the photon's spatial coordinate, $\ve{x}\left(t\right)$, has been determined, a prerequisite for interpreting real astrometrical observations.
\subsubsection{Monopoles at rest}\label{SSS_1}
The case of light propagation in the Schwarzschild metric, i.e. in the gravitational field of one spherically symmetric massive body at rest,
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_A\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_A\,,
\label{worldline_introduction_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\ve{x}_A = {\rm const}$ is the constant position of the body, is the
most simple case and has been determined long time ago in 1PN approximation, e.g. \cite{Brumberg1987,Brumberg1991,KlionerKopeikin1992,Klioner2003a,Zschocke_1PN}.
The solution for the light trajectory is given by Eq.~(\ref{1PN_Solution_A}).
Besides its simplicity, the determination of the photon's spatial coordinate in the Schwarzschild-field is the initial point in the theory of
light propagation in astrometry.
\subsubsection{Monopoles in motion}\label{SSS_2}
In reality, the bodies $A=1,...,N$ of the Solar system move along their time-like worldlines $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$ and for todays extremely high-precision
in astrometric measurements the gravitational field of some Solar system body can not any longer be treated as static and spherically symmetric.
In a first approximation, the motion of one massive body $A$ can be considered as translational motion with constant velocity $\ve{v}_A$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_A\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_A + \ve{v}_A \left(t - t_A\right),
\label{worldline_introduction_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\ve{x}_A = \ve{x}_A\left(t_A\right)$ and $\ve{v}_A = \ve{v}_A\left(t_A\right)$ are the spatial position and velocity of the body $A$
at some initial time-moment $t_A$. The light-trajectory in the field of one massive body in translational motion has completely been solved in 1PN approximation
in \cite{Klioner1989}. This solution has later been rederived by means of a suitable Lorentz transformation \cite{Klioner2003b}. Following a suggestion
in \cite{Hellings1986}, in the investigation \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992} it has been shown that the free parameter $t_A$ in Eq.~(\ref{worldline_introduction_B})
should be chosen as the time-moment of closest approach (given by Eqs.~(\ref{time_of_closest_approach_t_0_moving_body}) and
(\ref{time_of_closest_approach_t_1_moving_body})) between the massive body $A$ and the photon in order to minimize
the residual effects caused by the approximation of the real motion by a translational motion of the massive body.
With the aid of advanced integration methods, originally introduced in \cite{Kopeikin1997} and further developed in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks},
a rigorous solution for the trajectory of a light-signal through the gravitational field of an arbitrarily moving body has thoroughly been solved
in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999} in the first post-Minkowskian approximation. The first post-Minkowskian approximation takes into account all terms proportional
to the gravitational constant and especially all terms to any power in $v_A/c$, hence
the body can even be in ultra-relativistic motion and, therefore, the post-Minkowskian approximation is often called {\it weak-field approximation} opposite
to the post-Newtonian approximation which is called {\it weak-field slow-motion approximation}. Comparing the solution in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999} with
\cite{Klioner1989,Klioner2003b}, it has been demonstrated in \cite{KlionerPeip2003} that the simpler solution for the light-trajectory in the field of
a uniformly moving body is actually sufficient for high-precision astrometry on sub-\muas-level provided the free parameter $t_A$ is chosen either as
time-moment of closest approach or as retarded time-moment (given by Eq.~(\ref{Retarded_Time})) between the photon and the position of the massive body.
All these results agree with our investigation in \cite{Zschocke_1PN} for the case of bodies in slow-motion.
\subsubsection{Spin-dipoles at rest}\label{SSS_3}
The light trajectory in the gravitational field of one body at rest having spin-dipole $\ve{S}_A = {\rm const}$ has first been solved
in \cite{Klioner1991} and later confirmed in \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992}.
The magnitude of light deflection due to the rotational motion of Solar system bodies has been determined in \cite{Klioner1991,Klioner2003a} and
turns out to be significant for astrometry on sub-\muas-level of accuracy.
\subsubsection{Spin-dipoles in motion}\label{SSS_4}
In \cite{Deng_2015} an explicit solution for the light-trajectory in the field of $N$ uniformly moving bodies with intrinsic spin
has been obtained.
A comprehensive solution in 1PM approximation for the light-trajectory in the field of
$N$ arbitrarily moving bodies with individual spin-structure has been derived in \cite{KopeikinMashhoon2002} using the already mentioned
advanced integration methods originally developed in \cite{Kopeikin1997,KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks}.
\subsubsection{Mass-quadrupoles at rest}\label{SSS_5}
The solution for the light-trajectory in the field of mass-quadrupoles at rest in 1PN approximation was given in \cite{Klioner1991} and later
in \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992,Klioner2003a,Zschocke_1PN}. Especially, in \cite{Klioner1991} the magnitude of light deflection caused by the mass-quadrupole
structure of Solar system bodies has been determined, where it was figured out that astrometry on \muas-level of accuracy is able to detect this
light deflection effect. In fact, the light deflection due to the quadrupole-structure of Jupiter is presently under investigation
by the ESA astrometry-mission Gaia \cite{GAIA}.
\subsubsection{Mass-quadrupoles in motion}\label{SSS_6}
The light trajectory in the field of $N$ arbitrarily slowly-moving bodies with quadrupole structure has been determined in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}. Recently,
the light-trajectory in the field of $N$ uniformly moving bodies with mass-quadrupole structure has also been obtained in \cite{Deng_2015} by integrating the
geodesic equations for the lightray. Another interesting approach has been found in \cite{Hees_Bertone_Poncin_Lafitte_2014a},
which is based on the Time Transfer Function (TTF) which avoids to solve the geodesic equations and hence circumvents some of its involved peculiarities.
\subsubsection{Higher mass-multipoles and spin-multipoles at rest}\label{SSS_7}
A fruitful and systematic approach which allows to integrate analytically the geodesic equations in 1.5 approximation in the field of one body at rest having full
time-independent mass-multipoles $M^A_L$ and spin-multipoles $S^A_L$ to any order in the multi-index $L$ has been introduced in \cite{Kopeikin1997}.
The advanced integration method in \cite{Kopeikin1997} has been developed further in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks} for the case of time-dependent
mass-multipoles $M^A_L\left(t\right)$ and spin-multipoles $S^A_L\left(t\right)$ in 1PM approximation. Using this advanced approach the analytical solution in
1PM approximation for the light-trajectory in the field of one massive body at rest with the full set of time-dependent multipoles has been determined in
\cite{KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006,KopeikinKorobkov2005}. One comment should be in order at this stage. Namely, it is of course possible to interpret
the Solar system just as one global massive body $A$ which consists of many individual small massive bodies. But then the solution
in \cite{KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006,KopeikinKorobkov2005} has to be interpreted as still expressed in terms of
global multipoles $m_L\left(t\right)$ and $s_L\left(t\right)$ which characterize the entire multipole structure of the Solar system as a whole.
However, physically meaningful multipoles can only be defined in the local reference system of each individual massive body.
This important issue will later be further considered in some more detail.
Another approach is based on the solution for the TTF and its spatial derivative. A corresponding multipole decomposition of the TTF has been applied
in \cite{Poncin_Lafitte_Teyssandier_2008} in order to determine the coordinate travel time
and the light deflection of a lightray in the gravitational field of one axisymmetric body at rest expressed in terms of mass-multipoles $M_L^A$.
\subsubsection{Higher mass-multipoles in uniform motion}\label{SSS_8}
In \cite{Hees_Bertone_Poncin_Lafitte_2014a} the TTF approach in 1PM approximation has been applied for the case of light propagation in the field of
one axisymmetric body in uniform motion. Especially, an expression for the TTF and its spatial derivative is obtained for this case, which allows to determine
astrometric observables like the coordinate travel time of the lightray, the direction of an incident lightray, and the gauge-invariant angle between the
direction of two incoming photons. A similar investigation has been done in \cite{Soffel_Han}, where the TTF approach has been used in order to determine
the coordinate travel time of a lightray in the field of one slowly and uniformly moving extended body with full mass-multipole and spin-multipole structure.
\subsubsection{2PN light propagation in the field of monopoles}\label{SSS_9}
Light propagation 2PN approximation is not on the scope of the presented investigation, but for reasons of completeness some results obtained in 2PN
approximation will briefly be mentioned, not only because of its relevance for future high-precision astrometry on sub-\muas-level of accuracy but also for
its importance in todays high-precision astrometry on \muas-level.
An important progress has been made in \cite{Brumberg1987,Brumberg1991}, where an analytical solution of the light-trajectory in 2PN approximation has been
determined with explicit time-dependence of the photon's spatial coordinates by solving the null geodesic equations. This solution has later been confirmed
by several progressing and ongoing investigations \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992,Brugmann,Klioner_Zschocke,Deng_Xie,Deng_2015}, and has also been determined
in this investigation, see Eqs.~(\ref{2PN_Solution_Brumberg_2}) - (\ref{Vectorial_Function_B2}).
Furthermore, in \cite{Deng_Xie} the time-derivative of the light trajectory in the field of two pointlike bodies at rest has been obtained,
allowing to determine the light deflection in such a system. An important new result of this investigation is the fact that the 2PN two-body effect
in the Solar system is less than $0.1\,{\rm nas}$ which considerably simplifies future analytical investigations for high-precision astrometry
on sub-\muas-level of accuracy.
In \cite{Poncin_Lafitte_Teyssandier_2004,Teyssandier,Hees_Bertone_Poncin_Lafitte_2014b} the general formalism of how to determine the
TTF and its derivatives has been extended up to the second post-Newtonian (2PN) and second post-Minkowskian (2PM) order, that means
including all terms to order ${\cal O}\left(G^2\right)$.
The formalism has finally been specified for the case of light propagation in the gravitational field of one spherically symmetric body at rest
where the 2PM and 2PN approximations become identically. Especially, explicit expressions for the coordinate travel time of lightray,
for the direction of the lightray, and for the angular separation between two incident lightrays have been obtained.
Finally, we also mention another approach which is based on the eikonal concept \cite{Ashby_Bertotti}, where the light trajectory in 2PN approximation
in the field of one spherically symmetric body at rest has also been derived. The results of this work completely agree with \cite{Klioner_Zschocke}.
\subsection{Primary objective of this investigation}\label{SS_4}
According to the survey given above about the present situation in the theory of light propagation, thus far there is no analytical solution available
for the light trajectory in the field of arbitrarily moving extended bodies in 1.5PN approximation which, however, is of decisive importance in future
high-precision astrometric measurements on sub-\muas-level of accuracy and its foreseen involved massive computations, see also \cite{Zschocke_1PN}.
In respect thereof, two important aspects must carefully be treated:
({\bf 1}) The metric perturbations in the exterior of the massive bodies can be decomposed in terms of global mass-multipoles $m_L$
and global spin-multipoles $s_L$ \cite{Thorne,Blanchet_Damour1,Blanchet_Damour2,Multipole_Damour_2}:
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{\left(n\right)}_{\alpha\beta} &=& h^{\left(n\right)}_{\alpha\beta} \left(m_L,s_L\right), \quad n=2,3,...\,.
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
These global mass and spin multipoles describe the gravitational field of the Solar system as a whole.
However, from the theory of relativistic reference systems it is clear that physically meaningful
multipole moments of a massive body $A$ have to be defined in the body's local reference system $\left(c T_A, \ve{X}_A\right)$
tied to that body under consideration. Such multipoles are called intrinsic mass-multipoles $M_L^A$ and intrinsic spin-multipoles $S_L^A$.
Then the question arises about how to express the global BCRS metric in terms of such intrinsic multipoles,
that is to say how to determine the global metric perturbations:
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{\left(n\right)}_{\alpha\beta} &=& h^{\left(n\right)}_{\alpha\beta} \left(M^A_L,S^A_L\right), \quad n=2,3,...\,.
\label{Global_Metric_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Such a framework has been elaborated by the approach of {\it Damour-Soffel-Xu} (DSX) \cite{DSX1,DSX2,DSX3,DSX4} and within the {\it Brumberg-Kopeikin} (BK)
formalisms \cite{Brumberg1991,BK1,Reference_System1,BK2,BK3}, both of which became a part of the IAU resolutions \cite{IAU_Resolution1,IAU_Resolution2}.
({\bf 2}) The second issue concerns the motion of the massive Solar system bodies. While in first approximation these bodies orbit the barycenter
of the Solar system along ellipse-shaped trajectories, in reality their orbital motion $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$ is highly complicated due to the
mutual interactions among these bodies. The worldlines of all massive bodies can be concretized by Solar system ephemeris \cite{JPL} at any stage of the
calculations.
One might prefer to series expand these worldlines as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_A\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_A + \frac{\ve{v}_A}{1!}\left(t - t_A\right)
+ \frac{\ve{a}_A}{2!}\left(t-t_A\right)^2 + {\cal O}\left(\dot{a}_A\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{worldline_introduction}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\ve{x}_A = \ve{x}_A\left(t_A\right)$, $\ve{v}_A = \ve{v}_A\left(t_A\right)$ and $\ve{a}_A = \ve{a}_A\left(t_A\right)$
are the position, velocity and acceleration of body $A$ at some time-moment $t_A$. However, such an approach is problematic mainly for two reasons:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[(i)] all terms of the infinite series expansion (\ref{worldline_introduction}) contribute on 1PN or 1.5PN level, because
the expansion in (\ref{worldline_introduction}) is not performed with respect to the inverse powers of the speed of light.
\item[(ii)] the time-moment $t_A$ remains an open parameter as long as no additional arguments are introduced,
which would uniquely allow to identify that parameter with the time of closest approach or with the retarded time.
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
These both aspects ({\bf 1}) and ({\bf 2}) enforce to determine the light trajectory $\ve{x}\left(t\right)$ of a light-signal from
the celestial light source toward the observer as function of intrinsic multipoles $M^A_L$ and $S^A_L$
as well as function of the arbitrary worldlines $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$ of these massive Solar system bodies.
In a previous investigation \cite{Zschocke_1PN} a solution for the light trajectory in 1PN approximation in the gravitational field
of $N$ massive bodies in arbitrary motion and expressed in terms of their intrinsic multipoles has been obtained:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_0 + c \left(t-t_0\right) \ve{\sigma} + \Delta\ve{x}_{\rm 1PN} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right).
\label{Introduction_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
However, as outlined in more detail in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}, such 1PN solution is not sufficient for astrometry on sub-\muas-level of accuracy.
For instance, the rotational motion of the massive bodies cannot be taken into account in 1PN approximation.
However, the impact of the spin-dipole structure of the massive bodies on light deflection
amounts to be about $0.7$ \muas$\,$, $0.2$ \muas$\,$, and $0.04$ \muas $\,$ for a grazing lightray at Sun, Jupiter, and Saturn,
respectively \cite{Klioner2003a,Klioner1991}. Moreover, also higher spin-multipoles have a significant impact on sub-\muas-level
\cite{Jan-Meichsner_Diploma_Thesis,Zschocke_1PN}. Furthermore, in 1PN approximation there are no terms proportional to $\displaystyle \frac{v_A}{c}\,M_{ab}$
where $M_{ab}$ is the mass-quadrupole term. Already a straightforward estimate reveals that such terms become relevant on sub-\muas-level of
accuracy \cite{Zschocke_1PN}, see also Table \ref{Table3}.
In order to scrutinize the impact of such terms one is necessarily enforced to determine the 1.5PN solution for the light trajectory.
In view of these facts, the primary goal of this investigation is to determine a solution for the light trajectory in 1.5PN
approximation, which includes all terms up to the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$, where
both of the important aspects ({\bf 1}) and $({\bf 2})$ addressed above are fully taken into account:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}\left(t\right) \!\!&=& \!\! \ve{x}_0 + c \left(t-t_0\right) \ve{\sigma} + \Delta\ve{x}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta\ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right).
\nonumber\\
\label{Introduction_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Especially, the massive bodies of the Solar system are allowed to move along
arbitrary worldlines $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$ and they are having arbitrary shape and inner structure and rotational motion, given in terms
of time-dependent intrinsic mass-multipoles $M^A_L\left(t\right)$ and spin-multipoles $S^A_L\left(t\right)$, in accordance with the IAU recommendations
\cite{IAU_Resolution1,IAU_Resolution2} and the theory of relativistic reference systems \cite{DSX1,DSX2,DSX3,DSX4,Brumberg1991,BK1,Reference_System1,BK2,BK3}.
The given solution for the light trajectory is considered as a further step towards
a consistent model of general-relativistic theory of light propagation in the gravitational field of the Solar system, which finally aims
at accuracies on ${\rm sub}$-\muas-level and even on nas-level.
The article is organized as follows:
In section \ref{Section2} the geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation is considered.
A compendium of the DSX framework is presented in section \ref{Section3}.
The transformation of geodesic equation in terms of new variables, which are more efficient than the standard parametrization, is given in section \ref{Section4}.
The first and second integration of geodesic equation is determined in section \ref{First_Integration} and section \ref{Second_Integration}, respectively.
The important case of light-propagation in the gravitational field of moving spin-dipoles is investigated in section \ref{Section5}.
Finally, the expressions for the observables of time delay and light deflection are obtained in section \ref{Observable_Effects_Time_Delay} and
\ref{Observable_Effects_Light_Deflection}. Especially, numerical values for the impact of the leading mass-multipoles and spin-multipoles on
time delay and light deflection are given in Table~\ref{Table2} and Table~\ref{Table3}, respectively.
A summary and outlook can be found in section \ref{Summary_Outlook}.
The used notations and conventions and further details and several checks of the calculations are shifted into appendix.
\section{Geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation}\label{Section2}
The Solar system is composed of $N$ arbitrarily shaped, rotating and deformable massive bodies which move under the influence of their mutual gravitational
interaction among their common barycenter. It is clear, that the
metric of such a highly complicated $N$-body system is not known in its exact form and can only be determined within an approximative scheme.
In view of the weak gravitational fields and slow motions of the bodies, the metric tensor of the Solar system in the BCRS coordinate system
$x^{\mu} = \left(ct,\ve{x}\right)$ can be expanded in terms of inverse powers in the light-velocity, called post-Newtonian expansion \cite{MTW}:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{\alpha\beta}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \eta_{\alpha\beta}
+ h^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) + h^{(3)}_{\alpha\beta}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)
+ {\cal O} \left(c^{-4}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{metric_perturbation_pN}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\eta_{\alpha\beta}$ is the metric tensor of flat Minkowski space-time and the metric perturbations are of the order
$h^{(2)}_{\alpha\beta} = {\cal O} \left(c^{-2}\right)$ and $h^{(3)}_{\alpha\beta} = {\cal O} \left(c^{-3}\right)$, cf. Eq.~(\ref{post_Newtonian_metric_C}).
Inserting (\ref{metric_perturbation_pN}) into (\ref{Geodetic_Equation2}) yields
the geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation, which in terms of global coordinate time reads
\cite{Brumberg1991,KlionerPeip2003,KlionerKopeikin1992,KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks,KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006,KopeikinKorobkov2005}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{x}^i \left(t\right)}{c^2} &=& \frac{1}{2}\,h_{00,i}^{(2)}
- h_{00,j}^{(2)} \frac{\dot{x}^i\left(t\right)}{c}\frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}
- h_{ij,k}^{(2)}\,\frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}\frac{\dot{x}^k\left(t\right)}{c}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} + \frac{1}{2}\,h_{jk,i}^{(2)}\,\frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}\frac{\dot{x}^k\left(t\right)}{c}
- \frac{1}{2}\,h_{00,0}^{(2)}\,\frac{\dot{x}^i\left(t\right)}{c}
- h_{ij,0}^{(2)} \frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} + \frac{1}{2}\,h_{jk,0}^{(2)} \frac{\dot{x}^i\left(t\right)}{c}
\frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}\frac{\dot{x}^k\left(t\right)}{c}
- h_{0i,j}^{(3)} \frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}
+ h_{0j,i}^{(3)} \frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} - h_{0j,k}^{(3)}\frac{\dot{x}^i\left(t\right)}{c}\frac{\dot{x}^j\left(t\right)}{c}\frac{\dot{x}^k\left(t\right)}{c}
+ {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right),
\label{geodesic_equation_1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where a dot means total time-derivative. Note that the constraint in (\ref{Geodetic_Equation3}) results
in $\displaystyle \frac{\dot{\ve{x}}\left(t\right) \cdot \dot{\ve{x}}\left(t\right)}{c^2} = 1 + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$, hence
will not change the form of geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation in (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}).
In (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) we have taken into account that in general $h_{0i}^{(2)}=h_{00}^{(3)}=h_{ij}^{(3)} = 0$
and $h_{0i,0}^{(3)} = {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$. The metric perturbations in (\ref{metric_perturbation_pN}) are functions of the field-points $(t,\ve{x})$,
while in the geodesic equation (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) the metric perturbations are of relevance at the coordinates of the photon $\ve{x}\left(t\right)$.
Consequently, the derivatives in (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) are taken along the lightray:
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{\alpha \beta, \mu}^{(n)} &=& \frac{\partial h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{\partial x^{\mu}}
\Bigg|_{\ve{x}=\ve{x}\mbox{\normalsize $\left(t\right)$}}\,,\quad n=2,3\,.
\label{geodesic_equation_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
In order to find an unique solution of the geodesic equation in (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}), so-called mixed
initial-boundary conditions can be imposed, which have extensively been used in the literature, e.g.
\cite{Brumberg1991,KlionerKopeikin1992,Klioner_Zschocke,Kopeikin1997,KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks,Brumberg1987,KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_0 &=& \ve{x}\left(t_0\right),
\label{Initial_Boundary_Condition_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{\sigma} &=& \lim_{t \rightarrow - \infty}\, \frac{\dot{\ve{x}}\left(t\right)}{c}\,.
\label{Initial_Boundary_Condition_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The first condition (\ref{Initial_Boundary_Condition_1}) defines the spatial coordinates of the photon at the moment
$t_0$ of emission of light. The second condition (\ref{Initial_Boundary_Condition_2}) defines the unit-direction
$\left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{\sigma} = 1\right)$ of the lightray at past null infinity, that means the
unit-tangent vector along the light path in the infinite past hence at infinite spatial distance from the origin of the global coordinate system.
In the flat space-time there is no gravitational field, $h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)} = 0$,
hence the geodesic equation (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) simplifies to the form $\ddot{\ve{x}}\left(t\right) = 0$, having the solution
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_0 + c \left(t - t_0\right) \ve{\sigma} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{Unperturbed_Light_Trajectory}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which is nothing else than just the unperturbed light trajectory in Eq.~(\ref{Introduction_1}).
The exact light trajectory $\ve{x}\left(t\right)$ in (\ref{Introduction_5}) deviates from the Newtonian approximation in (\ref{Unperturbed_Light_Trajectory})
by terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$, that means $\ve{x}\left(t\right)=\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t\right) + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$.
Accordingly, in (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) we may replace $\dot{\ve{x}}\left(t\right)$ by its Newtonian
approximation, $\dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm N} = c\,\ve{\sigma}$, and (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) simplifies as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{x}^i \left(t\right)}{c^2} &=&
\frac{1}{2}\,h_{00,i}^{(2)}
- h_{00,j}^{(2)}\,\sigma^i\,\sigma^j - h_{ij,k}^{(2)}\,\sigma^j\,\sigma^k
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.5cm} + \frac{1}{2}\,h_{jk,i}^{(2)}\,\sigma^j\,\sigma^k
- \frac{1}{2}\,h_{00,0}^{(2)}\,\sigma^i\,
- h_{ij,0}^{(2)}\,\sigma^j
+ \frac{1}{2}\,h_{jk,0}^{(2)}\,\sigma^i\,\sigma^j\,\sigma^k
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.5cm} - h_{0i,j}^{(3)}\,\sigma^j
+ h_{0j,i}^{(3)}\,\sigma^j
- h_{0j,k}^{(3)}\,\sigma^i\,\sigma^j\,\sigma^k
+ {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right),
\label{geodesic_equation_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which agrees with Eq.~(3) in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks}; recall $h^{(3)}_{0i,0} = {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$.
Furthermore, in 1.5PN approximation the metric perturbations in (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) can be taken at the
spatial coordinates of the unperturbed lightray. That means, in (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) one has first to perform the
differentiations with respect to BCRS coordinates $x^{\mu}=\left(ct,\ve{x}\right)$ and afterwards to insert the unperturbed lightray:
\begin{eqnarray}
h_{\alpha \beta, \mu}^{(n)} &=& \frac{\partial h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{\partial x^{\mu}}
\Bigg|_{\ve{x}=\ve{x}_{\rm N}\mbox{\normalsize $\left(t\right)$}}\,.
\label{transformed_geodesic_equation_15}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
In this investigation we will determine the solution of the geodesic equation (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) in 1.5PN approximation, which
can formally be written as follows (cf. Eq.~(\ref{Introduction_B})):
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}\left(t\right) &\!\!=\!\!& \ve{x}_0 + c\,\ve{\sigma}\left(t - t_0\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}\left(t,t_0\right) + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN} \left(t,t_0\right) + {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right).
\label{light_trajectory_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The 1PN corrections $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}\left(t,t_0\right)$ in Eq.~(\ref{light_trajectory_B}) are terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ and
have already been determined in our recent analysis \cite{Zschocke_1PN}. Here, the primary goal is the determination of the
1.5PN corrections $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t,t_0\right)$ in Eq.~(\ref{light_trajectory_B}) which are terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$.
\section{Compendium of DSX framework}\label{Section3}
The DSX framework represents a well-established formalism in the general-relativistic celestial mechanics of a $N$-body system of arbitrarily shaped,
rotating and deformable bodies, and has been introduced and thoroughly formulated in \cite{DSX1,DSX2,DSX3,DSX4}.
The original intension of DSX was the description of the dynamics of $N$ massive bodies, that is the equations of motion in celestial mechanics for
$N$ extended bodies under the influence of their mutual gravitational interaction.
The basic assumption is to introduce $N+1$ reference systems: one global chart (BCRS) with coordinates $x^{\mu} = \left(ct,\ve{x}\right)$
having its origin of the spatial axes at the barycenter of the Solar system, and $N$ local charts with coordinates $X_A^{\alpha} = \left(cT_A,\ve{X}_A\right)$,
one for each individual body $A=1,...,N$ and having their origins at the barycenter of these massive bodies and co-moving with them.
The local coordinate systems are tied to each individual massive body and are defined very similar to the
Geocentric Celestial Reference System (GCRS) which is in use for the Earth and, therefore, they are called GCRS-like reference systems.
A central result of the DSX approach is the form of the global metric $g_{\mu\nu}$ of BCRS and the form of the local metric $G_{\alpha\beta}^A$ for
each GCRS-like system, and the coordinate transformation among all these reference systems $\left(ct,\ve{x}\right) \leftrightarrow \left(cT_A,\ve{X}_A\right)$.
Another central achievement in the DSX formalism is the decomposition of the global metric in terms of intrinsic mass-multipoles $M^A_L$ and intrinsic
spin-multipoles $S^A_L$.
In this section we will present a compendium of the DSX theory, which has become a basic part of IAU resolution B1.3 (2000) \cite{IAU_Resolution1}
and which are of upmost relevance for our own considerations aiming at applications of the DSX approach in the astrometrical science.
\subsection{BCRS}\label{BCRS}
The harmonic BCRS coordinates are denoted by $x^{\mu}=\left(ct,x^i\right)$, where $t={\rm TCB}$ is the BCRS coordinate time;
about a practical synchronization of a set of clocks distributed somewhere in the Solar system we refer to \cite{Synchronization1}.
The origin of the spatial axes of BCRS is located at the barycenter of the Solar system and cover the entire three-dimensional space and can therefore
be used to model light trajectories from distant celestial objects to the observer. The IAU Resolution B2 (2006) \cite{IAU_Resolution2} recommends
the spatial axes of BCRS to be oriented according to the spatial axes of the International Celestial Reference System (ICRS) \cite{ICRS}.
Furthermore, according to IAU resolution B1.3 (2000) \cite{IAU_Resolution1} the Solar system is assumed to be isolated and the space-time
is asymptotically flat, that means the BCRS metric $g_{\mu\nu}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)$ at infinity reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\lim_{r \rightarrow \infty}\,
g_{\mu\nu}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \eta_{\mu\nu}\,,
\label{boundary_condition_global_metric}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $r=\left|\ve{x}\right|$. The BCRS is completely characterized by the form of its metric tensor which, however, is not known in its exact form.
According to the geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}), for our intentions
the metric is required to be known only up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$, which are
given by \cite{IAU_Resolution1}:
\begin{eqnarray}
g_{00}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& - 1 + \frac{2\,w\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{c^2} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right),
\label{BCRS_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
g_{0i}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& - \frac{4\,w^i\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{c^3} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-5}\right),
\label{BCRS_2}
\\
\nonumber\\
g_{ij}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \left( 1 + \frac{2\,w\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{c^2}\right) \delta_{ij} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right).
\label{BCRS_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The gravitational potentials in (\ref{BCRS_1}) - (\ref{BCRS_3}) are given by the integrals
\begin{eqnarray}
w\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \frac{G}{c^2} \int d^3 x^{\prime}\;
\frac{t^{00}\left(t,\ve{x}^{\prime}\right)}{\left|\ve{x} - \ve{x}^{\prime}\right|} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{BCRS_4}
\\
\nonumber\\
w^i\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \frac{G}{c} \int d^3 x^{\prime}\;
\frac{t^{0i}\left(t,\ve{x}^{\prime}\right)}{\left|\ve{x} - \ve{x}^{\prime}\right|} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{BCRS_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the integrals in (\ref{BCRS_4}) and (\ref{BCRS_5}) run over the entire Solar system, and $t^{\mu\nu}$
is the energy-momentum tensor of the Solar system in global BCRS
coordinates; recall the components of energy-momentum tensor scale as follows:
$t^{00} = {\cal O}\left(c^2\right), t^{0i} = {\cal O}\left(c^1\right), t^{ij} = {\cal O}\left(c^0\right)$.
The global gravitational potentials in (\ref{BCRS_4}) - (\ref{BCRS_5}) admit an expansion in terms of
global Blanchet-Damour (BD) mass-multipoles and spin-multipoles, $m_L$ and $s_L$,
\cite{Thorne,Blanchet_Damour1,Blanchet_Damour2,KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks}, which characterize
the multipole structure of the Solar system as a whole,
\begin{eqnarray}
w\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& G \sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\,m_{\langle L\rangle}\left(t\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L\rangle}\,\frac{1}{r} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{global_multipole_expansion1}
\\
\nonumber\\
w^i\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& - G\,\sum\limits_{l = 2}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
\dot{m}_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(t\right)\;\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle}\,\frac{1}{r}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.5cm} - G\,\sum\limits_{l = 1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1\right)!}\,
\epsilon_{iab}\,s_{\langle b L-1 \rangle} \left(t\right)
\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,\frac{1}{r} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right).
\nonumber\\
\label{global_multipole_expansion2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The global mass-multipoles and global spin-multipoles in (\ref{global_multipole_expansion1}) - (\ref{global_multipole_expansion2}) are Cartesian symmetric
and trace-free (STF) tensors, and up to order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ given by (cf. Eqs.~(2.34a) and (2.34b) in \cite{Blanchet_Damour1}):
\begin{eqnarray}
m_{\langle L \rangle}\left(t\right) &=& \underset{L}{\rm STF} \int d^3x\,x_L\, \frac{t^{00}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{c^2}\,,
\label{global_mass_multipoles}
\\
\nonumber\\
s_{\langle L \rangle}\left(t\right) &=& \underset{L}{\rm STF} \int d^3x\,\epsilon_{a b c_l}\,x_{a L-1}\,\frac{t^{0b}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{c}\,,
\label{global_spin_multipoles}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $m_0 = {\rm const.}$ is the mass of the entire Solar system, the mass-dipole $m_i =0$ because the origin of BCRS is located at the barycenter of the
Solar system, and the spin-dipole $s_i = {\rm const}$ describes the spin of the entire Solar system which safely can be assumed to be time-independent.
The spatial derivative operator in (\ref{global_multipole_expansion1}) - (\ref{global_multipole_expansion2}) is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{\langle L \rangle} &=& \underset{i_1...i_l}{\rm STF}\;\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i_1}}\,.\,.\,.\,\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i_l}}\,,
\label{Spatial_Derivative_BCRS}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
and a dot means derivative with respect to global coordinate-time.
The expansion in (\ref{global_multipole_expansion1}) - (\ref{global_multipole_expansion2}) has two specific features,
which do not allow a straightforward application in our investigations:
(1) The expansion in (\ref{global_multipole_expansion1}) - (\ref{global_multipole_expansion2}) is valid outside a sphere which encloses the
$N$-body system \cite{Thorne,Blanchet_Damour1,Blanchet_Damour2,Multipole_Damour_2,Zschocke_Multipole_Expansion}. It is quite obvious that for modeling
of light propagation through the Solar system we need to have a metric which is valid in spatial domains between these $N$ massive bodies.
(2) It has already been underlined in the introductory section that according to the theory of reference systems
\cite{IAU_Resolution1,Brumberg1991,BK1,Reference_System1,BK2,BK3,DSX1,DSX2,DSX3,DSX4} physically meaningful
multipole moments of some massive body $A$ have to be defined in the local reference system $\left(cT_A, \ve{X}_A\right)$ tied to that body and co-moving with it.
For these reasons, the global gravitational potentials in (\ref{global_multipole_expansion1}) - (\ref{global_multipole_expansion2})
must have to be expressed by intrinsic mass-multipoles $M^A_L$ and intrinsic spin-multipoles $S^A_L$,
which are defined in the local reference system $\left(cT_A,\ve{X}_A\right)$ of each individual massive body A.
The prototype of all these GCRS-like coordinate systems is the GCRS especially designed for the Earth and which will be considered now.
\subsection{GCRS}\label{GCRS}
For the description of physical problems nearby the Earth the GCRS is the appropriate reference system.
The harmonic GCRS coordinates are denoted by $X^{\alpha}=\left(cT,X^i\right)$, where $T={\rm TCG}$ is the GCRS coordinate time.
According to IAU resolution B1.3 (2000) \cite{IAU_Resolution1}, the origin of the spatial axes of GCRS is located at the center-of-mass
of the Earth and co-moving with it. The spatial axes of GCRS are kinematically non-rotating with respect to the BCRS, that means
the GCRS is a space-fixed reference system and is not a local inertial system.
The GCRS is completely characterized by the form of its metric tensor, up to order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$ given by
\cite{IAU_Resolution1,DSX1,DSX2},
\begin{eqnarray}
G_{00}\left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=& - 1 + \frac{2\,W\left(T,\ve{X}\right)}{c^2} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right),
\label{GCRS_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
G_{0i}\left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=& - \frac{4\,W^i\left(T,\ve{X}\right)}{c^3} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-5}\right),
\label{GCRS_2}
\\
\nonumber\\
G_{ij}\left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=& \left(1 + \frac{2\,W\left(T,\ve{X}\right)}{c^2}\right)\delta_{ij} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right).
\label{GCRS_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The gravitational potentials in (\ref{GCRS_1}) - (\ref{GCRS_3}) can uniquely be separated into two components: a local component,
$\left(W_{\rm loc}, W^i_{\rm loc}\right)$ which originates from the body $A$ itself and an external component,
$\left(W_{\rm ext}, W^i_{\rm ext}\right)$, which is associated with inertial effects and
tidal forces \cite{IAU_Resolution1,DSX1,DSX2}:
\begin{eqnarray}
W\left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=& W_{\rm loc}\left(T,\ve{X}\right) + W_{\rm ext}\left(T,\ve{X}\right),
\label{GCRS_4}
\\
\nonumber\\
W^i\left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=& W^i_{\rm loc}\left(T,\ve{X}\right) + W^i_{\rm ext}\left(T,\ve{X}\right).
\label{GCRS_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Explicit expressions for the external potentials are given in \cite{DSX1,DSX2}, while
the local potentials are defined by the following integrals:
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{\rm loc}\left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=&
\frac{G}{c^2} \int_{V_E} d^3 X^{\prime}\;
\frac{T^{00}\left(T,\ve{X}^{\prime}\right)}{\left|\ve{X} - \ve{X}^{\prime}\right|} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{GCRS_6}
\\
\nonumber\\
W^i_{\rm loc}\left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=&
\frac{G}{c} \int_{V_E} d^3 X^{\prime}\;
\frac{T^{0i}\left(T,\ve{X}^{\prime}\right)}{\left|\ve{X} - \ve{X}^{\prime}\right|} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{GCRS_7}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the integrations run over the entire volume of the Earth, and where $T^{\mu\nu}$ are the components of
the energy-momentum tensor in GCRS coordinates; recall the components of energy-momentum tensor scale as follows:
$T^{00} = {\cal O}\left(c^2\right), T^{0i} = {\cal O}\left(c^1\right), T^{ij} = {\cal O}\left(c^0\right)$. The
local potentials (\ref{GCRS_6}) - (\ref{GCRS_7}) generated by the Earth can be expanded into a series of STF multipole
moments, $M_L$ and $S_L$. In the harmonic skeletonized gauge they are given by
\cite{IAU_Resolution1,Thorne,Blanchet_Damour1,Blanchet_Damour2,Multipole_Damour_2,DSX1}:
\begin{eqnarray}
W_{\rm loc} \left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=&
G \sum\limits_{l=0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!} M_{\langle L \rangle}\left(T\right) {\cal D}_{\langle L \rangle} \frac{1}{R}
+ {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{BCRS_10}
\\
\nonumber\\
W^i_{\rm loc} \left(T,\ve{X}\right) &=&
- G \sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!} \dot{M}_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(T\right)\,
{\cal D}_{\langle L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{R}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.2cm} - G \sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l+1\right)!}\,
\epsilon_{iab}\,S_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(T\right) {\cal D}_{\langle a L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{R} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{BCRS_11}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $R =\left|\ve{X}\right|$ is the spatial distance from the origin of GCRS to some field point outside the Earth, and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}_{\langle L \rangle} &=& \underset{a_1...a_l}{\rm STF}\;\frac{\partial}{\partial X^{a_1}} \,.\,.\,.\,\frac{\partial}{\partial X^{a_l}}\,,
\label{Spatial_Derivative_GCRS}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
and a dot in (\ref{BCRS_11}) denotes a derivative with respect to GCRS coordinate time $T$.
The intrinsic STF multipoles in (\ref{BCRS_10}) and (\ref{BCRS_11}) can be approximated by their Newtonian expressions, that means up
to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ they are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\langle L \rangle} \left(T\right) &=& \underset{L}{\rm STF} \int_{V_E} d^3 X\;X_L\;\frac{T^{00}\left(T,\ve{X}\right)}{c^2}\,,
\label{local_Newtonian_Mass_Multipole}
\\
\nonumber\\
S_{\langle L \rangle}\left(T\right) &=& \underset{L}{\rm STF} \int_{V_E} d^3 X \epsilon_{a b c_l}
X_{a L-1} \frac{T^{0b}\left(T,\ve{X}\right)}{c} ,
\label{local_Newtonian_Spin_Multipole}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the integration runs over the volume of the Earth, and $T^{\alpha\beta}$ is the energy-momentum tensor in the local system of the Earth.
The intrinsic mass-monopole term $M = {\rm const}$ in (\ref{local_Newtonian_Mass_Multipole}) is the Newtonian mass of the Earth.
Actually, the mass-dipole vanishes, $M_{i}=0$, because the origin of the GCRS is assumed to be located at the barycenter of the Earth,
but in real measurements of celestial mechanics the center-of-mass of massive Solar system bodies can not be determined exactly,
so it is meaningful to keep this term and to assume $M_{i} = {\rm const.}$ in general.
The spin-dipole $S_i\left(T\right)$ of the Earth is not constant but time-dependent due to inner forces of the Earth and due to the gravitational interaction
of the Earth with other massive bodies.
\subsection{Metric of Solar system in terms of intrinsic multipoles}\label{Solar_System_Metric}
In order to describe the light trajectory through the Solar system, one needs to introduce one global chart (BCRS) $x^{\mu} = \left(ct,\ve{x}\right)$
but expressed in terms of intrinsic multipoles, $M^A_L$ and $S^A_L$, of each massive body $A=1,...,N$. For being able to define the multipole
structure of each individual body in a physically meaningful manner, the DSX formalism \cite{DSX1,DSX2} introduces $N$ local GCRS-like reference systems
$X_A^{\alpha} = \left(c T_A, \ve{X}_A\right)$, each one very similar to the GCRS in Eqs.~(\ref{GCRS_1}) - (\ref{GCRS_3}).
These $N+1$ coordinate systems are linked with each other via coordinate-transformations.
The DSX theory \cite{DSX1,DSX2,DSX3,DSX4} provides the theoretical framework for such an approach, and has
originally been established for celestial mechanics and for deriving the equations of motion of a system of $N$ massive bodies with full
multipole structure. Consequently, one central result of DSX theory are the coordinate transformations among these reference systems,
which are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
x^{\mu} &=& x^{\mu}_A\left(T_A\right) + e^{\mu}_{a}\left(T_A\right) X^a_A + {\cal O} \left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{coordinate_transformation_1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $x^{\mu}_A\left(T_A\right)$ is the worldline of body $A$ in BCRS coordinates.
The inverse coordinate transformations could be found in \cite{IAU_Resolution1}, but is not of relevance here for our purposes.
The tetrads $e^{\mu}_{a}$ along the worldline of this body are explicitly given by (cf. Eqs.~(2.16) in \cite{DSX1}):
\begin{eqnarray}
e_a^0\left(T_A\right) &=& \frac{\dot{x}_A^a\left(T_A\right)}{c} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right),
\label{tetrade_2}
\\
\nonumber\\
e_a^i\left(T_A\right) &=& \delta_{ai} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{tetrade_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where in (\ref{tetrade_2}) a dot means derivative with respect to the local coordinate time of body $A$. That means, $\dot{\ve{x}}_A\left(T_A\right)$ is
the three-velocity of body $A$ in the global system and given in terms of the body's local coordinate time $T_A$, which could easily be transformed into terms
of global BCRS coordinate-time.
The contravariant components of the BCRS metric tensor $g^{\mu\nu}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)$ in Eqs.~(\ref{BCRS_1}) - (\ref{BCRS_3}) and the
contravariant components of the metric tensor $G^{\alpha\beta}\left(T_A,\ve{X}_A\right)$ in Eqs.~(\ref{GCRS_1}) - (\ref{GCRS_3}) in the local GCRS-like
coordinate system of body $A$ are related via the following transformation:
\begin{eqnarray}
g^{\mu\nu}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \frac{\partial x^{\mu}}{\partial X_A^{\alpha}}\,\frac{\partial x^{\nu}}{\partial X_A^{\beta}}\,
G^{\alpha\beta}\left(T_A,\ve{X}_A\right).
\label{Tensor_transformation}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Using (\ref{coordinate_transformation_1}) in virtue of (\ref{Tensor_transformation}), the global potentials $\left(w,w^i\right)$ in (\ref{BCRS_4}) - (\ref{BCRS_5})
can be expressed in terms of intrinsic STF multipoles $M_L^A$ and $S_L^A$ as follows \cite{DSX1,DSX2,IAU_Resolution1}:
\begin{eqnarray}
w\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\, w_A\left(t,\ve{x}\right),
\label{global_metric_potentials_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
w_A\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& G \sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(T_A\right)\;{\cal D}^A_{\langle L \rangle} \frac{1}{R_A} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{global_metric_potentials_2}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
w^i\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\, w_A^i\left(t,\ve{x}\right),
\label{global_metric_potentials_4}
\\
\nonumber\\
w_A^i\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=&
- G\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(T_A\right)\,
{\cal D}^A_{\langle L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{R_A}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.5cm} - G\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
\,\frac{l}{l+1} \epsilon_{iab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(T_A\right)\;{\cal D}^A_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,\frac{1}{R_A}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.5cm} + G\,v_A^i\left(T_A\right) \sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(T_A\right)\;{\cal D}^A_{\langle L\rangle} \frac{1}{R_A} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right).
\nonumber\\
\label{global_metric_potentials_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
In (\ref{global_metric_potentials_1}) and (\ref{global_metric_potentials_4}) the sum runs over all bodies of the $N$-body system,
$R_A =\left|\ve{X}_A\right|$ is the spatial distance from the origin of local coordinate system
to some field point located outside the massive body, and
\begin{eqnarray}
{\cal D}^A_{\langle L\rangle}=\underset{a_1...a_l}{\rm STF}\;\frac{\partial}{\partial X^{a_1}_A}\,.\,.\,.\,\frac{\partial}{\partial X_A^{a_l}}\,.
\label{Spatial_Derivative_GCRS_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The local mass-multipoles and spin-multipoles of some massive body $A$ in Newtonian approximation, i.e. up to terms of the
order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$, are given by (cf. Eqs.~(\ref{local_Newtonian_Mass_Multipole}) - (\ref{local_Newtonian_Spin_Multipole}):
\begin{eqnarray}
M^A_{\langle L \rangle}\left(T_A\right) &=& \underset{L}{\rm STF} \int_{V_A} d^3 X_A X^A_L\,\frac{T^{00}_A\left(T_A,\ve{X}_A\right)}{c^2}\,,
\label{local_Newtonian_Mass_Multipole_A}
\\
\nonumber\\
S^A_{\langle L \rangle}\left(T_A\right) &=& \underset{L}{\rm STF} \int_{V_A} d^3 X_A\,\epsilon_{a b c_l}
X^A_{a L-1} \frac{T_A^{0b}\left(T_A,\ve{X}_A\right)}{c}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{local_Newtonian_Spin_Multipole_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the integration runs over the spatial volume of massive body A, and $T_A^{\alpha\beta}$ is the energy-momentum tensor of body $A$
in the local coordinate system of that body.
Finally, using coordinate transformations (\ref{coordinate_transformation_1}), the spatial derivatives in (\ref{global_metric_potentials_2})
and (\ref{global_metric_potentials_3}) must be transformed into the BCRS, where they read as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial}{\partial cT_A} &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial c t}
+ \frac{v_A^a\left(T_A\right)}{c} \frac{\partial}{\partial x^a} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{coordinate_transformation_6}
\\
\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial}{\partial X_A^a} &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial x^a}
+ \frac{v_A^a\left(T_A\right)}{c} \frac{\partial}{\partial ct} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{coordinate_transformation_7}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the second term in (\ref{coordinate_transformation_6}) as well as in (\ref{coordinate_transformation_7}) generate terms which are
beyond the order of ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$ in the global metric, that means these terms will actually not contribute in the final results for
the light trajectory.
From (\ref{coordinate_transformation_1}) follows the relation \cite{IAU_Resolution1,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan,DSX1,DSX2}:
\begin{eqnarray}
R_A &=& \left| \ve{x} - \ve{x}_A\left(t\right)\right| + {\cal O} \left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{coordinate_relation_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where we recall that some massive body $A$ moves along the arbitrary worldline $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$, which can later be concretized by Solar system
ephemeris \cite{JPL} at any stage of the calculations.
Because of the fact that the BCRS coordinate-time and the coordinate time $T_A$ of local system of body $A$ are related as
follows \cite{IAU_Resolution1,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan,DSX1,DSX2},
\begin{eqnarray}
T_A &=& t + {\cal O} \left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{coordinate_relation_10}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
we obtain for the time-dependence of the intrinsic multipoles the following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(T_A\right) &=& M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(t\right) + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{coordinate_relation_15}
\\
\nonumber\\
S_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(T_A\right) &=& S_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(t\right) + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{coordinate_relation_20}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
that means the neglected terms in (\ref{coordinate_relation_15}) and (\ref{coordinate_relation_20}) are beyond 1.5PN approximation for lightrays.
Summarizing the conclusions in Eqs.~(\ref{coordinate_transformation_1}) - (\ref{coordinate_relation_20}), the metric perturbation in the near-zone
of the Solar system and expressed in terms of local multipoles is given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{\left(2\right)}_{00}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} h^{\left(2\right) A}_{00}\left(t,\ve{x}\right),
\label{global_metric_perturbation_A}
\\
\nonumber\\
h^{\left(2\right) A}_{00}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \frac{2\,G}{c^2}
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A \left(t\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,\frac{1}{r_A\left(t\right)}\,,
\label{global_metric_perturbation_B1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
h^{\left(2\right)}_{ij}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& h^{\left(2\right)}_{00}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)\,\delta_{ij}\,,
\label{global_metric_perturbation_B3}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
h^{\left(3\right)}_{0i}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=& \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} h^{\left(3\right) A}_{0i}\left(t,\ve{x}\right),
\label{global_metric_perturbation_B2}
\\
\nonumber\\
h^{\left(3\right) A}_{0i}\left(t,\ve{x}\right) &=&
\frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(t\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{r_A\left(t\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} + \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{iab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle} \left(t\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,\frac{1}{r_A\left(t\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,v_A^i\left(t\right) \sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A \left(t\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\frac{1}{r_A\left(t\right)}\,,
\label{global_metric_perturbation_C}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the summation in (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) and (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_B2}) runs over all massive bodies of the Solar system, while
the metric perturbations caused by one individual body are given by (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_B1}) and
(\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C}).
The dot in the first term of expression (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C}) means here derivative with respect to
global BCRS coordinate time, and the spatial derivatives in (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C}) are derivatives
in the global system and given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}=\underset{i_1...i_l}{\rm STF}\;\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i_1}}\,...\,\frac{\partial}{\partial x^{i_l}}\,,
\label{spatial_derivative}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
and
\begin{eqnarray}
r_A\left(t\right) &=& \left|\ve{x} - \ve{x}_A\left(t\right)\right|\,,
\label{spatial_distance_1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
is the distance between some field-point with spatial coordinate $\ve{x}$ and the spatial position $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$ of massive body $A$ in the global
reference system at BCRS time $t$. The metric perturbations in (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C}) have to be implemented
into the geodesic equation in (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) and, therefore, the field-point $\ve{x}$ in (\ref{spatial_distance_1}) will be identified with the
photons position $\ve{x}\left(t\right)$ according to Eq.~(\ref{geodesic_equation_3}).
In view of this fact we will use the same notation for the distance in (\ref{spatial_distance_1}) and for the absolute value of (\ref{notation_5a}).
Before going further, we underline the absence of terms proportional to $\displaystyle \frac{{v}_A^2}{c^2}\,M_L^A$,
$\displaystyle \frac{{v}_A}{c}\,\dot{M}_L^A$,
and $\displaystyle \frac{{v}_A}{c}\,S_L^A$ or higher time-derivatives
of the multipoles like $\ddot{M}_L^A$ or $\dot{S}_L^A$ in the DSX metric tensor (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C}).
Such terms are of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$ in the metric, that means they are beyond the 1.5PN approximation for lightrays.
\section{Transformation of geodesic equation}\label{Section4}
As it has been discussed above, instead of (\ref{geodesic_equation_1}) we actually may consider the simpler form of geodesic equation
in (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}), which is integrated along the unperturbed light trajectory (\ref{Introduction_1}). That means, according
to Eq.~(\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_15}), the field-point $\ve{x}$ in Eq.~(\ref{spatial_distance_1}) can be approximated by the unperturbed
photon-trajectory $\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t\right)$ in (\ref{Introduction_1}), so that we get the following expression for the vector pointing
from the center of massive body $A$ toward the spatial position of the photon at time $t$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(t\right) &=& \ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t\right) - \ve{x}_A\left(t\right)\,,
\label{spatial_distance_4}
\\
\nonumber\\
r^{\rm N}_A\left(t\right) &=& \left|\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t\right) - \ve{x}_A\left(t\right)\right|\,,
\label{spatial_distance_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the unperturbed lightray is given by Eq.~(\ref{Introduction_1}) or Eq.~(\ref{Unperturbed_Light_Trajectory}).
It especially means, that all derivatives in geodesic equation
(\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) and in the metric perturbations in (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C}) act on
the unperturbed lightray. In view of this important fact, it is highly effective to embark on a strategy, where all expressions in the geodesic equation
(\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) are expressed in terms of new parameters which fully characterize the unperturbed light trajectory from the very beginning of
the integration procedure. This strategy especially implies, that we will transform the spatial derivatives in (\ref{spatial_derivative}), the derivatives
in the geodesic equation (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}), the distance in (\ref{spatial_distance_5}) and the time-argument of the multipoles
in terms of these new parameters.
\begin{figure}[!ht]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[scale=0.15]{Diagram3}
\end{center}
\caption{A geometrical representation of the light trajectory through the Solar system (only one massive body $A$ of the $N$-body Solar system is depicted)
in terms of the new variables $\ve{\xi}$ and $\tau$. The impact vector $\ve{\xi}$ is defined by Eq.~(\ref{variable_2})
and points from the origin of global system to the point of closest approach of the
unperturbed lightray to that origin, and is time-independent. The
impact vector $\ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)$ is defined by Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_22})
and points from the origin of local system of body $A$ toward the point of closest approach
of unperturbed lightray to that origin, and is time-dependent due to the motion of the body.
Furthermore, $\ve{x} \left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)$ is the global spatial coordinate of the photon
of the light trajectory, while $\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)$ is the unperturbed lightray. The
worldline of massive body $A$ in the global system is given by $\ve{x}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)$, and
$\ve{r}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)$ points from the origin of local system toward the exact photon's position, while
$\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)$ points from the origin of local system toward the unperturbed lightray.}
\label{Diagram1}
\end{figure}
The problem and the need for introducing new variables is namely the following. The variables $t$ and $\ve{x}$ are field variables
of the gravitational field and, therefore, they are of course independent of each other. But since the integration of geodesic equation
proceeds along the lightray (cf. Eq.~(\ref{geodesic_equation_3})) these field variables have to be replaced by the photon trajectory, $\ve{x}\left(t\right)$,
and then these variables become dependent on each other. A drastical simplification is achieved in view of Eq.~(\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_15})
which states that the geodesic equation in (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) can be integrated along the unperturbed lightray.
Therefore, we are looking for new time-variable and spatial-variable, which
fully parametrize the unperturbed lightray and which are independent on each other. In this way the integration of geodesic equation becomes feasible.
Just for that reason, the following independent variables $\tau$ and $\ve{\xi}$ have been introduced
in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks,KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006,KopeikinKorobkov2005}:
\begin{eqnarray}
c\,\tau &=& \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t\right)\,,\quad
c\,\tau_0 = \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t_0\right),
\label{variable_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\xi^i &=& P^i_j\,x_{\rm N}^j\left(t\right),
\label{variable_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $P^i_j$ is the operator of projection onto the plane perpendicular to vector $\ve{\sigma}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
P^{ij} &=& \delta_{i j} - \sigma^i\,\sigma^j\,,
\label{variable_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the covariant and contravariant positions of spatial indices is insignificant: $P^i_j = P_{ij} = P^{ij}$.
According to (\ref{variable_2}), the three-vector $\ve{\xi}$ is the impact vector of the unperturbed lightray,
see also Eq.~(\ref{notation_2}). Especially, $\ve{\xi}$ is time-independent and directed from the origin of global coordinate system
toward the point of closest approach of the unperturbed light trajectory and the absolute value is denoted by $d = \left|\ve{\xi}\right|$.
For a graphical elucidation see Fig.~\ref{Diagram1}.
Another important parameter is the time of closest approach of unperturbed lightray to the origin of the global coordinate system, defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
t^{\ast} &=& t_0 - \frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{x}_0}{c}\,,
\label{time_of_closest_approach}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which differs from (\ref{time_of_closest_approach_t_0_moving_body}) which is the time of closest approach of the lightray to the origin of the local
coordinate system of some massive body A. Notice that $d t = d \tau$ for the total differentials, because $t^{\ast}$ is a constant for each particular lightray,
and $\tau = t - t^{\ast}$ and $\tau_0 = t_0 - t^{\ast}$.
With the aid of these new variables $\ve{\xi}$ and $\tau$, the mixed initial-boundary conditions
(\ref{Initial_Boundary_Condition_1}) and (\ref{Initial_Boundary_Condition_2}) take the form
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_0 &=& \ve{x}\left(\tau_0 + t^{\ast}\right),
\label{Transformed_Initial_Boundary_Condition_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{\sigma} &=& \lim_{\tau \rightarrow - \infty}\, \frac{\dot{\ve{x}}\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}\,,
\label{Transformed_Initial_Boundary_Condition_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where a dot means derivative with respect to variable $\tau$. In the new variables the interpretation of these initial-boundary
conditions remains the same: the first condition (\ref{Transformed_Initial_Boundary_Condition_1}) defines the spatial coordinates
of the photon at the moment of emission of light, while the second condition (\ref{Transformed_Initial_Boundary_Condition_2})
defines the unit-direction ($\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{\sigma} = 1$) at infinite past and infinite distance from the origin of
global coordinate system, that means at the so-called past null infinity.
The unperturbed lightray in (\ref{Unperturbed_Light_Trajectory}) transforms as follows
\cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks,KopeikinSchaefer1999,KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006,KopeikinKorobkov2005,Zschocke_1PN}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=& \ve{\xi} + c\,\tau\,\ve{\sigma}\,,
\label{variable_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
while its derivative with respect to variable $\tau$ reads $\dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)=c\,\ve{\sigma}$.
The vector pointing from the spatial position of the arbitrarily moving body toward the unperturbed lightray in these new variables transforms as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) &=& \ve{\xi} + c\,\tau\,\ve{\sigma} - \ve{x}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right),
\label{notation_15}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
with the absolute value $r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)=\left|\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)\right|$, and
the impact parameter in (\ref{notation_6}) for arbitrarily moving bodies in these new variables reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{d}_A \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) &=& \ve{\sigma} \times \left(\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) \times \ve{\sigma}\right),
\label{First_Integration_22}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
with the absolute value $d_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)=\left|\ve{d}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)\right|$.
In virtue of Eqs.~(\ref{variable_1}) and (\ref{variable_2}) two new variables, $\tau$ and $\ve{\xi}$, have been introduced
and in addition the auxiliary variable $t^{\ast}$ by Eq.~(\ref{time_of_closest_approach}). As next, the partial derivatives with respect to
space and time in the geodesic equation (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) have to be expressed in terms of these new variables. In the
pioneering investigations in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks,KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006,KopeikinKorobkov2005} it has been shown by chain rule
that these partial derivatives transform in the following way:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} \frac{\partial h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{\partial x^i}
\Bigg|_{\ve{x}=\ve{x}_{\rm N}\mbox{\normalsize $\left(t\right)$}}
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} = \left(P^{ij} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^j} + \sigma^i\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c\,\tau}
- \sigma^i \frac{\partial}{\partial c t^{\ast}}\right)
h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)}\left(\tau + t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau\,\ve{\sigma}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{Transformation_Derivative_2A}
\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} \frac{\partial h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)}{\partial c t}
\Bigg|_{\ve{x}=\ve{x}_{\rm N}\mbox{\normalsize $\left(t\right)$}}
= \frac{\partial}{\partial c t^{\ast}}\,
h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)}\left(\tau + t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau\,\ve{\sigma}\right).
\label{Transformation_Derivative_2B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Two remarks are in order to interpret these relations correctly.
First, we notice that the explicit time-dependence of the metric tensor, $h_{\alpha \beta}^{(n)}\left(t,\ve{x}\right)$, is caused by the time-dependence of
the multipoles $M_L^A\left(t\right), S_L^A\left(t\right)$ as well as by the motions of the massive bodies $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$. Therefore,
the partial time-derivative on the l.h.s. in (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2B}) acts on the multipoles
as well as on the worldlines of the massive bodies. For the same reason, the time-derivatives on the r.h.s. in (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2A})
and (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2B}) act on the multipoles, the worldlines of the massive bodies and on the unperturbed lightray.
The unperturbed lightray in (\ref{variable_5}) does, however, not depend on variable $t^{\ast}$.
Second, it should be realized, that in the left-hand side in (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2A})
and (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2B}) one has first to perform the differentiations
and afterwards the field-point $\ve{x}$ has to be substituted by the unperturbed lightray
$\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(t\right) = \ve{x}_0 + c\,\ve{\sigma}\left(t-t_0\right)$.
Opposite, in the right-hand side in (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2A}) and (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2B})
one has first to substitute $t^{\ast}+\tau$ and
$\ve{x}_{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) = \ve{\xi} + c\,\tau\,\ve{\sigma}$
and afterwards to perform the differentiations.
By means of these relations (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2A}) and (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2B}),
the geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation in (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}) transforms as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{x}^i \left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2} &=&
+ \frac{1}{2}\,P^{ij}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^j}\,h_{00}^{(2)}
- \frac{1}{2}\,\sigma^i\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau}\,h_{00}^{(2)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{1}{2} \sigma^k \sigma^l P^{ij} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^j} h_{kl}^{(2)}
+ \frac{1}{2} \sigma^i \sigma^j \sigma^k \frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau} h_{jk}^{(2)}
- \sigma^j \frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau} h_{ij}^{(2)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} - \frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau} h_{0i}^{(3)}
+ \sigma^j P^{ik} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^k}\,h_{0j}^{(3)}
+ {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right),
\label{transformed_geodesic_equation_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which agrees with Eq.~(36) in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks} and Eq.~(19) in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999}; note that $P_{ab}\,\sigma^b = 0$.
The double-dot on the left-hand side in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_A}) means twice of the total differential with respect to the new variable
$\tau$. Subject to relation (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_B3}), the geodesic equation in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_A}) simplifies further:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{x}^i \left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2} &=&
P^{ij} \frac{\partial h_{00}^{(2)}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma}\right)}{\partial \xi^j}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} - \sigma^i \frac{\partial h_{00}^{(2)}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma}\right)}{\partial c \tau}
- \frac{\partial h_{0i}^{(3)}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma}\right)}{\partial c \tau}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} + \sigma^j P^{ik} \frac{\partial h_{0j}^{(3)}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma}\right)}{\partial \xi^k}
+ {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right).
\label{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Let us note that the first two terms are of order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ and agree with Eq.~(95) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}, while the last two terms
are of order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$. This fact implies that if one integrates the geodesic equation (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}) then the
first two terms in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}) give rise to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ as well as
to terms of order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$, while the last two terms generate only terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$.
The mathematical structure of (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}) is considerably simpler than the original form in (\ref{geodesic_equation_5}),
but of more decisive importance in the integration procedure is the fact that the time-variable $\tau$ and the space-variable $\ve{\xi}$ are
independent of each other.
As final step in the transformation, the metric perturbations in (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C}) have to
be transformed in terms of these new variables $\ve{\xi}$ and $\tau$. One obtains
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{\left(2\right)}_{00}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau\,\ve{\sigma} \right) &=&
\sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} h^{\left(2\right) A}_{00}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
with
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{\left(2\right) A}_{00}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau\,\ve{\sigma}\right) &=& + \frac{2\,G}{c^2}
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A \left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_B1}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
and
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{\left(3\right)}_{0i}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau\,\ve{\sigma}\right) &=&
\sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} h^{\left(3\right) A}_{0i}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_B2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
with
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
h^{\left(3\right) A}_{0i}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\ve{\xi} + c \tau\,\ve{\sigma}\right) &=&
+ \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{iab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,v_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_C}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
where the sum in (\ref{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_A}) and (\ref{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_B2}) runs over all massive bodies of the
Solar system. The expressions in Eqs.~(\ref{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_B1}) and (\ref{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_C}) contain the STF
spatial derivative operation $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}$,
which also has to be expressed in terms of these new variables. That issue is considered in detail in appendix \ref{Appendix_Partial_Derivative} and yields
the following expression for the STF partial derivative operation in Eqs.~(\ref{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_B1})
and (\ref{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_C}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{\langle L \rangle} &=& \underset{i_1 ... i_l}{\rm STF}\,\sum\limits_{p=0}^{l} \frac{l!}{\left(l-p\right)!\;p!}\;
\sum\limits_{q=0}^{p} \left(-1\right)^{q}\frac{p!}{\left(p-q\right)!\;q!}\;
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.2cm} \times\;\sigma^{i_1}\,...\,\sigma^{i_p}\;
P^{i_{p+1}\,j_{p+1}}\;...\;P^{i_l\,j_l}\;
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.2cm} \times\;\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^{j_{p+1}}}\;...\;
\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^{j_{l}}}\;
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial c\,\tau}\right)^{p-q}
\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial c\,t^{\ast}}\right)^q\,.
\label{Transformation_Derivative_1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
These expressions in (\ref{transformed_global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}) have to be inserted into the
geodesic equation (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}), which finally yields the geodesic equation for lightrays
which propagate in the gravitational field of one arbitrarily moving body $A$ in terms of these new variables $\tau$ and $\ve{\xi}$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{\ve{x}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2} &=& \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \left[\frac{\ddot{\ve{x}}^{\cal M}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2}
+ \frac{\ddot{\ve{x}}^{\cal S}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2}\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + {\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)\,,
\label{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the indices ${\cal M}$ and ${\cal S}$ stand for mass-multipole and spin-multipole component, respectively.
That means, the linearity of geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation allows simply to sum over all $N$ arbitrarily moving bodies just straight away.
The contributions due to the mass-multipole structure of one body $A$ is given by
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{x}^{i\;{\cal M}}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2} &=& + \frac{2\,G}{c^2}\, P^{ij}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^j}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{2\,G}{c^2}\,\sigma^i\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau}\,
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau}\,v_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j P^{ik} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^k}\,
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle j L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j P^{ik} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^k}\,
v_A^j\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\,
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
and the contribution due to the spin-multipole structure of one body $A$ reads
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\ddot{x}^{i\;{\cal S}}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2} &=&
- \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau}\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{iab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j P^{ik} \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^k}\,
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{jab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{transformed_geodesic_equation_C2}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
where the derivative operator is given by (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}).
By Eqs.~(\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}) - (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C2}) the transformation of
geodesic equation in 1.5PN approximation in terms of these new variables $\tau$ and $\ve{\xi}$ has been accomplished, which describes the propagation of
a light-signal through the field of $N$ massive bodies in arbitrary motion and having arbitrary shape and inner structure and which can also rotate
arbitrarily. Before we proceed further, three comments should be in order:
$\left({\bf i}\right)$ First, let us note that the spatial derivative operator in (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}) depends on time-variables $\tau$
and $t^{\ast}$, but in such a way that it does not act on time-dependent multipoles or the velocity of the body, that means:
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_{\langle L \rangle} M^A_{\langle L \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=& 0\,,
\label{Transformation_Derivative_20}
\\
\nonumber\\
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,S^A_{\langle L \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=& 0\,,
\label{Transformation_Derivative_25}
\\
\nonumber\\
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,\ve{v}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=& 0\,,
\label{Transformation_Derivative_26}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
because the construction of the derivative operator in (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}) is such that the derivatives with respect to variable $\tau$
cancel exactly the derivatives with respect to $t^{\ast}$ in all those functions which depend on the combination $\tau+t^{\ast}$.
But of course $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,r_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \neq 0$.
$\left({\bf ii}\right)$ Second, let us also remark that in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}) the STF notation for the
derivative operator has been kept. But we recall the following relation, which is a specific example of the more general relation Eq.~(A1)
in \cite{Hartmann_Soffel_Kioustelidis}:
\begin{eqnarray}
M^A_{\langle L \rangle}\,\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)} &=&
M^A_{\langle L \rangle}\,\partial_{L}\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{STF_relation_5}
\\
\nonumber\\
M^A_{\langle i L-1\rangle}\,\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle}\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)} &=&
M^A_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\,\partial_{L-1}\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,.
\nonumber\\
\label{STF_relation_6}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The relation in (\ref{STF_relation_5}) has allowed to replace the STF derivative operator $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}$ by $\partial_{L}$
in Eqs.~(100) - (102) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}. Here, in view of relation (\ref{STF_relation_5}) and (\ref{STF_relation_6})
we may also replace the STF derivative operator $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}$ by $\partial_{L}$ in all terms in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}),
and correspondingly in the first integral in (\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}),
as well as in the second in (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}).
On the other side, such replacement is not possible for the spin-multipole terms in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C2}), because of
\begin{eqnarray}
S^A_{\langle b L-1\rangle} \partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)} &\neq&
S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle} \partial_{a L-1} \frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,.
\nonumber\\
\label{STF_relation_7}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
$\left({\bf iii}\right)$ Third, it should also be mentioned that in the limit of one massive body at rest with the origin of the coordinate-system
located at the center-of-mass and with time-independent multipoles then the geodesic equation
(\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}) - (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C2}) agrees with the geodesic equation given in \cite{Kopeikin1997}, notice
the comment in \cite{Communication1}.
\section{First integration of geodesic equation}\label{First_Integration}
The coordinate velocity of the photon is determined by the first integral of geodesic equation (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}).
In terms of the new variables we may separate the first integral of
geodesic equation (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}) into 1PN and 1.5PN terms as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN} \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c} &=& \ve{\sigma}
+ \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}\,.
\label{first_integral_geodesic_equation_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
That means, according to (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}) we may consider the light-propagation in the field of one arbitrarily moving body $A$
and finally we have to build the sum over all massive bodies $A=1,...,N$ in order to obtain the light trajectory in the entire Solar system.
Furthermore, according to Eq.~(\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}) we split these expressions into mass-multipole terms and
spin-multipole contributions as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&&\hspace{-0.5cm} \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1PN}^A \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}
\!=\! \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}\,,
\label{first_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}
\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}^A \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c} \!=\!
\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}
\!+\! \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{A\,{\cal S}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{first_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where we have taken into account that in (\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}) there are no spin-multipoles because they are
of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$, hence they do appear only in (\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}).
We shall consider mass-multipole and spin-multipoles in the next both subsections separately.
\subsection{First integration for mass-multipoles}\label{First_Integration_Mass}
The first integral of geodesic equation (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}) for the mass-multipole component of one massive body $A$ reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}
+ \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\,{\cal M}} \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& = \int\limits_{-\infty}^{\tau}\,d c\tau^{\prime}\,\frac{\ddot{\ve{x}}^{\cal M}_A\left(\tau^{\prime} + t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2}\,,
\label{Additional_Equation_A}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the integrand up to the required order is given by Eq.~(\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}). Let us underline that the integration of the
first expression on the r.h.s. in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}) yields terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ as well as
terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$. For that reason, the integral in (\ref{Additional_Equation_A}) is written as sum of 1PN and 1.5PN terms.
In particular, for the integration of geodesic equation the following rules are important
(cf. Eqs.~(4.9) and (4.10) in \cite{KopeikinKorobkovPolnarev2006} or Eqs.~(4.38) and (4.39) in \cite{KopeikinKorobkov2005}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\int d c \tau^{\prime}\;\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau^{\prime}}\,F\left(\tau^{\prime}, \ve{\xi}\right) &=& F\left(\tau^{\prime}, \ve{\xi}\right)
+ C\left(\ve{\xi}\right),
\label{Integration_Rule_A}
\\
\nonumber\\
\int d c \tau^{\prime}\;\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^i}\,F\left(\tau^{\prime},\ve{\xi}\right) &=& \frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^i} \int d c \tau^{\prime}\,
F\left(\tau^{\prime}, \ve{\xi}\right),
\label{Integration_Rule_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the function $C\left(\ve{\xi}\right)$ in (\ref{Integration_Rule_A}) depends only on variable $\ve{\xi}$, thence disappears in case of definite integrals.
The rule in (\ref{Integration_Rule_A}) and (\ref{Integration_Rule_B}) are valid if one integrates along the unperturbed light trajectory, where the derivative
with respect to integration variable $c\,\tau^{\prime}$ acts like a total derivative; see also the first comment below Eq.~(\ref{Transformation_Derivative_2B})
and the corresponding explanations made by Eq.~(1.19) - (1.23) in \cite{KopeikinKorobkov2005}.
The integration of the first expression
on the r.h.s. in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}) is shown in more detail in appendix \ref{Integral_1}, while in view of relation (\ref{Integration_Rule_A})
the integrals of the second, third, and fourth expression in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}) are straightforward.
The fifth term in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}) can be integrated by parts
using relation (\ref{Relation_1}) and is shown in more detail in appendix \ref{Integral_2}, while the integration of the sixth term goes very similar.
Altogether, for the 1PN terms one obtains:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{x}^{i\;{\cal M}}_{A\;{\rm 1PN}} \left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c} &=&
- \frac{2\,G}{c^2}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{2\,G}{c^2}\,\sigma^i
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,\dot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\ddot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A^2}{c^2} M_L^A\right).
\label{First_Integration_9}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
In the first term on the r.h.s. in (\ref{First_Integration_9}) we have used relation (\ref{Relation_2}).
For the 1.5PN terms one obtains:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{x}^{i\;{\cal M}}_{A\;{\rm 1.5PN}} \left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c} &=&
+ \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} + \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,
\ve{\sigma} \cdot \ve{v}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\, P^{ij}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^j}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\frac{\ve{v}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \cdot \ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma} \cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle} \frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
+ \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,v_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle j L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle}\,
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,\dot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\ddot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A^2}{c^2} M_L^A\right),
\label{First_Integration_10}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
where we recall $\dot{M}_A = 0$.
In the second and sixth term on the r.h.s. in (\ref{First_Integration_10}) we have used (\ref{Relation_2}), while in the first term
on the r.h.s. in (\ref{First_Integration_10}) we have used relation (\ref{Relation_3}).
For the third term in (\ref{First_Integration_10}) one might want to use relation (\ref{Relation_4}), but
actually it does not simplify that expression significantly.
The derivative operator $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}$ in (\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}) in terms of the
new variables $\ve{\xi}$, $\tau$, $t^{\ast}$ is given by (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}).
Let us recall, that in 1PN approximation the derivative operator in Eq.~(\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}) can be replaced by the expression
in (\ref{Simplified_Differentialoperator}), because the derivatives with respect to variable $t^{\ast}$ produce terms of the order
${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$; see also text below Eq.~(\ref{Appendix_Partial_Derivative_10}). Then, keeping in mind relation (\ref{STF_relation_5}),
one may easily show that the 1PN expression in Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_9}) agrees with Eq.~(111) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}.
In \cite{Zschocke_1PN} it has been demonstrated that in case of bodies at rest ($\ve{v}_A=0$) having time-independent
mass-multipoles and located at the origin of coordinate system ($\ve{x}_A=0$) our result in (\ref{First_Integration_9})
agrees with the time-derivative of Eqs.~(33) and (36) in \cite{Kopeikin1997}. It should also be noticed that the derivative of (\ref{First_Integration_10})
with respect to variable $c\tau$ yields the expression in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C1}).
\subsection{First integration for spin-multipoles}\label{First_Integration_Spin}
The first integral of geodesic equation (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}) for the spin-multipole component of one massive body $A$ reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\;{\cal S}} \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right)}{c} &=&
\int\limits_{-\infty}^{\tau}\,d c\tau^{\prime}\,\frac{\ddot{\ve{x}}^{\cal S}_A\left(\tau^{\prime} + t^{\ast}\right)}{c^2}\,,
\label{Additional_Equation_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the integrand up to the required order is given by Eq.~(\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C2}). The integration in (\ref{Additional_Equation_B}) can be
performed straightforward and one obtains:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{x}^{i\;{\cal S}}_{A\;{\rm 1.5PN}} \left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{c} &=&
- \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{iab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{jab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} + {\cal O}\left(\dot{S}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,S_L^A\right).
\label{First_Integration_15}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
Let us remark that the second term in (\ref{First_Integration_15}) is obtained by integration by parts, using (\ref{Relation_1})
and afterwards making use of relation (\ref{Relation_2}).
Note that the derivative operator $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}$ in terms of the new variables $\ve{\xi}$, $\tau$, $t^{\ast}$
is given by (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}). In the appendix \ref{Appendix_Spin} it is shown that
in the limit of bodies at rest and stationary spin-multipoles our result in (\ref{First_Integration_15})
agrees with Eqs.~(32) and (37) in \cite{Kopeikin1997}, up to an overall sign which has been clarified \cite{Communication1}. We also note that
the derivative of (\ref{First_Integration_15}) with respect to variable $c\tau$ yields the expression in (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C2}).
Let us remark that neglecting terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(\ddot{M}_L^A\right)$,
$\displaystyle {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,\dot{M}_L^A\right)$ and $\displaystyle {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A^2}{c^2}\,M_L^A\right)$
in Eqs.~(\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}),
and neglecting terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(\dot{S}_L^A\right)$ and $\displaystyle {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,S_L^A\right)$
in Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_15})
is consistent with the fact that the DSX metric in Eqs.~(\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C})
does also not contain such terms because they are beyond 1.5PN approximation.
\section{Second integration of geodesic equation}\label{Second_Integration}
The light trajectory of the photon is determined by the second integration of geodesic equation (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_B}),
and can be written as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN} \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) &=& \ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma}
+ \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \Delta \ve{x}^A_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right)
\nonumber\\
&& + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \Delta \ve{x}^A_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}, \tau_0+t^{\ast}\right),
\label{second_integral_geodesic_equation}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the sum runs over all massive bodies $A=1,...,N$ of the Solar system.
Like in the case of first integration, we split these expressions into mass-multipole terms and spin-multipole contributions as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^A \left(\tau + t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right)
&=& \Delta \ve{x}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{second_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}
\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^A \left(\tau + t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right) &=&
\Delta \ve{x}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} + \Delta \ve{x}^{A\,{\cal S}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right),
\label{second_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where in (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}) there are no spin-multipoles because they are terms
of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$ and consequently they do appear only in (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}).
We will consider the mass-multipole and the spin-multipole components separately.
\subsection{Second integration for mass-multipoles}\label{Second_Integration_Mass}
The mass-multipole terms in (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}) and (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}) read
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Delta \ve{x}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right)
+ \Delta \ve{x}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau + t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\!=\! \int\limits_{\tau_0}^{\tau} d c\tau^{\prime} \left[\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{A\,{\cal M}}_{{\rm 1PN}}\left(\tau^{\prime}+t^{\ast}\right)}{c}
\!+\! \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{{A\,\cal M}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau^{\prime}+t^{\ast}\right)}{c}\right],
\nonumber\\
\label{Second_Integration_10}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the first and second integrand on the r.h.s. in (\ref{Second_Integration_10}) is given by Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}),
respectively. Let us underline, that the integration of the first integrand yields terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ as well as of the order
${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$. Therefore, the integral in (\ref{Second_Integration_10}) is written as sum of 1PN and 1.5PN terms, while after the integration
one may separate the 1PN and 1.5PN terms. Inserting (\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}) into (\ref{Second_Integration_10}) yields
all in all $8$ integrals $I_3\,...\,I_{10}$.
In favor of clear arrangement, each of these integrals is considered separately in the appendix \ref{Appendix_Integrals_Mass_Multipoles},
and their solutions are given by Eqs.~(\ref{Integral_A_15}), (\ref{Integral_B_10}), (\ref{Integral_C_15}), (\ref{Integral_D_10}),
(\ref{Integral_E_10}), (\ref{Integral_F_10}), (\ref{Integral_G_10}), (\ref{Integral_H_10}).
Altogether, for the mass-multipole terms to order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ we obtain:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \ve{x}^{{A\,\cal M}}_{{\rm 1PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right) &=& \Delta \ve{x}^{{A\,\cal M}}_{{\rm 1PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
- \Delta \ve{x}^{{A\,\cal M}}_{{\rm 1PN}}\left(\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right),
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta x^{i\,{\cal M}}_{A\;{\rm 1PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=&
- \frac{2\,G}{c^2}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\frac{d^i_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{2\,G}{c^2}\,\sigma^i\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,\dot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\ddot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A^2}{c^2} M_L^A\right).
\label{Second_Integration_Mass_4}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
For the mass-multipole terms to order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$ one obtains:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta \ve{x}^{{A\,\cal M}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right) &=& \Delta \ve{x}^{{A\,\cal M}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
- \Delta \ve{x}^{{A\,\cal M}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right),
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta x^{i\,{\cal M}}_{A\;{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=& + \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,P^{ij}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^j}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\ve{v}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \cdot \ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma} \cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} + \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,P^{ij}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^j}\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\ve{v}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \cdot \ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)-\ve{\sigma} \cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^i
\sum\limits_{l = 1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\,
\dot{M}_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}
\bigg[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) + \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]\bigg]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} + \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^i\,\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\;
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} + \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^i\,
\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)
\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,
\frac{\ve{v}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\cdot\ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} + \frac{4\,G}{c^3}
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle i L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle}
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,v_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\sum\limits_{l = 0}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}
M_{\langle L \rangle}^A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle L \rangle}\,
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j\,
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l}{l!}\;\dot{M}^A_{\langle j L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\,
\partial_{\langle L-1 \rangle}
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-3.0cm} + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,\dot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\ddot{M}_L^A\right) + {\cal O} \left(\frac{v_A^2}{c^2}\,M_L^A\right).
\label{Second_Integration_Mass_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
Notice, that the derivative operator $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}$ in (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}) in terms of the
new variables $\ve{\xi}$, $\tau$, $t^{\ast}$ is given by (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}).
One may demonstrate, that (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}) are
consistent with (\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}). That means,
the derivative of (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}) with respect to variable $\tau$ coincides with the expressions
in (\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}) up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$.
For such a proof one has to use the relations (\ref{Relation_1}) and (\ref{Integral_A_20}) and one must take into account (\ref{time_derivative_impact_vector})
and (\ref{time_derivative_mass_multipoles}).
The 1PN solution in Eq.~(\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) coincides with Eq.~(137) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}. Recall that in 1PN approximation the
derivative operator in Eq.~(\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}) can be replaced by the simplified expression in Eq.~(\ref{Simplified_Differentialoperator})
(cf. Eq.~(101) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}), because derivatives with respect to variable $t^{\ast}$ generate terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-3}\right)$;
see also comments below Eq.~(\ref{Appendix_Partial_Derivative_10}). Furthermore, in \cite{Zschocke_1PN} it has already been shown that in case of bodies at rest
and located at the origin of coordinate system our result in (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) agrees with Eqs.~(33) and (36) in \cite{Kopeikin1997}.
\subsection{Second integration for spin-multipoles}\label{Second_Integration_Spin}
The spin-multipole terms in (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}) read
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\ve{x}^{{A\,\cal S}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right) &=&
\int\limits_{\tau_0}^{\tau}\,d c\tau^{\prime}\,\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\cal S}_A\left(\tau^{\prime}+t^{\ast}\right)}{c}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{Second_Integration_15}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the integrand in (\ref{Second_Integration_15}) is given by the expressions in Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_15}).
The second expression on the r.h.s. in Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_15}) is rewritten by means of relation (\ref{Relation_2}) and then, by means
of relations (\ref{Appendix_Integral_I1_25}) and (\ref{Integral_A_6}), we may integrate by parts. We obtain the following solution:
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\ve{x}^{{A\,\cal S}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast},\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right) &=&
\Delta\ve{x}^{{A\,\cal S}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \Delta\ve{x}^{{A\,\cal S}}_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right),
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta x^{i\,{\cal S}}_{A\,{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=&
+ \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{iab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{4\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j
\sum\limits_{l=1}^{\infty} \frac{\left(-1\right)^l\;l}{\left(l + 1 \right)!}\,
\epsilon_{jab}\,S^A_{\langle b L-1 \rangle}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_{\langle a L-1 \rangle}\,
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + {\cal O}\left(\dot{S}_L^A\right) + {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,S_L^A\right),
\label{Second_Integration_Spin_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
where for the second expression we also have used relation (\ref{Relation_3}).
The derivative operator $\partial_{\langle L \rangle}$ in terms of the new variables $\ve{\xi}$, $\tau$, $t^{\ast}$
is given by (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}).
One may easily check, that (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}) is consistent with (\ref{First_Integration_15}), in the sense that
the derivative of (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}) with respect to variable $\tau$ just yields the expression in (\ref{First_Integration_15})
up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$. For that proof
simply apply the relations (\ref{Relation_1}) and (\ref{Integral_A_20}) and take into account (\ref{time_derivative_impact_vector}).
Furthermore, in appendix \ref{Appendix_Spin} it is shown that
in the limit of bodies at rest and time-independent spin-multipoles our result in (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5})
agrees with Eqs.~(33) and (38) in \cite{Kopeikin1997}, up to an overall sign which has been clarified \cite{Communication1}.
We underline again that neglecting terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(\ddot{M}_L^A\right)$,
$\displaystyle {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,\dot{M}_L^A\right)$ and $\displaystyle {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A^2}{c^2}\,M_L^A\right)$
in Eqs.~(\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}),
and the neglecting terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(\dot{S}_L^A\right)$ and $\displaystyle {\cal O}\left(\frac{v_A}{c}\,S_L^A\right)$
in Eq.~(\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}) is in coincidence with the DSX metric in Eqs.~(\ref{global_metric_perturbation_A}) - (\ref{global_metric_perturbation_C})
where such terms do not occur because they are beyond 1.5PN approximation.
\section{Light trajectory in the field of spin-dipoles}\label{Section5}
In our previous investigation \cite{Zschocke_1PN} the light trajectory in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving mass-monopoles, mass-dipoles, and
mass-quadrupoles has been considered as specific examples of the general solution, see Eqs.~(139), (140), and (143) - (148) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}, respectively.
Here we will consider the light trajectory in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving spin-dipoles as specific example of the general solution.
It may also serve as a further instructive example about how the presented approach runs.
\subsection{Light trajectory in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving spin-dipoles}
The rotational motion of a real body like the Sun, Earth, or Jupiter, is a highly complicated physical subject, because these bodies are not rigid monopoles
and the rotational motion can therefore not be described by a simple spin-dipole, but must
be expressed by the full set of time-dependent spin-multipoles $S_L^A\left(t\right)$ with $l=1,2,3,...$. On the other side, the main impact among all
spin-multipoles on light deflection is of course given by the first summand in (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}) which is proportional to the
intrinsic spin vector $\ve{S}_A\left(t\right)$ of body $A$ and which is called spin-dipole. It is also well-known that for sub-micro-arcsecond astrometry
the light trajectory in the field of a spin-dipole is of specific importance, because the
light deflection caused by the spin-dipole of a body at rest amounts to be $0.7\,\mu{\rm as}$ for grazing rays at the Sun,
$0.2\,\mu{\rm as}$ for grazing rays at Jupiter, and $0.04\,\mu{\rm as}$ for grazing rays at Saturn \cite{Klioner2003a,Klioner1991}.
Therefore, we will consider the light trajectory in the field of one arbitrarily moving body with time-dependent spin-dipole in more detail in this section.
According to Eq.~(\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation}) with (\ref{Second_Integration_15}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}),
the light trajectory in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving spin-dipoles reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_{\rm S} \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) &=& \ve{\xi} + c\,\tau\,\ve{\sigma}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \bigg(\Delta \ve{x}_A^{\rm S}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)- \Delta \ve{x}_A^{\rm S}\left(\tau_0+t^{\ast}\right)\bigg),
\label{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta x_A^{i\;{\rm S}}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=&
- \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\epsilon_{iab}\,S^A_b\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_a\,
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\sigma^j\,\epsilon_{jab}\,S^A_b\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;\partial_a\,
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,.
\label{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_10}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
The derivative operator in terms of the variables $\ve{\xi},\tau,t^{\ast}$ is given by (\ref{Transformation_Derivative_1}), which
for one index reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\partial_a &=& P^{ak}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^k} + \sigma^a\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau} - \sigma^a\,\frac{\partial}{\partial c t^{\ast}}\,.
\label{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_15}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
By inserting (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_15}) into (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_10}), we encounter the following individual terms:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P^{ak}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^k}\,\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& = \frac{d_A^a\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\,\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_20}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sigma^a\left(\frac{\partial}{\partial c \tau} - \frac{\partial}{\partial c t^{\ast}}\right)
\ln \left[r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& = - \frac{\sigma^a}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_25}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
and
\begin{eqnarray}
&& P^{ak}\,\frac{\partial}{\partial \xi^k}\,
\frac{d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& = - \frac{d_A^a\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\;d_A^i\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
{\left(r_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right)^2}\,
\frac{1}{r_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \;\;\;\; + \frac{P^{ai}}{r_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_30}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
and we recall $\epsilon_{jab}\,\sigma^a\,\sigma^j =0$. Inserting (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_20}) - (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_30})
into (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_10}) yields
\begin{widetext}
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\ve{x}_A^{\rm S}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) &=&
+ \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,
\,\frac{\ve{S}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \times \ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\;
\frac{1}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
+ \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\frac{\ve{\sigma} \times \ve{S}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r^{\rm N}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,
\frac{\ve{\sigma} \cdot \left(\ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \times \ve{S}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right)}
{\left(r_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)\right)^2}\,
\frac{\ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}{r_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
- \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,
\frac{\ve{\sigma} \times \ve{S}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}
{r_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot \ve{r}_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right)}\,,
\label{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}
\end{eqnarray}
\end{widetext}
\noindent
where the notation $\epsilon_{ijk}\,a_j\,b_k = \left(\ve{a} \times \ve{b}\right)^i$ has been used. The complete expression for the light trajectory
in 1.5PN approximation in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving and time-dependent intrinsic spin-dipoles is finally obtained by
inserting (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}) into (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_5}).
As mentioned in the introductory section,
in \cite{KopeikinMashhoon2002} the light trajectory in post-Minkowskian approximation in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving pointlike spin-dipoles
has been determined. That means, the pointlike objects in \cite{KopeikinMashhoon2002} may even be in ultra-relativistic motion, while our 1.5PN solution
in (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}) is valid for extended bodies with spin-dipole but in slow-motion along arbitrary worldlines.
In appendix \ref{Solution_Kopeikin_Mashhoon} it is shown that our result in (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}) agrees with the results in
\cite{KopeikinMashhoon2002} for the light trajectory up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$.
One may also verify that in the limit of time-independent spin-dipoles, $\ve{S}_A = {\rm const}$, and in the limit of uniform motion,
$\ve{v}_A = {\rm const}$, our result in (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}) agrees with Eq.~(26) in \cite{Deng_2015} in GR,
noticing that constant terms cancel each other according to Eq.~(\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_5}).
\subsection{Light trajectory in the field of $N$ bodies at rest with spin-dipole}
In this section we will consider the case of light propagation in the field of $N$ spin-dipoles at rest and compare with results in the literature.
For time-independent spin-dipole $\ve{S}_A = {\rm const.}$ and for one body at rest located at $\ve{x}_A = {\rm const.}$ in the global reference system
we have $\ve{r}_{\rm A}^{\rm N}\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \rightarrow \ve{r}_{\rm A}^{\rm N} = \ve{\xi} + c\,\tau\,\ve{\sigma} - \ve{x}_A$ and
$\ve{d}_A\left(\tau+t^{\ast}\right) \rightarrow \ve{d}_A = \ve{r}_A^{\rm N} - \ve{\sigma}\,\left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\right)$
where $d_A$ is the time-independent impact vector defined by Eq.~(\ref{notation_2}).
From (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_5}) we obtain the light trajectory in the field of $N$ bodies at rest with time-independent spin-dipoles:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{x}_{\rm S} \left(\tau + t^{\ast}\right) &=& \ve{\xi} + c\,\tau\,\ve{\sigma}
+ \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \bigg(\Delta \ve{x}_A^{\rm S}\left(\tau\right)- \Delta \ve{x}_A^{\rm S}\left(\tau_0\right)\bigg),
\nonumber\\
\label{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where from (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}) we obtain the following expression for the correction-term:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\ve{x}_A^{\rm S}\left(\tau\right) &=& \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\frac{\ve{S}_A \times \ve{d}_A}{d_A^2}\,\frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\rm N}}{r_A^{\rm N}}
+ \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\frac{\ve{\sigma} \times \ve{S}_A}{r_A^{\rm N}}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\ve{\sigma} \cdot \left(\ve{d}_A \times \ve{S}_A\right) \,\frac{\ve{d}_A}{d_A^4}\,
\frac{\left(r_A^{\rm N} + \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\right)^2}{r_A^{\rm N}}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\ve{\sigma} \times \ve{S}_A\;\frac{r_A^{\rm N} + \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\rm N}}{d_A^2}\,,
\label{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_10}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where a time-independent term $\displaystyle \frac{2\,G}{c^3}\,\frac{\ve{S}_A \times \ve{d}_A}{d_A^2} = {\rm const.}$ has been omitted
because this term will be cancelled in view of (\ref{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_5}). The time-dependence of (\ref{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_5})
and (\ref{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_10}) is solely caused by the time-dependence of the unperturbed lightray in (\ref{variable_5}).
In order to obtain the form of the expression in (\ref{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_10}) we have also used
$d_A^2 = \left(r_A^{\rm N} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\right)\,\left(r_A^{\rm N} + \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\rm N}\right)$.
The expression in (\ref{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_5}) - (\ref{Light_Trajectory_Spin_At_Rest_10}) agrees with the solution in Eq.~(56)
in \cite{Klioner1991}, where the trajectory of a photon as function of time has been determined in the field of
$N$ bodies at rest in post-Newtonian approximation for the lightrays. It is
straightforward to show that the time-derivative $\partial_{c\,\tau}\Delta\ve{x}_A^{\rm S}\left(\tau\right)$ coincides with Eq.~(59) in \cite{Klioner1991}.
\section{Time-delay}\label{Observable_Effects_Time_Delay}
In the previous sections we have determined the light trajectory of a light-signal which propagates through the metric field
of the Solar system, that means through the gravitational field of $N$ arbitrarily moving massive bodies. However, the
light trajectory is not an observable at all. In real astrometric measurements one of the most important observable quantity
concerns the time delay of some light-signal propagating in the Solar system.
The considerations here are similar to what has been discussed in \cite{Zschocke_1PN} about observable effects, but with the
extension to 1.5PN approximation.
Especially, we will assume that the light source is located at $\ve{x}_0 = \ve{x}\left(t_0\right)$ where $t_0$ is the moment of
emission of the light-signal, and the observer is located at $\ve{x}_1 = \ve{x}\left(t_1\right)$ where $t_1$ is the moment of reception of the
light-signal by the observer. Furthermore, both the light source and the observer are assumed to be at rest with respect
to the global reference system.
In the pioneering work \cite{Shapiro1}, {\it Shapiro} has considered the general-relativistic effect of time delay of a light-signal which propagates
through the gravitational field of a static and spherically symmetric massive body. Especially, {\it Shapiro} has drawn the attention to the fact about
the measurability of that additional test of relativity by radar technology. In fact, the Shapiro time delay was discovered soon afterwards \cite{Shapiro2}.
It might be useful to realize that the reason for the time delay is not only laying upon the fact that the light-trajectory is curved but also because the
speed of a photon is decelerated in the gravitational field of a monopole at rest. While the classical Shapiro effect is originally related to a time delay of a
light-signal in the monopole-field, it became a matter of common knowledge to call the time delay of a light-signal in any gravitational field just Shapiro effect.
For describing the Shapiro-effect, we introduce a vector pointing from the light source at the moment of emission toward the observer at the moment of reception,
which in terms of the new variables reads
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{R} &=& \ve{x}\left(\tau_1 + t^{\ast}\right) - \ve{x}\left(\tau_0 + t^{\ast}\right)\,,
\label{Shapiro_5}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{k} &=& \frac{\ve{R}}{R}\,,
\label{Shapiro_10}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\ve{k}$ is just the corresponding unit vector with $ R = \left|\ve{R}\right|$ being the absolute value of $\ve{R}$. Using very similar steps
as in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999_Gwinn_Eubanks}, we obtain from Eq.~(\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation}) the following expression for the time delay
in the gravitational field of $N$ arbitrarily moving massive bodies in 1.5PN approximation that means up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
c \left(\tau_1 - \tau_0 \right) &=& R + \Delta c \tau_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta c \tau_{\rm 1.5PN}\,,
\label{Shapiro_15}
\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta c \tau_{\rm 1PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k}\cdot\left[\Delta\ve{x}^A_{{\rm 1PN}}\left(\tau_1 + t^{\ast}, \tau_0 + t^{\ast}\right)\right],
\nonumber\\
\label{Shapiro_15_A}
\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta c \tau_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \cdot \left[\Delta \ve{x}^A_{{\rm 1.5PN}}\left(\tau_1 + t^{\ast}, \tau_0 + t^{\ast}\right)\right],
\nonumber\\
\label{Shapiro_15_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the sum runs over all massive bodies and the expressions for $\Delta \ve{x}^A_{{\rm 1PN}}$ and $\Delta \ve{x}^A_{{\rm 1.5PN}}$ are given by
Eqs.~(\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}) and (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}) with (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}),
(\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}), respectively.
The 1.5PN relation (\ref{Shapiro_15}) generalizes the 1PN relation (154) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}.
We will consider the time delay in (\ref{Shapiro_15}) of a light-signal caused by $N$ arbitrarily moving bodies in some more detail, but will restrict ourselves
on the case of $N$ moving bodies with monopole-structure (M) , quadrupole-structure ($J_2$), and spin-dipole-structure (S).
Higher multipoles are so tiny that they are negligible in the time delay effect. These first terms in the general formula (\ref{Shapiro_15}) read
\begin{eqnarray}
c \left(t_1 - t_0 \right) &=& R + \Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta\,c t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{0.35cm} + \Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN} + \Delta\,c t^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN}\,,
\label{Shapiro_Delay}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which are instructive examples and do allow for a cross-check with known results in the literature.
Furthermore, as mentioned in the introductory section, there are several proposals to ESA for future space-based missions,
like ASTROD \cite{Astrod1,Astrod2}, LATOR \cite{Lator1,Lator2}, ODYSSEY \cite{Odyssey}, SAGAS \cite{Sagas}, TIPO \cite{TIPO},
which aim at time-transfer accuracies of two separated clocks within the Solar system of up to $10\,{\rm ps}$. The question arises about the ability of
such extremely-precise astrometry missions, especially designed for tests of relativity in the Solar system, to detect some 1.5PN terms in the
Shapiro effect which will be discussed in this section.
In general, the light-signal will be assumed to be emitted at a space-time point with
BCRS coordinates $\ve{x}_0,t_0$ and received by an observer at a space-time point with BCRS coordinates $\ve{x}_1,t_1$.
We also introduce the following notations: $\ve{r}^{\,0}_A = \ve{x}_0 - \ve{x}_A\left(t_0\right)$, $\ve{r}^{\,1}_A = \ve{x}_1 - \ve{x}_A\left(t_1\right)$,
$R = \left|\ve{x}_0 - \ve{x}_1\right|$, $\ve{v}^{\,0}_A = \ve{v}_A\left(t_0\right)$, $\ve{v}^{\,1}_A = \ve{v}_A\left(t_1\right)$,
$\ve{d}_A^{\,0} = \ve{d}_A\left(t_0\right)$,
$\ve{d}_A^{\,1} = \ve{d}_A\left(t_1\right)$. Furthermore, we notice that
$\ve{\sigma} = \ve{k} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right)$ according to Eq.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_15}) given below, that means we may replace the vector
$\ve{\sigma}$ in favor of vector $\ve{k}$ whenever it is reasonable.
\subsection{Moving mass-monopole}\label{Shapiro_Monopoles}
We will consider the time delay in (\ref{Shapiro_15}) of a light-signal caused by an arbitrarily moving monopole.
\subsubsection{In terms of coordinate time}
From Eqs.~(\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}) we obtain in the field of arbitrary-moving monopoles ($l=0$) the
expressions $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^{A\,{\rm M}}$ and $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\,{\rm M}}$, respectively. According to
Eqs.~(\ref{Shapiro_15}) - (\ref{Shapiro_15_B}) and using $t_0 = \tau_0 + t^{\ast}$ and $t_1 = \tau_1 + t^{\ast}$
we obtain up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\,c t^{\rm M} &=& \Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN}\,,
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_A}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \cdot \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^{A\,{\rm M}}\left(t_1,t_0\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{2\,G\,M_A}{c^2}\,
\ln \frac{r_A^{\,1} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,1}}{r_A^{\,0} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,0}}\,,
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_B}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \cdot \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\,{\rm M}}\left(t_1,t_0\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&=& + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{2\,G\,M_A}{c^3}
\left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}^{\,1}_A\right) \ln \left(r_A^{\,1} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,1}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{2\,G\,M_A}{c^3}
\left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}^{\,0}_A\right) \ln \left(r_A^{\,0} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,0}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.7cm} - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{2\,G\,M_A}{c^3}\,\left(\frac{\ve{v}_A^{\,1} \cdot \ve{d}_A^{\,1}}{r_A^{\,1} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,1}}
- \frac{\ve{v}_A^{\,0} \cdot \ve{d}_A^{\,0}}{r_A^{\,0} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,0}}\right).
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
In the limit of monopoles at rest only the term in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_B}) remains which then represents the well-known classical Shapiro effect
\cite{MTW,Brumberg1991,Poisson_Will,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan} which is growing logarithmically with $R$, while
in our result (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}) the argument of the logarithm depends on the worldline of the arbitrary-moving body $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$.
One may verify that our result for the Shapiro delay for arbitrarily moving monopoles in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_B}) - (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}),
agrees in the limit of uniform motion with Eq.~(20) in \cite{Comparison_Shapiro_1}, with Eq.~(45) in \cite{Hees_Bertone_Poncin_Lafitte_2014a},
and with Eq.~(33) in \cite{Soffel_Han} up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$.
In this respect we recall that the term in the last line in (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}) can be written as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \frac{\ve{v}_A^{\,1} \cdot \ve{d}_A^{\,1}}{r_A^{\,1} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,1}}
- \frac{\ve{v}_A^{\,0} \cdot \ve{d}_A^{\,0}}{r_A^{\,0} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,0}}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& = \frac{\ve{v}_A^{\,1} \cdot \ve{r}_A^{\,1} - r_A^{\,1}\left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A^{\,1}\right)}{r_A^{\,1} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,1}}
- \frac{\ve{v}_A^{\,0} \cdot \ve{r}_A^{\,0} - r_A^{\,0}\left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A^{\,0}\right)}{r_A^{\,0} - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,0}}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \;\; + \,\ve{\sigma}\cdot \left(\ve{v}_A^{\,1} - \ve{v}_A^{\,0}\right)\,,
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the term in the last line is proportional to the acceleration of the massive body $A$ and vanishes in case of uniform motion.
The neglect of this term, as suggested in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999}, is well-justified because a simple estimate reveals that such terms are extremely small
and far out of detectability even for future astrometry missions.
An estimate of the absolute value of the 1PN time delay formula in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_B}) for one body $A$ and
assuming an astrometric configuration with $\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,0} \simeq - r_A^{\,0}$ and $\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^{\,1} \simeq r_A^{\,1}$,
is given by \cite{Poisson_Will}:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\Delta\,t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\right| &\le& \frac{2 G M_A}{c^3}\,
\ln \frac{4\,r_A^{\,1}\,r_A^{\,0}}{\left(d_A^1\right)^2}\,.
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_D}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
A very similar estimate of the absolute value of the 1.5PN correction in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}) for one body $A$ and
same configuration yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\Delta\,t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right| &\le&
\frac{v_A}{c}\,\left|\Delta\,t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\right| + \frac{4 G M_A}{c^3}\,\frac{v_A}{c}\,\frac{r_A^{\,1}}{d^1_A}\,.
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_E}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The second term in (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_E}) is proportional to $\sim r_A^{\,1}/d^1_A$, which for grazing rays becomes a large quantity.
For instance, for Jupiter we would get $r_A^{\,1}/d^1_A \sim 10^4$ which spoils the effect of the tiny factor $v_A/c \sim 10^{-5}$ which is typical for
1.5PN corrections. This large term is solely caused by the term in the last line in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}).
Below, we will consider the expressions for light deflection where we will encounter this large term again, cf. text below Eq.~(34) in \cite{Klioner2003a}.
As we will show in the next subsection, this large factor $r_A^{\,1}/d^1_A$ is related to the retardation of gravitational action.
\subsubsection{In terms of retarded time}
Gravitational action travels with the finite speed of light and this effect cannot be ignored in high-precision astrometry,
as it has been outlined long time ago \cite{Hellings1986,KopeikinSchaefer1999,KopeikinMashhoon2002,Klioner2003a,KlionerPeip2003}.
In order to take account for that effect we follow
the arguments of the investigations in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999,KopeikinMashhoon2002,Klioner2003a,KlionerPeip2003,KopeikinMakarov2007},
which have shown that the position of the massive body must not be taken at the time of observation, $\ve{x}_A\left(t_1\right)$,
but at the retarded time-moment, $\ve{x}_A\left(t_1^{\rm ret}\right)$. In general, the retarded time is defined by an implicit relation,
\begin{eqnarray}
t^{\rm ret} &=& t - \frac{\left|\ve{x}\left(t\right) - \ve{x}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}\right)\right|}{c}\,,
\label{Retarded_Time}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $t$ is the coordinate time. For the special case where $t$ is the time of emission $t_0$ or the time of reception $t_1$ see Eq.~(\ref{Retardation_t0}).
Actually, the retarded time is a function of the position of body under consideration and, therefore, an index $A$ should also be attached at $t^{\rm ret}$
but for simpler notation such label is omitted. According to Eqs.~(47) - (48) in \cite{Zschocke_Soffel}, the retarded position can be
series-expanded and leads to the following relations for any instant of time:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}\right) &=& \ve{r}_A\left(t\right) + r_A\left(t\right)\,\frac{\ve{v}_A\left(t\right)}{c} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right),
\label{Retardation_A}
\\
\nonumber\\
r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}\right) &=& r_A\left(t\right) + \frac{\ve{r}_A\left(t\right) \cdot \ve{v}_A\left(t\right)}{c} + {\cal O}\left(c^{-2}\right).
\label{Retardation_B}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
These relations allow one to rewrite identically the expressions in (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_A}) - (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}) into the following form
up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\,c t^{\rm M} &=& \Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN}\,,
\label{Retardation_C}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{2\,G\,M_A}{c^2}\,
\ln \frac{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}
{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_0\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_0\right)}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{Retardation_D}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta\,c t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{2\,G\,M_A}{c^3}\,
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} \times \left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)\right)
\ln \left(r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \frac{2\,G\,M_A}{c^3}\,
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-0.5cm} \times \left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_0\right)\right)
\ln \left(r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_0\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_0\right)\right),
\nonumber\\
\label{Retardation_E}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where (cf. Eq.~(\ref{Retarded_Time})):
\begin{eqnarray}
t_n^{\rm ret} &=& t_n - \frac{\left|\ve{r}_A\left(t_n^{\rm ret}\right)\right|}{c}, \;\; n=0,1\,.
\label{Retardation_t0}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The solution for the time delay in (\ref{Retardation_C}) - (\ref{Retardation_E}) agrees with Eq.~(51) in \cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999}.
Especially, we notice that the term in the last line of Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_C}) has been absorbed in (\ref{Retardation_D}).
Consequently, if one uses the expression for the time delay in terms of retarded time, Eqs.~(\ref{Retardation_C}) - (\ref{Retardation_E}), then
one obtains the following correct estimate for the time delay in 1.5PN approximation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left|\Delta\,t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\right| &\le& \frac{2 G M_A}{c^3}\,
\ln \frac{4\,r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_0\right)\,r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{d_A^2\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,,
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_F1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\left|\Delta\,t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right| &\le& \frac{v_A}{c}\,\left|\Delta\,t^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\right|.
\label{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_F2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
For numerical values of the upper bound in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_F1}) and Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_F2}) see Table \ref{Table2}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |}
\hline
\hline
&&&\\[-7pt]
Parameter
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Sun \hfill}
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Jupiter \hfill}
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Saturn \hfill}\\[3pt]
\hline
&&&\\[-7pt]
$GM_A/c^2\,[{\rm m}]$ & $1476$ & $1.4$ & $0.4$ \\[3pt]
$P_A\,[{\rm m}]$ & $696 \times 10^6$ & $71.5 \times 10^6$ & $60.3 \times 10^6$ \\[3pt]
$J_2^A$ & $2 \times 10^{-7}$ & $14.696 \times 10^{-3}$ & $16.291 \times 10^{-3}$ \\[3pt]
$J_4^A$ & $ - $ & $ - 0.587 \times 10^{-3}$ & $ - 0.936 \times 10^{-3}$ \\[3pt]
$J_6^A$ & $ - $ & $0.034 \times 10^{-3}$ & $0.086 \times 10^{-3}$ \\[3pt]
$J_8^A$ & $ - $ & $ - 2.5 \times 10^{-6}$ & $ - 10.0 \times 10^{-6}$ \\[3pt]
$J_{10}^A$ & $ - $ & $0.21 \times 10^{-6}$ & $2.0 \times 10^{-6}$ \\[3pt]
$S_A\,[{\rm kg}\,{\rm m}^2/\,{\rm s}]$ & $1.64 \times 10^{41}$ & $4.15 \times 10^{38}$ & $7.13 \times 10^{37}$ \\[3pt]
$r_{A}^1\,[{\rm m}]$ & $0.147 \times 10^{12}$ & $0.59 \times 10^{12}$ & $1.20 \times 10^{12}$ \\[3pt]
$v_A/c$ & $4 \times 10^{-8}$ & $4.4 \times 10^{-5}$ & $3.2 \times 10^{-5}$ \\[3pt]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{Numerical parameters for mass $M_A$, radius $P_A$, actual coefficients of zonal harmonics $J_n^A$, distance between observer and body $r_{A}^1$,
orbital velocity $v_A$ of Sun, Jupiter and Saturn \cite{JPL}.
The value for $J^A_2$ for the Sun is taken from \cite{J_2_Sun}, while $J_n^A$ with $n=2,4,6$ for Jupiter and Saturn are taken from \cite{Book_Zonal_Harmonics},
while $J_n^A$ with $n=8,10$ for Jupiter and Saturn are taken from \cite{Zonal_Harmonics_Jupiter} and \cite{Zonal_Harmonics_Saturn}, respectively.
The spin angular momenta $S_A$ are determined from the moment of inertia $I_A$ with the ratio $\displaystyle \frac{I_A}{M_A P_A^2} = 0.059, 0.254, 0.210$ for
Sun, Jupiter, Saturn, respectively from NASA planetary fact sheets.
For the distance between light-source and body we assume $r_{A}^0 = 10^{13}\,{\rm m}$
so that the light-source is within the near-zone of the Solar system, while $r_A^1$ is computed under assumption that the observer (spacecraft)
is located at Lagrange point $L_2$, i.e. $1.5 \times 10^9\,{\rm m}$ from the Earth's orbit.}
\label{Table1}
\end{table}
\subsection{Moving spin-dipole}\label{Shapiro_Spin_Dipoles}
Now let us consider the time delay in (\ref{Shapiro_15}) of a light-signal caused by $N$ arbitrarily moving spin-dipoles.
\subsubsection{In terms of coordinate time}
From (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}) we obtain in the field of arbitrary-moving spin-dipoles ($l=1$) the expression for $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\,{\rm S}}$,
as given by Eq.~(\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}). According to Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_15_B}) we obtain for the Shapiro-delay the following expression
up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\,c t^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \cdot \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\,{\rm S}}\left(t_1,t_0\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&=&
- \frac{2 G}{c^3}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.0cm} \times \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \left[\frac{\ve{\sigma} \cdot \left(\ve{S}^{\,1}_A \times \ve{d}^{\,1}_A\right)}{\left(d^{\,1}_A\right)^2}
\frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\,1}_A}{r^{\,1}_A}
- \frac{\ve{\sigma} \cdot \left(\ve{S}^{\,0}_A \times \ve{d}^{\,0}_A\right)}{\left(d^{\,0}_A\right)^2}
\frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\,0}_A}{r^{\,0}_A} \right]\!,
\nonumber\\
\label{Shapiro_Spin_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\ve{S}^{\,1}_A = \ve{S}_A\left(t_1\right)$ and $\ve{S}^{\,0}_A = \ve{S}_A\left(t_0\right)$ are the spin-dipoles of body $A$
at time observation-time $t_1$ and at emission-time $t_0$ respectively. It can be checked that in the limit of bodies at rest our result
in (\ref{Shapiro_Spin_2}) agrees with Eq.~(72) in \cite{Klioner1991}. Furthermore, by very similar steps as used in appendix \ref{Solution_Kopeikin_Mashhoon}
one may verify an agreement of our solution in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Spin_2}) with Eqs.~(48) - (50) in \cite{KopeikinMashhoon2002} in case of slow motion;
note that the global spin-tensor in \cite{KopeikinMashhoon2002} has to be reexpressed in terms of intrinsic spin-dipole, for instance by means
of the relations Eqs.~(B.8) and (C.10) in \cite{Zschocke_Soffel} and the retarded time has to be series-expanded in terms of global coordinate-time.
An estimate of the upper bound of Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Spin_2}) yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| \Delta\,t^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right| &\le& \frac{4 G}{c^4}\,\frac{S_A^1}{d^1_A}\,,
\label{Shapiro_Spin_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which agrees with the estimate in Eq.~(75) in \cite{Klioner1991} for grazing rays and spin-dipoles at rest.
\subsubsection{In terms of retarded time}
In view of relations (\ref{Retardation_A}) - (\ref{Retardation_B}) and up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$
one may perform the following replacements in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Spin_2}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{r}_A^n &\rightarrow& \ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_n\right), \;\; n=0,1\,,
\label{Shapiro_Spin_4}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{S}_A^n &\rightarrow& \ve{S}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_n\right), \;\; n=0,1\,,
\label{Shapiro_Spin_5}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{d}_A^n &\rightarrow& \ve{d}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_n\right), \;\; n=0,1\,.
\label{Shapiro_Spin_6}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The upper bound is then given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| \Delta\,t^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right| &\le& \frac{4 G}{c^4}\,\frac{S_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{d_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,.
\label{Shapiro_Spin_7}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
For numerical values of the upper bound in Eq.~(\ref{Shapiro_Spin_7}) see Table \ref{Table2}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |}
\hline
\hline
&&&\\[-7pt]
Term
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Sun \hfill}
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Jupiter \hfill}
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Saturn \hfill}\\[3pt]
\hline
&&&\\[-7pt]
$\Delta t_{\rm 1PN}^{\rm M}$ & $160\,\mu{\rm s}$ & $0.2\,\mu{\rm s}$ & $0.06\,\mu{\rm s}$ \\[3pt]
$\Delta t_{\rm 1PN}^{J_2}$ & $3.3 \times 10^{-3}\,{\rm ns}$ & $0.2\,{\rm ns}$ & $0.07\,{\rm ns}$ \\[3pt]
\hline
$\Delta t_{\rm 1.5PN}^{\rm M}$ & $6 \times 10^{-3}\,{\rm ns}$ & $9 \times 10^{-3}\,{\rm ns}$ & $2 \times 10^{-3}\,{\rm ns}$ \\[3pt]
$\Delta t_{\rm 1.5PN}^{\rm S}$ & $8 \times 10^{-3}\,{\rm ns}$ & $2 \times 10^{-4}\,{\rm ns}$ & $4 \times 10^{-5}\,{\rm ns}$ \\[3pt]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The numerical magnitude for time delay in the field of one Solar system body (either Sun, Jupiter or Saturn) according to
the upper limits given by Eqs.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_F1}), (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_F2}), (\ref{Shapiro_Spin_7}), and (\ref{Estimate_Q3}).
The parameters for Sun and giant planets Jupiter and Saturn are summarized in Table~\ref{Table1}.
The given numerical values are determined for grazing lightrays, that means the impact parameter equals the radius of the massive body: $d_A = P_A$.
The given magnitude for time delay should be compared with the aimed accuracies of future astrometry missions proposed to ESA like
ASTROD \cite{Astrod1,Astrod2}, LATOR \cite{Lator1,Lator2}, ODYSSEY \cite{Odyssey}, SAGAS \cite{Sagas}, or TIPO \cite{TIPO}, which aim at an
accuracy in the determination of time delay for a light-signal better than $\Delta t \sim 0.1\,{\rm ns}$. Accordingly, 1.5PN effects
in time delay will surely not be detectable even within the very next generation of high-precision space-based astrometry missions.}
\label{Table2}
\end{table}
\subsection{Time-delay for moving mass-quadrupole}\label{Shapiro_Quadrupoles}
\subsubsection{In terms of coordinate time}
From Eqs.~(\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}) we obtain in the field of arbitrary-moving quadrupoles ($l=2$) the
expressions $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^{A\,J_2}$ and $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\,J_2}$, respectively. Then, according to
Eqs.~(\ref{Shapiro_15}) - (\ref{Shapiro_15_B}) we obtain for the time delay:
\begin{eqnarray}
\Delta\,c t^{J_2} &=& \Delta\,c t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta\,c t^{J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN}\,,
\label{Time_Delay_Quadrupole_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta\,c t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \cdot \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^{A\,J_2}\left(t_1,t_0\right),
\label{Time_Delay_Quadrupole_2}
\\
\nonumber\\
\Delta\,c t^{J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& - \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \cdot \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{A\,J_2}\left(t_1,t_0\right).
\label{Time_Delay_Quadrupole_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Actually, the expression $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^{J_2}$ has already been presented in its explicit form by Eq.~(144) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}. In view of their
involved structure, $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^{J_2}$ as well as $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{J_2}$ will not be given here.
The estimate of (\ref{Time_Delay_Quadrupole_2})
and (\ref{Time_Delay_Quadrupole_3}) proceeds very similar to what has been done in detail in \cite{Zschocke_Klioner}. For an axisymmetric body
one obtains after some amount of algebra:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| \Delta\,t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}\right| &\le& 3\,\left|J^A_2\right|\,\frac{G M_A}{c^3}\,,
\label{Estimate_Q1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\left| \Delta\,t^{J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right| &\le& \frac{v_A}{c}\,\left| \Delta\,t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}\right|
+ 6\,\left|J^A_2\right|\,\frac{G M_A}{c^3}\,\frac{v_A}{c}\,\frac{r_A^1}{d_A^1}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{Estimate_Q2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $J_2$ is the actual coefficient of second zonal harmonics.
The estimate in (\ref{Estimate_Q1}) agrees with the estimate for quadrupoles at rest, cf. Eq.~(26) in \cite{Zschocke_Klioner}.
Like in (\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_E}), we encounter in (\ref{Estimate_Q2}) we encounter a large term which is proportional to $\sim r_A^1/d_A^1$.
\subsubsection{In terms of retarded time}
With the aid of relations (\ref{Retardation_A}) - (\ref{Retardation_B}) one rewrites $\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN}^{J_2}\left(t\right)$ and
$\Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{J_2}\left(t\right)$ in terms of retarded time. Formally, one may also replace $M_{a b}^A\left(t_n\right)$ by
$M_{a b}^A\left(t^{\rm ret}_n\right),\;n=0,1$, but the impact of such replacement on time delay is negligible.
Then, after considerable amount of algebra, one obtains the correct estimates in 1.5PN correction, which are given by:
\begin{eqnarray}
\left| \Delta\,t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}\right| &\le& 3\,\left|J^A_2\right|\,\frac{G M_A}{c^3}\,,
\label{Estimate_Q3}
\\
\nonumber\\
\left| \Delta\,t^{J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right| &\le& \frac{v_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{c}\,\left| \Delta\,t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}\right|.
\label{Estimate_Q4}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The numerical magnitude of the 1PN correction in (\ref{Estimate_Q3}) is given in Table~\ref{Table2}, while
the 1.5PN correction in (\ref{Estimate_Q4}) is by far much below the detectability of future astrometry missions and will not be given in Table \ref{Table2}.
In view of the tininess of $\Delta\,t^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}$ it becomes obvious that higher multipole terms are negligible in the time delay
and, therefore, will not be considered here.
\section{Light-deflection}\label{Observable_Effects_Light_Deflection}
The light deflection is of fundamental importance in astrometric measurements.
Like in the previous section, we assume the light source to be located at $\ve{x}_0 = \ve{x}\left(t_0\right)$ where $t_0$ is the moment of
emission of the light-signal, and the observer is located at $\ve{x}_1 = \ve{x}\left(t_1\right)$ where $t_1$ is the moment of reception of the
light-signal by the observer. Both the light source and the observer are assumed to be at rest with respect
to the global reference system.
The light deflection is defined by the angle $\varphi$ between unit vector $\ve{k}$ and
the unit tangent vector $\ve{n}$ of the lightray at the observers position: $\varphi = \arcsin \left|\ve{k} \times \ve{n}\right|$ \cite{Klioner2003a}.
In 1.5PN approximation the unit tangent vector at the observer is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{n}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right) &=& \frac{\dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right)}
{\left|\dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right)\right|}\,.
\label{Light_Deflection_5}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
By inserting Eq.~(\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_A}) into (\ref{Light_Deflection_5}), we obtain
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{n}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right) \!&=&\! \ve{\sigma}
+ \sum\limits_{A=1}^N\ve{\sigma} \times \left(\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right)}{c} \times \ve{\sigma}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-1.0cm} + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{\sigma} \times
\left(\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right)}{c} \times \ve{\sigma}\right),
\label{Light_Deflection_10}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1PN}$ and $\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1.5PN}$ are given
by (\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}) and (\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}), respectively, with the expressions
in Eqs.~(\ref{First_Integration_9}), (\ref{First_Integration_10}) and (\ref{First_Integration_15}).
The 1.5PN relation (\ref{Light_Deflection_10}) generalizes the 1PN relation (156) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}.
The expression in (\ref{Light_Deflection_10}) for the unit tangent vector along the light trajectory at observers position is valid
in case of stars, which means in case of light sources which are at far distances from the observer.
For astrometry within the Solar system we need to obtain an expression which is valid for light sources at finite distances from the observer.
In order to obtain such an expression we use the following relation among the vectors $\ve{k}$ and $\ve{\sigma}$,
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{\sigma} &=& \ve{k} - \frac{1}{R} \sum\limits_{A=1}^N
\left[\ve{k}\times \bigg(\Delta\ve{x}^A_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau_1 + t^{\ast}, \tau_0 + t^{\ast}\right)\times\ve{k}\bigg)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-0.7cm} - \frac{1}{R} \sum\limits_{A=1}^N
\left[\ve{k}\times \bigg(\Delta\ve{x}^A_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1 + t^{\ast}, \tau_0+t^{\ast}\right)\times\ve{k}\bigg)\right],
\label{Light_Deflection_15}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\Delta \ve{x}^A_{\rm 1PN}$ and $\Delta \ve{x}^A_{\rm 1.5PN}$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_1PN}) and
(\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation_15PN}), respectively, with the expressions in
Eqs.~(\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}), (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}) and (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}).
The relation follows from the definitions (\ref{Shapiro_5}) and (\ref{Shapiro_10}) and with the aid of the expression for the
light trajectory in (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation}) and for the Shapiro effect in (\ref{Shapiro_15}).
The 1.5PN expression in (\ref{Light_Deflection_15}) generalizes the 1PN relation (157) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}.
We also notice that the first line in (\ref{Light_Deflection_15}) agrees with Eq.~(66) in \cite{Klioner2003a}.
By inserting (\ref{Light_Deflection_15}) into (\ref{Light_Deflection_10}) we finally arrive at the following expression for the unit
tangent vector at the observers position:
\begin{eqnarray}
\ve{n}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right) &=& \ve{k}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} - \frac{1}{R} \sum\limits_{A=1}^N
\left[\ve{k} \times \bigg( \Delta \ve{x}^A_{\rm 1PN} \left(\tau_1 + t^{\ast}, \tau_0 + t^{\ast}\right) \times \ve{k}\bigg)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \times \left(\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right)}{c} \times \ve{k}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} - \frac{1}{R} \sum\limits_{A=1}^N
\left[\ve{k} \times \bigg(\Delta \ve{x}^A_{\rm 1.5PN} \left(\tau_1 + t^{\ast}, \tau_0 + t^{\ast}\right) \times \ve{k}\bigg)\right]
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \sum\limits_{A=1}^N \ve{k} \times \left(\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^A_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(\tau_1+t^{\ast}\right)}{c} \times \ve{k}\right).
\label{Light_Deflection_20}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The 1.5PN relation in (\ref{Light_Deflection_20}) generalizes the 1PN relation (158) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN}.
The formula (\ref{Light_Deflection_20}) is valid for light sources at finite distance. In the limit of infinite spatial distances, $R \rightarrow \infty$,
the relation (\ref{Light_Deflection_20}) changes into the expression in (\ref{Light_Deflection_10}).
In summary of this section, the expression for the time delay in (\ref{Shapiro_15}) and for the unit tangent vector in (\ref{Light_Deflection_20}) are valid
for a light-signal which has been emitted by a source located at finite spatial distances, and which propagates through the Solar system, that means
through the gravitational field of $N$ arbitrarily moving bodies and having arbitrary
shape and inner structure and which can be in arbitrary rotational motion.
If the light-source is located at infinity, i.e. $R \rightarrow \infty$ and in a good approximation realized by stars or quasars,
then the light deflection angle of a light-signal in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving bodies in 1.5PN approximation is determined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \ve{n}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right|,
\label{Deflection1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\ve{n}_{\rm 1.5PN}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_10}).
If the light-source is located at finite distance, i.e. $R$ is finite and in a good approximation realized by Solar system objects,
then the light deflection angle of a light-signal in the field of $N$ arbitrarily moving bodies in 1.5PN approximation is defined by
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi &=& \left|\ve{k} \times \ve{n}_{\rm 1.5PN}\right|,
\label{Deflection2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\ve{n}_{\rm 1.5PN}$ is given by Eq.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_20}). The relation (\ref{Deflection1}) is of simpler structure than (\ref{Deflection2}), but
which equation can be utilized depends on how far the light-source is. For our preliminary considerations here it will be sufficient to consider light-source
at infinity, that means to apply just relation (\ref{Deflection1}). Like in case of Shapiro delay, we will consider the light deflection caused by $N$
arbitrarily moving bodies in some more detail, by considering bodies with mass-multipole structure and spin-dipole-structure.
An estimate is also given for spin-octupole. The terms which are of relevance for nas-accuracy read
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi &=& \varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} + \sum\limits_{n = 2}^{10} \varphi^{\rm J_n}_{\rm 1PN}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& + \varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN} + \varphi^{\rm J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN} + \varphi^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN} + \varphi^{\rm SO}_{\rm 1.5PN}\,.
\label{Light_Deflection_M_S}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
In what follows we will consider these terms in some detail and give some estimates of their magnitude.
\subsection{Light deflection for moving mass-monopole}\label{Deflection_Monopole}
\subsubsection{In terms of coordinate time}
From (\ref{First_Integration_9}) and (\ref{First_Integration_10}) we obtain for the coordinate velocity of the photon in the field of $N$ arbitrarily
moving monopoles:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c} &=& - \frac{2 G}{c^2} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\frac{M_A}{r^{\,1}_A}
\left[\frac{\ve{d}^{\,1}_A}{r^{\,1}_A - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\,1}_A} + \ve{\sigma}\right],
\nonumber\\
\label{Light_Deflection_M_1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c} &=& + \frac{2 G}{c^2} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\frac{M_A}{r^{\,1}_A}
\frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A^{\,1}}{c}\,\frac{\ve{d}^{\,1}_A}{r^{\,1}_A - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\,1}_A}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{4 G}{c^2} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\frac{M_A}{r^{\,1}_A}\,\frac{\ve{v}_A^{\,1}}{c}
- \frac{2 G}{c^2} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}
\frac{M_A}{r^{\,1}_A - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\,1}_A}\,\frac{\ve{\sigma}\times\left(\ve{v}_A^{\,1} \times \ve{\sigma}\right)}{c}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{2 G}{c^2} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\frac{M_A}{\left(r^{\,1}_A - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}^{\,1}_A\right)^2}\,
\frac{\ve{d}_A^{\,1}\cdot\ve{v}_A^{\,1}}{c}\,\frac{\ve{d}_A^{\,1}}{r^{\,1}_A}\,.
\label{Light_Deflection_M_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
In the limit of uniformly moving bodies our result in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_1}) - (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_2}) agrees with Eq.~(6.3) and (6.5)
in \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992} and with Eq.~(20) in \cite{Deng_2015} up to terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(v_A^2/c^2\right)$.
By inserting (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_1}) - (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_2}) into (\ref{Light_Deflection_5}) and then into (\ref{Deflection1}) we obtain
the light deflection angle, which for one massive body $A$ can be estimated as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c}\right|
\le \frac{4 G M_A}{c^2 d_A^1}\,,
\label{Light_Deflection_M_3}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c}\right|
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&\le& \varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\,\frac{v_A}{c} + \frac{8 G M_A}{c^2 d_A}\,\frac{v_A}{c}\,\frac{r_A^1}{d_A^1}\,.
\label{Light_Deflection_M_4}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
Like in Eqs.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_E}) and (\ref{Estimate_Q2}), we encounter again the typical large term in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_4}) which
is proportional to $\sim r_A^1/d_A^1$ and originates from the last two terms in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_2}). This large term is solely caused by the
retardation of gravitational action. That means, the use of the time-moment of reception at the body's position, $\ve{x}_A\left(t_1\right)$
in Eq.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_M_1}) causes a significant error in the determination of light deflection for moving bodies. This peculiarity has been
recognized long time ago, for instance see text below Eq.~(34) in \cite{Klioner2003a}.
Especially, this issue has thoroughly and comprehensively been solved for moving pointlike bodies in the investigations
\cite{KopeikinSchaefer1999,KopeikinMashhoon2002,Klioner2003a,KlionerPeip2003}.
In the next subsection we will further elucidate this fact.
\subsubsection{In terms of retarded time}
From the physical point of view, it is obvious that instead of $t_1$ one has to use the retarded time-moment for the
position of the massive body in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_1}). That means, with the aid of relations (\ref{Retardation_A}) - (\ref{Retardation_B})
one may show that Eqs.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_M_1}) - (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_2}) can be rewritten as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c} &=& - \frac{2 G}{c^2} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\frac{M_A}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&&\hspace{-0.5cm} \times
\left[\frac{\ve{d}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)} + \ve{\sigma}\right],
\label{Light_Deflection_M_7}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c} &=& + \frac{2 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\frac{M_A}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}
\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \times \frac{\ve{d}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{4 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\frac{M_A}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,\ve{v}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{2 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} \frac{M_A}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,
\frac{\ve{d}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,
\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{v}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} - \frac{2 G}{c^3} \ve{\sigma} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} \frac{M_A}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,
\frac{\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right) \cdot \ve{v}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} - \frac{2 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} \frac{M_A}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,
\frac{\ve{d}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right) - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \times \frac{\ve{v}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right) \cdot \ve{d}_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{r_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}\,.
\label{Light_Deflection_M_8}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The last two terms in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_2}) do not explicitly appear in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_8}), because they are absorbed
in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_7}). Accordingly, instead of (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_4}) we obtain the following correct estimates
for the 1PN and 1.5PN corrections in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_7}) and (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_8}), respectively:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN} &\le& \frac{4 G M_A}{c^2 d_A\left(t_1^{\rm ret}\right)}\,,
\label{Light_Deflection_M_5}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1.5PN} &\le& \varphi^{\rm M}_{\rm 1PN}\,\frac{v_A\left(t_1^{\rm ret}\right)}{c}\,.
\label{Light_Deflection_M_6}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The given upper limit in (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_6}) agrees with Eq.~(42) and (46) in \cite{KopeikinMakarov2007}, and with the results in \cite{Klioner2003a}.
For numerical values of the upper bound in Eq.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_M_5}) and (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_6}) see Table \ref{Table3}.
\subsection{Light deflection for moving spin-dipole}\label{Deflection_Spin}
\subsubsection{In terms of coordinate time}
The coordinate velocity of a light-signal propagating in the field of arbitrarily moving spin-dipoles can either be obtained from (\ref{First_Integration_15})
using (\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_15}), or simply by time-differentiation of Eq.~(\ref{arbitrarily_moving_spin_dipole_35}), and reads:
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c} &=& - \frac{2 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}
\frac{\ve{\sigma}\times \ve{S}_A^1}{\left(r_A^1\right)^3}\,\left(\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^1\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{2 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}
\frac{\ve{S}^1_A \times \ve{d}^1_A}{\left(r_A^1\right)^2}\,\frac{1}{r_A^1 - \ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^1}\left(1 - \frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^1}{r_A^1}\right)
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} + \frac{2 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\ve{d}^1_A\,\left[\ve{\sigma}\cdot\left(\ve{d}^1_A\times\ve{S}_A^1\right)\right]
\frac{\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^1}{\left(r_A^1\right)^3}\,\frac{1}{\left(r_A^1-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^1\right)^2}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} - \frac{4 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N}\ve{d}^1_A\,\left[\ve{\sigma}\cdot\left(\ve{d}^1_A\times\ve{S}_A^1\right)\right]
\frac{1}{\left(r_A^1\right)^2}\,\frac{1}{\left(r_A^1-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^1\right)^2}
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&& \hspace{-2.5cm} - \frac{2 G}{c^3} \sum\limits_{A=1}^{N} \frac{\ve{\sigma}\times\ve{S}_A^1}{r_A^1}\,\frac{1}{r_A^1-\ve{\sigma}\cdot\ve{r}_A^1}\,.
\label{Light_Deflection_S_1}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
One may verify that in the limit of bodies at rest our result agrees with Eq.~(59) in \cite{Klioner1991}.
An upper bound for the magnitude of the light deflection is given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c}\right|
\le \frac{4 G S^1_A}{c^3 \left(d_A^1\right)^2}\,,
\label{Light_Deflection_S_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
in agreement with the estimate given by Eq.~(65) in \cite{Klioner1991} for lightrays which propagate in the equatorial plane of a rotating body at rest.
\subsubsection{In terms of retarded time}
Following the same arguments as in the above considerations, we may replace all expression in (\ref{Light_Deflection_S_1})
by their retarded expressions according to Eqs.~(\ref{Shapiro_Spin_4}) - (\ref{Shapiro_Spin_6}) for $n=1$. Then the estimate of light deflections yields:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^{\rm S}_{\rm 1.5PN} \!\! &\le& \frac{4 G S_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{c^3 \left(d_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)\right)^2}\,,
\label{Light_Deflection_S_3}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which formally agrees with the estimate in Eq.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_S_2}).
For numerical values of the upper bound in Eq.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_S_3}) see Table \ref{Table3}.
\begin{table}[h!]
\begin{tabular}{| c | c | c | c |}
\hline
\hline
&&&\\[-7pt]
Term
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Sun [\muas]\hfill}
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Jupiter [\muas] \hfill}
&\hbox to 20mm{\hfill Saturn [\muas]\hfill}\\[3pt]
\hline
&&&\\[-7pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1PN}^{\rm M}$ & $1.75 \times 10^6$ & $16.3 \times 10^3$ & $5.8 \times 10^3$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1PN}^{J_2}$ & $1$ & $240$ & $95$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1PN}^{J_4}$ & $ - $ & $9.6$ & $5.46$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1PN}^{J_6}$ & $ - $ & $0.56$ & $0.50$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1PN}^{J_8}$ & $ - $ & $0.04$ & $0.06$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1PN}^{J_{10}}$ & $ - $ & $0.003$ & $0.01$ \\[3pt]
\hline
$\varphi_{\rm 1.5PN}^{\rm M}$ & $0.1$ & $0.8$ & $0.2$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1.5PN}^{J_2}$ & $ - $ & $ 0.011$ & $0.003$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1.5PN}^{\rm S}$ & $0.7$ & $0.2$ & $0.04$ \\[3pt]
$\varphi_{\rm 1.5PN}^{\rm SO}$ & $ - $ & $0.015$ & $0.006$ \\[3pt]
\hline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\caption{The numerical magnitude for light deflection in the field of one Solar system body (either Sun, Jupiter or Saturn) according to
the upper limits given by Eqs.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_M_5}), (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_6}), (\ref{Light_Deflection_S_3}),
(\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_3}), (\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_4}) and (\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_1}).
The parameters for Sun and giant planets Jupiter and Saturn are summarized in Table~\ref{Table1}. The given numerical values are determined for grazing lightrays,
that means the impact parameter equals the radius of the massive body: $d_A = P_A$. For the light deflection in the field of spin-octupole,
$\varphi_{\rm 1.5PN}^{\rm SO}$, we take the results of Ref.~\cite{Jan-Meichsner_Diploma_Thesis} where the light deflection in the field of one rotating body
at rest and having constant mass density has been determined. Blank entries indicate that the effect is smaller than $1\,{\rm nas}$.
In view of the fact that astrometry on sub-\muas-level implies an accuracy for $\varphi$ at least better than $0.1\,\muas$, the 1.5PN effects
in light deflection become detectable within the very next generation of high-precision space-based astrometry missions.}
\label{Table3}
\end{table}
\subsection{Light deflection for moving mass-quadrupole}\label{Deflection_Quadrupole}
\subsubsection{In terms of coordinate time}
The 1PN correction to the coordinate velocity of the lightray in the field $N$ arbitrarily-moving bodies with quadrupole structure,
$\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1PN}^{J_2}\left(t\right)$, has already been given Eq.~(117) in \cite{Zschocke_1PN} and can also be deduced from
Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_9}), while the 1.5PN correction $\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{J_2}\left(t\right)$ from Eq.~(\ref{First_Integration_10}).
In view of the complexity of these terms, we will not present these expressions in their explicit form. We just mention that
the estimation of these terms proceeds similar to the procedure performed in \cite{Zschocke_Klioner}. After some considerable amount of algebra one obtains:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN} &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c}\right|
\le \frac{4 G M_A}{c^2}\left|J_2^A\right|\frac{\left(P_A\right)^2}{\left(d_A^1\right)^3}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{Light_Deflection_Q_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
\varphi^{J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c}\right|
\nonumber\\
\nonumber\\
&\le& \varphi^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}\,\frac{v_A}{c}
+ \frac{8 G M_A}{c^2}\left|J_2^A\right|\,\frac{v_A}{c}\,\frac{\left(P_A\right)^2}{\left(d_A^1\right)^3}\,\frac{r_A^1}{d^1_A}\,.
\nonumber\\
\label{Light_Deflection_Q_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
The estimate of the 1PN quadrupole term in (\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_1}) is equal to the much simpler case of quadrupoles at rest,
cf. Eq.~(41) in \cite{Klioner1991} and Eq.~(13) in \cite{Zschocke_Klioner}.
The second term in (\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_2}) is proportional to $\sim r_A^1/d^1_A$ which for grazing rays becomes large.
Like in Eqs.~(\ref{Shapiro_Monopoles_1_E}), (\ref{Estimate_Q2}), and (\ref{Light_Deflection_M_4}), this term is caused by the
finite speed of gravitational action.
\subsubsection{In terms of retarded time}
One may rewrite the expression for $\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1PN}^{J_2}\left(t\right)$ and $\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{J_2}\left(t\right)$ in terms of
retarded time by means of Eqs.~(\ref{Retardation_A}) - (\ref{Retardation_B}), and formally one may also replace
$M_{a b}\left(t_1\right) \rightarrow M_{a b}\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)$. Then the estimation of the 1PN and 1.5PN correction terms
in the quadrupole light deflection becomes
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN} &\le& \frac{4 G M_A}{c^2}\left|J_2^A\right|\frac{\left(P_A\right)^2}{\left(d_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)\right)^3}\,,
\label{Light_Deflection_Q_3}
\\
\nonumber\\
\varphi^{J_2}_{\rm 1.5PN} &\le& \varphi^{J_2}_{\rm 1PN}\,\frac{v_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{c}\,,
\label{Light_Deflection_Q_4}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which agrees with Eqs.~(44) and (46) in \cite{KopeikinMakarov2007}.
The numerical magnitude of these upper bounds (\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_3}) and (\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_4}) can be found in Table \ref{Table3}.
\subsection{Light deflection for higher mass-multipoles}\label{Deflection_Multipoles}
The 1PN solution (\ref{First_Integration_9}) and the 1.5PN solution (\ref{First_Integration_10}) for moving bodies with full mass-multipole
structure allow to determine the light deflection in the field of moving mass-multipoles to any order in $l$. However, the expressions for
$\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1PN}^{J_n}$ and $\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}^{J_n}$ ($J_n$ are the actual zonal harmonic coefficients
of the massive body) become more and more involved the higher the
order of the mass-multipoles are and imply a considerable amount of algebra. The investigation of these terms will be postponed for awhile.
In meanwhile let us consider an educated guess that the light deflection in the field of higher mass-multipoles is determined by the following relation:
\begin{eqnarray}
\varphi^{J_n}_{\rm 1PN} &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm J_n}_{\rm 1PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c}\right|
\le \frac{4 G M_A}{c^2}\frac{\left|J_n^A\right|\,\left(P_A\right)^n}{\left(d_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)\right)^{n+1}}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\varphi^{J_n}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& \left|\ve{\sigma} \times \frac{\Delta \dot{\ve{x}}^{\rm J_n}_{\rm 1.5PN}\left(t_1\right)}{c}\right|
\le \varphi^{J_n}_{\rm 1PN}\,\frac{v_A\left(t^{\rm ret}_1\right)}{c}\,,
\label{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
which in case of $n=2$ agrees with Eqs.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_3}) - (\ref{Light_Deflection_Q_4}). The suggestion in
Eqs.~(\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_1}) - (\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_2}) is based on the considerations above
and triggered by the fact that in the limit of bodies at rest formula (\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_1}) agrees with the results
in \cite{Poncin_Lafitte_Teyssandier_2008}.
Numerical values for (\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_1}) are presented in Table~\ref{Table3}, while
(\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_2}) yields values below $1\,{\rm nas}$ for $n \ge 3$. A detailed proof of (\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_1})
and (\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_2}) and a comparison of formula (\ref{Light_Deflection_Higher_Multipoles_2})
with \cite{Hees_Bertone_Poncin_Lafitte_2014a} will be presented in a subsequent investigation.
\section{Summary and Outlook}\label{Summary_Outlook}
During the last 25 years, astrometric measurements have made an impressive advancement from milli-arcsecond level of accuracy by the ESA
astrometry mission {\it Hipparchos} \cite{Hipparcos1,Hipparcos2} toward micro-arcsecond level of accuracy by the ESA astrometry mission {\it Gaia} \cite{GAIA}.
Ever since, applied relativity has evolved into one of the basic components of modern astrometry, the branch of science which includes the whole machinery of
advanced astrometric measurements, especially: (1) theory of reference systems, (2) precise description of light trajectory from the celestial light source
toward the observer, (3) relativistic modeling of real observations, (4) determination of the metric of the Solar system in post-Newtonian approximation
(weak-field slow-motion approximation) or post-Minkowskian approximation (weak-field approximation) and beyond,
(5) multipole expansion of metric tensor of Solar system, (6) relativistic data reduction of astrometric measurements, and
(7) determination of ephemeris of the Solar system bodies and of the observer accurate enough for a given accuracy.
But for all that stunning progress, the step from micro-arcsecond toward nano-arsecond astrometry will be a long-term ambition, which implies many challenges
on theoretical as well as technological side. While a few of these issues have been mentioned in the introductory section, most of these
challenges and especially their elaborated details cannot be foreseen at present. But for any actual ambitions about sub-micro-arcsecond astrometry
two of these problems are of decisive importance: first to establish a set of accurate reference systems and reference frames for exact data reduction,
and second to provide an accurate modeling of light trajectory from the celestial light source through the Solar system toward the observer.
As it has been mentioned in the introductory section, especially these two highly important issues have also been emphasized by the
ESA-Senior-Survey-Committee (SSC) in response of the selection of science themes for future space-based astrometry missions \cite{SSC}. The presented
investigation is mainly devoted to these two specific subjects. Especially, in order to arrive at a precise modeling of light-propagation through the
Solar system, two difficult aspects have carefully to be treated:
({\bf 1}) First, in compliance with the requirements of the IAU recommendations \cite{IAU_Resolution1,IAU_Resolution2}, one has to introduce
one global reference system (BCRS) and $N$ local reference systems (GCRS-like), one for each massive body, which
allow to describe the global metric of the Solar system in terms of intrinsic mass-multipoles and intrinsic spin-multipoles
the massive bodies, that means for the metric perturbations $h_{\alpha\beta}\left(M^A_L,S^A_L\right)$, as mentioned by Eq.~(\ref{Global_Metric_B}).
({\bf 2}) Second, for sub-micro-arcsecond or even nano-arcsecond-astrometry one has to describe the light trajectory in the field
of arbitrarily moving massive bodies, that means as a function of their worldlines $\ve{x}_A\left(t\right)$, because a series expansion like in
Eq.~(\ref{worldline_introduction}) is unsuitable for several reasons discussed in the introductory section. The worldlines can be concretized by
Solar system ephemeris \cite{JPL} at any stage of the calculations.
In a previous investigation \cite{Zschocke_1PN} we have obtained a solution in 1PN approximation for the light trajectory through the Solar system in
full agreement with these both requirements ({\bf 1}) and ({\bf 2}). As outlined in more detail in \cite{Zschocke_1PN} and also mentioned in the
introductory section, for high-precision astrometry on sub-\muas-level or nas-level of accuracy the 1PN approximation is not sufficient at all.
Instead, it is inevitable to determine the light trajectory through the Solar system in 1.5PN approximation and to reconcile the entire approach
with the important requirements ({\bf 1}) and ({\bf 2}). Such an approach has been developed here in the presented investigation. Accordingly, the main results
of our investigation are given by the first integration of geodesic equation in Eq.~(\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_A}) and
by the second integration of geodesic equation in Eq.~(\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation}):
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& c\,\ve{\sigma} + \Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN}\,,
\label{Summary_1}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN} &=& \ve{\xi} + c \tau \ve{\sigma} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN}\,,
\label{Summary_2}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where the time-argument $\tau + t^{\ast}$ have been omitted here for simpler notation. The terms in (\ref{Summary_1}) for one body $A$
are given by Eqs.~(\ref{First_Integration_9}), (\ref{First_Integration_10}), and (\ref{First_Integration_15}), respectively, and the terms in (\ref{Summary_2})
for one body $A$ are given by Eqs.~(\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_4}), (\ref{Second_Integration_Mass_5}), and (\ref{Second_Integration_Spin_5}), respectively.
In view of the complexity of the solution in (\ref{Summary_1}) and (\ref{Summary_2}), several cross-checks have been performed:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[$\bullet$] time-derivative of (\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_A}) yields (\ref{transformed_geodesic_equation_C}).
\item[$\bullet$] time-derivative of (\ref{second_integral_geodesic_equation}) yields (\ref{first_integral_geodesic_equation_A}).
\item[$\bullet$] our results agree with \cite{Kopeikin1997} for bodies at rest and time-independent mass-multipoles in 1PN approximation.
\item[$\bullet$] our results agree with \cite{Kopeikin1997} for bodies at rest and time-independent spin-multipoles in 1.5PN approximation.
\item[$\bullet$] our results agree with \cite{KopeikinMashhoon2002} for arbitrarily moving bodies with spin-dipole in 1.5PN approximation.
\item[$\bullet$] our results agree with \cite{Klioner1991} for bodies at rest with spin-dipole.
\end{enumerate}
Further cross-checks in 1PN approximation have already been done in \cite{Zschocke_1PN} for the case of light-propagation in the field of bodies with
mass-monopole, mass-dipole, mass-quadrupole structure and bodies at rest with full mass-multipole structure.
The numerical magnitude about the impact of mass-multipoles and spin-multipoles on light deflection, presented in Table~\ref{Table3}, reveal that
the first mass-multipoles up to order $l=10$ and the first spin-multipoles up to order $l=3$ have to be taken into account for astrometry on nano-arcsecond
level of accuracy.
This fact is important in view of the complexity of the 1.5PN solution for the light trajectory, because it allows to simplify that solution considerably.
However, more detailed investigations are very necessary in order to simplify the massive computations in astrometric data reduction as much as possible.
The approach presented has further to be developed into several directions before the conditions are complied for a complete modeling of light-propagation
through the Solar system on sub-\muas $\;$ or nas-level of accuracy. In particular, the following issues may serve as minimal supplement to the list of aspects
which have already been mentioned in the introductory section:
${\bf A.}$ The model for the light trajectory has to implement some terms in 2PN approximation, which can formally be written as follows:
\begin{eqnarray}
\dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 2PN} &=& c\,\ve{\sigma} + \Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 1.5PN} + \Delta \dot{\ve{x}}_{\rm 2PN}\,,
\label{Summary_3}
\\
\nonumber\\
\ve{x}_{\rm 2PN} &=& \ve{\xi} + c\,\tau \ve{\sigma} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1PN} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 1.5PN} + \Delta \ve{x}_{\rm 2PN}\,,
\nonumber\\
\label{Summary_4}
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where (\ref{Summary_3}) and (\ref{Summary_4}) represents the coordinate velocity and the trajectory of the light-signal, respectively.
The 2PN corrections have been determined for the case of monopoles at rest \cite{Brumberg1987,Brumberg1991} and later recalculated in
progressing investigations in \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992,Klioner_Zschocke,Deng_Xie} and also within this work, see appendix \ref{Appendix_2PN}.
It is clear that for a comprehensive theory of light propagation
aiming at sub-\muas-level of accuracy it needs carefully to be scrutinized which 2PN corrections beyond the monopole part are of relevance for such
extremely-precise astrometry.
${\bf B.}$ A fundamental prerequisite in order to gain further progress in the theory of light propagation in 2PN approximation, one necessarily needs
to determine the space-space part of the BCRS as well as of the GCRS metric tensor including all terms of the order ${\cal O}\left(c^{-4}\right)$.
However, an extension of these global and local reference systems to the post-post-Newtonian order is a highly involved assignment of a task and
is presently an active field of research \cite{Chinese_Xu_Wu,Xu_Gong_Wu_Soffel_Klioner,MinazzolliChauvineau2009,KS} and far from being completed.
${\bf C.}$ In the first instance, the post-Newtonian approach of the DSX formalism allows for astrometry in the near-zone of the Solar system. However, astrometric
measurements of stars or extragalactic celestial objects are subject to far-zone astrometry, which requires a matching procedure of two asymptotic solutions:
the near-zone solution and the far-zone solution for the light trajectory \cite{Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan}. Such matching approach has been
proposed in \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992,Will_2003}, which has to be further developed in such a way to be in line with the requirements of nas-astrometry.
${\bf D.}$ The unique interpretation of observational data implies a hierarchy of several reference systems \cite{Brumberg1991,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[a)] BCRS $\left(x^0, x^1, x^2, x^3\right)$ for description of the light trajectory in the Solar system,
\item[b)] GCRS-like $\left(X_A^0, X_A^1, X_A^2, X_A^3\right)$, one for each body $A=1,...,N$ of the Solar system in order to define the intrinsic multipoles,
\item[c)] CoMRS $\left({\cal X}^0, {\cal X}^1, {\cal X}^2, {\cal X}^3\right)$ which is co-moving with the observer,
\item[d)] ToRS $\left(z_a^0, z_a^1, z_a^2, z_a^3\right)$, one for each ground-station $a=1,...,n$ on Earth which are involved in data reduction,
\end{enumerate}
\noindent
where CoMRS stands for {\it co-moving reference system} and ToRS denotes {\it topocentric reference system}.
The light trajectory in our investigation is given in the BCRS, but that is of course not sufficient for a comprehensive astrometric model of light propagation.
In particular, the presented solution has to be transformed into the reference system which is co-moving with a free-falling observer (CoMRS) \cite{COMRS}.
This transformation takes account for aberrational effects. Especially, it has to be clarified whether or not the CoMRS in \cite{COMRS},
which was primarily intended for the Gaia mission, is also sufficient for the requirements on nas-level of accuracy.
${\bf E.}$ The basic assumption of post-Newtonian expansion is that all retardations of the gravitational actions are small. In the model presented
the effect of retardation has been implemented in a more or less heuristic manner, in order to provide a proper estimation for the upper limit of time delay
and light deflection. This procedure needs to be scrutinized in considerably more detail. Especially, it has to be clarified
how the retardation of gravitational action has to be implemented based on clear theoretical foundation in the entire approach.
The solution of this problem is related to the far-zone astrometry about how the presented solution in the near-zone
can be matched with the solution for the lightray in the far-zone of the Solar system \cite{KlionerKopeikin1992,Kopeikin_Efroimsky_Kaplan}.
In summary, a precise determination of light trajectory up to a given accuracy is of fundamental importance in the theory of any astrometric measurements.
Besides considerable effort which has still to be done in near future, we come to the conclusion that a complete modeling of light trajectory from
celestial light sources through the Solar system toward the observer is accomplishable also for extremely high-precision astrometry on
sub-\muas $\;$ and even on nano-arcsecond level of accuracy.
\section{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG).
|
\subsection{Experimental results}\label{sec:exp}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\vspace{-0.1in}
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{NoExternal2}
\label{fig:sub1}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{External}
\label{fig:sub2}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.33\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=1\linewidth]{IndepGrid}
\vspace{-15pt}
\caption{}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Plots of the
log-partition function approximation error
with respect to (average) interaction strength. Each point is averaged over $20$ (random) models.
}
\label{fig:experiment}
\end{figure}
In this section, we report experimental results for
computing partition function of the Ising model and the hard-core model.
We compare
Algorithm \ref{alg:estimate2regular} in Section \ref{sec:2regular} (coined MCMC-BP-2reg) and
Algorithm \ref{alg:approximatingfull} in Section \ref{sec:whole} (coined MCMC-BP-whole),
with
the bare Bethe approximation (coined BP)
and the popular Gibbs-sampler (coined MCMC-Gibbs).
To make the comparison fair, we use the same annealing scheme for all MCMC schemes,
thus making their running times comparable.
More specifically, we
generate each sample after running $T_{1} = 1,000$ iterations of an MC and
take $s_{1} =100$ samples to compute each estimation (e.g., $H_{i}$) at intermediate steps.
For performance measure, we use the log-partition function
approximation error defined as $|\log{Z} - \log{Z_{\text{approx}}}|/|\log{Z}|$,
where $Z_{\text{approx}}$ is the output of the respective algorithm.
We conducted 3 experiments on the $4\times 4$ grid graph.
In our first experimental setting, we consider the Ising model
with varying interaction strength and no external (magnetic) field.
To prepare the model of interest, we start from the Ising model with uniform
(ferromagnetic/attractive and anti-ferromagnetic/repulsive)
interaction strength and then add `glassy' variability in the interaction strength modeled
via i.i.d Gaussian random variables with mean $0$ and variance $0.5^{2}$,
i.e. $\mathcal{N}(0,0.5^{2})$. In other words, given average interaction strength $0.3$,
each interaction strength
in the model is independently chosen as $\mathcal{N}(0.3,0.5^{2})$.
The second experiment was conducted by adding $\mathcal{N}(0,0.5^2)$ corrections to the external fields
under the same condition as in the first experiment.
In this case we observe that
BP often fails to converge, and use the Concave Convex Procedure (CCCP) \cite{ConvBP2} for finding
BP fixed points.
Finally, we experiment with the hard-core model on the $4\times 4$ grid graph
with varying a positive parameter $\lambda>0$, called `fugacity' \cite{Independent}.
As seen clearly in Figure \ref{fig:experiment},
BP and MCMC-Gibbs are outperformed by
MCMC-BP-2reg or MCMC-BP-whole at most tested regimes
in the first experiment with no external field,
where in this case, the 2-regular loop series (LS) is equal to the full one.
Even in the regimes where MCMC-Gibbs outperforms BP,
our schemes correct the error of BP and performs at least as good as MCMC-Gibbs.
In the experiments, we observe that advantage of our schemes over BP
is more pronounced when the error of BP is large.
A theoretical reasoning behind this observation
is as follows. If the performance of BP is good, i.e. the loop series (LS) is close to $1$, the
contribution of empty generalized loop, i.e., $w(\emptyset)$, in LS is significant,
and it becomes harder
to sample other generalized loops accurately.
\section{Introduction}
GMs express factorization of the joint multivariate probability distributions in statistics via graph of relations between variables. The concept of GM has been used successfully in information theory, physics, artificial intelligence and machine learning \cite{C1_1,C1_2,C1_3,C1_4,C1_5, C1_6}.
Of many inference problems one can set with a GM, computing partition function (normalization), or equivalently marginalizing the joint distribution, is the most general problem of interest. However, this paradigmatic inference problem is known to be computationally intractable in general, i.e., formally it is \#P-hard even to approximate \cite{C2, C3}.
To address this obstacle, extensive efforts have been made to develop practical approximation methods, among which MCMC- \cite{C5} based and BP- \cite{C6} based algorithms are, arguably, the most popular and practically successful ones. MCMC is exact, i.e., it converges to the correct answer, but its convergence/mixing is, in general, exponential in the system size. On the other hand, message passing implementations of BP typically demonstrate fast convergence, however in general lacking approximation guarantees for GM containing loops.
Motivated by this complementarity of the MCMC and BP approaches, we aim here to synthesize a hybrid approach benefiting from a joint use of MCMC and BP.
At a high level, our proposed scheme uses BP as the first step and then runs MCMC to correct for the approximation error of BP. To design such
an ``error-correcting" MCMC, we utilize the Loop Calculus approach \cite{C8}
which allows, in a nutshell,
to express the BP error
as a sum (i.e., series) of weights of the so-called generalized loops (sub-graphs of a special structure).
There are several challenges one needs to overcome.
First of all, to design an efficient Markov Chain (MC) sampler, one needs to design a scheme which allows efficient transitions between the generalized loops. Second, even if one designs such a MC which is capable of accessing all the generalized loops, it may mix slowly.
Finally, weights of generalized loops can be positive or negative, while an individual MCMC can only generate non-negative contributions.
Since approximating the full loop series (LS) is intractable in general,
we first explore whether we can deal with the challenges at least in the case of the truncated LS
corresponding to 2-regular loops. In fact, this problem has been analyzed in the case
of the planar pairwise binary GMs \cite{C9,C9-1} where it was shown that
the 2-regular LS
is computable
exactly in polynomial-time through a reduction to a Pfaffian
(or determinant) computation \cite{C10}.
In particular,
the partition function of the Ising model
without external field (i.e., where only pair-wise factors present) is computable exactly via
the 2-regular LS.
Furthermore, the authors show that in the case of general planar pairwise binary GMs, the 2-regular LS
provides a highly accurate approximation empirically.
Motivated by these results,
we address the same question in the general (i.e., non-planar) case of pairwise binary GMs via MCMC.
For the choice of MC, we adopt
the Worm algorithm \cite{C12}.
We prove that with some modification including rejections,
the algorithm allows to sample (with probabilities proportional to respective weights) 2-regular loops in polynomial-time.
Then, we design a novel simulated annealing strategy using the sampler
to estimate separately positive and negative parts of the 2-regular LS.
Given any $\varepsilon>0$, this leads to a $\varepsilon$-approximation polynomial-time scheme for the 2-regular LS
under a mild assumption.
We next turn to estimating the full LS.
In this part, we ignore the theoretical question of establishing the polynomial
mixing time of a MC, and instead focus on designing an empirically efficient MCMC scheme.
We design an MC using a cycle basis of the graph \cite{C11} to sample generalized loops directly, without rejections. It transits from one generalized loop to another
by adding or deleting a random element of the cycle basis.
Using the MC sampler,
we design a simulated annealing strategy
for estimating the full LS, which is
similar to what was used earlier
to estimate the 2-regular LS.
Notice that even though the prime focus of this paper is on pairwise binary GMs, the proposed MCMC scheme
allows straightforward generalization to general non-binary GMs.
In summary, we propose novel MCMC schemes to estimate the LS correction to the BP contribution to the partition function.
Since already the bare BP provides a highly non-trivial estimation for the partition function,
it is naturally expected and confirmed in our experimental results that the proposed algorithm outperforms other standard (not related to BP) MCMC schemes applied to the original GM.
We believe that our approach provides a new angle for
approximate inference on GM and
is of broader interest to various applications involving GMs.
\iffalse
{\bf Organization.} In Section \ref{sec:pre}, we provide necessary backgrounds
for graphical models and LS approaches.
We present our main results for approximating 2-regular LS
and full regular LS in Section \ref{sec:2regular} and Section \ref{sec:fullLS}, respectively.
Our experimental results are reported in Section \ref{sec:exp}.
\fi
\section{Conclusion}
In this paper, we propose new MCMC schemes for approximate inference in GMs.
The main novelty of our approach is in designing BP-aware MCs utilizing the non-trivial BP solutions.
In experiments, our BP based MCMC scheme also outperforms other alternatives. We anticipate that
this new technique will be of interest to many applications where GMs are used for statistical reasoning.
\section*{Acknowledgements.}
The work of MC was carried out under the auspices of the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of
Energy at Los Alamos National Laboratory under Contract
No. DE-AC52-06NA25396, and was partially supported by the
Advanced Grid Modeling Program in the U.S. Department
of Energy Office of Electricity.
\input{bibliography}
\section{Estimating 2-regular loop series via MCMC}\label{sec:2regular}
In this section, we aim to describe how the $2$-regular loop series $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$ can be estimated in polynomial-time. To this end, we first assume that the maximum degree $\Delta$ of the graph $G$ is at most 3.
This degree constrained assumption is not really restrictive
since any pairwise binary model can be easily expressed as an equivalent one with $\Delta\leq 3$, e.g.,
see the supplementary material.
The rest of this section consists of two parts.
We first propose an algorithm generating
a 2-regular loop sample with the probability proportional to the absolute value of
its weight, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(F) := \frac{|w(F)|}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}},\qquad
\mbox{where}~~ Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}} = \sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}} |w(F)|.
\end{equation*}
Note that this 2-regular loop contribution allows the following factorization: for any $F\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$,
\begin{equation}\label{eq:edgeweight}
|w(F)| = \prod_{e\in F} w(e),\qquad\mbox{where}\quad
w(e):=\left| \frac{\tau_{u,v}(1,1)-\tau_{u}(1)\tau_{v}(1)}{\sqrt{\tau_{u}(1)\tau_{v}(1)(1-\tau_{u}(1))(1-\tau_{v}(1))}}\right|.
\end{equation}
In the second part we use the sampler constructed in the first part to design a simulated annealing scheme to estimate $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$.
\vspace{-0.05in}
\subsection{Sampling 2-regular loops}\label{sec:sample2regular}
We suggest to sample the 2-regular loops distributed according to $\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}$ through a version of the Worm algorithm proposed by Prokofiev and Svistunov \cite{C12}.
It can be viewed as a MC exploring the set, $\mathcal L_{\text{2-Loop}}\bigcup \mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}$, where
$\mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}$ is the set of all subgraphs of $G$ with
exactly two odd-degree vertices.
Given current state $F\in \mathcal L_{\text{2-Loop}}\bigcup \mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}$,
it chooses the next state $F^\prime$ as follows:
\iffalse
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Worm Algorithm}
\label{alg:wa}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State{\bf Input:} Current state $F$.
\State{\bf Output:} Next state
$F^\prime$.
\If{$F\in \mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}$}
\State
Pick a random vertex $v$ (uniformly) from $V$.
\Else
\State
pick a random odd-degree vertex $v$ (uniformly) from $F$.
\EndIf
\State Choose a random neighbor $u$ of $v$ (uniformly) within $G$.
\State Update $F^\prime \leftarrow F \oplus \{u,v\}$ with the probability
\begin{align*}
\begin{cases}
\frac{|w(F\oplus \{u,v\})|}{|w(F)|} \frac{1}{2n} \left(\frac{1}{d(u)} + \frac{1}{d(v)}\right) &\qquad \mbox{if}~ F\in L_{\text{2-Loop}}\\
\frac{|w(F\oplus \{u,v\})|}{|w(F)|} \frac{}{4} \left(\frac{1}{d(u)} + \frac{1}{d(v)}\right) &\qquad \mbox{else if}~ F \oplus \{u,v\}\in L_{\text{2-Loop}}\\
\min \left(\frac{d(v)}{d(u)} \frac{|w(F\oplus \{u,v\})|}{|w(F)|}, 1\right) &\qquad \mbox{else if}~ F, F \oplus \{u,v\} \in L_{\text{2-Odd}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
Otherwise, $F^\prime \leftarrow F$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $F\in \mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}$, pick a random vertex $v$ (uniformly) from $V$. Otherwise,
pick a random odd-degree vertex $v$ (uniformly) from $F$.
\item Choose a random neighbor $u$ of $v$ (uniformly) within $G$, and set $F^\prime \leftarrow F$ initially.
\item Update $F^\prime \leftarrow F \oplus \{u,v\}$ with the probability
\begin{equation*}
\begin{cases}
\min \left(\frac{1}{n} \frac{|w(F\oplus \{u,v\})|}{|w(F)|}, 1\right)&\qquad \mbox{if}~ F\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\\
\min \left(\frac{n}{4} \frac{|w(F\oplus \{u,v\})|}{|w(F)|}, 1\right)&\qquad \mbox{else if}~ F \oplus \{u,v\}\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\\
\min \left(\frac{d(v)}{2d(u)} \frac{|w(F\oplus \{u,v\})|}{|w(F)|}, 1\right) &\qquad \mbox{else if}~ F, F \oplus \{u,v\} \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}
\end{cases}\end{equation*}
\end{enumerate}
Here, $\oplus$ denotes the symmetric difference and
for $F\in \mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}$, its weight is defined according to
$w(F) = \prod_{e\in F} w(e)$. In essence, the Worm algorithm consists in either deleting or adding an edge to the current subgraph $F$.
From the Worm algorithm, we transition to the following algorithm which samples $2$-regular loops with probability $\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}$ simply by adding rejection of $F$ if $F\in \mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}$.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Sampling 2-regular loops}
\label{alg:sample2regular}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf Input:} Number of trials $N$; number of iterations $T$ of the Worm algorithm
\State {\bf Output:} 2-regular loop $F$.
\For{$i = 1 \to N$}
\State Set $F\leftarrow \emptyset$ and update it
$T$ times by running the Worm algorithm
\If{$F$ is a 2-regular loop}
\State BREAK and output $F$.
\EndIf
\EndFor
\State Output $F=\emptyset$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
The following theorem states that {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} can generate a desired
random sample in polynomial-time.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sample2regular}
Given $\delta>0$, choose
inputs of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} as
\begin{equation*}
N \geq 1.2\, n\log(3\delta^{-1}),\qquad\mbox{and}\qquad
T \geq
(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log (3n\delta^{-1}).
\end{equation*}
Then, it follows that
\begin{equation*}\frac12\sum_{F\in \mathcal L_{\text{2-Loop}}}
\left|P\bigg[\mbox{{Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} outputs $F$}\bigg] - \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(F) \right| \leq \delta.
\end{equation*}
namely, the total variation distance between $\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}$ and the output distribution of
{Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} is at most $\delta$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of the above theorem is presented in the supplementary material due to the space constraint.
In the proof,
we first show that MC induced by the Worm algorithm mixes in polynomial time, and then prove that acceptance of a 2-regular loop, i.e., line 6 of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}}, occurs with high probability.
Notice that the uniform-weight version of the former proof, i.e., fast mixing, was recently proven in \cite{C13}. For completeness of the material exposition, we present the general case proof of interest for us.
The latter proof, i.e., high acceptance, requires to bound $|\mathcal L_{\text{2-Loop}}|$
and $|\mathcal L_{\text{2-Odd}}|$ to show that the probability of sampling 2-regular loops under
the Worm algorithm
is $1/\text{poly}(n)$ for some polynomial function $\text{poly}(n)$.
\iffalse
\noindent{\bf 2-regular loop sampler}
\hrule
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] Set $\lambda \leftarrow \frac{w_{\min}^{d}}{n}$, $\hat{\delta} \leftarrow 2\delta / 3(n+2)$.
\item[2.] Repeat $T = \lceil(n/2 + 1)\ln(3/\delta)\rceil$ times:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Simulate the Markov chain $\mathcal{MC}$, with parameter $\lambda$,
for
$\frac{(\log (\delta) + \log(\pi^\dagger(X_{0}))}{4\lambda^{4}m}$ steps (with initial state $X_{0}$).
\item[(ii)] Output the final state if it is a 2-regular loop and halt.
\end{itemize}
\item[3.] Output an arbitrary 2-regular loop if all trials fail.
\end{itemize}
\hrule
\vspace{0.1in}
In addition, Jerrum and Sinclair \cite{C3} quantified how much samples are necessary for
estimating some non-negative real valued function $f$
using the proposed sampler.
The theorem is directly applicable to our case,
using the {\bf 2-regular loop sampler}
to achieve a specified accuracy with specified confidence.
\begin{theorem}[Jerrum, Sinclair 1990]
\label{thm:samplenum2regular}
Let $f$ be a non-negative real-valued random variable defined on the set
$\Omega$ and let $\xi$, $\eta$ be real numbers with
$0<\xi\leq 1$ and $0<\eta \leq 1/2$.
Then using
$504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil \max(f)/\mathbb{E}(f)$ samples from
the {\bf 2-regular loop sampler},
produces an ouput $Y$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
\mbox{Pr}\left(Y~\mbox{approximates $\mathbb{E}(f)$ within ratio $1+\xi$}\right) \leq 1-\eta.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:samplenum2regular} implies that whenever we
use the {\bf 2-regular loop sampler} for approximating
a non-negative function $f$, the ratio $\max f / \mathbb{E}(f)$ must be
bounded by a polynomial function of the size of the system.
\fi
\iffalse
For $F, F^\prime \in \Omega$ with $F\neq F^\prime$,
the transition probability from $F$ to $F^\prime$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:2regulartransition}
p(F,F^\prime) =
\begin{cases}
1/2m \qquad &\mbox{if $|F\oplus F^\prime| = 1$ and $w(F^\prime) \geq w(F)$}\\
|w(F^\prime)|/2m|w(F)|\qquad &\mbox{if $|F\oplus F^\prime| = 1$ and $w(F^\prime) < w(F)$}\\
0 \qquad &\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where the self-loop probabilities $p(X,X)$ are defined implicitly by complementation,
so that $p(X, X) = 1 - \sum_{X^\prime \neq X}p(X, X^\prime)$.
Here, transitions in the markov chain
are either adding or deleting a single edge
from the set $X$.
\fi
\iffalse
One can observe that this markov chain is ergodic,
i.e. it spans over all state space and
converges to the stationary distribution.
Collevecchio et al \cite{C13}
proved the bound on mixing time for the case of uniform weights.
In our work, we extend the proof to non-uniform weights.
\begin{theorem}[]\label{thm:mixing2regular}
The mixing time $\tau_{x}(\delta)$ is bounded above by
\begin{align}
\tau_{X_{0}}(\delta) \leq
\left[
\log\left(\frac{1}{w(X_{0})}\right) + (m-n+1)\log 2 + \log\left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)
\right]
4\Delta mn^{4}
\end{align}
where $m=|E|$ and $\Delta$ is the maximum degree of the graph.
\end{theorem}
\fi
\iffalse
Additionally,
we prove that the probability of sampling a
2-regular loops is sufficiently large.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sample2regular}
The probability of sampling an even degree subgraph is at least
$\frac{1}{n}$, i.e.
\sum_{F\in L_{0}}\pi^{\dagger}(F
\geq\frac{1}{n} $
\end{theorem}
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sample2regular}
Let $d$, $w_{\min}$ denote the diameter of the graph $G$ and
minimum weight among the edges respectively.
Once we set $\lambda = \frac{w_{\min}^{d}}{n}$, the probability of sampling an even degree subgraph is at least
$\frac{2}{n+2}$. In other words,
\begin{align}
\frac{Z_{\text{2-Loop}}}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}}\geq\frac{2}{n+2}
\end{align}
Here, $d$ is the diameter of the graph, i.e. the maximum
distance between any two vertices in the graph.
\end{theorem}
\fi
\section{Estimating the 2-regular Partition Function}\label{sec:2regular}
The aim of this Section is to present an efficient approximation algorithm to compute
$2$-regular loop series in binary GM where each vertex is at most of degree $3$. This may seems restrictive, but in fact any pairwise GM (with vertexes of an arbitrary, finite degree) can be reduced to a binary GM with vertexes of degree at most $3$. The reduction can be achieved through the following algorithm:
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] Pick a vertex $s$ with degree larger than 3, expand the vertex into $s_{1}, s_{2}, \cdots s_{d_{v}(G)}$.
\item[2.] For each $i = 1,2,\cdots d_{v}(G)$:
\begin{itemize}
\item[i)] Delete the edge $(s,t_{i})$
\item[ii)] Add a new edge $(s_{i}, t_{i})$. Assign to the newly added edge potential of the previously deleted edge, $\psi_{s,t_{i}}$.
\end{itemize}
\item[3.] Add the edges $(s_{1},s_{2}), (s_{2},s_{3}),\cdots (s_{d_{v}(G)}, s_{1})$
with potentials
\begin{align*}
\delta(x,x^\prime) =
\begin{cases}
1\qquad \mbox{if}~x=x^\prime\\
\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
\end{itemize}
\begin{figure}[h]
\centering
\includegraphics{make3regular}
\caption{Example of expanding a vertex.}
\label{fig:make3regular}
\end{figure}
It is straightforward to check that partition function of the newly built GM (with reduced degree) is equal to the partition function of the original GM.
One benefit of working with the graph of the maximum degree $3$ is that in this case the number of $2$-regular generalized loops, also corresponding to the
Eulerian sub-graphs, can be counted explicitly. It is $2^{m-n+c}$ where $m,n$ and $c$ denotes the number of edges, vertexes and connected components of the graph.
Detailed description of the procedure will be discussed in Section \ref{sec:cyclebasis}.
The rest of section consist of two parts.
We first propose a sampler for
$2$-generalized loops with probability proportional to its absolute value of its weights, i.e.
\begin{align}\label{eq:2regularMCdistribution}
\pi(F) = \frac{|w(F)|}{Z^{\dagger}_\emptyset}
\end{align}
based on Jerrum and Sinclair's MC \cite{C3}.
Then we give a scheme for estimating the logarithm of
$2$-regular partition function $Z_\emptyset = \sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}}w(F)$ based on the proposed sampler.
\iffalse
Note that $2$-regular partition function may consist of both positive and negative terms,
so its direct approximation is non-trivial.
To overcome this issue, we first approximate the sum of absolute value of each terms,
$Z^{\dagger}_{\emptyset} = \sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}}|w(F)|$.
Then the ratio $Z_{\emptyset}/Z^{\dagger}_{\emptyset}$ is approximated
via estimating positive and negative parts of the $2$-regular loop series.
Each approximation is based on the
which is a modification of Jerrum and Sinclair's MC \cite{xx}.
\fi
\subsection{2-regular generalized loop sampler}
The proposed sampling algorithm is based on
the Markov chain proposed by Jerrum and Sinclair \cite{C3},
spanning the power set of edges $2^{E}$ in the graph.
In our application,
we modify the Markov chain so that the probability of
sampling a $2$-generalized loop is sufficiently large.
Then the sampler for $2$-regular generalized loop
with distribution \eqref{eq:2regularMCdistribution}
is obtained by iterating the following trial: simulate the chain for
sufficient amount of steps and output the final state
if it is a $2$-generalized loop.
The Markov chain $\mathcal{MC}$ has the following distribution:
\begin{align}\label{eq:subgraphMCdistribution}
\pi^\dagger(F) = \frac{1}{Z_{\emptyset}^\dagger}\lambda^{|\mbox{odd}(F)|}|\hat{w}(F)|
\end{align}
where $\mbox{odd}(F)$ is the set of vertices
having odd degree in the edge-induced graph of $F$,
$\lambda$ is some constant which will be defined later, and
\begin{align}
\hat{w}(F) = \prod_{st\in F}\frac{\tau_{st}-\tau_{s}\tau_{t}}{\left(\tau_{s}\tau_{t}(1-\tau_{s})(1-\tau_{t})\right)^{1/2}}.
\end{align}
Note that $\hat{w}(F) = w(F)$
if $F$ is a $2$-regular generalized loop and
the samples of $2$-generalized loops will have the
desired distribution.
For $F, F^\prime \in \Omega$ with $F\neq F^\prime$,
the transition probability from $F$ to $F^\prime$ is given by
\begin{align}\label{eq:2regulartransition}
p(F,F^\prime) =
\begin{cases}
1/2m \qquad &\mbox{if $|F\oplus F^\prime| = 1$ and $\hat{w}(F^\prime) \geq \hat{w}(F)$}\\
|\hat{w}(F^\prime)|/2m|\hat{w}(F)|\qquad &\mbox{if $|F\oplus F^\prime| = 1$ and $\hat{w}(F^\prime) < \hat{w}(F)$}\\
0 \qquad &\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where the self-loop probabilities $p(X,X)$ are defined implicitly by complementation,
so that $p(X, X) = 1 - \sum_{X^\prime \neq X}p(X, X^\prime)$.
Here, transitions in the markov chain
are either adding or deleting a single edge
from the set $X$.
One can observe that this markov chain is ergodic,
i.e. it spans over all state space and
converges to the stationary distribution.
Jerrum and Sinclair \cite{C3}
proved the bound on mixing time.
\begin{theorem}[Jerrum, Sinclair 1990]
The mixing time $\tau_{x}(\delta)$ is bounded above by
\begin{align}
\tau_{X_{0}}(\delta) \leq \frac{(\log (\delta) + \log(\pi^\dagger(X_{0}))}{4\lambda^{4}m}.
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
Additionally, if we set $\lambda$ appropriately,
the probability of sampling a
$2$-regular generalized loops is sufficiently large.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:sample2regular}
Let $d$, $w_{\min}$ denote the diameter of the graph $G$ and
minimum weight among the edges respectively.
Once we set $\lambda = \frac{w_{\min}^{d}}{n}$, the probability of sampling an even degree subgraph is at least
$\frac{2}{n+2}$. In other words,
\begin{align}
\frac{Z_{\emptyset}}{Z^{\dagger}_{\emptyset}}\geq\frac{2}{n+2}
\end{align}
Here, $d$ is the diameter of the graph, i.e. the maximum
distance between any two vertices in the graph.
\end{theorem}
As a result, we obtain the following algorithm for
sampling from the
distribution in \eqref{eq:2regularMCdistribution}
with tolerance $\delta$.
\begin{algorithm}[tbh]
\caption{Sampling $2$-regular generalized loops}
\label{alg:sample2regular}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE {\bf Input:} Desired distribution $\pi$ and tolerance $\delta$ of the samples
\STATE {\bf Output:} A sample from the distribution $\pi$ with tolerance $\delta$.
\STATE {\bf Initialize:} Set $\lambda \leftarrow \frac{w_{\min}^{d}}{n}$, $\hat{\delta} \leftarrow 2\delta / 3(n+2)$.
\FOR{$i = 1 \to \lceil(n/2 + 1)\ln(3/\delta)\rceil$}
\STATE Choose a $2$-regular generalized loop $X_{0}$ and set $X\leftarrow X_{0}$.
\FOR{$t = 1 \to \lceil\frac{(\log (\delta) + \log(\pi^\dagger(X_{0}))}{4\lambda^{4}m}\rceil$}
\STATE Update $X$ by the transition matrix \eqref{eq:2regulartransition} with parameter $\lambda$.
\ENDFOR
\IF{$X$ is a generalized loop}
\STATE BREAK and output $X$.
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE Output a random $2$-regular generalized loop.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\iffalse
\noindent{\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler}
\hrule
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] Set $\lambda \leftarrow \frac{w_{\min}^{d}}{n}$, $\hat{\delta} \leftarrow 2\delta / 3(n+2)$.
\item[2.] Repeat $T = \lceil(n/2 + 1)\ln(3/\delta)\rceil$ times:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)] Simulate the Markov chain $\mathcal{MC}$, with parameter $\lambda$,
for
$\frac{(\log (\delta) + \log(\pi^\dagger(X_{0}))}{4\lambda^{4}m}$ steps (with initial state $X_{0}$).
\item[(ii)] Output the final state if it is a $2$-regular generalized loop and halt.
\end{itemize}
\item[3.] Output an arbitrary $2$-regular generalized loop if all trials fail.
\end{itemize}
\hrule
\vspace{0.1in}
\fi
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:sample2regular}
The algorithm {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} outputs the sample from the distribution $\pi$
with tolerance $\delta$.
\end{corollary}
In addition, Jerrum and Sinclair \cite{C3} quantified how much samples are necessary for
estimating some non-negative real valued function $f$
using the proposed sampler.
The theorem is directly applicable to our case,
using the {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler}
to achieve a specified accuracy with specified confidence.
\begin{theorem}[Jerrum, Sinclair 1990]
\label{thm:samplenum2regular}
Let $f$ be a non-negative real-valued random variable defined on the set
$\Omega$ and let $\xi$, $\eta$ be real numbers with
$0<\xi\leq 1$ and $0<\eta \leq 1/2$.
Then using
$504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil \max(f)/\mathbb{E}(f)$ samples from
the {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler},
produces an ouput $Y$ satisfying
\begin{align*}
\mbox{Pr}\left(Y~\mbox{approximates $\mathbb{E}(f)$ within ratio $1+\xi$}\right) \leq 1-\eta.
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}
Theorem \ref{thm:samplenum2regular} implies that whenever we
use the {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} for approximating
a non-negative function $f$, the ratio $\max f / \mathbb{E}(f)$ must be
bounded by a polynomial function of the size of the system.
\subsection{Simulated annealing for approximating 2-regular loop series}
\label{sec:2regularsec2}
Here we utilize Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular} to describe an algorithm approximating the $2$-regular LS $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$ in polynomial time. To achieve this goal,
we rely on the simulated annealing strategy \cite{SA} which requires to decide
a monotone cooling schedule $\beta_0,\beta_1,\dots, \beta_{\ell-1},\beta_\ell$, where $\beta_\ell$ corresponds to the target counting problem and $\beta_0$ does to its relaxed easy version. Thus, designing
an appropriate cooling strategy
is the first challenge to address. We will also describe how to deal with the issue that $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$ is
a sum of positive and negative terms, while most simulated annealing strategies in the literature mainly studied on sums of non-negative terms.
This second challenge is related to the so-called `fermion sign problem' common in statistical mechanics of quantum systems
\cite{sign}.
Before we describe the proposed algorithm in details, let us provide its intuitive sketch.
The proposed algorithm consists of two parts: a) estimating $Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ via a simulated annealing strategy and b) estimating $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}/Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ via counting samples corresponding to negative terms in the 2-regular loop series.
First consider the following $\beta$-parametrized, auxiliary distribution over $2$-regular loops:
\begin{align}
\label{pi-2-Loop}
\pi_{\text{2-Loop}
(F:\beta) = \frac{1}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}|w(F)|^{\beta},\qquad
\mbox{for}~~ 0\leq \beta\leq 1.
\end{align}
Note that one can generate samples approximately with probability (\ref{pi-2-Loop})
in polynomial-time using {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} by setting $w \leftarrow w^{\beta}$.
Indeed, it follows that for $\beta^\prime> \beta$,
\begin{equation*}
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta^\prime)}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}
=
\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}
|w(F)|^{\beta^\prime - \beta}
\frac{|w(F)|^{\beta}}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}
=
\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}\left[|w(F)|^{\beta^\prime - \beta}\right],
\end{equation*}
where the expectation
can be estimated using $O(1)$ samples if it is $\Theta(1)$, i.e., $\beta^\prime$ is sufficiently close to $\beta$.
Then, for any increasing sequence $\beta_0=0,\beta_1,\dots, \beta_{n-1},\beta_n=1$,
we derive
\begin{equation*}
Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}} =
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_n)}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{n-1})}\cdot
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{n-1})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{n-2})}\cdots
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{2})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{1})}
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{1})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_0)}
Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(0),
\end{equation*}
where it is know that
$Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(0)$, i.e., the total number of 2-regular loops, is
exactly $2^{m-n+1}$ \cite{C11}.
This allows us to estimate $Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ simply by estimating
$\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_i)}\left[|w(F)|^{\beta_{i+1} - \beta_i}\right]$
for all $i$.
Our next step is to estimate the ratio $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}/Z^\dagger_{\text{2-Loop}}$.
Let $\mathcal{L}^{-}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ denote the
set of negative 2-regular loops, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{L}^{-}_{\text{2-Loop}} := \{F: F\in\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}, w(F) < 0\}.
\end{equation*}
Then, the $2$-regular loop series can be expressed as
\begin{equation*}
Z_{\text{2-Loop}} = \left(1-2\frac{\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}^{-}_{\text{2-Loop}}}|w(F)|}{Z^\dagger_{\text{2-Loop}}}
\right)Z^\dagger_{\text{2-Loop}}
= \left(1-2 P_{\pi_{\text{2--Loop}}}\bigg[w(F)<0\bigg]
\right)Z^\dagger_{\text{2-Loop}},
\end{equation*}
where we estimate $P_{\pi_{\text{2--Loop}}}\big[w(F)<0\big]$ again using samples generated by
{Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}}.
We provide the formal description of the proposed algorithm and its error bound as follows.
\begin{algorithm}[H]
\caption{Approximation for $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$}
\label{alg:estimate2regular}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf Input:}
Increasing sequence $\beta_0=0<\beta_1<\dots< \beta_{n-1}<\beta_n=1$; number of samples $s_{1}, s_{2}$; number of trials $N_{1}$;
number of iterations $T_{1}$ for {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}}.
\For{$i = 0 \to n-1$}
\State Generate 2-regular loops $F_1,\dots, F_{s_1}$ for $\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i})$ using {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} with input $N_{1}$ and $T_{1}$, and set
\begin{equation*}
H_{i} \leftarrow \frac1{s_1}\sum_j w(F_j)^{\beta_{i+1}-\beta_i}.
\end{equation*}
\EndFor
\State Generate 2-regular loops $F_1,\dots, F_{s_2}$ for $\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}$ using {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} with input $N_{2}$ and $T_{2}$, and set
\begin{equation*}
\kappa \leftarrow \frac{|\{F_j: w(F_j)<0\}|}{s_2}.
\end{equation*}
\State {\bf Output:} $\widehat Z_{\text{2-Loop}}\leftarrow
(1-2\kappa)2^{m-n+1}\prod_{i}H_{i}$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\iffalse
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:estimatepartition2regular}
Given $\varepsilon, \nu > 0$, choose
inputs of {Algorithm \ref{alg:estimate2regular}} as $\beta_{i} = i/n$ for $i=1,2,\dots,n-1$,
\begin{align*}
&s\geq 18144 n^{2}\varepsilon^{-2}w^{-1}_{\min}\lceil\log (6n\nu^{-1})\rceil,\qquad
&&N \geq 1.2n\log(144n \varepsilon^{-1}w_{\min}^{-1}),\\
&T \geq
(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log(48 n \varepsilon^{-1}w_{\min}^{-1}),\\
&s \geq 18144\zeta^{2}
\varepsilon^{-4}\lceil\log (3\nu^{-1})\rceil,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
&&N \geq
1.2n\log (288\varepsilon^{-2}
\zeta),\\
&T \geq
(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log(864\varepsilon^{-2}
\zeta)
\end{align*}
where $w_{\min}=\min_{e\in E} w(e)$ and $\zeta = 2\left|P_{\pi_{\text{2--Loop}}}[w(F)<0]^{-1} - 2 \right|^{-1}.$
Then, the following statement holds
\begin{align*}
P\left[\frac{|\hat{Z}_{\text{2-Loop}} - Z_{\text{2-Loop}}|}{Z_{\text{2-Loop}}}\leq
\varepsilon
\right] \leq 1-\nu,
\end{align*}
which means that {Algorithm \ref{alg:estimate2regular}} estimates
$Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$ with probability at least $1-\nu$ within approximation ratio $1\pm\varepsilon$.
\end{theorem}
\fi
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:estimatepartition2regular}
Given $\varepsilon, \nu > 0$, choose
inputs of {Algorithm \ref{alg:estimate2regular}} as $\beta_{i} = i/n$ for $i=1,2,\dots,n-1$,
\begin{align*}
&s_{1}\geq 18144 n^{2}\varepsilon^{-2}w^{-1}_{\min}\lceil\log (6n\nu^{-1})\rceil,\qquad
&&N_{1} \geq 1.2n\log(144n \varepsilon^{-1}w_{\min}^{-1}),\\
&T_{1} \geq
(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log(48 n \varepsilon^{-1}w_{\min}^{-1}),\\
&s_{2} \geq 18144\zeta(1-2\zeta)^{-2}
\varepsilon^{-2}\lceil\log (3\nu^{-1})\rceil,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
&&N_{2} \geq
1.2n\log (144\varepsilon^{-1}
(1-2\zeta)^{-1}),\\
&T_{2} \geq
(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log(48\varepsilon^{-1}
(1-2\zeta)^{-1})
\end{align*}
where $w_{\min}=\min_{e\in E} w(e)$ and $\zeta = P_{\pi_{\text{2--Loop}}}[w(F)<0].$
Then, the following statement holds
\begin{align*}
P\left[\frac{|\widehat{Z}_{\text{2-Loop}} - Z_{\text{2-Loop}}|}{Z_{\text{2-Loop}}}\leq
\varepsilon
\right] \leq 1-\nu,
\end{align*}
which means {Algorithm \ref{alg:estimate2regular}} estimates
$Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$
within approximation ratio $1\pm\varepsilon$ with high probability.
\end{theorem}
The proof of the above theorem is presented in the supplementary material due to the space constraint.
We note that all constants entering in Theorem \ref{thm:estimatepartition2regular} were not optimized.
Theorem \ref{thm:estimatepartition2regular} implies that complexity of {Algorithm \ref{alg:estimate2regular}} is polynomial with respect to
$n, 1/\varepsilon, 1/\nu$ under assumption that
$w_{\min}^{-1}$ and $1 - 2P_{\pi_{\text{2--Loop}}}[w(F)<0]$
are polynomially small. Both $w_{\min}^{-1}$ and $1 - 2P_{\pi_{\text{2--Loop}}}[w(F)<0]$ depend on the choice of BP fixed point, however it is unlikely (unless a degeneracy) that these characteristics become large. In particular,
$P_{\pi_{\text{2--Loop}}}[w(F)<0]=0$ in the case of attractive models \cite{C15}.
\iffalse
\hrule
\begin{itemize}
\item [1.] Set $\xi \leftarrow \varepsilon_{1} / 2n$ and
$\eta \leftarrow 1-(1-\nu)^{1/n}$.
\item [2.] For each $i = 0,1,\cdots n-1$ in turn, let $f(F) = w(F)^{(\beta_{i+1}- \beta_{i})}$ and
take $s = 504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil 1/w_{\min}$ samples from $\pi_{\beta}$
using {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} to estimate $f(F)$ as $H_{i}$.
\item [3.] Set $\xi^\prime \leftarrow e^{\varepsilon_{2}}$.
\item [4.] Take $s = 504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil 1/\delta$ samples
from {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} algorithm.
\item [5.] Set $\kappa^\prime \leftarrow \frac{|\mathcal{L}^{*}_{-}|}{s}$,
where $\mathcal{L}^{*}_{-}$ is the
generalized loops in $\mathcal{L}_{-}$ among the samples.
\item [6.] Output $\log (1-2\kappa^\prime)2^{m-n+c}\prod_{i} H_{i}$.
\end{itemize}
\hrule
\fi
\iffalse
Using Theorem \ref{thm:samplenum2regular}, the following corollary is obtained.
\begin{corollary}
The {\bf Estimating 2-regular generalized partition} algorithm computes
$Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ within error of $1-\epsilon$ with probability at least
$3/4$.
\end{corollary}
\noindent{\bf Estimating 2-regular generalized partition}
\hrule
\begin{itemize}
\item [1.] Set $\xi \leftarrow \epsilon / 2n$ and $\eta \leftarrow 1/4n$.
\item [2.] For each $i = 0,1,\cdots n-1$ in turn, let $f(F) = w(F)^{(\beta_{i+1}- \beta_{i})}$ and
take $s = 504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil 1/w_{\min}$ samples from $\pi_{\beta}$
using {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} to estimate $f(F)$ as $H_{i}$.
\item [3.] Set $Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}_{\mbox{approx}} \leftarrow 2^{m-n+c}\prod_{i} H_{i}.$
\item [4.] Get $s = 504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil 1/\epsilon$ samples
from {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} algorithm.
\item [5.] Set $\kappa \leftarrow \frac{|\mathcal{L}^{*}_{-}|}{s}$,
where $\mathcal{L}^{*}_{-}$ is the
generalized loops in $\mathcal{L}_{-}$ among the samples.
\item [6.] Output $(1-2\kappa)Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}_{\mbox{approx}}$.
\end{itemize}
\hrule
\fi
\iffalse
Moreover each term $\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i-1})}$ is properly bounded and the estimation can be done with few samples.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:annealing2regular}
Let $\beta$ and $\beta^\prime$ be arbitrary real numbers in the range [0,1] satisfying
$\beta^\prime = \beta + \frac{1}{n}$. Then the ratio
$\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta^\prime)}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}$
is bounded below by $w_{\min}$
\end{theorem}
\fi
\iffalse
\noindent{\bf Estimating $Z_{\text{2-Loop}}/Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$}
\hrule
\begin{itemize}
\item [1.] Get $s = 504\lceil\varepsilon^{-3} \log \nu^{-1}\rceil $ samples
from {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} algorithm.
\item [2.] Count the size of $\mathcal{L}^{*}_{-}$,
the set of generalized loops in $\mathcal{L}_{-}$ among the samples.
\item [3.] Output $\log \left((1-\frac{2|\mathcal{L}^{*}_{-}|}{s})Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}\right)$.
\end{itemize}
\hrule
\noindent{\bf Estimating $Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$}
\hrule
\begin{itemize}
\item [1.] Set $\xi \leftarrow \epsilon / 2n$ and
$\eta \leftarrow 1-(1-\nu)^{1/n}$.
\item [2.] For each $i = 0,1,\cdots n-1$ in turn, let $f(F) = w(F)^{(\beta_{i+1}- \beta_{i})}$ and
take $s = 504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil 1/w_{\min}$ samples from $\pi_{\beta}$
using {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler} to estimate $f(F)$ as $H_{i}$.
\item [3.] Output $ 2^{m-n+c}\prod_{i} H_{i}.$
\end{itemize}
\hrule
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{corollary}\label{cor:estimateabspartition}
Algorithm \ref{alg:estimate2regular} computes
$Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ within error of $1-\epsilon$ with probability at least
$1-\nu$.
\end{corollary}
\fi
\section{Estimating full loop series via MCMC}\label{sec:fullLS}
In this section, we aim for estimating the full loop series
$Z_{\text{Loop}}$.
To this end, we design a novel MC sampler for generalized loops, which
adds (or removes) a cycle basis or a path
to (or from) the current generalized loop.
Therefore, we naturally start this section introducing necessary backgrounds on {\it cycle basis}.
Then, we turn to describe the design of MC sampler for generalized loops. Finally, we describe a simulated annealing scheme similar to the one described in the preceding section.
We also report its experimental performance comparing with other methods.
\vspace{-0.05in}
\subsection{Sampling generalized loops with cycle basis}\label{sec:sampleGL}
The cycle basis $\mathcal C$ of the graph $G$ is a minimal set of
cycles which allows to represent every
Eulerian subgraph of $G$ (i.e., subgraphs containing no odd-degree vertex) as a symmetric difference of
cycles in the set \cite{C11}.
Let us characterize the combinatorial structure of the
generalized loop using the cycle basis. To this end, consider a set of paths between any pair of vertices:
\begin{align*}
\mathcal{P} = \{P_{u,v}: u\neq v, u,v\in V, \mbox{$P_{u,v}$ is a path from $u$ to $v$}\},
\end{align*}
i.e., $|\mathcal P| = \binom{n}{2}$.
Then the following theorem allows to decompose any generalized loop with respect to any selected $\mathcal C$
and $\mathcal P$.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:generalizedloopdecomp}
Consider any cycle basis $\mathcal C$ and path set $\mathcal P$.
Then, for any generalized loop $F$, there exists a decomposition, $\mathcal{B}\subset \mathcal{C}\cup \mathcal{P}$, such that
$F$ can be expressed as a symmetric difference of the elements of $\mathcal{B}$, i.e.,
$F = B_{1} \oplus B_{2} \oplus \cdots B_{k-1} \oplus B_{k}$ for some $B_{i} \in \mathcal{B}$.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Simulated annealing for approximating full loop series}\label{sec:whole}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Approximation for $Z_{\text{Loop}}$}
\label{alg:approximatingfull}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf Input:}
Decreasing sequence $\beta_{0} > \beta_{1}> \cdots > \beta_{\ell-1} > \beta_{\ell} = 1$; number of samples $s_{0}$, $s_{1},s_{2}$;
number of iterations $T_{0}$, $T_{1},T_{2}$ for the MC described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL
\State
Generate generalized loops $F_{1}, \cdots, F_{s_{0}}$ by running $T_{0}$ iterations of the MC described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL} for
$\pi_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_0)$, and set
\begin{equation*}
U \leftarrow \frac{s_{0}}{s^{*}}|w(F^{*})|^{\beta_0},
\end{equation*}
where $F^{*} = \arg\max_{F\in\{F_{1}, \cdots, F_{s_{0}}\}} |w(F)|$ and $s^{*}$ is the number of $F^{*}$ sampled.
\For{$i=0 \to \ell-1$}
\State Generate generalized loops $F_{1}, \cdots, F_{s_{1}}$
by running $T_{1}$ iterations of the MC described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL}
for $\pi_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_i)$,
and set
$H_{i}\leftarrow \frac{1}{s_{1}}\sum_{j}|w(F_{j})|^{\beta_{i+1}-\beta_{i}}.$
\EndFor
\State Generate generalized loops $F_{1}, \cdots F_{s_{2}}$
by running $T_2$ iterations of the MC described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL} for $\pi_{\text{Loop}}$,
and set
\begin{equation*}
\kappa \leftarrow \frac{|\{F_{j}: w(F_{j}) < 0\}|}{s_{2}}.
\end{equation*}
\State {\bf Output:} $\widehat{Z}_{\text{Loop}} \leftarrow (1-2\kappa)\prod_{i}H_{i}U$.
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
Now we are ready to describe a simulated annealing scheme for
estimating $Z_{\text{Loop}}$.
It is similar, in principle, with that in
Section \ref{sec:2regularsec2}.
First, we again introduce the following $\beta$-parametrized, auxiliary probability distribution
$\pi_{\text{Loop}}(F:\beta) =| w(F)|^{\beta}/Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta)$.
For any decreasing sequence of annealing parameters, $\beta_{0}, \beta_{1} , \cdots, \beta_{\ell-1}, \beta_{\ell} = 1$,
we derive
\begin{equation*}
Z^\dagger_{\text{Loop}} =
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_\ell)}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{\ell-1})}\cdot
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{\ell-1})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{\ell-2})}\cdots
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{2})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{1})}\cdot
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{1})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_0)}
Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{0}).
\end{equation*}
Following similar procedures in Section \ref{sec:2regularsec2},
one can estimate
${Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta^{\prime})}/{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta)} = \mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{Loop}}(\beta)}[|w(F)|^{\beta^{
\prime} - \beta}]$
using the sampler described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL}.
Moreover, $Z^{\dagger}_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{0}) = |w(F^{*})|/P_{\pi_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{0})}(F^{*})$
is estimated by sampling generalized loop $F^{*}$
with the highest probability $P_{\pi_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{0})}(F^{*})$.
For large enough $\beta_{0}$,
the approximation error becomes relatively small since
$P_{\pi_{\text{Loop}}(\beta_{0})}(F^{*}) \propto |w(F^{*})|^{\beta_{0}}$
dominates over the distribution.
In combination, this provides a desired approximation for $Z_{\text{Loop}}$.
The result is stated formally in Algorithm \ref{alg:approximatingfull}.
\iffalse
$w^\dagger : E \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ as:
\begin{align}
w^{\dagger}(e) =
\log \frac{\tau_{st}-\tau_{s}\tau_{t}}{(\tau_{s}\tau_{t}(1-\tau_{s})(1-\tau_{t})^{1/2}}
\end{align}
The markov chain is based on the minimum weighted
cycle basis $\mathcal{C}$ and the
set of paths $\mathcal{P} = \{P_{ij}: \mbox{$P_{ij}$ is the shortest path between
$i, j \in V$}\}$ with respect to $w^\dagger$.
The insight for choice of such objects is that
they provide a decomposition for generalized loops, and
small weight later implies transition probabilities close to $1$.
\fi
\iffalse
First denote $\mathcal{L}_{+}$ and $\mathcal{L}_{-}$ as
the partition of generalized loops into sets corresponding to
positive and negative respectively.
Let $Z_{+}$ and $Z_{-}$
denote their respective partition function.
Then the full partition function of the loop series can be
expressed by the following equation:
\begin{align}\label{eq:wholepartition}
Z = \sum_{F \in \mathcal L} w(F) = \sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{+}}|w(F)| - \sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{-}}|w(F)| = Z_{+} - Z_{-}
\end{align}
Difficulty of approximating the full partition function
by direct sampling of loop series terms arise
from the negative terms corresponding to set $\mathcal{L}_{-}$.
Therefore we design an
algorithm is consisting of two parts: 1)It samples a
generalized loop from the Markov Chain $\mathcal{MC}2$
having the state space as the
set of generalized loops and
its weight as the absolute
value of corresponding loop series.
2) Depending on sign of the corresponding loop series,
the sample is used to estimate $Z_{+}$ or $Z_{-}$ separately.
3) Then the whole partition function is
expressed as the some of two estimations $Z = Z_{+}-Z_{-}$.
Here, even though the samples
in $\mathcal{L}_{+}$ or $\mathcal{L}_{-}$
may be considerably small compared to each another,
we are still be able to construct an algorithm with small error.
The proposed algorithm for sampling $s$ samples is constructed by the following steps:
\begin{itemize}
\item [1.] Simulate the Markov chain $\mathcal{MC}_{2}$ for sufficient amount of
steps $T$ until the variation distance becomes small enough.
\item [2.] Sample some generalized loop $F$ from $\mathcal{MC}_{2}$. If $F$ is a
generalized loop in $\mathcal{L}_{+}$, add it to $M_{+}$. Otherwise, add it to $M_{-}$.
\item [3.] Repeat until $|M_{+}| + |M_{-}| = s$.
\end{itemize}
Using the samples $M_{+}$ and $M_{-}$, we approximate $Z_{+}$ and $Z_{-}$
respectively as in Section \ref{sec:2regular}
\subsection{Estimating the full partition function}
\fi
\iffalse
Now we define the transitions
in $\mathcal{MC}_{2}$ as the symmetric difference of
a cycle in $\mathcal{C}$ or some path in $\mathcal{P}$.
More specifically, for $X, X^\prime \in \Omega$ with $X\neq X^\prime$,
the transition probability from $X$ to $X^\prime$ is given by
\begin{align}
p(X,X^\prime) =
\begin{cases}
1/2|\mathcal{\mathcal{C} \cup \mathcal{P}}| \qquad &\mbox{if $X\oplus X^\prime \in \mathcal{\mathcal{C} \cup \mathcal{P}}$ and $|w(X^\prime)| \geq |w(X)|$}\\
|w(X^\prime)|/(2|\mathcal{\mathcal{C} \cup \mathcal{P}}||w(X)|)\qquad &\mbox{if $X\oplus X^\prime \in \mathcal{\mathcal{C} \cup \mathcal{P}}$ and $|w(X^\prime)| < |w(X)|$}\\
0 \qquad &\mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\end{align}
where the self-loop probabilities $p(X,X)$ are defined implicitly by complementation.
\fi
\section{Preliminaries}\label{sec:pre}
\subsection{Graphical models and belief propagation}
\label{subsec:GM}
Given undirected graph $G=(V,E)$ with $|V|=n, |E|=m$,
a pairwise binary {\it Markov Random Fields} (MRF) defines
the following joint probability distribution on $x=[x_{v} \in\{0,1\}: v \in V]$:
\begin{equation*}
p(x) = \frac{1}{Z} \prod_{v\in V} \psi_{v}(x_{v}) \prod_{(u,v)\in E} \psi_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v}),
\qquad Z:= \sum_{x\in \{0,1\}^{n}}\prod_{v\in V}\psi_{v}(x_v)\prod_{(u,v)\in E}\psi_{u,v,}(x_{u},x_{v})
\end{equation*}
where $\psi_v,\psi_{u,v}$ are some non-negative functions, called
{\it compatibility} or {\it factor} functions, and the normalization constant $Z$
is called the {\it partition function}.
Without loss of generality, we assume $G$ is connected.
It is known that approximating the partition function is \#P-hard in general \cite{C3}.
Belief Propagation (BP) is a popular message-passing heuristic for approximating
marginal distributions of MRF. The BP algorithm iterates the following message updates for all $(u,v)\in E$:
\begin{equation*}
m^{t+1}_{u\rightarrow v}(x_{v})
\propto
\sum_{x_{u}\in \{0,1\}}
\psi_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v})\psi_{u}(x_{u})
\prod_{w\in N(u)\backslash v}
m^{t}_{w\rightarrow u}(x_{u}),
\end{equation*}
where
${N}(v)$ denotes the set of neighbors of $v$.
In general BP may fail to converge, however in this case one may substitute it with a somehow more involved algorithm provably convergent to its fixed point \cite{ConvBP1,ConvBP2,ConvBP3}.
Estimates for the marginal probabilities are expressed via the fixed-point messages $\{m_{u\to v}:(u,v)\in E\}$ as follows: $\tau_{v}(x_{v}) \propto \psi_{v}(x_{v})
\prod_{u \in N(v)}m_{u\rightarrow v}(x_{v})$ and
\begin{align*}
\tau_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v}) &\propto \psi_{u}(x_{u})\psi_{v}(x_{v})\psi_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v})
\left(
\prod_{w \in {N}(u)}m_{w\rightarrow v}(x_{u})
\right)
\left(
\prod_{w \in {N}(v)}m_{w\rightarrow v}(x_{v})
\right).
\end{align*}
\vspace{-0.05in}
\subsection{Bethe approximation and loop calculus}
BP marginals also results in the following {\it Bethe approximation} for the partition function $Z$:
\begin{align*}
\begin{split}
\log Z_{\text{Bethe}}
= & \sum_{v \in V}\sum_{x_{v}} \tau_{v}(x_{v}) \log \psi_{v}(x_{v})
+ \sum_{(u,v) \in E}\sum_{x_{u}, x_{v}} \tau_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v}) \log \psi_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v}) \\
- & \sum_{v \in V}\sum_{x_{v}} \tau_{v}(x_{v}) \log \tau_{v}(x_{v})
- \sum_{(u,v) \in E}\sum_{x_{u}, x_{v}} \tau_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v}) \log \frac{\tau_{u,v}(x_{u},x_{v})}{\tau_{u}(x_{u})\tau_{v}(x_{v})}
\end{split}
\end{align*}
If graph $G$ is a tree,
the Bethe approximation is exact, i.e., $Z_{\text{Bethe}} = Z$.
However, in general, i.e. for the graph with cycles, BP algorithm provides often rather accurate but still an approximation.
\input{preliminary_loopseries}
\input{preliminary_MC}
\iffalse
Let $\Lambda(s)$
denote the set of factors $\psi$ depending on $X_{s}$, where the latter stands for the set of neighbors of node $s$ in the corresponding
factor graph.
Then the BP algorithm updates messages as follows:
\begin{align}
\label{eq:BPmessage1}
\bar{m}_{sc}(x_{s}) &\leftarrow
\psi_{s}(x_{s}) \prod_{d \in \Lambda (s) \backslash c} m_{dc}(x_{s})\\
\label{eq:BPmessage2}
m_{cs}(x_{s}) &\leftarrow
\sum_{x_{c\backslash s}} \psi_{c}(x_{c}) \prod_{t \in c \backslash s} \bar{m}_{tc}(x_{t})
\end{align}
\fi
\iffalse
Equation \eqref{eq:BPmessage1} updates the message $\bar{m}_{sc}(x_{s})$
passed from variable node $s$ to factor $c$.
Then by equation \eqref{eq:BPmessage2},
new outgoing messages $m_{cs}(x_{s})$ from factor $c$ to each $s \in c$
are determined by marginalizing the incoming messages from other nodes.
\fi
\subsection{Markov Chain Monte Carlo and Mixing Time}
Approximation using Markov Chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) methods is based on
using average of samples from Markov chain to estimate expectations over the
desired distribution.
In particular, we estimate the expected value of
function $f: \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ by
$\mathbb{E}_{\pi}[f(Y)] \approx (1/R) \sum_{r = 1}^{R}f(Y^{(r)})$, where $Y^{(r)}$ is
some sampled state from the proposed Markov chain after simulating $T$ steps.
The choice of number of samples $R$ and Markov chain steps $T$
presents a tradeoff between computational efficiency and approximation accuracy.
It turns out effect of both $R$ and $T$ is largely dependent on the
{\it mixing time} of the Markov Chain.
\begin{definition}
The mixing time $\tau_{X_{0}}(\varepsilon)$ is defined as:
\begin{align}
\tau_{X_{0}}(\varepsilon) = \min \{t: d(p^{(t)}(Y_{0}, \cdot) , \pi(\cdot)) \leq \varepsilon\},
\end{align}
where $p^{(t)}(Y_{0}, \cdot)$ is the probability distribution after $t$ steps of the
Markov chain with initial state $Y_{0}$,
$d$ is the {\it variation distance} defined as:
\begin{align}
d(p,q) := ||p(Y) - q(Y)|| =\sum_{Y \in \Omega}\frac{1}{2}|p(Y) - q(Y)|.
\end{align}
\end{definition}
The mixing time of a chain quantifies the number of iterations $t$ required
for the distribution of $X_t$ to be close to the stationary distribution $\pi$.
Thus, establishing upper bounds for the mixing time is essential for
guaranteeing efficient approximation algorithms.
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{definition}
For ergodic reversible Markov chain, the {\bf conductance} is defined by
\begin{align}
\Phi = \min \left\{ \sum_{X\sin S X^{\prime}\not\in S} q(X,X^{\prime}) \bigg/ \sum_{X \in S}\pi(X) \right\}
\end{align}
where the minimization is over all subsets $S$ of states with $0 < \sum_{X \in S} \pi (X) \leq 1/2$.
\end{definition}
The conductance in some sense measures the rate at which the process can flow around the state space: specifically, it provides a lower bound on the
conditional probability that the stationary process escapes from a small subset.
Thus a chain with large conductance is unlikely to get "stuck" in any small region of the state space
and this intuition is captured in the following theorem.
\begin{theorem}
Let $\Phi$ be the conductance of an ergodic reversible Markov chain with stationary distribution $\pi$ and $\min_{X}p(X,X) \leq 1/2$.
Let $p^{(t)}$ denote the distribution of the state at time $t$ given that the initial state is $X_{0}$.
Then the variation distance $||p^{(t)} - \pi ||$ satisfies
\begin{align}
||p^{(t)} - \pi || \leq \frac{(1-\Phi^{2})^{t}}{\pi(X_{0})}
\end{align}
Then one can conclude that the mixing time $\tau_{X_{0}}(\varepsilon)$ of the Markov chain is bounded by $\Phi^{-2}(\ln \varepsilon^{-1} + \ln \pi (X_{0})^{-1})$.
\end{theorem}
\fi
\iffalse
Suppose we have an Markov Chain which for any inverse temperature $\beta >0 $ generates a random
configuration from the distribution $\mu_{beta}$ over $\Omega$ where the probability
of a configuration $\sigma \in \Omega$ is
\begin{align*}
\mu_{\beta}(\sigma) = \frac{e^{-\betas}}{Z(\beta)}
\end{align*}
We now describe the details of the standard approach for using such a sampling agorithm
to approximately evaluate $Z(\beta)$.
First consider the random variable
\begin{align}
W_{\beta, \beta^{\prime}} := e^{(\beta - \beta^{\prime})w(X)}
\end{align}
is an unbiased estimator for $Z(\beta^{\prime})/Z(\beta)$.
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}(W_{\beta, \beta^{\prime}}) = \frac{1}{Z(\beta)} \sum_{\sigma \in \Omega} w(\sigma)e^{-\beta} \cdot
e^{w(\sigma)(\beta - \beta^{\prime})} =
\frac{Z(\beta^{\prime}}{Z(\beta)}
\end{align}
\fi
\iffalse
Suppose we have an Markov Chain which for any inverse temperature $\beta >0 $ generates a random
configuration from the distribution $\mu_{beta}$ over $\Omega$ where the probability
of a configuration $\sigma \in \Omega$ is
\begin{align*}
\mu_{\beta}(\sigma) = \frac{e^{-\beta(H(\sigma))}}{Z(\beta)}
\end{align*}
where $H(\sigma)$ is the Hamiltonian of the configuration defined as
\begin{align}
H(\sigma) = i \qquad \mbox{such that~} \sigma \in \Omega_{i}.
\end{align}
where $\Omega_{i}$ is the $i$-th partition of the state space $\Omega$.
\begin{theorem}
Let $A$ be the number of states, i.e. $A = |\Omega|$ Let $\varepsilon > 0$ be the desired precision. Suppose that we are given access to
oracles that sample from the distribution within variation distance
\begin{align}
\frac{\varepsilon^{2}}{10^{8}(\ln A)((\ln n) + \ln\ln A)^{5}}
\end{align}
from $\mu_{B}$ for any inverse temperature $\beta$. Using $\frac{10^{8}}{\varepsilon^{2}}(\ln A)((\ln n)+\ln\ln A)^{5}$ samples in total, we can obtain a
random variable $\hat{S}$ such that
\begin{align}
P((1-\varepsilon)Z(\infty) \leq \hat{S} \leq (1-\varepsilon)Z(\infty)) \geq 3/4
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
\fi
\subsection{Loop Calculus}
{\it Loop Series} (LS) \cite{C8} expresses, $Z/Z_{\text{Bethe}}$, as
the following sum/series:
\begin{equation*}
\frac{Z}{Z_{\text{Bethe}}} ~=~ Z_{\text{Loop}}
~:=~\sum_{F\in \mathcal L} w(F),\quad w(\emptyset)=1,
\end{equation*}
\begin{equation*}
w(F) :=
\prod_{(u,v) \in E_{F}}\left(\frac{\tau_{u,v}(1,1)}{\tau_{u}(1)\tau_{v}(1)}-1\right)
\prod_{v\in V_{F}}\left(\tau_{v}(1)+(-1)^{d_{F}(v)}\left(\frac{\tau_{v}(1)}{1-\tau_{v}(1)}\right)^{d_{F}(v)-1}\tau_{v}(1)\right) \label{eq:weight}
\end{equation*}
where each term/weight is associated with the so-called {\it generalized loop} $F$
and
$\mathcal{L}$ denotes the set of all generalized loops in graph $G$ (including the empty subgraph $\emptyset$).
Here, a subgraph $F$ of $G$ is called generalized loop
if all vertices $v\in F$ have degree $d_{F}(v)$ (in the subgraph) no smaller than $2$.
Since the number of generalized loops is exponentially large, computing $Z_{\text{Loop}}$
is intractable in general. However,
the following truncated sum of ${Z_{\text{Loop}}}$, called {\it 2-regular loop series},
is known to be computable in polynomial-time if $G$ is planar \cite{C9}:\footnote{
Note that the number of 2-regular loops is exponentially large in general.}
$$Z_{\text{2-Loop}} := \sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}} w(F),$$
where $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ denotes the set of all
{\it 2-regular generalized loops}, i.e., $F\in
\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ if $d_F(v)=2$ for every vertex $v$ of $F$.
One can check that $Z_{\text{Loop}}=Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$ for
the Ising model without the external fields. Furthermore, as stated in \cite{C9,C9-1} for the general case,
$Z_{\text{2-Loop}}$ provides a good empirical estimation for $Z_{\text{Loop}}$.
\section{Proofs of Theorems}
\iffalse
\subsection{Proof of of Theorem \ref{thm:mixing2regular}}
Our proof makes use of the following result \cite{xx}.
\begin{theorem}[Schweinsberg 2002 \cite{xx}.]
Consider an irreducible and lazy Markov chain,
with finite state space $\Omega$ and transition matrix $P$,
which is reversible with respect to the distribution $\pi$.
Let $\mathcal{O} \subseteq \Omega$ be nonempty, and
for each pair $(I,F) \in \Omega \times \mathcal{O}$, specify a path
$\gamma_{I,F}$ in $\mathcal{G}_{P}$ form $I$ to $F$.
Let
\begin{align}
\Gamma = \{\gamma_{I,F} : (I,F) \in \Omega \times \mathcal{O}\}
\end{align}
denote the collection of all such paths, and let $\mathcal{L}(\Gamma)$ be the longest
path is $\Gamma$.
For any transition $T$, let
\begin{align}
\mathcal{P}_{T} = \{(I,F)\in \Omega \times \mathcal{O}: T \in \gamma_{I,F}\}.
\end{align}
Then
\begin{align}
\tau_{A}(\delta) \leq \left[\log\left(\frac{1}{\pi(A) + \log \left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)}\right)\right] 4\mathcal{L}(T)\Phi(\Gamma)
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\Phi(\Gamma) = \max_{(A,A^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}_{P}}
\left\{
\sum_{I,F \in \mathcal{P}_{(A,A^\prime)}} \frac{\pi (I)\pi(F)}{\pi(\mathcal{O})\pi(A)P(A,A^\prime)}.
\right\}
\end{align}
\end{theorem}
In our application, we choose $\mathcal{O} = L_{0}$ and
we show that there exists a choice of paths $\Gamma = \{\gamma_{I,F}: (I,F) \in L_{0}\cup L_{2} \times L_{0}\}$ such that
\begin{align}
\Phi(\Gamma) \leq dn^{4}, \qquad \mathcal{L}(\Gamma) \leq m.
\end{align}
Then we are able to obtain our main result immediately.
We specify $\Gamma$ first.
To this end, we fix a ordering of vertices by labeling them $1,\cdots n$.
Now observe that
for any pair $(I,F) \in L_{0}\cup L_{2} \times L_{0}$,
the symmetric difference $I\oplus F$ is consisting of
components $C_{0}, C_{1}, \cdots C_{k}$.
Moreover, there exist at most $1$ path
among the components (say $C_{0}$), and other components are
simple cycles.
This can be shown by the fact that $\mbox{odd}(I\oplus F) = \mbox{odd}(I)$,
since $F$ is $2$-regular.
We now define $\gamma_{I,F}$ by updating (applying symmetric difference)
the edges in $C_{0}, C_{1},\cdots C_{k}$.
If $C_{0}$ is a path, pick the endpoint with higher order of label.
Then the edges in paths are updated by {it unwinding} the path $C_{0}$,
starting from the chosen endpoint.
In case of cycles, we pick a vertex with highest order of label and
unwind the edges according to some fixed cycle orientation.
Note that intermediate states are still in $L_{0} \cup L_{2}$ since we update $C_{0}$ first.
We now bound $\Phi(\gamma)$.
Define
\begin{align}
\mathcal{P}_{T,k} = \{(I,F) \in L_{k}\times L_{0}, T \in \gamma_{I,F}\},
\end{align}
then $\mathcal{P}_{T} = \mathcal{P}_{T,0} \cup \mathcal{P,2}.$
We now define a mapping $\eta_{T}: \mathcal{P}_{T}\rightarrow L_{0}, L_{2}, L_{4}$ as:
\begin{align}
\eta_{T}(I,F) = I\oplus F\oplus (A\cup e).
\end{align}
where $T = (A, A\oplus e)$.
We prove that $\eta_{T}$ is an injection.
This is shown by reconstructing $I$ and $F$ from $\eta_{T}(I,F)$.
First observe that $I\oplus F = \eta_{T}(I,F) \oplus (A \cup e)$,
so all we need is to partition $I\oplus F$ into
$I\backslash F$ and $F \backslash I$.
Then from the fixed label of vertices, we are able to
infer the order in which the edges in $I\oplus F$ must be unwound.
Thus we obtain $I$ and $F$ as a result.
Now we prove that for any $T \in \mathcal{E}$, we can bound the term
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\pi(L_{0})} \frac{\pi(I)\pi(F)}{\pi(A)P(A,A^\prime)} \leq
\frac{2d}{\lambda(L_{0})} \Psi(I) \lambda(\eta_{T}(I,F)).
\end{align}
We have
\begin{align}
\frac{1}{\pi(L_{0})} \frac{\pi(I)\pi(F)}{\pi(A)P(A,A^\prime)} =
\frac{1}{n\lambda(L_{0})} \frac{\Psi(I)\lambda(I)n\lambda(F)}{\Psi(A)\lambda(A)P(A,A^\prime)}\\
\leq \frac{1}{\lambda(L_{0})} \Psi(I)\lambda(I)\lambda(F) \frac{2d}{\lambda(A\cup e)} \\
= \frac{2d}{\lambda(L_{0})}\Psi(I) \lambda(\eta_{T}(I,F))
\end{align}
and the statement is proven.
Now observe that
\begin{align}
\Psi(\Gamma) \leq \sum_{(I,F)\in \mathcal{P}_{T}}
\frac{2d}{\lambda(L_{0})}
\end{align}
\fi
\subsection{Proof of of Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}}
First, observe that for any $W\subset V$,
\begin{align}
\sum_{F\in L(W)} |\hat{w}(F)|
&= \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{F\in L(W)} \prod_{e\in F} |\hat{w}(e)| \prod_{s\in V\backslash W} (1 + (-1)^{d_{s}(F)})
\prod_{s\in W}(1 + (-1)^{d_{s}(F)+1})\\
&= \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n}\sum_{F\in L(W)} \prod_{e\in F} |\hat{w}(e)|
\prod_{s\in V} \sigma_{s}^{d_{s}(F)} \prod_{s\in W} \sigma_{s} \\
&\leq \sum_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^n}\frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{F\in L(W)} \prod_{e\in F} |\hat{w}(e)|
\prod_{s\in V} \sigma_{s}^{d_{s}(F)} \\
&= \sum_{F\in L(\emptyset)}|\hat{w}(F)|.
\end{align}
The inequality comes from the fact that $\sigma \leq 1$.
Therefore we have $\sum_{F\in L(\emptyset)}|\hat{w}(F)| \geq \sum_{F\in L(W)}|\hat{w}(F)|$ and
\begin{align}
\frac{\sum_{F \in L_{0}}\pi^{\dagger}(F)}{\sum_{F \in L_{0}\cup L_{2}}\pi^{\dagger}(F)}
&= \frac{n\sum_{F \in L_{0}}|\hat{w}(F)|}{n\sum_{F \in L_{0}}|\hat{w}(F)| + \sum_{W\subseteq V, |W|=2}\sum_{F \in L_{W}}|\hat{w}(F)|} \\
\geq \frac{n}{n+2\binom{n}{2}}
&= \frac{1}{n}.
\end{align}
Thus the proof is complete.
\iffalse
\subsection{Proof of of Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}}
Given $S\subseteq V$,
let $L(S)$ denote the collection of edges
such that the degree of vertices in $S$
is odd in the corresponding
edge-induced subgraphs.
Note that the size of $S$ is even and
the set of $2$-regular generalized loop is equivalent to
$L(\emptyset)$.
Our objective would be to prove:
\begin{align}\label{eq:sample2regular}
\sum_{F\in L(\emptyset)}w(F)
\leq
\frac{2}{n+2}\sum_{S: S\subseteq V}\sum_{F\in L(S)}w(F)
\end{align}
First enumerate the vertices in $S^{\prime}\backslash S$
and let $P_{i}$ denote the shortest
path (without weights) having $2i-1$ and $2i$-th vertex as its endpoint.
Then define an
one-to-one mapping $f$ between $L(S)$ and $L(S^\prime)$:
\begin{align}
f(H) = H \oplus P_{1} \oplus P_{2}\oplus \cdots \oplus P_{|S^{\prime}\backslash S|/2}.
\end{align}
Note that
$L(\emptyset)$ is the set of $2$-regular generalized loops and
existence of such mapping implies
\begin{align}
|L(S)|=|L(\emptyset)|=2^{m-n+c}.
\end{align}
Since the symmetric difference of each path
scales the weight at most $w^{d}_{min}$,
we obtain the following inequality:
\begin{align}
w(F) \geq w_{\min}^{d|S^{\prime}\backslash S|}w(f(F))
\end{align}
Thus, we conclude that
\begin{align}
\lambda^{k}\sum_{S: |S|=k, S\subseteq V}\sum_{F\in L(S)}w(F)
&\leq \lambda^{k}w^{d}_{\min}\binom{n}{k}\sum_{F\in L(\emptyset)}w(F)\\
&\leq \sum_{F\in L(\emptyset)}w(F)
\end{align}
for any $0<k\leq n$. Thus we obtain the desired inequality in
\eqref{eq:sample2regular}.
\fi
\subsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:sample2regular}}
Let $S$ be the set of arbitrary $2$-regular generalized loops.
The result follows from the
chain of inequalities:
\begin{align}
\mbox{Pr}(X \in S)
&\leq \frac{\hat{\pi}(S)}{\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{L}} - (1-\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{L})^{T}\\
&\leq \frac{\pi(S) - \hat{\delta}}{\pi(\mathcal{L}+\hat{\delta}} - \exp(-\hat{\pi}(\mathcal{L})T)\\
&\leq \frac{\pi(S)}{\pi(\mathcal{L})} - \frac{2\hat{\delta}}{\pi(\mathcal{L})} - \exp(-(\pi(\mathcal{L}) - \hat{delta})T)\\
&\leq \frac{\pi(S)}{\pi(\mathcal{L})} - \frac{2\delta}{3} - \frac{\delta}{3}
\end{align}
The converse follows immediately by considering the complementary set $\mathcal{L} \backslash S$.
\iffalse
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:samplenum2regular}}
Let $\mbox{Var}(f) = \mathbb{E}(f^{2}) - \mathbb{E}(f)^{2}$
denote the variance of $f$. The {\bf 2-regular generalized loop sampler}
selects generalized loop from a distribution $p$.
Now we define the mean and variance of $f$ with
respect to $p$:
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}^\prime(f) &= \sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}}p(F)f(F);\\
\mbox{Var}^\prime(f) &= \sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}}p(F)f(F)^{2} - \mathbb{E}^\prime (f)^{2}.
\end{align}
Since $|| p- \pi || \leq \delta$, we have
\begin{align}
\end{align}
\fi
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:annealing2regular}}
The result follows from the following set of inequalities.
\begin{align}
\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\emptyset}(\beta^{\prime})}{Z^{\dagger}_{\emptyset}(\beta)}
&= \frac{\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}}|w(F)|^{\beta^\prime}}{\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}}|w(F)|^{\beta^\prime}} \\
&\leq (w_{\min}^{|F_{\max}|})^{\beta^\prime - \beta}\\
&\leq w_{\min}
\end{align}
Here, $F_{\max}$ is the $2$-regular generalized loop with maximum number of edges.
Since it is $2$-regular, $|F_{\max}|\leq n$.
\subsection{Proof of Corollary \ref{cor:estimatepartition2regular}}
Using Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}, each $H_{i}$ is estimated
within ratio of $1 + \xi$ with probability at least $1-\eta$.
Then $Z^\dagger_\emptyset$ is estimated within ratio of
\begin{align}
(1+\xi)^{n} = (1 + \frac{\varepsilon}{2n})^{n} \leq 1+\varepsilon
\end{align}
with probability
\begin{align}
(1-\eta)^{n} = 1-\nu.
\end{align}
First assume the case $\kappa > \varepsilon$.
Then using Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}, $\kappa$ is estimated
within ratio of $1+\xi$ with probability at least
$1-\eta$.
Then the result is obtained by the
following chain of inequalities:
\begin{align}
\log(1-2\kappa + 2\kappa\xi) &\leq 1 + \log \frac{1-2\kappa + 2\kappa\xi}{1-2\kappa}\\
&\leq 1 + \log (e^{cn}-1)e^{\varepsilon}
\end{align}
The converse is similar.
Now when $\kappa < \xi$,
$\kappa$ is estimated within ratio of
$\xi^{\prime} = \frac{\xi^{3/2}}{\kappa^{1/2}}$ with probability at least $1-\eta$.
Then the result is obtained by the following chain of inequalities:
\begin{align}
\log(1-2\kappa(1+ \xi)) &\leq 1 +
\log \left(\frac{1-2(1 -\xi^{\prime})\kappa}{1-2\kappa}\right)\\
&\leq 1 + \log \left(1-(\frac{\xi^{3/2}}{\kappa^{1/2}})\kappa\right) \\
&\leq 1 + \log \left(1 + \xi\right) = 1 + \log \left(1+e^{\varepsilon}\right)
\end{align}
and if we set $\xi < 1/4$,
\begin{align}
\log(1-2\kappa - 2\kappa\xi) &\geq 1 +
\log \left(\frac{1-2(1+\xi^{\prime})\kappa}{1-2\kappa}\right)\\
&\geq 1 + \log \left(\frac{1-2(1+ \frac{\xi^{3/2}}{\kappa^{1/2}})\kappa}{1-2\kappa}\right)\\
&\geq 1 + \log \left(1 - \frac{2\xi^{2}}{1-2\xi} \right)\\
&\geq 1 + \log \left(1 - 4\xi^{2}\right) = 1 + \log \left(1 - 4e^{2\varepsilon}\right).
\end{align}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:cyclebasismapping}}
Given any element $D$ of $2^{\mathcal C}$, let $H$ be the corresponding
$2$-regular generalized loop.
Pick a set of paths
$\mathcal P = \{P_{1}, P_{2},\cdots P_{k}\}$ having its endpoints as
vertices in $S$ by choosing without replacement.
Then the described mapping $f$ can be obtained by:
\begin{align}
f(D) = H \oplus P_{1} \oplus P_{2}\oplus \cdots \oplus P_{k}
\end{align}
The mapping is one to one trivially and
a natural out come is that the size of $L(S)$ is exactly $2^{m-n+1}$ independent of $S$.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:generalizedloopdecomp}}
Given any $F \in L(S)$, observe that
\begin{align}
F \oplus P_{1} \oplus \cdots \oplus P_{l/2} \in L(\emptyset).
\end{align}
Thus there exist some $C_{1}, C_{2}, \cdots C_{k} \in \mathcal{C}$
such that
\begin{align}
C_{1}\oplus C_{2} \cdots \oplus C_{k} = F \oplus P_{1} \oplus \cdots \oplus P_{l/2}
\end{align}
and the proof is done.
\section{Supplementary Material}
\iffalse
\section{Algorithm for approximating full loop series}
\begin{algorithm}
\caption{Approximating $Z_{\text{Loop}}$}
\label{alg:approximatingfull}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\State {\bf Input:}
Sequence $\beta_{0} = 0, \cdots \beta_{n-1}, \beta_{n}=1$, number of samples $s_{1},s_{2}$; initial state $F_{\text{init}}$; number of iterations $T_{1},T_{2}$ for the MC described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL
\State {\bf Output:} $\hat{Z}_{\text{Loop}}$
\State Choose a constant $\alpha < 1/\max_{F \in \mathcal{L}}|w(F)|$.
\For{$i=0 \to n-1$}
\State Generate generalized loops $F_{1}, \cdots F_{s_{2}}$
by setting $F\leftarrow F_{\text{init}}$, and then
updating it $T$ times by running the MC described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL}
for $\pi_{\text{Loop}}(\beta)$.
Set
\begin{align*}
H_{i}\leftarrow \mathbb{E}_{\beta}\left[|w(F)|^{\beta_{i+1}-\beta_{i}}\right].
\end{align*}
\EndFor
\State Generate generalized loops $F_{1}, \cdots F_{s_{2}}$
by setting $F\leftarrow F_{\text{init}}$, and then
updating it $T$ times by running the MC described in Section \ref{sec:sampleGL}
Set
\begin{align*}
\kappa \leftarrow \frac{|\{F_{j}: w(F_{j}) < 0\}|}{s_{2}}.
\end{align*}
\State Output $\hat{Z}_{\text{Loop}} \leftarrow \frac{1}{\alpha}(1-2\kappa)\prod_{i}H_{i}$
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\fi
\section{Transformation to an equivalent binary pairwise model with maximum degree at most 3}
\begin{figure}[H]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.6\textwidth]{make3regular2}
\caption
Demonstration of building an equivalent model with maximum degree
$\Delta \leq 3$ via `expanding' vertices (in grey).
In the new model, one can introduce edge factor $\psi_{u,v}$ between the duplicated vertices $u,v$ (in bold) such that
$\psi_{u,v}(x_u,x_v) =1$ if $x_u=x_v$ and $\psi_{u,v}(x_u,x_v) =0$ otherwise.}
\label{fig:make3regular}
\vspace{-0.1in}
\end{figure}
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}}
First, note that the MC induced by the worm algorithm
converges to the following stationary distribution
\begin{equation*}
\pi_{\text{WA}}(F) \propto \Psi(F)\prod_{e\in F}w(e),
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{align*}
\Psi(F) =
\begin{cases}
n, \qquad &\forall F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}},\\
2, \qquad &\forall F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}.
\end{cases}
\end{align*}
We first prove its polynomial mixing,
i.e. it produces a sample from a
distribution with the
desired total variation distance
from $\pi_{\text{WA}}$ in a polynomial number of iterations.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:mixing2regular}
Given any $\delta >0$ and any $F_{0}\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$,
choose
\begin{align*}
T_{\text{mix}} \geq w(F_{0})^{-1} + (m-n+1)\log2 + 12\Delta mn^{4}\log \delta^{-1},
\end{align*}
and let $\pi^{t}_{\text{WA}}(\cdot)$ denote the resulting distribution of
after updating $t$ times by the worm algorithm with initial state $F_{0}$.
Then, it follows that
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}
\bigg|
\pi^{T_{\text{mix}}}_{\text{WA}}(F)
- \pi_{\text{WA}}(F)
\bigg|
\leq \delta,
\end{align*}
namely,
the mixing time of the MC is bounded above by $T_{\text{mix}}$.
\end{lemma}
The proof of the above lemma is given in Section \ref{sec:pf:lem:mixing2regular}.
Collevecchio et al. \cite{C13} recently proved that the worm algorithm mixes in polynomial time when
the weights are uniform, i.e., equal.
We extend the result to our case of non-uniform weights.
The proof is based on the method of {\it canonical path}, which views the state space as a graph and constructs a path between every pair of states having certain amount of
flow defined by $\pi_{\text{WA}}$.
From Lemma \ref{lem:mixing2regular} with parameters
\begin{align*}
&N\leq 1.2n\log(3\delta^{-1}), \quad T\leq(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log(3n\delta^{-1}),\quad \mbox{and} \quad
&F_{0}\leftarrow \emptyset,
\end{align*}
we obtain that the total variation distance between $\pi_{\text{WA}}$ and
the distribution of updated states in line 4 of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}}
is at most $\frac{\delta}{3n}$.
Next, we prove that the probability of acceptance in
line $6$ of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} is sufficiently large.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:sample2regular}
The probability of sampling a $2$-regular loop from distribution $\pi_{WA}$ is
bounded below by
$n^{-1}$, i.e.
$
\pi_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})
\geq\frac{1}{n}.
$
\end{lemma}
The proof of the above lemma is given in Section \ref{sec:pf:lem:sample2regular}.
The proof relies on the fact that the size of $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ is
bounded by a polynomial of the size of $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}$.
Now we are ready to complete the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}.
Let $\widehat{\pi}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ denote the distribution of $2$-regular loops
from line 6 of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} under parameters as in Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}.
We say {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} fails if it outputs
$F=\emptyset$ from line 9.
Choose a set of $2$-regular loops
$\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}:= \{F\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}: \widehat \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(F) > \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(F)\}.$
Then the total variation distance between $\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}$ and
$\widehat{\pi}_{\text{2-Loop}}$
can be expressed as:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}|\widehat{\pi}_{\text{2-Loop}}(F) - \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(F)| =
\widehat{\pi}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}) - \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}).
\end{align*}
By applying Lemma \ref{lem:mixing2regular} and Lemma \ref{lem:sample2regular}, we obtain the following
under parameters as in Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}:
\begin{align*}
&\widehat{\pi}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}) - \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}})\\
&\qquad \stackrel{(a)}{\geq}~ \frac{\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}})}{\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} - (1-\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}))^{N} - \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}) \\
&\qquad\stackrel{(b)}{\geq}~ \frac{\pi_{\text{WA}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}})+\frac{\delta}{3n}}{\pi_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})-\frac{\delta}{3n}} - (1-\pi_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})-\frac{\delta}{3n})^{N} - \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}) \\
&\qquad\stackrel{(c)}{\geq}~
- \frac{2\delta}{3n\,\pi_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} - e^{-(\pi_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}) + \frac{\delta}{3n})N}\\
&\qquad \stackrel{(d)}{\geq}~
- \frac{2\delta}{3} - \frac{\delta}{3} = - \delta.
\end{align*}
In the above, (a) comes from the fact that
a sample from line 6 of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}}
follows the distribution $\frac{\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}})}{\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})}$ and the failure probability of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} is $(1-\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}))^{N}$.
For (b),
we use the variation distance between $\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}$ and $\pi_{\text{WA}}$ due to Lemma \ref{lem:mixing2regular}
and parameters as in Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
|\widehat{\pi}_{\text{WA}}(S) - \pi_{\text{WA}}(S)| \leq \frac{\delta}{3n}\qquad \forall~S\subseteq \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}.
\end{equation*}
For (c), we use $(1-x) \leq e^{-x}$ for any $x\geq 0$ and
(d) follows from Lemma \ref{lem:sample2regular}
and $N \leq n\ln(3\delta^{-1})$.
The converse $\widehat{\pi}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}) - \pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}) \leq \delta$ can be done similarly
by considering the complementary set $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}} \backslash \widehat{\mathcal{L}}_{\text{2-Loop}}$.
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:sample2regular}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:mixing2regular}}\label{sec:pf:lem:mixing2regular}
First, let $P_{\text{WA}}$ denote the transition matrix of MC induced by the worm algorithm in Section \ref{sec:sample2regular}.
Then we are able to define the corresponding transition graph $\mathcal{G}_{\text{WA}} = (\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}} \cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}, \mathcal{E}_{\text{WA}})$,
where each vertex is a state of the MC, and edges are defined on
state pairs with nonzero transition probability, i.e.
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{E}_{\text{WA}} = \{(A, A^\prime): (A, A^\prime)\in (\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}} \cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}})\times (\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}} \cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}), P_{\pi_{\text{WA}}}(A,A^\prime) > 0\}.
\end{equation*}
Our proof makes use of the following result proved in \cite{C13}.
\begin{theorem}[Schweinsberg 2002 \cite{C13}]
Consider an irreducible and lazy MC,
with finite state space $\Omega$, transition matrix $P$
and transition graph $\mathcal{G}_{P}$,
which is reversible with respect to the distribution $\pi$.
Let $\mathcal{O} \subseteq \Omega$ be nonempty, and
for each pair $(I,J) \in \Omega \times \mathcal{O}$, specify a path
$\gamma_{I,J}$ in $\mathcal{G}_{P}$ from $I$ to $J$.
Let
\begin{equation*}
\Gamma = \{\gamma_{I,J} : (I,J) \in \Omega \times \mathcal{O}\}
\end{equation*}
denote the collection of all such paths, and let $L(\Gamma)$ be the length of longest
path in $\Gamma$.
For any transition $T\in \mathcal{E}_{P}$, let
\begin{equation*}
\mathcal{H}_{T} = \{(I,F)\in \Omega \times \mathcal{O}: T \in \gamma_{I,J}\}.
\end{equation*}
Then
\begin{equation*}
\tau_{A}(\delta) \leq \left[\log\left(\frac{1}{\pi(A) + \log \left(\frac{1}{\delta}\right)}\right)\right] 4L(T)\Phi(\Gamma)
\end{equation*}
where
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(\Gamma) = \max_{(A,A^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}_{P}}
\left\{
\sum_{I,J \in \mathcal{H}_{(A,A^\prime)}} \frac{\pi (I)\pi(J)}{\pi(\mathcal{O})\pi(A)P(A,A^\prime)}
\right\}.
\end{equation*}
\end{theorem}
To this end, we choose $\mathcal{O} = \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ and
we show that there exists a choice of paths $\Gamma = \{\gamma_{I,J}: (I,J) \in (\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}) \times \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}\}$ such that
\begin{equation*}
\Phi(\Gamma) \leq \Delta n^{4}, \qquad L(\Gamma) \leq m.
\end{equation*}
Then we obtain the statement in Lemma \ref{lem:mixing2regular}
immediately.
We begin by specifying $\Gamma$, and then proceed to the bound of
$\Phi(\Gamma)$.
To this end, we fix an $[n]$-valued vertex labeling of $\mathcal{G}_{\text{WA}}$.
The labeling induces a lexicographical total order of the edges,
which in turn induces a lexicographical total order on the
set of all subgraphs of $\mathcal{G}_{\text{WA}}$.
In order for the state $I\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}$
transit to the $J\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$,
it suffices that it updates,
precisely once, those edges in $I\oplus J$.
In order to describe such path,
we first prove that there exist a injection
from $I\oplus J$
to some unique disjoint partition $I\oplus J = \cup^{k}_{i=0}C_{i}$, where
$C_{0}$ is either a path or a cycle and
$C_{1}, \cdots, C_{k}$ are cycles.
Observe that since $J \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$,
applying symmetric difference with $J$ does not change the parity of
degrees of the vertices and
$I \oplus J \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}$.
First consider the case when $I\oplus J \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}$.
Then there exist a path
between two odd-degree vertices in $I\oplus J$, since
the sum of degrees over all vertices in a component is even.
Among such paths, we pick $C_{0}$ as the path
with the highest order according to the $[n]$-valued vertex labeling.
Now observe that $I\oplus J \backslash C_{0} \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ is
Eulerian, which can be decomposed into disjoint set of cycles.
We are able to choose a $C_{1}, \cdots, C_{k}$ uniquely
by recursively excluding a cycle with the highest order,
i.e. we pick $C_{1}$ as a cycle with highest order from
$I\oplus J\backslash C_{0}$,
then pick $C_{2}$ from $I\oplus J \backslash C_{0}\backslash C_{1}$
with the highes order, and so on.
For the case when $I \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$,
$I\oplus J\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ is Eulerian and we can
apply similar logic to obtain the unique decomposition into disjoint cycles.
Now we are ready to describe $\gamma_{I,J}$, which updates
the edges in $I\oplus J$ from $C_{0}$ to $C_{k}$ in order.
If $C_{0}$ is a path,
pick an endpoint with higher order of label and update the
edges in the paths by {it unwinding} the edges
along the path until other endpoint is met.
In the case of cycles, pick a vertex
with highest order of label and
unwind the edges by a fixed orientation.
Note that during the update of cycles,
the number of odd-degree vertices are at most 2,
so the
intermediate states are stil
in $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}} \cup L_{\text{2-Odd}}$.
As a result, we have constructed a path $\gamma_{I, F}$
for each $I \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}$
and $J\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ where
each edge correspond to an update on $I\oplus J$ and
$|\gamma_{I,F}| = |I\oplus J| \leq m$.
Next, we bound the corresponding $\Phi(\Gamma)$.
First let
$\mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}}$ denote the
set of subgraphs with exactly $4$ odd-degree vertices. We define a mapping
$\eta_{T}: \mathcal{H}_{T}\rightarrow \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}}$ by the following:
\begin{equation*}
\eta_{T}(I,J) := I\oplus F\oplus (A\cup e),
\end{equation*}
where $T = (A, A\oplus e)$.
Observe that $\eta_{T}(I,J)$ agrees with $I$ on the components
that have already been processed,
and with $J$ on the components that have not.
We prove that $\eta_{T}$ is an injection
by reconstructing $I$ and $J$ from $\eta_{T}(I,J)$ given $T= (A, A\oplus e)$.
To this end,
observe that $I\oplus F = \eta_{T}(I,F) \oplus (A \cup e)$ is
uniquely decided from $\eta_{T}(I,F)$ and $(A\cup e)$.
Then given $I\oplus F$, we are able to infer the
decomposition $C_{0}, C_{1}, \cdots, C_{k}$ of $I\oplus J$
by the rules defined previously. Moreover the updated edge $e$ implies the current set $C_{i}$ being updated.
Therefore we can infer the processed part of $I\oplus J$.
Then we can recover $J$ by beginning in $A$ and
unwinding the remaining edges in $I\oplus J$ that was not processed yet.
Then we recover $I$ via $I = \eta_{T}(I,J)\oplus (A\cup e)\oplus J$
and therefore $\eta_{T}$ is injective.
\iffalse
Moreover the updated edge $e$ implies the current set $C_{i}$ being updated.
Therefore we can infer the processed part of $I\oplus J$ as
\begin{equation*}
C_{\text{Processed}} := C_{0} \cup C_{1} \cup \cdots C^{\prime}_{i}
\end{equation*}
where $C_{i}^{\prime}$ is a component corresponding to subset edges in $C_{i}$ with
lower order than $e$.
Then we can reconstruct $I\backslash J$ as
\begin{equation*}
I\backslash J = \bigg(C_{\text{Processed}}\cap \eta_{T}(I,J)\bigg) \cup \bigg((I\oplus J) \backslash (C_{\text{Processed}} \cup \eta_{T}(I,J))\bigg),
\end{equation*}
since $\eta_{T}(I,J)$ agrees with $I$ in the processed part agrees with $J$ in the unprocessed part.
Finally, the reconstruction of $I$ is complete since $I\cap J = A \backslash(I\oplus F)$.
Then the construction of $J$ follows immediately and
\fi
Next,
we define a metric $w_{\text{WA}}$
such that given an edge set $F$,
\begin{equation*}
w_{\text{WA}}(F):= \prod_{e\in F}|w(e)|.
\end{equation*}
We complete the proof by showing that for any
$T = (A, A^\prime) \in \mathcal{E}$, the following inequality holds:
\begin{align*}
\Phi(\Gamma) \stackrel{(a)}{\leq}
\sum_{I,J \in \mathcal{H}_{T}}
\frac{1}{\pi(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} \frac{\pi(I)\pi(J)}{\pi(A)P(A,A^\prime)}
\stackrel{(b)}{\leq}
\sum_{I,J \in \mathcal{H}_{T}}
\frac{2\Delta}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} \Psi(I) w_{\text{WA}}(\eta_{T}(I,J))
\stackrel{(c)}{\leq}\Delta n^{4}.
\end{align*}
First, (a) holds by definition of $\Phi$.
We prove (b) by the following chain of inequality:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{\pi(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} \frac{\pi(I)\pi(J)}{\pi(A)P(A,A^\prime)}
&=\frac{1}{nw_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} \frac{\Psi(I)w_{\text{WA}}(I)nw_{\text{WA}}(J)}{\Psi(A)w_{\text{WA}}(A)P_{\text{WA}}(A,A^\prime)}\\
&\stackrel{(1)}{\leq} \frac{1}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} \Psi(I)w_{\text{WA}}(I)w_{\text{WA}}(J) \frac{2\Delta}{w_{\text{WA}}(A\cup e)} \\
&\stackrel{(2)}{=} \frac{2\Delta}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})}\Psi(I) w_{\text{WA}}(\eta_{T}(I,F)).
\end{align*}
In the above, (1) comes from the definition of the transition probability
and (2) comes from the definition of function $w_{\text{WA}}$.
Finally, we prove (c). First, we have
\begin{align*}
\Psi(\Gamma)
&\leq \sum_{(I,J)\in \mathcal{H}_{T}}\frac{2\Delta}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})}\Psi(I) w_{\text{WA}}(\eta_{T}(I,F))\\
&\leq \sum_{(I,J)\in \mathcal{H}_{T}}
\frac{2\Delta}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})}[w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}) + 2w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}} \cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}})]\\
&= 2\Delta \left[(n+2) + (n+2) + \frac{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}})}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} + 2\frac{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}})}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})}\right],
\end{align*}
since $\eta_{T}(I,J)$ is an injection on $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}}$,
and the set $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}, \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}, \mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}}$ are disjoint. Now we prove
\begin{equation*}
\frac{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}})}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} \leq \binom{n}{2} \qquad
\frac{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}})}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})} \leq \binom{n}{4},
\end{equation*}
which completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:mixing2regular} since
$
(n+2) + (n+2) + \binom{n}{2} + 2\binom{n}{4}
\leq \frac{n^{4}}{2}.
$
To this end, we let $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(W)$
denote the set of generalized loops having
$W$ as the set of odd degree vertices.
Now observe the following inequality:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(W)} w_{\text{WA}}(F)
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}~ \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}} \prod_{e\in F} |w(e)| \prod_{s\in V\backslash W} (1 + (-1)^{d_{F}(v)})
\prod_{s\in W}(1 + (-1)^{d_{F}(v)+1})\\
&= \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^V}\sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}} \prod_{e\in F} |w(e)|
\prod_{s\in V} \sigma_{v}^{d_{F}(v)} \prod_{v\in W} \sigma_{v}\\
&=~ \sum_{\sigma \in \{-1, +1\}^{V}}\prod_{e=(u,v)\in E}(1+ |w(e)|\sigma_{u}\sigma_{v})\prod_{v\in W} \sigma_{v}\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\geq}~ \sum_{\sigma \in \{-1, +1\}^{V}}\prod_{e=(u,v)\in E}(1+ |w(e)|\sigma_{u}\sigma_{v})\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}~ \sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}} w_{\text{WA}}(F).
\end{align*}
In the above, (a) comes from the fact that
$1 + (-1)^{d_{v}(F)} = 2$ if $d_{v}(F)$ is even and $0$ otherwise, so only the terms corresponding to $2$-regular loop becomes non-zero.
For (b), the inequality comes from the fact that $1+ |w(e)|\sigma_{u}\sigma_{v}\geq 0$ and $\sigma_{v} \leq 1$.
For (c), the equality is from the fact that $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}} =\mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(\emptyset).$
Therefore we have $\sum_{F\in L(\emptyset)}|w(F)| \geq \sum_{F\in L(W)}|w(F)|$, leading to
\begin{align*}
\frac{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}})}{w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})}
&=
\frac{\sum_{W\subseteq V, |W|=2}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(W)}|w_{\text{WA}}(F)|}{
w_{\text{WA}}(\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}})}
\leq \binom{n}{2},
\end{align*}
and the case for $\mathcal{L}_{\text{4-Odd}}$ is done similarly. This completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:mixing2regular}.
\subsection{Proof of Lemma \ref{lem:sample2regular}}\label{sec:pf:lem:sample2regular}
Given $W\subseteq V$,
we let $\mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(W)$
denote the set of generalized loops having
$W$ as the set of odd degree vertices.
where $\mbox{Odd}(F)$ is the set of odd-degree vertices in $F$.
Now observe the following inequality:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(W)} w_{\text{WA}}(F)
&\stackrel{(a)}{=}~ \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}} \prod_{e\in F} |w(e)| \prod_{s\in V\backslash W} (1 + (-1)^{d_{F}(v)})
\prod_{s\in W}(1 + (-1)^{d_{F}(v)+1})\\
&= \frac{1}{2^{n}}\sum_{\sigma\in\{-1,1\}^V}\sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}} \prod_{e\in F} |w(e)|
\prod_{s\in V} \sigma_{v}^{d_{F}(v)} \prod_{v\in W} \sigma_{v}\\
&=~ \sum_{\sigma \in \{-1, +1\}^{V}}\prod_{e=(u,v)\in E}(1+ |w(e)|\sigma_{u}\sigma_{v})\prod_{v\in W} \sigma_{v}\\
&\stackrel{(b)}{\geq}~ \sum_{\sigma \in \{-1, +1\}^{V}}\prod_{e=(u,v)\in E}(1+ |w(e)|\sigma_{u}\sigma_{v})\\
&\stackrel{(c)}{=}~ \sum_{F\in \mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}} w_{\text{WA}}(F).
\end{align*}
In the above, (a) comes from the fact that
$1 + (-1)^{d_{v}(F)} = 2$ if $d_{v}(F)$ is even and $0$ otherwise, so only the terms corresponding to $2$-regular loop becomes non-zero.
For (b), the inequality comes from the fact that $1+ |w(e)|\sigma_{u}\sigma_{v}\geq 0$ and $\sigma_{v} \leq 1$.
For (c), the equality is from the fact that $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}} =\mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(\emptyset).$
Therefore we have $\sum_{F\in L(\emptyset)}|w(F)| \geq \sum_{F\in L(W)}|w(F)|$, leading to
\begin{align*}
\frac{\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}\pi_{\text{WA}}(F)}{\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}\cup \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Odd}}}\pi_{\text{WA}}(F)}
&= \frac{n\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}|w_{\text{WA}}(F)|}{n\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}}|w_{\text{WA}}(F)| + \sum_{W_{\text{WA}}\subseteq V, |W|=2}\sum_{F \in \mathcal{L}_{\text{Odd}}(W)}|w_{\text{WA}}(F)|} \\
&\geq \frac{n}{n+2\binom{n}{2}} = \frac{1}{n},
\end{align*}
which completes the proof of Lemma \ref{lem:sample2regular}.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:estimatepartition2regular}}
First, we quantify how much samples from {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}}
are necessary for
estimating some non-negative real valued function $f$ on $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$.
To this, we state the following lemma which is a straightforward application
of the known result in \cite{C3}.
\begin{lemma
\label{lem:samplenum2regular}
Let $f$ be a non-negative real-valued function defined on $\mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}$
and bounded above by $f_{\max}\geq 0$.
Given $0<\xi\leq 1$ and $0<\eta \leq 1/2$,
choose
\begin{align*}
s &\geq\frac{504\xi^{-2}\lceil\log \eta^{-1}\rceil f_{\max}}{\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[f]}\qquad
N \geq 1.2n \log\frac{24f_{\max}}{\xi\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[f]}, \\%\quad \mbox{and}\quad
T &\geq (m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4} \log\frac{8f_{\max}}{\xi\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[f]},
\end{align*}
and generate $2$-regular loops $F_{1}, F_{2}, \cdots F_{s}$ using
{Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} with inputs $N$ and $T$.
Then, it follows that
\begin{align*}
P\bigg[
\frac{ |\frac1s\sum_{i}|w(F_{i})| - \mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}(f)|}
{\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}(f)}
\leq \xi\bigg] \leq 1-\eta.
\end{align*}
namely, samples of {Algorithm \ref{alg:sample2regular}} estimates $\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}(f)$
within approximation ratio $1\pm\xi$ with probability at least $1-\eta$.
\end{lemma}
First, recall that during each stage of simulated annealing,
we approximate the expectation of the function $w(F)^{1/n}$
with respect to the distribution $\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)$,
i.e.,
\begin{equation*}\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}\left[|w(F)|^{1/n}\right] = Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i+1})/Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i}).\end{equation*}
Hence, to apply Lemma \ref{lem:samplenum2regular},
we bound $\max_F{|w(F)|^{1/n}}$ and $\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}\left[|w(F)|^{1/n}\right]$
as follows:
\begin{equation*}
|w(F)|^{1/n}
\leq 1
\qquad\qquad
\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta)}\left[|w(F)|^{1/n}\right]
\geq~ w_{\min},
\end{equation*}
where the first inequality is due to $w(e) \leq 1$ for any $e\in E$ and
the second one is from $|F|\leq n$ for any $2$-regular loop $F$.
Thus, from Lemma \ref{lem:samplenum2regular}
with parameters
\begin{align*}
&s\geq 18144 n^{2}\varepsilon^{-2}w^{-1}_{\min}\lceil\log (6n\nu^{-1})\rceil,\qquad
&&N \geq 1.2n\log(144n \varepsilon^{-1}w_{\min}^{-1}),\\
&T \geq
(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log(48 n \varepsilon^{-1}w_{\min}^{-1}),
\end{align*}
on each stage, we obtain
\begin{equation*}
P\bigg[\frac{|H_{i} - Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i+1})/Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i})|}
{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i+1})/Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}(\beta_{i})}
\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{6n}\bigg]
\geq 1-\frac{\nu}{6n}.
\end{equation*}
This implies that
the product $\prod_{i}H_{i}$ estimates
$\frac{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}}{2^{m-n+1}}$
within approximation ratio in
\begin{equation*}[((1-\varepsilon/6n)^{n}, (1+\varepsilon/6n)^{n}] \subseteq [1 - \varepsilon/3, 1 + \varepsilon/3]\end{equation*}
with probability at least $(1-\nu/6n)^{n} \geq 1 - \nu/3$, i.e.,
\begin{equation*}
P\bigg[
\frac{|2^{m-n+1}\prod_{i}H_{i} - Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}|}
{Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}}
\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{3}
\bigg]
\geq 1 - \frac{\nu}{3}.
\end{equation*}
Next we define a non-negative real-valued random function $g$ on $\mathcal{L_{\text{2-Loop}}}$ as
\begin{equation*}
g(F) =
\begin{cases}
1 \qquad \mbox{if $w(F) < 0$} \\
0 \qquad \mbox{otherwise}
\end{cases},
\end{equation*}
namely,
$\mathbb{E}_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}\left[g(F)\right] = P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0]$.
Since $\max_F {g(F)} = 1$,
one can apply Lemma \ref{lem:samplenum2regular} with parameters
\begin{align*}
&s \geq 18144\zeta(1-2\zeta)^{-2}
\varepsilon^{-2}\lceil\log (3\nu^{-1})\rceil,
\qquad\qquad\qquad
&&N \geq
1.2n\log (144\varepsilon^{-1}
(1-2\zeta)^{-1}),\\
&T \geq
(m-n+1)\log 2 + 4\Delta mn^{4}\log(48\varepsilon^{-1}
(1-2\zeta)^{-1})
\end{align*}
and have
\begin{equation*}
P\bigg[
\frac{|\kappa - P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0]|}
{P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0]} \leq
\frac{(1-2P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0])\varepsilon}{6P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0]}
\bigg]
\geq 1-\frac{\nu}{3},
\end{equation*}
since $\zeta = P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0]$.
Furthermore, after some algebraic calculations,
one can obtain
\begin{equation*}
P \bigg[\frac{|(1-2\kappa) - (1- 2P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0])|}{1- 2P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0]}\leq \frac{\varepsilon}{3} \bigg]
\geq 1-\frac{\nu}{3}.
\end{equation*}
The rest of the proof is straightforward
since we estimate $Z_{\text{2-Loop}} = (1-2P_{\pi_{\text{2-Loop}}}[w(F) < 0])Z^{\dagger}_{\text{2-Loop}}$ by
$(1-2\kappa)2^{m-n+1}\prod_{i}H_{i}$, the approximation ratio is in
$[(1-\varepsilon/3)^{2}, (1+\varepsilon/3)^{2}] \subseteq [1-\varepsilon, 1+ \varepsilon]$
with probability at least $(1-\nu/3)^{2} \geq 1-\nu$.
\section{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:generalizedloopdecomp}}
Given $F \in \mathcal{L}$,
we let the odd-degree vertices in $F$ (i.e., $d_{F}(\cdot)$ is odd)
by $v_{1}, v_{2}, \cdots v_{2\ell}$ for some integer $\ell\geq 0$.
Since we assume $G$ is connected, there exist a set of paths
$P_{1},P_{2},\cdots P_{\ell}$ such that
$P_{i}$ is a path from $v_{2i-1}$ to $v_{2i}$.
Note that given any set of edges $D\subseteq E$,
$D \oplus P_{i}$ changes the parities of $d_{D}(v_{2i-1}), d_{D}(v_{2i})$, while
others remain same.
Therefore,
all degrees in $F \oplus P_{1} \oplus \cdots \oplus P_{\ell}$ become even.
Then, due to the definition of cycle basis,
there exist some $C_{1}, C_{2}, \cdots C_{k} \in \mathcal{C}$
such that
\begin{equation*}
C_{1}\oplus C_{2} \cdots \oplus C_{k} = F \oplus P_{1} \oplus \cdots \oplus P_{\ell},
\end{equation*}
namely,
\begin{equation*}F=C_{1}\oplus C_{2} \cdots \oplus C_{k} \oplus P_{1} \oplus \cdots \oplus P_{\ell}.
\end{equation*}
\iffalse
\begin{align}
\in \mathcal{L}_{\text{2-Loop}}.
\end{align}
Then,
\begin{align}
C_{1}\oplus C_{2} \cdots \oplus C_{k} = F \oplus P_{1} \oplus \cdots \oplus P_{l/2}
\end{align}
due to the definition of cycle basis.
\fi
This completes the proof of Theorem \ref{thm:generalizedloopdecomp}.
|
\section[]{Introduction}
\quad Young measures is an abstract measure theoretic tool which has arisen in the context of minimizing bounded from below integral functionals not attaining their infima. The often used direct method relays on constructing minimizing consi\-de\-red functional $\mathcal J$ sequence $(u_n)$ of functions. This sequence is converging to some function $u_0$ in an appropriate (usually weak$^\ast$) topology, while the sequence $\mathcal J(u_n)$ of real numbers converges to $\inf\mathcal J$. However, in general it is not true that the sequence $(f(x,u_n(x),\nabla u_n(x)))$ of compositions of the integrand $f$ of $\mathcal J$ with elements of $(u_n)$ converges to $f(x,u_0(x),\nabla u_0(x)))$. This is connected with the lack of quasiconvexity of the integrand $f$ with respect to its third variable. This situation is often taking place in elasticity theory (here $f$ is the density of the internal energy of the displaced body). See for example \cite{Muller, Pedregal, Puchala2} and references cited there for more details.
It is Laurence Chisholm Young who has first realized that there is need to enlarge the space of admissible functions to the space of more general objects. In \cite{Young}, the very first article devoted to the subject, these objects are called by the author 'generalized curves'. Today we call them 'Young measures'. In fact, "Young measure' is not a single measure, but a family of probability measures. More precisely, let there be given:
\begin{itemize}
\item
\mbox{$\varOmega$ -- a nonempty, bounded open subset of $\mathbb R^d$ with Lebesgue measure $M>0$;}
\item
a compact set $K\subset\mathbb R^l$;
\item
$(u_n)$ -- a sequence of measurable functions from $\varOmega$ to $K$, convergent to some function $u_0$ weakly$^{\ast}$ in an appropriate function space;
\item
$f$ -- an arbitrary continuous real valued function on $\mathbb{R}^d$.
\end{itemize}
The sequence $(f(u_n))$ has a subsequence
weakly$^{\ast}$ convergent to some function $g$. However, in general $g\neq f(u_0)$. It can be proved that there exists a subsequence of $(f(u_n))$, not relabelled, and a family $(\nu_x)_{x\in\varOmega}$ of probability measures with supports $\textnormal{supp}\nu_x\subseteq K$, such that
$\forall\,f\in C(\mathbb{R}^d)\;\forall w\in L^1(\varOmega)$ there holds
\[
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int\limits_{\varOmega}f(u_n(x))w(x)dx=
\int\limits_{\varOmega}\int\limits_Kf(s)\nu_x(ds)w(x)dx:=
\int\limits_{\varOmega}\overline{f}(x)w(x)dx.
\]
This family of probability measures is today called a \emph{Young measure associated with the sequence} $(u_n)$.
It often happens, both in theory and applications, that the Young measure is a 'one element family', that is it does not depend on $x\in\varOmega$. We call such Young measure a \emph{homogeneous} one. Homogeneous Young measures are the first and often the only examples of the Young measures associated with specific sequences of functions. They are also the main object of interest in this article.
Calculating an explicit form of particular Young measure is an important task. In elasticity theory, for example, Young measures can be regarded as means of the limits of minimizing sequences of the energy functional. These means summarize the spatial oscillatory properties of minimizing sequences, thus conserving some of that information; information that is entirely lost when quasiconvexification of the original functional is used as the minimization method. To quote from \cite{Muller}, page 121: \emph{The Young measure describes the local phase proportions in an infinitesimally fine mixture (modelled mathematically by a sequence that develops finer and finer oscillations)}, and a page earlier: \emph{The Young measure captures the essential feature of minimizing sequences}. It is worth noting, that the Young measures calculated in \cite{Muller}, in the context of elasticity theory or micromagnetism, are homogeneous ones. This indicates their role. This is also a case in many other books or articles devoted to the subject. Unfortunately, there is still no any general method of calculating their explicit form (homogeneous or not) when associated with specific, in particular minimizing, sequence. Some of the existing methods relay on periodic extensions of the elements of the sequence and application the generalized version of the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma or calculating weak$^\ast$ limits of function sequences.
In the article \cite{Puchala1} there has been proposed an elementary method of calculation an explicit form of Young measures. It is based on the notion of the 'quasi-Young measure' introduced there and the approach to Young measures as in \cite{Roubicek}. This approach enables us to look at them as at objects associated with \emph{any} measurable function defined on $\varOmega$ with values in $K$. Using only the change of variable theorem the explicit form of the quasi-Young measures for functions that are piecewise constant or piecewise invertible with differentiable inverses has been calculated. The result extends for sequences of oscillating functions of that shape. Finally, it has been proved that calculated quasi-Young measures are \emph{the} Young measures associated with considered (sequences of) functions. Significantly, all of them are homogeneous.
This article can be viewed as the continuation of \cite{Puchala1}. First, we recognize quasi-Young measures as homogeneous Young measures which are, in turn, constant mappings on $\varOmega$ with values in the space of probability measures on $K$. Then we provide the characterization of homogeneous Young measures associated with measurable functions form $\varOmega$ to $K$ as images of the normalized Lebesgue measure on $\varOmega$ with respect to the underlying functions. The proofs of these facts are really very simple, but it seems that such characterization of homogeneous Young measures has not been formulated yet. Then we show that the weak convergence of the densities of the homogeneous Young measures is equivalent to the weak convergence of these measures themselves. Here measures are understood as vectors in the Banach space of scalar valued measures with the total variation norm. The proof of this fact is also simple but relies on the nontrivial characterization of the weak sequential $L^1$ convergence of the sequence of functions. In a special one-dimensional case the Young measure associated with function having differentiable inverse is a Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure and we can state the result for mappings having inverses of the $C^\infty$ class.
\section[]{Preliminaries and notation}
We gather now some necessary information about Young measures. As it has been mentioned above, our approach is as in \cite{Roubicek}, where the material is presented in great detail. It is sketched in \cite{Puchala1}. See also the references cited in aforementioned articles.
Let $\varOmega$ be an open subset of $\mathbb{R}^d$ with Lebesgue measure $M>0$, $d\mu(x):=\tfrac 1 Mdx$, where $dx$ is the $d$-dimensional Lebesgue measure on $\varOmega$ and let $K\subset\mathbb{R}^l$ be compact. We will denote:
\begin{itemize}
\item
$rca(K)$ -- the space of regular, countably additive scalar measures on $K$, equipped with the norm $\|\rho\|_{rca(K)}:=\vert \rho\vert(\varOmega)$, where $\vert\cdot\vert$ stands in this case for the total variation of the measure $\rho$. With this norm $rca(K)$ is a Banach space, so we can consider a weak convergence of its elements;
\item
$rca^1(K)$ -- the subset of $rca(K)$ with elements being probability measures on $K$;
\item
$L_{w^\ast}^{\infty}(\varOmega ,\textnormal{rca}(K))$ -- the set of the weakly$^\ast$ measurable mappings
\[
\nu\colon\varOmega\ni x\to\nu(x)\in rca(K).
\]
(It follows that homogeneous Young measures are those from the above mappings, that are constant a.e. in $\varOmega$)
\end{itemize}
We equip this set with the norm
\[
\Vert\nu\Vert_{L_{w^\ast}^{\infty}(\varOmega ,\textnormal{rca}(K))}:=
\textnormal{ess}\sup\bigl\{\Vert\nu (x)\Vert_{\textnormal{rca}(K)}:
x\in\varOmega\bigr\}.
\]
Usually by a Young measure we understand a family
$(\nu_x)_{x\in\varOmega}$ of regular proba\-bility Borel measures on $K$, indexed by elements $x$ of $\varOmega$ . However,
we should remember that the Young measure is in fact a weakly$^\ast$ measurable mapping defined on an open set $\varOmega\subset\mathbb{R}^d$ having positive Lebesgue measure with values in the set $\textnormal{rca}^1(K)$.
The set of the Young measures on the compact set $K\subset\mathbb{R}^l$ will be denoted by $\mathcal{Y}(\varOmega ,K)$:
\[
\mathcal{Y}(\varOmega ,K):=\bigl\{\nu=(\nu (x))\in
L^{\infty}_{w^\ast}(\varOmega,\textnormal{rca}(K)):\nu_x\in
\textnormal{rca}^1(K)\;\textnormal{for a.a }x\in\varOmega\bigr\}.
\]
\begin{remark}
In \cite{Roubicek} Young measures are defined as \emph{weakly} measurable mappings, but it seems to be an innacuracy, since $rca(K)$ is in fact a conjugate space. Compare footnote 80 on page 36 in \cite{Roubicek} with, for example, definition 2.1.1 (d) on page109 in \cite{Gasinski}. However, when considering weak convergence of the Young measures, we will look at the $rca(K)$ as at the normed space itself with total variation norm.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
We say that a family $(\nu_x)_{x\in\varOmega}$ is a quasi-Young measure associa\-ted with the measurable function
$u\colon\mathbb{R}^d\supset\varOmega\to K\subset\mathbb{R}^l$ if for every integrable function $\beta\colon K\to\mathbb{R}$ there holds
\[
\int\limits_{K}\beta(k)d\nu_x(k)=
\int\limits_{\varOmega}\beta(u(x))d\mu(x).
\]
We will write $\nu^u$ to indicate that the (quasi-)Young measure $\nu$ is associated with the function $u$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
This definition is slightly more general than the one formulated in \cite{Puchala1}. However, when dealing with Young measures, we must restrict ourselves to continuous functions $\beta$ to be able to use Riesz representation theorems. See \cite{Roubicek} for details.
\end{remark}
\section[]{Homogeneous Young measures}
We first prove that quasi-Young measures are constant mappings.
\begin{proposition}
Let $\nu^u$ be the quasi-Young measure associated with the Borel function $u$. Then $\nu^u$, regarded as a mapping from $\varOmega$ with values in $\textnormal{rca}(K)$, is constant.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} Suppose that $\nu^u$ is not a constant function. Then there exist
$x_1,\,x_2\in\varOmega$, $x_1\neq x_2$, such that $\nu^u_{x_1}\neq\nu^u_{x_2}$. Then for any integrable $\beta\colon K\to\mathbb{R}$ there holds
\[
\int\limits_{K}\beta(k)d\nu^u_{x_1}(k)=\int\limits_{\varOmega}\beta(u(x))d\mu(x)=
\int\limits_{K}\beta(k)d\nu^u_{x_2}(k),
\]
a contradiction.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Let $\beta\colon K\to\mathbb{R}$ be a continuous function. Then the quasi-Young measure
$\nu^u$ associated with the function $u$ is a Young measure, that is it is an element
of the set $\mathcal{Y}(\varOmega ,K)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} Take $\beta\equiv 1$. Then
\[
\int\limits_{K}d\nu^u(k)=\int\limits_{K}\beta(k)d\nu^u(k)=
\int\limits_{\varOmega}\beta(u(x))d\mu(x)=\int\limits_{\varOmega}d\mu(x)=1,
\]
which means that $\nu^u\in\textnormal{rca}^1(K)$. As a constant function it is weakly measurable, so that $\nu^u\in L_{w^\ast}^{\infty}(\varOmega ,\textnormal{rca}(K))$.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}
Quasi-Young measures associated with measurable functions $u\colon\varOmega\to K$ are precisely the homogeneous Young measures associated with them.
\end{corollary}
Due to the fact that homogeneous Young measures are constant functions, we will write '$\nu$' instead of '$\nu=(\nu_x)_{x\in\varOmega}$'.
Now we will prove that homogeneous Young measures are images of Borel measures with respect to the underlying functions. Recall that
$u\colon\mathbb{R}^d\supset\varOmega\ni x\to u(x)\in K\subset\mathbb{R}^l$ and that $\mu$ is normed to unity Lebesgue measure on $\varOmega$.
\begin{theorem}
A homogeneous Young measure $\nu$ is associated with Borel function $u$ if and only if $\nu$ is an image of $\mu$ under $u$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof} The theorem follows from the equalities
\[
\int\limits_{K}\beta(k)d\nu(k)=\int\limits_{\varOmega}\beta(u(x))d\mu(x)=\int\limits_{K}\beta(k)d\mu u^{-1}.
\]
\end{proof}
\section[]{Weak convergence}
\subsection[]{Certain facts on weak convergence of functions and measures}
Let $(X,\mathcal A,\rho)$ be a measure space and consider a sequence $(v_n)$ of scalar functions defined on $X$ and integrable with respect to the measure $\rho$ (that is, $\forall n\in\mathbb N\; v_n\in L^1_\rho(X)$) and a function $v\in L^1_\rho(X)$. Recall that $(v_n)$ converges weakly sequentially to $v$ if
\[
\forall g\in L^\infty_\rho(X)\quad \lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int\limits_Xv_ngd\rho=\int\limits_Xvgd\rho.
\]
Next theorem characterizes weak sequential $L^1$ convergence of functions and weak convergence of measures. We refer the reader to \cite{Czaja}, chapter 6 or \cite{Diestel}, chapter VII.
\begin{theorem}\label{CzajaDiestel}
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)]
let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space and $(X,\mathcal A,\rho)$ -- a measure space with $\rho$ regular. A sequence
$(v_n)\subset L^1_\rho(X)$ converges weakly to some $v\in L^1_\rho(X)$ if and only if\, $\forall A\in\mathcal A$ the limit
\[
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int\limits_Av_nd\rho
\]
exists and is finite;
\item[(b)]
let $X$ be a locally compact Hausdorff space and denote by $\mathcal B(X)$ the $\sigma$-algebra of Borel subsets of $X$. A sequence $(\rho_n)$ of scalar measures on $\mathcal B(X)$ converges weakly to some scalar measure $\rho$ on $\mathcal B(X)$ if and only if\, $\forall A\in\mathcal B(X)$ the limit
\[
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\rho_n(A)
\]
exists and is finite.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
\subsection[]{Weak convergence of homogeneous Young measures and their densities}
Consider the function $u\colon\varOmega\to K$ of the form
\[
u:=\sum\limits_{i=1}^nu_i\chi_{\varOmega_i},
\]
where:
\begin{itemize}
\item
the open sets $\varOmega_i$, $i=1,2,\dots,n$, are pairwise disjoint and
$\bigcup_{i=1}^n\overline{\varOmega}_i=\overline{\varOmega}$; denote this partition of $\varOmega$ by $\{\varOmega\}$;
\item
the functions $u_i\colon\varOmega_i\to K$, $i=1,2,\dots,n$, have continuously differentiable inverses $u_i^{-1}$ with Jacobians
$J_{u_i^{-1}}$;
\item
for any $i=1,2,\dots,n$ $\overline{u_i(\varOmega_i)}=K$.
\end{itemize}
\begin{theorem} \label{JaOpti}
(\cite{Puchala1}) The Young measure $\nu^u$ associated with $u$ is a homogeneous Young measure that is abolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure $dy$ on $K$. Its density is of the form
\[
g(y)=\frac 1 M\sum\limits_{i=1}^n\vert J_{u_i^{-1}}(y)\vert.
\]
\end{theorem}
Consider now a family $\{\varOmega^l\}$, $l\in\mathbb N$, with elements $\varOmega_i^l$, of open partitions of $\varOmega$ and a sequence $(u^l)$ of functions of the form $u^l:=\sum_{i=1}^{n(l)}u_i^l\chi_{\varOmega_i^l}$ satisfying, for fixed $l$, the above respective conditions.
According to Theorem \ref{JaOpti} the Young measure associated with $u^l$ is absolutely continuous with respect to the Lebesgue measure $dy$ on $K$ with density
\[
g^l(y)=\frac 1 M\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n(l)}\vert J_{(u_i^l)^{-1}}(y)\vert.
\]
\begin{theorem}\label{equiconv}
Let $(u^l)$ be the sequence of functions described above and denote by $\nu^l$ the Young measure with density $g^l$ associated with the function $u^l$. Then the sequence $(g^l)$ is weakly convergent in $L^1(K)$ to some function $h$ if and only if the sequence $(\nu^l)$ is weakly convergent to some measure $\eta$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}. ($\Rightarrow$) Since $(g^l)$ is weakly convergent in $L^1(K)$, then for any measurable $A\subseteq K$ the limit
\[
\lim\limits_{l\to\infty}\int\limits_Ag^ldy
\]
exists and is finite. This in turn is equivalent to the fact that the sequence $(\nu^l)$ of Young measures is weakly convergent to some measure $\eta$.\\
$(\Leftarrow)$ We proceed as above, but start the reasoning from the weak convergence of the sequence $(\nu^l)$.
\end{proof}
Let $I$ be an open interval in $\mathbb R$ with Lebesgue measure $M>0$ and $u$ -- a strictly monotonic differentiable real valued function on $I$. We can assume that $u$ is strictly increasing. Then the set
$K:=\overline{u(I)}$ is compact and for any $\beta\in C(K,\mathbb R)$ we have
\[
\int\limits_K\beta(y)\tfrac 1 M(u^{-1})'(y)dy=\int\limits_K\beta(y)d\tfrac 1 Mu^{-1}(y).
\]
This means that the (homogeneous) Young measure associated with $u$ is a Lebesgue-Stieltjes measure on $K$. This observation together with standard inductive argument lead to the following one-dimensional corollary to theorem \ref{equiconv}.
\begin{corollary}
Let $(u_n)$ be a sequence of real valued functions from a bounded, nondegenerate interval $I\subset\mathbb R$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
for any $n\in\mathbb N$ $u_n$ is a $C^\infty$-diffeomorphism;
\item[(ii)]
$\overline{u_n^{(l)}(I)}:=K_l$ is compact, $l\in\mathbb N\cup\{0\}$;
\item[(iii)]
$u_n^{(l)}$ is strictly positive or negative, $n\in\mathbb N$.
\end{itemize}
Then for any fixed $l\in\mathbb N$ the weak $L^1$ convergence of the sequence $\bigl((u_n^{-1})^{(l)}\bigr)$ is equivalent to the weak convergence of the sequence of the Young-Lebesgue-Stieltjes measures associated with the elements of the sequence $\bigl((u_n^{-1})^{(l)}\bigr)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{example}(see \cite{Puchala3})
Let $I:=(a,b)$, $a<b$, $K:=[c,d]$, $c<d$ and let $(u_n)$ be a sequence of strictly monotonic functions from $I$ with values in $K$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(i)]
$\forall\,n\in\mathbb N\;\;\overline{u_n(I)}=K$;
\item[(ii)]
$\forall\,n\in\mathbb N$ $u_n$ has continuously differentiable inverse $(u_n^{-1})'$;
\item[(iii)]
the sequence $(u_n^{-1})'$ is nondecreasing.
\end{itemize}
By monotonicity of the sequence of derivatives for any Borel subset $A\subseteq K$ and any natural numbers $m\leq n$ we have
\[
\int\limits_A(u_m^{-1})'(y)dy\leq\int\limits_A(u_n^{-1})'(y)dy.
\]
Further, $\forall\,n\in\mathbb N$ the Young measure associated with function $(u_n^{-1})'$ is a homogeneous one. Since it is probability measure on $K$, the sequence $\Bigl(\int\limits_A(u_n^{-1})'(y)dy\Bigr)$ is monotonic and bounded. Thus for any Borel subset $A\subseteq K$ the limit
\[
\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int\limits_A(u_n^{-1})'(y)dy=\lim\limits_{n\to\infty}\int\limits_Adu_n^{-1}(y)
\]
exists and is finite, which by theorem \ref{CzajaDiestel} yields the weak $L^1$ convergence of the sequence
$\bigl((u_n^{-1})'\bigr)$. This, by theorem \ref{equiconv}, is equivalent to the weak convergence of the sequence of Young measures, whose elements are associated with respective elements of $\bigl((u_n^{-1})'\bigr)$.
\end{example}
\textbf{Acknowledgements.}
Author would like to thank Professor Agnieszka Ka{\l}amajska for discussion that took place during Dynamical Systems and Applications IV conference in June 2016, {\L}\'od\'z, Poland.
|
\section{Introduction}
The main goal of this note is to give a survey of convergence results for correlation functions in the critical planar Ising model obtained during the last several years. The Ising model, which is the simplest lattice model of a ferromagnet, was proposed by Lenz in 1920 and is now considered to be an archetypical example of a statistical mechanics system that admits an order-disorder phase transition in dimensions two and above, and for which the appearance of the \emph{conformal symmetry} at criticality in dimension two can be rigorously understood in great detail. Certainly, everybody knows that ``2D Ising model is a free fermion'' though this statement may look a bit vague for the probabilistic community. More precisely, the partition function of the \emph{nearest-neighbor} Ising model on a planar graph~$G$ can be written~\cite{hurst-green-60} as the Pfaffian of some matrix (e.g., indexed by oriented edges of~$G$). This fact allows one to introduce so-called \emph{fermionic observables} as the Pfaffians of (small-size) minors of the inverse matrix and give a concrete meaning to the statement mentioned above: if one interprets these observables as formal correlators, the fermionic Wick rule for the multi-point ones is built-in. Such observables satisfy simple linear equations which (at criticality) can be interpreted as a \emph{discrete holomorphicity} property and can be equivalently defined in a purely combinatorial manner~\cite{smirnov-10icm}. Moreover, as was proposed by Smirnov in his seminal papers~\cite{smirnov-06icm, smirnov-10}, they can be thought of as solutions to discrete versions of some special Riemann-type boundary value problems in order to prove their convergence to conformal covariant limits.
\smallskip
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the fermionic observables per se do not allow one to analyze the \emph{spin correlations}, which are presumably the most interesting quantities appearing in the Ising model. An appropriate tool to study them is \emph{spinor observables}~\cite{chelkak-izyurov-13,chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}, which can be thought of as generalizations of the fermionic ones for the Ising model considered on an appropriate double-cover of~$G$ and constrained with the spin-flip symmetry between the sheets. A more systematic way to introduce them is provided by the famous spin-disorder formalism of Kadanoff and Ceva~\cite{kadanoff-ceva-71}. In this language, the fermionic variables are obtained by fusing (a part of) spins and disorders, and the relevant Pfaffian identities can be deduced from the combinatorial representations of their correlators.
\smallskip
We review the combinatorics of the 2D Ising model in Section~\ref{section:combinatorics}, following~\cite{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16}. Note that one can define the fermionic and spinor observables in the Ising model considered on an \emph{arbitrary} planar graph, as well as use them for the study of the model away of criticality. We illustrate our approach to the analysis of spin correlations in Section~\ref{section:explicit-formulae}. Namely, we give a self-contained derivation of two classical results about the (critical and subcritical) diagonal spin-spin correlations in the full-plane using a direct link with the theory of orthogonal polynomials provided by spinor observables; see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-16} for similar computations in the half-plane. Section~\ref{section:conformal-invariance} follows \cite{chelkak-smirnov-12, hongler-smirnov-13,chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15,chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16} and is devoted to the convergence and conformal covariance of the correlation functions at criticality. For simplicity, we consider the Ising model on \emph{square grid} approximations of a given planar domain~$\Omega$; in fact, a good portion of the results can be directly generalized to isoradial graphs. We assume that~$\Omega$ is simply connected and consider~``$+$'' boundary conditions only; see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16} for a general setup.
The presentation is organized so as to highlight the correspondence between discrete objects and the standard Conformal Field Theory language used to describe the continuum limit of the critical Ising model. In particular, the normalizing factors in discrete are adjusted so as to fit the ones in continuum.
\smallskip
It should be said that there are plenty of important topics on the 2D Ising model that we do not touch in this note. There are more involved methods to study spin correlations in the infinite-volume limit, notably a link with Painlev\'e equations developed in~\cite{wu-mccoy-tracy-barouch-76}, quadratic identities found in~\cite{mccoy-perk-wu-80,perk-80} and the exact bosonization approach suggested in~\cite{dubedat-bosonization-11}; see also the monographs~\cite{mccoy-wu-book-14} and~\cite{palmer-book-07}. At criticality, one might be interested in convergence results for lattice counterparts of other CFT fields (e.g., the stress-energy tensor~\cite{chelkak-glazman-smirnov-16}) and in a definition of the Virasoro algebra action on these lattice fields~\cite{hongler-kytola-viklund-16}. Also, we do not touch the conformal invariance of curves~\cite{5-authors-14,izyurov-15} and loop ensembles~\cite{kemppainen-smirnov-15,benoist-duminil-copin-hongler-14,benoist-hongler-16} arising in the critical model. Finally, an important progress has been achieved recently~\cite{giuliani-grennblatt-mastropietro-12} in the analysis of the finite-range 2D Ising model via rigorous renormalization techniques.
\medskip
\noindent {\bf Acknowledgements.} First, I wish to thank my co-authors Cl\'ement Hongler and Konstantin Izyurov, to whom many of the ideas discussed in this note belong. It was also a great pleasure to collaborate with David Cimasoni, Alexander Glazman and Adrien Kassel on \cite{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16} and \cite{chelkak-glazman-smirnov-16}. In addition, I would like to thank Hugo Duminil-Copin, Kalle Kyt\"ol\"a and Wendelin Werner for many useful discussions and support. Last but not least, I am greatly indebted to Stanislav Smirnov, who introduced me into this field ten years ago and with whom I had the privilege to work on \cite{chelkak-smirnov-12}.
\newpage
\section{Combinatorics of the nearest-neighbor Ising model in 2D}
\label{section:combinatorics}
\subsection{Definition and contour representations of the planar Ising model}
\label{subsect:contours}
Let~$G$ be a finite connected \emph{planar} graph embedded into the plane so that all its edges are straight segments.
The (ferromagnetic) \emph{nearest-neighbor} Ising model on the graph \emph{dual} to~$G$ is a random assignment of spins~$\sigma_u\in\{\pm 1\}$ to the~\emph{faces} of~$G$ with the probabilities of spin configurations~$\sigma\!=\!(\sigma_u)$ proportional to
\[
\textstyle \mathbb{P}_G[\,\sigma\,]\propto\exp\,[\,\beta \sum_{u\sim w} J_e\sigma_u\sigma_w\,]\,,\quad e=(uw)^*,
\]
where the positive parameter~$\beta$ is called the \emph{inverse temperature}, the sum is taken over all pairs of adjacent faces~$u,w$ (equivalently, edges~$e$) of~$G$, and~$J=(J_e)$ is a given collection of positive~interaction constants indexed by the edges of~$G$.
\smallskip
The~\emph{domain walls representation} (aka low temperature expansion) of the model is a~$2$-to-$1$ correspondence between spin configurations and even subgraphs~$P$ of~$G$: given a spin configuration,~$P$ consists of all edges such that the two adjacent spins differ from each other. We will often consider a decomposition of~$P$ into a \emph{collection of non-intersecting and non-self-intersecting loops}, note that it is not unique in general. Below we will always assume that the spin of the outermost face of~$G$ is fixed to be~$+1$, which is often described as \emph{``$+$\!''~boundary conditions}. Then the above correspondence becomes a bijection and one can write
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spin-spin-low-temperature}
\textstyle \mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]\;=\; \mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G}x(P)(-1)^{\mathrm{loops}_{[u_1,..,u_m]}(P)}\,,
\end{equation}
where~$\mathcal{E}_G$ denotes the set of all even subgraphs of~$G$,
\[
\textstyle \mathcal{Z}_G=\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G} x(P)\,,\qquad x(P):=\exp[-2\beta\sum_{e\in P} J_e]\,,
\]
and~$\mathrm{loops}_{[u_1,..,u_m]}(P)$ is the number of loops in~$P$ surrounding an odd number of faces~$u_1,...,u_m$. If the graph~$G$ is not trivalent, this number is not uniquely defined (as there can be several ways to decompose~$P\in\mathcal{E}_G$ into a collection of loops) but it is always well defined modulo~$2$. The quantity~$\mathcal{Z}_G$ is called the~\emph{partition function} of the model. It is convenient to introduce the following parametrization:
\[
\textstyle x(P)=\prod_{e\in P}x_e\,,\qquad x_e=\tan\frac{1}{2}\theta_e:=\exp[-2\beta J_e]\,,
\]
where~$x_e\in [0,1]$ and~$\theta_e:=2\arctan x_e\in [0,\frac{1}{2}\pi]$ have the same monotonicity as~$\beta^{-1}$.
\smallskip
There exists another classical way of representing spin correlations (first observed by van der Waerden~\cite{van-der-warden-41} and known as the \emph{high temperature expansion}):
for the Ising model with spins assigned to~\emph{vertices} of~$G$ and interaction constants~$J_e^*$\,, cancellations caused by the fact that all products of spins are~$\pm 1$ imply the equality
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spin-spin-high-temperature}
\mathbb{E}_G^*[\sigma_{v_1}...\sigma_{v_{2n}}] \; = \; (\mathcal{Z}_G^*)^{-1}{\textstyle\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G(v_1,...,v_{2n})}x^*(P)}\,,
\end{equation}
where~$\mathcal{E}_G(v_1,...,v_{2n})$ denotes the set of subgraphs of~$G$ such that each of~$v_1,...,v_{2n}$ has an odd degree in~$P$ while the degrees (in~$P$) of all other vertices are even,
\[
\textstyle \mathcal{Z}_G^*=\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G}x^*(P)\quad \text{and}\quad x^*(P):=\prod_{e\in P}\tanh [\beta^* J_e^*]\,.
\]
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:kramers-wannier}
It is well known that the homogeneous (all~$J_e\!=\!1$) Ising model on the square grid exhibits a second order \emph{phase transition} at~$\beta_\mathrm{crit}=\frac{1}{2}\log(1+2^{\frac{1}{2}})$: in the infinite-volume limit, there exists a unique Gibbs measure above and at the critical temperature~$\beta_{\mathrm{crit}}^{-1}$, while the subcritical model has two extremal ones describing~``$+$'' and~``$-$'' phases, respectively (e.g., see~\cite{aizenmann-80}). The explicit value of~$\beta_{\mathrm{crit}}$ can be found from the Kramers--Wannier~\cite{kramers-wannier-41} self-duality condition: if we assume that $x=x^*:=\tanh \beta^*$ and use the same parametrization~$\tan\frac{1}{2}\theta^*=\exp[-2\beta^*]$ for the dual inverse temperature~$\beta^*$, then
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:kramers-wannier}
\tan \tfrac{1}{2}\theta~=~x~=~x^*~=~\tan \tfrac{1}{2}(\tfrac{\pi}{2}-\theta^*)\,,
\end{equation}
which gives~$\theta_{\mathrm{crit}}=\frac{\pi}{4}$ and~$x_{\mathrm{crit}}=2^{\frac{1}{2}}-1$. Though self-duality a priori does not imply criticality, there are several ways to see that the properties of spin-spin expectations are very different for~$\beta$ above and below $\beta_{\mathrm{crit}}$\,, thus justifying the phase transition. A proof based on the random-cluster representation of the Ising model can be found in~\cite{beffara-duminil-copin-12}. We will also see this in Section~\ref{section:explicit-formulae} when computing the so-called diagonal spin-spin expectations via orthogonal polynomials techniques.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Kac--Ward formula for the partition function}
\label{subsect:kac-ward}
Let~$E(G)$ be the set of \emph{oriented} edges of the graph~$G$ and, for~$e\in E(G)$, let~$\overline{e}$ denote the same edge with the opposite orientation. Further, let us define a matrix~$\mathrm{T}$ indexed by~$E(G)$ as
\[
\mathrm{T}_{e,e'}:=\begin{cases}(x_ex_{e'})^{\frac{1}{2}}\exp[\tfrac{i}{2}\wind(e,e')] & \text{if}~e'~\text{continues}~e; \\
0 & \text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\]
where in the first line~$e'\ne \overline{e}$ starts at the endpoint of~$e$ and~$\wind(e,e')\in (-\pi,\pi)$ denotes the rotation angle from~$e$ to~$e'$. The famous \emph{Kac--Ward formula}~\cite{kac-ward-52} for the partition function of the Ising model states that
\begin{equation}
\label{kac-ward-formula}
\mathcal{Z}_G = [\det (\mathrm{Id}-\mathrm{T})]^\frac{1}{2}.
\end{equation}
It was an intricate story to give a fully rigorous proof of this identity for general planar graphs (with most of the standard textbooks presenting an incomplete derivation from~\cite{vdovichenko-65}), see~\cite{lis-16} for a streamlined version of classical arguments based on the straightforward expansion of the Kac--Ward determinant.
Another approach (going back to~\cite{hurst-green-60}, see~\cite[Sections~1.3 and~1.4]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16} for historical comments) works as follows. Let~$\mathrm{J}_{e,e'}:=\delta_{\bar{e},e'}$ and~$\mathrm{K}:=\mathrm{J}\cdot(\mathrm{Id}\!-\!\mathrm{T})$, note that the matrix~$\mathrm{K}$ is self-adjoint. {For each~$e\in E(G)$, fix a square root of the direction of $e$ and let~$\eta_e$ be its complex conjugate multiplied by a fixed unimodular factor $\varsigma:=e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}$. Let~$\mathrm{U}:=\mathrm{diag}(\eta_e)$.}
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:kac-ward}
The matrix~$\widehat{\mathrm{K}}:={i\mathrm{U}^*\mathrm{K}\mathrm{U}}$ is real anti-symmetric and~$\mathcal{Z}_G\!=\pm \Pf[\,\widehat{\mathrm{K}}\,]$.
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
The proof (e.g., see~\cite[Theorem~1.1]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16}) is based on the measure-preserving correspondence between the configurations~$P\in\mathcal{E}_G$ and dimer configurations on some auxiliary non-planar graph~$G^{\mathrm{K}}$ called the~\emph{terminal graph}, whose vertices are in a bijection with~$E(G)$. Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:kac-ward} directly implies~(\ref{kac-ward-formula}). In fact, there exist many other ways to represent the 2D Ising model via dimers (notably a version~\cite{dubedat-bosonization-11} of the classical Fisher mapping onto the dimer model on a planar graph~$G^\mathrm{F}$ constructed from~$G$); see~\cite[Section~3.1]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16} for further discussion.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Fermionic observables}
\label{subsect:fermions}
Given the real anti-symmetric matrix~$\widehat{\mathrm{K}}$, one can introduce Grassmann (i.e., anti-commuting) variables~$(\phi_e)_{e\in E(G)}$ and declare
\[
\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\phi_{e_1}...\phi_{e_{2k}}}~:=~\mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\cdot{\textstyle \int} \phi_{e_1}...\phi_{e_{2k}}\exp[-\tfrac{1}{2}\phi^\top\widehat{\mathrm{K}}\phi]d\phi ~=~ \Pf[\,\widehat{\mathrm{K}}^{-1}_{e_p,e_q}\,]_{p,q=1}^{2k}\,.
\]
We need some notation to give a \emph{combinatorial interpretation} of these quantities. Let us add an auxiliary vertex~$z_e$ in the middle of each edge of~$G$ and assign the weight~$x_e^{\frac{1}{2}}$ to both of the half-edges emanating from~$z_e$, which we identify with~$e$ and~$\overline{e}$ according to their orientations. Given a collection~$\mathrm{E}=\{e_1,...,e_{2k}\}\subset E(G)$, let~$\mathcal{E}_G(e_1,...,e_{2k})$ denote the set of all subgraphs~$P$ of this new graph such that the degrees (in~$P$) of all vertices except~$z_{e_1},...,z_{e_{2k}}$ are even, and the following holds for each~$e\in \mathrm{E}$: if~$\overline{e}\not\in \mathrm{E}$, then the degree of~$z_e$ in~$P$ equals~$1$ and~$P$ contains the half-edge identified with~$e$; while if both~$e,\overline{e}\in \mathrm{E}$, then~$z_e$ has \emph{degree~$\mathit{0}$} in~$P$.
\begin{theorem}[see {\cite[Theorem~1.2]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16}}]
\label{thm:multi-fermions} For each set $\{e_1,...,e_{2k}\}\subset E(G)$, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:multi-phi}
\textstyle \Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\phi_{e_1}...\phi_{e_{2k}}} \; =\; \mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G(e_1,...,e_{2k})}x(P)\tau(P)\,,
\end{equation}
where~$x(P)$ denotes the product of all weights of edges and half-edges from~$P$. The sign~$\tau(P)=\pm 1$ is uniquely determined by~$P$ and can be computed as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:tau-sign-definition}
\textstyle \tau(P):=\sign(s)\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{k} {(i\eta_{e_{s(2l-1)}}\overline{\eta}{}_{e_{s(2l)}})}\exp[-\frac{i}{2}\wind(\gamma_l)]
\end{equation}
if~$P$ is decomposed into a collection of non-intersecting loops and~$k$ paths~$\gamma_l$ running from~$e_{s(2l-1)}$ to~$e_{s(2l)}$, where~$\wind(\gamma_l)$ denotes the total rotation angle of~$\gamma_l$.
\end{theorem}
For an edge~$e$ of~$G$, {introduce a real weight}~$t_e:=(x_e\!+\!x_{e}^{-1})^\frac{1}{2}=(\frac{1}{2}\sin\theta_e)^{-\frac{1}{2}}$.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:observables-edges}
Denote~$\psi(z_e)\!:=\!{t_e\cdot (\eta_e\phi_e+\eta_{\bar{e}}\phi_{\bar{e}})}$. Given two edges~$a$ and~$e$ of~$G$, the \emph{two-point fermionic observables}
are defined as
\begin{align*}
\Phi_G(a,e):=~\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{t_e\phi_et_a\phi_a}&= \textstyle \mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G(a,e)}t_at_ex(P)({ -i\eta_a\overline{\eta}{}_e}\exp[-\tfrac{i}{2}\wind(\gamma_P)])\,,\\
F_G(a,z_e):=\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_e)t_a\phi_a}
&=\textstyle \mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\cdot {(-i\eta_a)}\!\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G(a,z_e)}t_at_ex(P)\exp[-\frac{i}{2}\wind(\gamma_P)]\,,
\end{align*}
where~$\mathcal{E}_G(a,z_e):=\mathcal{E}_G(a,e)\cup\mathcal{E}_G(a,\overline{e})$ and~$\gamma_P$ denotes a path running from~$a$ to~$z_e$ obtained by decomposing~$P$ into a collection of non-intersecting contours.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark} In the \emph{critical} Ising model on the square lattice (or the critical \mbox{Z-invariant} model on an isoradial graph~\cite{boutillier-detiliere-11,chelkak-smirnov-12}), the functions~$F_G(a,z_e)$ are \emph{discrete holomorphic} away from the edge~$a$, see Section~\ref{subsect:s-holomorphicity}. This property was used in~\cite{chelkak-smirnov-12} to prove their convergence to conformal covariant limits as the mesh size tends to zero and in~\cite{hongler-thesis-10,hongler-smirnov-13} to analyze the scaling limit of the energy density field.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Disorder operators}
\label{subsect:spin-disorder} We now describe another approach to
fermionic observables via the spin-disorder formalism of Kadanoff and Ceva~\cite{kadanoff-ceva-71}. Given \emph{vertices} $v_1,...,v_{2n}$ of~$G$, the correlation of \emph{disorder operators}~$\mu_{v_1},...,\mu_{v_{2n}}$ is defined as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:disorders-def}
\textstyle \Corr{G}{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_{2n}}}:= \mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\cdot \mathcal{Z}_G^{[v_1,...,v_{2n}]}\,,\quad \mathcal{Z}_G^{[v_1,...,v_{2n}]}:=\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G(v_1,...,v_{2n})}x(P)\,.
\end{equation}
It is easy to see that~$\mathcal{Z}_G^{[v_1,...,v_{2n}]}$ can be thought of as a partition function of the Ising model defined on the faces of a double-cover~$G^{[v_1,...,v_{2n}]}$ of the graph~$G$ that branches over~$v_1,...,v_{2n}$, with the \emph{spin-flip symmetry constrain}~$\sigma_{u^\sharp}\sigma_{u^\flat}=-1$ for any pair of faces~$u^\sharp$ and $u^\flat$ lying over the same face of~$G$.
One can go further and introduce mixed correlations
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:disorders-spins-mixed-def}
\Corr{G}{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_{2n}}\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}\;:=\; \Corr{G}{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_{2n}}}\cdot \mathbb{E}_{G^{[v_1,...,v_{2n}]}}[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]\,,
\end{equation}
where~$u_1,...,u_m$ should be thought of as faces of the double-cover~$G^{[v_1,...,v_{2n}]}$ described above. By definition of the Ising model on~$G^{[v_1,...,v_{2n}]}$, these quantities obey the sign-flip symmetry between the sheets. It is not hard to see that they admit the following combinatorial interpretation that generalizes both~\eqref{eq:spin-spin-low-temperature} and~\eqref{eq:disorders-def}:
\[
\textstyle \Corr{G}{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_{2n}}\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}} \;=\;
\pm\, \mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\cdot \sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G(v_1,...,v_{2n})}x(P)(-1)^{\mathrm{loops}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}(P\triangle P_0)}\,,
\]
where the~$\pm$ sign depends on the identification of~$u_1,...,u_m$ with faces of~$G$ and~$P_0$ is a fixed collection of edge-disjoint paths matching the vertices~$v_1,...,v_{2n}$ in pairs.
\begin{remark}
Provided~$x_e=x_e^*$, the domain walls representation~\eqref{eq:disorders-def} of disorder correlations coincides with the high-temperature expansion~\eqref{eq:spin-spin-low-temperature} of spin correlations in the dual model. A similar statement holds for mixed correlations: under the Kramers--Wannier duality, disorders are mapped into spins and vice versa.
\end{remark}
Let us now focus on the case when~$m=2n$ and each of the faces~$u_s$ is incident to the corresponding vertex~$v_s$. We call such a pair~$c_s:=(u_s,v_s)$ a~\emph{corner} of the graph~$G$ and attach to~$v_s$ a \emph{decoration} (i.e., a small straight segment oriented from~$u_s$~\emph{towards~$v_s$}) representing this corner. {Let~$\eta_c$ denote the complex conjugate of a square root of the direction of the corresponding decoration, multiplied by $\varsigma$.}
\begin{proposition}[e.g., see~{\cite[Lemma~3.1]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16}}]
\label{prop:multi-chi}
The following representation holds:
\[
\textstyle \Corr{G}{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_{2n}}\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_{2n}}}\;=\;\pm\,\mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\sum_{P\in \mathcal{E}_G(c_1,...,c_{2n})}x(P)\tau(P)\,,
\]
where the set~$\mathcal{E}_G(c_1,...,c_{2n})$ is obtained by attaching decorations~$c_1,...,c_{2n}$ to subgraphs from~$\mathcal{E}_G(v_1,...,v_{2n})$ and the sign~$\tau(P)=\pm 1$ is defined exactly as in~(\ref{eq:tau-sign-definition}).
\end{proposition}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:observables-corners}
Let~$c$ and~$d$ be corners of~$G$. Similarly to Definition~\ref{def:observables-edges}, we set
\[
\textstyle \Phi_G(c,d)\;:=\;\mathcal{Z}_G^{-1}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}(c,d)}x(P)({ -i\eta_c\overline{\eta}{}_d}\exp[-\tfrac{i}{2}\wind(\gamma_P)])\,,
\]
where~$\wind(\gamma_P)$ denotes the total rotation angle of a path~$\gamma_P$ running from~$c$ to~$d$ obtained by decomposing~$P$ into a collection of non-intersecting contours.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:phi-chi-change} The similarity of combinatorial expansions given in Theorem~\ref{thm:multi-fermions} and Proposition~\ref{prop:multi-chi} allows one to introduce a linear change of Grassmann variables~$\phi_e$ assigned to oriented edges~$e$ emanating from a given vertex~$v$ to a new set of variables~$\chi_c$ labeled by decorations~$c$ attached to~$v$, so that~$\Phi_G(c,d)=\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\chi_d\chi_c}$ provided that~$c$ and~$d$ are attached to different vertices of~$G$; see~\cite[Section~3.4]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16}. In particular, this implies that~multi-point correlations discussed in Proposition~\ref{prop:multi-chi} satisfy~\emph{Pfaffian identities} similar to multi-point correlations~\eqref{eq:multi-phi}. Further, given a corner~$c$ and an edge~$e$, one can introduce the notation~$\Phi_G(c,e):=\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{t_e\phi_e\chi_c}$ and~$F_G(c,z_e):=\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_e)\chi_c}$. All these observables admit combinatorial representations similar to the ones given in Definition~\ref{def:observables-edges} and Definition~\ref{def:observables-corners}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{S-holomorphicity}
\label{subsect:s-holomorphicity}
From now on, we mostly focus on the case when~$G$ is a subgraph of the square grid and the model is homogeneous, i.e.~$x_e=x=\tan\tfrac{1}{2}\theta$ for all edges of~$G$ and some fixed~$\theta\in(0,\frac{\pi}{2})$. In this case, we always draw a decoration corresponding to a corner~$d=(u,v)$ so that it is directed from the center of the corresponding face~$u=u(d)$ \emph{towards the vertex}~$v=v(d)$.
\begin{definition} We say that a complex-valued function~$F(\cdot)$ defined on mid-edges~$z_e$ of~$G$ and a real-valued function~$\Phi(\cdot)$ defined on corners~$d$ of~$G$ satisfy the \emph{massive s-holomorphicity condition} for a given pair of adjacent~$z_e$ and~$d$, if
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:s-hol-condition}
\Phi(d)\;=\
\mathrm{Re} [\,e^{\pm \frac{i}{2}(\frac{\pi}{4}-\theta)}{\overline{\eta}_d}F(z_e)\,]\,,
\end{equation}
where the sign is~``$+$'' if~$z_e$ is to the right of~$d$ and~``$-$'' otherwise.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
This definition first appeared in~\cite{smirnov-06icm,smirnov-10,chelkak-smirnov-12} {in the critical model context.}
Note that the papers~\cite{smirnov-10icm,hongler-smirnov-13,chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15} use a slightly different convention for the notion of s-holomorphicity, {which corresponds to the choice $\varsigma=i$ of the global unimodular factor in the definition of~$\eta_e$ and~$\eta_c$.}
\end{remark}
It is well known that observables~$F_G(a,\,\cdot\,),\Phi_G(a,\,\cdot\,)$ or~$F_G(c,\,\cdot\,),\Phi_G(c,\,\cdot\,)$ satisfy~\eqref{eq:s-hol-condition} away from the edge~$a$ or the corner~$c$. This can be deduced both from their combinatorial representations (e.g., see~\cite[Section~4]{smirnov-10icm}) or from the identity
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mu-mu+s-s=1}
\sin\theta_e\cdot \Corr{G}{\mu_{v^-(e)}\mu_{v^+(e)}\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]}+\cos\theta_e\cdot\Corr{G}{\sigma_{u^-(e)}\sigma_{u^+(e)}\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]}= \Corr{G}{\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]}\,,
\end{equation}
where~$v^\pm (e)$ and~$u^{\pm}(e)$ denote the two vertices and the two faces adjacent to a given edge~$e$ and~$\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]$ stands for an arbitrary product of other disorders and spins, see~\cite[Section~3.6]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16} for more comments on these linear relations.
\begin{remark} For the critical Ising model on the square grid (and similarly for the critical Z-invariant model on an isoradial graph), the factor~$e^{\pm\frac{1}{2}(\frac{\pi}{4}-\theta)}$ in~(\ref{eq:s-hol-condition}) disappears and these equations can be understood as a (strong) form of discrete Cauchy--Riemann equations for the complex-valued function~$F(\cdot)$, see~\cite{smirnov-06icm,smirnov-10,chelkak-smirnov-12}.
\end{remark}
Working with subgraphs of the square grid, let us focus on the real-valued observables~$\Phi_G(c,d)$ restricted onto one of the four possible types of the corners~$d$ and assume that {all the square roots in the definition of~$\eta_d$} are chosen to be the same. It is easy to check (e.g., see~\cite[Lemma~4.2]{beffara-duminil-copin-12}) that, away from~$c$ and the boundary of~$G$, condition~\eqref{eq:s-hol-condition} implies the so-called \emph{massive harmonicity} of~$\Phi_G(c,d)$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:massive-harmonicity}
\Delta_\theta\Phi_G(c,d)\;:=\; \Phi_G(c,d)-\tfrac{1}{4}\sin(2\theta){\textstyle \sum\nolimits_{d'\sim d}}\Phi_G(c,d')\;=\;0\,,
\end{equation}
where the sum is taken over four nearby corners~$d'$ of the same type as~$d$.
We will use this equation in Section~\ref{section:explicit-formulae} for explicit computations of the diagonal spin-spin expectations in the full plane via \emph{spinor observables}, to which we now move on.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:massive=>criticality}
Note that one obtains the same equation for~$\Phi(c,d)$ if~$\theta$ is replaced by~$\theta^*=\frac{\pi}{2}-\theta$ according to the Kramers--Wannier duality~\eqref{eq:kramers-wannier}. It is also worth noting that one can use the massive harmonicity of related fermionic observables arising in the random-cluster representation of the Ising model to prove the criticality of the self-dual value~$\theta_{\mathrm{crit}}=\frac{\pi}{4}$ and to compute the exact rate of the exponential decay of spin-spin expectations in the supercritical model, see~\cite{beffara-duminil-copin-12}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Double-covers~{$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$} and spinor observables}
\label{subsect:spinors} Given a set of faces~$u_1,...,u_m$ of~$G$, let us fix a collection of paths $\varkappa$ on the graph dual to~$G$ that match these faces (and the outer face if~$m$ is odd) in pairs. Repeating the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:kac-ward}, it is easy to rewrite~\eqref{eq:spin-spin-low-temperature} as
\[
\textstyle \mathcal{Z}_G\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]\; =\;\pm\,\Pf[{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}}]\,,
\]
where~$\widehat{\mathrm{K}}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}=i\mathrm{U}\mathrm{K}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}\mathrm{U}^*$ and the matrix~$\mathrm{K}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}$ is obtained from~$\mathrm{K}$ by replacing its entries~$\mathrm{K}_{e,\bar{e}}=+1$ by~$-1$ if~$e$ crosses one of the paths from~$\varkappa$. Moreover, one has the following analogue of Theorem~\ref{thm:multi-fermions}:
\begin{align*}
\textstyle \Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}}{\phi_{e_1}...\phi_{e_{2k}}}
=\; (\mathcal{Z}_G\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}])^{-1}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}_G(e_1,...,e_{2k})}x(P)\tau_{[u_1,...,u_m]}(P)\,,
\end{align*}
where~$\tau_{[u_1,...,u_m]}(P):=\tau(P)(-1)^{|P\cap\varkappa|}$; note that this definition depends on~$\varkappa$.
\smallskip
There exists a standard way to make the above construction canonical (i.e. independent of the choice of~$\varkappa$). To do so, let us consider a \emph{double-cover}~$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$ of the graph~$G$ \emph{branching over the faces}~$u_1,...,u_m$ (so that~$\varkappa$ defines its section). Now let us assign Grassmann variables~$\phi_e$ to the edges of~$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$ with the convention~$\phi_{e^\sharp}=-\phi_{e^\flat}$ if~$e^\sharp$ and~$e^\flat$ lie over the same edge of~$G$. One can write
\[
\textstyle \tau_{[u_1,...,u_n]}(P)\,=\,\tau(P)(-1)^{\mathrm{loops}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}(P)} \prod_{l=1}^{k}\mathrm{sheet}_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(\gamma_l;e_{s(2l-1)},e_{s(2l)})\,,
\]
where~$\mathrm{sheet}_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(\gamma;e,e')$ is equal to $+1$ if the lift of~$\gamma$ onto~$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$ links~$e$ and~$e'$ (considered as the edges on this double-cover) and to $-1$ otherwise. Note that the individual factors may depend on the chosen decomposition of~$P$ into non-intersecting loops and paths but~$\tau_{[u_1,...,u_n]}(P)$ is uniquely determined by~$P$.
\begin{remark} The multi-point fermionic correlators introduced above have a built-in \emph{sign-flip symmetry} between the sheets of~$[G;u_1,...,u_n]$. Functions on double-covers obeying this property are often called \emph{spinors}. As mentioned in Remark~\ref{rem:phi-chi-change} (see also~\cite[Section~3.4]{chelkak-cimasoni-kassel-16}), one can simultaneously use the same notation for the Grassmann variables~$\chi_c$, which are labeled by the corners of~$[G;u_1,...,u_n]$ and can be written as the products~$\mu_{v(c)}\sigma_{u(c)}$ using the language of disorder operators.
In this language, the spinor property of the corresponding observables is a consequence of the similar sign-flip symmetry of mixed correlations~\eqref{eq:disorders-spins-mixed-def}.
\end{remark}
\begin{definition}
\label{def:spinor-observables} Given a set of faces~$u_1,...,u_m$ of~$G$, two distinct corners~$c$ and~$d$ lying on the double-cover~$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$ and a mid-edge~$z_e$ on~$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$, we combinatorially define \emph{spinor observables} with a source at the corner~$c$ by
\begin{align*}
\Phi_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(c,d)\;:=\;&\textstyle (\mathcal{Z}_G\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}])^{-1}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}(c,d)}x(P)\tau_{[u_1,...,u_m]}(P)\,,\\
F_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(c,z_e)\;:=\;&\textstyle (\mathcal{Z}_G\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}])^{-1}\cdot
{(-i\eta_c)}\sum_{P\in\mathcal{E}(c,z_e)}t_ex(P)\nu(P)\,,
\end{align*}
where~$\nu(P):=\exp[-\tfrac{i}{2}\wind(\gamma_P)]\cdot (-1)^{\mathrm{loops}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}(P)}\cdot \mathrm{sheet}_{[u_1,...,u_m]}(\gamma_P;c,z_e)$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark} Similarly to their non-branching counterparts, spinor observables satisfy the massive s-holomorphicity condition~\eqref{eq:s-hol-condition} everywhere on the double-cover~$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$ away from the source corner~$c$ and the boundary of~$G$, including the vicinities of the faces~$u_1,...,u_m$. The proof mimics the case~$m=0$ and can be done, e.g., using the same combinatorial arguments (see~\cite[Section~3.1]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}).
\end{remark}
\subsection{Particular values of spinor observables}
\label{subsect:spinor-values} Let us now focus on the special situation when the source corner~$c$ is incident to one of the faces~$u_1,...,u_m$. Given a face~$u$, below we denote by~$c=u^{[\eta]}$ one of its corners {such that the corresponding decoration goes in the direction $\varsigma^2\overline{\eta}^2=i\overline{\eta}^2$ and so~$\eta_c=\eta$.} The following lemma shows the relevance of such spinor observables for the analysis of spin correlations.
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Phi-values-near-u}
Let a face~$\widetilde{u}_1$ of~$G$ be such that the corners~$c=u_1^{[\eta]}$ and $d=\widetilde{u}_1^{[i\eta]}$ share a vertex of~$[G;u_1,...,u_m]$. Then the following identity is fulfilled:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Phi-cd=ratio-of-spins}
\Phi_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(c,d)\;=\;
(\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}...\sigma_{u_m}])^{-1}\!\cdot\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{\widetilde{u}_1}\sigma_{u_2}...\sigma_{u_m}]\,.
\end{equation}
Moreover, if~$\widetilde{u}_1\ne u_2,...,u_m$, then one has $\Delta_\theta \Phi_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(c,d)=(\cos\theta)^2$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} A combinatorial proof of the first identity can be found in~\cite[Lemma~2.6]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}. Note that if we write~$\Phi_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(c,d)= \Corr{G}{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}^{-1}\cdot\Corr{G}{\chi_d\chi_c\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}^{\vphantom{-1}}$ using the notation discussed above, then~\eqref{eq:Phi-cd=ratio-of-spins} reads simply as $\chi_d\chi_c\sigma_{u_1}=\sigma_{\widetilde{u}_1}$\,. The proof of the second identity is a straightforward computation and the mismatch with~\eqref{eq:massive-harmonicity} is caused by the ambiguity in the definition of~$\Phi_{[G;u_1,...,u_m]}(c,c)=\pm 1$: one should choose different signs in order to fulfill the condition~\eqref{eq:s-hol-condition} for the mid-points~$z_e$ of the two edges incident to~$c$, cf.~\cite[Lemma~3.2]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}.
\end{proof}
The last combinatorial result that we will need is special for the case~$m\!=\!2$. Recall that we denote by~$\mathbb{E}_{G}^*[\sigma_{v_1}\sigma_{v_2}]$ the expectations in the Ising model defined on \emph{vertices} of~$G$, with the inverse temperature~$\beta^*=-\tfrac{1}{2}\log\tan\tfrac{1}{2}\theta^*$ (see~Remark~\ref{rem:kramers-wannier}).
\begin{lemma}
\label{lemma:Phi-m=2-values} Given two corners~$c=u_1^{[\eta]}$ and~$d=u_2^{[\rho]}$, denote by~$v(c)\sim u_1$ and~$v(d)\sim u_2$ the corresponding vertices of~$G$. The following identity is fulfilled:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Phi-cd-next-to-u2}
\Phi_{[G;u_1,u_2]}(c,d)\;=\;\pm (\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}])^{-1}\!\cdot \mathbb{E}_G^*[\sigma_{v(c)}\sigma_{v(d)}]\,,
\end{equation}
Moreover, if~$v(c)\!\not\sim\! u_2$, then~$\Delta_\theta\Phi_{[G;u_1,u_2]}(c,d)=\pm (\sin\theta)^2\cdot \Phi_{[G;u_1,u_2]}(c,d')$, where~$d'$ is the corner of~$u_2$ opposite to~$d$. {The $\pm$ signs depend on the choice of square roots in the definition of~$\eta_c,\eta_d,\eta_{d'}$ and the lifts of the corners $c,d,d'$ onto~$[G;u_1,u_2]$.}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} The first claim easily follows from the definition of~$\Phi_{[G;u_1,u_2]}(c,d)$ and the high-temperature expansion~\eqref{eq:spin-spin-high-temperature}, see~\cite[Lemma~2.6]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}. The second is a computation: the mismatch with~\eqref{eq:massive-harmonicity} is now caused by the fact that the two relevant values of~$\Phi_{[G;u_1,u_2]}(c,d')$ correspond to different lifts of~$d'$ onto~$[G;u_1,u_2]$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} Contrary to the correlations of the energy density field, one \mbox{cannot} directly represent the spin expectations~$\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]$ neither as the values of fermionic observables nor as the values of their spinor generalizations. Nevertheless, one can use~\eqref{eq:Phi-cd=ratio-of-spins} to control the change of these expectations when moving the faces~$u_1,...,u_m$ step by step. For the \emph{critical} Ising model, this identity was used in~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15} as the starting point to deduce the convergence (when the mesh size tends to zero) of spin expectations to conformally covariant limits from the relevant convergence results for \emph{discrete holomorphic} spinor observables, see Section~\ref{section:conformal-invariance} for further details. At the same time, one can use this idea to perform some explicit computations for the infinite-volume limit of the model, as we will see now.
\end{remark}
\section{Diagonal spin-spin expectations in the full plane}
\label{section:explicit-formulae}
\subsection{Setup and preliminaries} The main purpose of this section is to illustrate the general idea of analyzing the spin-spin expectations via spinor observables discussed in Sections~\ref{subsect:spinors} and~\ref{subsect:spinor-values}. Below we work with the infinite-volume limit of the \emph{homogeneous Ising model on the~$\tfrac{\pi}{4}$-rotated square grid},
which we denote by~$\Cdiscr$. More precisely, we assume that the centers of faces of~$\Cdiscr$ are located at the points~$(k,s)\in\mathbb{R}^2$ such that~$k,s\in\mathbb{Z}$ and~$k\!+\!s\in 2\mathbb{Z}$.
Recall that (e.g., see~\cite{aizenmann-80}) the 2D Ising model has a unique Gibbs measure above and at the critical temperature, while there are two extremal ones (describing~``$+$'' and~``$-$'' phases, respectively) below criticality. In particular, the infinite-volume limits of the diagonal spin-spin expectations
\[
D_n=D_n(\beta)\;:=\;\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{C}^\diamond}[\sigma_{(0,0)}\sigma_{(2n,0)}]
\]
are well defined for all~$\beta$ and invariant under translations. Together with the monotonicity of~$D_n$ with respect to~$\beta$, these are the only external inputs that we use below. Our goal is to derive the following classical results from the (massive) harmonicity of spinor observables and their values given by Lemmas~\ref{lemma:Phi-values-near-u} and~\ref{lemma:Phi-m=2-values}.
\begin{theorem}[see~\cite{mccoy-wu-book-14}]
\label{thm:explcit-formulae} For~$\beta=\beta_{\mathrm{crit}}$, the following explicit formula holds true:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Dn-crit-explicit}
D_n ~=~ \biggl(\frac{2}{\pi}\biggr)^{\!\!n}\!\cdot\prod_{l=1}^{n-1}\biggl(1-\frac{1}{4l^2}\biggr)^{\!\!l-n}\sim~2^{\frac{1}{3}}e^{-3\zeta'(-1)}\cdot (2n)^{-\frac{1}{4}}\ \ \text{as}\ \ n\to\infty.
\end{equation}
For~$\beta>\beta_{\mathrm{crit}}$, one has~$\lim_{n\to\infty}D_n=(1-q^4)^{1/4}>0$, where~$q=\tan\theta=(\sinh \beta)^{-1}.$
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
Since the famous work of Onsager and Kaufman (see~\cite{baxter-11} for historical remarks) it is known that two-point expectations like~$D_n$ can be expressed via Toeplitz determinants, thus the theory of orthogonal polynomials plays a crucial role for their asymptotic analysis. It is worth noting that below we use a shorter route, applying this theory~\emph{directly} to certain polynomials constructed from the values of relevant spinor observables. We believe that one can use this shortcut to study the properties of~$D_n$ in great detail, cf.~\cite[Section~2]{perk-au-yang-09}.
\end{remark}
\begin{remark}
Similar techniques can be applied for the analysis of one-point expectations (with~``$+$'' boundary conditions) in the \emph{``zig-zag'' half-plane}~$\Cdiscr_-$ by which we mean the collection of all faces~$(-k,s)\in\Cdiscr$ with~$k>0$. For instance, for the critical model one can show that~$\mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{C}^\diamond_-}[\sigma_{(-k,\cdot)}]\cdot \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{C}^\diamond_-}[\sigma_{(-k+1,\cdot)}]=2^{\frac{1}{2}}D_k$\,. This identity leads to an explicit formula for these expectations similar to~\eqref{eq:Dn-crit-explicit}; see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-16}.
\end{remark}
Below we work with a sequence of real-valued spinor observables
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Theta-n-ks-def}
\Theta_n(k,s)~:=~ D_{n+1} \cdot \Phi_{[\mathbb{C}^\diamond;(-2,0),(2n,0)]}((-2,0)^{[1]},(k,s)^{[i]})\,,\quad n\ge 0\,,
\end{equation}
which should be understood as limits of the similar quantities defined in finite domains~$G$ exhausting~$\Cdiscr$; we assume that these domains are symmetric with respect to the horizontal axis. It follows from Definition~\ref{def:spinor-observables} and the high-temperature expansion~(\ref{eq:spin-spin-high-temperature}) that~$\mathbb{E}_G[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}]\cdot|\Phi_{[G;u_1,u_2]}(\cdot,\cdot)|\le 1$, so one can use a diagonal process to define all the values~$\Theta_n(k,s)$ as the limits along some subsequence of~$G$.
\subsection{From full-plane spinor observables to orthogonal polynomials} Note that the full-plane observable~$\Theta_n$ has
the following values on the horizontal axis:
\[
\Theta_n(k,0)=0\ \text{if}~k<0\,,\ \ \Theta_n(0,0)=D_n\,;\quad \Theta_n(2n,0)=D_n^*\,,\ \ \Theta_n(k,0)=0~\text{if}~k>2n\,,
\]
where~$D_n^*$ denotes the diagonal spin-spin expectation at the dual temperature. The values~$\Theta_n(0,0)$ and~$\Theta_n(2n,0)$ are essentially given by~\eqref{eq:Phi-cd=ratio-of-spins} and~\eqref{eq:Phi-cd-next-to-u2}. The first and the last claim follow from Definition~\ref{def:spinor-observables} of the spinor observables $\Phi_{[G;(-2,0),(2n,0)]}((-2,0)^{[1]},(k,0)^{[i]})$: if~$P_\pm$ are two configurations contributing to this value that are symmetric to each other with respect to the horizontal axis, then the signs~$\tau_{[G;(-2,0),(2n,0)]}(P_\pm)$ are the same if~$0\le k\le 2n$ and \emph{opposite} otherwise. More generally, if one cuts the double-cover ~$[\Cdiscr;(-2,0),(2n,0)]$ along the horizontal rays~$(-\infty,-2)$ and~$(2n,+\infty)$, then~$\Theta_n$ obeys the symmetry~$\Theta_n(k,-s)=\Theta(k,s)$ on each of the two sheets obtained from~~$[\Cdiscr;(-2,0),(2n,0)]$ in this way.
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:DD*-define-Theta} Applying the maximum principle in the upper half-plane, one can easily see that a \emph{bounded} spinor~$\Theta_n$ symmetric with respect to the horizontal line is uniquely determined by the massive harmonicity property and its values~$D_n$ and $D_n^*$ at the points~$(0,0)$ and~$(2n,0)$ where this property fails.
\end{remark}
Denote
\[
\widehat{\Theta}_{n,s}(e^{it})~:=~{\textstyle\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}:k+s\in 2\mathbb{Z}}}\,e^{\frac{1}{2}ikt}\Theta_n(k,s)\,,\quad s\ge 0\,.
\]
In particular,~$\widehat{\Theta}_{n,0}(e^{it})=D_n+\ldots+D_n^*e^{int}$ is a trigonometric \emph{polynomial}.
The massive harmonicity of~$\Theta_n(k,s)$ in the upper half-plane can be now written as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Theta-three-terms}
\widehat{\Theta}_{n,s}(e^{it}) -
(\tfrac{m}{2}\cos\tfrac{t}{2})\cdot (\widehat{\Theta}_{n,s-1}(e^{it})+\widehat{\Theta}_{n,s+1}(e^{it}))=0\,,\quad s\ge 1\,,
\end{equation}
where~$m=\sin(2\theta)=2(q\!+\!q^{-1})^{-1}\!$. Further, Lemmas~\ref{lemma:Phi-values-near-u} and~\ref{lemma:Phi-m=2-values} imply
\
\Delta_\theta\Theta_n(0,0)=(1\!+\!q^2)^{-1}D_{n+1}\,,\quad \Delta_\theta\Theta_n(2n,0)=(1\!+\!q^2)^{-1}q^2D_{n+1}^*\quad\text{for}\ n\ge 1\,,
\
and one can similarly check that $\Delta_\theta\Theta_0(0,0)=(1\!+\!q^2)^{-1}(D_1\!+\!q^2D_1^*)$. Together with the symmetry~$\Theta_n(k,-1)=\Theta_n(k,1)$ discussed above, this allows us to write
\begin{equation}\label{eq:Theta-01}
\widehat{\Theta}_{n,0}(e^{it}) - m\cos\tfrac{t}{2}\cdot \widehat{\Theta}_{n,1}(e^{it}) = (1+q^2)^{-1}\cdot(\,\ldots+D_{n+1}+q^2D_{n+1}^*e^{int}+\ldots\,)\,.
\end{equation}
In particular, this trigonometric series does \emph{not} contain monomials~$e^{it},...,e^{i(n-1)t}$; this fact reflects the massive harmonicity of~$\Theta_n$ between the branching points.
\smallskip
Note that one can reverse the above derivation. Namely, given a polynomial~$Q_n(e^{it})=D_n+\ldots+D_n^*e^{int}$, let us define \emph{uniformly bounded} functions
\[
Q_{n,s}(e^{it}):= \biggl[\frac{1-(1-(m\cos\frac{t}{2})^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}}{m\cos\frac{t}{2}}\biggr]^s Q_n(e^{it})\,,\quad s\ge 0\,,
\]
so that~\eqref{eq:Theta-three-terms} holds true for all~$s\ge 1$. Now, if the Fourier series of the function
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Q-01}
Q_{n,0}(e^{it}) - m\cos\tfrac{t}{2}\cdot Q_{n,1}(e^{it})=(1-(m\cos\tfrac{t}{2})^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot Q_n(e^{it})
\end{equation}
does not contain monomials~$e^{it},...,e^{i(n-1)t}$, then~$Q_{n,s}$ must coincide with~$\widehat{\Theta}_{n,s}$ due to the uniqueness property of the full-plane observable~$\Theta_n$ described in Remark~\ref{rem:DD*-define-Theta}.
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:explcit-formulae}} Following the preceding discussion, we are now looking for a trigonometric polynomial~$Q_n(e^{it})=D_n+\ldots+D_n^*e^{int}$, which is orthogonal to all the monomials~$e^{it},...,e^{i(n-1)t}$ with respect to the measure
$\tfrac{1}{2\pi}w(e^{it}){dt}$ on the unit circle, where the \emph{real weight}~$w(e^{it})$ is given by
\[
w(e^{it})=w(e^{-it})\;:=\;(1\!+\!q^2)\cdot(1\!-\!(m\cos\tfrac{t}{2})^2)^{\frac{1}{2}}\,.
\]
For the self-dual value~$\beta=\beta_{\mathrm{crit}}$ we have~$D_n=D_n^*$ and~$q=m=1$, which means~$w(e^{it})=2|\sin\tfrac{t}{2}|$. The above orthogonality condition is now guaranteed if
\[
e^{-\frac{int}{2}}Q_n(e^{it})~=~2D_n\cos\tfrac{nt}{2}+\ldots ~=~
P_n(\cos\tfrac{t}{2})\,,
\]
and $\int_{-1}^1P_n(x)x^ldx=0$ for all~$l<n$. In other words,~$P_n(x)=2^nD_nx^n+\ldots$ must be proportional to the~$n$-th Legendre polynomial~$(2^nn!)^{-1}d[(x^2\!-\!1)^n]/dx^n$. Moreover, it follows from~(\ref{eq:Q-01}) and~\eqref{eq:Theta-01} that
\[
\textstyle \int_{-1}^1P_n(x)x^ndx ~=~ \frac{1}{4}\int_0^{2\pi}(2D_{n+1}\cos\frac{nt}{2}+\ldots)(\cos\frac{t}{2})^ndt~=~ \pi 2^{-n}D_{n+1}\,.
\]
Using the well-known expression for the norms of Legendre polynomials, we conclude that
$\pi 2^{-2n}D_{n+1}/D_n= ((2n\!-\!1)!!/n!)^{-2}\cdot 2/(2n\!+\!1)$, which leads to~\eqref{eq:Dn-crit-explicit}.
\smallskip
The subcritical case~$\beta>\beta_{\mathrm{crit}}$ is slightly more involved. Clearly, we should have~$Q_n(e^{it})=c_n\Phi_n(e^{it})+c_n^*\Phi_n^*(e^{it})$, where~$\Phi_n(z)=z^n+\ldots$ is the~$n$-th monic orthogonal polynomial and~$\Phi_n^*(z)=z^n\Phi_n(z^{-1})$; see~\cite[Section~2]{simon-opuc-05} for the notation and basic facts about orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle. For~$n=0$, we simply have~$Q_0(e^{it})=1$ and the Fourier expansion~\eqref{eq:Theta-01} implies
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:D1+^D1*=}
\textstyle D_1+q^2D_1^*\;=\;\beta_0:=\|1\|^2=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}w(e^{it})dt\,.
\end{equation}
For~$n\ge 1$, considering the free term and the highest monomial of~$Q_n(e^{it})$ and using the Fourier expansion~\eqref{eq:Theta-01} of the product~$w(e^{it})Q_n(e^{it})$ we find
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Dn-recurrence-via-cn}
\begin{array} {lr}
D_n=c_n^*-\alpha_{n-1}c_n\,, & D_{n+1}=c_n^*\|\Phi_n^*\|^2=c_n^*\beta_n\,, \\
D_n^*=c_n-\alpha_{n-1}c_n^*\,, &\ \ q^2D_{n+1}^*=c_n\|\Phi_n\|^2=c_n\beta_n\,,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
where~$\alpha_{n-1}=\overline{\alpha}_{n-1}:=-\Phi_n(0)$ and $\beta_n:=\|\Phi_n\|^2\!=\|\Phi_n^*\|^2\!=\beta_0\prod_{l=0}^{n-1}(1-\alpha_l^2)$. This allows us to express~$D_{n+1}$ and~$D_{n+1}^*$ via~$D_n$ and~$D_n^*$ for~$n\ge 1$ but unfortunately we cannot extract individual values of~$D_1$ and~$D_1^*$ from~\eqref{eq:D1+^D1*=}. Nevertheless, we can combine~\eqref{eq:Dn-recurrence-via-cn} with the Szeg\"o recurrence relations for the polynomials~$\Phi_n(z)$ and~$\Phi_n^*(z)$ applied at the point~$z=q^2<1$ and obtain the following identity:
\begin{align*}
D_{n+1}\Phi_n^*(q^2)+q^2D_{n+1}^*\Phi_n(q^2) & ~=~ \beta_n\cdot (D_n\Phi_{n-1}^*(q^2)+q^2D_n^*\Phi_{n-1}(q^2)) \\
& ~=~ \dots ~=~ \beta_{n}...\beta_1\cdot (D_1+q^2D_1^*) ~=~ \beta_{n}...\beta_1\beta_0\,.
\end{align*}
The first Szeg\"o theorem~(e.g., see~\cite[Theorems~8.1,8.4]{simon-opuc-05}) implies that~$\beta_n\to (D(0))^2$ and~$\Phi_n^*(q^2)\to D(0)/D(q^2)$ as~$n\to\infty$, where the inner function~$D(z)\!=\!(1-q^2z)^{\frac{1}{2}}$ satisfies~$|D(e^{it})|^2\!=\!w(e^{it})$. Since~$D(0)\!=\!1$, the values~$\Phi_n(q^2)$ are bounded. We know from~\eqref{eq:Dn-crit-explicit} and the monotonicity of~$D_n$ with respect to~$\beta$ that~$D_{n+1}^*\to 0$. Therefore, the second Szeg\"o theorem (e.g., see~\cite[Theorems~8.5]{simon-opuc-05}) gives
\begin{align*}
\lim_{n\to \infty} D_{n+1} = \frac{\lim_{n\to\infty} \beta_n...\beta_1\beta_0}{\lim_{n\to\infty} \Phi_n^*(q^2)} = D(q^2)\exp\biggl[\frac{1}{\pi}\iint_{\mathbb{D}}\,\biggl|\frac{D'(z)}{D(z)}\biggr|^2\!dA(z)\biggr] = (1-q^4)^{\frac{1}{4}}\,.
\end{align*}
\section{Convergence and conformal invariance at criticality}\label{section:conformal-invariance}
In this section we consider the critical Ising model defined on a sequence of discrete approximations to a given bounded planar domain~$\Omega$. For simplicity, below we discuss ``$+$'' boundary conditions only and assume that~$\Omega$ is simply connected; see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16} for the general setup. We denote by~$\Omega_\delta$ a discrete approximation to~$\Omega$ (in Hausdorff or Carath\'eodory sense) on the~\emph{$\frac{\pi}{4}$-rotated square grid~$\Cdiscr_\delta:=\delta\Cdiscr$} with the \emph{mesh size~$2^{\frac{1}{2}}\delta$}. The main object of interest is the asymptotic behaviour of correlation functions such as~$\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]$ in the regime when the points~\mbox{$u_1,...,u_m\in\Omega$} are fixed and~$\delta\to0$, so that the numbers of lattice steps separating these points from each other (and from the boundary of~$\Omega$) are all proportional to~$\delta^{-1}\!\to\infty$. We call this regime a \emph{scaling limit} of the critical Ising model on~$\Omega$; note that one can similarly treat fermionic observables~$\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\phi_{e_1}...\phi_{e_{2k}}}$ discussed in Section~\ref{subsect:fermions}, spin-disorder correlators~$\Corr{\Omega_\delta}{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_{2n}}\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}$ from Section~\ref{subsect:spin-disorder}, etc.
\smallskip
In the physics literature (e.g., see~\cite{mussardo-book-10}), the 2D Ising model is considered to be an archetypical example of a discrete system whose large-distance behavior at criticality is prescribed by Conformal Field Theory (with the central charge~$\frac{1}{2}$). In particular, this gives a number of predictions for the scaling limits of correlation functions discussed above, often leading to exact formulae for them. For instance, the CFT counterparts~$\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}$ of the multi-point spin expectations~$\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]$ have the following explicit form in the upper half-plane~$\mathbb{H}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spins-explicit}
\Corr{\mathbb{H}}{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}= \prod_{p=1}^m(2\mathrm{Im}\,u_p)^{-\frac{1}{8}}\cdot \Biggl[2^{-\frac{m}{2}}\!\!\!\sum_{s\in\{\pm 1\}^m}\prod_{1\le p<q\le m}\biggl|\frac{u_p-u_q}{u_p-\overline{u}_q}\biggr|{\vphantom{\Bigr|}}^{\frac{s_ps_q}{2}}\,\Biggr]^{\frac{1}{2}}
\end{equation}
and are defined in all other simply connected domains~$\Omega$ by the following~\emph{conformal covariance} property under conformal mappings~$\varphi:\Omega\to\Omega'$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:covariance-spins}
\textstyle \Corr{\Omega}{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}=\Corr{\Omega'}{\sigma_{\varphi(u_1)}...\sigma_{\varphi(u_m)}}\cdot\prod_{1\le p\le m} |\varphi'(u_p)|^{\frac{1}{8}}\,.
\end{equation}
A simpler example is the multi-point correlations of \emph{holomorphic fermions}
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:covariance-fermions}
\textstyle \Corr{\Omega}{\psi_{z_1}...\psi_{z_{2k}}}=\Corr{\Omega'}{\psi_{\varphi(z_1)}...\psi_{\varphi(z_{2k})}}\cdot\prod_{1\le p\le 2k} (\varphi'(z_{2k}))^{\frac{1}{2}},
\end{equation}
which are the CFT counterparts of the fermionic observables~$\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_{e_1})...\psi(z_{e_{2k}})}$ discussed in Section~\ref{subsect:fermions}. In this case, one has~$\Corr{\mathbb{H}}{\psi_{z_1}...\psi_{z_{2k}}} = \Pf[(z_p\!-\!z_q)^{-1}]_{p,q=1}^{2k}$, thus confirming the ``free fermion'' nature of the corresponding field theory.
\smallskip
It is worth noting that Conformal Field Theory assumes existence and conformal covariance of correlation functions in continuum as an axiom, not addressing the proof of convergence of their discrete prototypes as~$\delta\to 0$. In the last several years, such convergence results have been rigorously established for all the primary fields in the Ising model: fermions and energy-densities~\cite{chelkak-smirnov-12,hongler-smirnov-13,hongler-thesis-10}, spins~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}, as well as disorders and mixed correlation of these fields~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16}. This progress is based on convergence results for discrete holomorphic observables introduced in Section~\ref{subsect:fermions} (fermions) and Section~\ref{subsect:spinors} (spinors), which are thought of as solutions to discretizations of special Riemann-type boundary value problems described below.
\subsection{Fermionic observables} \label{subsect:fermions-convergence} Recall that, given an oriented edge~$a$ of~$\Omega_\delta$ and a midpoint of (another) edge of~$\Omega_\delta$, we denote by~$F_{\Omega_\delta}(a,z_e)=\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_e)t_a\phi_a}$ the basic discrete holomorphic observables introduced in Definition~\ref{def:observables-edges}.
It was shown in~\cite{smirnov-06icm,smirnov-10,chelkak-smirnov-12,hongler-smirnov-13} that such functions can be thought of as unique solutions to discrete boundary value problems whose continuous counterparts we now describe.
\begin{definition}
\label{def:feta}
Given a planar domain~$\Omega$, a point~$a\in\Omega$ and a complex number~$\eta$, we denote by~$f^{[\eta]}_\Omega(a,\cdot)$ the unique function holomorphic in~$\Omega\setminus\{a\}$ such that~$f^{[\eta]}(a,z)={\overline{\eta}}\cdot (z\!-\!a)^{-1}\!+O(1)$ as~$z\to a$ and~$\mathrm{Im}\bigl[f^{[\eta]}_\Omega(a,\zeta)(\tau(\zeta))^{\frac{1}{2}}\bigr]=0$ for all~$\zeta\in\partial\Omega$, where~$\tau(\zeta)$ denotes the (counterclockwise) tangent to~$\partial\Omega$ at~$\zeta$.
\end{definition}
Note that the above boundary conditions can be reformulated as the Dirichlet ones for the harmonic function~$h(z):=\mathrm{Im}\bigl[\int(f_\Omega^{[\eta]}(a,z))^2dz\bigr]$. For~$\eta\!=\!0$, the maximum principle gives~$h\!=\!0$, which justifies the uniqueness for all~$\eta\!\in\!\mathbb{C}$ and also implies that~$f_\Omega^{[\eta]}(a,\cdot)$ depends on~$\eta$ in a \emph{real-linear} manner.
Moreover, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:fermions-in-continuum-def}
f^{[\eta]}_\Omega(a,z) \;=\; {\tfrac{1}{2}(\overline{\eta}f_\Omega(a,z)+ \eta f_\Omega^\star(a,z))\,,}\quad \begin{array}{rcl}f_\Omega(a,z)&\!\!=\!\!&-f_\Omega(z,a)\,,\\
f_\Omega^{{\star}}(a,z)&\!\!=\!\!&-\overline{f_\Omega^{{\star}}(z,a)}\,, \end{array}
\end{equation}
where the function~$f_\Omega(a,z)$ is holomorphic in both variables and has the singularity~$(z\!-\!a)^{-1}$ on the diagonal~$z\!=\!a$, the function~$f_\Omega^{{\star}}(a,z)$ is holomorphic in~$z$, anti-holomorphic in~$a$ and continuous up to~$z\!=\!a$, and~$f_\Omega^{{\star}}(a,\zeta)=\overline{\tau(\zeta)f(a,\zeta)}$ for~$\zeta\in\partial\Omega$; {see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16} for details.} From these properties it is easy to conclude that
\[
\begin{array}{ll}
f_{\Omega}(a,z)=f_{\Omega'}(\varphi(a),\varphi(z))\cdot(\varphi'(a)\varphi'(z))^{\frac{1}{2}},\quad& f_{\mathbb{H}}(a,z)={2}(z-a)^{-1},\cr
f^{{\star}}_{\Omega}(a,z)=f^{{\star}}_{\Omega'}(\varphi(a),\varphi(z))\cdot(\overline{\varphi'(a)}\varphi'(z))^{\frac{1}{2}},& f^{{\star}}_{\mathbb{H}}(a,z)={2}(z-\overline{a})^{-1}
\end{array}
\]
for conformal maps~$\varphi:\Omega\to\Omega'$.
\smallskip
The next theorem was proved in~\cite{hongler-smirnov-13} using techniques from~\cite{chelkak-smirnov-12} (one can drop smoothness assumptions on~$\partial\Omega$ adapting a more robust scheme of the proof from~\cite[Section~3.4]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}). This result also holds true in the isoradial setup, ad verbum.
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:fermions-convergence} Let two edges~$a_\delta$ and~$e_\delta$ of~$\Omega_\delta$ approximate distinct inner points~$a$ and~$z$ of~$\Omega$, and $\eta=\eta_{a_\delta}$ denote the square root of the direction of~$a_\delta$. One has
\[
\delta^{-1}\cdot F_{\Omega_\delta}(a_\delta,z_{e_\delta}) ~\to~ \tfrac{2}{\pi}f^{[\eta]}_\Omega(a,z)\quad \text{as}\ \ \delta\to 0\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:psi-opsi-convergence} Similarly to the {notation}~$\psi(z_a)= {t_a\cdot (\eta_a\phi_a+\eta_{\bar{a}}\phi_{\bar{a}})}$ introduced in Definition~\ref{def:observables-edges}, set~$\opsi(z_a):= {t_a\cdot (\overline{\eta}{}_a\phi_a+\overline{\eta}{}_{\bar{a}}\phi_{\bar{a}})}$. Using~\eqref{eq:fermions-in-continuum-def}, one can rewrite the statement of Theorem~\ref{thm:fermions-convergence} as
\begin{align*}
\delta^{-1}\cdot\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_e)\psi(z_a)}&~=~ \delta^{-1}\cdot({\eta_a}F_{\Omega_\delta}(a,z_e)+{\eta_{\bar{a}}}F_{\Omega_\delta}(\overline{a},z_e)) ~\to~\tfrac{2}{\pi}f_\Omega(a,z)\,,\\
\delta^{-1}\cdot\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_e)\opsi(z_a)}&~=~ \delta^{-1}\cdot ({ \overline{\eta}{}_a}F_{\Omega_\delta}(a,z_e)+{\overline{\eta}{}_{\bar{a}}}F_{\Omega_\delta}(\overline{a},z_e)) ~\to~\tfrac{2}{\pi}f^{{\star}}_\Omega(a,z)\,.
\end{align*}
This motivates the following \emph{definition}: $\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\psi_a}:=f_\Omega(a,z)$, $\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\opsi_a}:=f_\Omega^{{\star}}(a,z)$, $\Corr\Omega{\opsi_z\opsi_a}:=\overline{f_\Omega(a,z)}$, which can be further extended to multi-point functions such as~$\Corr\Omega{\psi_{z_1}...\psi_{z_{2k}}}:=\Pf[\Corr\Omega{\psi_{z_p}\psi_{z_q}}]_{p,q=1}^{2k}$\,. Theorem~\ref{thm:fermions-convergence} can be then extended to all the multi-point fermionic correlations discussed in Section~\ref{subsect:fermions}. Note that the conformal covariance~\eqref{eq:covariance-fermions} of these scaling limits appears automatically as an intrinsic property of solutions to the boundary value problems from Definition~\ref{def:feta}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Energy densities} \label{subsect:energies-convergence} For an edge~$e$ of~$\Omega_\delta$, let~$u^\pm(e)$ denote two faces of~$\Omega_\delta$ incident to~$e$. We
introduce a random variable~$\varepsilon_e$ called the \emph{energy density} on~$e$ as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:energy-density-def}
\varepsilon_e:=(\sin\theta_e)^{-1}\bigl[\sigma_{u^-(e)}\sigma_{u^+(e)}-\tfrac{\pi-2\theta_e}{\pi\cos\theta_e}\bigr] =(\cos\theta_e)^{-1}\bigl[\tfrac{2\theta_e}{\pi\sin\theta_e}-\mu_{v^-(e)}\mu_{v^+(e)}\bigr]\,,
\end{equation}
where the second equality follows from~\eqref{eq:mu-mu+s-s=1} and the multiplicative normalization is chosen so as to remove the lattice-dependent constants from the results given below when working in the isoradial setup; recall that~$\theta_e=\frac{\pi}{4}$ for the square lattice. The additive counterterms correspond to the infinite-volume limit of the model; see~\cite[Corollary~11]{boutillier-detiliere-11} for their exact values. It is well known that one can express all the expectations~$\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\varepsilon_{e_1}...\varepsilon_{e_k}]$ using discrete fermionic observables discussed above (see~Definition~\ref{def:observables-edges} and Remark~\ref{rem:psi-opsi-convergence}). For instance, for~$k=1$ one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:energy-via-fermions}
{\tfrac{i}{2}}\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_e)\opsi(z_e)} ~=~ { i\eta_e\overline{\eta}{}_{\bar{e}}}\Phi_{\Omega_\delta}(\overline{e},e)~=~
\varepsilon_e^\infty+\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\varepsilon_e]\,,
\end{equation}
where~$\varepsilon_e^\infty=(\sin\theta_e)^{-1}[1+\tfrac{\pi-2\theta_e}{\pi\cos\theta_e}]$. The next result was proved by Hongler and Smirnov~\cite{hongler-smirnov-13} for~$k=1$ and later extended by Hongler~\cite{hongler-thesis-10} to all~$k\ge 1$ (for the square grid case, the generalization to isoradial graphs is straightforward).
\begin{theorem}
\label{thm:energies-convergence} Let a collection of edges~$e_1$,...,$e_k$ of~$\Omega_\delta$ approximate distinct inner points~$z_1,...,z_k$ of a domain~$\Omega$ as~$\delta\to 0$. Then the following is fulfilled:
\[
\delta^{-k}\cdot \mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\varepsilon_{e_1}...\varepsilon_{e_k}] ~\to~(\tfrac{2}{\pi})^k\cdot\Corr{\Omega}{\varepsilon_{z_1}...\varepsilon_{z_k}}\quad \text{as}\ \ \delta\to 0\,,
\]
where~$\Corr{\Omega}{\varepsilon_{z_1}...\varepsilon_{z_k}}:=i^k\Corr{\Omega}{\psi_{z_1}\opsi_{z_1}...\psi_{z_k}\opsi_{z_k}}$ and the latter function is defined as the Pfaffian of the corresponding two-point fermionic correlators, see Remark~\ref{rem:psi-opsi-convergence}. In particular, one has the following covariance rule under conformal maps~$\varphi:\Omega\to\Omega'$:
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:covariance-energies} \textstyle \Corr{\Omega}{\varepsilon_{z_1}...\varepsilon_{z_k}}~=~ \Corr{\Omega'}{\varepsilon_{\varphi(z_1)}...\varepsilon_{\varphi(z_k)}}\cdot\prod_{1\le p\le k} |\varphi'(u_p)|\,.
\end{equation}
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}
According to~\eqref{eq:energy-via-fermions}, in order to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:energies-convergence} one should strengthen Theorem~\ref{thm:fermions-convergence} and analyze the scaling limit of the discrete fermionic observables~$\Corr{\widehat{\mathrm{K}}}{\psi(z_e)\opsi(z_a)}= {t_a\cdot} ({\overline{\eta}{}_a}F_{\Omega_\delta}(a,z_e)+{\overline{\eta}{}_{\bar{a}}}F_{\Omega_\delta}(\overline{a},z_e))$ for~$z_e=z_a$. Contrary to its continuous counterpart, this function is {not} fully discrete holomorphic: after a proper adjustment of its value at~$z_a$, all discrete contour integrals around vertices of~$\Omega_\delta$ vanish, but the ones around two nearby faces~$u^{\pm}(a)$, having opposite signs, do~not. Subtracting an \emph{explicit} counterterm corresponding to the infinite-volume limit (which scales as~$\delta^2$ outside of the vicinity of~$a$ and so disappears as~$\delta\to 0$), one obtains a function discrete holomorphic near~$z_a$, for which the convergence at~$z_e=z_a$ can be derived from the convergence in the bulk of~$\Omega_\delta$.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Spinor observables and spatial derivatives of spin correlations} \label{subsect:spinors-convergence} We now move on to the scaling limits of spinor observables~$F_{[\Omega_\delta;u_1,...,u_m]}(u_1^{[\eta]},z_e)$, which are of crucial importance for the analysis of spin correlations due to Lemma~\ref{lemma:Phi-values-near-u}.
\begin{definition} \label{def:g} Given a planar domain~$\Omega$ and a collection~$u_1,...,u_m\in\Omega$ of its distinct inner points, we denote by~$g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(\cdot)$ the unique holomorphic spinor defined on the double-cover~$[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]$ of~$\Omega$ branching over~$u_1,...,u_m$ that satisfies the
following conditions:~$g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(z)=(z-u_l)^{-\frac{1}{2}}[c_l+O(z-u_l)]$ as~$z\to u_l$, where~$c_1={ e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}}$,~$c_2,...,c_m\in{e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}}\mathbb{R}$, and~$\mathrm{Im}[g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(\zeta)(\tau(\zeta))^{\frac{1}{2}}]=0$ for~$\zeta\in\partial\Omega$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
\label{rem:spinor-covariance} Note that we slightly abuse the notation since~$u_1$ plays a special role in the above definition. The uniqueness of~$g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(z)$ follows from the fact that the similar problem with~\mbox{$c_1=0$} has no nontrivial solution~$g(z)$: the harmonic function~$h(z):=\mathrm{Im}[\int (g(z))^2dz]$ should be bounded near~$u_1$ and bounded from above near~$u_2,...,u_m$, which is in contradiction with the (fixed) sign of its normal derivative on~$\partial\Omega$.
Also, one has
$g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(z)=g_{[\Omega';\varphi(u_1),...,\varphi(u_m)]}(\varphi(z))\cdot(\varphi'(z))^{\frac{1}{2}}$ for conformal maps~$\varphi:\Omega\to\Omega'$; this easily follows from the uniqueness property.
\end{remark}
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem~2.16]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}}]
\label{thm:spinor-convergence} Let~$u_1,...,u_m$ and~$z$ be distinct inner points of~$\Omega$, below we use the same notation~$u_s$ for a face of~$\Omega_\delta$ approximating the point~$u_s$. Let~$\eta\in{\{1,i,e^{\pm i\frac{\pi}{4}}\}}$ and~$e$ be an edge of~$\Omega_\delta$ approximating the point~$z$. One has
\[
\delta^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot F_{[\Omega_\delta;u_1,...,u_m]}(u_1^{[\eta]},z_e) ~\to~(\tfrac{2}{\pi})^{\frac{1}{2}}\cdot g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(z) \quad \text{as}\ \ \delta\to 0\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
Clearly, Theorem~\ref{thm:spinor-convergence} is not enough to analyze the spatial derivatives of spin correlations~$\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]$ via the identity~\eqref{eq:Phi-cd=ratio-of-spins} since one needs to consider the scaling limit of the function~$F_{[\Omega_\delta;u_1,...,u_m]}$ \emph{near the singularity}~$u_1$. This analysis can be performed and the result is provided by the next theorem.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem~2.18]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}}]
\label{thm:spin-derivatives-converegnce} With the notation of Theorem~\ref{thm:spinor-convergence}, denote by $\widetilde{u}_1:=u_1{ +2i\overline{\eta}{}^2\delta}$ the next (cornerwise) face to~$u_1$ in the direction of~$u_1^{[\eta]}$. One has
\[
(2\delta)^{-1}\!\cdot\biggl[\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{\widetilde{u}_1}\sigma_{u_2}...\sigma_{u_m}]} {\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}...\sigma_{u_m}]}-1\biggr]~\to~ \mathrm{Re}[\eta^2\mathcal{A}_\Omega(u_1;u_2,..,,u_m)] \quad\text{as}\ \ \delta\to 0\,,
\]
where~$\mathcal{A}_\Omega(u_1;u_2,...,u_m)$ is defined from the following expansion as~$z\to u_1$:
\[
g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(z)={e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}}(z\!-\!u_1)^{-\frac{1}{2}}\cdot [1+2\mathcal{A}_\Omega(u_1;u_2,..,u_m)(z\!-\!u_1)+O(z\!-\!u_1)^2]\,.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark} It easily follows from the conformal covariance of~$g_{[\Omega;u_1,...,u_m]}(z)$ (see Remark~\ref{rem:spinor-covariance}) that~$\mathcal{A}_\Omega(u_1;u_2,...,u_m)$ is a \emph{pre-Schwarzian form}: one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:covariance-A}
\mathcal{A}_\Omega(u_1;u_2,...,u_m)~=~ \mathcal{A}_{\Omega'}(\varphi(u_1);\varphi(u_2),...,\varphi(u_m))\cdot \varphi'(u_1) +\tfrac{1}{8}\cdot(\log\varphi')'(u_1)\,.
\end{equation}
for conformal maps~$\varphi:\Omega\to\Omega'$. Note that the factor~$\frac{1}{8}$ above must coincide with the exponent in~\eqref{eq:covariance-spins}, i.e. with the scaling exponent of the spin field. This gives an explanation for its value that does \emph{not} use explicit computations such as~\eqref{eq:Dn-crit-explicit}.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Spin correlations} \label{subsect:spins-convergence} Let~$u_1,...,u_m$ and~$w_1,...,w_m$ be two collections of points of~$\Omega$. The next result is a simple corollary of Theorem~\ref{thm:spin-derivatives-converegnce}: as~$\delta\to 0$, one has
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spins-ratios-convergence}
\log\frac{\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{w_1}\sigma_{w_2}...\sigma_{w_m}]}{\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}...\sigma_{u_m}]}
\;\to
\int\nolimits_{(u_1,...,u_m)}^{(w_1,...,w_m)}\! \mathrm{Re}\biggl[\,\sum_{l=1}^m \mathcal{A}_\Omega(u_l;u_1,...,\widehat{u}_l,...,u_m)du_l\biggr].
\end{equation}
In particular, this differential form must be exact and one can \emph{define} the function~$\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}$ to be the exponential of its primitive, with an appropriate multiplicative normalization given by~\eqref{eq:spins-decorrelation}. The conformal covariance~\eqref{eq:covariance-spins} of these functions is then a simple corollary of~\eqref{eq:covariance-A} and one can check that the CFT prediction~\eqref{eq:spins-explicit} can be indeed obtained in this way; see~\cite[Appendix~A]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}.
\newpage
The last ingredient needed to deduce from~\eqref{eq:spins-ratios-convergence} the scaling limits of the expectations~$\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}...\sigma_{u_m}]$ is provided by discrete counterparts of the asymptotics
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:spins-decorrelation}
\begin{array}{rclr}
\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}} & \sim & \Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_1}....\sigma_{u_{m-1}}}\cdot\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_m}}& \text{as}~\ u_m\to\partial\Omega\,,\\
\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}} & \sim & |u_2-u_1|^{-\frac{1}{4}}& \text{as}\ \ u_2\to u_1\in\Omega\,.
\end{array}
\end{equation}
In particular, one can show that~$\lim_{u_2\to u_1}\lim_{\delta\to 0}\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}]/\, \mathbb{E}_{\mathbb{C}^\diamond_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}]=1$ and use~\eqref{eq:Dn-crit-explicit} in order to find the correct normalization of the two-point expectations~$\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}\sigma_{u_2}]$; see~\cite[Sections~2.8~and~2.9]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15} for further details.
\begin{theorem}[{\cite[Theorem~1.2]{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-15}}]
\label{thm:spins-convergence} Let~$u_1,...,u_m$ be a collection of inner points of a simply connected domain~$\Omega$. The following convergence holds true:
\[
\delta^{-\frac{m}{8}}\mathbb{E}_{\Omega_\delta}[\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}]~\to~\mathcal{C}_\sigma^m\cdot\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}} \quad\text{as}\ \ \delta\to 0\,,
\]
where~$\mathcal{C}_\sigma=2^{\frac{1}{6}}e^{-\frac{3}{2}\zeta'(1)}$ and the functions~$\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}$ are given by~\eqref{eq:spins-explicit} and~\eqref{eq:covariance-spins}.
\end{theorem}
\subsection{Mixed correlations in continuum} \label{subsect:mixed-in-continuum}
Our last goal for this note is to discuss a generalization of Theorems~\ref{thm:fermions-convergence},~\ref{thm:energies-convergence} and~\ref{thm:spins-convergence} to mixed correlations of spins, disorders, fermions and energy densities. In this section we list several properties of their expected scaling limits (e.g., see~\cite[Section~14.2.1]{mussardo-book-10}) that allow one to determine them uniquely via solutions to boundary value problems similar to the ones discussed in Definitions~\ref{def:feta} and~\ref{def:g}. We claim (in fact, this claim should be considered as a theorem, see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16}) that there exists a collection of functions~$\Corr\Omega{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_n}\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}$\,, where~$n$ is even and the points $v_l,u_s\in\Omega$ are pairwise distinct, such that the following \emph{overdetermined} set of conditions is satisfied.
\smallskip
{\bf (I)} Each~$\Corr\Omega{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_n}\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}$ is a spinor defined on the Riemann surface of the function~$(\prod_{l=1}^n\prod_{s=1}^m(v_l-u_s))^{\frac{1}{2}}$. As some of the points~$v_1,...,v_n$ approach~$u_1,..,u_m$ along the rays~$v_s\!-\!u_s\in {i\overline{\eta}{}_s^2}\mathbb{R}$, where~$|\eta_s|\!=\!1$, there exist real-valued limits
\[
\textstyle \Corr\Omega{\psi_{u_1}^{[\eta_1]}\!...\psi_{u_{k}}^{[\eta_{k}]}\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]}\,:=\,\lim_{v_s\to u_s}\!
|(v_1-u_1)...(v_k-u_k)|^{\frac{1}{4}}\Corr\Omega{\mu_{v_1}\sigma_{u_1}...\mu_{v_k}\sigma_{u_k}\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]},
\]
where~$\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]$ stands for the remaining disorders and spins. Due to the spinor nature of~$\Corr\Omega{\mu_{v_1}...\mu_{v_n}\sigma_{u_1}...\sigma_{u_m}}$, these limits change signs if~$\eta_s$ is replaced by~$-\eta_s$ and are anti-symmetric with respect to the order in which~$\psi$'s are written.
\smallskip
{\bf (II)} The functions~$\Corr\Omega{\psi_{u_1}^{[\eta_1]}\!\!...\psi_{u_{k}}^{[\eta_{k}]}\mathcal{O}[\mu,\sigma]}$ satisfy Pfaffian identities (aka fermionic Wick rules). Moreover, they depend on~$\eta_s$ in a real-linear way, which allows one to introduce the notation ($\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]$ stands for other fermions, disorders and spins)
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:psieta-as-psi-opsi}
\Corr\Omega{\psi_z^{[\eta]}\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}~=~ {\tfrac{1}{2}}\bigl[\,{ \overline{\eta}}\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}+ {\eta}\Corr\Omega{\opsi_z\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}\,\bigr]\,.
\end{equation}
Furthermore, one has the identity~$\overline{\Corr\Omega{\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}}=\Corr\Omega{\mathcal{O}[\psi^*\!,\mu,\sigma]}$ by which we mean that each of the symbols~$\psi_z$ on the left-hand side must be replaced by~$\opsi_z$ on the right-hand side and vice versa, with all the other symbols kept unchanged.
\smallskip
{\bf (III)} Each of the functions~$\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}$ is holomorphic in~$z$ and each of the functions~$\Corr\Omega{\opsi_z\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}$ is anti-holomorphic in~$z$. Moreover, one has
\[
\Corr\Omega{\opsi_z\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}=\tau(z)\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\mathcal{O}[\psi,\mu,\sigma]}\quad\text{for}\ \ z\in\partial\Omega\,,
\]
where~$\tau(z)$ denotes the counterclockwise tangent vector to the boundary~$\partial\Omega$ at~$z$.
\newpage
{\bf (IV)} Each of the holomorphic functions~$\Corr\Omega{\psi_z...}$ has the following asymptotics (aka operator product expansions) as~$\psi_z$ approaches the other fields:
\begin{align*}
\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\psi_{z'}...}&=\
{2}(z\!-\!z')^{-1}\!\left[\Corr\Omega{...}+O(|z\!-\!z'|^2)\right]\!,\qquad\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\opsi_{z'}...}=O(1)\,,& z\to z';\\
\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\sigma_u...}&=\ \,
{e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}}(z\!-\!u)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left[\Corr\Omega{\mu_u...}\! - 4(z\!-\!u)\partial_u\Corr\Omega{\mu_u...}\!+O(|z\!-\!u|^{2})\right]\!, & z\to u\,;\\
\Corr\Omega{\psi_z\mu_v...}&=
{e^{-i\frac{\pi}{4}}}(z\!-\!v)^{-\frac{1}{2}} \left[\Corr\Omega{\sigma_v...}+4(z\!-\!v)\partial_v\Corr\Omega{\sigma_v...}+O(|z\!-\!v|^{2})\right]\!, & z\to v\,.
\end{align*}
Similar expansions are fulfilled for anti-holomorphic functions $\Corr\Omega{\opsi_z...}$.
\smallskip
{\bf (V)} If we denote~$\Corr\Omega{\varepsilon_u...}:=\lim_{z,z'\to u} {\tfrac{i}{2}}\Corr\Omega{\psi_{z}\opsi_{z'}...}$\,, then one has
\begin{align*}
\Corr\Omega{\sigma_{u'}\sigma_u...}&=|u'\!-\!u|^{-\frac{1}{4}}\left[\Corr\Omega{...}\!+ \tfrac{1}{2}|u'\!-\!u|\Corr\Omega{\varepsilon_{u}...}\!+o(|u'\!-\!u|)\right], & u'\to u;\\
\Corr\Omega{\mu_{v'}\mu_v...}&=|v'\!-\!v|^{-\frac{1}{4}}\left[\Corr\Omega{...} -\tfrac{1}{2}|v'\!-\!v|\Corr\Omega{\varepsilon_{v}...}+o(|v'\!-\!v|)\right], & v'\to v.
\end{align*}
\begin{remark} Provided~$\Corr\Omega{1}=1$, conditions (I)--(V) uniquely determine all the correlators that contain an even number of spins but not the normalization of those containing an odd number of spins. Similarly to~\eqref{eq:spins-decorrelation}, one can add asymptotics~$\Corr\Omega{\sigma_u...}\sim\Corr\Omega{\sigma_u}\Corr\Omega{...}$ as~$u\to\partial\Omega$ to (I)--(V) in order to fix this issue; see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16} for a further discussion including the \emph{consistency} of these conditions.
\end{remark}
\subsection{Conformal covariance and convergence of mixed correlations} \label{subsect:mixed-convergence}
Following the same lines as in the discussion of conformal covariance of fermionic~\eqref{eq:covariance-fermions} and spin~\eqref{eq:covariance-spins} correlators given above, one can deduce from conditions (I)--(V) that
\[
\textstyle \Corr\Omega{\mathcal{O}_1(z_1)...\mathcal{O}_N(z_N)} = \Corr{\Omega'}{\mathcal{O}_1(\varphi(z_1))...\mathcal{O}_N(\varphi(z_N))}\cdot {\prod_{s=1}^N}\varphi'(z_s)^{\Delta^{\!+}({\mathcal{O}_s})}\overline{\varphi'(z_s)}\,^{\Delta^{\!-}({\mathcal{O}_s})}
\]
for conformal maps~$\varphi:\Omega\to\Omega'$, where each of the symbols~$\mathcal{O}_s$ denotes one of the fields~$\sigma,\mu,\psi,\opsi,\varepsilon$ (so that the total number of~$\mu,\psi$ and $\opsi$ is even) and
\begin{align*}
(\Delta^{\!+},\Delta^{\!-})(\sigma)=(\Delta^{\!+},\Delta^{\!-})(\mu)=(\tfrac{1}{16}\,,\tfrac{1}{16})\,,&\quad (\Delta^{\!+},\Delta^{\!-})(\varepsilon)=(\tfrac{1}{2}\,,\tfrac{1}{2})\,,\\
(\Delta^{\!+},\Delta^{\!-})(\psi)=(\tfrac{1}{2}\,,0)\,,&\quad (\Delta^{\!+},\Delta^{\!-})(\opsi)=(0\,,\tfrac{1}{2})
\end{align*}
are called the \emph{conformal weights}. Let us also set~$(\Delta^{\!+},\Delta^{\!-})(\psi^{[\eta]}):=(\tfrac{1}{4},\tfrac{1}{4})$; note that according to~\eqref{eq:psieta-as-psi-opsi} one should make a change~$\eta'{}_{\!\!s}:=\eta_s\exp[\frac{i}{2}\arg\varphi'(z_s)]$ when writing a similar covariance rule for correlators involving such fermions.
\smallskip
We now come back to the discrete prototypes of the \emph{real-valued} CFT correlators involving the fields~$\sigma,\mu,\varepsilon$ and~$\psi^{[\eta]}$ with~$\eta\in{\{1,i,e^{\pm i\frac{\pi}{4}}\}}$. In fact, all of them can be written using the spin-disorder formalism introduced in Section~\ref{subsect:spin-disorder}: the energy density~$\varepsilon$ is given by~\eqref{eq:energy-density-def} and the fermion~$\psi^{[\eta]}$ should be thought of as the product~$\chi_c=\mu_{v(c)}\sigma_{u(c)}$, where~$\eta_c=\eta$ (see Remark~\ref{rem:phi-chi-change} and Section~\ref{subsect:s-holomorphicity}; note that the s-holomorphicity condition~\eqref{eq:s-hol-condition} is nothing but the discrete counterpart of~\eqref{eq:psieta-as-psi-opsi}). We conclude this note by the following generalization of Theorems~\ref{thm:fermions-convergence},~\ref{thm:energies-convergence} and~\ref{thm:spins-convergence}.
\begin{theorem}[{see~\cite{chelkak-hongler-izyurov-16}}] Let~$z_1,...,z_N$ be a collection of pairwise distinct points in a planar domain~$\Omega$ and each of~$\mathcal{O}_s$ denote either~$\sigma,\mu,\varepsilon$ or~$\psi^{[\eta]}$ with~$\eta\in{\{1,i,e^{\pm i\frac{\pi}{4}}\}}$. Let~$\Delta:=\sum_{s=1}^N(\Delta^{\!+}(\mathcal{O}_s)\!+\!\Delta^{\!-}(\mathcal{O}_s))$. Then one has
\[
\delta^{-\Delta}\cdot\Corr{\Omega_\delta}{\mathcal{O}_1(z_1)...\mathcal{O}_N(z_N)} ~\to~ \mathcal{C}\cdot \Corr\Omega{\mathcal{O}_1(z_1)...\mathcal{O}_N(z_N)}\quad\text{as}\ \ \delta\to 0\,,
\]
where~$\mathcal{C}\!=\!\prod_{s=1}^N\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{O}_s}$ and~$\mathcal{C}_{\mathcal{O}_s}$ are given by~$\mathcal{C}_\sigma\!=\mathcal{C}_\mu\!=2^{\frac{1}{6}}e^{-\frac{3}{2}\zeta'(1)}\!$ and~$\mathcal{C}_\varepsilon\!=(\mathcal{C}_{\psi})^2\!=\frac{2}{\pi}$\,.
\end{theorem}
\frenchspacing
|
\section*{Introduction}
From the formation of snowflakes to lightning, from mineral veins to bacterial colonies, the theory of Laplacian growth with its generalizations and extensions has highly contributed to our current understanding of far-from-equilibrium growth phenomena \cite{vicsek1992book, meakin1998book, vicsek2001book}. In particular, one striking phenomenological feature of this kind of systems is the morphological changes they undergo as a result of the interplay of the entropic, energetic and symmetry elements in their growth dynamics. This trends have been widely observed experimentally and, in some cases, successfully reproduced by computer simulations so that seemingly unrelated patterns found in nature are now understood in terms of a single generalized framework of complex growth \cite{benjacob1990, benjacob1993, benjacob1997}. However, complexity in nature seems to follow non-trivial paths revealed in self-organizing and self-assembling processes that in most cases are characterized by critical and/or morphological transitions that cannot be properly described by the Laplacian growth models \cite{sander1986, sander2000, sander2011}.
In the Laplacian theory, the probability of growth at a given point in space, $\mu$, is proportional to the spatial variation of a scalar field, $\phi$, with $\mu\propto |\nabla\phi|$. One example of such processes is the paradigmatic diffusion-limited aggregation (DLA) model, where particles following Brownian trajectories aggregate one-by-one to form a cluster, starting with a seed particle \cite{sander2000, sander2011} (see Fig.\ 1). It has been found that the disordered structure that emerges from this kind of processes shows self-similarity, described by a single fractal dimension $D$ \cite{sander2011}. Mean-field analyses have shown that this fractal dimension depends only on the dimension $d$ of the space where the cluster grows as, $D(d)=(d^2+1)/(d+1)$ \cite{muthukumar1983, tokuyama1984}. In two dimensions, this expression predicts $D=5/3\approx 1.67$, that is not very far from the widely reported value for off-lattice DLA clusters, $D=1.71$. Furthermore, the fact that the fractal features of these clusters are highly dependent on the mean square displacement of the particles in the trajectories they follow before aggregation, gives rise to a continuous screening-driven morphological transition that has been neatly described by extending the Laplacian theory to consider a general aggregation process where particles follow fractal trajectories \cite{meakin1984a}. The cluster's fractal dimension is then related to that of the walkers' trajectories, $d_w$, through the Honda-Toyoki-Matsushita (HTM) mean-field equation, $D(d,d_w)=(d^2+d_w-1)/(d+d_w-1)$, where $d$ is the dimension of the embedding space \cite{matsushita1986a, matsushita1986b}. Here, for $d_w=1$ one gets $D=d$, as expected for ballistic-aggregation (BA) dynamics, whereas for $d_w=2$, the value $D=5/3$ for DLA is recovered. This kinetically induced BA-DLA transition has been reproduced in diverse and equivalent aggregation schemes, for example, under drift of wandering particles \cite{meakin1983}, using particles with variable random-walk step size \cite{huang1987}, by imposing directional correlations \cite{huang2001, ferreira2005}, and through probabilistically mixed-dynamics aggregation \cite{alves2006}.
Nonetheless, one of the most challenging aspects of the theory arises when the growth is not purely limited by diffusive processes, for example, when it takes place under the presence of long-range attractive interactions or under the effects of surface tension, where strong screening and anisotropic effects must be taken into account \cite{benjacob1990, benjacob1993}. For this, a clever generalization to the diffusion-limited growth processes was proposed within the context of the dielectric-breakdown (DB) model, assuming $\mu\propto |\nabla(\phi)|^\eta$, where $\eta$ is a positive real number associated with non-linear effects coming from screening and anisotropy \cite{pietronero1984}, while a very good description of the self-similarity in the emerging structures was provided by the generalized HTM equation (GHTM) \cite{matsushita1986b, matsushita1986c},
\begin{equation}
D(d,d_w,\eta)=\frac{d^2+\eta(d_w-1)}{d+\eta(d_w-1)}.
\end{equation}
This equation predicts a continuous morphological transition, from a compact structure with $D=d$ (BA) as $\eta \to 0$, to a one-dimensional one in the highly anisotropic regime, i.e., $D=1$ as $\eta\to\infty$. In particular, for two-dimensional diffusive-type processes ($d=d_w=2$), the value $D=5/3$ is recovered for $\eta=1$. Due to the limitations of this expression, coming from its mean-field approach, extensive numerical work has been invested to prove the transition from branching fractals to one-dimensional non-fractal clusters at the critical value $\eta_c\geq 4$ \cite{sanchez1993, hastings2001, mathiesen2002}. The use of the fractal dimension as an order parameter to describe these transitions is still debatable as well. These are some of the important aspects we will address in this Article.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\includegraphics[width=0.55\textwidth]{Fig1}
\caption{\label{fig1} \textbf{Fundamental models of aggregation.} After been launched into the system from $r_L$ with uniform probability, particles (\textbf{a}) follow straight-line trajectories before aggregation takes place in BA, (\textbf{b}) perform a random walk in DLA, and (\textbf{c}) get radially attached to the closest particle in the cluster as a result of an infinite-range (system-size) radial interaction in MF aggregation. The latter is particle-path independent and its morphological characteristics emerge solely from this long-range interaction as opposed to the stochastic BA and DLA models. The characteristic fractal dimension $D_0$ for each type of aggregation process is indicated.}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig2}
\caption{\label{fig2} \textbf{DLA-MF transition.} As shown in (\textbf{a}), this transition is characterized by a remarkably fast morphological evolution from unstable tip-splitting, through dendritic growth, to needle-like (MF) growth as $p$ increases. Particles aggregated under DLA dynamics are coloured in light-blue while those through MF dynamics in black. In (\textbf{b}), the measured $D_{\alpha}(p)$ and $D_{\beta}(p)$ are fitted using the GD and GD$_1$ functions with $\Lambda$ and $\chi$ as the fitting parameters, while the computed $p_\mathrm{i}$ for each curve is marked with vertical dotted lines. In (\textbf{c}), $C(r)$ and $R_g(N)$ display deviations from a well-defined linearity over their respective scales and for different values of $p$, revealing the inhomogeneity of these clusters.}
\end{figure*}
\section*{The model}
For our numerical analysis we considered a combinatorial (Monte Carlo) scheme of three fundamental and simple two-dimensional \textsl{off-lattice} models of particle-cluster aggregation. On the one hand, the DLA and BA models will provide us with disordered/fractal structures through the full range of stochastic aggregation dynamics (Figs.\ 1a and 1b). On the other, the long-range particle-cluster interactive mean-field (MF) model will be an agent of order, providing the most energetic (or noiseless) aggregation dynamics \cite{jullien1986, nicolas2016}, as well as acting as the main source of anisotropy, in this case purely generated by the growth dynamics but not from lattice effects \cite{meakin1988} (see Fig.\ 1c). The fractional combination of these models, controlled by the mixing parameter $p\in[0,1]$, results in DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions, going from homogeneous fractal structures with $d \geq D > 1$ when $p \to 0$, passing through inhomogeneous multifractal structures, to non-fractal structures with $D=1$ as $p \to 1$. Before discussing these results in details in the next section, let us develop a general framework to analyze morphological transitions in stochastic growth processes.
Using the fractal dimension of the clusters $D$, to characterize a given morphological transition, let us define the function $f(p)=\Lambda p^\chi$ as a real and positive monotonically-increasing continuous function of $p$. Here, $f(p)$ takes a similar role as $\eta$ in the DB model, associated with the net effects of all screening/anisotropy-driven growth forces, that is, all the symmetry-breaking effects, where $\Lambda$ and $\chi$ are two po\-si\-ti\-ve real numbers associated with the strength of these forces, while $p$ modulates the anisotropy in such a way that $f(p)\to 0$ as $p\to 0$, and $f(p)\to\infty$ as $p\to 1$; $p\in[0,1]$ as before. These mathematical characteristics make plausible to define a general dimensionality (GD) function, $D(D_0,f(p))$, that describes the fractal Hausdorff dimension of a structure that collapses to $D=1$ under the effects of $f(p)$ as,
\begin{equation}
D(D_0,f(p))=1+(D_0-1)e^{-f(p)/D_0},
\end{equation}
where $D_0$ is the fractal dimension of clusters produced in the most isotropic and stochastic scenario, i.e., in the absence of any anisotropy-driven forces, while the exponential function allows us to consider all of the powers of $p$. Equation (2) is characterized by an inflection point, $p_\mathrm{i}$, that must satisfy $(\text{d}f/\text{d}p)^2=D_0(\text{d}^2f/\text{d}p^2)$ which, for the choice of $f(p)$, will be given by
\begin{equation}
p_\mathrm{i} = \biggl[\frac{D_0}{\Lambda}\biggl(\frac{\chi-1}{\chi}\biggr)\biggr]^{1/\chi}.
\end{equation}
The first-order approximation (GD$_1$) of the general dimensionality function (2) can be written as,
\begin{equation}
D^{(1)}=\frac{D_0^2+f(p)}{D_0+f(p)},
\end{equation}
with an inflection point that must now satisfy $(\text{d}f/\text{d}p)^2=2(\text{d}^2f/\text{d}p^2)/(D_0+f)$, and is given by
\begin{equation}
p_\mathrm{i}^{(1)} = \biggl[\frac{D_0}{\Lambda}\biggl(\frac{\chi-1}{\chi+1}\biggr)\biggr]^{1/\chi}.
\end{equation}
As shown, these expressions predict a continuous morphological transition from $D \to D_0$ as $f(p)\to 0$ (disordered/fractal state) towards $D \to 1$ as $f(p) \to \infty$ (ordered state), with an expected change in growth dynamics at $p_\mathrm{i}$. Additionally, we will also define the reduced dimensionality (RD) function as the transformation $D^*=(D-1)/(D_0-1)$, with $D^*\in[0,1]$, that leaves the inflection-point of equations (3) and (5) invariant, given by
\begin{equation}
D^*=e^{-f(p)/D_0},
\end{equation}
the first-order approximation (RD$_1$) becomes,
\begin{equation}
D^{*(1)}=\frac{1}{1+f(p)/D_0},
\end{equation}
where $f(p)$ is given as before.
In the following section we will use these expressions to analyze some important cases.
\section*{Results and discussion}
For all of our numerically generated clusters, the fractal dimension was measured by means of two standard procedures: the two-point density radial correlation function $C(r)$ and the radius of gyration $R_g(N)$, that yield $D_\alpha$ and $D_\beta$, respectively (see Methods for more details).
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig3}
\caption{\label{fig3} \textbf{BA-MF transition.} As shown in (\textbf{a}), this transition is characterized by a morphological evolution from dense branching, through dendritic growth, to needle-like (MF) growth, as $p$ increases. Particles aggregated under BA dynamics are coloured in light-blue while those through MF dynamics in black. In (\textbf{b}), the measured $D_{\alpha}(p)$ and $D_{\beta}(p)$ are fitted using the GD and GD$_1$ functions with $\Lambda$ and $\chi$ as the fitting parameters, while the computed $p_\mathrm{i}$ for each curve is marked with vertical dotted lines. In (\textbf{c}), $C(r)$ and $R_g(N)$ display deviations from a well-defined linearity over their respective scales and for different values of $p$, also revealing the inhomogeneity of these clusters.}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[htb]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{Fig4}
\caption{\label{fig5} \textbf{Universality.} (\textbf{a}) First derivatives of $D^*_\alpha(p)$ and $D^*_\beta(p)$ for DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions, normalized to their maximum value located at their respective $p_\mathrm{i}$. (\textbf{b}) By plotting $D_\alpha$ and $D_\beta$ as a function of $q=p/p_i$, all of the data collapse into single curves. The curves GD-$\Lambda$ and GD$_1$-$\Lambda$ for the DB model are also included. (\textbf{c}) Plotting $D_\alpha$ and $D_\beta$ as function of $\Phi$ shows that all transitions share a common critical point $\Phi_c$ . (\textbf{d}) Plotting $D^*_\alpha$ and $D^*_\beta$ data as function of $\Phi$, the DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions become independent of the fractal dimension of the stochastic model considered, described by the same (solid) curve. Under this transformation, GD-$\Lambda$ and GD$_1$-$\Lambda$ also become $D^*$ and $D^*_1$, respectively (see text for more details).}
\end{figure*}
\subsection*{DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions}
In the anisotropy-driven DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions, the variable $p$ is associated with the fraction of particles aggregated under MF dynamics, that is $p=N_\mathrm{MF}/N$, where $N$ is total number of particles. Therefore, as $p$ varies from $p=0$ (DLA or BA) to $p=1$ (MF), it controls the morphology of the system through a continuous and extremely fast symmetry-breaking induced by the anisotropy of the MF dynamics (see Figs.\ 2a and 3a). Contrary to the screening-driven BA-DLA transition \cite{meakin1984a, ferreira2005}, the clusters generated by these processes are inhomogeneous fractals, this is, structures with different fractal dimensionality at different scales (see Figs.\ 2b, 2c, 3b, and 3c). Even more, these transitions are characterized by fast and well-defined changes in growth dynamics as $p$ changes, therefore, they can no longer be properly described by the GHTM model. In contrast, the proposed GD function can be used to estimate the measured fractal dimensions of the clusters at different scales, using $\Lambda$ and $\chi$ as fitting parameters. In fact, we found that numerically obtained data for $D_\alpha(p)$ are well described by the GD function, whereas GD$_1$ describes best the dependence of $D_\beta(p)$ (Fig.\ 2b and 3b). Furthermore, even though it is possible to define the inflection points for each curve, the inhomogeneity of the clusters makes it impossible to establish a well-defined morphological critical point in the same manner as for the DB model, that is, a point where highly anisotropic effects are dominant in determining the morphology of the clusters \cite{sanchez1993, hastings2001}. Nonetheless, such a description is possible in our new framework under proper rescaling as explained later.
One important implication that can be drawn from the previous analysis, comes from the role of $\Lambda$ in des\-cri\-bing the fractality of these clusters. In the BA-DLA transition, both $\Lambda$ and $\chi$ are constant, leading to homogeneous fractals \cite{meakin1983, huang1987, huang2001,ferreira2005, alves2006}. This is seen by rewriting the GHTM equation in terms of $p$ as, $D(d,p,\eta)=(d^2+\eta p)/(d+\eta p)$, with $p=d_w-1$. The HTM equation that describes the BA-DLA transition, is recovered for $\Lambda = \chi = \eta =1$. This is also the case for the DB model where $\Lambda = \chi = 1$ \cite{pietronero1984, matsushita1986c, sanchez1993}. In contrast, these parameters have different values in the DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions, depending on the scale in which $D_\alpha(p)$ and $D_\beta(p)$ are measured (see Figs.\ 2b and 3b). This suggest that, in order to have a transition characterized by homogeneous fractals, the amplitude of the screening/anisotropic force, $\Lambda$, must remain constant along the transition and across different scales. This is also supported by noticing that $\Lambda$ will be bounded by the limit value of the GD function when $p\to 1$, i.e., when all of the particles follow MF dynamics. In this limit, $D_{p\to 1}=1+(D_0-1)\exp(-\Lambda/D_0)$, must satisfy $D_{p\to 1}=1$ (from its definition), which would lead to $\Lambda/D_0\gg 1$. This is a convergence condition in the highly anisotropic regime that is better defined by considering $D_{p\to 1}\leq 1+\delta$, where $\delta\ll 1$, is a measure of the deviation from a given structure to fully collapsing into a one-dimensional one. This condition leads to $\Lambda\geq -D_0\log[\delta/(D_0-1)]$, that establishes a lower bound, not only for $\Lambda$, but for $D(p)$ as well. Thus, given a $D_0$ (also bounded by $d$, i.e., the dimension of the embedding space), $\Lambda$ has a lower bound that depends only on $\delta$. This implies that long-correlated structures are not restricted to develop a single scaling-law or mono-fractal features, and that inhomogeneous or \emph{multi-fractal structures} are more likely to arise in these out-of-equilibrium growth processes. Further evidence supporting this observation is provided bellow.
\subsection*{Universality}
The proposed GD function and its first-order approximation are powerful phenomenological expression, able to describe the fractality of the clusters at different scales and along the transitions, as well as the changes in growth regimes through the inflection points (see Fig.\ 4a). However, a full insight into the nature of these transitions is needed, in particular, the possibility of defining morphological critical points (as previously done for the DB model in \cite{sanchez1993, hastings2001}). To this end, let us notice that under the scaled variable, $q=p/p_i$, it is possible to collapse all the data for $D(p)$ into a single curve according to their respective transition and measurement method (see Fig.\ 4b). This implies that the symmetry-breaking induced by the anisotropy-driven force is a unique process whose manifestations are the same across all of the scales. Moreover, given the uniqueness of these processes, we are in the possibility of defining critical points by substituting $q\in[0,\infty)$, back into the GD function, leading to,
\begin{equation}
D(D_0,\Phi(q))=1+(D_0-1)e^{-\Phi(q)},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(q)=\Lambda(\chi)q^\chi$, with $\Lambda(\chi)=(\chi-1)/\chi$, is associated to a generalized anisotropy-driven force. Its first-order approximation (GD$_1$) is given by,
\begin{equation}
D(D_0,\Phi(q))^{(1)}=\frac{D_0+\Phi(q)}{1+\Phi(q)},
\end{equation}
where $\Phi(q)=\Lambda(\chi)q^\chi$, with $\Lambda(\chi)=(\chi-1)/(\chi+1)$. By construction, all inflection points are now located at $q_i=1$. Fitting these functions to $D_\alpha(q)$ and $D_\beta(q)$, respectively, we obtain the curves shown in Fig.\ 4b, that are in excellent agreement with the data. In particular, in this approach $\Lambda$ depends only on $\chi$, thus providing further evidence to support our argument about the origins of mono or multi-fractality in these morphological transitions.
Furthermore, by plotting all data for $D_\alpha(q)$ and $D_\beta(q)$ as function of $\Phi(q)$, it can be observed that both the DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions equally approach the highly anisotropic regime, showing that the symmetry-breaking process driven by $\Phi$ is independent of the initial configuration of the system, as shown in Fig.\ 4c. This can be better appreciated by using the reduced dimensionality transformation to plot $D^*_\alpha$ and $D^*_\beta$ as function of $\Phi$ (see Fig.\ 4d), under which one can observe the full collapsing of the data into single universal curves that are perfectly described by the reduced dimensionality (RD) function and its first-order approximation (RD$_1$) given respectively by,
\begin{equation}
D(\Phi)^*=e^{-\Phi(q)}, \quad D(\Phi)^{*(1)}=\frac{1}{1+\Phi(q)}.
\end{equation}
In fact, since $D_0$ can be well described by the HTM model as $D_0(d,d_w)=(d^2+d_w-1)/(d+d_w-1)$, and given that these symmetry-breaking processes are initial-configuration independent, we might conclude that these fractal to non-fractal morphological transitions will depend solely on the strength of the anisotropic-driven force acting upon them, following the same universal fractality curves in any dimension.
Regarding this universality concept, we must recall that the dielectric breakdown and even viscous fingering phenomena are said to belong to the same universality class as DLA, because they are characterized by the same fractal dimension, generated by related Laplacian growth processes, and not because any other thermodynamic criteria \cite{sander2011, mathiesen2006}. Therefore, the \textsl{universality} of these morphological DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions must be understood in the sense as they are described by the same general equations in the $D^*(\Phi)$-space, independent of the dimensionality of their embedding space. Note that due to this universality feature, in this reduced space these transitions can be seen as a regular phase-transition. For this, let us define the \textsl{critical point} of these transitions analogously to that of the DB model, i.e., as the point where the fractal dimension of the clusters is slightly different from the dimension of a one-dimensional structure \cite{hastings2001}. This can be achieved by considering $D^*(\Phi_c)=\epsilon$, where $\epsilon\ll 1$. Therefore, from the RD and RD$_1$ functions, the \textsl{universal critical points}, $\Phi_c$, must satisfy, $\exp(-\Phi_c)=\epsilon$ and $\Phi_c=(1-\epsilon)/\epsilon$, respectively. In order to recover the particular critical points for each transition, we must recall that $\Phi_c=\Phi(q_c)$ then, one has to solve for $q_c$ accordingly. Notice also that in this case, $q_c$ depends on $\epsilon$, $\chi$ and $D_0$, therefore, giving different values for each transition (Table I).
\subsubsection*{Universality of the DB model}
As previously stated, the GHTM mean-field equation that describes the fractality of clusters generated in the DB model gives $D=5/3\approx 1.67$, for $\eta=1$ (DLA). This can be corrected by noticing that equation (1), re-written as $D(d,\eta)=(d+\eta/d)/(1+\eta/d)$, is similar to the description given by the first-order approximation equation $D(D_0,\Phi)^{(1)}$, with the peculiarity that, in this case, $\Phi\sim\eta/d$. Considering $\Phi(\eta)=\Lambda\eta/d$, the corrected GHTM equation (GD$_1$-$\Lambda$) is given by, $D(d,\eta)^{(1)}=(d+\Lambda\eta/d)/(1+\Lambda\eta/d)$. In two dimensions, setting $\eta=1$ and $D=1.71$ yields $\Lambda=0.817$. Furthermore, this equation can now be identified as the first-order approximation of a general function (GD-$\Lambda$) given by, $D(d,\eta)=1+(d-1)\exp(-\Lambda\eta/d)$ which, for $d=2$, is in excellent agreement with previous numerical results \cite{matsushita1986c, pietronero1988, hastings2001} (see Table II). This DB transition draws interesting similarities with the BA-MF transition, since both of them exhibit a symmetry-breaking from $D=d$ to $D=1$, have critical points close to $4$, and $D\approx 1.71$, for $q=1$ and $\eta=1$, even though we are dealing with completely different growth processes (see Fig.\ 4b and Table I).
On the other hand, since the DB model is associated to a generalized Laplacian process described by $\mu\propto|\nabla(\phi)|^{\eta}$, one would be tempted to associate the BA-MF model to a similar processes where $\eta \to q$. However, it will not be correct because both processes would become equivalent and the numerical solution of the equation would result in the generation of equivalent morphological clusters, which is obviously incorrect. Moreover, another important difference between the DB and BA-MF description, is that the case $\eta=1$ will not be associated with any inflection point in the dynamics, as it is the case for $q_i=1$, since the condition $\chi>1$ is not satisfied, as can be seen from simple inspection of the GD function. Interestingly enough, if the case $\eta=1$ could have been directly related to the case $q_i=1$, this would have indicated that the DLA process is directly associated to an inflection point in the dynamics and not to a critical point as was suggested through a completely different approach \cite{dimino1989, kaufman1989}. Worthy of remark is that our approach provides the corrected form for all the previous mean-field equation for the fractality of the generalized Laplacian processes, within the first-order approximation of the general GD-$\Lambda$ equation, given by,
\begin{equation}
D(d,d_w,\eta)=1+(d-1)e^{-\Lambda\eta(d_w-1)/d},
\end{equation}
whose first-order approximation, GD$_1$-$\Lambda$, is given by,
\begin{equation}
D(d,d_w,\eta)^{(1)}=\frac{d+\Lambda\eta(d_w-1)/d}{1+\Lambda\eta(d_w-1)/d},
\end{equation}
where, $\Lambda=0.817\approx 4/5$, thus unifying all of the models.
As such, the corrected GHTM equation for the DB model is recovered by setting $d_w=2$; the corrected HTM equation for the BA-DLA transition is recovered for $\eta=1$; and the corrected DLA mean-field equation is recovered for $d_w=2$ and $\eta=1$. Finally and importantly, under the reduced dimensionality transformation, equations GD-$\Lambda$ and GD$_1$-$\Lambda$ are respectively given by $D(\Phi(\eta))^*=\exp(-\Phi)$ and $D(\Phi(\eta))^{*(1)}=1/(1+\Phi)$, with $\Phi=\Lambda\eta(d_w-1)/d$, showing that they belong to the same universality class as the DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions (see Figs.\ 4c and 4d).
\begin{table*}[htb]
\caption{\label{critical}\textbf{Critical points.} Estimated $\Phi_c$ and $q_c$, using the respective values of $D_0$, $\chi$ and $\epsilon$. Attention should be paid to the BAMF-$\alpha$ transition, that exhibits remarkable similarities with the DB transition \cite{sanchez1993,hastings2001}, such as, a $q_c\approx 4$ and $D\approx 1.71$ at $q=1$, which would be similar to the case $\eta=1$, even though these transitions come from different processes.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lccccccc}
Data&$D_0$&$\chi$&$\Phi_c(\epsilon=0.1$)&$q_c$&$\Phi_c(\epsilon=0.05)$&$q_c$&$D(q=1)$\\
\hline
BAMF-$\alpha$ &$1.9384\pm 0.0001$ & $1.39\pm 0.02$ & $2.3$ & $4.5$ & $3.0$ & $5.4$ & $1.72\pm 0.02$\\
DLAMF-$\alpha$ &$1.6749\pm 0.0024$ & $1.69\pm 0.02$ & $2.3$ & $2.8$ & $3.0$ & $3.2$ & $1.46\pm 0.02$\\
BAMF-$\beta$ &$1.9485\pm 0.0001$ & $1.88\pm 0.01$ & $9.0$ & $6.0$ & $19.0$ & $9.0$ & $1.73\pm 0.01$\\
DLAMF-$\beta$ &$1.7100\pm 0.0007$ & $1.34\pm 0.01$ & $9.0$ & $21.7$ & $19.0$ & $37.8$ & $1.62\pm 0.01$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table*}
\begin{table}[htb]
\caption{\label{critical2}\textbf{DB equations comparison.} Fractal dimensions obtained for the DB model ($d=2$) at different values of $\eta$, as reported in \cite{hastings2001}, with the values estimated by the GHTM equation, and the corrected GD-$\Lambda$ and GD$_1$-$\Lambda$ equations, with $\Lambda=0.817$. In particular, GD-$\Lambda$ is in great agreement with the reported values for DB within the numerical uncertainties.}
\begin{ruledtabular}
\begin{tabular}{lcccc}
$\eta$ & DB & GHTM & GD$_1$-$\Lambda$ & GD-$\Lambda$ \\
\hline
1 &- & $5/3\approx 1.667$ & $1.710$ & $1.665$\\
2 &$1.433\pm 0.039$ & $3/2=1.500$ & $1.550$ & $1.442$\\
3 &$1.263\pm 0.056$ & $7/5=1.400$ & $1.449$ & $1.294$\\
4 &$1.128\pm 0.072$ & $4/3\approx 1.333$ & $1.379$ & $1.195$\\
5 &$1.068\pm 0.046$ & $9/7\approx 1.286$ & $1.328$ & $1.129$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{ruledtabular}
\end{table}
On a separate note, given that in all of these transitions $D_\alpha$ and $D_\beta$ are finelly well described by the RD and RD$_1$ functions, respectively, this indeed suggests that the true fractal dimension of DLA clusters is $D=1.67$, whereas $D=1.71$ is its value at first-order approximation. This observation is in good agreement with some results previously reported based on robust methods such as the two-point density correlation function, while results based on fast methods such as the radius of gyration report values close to 1.71 \cite{meakin1984a, huang2001, alves2006, pietronero1984, meakin1983b, tolman1989, halsey1992, halsey1994, mandelbrot2002} (see also Extended Data).
\subsection*{Conclusions}
In this work we present a set of dimensionality functions that provide an useful and power\-ful description of the fractality in the anisotropy-driven DLA-MF and BA-MF transitions. Under a generalized anisotropy-force approach and a reduced dimensionality transformation, these transitions follow universal curves, showing that they are independent of their initial fractal dimension, and only dependent on the anisotropy force acting upon them. Also, provided that the initial fractal dimension is a function of the dimensionality of the embedding space (as described by the HTM equation), these results reveal the universality of these fractal to non-fractal morphological transitions. As well, we also show that the DB model (the generalized Laplacian model) belongs to the same universality-class, sharing similarities with the BA-MF model such as critical points and close values of their fractal dimension at $q_i=1$ or $\eta=1$. Additionally, we introduce a correction to the well-established GHTM mean-field approximation, that leads to a solution capable to quantitatively reproduce with remarkable precision previous well-established observations. In summary, we present here, for the first time, a comprehensive discussion on the dynamical origin of the fractality and, with this, the basis for the understanding its subjacent algebra originated in these far-from-equilibrium transitions as an emergent feature of the anisotropy effects. These results represent an important unifying step towards a complete theory of growth, and they might provide important insights to understand pattern formation phenomena in many related areas of research \cite{vicsek2001book, benjacob1997, lehn2002, whitesides2002, sturmberg2013}.
\section*{Methods}
\subsection*{Aggregation dynamics}
In all simulations, each particle has a diameter equal to one. This is the basic unit of distance for the system. For aggregates based on BA or MF (Fig.\ 1a and 1c), we follow a standard procedure in which particles are launched at random from the circumference of radius $r_L = 2r_{max} + \delta$, with equal probability in position and direction of motion. Here, $r_{max}$ is the distance of the farthest particle in the cluster with respect to the seed particle placed at the origin. In our simulations we used $\delta=1000$ particle diameters to avoid undesirable screening effects. In particular, for the MF model, particles always aggregate to the closest particle in the cluster, this is determined by the projected position of the aggregated particles along the direction of motion of the incoming particle (see Fig.\ 1c). In the case of aggregates based on DLA (Fig.\ 1b), particles were launched from a circumference of radius $r_L = r_{max} + \lambda + \delta$, with $\delta=100$. The mean free path of the particles is set to one particle diameter. We also used a standard scheme that modifies the mean free path of the particles as they wander at a distance larger than $r_L$ or in-between branches, and set a killing radius at $r_K = 2r_L$, in order to speed up the aggregation process.
On the other hand, in order to mix different aggregation dynamics, an aggregation scheme is selected with probability $p$ while the other with probability $p-1$, as explained before. The evaluation of the aggregation scheme to be used is only updated once a particle has been successfully aggregated to the cluster under such dynamics.
\subsection*{Evaluating the fractal dimension}
In all measurements, we used $128$ clusters containing $10^5$ particles. The fractal dimension is measured from the two-point density correlation function, $C(r)=\langle\langle\rho(\textbf{r}_0)\rho(\textbf{r}_0+\textbf{r})\rangle\rangle_{|\textbf{r}|=r}$, where the double bracket indicates an average over all possible origins $\textbf{r}_0$ and all possible orientations. Here, it is assumed that $C(r)\approx r^{-\alpha}$, where the fractal dimension is given by $D_\alpha=d-\alpha$ where $d$ is the dimension of the embedding space. We also used the radius of gyration given by $R_g^ 2=\sum_{i=1}^{N}(\textbf{r}_i-\textbf{r}_{CM})^2$, where $N$ is the number of particles, $\textbf{r}_i$ is the position of the $ith$-particle in the cluster, and, $\textbf{r}_{CM}$ is the position of the center of mass. Here, it is assumed that $R_g(N)\approx N^\beta$, where the fractal dimension is given by $D_\beta=1/\beta$. Therefore, the fractal dimensions, $D_\alpha$ and $D_\beta$, are obtained from linear-fits to the corresponding functions, $C(r)$ and $R_g(N)$, in log-log plots. In practice, it is assumed that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are constant as long as the size or number of particles in the cluster is large. However, because some clusters do not develop a constant fractal dimension, linear-fits at different scales were performed in order to capture their main fractal features. Also, we averaged the outcome of $10$ linear fits, distributed over a given interval, in order to improve the precision of the measurements. In all transitions, $D_{\alpha}(p)$ is measured at short length-scales (in particle diameters units) over the interval $r_i\in[1,2]$ with fitting-length equal to $10$, and $r_f\in[11,12]$. At long length-scales, over $r_i\in[10,11]$ with fitting-length equal to $40$, and $r_f\in[50,51]$. For $D_{\beta}(p)$, measurements at medium scales (in particle number) where performed over the interval $r_i\in[10^2,10^3]$ with fitting-length equal to $10^4$, and $r_f\in[1.01\times 10^4,1.1\times 10^4]$. Finally, at large scales, over the interval $r_i\in[10^3,10^4]$ with fitting-length equal to $0.9\times10^5$, and $r_f\in[9.1\times10^4,10^5]$. All fittings to the $D_{\alpha}(p)$ and $D_{\beta}(p)$ data were performed using the \textsl{gnuplot} software.
|
\section{Introduction}
Game theory has been widely used in analyzing and designing wireless
network protocols. Often, game theoretical principles have been used
as guiding light when striving for distributed solutions of NP-hard
optimization problems. The idea is that if in a given networking
situation, a Nash Equilibrium (NE) of a strategic game played by
transmitters and receivers in the network is reasonably close to a
Pareto optimal operation point, simple distributed implementations can
be found. This kind of solutions have been searched for mostly related
to the physical and Medium Access Control layers of cellular and
ad Hoc networks.
On the physical layer, distributed power control and power allocation
based on strategic games have been widely studied.
In~\cite{MacKenzie2001}, power control cellular systems with Code
Division Multiple Access (CDMA) were addressed. Multichannel power
control between transmitter--receiver (Tx-Rx) pairs based on iterative
water-filling game was addressed in~\cite{Yu2002}.
In the setting of selfish Tx-Rx pairs operating in unlicensed bands,
it was observed that one-shot games of players with full freedom to
allocate power leads to socially suboptimal power allocations, where
power is distributed over the full bandwidth~\cite{Etkin2007}.
Repeated game approaches to cure this were considered
in~\cite{Etkin2007,Wu2009,Bennis2009}. In these, first an agreement is
reached about power allocation over spectral resources, either a
Pareto efficient point~\cite{Etkin2007}, orthogonal
allocation~\cite{Wu2009}, or a social optimum~\cite{Bennis2009}. The
agreed resource allocation is maintained with a grim
trigger~\cite{Etkin2007,Bennis2009}, or a finite period punishment
strategy~\cite{Wu2009}. An alternative to the repeated game solution
would be a cooperative game approach. In \cite{Suris2007}, Nash
Bargaining is used to agree on a fair and efficient allocation of
spectrum.
Recently, power allocation in frequency selective fading channels was
reconsidered in a network of strategic Tx-Rx
pairs~\cite{Bistritz2015}. In this case, the pre-agreement states that
players use their $M$ best channels, so that the received SINR is the
same on all used channels. This strategy is shown to lead to Pure NEs
which are asymptotically socially optimal when the number of players
approaches infinity.
In a higher layer view of resources allocation, one is interested not
in the power allocation per se, but on which resources are used by
which players. Potential game approaches~\cite{Neel2006,Yamamoto2015}
have been successfully used to solve many discrete resource allocation
problems, in situations where the players utility functions are
aligned with a global potential function. In~\cite{Neel2006}, spectrum
was used as a discrete resource, which is either used or not used, and
each player is constrained by hardware to choose only one channel.
In more involved scenarios, cooperative spectrum sharing games have
been played between cellular network operators~\cite{Kamal2009,
Si2010}. In these cooperative approaches, there is a component of
spectrum pricing involved, which penalizes increased spectrum usage.
The problem of spectrum sharing between operators~\cite{Kamal2009,
Si2010} differs from, e.g., physical layer power allocation problems
addressed
in~\cite{Yu2002,Etkin2007,Wu2009,Bennis2009,Suris2007,Bistritz2015} by
the status of the players of the game. In physical layer settings,
such as power allocation, game theory acts as an inspiration to
designing distributed algorithms. These algorithms would be implemented
in hardware, and typically there would be a standard governing the
implementation. Conformance tests would then apply to the hardware,
and the hardware entities would have no independent rationality
allowing generic change of strategy. Mechanism design~\cite{Hurwicz2006} would then lead to hardware implementation. A good example of
this is~\cite{Bistritz2015}, where a fully distributed, almost
socially optimal algorithm based on a mechanism obeyed by all resource
allocation players was presented.
In the multioperator spectrum sharing problem, the players are instead
entities with full freedom of action. Decisions on which set of
carriers is used for communication, are taken by truly economic actors,
or by software implementations governed by such actors. In such
settings, mechanism design would take the form of designing
protocols that enable socially beneficial behavior, which are enforced either by law, or by legally binding agreements.
In~\cite{Hailu2014,Singh2015}, we
have investigated mechanisms defined by coordination protocols
determining allowed sets of actions of players participating in
network resource allocation games, where there is interference between
the networks, when they use the same resource. A mechanism based on
{\it
instantaneous reciprocity} was discussed in~\cite{Hailu2014}.
Scenarios of {\it mutual renting}, where each player has a private
resource, and a {\it resource pool}, where each player has equal right
to access resources, were addressed. It was shown that a protocol
where resources are divided by the individual players and the set of
all players has a dominant strategy Nash equilibrium. Players are
willing to sacrifice some of their right to use resources, if all
others do the same. This concept differs from reciprocal altruism,
studied in~\cite{Axelrod1981}. According to~\cite{Axelrod1981},
reciprocal altruism emerges in indefinitely repeated strategic games.
Strategies incentivizing socially optimal behavior based on
reciprocation and forgiveness can be found.
In~\cite{Hailu2014}, reciprocity is instantaneous and dictated by the
mechanism.
In this paper we study a general strategic resource allocation game
between $N$ competing parties. There is a network resource utilization
pattern, determining which players use which resource. There is
interaction between the players when they use the same resources---we
assume that the utility function of individual players are concave in
these patterns. The mechanism enforced by a coordination protocol is
based on instantaneous reciprocity, but differing
from~\cite{Hailu2014}, {\it any subset of players} may reach
agreement about reciprocal resources usage, and {\it any number of
such subsets} may have simultaneous agreements. We thus have a
reciprocal resource partitioning game in the {\it the power set of the
users}. The motivation of the problem setting is that the players
would be serving multiple users, and accordingly, there are varying
degrees of conflict between resource usage, depending on the amount of
resources shared with different subsets of other players. This leads
to preferences to play with multiple different subsets.
Despite the fact that the problem of finding subsets of players with
similar interest, the considered
game is {\it not} a coalition formation game.\footnote{Coalitional
games (see \cite{Saad2009}) provide a framework for players to join
forces and reach non-zero-sum outcomes.
}
A generic player may prefer to be part of multiple coalitions, and
have a preference for the distribution of resources between these
coalitions. The utilities of the players are fully non-transferable,
and the games are $N$-player strategic games. Coalition formation and
bargaining games may be developed based on the strategic games
considered here. This, however, is left for future work.
In the considered powerset resource sharing games, we prove
existence of pure strategy Nash equilibria, and provide a sequential resolution
scheme where best response greedy bidding is proven to converge to a
Nash Equilibrium.
As an example we consider a realization of the game related to
spectrum sharing between operators. We show that if the operators
apply an $\alpha$-fair sum-utility function~\cite{Mo00}, the operator
utility function is concave in the network resource utilization
pattern, and thus the NE results proven for the generic game apply. We
provide simulation results for a game played between $N=4$ operators
in a small-cell indoor office environment.
The paper is organized as follows. Section II describes the system model. The network resource sharing problem is formulated as an $N$-person game in Section III. The existence of equilibrium point is shown in Section IV. In Section V, a sequential $N$-person game is discussed where the players have a greedy strategy and shown to converge. Section VI discusses inter-operator spectrum sharing as an application example. Section VII provides simulation results and analysis. Section VIII draws conclusions.
\section{System model}
\label{sec:SysMod}
There are $N$ players, given by a set $\cal N$, who are negotiating about one unit of a shared resource. The resource is divided into $2^N$ parts, one part $b_S$ for each subset $S \subset {\cal N}$. We say that the fraction $b_S$ is \emph{allocated} to the subset $\cal S$. The resource $b_S$ is non-orthogonally shared by the players who are a member of the subset $\cal S$. We have
\begin{equation}
\sum_{S \subset {\cal N}} b_S = 1~.
\end{equation}
Under the natural assumption that no part of the resource is left completely unused, we have $b_{\emptyset} = 0$.
The default usage pattern of the shared resource is determined, for example, by a regulatory body or by previous negotiations. The two most interesting cases are the mutual renting game (MRG), where
\begin{equation}
b_S^0 = \begin{cases}
1/N & \quad \text{if } |S| = 1 \\
0 & \quad \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:Default_MRG}
\end{equation}
for all $S \subset {\cal N}$, meaning that all resources are private by default, and the resource pool game (RPG), where
\begin{equation}
b_S^0 = \begin{cases}
1 & \quad \text{if } |S| = N \\
0 & \quad \text{otherwise}
\end{cases}
\label{eq:Default_RPG}
\end{equation}
for all $S \subset {\cal N}$., meaning that all resources are unlicensed by default or all the players has a right to use the shared resource. In MRG, we assume without loss of generality that all players have the same amount of resource to start with.
For a given resource usage pattern $\mathbf{b} \in \{\mathbb{R}^+\}^{2^N}$, the players get a utility of $g_n(\mathbf{b})$ for all $n \in \cal N$. We assume that each function $g_n$ is strictly concave and differentiable in $\mathbf{b}$. We will verify in Section~\ref{sec:AppInt} that this assumption is valid and natural in a wide variety of network problems, where each player is serving several users, and her payoff is an alpha-fair summation of the experience of these users. There are precisely $2^{N-1}$ subsets $S \subset \cal N$ such that $n\in S$, and we denote the collection of these sets by ${\cal P}_n$.
The utility $g_n(\mathbf{b})$ is assumed to depend only on $\{b_S : S\in {\cal P}_n\}$ changes only when the value of $b_S$ such that $S \in {\cal P}_n$ varies. Consider two resource utilization patterns $\mathbf{b}_1, \mathbf{b}_2$ and two subsets $S \in {\cal P}_n$ and ${\cal {\tilde{S}}} \subset {\cal N}$. Let $b_{1\cal T} = b^0_{\cal T}$ for all ${\cal T} \neq \cal S$, $b_{1\cal S} = b^0_S - \epsilon$, $b_{2\cal T} = b^0_{\cal T}$ for all ${\cal T} \neq {\cal {\tilde{S}}}$, $b_{2{\cal {\tilde{S}}}} = b^0_{\cal {\tilde{S}}} - \epsilon$, and $\epsilon > 0$. We have the following order relationship
\begin{equation}
\tilde{ S} \subsetneq { S}~~\Rightarrow~~ g_n(\mathbf{b}_2) < g_n(\mathbf{b}_1)
\label{eq:OrdRel}
\end{equation}
In terms of network games we interpret this as follows: The players' utility functions are increasing in the experience of their users, and this experience increases the less interference is experienced from other players.
Note that this holds also if
$\tilde{\cal S} \not\in {\cal P}_n$, as then $g_n(\mathbf{b}_2) = g_n(\mathbf{b}^0)$.
The players negotiate to determine a resource usage pattern $\mathbf{b}$ that is valid for a given period called resource sharing period. The objective of the players is to maximize their utility function $g_n$. In Section \ref{sec:ProFor}, we define a game that serves as a formalism for these negotiations.
\section{Problem formulation as $N$-person game}
\label{sec:ProFor}
The resource sharing problem is formulated as an $N$-person game. The game is denoted as $\Gamma = \{ {\cal N}, \{ \mathbf{a}_n\}_{n \in \cal N},\{ \Phi_n(\mathbf{a})_{n \in \cal N} \}$.
The strategy of a player, $\mathbf{a}_n \in \{\mathbb{R} \cup *\}^{2^N}$ will be interpreted as the values of $b_S$ that are prefered by player $n$. Here, $a_{nS}=*$ is interpreted as $n$ not having an opinion about the resources assigned to set $S$, which will be applicable when $n\not\in S$. A joint strategy of all players will therefore be a matrix in $\{\mathbb{R} \cup *\}^{2^N\cdot N}$, where half the entries take the void value $*$. The payoff of a player, $\Phi_n(\mathbf{a}) \in \mathbb{R}^+$, is given as the utility of the player with the agreed resource usage pattern. The game is determined by two things: an instantaneous reciprocity and the \emph{a priori} rule $\mathbf{a}\mapsto\mathbf{b}$ to determine the outcome of the negotiations.
Hence, after defining an outcome $\mathbf{b}=\Upsilon(\mathbf{a})\in \{\mathbf{R}\}^{2^N}$ as a function of the strategies (henceforth \emph{bids}) $\mathbf{a}$, we can define the payoff function $\Phi_n$ as \begin{equation} \label{eq:payoff} \Phi_n(\mathbf{a})=g_n(\Upsilon(\mathbf{a})).\end{equation}
\subsection{Instantaneous reciprocity}
The strategy of a player in a given resource sharing period does not depend on the outcome of the games in the past or future spectrum sharing periods. Since the players are assumed to be selfish, there has to be an instantaneous reciprocity. In particular, we have the constraint
\begin{equation}
\sum_{S\in{\cal P}_n} \frac{b_S}{|S|} = \frac1N,
\label{eq:InsRes}
\end{equation}
that ensures that all players give and take the same amount of favor.
Here, in MRG, a favor is to give right to use on a resource. In RPG, a favor is to remain silent on a resource. A favor given by a player is divided among the players using it.
We hence define the set $\mathcal{F}$ of feasible sharing patters by
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{F}=\left\{b\in\mathbb{R}^{2^N} {\huge\vert} \begin{split} 0 & \leq b_S & \hbox{ for all } S\subseteq\mathcal{N}\\ \sum_{S\in\mathcal{P}_n} \frac{b_S}{|S|} &= \frac{1}{N} & \hbox{ for all } n\in \mathcal{N}\end{split}\right\}
\end{equation} Hence, $\mathcal{F}$ is a convex polytope defined by $2^N$ inequalities and $N$ equalities.
Note that the distinction between MRG and RPG is not observed in the set of feasible resource sharing patterns, but only in the default sharing pattern, and hence in the resolution rule, which is defined in Section~\ref{ssec:rule}.
\subsection{Strategy space}
Let ${\cal A}_n$ be the strategy space of player $n$, meaning the set of allowed bids. We define ${\cal A}$ as the subspace ${\cal A}_n \subset \{\mathbb{R} \cup *\}^{2^N}$ given by the constraints
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\sum_{S\in{\cal P}_n} \frac{a_S}{|S|} &= \frac1N , \\
a_{n\cal S} &= * & \forall n \notin S, S \subset {\cal N}, \\
a_{n\cal S} &\geq 0 & \forall n \in S, S \subset {\cal N}
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:StrSpa}
\end{equation}
which is a compact convex set. This means that $\mathbf{a}_n$ has to respect the instantaneous reciprocity constraint~\eqref{eq:InsRes}. Moreover, if $n\not\in S$, then we require $a_{nS}$ to take the void value $*$, which should be interpreted as not having any prefered value of $b_S$. This is natural to require, to not allow players to obstruct an agreement that does not affect her payoff, between a set of players in which she is not a member.
\subsection{An \textit{a-priori} resolution rule}\label{ssec:rule}
The game has an \textit{a-priori} agreed rule to resolve the strategies of the players. Denote the resolution rule by \[\Upsilon:\left(\mathbb{R}\cup *\right)^{N\cdot 2^N} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^{2^N},\] mapping the joint strategy of the players $\{ \mathbf{a}_n\}_{n \in \cal N}$ to the resource allocation $\mathbf{b} \in \mathbb{R}^{2^N}$. The resolution rule $\Upsilon$ will also depend on a default resource distribution $\mathbf{b}^0\in \mathcal{F}$, as described in Section~\ref{sec:SysMod}.
We also propose a sequential game, where the outcome of one round will be the default distribution of the next. This is only one of the reasons why we allow arbitrary $\mathbf{b}^0\in\mathcal{F}$.
For a bid $\mathbf{a}_n\in\left(\mathbb{R}\cup *\right)^{2^N}$, define the set \[I_n=\prod_{S\in\mathcal{P}_n} [\min(\mathbf{a}_{n S}, \mathbf{b}^0_S) , \max(\mathbf{a}_{n S}, \mathbf{b}^0_S)]\times\prod_{S\not\in \mathcal{P}_n}\mathbb{R}.\] Requiring the outcome $\{b_S :n\in S\}$ to remain within $I_n$, we guarantee that no player has to change her default usage pattern more than she is willing to according to her bid.
We propose the following resolution rule:
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}_n\}_{n \in \cal N}) = \, & \argmax[\mathbf{b}]
& \sum_{S \subset {\cal N}} |\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S|\\
& \text{subject to}
& \mathbf{b} \in {\cal{F}} \\
& & \mathbf{b}\in I_n \hbox{ for all } n\in \mathcal{N}.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:ResRul}
\end{equation}
Observe that, while in general the maximum might not be unique, it will be almost surely, assuming the bids are drawn from a continuous probability distribution. This will in turn happen if the players play optimally, and the players' utility functions $g_n$ are generic enough. We may also observe that, while it is in general computationally unfeasible to find the largest vector in a given set, the resolution rule can be evaluated efficiently, thanks to the following lemma.
\begin{mythe}\label{thm:linear}
The resolution rule $\Upsilon$ is the solution of a linear optimization problem.
\end{mythe}
\begin{IEEEproof}The proof is easy but technical, and is postponed to Appendix~A.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Existence of equilibrium point}
\label{sec:ExiEqu}
We will begin by stating and proving a standard game theoretic lemma in a version that suits our settings. For game-theoretic terminology, we refer to~\cite{gamebook}, and for topological notions we refer to~\cite{munkres}.
\begin{mylem}
Let $(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{A},\Phi)$ be an $N$-player game that satisfies the following three criteria:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The payoff function $\Phi$ is upper semicontinuous.
\item The joint strategy space $\mathcal{A}$ is convex and compact.
\item For each player $n\in \mathcal{N}$, and all joint strategies $\mathbf{a}_{-n}=\{a_{iS} : i\neq n\}$, the set \[\gamma_n (\mathbf{a}_{-n})=\argmax[\mathbf{a}_n] \Phi(\mathbf{a})\] is convex.
\end{enumerate}
Then $(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{A},\Phi)$ has a Nash equilibrium point.
\label{nashcriterion}
\end{mylem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Let $P(\mathcal{A})$ be the set of all subspaces of $\mathcal{A}$. Consider the set valued map $\nabla: \mathcal{A}\to P(\mathcal{A})$, given by $\nabla(\mathbf{a})=\prod_n\gamma_n (\mathbf{a}_{-n})$. By upper semicontinuity of $\Phi$, $\gamma_n$ is closed, and by assumption (3) it is also convex. As $\nabla(\mathbf{a})$ is a product of finitely many compact convex sets, it is itself compact and convex. It also follows from upper semicontinuity of $\Phi$ that the $\nabla$ is upper hemicontinuous. Now by Kakutani's theorem~\cite{Kakutani41}, any function $X\to P(X)$ on a compact domain $X$, that is upper-hemicontinuous and takes closed and convex values, has a fixed point. Hence, there exists $\mathbf{a}\in \mathcal{A}$ such that $\mathbf{a}\in \nabla(\mathbf{a})=\prod_n\gamma_n (\mathbf{a}_{-n})$. This means that $\mathbf{a}_n\in \gamma_n (\mathbf{a}_{-n})$ for every $n$, which in turn means that no player can improve her outcome by changing her bid. Hence, $\mathbf{a}$ is a Nash equilibrium.\end{IEEEproof}
We now show that~\ref{nashcriterion} applies to the game described in Section~\ref{sec:ProFor}.
\begin{mythe}
The game \[(\mathcal{N},\mathcal{A}=\prod_{n\in \mathcal{N}}\mathcal{A}_n,\Phi=g\circ\Upsilon)\] described in Section~\ref{sec:ProFor} has a Nash equilibrium.
\label{ProOne}
\end{mythe}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The payoff function $\Phi$ is upper semicontinuous by definition.\footnote{To be precise, this is only true when we have defined a tiebreak in the points where the function $\Upsilon$ is not uniquely defined. This is a mere technicality as such situations will almost never occur in practice. We can extend the function $\Phi$ to these points, upper semicontinuously for all players.} The joint strategy space $\mathcal{A}=\prod_{n\in \mathcal{N}}\mathcal{A}_n$ is a product of finitely many compact spaces, and is therefore compact in its own right. To apply Theorem~\ref{nashcriterion}, we need to consider the sets \[\gamma_n (\mathbf{a}')=\argmax[\mathbf{a}_n] \Phi(\mathbf{a})\] for fixed $\mathbf{a}'$ and $n$. This is the set of points $\mathbf{a}_n$ such that $\Upsilon(\{\mathbf{a_i}\}_{i\in\mathcal{N}})$ maximizes $g_n$ over all \[\mathbf{b}\in \mathcal{F}\cap(\cap_{i\in\mathcal{N}-\{n\}}I_i).\]
By strict concavity of $g_n$, it is maximized in a unique point $\mathbf{c}\in \mathcal{F}_n$, where \[\mathcal{F}_n=\mathcal{F}\cap(\cap_{i\in\mathcal{N}-\{n\}}I_i)\] Now $\gamma_n$ can be written as \[\gamma_n=\{\mathbf{a}_n\in \mathcal{A}_n | \argmax[\mathbf{b}\in \mathcal{F}_n\cap I_n]\|\mathbf{b} - \mathbf{b}^0\|_1 = \mathbf{c}\}.\] But this set is given by the inequalities \[\begin{aligned} a_{nS} &\geq c_{S} & \hbox{if } c_{S}=\min\{\mathbf{a}_{iS} : i\neq n\}\geq \mathbf{b}_S^0\\
&&\hbox{or } c_{S}=\mathbf{b}_S^0 >\max\{\mathbf{a}_{iS} : i\neq n\}, \\
a_{nS} &\leq c_{S} & \hbox{if } c_{S}=\max\{\mathbf{a}_{iS} : i\neq n\}\leq \mathbf{b}_S^0\\
&&\hbox{or } c_{S}=\mathbf{b}_S^0 <\min\{\mathbf{a}_{iS} : i\neq n\}, \\
a_{nS} &=c_{S} & \hbox{if } \max\{\mathbf{a}_{iS} : i\neq n\}< c_S < \mathbf{b}_S^0\\
&&\hbox{or } \mathbf{b}_S^0 <c_S < \min\{\mathbf{a}_{iS} : i\neq n\}.
\end{aligned}\]
As this set is clearly convex, Lemma~\ref{nashcriterion} can be applied, so the game has a Nash equilibrium.
\end{IEEEproof}
\section{Sequential $N$-person game}
\label{sec:SeqNpe}
In section~\ref{sec:ExiEqu}, the $N$-person game is shown to have a Nash equilibrium point. However, the Nash equilibrium point is not unique unless we have $\mathbf{a}_n = \mathbf{a}_{n'}$ for all $n,n' \in {\cal N}$. Indeed, as long as any player has bids $a_{nS}\neq b_S, a_{nT}\neq b_T$ that are not equal to the game outcome, then sufficiently small changes can be made to $a_{nS}$ and $a_{nT}$ while respecting the instantaneous resiprocity rule, without changing the outcome of the game. The number of equilibrium points is therefore infinite in the typical case when the Nash equilibrium is not unique.
Since the players are selfish, they prefer a resource usage pattern that maximizes their utility function. It is therefore natural to define their \emph{greedy strategy} by
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{a}_n = & \hspace{4mm}\argmax[\mathbf{a}]
& & g_n(\mathbf{a}) \\
& \hspace{4mm} \text{subject to}
& & \mathbf{a} \in {\cal A}_n
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:GreStr}
\end{equation}
for all $n \in \cal N$, with $a_{nS}=*$ if $n\not\in S$. The point $(\mathbf{a}_1,\mathbf{a}_2,\hdots,\mathbf{a}_N)$ is not a Nash-equilibrium point unless $\mathbf{a}_n = \Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}_n\}_{n \in \cal N})$ for at least $N-1$ players. The players, thus, may further want to play a $N$-person game with updated $\mathbf{b}^0 \leftarrow \Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}_n\}_{n \in \cal N})$. This naturally leads to a sequence of games where the default spectrum utilization pattern is updated at each iteration as summarized in algorithm~\ref{alg:SeqNpe}.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{Sequential $N$-person game}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE INITIALIZATION
\STATE Given $\mathbf{b}^0$
\REPEAT
\STATE Each player $n \in \cal N$ evaluates ${\cal A}_n$ using~\eqref{eq:StrSpa}
\STATE Each player $n \in \cal N$ obtains $\mathbf{a}_n \in {\cal A}_n$ using~\eqref{eq:GreStr}
\STATE $\mathbf{b}^0 \leftarrow \Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}_n\}_{n \in \cal N})$
\UNTIL {\text convergence}
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:SeqNpe}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{mythe}
The sequential $N$-person game converges.
\end{mythe}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The strategy of a player remains the same in each iterations, and the new default pattern $\mathbf{b}^0$ is contained in all $I_n^i$. Therefore, the domain of~\eqref{eq:ResRul} forms a decreasing chain, since $(\cap_{n\in \mathcal{N}}I_n^i) \subseteq (\cap_{n\in \mathcal{N}}I_n^{i-1})$. In each iteration, at least one new bid $a_{nS}$ gets satisfied, in the sense that $a_{nS}=b_S$. After this happened, the value of $b_S$ will not change again, since player $n$ would obstruct such a change. Therefore, the sequence domains of~\eqref{eq:ResRul} forms a decreasing sequence of polytopes of strictly decreasing dimension. Thus, the sequence converges to a point, to which therefore also the outcomes $\mathbf{b}$ converge.
\end{IEEEproof}
If $N = 2$, it can be observed that the sequential game converges in one iteration leading to a one-shot game. This is due to the reason that at the first iteration, the strategy of one of the players is selected, i.e. $\exists n \mid \mathbf{a}_n = \Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}^i_n\}_{n \in \cal N})$, leading to the maximum possible payoff improvement for the player. Thus, there is no reason for the player to change the agreed resource utilization pattern.
\begin{mylem}
The sequential $2$-person game converges in one iteration. The strategy of the players is dominant. At least one of the players has a strongly dominant strategy.
\label{lem:DomStr}
\end{mylem}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Let ${\cal N}=\{1,2\}$, and let $\mathbf{a}_1 \neq \mathbf{a}_2$.
Case 1: Assume $a_{n\cal N} - b^0_{\cal N} \geq 0$ for both $n=1,2$. We have $\Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}^i_n\}_{n \in \cal N}) = \mathbf{a}_1$ if $a_{1\cal N} < a_{2\cal N}$. Thus, player $1$ gets the maximum payoff and the game converges. Moreover, $\Phi_1(\mathbf{a}) > \Phi_1(\mathbf{a}')$ for all $\mathbf{a}' \in {\cal A}_1$ and $\Phi_{2}(\mathbf{a}) \geq \Phi_{2}(\mathbf{a}')$ for all $\mathbf{a}' \in {\cal A}_{2}$. The inequality in the latter case is tight for $\mathbf{a} \in {\cal A}_{2} \mid a_{2\cal N} > a_{1\cal N}$. Thus, player $1$ has a strongly dominant strategy while the strategy for player $2$ is weakly dominant.
Case 2: Assume $a_{n\cal N} - b^0_{\cal N} \leq 0$ for both $n=1,2$. We have $\Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}^i_n\}_{n \in \cal N}) = \mathbf{a}_1$ if $a_{1\cal N} > a_{2\cal N}$. Thus, player $1$ gets the maximum payoff and the game converges. Similarly, $\Phi_1(\mathbf{a}) > \Phi_1(\mathbf{a}')$ for all $\mathbf{a}' \in {\cal A}_1$ and $\Phi_{2}(\mathbf{a}) \geq \Phi_{2}(\mathbf{a}')$ for all $\mathbf{a}' \in {\cal A}_{2}$. The inequality in the latter case is tight for $\mathbf{a} \in {\cal A}_{2} \mid a_{2\cal N} < a_{1\cal N}$. Therefore, player $1$ has a strongly dominant strategy while the strategy for player $2$ is weakly dominant.
If $\mathbf{a}_1 = \mathbf{a}_{2}$, both players get a maximum payoff. The game converges. The strategy of both players is strongly dominant.
\end{IEEEproof}
For $N \geq 3$, we propose an alternative game, with faster convergence, although towards a suboptimal point. Here, the game is played between the players in a subset $S\subseteq\cal{N}$, and the dimension is reduced by only negotiating the parameters $b_{\{n\}}, n \in \cal S$ and $b_{\cal S}$. Now, the strategy of a player becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{a}_n = & \hspace{4mm} \text{arg } \underset{\mathbf{a}} {\text{max}}
& & g_n(\mathbf{a}) \\
& \hspace{4mm} \text{subject to}
& & \mathbf{a} \in {\cal A}_{n\cal S}
\end{aligned}
\label{N_P_Str_ODSG}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
{\cal A}_{n \cal S} = \{\mathbf{a} \in {\cal A}_n \mid a_{\cal T} = b^0_{\cal T} \text{ for all } {\cal T} \in {\cal P}_n, {\cal T} \neq {\cal S}, |{\cal T} | > 1 \}.
\label{Str_S_ODSG}
\end{equation}
However, the players need to have an $\textit{a priori}$ agreed rule on how to choose the sequence of the subsets. With this approach, the players may play a sequence of single dimensional games as summarized in Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}.
\begin{algorithm}[h]
\caption{Sequential single-dimensional subset game}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\STATE INITIALIZATION
\STATE Given $\mathbf{b}^0$
\REPEAT
\STATE ${\cal P}' = {\cal P}$ where $\cal P$ is the power set of ${\cal N}$
\WHILE {${\cal P}' \neq \emptyset$}
\STATE Agree on a subset ${\cal S} \in {\cal P}'$
\STATE Each player $n \in \cal N$ evaluates ${\cal A}_{n\cal S}$ using~\eqref{Str_S_ODSG}.
\STATE Each player $n \in \cal N$ finds $\mathbf{a}_n \in {\cal A}_n$ using~\eqref{N_P_Str_ODSG}.
\STATE $\mathbf{b}^0 \leftarrow \Upsilon(\{ \mathbf{a}_n\}_{n \in \cal N})$
\STATE ${\cal P}' \leftarrow {\cal P}' \setminus {\cal S}$
\ENDWHILE
\UNTIL {\text convergence}
\end{algorithmic}
\label{alg:2}
\end{algorithm}
\begin{mythe}
The sequential single dimensional $N$-person game converges.
\end{mythe}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Define $\Phi(\mathbf{a}) = \sum_{n \in \cal N} \Phi_n(\mathbf{a})$. The utility of a player $g_n(\mathbf{a})$ is concave along the line $\mathbf{b}^0+t(\mathbf{a}_n-\mathbf{b}^0), t \in [0,1]$ with the optimal value obtained at $t = 1$. Thus, for any outcome of the resolution rule and iteration $i$, we have $\Phi_n(\mathbf{a}^i) \geq \Phi_n(\mathbf{a}^{i-1})$ for all $n \in \cal N$. If $\mathbf{b}^{0^{i-1}} \neq \Upsilon(\mathbf{a}^i)$, there are at least two players such that the inequality is not tight. Therefore, we have $\Phi_n(\mathbf{a}^i) > \Phi_n(\mathbf{a}^{i-1})$ as long as $\mathbf{b}^{0(i-1)} \neq \Upsilon(\mathbf{a}^i)$. The sequential $N$-person game must converge since $\Phi(\mathbf{a})$ is bounded from above.
\end{IEEEproof}
Note that if the players play only a single dimensional sequential game along $b_n, n \in \cal N$ and $b_{\cal N}$, the strategy of the players becomes dominant with at least one of the players having a strongly dominant strategy. This can be proven using the same technique as the proof for lemma~\ref{lem:DomStr}.
\section{Applications: inter-operator resource sharing}
\label{sec:AppInt}
The $N$-person game can be applied for inter-operator resource sharing. A player would now become an operator which typically serves multiple users. Let player $n \in {\cal N}$ has multiple transmitters denoted by a set ${\cal V}_n$. Each transmitter $v \in {\cal V}_n$ may serve multiple users given by ${\cal U}_{nv}$. We have ${\cal U}_n = \cup_{v \in {\cal V}_n}{\cal U}_{nv}$. For simplicity, we assume that each transmitter and user has a single antenna.
A player allocates the resources it has to its user. We can assume the resource of a player is infinitely divisible from practicality perspective. Thus for each
${\cal S}\ni n$ and each $u\in {\cal U}_n$ player $n$ gives a fraction
$w_{u{\cal S}}$ of $b_{\cal S}$ to $u$. The user now has ``rate''
\begin{equation}
r_u = \sum_{{\cal S}\in{\cal P}_n} w_{u{\cal S}} \mu_{u{\cal S}}
\end{equation}
where $\mu_{u{\cal S}}$ is the ``spectral efficiency'' of user $u$ in the resource that is shared by the players in the subset $\cal S$. The spectral efficiency of a user is given as
\begin{equation}
\mu_{u \cal S} = \log_2(1+\gamma_{u \cal S}),
\label{eq:SpecEff}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}
\gamma_{u \cal S} = \frac{
P_{v} \lvert h_{vu} \rvert^2}
{\underbrace{ \hspace{0mm} \sum_{ \hspace{-1mm} v' \in {\cal V}_n, v' \neq v } \hspace{0mm}
{P_{v'} \lvert h_{v'u} \rvert^2}}_{ \text{Intra-operator interference} }\hspace{0mm} +
\hspace{-2mm}\underbrace{\hspace{-1.0mm} \sum_{ \hspace{-1.0mm} n' \in \mathcal{S}, n' \neq n, v' \in \mathcal{V}_{n'}} \hspace{-2.0mm} {P_{v'} \lvert h_{v'u} \rvert^2}}_{ \text{Inter-operator interference} } \hspace{-0mm} +
\underbrace{\sigma^2}_{\text{Noise}}}
\label{eq:SINR}
\end{equation}
is its Signal-to-noise plus interference (SINR) ratio. The transmit power budget per Hz of transmitter $v$ and the noise power per Hz on user $k$ are $P_{v}$ and $\sigma^2$, respectively. For simplicity, we assume the transmit power is uniformly distributed across the spectrum resource. The channel is given as $h_{vu} = \widetilde{h}_{vu} / \sqrt{L_{vu}}$ where $L_{vu}$ is the distance dependent pathloss attenuation and $\widetilde{h}_{vu}$ is the complex fast fading components of the channel.
The utility of a player is given as the sum of the utility of its users. The utility of a player depends on the resource that are allocated to the user. A player allocated its resource to its users such that its utility is maximized
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
g_n(\mathbf{b}) = & \hspace{1mm} \underset{\mathbf{W}}{\sup }
& & \sum_{u\in {\cal U}_n} f(r_u)\\
& \text{subject to}
& & r_u = \sum_{{\cal S}\in{\cal P}_n} w_{u{\cal S}} \mu_{u{\cal S}}, \forall u\in {\cal U}_n \\
&&& \sum_{u\in{\cal U}_{nv}} w_{u{\cal S}} = b_{\cal S}, \quad \forall v\in{\cal V}_{n}, {\cal S} \in {\cal P}_n \\
&&& \mathbf{W} \succeq 0
\end{aligned},
\label{eq:sum utility 2}
\end{equation}
where where $f(r)$ is a suitable concave utility function, e.g. $\alpha$-fair and $\mathbf{W}$ is a $U_n \times |{\cal P}_n|$ resource allocation matrix. We assume each player independently chooses the parameter $\alpha$ for its utility function.
\begin{mypro}
The function $g_n(\mathbf{b})$ is concave in $\mathbf{b}$ if player $n$ applies an $\alpha$-PF scheduling algorithm to optimize $\mathbf{W}$.
\label{pro:CocUti}
\end{mypro}
\begin{IEEEproof}
Let Dom($g_n$) implies the domain of $g_n$ in $(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W})$. Define a function $h_n(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W})$ in $(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W})$ as follows
\begin{equation}
h_n(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W}) = \left\{
\begin{array}{l l}
\sum_{u\in {\cal U}_n} f(r_u) & \quad \text{if }(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W}) \in \text{Dom}(g_n)\\
-\inf & \quad \text{otherwise}
\end{array} \right.,
\end{equation}
Let ${\cal W}_n$ denotes the set of points $\mathbf{W}$ satisfying the constraints of~\eqref{eq:sum utility 2}. It is closed and convex. The domain of $g_n(\mathbf{b})$ can be expressed as $\text{Dom}(g_n(\mathbf{b})) = \{\mathbf{b} \mid (\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W}) \in \text{Dom}(g_n)\}$ for some $\mathbf{W} \in {\cal W}_n$.
Due to the use of an $\alpha$-PF scheduling algorithm, $h_n(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W})$ is jointly concave function in $(\mathbf{b},\mathbf{W})$. Let us apply Jensen's inequality on points $\mathbf{b}_1, \mathbf{b}_2 \in \text{Dom}(g_n)$, e.g. as in~\cite[p. 88]{boyd09}. For $\epsilon > 0$, there are some $\mathbf{W}_1,\mathbf{W}_2 \in {\cal W}_n$ such that $h_n(\mathbf{b}_1,\mathbf{W}_1) \geq g_n(\mathbf{b}_1)- \epsilon$ and $h_n(\mathbf{b}_2,\mathbf{W}_2) \geq g_n(\mathbf{b}_2)- \epsilon$
Taking $\theta \in [0,1]$, we have
\begin{align*}
g_n(\theta \mathbf{b}_1 + (1-\theta) \mathbf{b}_2) &= \sup_{\mathbf{W} \in {\cal W}_n} h_n(\theta \mathbf{b}_1 + (1-\theta) \mathbf{b}_2,\mathbf{W}) \\
&\geq h_n(\theta \mathbf{b}_1 + (1-\theta) \mathbf{b}_2,\theta \mathbf{W}_1 + (1-\theta) \mathbf{W}_2) \\
&\geq \theta h_n(\mathbf{b}_1, \mathbf{W}_1) + (1-\theta) h_n(\mathbf{b}_2, \mathbf{W}_2) \\
&\geq \theta g_n(\mathbf{b}_1) + (1-\theta) g_n(\mathbf{b}_2) - \epsilon.
\label{eq:4.3}
\end{align*}
This holds for any $\epsilon > 0$. Therefore, we have
\begin{equation}
g_n(\theta \mathbf{b}_1 + (1-\theta) \mathbf{b}_2) \geq \theta g_n(\mathbf{b}_1) + (1-\theta) g_n( \mathbf{b}_2),
\end{equation}
which completes the proof\footnote{This holds also if a player applies multi-point cooperative transmission to serve its users. The proof for this case is discussed in Appendix~B.}.
\end{IEEEproof}
Proposition~\ref{pro:CocUti} indicates that the utility of the player is concave in the resource utilization pattern $\mathbf{b}$. Note that the concavity is strict if $\alpha > 0$ and $g_n$ is differentiable. Therefore, the $N$-person game can be applied for inter-operator resource sharing if the operators apply an $\alpha$-fair scheduler. The operators do not need to apply the same parameter $\alpha$ for their schedulers.
\section{Numerical results}
\label{sec:NumRes}
The performance of MRG and RPG is evaluated using inter-operator resource sharing. The operators serve users that are located in indoor office/residential environment. The layout and channel models are applied from WINNER-II model for scenario A1, i.e. indoor office~\cite{WINNERII}, see Figure~\ref{WINNERIIA2Layout}. We consider only the distance dependent pathloss and the fast fading component of the channel. There are two assumptions for the wall loss in scenario A1. We take the wall loss values for thick wall.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{WINNERIIA2layout.png}
\caption{WINNER-II A2 office layout}
\label{WINNERIIA2Layout}
\end{figure}
We consider two-and four-players games. A one unit of resource that is equal to $N\times20$ MHz is used where $N$ is the number of operators. A transmit power intensity of -53 dBm per Hz is applied which is equivalent to a power budget of 20 dBm per 20 MHz of band. The thermal noise power intensity is -195 dB which is equivalent to -121 dB per 20 MHz of band. The noise power is in general negligible when compared to intra-and inter-operator interference.
The operators consider only the users which are served by the Transmitters (TXs) that are located in the same floor as the inter-floor interference can be considered to be small due to floor loss. Any interference from TXs that are not located in the same floor is accounted as background interference. The players may play parallel games considering the users which are associated with TXs located in each floor.
The utility of a player is the sum of the utilities of her users which are served by the TXs located in the second floor in a three-floors building. The players are assumed to apply proportional fair scheduler, i.e. $\alpha = 1$, when allocating resources to their users. The TXs with coordinates (25,12.5), (25,-12.5), (-25,-12.5), (-25,12.5) are labelled as TXs 1, 2, 3, and 4, respectively, assuming the center of the building has a coordinate (0,0).
As a baseline, the results with default resource utilization (labelled in the Figures as 'Default') are included. As an upper bound, the results with centralized scheduler are included~\cite{Jorswieck14}, see Appendix~C. Here, we assume the cooperation between the operators is only at the Medium Access Control (MAC) layer level and there is no cooperation at the physical layer. If the constraint for the centralized scheduler include the constraint for instantaneous reciprocity, it is denoted as 'CS-SR' in the figures. If the constraint is the one for long term reciprocity, the label is 'CS-LR'.
\subsection{Two-players game}
Let TXs 1 and 3 belong to player 1 and TXs 2 and 4 to player 2. The number of users per TX is generated using Poisson distribution with mean 5. If the probability of a user visiting the other operator's TX is 0.5, the location of the users is randomly generated with the whole floor. If the visiting probability is zero, the location of the users is distributed in a 50x25 rectangle within the floor where the own operator's TX is at the center of the rectangle. The simulation results are averaged over 100 user number and location realizations each with 20 fast fading realizations.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{MRG_Oprs_2_sched_PF_visProb_0p.pdf}
\caption{Two-players MRG. Visiting probability = 0.}
\label{fig:twoOprsMRG_0p}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{MRG_Oprs_2_sched_PF_visProb_50p.pdf}
\caption{Two-players MRG. Visiting probability = 0.5.}
\label{fig:twoOprsMRG_50p}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig:twoOprsMRG_0p} and~\ref{fig:twoOprsMRG_50p} show simulation results for two-players MRG and figures~\ref{fig:twoOprsRPG_50p} and~\ref{fig:twoOprsRPG_0p} for two-players RPG. The results for MRG with visiting probability of 0 and RPG with visiting probability of 0.5 have a significant gain comparing to the results with 'default' utilization pattern. The difference from the result for 'CS-SR' is almost negligible. The results for 'CS-LR' has a slightly better performance than the results for MRG (or RPG depending on the game) and 'CS-SR'. This is due to the fact that the 'CS-LR' scheduler utilizes the load difference between the players in addition to the location of the users.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\captionsetup{justification=centering}
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{RPG_Oprs_2_sched_PF_visProb_50p.pdf}
\caption{Two-players RPG. Visiting probability = 0.5.}
\label{fig:twoOprsRPG_50p}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.25]{RPG_Oprs_2_sched_PF_visProb_0p.pdf}
\caption{Two-players RPG. Visiting probability = 0.}
\label{fig:twoOprsRPG_0p}
\end{figure}
The results for MRG with visiting probability of 0.5 and RPG with visiting probability of 0 are almost the same as the results for the 'default', 'CS-SR' and 'CS-LR'. The reason for this is that keeping resources orthogonalized is almost optimal when there is strong inter-operator interference (comparing to intra-operator interference plus background noise/interference) and re-using resources is close to optimal when there is negligible inter-operator interference. Due to this, the operators may consider the users which has small inter-operator interference in the MRG case and strong inter-operator interference in RPG.
\subsection{Four-players game}
Let TX $n$ belongs to player $n$ where $n \in \{1,2,3,4\}$. The number of users per TX is generated using Poisson distribution with mean 5. The location of the users is generated in a similar manner as in the two-players game. The simulation results are averaged over 50 user number and location realizations each with 10 fast fading realizations.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{MRG_Oprs_4_sched_PF_visProb_0p.pdf}
\caption{Four-players MRG. Visiting probability = 0.}
\label{fig:fourOprsMRG}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.35]{RPG_Oprs_4_sched_PF_visProb_50p.pdf}
\caption{Four-players RPG. Visiting probability = 0.5.}
\label{fig:fourOprsRPG}
\end{figure}
Figures~\ref{fig:fourOprsMRG} and~\ref{fig:fourOprsRPG} show simulation results for four-players MRG and RPG. The results for MRG and RPG are obtained such that the players first play the sequential multi-dimensional $N$-person game according Algorithm~\ref{alg:SeqNpe}. After it converges, they play sequential single-dimensional $N$-person game according to Algorithm~\ref{alg:2}. To agree on a direction in the single-dimensional game, the players first propose their preferred subsets. The subsets are given probability weights that are proportional to the number of players that voted the subset. One of the subsets is selected randomly with the probability weights. A player chooses a subsets that can ideally lead to the maximum utility improvement. The same baseline and upper bounds as the two-players game are also used for the four-players games.
The results for MRG with visiting probability of 0 and RPG with visiting probability of 0.5 have a significant gain comparing to the results with 'default' utilization pattern. However, comparison with the upper bounds indicates that there is still room for improvement.
On the other hand, Figures~\ref{fig:convFourOprsMRG} and~\ref{fig:convFourOprsRPG} show the number of iteration until the four-players MRG and RPG converge. The convergenceforthe sequential game summarized in Algorithm~\ref{alg:SeqNpe} is referred as 'MDSG' and the one in in Algorithm~\ref{alg:2} as 'SDSG'. The results indicate that the convergence of both the MRG and RPG games takes few iterations in most cases.
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{cnvIterations_MRG_Oprs_4_sched_PF_visProb_0p.pdf}
\caption{Four-players MRG. Visiting probability = 0.}
\label{fig:convFourOprsMRG}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[hbtp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=0.3]{cnvIterations_RPG_Oprs_4_sched_PF_visProb_50p.pdf}
\caption{Four-players RPG. Visiting probability = 0.5.}
\label{fig:convFourOprsRPG}
\end{figure}
\section{Conclusion}
\label{sec:Con}
In this paper, we have proposed a game for resource allocation between operators, who are allowed to form several coalitions simultaneously. The game was proven to have a Nash equilibrium, via geometric methods. When the game is played sequentially between greedy players, it was shown that the outcome converges, and even converges fast in a given example setting. Moreover, in our simulated setting, the outcome appears to be close to a Pareto-optimal distribution, as selected by a centralized coordinator. Further research is needed to prove (near) Pareto-optimality as well as to study the game with transparent and transferable utilities.
\section*{Appendix A: Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:linear}}
\begin{IEEEproof}
The set \[\tilde{\mathcal{F}}=\mathcal{F}\cap(\cap_{n\in \mathcal{N}}I_n),\] over which the maximal is taken, is the intersection of a convex polytope $\mathcal{F}$ with convex polyhedra. Hence, it is a convex polytope in its own right. To prove that the objective function \[\sum_{S \subset {\cal N}} |\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S|\] is linear on the feasible set, we rewrite it as \[\sum_{S \subset {\cal N}} \alpha_S(\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S),\] where \[\alpha_S=\left\{
\begin{split} &1 &\hbox{ if } \mathbf{a}_{nS}>\mathbf{b}^0_S \hbox{ for all } n\in S \\
& -1 &\hbox{ if } \mathbf{a}_{nS}>\mathbf{b}^0_S \hbox{ for all } n\in S \\
& 0 & \hbox{ otherwise }.
\end{split}
\right.\]
By the definition of $I_n$, we see that if $\mathbf{a}_{nS} - \mathbf{b}^0_S$ has different signs for different $n\in S$, then $b_S=b_S^0$ is the only feasible value for $b_S$, so \[|\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S|=0\] for all $\mathbf{b}\in \tilde{\mathcal{F}}$ On the other hand, if for some $n\in S$ we have $\mathbf{a}_{nS} > \mathbf{b}^0_S$, then all feasible $\mathbf{b}$ will have $\mathbf{b}_S\geq\mathbf{b}^0_S$, so \[|\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S|=1\cdot(\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S)\] on $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}$. Analogously, if $\mathbf{a}_{nS} < \mathbf{b}^0_S$, then \[|\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S|=-1\cdot(\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S)\] on $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}$ Hence we have \[\sum_{S \subset {\cal N}} |\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S| = \sum_{S \subset {\cal N}} \alpha_S(\mathbf{b}_S - \mathbf{b}^0_S)\] on $\tilde{\mathcal{F}}$. This proves the theorem.
\end{IEEEproof}
\label{sec:AppA}
\section*{Appendix B: CoMP scheduler}
\label{sec:AppB}
In Section~\ref{sec:AppInt}, it is shown that the utility of the operators is concave function in the resource utilization pattern assuming there is no cooperative transmission among the transmitters. In this appendix, we show that the result hold also if the transmitters of a player apply cooperative multi-point transmission (CoMP).
Assume the transmitters of an operator have a centralized scheduler. The transmitters can cooperatively serve the users in $C_n$ ways where $C_n = \sum_{k = 1}^{\min(U_n,V_n)} U_n!/n!(U_n-n)!$. Recall from Section~\ref{sec:AppInt} that $U_n$ denotes the number of users of operator $n$ and $V_n$ denotes its number of transmitters.
With this setting, the spectral efficiency of a user depends on the set of users with whom it is scheduler. The inter-operator interference is, however, colored unless the operator apply a unitary precoder, see e.g.~\cite{Hailu2014}. If the interference is colored, the operator might be assumed to estimate the inter-operator interference based on expected values. With this assumption, let $\mu_{uc{\cal S}}$ denote the spectral efficiency of user $u$ when the transmitters cooperatively serve the users in user group ${\cal C}_c \subseteq {\cal U}_n$ where $c \in \{1,\hdots,C_n\}$. Note that $\mu_{uc{\cal S}} = 0$ if user $u$ is not a member of the user group ${\cal C}_c$.
Thus, the rate of a user becomes
\begin{equation}
r_u = \sum_{{\cal S}\in{\cal P}_n} \sum_{c=1}^{C_n} w_{uc{\cal S}} \mu_{uc{\cal S}}
\end{equation}
where $w_{uc{\cal S}}$ the resource allocated to user group $c$ from the resource $b_{\cal S}$. Now, the resource allocation matrix $W$ is a $U_n \times C_n \times |{\cal P}_n|$ matrix. The utility of a player becomes
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
g_n(\mathbf{b}) = & \hspace{1mm} \underset{\mathbf{W}}{\sup }
& & \sum_{u\in {\cal U}_n} f(r_u)\\
& \text{subject to}
& & r_u = \sum_{{\cal S}\in{\cal P}_n} \sum_{c=1}^{C_n} w_{uc{\cal S}} \mu_{uc{\cal S}} \\
&&& \sum_{c=1}^{C_n} w_{uc{\cal S}} = b_{\cal S}, \quad {\cal S} \in {\cal P}_n \\
&&& \mathbf{W} \succeq 0
\end{aligned}.
\label{eq:sum utility comp}
\end{equation}
Observe that the utility of a player is a jointly concave function in $\mathbf{b}$ and $\mathbf{W}$ if it uses an $\alpha$-fair scheduler. The same technique as the proof for Proposition~\ref{pro:CocUti} can be used to prove that $g_n$ is a concave function in $\mathbf{b}$.
\section*{Appendix C: Centralized Scheduler}
\label{sec:AppC}
In the Section~\ref{sec:NumRes}, we included the result for centralized scheduler which determines the spectrum utilization patter for the operators such that the sum of the utilities of the players\footnote{The sum utility can be changed into a weighted sum of the utilities of the players in a straight forward manner.} is maximized. The sum utility can be maximized such that the instantaneous reciprocity is fulfilled as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{b}^* = & \hspace{4mm}\argmax[\mathbf{b}]
& & \sum_{n \in \cal N} g_n(\mathbf{b}) \\
& \hspace{4mm} \text{subject to}
& & \sum_{S\in{\cal P}_n} \frac{b_S}{|S|} = \frac1N \quad \forall n \in {\cal N} \\
&&& \mathbf{b} \succeq 0.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:CS_SR}
\end{equation}
Such a centralized scheduler might be opted by the operators, for example, if they don't have symmetric loads.
On the other hand, the operators might opt for a centralized scheduler with long-term reciprocity, i.e. the expected favors that are given and taken by each operator is equal. The resource usage pattern in this case is given as
\begin{equation}
\begin{aligned}
\mathbf{b}^* = & \hspace{4mm}\argmax[\mathbf{b}]
& & \sum_{n \in \cal N} g_n(\mathbf{b}) \\
& \hspace{4mm} \text{subject to}
& & \sum_{S \subset {\cal N}} b_S = 1~ \\
&&& \mathbf{b} \succeq 0.
\end{aligned}
\label{eq:CS_LR}
\end{equation}
Such a scheduler is especially beneficial if the operators have a symmetric load.
Note that the objective function of both~\eqref{eq:CS_SR} and~\eqref{eq:CS_LR} is concave function as it is a sum of concave functions. The centralized scheduler may also need to know the spectral efficiencies of the users of the operators in order to obtain the utility function of the players as a function resource utilization pattern and solve the problem.
\section*{Acknowledgment}
This work was supported in part by the European Commission in the
framework of the H2020 project ICT-671639 COHERENT.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Introduction}
FEAST \cite{polizziFEAST,tangFEAST} is a subspace iteration algorithm
for solving eigenvalue problems
\begin{equation}
Ax=\lambda Bx,\ \ A \in \mathbb{R}^{n \times n},
\end{equation}
\noindent by finding the eigenvectors $x$ whose
eigenvalues $\lambda$ lie in some interval ${\cal I}=(\lambda _{min},\lambda _{max} )$ of the user's choosing.
In this paper we consider the Hermitian standard eigenvalue problem for simplicity (i.e. $A=A^H$ and $B\equiv I$),
but the FEAST algorithm can be extended straight-forwardly to the generalized and non-Hermitian eigenvalue problems
as well \cite{kpt16}.
FEAST belongs to the broader family of
contour integration eigensolvers \cite{sakurai1,sakurai2,sakurai3,austin1}, but it can also be accurately described as an optimal subspace iteration procedure.
A conventional subspace iteration consists of multiplying a trial subspace by the matrix
$A$ and then orthogonalizing it with the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure; this process is repeated
iteratively until the subspace converges. The FEAST algorithm operates similarly,
but rather than multiplying the trial subspace by $A$, one instead multiplies the trial subspace by the spectral
projector matrix $\rho (A)$. The matrix $\rho (A)$ is given by the complex contour integral
\begin{align}
\rho (A) &= \frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\cal C} (zI-A)^{-1}dz,\ \label{contour_int}
\end{align}
\noindent where $\cal C$ is a closed contour in the complex plain that exactly encloses the
interval $\cal I$ on the real axis.
The function $\rho (\lambda)$ applied to a real number
$\lambda$ is a filter function that returns 1 when $\lambda \in \cal I$ and 0 otherwise.
As a result, the matrix $\rho (A)$ is a spectral projector whose image is the subspace
that is spanned by only the eigenvectors of $A$ whose eigenvalues lie in $\cal I$.
Multiplication of a vector by $\rho(A)$ projects it into that subspace, and in this
way the FEAST algorithm finds only the eigenvectors whose eigenvalues lie in
$\cal I$ \cite{tangFEAST}. The algorithm is outlined in Appendix.
The contour integral (\ref{contour_int}) has no
general analytical expression, so in practice the multiplication of a matrix
$X$ by $\rho (A)$ is approximated by using some numerical integration quadrature rule
\begin{align}
\rho (A)X = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{\cal C} (zI-A)^{-1}Xdz\ \approx \sum_{i=1}^{n_c} \omega _i (z_iI-A)^{-1}X, \label{contour_int_quad}
\end{align}
\noindent where $n_c$ is the number of quadrature points, and each term $(z_iI-A)^{-1}X$ is found by using a
linear system solver with
the column vectors of the matrix $X$ as the right hand sides of the linear system.
A variety of quadrature rules are possible; in this work we use Gauss quadrature.
The benefits of using FEAST over a traditional subspace iteration technique are twofold. The first benefit
is that, by finding only the eigenvectors whose eigenvalues lie in a certain interval, eigenvalue
problems can be solved in parallel by solving for the eigenvector/eigenvalue pairs in different intervals independently.
The second benefit has to do with the rate of convergence. In a subspace iteration algorithm operating on
a subspace of dimension $m_0$, the eigenvector with the $i^\text{th}$ largest eigenvalue magnitude $|\lambda_i|$
converges at a rate of $|\lambda_i|/|\lambda_{m_0+1}|$, where $\lambda_{m_0+1}$ is the eigenvalue with the
$(m_0+1)^\text{th}$ largest magnitude. For a typical subspace iteration this means that the rate of
convergence depends strongly on the eigenspectrum of $A$. By using FEAST, the rate of convergence
becomes $\rho(\lambda_i)/\rho(\lambda_{m_0+1})$ \cite{tangFEAST}, where $\lambda_i$ is now the eigenvalue
with the $i^\text{th}$ largest value of $\rho(\lambda)$, and $\lambda_{m_0+1}$ is the eigenvalue with
the $(m_0+1)^\text{th}$ largest value of $\rho(\lambda)$.
The ratio $\rho(\lambda_i)/\rho(\lambda_{m_0+1})$ can be made arbitrarily large by either increasing the
accuracy of the quadrature rule
(\ref{contour_int_quad}) by increasing $n_c$, or by increasing the size of the subspace $m_0$; the eigenpairs
anywhere in the spectrum can thus be found rapidly. It is not uncommon to be able to achieve
a convergence rate of $10^4$ with $n_c=8$ and a subspace size of $m_0\approx1.5m$, where $m$ is the exact
number of eigenvalues that lie in the interval~$\cal I$.
Because of these remarkable convergence properties, as well as its robustness and its ability to exploit parallelism at multiple levels, the FEAST algorithm and associated software package ({\em www.feast-solver.org}) have been very well received by the HPC community. The FEAST algorithm is currently featured as the principle HPC eigenvalue solver in the Intel Math Kernel Library (MKL).
The convergence rate of FEAST is not entirely insensitive to the spectrum of $A$, however.
In situations where the eigenvalues of $A$ are packed many times more closely together immediately outside
of $\cal I$ than they are inside of $\cal I$, the rate of convergence can be very slow. This is illustrated
in Figure \ref{rfplot}. The top plots in Figure \ref{rfplot} illustrate the situation where the density
of the eigenvalue spectrum is the same both inside and outside the interval $\cal I$, and the bottom plots
in Figure \ref{rfplot} illustrate the situation where the density is much larger outside of the interval
$\cal I$ than it is inside of the interval $\cal I$. The error at each FEAST subspace iteration is plotted
for several values of $n_c$ and $m_0$, and the corresponding values of $\lambda_{m_0+1}$ and $\rho(\lambda_{m_0+1})$
are indicated with horizontal dotted lines in the plots on the left in order to illustrate the effects of these
parameters on convergence for both the dense spectrum and the sparse spectrum.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{rfplot2.eps}
\caption{Two test cases illustrating the difference in the convergence rate of FEAST for a matrix with a sparsely
packed eigenvalue spectrum outside the contour interval (top plots) and a matrix with a densely packed eigenvalue
spectrum outside the contour interval (bottom plots). Each matrix is dimension 545 with 50 eigenvalues inside of
the contour interval and 495 eigenvalues outside of the contour interval. The plots on the right show the convergence
of the maximum eigenvector error for various values of the parameters $m_0$ and $n_c$. The plots on the left show
the value of $\rho(\lambda)$ for $n_c=$ 3 and $n_c= $8 plotted with solid and dashed curves, with the locations of
the eigenvalues of the matrix indicated by plot markers. The locations of $\lambda_{m0+1}$ and the values of
$\rho(\lambda_{m0+1})$ are indicated with dotted horizontal lines for the same several values of $m_0$ and $n_c$.
The matrix with the sparsely packed spectrum converges well, whereas the matrix with densely packed spectrum barely
converges at all.
}
\label{rfplot}
\end{figure}
Even in situations that are less pathological than the one illustrated in the bottom plot of Figure \ref{rfplot},
the varying density of the spectrum of $A$ can have negative implications for parallel load balancing.
We can find the eigenpairs of $A$ in parallel by dividing the spectrum of $A$ into several non-intersecting
intervals and then solving the eigenvalue problem for each interval separately and in parallel. When we do
this, some intervals may converge more quickly than others due to the varying density of the spectrum, even
if every interval contains the same number of eigenvalues. It is possible to speed up convergence in a given
interval by increasing $n_c$ or $m_0$, but this does not reduce the amount of computation required; increasing
$n_c$ or $m_0$ increases the number of linear systems that need to be solved with each iteration, and the
solution of the linear systems for the quadrature rule in equation (\ref{contour_int_quad}) is where most
of the computation in the FEAST algorithm occurs.
We would ideally like to be able to use parallel resources as efficiently as possible, performing the same amount
of computation for each interval in which we solve the eigenvalue problem. We therefore would like to
improve the convergence rate of FEAST in situations where the spectrum of $A$ results in slow or varying convergence
rates, but without having to solve additional linear systems in order to do so.
In Ref. \cite{zolotarev}, this problem is addressed with the introduction of the Zolotarev quadrature
that produces a very steep slope for the filter at the interval endpoints, which then leads to the same convergence
rate between different contours. The Zolotarev approach presents, however, few limitations. The first limitation is that the convergence rate is fixed and cannot be improved while increasing $m_0$, and it will thus underperform in comparison
with Gauss quadrature, for example, in situations where the spectrum is sparsely packed or uniformely distributed
(e.g. top plot of Figure \ref{rfplot});
The second limitation is that the Zolotarev approach cannot be extended to the non-Hermitian problem where the eigenvalues are located in the complex plane.
In this work we propose a more general set of alternatives that use ``accelerated subspace approach'' strategies in order to improve the convergence robustness of FEAST regardless of which quadrature rule is being used.
\section{Accelerating the FEAST Subspace Iteration}
Previous research \cite{gavinFEAST} and the observation that larger subspace sizes $m_0$ increase the
rate of convergence for FEAST suggest that we may be able to improve convergence by finding ways to increase
the size of the subspace that is used in the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure. If we can do this without having
to solve additional linear system right hand sides when performing the numerical quadrature in equation
(\ref{contour_int_quad}), then we may improve the convergence rate of FEAST without having to do too
much additional computation. In the following subsections we discuss two ways of expanding the FEAST
subspace size without solving additional linear systems.
\subsection{Method 1: Expand Subspace Using Previous Subspaces}
\label{xfeast_sec}
In a typical FEAST subspace iteration, the trial subspace $X_i$ from the previous iteration
is discarded and replaced with the filtered subspace $\rho (A)X_i$ (Step 1, FEAST Algorithm).
Rather than discarding the previous subspace $X_i$, we might instead append the new, filtered
subspace to the old one before performing the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure; by doing this we can
increase the dimension of the subspace by $m_0$ without having to solve additional linear
systems. Step 1 of FEAST might then look like this:
\medskip
\begin{minipage}{0.8\linewidth}
{\footnotesize
\begin{description}
\item[1.] Filter the trial subspace and append it to the columns of the old one:
\begin{center} $X'=[X_i\ \ \rho (A)X_i]$\end{center}
\end{description}
}
\end{minipage}
\medskip
\noindent where we form $X'$ by appending the column vectors of $\rho (A)X_i$ to the matrix for the previous
subspace $X_i$. We could repeat this process several times in order to build up a total subspace size of
$s \times m_0$, after which we could keep the subspace size constant by removing old subspaces before
adding new ones at each subspace iteration.
It would not be surprising if this modification of FEAST were to improve its the convergence rate; by
expanding the subspace in this way, we are essentially building a Krylov subspace technique wherein
we multiply our prospective subspace by powers of $\rho(A)$ rather than by powers of $A$.
If we modify step 1 of FEAST in this way then we have to make a few other modifications as well.
Step 2(i) of FEAST requires the solution of the reduced eigenvalue problem $A' q=\lambda B' q$,
so we need to ensure that $B'=X'^TX'$ is symmetric positive definite; because we append the
filtered subspace to the old one, this is no longer guaranteed. We therefore need to add
another step to FEAST: orthogonalize the matrix $X'$ before doing the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure.
This can be done by using the QR decomposition or the singular value decomposition (SVD) of $X'$.
For the research presented here, we orthogonalize $X'$ by taking its SVD and setting $X'$ equal
to the left singular vectors:
\begin{equation}
X'=U\Sigma V^T\ \rightarrow \ X'=U.
\end{equation}
\noindent In particular, we do this by diagonalizing $X'^TX'$
\begin{equation}
X'^TX'=V\Sigma ^2 V^T \rightarrow U=X'V\Sigma^{-1},
\end{equation}
\noindent and then retaining the first $m_0$ columns of $U$.
Although this is less numerically stable than QR, we have found that it offers performance benefits in terms of the speed of the
orthogonalization.
We call this algorithm 'expanding subspace FEAST'; see the XFEAST algorithm in Appendix.
The implementation of XFEAST we use in this paper also involves expanding the subspace to its full
size before doing the first Rayleigh-Ritz procedure. The subspace size can be increased incrementally,
with the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure being done in between each subspace expansion, but there is no reason
to do this unless one expects that the algorithm might converge before the subspace size has reached its limit.
The part of step {\bf 2(ii)} of XFEAST that specifies that one must select the desired eigenvectors is
required because the subspace $X$ is expanded beyond just the filtered subspace. In conventional FEAST
iterations the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure will find all of the $m$ eigenvectors whose eigenvalues are in
the interval $\cal I$, plus the $m_0-m$ eigenvectors whose eigenvalues are closest to, but still
outside of, $\cal I$. In XFEAST, because the subspace is expanded beyond the size $m_0$, the
Rayleigh-Ritz procedure will find all of those $m_0$ eigenpairs plus many more. Due to
numerical errors it may even find eigenpairs for the Rayleigh-Ritz matrix $A'$ that do
not exist for the original matrix $A$.
Since step {\bf 4(i)} of XFEAST requires a subspace of dimension $m_0$ to filter with $\rho(A)$
for the next iteration, we must select $m_0$ of the $s\times m_0$ eigenpairs that are produced
by step {\bf 2(i)}. Here, we are using a few steps of sorting.
First, we calculate the error residuals for all $s\times m_0$ eigenpairs from {\bf 2(i)}.
We then select all of the eigenpairs whose eigenvalues lie inside the interval
${\cal I}=(\lambda _{min}, \lambda _{max})$.
If fewer than $m_0$ eigenpairs are found whose eigenvalues lie inside the contour interval,
we then select additional eigenpairs from outside the contour as well, preferentially
selecting those eigenpairs with the lowest residuals.
\subsection{Method 2: Expand Subspace Using Eigenvector Residuals}
The other piece of information that the typical FEAST iteration generates (and which is otherwise discarded)
is the eigenvector error residuals. Step 3 of the normal FEAST algorithm computes the eigenvector
error residuals $r_k=Ax_k-\lambda _k x_k$, and uses the one with the largest norm as a measure of
the accuracy of the current subspace estimate.
Because the current eigenpair estimates provided at each iteration of FEAST come from the
Rayleigh-Ritz procedure,
the inner product of any of the estimated eigenvectors with any of the residual vectors is zero:
$x_j^Tr_k=0,\ \forall \ 1\leq j,k\leq m_0$. One can show this by using the fact that $x_k=X'q_k$:
\begin{align}
\begin{split}
x_j^Tr_k &=x_j^TAx_k-x_j^T\lambda_k x_k \\
&=q_j^TX'^TAX'q_k-\lambda_k q_j^TX'^TX'q_k\\
&=\delta_{jk}\lambda_k - \lambda_k \delta_{jk}=0.
\end{split}
\end{align}
\noindent If $R$ is the matrix of column vectors $r_k$, then its column vectors span a subspace that
is orthogonal to the current estimated solution subspace $X$. We can therefore perform another
Rayleigh-Ritz procedure in the subspace spanned by the combined columns of $X$ and $R$ without
having to orthogonalize the column vectors of $R$ with respect to those of $X$ in order to
ensure that $X'^TX'$ is symmetric positive definite. This allows us to improve the estimated
subspace without having to solve any additional linear systems and without having to do any
orthogonalization procedure. A modified FEAST algorithm using this approach is given in the RFEAST algorithm in Appendix.
Again, it would not be surprising if adding eigenvector residuals to the subspace were to help improve the convergence rate; the eigenvalue algorithm LOBPCG \cite{knyazev2001toward} also works by including an eigenvector residual block in the search subspace.
Step {\bf 2(ii)} of RFEAST again requires that we select the desired eigenpairs from amongst
the ones produced by the Rayleigh-Ritz procedure. This is done in the same way as for XFEAST.
Measuring the error on the estimated subspace for RFEAST generally requires more care than in
XFEAST or FEAST. The Rayleigh-Ritz procedure for RFEAST tends to produce many eigenpairs
that do not exist in the spectrum of the full size matrix $A$ due to numerical error, and
many of these spurious eigenpairs have eigenvalues that fall inside the interval $\cal I$.
In order to return the correct estimated eigenpairs and estimate the error on them, we must
select only the eigenpairs inside $\cal I$ that are not spurious. We do this by determining
how many eigenpairs we should expect to find in that interval, and then taking that number
of eigenpairs inside $\cal I$ with the lowest residuals to be the eigenpairs of interest.
We determine the number of eigenpairs to expect by counting the number of eigenpairs found
during the first Rayleigh-Ritz procedure of each subspace iteration (i.e. during iteration
$j=1$ in step {\bf 2} of RFEAST); the subspace used for the first Rayleigh-Ritz procedure
is just the conventional FEAST subspace, and so we will not yet have produced the
proliferation of spurious eigenpairs that comes from expanding the subspace by
using the eigenvector residuals.
\section{Results and Comparisons}
\label{results_section}
We demonstrate the convergence properties of these modified FEAST algorithms with several example matrices.
Figure \ref{rxf_vs_f_both} shows the eigenvector error residual at each subspace iteration of the FEAST,
XFEAST, and RFEAST algorithms as applied to two different real symmetric matrices, for several different
subspace sizes. Both matrices are dimension 545 and have the same eigenvectors, with 50 eigenvalues
inside the FEAST interval $\cal I=$[-1,1].
One matrix, labeled ``Sparse'' in Figure \ref{rxf_vs_f_both}, has the other 495 eigenvalues in the interval
[1.01, 20.81], whereas the one labeled ``Dense'' has those 495 eigenvalues in the interval [1.01, 1.1].
That is, the ``Sparse'' matrix has sparsely-packed eigenvalues outside of $\cal I$, and the ``Dense''
matrix has densely-packed eigenvalues outside of $\cal I$.
For the FEAST iterations the value of $m_0$ is the same as the subspace size, whereas for the XFEAST
and RFEAST iterations $m_0$ is always set at 51, and the full subspace size is generated by one or
the other subspace expansion method. XFEAST and RFEAST thus solve the same number of linear systems
for each contour integration, regardless of the subspace size, whereas FEAST solves more linear
systems for larger subspace sizes.
Despite solving many fewer linear system right hand sides per iteration (the number of linear system
right hand sides per iteration is $n_c\times m_0$), XFEAST and RFEAST outperform FEAST for the ``Dense''
matrix on a per-subspace iteration basis. This is not the case for the ``Sparse'' matrix. Nonetheless,
even for the ``Sparse'' matrix, XFEAST and RFEAST do a similar amount of total computation for a given
level of convergence.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\textbf{FEAST Iterations for Sparse and Dense Eigenspectra}
\end{center}
\par
\medskip
\includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{RXFvsF_m0_both}
\caption{Plots showing the eigenvector error residual versus number of contour integrations for each of
the three FEAST variations for various subspace dimensions. The top row of plots show the results when
using a matrix with a densely packed eigenspectrum outside of the FEAST interval, and the bottom row of
plots show the results when using a matrix with a sparsely packed eigenspectrum outside of the FEAST
interval. Both matrices are dimension 545, and we search for 50 eigenvalues. The number above each
plot indicates the size of the subspace being used.
The ``Dense'' results are for $n_c=8$ and the ``Sparse'' results are for $n_c=3$; convergence is too fast
for good illustration with $n_c=8$ for the ``Sparse'' matrix. }
\label{rxf_vs_f_both}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{rxf_vs_f_linsys} shows the amount of eigenvector error per number of linear system right
hand sides solved for the same two matrices, for various values of $m_0$ and $n_c$. The advantages of
XFEAST and RFEAST are especially clear here; the rate of convergence per linear system right hand side
solved, which is the majority of the computation in the FEAST algorithm, depends primarily on which
algorithm is used in the case of the ``Dense'' matrix, with XFEAST and RFEAST clearly outperforming FEAST.
XFEAST and RFEAST also outperform FEAST for the ``Sparse'' spectrum matrix, but here the difference is less dramatic.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\textbf{Eigenvector Residual vs. \# Linear RHS Solved}
\end{center}
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{RXFvsF_linsys}
\caption{Plots showing eigenvector residual versus the number of linear system right hand sides solved to
reach that level of convergence, for
both a matrix with a dense eigenspectrum outside the interval of interest and a matrix with a sparse
eigenspectrum outside the interval of interest,
using FEAST, XFEAST, and RFEAST for various subspace sizes $m_0$ and numbers of quadrature points $n_c$.
XFEAST and RFEAST consistently require fewer linear system solutions than regular FEAST does in order
to reach the same level of accuracy, with the difference being fairly dramatic in the dense eigenspectrum case.}
\label{rxf_vs_f_linsys}
\end{figure}
Figure \ref{caf_cont} illustrates the results of solving an eigenvalue problem whose spectrum derives
from electronic structure calculations \cite{zolotarev,levin}. Our work here has been motivated by applications of this kind.
The left plot of Figure \ref{caf_cont} shows the density of the eigenspectrum of the Hamiltonian matrix
for the ground state of of a Caffeine molecule. The density of the eigenspectrum shows several distinct
peaks, and one potential partitioning of the spectrum into two intervals is shown with red and blue lines.
The right plot of Figure \ref{caf_cont} shows the convergence trajectory when FEAST is used on each of these
intervals separately. For the interval encompassed by Contour 2 (shown in red), the rightmost edge of which
passes through a very dense region in the eigenspectrum, we also show the result of using XFEAST and RFEAST
in order to try to achieve better convergence than is possible with FEAST.
The first interval (shown in blue), which has no eigenvalues immediately near its edges, converges rapidly,
much like the second and third columns of the sparse example in Figure \ref{rxf_vs_f_both}. The second interval,
which has its upper limit passing through the middle of a dense group of eigenvalues, converges very slowly when
using FEAST. This is the sort of problem that we seek to address.
\begin{figure}[h!]
\centering
\textbf{FEAST Applied to Electronic Structure Spectrum}
\medskip
\includegraphics[width=\linewidth]{Caf_cont1cont2}
\caption{Plots showing the application of the FEAST variations to a matrix derived from electronic structure
theory. Left plot shows the density of the eigenspectrum of the matrix, divided into two intervals, and the right plot shows the
convergence of the eigenvector
error for the various FEAST algorithms applied to the two intervals. The 14 eigenpairs in the "Contour 1 Interval" were calculated using a base subspace size of $m_0=17$, and the 43 eigenpairs in the "Contour 2 Interval" were calculated by using a base subspace size of $m_0=46$. Both the XFEAST and the RFEAST runs for "Contour Interval 2" use a total subspace size of $3m_0$, with the subspace having expanded twice by using either the previous FEAST iteration solutions or the eigenvector residuals.
}
\label{caf_cont}
\end{figure}
Using XFEAST and RFEAST, we can improve the final eigenvector error residual for the second, more challenging
interval by more than four orders of magnitude. Still, this does not achieve ideal load balancing because the
first interval has both of its edges in regions that are completely empty of eigenvalues, and so it converges
very quickly. Better load balancing can only be achieved by dividing the spectrum in a less arbitrary way, which
will require that we estimate the spectrum of a matrix before diagonalizing it. This is a subject of continuing
research.
\section{Conclusion}
The results in Section \ref{results_section} show that we can indeed improve the convergence rate of FEAST
without solving additional linear systems by expanding the FEAST subspace through other means. This is
particularly helpful in situations where the spectrum of the matrix at hand makes convergence difficult.
Doing so comes at the price of having to use additional memory to store the expanded subspace; when using
enough parallelism (and therefore a large enough number of intervals), however, we expect that memory
will not be a constraint because the initial size of the subspace for each interval can be made almost
arbitrarily small. As the results in Figure \ref{caf_cont} show, though, this alone is not yet a fully
satisfactory solution for achieving load balancing.
Future work will consist of using this research to build on the efforts of others in order to estimate the
eigenvalue distribution of a matrix \cite{stochasticEst} and efficiently divide the eigenvalue interval
of interest \cite{kajpust}. We expect that, by combining our work here with these techniques for measuring
and dividing and the eigenvalue spectrum of a matrix, we can achieve ideal load balancing in an automated
way for arbitrary matrices.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors wish to acknowledge helpful discussions
with Dr. Ping Tak Peter Tang and Dr. Yousef Saad.
This material is supported by NSF under Grant \#CCF-1510010.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Introduction}
Markarian~421 (Mrk~421) is a high-frequency peaked BL Lac object (HBL) at a redshift of $z$=0.030 \citep{1999ApJ...525..176P}. It was the first extragalactic TeV emitter to be detected \citep{1992Natur.358..477P}.
Blazars are Active Galactic Nuclei (AGN) where the jet is aligned to our line-of-sight. This means that it is possible to observe very high energy (VHE) $\gamma$-rays that are produced inside the jets and relativistically beamed in our direction. Additionally, AGN emit radiation over the whole electromagnetic spectrum, from radio wavelengths to VHE $\gamma$-rays.
Blazars feature a spectral energy distribution (SED) with a two-bump structure. The low energy component is due to the synchrotron radiation caused by electrons of the relativistic beam, while the high energy peaked bump is attributed to other interactions. This can be the Compton scattering of less energetic photons by the same electron population in leptonic scenarios or these photons could be produced inside hadronic interactions of e.g. protons in the jet. In HBL objects as Mrk~421, the Synchrotron bump covers the energy range from radio to X-ray wavelengths while the peak can be found between UV and X-ray wavelengths. The second bump extends from low-energy $\gamma$-rays to VHE $\gamma$-rays.
A characteristic feature of blazars, and of Mrk~421 in particular, is that they show states of high activity in which the emitted electromagnetic radiation can increase by more than one order of magnitude on time scales ranging from years down to minutes. During high states blazars often show significant spectral flux changes, and up to some extent, correlated flux variations in the low- and high-energy bumps. This blazar variability is an extraordinary opportunity to break degeneracies between the various emission models. Different models produce flux variations (at a given energy band) with particles of different energies, cooling times, and cross sections for different processes, and thus are in principle distinguishable. It is also important to note that the blazar emission zone is unresolved for all instruments (with perhaps the exception of radio VLBA interferometric observations), and hence variability is the only way of probing its structure. Therefore, while ``snapshot'' multi-wavelength (MWL) spectra provide us with clues on the emission mechanisms and physical parameters inside relativistic jets, detailed studies of time variability bring us additional information on the emission mechanisms and on the structure and the dynamics of the jet itself.
Mrk~421 has shown periods of large X-ray and $\gamma$-ray activity of various time scales, as reported previously in various publications (e.g. \citet{1996Natur.383..319G, 2004ApJ...605..662C, 2010A&A...524A..48T}).
Mrk~421 has been the target of several past MWL campaigns, with the correlation between X-rays and TeV $\gamma$-rays as one of the key features under investigation. The details in the correlation between these two bands in Mrk~421 is crucial because it relates to the energy regions where most of the power is emitted (approximately the peaks of the two SED bumps), and hence the regions of the SED which can best distinguish between different theoretical scenarios.
A direct correlation between X-rays and TeV $\gamma$-rays has been reported multiple times during flaring activity (\citet{1995ApJ...449L..99M, 1996ApJ...472L...9B, 2004NewAR..48..419F, 2007ApJ...663..125A, 2011ApJ...734..110B, 2008ApJ...677..906F, 2009ApJ...691L..13D, 2011ApJ...736..131A, 2011ApJ...738...25A, 2013PASJ...65..109C, 2015A&A...578A..22A}). Recently, \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A} and \citet{2016ApJ...819..156B} also reported the existence of this correlation during low activity.
\citet{2005ApJ...630..130B, 2009ApJ...695..596H} were able to constrain the correlation to time differences below 1.5 days. These results are in agreement with the Synchrotron-Self-Compton (SSC) model, where the photons from both X-ray and $\gamma$-ray energies are produced by the same electron population. Other authors reported orphan flares in TeV $\gamma$-rays without an X-ray counterpart, which were observed in Mrk~421 during a MWL campaign in 2003 and 2004 \citep{2005ApJ...630..130B}, unable to be explained by the SSC model. In \citet{2009ApJ...703..169A} a correlation between TeV and X-rays is not found, and a possible hadronic origin of the emission is discussed. However, this correlation study relates to short observations (two half-day long observations) with very low variability. The X-ray emission was accurately characterized with continuous XMM observations, and flux variations at the level of 10\% could be significantly resolved. Yet the TeV $\gamma$-ray measurements covered only a small fraction of the XMM observations, and had relatively large error bars. Therefore, the presented X-ray/TeV correlation results in \citet{2009ApJ...703..169A} were not conclusive, and show very clearly the importance of having long, well sampled and sensitive TeV $\gamma$-ray observations to perform this kind of studies.\\
Other energy bands are not evidently correlated with X-rays and TeV $\gamma$-rays. \citet{1995ApJ...449L..99M, 2007ApJ...663..125A, 2013PASJ...65..109C} report about a missing correlation of the optical and UV emission to the X-ray and TeV $\gamma$-ray emission. Confirming the trend of a strong correlation between X-rays and VHE, the work of \citet{2016ApJ...819..156B} also reports a lack of correlation between optical/UV and X-rays, and moreover ascribes the observed broadband variability features during low activity to in situ electron acceleration in multiple compact regions. In \citet{2009ApJ...695..596H} a correlation with a time lag between the optical and the TeV $\gamma$-ray light curves is found, once with the optical features leading the TeV features and once vice versa, but the likelihood to have observed the optical leading and lagging the TeV features by chance is 20\% and 60\% respectively. In \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A} an anti-correlation between the optical and UV light curves with the X-ray light curves is reported, but with the possibility that might have been found by chance, proposing a dedicated correlation analysis over many years in order to properly characterize the temporal evolution of the optical and X-ray/TeV $\gamma$-ray bands.\\
An evidence of a correlation between radio and $\gamma$-ray activity was reported in \citet{2003A&A...410..101K}, where the study of a single radio outburst with a X-ray and TeV $\gamma$-ray counterpart in February-March 2001 is presented. The author models a scenario in which the acceleration of electrons in the middle part of the jet describes well the temporal evolution of such a multispectral flare.\\
In the more recent work of \citet{2014A&A...571A..54L} a marginally significant correlation between radio and GeV $\gamma$-rays (without time lag) is reported. This study used observations spanning many months from 2011, when Mrk~421 did not show any flaring activity, hence suggesting a co-location of the radio and $\gamma$-ray emission of Mrk~421 during typical (low) activity.\\
A different result is derived from the outstanding radio activity observed in September 2012, where Mrk~421 showed a particularly symmetric flare profile, with the highest radio flux measured in three decades, as reported in \citet{2014MNRAS.445..428M} and \citet{2015MNRAS.448.3121H}. Both works assume that this giant radio flare is physically connected to a large $\gamma$-ray flaring activity measured by \textit{Fermi}-LAT about one month before, and \citet{2014MNRAS.445..428M} uses this time difference to locate the origin of the $\gamma$-ray emission upstream of the radio emission.\\
Because of the above-mentioned complexity and sometimes controversy in the multi-band flux variations and correlations observed during relatively short (weeks to months) campaigns, one needs very long (multi-year) campaigns in order to put things into context. In this paper we report an extensive study of the multi-band flux variability of Mrk~421 during the 2.3 year long period that spans from February 2007 to July 2009. We adopted the methodology reported in \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A}, which had been applied in a much shorter multi-instrument data set.
There are several publications that report studies with the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission of Mrk~421 during the above mentioned 2.3 year long period; yet they typically relate to smaller temporal intervals. For instance, \citet{2012A&A...542A.100A} reported MAGIC observations of a high active state performed from December 2007 to June 2008, and \citet{2011ApJ...736..131A} and \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A} reported results related to observations from a 4.5 months long time interval from January to June 2009. A very interesting study using Whipple~10m observations performed from December 1995 to May 2009 was reported in \citet{2014APh....54....1A}, which allowed to study the duty cycle and to evaluate the VHE emission and its correlation with the X-ray emission. The study that we report in this paper relates to a time period that is (almost) contained in \citet{2014APh....54....1A}, but it provides a large number of improvements such as the larger sensitivity of MAGIC with respect to Whipple~10m, which allows to resolve the VHE flux with smaller uncertainties, and hence to study the variability and its correlation on shorter time scales (2-days). Moreover, in this paper we apply a more sophisticated treatment to quantify variability and correlations (adopted from \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A}), and we extend the study to extensive light curves collected at radio, optical and hard X-rays (above 15 keV), hence overall giving a more complete picture of the year-long multi-band flux variability of Mrk~421 than the one given in \citet{2014APh....54....1A}.\\
The paper is organised as follows. Section~\ref{sec:MAGICMrk421} describes the MAGIC observations, as well as the analysis and results obtained. Section~\ref{sec:Bayesian} describes the application of the Bayesian Block algorithm to the MAGIC data, and the resulting quantification of the flux variability and identification of several VHE flares. The Bayesian block is a well established methodology, but this is the first time that it is applied to VHE data. Section~\ref{sec:other} describes the extensive observations of Mrk~421 performed at radio, optical and X-rays, and in Sections~\ref{sec:Variability} and \ref{sec:Correlations} we report the quantification of the multi-band variability and its correlations. Finally, in Section~\ref{sec:Summary} and \ref{sec:Discussion} we summarise and discuss the results presented.
\section{MAGIC observations of Mrk~421}
\label{sec:MAGICMrk421}
\subsection{The MAGIC telescopes}
\label{subsec:MAGIC}
The MAGIC (Major Atmospheric Gamma-ray Imaging Cherenkov) telescopes are a system of two Cherenkov telescopes with a mirror diameter of 17\,m each. They are situated at the ORM (Observatory Roque de los Muchachos) on the Canary Island of La Palma at a height of 2200\,m above sea level.
In 2004 the MAGIC-I telescope was commissioned and started its observations in single telescope mode. The performance during the stand-alone operation of MAGIC-I was presented in \citet{2008ApJ...674.1037A} and \citet{2009APh....30..293A}. Stereoscopic data were taken after the second telescope, MAGIC-II, was commissioned in 2009, and a major upgrade of the MAGIC telescopes was performed in 2012 \citep{2016APh....72...61A,2016APh....72...76A}.
\subsection{Observations and data analysis}
\label{subsec:observations}
Mrk~421, one of the strongest and brightest extragalactic sources, is observed by MAGIC on a regular basis. The source is observable from late November to June from the MAGIC latitude. In this analysis data of Mrk~421 of MAGIC-I in single telescope operation from 8th March 2007 (MJD~54167) to 15th June 2009 (MJD~54997), a time span of over two years, were examined. The overall amount of good quality data taken in Wobble mode \citep{1994APh.....2..137F} are 95.6 hours distributed over 95 observation nights. The data cover a zenith angle range from 9$^\circ$ to 45$^\circ$. Data with too bright sky conditions and bad weather conditions were excluded. The data analysis was carried out using the standard MAGIC analysis chain MARS (MAGIC Analysis and Reconstruction Software) \citep{Zanin2013}. During the selected time span an integral sensitivity as low as 1.6\% of the Crab Nebula flux is reached and the energy resolution is $\sim$ 20\% \citep{2009APh....30..293A}.
\subsection{Measured VHE $\gamma$-ray flux}
\label{subsec:MAGICresults}
The light curve of Mrk~421 measured by MAGIC-I is binned nightly and is shown in both Figure~\ref{fig:BB} and in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves}.
The light curve is naturally divided into three observation cycles due to the observability gaps of Mrk~421 from the end of June to the end of November each year with the MAGIC telescopes. The three time periods will be called Period~1 for data from February 2007 to August 2007, Period~2 for data from September 2007 to beginning of September 2008, and Period~3 for data from beginning of September 2008 to July 2009. In Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves} these three periods are marked. The light curve shows different levels of source flux and variability in these three time spans. In Period~1 and in Period~3 the flux is clearly at a lower level than in Period~2. \\
During Period~1 the average flux of the six data points is at a level of \mbox{(0.38$\pm$0.03)\,CU}\footnote{A Crab Unit is defined here as a flux of $8.08 \cdot 10^{-11}$\,cm$^{-2}$s$^{-1}$ in the energy range from 400\,GeV to 50\,TeV \citep{2008ApJ...674.1037A}.}. The flux is variable with variations up to a factor of 2 around the average flux. During Period~2 the flux is at a high average level of \mbox{(1.38$\pm$0.02)\,CU} and it seldomly falls below 1\,CU. The light curve shows a high variability with flux variations of about a factor of 3 around the average. The flux varies between the lowest value of \mbox{(0.4$\pm$0.1)\,CU} on 17th December 2007 and the maximum value of \mbox{(3.8$\pm$0.1)\,CU} on 31st March 2008 (MJD~54556). During Period~3 the average VHE $\gamma$-ray flux is \mbox{(0.61$\pm$0.01)\,CU} with variations of up to a factor of $\sim$ 2.\\
The time-averaged fluxes detected by MAGIC for the three identified observation periods are comparable to the ones measured by the Whipple~10m telescope for the seasons 2006-2007, 2007-2008, and 2008-2009 respectively, which were reported in \citet{2014APh....54....1A}. The Whipple telescope detected a flux of \mbox{(0.28$\pm$0.02)\,CU} for the 2006-2007 data, which is at a comparable level with the \mbox{(0.38$\pm$0.03)\,CU} for Period~1 of the MAGIC data (here it has to be noted that the Whipple observations cover a larger time span, which already starts in 2006). Then an average flux of \mbox{(1.46$\pm$0.09)\,CU} is reported by Whipple in 2007-2008, similar to the value of \mbox{(1.38$\pm$0.02)\,CU} for Period~2, confirming the higher flux state. For the 2008-2009 season, the Whipple flux was \mbox{(0.55$\pm$0.03)\,CU}, which is comparable to the average flux of \mbox{(0.61$\pm$0.01)\,CU} in Period~3 measured by MAGIC.
In summary, during the three observation periods covered in this paper, Mrk~421 showed three clearly distinct VHE flux levels, with different apparent levels of variability. A quantitative evaluation of the VHE flux variability in these three periods is reported in sections 3 and 5, following the prescriptions given in \citet{1998ApJ...504..405S}, \citet{2013ApJ...764..167S} and \citet{2015A&A...573A..50A}.
\section{Bayesian Blocks}
\label{sec:Bayesian}
We applied the Bayesian Block algorithm \citep{1998ApJ...504..405S, 2013ApJ...764..167S} to the TeV light curve of Mrk~421. The algorithm generates a block-wise constant representation of a sequential data series by identifying statistically significant variations, and is suitable to characterize local variability in astronomical light curves, even when not evenly sampled.
The optimal segmentation (defined by its change points) maximizes the goodness-of-fit with a certain model for the data lying in a block. The method requires a prior probability distribution parameter (ncp$_{\text{prior}}$) for the number of changing points (N$_{\text{cp}}$), a kind of smoothing parameter derived from the assumption that $\text{N}_{\text{cp}} \ll \text{N}$, the number of measurements. A false-positive rate (p$_0$) is associated to the choice ncp$_{\text{prior}}$.
The false-positive rate was chosen to be p$_0$=0.01, leading to a ncp$_{\text{prior}}$=3.92. We obtained the 39 blocks representation for 95 data points shown as a red dotted line in Figure \ref{fig:BB} on top of the flux points measured by MAGIC (black dots). The height of each block is the weighted average of all integral fluxes belonging to it.
\begin{figure*}[tb!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.99\textwidth]{Mrk421_2007-2009_lightcurve_BB_final.ps}
\caption{Bayesian Blocks representation of the MAGIC light curve (black dots) from March 2007 to June 2009. The red dotted line defines the different identified blocks. The inlay shows a zoomed version for the time range from December 2007 to June 2008, the high active Period~2. The long flat lines with no sampling between a data point and a new block do not guarantee a stable flux.}
\label{fig:BB}
\end{figure*}
An advantage of the Bayesian Block algoritm is that it is able to identify significant changes in data series independently of variations in gaps or exposure. Therefore, no information on true or important flux changes is lost, as it can happen when applying other techniques where the data series is binned in predefined temporal intervals.
This is the first time that the Bayesian Block algorithm was applied to a VHE $\gamma$-ray light curve. We use the results to estimate the variability level of the light curve in the different observation periods and to define flares. To quantify the variability for each period, we can simply determine the ratio of resulting number of blocks and the number of data points. A higher ratio implies a higher flux variability. All six data points from Period~1 belong to the same initial block. This ratio of 1/6 indicates a low variability during this period. The lack of additional blocks during this period may also be related to the very low number of data points. The high activity in Period~2 is evident by the 30 blocks detected for 56 data points during this time period by the algorithm (see inlay of Figure~\ref{fig:BB}). The resulting ratio of 30/56, which is slightly above 0.5, shows that the light curve is substantially more variable than Period~1. In Period~3 we have an 8-block representation for 33 data points, which is a ratio of $\sim$0.24. This lower variability of the light curve during this period shows a milder activity of the AGN than in Period~2. An additional discussion on the variability will be given in Section~\ref{sec:Variability}.\\
It is of great interest to identify flaring activities in light curves, but the definition of a flare is somewhat arbitrary and, since blazars vary on time scales from years down to minutes, a definition is strongly biased by the prejudice of the temporal bins used to produce the light curves. It is easy to miss flaring activities in light curves with ``too large'' temporal bins (if the variability occurs on small time scales) or in light curves with ``too small'' temporal bins (if the flux values are dominated by statistical uncertainties). In this context, the Bayesian Block algorithm benefits from a more suitable temporal split (according to the true variability), and hence it can be used as a very efficient method to find flares. In the following, VHE $\gamma$-ray flares are defined as a flux rise of at least a factor of 2. This comparison is based on the block heights, i.e. the weighted average flux of all data points in one block. A flare can include several rising steps in a row, which add up to a local maximum in flux. Subsequently, the flux decreases to a lower flux, which can happen on a daily or longer time scale. By using this flux-doubling threshold we could identify several flares, which are reported in Table~\ref{tab:flares}. \\
We estimate the flux-doubling times using the height difference between consecutive blocks and the time between the last data point of a given block and the starting point of the next block, which is a conservative measure of the rise time between blocks. In the case of several consecutive flux rises among continuous blocks, the flux-doubling time reported in Table~\ref{tab:flares} considers the rise as a single increase from minimum to maximum. It can be seen that the flux doubles its value on different time scales. The flux-doubling can occur during just one night, e.g. for the block starting on MJD~54502, but it can also take many days. Additionally, it should be noted that it cannot be ruled out that the flux might fall between two measurements. All determined flux-doubling times are subject to this possibility. For the first entry in the table the flux-doubling time of 139 days is not meaningful because the time interval includes the long observation gap from May to December 2007 where the source behaviour in $\gamma$-rays is unknown. Therefore, the flux-doubling times reported in Table~\ref{tab:flares} should be considered as upper limits to the actual time needed to double the flux. That is, the actual flux-doubling times could be shorter than the ones reported.\\
\begin{table*}[tb!]
\caption{Dates, factor of flux increase and flux-doubling times of flares found by the Bayesian Block algorithm for the MAGIC light curve. The given MJD identifies the first day of the highest block. See definition of VHE flare in the text.}
\label{tab:flares}
\centering
\begin{tabular}{p{1cm}p{1.5cm}p{2.2cm}p{12.0cm}}
\toprule
\textbf{MJD} &\textbf{increase} &\textbf{flux-doubling time [days]} &\textbf{notes}\\
\midrule
\midrule
54438 & $3.0\pm 0.3$ & 139* & The flux rise follows the low flux in the beginning of 2007.\\
\midrule
54467 & $2.2\pm 0.3$ & 15 & Two subsequent rises.\\
\midrule
54481 & $2.5\pm 0.3$ & 3 & Two subsequent rises. \\
\midrule
54502 & $2.0\pm 0.3$ & 1 & Flux rise in just one night.\\
\midrule
54556 & $4.0\pm 0.6$ & 10 & Rise to the overall maximum flux value. The last given data point before this block was taken 19 days before. \\
\midrule
54560 & $2.3\pm 0.5$ & 2 & \\
\midrule
54613 & $5.5\pm 1.7$ & 20 & The rise to the maximum takes place in three single steps. The first rise of a factor of 2.1 follows an observation 21 days before. The following block has a length of 19 days. Subsequently, the flux rises by a factor of 1.4 in just two days and by a factor of 1.9 during the same time interval.\\
\midrule
54622 & $2.0\pm 0.2$ & 2 & \\
\bottomrule
\end{tabular}
\begin{flushleft}
*: Includes an observation gap of about half a year.
\end{flushleft}
\end{table*}
The flares identified by using the Bayesian Block algorithm are marked in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves} by vertical dotted lines so that it is possible to compare these positions with features in the light curves in the other wavelengths.
\section{Observations at X-ray, optical and radio wavelengths}
\label{sec:other}
To study the variability and correlation between the TeV $\gamma$-ray data and other wavebands, data from several other instruments were considered. In the X-ray range data from \textit{Swift}/BAT and \textit{RXTE}/ASM were selected. The optical data shown here is from the GASP-WEBT consortium (which includes data from the KVA telescope located at the ORM close to MAGIC). Data from the Mets\"ahovi and OVRO telescopes are used in the radio range.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.98\textwidth]{Lightcurve_Mrk421_allinstruments_200703_200906_final.ps}
\caption{Light curves of MAGIC, \textit{Swift}/BAT, \textit{RXTE}/ASM, GASP-WEBT, Mets\"ahovi and OVRO from top to bottom in the time range from February 2007 to July 2009. The vertical dotted black lines denote the position of the TeV $\gamma$-ray flares as identified with the Bayesian Block algorithm (see Section~\ref{sec:Bayesian}). The vertical black lines mark the division between the three time periods (Period~1, Period~2, Period~3).}
\label{fig:5lightcurves}
\end{figure*}
\subsection{Hard X-ray observations with \textit{Swift}/BAT}
\label{subsec:Swift}
The Burst Alert Telescope (BAT) on board the \textit{Swift} satellite observes Mrk~421 in the hard X-ray regime, from 15 to 50\,keV \citep{2013ApJS..209...14K}. The \textit{Swift}/BAT transient monitor results are provided by the \textit{Swift}/BAT team\footnote{http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/results/transients/weak/Mrk421.lc.txt}. Considering only averaged daily rates with a rate to rate error ratio greater than two, and additionally discarding six measurements with negative rates (on MJD~54288, 54476, 54638, 54750, 54914, and 54981), results in a total of 821 hours of data distributed over 168 nightly flux measurements between 23rd February 2007 (MJD~54154) and 17th June 2009 (MJD~54999).
The \textit{Swift}/BAT light curve of Mrk~421 is shown in Figure \ref{fig:5lightcurves}. The overall hard X-ray flux behaviour is comparable to that of the MAGIC light curve, with a higher activity in Period~2 and several features that appear to be coincident, like the peak structure around MJD~54560.
\subsection{Soft X-ray observations with \textit{RXTE}/ASM}
\label{subsec:RXTE}
The All-Sky Monitor (ASM) was an instrument on board the \textit{RXTE} satellite. It observed Mrk~421 in the energy range from 2 to 10\,keV \citep{1996ApJ...469L..33L}.
The results shown here are provided by the ASM/\textit{RXTE} teams at MIT and at the \textit{RXTE} SOF and GOF at NASA's GSFC\footnote{xte.mit.edu/asmlc/ASM.html}. Only averaged daily count rates, each consisting of several so-called observation dwells of 90\,s length, with a rate to rate error ratio greater than two are considered for the following studies. Additionally, two negative rates, on MJD~54371 and 54914, are discarded. This results in a total of 532 daily flux measurements with a total observation length of 260 hours between 10th February 2007 (MJD~54141) and 16th June 2009 (MJD~54998).
The \textit{RXTE}/ASM light curve of Mrk~421 is shown in Figure \ref{fig:5lightcurves}. The soft X-ray flux shows a similar behaviour to that of the hard X-rays and VHE $\gamma$-rays, which includes several overall flux levels and peak structures that are present also in the \textit{Swift}/BAT and MAGIC light curves.
\subsection{Optical observations}
\label{subsec:KVA}
The optical data in the R-Band shown here were recorded by the KVA (Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien) telescope and a collection of telescopes, which work together in the GASP-WEBT (Whole Earth Blazar Telescope)\footnote{http://www.oato.inaf.it/blazars/webt/} consortium \citep{2008A&A...481L..79V}. The KVA telescope is situated at the ORM on La Palma close to the MAGIC telescopes. Photometric observations in the R-Band are made with a 35\,cm telescope. Observations are carried out in the same time intervals as MAGIC observations. Optical observations of Mrk~421 by the KVA telescope started in 2002, and show a variable optical light curve \citep{2008AIPC.1085..705T}.
Mrk~421 is regularly monitored by telecopes of GASP-WEBT, and KVA in particular. The optical data reported in this paper relate to the period from 18th February 2007 (MJD~54149) to 23rd July 2009 (MJD~55035), which were recorded by the following instruments: Abastumani, Castelgrande, Crimean, L'Ampolla, Lulin, KVA, New Mexico Skies (now called iTelescopes), Sabadell, St. Petersburg, Talmassons, Torino, and Tuorla observatories. It should be mentioned that the flux measurements are corrected for the contribution of the host galaxy (see \citet{2007A&A...475..199N}) as well as for galactic extinction \citep{2011ApJ...737..103S}.
The GASP-WEBT light curve shown in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves} includes a total of 815 observations distributed over 353 nights.
When comparing the optical light curve to the $\gamma$-ray and X-ray light curves it is important to note that the optical light curve cannot be separated into different activity phases as the other light curves. The flux varies by the same amount throughout the whole observation length of more than two years. It can be seen that the features in the GASP-WEBT light curve are longer than and not coincident with those of the MAGIC, \textit{RXTE}/ASM and \textit{Swift}/BAT light curves.
\subsection{Radio observations with Mets\"ahovi}
\label{subsec:Metsahovi}
Radio data at 37\,GHz are recorded by the 13.7\,m telescope at the Mets\"ahovi Radio Observatory in Finland. \citep{1998A&AS..132..305T}
Considering only data points with a flux to error ratio greater than four of the Mets\"ahovi light curve, leaves 49 nightly flux measurements between 13th February 2007 (MJD~54144) and 24th June 2009 (MJD~55006). The light curve is shown in Figure \ref{fig:5lightcurves}. In comparison to the VHE $\gamma$-ray, the X-ray and the optical light curves mentioned above, the overall radio flux measured by Mets\"ahovi is rather stable, yet with a slight decrease in Period~3.
\subsection{Radio observations with OVRO}
\label{subsec:OVRO}
The Owens Valley Radio Observatory, located in the USA, operates a 40\,m radio telescope measuring at 15\,GHz. It started observations in January 2008 and therefore does not cover the whole time span of MAGIC observations\footnote{www.astro.caltech.edu/ovroblazars/data/data.php}. \citep{2011ApJS..194...29R}
In the available data set, often two observations were made during one day, which were only separated by $\sim$ 2 minutes. These data points were averaged, which results in a total of 119 data points. The light curve with data points between 8th January 2008 (MJD~54473) and 8th June 2009 (MJD~54990) is shown in Figure \ref{fig:5lightcurves}. As it occurs with the Mets\"ahovi light curve, the flux is rather stable, with a small decrease in Period~3.
\section{Multi-band flux Variability}
\label{sec:Variability}
In order to quantify the variability in the emission of Mrk~421, the fractional variability $F_\text{var}$, as it is given in equation 10 in \citet{2003MNRAS.345.1271V}, is used. It is calculated using
\begin{equation}
F_\text{var} = \sqrt{\dfrac{S^2 - \overline{\sigma^2_\text{err}}}{\overline{x}^2}},
\end{equation}
and represents the normalized excess variance. $S$ is the standard deviation and $\overline{\sigma^2_\text{err}}$ the mean square error of the flux measurements. $\bar{x}$ stands for the average flux. The uncertainty of $F_\text{var}$ is given by equation 2 in \citet{2015A&A...573A..50A}, after \citet{2008MNRAS.389.1427P}:
\begin{equation}
\Delta F_\text{var} = \sqrt{F^2_\text{var}+\text{err}(\sigma^2_\text{NXS})} - F_\text{var},
\end{equation}
where $\text{err}(\sigma^2_\text{NXS})$ is given by equation 11 of \citet{2003MNRAS.345.1271V}:
\begin{equation}
\text{err}(\sigma^2_\text{NXS}) = \sqrt{\left(\sqrt{\dfrac{2}{N}}\cdot\dfrac{\overline{\sigma^2_\text{err}}}{\bar{x}^2}\right)^2+\left(\sqrt{\dfrac{\overline{\sigma^2_\text{err}}}{N}}\cdot\dfrac{2F_\text{var}}{\overline{x}}\right)^2} .
\end{equation}
Here, $N$ is the number of data points in a light curve. Note from equation~1 that $F_\text{var}$ is not defined (and hence cannot be used) when the excess variance is negative, which can occur in the absence of variability, or when the instrument sensitivity is not good enough to detect it (i.e. large flux uncertainties).
$F_\text{var}$ is calculated for all the light curves shown in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves} and the results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:fvar} with open markers. For MAGIC, \textit{Swift}/BAT, \textit{RXTE}/ASM, Mets\"ahovi and OVRO, the shown light curves feature one data point per night. For GASP-WEBT, the light curve contains nights with more than one data point. For the calculation of $F_\text{var}$, the multiple GASP-WEBT optical fluxes related to single days were averaged, thus obtaining a single value.
In order to improve the direct comparison of the variability determined for the various energy bands, we also computed $F_\text{var}$ using only the multi-instrument observations strictly simultaneous to those performed by MAGIC. These $F_\text{var}$ values are depicted by the filled markers in Figure~\ref{fig:fvar}, and remove potential biases due to the somewhat different temporal coverage of the various instruments.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Fvaralltelescopes_vsnu_final.ps}
\caption{Fractional variability ($F_\text{var}$) as a function of the frequency for the 2.3 year long time range from February 2007 to July 2009. The fractional variability was computed in two different ways: using all the flux measurements from the light curves reported in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves} (depicted with open markers), and using only those observations simultaneous to the VHE $\gamma$-ray measurements from MAGIC (depicted with filled markers). Vertical bars denote 1$\sigma$ uncertainties and horizontal bars indicate the width of each energy bin.}
\label{fig:fvar}
\end{figure}
The overall behaviour of the fractional variability shows a rising tendency with increasing frequency. Considering only the $F_\text{var}$ values determined with simultaneous multi-instrument observations (filled markers in Figure~\ref{fig:fvar}), the highest variability occurs in the VHE $\gamma$-ray band measured by MAGIC ($F_\text{var}=0.64\pm0.01$), although it is quite similar to the variability measured in the soft X-ray band ($F_\text{var}=0.50\pm0.01$) and hard X-ray band ($F_\text{var}=0.54+\pm0.02$) by \textit{RXTE}/ASM and \textit{Swift}/BAT respectively.\\
As mentioned in the previous sections (e.g. see Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves}), the overall flux levels and source activity appear different for the three different observation periods. Figure~\ref{fig:fvarsingleyears} reports the multi-band fractional variability determined separately for Periods~1, 2 and 3. The main trend observed in the 2.3 year long time span reported in Figure~\ref{fig:fvar} is also reproduced when splitting the data in the three different periods: $F_\text{var}$ always increases with energy, with the highest variability occurring in the X-ray and VHE $\gamma$-ray bands. The \textit{Swift}/BAT light curve with one-day temporal bins reported in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves} has large statistical uncertainties, which, because of the relatively low activity and low variability of Mrk~421 during Periods~1 and 3, yielded a negative excess variance, hence preventing the calculation of the fractional variability for these two periods. On the other hand, the \textit{RXTE}/ASM light curve with one-day temporal bins reported in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves} have somewhat smaller uncertainties and a better temporal coverage than that of \textit{Swift}/BAT, which permitted the quantification of the fractional variability in the soft X-ray energy band for the three temporal periods considered.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{Fvaralltelescopes_singleyears_final.ps}
\caption{Multi-instrument fractional variability ($F_\text{var}$) for the three periods defined in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves}. The fractional variability was computed using only those observations simultaneous to the VHE $\gamma$-ray measurements from MAGIC. Vertical bars denote 1$\sigma$ uncertainties and horizontal bars indicate the covered time span of each instrument.}
\label{fig:fvarsingleyears}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:fvarsingleyears} it can also be seen that the variability for the MAGIC light curve is higher for Period~2 than in Period~1 and 3 as it was already shown by the quantification of the variability with the results of the Bayesian Block algorithm (see Section~\ref{sec:Bayesian}). Due to the lower average flux in Period~1 compared to Period~3, the fractional variability in Period~1 is higher than in Period~3.
It is worth noticing that the fractional variability in the optical band is comparable to that at X-rays and VHE $\gamma$-rays during Period~3, which did not happen during Periods~1 and 2. Inspecting the light curves reported in Figure~\ref{fig:5lightcurves}, one can see that the time scales involved in the reported variabilities are very different. While the X-ray and VHE $\gamma$-ray light curves show day-long flux variations on the top of a rather stable flux level, the optical flux shows many-day-long flux variations on the top of a flux level that increases by about a factor of two throughout Period~3. Therefore, despite the very comparable $F_\text{var}$ values during Period~3, the emission in the optical band is probably not related to that in the X-ray and VHE $\gamma$-ray bands.
These results are consistent with results from previous publications. This includes the rising fractional variability of Mrk~421 from optical to X-ray energies in 2001 \citep{2007A&A...462...29G} and the same increase from optical to X-ray energies in March 2010 during a flare with a comparable variability of the VHE and the X-ray light curves \citep{2015A&A...578A..22A}. These results are complemented by \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A} and \citet{2016ApJ...819..156B}, which presented multi-wavelength data during the relatively low activity observed from January to June 2009 and from January to March 2013 respectively. These include results from the \textit{Fermi}-LAT closing the gap between the X-ray and TeV $\gamma$-ray energy bands. They report a low flux in radio energies, rising to a maximum in the X-ray energy band. For GeV $\gamma$-rays measured by the \textit{Fermi}-LAT the variability drops to a level comparable to the optical and UV wave band. The variability in the TeV $\gamma$-ray light curves increases to a level comparable to X-rays, which is consistent with the result from this study, that uses a much larger time span.
\section{Multi-band correlations}
\label{sec:Correlations}
To quantify the correlation of two light curves, the Discrete Correlation Function (DCF), which was introduced by \citet{1988ApJ...333..646E}, is used here. A study of the correlations of the MAGIC light curve with light curves of other wavelengths has already been done for Mrk~421 for the first half of 2009 in \cite{2015A&A...576A.126A}. In that publication a method to determine confidence intervals for the resulting correlation has been described in detail. Here, a short introduction to the method will be given. For more detailed information on that method the reader is referred to the cited publication and references therein.
The errors of the DCF values as stated by \citet{1988ApJ...333..646E} might not be appropriate when the individual light-curve data points are correlated red-noise\footnote{Red noise data is characterised by a power spectral density per unit of bandwidth proportional to 1/f$^2$, where f is the frequency. \citep{2012ApJ...749..191C}.} data \citep{2003ApJ...584L..53U}. Since this is not the case for the given light curves, a Monte Carlo based approach is applied here to determine confidence intervals for the DCF values. Therefore, 1000 light curves are simulated for each telescope which feature the same sampling pattern and comparable exposure times as the original light curve. In addition, the power spectral density (PSD) should be as similar as possible to the PSD of the original light curve. Therefore, the light curves are simulated with PSDs following a power law with spectral indices in a range from -1.0 to -2.9 in steps of 0.1. The light curves with the PSD, which match the PSD of the original light curve best, are determined using the PSRESP method \citep{2008ApJ...689...79C}.
The DCF itself is calculated for sets of original light curves. With the calculated DCF of 1000 simulated light curves of one telescope and the original light curve of a second telescope, finally the confidence bands can be determined. Here, the confidence limits are determined as the 1\%, 5\%, 95\% and 99\% quantiles of the 1000 resulting DCFs.
In the following plots, the black dots and error bars are the DCF and its error calculated after \citet{1988ApJ...333..646E}. The blue and green lines represent the confidence limits of 95\% and 5\% and of 99\% and 1\% respectively determined with DCFs of the 1000 simulated light curves of the first telescope and the original light curve of the second telescope. A value above the 99\% confidence limit is considered as a significant correlation, a significant anti-correlation is given for a value below the 1\% limit.
A binning of two days is chosen in this case. The reason for this is the unequal binning of the light curves which might lead to shifts in the correlations by one day when the time difference in the two light curves is larger than half a day. Time lags between $-50$ and +50 days are examined. The time lag $\Delta t$ is defined as the time difference of the second light curve to the first light curve (Instrument$_\text{1}$ vs. Instrument$_\text{2}$).\\
In the following subsections we report the results from our study on the correlation between the optical, X-ray and VHE $\gamma$-ray bands. The radio bands do not show significant variability and hence the radio fluxes cannot be correlated to the fluxes in the other bands.
\subsection{\textit{RXTE}/ASM and MAGIC}
\label{DCFRXTEMAGIC}
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{dcf_rxteasm_magic_all_final.ps}
\caption{Discrete Correlation Function for the light curves of \textit{RXTE}/ASM and MAGIC for the 2.3 year long period (Period~1, 2 and 3). Time lags from -50 to +50 days in steps of 2 days are considered. The black dots represent the DCF values with the error bars calculated as in \citet{1988ApJ...333..646E}. The green (blue) lines represent the 99\% and 1\% (95\% and 5\%) confidence limits for random correlations resulting from the dedicated Monte Carlo analysis described in section \ref{sec:Correlations}.}
\label{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}
\end{figure}
The \textit{RXTE}/ASM and MAGIC cross-correlations were examined at first for the whole time range from February 2007 to June 2009. This is reported in Figure~\ref{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}.
There is positive and significant correlation for the entire range of time lags considered, that is from $-50$ to +50 days. The main cause of this positive correlation is the substantially larger flux level in Period~2, in comparison to that in Periods~1 and 3. If the light curves are shifted by a time lag smaller than the duration of these periods (e.g. 50 days), the pairing of VHE $\gamma$-ray fluxes and X-ray fluxes occurs always (for all time lags) within the observations from the same period, and hence one gets high VHE flux values related to high X-ray flux values, i.e. all from Period~2, and low VHE flux values matched with low X-ray flux values, i.e. all from Periods~1 and 3. And this effect naturally produces a positive correlation.\\
To remove the effect of the substantially different flux levels between the different periods, as well as to test the influence of the different states of activity and flux strength reported in the previous sections, the DCF is determined separately for Periods~2 and 3. The MAGIC light curve in the quiet Period~1 contains only six data points and is therefore not included in this study. The results are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dcf_rxte_magic_P23}. We note that there is still an overall positive correlation for both Periods~2 and 3, however the DCF values are typically within the 95\% confidence contours. This positive (but not significant) correlation for all time lags is due to the fact that the two light curves considered here have the same overall trends: in Period~2 the VHE $\gamma$-ray and the X-ray light curves show an overall flux increase throughout the entire period, whereas in Period~3 they both show an overall decrease.\\
The quiet Period~3 shows a marginally significant correlation around a time lag of zero, while the active Period~2 shows a prominent correlation, with some structure around a time lag of zero. The DCF structure depicted in the top panel of Figure~\ref{fig:dcf_rxte_magic_P23} resembles that in Figure~\ref{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}, which indicates that the correlations in the high-activity Period~2 dominate the DCF values reported in Figure~\ref{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}, which relate to the full 2.3 years time interval. In both cases, one finds a peak at $\Delta t$= 0 and $\Delta t$= $-6$ days. The first peak is due to the direct correlation dominated by simultaneous prominent features in both light curves (i.e. flares on MJD~54556 and 54622). On the other hand, the DCF peak at $-6$ days is dominated by the remarkable 3-day long X-ray flaring activity around MJD~54630, which is the highest flux value in the \textit{RXTE}/ASM light curve. There is no counterpart in the VHE $\gamma$-ray light curve because MAGIC did not observe around that date, but this prominent X-ray flaring activity is matched with the large VHE flaring activity around MJD~54622 for time lags of around $-6$ days. The relatively broad structure of positive DCF values, extending from $-10$ days to +6 days, is dominated by the remarkable and asymmetric flaring activity in the X-ray light curve in a broad region around MJD~54556, which is coindicent with the relatively short VHE flare at the same location.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{dcf_rxteasm_magic_P23_final.ps}
\caption{Discrete Correlation Function for the light curves of \textit{RXTE}/ASM and MAGIC for Period~2 (top) and for Period~3 (bottom). The description of data points and contours are given in the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}.}
\label{fig:dcf_rxte_magic_P23}
\end{figure}
\subsection{\textit{Swift}/BAT and MAGIC}
\label{subsec:DCFMAGICSwift}
The sensitivity and temporal coverage of \textit{Swift}/BAT is somewhat lower than that of \textit{RXTE}/ASM, which reduces the accuracy with which one can study the correlation between the hard X-ray band above 15\,keV and the VHE $\gamma$-rays. For Period~3, we only could find a marginally significant correlation dominated by the somewhat higher X-ray and VHE flux values in the MJD range from 54858 to 54864. In Figure \ref{fig:dcf_swift2008_magic2008} the correlation results of the \textit{Swift}/BAT and the MAGIC light curves in the high-activity Period~2 are shown. When considering this period, we find DCF values above the 95\% confidence level for time lags between $-8$ days and +2 days, with two peaks above the 99\% confidence level for the time lags of 0, and also $-8$ and $-6$ days. The explanation of these two peaks is essentially the same that was given for the correlations between \textit{RXTE}/ASM and MAGIC reported in Section~\ref{DCFRXTEMAGIC}. The peak at $\Delta t$= 0 is dominated by several features appearing simultaneously in both light curves, the peak at $-6$ to $-8$ days is dominated by the large 3-day long X-ray activity around MJD~54630 (where we do not have MAGIC observations), and the broad and somewhat asymmetric structure in the DCF plot is dominated by the large and broad and asymmetric X-ray flaring around MJD~54556.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{dcf_swiftbat_magic_P2_final.ps}
\caption{Discrete Correlation Function for the light curves of \textit{Swift}/BAT and MAGIC for Period~2. The description of data points and contours are given in the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}.}
\label{fig:dcf_swift2008_magic2008}
\end{figure}
\subsection{GASP-WEBT and MAGIC}
The correlation between the GASP-WEBT and MAGIC light curve for the high-activity Period~2 is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dcf_gaspwebt2008_magic2008}. There is a positive correlation for time lags between 0 and +28 days, as well as around $-44$ days, and a negative correlation for time lags around $-28$ and around +44 days. This alternation of correlation and anti-correlation is caused by the fact that the variability in the optical and VHE emission is dominated by two to three prominent features. And hence the alternating presence of rises and drops in flux in both light curves creates these features in the DCF. For instance, when shifting the optical light curve by e.g. +24 days or $-44$ days, minima and maxima in both light curves get aligned yielding a significant correlation, while when the optical light curve is shifted by $-28$ or +44 days, the minima in one light curve are aligned with maxima in the other light curve, hence yielding a significant anti-correlation. Although the reported correlations for some time lags are significant from the statistical point of view, they are based on the alignment or misalignment of only two to three prominent and relatively broad features, and these prominent features are not necessarily related to each other.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{dcf_gaspwebt_magic_P2_final.ps}
\caption{Discrete Correlation Function for the light curves of GASP-WEBT and MAGIC for Period~2. The description of data points and contours are given in the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}.}
\label{fig:dcf_gaspwebt2008_magic2008}
\end{figure}
In the quiet Period~3, we find an overall anti-correlation during the entire range of time lags proved. This result is produced by the overall flux decrease in the VHE light curve and the overall flux increase in the optical light curve throughout the entire Period~3. The same result was reported and discussed in \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A}.
\subsection{GASP-WEBT and \textit{RXTE}/ASM}
The DCF results of GASP-WEBT and \textit{RXTE}/ASM in Period~2 are shown in Figure~\ref{fig:dcf_gaspwebt2008_rxte2008}. A correlation is seen for positive time lags between +6 and +30 days, as well as for negative time lags between $-50$ and $-38$ days. Anti-correlations are seen between $-28$ and $-10$ days and between +44 and +50 days. These results are comparable to the results between GASP-WEBT and MAGIC. This again shows the alternation of rises and drops in flux produced by the fact that the variability in the optical and X-ray emission is dominated by only two to three prominent features. When shifting the optical light curve by the time lags, for which correlations are found, maxima in both light curves are aligned. When shifting the light curve by the time lags, for which anti-correlations are found, minima in the optical light curve are aligned with maxima in the X-ray light curves. Again, these correlations and anti-correlations might have been found by chance.
\begin{figure}[tb]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{dcf_gaspwebt_rxteasm_P2_final.ps}
\caption{Discrete Correlation Function for the light curves of GASP-WEBT and \textit{RXTE}/ASM for Period~2. The description of data points and contours are given in the caption of Fig. \ref{fig:dcf_rxteall_magicall}.}
\label{fig:dcf_gaspwebt2008_rxte2008}
\end{figure}
In Period~1 no correlations nor anti-correlations are seen for this pair of instruments. However, in Period~3 the GASP-WEBT light curve shows an overall anti-correlation with the \textit{RXTE}/ASM light curve, which occurs due to the overall slow decrease of the X-ray rate and the flux increase in the optical light curve. This result is comparable to the overall anti-correlation for the X-ray and TeV $\gamma$-ray light curves discussed in \citet{2015A&A...576A.126A}, which used partially the same data set.
\section{Summary of Results}
\label{sec:Summary}
\begin{enumerate}[i]
\item Between March 2007 and June 2009, MAGIC-I accumulated 96~hours of VHE $\gamma$-ray data of the blazar Mrk~421: the VHE flux varied around the typical flux baseline of about 0.5\,CU, with the highest flux of about 3.8\,CU occurring during the active state in 2008.
\item For the first time the Bayesian Block algorithm was applied to the VHE $\gamma$-ray light curve from a Cherenkov telescope to identify different flux emission states, as well as to quantify the variability and to search for flaring activity.
\item The MAGIC $\gamma$-ray light curve was compared to light curves of other wavebands, including the hard and soft X-ray wavebands from \textit{Swift}BAT and \textit{RXTE}/ASM, the optical R-Band from GASP-WEBT, and two radio wavebands from Mets\"{a}hovi and OVRO.
\item The VHE and X-ray light curves resemble each other, showing a number of few-day long structures, while the optical and radio light curves show smaller flux variations and occurring on longer time scales.
\item The fractional variability is low for radio and optical wavebands, and high for the X-ray and VHE
$\gamma$-ray bands during both low and high activity.
\item The discrete correlation function shows a direct relation between the two X-ray bands and the VHE $\gamma$-ray band, while no correlation was found between the optical and the X-ray and VHE bands.
\end{enumerate}
\section{Discussion and Conclusions}
\label{sec:Discussion}
A comprehensive variability and correlation study has been performed with 2.3 years of multi-band data from Mrk 421. The measured variability as a function of energy, with the highest variability in the X-ray and VHE bands, and the observed direct X-ray-to-VHE correlation, both occuring comparably during high- and low-activity, suggests that the processes that dominate the flux variability in Mrk~421 are similar for the different activity levels. The pattern characterized by a high variability in the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray emission, accompanied by a low variability in the optical and radio emission, occurs in both quiescent and excited states, qualifying this behaviour as typical of Mrk~421. The low variability and different time scales observed both in the radio and optical emission may be explained by different emission regions, or by cooler electrons in the jet at a later time. Additionally, the correlation between the X-ray and the VHE $\gamma$-ray emission extending over many months suggests that the broadband emission of Mrk~421 is predominantly produced by the same particles, e.g. via the Synchrotron-Self-Compton process. Alternatively, the X-rays and $\gamma$-rays could both result from the same radiation process (e.g. synchrotron radiation), but from two different electron populations varying together most times, but not necessarily always. This is the case in hadronic scenarios where the X-ray and $\gamma$-ray photons result from the synchrotron radiation of electrons in subsequent and therefore coupled cascade generations (\citet{1993A&A...269...67M}). The cascade generations are driven by the pair production in photon-photon scatterings involving low-energy photon fields, which can vary themselves, thereby modulating the variations of flux of the primary photo-mesons at the top of the cascades.
\begin{acknowledgements}
We would like to thank the Instituto de Astrof\'{\i}sica de Canarias for the excellent working conditions at the Observatorio del Roque de los Muchachos in La Palma. The financial support of the German BMBF and MPG, the Italian INFN and INAF, the Swiss National Fund SNF, the ERDF under the Spanish MINECO (FPA2012-39502), and the Japanese JSPS and MEXT is gratefully acknowledged. This work was also supported by the Centro de Excelencia Severo Ochoa SEV-2012-0234, CPAN CSD2007-00042, and MultiDark CSD2009-00064 projects of the Spanish Consolider-Ingenio 2010 programme, by grant 268740 of the Academy of Finland, by the Croatian Science Foundation (HrZZ) Project 09/176 and the University of Rijeka Project 13.12.1.3.02, by the DFG Collaborative Research Centers SFB823/C4 and SFB876/C3, and by the Polish MNiSzW grant 745/N-HESS-MAGIC/2010/0.\\
The public data archives of \textit{Swift}/BAT and \textit{RXTE}/ASM are acknowledged. \\
We thank the OVRO telescope for making its results available for the public. The OVRO 40\,m monitoring program is supported in part by NASA grants NNX08AW31G and NNX11A043G, and NFS grants AST-0808050 and AST-1109911.\\
We also thank the KVA and Mets\"ahovi telescopes for making their light curves available. M. Villata organized the optical-to-radio observations by GASP-WEBT as the president of the collaboration.\\
The Mets\"ahovi team acknowledges the support from the Academy of Finland to our observing projects (numbers 212656, 210338, 121148, and others). St. Petersburg University team acknowledges support from Russian RFBR grant 15-02-00949 and St. Petersburg University research grant 6.38.335.2015. The Abastumani Observatory team acknowledges financial support by the Shota Rustaveli National Science Foundation under contract FR/577/6-320/13.
\end{acknowledgements}
\bibliographystyle{aa}
|
\section{Outline}
\input{NID.tex}
\subsection{Dirichlet Process}
According to \cite{ishwaran2002exact}, the Dirichlet process is an infinite limit of the Dirichlet distribution when represented in the mixture form representation of
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{P}_k(\cdot) = \sum \limits_{i \in k} h_i \delta_{z_i}(\cdot)
\end{equation}
where the weights $h_i$ are drawn from the $\text{Dir} (\mathbf{\hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}})$ distribution and $z_i$'s are points drawn iid from an underlying distribution $\mathcal{H}$. $k$ represents the number of components or the dimensionality of the Dirichlet distribution and $\mathbf{\hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}} = (\alpha_0/k, \dots, \alpha_0/k)$. It is proven that $\lim_{k \rightarrow \infty} \mathcal{P}_k$ tends to the Dirichlet process $\text{DP}(\mathbf{\hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}} \mathcal{H})$ in distribution that is represented as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:DP}
\mathcal{P} (\cdot) = \sum \limits_{i = 1}^{\infty} h_i \delta_{z_i}(\cdot)
\end{equation}
Campbell et. al. \cite{campbell2016truncated} give a detailed description of the truncation analysis of random measures.
\begin{lemma} ({\textbf{Separability under the Dirichlet Process}})
\label{lem:DP}
Let $\Psi(s,\bm u)$ indicate the modified second characteristic function of the Dirichlet process in Equation \eqref{eq:DP}. Then since the DP is an infinite limit of the Dirichlet distribution we have
\begin{align}
\label{eq:charac}
\Psi(s,{\mathbf u}) & = \log \big[ \mathcal{L}_t \{ t^{\alpha_0-1} \psi_h(t {\mathbf u}) ; s\} \big] = \log \bigg[ \mathcal{L}_t \big\{ t^{\alpha_0-1} \mathbb{E}[ e^{i\langle{t {\mathbf u}},{ {\mathbf h}}\rangle}] ; s \big\} \bigg] \nonumber \\
%
&= \sum \limits_{j = 1}^\infty \log \bigg[ \int \limits_0^\infty \big(h_j^{-1} e^{(i u_j-s) h_j} \big) \mathrm d h_j \bigg] - \log [B],
\end{align}
where ${\mathbf u} \in \mathbb{R}^k$ and $B$ is the normalization factor of the distribution.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Projecting Independent Draws onto the Simplex}
According to the stick-breaking construction of the Dirichlet distribution, one can draw samples independently from the Gamma distribution and then normalize the draws with their sum. In this section we will see how the Gamma distribution draws lead to the results of the previous section and how we can use other distributions to generalize our results.
Consider that variables $w_i$ for $i \in [k]$ are drawn independently from the $\Gamma(\alpha, \beta)$ distribution shown below
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:pdfGamma}
\Pr(w_i) = \frac{\beta^\alpha}{\Gamma(\alpha)} w_i^{\alpha-1} e^{- \beta w_i} \qquad \qquad \alpha>0, \; \; \beta>0
\end{equation}
Then variables $h_i = \frac{w_i}{Z}$, where $Z = \sum_{i \in [k]} w_i$ are Dirichlet distributed on the simplex.
\subsection{Gibbs Process}
The Gibbs process is a class of exchangeable probability partition that includes processes such as the Dirichlet process and the Pitman-Yor process. These probability partitions can be uniquely represented by their Exchangeable Partition Probability Function (EPPF) According to \cite{gnedin2006exchangeable} the EPPF of Gibbs processes have a special product form. These class of distributions, impose exchangeable partitions on the natural numbers and can be used in non-parametric Bayesian analysis as the prior for mixture modeling. These processes are of discrete nature and we would like to investigate the possibility of representing the Gibbs process as a griddified version of the Dirichlet distribution, and generalize its results to the Gibbs processes.
\paragraph{Note:} Mixture inconsistency of the Dirichlet process \cite{miller2013simple}.
\section{Latent Normalized Infinitely Divisible Topic Models}
\label{sec:NIDfull}
Topic models incorporate relationships between words ${\mathbf x}_1, {\mathbf x}_2\ldots\in {\mathbb R}^d$ and a set of $k$ hidden topics. We represent the words ${\mathbf x}_i$ using one-hot encoding, i.e. ${\mathbf x}_i = {\mathbf e}_j$ if the $j^{{\mbox{\tiny th}}}$ word in the vocabulary occurs, and ${\mathbf e}_j$ is the standard basis vector. The proportions of topics in a document is represented by vector ${\mathbf h} \in {\mathbb R}^k$. We assume that ${\mathbf h}$ is drawn from an NID distribution.
The detailed generative process of a latent NID topic model for each document is as follows
\begin{itemize}
\item[1.] Draw $k$ independent variables, $z_1, z_2, \ldots, z_k$ from a family of ID distributions.
\item[2.] Set ${\mathbf h}$ to $ (\frac{z_1}{Z}, \dots, \frac{z_k}{Z})$ where $Z = \sum_{i \in [k]}z_i$.
\item[3.] For each word ${\mathbf x}_i $,
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] Choose a topic $\zeta_i \sim \text{Multi}({\mathbf h})$ and represent it with one-hot encoding.
\item[(b)] Choose a word ${\mathbf x}_i$ vector as a standard basis vector with probability
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:lda1}
\mathbb{E} ({\mathbf x}_i \vert \zeta_i) = {\mathbf A} \zeta_i,
\end{equation} conditioned on the drawn topic $\zeta_i$, and ${\mathbf A} \in {\mathbb R}^{d \times k}$ is the topic-word matrix.
\end{itemize}
\end{itemize}
From \eqref{eq:lda1}, we also have \begin{equation}
\label{eq:lda}
\mathbb{E} ({\mathbf x}_i \vert {\mathbf h}) =
{\mathbb E}[\mathbb{E} ({\mathbf x}_i \vert {\mathbf h},\zeta_i) ]=
\mathbb{E} ({\mathbf x}_i \vert \zeta_i) {\mathbb E}(\zeta_i \vert {\mathbf h}) = {\mathbf A} {\mathbf h}.
\end{equation}
When the $z_i$ is drawn from the Gamma$(\alpha_i,1)$ distribution, we obtain the Dir$(\hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath})$ distribution for the hidden vector ${\mathbf h} = (h_1,\dots, h_k)$, and the LDA model through the above generative process.
Our goal is to recover the topic-word matrix ${\mathbf A}$ given the document collection. In the following section we introduce the class of NID distribution and discuss its properties.
\section*{Appendix}
\input{topWords.tex}
\paragraph{Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:mainResult}}
\begin{myproof}
The moment form of Lemma \ref{lem:moment} can be represented as \cite{mangili2015new},
\begin{align}
& \mathbb{E}(h_1^{r_1} h_2^{r_2} \dots h_n^{r_n}) = \nonumber \\
& \frac{1}{\Gamma(r)} \int \limits_0^\infty u^{r-1} e^{-\sum \limits_{i=n+1}^k \Psi_i(u)} \prod \limits_{j \in [n]} (-1)^{r_j} \frac{\mathrm{d}^{r_j}}{\mathrm{d} u^{r_j}} e^{- \Psi_j(u)} \mathrm{d} u. \label{eq:momApp}
\end{align}
We use the above general form of the moments to compute and diagonalize the following moment tensors,
\begin{align}
{\mathbf{M}_2^{({\mathbf h})}} & = \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) + \eta \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) , \label{eq:2ndMomApp}\\
{\mathbf{M}_3^{({\mathbf h})}} & = \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h})
\nonumber \\
&+ \eta_1 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \nonumber \\
&+ \eta_2 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes {\mathbf h}) \nonumber \\
&+ \eta_3 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) \nonumber \\
&+ \eta_4 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) .\label{eq:3rdMomApp}
\end{align}
Setting the off-diagonal entries of Equations \eqref{eq:2ndMomApp} and \eqref{eq:3rdMomApp} to $0$ and get the following set of equations
\begin{align}
\mathbb{E}&(h_i h_j) + \eta \mathbb{E}(h_i) \mathbb{E}(h_j) = 0 \qquad \text{for } \quad i \neq j , \\
\mathbb{E}&(h_i h_j h_l) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_1 \mathbb{E}(h_i h_j) \mathbb{E}(h_l) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_2 \mathbb{E}(h_i h_l) \mathbb{E}(h_j) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_3 \mathbb{E}(h_j h_l) \mathbb{E}(h_i) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_4 \mathbb{E}(h_i) \mathbb{E}(h_j) \mathbb{E}(h_l) =0 \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \text{for} \quad i \neq j \neq l = 0, \\
\mathbb{E}& (h^2_i h_l) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_1 \mathbb{E}(h^2_i) \mathbb{E}(h_l) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_2 \mathbb{E}(h_i h_l) \mathbb{E}(h_i) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_3 \mathbb{E}(h_i h_l) \mathbb{E}(h_i) \nonumber \\
& + \eta_4 \mathbb{E}(h_i) \mathbb{E}(h_i) \mathbb{E}(h_l) = 0 \nonumber \\
& \qquad \qquad \qquad \text{for} \quad i \neq l .
\end{align}
Writing the moments using Equation \eqref{eq:momApp}, assuming $\Phi_i(u) = \alpha_i \Psi(u)$, we get the following weights by some simple algebraic manipulations,
\begin{align}
\eta & =\frac{\int \limits_0^\infty u e^{-\alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \big( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \big)^2 \mathrm{d} u}{\Big( \int \limits_0^\infty e^{-\alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \mathrm{d} u \Big)^2 } \label{eq:eta} \\
\eta_1 & = \eta_2 =\eta_3 \nonumber \\
&= - \frac{\frac{1}{2} \int \limits_0^\infty u^2 e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm d u^2} \Psi(u) \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \mathrm{d} u}{ \int \limits_0^\infty u e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \frac{\mathrm{d}^2}{\mathrm d u^2} \Psi(u) \mathrm{d} u \int \limits_0^\infty e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \mathrm{d} u} \label{eq:eta1} \\
\eta_4 &= \frac{f(\psi(u))}{\Big( \int \limits_0^\infty e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \mathrm{d} u \Big)^3} \label{eq:eta2}
\end{align}
Where
\begin{align}
f(\psi(u)) & = -\frac{1}{2} \int \limits_0^\infty u^2 e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \big(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \big)^3 \mathrm{d} u \nonumber \\
& + (\eta_1 + \eta_2 + \eta_3) \int \limits_0^\infty u e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \big(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \big)^2 \mathrm{d} u \nonumber \\
& \cdot \int \limits_0^\infty e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \mathrm{d} u
\end{align}
Setting $v = \eta$, $v_1 = \eta_1 = \eta_2 =\eta_3$ and $v_2 = \eta_4$ and defining
\begin{equation}
\Omega (m,n,p) := \int \limits_0^\infty u^m \frac{\mathrm{d}^n}{\mathrm d u^n} \Psi(u) \Big( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \Big)^p e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \mathrm{d} u,
\end{equation}
the set of weights $v$, $v_1$ and $v_2$ have the following form,
\begin{align}
v &= \frac{\Omega(1,1,1)}{\Big( \Omega(0,1,0) \Big)^2}, \label{eq:v12} \\
v_1& = - \frac{\Omega(2,2,1)}{2 \Omega(1,2,0) \Omega(0,1,0)}, \label{eq:v1} \\
v_2 &= \frac{-0.5 \Omega(2,1,2) + 3 v_1 \Omega(1,1,1) \Omega(0,1,0)}{\Big( \Omega(0,1,0) \Big)^3}. \label{eq:v2} \\
\end{align}
Weights $v$, $v_1$ and $v_2$ ensure that moment tensors ${\mathbf{M}_2^{({\mathbf h})}}$ and $ {\mathbf{M}_3^{({\mathbf h})}}$ form diagonal tensors. Therefore they can be represented as,
\begin{align}
{\mathbf{M}_2^{({\mathbf h})}} & = \sum_{i \in [k]} \kappa_i \mathbf{e}_i^{\otimes 2} , \\
{\mathbf{M}_3^{({\mathbf h})}} & = \sum_{i \in [k]} \lambda_i \mathbf{e}_i^{\otimes 3},
\end{align}
where,
\begin{align}
\kappa_i &= {\mathbb E}[ h_i^2 ] + v {\mathbb E}[ h_i ]^2, \\
\lambda_i & = {\mathbb E}[ h_i^3 ] + 3 v_1 \big( {\mathbb E}[h_i^2] {\mathbb E}[h_i] \big) + v_2 \big( {\mathbb E}[ h_i ]^3 \big).
\end{align}
The exchangeability assumption on the word space gives,
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:mom1}
\mathbb{E} [ {\mathbf x}_1 ] = \mathbb{E} \big( \mathbb{E} [ {\mathbf x}_1 \vert {\mathbf h} ] \big) = {\bf A} \mathbb{ E}({\mathbf h}),
\end{equation}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mom2}
\mathbb{E} [ {\mathbf x}_1 \otimes {\mathbf x}_2] = \mathbb{E} \big( \mathbb{E} [ {\mathbf x}_1 \otimes {\mathbf x}_2 \vert {\mathbf h} ] \big)
= {\bf A} \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) {\bf A}^\top,
\end{align}
\begin{align}
\label{eq:mom3}
\mathbb{E} [ {\mathbf x}_1 \otimes {\mathbf x}_2 \otimes {\mathbf x}_3 ] & = \mathbb{E} \big( \mathbb{E} [ {\mathbf x}_1 \otimes {\mathbf x}_2 \otimes {\mathbf x}_3 \vert {\mathbf h} ] \big)\nonumber \\
& = \mathbb{E} [ {\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}] ({\bf A},{\bf A},{\bf A}).
\end{align}
Therefore,
\begin{align}
{\mathbf{M}_2} &= {\mathbf A} \mathbf{M}_2^{({\mathbf h})} {\mathbf A}^\top = \sum \limits_{j \in [k]} \kappa_j (\mathbf{a}_j \otimes \mathbf{a}_j), \\
{\mathbf{M}_3} &= \mathbf{M}_3^{({\mathbf h})} ({\mathbf A}, {\mathbf A}, {\mathbf A}) = \sum \limits_{j \in [k]} \lambda_j (\mathbf{a}_j \otimes \mathbf{a}_j \otimes \mathbf{a}_j)
\end{align}
\end{myproof}
\section{Conclusion}\label{sec:conclusion}
In this paper we introduce the new class of Latent Normalized Infinitely Divisible (NID) topic models that generalize previously proposed topic models such as LDA. We provide guaranteed efficient learning for this class of distributions using spectral methods through untangling the dependence of the hidden topics. We provide evidence that our proposed NID topic model overcomes the shortcomings of the Dirichlet distribution by allowing for both positive and negative correlations among the topics.
In the end we use two real world datasets to validate our claims in practice
The improved likelihood perplexity score indicates that if we allow the model to pick the underlying distribution we will get better generalization results.
\section{Investigation of special cases}
In this section we analyze the members of NID distributions that can be represented in closed form and indicate how the parameters of each distribution change its properties and the weights of Theorem \ref{thm:mainResult}. This analysis is crucial for choosing a good fit for modeling an application of interest.
\paragraph{Gamma ID distribution: }
When the ID distribution is Gamma with parameters $(\alpha_i,1)$, we have the Dirichlet distribution as the resulting NID distribution. The Laplace exponent for this distribution will, therefore, be
\begin{equation}
\Psi_i(u) = \alpha_i \text{ln}(1+u).
\end{equation}
\paragraph{$\gamma$-stable ID: }
The variables are drawn from the positive stable distribution $St(\gamma, \beta, \alpha_i, \mu)$ with $\mu = 0$, $\beta = 1$ and $\gamma <1$ which ensures that the distribution is on $\mathbb{R}^+$. The Laplace exponent of this distribution is given below
\begin{equation}
\Psi_i(u) = \alpha_i \frac{\Gamma(1-\gamma)}{\sqrt{2 \pi}\gamma}u^\gamma.
\end{equation}
Note that the $\gamma$-stable distribution can be represented in closed form for $\gamma = \frac{1}{2}$. The weights for a general Stable distribution $St(\gamma, \beta, \alpha_i, \mu)$ with $\mu=0$ and $\beta=1$ and $\gamma < 1$, depend on $\alpha_0 = \sum_{i \in [k]} \alpha_i $ and $\gamma$. Figure \ref{fig:gamStab} indicates how weights $v_1$ and $v_2$ change with $\gamma$ for a fixed value of $\alpha_0 = 0.5$. Note that access to another hyper-parameter, $\gamma$, will give us extra flexibility compared to the Dirichlet distribution weights that depends only on $\alpha_0$.
\paragraph{Inverse Gaussian ID: }
The random variables are drawn from the Inverse-Gaussian (IG) distribution $IG(\alpha_i,\lambda)$. The Laplace exponent of this distribution is given below
\begin{equation}
\Psi_i(u) = \alpha_i \big( \sqrt{2 u + \lambda^2} - \lambda \big).
\end{equation}
Figure \ref{fig:invGauss} depicts how weights $v_1$ and $v_2$ of Theorem \ref{thm:mainResult} vary with $\lambda$ for a fixed $\alpha_0 = 0.5$ when the chosen NID distribution is Inverse Gaussian.
\section{Experiments}
In this section we apply our proposed latent NID topic modeling algorithm to New York Times and Pubmed articles \cite{Lichman:2013}. The New York Times dataset contains about $300,000$ documents and the pubmed data contains around $8$ million documents. The vocabulary size for both the datasets are around $100,000$.
\begin{centering}
\begin{table}
\centering
\caption{Top 10 Words for Pubmed, K = 10}
\label{tab:topWordsPubmed}
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabularx}{0.5\textwidth}{| c || X |}
\hline
Topic & Top Words in descending order of importance \\
\hline
1 & protein, region, dna, family, sequence, gene, form-12, analysis.abstract, model, tumoural \\
2 & cell, mice.abstract, expression.abstract, activity.abstract, primary, tumor, antigen, human, t-cell, vitro \\
3 & tumor, treatment, receptor, lesional, children--a, effect.abstract, factor, rat1, renal-cell, response-1 \\
4 & patient, treatment, therapy, clinical, disease, level.abstract, effect.abstract, treated, tumor, surgery \\
5 & activity.abstract, rat1, concentration, dna, human, effect.abstract, exposure.abstract, animal-based, reactional, inhibition.abstract \\
6 & patient, children--a, women.abstract, treatment, level.abstract, syndrome, disordered, disease, year-1, therapy \\
7 & effect.abstract, receptor, level.abstract, rat1, mutational, gene, concentration, women.abstract, insulin, expression.abstract \\
8 & acid, strain, concentration, women.abstract, test, pregnancy--a, drug, system--a, function.abstract, water \\
9 & strain, protein, system--a, muscle, mutational, species, growth, diagnosis-based, analysis.abstract, gene \\
10 & infection.abstract, hospital, programed, strain, medical, alpha, information, health, children--a, data.abstract \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
}
\end{table}
\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\begin{table*}
\caption{NID Top 10 Words for NYtimes, K = 20}
\label{tab:topWords}
\scalebox{1}{
\begin{tabularx}{\textwidth}{| c || X |}
\hline
Topic & Top Words in descending order of importance \\
\hline
1 & seeded, soldier, firestone, bobby-braswell, michigan-state, actresses, gary-william, preview, school-district, netanyahu \\
2 & diane, question, newspaper, copy, fall, held, tonight, send, guard, slugged \\
3 & abides, acclimate, acetate, alderman, analogues, annexing, ansar, antitax, antitobacco, argyle \\
4 & percent, school, quarter, company, taliban, high, stock, race, companies, john-mccain \\
5 & test, deal, contract, tiger-wood, question, houston-chronicle, copy, won, seattle-post-intelligencer ,tax \\
6 & tonight, diane, question, newspaper, file, copy, fall, slugged, onlytest, xxx \\
7 & company, com, market, stock, won, los-angeles-daily-new, business, eastern, web, commentary \\
8 & abides, acclimate, acetate, alderman, analogues, annexing, ansar, antitax, antitobacco, argyle \\
9 & company, game, run, los-angeles-daily-new, percent, team, season, stock, companies, games \\
10 & working-girl, abides, acclimate, acetate, alderman, analogues, annexing, ansar, antitax, antitobacco \\
11 & diane, newspaper, fall, tonight, question, held, copy, bush, slugged, police \\
12 & hurricanes, policies, surgery, productivity, courageous, emergency, singapore, orange-bowl, regarding, telecast \\
13 & abides, acclimate, acetate, alderman, analogues, annexing, ansar, antitax, antitobacco, argyle \\
14 & company, com, won, stock, market, eastern, commentary, business, web, deal \\
15 & company, stock, market, business, investor, technology, analyst, cash, sell, executives \\
16 & tonight, question, diane, file, newspaper, copy, fall, slugged, onlytest, xxx \\
17 & defense, held, children, fight, assistant, surgery, michael-bloomberg, worker, bird, omar \\
18 & percent, company, stock, companies, quarter, school, market, analyst, high, corp \\
19 & school, student, yard, released, guard, premature, teacher, touchdown, publication, leader \\
20 & school, percent, student, yard, high, taliban, flight, air, afghanistan, plan \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
}
\end{table*}
\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{Perplexity comparison accross different datasets}
\label{tab:perplexity}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
\hline
Dataset & NYtimes & Pubmed \\
\hline
NID & $\mathbf{3.5702e+03}$ & $\mathbf{4.0771e+03}$ \\
LDA & $4.8464e+03$ & $4.3702e+03$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{PMI comparison accross different datasets}
\label{tab:PMI}
\begin{tabular}{|c||c|c|}
\hline
Dataset & NYtimes & Pubmed \\
\hline
NID & $\mathbf{0.2439}$ & ${0.3080}$ \\
LDA & $0.2362$ & $\mathbf{0.4487}$ \\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
\end{centering}
\begin{centering}
\begin{table}[ht]
\centering
\caption{10 Shared words: New York times dataset}
\label{tab:sharedWords}
\scalebox{0.8}{
\begin{tabularx}{0.60\textwidth}{| c || X |}
\hline
Shared Words & boston-globe, tonight, question, newspaper, spot, percent, file, diane, copy, fall \\
\hline
\end{tabularx}
}
\end{table}
\end{centering}
\paragraph{Hyperparameter Tuning} In practice, we can tune for hyperparameters to compute the best fitting $v, v_1$ and $v_2$. Therefore, we will not limit ourselves to a single parametric NID family. We learn the weights during the learning process and employ a non-parametric estimation of the L\'{e}vy-Khintchine representation through the univariate integrals of Equations \ref{eq:v} and \ref{eq:vv}. Due to the one-dimensional nature of the integrations, a small number of parameters will suffice for good performance. The following paragraph describes the process in more detail.
We first split the data into train and test sets randomly. We then use the train data to learn the model parameters, $\alpha_i$'s and the columns of the topic-word matrix ${\mathbf A}$, as well as the weights $v$, $v_1$ and $v_2$ in Equations \ref{eq:momentP} and \ref{eq:momentT}, respectively. We do so by finding the best low rank approximation of tensor ${\mathbf{M}_3} $ that minimizes the Frobenius Norm difference between the right-hand-side of Equation \ref{eq:momentT} and its low rank approximation. The recovered components are the columns of the topic-word matrix and the parameters $\alpha_i$ are recovered from the decomposition weights. Once we find the best $v$, $v_1$ and $v_2$ we use the test data to find the best NID distribution described by the weights such that the likelihood of the test data is maximized under that choice of NID distribution.
\paragraph{Results:}
We compare our proposed latent NID topic model with the spectral LDA method \cite{anandkumar2012spectral}. It has been shown in \cite{huang2016discovery} that spectral LDA is more efficient and achieves better perplexity compared to the conventional LDA \cite{blei2003latent}. Table \ref{tab:topWords} provides a sketch of the top words per topics recovered by our latent NID topic model on the New Yowk times dataset and Table \ref{tab:topWordsPubmed} shows the top words recovered from the pubmed dataset. We have also provided the the top words recovered by LDA for the New York times dataset for comparison purposes in Table \ref{tab:topWordslda} in the appendix. Besides from the top words, we also present the shared words among the recovered topics for the New York Times dataset in Table \ref{tab:sharedWords}. The presence of words such as ``tonight'', ``question'' and ``fall'' among these words makes a lot of sense since they are general words that are not usually indicative of any specific topic.
We use the well-known likelihood perplexity measure \cite{blei2003latent} to evaluate the generalization performance of our proposed topic modeling algorithm as well as the Pointwise Mutual Information (PMI) score \cite{anandkumar2013learning} to assess the coherence of the recovered topics. Perplexity is defined as the inverse of the geometric mean per-word of the estimated likelihood. We refer to our proposed method as $NID$ and compare it against $LDA$ \cite{anandkumar2012spectral} where the distribution of the hidden space is fixed to be Dirichlet. It should be noted that lower perplexity indicates better generalization performance and higher PMI indicated better topic coherence. Figure \ref{fig:perp} shows the perplexity and PMI score for the NID and LDA methods across different number of topics for the New York Times dataset. Similar comparisons including the Pubmed dataset results are also provided in Tables \ref{tab:perplexity} and \ref{tab:PMI}. The results suggest that if we allow the corpus to choose the best underlying topic distribution, we can get better generalization performance as well as topic coherence on the held-out set compared to fixing the underlying distribution to Dirichlet. The improved perplexity of our proposed method is indicative of correlations in the underlying documents that are not captured by the Dirichlet distribution. Thus, latent NID topic models are capable of successfully capturing correlations within topics while providing guarantees for exact recovery and efficient learning as proven in Section \ref{sec:learning}.
Last but not least, the naive Variational Inference implementation of \cite{blei2003latent} \footnote{available at: http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~blei/lda-c/}, does not scale to the current datasets used in this paper. The naive implementation of the spectral LDA, however, takes only about a minute to run on the NYtimes dataset and about 15 minutes to run on the Pubmed dataset. It is, therefore, of great importance to have a class of models that can be learned using spectral methods mainly because of their inherent scalability, ease of implementation and statistical guarantees. As we show in this paper, latent NID topic models are such a class of models. The correlated topic model framework of \cite{blei2006correlated} also uses Variational Inference to perform learning and it is limited to the logit-normal distribution. latent NID topic models are not only scalable, but are also capable of modeling arbitrary correlations without requiring a fixed prior distribution on the topic space.
\input{pepPMI.tex}
\section*{Inference Using MCMC sampling}
The problem of inference reduces to the problem of inferring the hidden topic assignments per document, ${\mathbf h}$, and the hidden topic-word assignments per each word in the document, $\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath}$. In other words we need to compute the following posterior distribution given the word counts vector $\mathbf{w^{(d)}}$ for document $d \in [D]$,
\begin{align}
\Pr({\mathbf h}, \hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath}) & = \frac{\Pr({\mathbf h},\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath},\mathbf{w} \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A})}{\Pr(\mathbf{w} \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A})} \nonumber \\
& = \frac{\Pr({\mathbf h},\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath},\mathbf{w} \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A})}{\int \sum_{\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath}} \Pr({\mathbf h},\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath},\mathbf{w} \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A}) \mathrm{d} {\mathbf h}}.
\end{align}
The denominator is in general intractable under different prior distributions and needs to be approximated using different techniques such as variational inference \cite{blei2003latent,blei2006correlated}, or MCMC sampling \cite{griffiths2004finding, mimno2008gibbs, chen2013scalable}.
As it is known, NID distributions do not have closed form representations in general. Variational inference methods, on the other hand, need to have access to the distribution's closed form. Therefore, they do not seem to be a good candidate for our topic model under NID priors. In stead, we will use an MCMC Metropolis-Hastings sampler for inferring the hidden variables given each document $\mathbf{w}$ and the estimated parameters $\hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}$ and ${\mathbf A}$.
Let $\mathbf{w}^{(d)} \in \mathbb{R}^V$ indicate the vector of word counts for document $d$ of length $N$ in the corpus and let ${\mathbf h}^{(d)} \in \mathbb{R}^k$ denote the hidden topic proportions of document $d$. The posterior distribution is represented below
\begin{align}
& \Pr(\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf h}^{(d)} \vert \mathbf{w}^{(d)}, \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A}) = \frac{\Pr(\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf h}^{(d)}, \mathbf{w}^{(d)} \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A})}{\Pr(\mathbf{w}^{(d)}, \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A})} \nonumber \\
& \propto \Pr(\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf h}^{(d)}, \mathbf{w}^{(d)} \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}, {\mathbf A}) \nonumber \\
& = \Pr({\mathbf h}^{(d)} \vert \hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}) \prod_{n \in N} \Pr(\zeta_n^{(d)} \vert {\mathbf h}^{(d)}) \Pr(w_n^{(d)} \vert \zeta_n^{(d)}, {\mathbf A}) \nonumber \\
& = \int \limits_0^\infty \prod_{i \in [k-1]} f_i(h_i m) f_k(m - \sum_{i \in [k-1]} h_i m) m^{k-1} \mathrm{d} m \nonumber \nonumber \\
& \times \prod_{i \in [k]} h_i^{n_{d,i}} \prod_{i \in [k]} \prod_{j \in V} (A_{i,j})^{n_{i,j}},
\label{eq:posterior}
\end{align}
where $f_i(\cdot)$ indicates the distribution of the original ID variable, $n_{d,i}$ denotes the number of words assigned to topic $i$ in document $d$ and $n_{i,j}$ indicates the number of times word $j$ is assigned to topic $i$. Normally in topic modeling settings ${\mathbf h}$ would integrate out making Gibbs sampling possible. Here, however, the full conditional will not yield a known distribution to draw samples from. Therefore, one needs to perform Metropolis-Hastings MCMC to be able to generate draws from the posterior \eqref{eq:posterior} and perform inference.
It should be noted that for topic models such as Latent Dirichlet Allocation \cite{griffiths2004finding} and Correlated Topic Models \cite{mimno2008gibbs} (that assumes that the topics are drawn from the Logistic-Normal) distribution, the Dirichlet distributed parameters can be integrated out and we only need to infer $\hbox{\boldmath$\zeta$\unboldmath}$. This is not the case in our topic modeling scenario, however. The posterior inference algorithm is given in Algorithm \ref{alg:inference}. The jumping distribution is chosen to be that of the Dirichlet distribution to ensure that the topics lie on a simplex and the hidden topics are drawn from a multinomial distribution whose parameters have been estimated in the learning stage.
\input{inferenceAlg.tex}
\section{Introduction}
Topic models are a popular class of exchangeable latent variable models for document categorization. The goal is to uncover hidden topics based on the distribution of word occurrences in a document corpus.
Topic models are {\em admixture} models, which go beyond the usual mixture model that allows for only one hidden topic to be present in each document. In contrast, topic models incorporate multiple topics in each document. It is assumed that each document has a latent proportions of different topics, and the observed words are drawn in a conditionally independent manner, given the set of topics.
Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) is the most popular topic model~\cite{blei2003latent}, in which the topic proportions are drawn from the Dirichlet distribution. While LDA has widespread applications, it is limited by the choice of the Dirichlet distribution. Notably, Dirichlet distribution can only model negative correlations~\cite{bakhtiari2014online}, and thus, is unable to incorporate arbitrary correlations among the topics that may be present in different document corpora. Another drawback is that the elements with similar means need to have similar variances. While there have been previous attempt to go beyond the Dirichlet distribution, e.g.~\cite{blei2006correlated,sato2010topic}, their correlation structures are still limited, learning these models is usually difficult and no guaranteed algorithms exist. Furthermore, As discussed in \cite{passos2011correlations}, the correlation structure considered in \cite{blei2006correlated}, gives rise to spurious correlations resulting in a better perplexity on the held-out set even when the recovered topics are less interpretable. The work of \cite{arora2013practical} provides a provably correct algorithm for learning topic models that also allow for certain correlations among the topics, however, it requires ``anchor word'' separability assumptions for the proof of correctness.
In this work, we consider a flexible class of topic models, and propose guaranteed and efficient algorithms for learning them. We employ the class of Normalized Infinitely Divisible (NID) distributions to model the topic proportions~\cite{favaro2011class,mangili2015new}. These are a class of distributions on the simplex, formed by normalizing a set of independent draws from a family of positive Infinitely Divisible (ID) distributions. The draws from an ID distribution can be represented as a sum of an arbitrary number of i.i.d. random variables. The concept of infinite divisibility was introduced in 1929 by Bruno de Finetti, and the most fundamental results were developed by Kolmogorov, L\'{e}vy and Khintchine in the 1930s. The idea of using normalized random probability measures with independent increments have also been used in the context of non-parametric models to go beyond the Dirichlet Process \cite{lijoi2010models}.
The Gamma distribution is an example of an ID distribution, and the Dirichlet distribution is obtained by normalizing a set of independent draws from Gamma distributions. We show that the class of NID topic models significantly generalize the LDA model: they can incorporate both positive and negative correlations among the topics and they involve additional parameters to vary the variance and higher order moments, while fixing the mean
There are mainly three categories of algorithms for learning topic models, viz., variational inference~\cite{blei2003latent,blei2006correlated}, Gibbs sampling~\cite{griffiths2004finding,mimno2008gibbs,chen2013scalable}, and spectral methods~\cite{anandkumar2012spectral,tung2014spectral}. Among them, spectral methods have gained increasing prominence over the last few years, due to their efficiency and guaranteed learnability. In this paper, we develop novel spectral methods for learning latent NID topic models.
Spectral methods have previously been proposed for learning LDA~\cite{anandkumar2012spectral}, and in addition, other latent variable models such as Independent Component Analysis (ICA), Hidden Markov Models (HMM) and mixtures of ranking distributions~\cite{anandkumar2014tensor}. The idea is to learn the parameters based on spectral decomposition of low order moment tensors (third or fourth order). Efficient algorithms for tensor decomposition have been proposed before~\cite{anandkumar2014tensor}, and implies consistent learning with (low order) polynomial computational and sample complexity.
The main difficulty in extending spectral methods to the more general class of NID topic models is the presence of arbitrary correlations among the hidden topics which need to be ``untangled''. For instance, take the case of a single topic model (i.e. each document has only one topic); here, the third order moment, which is the co-occurrence tensor of word triplets, has a CANDECOMP/PARAFAC (CP) decomposition, and computing the decomposition yields an estimate of the topic-word matrix. In contrast, for the LDA model, such a tensor decomposition is obtained by a combination of moments up to the third order. In other words, the moments of the LDA model need to be appropriately ``centered'' in order to have the tensor decomposition form.
Finding such a moment combination has so far been an ``art form'', since it is based on explicit manipulation of the moments of the hidden topic distribution. So far, there is no principled mechanism to automatically find the moment combination with the CP decomposition form. For arbitrary topic models, however, finding such a combination may not even be possible. In general, one requires all the higher order moments for learning.
In this work, we show that surprisingly, for the flexible class of NID topic models, moments up to third order suffice for learning, and we provide an efficient algorithm for computing the coefficients to combine the moments. The algorithm is based on computation of a univariate integral, that involves the Levy measure of the underlying ID distribution. The integral can be computed efficiently through numerical integration since it is only univariate, and has no dependence on the topic or word dimensions. Intriguingly, this can be accomplished, even when there exists no closed form probability density functions (pdf) for the NID variables.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section \ref{sec:NIDfull}, we propose our ``Latent Normalized Infinitely Divisible Topic Models'' and present its generative process. We dedicate Section \ref{sec:prop} to the properties of NID distributions and indicate how they overcome the drawbacks of the Dirichlet distribution and other distributions on the simplex. In Section \ref{sec:learning} we present our efficient learning algorithm with guaranteed convergence for the proposed topic model based on spectral decomposition. Finally, we conclude the paper in Section \ref{sec:conclusion}.
\section{Learning NID Topic Models through Spectral Methods}
\label{sec:learning}
In this section we will show how the form of the moments of NID distributions enable efficient learning of this flexible class.
In order to be able to guarantee efficient learning using higher order moments, the moments need to have a very specific structure. Namely, the moment of the underlying distribution of ${\mathbf h}$ needs to form a diagonal tensor. If the components of ${\mathbf h}$ where indeed independent, this is obtained through the cumulant tensor. On the other hand, for LDA, it has been shown by Anandkumar et. al. \cite{anandkumar2012spectral} that a linear combination of moments of up to third order of ${\mathbf h}$ forms a diagonal tensor for the Dirichlet distribution. Below, we extend the result to the more general class of NID distributions.
\subsection{Consistency of Learning through Moment Matching}
\begin{assumption}
\label{as:homog}
ID random variables $z_i$ for $i \in [k]$ are said to be \emph{partially homogeneous} if they share the same L\'{e}vy measure. This implies that the corresponding Laplace exponent of variable $z_i$ is given $ \alpha_i \Psi(u)$ for some $\alpha_i \in {\mathbb R}^+$, and $\Psi(u)$ is the Laplace exponent of the common L\'{e}vy measure.
\end{assumption}
Under the above assumption, we prove guaranteed learning of NID models through spectral methods. This is based on the following moment forms for NID models, which admit a CP tensor decomposition. The components of the decomposition will be the columns of the topic-word matrix: ${\mathbf A}:=[{\mathbf a}_1| {\mathbf a}_2| \ldots |{\mathbf a}_k]$.
Define \begin{equation}
\Omega (m,n,p) = \int \limits_0^\infty u^m \frac{\mathrm{d}^n}{\mathrm d u^n} \Psi(u) \Big( \frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm d u} \Psi(u) \Big)^p e^{- \alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \mathrm{d} u,\end{equation}\noindent where $ \Psi(u)$ is the Laplace exponent of the NID distribution and $\alpha_0 = \sum_{i \in [k]} \alpha_i$.
\begin{theorem}({\textbf{Moment Forms for NID models}})
\label{thm:mainResult}
Let ${\mathbf{M}_2}$ and ${\mathbf{M}_3}$ be respectively the following matrix and tensor constructed from the following moments of the data,
\begin{align}
{\mathbf{M}_2} = & \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_1 \otimes {\mathbf x}_2] + v \cdot \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_1] \otimes \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_2] , \label{eq:momentP} \\
{\mathbf{M}_3} = & \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_1 \otimes {\mathbf x}_2 \otimes {\mathbf x}_3] + v_2 \cdot \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_1] \otimes \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_2] \otimes \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_3] \nonumber \\
&+ v_1 \cdot \big[\mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_1 \otimes {\mathbf x}_2] \otimes \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_3] + \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_1] \otimes \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_2 \otimes {\mathbf x}_3] + \nonumber \\
& \qquad \quad \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_1 \otimes \mathbb{E}[{\mathbf x}_2] \otimes {\mathbf x}_3 ] \big] \label{eq:momentT} \\
\end{align}
where,
\begin{align}
v &= \frac{\Omega(1,1,1)}{\Big( \Omega(0,1,0) \Big)^2}, \quad
v_1 = - \frac{\Omega(2,2,1)}{2 \Omega(1,2,0) \Omega(0,1,0)}, \quad \label{eq:v} \\
v_2& = \frac{-0.5 \Omega(2,1,2) + 3 v_1 \Omega(1,1,1) \Omega(0,1,0)}{\Big( \Omega(0,1,0) \Big)^3}, \label{eq:vv}
\end{align}
Then given Assumption \ref{as:homog},
\begin{align}
{\mathbf{M}_2} = \sum \limits_{j \in [k]} \kappa_j (\mathbf{a}_j \otimes \mathbf{a}_j), \quad
{\mathbf{M}_3} = \sum \limits_{j \in [k]} \lambda_j (\mathbf{a}_j \otimes \mathbf{a}_j \otimes \mathbf{a}_j). \label{eq:3rdDecomp}
\end{align}
for a set of $ \kappa_j$'s and $\lambda_j$'s which are a function of the parameters of the distribution.
\end{theorem}
\paragraph{Remark 1: efficient computation of $v, v_1$ and $v_2$: }What makes Theorem \ref{thm:mainResult} specially intriguing is the fact that weights $v$, $v_1$ and $v_2$ can be computed through univariate integration, which can be computed efficiently, regardless of the dimensionality of the problem.
\paragraph{Remark 2: investigation of special cases}
When the ID distribution is Gamma with parameters $(\alpha_i,1)$, we have the Dirichlet distribution as the resulting NID distribution.
Weights $v_1$ and $v_2$ reduce to the results of Anandkumar et. al. \cite{anandkumar2012spectral} for the Gamma$(\alpha_i,1)$ distribution,
which are $v_1 = - \frac{\alpha_0}{\alpha_0 + 2}$ and $v_2 = \frac{2 \alpha_0^2}{(\alpha_0+2)(\alpha_0+1)}.$
When the variables are drawn from the positive stable distribution $St(1/2, \beta, \alpha_i, \mu)$
weights $v_1$ and $v_2$ in Theorem \ref{thm:mainResult} can be represented in closed form as $v_1 = - \frac{1}{4}$ and $v_2 = -\frac{5}{8}$.
It is hard to find closed form representation of the weights for other stable distributions and the Inverse Gaussian distribution. Therefore, we give the form of the weights with respect to the parameters of each distribution in Figure \ref{fig:weights}. As it can be seen in Figures \ref{fig:stableVert} and \ref{fig:stableCent}, as $\gamma$ increases, the distribution gets more centralized on the simplex. Therefore, as depicted in Figure \ref{fig:gamStab} the weight becomes more negative to compensate for it. The same holds in Figure \ref{fig:invGauss}.
The above result immediately implies guaranteed learning for non-degenerate topic-word matrix ${\mathbf A}$.
\begin{assumption}
\label{as:lin}
Topic-word matrix ${\mathbf A}\in {\mathbb R}^{d\times k}$ has linearly independent columns and the parameters $\alpha_i> 0$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{corollary
\textbf{\emph{(Guaranteed Learning of NID Topic Models using Spectral Methods)}}
Given empirical versions of moments ${\mathbf M}_2$ and ${\mathbf M}_3$ in \eqref{eq:momentP} and \eqref{eq:momentT}, using tensor decomposition algorithm from~\cite{anandkumar2014tensor}, under the above assumption, we can consistently estimate topic-word matrix ${\mathbf A}$ and parameters $\hbox{\boldmath$\alpha$\unboldmath}$ with polynomial computational and sample complexity.
\end{corollary}
The overall procedure is given in Algorithm \ref{alg:learning}.
\paragraph{Remark 3: third order moments suffice} For the flexible class of latent NID topic models, only moments up to the third order suffice for efficient learning.
\input{weightFig.tex}
\input{learningAlg.tex}
\paragraph{Remark 4: Sample Complexity} Following \cite{anandkumar2012spectral}, Algorithm \ref{alg:learning} can recover matrix ${\mathbf A}$ under Assumption \ref{as:lin} with polynomial sample complexity.
\paragraph{Remark 5: Implementation Efficiency} In order to make the implementation efficient we use the discussion in \cite{anandkumar2014tensor}. Specifically, as mentioned in \cite{anandkumar2014tensor}, we can find a whitening transformation from matrix ${\mathbf{M}_2}$ that lowers the data dimension from the vocabulary space to the topic space. We then use the same whitening transformation to go back to the original space and recover the parameters of the model.
\paragraph{Overview of the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:mainResult}}
We begin the proof by forming the following second order and third order tensors using the moments of the NID distribution given in Lemma \ref{lem:moment}.
\begin{align}
{\mathbf{M}_2^{({\mathbf h})}} & = \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) + v \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) ,\label{eq:2ndMom} \\
{\mathbf{M}_3^{({\mathbf h})}} & = \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) + v_2 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \nonumber \\
&+ v_1 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \nonumber \\
& + v_1 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes {\mathbf h}) \nonumber \\
& + v_1 \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h}) \otimes \mathbb{E}({\mathbf h} \otimes {\mathbf h}) \label{eq:3rdMom}
\end{align}
Weights $v$, $v_1$ and $v_2$ are as in Equations \eqref{eq:v} and \eqref{eq:vv}. They are computed by setting the off-diagonal entries of matrix ${\mathbf{M}_2^{({\mathbf h})}}$ in Equation \ref{eq:2ndMom} and ${\mathbf{M}_3^{({\mathbf h})}}$ in Equation \ref{eq:3rdMom} to $0$. Due to the homogeneity assumption, all the off-diagonal entries can be simultaneously made to vanish with these choices of coefficients for $v, v_1$ and $v_2$. We obtain
${\mathbf{M}_2^{({\mathbf h})}} = \sum_{i \in [k]} \kappa'_i \mathbf{e}_i^{\otimes 2} $ and ${\mathbf{M}_3^{({\mathbf h})}} = \sum_{i \in [k]} \lambda'_i \mathbf{e}_i^{\otimes 3}$ where $\mathbf{e}_i$'s are the standard basis vectors, and this implies they are diagonal tensors. Due to this fact and the exchangeability of the words given topics according to \eqref{eq:lda}, Equations \ref{eq:3rdDecomp} follow.
The exact forms of $v, v_1$ and $v_2$ are obtained by the following moment forms for NID distributions.
\begin{lemma}[\cite{mangili2015new}]
\label{lem:moment} The moments of NID variables $h_1, \ldots h_k$ satisfy
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:NIDmoments}
\mathbb{E}(h_1^{r_1} h_2^{r_2} \dots h_k^{r_k}) = \frac{1}{\Gamma(r)} \int \limits_0^\infty u^{r-1} e^{-\alpha_0 \Psi(u)} \prod \limits_{j \in [k]} B_{r_j}^j \mathrm{d} u,
\end{equation}
where $r = \sum_{i \in [k]} r_i$ and $B_{r_j}^j$ can be written in terms of the partial Bell polynomial as
\begin{equation}
B_{r}^i = B_r(-\alpha_i\Psi^{(1)}(u), \dots, -\alpha_i\Psi^{(r)}(u)),
\end{equation}
in which $\Psi^{(l)}(u)$ is the $l$-th derivative of $\Psi(u)$ with respect to $u$.
\end{lemma}
\section{Properties of NID distributions}
\label{sec:prop}
\input{NIDfig.tex}
NID distributions are a flexible class of distributions on the simplex and have been applied in a range of domains. This includes hierarchical mixture modeling with Normalized Inverse-Gaussian distribution~\citep{lijoi2005hierarchical}, and modeling overdispersion with the normalized tempered stable distribution \cite{kolossiatis2011modeling}, both of which are examples of NID distributions. For more applications, see \cite{favaro2011class}.
Let us first define the concept of infinite divisibility and present the properties of an ID distribution, and then consider the NID distributions.
\subsection{Infinitely Divisible Distributions}
\label{sec:ID}
If random variable $z$ has an Infinitely Divisible (ID) distribution, then for any $n \in \mathbb{N}$ there exists a collection of i.i.d random variables $y_1, \dots , y_n$ such that $z \stackrel{\text{d}}{=} y_1 + \dots + y_n$. In other words, an Infinitely Divisible distribution can be expressed as the sum of an arbitrary number of independent identically distributed random variables.
The Poisson distribution, compound Poisson, the negative binomial distribution, Gamma distribution, and the trivially degenerate distribution are examples of Infinitely Divisible distributions; as are the normal distribution, Cauchy distribution, and all other members of the stable distribution family. The Student's t-distribution is also another example of Infinitely Divisible distributions. The uniform distribution and the binomial distribution are not infinitely divisible, as are all distributions with bounded (finite) support.
The special decomposition form of ID distributions makes them natural choices for certain models or applications. E.g. a compound Poisson distribution is a Poisson sum of IID random variables. The discrete compound Poisson distribution, also known as the stuttering Poisson distribution, can model batch arrivals (such as in a bulk queue~\citep{adelson1966compound}) and can incorporate Poisson mixtures.
In the sequel, we limit the discussion to ID distributions on $\mathbb{R}^+$ in order to ensure that the Normalized ID variables are on the simplex. Let us now present how ID distributions can be characterized.
\paragraph{L\'{e}vy measure:} A $\sigma$-finite Borel measure $\nu$ on $\mathbb{R^{+}}$ is called a L\'{e}vy measure if $\int_0^\infty \text{min}(1,x) \nu(\mathrm{d} x) < \infty$. According to the L\'{e}vy-Khintchine representation given below, the L\'{e}vy measure uniquely characterizes an ID distribution along with a constant scale $\tau$. This implies that every Infinitely Divisible distribution corresponds to a L\'{e}vy process, which is a stochastic process with independent increments.
\paragraph{L\'{e}vy-Khintchine representation}[Theorem 16.14 \cite{klenke2014infinitely}] Let $\mathcal{M}_1(\Lambda)$ and $\mathcal{M}_\sigma(\Lambda)$ indicate the set of probability measures and the set of $\sigma$-finite measures on a non-empty set $\Lambda$, respectively. Let $\mu\in \mathcal{M}_1([0,\infty))$ and let $\Psi(u) = -\log \int \limits_0^\infty e^{-u z} \mathrm{d} (\mu)$ be the log-Laplace transform of $\mu$. Then $\mu$ is Infinitely Divisible, if and only if there exists a $\tau \geq 0$ and a $\sigma$-finite measure $\nu \in \mathcal{M}_{\sigma}((0,\infty))$ with
\begin{equation}
\int \limits_0^\infty \text{min}(1,z) \nu(\mathrm{d} z) < \infty,
\end{equation}
such that
\begin{equation}
\Psi(u) = \tau u + \int \limits_0^\infty (1-e^{-uz}) \nu(\mathrm{d} z) \qquad \text{for} \quad u \geq 0,
\end{equation}
In this case the pair $(\tau, \nu)$ is unique, $\nu$ is called the L\'{e}vy measure of $\mu$ and $\tau$ is called the deterministic part. It can be shown that $\tau = \text{sup}\{ z \geq 0 : \mu([0,z)) = 0\}$.
In particular, let $\Phi_{z_i}(u) = \mathbb{E}[e^{\iota u z_i}] = \int \limits_0^\infty e^{\iota u z_i} f(z_i) \mathrm{d} z_i $ indicate the characteristic function of an Infinitely Divisible random variable $z_i$ with pdf $f(z_i)$ and corresponding pair $(\tau_i,\nu_i)$, where $\iota $ is the imaginary unit. Based on the L\'{e}vy-Khintchine representation it holds that $\Phi_{z_i}(\iota u) = \mathbb{E}[e^{-u z_i}] = e^{ - \Psi_i(u)}$ where $\Psi_i(u) = \tau_i u + \int \limits_0^\infty (1 - e^{-u z}) \nu_i(\mathrm{d} z)$ is typically referred to as the Laplace exponent of $z_i$. This implies that the Laplace exponent of an ID variable is also completely characterized by pair $(\tau_i,\nu_i)$. It holds for ID variables that if $\nu_i$ is a well-defined L\'{e}vy measure, so is $\alpha_i \nu_i$ for any $\alpha_i > 0$, which indicates that $\alpha_i \Psi_i(u)$ is also a well-defined Laplace exponent of an ID variable.
\subsection{Normalized Infinitely Divisible Distributions}
\label{sec:NID}
As defined in \cite{favaro2011class}, a Normalized Infinitely Divisible (NID) random variable is a random variable that is formed by normalizing independent draws of strictly positive (not necessarily coinciding) Infinitely Divisible distributions. More specifically, let $z_1, \dots, z_k$ be a set of independent strictly positive Infinitely Divisible random variables and $Z = z_1 + \dots + z_k$. An NID distribution is defined as the distribution of the random vector ${\mathbf h} = (h_1, \dots, h_k ) := (\frac{z_1}{Z}, \dots, \frac{z_k}{Z})$ on the $(k-1)$-dimensional simplex, denoted as $\Delta^{k-1}$. The strict positivity assumption implies that ${\mathbf h}$ is on the simplex~\cite{favaro2011class, mangili2015new}.
Let $[k]$ denote Natural numbers ${1,\dots,k}$. As stated by the L\'{e}vy-Khintchine theorem, a collection of ID positive variables $z_i$ for $i \in [k]$ is completely characterized by the collection of the corresponding L\'{e}vy measures $\nu_1, \dots, \nu_k$. It was shown in \cite{mangili2015new} that this also holds for the normalized variables $h_i$ for $i \in [k]$.
In this paper, we assume that the ID variables $z_1,\dots,z_k$ are drawn independently from ID distributions that are characterized with the corresponding collection of L\'{e}vy measures $\alpha_i \nu, \dots, \alpha_k \nu$, respectively. Which in turn translates respectively to variables with Laplace exponents $\alpha_1 \Psi(u), \dots, \alpha_k \Psi(u)$. Variables $\alpha_i$ will allow the distribution to vary in the interior of the simplex, providing the asymmetry needed to model latent models. The homogeneity assumption on the L\'{e}vy measure or the Laplace exponent provides the structure needed for guaranteed learning (Theorem \ref{thm:mainResult}). The overall graphical model representation is shown in Figure~\ref{fig:graphical}
\input{simplexFig.tex}
If the original ID variables $z_i$ have probability densities $f_i$ for all $i \in [k]$, then the distribution of vector ${\mathbf h}$, where $h_k = 1 - \sum_{i \in [k-1]} h_i$ is,
$
f({\mathbf h}) = \int \limits_0^\infty \prod \limits_{i \in [k]} f_i(h_i Z) Z^{k-1} \mathrm{d} Z.
$
There are only three members of the NID class that have closed form densities namely, the Gamma distribution, Gamma$(\alpha_i, \lambda)$, the Inverse Gaussian distribution, $IG(\alpha_i,\lambda)$, and the $1/2$-stable distribution $St(\gamma,\beta,\alpha_i,\mu)$ with $\gamma=1/2$. $\mu = 1$ and $\beta = 1$ to ensure positive support for the Stable distribution. As noted earlier, Gamma$(\alpha_i, 1)$ reduces to the Dirichlet distribution. An interested reader is referred to \cite{favaro2011class,mangili2015new} for the closed form of each distribution.
Figure \ref{fig:simplices} depicts the heatmap of the density of these distributions on the probability simplex for different value of their parameters. Note that all the distributions have the same $\alpha$ parameter and hence, the same mean values. However, their concentration properties are widely varying, showing that the NID class can incorporate variations in higher order moments through additional parameters.
\paragraph{Gamma ID distribution: }
When the ID distribution is Gamma with parameters $(\alpha_i,1)$, we have the Dirichlet distribution as the resulting NID distribution. The Laplace exponent for this distribution will, therefore, be $\Psi_i(u) = \alpha_i \text{ln}(1+u).$
\paragraph{$\gamma$-stable ID distribution: }
The variables are drawn from the positive stable distribution $St(\gamma, \beta, \alpha_i, \mu)$ with $\mu = 0$, $\beta = 1$ and $\gamma <1$ which ensures that the distribution is on $\mathbb{R}^+$. The Laplace exponent of this distribution is $\Psi_i(u) = \alpha_i \frac{\Gamma(1-\gamma)}{\sqrt{2 \pi}\gamma}u^\gamma.$
Note that the $\gamma$-stable distribution can be represented in closed form for $\gamma = \frac{1}{2}$.
\paragraph{Inverse Gaussian ID distribution: }
The random variables are drawn from the Inverse-Gaussian (IG) distribution $IG(\alpha_i,\lambda)$. The Laplace exponent of this distribution is $\Psi_i(u) = \alpha_i \big( \sqrt{2 u + \lambda^2} - \lambda \big).$
\emph{Note:} The Dirichlet distribution, the $1/2$-Stable distribution and the Inverse Gaussian distribution are all special cases of the generalized Inverse Gaussian distribution \cite{favaro2011class}.
As mentioned earlier, the class of NID distributions is capable of modeling positive and negative correlations among the topics. This property is depicted in Figure \ref{fig:correlation}. These figures show the proportion of positively correlated topics for the three presented distributions. As we can see the Inverse Gaussian NID distribution can capture both positive and negative correlations
\input{corrFig.tex}
\subsection*{Response to NIPS reviewers:}
The NIPS reviews have been very helpful and accurate. In this revision we have addressed the minor and major concerns. The major concern was the lack of experimental results. We have added experimental results on two different text corpora, namely New York Times and Pubmed. We use the well-known perplexity measure to assess the goodness of fit and also output the topics returned by the algorithm.
Below we provide detailed response to the questions raised by NIPS reviewers. We would like to also note that the comments have been applied to the current version submitted to AISTATS 2017. Detailed response to the reviewer's comments are given below:
\paragraph{Experiments: } The focus of the original submitted paper was theoretical. We are adding experimental results to this version of the paper since most of the reviewers where curious to see the performance of our proposed method on real data. We have added a new section and experiments on two real-world datasets to the paper to address this issue.
\paragraph{Modeling both positive/negative correlations:} In figure 3, we plot proportion of positively correlated elements, i.e. out of all n choose 2 correlations among n variables, we plot proportion of how many elements are positive. As u can see for certain ID distributions such as inverse Gaussian, there can be both positive and negative correlations. On the other hand, Dirichlet only has negative correlations which is limiting.
\paragraph{Correlated topic model vs. NID:} There is currently no method for learning Correlated Topic Models with guarantees. Spectral methods are efficient and provide guarantees, yet they cannot be easily adapted to Correlated Topic Models. On the other hand, NID models have best of both worlds: flexibility in modeling arbitrary correlations and also efficient learning with spectral methods. Furthermore, as discussed by \cite{passos2011correlations}, Correlated Topic Models give rise to spurious correlations that are undesirable.
\paragraph{Estimating the Levy measure:} This is discussed in detail in the Experiments section. One can tune for hyperparameters $v,v_1,v_2$ during the tensor decomposition algorithm. We will then fit the levy measure to the recovered $v, v_1$ and $v_2$ such that the penalized norm projection of the L\'{e}vy measure is minimized while maintaining a good likelihood.
\paragraph{Novelty:} It is highly non trivial to show that the moments of all NID distributions can be diagonalized. Earlier spectral work directly works only on Dirichlet moments. We now provide an automated method to find the appropriate moment forms which are diagonalized for a broad family.
We provide detailed comments to each reviewer's comments below:
\paragraph{Reviewer 2: }
In order to ensure learnability we need the columns of matrix $A \in R^{d \times k}$ to be linearly independent and the parameters $\alpha_i > 0$. This is a very good point and we have added this assumption.
The proof for the correspondence of $\alpha_i$'s to the CP weights follows directly, but it has been added to the appendix for more clarity.
\paragraph{Reviewer 3: }
The reviewer makes an interesting point that the dependence on the underlying levy measure is through $v, v_1$ and $v_2.$ If we choose a wrong $v,v_1,v_2,$ in general we would not be getting a low rank representation and hence will not be able to learn the correct model. It is an interesting open question, if there can be another configuration of $v,v_1,v_2$ that makes the resulting tensor low rank. It does not appear to be the case. We have added comments about this in the hyperparameter tuning section in the experimental results.
\paragraph{Reviewer 5: }
Many machine learning researchers may not be aware of NID distributions, and hence we provided a background section .We have added the mentioned reference.
\paragraph{Reviewer 6: }
Our main contribution is the spectral method and that is novel and nontrivial as discussed in the beginning. We have added more discussion about the NID distributions itself and compared them to other correlated topic models in revised version.
|
\section{Introduction}
Whenever a free finite $G$-CW-complex $X$ is $L^2$-acyclic, i.e. its $L^2$-Betti numbers vanish, a secondary invariant called the $L^2$-torsion $\tor(X;\Nc(G))$ enters the stage \cite[Chapter 3]{Lueck2002}. It takes values in $\R$ and captures in many cases geometric data associated to $X$: If $X$ is a closed hyperbolic $3$-manifold, then it was shown by L\"uck and Schick \cite{LueckSchick1999} that
\[\tor(\widetilde{X};\Nc(\pi_1(X))) = -\frac{1}{6\pi}\cdot\vol(X)\]
and if $X$ is the classifying space of a free-by-cyclic group $F_n\rtimes_g\Z$, with $g\in\Aut(F_n)$, then $-\tor(\widetilde{X}; F_n\rtimes_g\Z)$ gives a lower bound on the growth rates of $g$, as shown by Clay \cite[Theorem 5.2]{Clay2015}.
Many generalisations of the $L^2$-torsion have been constructed, e.g. the $L^2$-Alexander torsion (by Dubois--Friedl--L\"uck \cite{DuboisEtal2014}) and $L^2$-torsion function, or more generally $L^2$-torsion twisted with finite-dimensional representations (by L\"uck \cite{Lueck2015}).
In a series of papers, Friedl and L\"uck~\cite{FriedlLueck2015a, FriedlLueck2015, FriedlLueck2015b} constructed the \emph{universal $L^2$-torsion} $\tor_u(X;\Nc(G))$ for any free finite $L^2$-acyclic $G$-CW-complex. It takes values in $\Wh^w(G)$, a weak version of the Whitehead group of $G$ which is adapted to the setting of $L^2$-invariants. The Fuglede--Kadison determinant induces a map $\Wh^w(G)\to\R$ taking $\tor_u(X;\Nc(G))$ to $\tor(X;\Nc(G))$, and similar maps with $\Wh^w(G)$ as their domain take the universal $L^2$-torsion to the aforementioned generalisations of $L^2$-torsion.
Assuming that $G$ satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture, Friedl--Lück \cite{FriedlLueck2015b} construct a \emph{polytope homomorphism}
\[ \P\colon \Wh^w(G)\to \Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)\]
where $H_1(G)_f$ denotes the free part of the first integral homology of $G$, and $\Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)$ denotes the Grothendieck group of the commutative monoid whose elements are polytopes in $H_1(G)_f\otimes \R$ (up to translation) with pointwise addition (also called \emph{Minkowski sum}). The image of $-\tor_u(X;\Nc(G))$ under $\P$ is the \emph{$L^2$-torsion polytope of $X$}, denoted by $P_{L^2}(X;G)$. If $M\neq S^1\times D^2$ is a compact connected aspherical $3$-manifold with empty or toroidal boundary such that $\pi_1(M)$ satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture, then it is shown in ~\cite[Theorem 3.27]{ FriedlLueck2015b} that $P_{L^2}(\widetilde{M};\pi_1(M))$ induces another well-known invariant of $M$, the \emph{Thurston norm}
\[\| \cdot \|_T \colon H^1(M;\R) \to \R \]
This semi-norm was defined by Thurston~\cite{Thurston1986} and is intimately related to the question of the manifold fibering over the circle.
McMullen~\cite{McMullen2002} constructed an \emph{Alexander semi-norm} from the Alexander polynomial and showed that it provides a lower bound for the Thurston semi-norm. This was later generalised by Harvey \cite{Harvey05} to higher Alexander semi-norms \[\delta_n\colon H^1(M;\R) \to \R\]
Friedl--Lück's theory can also be applied to free-by-cyclic groups, or more generally to descending HNN extensions $G = F_n*_g$, with $g$ an injective endomorphism of $F_n$, and yields in this context a semi-norm
\[ \|\cdot\|_T\colon H^1(G;\R) \to \R\]
which we also call \emph{Thurston norm} due to the analogy with the $3$-manifold setting. We build a similar picture as for $3$-manifolds and prove that this semi-norm is an upper bound for McMullen--Harvey's Alexander semi-norms:
\begin{mainthm}[\ref{main thm alex vs thurston}]
Let $G = F_n \ast_g$ be a descending HNN extension of $F_n$ with stable letter $t$, and let $\psi \in H^1(G;\R)$. Then
\[
\delta_1(\psi) \leqslant \delta_2(\psi) \leqslant \dots \leqslant \| \psi \|_T
\]
If $\beta_1(G) \geqslant 2$, then also $\delta_0(\psi) \leqslant \delta_1(\psi)$.
If $\beta_1(G) = 1$, then $\delta_0(\psi) -| \psi(t) | \leqslant \delta_1(\psi)$.
When $\psi$ is fibred (that is $\ker \psi$ is finitely generated), then all the inequalities above become equalities.
\end{mainthm}
For a particular type of automorphism called \emph{UPG} (see \cref{def:upg}) we obtain an equality:
\begin{maincor}[\ref{main corollary 2}]
Let $G = F_n\rtimes_g \Z$ with $n\geq 2$ and $g$ a UPG automorphism. Let $\phi\in H^1(G;\R)$. Then for all $k\geq 0$ we have
\[ \delta_k(\phi) = \|\phi\|_T.\]
\end{maincor}
In the case of two-generator one-relator groups $G$ with $b_1(G) = 2$, the $L^2$-torsion polytope has been studied by Friedl--Tillmann~\cite{FriedlTillmann2015}. They established a close connection between $P_{L^2}(G) := P_{L^2}(EG; G)$ and the Bieri--Neumann--Strebel invariant $\Sigma(G)$. We prove similar results in our setting:
\begin{mainthm}[\ref{main thm BNS}]
Let $g \colon F_2\to F_2$ be a monomorphism and let $G = F_2*_g$ be the associated descending HNN extension. Given $\phi \in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}$ such that $-\phi$ is not the epimorphism induced by $F_2 \ast_g$, there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $[\phi]$ in $S(G)$ and an element $d\in\D(G)^\times$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The image of $d$ under the quotient maps
\begin{equation*}
\D(G)^\times \to \D(G)^\times / [\D(G)^\times,\D(G)^\times] \cong K_1^w(\Z G) \to \Wh^w(G)
\end{equation*}
is $-\tor_u(G)$. In particular $P_{L^2}(G) = P(d)$ in $\Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)$.
\item For every $\psi, \psi' \in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}$ which satisfy $[\psi], [\psi'] \in U$ and are $d$-equivalent, we have $[-\psi] \in \Sigma(G)$ if and only if $[-\psi'] \in \Sigma(G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{mainthm}
The $d$-equivalence is induced by the Newton polytopes associated to $d$ in a simple way (see \cref{polytope equivalent}).
As a corollary, we show (in \cref{finite bns}) that the BNS invariant for $G = F_2*_g$ as above has finitely many connected components.
Over arbitrary rank we can strengthen this result again for UPG automorphisms:
\begin{maincor}[\ref{main corollary}]
Let $G = F_n\rtimes_g \Z$ with $n\geq 2$ and $g$ a UPG automorphism. Let $\phi\in H^1(G;\R)$. Then $[\phi]\in \Sigma(G)$ if and only if $F_\phi(P_{L^2}(G))=0$ in $\Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)$.
\end{maincor}
The face map $F_\phi$ is defined in \cref{face map}. This theorem is motivated by Cashen-Levitt's computation of the BNS invariant of such groups \cite[Theorem 1.1]{CashenLevitt2014}.
\iffalse
\smallskip
Finally, we formulate a question about the Newton polytopes of two different notions of a determinant for certain square matrices over $\Z G$ (\cref{determinantComparison}). This purely algebraic statement would immediately yield the inequality of semi-norms $ \delta_n(\cdot) \leqslant \| \cdot \|_T$ also for descending HNN extensions of higher rank free groups.
\fi
\subsection*{Acknowledgements}
The first-named author was supported by GRK 1150 `Homotopy and Cohomology' funded by the DFG, the Max Planck Institute for Mathematics, and the Deutsche Telekom Stiftung.
The second-named author was supported by the ERC grant `Moduli' of Ursula Hamenst\"adt, and the SFB 701 `Spectral Structures and Topological Methods in Mathematics' of the Bielefeld University.
The authors would like to thank Stefan Friedl and Wolfgang L\"uck for helpful discussions, and the organisers of the `Manifolds and Groups' conference on Ventotene, where some of this work was conducted. The second-named author would also like to thank \L ukasz Grabowski.
\tableofcontents
\section{Preliminaries}\label{chapter: preliminaries}
\subsection{Descending HNN extensions}
\begin{dfn}
Let $G$ be a group, $H \leqslant G$ a subgroup, and $g \colon H \to H$ a monomorphism. The \emph{HNN extension associated to $g$} is the quotient of the free product of $G$ with $\langle t \rangle \cong \Z$ by
\[ \langle \! \langle \{ t^{-1}xt g(x)^{-1} \mid x \in H \} \rangle \! \rangle \]
The element $t$ is called the \emph{stable letter} of the HNN extension. The HNN extension is called \emph{descending} if $H = G$. The natural epimorphism $G \ast_g \to \Z$, sending $t$ to 1 with $G$ in its kernel, is called the \emph{induced epimorphism}.
\end{dfn}
\begin{rmk}
Note that when $g \colon G \to G$ is an isomorphism, then $G \ast_g = G \rtimes_g \Z$ is a semi-direct product, or a $G$-by-$\Z$ group (since extensions with a free quotient always split).
\end{rmk}
In the final sections of this paper we will focus on descending HNN extensions $G = F_2\ast_g$. The following (well-known) result illustrates that this is somewhat less restrictive than it might seem.
\begin{prop}
Let $g \colon F_2 \to F_2$ be a monomorphism which is not onto. There exists $N \in \N$ such that for every $n \geqslant N$ there exists a monomorphism $g_n \colon F_n \to F_n$ such that
\[ F_2 \ast_g \cong F_n\ast_{g_n} \]
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We start by observing that Marshall Hall's theorem~\cite{Hall1949} tells us that there exists $N \in \N$ such that $g(F_2)$ is a free factor of a finite index subgroup $F_N$ of $F_2$. In fact it is easy to see (using the proof of Stallings~\cite{Stallings1983}) that this statement holds for any $n \geqslant N$ (here we are using the fact that $g$ is not onto; otherwise $N=2$ and we cannot take larger values of $n$).
Now $g$ factors as
\[
\xymatrix{ F_2 \ar[r]^a & F_n \ar[r]^b & F_2 }
\]
where $a$ embeds $F_2$ as a free factor, and $b$ is an embedding with image of finite index.
We let $g_n = a \circ b \colon F_n \to F_n$.
Next we construct the desired isomorphism. Let $t$ (resp. $s$) denote the stable letter of $F_2 \ast_g$ (resp. $F_n \ast_{g_n}$). Let $F_2 = \langle x_1, x_2 \rangle$ and $F_n = \langle x_1, \dots, x_n \rangle$; with this choice of generators the map $a$ becomes the identity.
Consider $h \colon F_2 \ast_g \to F_n\ast_{g_n}$ defined by
\[ h(x_i) = x_i \textrm{ and } h(t) = s\]
It is a homomorphism since
\[ t^{-1} x_i t = b(x_i)\]
and
\[ h(t^{-1}) h(x_i) h(t) = s^{-1} x_i s = b(x_i) = h(b(x_i))\]
Now consider $h' \colon F_n\ast_{g_n} \to F_2 \ast_g$ induced by
\[ h'(x_i) = tb(x_i)t^{-1} \textrm{ and } h'(s) = t\]
It is clear that $h'$ is the inverse of $h$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Of course there is nothing special about $F_2$ in the above result. The proof works verbatim when $F_2$ is replaced by $F_m$ with $m \geqslant 2$.
\end{rmk}
\subsection{Dieudonn\'e determinant}\label{dieudonne}
While working with the universal $L^2$-torsion, the Dieudonn\'e determinant for matrices over skew-fields is of fundamental importance. We review here its definition and fix a so-called \emph{canonical representative}.
\begin{dfn}
Given a ring $R$, we will denote its group of units by $R^\times$.
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}[Dieudonn\'e determinant]
Given a skew field $\D$ and an integer $n$, let $M_n(\D)$ denote the ring of $n \times n$ matrices over $\D$. The \emph{Dieudonn\'e determinant} is a multiplicative map
\[ \det_\D \colon M_n( \D ) \to \D^\times / [\D^\times, \D^\times] \cup \{ 0 \} \]
defined as follows: First we construct its \emph{canonical representative}
\[\detc \colon M_n(\D) \to \D\]
and then set $\det_\D(A)$ to be image of $\detc(A)$ under the obvious map
\[ \D \to \D^\times / [\D^\times, \D^\times] \cup \{ 0 \}\]
The canonical representative is defined inductively:
\begin{itemize}
\item for $n=1$ we have $\detc((a_{11})) = a_{11}$;
\item if the last column of $A$ contains only zeros we set $\detc(A) = 0$;
\item for general $n$ (and a matrix $A$ with non-trivial last column) we first identify the bottommost non-trivial element in the last column of $A$. If this is $a_{nn}$ we take $P =\id$; otherwise, if the element is $a_{in}$, we take $P$ to be the permutation matrix which swaps the $i^{th}$ and $n^{th}$ rows of $A$; in either case we have $PA = A' = (a'_{ij})$ with $a'_{nn} \neq 0$.
Now we define $B = (b_{ij})$ by
\[ b_{ij} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccc} 1 & \textrm{if} & i=j \\
0 & \textrm{if} & i\neq j \textrm{ and } j< n \\
-a'_{in}{a'_{nn}}^{-1} & \textrm{if} & i \neq j=n
\end{array} \right. \]
This way we have
\[ BPA = A'' = (a''_{ij}) \]
with $a''_{in} = 0$ for all $i \neq n$. Let us set $C$ to be the $(n-1)\times(n-1)$ matrix $C = (a''_{ij})_{i,j < n}$. We define
\[ \detc(A) = \det P \cdot \detc (C) \cdot a''_{nn} \]
\end{itemize}
\end{dfn}
Note that the canonical representative $\detc$ is not multiplicative, but the determinant itself is, as shown by Dieudonn\'e~\cite{Dieudonne1943}.
It is immediate from the definition that when $\D$ is a commutative field, then the Dieudonn\'e determinant agrees with the usual determinant.
\begin{prop}[Formula for square matrices]
\[ \det^c_\D \left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\ c& d \end{array} \right) = \left\{ \begin{array}{ccl} ad - bd^{-1}cd & \textrm{if} & d \neq 0\\ -bc & \textrm{if} & d = 0 \end{array} \right. \]
\end{prop}
\subsection{Crossed products}
\begin{dfn}[Crossed product group ring]\label{def crossed product}
Let $R$ be a ring and $G$ a group together with maps of sets $\phi \colon G \to \Aut(R)$ and $\mu \colon G\times G\to R^\times$ such that
\begin{align*}
\phi(g) \circ \phi(g') &= c(\mu(g,g'))\circ \phi(gg')\\
\mu(g,g')\cdot \mu(gg',g'') &= \phi(g)(\mu(g', g''))\cdot \mu(g,g'g'')
\end{align*}
where $c\colon R^\times \to\Aut(R)$ maps an invertible element $r$ to the conjugation by $r$ on the left. Then the \emph{crossed product group ring} $R\ast G$ is the free left $R$-module with basis $G$ and multiplication induced by the rule
\begin{equation}\label{twisted convolution}
(\kappa g) \cdot (\lambda h) = \kappa \phi(g)(\lambda) \mu(g,h) gh
\end{equation}
for any $g,h \in G$ and $\kappa, \lambda \in R$.
The conditions on $\mu$ and $\phi$ ensure the associativity of the multiplication, so that $R\ast G$ is indeed a ring.
\end{dfn}
Note that when $\phi$ and $\mu$ are trivial, we obtain the usual group ring $RG$.
\begin{ex}\label{crossed product of extension}
Crossed product group rings appear naturally: Given an extension of groups
\[ 1 \to K \to G \to Q \to 1\]
we can identify $R G \cong (R K)\ast Q$, where the structure maps $\phi$ and $\mu$ are defined as follows: Let $s\colon Q\to G$ be a set-theoretic section of the given epimorphism $G\to Q$. Define
\[\phi(q)\left(\sum_{k\in K}a_k\cdot k\right) = \sum_{k\in K} a_k\cdot s(q)ks(q)^{-1}\]
and
\[\mu(q,q') = s(q)s(q')s(qq')^{-1} \in K\]
The isomorphism $(R K)\ast Q \to RG$ is given by
\[
\sum_{q\in Q}\lambda_q\cdot q\mapsto \sum_{q\in Q} \lambda_q\cdot s(q)
\]
A case of particular interest occurs when $Q = \Z$. Under this assumption the section $s$ can be chosen to be a group homomorphism so that $\mu$ is trivial. The crossed product ring $(R K) \ast Q$ is then a ring of \emph{twisted Laurent polynomials} denoted $(R K)_t[z^{\pm}]$, where the twisting is determined by the automorphism $t = \phi(1)$. We will think of the variable $z$ as $s(1)$.
\end{ex}
\begin{dfn}
Given an element $x = \sum_{h\in G} \lambda_h \cdot h \in R \ast G$ we define its \emph{support} to be
\[ \supp(x) = \{h \in G \mid \lambda_h \neq 0 \} \]
Note that the support is a finite subset of $G$.
\end{dfn}
\subsection{Ore localisation}
We briefly review non-commutative localisation.
\begin{dfn}
Let $R$ be a unital ring without zero-divisors, and let $T\subseteq R$ be a subset containing $1$ such that for every $s,t\in T$ we also have $st\in T$. Then $T$ satisfies the \emph{(left) Ore condition} if for every $r\in R$, $t\in T$ there are $r'\in R$, $t'\in T$ such that $t'r = r't$.
One can then define a ring $T^{-1}R$, called the \emph{Ore localisation}, whose elements are fractions $t^{-1}r$ with $r\in R, t\in T$, subject to the usual equivalence relation. There is an obvious ring monomorphism $R\to T^{-1}R$.
\end{dfn}
One instance of the Ore localisation will be of particular interest in this paper. If $G$ is an amenable group, $\D$ a skew field and $\D * G$ a crossed product which is a domain, then a result of Tamari \cite{Tamari1957} shows that $\D * G$ satisfies the left (and right) Ore condition with respect to the non-zero elements in $\D * G$. This applies in particular to the case where $G$ is finitely generated free-abelian. (Note that for untwisted group algebras $\K G$ without non-trivial zero divisors, the Ore condition for $\K G$ is equivalent to amenability of $G$ by a result of Bartholdi and the second-named author~\cite{Bartholdi2016}.)
Throughout the paper, we will only take the Ore localisation with respect to all non-zero elements of a ring.
\subsection{The Atiyah Conjecture and \texorpdfstring{$\D(G)$}{D(G)}}
In this section we review techniques which were originally developed for proving the Atiyah Conjecture, but have meanwhile been shown to be fruitful on many other occasions.
Given a group $G$, let $L^2(G)$ to denote the complex Hilbert space with Hilbert basis $G$ on which $G$ acts by translation. We use $\Nc(G)$ to denote the \emph{group von Neumann algebra of $G$}, i.e. the algebra of bounded $G$-equivariant operators on $L^2(G)$. Associated to any $\Nc(G)$-module $M$ (in the purely ring-theoretic sense), there is a \emph{von Neumann dimension} $\dim_{\Nc(G)}(M)\in[0,\infty]$ (see \cite[Chapter 6]{Lueck2002}).
\begin{conj}[Atiyah Conjecture]
Let $G$ be a torsion-free group. Given a matrix $A\in \Q G^{m\times n}$, we denote by $r_A: \Nc(G)^m\to\Nc(G)^n$ the $\Nc(G)$-homomorphism given by right multiplication with $A$. Then $G$ satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture if for every such matrix the number $\dim_{\Nc(G)}(\ker(r_A))$ is an integer.
\end{conj}
The class of groups for which the Atiyah Conjecture is known to be true is large. It includes all free groups, is closed under taking directed unions, as well as extensions with elementary amenable quotients. Infinite fundamental groups of compact connected orientable irreducible $3$-manifolds with empty or toroidal boundary which are not closed graph manifolds are also known to satisfy the Atiyah Conjecture. For these statements and more information we refer to \cite[Chapter 3]{FriedlLueck2015}.
\begin{dfn}\label{division closure}
Let $R\subseteq S$ be a ring extension. Then the \emph{division closure} of $R$ inside $S$ is the smallest subring $D$ of $S$ which contains $R$, such that every element in $D$ which is invertible in $S$ is already invertible in $D$. We denote it by $\D(R\subseteq S)$.
\end{dfn}
Let $\U(G)$ denote the algebra of affiliated operators of $\Nc(G)$. This algebra is carefully defined and examined in \cite[Chapter 8]{Lueck2002}. Note that $\Q G$ embeds into $\Nc(G)$, and therefore $\U(G)$, as right multiplication operators. Let $\D(G)$ denote the division closure of $\Q G$ inside $\U(G)$.
The following theorem appears in \cite[Lemma 10.39]{Lueck2002} for the case where $\Q G$ is replaced by $\C G$ in the above definitions, but the proof also carries over to rational coefficients.
\begin{thm}
\label{atiyah using D}
A torsion-free group satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture if and only if $\D(G)$ is a skew field.
\end{thm}
It is known that if $H\subseteq G$ is a subgroup, then there is a canonical inclusion $\D(H)\subseteq\D(G)$.
\smallskip
Recall from \cref{crossed product of extension} that for an extension of groups
\[1\to K\to G\to Q\to 1\]
the group ring $\Z G$ is isomorphic to the crossed product $\Z K\ast Q$, where $Q$ acts on $\Z K$ by conjugation. When $G$ satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture, this action extends to an action on $\D(K)$ and one can identify the crossed product $\D(K)\ast Q$ with a subring of $\D(G)$ (see \cite[Lemma 10.58]{Lueck2002}). If $Q$ is finitely generated free-abelian, then $\D(K)\ast Q$ satisfies the Ore condition with respect to the non-zero elements $T$ and the Ore localisation admits by \cite[Lemma 10.69]{Lueck2002} an isomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{ore localisation iso}
T^{-1}\left( \D(K)\ast Q\right) \tolabel{\cong} \D(G)
\end{equation}
\subsection{Semifirs and specialisations}
\label{subsec: specialising}
In this section we review the notion of a specialisation, which allows us to compare skew-fields with given maps from a group algebra $\Q G$.
We start with the notion of a semifir. (In general, Cohn's book \cite{Cohn2006} contains a detailed discussion of many aspects of ring theory that will be of relevance to us.)
\begin{dfn}[Semifir]
A ring $R$ is a \emph{semifir} if every finitely generated right ideal of $R$ is free and of unique rank.
\end{dfn}
\begin{thm}[Dicks--Menal{~\cite{DicksMenal1979}}]
\label{semifir}
Let $R$ be a ring and $G$ a non-trivial group. Then $RG$ is a semifir \iff $R$ is a skew-field and $G$ is non-trivial and locally free.
\end{thm}
Now we introduce the notion of specialisation.
\begin{dfn}[Specialisation]
Let $R$ be a ring. An \emph{$R$-field} consists of a skew-field $\D$ and a ring morphism $\beta \colon R \to \D$. An $R$-field $\D$ is \emph{epic} if $\beta$ is an \emph{epimorphism}, that is, if for any ring $S$ and any two ring morphisms $\sigma, \sigma' \colon \D \to S$, we have
\[
\sigma \circ \beta = \sigma' \circ \beta \Longrightarrow \sigma = \sigma'
\]
Given two epic $R$-fields $\beta \colon R \to \D$ and $\beta' \colon R \to \D'$, a \emph{specialisation} of $\D$ to $\D'$ is a pair $(S,\sigma)$ where $S$ is a subring of $\D$ containing $\im \beta$, the map $\sigma \colon S \to D'$ is a ring map with $\sigma \circ \beta = \beta'$, and every element in $S$ not mapped to $0$ by $\sigma$ is invertible in $S$. The ring $S$ is called the \emph{domain} of the specialisation.
\end{dfn}
Note that what we call a specialisation is referred to as a `subhomomorphism' by Cohn; for Cohn a specialisation is an equivalence class of subhomomorphisms.
Note also that an epic $R$-field is in particular an $R$-module. Hence, given a matrix $M$ over $R$, we can talk about $M \otimes \D$; this is of course the same matrix as $\beta(M)$, where we apply the map $\beta$ to entries of $M$.
When $G$ is torsion-free and satisfies the Atiyah conjecture, then $\D(G)$ is an epic $\Q G$-field since it is the division closure of the image of $\Q G$ in $\U(G)$, see \cite[Corollary 7.2.2]{Cohn2006}.
\begin{thm}[Cohn~{\cite[Theorem 7.2.7]{Cohn2006}}]
\label{spec criterion}
Let $R$ be a ring and let $\D, \D'$ be epic $R$-fields. The following are equivalent:
\begin{enumerate}
\item There exists a specialisation from $\D$ to $\D'$.
\item For every square matrix $M$ over $R$, if $M \otimes \D'$ is invertible over $\D'$ then $M \otimes \D$ is invertible over $\D$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
Cohn gives two further equivalent statements, but they will be of no importance to us.
\smallskip
We now define a class of groups for which the skew-fields $\D(G)$ admit desirable specialisations.
\begin{dfn}[Specialising groups]
Let $\Phi$ be a collection of morphisms $\phi \colon G \to \R$. We say that $G$ is \emph{$\Phi$-specialising} if $G$ is torsion-free, satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture, and given any group epimorphism $\alpha \colon G \to \Gamma$ with $\Gamma$ torsion-free and elementary amenable such that every $\phi \in \Phi$ factors through $\alpha$, the $\Q G$-field $\D(G)$ admits a specialisation to the $\Q G$-field $\D(\Gamma)$, where the map $\Q G \to \D(\Gamma)$ is obtained by composing $\alpha \colon \Q G\to \Q \Gamma$ with the embedding $\Q \Gamma \to \D(\Gamma)$.
We say that a group $G$ is \emph{specialising} if $G$ is $\emptyset$-specialising.
\end{dfn}
Note that $\Phi$-specialising implies $\Psi$-specialising for $\Phi \subseteq \Psi$, and so specialising is the strongest property in this family of properties. On the other extreme, when $\Phi\supseteq H^1(G;\Z)$, then being $\Phi$-specialising means that we need to consider only those quotients $\Gamma$ which map onto $H_1(G;\Z)_f$, the free part of the abelianisation of $G$.
The following is a combination of results of Cohn and Linnell.
\begin{thm}
\label{loc free spec}
Locally free groups are specialising.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $F$ denote a locally free group.
We start by observing that $\Q F$ is a semifir (by \cref{semifir} for non-trivial $F$, and by the fact that $\Q$ is a field for trivial $F$), and hence a \emph{Sylvester domain} by \cite[Proposition 5.1.1]{Cohn2006} (this last term is defined in \cite{Cohn2006}, but its precise meaning is not really important for us here).
Now let $M$ be an $n \times n$ matrix over $\Q F$. Suppose that there exist an $n \times m$ matrix $P$ and an $m \times n$ matrix $Q$, both over $\Q F$, where $m<n$, and such that $M = PQ$. In such a situation $M$ is defined to be \emph{non-full}, and if no such $P$ and $Q$ exist, then $M$ is \emph{full}. Since $\Q F$ is a Sylvester domain, \cite[Theorem 7.5.12]{Cohn2006} gives us an \emph{honest} ring homomorphism $\beta\colon\Q F \to \D$, where $\D$ is an epic $\Q F$-field called \emph{the universal localisaton of $\Q F$ with respect to the set of full matrices}. `Honest' means precisely that if a square matrix
$M$ is full over $\Q F$, then $M \otimes \D$ is full over $\D$. Since $\D$ is a skew-field, it is easy to see that being full is the same as having non-zero determinant (and being invertible). Note also that $\beta$ is necessarily injective.
Let $D'$ be any epic $\Q F$-field. Clearly, if $M$ is a square matrix over $\Q F$ with $M = PQ$, then $M \otimes \D' = P\otimes \D' \cdot Q\otimes \D'$. Thus,
if $M \otimes \D'$ is invertible, then $M$ itself is full, and therefore $M \otimes \D$ is full, and hence invertible. Thus, applying
\cref{spec criterion} tells us that $\beta\colon\Q F\to\D$ admits a specialisation to any epic $\Q F$-field (in Cohn's terminology, $\D$ is therefore \emph{the universal field of fractions}).
It remains to prove that $\D \cong \D(F)$. Since any group is the union of its finitely generated subgroups, there is an increasing sequence of finitely generated free subgroups $F_i$ of $F$ such that $F = \bigcup F_i$. By \cite[Lemma 10.83]{Lueck2002}, we have
\[
\D(F) = \bigcup \D(F_i)
\]
Also, by \cite[Lemma 10.81]{Lueck2002}, $\D(F_i)$ is universally $\Sigma(\Q F_i\to\D(F_i))$-inverting (see \cite[Section 10.2.2]{Lueck2002} for the definition of this concept). Since $\Sigma(\Q F_i\to\D(F_i))\subseteq \Sigma(\Q F\to\D(F))$ is contained in the set of full matrices over $\Q F$, and $\beta\colon \Q F\to \D$ inverts all full matrices, there is a ring map $\gamma_i\colon\D(F_i)\to \D$ such that the square
\[\xymatrix{
\Q F_i \ar[r]\ar[d] & \Q F \ar[d]^\beta\\
\D(F_i)\ar[r]^{\gamma_i} & \D
}\]
commutes.
The map $\gamma_j$ agrees with $\gamma_i$ on $\D(F_i)$ for $j>i$; they thus fit together to give a map $\gamma\colon\D(F)\to D$ such that the triangle
\[\xymatrix{
& \Q F \ar[d]^\beta\ar[ld]\\
\D(F)\ar[r]^\gamma\ar[r] & \D
}\]
commutes. But since $\beta$ is epic and $\gamma$ is necessarily injective, $\gamma$ must in fact be an isomorphism.
\iffalse
So for each $i$ we have specialisations $(S_i,\gamma_i)$ from $\D(F_i)$ to $\D$ (technically speaking, their target is the smallest sub-skew-field of $\D$ containing the image of $\Q F_i$ under $\beta$).
Since $\Q F_i$ embeds into $\D$, it is immediate that $S_i$ is itself a skew-field. Thus, the fact that $\D(F_i)$ is epic implies that $S_i = \D(F_i)$.
\fi
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\begin{thm}
\label{loc free spec}
Let $F$ be a locally-free group, and let $g \in \Aut(F)$ be an automorphism. Consider a $g$-equivariant quotient map $q \colon F \to \Gamma$, where $\Gamma$ is torsion free and satisfies the Atiyah conjecture.
(Note that the induced map $q \colon \Q F \to \Q \Gamma$ turns $\D(\Gamma)$ into a $\Q F$-field.)
There exists a specialisation $(S,\sigma)$ from the $\Q F$-field $\D(F)$ to the $\Q F$-field $\D(\Gamma)$, such that $\sigma$ is $g$-equivariant.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We start by observing that $\Q F$ is a semifir (by \cref{semifir}), and hence a \emph{Sylvester domain} by \cite[Proposition 5.1.1]{Cohn2006} (this last term is defined in \cite{Cohn2006}, but its precise meaning is not really important for us here).
Now let $M$ be an $n \times n$ matrix over $\Q F$. Suppose that there exist a $n \times m$ matrix $P$ and an $m \times n$ matrix $Q$, both over $\Q F$, where $m<n$, and such that $M = PQ$. In such a situation $M$ is defined to be \emph{non-full}, and if no such $P$ and $Q$ exist, then $M$ is \emph{full}. Since $\Q F$ is a Sylvester domain, \cite[Theorem 7.5.12]{Cohn2006} gives us an \emph{honest} ring homomorphism $\Q F \to \D$, where $\D$ is an epic $\Q F$-field called \emph{the universal localisaton} of $\Q F$. Honest means precisely that if a square matrix
$M$ is full over $\Q F$, then $M \otimes \D$ is full over $\D$. Since $\D$ is a skew-field, it is easy to see that being full is the same as having non-zero determinant (and being invertible).
Let $D'$ be any epic $\Q F$-field. Clearly, if $M$ is a square matrix over $\Q F$ with $M = PQ$, then $M \otimes \D' = P\otimes \D' \cdot Q\otimes D'$. Thus,
if $M \otimes \D'$ is invertible, then $M$ itself is full, and therefore $M \otimes \D$ is full, and hence invertible. Thus, applying
\cref{spec criterion} tells us that $\D$ admits a specialisation to any epic $\Q F$-field (in Cohn's terminology, $\D$ is therefore \emph{the universal field of fractions}).
Now we claim that $\D \cong \D(F)$. Note that $F = \bigcup F_i$, where $F_i$ form an increasing sequence of finitely generated free groups. By \cite[Lemma 10.83]{Lueck2002}, we have
\[
\D(F) = \bigcup \D(F_i)
\]
Also, by \cite[Lemmata 10.78, 10.79 and 10.81]{Lueck2002}, $\D(F_i)$ is the universal field of fractions of $\Q F_i$. So for each $i$ we have specialisations $(S_i,\gamma_i)$ from $\D(F_i)$ to $\D$ (technically speaking, their target is the smallest sub-skew-field of $\D$ containing $\Q F_i$).
Without loss of generality we may take $S_i$ to be the smallest possible domains, in which case we see that the domains $S_i$ form an increasing sequence and the maps $\gamma_i$ do as well. Thus $(\bigcup S_i, \lim \gamma_i)$ is a specialisation from $\D(F)$ to $\D$. This immediately implies that $\D(F) \cong \D$, as claimed.
We are left with the $g$-equivariance. Let $G = F \rtimes_g \Z$; note that $G$ is torsion free and satisfies the Atiyah conjecture; similarly for $\Gamma \rtimes_g \Z$.
Therefore, observing that $\D(F) \subseteq \D(G)$ and similarly for $\Gamma$, we immediately see that $g$ extends to an automorphism of $\D(F)$ and $\D(\Gamma)$.
The equivariance of the specialisation follows from the assumption that $q$ is $g$-equivariant.
\end{proof}
\begin{cor}
\label{loc free spec}
Locally-free groups are specialising.
\end{cor}
\fi
\subsection{Universal \texorpdfstring{$L^2$}{L\texttwosuperior}-torsion}\label{sec: universal l2 torsion}
Let $G$ be a group satisfying the Atiyah Conjecture. In \cite[Definition 1.1]{FriedlLueck2015b}, Friedl and L\"uck define the \emph{weak $K_1$-group} $K_1^w(\Z G)$ as the abelian group generated by $\Z G$-endomorphisms $f\colon\Z G^n\to\Z G^n$ that become a weak isomorphism (a bounded injective operator with dense image) upon applying $-\otimes_{\Z G} L^2(G)$, subject to the usual relations in $K_1$. The above condition is equivalent to $f$ becoming invertible after applying $-\otimes_{\Z G} \D(G)$ (see \cite[Lemma 1.21]{FriedlLueck2015b}). The \emph{weak Whitehead group $\Wh^w(G)$ of $G$} is defined as the quotient of $K_1^w(\Z G)$ by $\{\pm g\mid g\in G\}$ considered as endomorphisms of $\Z G$ via right multiplication. An injective group homomorphism $i\colon G\to H$ induces maps
\begin{gather*}
i_*\colon K_1^w(\Z G) \to K_1^w(\Z H)\\
i_*\colon \Wh^w(G)\to \Wh^w(H)
\end{gather*}
\begin{ex}\label{ex: weak K1 of abelian}
For $H$ a finitely generated free-abelian group, we have isomorphisms
\[ K_1^w(\Z H) \cong K_1(T^{-1}(\Z H))\cong T^{-1}(\Z H)^\times\]
where $T$ denotes the set of non-trivial elements of $\Z H$. The first isomorphism is a special case of the main result of \cite{LinnellLueck2015} by Linnell--L\"uck, and the second one is well-known and induced by the Dieudonn\'e determinant over the field $T^{-1}(\Z H)$.
\end{ex}
A $\Z G$-chain complex is called \emph{based free} if every chain module is free and has a preferred basis. Given an $L^2$-acyclic finite based free $\Z G$-chain complex $C_*$, Friedl-L\"uck \cite[Definition 1.7]{FriedlLueck2015b} define the \emph{universal $L^2$-torsion of $C_*$}
\[\tor_u(C_*; \mathcal{N}(G)) \in K_1^w(\Z G)\]
in a similar fashion as the Whitehead torsion.
If $X$ is an $L^2$-acyclic finite free $G$-CW-complex, then its cellular chain complex $C_*(X)$ is finite and free, and we equip it with some choice of bases coming from the CW-structure. Since this is only well-defined up to multiplication by elements in $G$, the \emph{universal $L^2$-torsion $\tor_u(X;\Nc(G))\in\Wh^w(G)$ of $X$} is defined as the image of $\tor_u(C_*(X); \Nc(G))$ under the projection $K_1^w(\Z G)\to \Wh^w(G)$.
A finite connected CW-complex $X$ is \emph{$L^2$-acyclic} if its universal cover $\widetilde{X}$ is an $L^2$-acyclic $\pi_1(X)$-CW-complex. If this is the case, then the \emph{universal $L^2$-torsion of $X$} is
\[\tor_u(\widetilde{X}) := \tor_u(\widetilde{X};\mathcal{N}(\pi_1(X))) \in \Wh^w(\pi_1(X))\]
If $X$ is a (possible disconnected) finite CW-complex, then it is \emph{$L^2$-acyclic} if each path component is $L^2$-acyclic in the above sense. In this case, its \emph{universal $L^2$-torsion} is defined by
\[ \tor_u(\widetilde{X}) := (\tor_u(\widetilde C))_{C\in\pi_0(X)} \in \Wh^w(\Pi(X)) := \!\!\!\!\!\! \bigoplus_{C\in\pi_0(X)} \!\!\! \!\! \Wh^w(\pi_1(C))\]
A map $f\colon X\to Y$ of finite CW-complexes such that
\[\pi_1(f,x)\colon \pi_1(X,x)\to \pi_1(Y, f(x))\]
is injective for all $x\in X$ induces a homomorphism
\[ f_*\colon \Wh^w(\Pi(X)) \to \Wh^w(\Pi(Y))\]
by
\[ f_* := \big( (f|_C)_*\colon \Wh^w(\pi_1(C))\to \Wh^w(\pi_1(D))\big)_{C\in\pi_0(X)}\]
where $f(C)\subseteq D$.
\smallskip
The main properties of the universal $L^2$-torsion are collected in \cite[Theorem 2.5]{FriedlLueck2015b}, respectively \cite[Theorem 2.11]{FriedlLueck2015b}, of which we recall here the parts needed in this paper.
\begin{lem}\label{properties}
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{homotopy invariance} Let $f\colon X\to Y$ be a $G$-homotopy equivalence of finite free $G$-CW-complexes. Suppose that $X$ or $Y$ is $L^2$-acyclic. Then both $X$ and $Y$ are $L^2$-acyclic and we get
\[ \tor_u(X;\mathcal{N}(G)) - \tor_u(Y;\mathcal{N}(G)) = \zeta(\tau(f))\]
where $\tau(f)\in\Wh(G)$ is the Whitehead torsion of $f$ and \[
\zeta\colon \Wh(G)\to\Wh^w(G)\] is the obvious homomorphism.
\item\label{sum formula} Let
\[\xymatrix{
X_0 \ar[r]\ar[d] \ar[dr]^{j_0} & X_1\ar[d]^{j_1}\\
X_2\ar[r]^{j_2} & X
}\]
be a pushout of finite CW-complexes such that the top horizontal map is cellular, the left arrow is an inclusion of CW-complexes, and $X$ carries the CW-structure coming from the ones on $X_i$, $i=0,1,2$. Suppose that $X_i$ for $i= 0, 1,2$ is $L^2$-acyclic and that for any $x_i\in X_i$ the induced homomorphism $\pi_1(X_i,x_i)\to \pi_1(X,j_i(x_i))$ is injective. Then $X$ is $L^2$-acyclic and we have
\[ \tor_u(\widetilde{X}) = (j_1)_*(\tor_u(\widetilde{X}_1)) + (j_2)_*(\tor_u(\widetilde{X}_2)) - (j_0)_*(\tor_u(\widetilde{X}_0)) \]
\item \label{restriction} Let $p\colon X\to Y$ be a finite covering of finite connected CW-complexes. Let $p^*\colon \Wh^w(\pi_1(Y))\to\Wh^w(\pi_1(X))$ be the homomorphism induced by restriction with $\pi_1(p)\colon \pi_1(X)\to\pi_1(Y)$. Then $X$ is $L^2$-acyclic if and only if $Y$ is $L^2$-acyclic and in this case we have
\[ \tor_u(\widetilde{X}) = p^*(\tor_u(\widetilde{Y}) )\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
Next we apply this invariant to the groups we are interested in.
\begin{defin}\label{def: universal}
Let $G$ be a group with a finite model for its classifying space $BG$, and let $g\colon G\to G$ be a monomorphism. Let $T$ be the mapping torus of the realisation $Bg\colon BG\to BG$. Given a factorisation $G *_g\tolabel{p}\Gamma\tolabel{q} \Z$ of the induced epimorphism, denote by $\bar{T}\to T$ the $\Gamma$-covering corresponding to $p$. Suppose that the classical Whitehead group $\Wh(\Gamma)$ of $\Gamma$ is trivial. Then $\bar{T}$ is $L^2$-acyclic \cite[Theorem 1.39]{Lueck2002}, and \cref{properties} (\ref{homotopy invariance}) implies that we get a well-defined invariant
\[ \tor_u(G*_g,p) := \tor_u(\bar{T};\Nc(\Gamma)) \in \Wh^w(\Gamma) \]
which only depends on $G, g$ and $p$, but not on the realisations. If $p= \id_G$, then we write $\tor_u(G*_g) = \tor_u(G*_g, \id_G)$.
\end{defin}
A classical theorem of Waldhausen \cite[Theorem 19.4]{Waldhausen78} says that $\Wh(F_n*_g) = 0$, so that we may apply this in particular to the special case where $\Gamma = G\ast_g = F_n*_g$, and $p = \id$.
\subsection{The \texorpdfstring{$L^2$}{L\texttwosuperior}-torsion polytope}\label{sec: l2 torsion polytope}
Let $H$ be a finitely generated free-abelian group. An \emph{(integral) polytope} in $H\otimes_\Z \R$ is the convex hull of a non-empty finite set of points in $H$ (considered as a lattice inside $H\otimes_\Z \R$).
Given two polytopes $P_1$ and $P_2$ in $H\otimes_\Z \R$, their \emph{Minkowski sum} is defined as
\[ P_1 + P_2 := \{ x + y \in H\otimes_\Z \R\mid x\in P_1, y\in P_2\}\]
It is not hard to see that the Minkowski sum is \emph{cancellative} in the sense that $P_1 + Q = P_2 + Q$ implies $P_1 = P_2$. It turns the set of polytopes in $H\otimes_\Z \R$ into a commutative monoid with the one-point polytope $\{0\}$ as the identity. The \emph{(integral) polytope group of $H$}, denoted by $\Pol(H)$, is defined as the Grothendieck completion of this monoid, so elements are formal differences of polytopes $P - Q$, subject to the relation
\[ P-Q = P'-Q'\Longleftrightarrow P+Q' = P' +Q\]
where on the right-hand side the symbol $+$ denotes the Minkowski sum. With motivation originating in low-dimensional topology, integral polytope groups have recently received increased attention, see \cite{ChaFriedlFunke2015, Funke2016}.
We define $\Pol_T(H)$ to be the cokernel of the homomorphism $H\to \Pol(H)$ which sends $h$ to the one-point polytope $\{h\}$. In other words, two polytopes become identified in $\Pol_T(H)$ \iff they are related by a translation with an element of $H$.
For a finite set $F\subseteq H$, we denote by $P(F)$ the convex hull of $F$ inside $H\otimes_\Z \R$.
\iffalse
Elements of $\Pol_T(H)$ lying in the image of the monoid of integral polytopes will be called \emph{single polytopes} (referring to the fact that each such element can be uniquely determined by a single polytope, rather then a formal difference of two polytopes).
We borrow the following partial order on $\Pol_{T}(H)$ from Friedl--Tillmann~\cite{FriedlTillmann2015}: If $P-Q, P'-Q'\in\Pol_{T}(H)$, then we say that \[P-Q \leq P'-Q'\]
if $P+Q'\subseteq P'+Q$ holds up to translation.
\fi
\iffalse
\begin{dfn}[Marked polytopes]
Given an element $P - Q \in \Pol(H)$, we define a \emph{marking} to be a map $m \colon V(P) \times V(Q) \to \Z/2\Z$, where we consider a pair of vertices to be \emph{marked} \iff the image under $m$ is the generator of $\Z/2\Z$.
Given two marked elements in $\Pol(H)$, say $P_1 - Q_1$ with a marking $m_1$, and $P_2 - Q_2$ with a marking $m_2$, we define their marked sum to be usual sum $(P_1 +P_2) - (Q_1 + Q_2)$, with the marking
\[ m(v_1 + v_2, w_1 + w_2) = m_1(v_1,w_1) m_2(v_2,w_2) \]
where the multiplication on the right is the ring multiplication in $\Z/2\Z$.
\end{dfn}
\fi
\smallskip
Let $G$ be a torsion free group satisfying the Atiyah Conjecture. Then as before the integral group ring $\Z G$ embeds into the skew field $\D(G)$. Let $p\colon G\to H$ be an epimorphism onto a finitely generated free-abelian group $H$, and denote by $K$ the kernel of the projection $p$. Friedl-L\"uck \cite[Section 3.2]{FriedlLueck2015b} define a \emph{polytope homomorphism}
\begin{equation}\label{polytope homomorphism}
\P\colon K_1^w(\Z G)\to \Pol(H)
\end{equation}
as the composition of the following maps: Firstly, apply the obvious map
\begin{equation}\label{poly1}
K_1^w(\Z G)\to K_1(\D(G)), \;\; [f]\mapsto [\id_{\D(G)}\otimes_{\Z G} f]
\end{equation}
Since $\D(G)$ is a skew-field, the Dieudonn\'e determinant constructed in \cref{dieudonne} induces a map
\begin{equation}\label{poly2}
\det_{D(G)}\colon K_1(\D(G)) \to \D(G)^\times/ [\D(G)^\times, \D(G)^\times]
\end{equation}
which is in fact an isomorphism (see Silvester~\cite[Corollary 4.3]{Silvester1981}). Finally, we use the isomorphism (\ref{ore localisation iso})
\begin{equation}\label{poly3}
j\colon \D(G) \cong T^{-1}\left( \D(K)\ast H\right)
\end{equation}
For $x \in \D(K)\ast H$ we define $P(x) := P(\supp(x))\in \Pol(H)$. It is not hard to see that for two such elements $x_1,x_2$ we have $P(x_1x_2) = P(x_1) + P(x_2)$. We may therefore define a homomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{poly4}
P\colon \big(T^{-1}\left( \D(K)\ast H\right)\big)^\times \to \Pol(H), \; t^{-1}s\mapsto P(s) - P(t)
\end{equation}
Since the target of $P$ is an abelian group, the composition $P\circ j|_{\D(G)^\times}$ factors through the abelianisation of $\D(G)^\times$. The polytope homomorphism announced in (\ref{polytope homomorphism}) is induced by the maps (\ref{poly1}), (\ref{poly2}), (\ref{poly3}) and (\ref{poly4}), and it does not depend on the choices used to construct the isomorphism (\ref{poly3}). We get an induced polytope homomorphism
\begin{equation}\label{poly_hom}
\P\colon \Wh^w(G) \to \Pol_T(H)
\end{equation}
If $x$ is an element in $\D(G)^\times$, we will henceforth use the isomorphism $j$ without mention and therefore denote the image of $x$ under $P\circ j|_{\D(G)^\times}$ simply by $P(x)$.
In the following definition we denote by $H_1(G)_f$ the free part of the abelianisation $H_1(G)$ of a group $G$.
\begin{defin}\label{def: l2 polytope}
Let $X$ be a free finite $G$-CW-complex. We define the \emph{$L^2$-torsion polytope} $P_{L^2}(X;\Nc(G))$ of $X$ as the image of $-\tor_u(X;\Nc(G))$ under the polytope homomorphism (\ref{poly_hom}).
Likewise, if $g\colon G\to G$ is a monomorphism of a group $G$ with a finite classifying space, and the obvious epimorphism $G*_g\to H_1(G*_g)_f$ factors through some $p\colon G*_g\to \Gamma$ such that $\Gamma$ satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture and $\Wh(\Gamma) = 0$, then the \emph{$L^2$-torsion polytope of $g$ relative to $p$}
\[P_{L^2}(G*_g, p)\in \Pol_T(H_1(\Gamma)_f) = \Pol_T(H_1(G\ast_g)_f)\]
is defined as the image of $-\tor_u(G*_g,p)$ under $\P\colon \Wh^w(\Gamma)\to \Pol_T(H_1(\Gamma)_f)$. If $p= \id_G$, then we just write $P_{L^2}(G*_g)$.
\end{defin}
We expect the $L^2$-torsion polytope to carry interesting information about the monomorphism $g$. Even for free groups we get an interesting invariant, which is new also for their automorphisms. On the other side of the universe of groups, the $L^2$-torsion polytope was shown to vanish if $X=EG$ is the finite classifying space of an amenable group $G$ that contains a non-abelian elementary amenable normal subgroup \cite{Funke2017}.
\subsection{The Alexander polytope}\label{Alex polytope}
The Alexander polynomial was first introduced by Alexander in~\cite{Alexander1928} as a knot invariant. Its definition was later extended by McMullen~\cite{McMullen2002} to all finitely generated groups in the following way.
Given a finite CW-complex $X$ with a basepoint $x$ and $\pi_1(X) = G$, consider the covering $\pi\colon\bar{X}\to X$ corresponding to the quotient map $p\colon G\to H_1(G)_f =: H$. The \emph{Alexander module} of $X$ is the $\Z H$-module
\[ A(X) = H_1(\bar{X},\bar{x},\Z)\]
where $\bar{x} = \pi^{-1}(x)$.
Now let $A$ be any finitely generated $\Z H$-module. Since $\Z H$ is Noetherian, we may pick a presentation
\[ \Z H^r \tolabel{M} \Z H^s \to A\to 0\]
The \emph{elementary ideal} $I(A)$ of $A$ is the ideal generated by all $(s-1)\times (s-1)$-minors of the matrix $M$. The \emph{Alexander ideal} of $X$ is $I(A(X))$, and the \emph{Alexander polynomial} $\Delta_X$ is defined as the greatest common divisor of the elements in $I(A(X))$. This invariant is well-defined up to multiplication by units in $\Z H$ and we will view it as an element in $\Wh^w(H)\cong T^{-1}(\Z H)/\{\pm h\mid h\in H\}$, where this isomorphism comes from Example \ref{ex: weak K1 of abelian}. Finally, the \emph{Alexander polytope} $P_A(X)$ is defined as the image of $\Delta_X$ under the polytope homomorphism
\[ \P\colon \Wh^w(H) \to \Pol_T(H)\]
The Alexander module and hence the Alexander polynomial depend only on the fundamental group, and we define $\Delta_G := \Delta_X$ and $P_A(G) := P_A(X)$ for any space with $\pi_1(X) = G$. This applies in particular to descending HNN extensions of finitely generated groups.
We emphasise that the Alexander polynomial is accessible from a finite presentation of $G$: We can take $X$ to be the presentation complex, so that the $\Z H$-chain complex of the pair $(\bar{X}, \bar{x})$ looks like
\[ 0 \to \Z H^r \tolabel{F} \Z H^s \to C_0(\bar{X})/C_0(\bar{x}) = 0\]
where $C_0$ denotes the group of zero chains and $F$ contains the Fox derivatives associated to the given presentation (see \cref{fox derivatives}). Thus $A(X)$ is the cokernel of the map $F$, which immediately gives a finite presentation of $A(X)$ as desired.
\subsection{Seminorms on the first cohomology}
Given a polytope $P\subseteq H\otimes_\Z\R$, we obtain a seminorm $\|\cdot\|_P$ on $\Hom(H, \R) \cong \Hom_\R(H\otimes_\Z\R, \R)$ by putting
\[\|\phi\|_P := \sup\{\phi(x)-\phi(y)\mid x,y\in P\}\]
It is clear that $\|\cdot\|_P$ remains unchanged when $P$ is translated within $H\otimes_\Z\R$. Moreover, if $Q$ is another such polytope, then we get for the Minkowski sum
\[ \|\phi\|_{P+Q} = \|\phi\|_P + \|\phi\|_Q\]
Thus we get a homomorphism of groups
\[ \norm\colon \Pol_T (H) \to \Map(\Hom(H,\R),\R),\; P-Q\mapsto \left( \phi\mapsto \|\phi\|_P - \|\phi\|_Q\right)\]
where $\Map(\Hom(H,\R), \R)$ denotes the group of continuous maps to $\R$ with the pointwise addition. In general, $\norm(P-Q)$ does not need to be a seminorm.
\iffalse
\begin{dfn}
Let $\phi \colon H \to \R$ be a character. We say that a polytope $P$ is \emph{$\phi$-flat} if $\| \phi \|_P = 0$.
\end{dfn}
\fi
The following definition is due to McMullen \cite{McMullen2002}.
\begin{defin}
If $G$ is a finitely generated group, then the \emph{Alexander norm}
\[ \|\cdot\|_A\colon H^1(G;\R)\to\R\]
is defined as the image of the Alexander polytope $P_A(G)$ under $\norm$.
\end{defin}
If $G$ is the fundamental group of a compact connected orientable $3$-manifold $M$, the first cohomology $H^1(M;\R) = H^1(G;\R)$ carries another well-known seminorm $\|\cdot\|_T$, called the \emph{Thurston seminorm}. It was first defined and examined by Thurston \cite{Thurston1986} and is closely related to the question of whether (and how) $M$ fibres over the circle. One of the main results of \cite[Theorem 3.27]{FriedlLueck2015b} is the following.
\begin{thm}\label{l2 torsion polytope and thurston}
Let $M\neq S^1\times D^2$ be a compact connected aspherical $3$-manifold such that $\pi_1(M)$ satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture. Then the image of the $L^2$-torsion polytope $P_{L^2}(\widetilde{M};\pi_1(M))$ under $\norm$ is the Thurston seminorm $\|\cdot \|_T$.
\end{thm}
Motivated by this result, we make the following definition.
\begin{defin}\label{def:Thurston for fbc}
Let $G = F_n*_g$ for a monomorphism $g\colon F_n\to F_n$. We call the image of the $L^2$-torsion polytope $P_{L^2}(G)\in \Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)$ as defined in \cref{def: l2 polytope} under $\norm$ the \emph{Thurston seminorm on $G$} and denote it by
\[\|\cdot \|_T\colon H^1(G;\R)\to \R\]
\end{defin}
In order for this definition to make sense, we need to argue that HNN extensions of free groups satisfy the Atiyah Conjecture.
To this end, observe that $G$ fits into the extension
\[ 0\to \langle \! \langle F_n \rangle \! \rangle \to G \to \Z \to 0\]
By the work of Linnell (see~\cite[Theorem 10.19]{Lueck2002}), we know that the Atiyah conjecture holds for $F_n$, is stable under taking directed unions, and so holds for $\langle \! \langle F_n \rangle \! \rangle$, and is stable under taking extensions with elementary amenable quotients, and thus holds for $G$.
The proof that the terminology \emph{seminorm} in the above definition is justified needs to be postponed to \cref{indeed seminorm}.
\smallskip
In \cite{Harvey05} Harvey generalised McMullen's work and defined \emph{higher Alexander norms}
\[\delta_k\colon H^1(G;\R)\to\R\]
for any finitely presented group $G$, where $\delta_0 = \|\cdot\|_A$. While we do not need the precise definition of $\delta_k$, the following ingredient will be needed throughout the paper.
\begin{defin}\label{rational derived}
The \emph{rational derived series}
\[ G = G_r^{0} \supseteq G_r^{1} \supseteq G_r^{2} \supseteq \cdots \]
of a group $G$ is inductively defined with $G_r^{k+1}$ being the kernel of the projection
\[ G_r^k \to H_1(G_r^k)_f\]
\end{defin}
Note that the quotients $\Gamma_k := G/ G_r^{k+1}$ are torsion free and solvable, and so
\[\Wh(\Gamma_k) = 0\]
since solvable groups satisfy the $K$-theoretic Farrell--Jones Conjecture by a result of Wegner \cite{Wegner2013}. Moreover, $\Gamma_k$ satisfies the Atiyah Conjecture by the work of Linnell (see~\cite[Theorem 10.19]{Lueck2002}). Thus, given $G = F_n*_g$, \cref{def: universal} and \cref{def: l2 polytope} produce an $L^2$-torsion polytope $P_{L^2}(G, p_k)$ for the projections
\[ p_k\colon G\to \Gamma_k \]
The next result is not explicitly stated in \cite{FriedlLueck2015, FriedlLueck2015b}, but we will indicate how it directly follows from it.
\begin{thm}\label{higher Alex polytopes}
Let $G = F_n*_g$ be a descending HNN extension and let
\[ p_k\colon G\to \Gamma_k := G/ G_r^{k+1}\]
be the obvious projection. Then the image of the $L^2$-torsion polytope $P_{L^2}(G, p_k)$ under $\norm$ is the higher Alexander norm $\delta_k$, unless $b_1(G) = 1$ and $k=0$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\nu_k\colon \Gamma_k\to H_1(G)_f$ be the natural projection. There is an obvious analogue of \cite[Theorem 8.4]{FriedlLueck2015} for HNN extensions of free groups which says that for $\phi\colon H_1(G)_f\to\Z$ we have an equality
\[\delta_k(\phi) = -\chi^{(2)}(T; p_k, \phi\circ\nu_k)\]
where $T$ denotes the mapping torus of a realisation of $g$. The right-hand side denotes the twisted $L^2$-Euler characteristic defined and examined in \cite{FriedlLueck2015}.
On the other hand, a similar argument as in the proof \cref{l2 torsion polytope and thurston} (see the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.27]{FriedlLueck2015b}) shows that
\[ \norm(P_{L^2}(G, p_k))(\phi) = \norm(\P(-\tor_u(G,p_k)))(\phi) = -\chi^{(2)} (T;p_k, \phi\circ\nu_k) \qedhere\]
\end{proof}
Motivated by this result, we introduce new terminology.
\begin{defin}
Let $G = F_n*_g$ be a descending HNN extension and let
\[ p_k\colon G\to \Gamma_k := G/ G_r^{k+1}\]
be the obvious projection. Then we call $P_{L^2}(G, p_k)$ the \emph{higher Alexander polytopes}.
\end{defin}
The Thurston and higher Alexander seminorms satisfy well-known inequalities for compact orientable $3$-manifolds by the work of McMullen and Harvey \cite{McMullen2002, Harvey05, Harvey06}. We use their characterisation in terms of polytopes to prove an analogue in the case of
descending HNN extensions of free groups.
This will be the main result of \cref{sec: inequalities}.
\iffalse
Let $\chi^{(2)}(Y;\Nc(G)))$ denote the usual $L^2$-Euler characteristic of a finite free $G$-CW-complex $Y$. For connected CW-complex $X$ and a factorisation
\[\pi_1(X)\tolabel{\mu} G\tolabel{\phi} \Z\]
denote by $\chi^{(2)}(X;\mu,\phi)$ the $(\mu,\phi)$-$L^2$-Euler characteristic as introduced in \cite[Definition 3.1]{FriedlLueck2015a}. Roughly speaking, this is the $L^2$-Euler characteristic of the $G$-covering associated to $\mu$, twisted with the restriction of the regular $\Z$-representation along $\phi$.
\begin{thm}[The Thurston and higher-order Alexander norm as $L^2$-Euler characteristics]\label{norms as euler chars}
Let $g\colon F_n\to F_n$ be a monomorphism and $G = F_n*_g$ the associated descending HNN extension. Then for every $\phi\in H^1(G;\Z)$ we have
\[ \|\phi\|_T = -\chi^{(2)}(G;\id, \phi) = -\chi^{(2)}(\ker\phi)\]
For any $\phi\in H^1(G;\Z)$ consider the canonical factorisation of $\phi$ as $G\tolabel{p} \Gamma_n\tolabel{\overline{\phi}}\Z$, where $\Gamma_n$ is the $n^{th}$ quotient in the rational derived series of $G$. Then we have for Harvey's invariants
\[ \delta_n(\phi) = -\chi^{(2)}(G;p, \overline{\phi})\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
The first part is a combination of \cite[Lemma 7.5, Theorem 8.5 (3), and Lemma 3.7 (2)]{FriedlLueck2015}. The second part follows from \cite[Theorem 9.8]{FriedlLueck2015} since $\delta_0(\phi) = \|\phi\|_A$.
\end{proof}
\fi
\subsection{The Bieri--Neumann--Strebel invariant \texorpdfstring{$\Sigma(G)$}{Sigma(G)}}\label{sec:bns}
We first recall one of the definitions of the BNS-invariant $\Sigma(G)$, see \cite[Chapter A2.1]{Strebel2012}.
\begin{dfn}[The BNS invariant]
Let $G$ be a group with finite generating set $\S$. The positive reals $\R_{>0}$ act on $\Hom(G,\R)\setminus\{0\}$ by multiplication. The quotient will be denoted by
\[ S(G) = \left(\Hom(G,\R)\setminus\{0\}\right)/\R_{>0}\]
Given a class $[\phi]\in S(G)$, let $\Cay(G,S)_\phi$ denote the subgraph of the Cayley graph of $G$ with respect to $S$ that is induced by the vertex subset $\{g\in G\mid \phi(g)\geq 0\}$.
The \emph{BNS invariant} or \emph{$\Sigma$-invariant} is the subset
\[\Sigma(G) = \{ [\phi]\in S(G)\mid \Cay(G,S)_\phi\text{ is connected} \}\]
\end{dfn}
Note that $S(G)$, with the quotient topology, is naturally homeomorphic to the unit sphere in $H^1(G;\R)$. The invariant $\Sigma(G)$ is an open subset thereof (see~\cite[Theorem A]{Bierietal1987}).
For rational points in $S(G)$ we have a more tangible characterisation.
\iffalse
\begin{dfn}
Let $G$ be an HNN-extension $G = H\ast_f$. Let $t$ denote the stable letter of the extension, with the convention that $t^{-1}xt = f(x)$ in $G$ for every $x$ in the domain of $f$.
Quotienting $G$ by the normal closure of $H$ yields $\langle t \rangle =\Z$, and the resulting epimorphism $G \to \Z$ is said to be \emph{induced} by the HNN-extension.
We say that the HNN-extension is \emph{descending} if the domain of $f$ is equal to $H$ (note that we assume $f$ to be injective).
\end{dfn}
\fi
\begin{thm}[{\cite[Proposition 4.3]{Bierietal1987}}]
Let $\phi\colon G\to\Z$ be an epimorphism. Then $[-\phi]\in\Sigma(G)$ if and only if
$G$ can be identified with a descending HNN-extension over a finitely generated subgroup, so that $\phi$ is the epimorphism induced by the HNN-extension.
\iffalse
there is a commutative diagram
\[\xymatrix{
G \ar[rd]_\phi\ar[r]^(.25)\cong& \langle B,t\mid tbt^{-1} = \gamma(b)\rangle\ar[d] \\
& \Q }
\]
such that $B\leqslant \ker\phi$ is a finitely generated subgroup and $\gamma\colon B\to B$ is a monomorphism.
\fi
\end{thm}
\begin{dfn}[Sikorav--Novikov completion]\label{def:sikorav-novikov}
Let $G$ be a group and $\phi\in H^1(G;\R)$. Then the \emph{Sikorav--Novikov completion} $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi$ is defined as the set
\[ \widehat{\Z G}_\phi := \left\{\sum_{g\in G} x_g\cdot g\mid \forall C\in\R:\; \left\{g \in G\mid \phi(g) < C\text{ and } x_g\neq 0\right\}\text{ is finite}\right\}\]
\end{dfn}
It is easy to verify that the usual convolution turns $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi$ into a ring which contains $\Z G$. The reason why we are interested in the Sikorav--Novikov completion is the following criterion to detect elements in the BNS-invariant.
\begin{thm}\label{bns criterion}
Given a finitely generated group $G$, for a non-zero homomorphism $\phi \colon G \to \R$
we have $[-\phi] \in \Sigma(G)$ \iff
\[
H_0(G; \widehat{\Z G}_\phi) =0 \textrm{ and } H_1(G; \widehat{\Z G}_\phi )=0
\]
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
This is originally due to Sikorav \cite{Sikorav1987}, see also \cite[Theorem 4.3]{FriedlTillmann2015} for a sketch of the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
In fact we are only discussing the \emph{first BNS invariant}
\[\Sigma^1(G;\Z) = -\Sigma(G)\]
It is easily deducible from the full result of Sikorav that for descending HNN extensions of free groups the higher BNS invariants $\Sigma^n(G;\Z)$ all coincide with $\Sigma^1(G;\Z)$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{dfn}\label{alpha}
We define $\mu_\phi \colon \hat{\Z G}_\phi \to \Z G$ in the following way: Let
\[x = \sum_{g\in G} x_g\cdot g\in \hat{\Z G}_\phi\]
and let
\[ S = \big\{g\in \supp(x)\mid \phi(g) = \min\{ \phi(\supp(x))\} \big\}\]
Then we let
\[ \mu_\phi(x) = \sum_{g\in S} x_g\cdot g\]
\end{dfn}
It is easy to see that $\mu_\phi$ respects the multiplication in $\hat{\Z G}_\phi$.
The following criterion to detect units in $\hat{\Z G}_\phi$ is well-known; we include a proof here for the sake of completeness. Note that the Sikorav-Novikov completion is a domain, so being left-invertible is equivalent to being right-invertible, and so is equivalent to being a unit.
\begin{dfn}
A group $G$ is called \emph{indicable} if it admits an epimorphism onto $\Z$. The group is \emph{locally indicable} if all of its finitely generated subgroups are indicable.
\end{dfn}
\begin{lem}\label{invertible}
Let $G$ be a locally indicable group and $x \in \widehat{\Z G}_\phi$. Then $x$ is a unit in $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi$ \iff $\mu_\phi(x)$ is of the form $\pm h$ for some $h\in G$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
If $x$ has an inverse $y\in \widehat{\Z G}_\phi$, then
\[ 1 = \mu_\phi(1) = \mu_\phi(x)\mu_\phi(y)\]
The latter is an equation in $\Z G$, where the only units are of the form $\pm h$ since $G$ is locally indicable \cite[Theorem 13]{Higman1940}.
Conversely, write $x = \sum_{g\in G} x_g\cdot g$ and write $G_k$ for the (finite) set of elements $g\in G$ with $g\in \supp(x)$ and $\phi(g) = k$. After multiplying with the unit $\mu_\phi(x)^{-1}$, we may assume without loss of generality that $G_k = \emptyset$ for $k<0$, $G_0 \neq\emptyset$, and $\mu_\phi(x) = 1$, so
\[ x = 1 + \sum_{g\in G_1} x_g\cdot g + \sum_{g\in G_2} x_g\cdot g + \dots\]
It is now easy to successively build a left-inverse beginning with
\[ 1 - \sum_{g\in G_1} x_g\cdot g + \left(\sum_{g\in G_1} x_g\cdot g\right)^2 - \sum_{g\in G_2} x_g\cdot g +\dots \qedhere\]
\end{proof}
Finally we verify that the above characterisation of units in $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi$ is applicable for the groups of our interest.
\begin{lem}
\label{G is locally indicable}
Let $g \colon F_n \to F_n$ be a monomorphism. Then the associated descending HNN extension is locally indicable.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $G = F_n \ast_g$ denote the descending HNN extension, and let $\psi$ be the induced epimorphism to $\Z$.
We start by noting that $G$ is locally indicable \iff the normal closure of $F_n$ inside $G$ is, since this normal closure is the kernel of $\psi$, and the image of $\psi$ is a free-abelian group, and thus locally indicable.
Now, since $G$ is a descending HNN extension, every finitely generated subgroup of $\ker \phi$ lies in a copy of $F_n$, which is locally indicable. Hence $G$ is locally indicable.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Fox calculus}
\label{fox derivatives}
In order to start computing, we introduce as a last tool Fox derivatives (defined by Fox in~\cite{Fox1953}).
\begin{dfn}
Let $F_n$ be a free group generated by $s_1, \dots, s_n$, and let $w$ be a word in the alphabet $\{s_1, \dots, s_n \}$. We define the \emph{Fox derivative} $\fox w {s_i} \in \Z G$ of $w$ with respect to $s_i$ inductively: we write $w = vt$ where $t$ is one of the generators or their inverses, and $v$ is strictly shorter than $w$, and set
\[ \fox w {s_i} = \left\{ \begin{array}{lcl}
\fox v {s_i} & & t \not \in \{s_i, s_i^{-1} \} \\
\fox v {s_i} + v & \textrm{ if }& t = s_i \\
\fox v {s_i} - w & & t = s_i^{-1} \\
\end{array} \right. \]
This definition readily extends first to elements $w \in F_n$, and then linearly to elements of $\Z F_n$, forming a map $\fox w {s_i}\colon \Z F_n \to \Z F_n$.
\end{dfn}
The following equation is known as the fundamental formula of Fox calculus \cite[Formula (2.3)]{Fox1953}.
\begin{prop}
\label{foxIntegration}
Let $w \in F_n$ be any word, and let $s_1, \dots, s_n$ be a generating set of $F_n$. Then we have
\[ \sum_{i=1}^{n} \fox{w}{s_i}\cdot (1-s_i) = 1-w \]
\end{prop}
\section{The invariants for descending HNN extensions of free groups}\label{sec: free-by-cyclic}
\label{consequences}
In this section we describe the Alexander polynomial and the universal $L^{2}$-torsion in more explicit terms for descending HNN extensions of finitely generated free groups. The computations in this chapter follow from the general properties of the invariants, but we thought it worthwhile to collect them here in order to emphasise that a close connection between the invariants should not come as a complete surprise.
Let us first observe the following.
\begin{lem}
Let $G$ be a descending HNN extension $G = F_n\ast_g$. Pick a finite classifying space $B F_n$ for $F_n$, and a realisation $Bg\colon BF_n\to BF_n$. Then the mapping torus $T_{Bg}$ of $Bg$ is a classifying space for $G$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
It is well-known that $\pi_1(T_{Bg}) = G$. For the higher homotopy groups we observe that any map $C \to \widetilde{T_{Bg}}$ with compact domain $C$ can be homotoped to a map whose image lies in a copy of $\widetilde {BF_n}$, which is contractible.
\end{proof}
We will always view an $m\times n$-matrix $A$ over a ring $R$ as an $R$-homomorphism $R^m\to R^n$ by \emph{right}-multiplication since we prefer working with \emph{left}-modules.
For a monomorphism $g \colon F_n\to F_n$, let $G = F_n\ast_g$, and let $s_1, \dots, s_n$ denote generators of $F_n$, and $t$ the stable letter of the HNN extension. The \emph{Fox matrix of $g$} is
\[F(g) = \left(\fox{g(s_i)}{s_j}\right)_{i,j = 1}^n\in {\Z F_n}^{n\times n}\]
Put $\S = \{s_1,\dots,s_n,t\}$. We will often consider the matrix
\[ A(g; \S) =
\begin{pmatrix}
& & & s_1 - 1 \\
& \operatorname{Id} - t\cdot F(g) & & \vdots \\
& & & s_n-1
\end{pmatrix} \in \Z G^{n\times(n+1)}
\]
Given $s\in\S$, we let $A(g;\S, s)$ be the square matrix obtained from $A(g;\S)$ by removing the column which contains the Fox derivates with respect to $s$. Let $\Gamma_k = G/ G_r^{k+1}$, where $G_r^k$ are the subgroups of the rational derived series as introduced in \cref{rational derived}. Denote by $p_k\colon G\to \Gamma_k$ the projection and denote the ring homomorphisms $p_k\colon \Z G\to \Z\Gamma_k$ by the same letter. Notice that \[\Gamma_0 = H_1(G)_f =: H\]
The following theorem summarises the various invariants introduced in \cref{chapter: preliminaries} for descending HNN extensions of finitely generated free groups.
\begin{thm}\label{invariants for fbc}
With the notation above, let $G = F_n\ast_g$ and $s\in\S$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{fbc:l2tor} For the universal $L^2$-torsion we have
\[ \tor_u(G) = -[\Z G^n\tolabel{A(g;\S, s)}\Z G^n] + [\Z G\tolabel{s-1}\Z G]\]
and so
\[ P_{L^2}(G) = P( \det_{\D(G)}(A(g;\S,s)) ) - P(s-1)\in \Pol_T(H)\]
\item\label{fbc:higher alex} If $p_k(s)\neq 0$, then for the universal $L^2$-torsion relative to $p_k$ we have
\[ \tor_u(G;p_k) = -[\Z\Gamma_k^n\overset{p_k(A(g;\S,s))}{\longrightarrow} \Z\Gamma_k^n] + [\Z\Gamma_k\tolabel{p_k(s)-1}\Z\Gamma_k]\]
and so
\[P_{L^2}(G,p_k) = P( \det_{\D(\Gamma_k)}(p_k(A(g;\S,s)))) - P(p_k(s)-1)\in \Pol_T(H)\]
\item\label{fbc:alex} In $\Wh^w(H) \cong (T^{-1} \Q H)^\times/\{ \pm h\mid h\in H\}$ we have
\begin{equation*}
\Delta_A(G) = \begin{cases}
-\tor_u(G;p_0) & \text{ if } b_1(G)\geq 2\\
-\tor_u(G;p_0) \cdot (p_0(t)-1) &\text{ if } b_1(G)=1
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
\item\label{fbc:bns} Let $\phi\in\Hom(G,\R)$. If $\phi(s) \neq 0$, then $[-\phi]\in\Sigma(G)$ if and only if the map
\[A(g;\S, s) \colon \widehat{\Z G}_\phi^n \to \widehat{\Z G}_\phi^n\]
is surjective, or equivalently, bijective.
\end{enumerate}
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
(\ref{fbc:l2tor}) We write the relations defining the descending HNN extension $G = F_n\ast_g$ as
\[R_i = s_itg(s_i)^{-1}t^{-1}\]
If we let $BF_n$ be the wedge of $n$ circles, then the $\Z G$-chain complex of the mapping torus $T_{Bg}$ has the form
\[ C_* = 0\to\Z G^n\tolabel{c_2}\Z G^{n+1}\tolabel{c_1} \Z G\to 0 \]
where $c_1$ is given by the transpose of
\[\begin{pmatrix}
s_1 - 1 & s_2 -1 & \dots & s_n -1 & t-1
\end{pmatrix}
\]
and $c_2$ is given by the $n\times(n+1)$ matrix containing the Fox derivatives $\fox{R_i}{s_j}$ and $\fox{R_i}{t}$. This is precisely the matrix $A(g;\S)$ since
\begin{align*}
\fox{R_i}{s_j} &= \delta_{ij} + s_it \left(\fox{g(s_i)^{-1}}{s_j} + g(s_i)^{-1}\cdot \fox{t^{-1}}{s_j}\right) \\
&= \delta_{ij} -s_itg(s_i)^{-1}\cdot\fox{g(s_i)}{s_j} \\
&= \delta_{ij} - t \cdot\fox{g(s_i)}{s_j}\\
\fox{R_i}{t} &= s_i - s_i tg(s_j)^{-1}t^{-1} = s_i -1
\end{align*}
where $\delta_{ij}$ denotes the Kronecker delta.
Consider the $\Z G$-chain complexes
\[ \xymatrix{
B_* = & 0 \ar[r] & 0\ar[r] & \Z G \ar[r]^{s-1} & \Z G \ar[r] & 0\\
D_* = & 0\ar[r] & \Z G^n \ar[r]^{A(g;\S,s)} & \Z G^n\ar[r] & 0 \ar[r] & 0
} \]
We obtain a short exact sequence of $\Z G$-chain complexes
\[ 0 \to B_*\to C_*\to D_* \to 0\]
Since $B_*$ is $L^2$-acyclic by \cite[Theorem 3.14 (6) on page 129 and (3.23) on page 136]{Lueck2002}, $D_*$ is also $L^2$-acyclic and we have the sum formula \cite[Lemma 1.9]{FriedlLueck2015b}
\begin{align*}
\tor_u(G) & = \tor_u(C_*) \\
& = \tor_u(B_*) + \tor_u(D_*)\\
& = [\Z G\tolabel{s-1}\Z G] -[\Z G^n\tolabel{A(g;\S,s)}\Z G^n]
\end{align*}
The statement
\[P_{L^2}(G) = P( \det_{\D(G)}(A(g;\S,s)) ) - P(s-1)\in \Pol_T(H)\]
is obtained by applying the polytope homomorphism $\P\colon \Wh^w(G)\to \Pol_T(G)$.
\smallskip\noindent
(\ref{fbc:higher alex}) This follows exactly as (\ref{fbc:l2tor}) since the chain complex used to define $\tor_u(G;p_k)$ is
\[ 0\to\Z \Gamma_k^n\tolabel{p_k(c_2)}\Z\Gamma_k^{n+1}\tolabel{p_k(c_1)} \Z \Gamma_k\to 0\]
\smallskip\noindent
(\ref{fbc:alex}) A $\Z H$-presentation of the Alexander module $A(G)$ is given by
\[ \Z H^n \tolabel{p_0(A(g;\S))}\Z H^{n+1}\to A(G)\to 0\]
We now apply the same argument as in the proof of \cite[Theorem 5.1]{McMullen2002}: If $b_1(G)\geq 2$, then this yields
\[ \det(p_0(A(g;\S, s))) = (p_0(s)-1)\cdot \Delta_A(G)\]
for all $s\in\S$ such that $p_0(s) \neq 0$.
If $b_1(G) =1$, then
\[ \det(p_0(A(g;\S, t))) = \Delta_A(G)\]
Since the isomorphism $\Wh^w(G)\cong T^{-1}(\Z H)$ is given by the determinant over $T^{-1}(\Z H)$, the claim follows from part (\ref{fbc:higher alex}) for $k=0$ (since $\Gamma_0 = H$).
\smallskip\noindent
(\ref{fbc:bns}) By \cref{bns criterion}, $[-\phi]\in\Sigma(G)$ if and only if \[H_0(G; \widehat{\Z G}_\phi) =0 \textrm{ and } H_1(G; \widehat{\Z G}_\phi )=0\]
The chain complex computing these homology groups is
\[ 0\to\widehat{\Z G}_\phi^n\tolabel{c_2}\widehat{\Z G}_\phi^{n+1}\tolabel{c_1} \widehat{\Z G}_\phi\to 0\]
We assume $\phi(s) \neq 0$ for a fixed $s\in\S$. Since $G$ is locally indicable (by \cref{G is locally indicable}), \cref{invertible} shows that $s-1$ is invertible in $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi$, which implies that $c_1$ is surjective, and therefore $H_0(G; \widehat{\Z G}_\phi) =0$ for any non-zero $\phi$.
Assume without loss of generality that $s = s_1$. Then the kernel of $d_1$ is the set
\[ K = \left\{(x_1,\dots, x_{n+1})\in \widehat{\Z G}_\phi^{n+1} \mid \sum_{k=2}^{n+1} x_k (s_k-1) (s_1-1)^{-1}= -x_1 \right\}\]
By forgetting the first coordinate we see that $K$ is $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi$-isomorphic to $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi^{n}$, and
\[H_1(G; \widehat{\Z G}_\phi )=0\]
is equivalent to
\[A(g;\S,s) \colon \widehat{\Z G}_\phi^{n} \to \widehat{\Z G}_\phi^{n}\]
being surjective.
Since $\hat{\Z G}_\phi$ is stably finite (this was shown by Kochloukova~\cite{Kochloukova2006}), an epimorphism $\hat{\Z G}_\phi^n \to \hat{\Z G}_\phi^n$ is necessarily an isomorphism.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}\label{non-degenerate}
Note that the above proof shows (and uses) that $A(g;\S,s)$ (resp. $p_k(A(g;\S,s)$) is invertible over $\D(G)$ (resp. $\D(\Gamma_k)$). We will henceforth call a $\Z G$-square matrix with this property \emph{non-degenerate}.
\end{rmk}
\begin{ex}\label{example:l2tor}
Using part (\ref{fbc:l2tor}) of the above theorem we compute the $L^2$-torsion polytope in a few examples. We use $a,b, c,\dots$ to denote some fixed generators of $F_n$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item For arbitrary $n$ and $g = \text{id}$ the polytope is just a line of length $n-1$ between $0$ and $t^{n-1}$.
\item For $g\colon F_2\rightarrow F_2, \; x\mapsto a^kxa^{-k}$ for some $k\in \Z$, we get a tilted line between $0$ and $a^kt$.
\item For $g\colon F_3\rightarrow F_3,\; a\mapsto b, \: b \mapsto c, \: c\mapsto a[b,c]$ we get a triangle as shown below.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=2.6mm, x=.8cm, y=.8cm, domain=-1:1]
\draw[thick] (0,0) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$} node[right]{$0$};
\draw (0,1) node{$\bullet$} node[right]{$t^{n-1}$};
\end{tikzpicture} \hspace{8mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=2.6mm, x=0.8cm, y=.8cm, domain=-1:1]
\draw[thick] (0,0) -- (3,1);
\draw (0,0) node{$\bullet$} node[left]{$0$};
\draw (3,1) node{$\bullet$} node[right]{$a^kt$};
\end{tikzpicture} \hspace{8mm}
\begin{tikzpicture}[baseline=-1mm, x=.6cm, y=.6cm, domain=-1:1]
\draw[thick, fill = purple] (0,1) -- (0,-1) -- (2,0) -- (0,1);
\draw (0,1) node{$\bullet$} node[left]{$t^2$};
\draw (0,-1) node{$\bullet$} node[left]{$0$};
\draw (2,0) node{$\bullet$} node[right]{$a^2t$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{The $L^2$-torsion polytopes in \cref{example:l2tor}}
\end{figure}
\end{enumerate}
\end{ex}
More importantly, we can now show that the $L^2$-torsion polytope of free group HNN extensions induces indeed a seminorm on the first cohomology.
\begin{cor}\label{indeed seminorm}
Let $G = F_n\ast_g$. Then the Thurston seminorm
\[\|\cdot \|_T\colon H^1(G;\R)\to \R\]
as defined in \cref{def:Thurston for fbc} is indeed a seminorm.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
As a difference of seminorms it is clear that $\|\cdot \|_T$ is $\R$-linear and continuous.
First let $\phi\in H^1(G;\Q)$ be a rational class.
We easily find a generating set $s_1, \dots , s_n$ of $F_n$ such that $\phi(s_1)=0$. We add a stable letter to this set, and form a generating set $\S$ for $G$.
We get from the previous theorem
\[ \tor_u(G) = -[\Z G^n\tolabel{A(g;\S, s_1)}\Z G^n] + [\Z G\tolabel{s_1-1}\Z G]\]
By \cite[Theorem 2.2]{FriedlHarvey2007} of Friedl--Harvey applied to $\mathbb{K} = \D(K)$, the polytope $P(\det_{\D(G)}(A(g;\S, s_1)))$ defines a seminorm on $H^1(G;\R)$ which we denote by $\|\cdot\|_{T'}$. Then, since $\phi(s_1) = 0$, we have
\[ \|\phi\|_T = \|\phi\|_{T'} \geq 0\]
and for any $\psi\in H^1(G;\R)$
\begin{align*}
\|\phi+\psi\|_T &= \|\phi +\psi\|_{T'} - |(\phi +\psi)(s_1)| \\
&\leq \|\phi\|_{T'} + \|\psi\|_{T'} - |\psi(s_1)|\\
&= \|\phi\|_T + \|\psi\|_T
\end{align*}
This finishes the proof for rational classes.
The general case directly follows by the continuity of $\|\cdot\|_T$.
\end{proof}
\iffalse
\smallskip
\subsection{The Determinant Comparison Problem}
We borrow the following partial order on $\Pol_{T}(H)$ from Friedl--Tillmann~\cite{FriedlTillmann2015}: If $P-Q, P'-Q'\in\Pol_{T}(H)$, then we say that \[P-Q \leq P'-Q'\]
if $P+Q'\subseteq P'+Q$ holds up to translation. If this is the case, then the norm map
\[ \norm\colon \Pol_T (H) \to \Map(\Hom(H,\R),\R)\]
clearly satisfies
\[ \norm(P-Q)(\phi)\leq \norm(P'-Q')(\phi)\]
for all $\phi\in\Hom(H,\R)$.
\smallskip
Upon comparing parts (\ref{fbc:l2tor}), (\ref{fbc:higher alex}), and (\ref{fbc:alex}) of \cref{invariants for fbc} and motivated by \mbox{McMullen} and Harvey's inequalities (see \cite[Theorem 1.1]{McMullen2002}, \cite[Theorem 10.1]{Harvey05} and \cite[Corollary 2.10]{Harvey06}), we are led to the following question.
\begin{quest}[Determinant Comparison Problem]\label{determinantComparison}
Let $G\overset{\mu}{\to}\bar{G}\overset{\nu}{\to} H$ be epimorphisms of finitely generated torsion-free groups $G$ and $\bar{G}$ and a free-abelian group $H$. Assume that $G$ and $\bar{G}$ satisfy the Atiyah Conjecture. Let $A$ be an $n\times n$-matrix over $\Z G$ that becomes invertible over $\D(G)$ such that its image $\mu(A)$ becomes invertible over $\D(\bar{G})$. Consider the polytope homomorphism
\[ \P\colon K_1^w(\Z G)\to \Pol_T(H)\]
and likewise for $\bar{G}$. Is the inequality
\[\P([\mu(A)\colon \Z \bar{G}^n\to \Z\bar{G}^n])\leq \P([A\colon \Z G^n\to \Z G^n])\]
satisfied in $\Pol_T(H)$?
\end{quest}
We record the following consequence.
\begin{lem}\label{conjecture implies inequality}
If \cref{determinantComparison} is true for a descending HNN extension $G = F_n\ast_g$ with stable letter $t$, then
\[ \delta_k(\phi)\leq\|\phi\|_T\]
for all $\phi\in H^1(G;\R)$, unless $k=0$ and $b_1(G)= 1$. In this latter case,
\[ \delta_0(\phi) = \|\phi\|_A \leq\|\phi\|_T + |\phi(t)|\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows directly from \cref{invariants for fbc}.
\end{proof}
The following is an elementary observation.
\begin{lem}\label{onebyone}
If $n=1$, then \cref{determinantComparison} is true.
\end{lem}
The difficulty in answering \cref{determinantComparison} comes from the fact that polytopes are hard to control when adding elements in $\D(G)$, but this invariably happens when calculating the Dieudonn\'e determinant. In this case it is sometimes easier to work with one cohomology class $\phi\colon G\to\Z$ at a time, rather than taking the maximal free-abelian quotient $p\colon G\to H_1(G)_f$. Because of this, it is useful to note that we can weaken the assumption of \cref{conjecture implies inequality}.
\iffalse
\begin{dfn}
Given a Laurent polynomial
\[f = \sum_{i = m}^{i=M} r_i\cdot t^i\in R_t[t^{\pm 1}] = R\ast\Z\]
in a twisted Laurent polynomial ring, where $r_m, r_M\neq 0$, the \emph{degree} of $f$ is
\[\deg_{R\ast\Z}(f) = M - m\]
\end{dfn}
\fi
\begin{prop}
If $G = F_n\ast_g$ is a descending HNN extension and \cref{determinantComparison} is true whenever $H = \Z$, then the conclusion of \cref{conjecture implies inequality} holds.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
Given epimorphisms $G\tolabel{p} H\tolabel{\nu} H'\tolabel{\psi}\Z$, where $H$ and $H'$ are finitely generated free-abelian, denote by
\begin{gather*}
\P_p\colon \Wh^w(G)\to \Pol_T(H)\\
\P_{\nu\circ p}\colon\Wh^w(G) \to \Pol_T(H')
\end{gather*}
the polytope homomorphisms associated to $p$ and $\nu\circ p$. Then \cite[Lemma 6.12]{FriedlLueck2015} states in our notation that for any element $x\in \Wh^w(G)$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{seminorm as degree}
\norm(\P_p(x))(\psi\circ\nu) = \norm(\P_{\nu\circ p}(x))(\psi)
\end{equation}
We apply this to the epimorphisms
\[G\tolabel{p} H_1(G)_f\tolabel{\phi} \Z\tolabel{\id}\Z\]
Let $A = A(g;\S,t)$ and let $x\in \Wh^w(G)$ be given by
\[ x =[\Z G^n\tolabel{A}\Z G^n] - [\Z G\tolabel{t-1}\Z G]\]
By \cref{invariants for fbc}, (\ref{fbc:l2tor}) and the definition of the Thurston norm (see \cref{def:Thurston for fbc}), the equality (\ref{seminorm as degree}) becomes
\begin{align} \label{bla1}
\begin{split}
\|\phi\|_T &= \norm(\P_p(x))(\phi) \\
&= \norm(\P_{\phi\circ p}(x))(\id) \\
&= \norm(\P_{\phi\circ p}(A))(\id) - \norm(\P_{\phi\circ p}(t-1))(\id)\\
&= f(\P_{\phi\circ p}(A)) - |\phi(t)|
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $f\colon \Pol_T(\Z)\tolabel{\cong}\Z$ denotes the isomorphism given by mapping an interval $[m,n]\subseteq\R$ with $m,n\in\Z$ to $n-m$.
\smallskip
By the same arguments we get the equality
\begin{equation} \label{bla2}
\delta_k(\phi) = f(\P_{\phi\circ p}(p_k(A))) - |\phi(t)|
\end{equation}
from \cref{higher Alex polytopes}, unless $b_1(G) = 1$ and $k=0$. In this latter case, we get from \cref{invariants for fbc}, (\ref{fbc:alex})
\begin{equation}\label{bla3}
\delta_0(\phi) = \|\phi\|_A = f(\P_{\phi\circ p}(p_0(A)))
\end{equation}
The assumption that \cref{determinantComparison} is true whenever $H = \Z$ implies
\[ \P_{\phi\circ p}(p_k(A)) \leq \P_{\phi\circ p}(A)\]
for all $k\geq 0$. Since $f\colon \Pol_T(\Z)\tolabel{\cong}\Z$ is order-preserving when $\Z$ is equipped with the usual order, we obtain the desired inequalities from
(\ref{bla1}), (\ref{bla2}), and (\ref{bla3}).
\iffalse
Now let us look at the Alexander norm.
Let $\widetilde{\phi}\colon H_1(G)_f\to\Z $ denote the map induced by $\phi$. First note that
\begin{equation}\label{reduction eq 1}
\|\phi\|_A \leqslant \deg_{\Z\Z}(\widetilde{\phi}(\Delta_A))
\end{equation}
On the other hand, applying $\widetilde{\phi}$ to the relation $d_i = (p(s_i)-1)\cdot \Delta_A$ from the proof of \cref{invariants for fbc}, (\ref{fbc:alex}) gives
\begin{equation}\label{reduction eq 2}
\widetilde{\phi}(d_i) = (\phi(s_i)-1)\cdot \widetilde{\phi}(\Delta_A).
\end{equation}
Unravelling the definitions, we also have
\begin{equation} \label{reduction eq 3}
\widetilde{\phi}(d_i) = \widetilde{\phi}(\det_{\Z H}(p(A(f)_i))) = \det_{\Z\Z}(\phi(A(f)_i))
\end{equation}
The desired equation now follows from putting (\ref{reduction eq 1}), (\ref{reduction eq 2}), and (\ref{reduction eq 3}) together.
For any $s\in\S$ and $\phi\in H^1(G;\Z)$ such that $\phi(s)\neq 0$, we have canonical isomorphism $\D(G) \cong T^{-1}(\D(\ker\phi)\ast\Z)$. Under this isomorphism $\det_{\D(G)}(A(f)_i)$ can be represented by an element in $\D(\ker\phi)\ast\Z$, and we have
\begin{align*}
\|\phi\|_T &= \deg_{\D(\ker\phi)\ast\Z}(\det_{\D(G)}(A(f)_i)) - |\phi(s_i)|\\
\|\phi\|_A &\leqslant \deg_{\Z\Z}(\det_{\Z\Z}\phi(A(f)_i)) - |\phi(s_i)|.
\end{align*}
\fi
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Under the isomorphism $\D(G)\cong T^{-1}(\D(\ker\phi)*\Z)$ induced by
\[\phi\colon G\to\Z\]
it is proved in \cite[Lemma 6.16]{FriedlLueck2015} that $\det_{\D(G)}(A)$ already lives over $\D(\ker\phi)*\Z$ (this is in essence an application of Euclid's algorithm). Then $\norm(\P_{\phi\circ p}(A))(\id)$ is precisely the degree of $\det_{\D(G)}(A)$ as a (twisted) Laurent polynomial. The same comment holds for $\det_{\D(\Gamma_k)}(p_k(A))$ and $\D(\Gamma_k)$.
\end{rmk}
\fi
\section{Thurston, Alexander and higher Alexander norms}\label{sec: inequalities}
In this section we are going to extend the inequalities between the Alexander norm, the higher Alexander norms of Harvey, and the Thurston norm from the setting of $3$-manifolds to that of free-by-cyclic groups. Specifically,
we will prove an analogue of McMullen's~\cite[Theorem 1.1]{McMullen2002} and Harvey's~\cite[Theorem 10.1]{Harvey05} for the newly defined Thurston norm of descending HNN extensions of free groups.
The key technical tool used is the notion of a $\Phi$-specialising group, introduced in \cref{subsec: specialising}.
\begin{prop}
\label{spec then good}
Let $R$ be a ring, and let $R_s[z^\pm]$ be a ring of twisted Laurent polynomials determined by an automorphism $s\colon R\to R$. Let $\mathcal D$ and $\mathcal D'$ be skew-fields and $t\colon \D\to\D, \: t'\colon \D'\to\D'$ automorphisms. Let $\beta\colon R \to \mathcal D$ and $\beta'\colon R \to \mathcal D'$ be two $R$-fields such that $\beta\circ s = t \circ\beta$ and $\beta'\circ s = t' \circ\beta'$. Suppose that there is a specialisation $(S,\sigma)$ from $\D$ to $\D'$, with $S$ preserved by $t$ and $t' \circ \sigma = \sigma \circ t$.
Then for any square matrix $M$ over $S_t[z]$, we have
\[
\deg \det_{\D} M \otimes \D \geqslant \deg \det_{\D'} M\otimes \D'
\]
where $\deg$ denotes the degree of Laurent polynomials in $z$.
\end{prop}
\begin{proof}
We are going to prove the desired inequality by a triple induction. Firstly we induct on the size of the matrix $M$; secondly, on the number of non-zero entries in the first column of $M = (m_{ij})$; thirdly on the
sum $d$ of the degrees of the elements of the first column.
For $1 \times 1$ matrices the result follows trivially, since
\[
\deg m_{11} \geqslant \deg \sigma(m_{11})
\]
as the support of the Laurent polynomial $\sigma(x)$ is contained in the support of the Laurent polynomial $x$ for any $x \in S_t[z]$.
Now suppose that $M$ is an $n \times n$ matrix with $n>1$.
If the first column of $M$ is trivial, then $\det_\D M\otimes \D = 0$ and $\det_{\D'} M\otimes \D' = 0$, and so the degrees are both equal.
When the first column is not trivial, we need to consider two cases.
Firstly, there might be only one non-zero entry in the first column of $M$. Then both determinants are products of determinants of the same smaller matrix (taken over $\D$ and $\D'$), and an element in $S_t[z]$. In this case we are done by the induction hypothesis.
Secondly, there might be more than one non-trivial entry in the leftmost column of $M$.
Again, we need to consider two situations. Suppose first that the lowest and highest terms appearing in any non-zero $m_{i1}$ are not trivialised by $\sigma$. Then we can perform the first step of Euclid's algorithm using an elementary matrix $E$ whose off-diagonal entry lies in $S_t[z]$ -- it is the product of the lowest term of one entry and the inverse of the lowest term of another entry in the first column. Therefore $E$ and $EM$ are matrices over $S_t[z]$, and we have
\[\det_{\D} M \otimes \D = \det_{\D} (E \otimes \D \cdot M \otimes \D)\]
and
\[ \det_{\D'} M\otimes \D' = \det_{\D'} (E\otimes \D' \cdot M\otimes \D') \]
The sum of the degrees of the elements of the first column of $EM$ is lower than that of $M$, and the number of non-trivial entries was not increased.
The second possibility occurs when one of the entries $m_{i1}$ has a lowest or highest term with coefficient being mapped to $0$ by $\sigma$. Suppose that this term is $x z^k$. Without loss of generality we may assume that it occurs in $m_{11}$. Let $M'$ be obtained from $M$ by subtracting $x z^k$ from $m_{11}$, and $M''$ be obtained from $M$ by forcing the first column to be made of zeroes, except for the first entry which is made equal to $x z^k$. (In this case, Cohn calls $M$ the \emph{determinantal sum} of $M'$ and $M''$, for reasons which will become apparent below.) We have
\[
\det_\D^c M \otimes \D = \det_\D^c M'\otimes \D + \det_\D^c M''\otimes \D
\]
and
\[
\det^c_{\D'} M\otimes\D' = \det^c_{\D'} M'\otimes\D' + \det^c_{\D'} M''\otimes\D' = \det^c_{\D'} M'\otimes\D'
\]
since $M''\otimes\D'$ has a column of zeroes.
By induction
\[\deg \det_\D M'\otimes\D \geqslant \deg \det_{\D'} M'\otimes\D'\]
The coefficients of $\det^c_\D M''\otimes \D$ are all mapped to $0$ by $\sigma$, since they are all multiples of $x$.
It is now clear that the set of powers of $z$ with a coefficient not being mapped to $0$ by $\sigma$ is the same in $\det_\D^c M$ and in $\det^c_{\D'} M'\otimes \D$; but this is precisely the set of powers which are still visible in $\det^c_{\D'} M\otimes \D'$. This proves the claim.
\end{proof}
We will use the above proposition in two ways: firstly, it will allow us to show that any descending HNN extension $G$ of a free group is $H^1(G;\Z)$-specialising; secondly, we will use it directly to prove the inequality between Thurston and higher Alexander norms for $G$.
\begin{rmk}
Let $\Phi$ be a family of morphisms $G \to \R$, and let $H$ be a subgroup of $G$. Then $\Phi$ forms naturally a family of morphisms $H \to \R$. Moreover, if a morphism takes $G$ to $\Z$ then it also takes $H$ to $\Z$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{cor}
\label{extensions are spec}
Let $G$ be a group.
Let $\phi \colon G \to \Z$ be an epimorphism with kernel $K$, and let $\Phi$ be a collection of homomorphisms $G\to \R$. If $K$ is $\Phi$-specialising then $G$ is $(\Phi \cup \{\phi\})$-specialising.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
We start by remarking that $G$ is torsion free and satisfies the Atiyah conjecture, since $K$ does and $\Z$ is torsion free and elementary amenable (see \cite[Theorem 10.19]{Lueck2002}).
Choose an element $z \in \phi^{-1}(1)$ in $G$.
Let $R = \Q K$. Recall from \cref{crossed product of extension} that $\Q G$ has the structure of a twisted Laurent polynomial ring over $R$ with variable $z$.
Let $\alpha \colon G \to \Gamma$ be an epimorphism to a torsion-free elementary amenable group $\Gamma$ such that every morphism $\psi \in \Phi \cup \{\phi\}$ factors through $\alpha$. Let $L = \alpha(K)$. Since $\phi$ factors through $\alpha$, the ring $\Q \Gamma$ has the structure of a twisted Laurent polynomial ring over $\Q L$ with variable $\alpha(z)$; we will abuse the notation and call this variable $z$ as well. This way $\alpha\vert_K$ is a $z$-equivariant map.
Note that $L$ is torsion-free and elementary amenable, and that every element in $\Phi$ restricted to $K$ factors through $\alpha\vert_K$. Thus, by assumption on $K$, there exists a specialisation $(S,\sigma)$ from the epic $R$-field $\D(K)$ to the epic $R$-field $\D(L)$, where the map $R = \Q K \to \Q L \to \D(L)$ is induced by $\alpha\vert_K$. Note that the maps $\Q K \to D(K)$ and $\Q K \to D(L)$ are $z$-equivariant -- see \cite[Lemma 10.57]{Lueck2002}. We may also require that $S$ is preserved by the $z$-action -- e.g. we may replace $S$ by $\bigcap_{k\in \Z} z^k(S)$; it is immediate that $\sigma$ will be $z$-equivariant as well.
We now claim that there exists a specialisation from $\D(G)$ to $\D(\Gamma)$. In view of \cref{spec criterion}, let $M$ be a square matrix over $\Q G$ such that $M\otimes \D(\Gamma)$ is invertible. We can view $M$ as a matrix over the Laurent polynomial ring $R_t[z]$, and $\alpha(M) = M\otimes \D(\Gamma)$ as a matrix over the polynomial ring $(\Z L)_t[z]$. Since $M\otimes \D(\Gamma)$ is invertible, we have
\[
\det_{\D(\Gamma)} M\otimes \D(\Gamma) \neq 0
\]
and hence
\[
\deg \det_{\D(\Gamma)} M\otimes \D(\Gamma) \geqslant 0
\]
Now we apply \cref{spec then good} and conclude that
\[
\deg \Ddet M \geqslant 0
\]
which implies that $\Ddet M \neq 0$, and so $M\otimes \D(G)$ is invertible. This proves the claim.
\end{proof}
Recall that $b_1(G)$ denotes the (usual) first Betti number of $G$.
\begin{thm}
\label{main thm alex vs thurston}
Let $G = F_n \ast_g$ be a descending HNN extension of $F_n$ with stable letter $t$, and let $\psi \in H^1(G;\R)$. Then
\[
\delta_1(\psi) \leqslant \delta_2(\psi) \leqslant \dots \leqslant \| \psi \|_T
\]
If $b_1(G) \geqslant 2$, then also $\delta_0(\psi) \leqslant \delta_1(\psi)$.
If $b_1(G) = 1$, then $\delta_0(\psi) -| \psi(t) | \leqslant \delta_1(\psi)$.
When $\psi$ is fibred (that is $\ker \psi$ is finitely generated), then all the inequalities above become equalities.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
We start by noting that it is enough to verify the statements for integral classes; once this is done, the statements for rational classes follow immediately, and for general classes follow from continuity of the norms.
Since $G$ is a finitely presented group of deficiency at least $1$, Harvey showed in \cite[Corollary 2.3]{Harvey06} that we have $\delta_i(\psi) \leqslant \delta_{i+1}(\psi)$ for every $i>0$. She also proved the inequalities involving $\delta_0$. Thus we need only show that $\delta_i(\psi) \leqslant \| \psi \|_T$ for $i>0$. To this end, pick such an $i$.
Let $\phi \colon G \to \Z$ denote the canonical epimorphism induced by the HNN extension. Let $\psi \colon G \to \Z$ be a homomorphism.
Let $p_i \colon G \to \Gamma_i$ denote the map associated to $\delta_i$. Note that $\Gamma_i$ maps onto $\Gamma_0$, which is the free part of the abelianisation of $G$. Let $K = \ker \psi$. If $\psi = \pm \phi$, then $K$ is locally free (since $G$ is a descending HNN extension). By \cref{loc free spec}, $K$ is specialising.
If $\psi \neq \pm \phi$, then $\phi|_K$ is non-trivial. It is immediate that $\phi|_K \colon K \to \Z$ gives $K$ the structure of a (locally-free)-by-cyclic group. By \cref{loc free spec,extensions are spec}, $K$ is $\{\phi\vert_K\}$-specialising.
Recall that $\delta_i = \norm (P_{L^2}(G,p_i))$ and $\| \cdot \|_T = \norm (P_{L^2}(G))$. \cref{invariants for fbc}(\ref{fbc:higher alex}) tells us that
\[
P_{L^2}(G,p_i) = P(\det_{\D(\Gamma_i)} (p_i(A(g;\S,s)))) - P(p_i(s) - 1)
\]
and
\[
P_{L^2}(G) = P(\Ddet (A(g;\S,s))) - P(s - 1)
\]
where $\S$ is a generating set of $G$, and $s \in \S$ is such that $p_i(s) \neq 0$.
Recall that $\Q G$ is naturally a twisted Laurent polynomial ring $\Q K_t[z^\pm]$. Let $L = \ker (\psi \colon \Gamma_i \to \Z)$, and consider the subrings $\D(K)_t[z^\pm]\subseteq \D(G)$ and $\D(L)_t[z^\pm]\subseteq \D(\Gamma_i)$. Since $K$ is $\{\phi|_K\}$-specialising and $\phi|_K$ factorises over $p_i|_K\colon K\to L$, there exists a specialisation from $\D(K)$ to $\D(L)$.
We now apply \cref{spec then good} with $R = \Q K, \D = \D(K)$, and $\D' = \D(L)$ and obtain
\begin{align*}
\delta_i(\psi) &= \deg \det_{\D(\Gamma_i)} (p_i(A(g;\S,s))) - \deg (p_i(s) - 1) \\
&= \deg \det_{\D(\Gamma_i)} (p_i(A(g;\S,s))) - | \psi(s) | \\
&= \deg \det_{\D(\Gamma_i)} (p_i(A(g;\S,s))) - \deg (s - 1) \\
&\leqslant \deg \Ddet (A(g;\S,s)) - \deg (s - 1) \\
&= \| \psi \|_T
\end{align*}
where the degrees are taken of Laurent polynomials in $z$. Note that to use \cref{spec then good} we need to guarantee that the embedding $\Q K \into \D(K)$ and the map $\Q K \to \Q L \into \D(L)$, as well as the specialisation, are $z$-equivariant, but this follows from \cite[Lemma 10.57]{Lueck2002} and a discussion as before.
\smallskip
Now suppose that $\psi$ is fibred, that is that $K = \ker \psi$ is finitely generated. It follows from the work of Geoghegan--Mihalik--Sapir--Wise~\cite[Theorem 2.6 and Remark 2.7]{Geogheganetal2001} that $K$ is finitely generated free itself, say of rank $m$. Denote the inclusion by $i\colon K\to G$.
By claim (3.26) made in the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.24]{FriedlLueck2015b}, we have
\[ \|\psi\|_T = \norm(P_{L^2}(G))(\psi) = \norm(\P(-\tor_u(G)))(\psi) = -\chi^{(2)}(i^*\widetilde{T};\mathcal{N}(K))
\]
where $T$ is the mapping telescope of a realisation of $g$. Recall that the $K$-CW-complex $i^*\widetilde{T}$ is a model for $EK$ and that $K$ is finitely generated free, so
\[ -\chi^{(2)}(i^*\widetilde{T};\mathcal{N}(K)) = -\chi^{(2)}(K) = b_1^{(2)}(K) = b_1(K) - 1\]
McMullen showed in \cite[Theorem 4.1 and Theorem 5.1]{McMullen2002} that we have
\[ b_1(\ker\psi)-1 \leqslant \| \psi \|_A \]
irrespective of the fact that $\psi$ is fibered. (In fact, McMullen showed that this is an equality when $\psi$ lies in the cone over an open face of the unit ball of the Alexander norm.)
Combining the above results with \cref{main thm alex vs thurston} we obtain
\[ b_1(\ker\psi)-1 \leqslant \| \psi \|_A \leqslant \|\psi\|_T = b_1(\ker\psi)-1 \qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Dunfield in~\cite{Dunfield2001} constructed a hyperbolic $3$-manifold which fibres, and whose Thurston and Alexander norms do not agree. His example is actually a link complement, and thus a manifold with toroidal boundary. Since it does fibre, it must do so over a surface with a non-empty boundary. Thus the fundamental group of the $3$-manifold is a free-by-cyclic group, and hence noting that our definition of the Thurston norm coincides with the usual one for a $3$-manifold (as shown in \cite[Theorem 3.27]{FriedlLueck2015b}), we conclude that Dunfield's example shows that also in our setting the Alexander and Thurston norms are not equal in general.
\end{rmk}
\iffalse
In this section we will circumvent the Determinant Comparison Problem to prove the inequalities announced in \cref{conjecture implies inequality} for descending HNN extensions of $F_2$. As before, we denote by $\Gamma_k = G/G_r^{k+1}$ the quotient of the rational derived series and the natural projections by $p_k\colon G\to\Gamma_k$. We also write $H = \Gamma_0 = H_1(G)_f$.
\begin{dfn}
Let $\leq$ be a biorder on $H$. For every $k\geq 0$ we let $K_k$ be the kernel of the projection $\Gamma_k\to H$. We define maps
\[\mu_\leqslant \colon (\D(K_k)\ast H)\s- \{0\} \to(\D(K_k)\ast H)^\times\]
by
\[ \sum_{h \in H} \lambda_h \cdot h \mapsto \lambda_{h_0}\cdot h_0\]
where $h_0$ is the $\leqslant$-minimal element in the support of $\sum \lambda_h\cdot h$.
It is easy to see that $\mu_\leq$ is multiplicative and so extends to a group homomorphism on the Ore localisation
\[\mu_\leq \colon \D(\Gamma_k)^\times = T^{-1}(\D(K_k)\ast H)^\times \to (\D(K_k)\ast H)^\times\]
\end{dfn}
Since the units in $\D(K_k)* H$ are precisely those elements whose support is a singleton, there is a canonical group homomorphism
\[ \supp\colon (\D(K_k)\ast H)^\times\to H\]
As $H$ is abelian, the composition
\[\supp\mu_\leq\colon \D(\Gamma_k)^\times \to H\]
factors through the abelianisation of the source to give a map denoted by the same name
\[ \supp\mu_\leq\colon\D(\Gamma_k)^{\times}_{\ab}\to H\]
Similarly, we can define a map
\[ \supp\mu_\leq\colon\D(G)^{\times}_{\ab}\to H\]
For the behaviour of $\mu_\leq$ under addition we have the following.
\begin{lem}\label{addition and mu}
Let $x,y\in \D(G)^\times$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\supp \mu_\leq(x)< \supp \mu_\leq(y)$, then
\[ \mu_\leq(x+y) = \mu_\leq(x)\]
\item If $\supp\mu_\leq(x)=\supp\mu_\leq(y)$ and $\mu_\leq(x)\neq \mu_\leq(y)$, then
\[\mu_\leq(x-y) = \mu_\leq(x) -\mu_\leq(y)\]
\item If $\mu_\leq(x) = \mu_\leq(y)$, then
\[\supp \mu_\leq(x-y) > \supp \mu_\leq(x) = \supp \mu_\leq(y)\]
\end{enumerate}
The same statements hold for $x,y\in \D(\Gamma_k)^\times$, $k\geq 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Each of the claims is obvious if both $x$ and $y$ lie in the subring $\D(K)*H$.
For the general case, write $x = t^{-1}s$, $y = v^{-1}u$ with $s,t,u,v\in \D(K)*H$. Write $d^{-1}c = tv^{-1}$ for some $c,d\in \D(K)*H$. Then
\[ x+y = t^{-1}(s+tv^{-1}u) = t^{-1}d^{-1}(ds + cu)\]
and for the first claim it thus suffices to prove
\begin{equation}\label{addition reduction}
\mu_\leq(ds+cu) = \mu_\leq(ds)
\end{equation}
But by assumption we have
\[ \mu_\leq(ds) = \mu_\leq(cvt^{-1}s) = \mu_\leq(cv)\mu_\leq(x)\]
and
\[
\mu_\leq(cv)\mu_\leq(y) = \mu_\leq(cv)\mu_\leq(v^{-1}u) = \mu_\leq(cu)\]
and so the first observation in this proof is applicable and yields (\ref{addition reduction}).
The other claims follow in precisely the same way.
\end{proof}
Recall that we have introduced a non-degeneration condition in \cref{non-degenerate}. Under this assumption the following definition is meaningful.
\begin{dfn}[Well-behaved matrices]
Let $\leq$ be a biorder on $H$. A non-degenerate square matrix $A$ over $\Z G$ is \emph{well behaved} with respect to $\leq$ if for every $k\geq 0$
\[ \supp \mu_\leq(\Ddet A)\leq \supp \mu_\leq (\det_{\D(\Gamma_k)} p_k(A))\]
If $\supp\mu_\leq(\Ddet A) = \supp\mu_\leq (\det p_k(A))$, we say that $A$ is \emph{very well behaved}.
\end{dfn}
\begin{lem}
\label{product of matrices}
The product of two well-behaved matrices is itself well-behaved. Also, a matrix is well-behaved \iff it is so after being multiplied on either side by a very well-behaved matrix.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This follows immediately from the observations that the Dieudonn\'e determinant and $\mu_\leqslant$ are multiplicative, and $\leqslant$ is multiplication invariant.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}
\label{mu_phi non 0}
Let $A$ be a non-degenerate $2\times 2$ matrix over $\Z G$. Then $A$ is well-behaved provided that $\Ddet \mu_\leqslant (A) \neq 0$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let
\[ A = \left( \begin{array}{cc} a & b \\
c & d
\end{array} \right) \]
and let us fix a $k$.
Since $A$ is non-degenerate, it contains at least one entry which does not become zero after applying $p_k$; without loss of generality let us suppose that $d$ is such an entry.
We have
\[ \Ddetc A = ad - bd^{-1}cd \]
Note that $\supp\mu_\leqslant(bd^{-1}cd) =\supp\mu_\leqslant(bc)$ and likewise after applying $p_k$ (we are also allowing empty supports here).
We need to consider three cases. If $\supp \mu_\leqslant(ad) < \supp \mu_\leqslant(bc)$, then by \cref{addition and mu}
\[ \mu_\leqslant(\Ddetc A) = \mu_\leqslant(ad - bd^{-1}cd) =\mu_\leqslant(ad)\]
But then
\[\supp \mu_\leq(ad)\leq \supp \mu_\leq(p_k(ad))\]
and
\[\supp \mu_\leq(ad)\leq\supp \mu_\leq(p_k(bc))\]
and thus
\[\supp \mu_\leq(ad) \leq \supp \mu_\leq(\det_{\D(\Gamma_k)} p_k(A))\]
The case $\supp \mu_\leqslant(bc) < \supp \mu_\leqslant(ad)$ is analogous.
Now let us suppose that $\supp\mu_\leqslant(bc) =\supp\mu_\leqslant(ad)$. By assumption we have
\[ \Ddetc \mu_\leqslant(A) = \mu_\leqslant(ad) - \mu_\leqslant(bd^{-1}cd) \neq 0 \]
and so by the second part of \cref{addition and mu}
\[ \mu_\leqslant(\Ddetc A) = \mu_\leqslant(ad - bd^{-1}cd) = \mu_\leqslant(ad) - \mu_\leqslant(bd^{-1}cd)\]
Hence
\[ \supp\mu_\leqslant(\Ddet A) = \supp\mu_\leqslant(ad)\]
But as before
\[\supp\mu_\leqslant(ad) \leq \supp\det p_k(A)\]
which completes the proof.
\end{proof}
\begin{lem}\label{well-behaved}
\label{the norms for F_2}
Let $G = F_2\ast_g$ be a descending HNN extension with generating set $\S = \{x,y,t\}$. Let $\leqslant$ be a biorder on $H_1(G)_f$ and suppose that
$p(y),p(x)>0$ or $p(y),p(x) < 0$.
Then for every $s\in\S$ the matrix $A(g;\S,s)$ as defined in \cref{consequences} is well-behaved with respect to $\leqslant$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Let $v = g(x)$ and $w = g(y)$.
Consider
\[B_y = A(g;\S,t) \cdot \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-x & 0 \\
0 & 1-y \end{array} \right) \cdot \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 0 \\
1 & 1 \end{array} \right) \]
Note that $B_y$ is well-behaved \iff so is $A(g;\S,t)$ since both of the matrices on the right are very well-behaved; for the middle matrix we are using the fact that
\[p(x) \neq 0 \neq p(y)\]
Using \cref{foxIntegration} we compute
\begin{eqnarray*} B_y &=& \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-x - t(1-v) & -t{\fox v y}(1-y)\\
1-y- t(1-w) & 1-y -t{\fox w y}(1-y) \end{array} \right) \\
&=& \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-x - (1-x)t & -t{\fox v y}(1-y)\\
1-y- (1-y)t & 1-y -t{\fox w y}(1-y) \end{array} \right) \\
&=& \left( \begin{array}{cc}
(1-x) (1-t) & -t{\fox v y}(1-y)\\
(1-y)(1-t) & 1-y -t{\fox w y}(1-y) \end{array} \right)
\end{eqnarray*}
Now $B_y$ is clearly a product of a very well-behaved matrix and the matrix
\[ A(g;\S, x) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-t{\fox v y} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
1 -t{\fox w y} & 1-y\end{array} \right)\]
We form $B_x$ in the analogous manner:
\[ B_x = A(g;\S,t) \cdot \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-x & 0 \\
0 & 1-y \end{array} \right) \cdot \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1 & 1 \\
0 & 1 \end{array} \right) \]
and observe as before that it is a product of a very well-behaved matrix and the matrix
\[ A(g;\S, y) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-t{\fox v x} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
-t{\fox w x} & 1-y \end{array} \right)\]
From all this we see that one of $A(g;\S,x), A(g;\S,y), A(g;\S, t)$ is well-behaved \iff the others are.
\smallskip
We now show that the matrices $A(g;\S,x), A(g;\S,y), A(g;\S, t)$ are indeed well-behaved for any monomorphism $h\colon F_2 \to F_2$ by induction.
Depending on whether $p(x),p(y)$ are both positive or both negative, we need to consider two cases.
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Case 1:} $p(y) , p(x) > 0$.
The induction in this case is over $n$, the length of the maximal common prefix of $v$ and $w$.
\smallskip
Suppose first that $n=0$. If
\[ \mu_\leqslant\left(1 -t{\fox w y}\right) = 1\]
then $\Ddet \mu_\leqslant(A(g;\S,x)) \neq 0$, and we are already done by \cref{mu_phi non 0}.
Otherwise, we have
\[ \mu_\leqslant(A(g;\S,x)) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-t \mu_\leqslant({\fox v y}) & 1\\
-t \mu_\leqslant({\fox w y}) & 1\end{array} \right)\]
The determinant of this matrix is trivial \iff
\begin{equation} \label{for contradiction}
\mu_\leqslant\left({\fox v y}\right) = \mu_\leqslant\left({\fox w y}\right)
\end{equation}
Let us assume that this holds. Since $v$ and $w$ have no common prefix, and all elements in the support of ${\fox v y}$ are either trivial or a prefix of $v$ (and similarly for $w$), we must have
\[ 1 = \mu_\leqslant\left({\fox v y}\right) = \mu_\leqslant\left({\fox w y}\right)\]
But $1 \in \supp {\fox v y}$ implies that $v$ begins with $y$. The analogous statement holds for $w$, and so $v$ and $w$ have a common prefix. This is the desired contradiction, so (\ref{for contradiction}) cannot happen. Hence $\Ddetc \mu_\leqslant(A(g;\S,x)) \neq 0$, and we are again done by \cref{mu_phi non 0}.
\smallskip
For the induction step, let us suppose that $v$ and $w$ have a common prefix. We let $l$ be the first letter of $v$ and $w$; without loss of generality let us assume that $l \in \{y^{\pm 1}\}$.
Let $s = t l \in G$, and also write $v' = s^{-1} x s = l^{-1} v l$ and $w' = s^{-1} y s = l^{-1} w l$. Then
\begin{align*}
A(g;\S, x) &= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-sl^{-1}{\fox {l v' l^{-1}} y} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
1-sl^{-1}{\fox {l w' l^{-1}} y} & 1-y \end{array} \right) \\
&= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-s l^{-1} l{\fox {v' l^{-1}} y} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
1-s l^{-1}l{\fox { w' l^{-1}} y} & 1-y \end{array} \right)\\
&= \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-s {\fox {v' } y} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
1-s {\fox { w' } y} & 1-y \end{array} \right)
\end{align*}
If we let $g'\colon F_2\to F_2$ be $g$ followed by conjugation with $l$, then $G$ is isomorphic to the HNN extensions $F_2*_{g'}$ with stable letter $s$. From the above calculation we see for $\S' = \S\cup\{s\}\s- \{t\}$ that
\[ A(g';\S',x) = A(g;\S, x)\]
Note that when $l \in \{x^{\pm 1}\}$, we show that $A(g';\S',y) = A(g;\S, y)$.
The claim now follows from the induction hypothesis since $g'(x)$ and $g'(y)$ have a shorter common prefix, and from the fact that $A(g;\S, x)$ being well behaved implies the same for $A(g;\S, y)$.
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Case 2:} $p(y) , p(x) < 0$.
This case is completely analogous, except now we induct on the length of the maximal common suffix. Let us look at the base case of the induction. Recall that
\[ A(g;\S, x) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-t{\fox v y} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
1 -t{\fox w y} & 1-y\end{array} \right)\]
Assuming $\Ddetc \mu_\leqslant(A(g;\S, x)) = 0$ immediately yields
\[ x^{-1} \mu_\leqslant\left(t {\fox v y}\right) = y^{-1} \mu_\leqslant\left( t{\fox w y}\right)\]
since now we have $\mu_\leqslant(1-y) = -y$ and $\mu_\leqslant(1-x) = -x$.
The equation is equivalent to
\[ \mu_\leqslant\left(v^{-1} {\fox v y}\right) = \mu_\leqslant\left(w^{-1} {\fox w y}\right)\]
which implies, as $w$ and $v$ have no common suffix, that
\[ 1 = \mu_\leqslant\left(v^{-1} {\fox v y}\right) = \mu_\leqslant\left(w^{-1} {\fox w y}\right)\]
This in turn implies that both $v$ and $w$ end with $y^{-1}$, which contradicts the lack of common suffix.
\smallskip
Now suppose that $w$ and $v$ do indeed have a common suffix. We let $l$ denote the last letter of $w$ and $v$, declare $s = t l^{-1}$, and proceed exactly as in the first case.
\iffalse We let $l$ be the last letter of $w$ and $v$, and set $z \in \{x,y\}$ so that $l \neq z^{\pm 1}$.
Let $s = t l^{-1} \in G$. We now look at $C_u$, and replace all occurrences of $t$ by $sl$; for concreteness let us assume that $z=x$.
we write $v' = s^{-1} x s = l v l^{-1}$ and $w' = s^{-1} y s = l w l^{-1}$.
We have
\[ C_x = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-sl{\fox {l^{-1} v' l} x} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
-sl{\fox {l^{-1} w l} x} & 1-y \end{array} \right) =
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-sl l^{-1} {\fox {v' l} x} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
-sl l^{-1}{\fox { w l} x} & 1-y \end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{cc}
1-s {\fox {v' } x} & 1-x \\[0.3em]
-s {\fox { w } x} & 1-y \end{array} \right)
\]
But this is the matrix $C_x$ for the matrix $A(g')_3$, where $g'$ is $g$ followed by conjugation by $l^{-1}$, and $g'(x), g'(y)$ have a shorter common suffix (while we still have $p(x), p(y)<0$, so we are still in Case 2).
\fi
\end{proof}
\begin{thm}
\label{main thm alex vs thurston}
Let $G$ be a descending HNN extension of $F_2$ with $b_1(G)\geq 2$. Then we have for the Thurston and higher-order Alexander semi-norms on $H^1(G;\R)$ the inequality
\[ \delta_k(\phi) \leq \| \phi \|_T\]
for every $\phi \in H^1(G;\R)$ and $k\geq 0$.
\iffalse, unless $b_1(G) = 1$ and $n = 0$. In this latter case,
\[ \delta_0(\phi)= \|\phi\|_A \leq \|\phi\|_T +|\phi(t)|\]
\fi
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi \in H^1(G;\R)$ be a non-trivial class. There exist two biorders on $H_1(G)_f$, say $\leqslant_+$ and $\leqslant_-$, such that the former makes $\phi\colon H_1(G)_f\to\R$ into an order-preserving and the latter into an order-reversing map. We will write $\mu_{\pm}$ for $\mu_{\leqslant_\pm}$.
Since $b_1(G)\geq 2$, the projection $p \colon G \to H_1(G)_f$ is non-trivial on $F_2$, and hence one easily finds generators $x,y$ for $F_2$ such that $p(x) ,p(y) <_+ 0$. Put $A = A(g;\S,t)$.
\cref{invariants for fbc} tells us that
\[P_{L^2}(G) = P( \det_{\D(G)}(A) ) - P(t-1)\]
and
\[ P_{L^2}(G;p_k) = P( \det_{\D(\Gamma_k)} (p_k(A)) - P(p_k(t)-1)\]
Note that $P(t-1) = P(p_k(t) -1)$. Thus by Theorems \ref{l2 torsion polytope and thurston} and \ref{higher Alex polytopes}, it suffices to show
\[ \norm\big(P( \det_{\D(\Gamma_k)} (p_k(A)))\big) (\phi) \leq \norm\big(P(\det_{\D(G)}(A))\big)(\phi)\]
Let $\Ddet (A) = s^{-1} r$ with $r,s \in \D(K) \ast H_1(G)_f$. By the choices of $\leq_\pm$ we have
\begin{align*}
\norm\big(P(\det_{\D(G)}(A))\big)(\phi) &= \|\phi\|_{P(r)} - \|\phi\|_{P(s)}\\
&= \phi(\mu_-(r) - \mu_+(r) + \mu_+(s) - \mu_-(s))\\
&= \phi(\mu_-(s^{-1}r) - \mu_+(s^{-1}r)) \\
&= \phi(\mu_-(\Ddet (A)) - \mu_+(\Ddet (A)))
\end{align*}
and similarly for $\det_{\D(\Gamma_k)}(p_k(A))$ (note that, formally speaking, each $\mu_\pm$ should be replaced by $\supp \mu_\pm$ in the above expression; we omitted the $\supp$ for the sake of clarity, and we will continue to do so).
By \cref{well-behaved}, the matrix $A$ is well-behaved with respect to both $\leqslant_+$ and $\leqslant_-$. Since $\phi$ is order-preserving when we consider $\mu_+$ and order-reversing when we consider $\mu_-$, this means that
\[ \phi(\mu_+(\det_{\D(G)}(A))) \leqslant \phi( \mu_+(\det_{\D(\Gamma_k)} p_k(A)) \]
and
\[ \phi(\mu_-(\det_{\D(G)}(A))) \geqslant \phi( \mu_-(\det_{\D(\Gamma_k)} p_k(A)) \]
and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\fi
\iffalse
\subsection{Fibred cohomology classes}
In this short section we look at a cohomology class $\phi\colon G\to\Z$ that is \emph{fibred} in the sense that its kernel is finitely generated.
\begin{cor}
Let $G = F_2\ast_g$ be a descending HNN extension with $b_1(G)\geq 2$. If $\phi\colon G\to\Z$ is surjective and fibred, then we have $[\pm\phi]\in \Sigma(G)$ and
\[\|\phi\|_T = \|\phi\|_A = b_1(\ker\phi)-1\]
where $b_1$ denotes the usual first Betti number.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
The claim about the $\Sigma$-invariant is well-known \cite[Theorem B1]{Bierietal1987}, and is in fact an equivalent characterisation of $\phi$ being fibred.
\smallskip
Since $\phi$ has finitely generated kernel $K$, it follows from the work of Geoghegan--Mihalik--Sapir--Wise~\cite[Theorem 2.6 and Remark 2.7]{Geogheganetal2001} that $K$ is finitely generated free itself, say of rank $m$. Denote the inclusion by $i\colon K\to G$.
By claim (3.26) made in the proof of \cite[Theorem 3.24]{FriedlLueck2015b}, we have
\[ \|\phi\|_T = \norm(P_{L^2}(G))(\phi) = \norm(\P(-\tor_u(G)))(\phi) = -\chi^{(2)}(i^*\widetilde{T};\mathcal{N}(K))
\]
where $T$ is the mapping telescope of a realisation of $g$. Recall that the $K$-CW-complex $i^*\widetilde{T}$ is a model for $EK$ and that $K$ is finitely generated free, so
\[ -\chi^{(2)}(i^*\widetilde{T};\mathcal{N}(K)) = -\chi^{(2)}(K) = b_1^{(2)}(K) = b_1(K) - 1\]
McMullen showed in \cite[Theorem 4.1]{McMullen2002} that for fibred classes we have
\[ b_1(\ker\phi)-1 \leqslant \| \phi \|_A \]
(In fact, McMullen showed that this is an equality when $\phi$ lies in the cone over an open face of the Alexander polytope.)
Combining the above results with \cref{main thm alex vs thurston} we obtain
\[ b_1(\ker\phi)-1 \leqslant \| \phi \|_A \leqslant \|\phi\|_T = b_1(\ker\phi)-1 \qedhere\]
\end{proof}
\fi
\section{The \texorpdfstring{$L^2$}{L\texttwosuperior}-torsion polytope and the BNS-invariant}
In this section we relate the $L^2$-torsion polytope of a descending HNN extension of $F_2$ with the BNS-invariant introduced in \cref{sec:bns}. This approach is motivated by the following results: If $M$ is a compact orientable $3$-manifold, the unit norm ball of the Thurston norm is a polytope, and there are certain maximal faces such that a cohomology class comes from a fibration over the circle if and only if it lies in the positive cone over these faces \cite{Thurston1986}. Bieri-Neumann-Strebel \cite[Theorem E]{Bierietal1987} showed that the BNS-invariant $\Sigma(\pi_1(M))$ is precisely the projection of these \emph{fibered faces} to the sphere $S(G) = (\Hom(G,\R)\s- \{0\})/\R_{>0}$. Since the $L^2$-torsion polytope induces the Thurston norm for descending HNN extensions of $F_n$, we expect a similar picture in this setting. The work of Friedl-Tillmann \cite[Theorem 1.1]{FriedlTillmann2015} provides further evidence for this expectation.
\begin{dfn}
Let $H$ be an abelian group with a total ordering $\leqslant$, which is invariant under multiplication. Let $R$ be a skew-field. We define
$R ( H, \leqslant)$ to be the set of functions $H \to R$ with well-ordered support, that is $f \colon H \to R$ belongs to $R ( H, \leqslant)$ if every subset of $H$ whose image under $f$ misses zero has a $\leqslant$-minimal element.
\end{dfn}
\begin{thm}[Malcev, Neumann~\cite{Malcev1948,Neumann1949}]
Convolution is well-defined on \[R ( H, \leqslant)\] and turns it into a skew-field.
\end{thm}
\begin{rmk}\label{Malcev Neumann cross}
In fact, given structure maps $\phi \colon H \to \Aut(R)$ and $\mu \colon H\times H\to R^\times$ of a crossed product $R*H$, one can also define a crossed-product convolution on $R ( H, \leqslant)$ in a way completely analogous to the usual construction of crossed product rings (see \cref{def crossed product}). The resulting ring is still a skew-field, and we will denote it by $R \ast ( H, \leqslant)$ for emphasis.
\end{rmk}
\begin{rmk}
In fact the Malcev--Neumann construction works for all biorderable groups, and not merely abelian ones.
\end{rmk}
In order to relate the $L^2$-torsion polytope to the BNS-invariant, we first need to put the skew-field $\D(G)$ and the Novikov-Sikorav completion $\widehat{\Z G}_\phi$ (introduced in \cref{def:sikorav-novikov}) under the same roof.
\begin{lem}
Let $K = \ker(p_0\colon G\to \Gamma_0 = H_1(G)_f)$. Given $\phi\in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}$ with $L = \ker(\phi)$, let $\leq_\phi$ be a multiplication invariant total order on $H_1(G)_f$ such that $\phi$ is order-preserving (we endow $\R$ with the standard ordering $\leqslant$). We define
\[ \mathfrak{F}(G,\phi) := \D(K) * (H_1(G)_f,\leq_\phi)\]
in the sense of \cref{Malcev Neumann cross}. Then there is a commutative diagram of rings
\[
\xymatrix{
\Z K * H_1(G)_f\ar[r] & \D(K) * H_1(G)_f\ar[r] & \D( G) \ar[d]^{i_\phi}\\
\Z G\ar[u]^\cong\ar[d]_\cong\ar@/_/[rru] \ar@/^/[rrd] & & \mathfrak{F}(G,\phi)\\
\Z L *\im \phi \ar[r] & \widehat{\Z L * \im \phi}_{\iota} \ar[r]^\cong & \hat{\Z G}_\phi \ar[u]_{j_\phi}
}
\]
such that all maps are inclusions, where $\iota$ denotes the inclusion $\im \phi \into \R$, and
$\widehat{\Z L * \im \phi}_{\iota}$
denotes the Sikorav--Novikov completion of $\Z L * \im \phi$ with respect to $\iota \colon \im \phi \to \R$.
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
All maps apart from $i_\phi$ and $j_\phi$ are either obvious or have already been explained. The commutativity of the upper and lower triangle is clear.
Since $\mathfrak{F}(G,\phi)$ is a skew-field, the universal property of the Ore localisation allows us to define
\[i_\phi\colon \D(G) \cong T^{-1}(\D(K) * H_1(G)_f)\to \mathfrak{F}(G,\phi)\]
as the localisation of the obvious inclusion
\[ \D(K) * H_1(G)_f\to \mathfrak{F}(G,\phi)\]
The definition of
\[j_\phi\colon \hat{\Z G}_\phi\cong \widehat{\Z L * \im \phi}_{\iota} \to \mathfrak{F}(G,\phi)\]
uses the same formulae as the composition
\[ \Z L *\im \phi \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \Z G \overset{\cong}{\longrightarrow} \Z K * H_1(G)_f\]
and we need to verify that this indeed maps to formal sums with well-ordered support with respect to $\leq_\phi$. But this follows directly from the fact that
\[\phi\colon H_1(G)_f \to \R \]
is order-preserving. The commutativity of the right-hand triangle follows immediately.
\end{proof}
\begin{dfn}
Given $\phi\in\Hom(G,\R)$ and
\[ x= \!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{h\in H_1(G)_f} \!\!\!\!\!\! x_h\cdot h\in \D(K) * (H_1(G)_f, \leq_\phi)\]
we set
\[ S_\phi(x) = \minsupp_\phi(x) = \big\{h\in\supp(x)\mid \phi(h) = \min\{ \phi(\supp(x))\}\big\}\]
and define $\mu_\phi\colon \mathfrak{F}(G,\phi)^\times\to \mathfrak{F}(G,\phi)^\times$ by
\[
\mu_\phi\big( \!\!\!\!\!\! \sum_{h\in H_1(G)_f} \!\!\!\!\!\! x_h\cdot h \big) = \sum_{h\in S_\phi(x)} x_h\cdot h
\]
\end{dfn}
We record the following properties.
\begin{lem}\label{mu}
Let $\phi\in\Hom(G,\R)$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item\label{mu:homo} The map $\mu_\phi$ is a group homomorphism.
\item\label{mu:restrict} It restricts to maps (denoted by the same name)
\begin{gather*}
\mu_\phi\colon \D(G)^\times \to\D(G)^\times\\
\mu_\phi\colon \hat{\Z G}_\phi^\times\to \Z G \s- \{0\}
\end{gather*}
and the latter map agrees with $\mu_\phi\colon \hat{\Z G}_\phi^\times\to \Z G \s- \{0\}$ from \cref{alpha}.
\iffalse
\item\label{mu:pmg} If $x, y\in \D(G)^\times$ have the same image under the projection
\[\D(G)^\times \to \D(G)^\times / [\D(G)^\times,\D(G)^\times] \cong K_1^w(\Z G) \to \Wh^w(G)\]
then $\mu_\phi(x) = \pm g$ for some $g\in G$ \iff $\mu_\phi(y) = \pm h$ for some $h\in G$.
\fi
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
This is obvious.
\end{proof}
We now give a practical method for calculating the BNS invariant for descending HNN-extensions of $F_2$.
\begin{thm}
\label{formula for BNS}
Let $G$ be a descending HNN extension of $F_2$. Let \[\phi \in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}\] Suppose that $x,y$ are generators of $F_2$ for which $\phi(x), \phi(y) > 0$, and let $g \colon F_2\to F_2$ be a monomorphism such that $G = F_2*_g$, and such that $g(x),g(y)$ have no common prefix.
Then $[-\phi] \in \Sigma(G)$ \iff \[\mu_\phi(1 + t \fox{g(x)}{y} - t\fox{g(y)}{y}) = \pm z\] for some $z \in G$.
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
By \cref{invariants for fbc}, (\ref{fbc:bns}), we have $-\phi\in\Sigma(G)$ if and only if the map
\[A \colon {\hat{\Z G_\phi}}^2 \to {\hat{\Z G_\phi}}^2\]
is an isomorphism, where
\[ A = A(g;\S,x) = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-t \fox{g(x)}{y} & x-1 \\
1-t\fox{g(y)}{y} & y-1
\end{array} \right) \]
Since $\phi(y) \neq 0$, the element $y-1$ is invertible in $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$, and thus we may perform an elementary row operation over $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$ to obtain a triangular $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$-matrix
\[ B = \left( \begin{array}{cc}
-t \fox{g(x)}{y} - (1-t\fox{g(y)}{y})(y-1)^{-1}(x-1) & 0 \\
1-t\fox{g(y)}{y} & y-1
\end{array} \right) \]
Note that $A$ is invertible over $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$ if and only if the diagonal entries of $B$ are invertible in $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$.
One of the diagonal entries is $y-1$, which we already know to be invertible. The other one is invertible \iff
\[ \mu_\phi\big(-t \fox{g(x)}{y} - (1-t\fox{g(y)}{y})(y-1)^{-1}(x-1)\big) = \pm z\]
for some $z\in G$, thanks to \cref{invertible}. But
\[ \mu_\phi\big((1-t\fox{g(y)}{y})(y-1)^{-1}(x-1)\big) = \mu_\phi(1-t\fox{g(y)}{y})\]
and the supports of $1-t\fox{g(y)}{y}$ and $t \fox{g(x)}{y}$ have a trivial intersection: the lack of common prefixes of $g(x)$ and $g(y)$ implies that the only element in $G$ which could lie in both supports is $t$, but then we would need to have both $g(x)$ and $g(y)$ starting with $y$, which would yield a non-trivial common prefix.
This implies
\begin{align*}
& \phantom{{}={}} \mu_\phi\big(-t \fox{g(x)}{y} - (1-t\fox{g(y)}{y})(y-1)^{-1}(x-1)\big)\\
&= \mu_\phi\big(-t \fox{g(x)}{y} - 1+t\fox{g(y)}{y}\big) \qedhere
\end{align*}
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
The above theorem does not apply to $\phi \in H^1(G;\R) \s- \{0\}$ which have $F_2 \leqslant \ker \phi$. There are however only two such cohomology classes (up to scaling): $\psi$, the class induced by the HNN-extension $G = F_2 \ast_g$, which lies in $\Sigma(G)$ \iff $g \colon F_2 \to F_2$ is an isomorphism, and $-\psi$, which always lies in $\Sigma(G)$.
For every other $\phi \in H^1(G;\R) \s- \{0\}$ one easily finds appropriate generators $x$ and $y$, and then any monomorphism $F_2 \to F_2$ inducing $G$ can be made into the desired form by postcomposing it with a conjugation of $F_2$. Such a postcomposition does not alter the isomorphism type of $G$.
\end{rmk}
Next we are going to relate the $L^2$-torsion polytope $P_{L^2}(G)$ to the BNS invariant for $G = F_2*_g$. For this we need some more preparations.
\begin{dfn}\label{face map}
Let $H$ be a finitely generated free-abelian group. Let $P\subseteq H\otimes_\Z\R$ be a polytope and take $\phi\in\Hom(H,\R)$. We define the \emph{minimal face} of $P$ for $\phi$ to be
\[F_\phi(P) = \{p\in P\mid \phi(p) = \min\{ \phi(q)\mid q\in P\} \}\]
It is easy to see that $F_\phi$ respects Minkowski sums and hence induces group homomorphisms
\begin{gather*}
F_\phi\colon \Pol(H) \to\Pol(H)\\
F_\phi\colon \Pol_T(H) \to\Pol_T(H)\\
\end{gather*}
\end{dfn}
\begin{dfn}
\label{polytope equivalent}
Let $K = \ker (p_0\colon G\to H_1(G)_f =: H)$, and let $x \in \D(G) = T^{-1}(\D(K) \ast H)$ and $\phi,\psi\in\Hom(G,\R) = \Hom(H,\R)$. We call $\phi$ and $\psi$ \emph{$x$-equivalent} if we can write $x = u^{-1}v$ with $u,v \in \D(K) \ast H$ in such a way that
\[F_\phi(P(u)) = F_\psi(P(u)) \text{ and } F_\phi(P(v)) = F_\psi(P(v))\]
\iffalse
This notion passes through the quotient maps
\begin{equation*}
\D(G)^\times \to \D(G)^\times / [\D(G)^\times,\D(G)^\times] \cong K_1^w(\Z G) \to \Wh^w(G)
\end{equation*}
by declaring $\phi$ and $\psi$ to be $y$-equivalent for $y\in \D(G)^\times / [\D(G)^\times,\D(G)^\times]$ \iff for some preimage $x$ of $y$ $\phi$ and $\psi$ are $x$-equivalent. Analogously for $\Wh^w(G)$.
\fi
\end{dfn}
\smallskip
We are aiming at proving that the universal $L^2$-torsion determines the BNS-invariant for descending HNN extensions of free groups. In this process the following lemma is crucial in order to extract algebraic information about Dieudonné determinants from geometric properties of their polytopes.
\begin{lem}\label{polytope and minimal}
Let $x\in\D(G)^{\times}$ and $\phi, \psi\in\Hom(G,\R)$.
If $\phi$ and $\psi$ are $x$-equivalent, then
\[ \mu_\phi(x) = \mu_\psi(x)\]
\end{lem}
\begin{proof}
Write $x = u^{-1}v$ with $u,v\in \D(K)* H_1(G)_f$, so that by assumption we have
\[F_\phi(P(u)) = F_\psi(P(u)) \text{ and } F_\phi(P(v)) = F_\psi(P(v))\]
But $F_\phi(P(u)) = F_\psi(P(u))$ implies
\[ \minsupp_\phi(u) = \minsupp_\psi(u)\]
and so
\[\mu_\phi(u) = \mu_\psi(u)\]
The same argument applies to $v$ and so the claim follows from
\begin{equation*}\label{xts}
\mu_\phi(x) = \mu_\phi(u)^{-1}\cdot \mu_\phi(v) \qedhere
\end{equation*}
\end{proof}
The following is similar to \cite[Theorem 1.1]{FriedlTillmann2015}; although we do not provide markings on the polytopes which fully detect the BNS-invariant, \cref{formula for BNS} makes up for this lack. The crucial point now is that the BNS invariant is locally determined by a polytope.
\begin{thm}
\label{main thm BNS}
Let $g \colon F_2\to F_2$ be a monomorphism and let $G = F_2*_g$ be the associated descending HNN extension. Given $\phi \in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}$ such that $-\phi$ is not the epimorphism induced by $F_2 \ast_g$, there exists an open neighbourhood $U$ of $[\phi]$ in $S(G)$ and an element $d\in\D(G)^\times$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The image of $d$ under the quotient maps
\begin{equation*}
\D(G)^\times \to \D(G)^\times / [\D(G)^\times,\D(G)^\times] \cong K_1^w(\Z G) \to \Wh^w(G)
\end{equation*}
is $-\tor_u(G)$. In particular $P_{L^2}(G) = P(d)$ in $\Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)$.
\item For every $\psi, \psi' \in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}$ which satisfy $[\psi], [\psi'] \in U$ and are $d$-equivalent, we have $[-\psi] \in \Sigma(G)$ if and only if $[-\psi'] \in \Sigma(G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\iffalse
Let $g \colon F_2\to F_2$ be a monomorphism and let $G = F_2*_g$ be the associated descending HNN extension. Given $\phi \in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}$ such that $\phi$ and $-\phi$ are not the epimorphism induced by $F_2 \ast_g$, there exists an element $d\in\D(G)^\times$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item The image of $d$under the quotient maps
\begin{equation*}
\D(G)^\times \to \D(G)^\times / [\D(G)^\times,\D(G)^\times] \cong K_1^w(\Z G) \to \Wh^w(G)
\end{equation*}
is $-\tor_u(G)$. In particular $P_{L^2}(G) = P(d)$ in $\Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)$.
\item For every $\psi \in\Hom(G,\R) \s- \{0\}$ which is $d$-equivalent to $\phi$, and such that $\psi$ and $-\psi$ are not the epimorphism induced by $F_2 \ast_g$, we have $[-\phi] \in \Sigma(G)$ if and only if $[-\psi] \in \Sigma(G)$.
\end{enumerate}
\fi
\end{thm}
\begin{proof}
Suppose that $\ker \phi \neq F_2$. We easily find generators $x,y$ of $F_2$ for which $\phi(x), \phi(y)>0$.
Set
\[ U = \{ [\psi] \mid \psi(x)>0 \textrm{ and } \psi(y)>0 \} \subseteq S(G)\]
This is clearly an open neighbourhood of $[\phi]$.
Suppose that $[\psi], [\psi'] \in U$.
Let $A=A(g;\S,x)$, as in the proof of \cref{formula for BNS}. Since $\phi(y) \neq 0$, we can still form the matrix $B$ from \cref{formula for BNS}, and $[-\phi] \in \Sigma(G)$ \iff $A$ is invertible over
$\hat{\Z G_{\phi}}$ \iff $B$ is invertible over
$\hat{\Z G_{\phi}}$.
Since $B$ is obtained from $A$ by an elementary row operation over $\mathfrak{F}(G, \phi)$ in which we add a multiple of the last row to another row, and such operations do not affect the canonical representative of the Dieudonn\'e determinant, we have
\[ i_\phi(\det^c_{\D(G)}(A)) = \det^c_{\mathfrak{F}(G, \phi)}(A) = \det^c_{\mathfrak{F}(G, \phi)}(B) \]
which is the product of the diagonal entries of $B$. Note that $B$ is invertible over $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$ if and only if the diagonal entries are invertible in $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$, which is the case if and only if their product is invertible in $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$ since $\hat{\Z G_\phi}$ is a domain. Thus, by \cref{mu}, $[-\phi]\in\Sigma(G)$ if and only if $\mu_\phi(\det^c_{\mathfrak{F}(G, \phi)}(B)) = \mu_\phi(i_\phi(\det^c_{\D(G)}(A))$ is of the form $\pm z$ for some $z\in G$.
The same arguments apply to $\psi$ and $\psi'$ since $\psi(y) \neq 0 \neq \psi'(y)$. By \cref{mu}, it therefore suffices to prove
\[ \mu_\psi(i_\psi(\det^c_{\D(G)}(A))) = \mu_{\psi'}(i_{\psi'}(\det^c_{\D(G)}(A)))\]
If we put $d := \det^c_{\D(G)}(A)\cdot (x-1)^{-1}$, then this is equivalent to
\[\mu_\psi(i_\phi(d)) = \mu_{\psi'}(i_\psi(d))\]
since $\psi(x), \psi'(x) > 0$. But this is true by \cref{polytope and minimal} if we assume that $\psi$ and $\psi'$ are $d$-equivalent.
\cref{invariants for fbc} (\ref{fbc:l2tor}) says that $d$ is mapped under the quotient maps
\begin{equation*}
\D(G)^\times \to \D(G)^\times / [\D(G)^\times,\D(G)^\times] \cong K_1^w(\Z G) \to \Wh^w(G)
\end{equation*}
to $-\tor_u(G)$, as desired. This finishes the proof in the case that $\ker \phi\neq F_2$.
\smallskip
Now suppose that $F_2 \leqslant \ker \phi$. Since $-\phi$ is not induced by the HNN extension, we must have $\phi(t) > 0$.
Let us choose a generating set $x,y$ for $F_2$, and set
\[ U = \big\{ [\psi] \mid \psi(t)> \vert \psi(z) \vert, z \in \supp \fox{g(y)}{y} \big\} \]
Again, this is an open neighbourhood of $[\phi]$.
We proceed similarly to the previous case. Observing that $1-t$ is invertible over $\hat{\Z G_\psi}$ and $\hat{\Z G_{\psi'}}$ reduces the problem to verifying whether
the matrix $A(g, \S, t)$ is invertible over $\hat{\Z G_\psi}$ and $\hat{\Z G_{\psi'}}$.
The bottom-right entry of $A(g, \S, t)$ is $1 - t \fox{g(y)}y$, which is invertible for every $[\rho] \in U$ by construction. If $\psi$ and $\psi'$ are additionally $d$-equivalent for $d := \det^c_{\D(G)}(A(g, \S, t))\cdot (t-1)^{-1}$, we now continue in precisely the same way as before.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
Note that the result in the latter case also follows from the observation that $\Sigma(G)$ is open, since $[-\phi] \in \Sigma(G)$.
Note also that our neighbourhood $U$ is very explicit, and rather large, especially when $\ker \phi \neq F_2$.
\end{rmk}
\begin{cor}
\label{finite bns}
Let $G = F_2*_g$ be a descending HNN extension. Then the Bieri--Neumann--Strebel invariant $\Sigma(G)$ has finitely many connected components.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
Let $\phi \colon G \to \Z$ be the induced map. We know that $[-\phi] \in \Sigma(G)$, and so there exists an open set $U_\phi$ in $S(G)$ around $[-\phi]$ which lies entirely in $\Sigma(G)$. For all other non-trivial morphisms $\psi \colon G \to \R$ we obtain open sets $U_\psi$ as in the previous theorem. Since $S(G)$ is compact, we only need to look at finitely many open sets $U_{\psi_1}, \dots, U_{\psi_m}$. Thus it is enough to show that each such open set contains finitely many connected components of $\Sigma(G)$. This is clear for $U_\phi$, so let us assume that we are looking at $U_\psi$ with $[\psi] \neq [-\phi]$.
The theorem above tells us that within $U_\psi$, lying inside of $\Sigma(G)$ is well-defined on the equivalence classes of the relation of being $d$-equivalent. Since there are only finitely many $d$-equivalence classes, the result follows.
\end{proof}
\section{UPG automorphisms}
In this section we will strengthen \cref{main thm alex vs thurston} and \cref{main thm BNS} for a class of free group automorphisms.
\begin{defin}[Polynomially growing and UPG automorphism]\label{def:upg} An automorphism $f:F_n\to F_n$ is \emph{polynomially growing} if the quantity $d(1,f^n(g))$ grows at most polynomially in $n$ for every $g\in F_n$, where $1$ denotes the identity in $G$ and $d$ is some word metric on $F_n$. If, additionally, the image $\bar{f}$ of $f$ under the obvious map $\Aut(F_n) \to\GL(n,\Z)$ is unipotent, i.e. $\id - \bar{f}$ is nilpotent, then $f$ will be called \emph{UPG}.
\end{defin}
The main result of Cashen-Levitt \cite[Theorem 1.1]{CashenLevitt2014} reads as follows.
\begin{thm}\label{thm CashenLevitt}
Let $G = F_n\rtimes_g \Z$ with $n\geq 2$ and $g$ polynomially growing. Then there are elements $t_1, ..., t_{n-1}\in G\s- F_n$ such that
\[ \Sigma(G) = -\Sigma(G) = \{[\phi]\in S(G)\mid \phi(t_i)\neq 0\text{ for all } 1\leq i\leq n-1\}\]
\end{thm}
Motivated by this, we prove
\begin{thm}\label{l2-torsion of upg}
Let $G = F_n\rtimes_g \Z$ with $n\geq 1$ and $g$ a UPG automorphism. Denote by $p_k\colon G\to \Gamma_k = G/G_r^{k+1}$ the projection, where $G_r^{k}$ denotes the $k$-th subgroup of the rational derived series. For simplicity write $\Gamma_\infty$ for $G$ and $p_\infty$ for $\id_G$.
Then there are elements $t_1, ..., t_{n-1}\in G\s- F_n$ which can be chosen to coincide with those of \cref{thm CashenLevitt} such that for $k\in\N\cup \{\infty\}$
\begin{equation}\label{tor of upg}
\tor_u(G;p_k) = - \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \; [\Z \Gamma_k\tolabel{p_k(1-t_i)} \Z \Gamma_k]
\end{equation}
In particular,
\[ P_{L^2}(G;p_k) = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \; P(1-t_i) \in \Pol(H_1(G)_f)\]
is a polytope (and not merely a difference of polytopes) which is independent of $k\in\N\cup \{\infty\}$.
\end{thm}
Combining the previous two results, we see that the BNS-invariant of UPG automorphisms is easily determined by their $L^2$-torsion polytope. More precisely, we have the following analogue of \cite[Theorem 1.1]{FriedlTillmann2015}.
\begin{cor}\label{main corollary}
Let $G = F_n\rtimes_g \Z$ with $n\geq 2$ and $g$ a UPG automorphism. Let $\phi\in H^1(G;\R)$. Then $[\phi]\in \Sigma(G)$ if and only if $F_\phi(P_{L^2}(G))=0$ in $\Pol_T(H_1(G)_f)$.
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
\iffalse
Both \cref{thm CashenLevitt} and \cref{l2-torsion of upg} depend on $t_1, \dots , t_{n-1}$ only by their images of the projection $p\colon G\to H_1(G)_f$. We successively rewrite
\[ P(1-t_i) + P(1-t_j) = P(1-t_i\cdot t_j)\]
whenever $p(t_i)$ and $p(t_j)$ are linearly dependent in $H_1(G)_f$. In this case, we have
\[ \phi(t_i) = 0 \Leftrightarrow \phi(t_j) = 0 \Leftrightarrow \phi(t_i\cdot t_j) = 0,\]
so that \cref{thm CashenLevitt} still holds when $\{t_1, ..., t_{n-1} \}$ is replaced with $\{t_1, ..., t_{n-1} \}\cup\{ t_i\cdot t_j\} \setminus \{t_i, t_j\}$. After finitely many iterations of this process, we may assume that the $t_i$ map under $p$ to pairwise linearly independent elements. This has the effect that the one-dimensional faces of
\[P_{L^2}(G) = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \; P(1-t_i)\]
are translates of $P(1-t_i)$ for some $1\leq i\leq n-1$.
\fi
Any one-dimensional face of
\[P_{L^2}(G) = \sum_{i=1}^{n-1} \; P(1-t_i)\]
contains a translate of $P(1-t_i)$ for some $1\leq i\leq n-1$.
\smallskip
Now $F_\phi(P_{L^2}(G))\neq 0$ \iff $F_\phi(P_{L^2}(G))$ contains a one-dimensional face, i.e. a translate of $P(1-t_i)$ for some $i$. This is equivalent to $\phi(t_i) = 0$ for some $i$, which by \cref{thm CashenLevitt} is equivalent to $[\phi]\notin \Sigma(G)$.
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}\label{upg vs pol}
We suspect \cref{l2-torsion of upg} to hold as well for polynomially growing automorphisms. It is well-known that any polynomially growing automorphism has a power that is UPG, see Bestvina--Feighn--Handel's \cite[Corollary 5.7.6]{Bestvinaetal2000}. Thus, in order to reduce \cref{l2-torsion of upg} for polynomially growing automorphisms to the case of UPG automorphisms, one needs a better understanding of the restriction homomorphism
\[i^*\colon \Wh^w(F_n\rtimes_{g}\Z) \to \Wh^w(F_n\rtimes_{g^k}\Z)\]
(induced by the obvious inclusion $i\colon F_n\rtimes_{g^k}\Z\to F_n\rtimes_{g}\Z\:$) since it maps $\tor_u(F_n\rtimes_g\Z)$ to $\tor_u(F_n\rtimes_{g^k}\Z)$ (see \cref{properties} (\ref{restriction})).
\end{rmk}
We also obtain
\begin{cor}\label{main corollary 2}
Let $G = F_n\rtimes_g \Z$ with $n\geq 2$ and $g$ a UPG automorphism. Let $\phi\in H^1(G;\R)$. Then for all $k\in \N\cup \{\infty\}$ we have
\[ \|\phi\|_A = \delta_k(\phi) = \|\phi\|_T.\]
\end{cor}
\begin{proof}
This follows directly from the fact that $P_{L^2}(G;p_k)$ is independent of $k\in \N\cup\{\infty\}$ as stated in \cref{l2-torsion of upg}. Note that $b_1(G)\geq 2$ by \cite[Remark 5.6]{CashenLevitt2014}. Hence we get as special cases $P_{L^2}(G;p_0) = P_A(G)$ by \cref{invariants for fbc} (\ref{fbc:alex}) and this polytope determines the Alexander norm, and on the other hand $P_{L^2}(G;p_\infty) = P_{L^2}(G)$ which determines the Thurston norm.
\end{proof}
Theorems \ref{thm CashenLevitt} and \ref{l2-torsion of upg} both rely on the following lemma which follows from the train track theory of Bestvina--Feighn--Handel \cite{Bestvinaetal2000}; see \cite[Proposition 5.9]{CashenLevitt2014} for the argument.
\begin{lem}\label{splitting for upg}
For $n\geq 2$ and a UPG automorphism $g\in \Aut(F_n)$, there exists $h\in\Aut(F_n)$ representing the same outer automorphism class as $g$, such that either
\begin{enumerate}
\item there is an $h$-invariant splitting $F_n = B_1\ast B_2, h= h_1\ast h_2$; or
\item there is a splitting $F_n = B_1\ast \langle x\rangle$ such that $B_1$ is $h$-invariant and $h(x) = xu$ for some $u\in B_1$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lem}
This lemma allows us two write the semi-direct product associated to a UPG automorphism as an iterated splitting over infinite cyclic subgroups with prescribed vertex groups. This is explained in \cite[Lemma 5.10]{CashenLevitt2014} and will be repeated in the following proof.
\begin{proof}[Proof of \cref{l2-torsion of upg}]
We prove the statement by induction on $n$. For the base case $n=1$ we have $F_1\rtimes_g \Z\cong \Z^2$ and $\tor_u(\Z^2;p_k) = 0$ for all $k\in\N\cup \{\infty\}$ by \cite[Example 2.7]{FriedlLueck2015b} which already verifies (\ref{tor of upg}).
For the inductive step, we may assume that $g=h$ in the notation of \cref{splitting for upg} since the isomorphism class of $F_n\rtimes_g\Z$ only depends on the outer automorphism class of $g$. We analyse the two cases appearing in \cref{splitting for upg} separately.
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Case 1:} There is a $g$-invariant splitting $F_n = B_1\ast B_2, g= g_1\ast g_2$. Write
\[G_i = B_i\rtimes_{g_i} \Z\]
and let $G_0 = \Z\into G_i$ be the inclusion of the second factor. Then we have
\[ G = F_n\rtimes_g\Z \cong G_1 *_{G_0} G_2\]
and the Fox matrix of $g$ is of the form
\[ F(g) =
\begin{pmatrix}
F(g_1 )& 0 \\
0 & F(g_2)
\end{pmatrix}
\]
Let $j_i\colon G_i\to G$ be the inclusions, and denote a generator of $G_0$ and its image in the various groups $G_i$ by $t$.
By \cite[Remark 5.6]{CashenLevitt2014}, we have $b_1(G) \geq 2$ and similarly for $G_1$ and $G_2$. Hence by \cref{invariants for fbc} (\ref{fbc:higher alex}) and (\ref{fbc:alex}) as well as the above matrix decomposition, we compute in $\Wh^w(\Gamma_k)$
\begin{align} \label{induction upg1}
\begin{split}
\tor_u(G;p_k) &= -[p_k(I-t\cdot F(g))] + [p_k(t-1)]\\
&= -[p_k(I-t\cdot F(g_1))] - [p_k(I-t\cdot F(g_2))] + [p_k(t-1)]\\
&= (j_1)_*(\tor_u(G_1;p_k^1))) + (j_2)_*(\tor_u(G_2;p_k^2))) - [p_k(t-1)]\\
\end{split}
\end{align}
where $p_k^i$ denote the projections on the quotients of the rational derived series of $G_i$. Here we have used that in our setting $p_k^i$ can be seen as a restriction of $p_k$.
Denote the rank of $B_i$ by $r_i$. By the inductive hypothesis applied to $G_i$, there are elements
\[t'_1,\dots, t'_{r_1-1} \in G_1 \s- B_1\]
and
\[t''_1,\dots , t''_{r_2-1} \in G_2 \s- B_2\]
such that
\begin{equation}\label{vertex group1}
\tor_u(G_1;p_k^1) = -\sum_{i=1}^{r_1-1}\; [p_k^1(1-t'_i)]
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{vertex group2}
\tor_u(G_2;p_k^2) = -\sum_{i=1}^{r_2-1}\; [p_k^2(1-t''_i)]
\end{equation}
Notice that $r_1 + r_2 = n$. Moreover, the corresponding induction step in the proof of \cref{thm CashenLevitt} adds $t$ to the union of the $t'_i$ and the $t''_i$. Thus the desired statement (\ref{tor of upg}) follows by combining (\ref{induction upg1}), (\ref{vertex group1}), and (\ref{vertex group2}).
\iffalse One constructs $CW$-models for $BG_i$ and $BG$ such that $BG_i\subseteq BG$ is a CW-subcomplex, the inclusions $j_i\colon BG_i\to BG$ induce the maps $G_i\to G$,
and the spaces satisfy $BG = BG_1\cup BG_2$
and $BG_0 = BG_1\cap BG_2$. By the sum formula for universal $L^2$-torsion (see \cref{properties} (\ref{sum formula})), we then have
\begin{equation} \label{sum formula applied}
\tor_u(G) = (j_1)_*(\tor_u(G_1)) + (j_2)_*(\tor_u(G_2)) - (j_0)_*(\tor_u(G_0))
\end{equation}
Denote the rank of $B_i$ by $r_i$. By induction hypothesis, there are elements
\[t'_1,\dots, t'_{r_1-1} \in G_1 \s- B_1\]
and
\[t''_1,\dots , t''_{r_2-1} \in G_2 \s- B_2\]
such that
\begin{equation}\label{vertex group}
\tor_u(G_1) = -\sum_{i=1}^{r_1-1}\; [\Z G_1\tolabel{1-t'_i} \Z G_1]
\end{equation}
and similarly for $G_2$. Moreover, if we denote a generator of $G_0$ by $t$, then
\begin{equation}\label{edge group}
\tor_u(G_0) = [\Z G_0\tolabel{1-t}\Z G_0]
\end{equation}
Notice that $r_1 + r_2 = n$. Moreover, the corresponding induction step in the proof of \cref{thm CashenLevitt} adds $t$ to the union of the $t'_i$ and the $t''_i$. Thus the desired statement for $G$ follows by combining (\ref{sum formula applied}), (\ref{vertex group}), and (\ref{edge group}).
\fi
\medskip
\noindent \textbf{Case 2:} There is a splitting $F_n = B_1\ast \langle x\rangle$ such that $B_1$ is $g$-invariant and $g(x) = xu$ for some $u\in B_1$. In this case, let $g_1 = g|_{G_1}$, $ G_1 = B_1\rtimes_{g_1}\Z \subseteq G$, and denote the stable letter of $G_1$ and $G$ by $t$.
\iffalse
Then $G$ can be written as an HNN extension $G = G_1 *_{g'}$, where $g'\colon \langle t\rangle\to\langle tu^{-1}\rangle$ maps $t$ to $tu^{-1}$.
\fi
In this case, the Fox matrix of $g$ takes the form
\[ F(g) =
\begin{pmatrix}
F(g_1 )& 0 \\
* & 1
\end{pmatrix}
\]
From this we compute in $\Wh^w(\Gamma_k)$ similarly as in the first case
\begin{align} \label{induction upg}
\begin{split}
\tor_u(G;p_k) &= -[p_k(I-t\cdot F(g))] + [p_k(t-1)]\\
&= -[p_k(I-t\cdot F(g_1))] - [p_k(1-t)] + [p_k(t-1)]\\
&= \tor_u(G_1; p_k^1) - [p_k(1-t)]
\end{split}
\end{align}
The corresponding induction step in the proof of \cref{thm CashenLevitt} adds $t$ to the elements $t'_i$ belonging to $G_1$ which we get from the induction hypothesis.
This finishes the proof of \cref{l2-torsion of upg}.
\iffalse
Denote by
\begin{gather*}
\iota_1\colon \langle s\rangle\to G_1\\
\iota_2\colon \langle su^{-1}\rangle\to G_1
\end{gather*}
the inclusions. We can construct a pushout diagram
\[\xymatrix{
B \langle s\rangle\times\{0,1\} \ar[d]\ar[rr]^(0.6){j_1\amalg j_2} && B G_1\ar[d]^{i}\\
B \langle s\rangle\times [0,1] \ar[rr]^(0.6)k && BG
}\]
such that the sum formula for universal $L^2$-torsion (see \cref{properties} (\ref{sum formula})) is applicable, $j_1\colon B \langle s\rangle\to BG_1$ induces $\iota_1$ on fundamental groups, $j_2\colon B \langle s\rangle\to BG_1$ induces $\iota_2\circ g'\colon \langle s\rangle\to G_1$, and $i$ induces the inclusion $G_1\to G$. Then the sum formula gives
\begin{align}\label{eq:sum formula}
\tor_u(G) &= i_*\tor_u(G_1) + k_*\tor_u(B\langle s\rangle\times[0,1]) - (i j_1 \amalg i j_2)_* \tor_u(B\langle s\rangle\times \{0,1\})
\end{align}
By homotopy invariance of the universal $L^2$-torsion (see \cref{properties} (\ref{homotopy invariance})), we get
\begin{equation}\label{cylinder}
k_*\tor_u(B \langle s\rangle\times [0,1]) = (ij_1)_*\tor_u(B \langle s\rangle) = (ij_2)_*\tor_u(B \langle s\rangle)
\end{equation}
For the disconnected space $B \langle s\rangle\times\{0,1\}$ we have in $\Wh^w(G)$
\begin{equation}\label{disconnected}
(i j_1 \amalg i j_2)_*\tor_u(B \langle s\rangle\times\{0,1\}) = (ij_1)_*\tor_u(B \langle s\rangle) + (ij_2)_*(B\langle s\rangle)
\end{equation}
Combining (\ref{eq:sum formula}), (\ref{cylinder}), and (\ref{disconnected}) we have
\begin{equation}\label{upg:case 2}
\tor_u(G) = i_*\tor_u(G_1) - (i j_2)_* \tor_u(B\langle s\rangle) = i_*\tor_u(G_1) - [\Z G\tolabel{1-s}\Z G]
\end{equation}
The corresponding induction step in the proof of \cref{thm CashenLevitt} adds $s$, or alternatively $su^{-1}$, to the elements $t'_i$ belonging to $G_1$ which we get from the induction hypothesis.
\fi
\end{proof}
\begin{rmk}
The same strategy as above can be used to prove that the ordinary $L^2$-torsion $\tor (g) := \tor(F_n\rtimes_g \Z)\in\R$ vanishes for all polynomially growing automorphisms. Here the reduction to UPG automorphisms explained in \cref{upg vs pol} is simpler since we have $\tor(g^k) = k\cdot \tor(g)$, so that the vanishing of the $L^2$-torsion of some power of $g$ implies the vanishing of the $L^2$-torsion of $g$. This is a special case of a result of Clay \cite[Theorem 5.1]{Clay2015}.
\end{rmk}
\bibliographystyle{math}
|
\section{Introduction}
The equations of the perturbed motion of a satellite can be written as a set of $3$ second-order or $6$ first-order ordinary differential equations. The orbit propagation problem consists in computing the position and velocity of the satellite at a given final time $t_f$, from the position and velocity at a given initial time $t_1$. Classically, the techniques used to solve this problem have been three.
The first two methods are known as general and special perturbation techniques. General perturbation techniques are based on the analytical integration of the satellite's equations of motion using perturbation theories \citep{dep1969_canontransf, gia1964_notesvonzei, hor1966_genpertunscanon, hor1971_genpertnoncanon, kry1943_nonlinmech, mor1966_vonzei}. These techniques provide approximate analytical solutions \citep{aks1970_order2, bro1959_astnodrag, hoo1980_spacetrack3, hoo1987_analdynatmos, kin1977_ord3ast, koz1962_2ordnodrag, lyd1963_smalleccinclbrow} valid for any set of initial conditions. These solutions are explicit functions of time, physical parameters and integration constants, which are mainly characterized by retaining the essential behaviour of the motion. It is worth noting that most analytical theories currently in use only consider very basic models of external forces, because in some cases their corresponding analytical expressions can be too cumbersome. Furthermore, only low-order approximations are taken into account because analytical expansions for the higher-order solutions may become unmanageably long. Some of these theories can even implement truncated dynamic parameter expansions, so that their accuracy and computational efficiency are closely related to the initial assumptions.
On the other hand, special perturbation methods \citep{ber2004_gaussjackson, kin1989_numint, lon1989_gtdsmaththeor1} refer to the accurate numerical integration of the equations of motion, including any external forces, even those in which analytical manipulations are complicated, which makes it necessary to use small steps in order to integrate the equations of motion. General perturbation methods produce more computationally efficient propagators although are not as accurate as those developed using special perturbation techniques.
Finally, the third approach is the semianalytical technique \citep{cef2010_accessdsst, liu1980_sstclosearth, nee1998_currentdsst}, which combines and takes advantage of the best characteristics of both the general and special perturbation techniques. This approach allows to include any external forces in the equations of motion, which are simplified using analytical techniques. Thus, the transformed equations of motion can be integrated numerically in a more efficient way by using longer integration steps.
Current needs for Space Situational Awareness require improving orbit propagation of space objects in different ways, including the efficient short-term propagation of catalogues of thousands of objects, the accurate very-long-term propagation needed for designing disposal strategies, the instant propagation of fragmentation models, or the propagation of uncertainties in observed orbits of Potentially Hazardous Objects, among others.
Improvement in the models to be integrated constitutes a basic line of research, together with the use of advanced computer architectures based on parallel processing. Additional improvement can be achieved by combining both integrating and forecasting techniques, which we have called hybrid methods.
In this work we present the hybrid perturbation theory, which may combine any kind of the aforementioned integration techniques with forecasting techniques based on statistical time series models \citep{cha2012_tsa_r, tra2015_tseries_r, san2012gru_sarimahop} or computational intelligence methods \citep{per2013gru_nnhop}. This combination allows for an increase in the accuracy of the numerical, analytical or semianalytical theories for predicting the position and velocity of any artificial satellite or space debris object, through the modelling of higher-order terms and other external forces not considered in those initial theories, as well as some physical effects not accurately modelled by the mathematical equations. The final goal of hybrid methodology is to complement the mathematical model of an orbiter dynamics, which is never a completely faithful representation of physical phenomena, with real dynamics provided by real observations, thus yielding a more accurate representation of real behaviour. As a first step in the process to eventually include unmodelled physical effects in the formulation of the problem, we start by considering a basic perturbation, $J_2$, and check the capability of the hybrid propagator to grasp its dynamics. In this process we simulate real observations by means of numerically generated ephemeris through an $8^{th}$ order Runge-Kutta method \citep{dor1989_rungekutta}.
The aim of this paper is to develop a family of hybrid orbit propagators based on three different orders of approximation of an analytical theory, in order to model the effect produced by the flattening of the Earth so that this technique can be validated. These hybrid orbit propagators incorporate the integration of the Kepler problem in the first case, a first-order analytical theory in the second case and a second-order analytical theory in the last case as the integration techniques; the forecasting technique is an additive Holt-Winters method in the three cases.
This paper is organized as follows. Section 2 describes the concept that underlies hybrid perturbation methodology. Section 3 outlines the second-order analytical theory PPD that, together with its first-order and zero-order approximations, constitutes the base for the three hybrid propagators to be developed in the following sections. Section 4 describes the Holt-Winters method, an exponential smoothing technique used in this paper as the forecasting part of the hybrid propagators. In Section 5, the construction of the three hybrid propagators is detailed, paying special attention to the preliminary statistical analysis of control data, which is important in order to choose the most appropriate sampling rate for the time series to be processed. Results are analysed, and compared to the conventional analytical propagation results, for a set of 9 LEO satellites. Finally, Section 6 summarizes the study and remarks some interesting findings.
\section{Hybrid perturbation methodology}
A hybrid perturbation theory is a methodology for determining an estimation of the position and velocity of any orbiter, which may be an artificial satellite or space debris object, at a final instant $t_f$, in some set of canonical or non-canonical variables, $\hat{\bm{x}}_{t_f}$.
In a first phase, an integration method $\mathcal{I}$ is needed in order to calculate a first approximation, $\bm{x}_{t_f}^{\mathcal{I}}$, from the position and velocity at an initial instant $t_1$, $\bm{x}_{t_1}$:
\begin{equation}\label{solana}
\bm{x}_{t_f}^{\mathcal{I}} = \mathcal{I}(t_f,\bm{x}_{t_1}).
\end{equation}
This approximation can include some inaccuracies derived from the facts that, for the sake of manageability of the resulting expressions and affordability of the subsequent computations, not all the external forces are usually taken into account in the physical model, and only low-order approximations are considered. Additional imprecision arises from the fact that mathematical models of perturbations not always depict real physical phenomena with high fidelity.
The error of this approximation for any instant $t_i$, $\mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}_{t_i} $, can be determined if the exact position and velocity $\bm{x}_{t_i}$ is known, usually through a precise observation:
\begin{equation}
\mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}_{t_i} = \bm{x}_{t_i} - \bm{x}_{t_i} ^{\mathcal{I}}. \label{error}
\end{equation}
The second phase of the method requires the knowledge of $\bm{x}_{t_i}$ for $ t_1,\ldots,t_T$, with $t_T <t_f$, in order to build the time series of errors
$\mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}_{t_1} \ldots \mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}_{t_T} $ that contains the dynamics not present in the approximation generated during the first phase.
The time elapsed between $ t_1$ and $t_T$ is defined as control period, $\mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}_{t_1} \ldots \mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}_{t_T} $ as control data and $T$ as the number of points in the control period. Then the goal is the modelling of such dynamics in order to be able to reproduce it; this task is accomplished by means of statistical techniques in time series analysis or computational intelligence methods. Once it has been done, an estimation of the error at the final instant $t_f$, $\hat{\mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}}_{t_f}$, can be calculated, and consequently the desired value of $\hat{\bm{x}}_{t_f}$ can be determined as:
\begin{equation} \label{forecast}
\hat{\bm{x}}_{t_f}= \bm{x}_{t_f}^{\mathcal{I}} + \hat{\mathcal{\bm\varepsilon}}_{t_f}.
\end{equation}
It is worth noting that this methodology can be applied to any kind of integration methods regardless of the fact that in this work it has been applied to an analytical theory. For this case,
Figure \ref{fig1} shows the instants at which both the analytical expression and the statistical time series model have to be evaluated.
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale = .8]{fig1}
\caption{Evaluation of a hybrid propagator based on the combination of an analytical theory and a statistical time series model. }\label{fig1}
\end{figure}
\section{Second-order analytical theory PPD}\label{astPPD}
The \textit{main problem} of the artificial satellite theory is defined as a Kepler problem perturbed by Earth's oblateness. This model provides a first approximation to describe the motion of a low Earth orbiter. In this Section we develop a second-order closed-form analytical theory, based on Lie transforms, for the main problem, which we will use to derive the analytical part of the three hybrid orbit propagators to be analysed in Section 5. In the first case, a zero-order approximation, i.e. the Kepler solution, will be considered, whereas a first-order and the complete second-order approximations will be taken into account for the remaining two cases.
The main-problem dynamical system can be described in a cartesian coordinate system ($\bm{x}$, $\bm{X}$) by means of the Hamiltonian
\begin{equation}\label{ham}
\mathcal{H} = \frac{1}{2} (\bm{X} \cdot \bm{X}) - \frac{\mu}{r} \left[1-J_2 \left(\frac{\alpha}{r} \right)^2 P_2\left(\frac{z}{r}\right)\right],
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$ is the geocentric distance, $P_2$ represents the Legendre polynomial of degree $2$, $\mu$ is the gravitational constant, $\alpha$ is the equatorial radius of the Earth, and $J_{2}>0$ is a constant representing the shape of the Earth.
In order to carry out a second-order analytical theory, the Hamiltonian (\ref{ham}) is rewritten in terms of Delaunay variables $(l,g,h,L,G,H)$. This set of canonical action-angle variables can be directly related to the orbital elements through the following expressions:
\begin{equation} \label{relacion}
\begin{array}{lll}
l=M, &\qquad & L=\sqrt{\mu a},\\
g=\omega, &\qquad & G=\sqrt{\mu a (1 -e^2)},\\
h=\Omega, &\qquad & H=\sqrt{\mu a (1 -e^2)} \cos i,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $M$ is the mean anomaly, $\omega$ the argument of the perigee, $\Omega$ the longitude of the ascending node, $a$ the semi-major axis, $e$ the eccentricity and $i$ the inclination. Therefore, the transformed Hamiltonian in Delaunay variables yields
\begin{equation} \label{mainpolarnodal}
{\cal H}= -\frac{\mu^2}{2 L^2} -
\frac{\epsilon}{2}\frac{\mu}{r}\left(\frac{\alpha}{r}\right)^2(1-3 s^2 \sin^2 (f+g)),
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\epsilon =J_2$ is a small parameter, $s=\sin i$ and $f$ is the true anomaly.
Next, following the method described in \citep{dep1969_canontransf}, three Lie transforms are applied in order to remove the long-period terms due to the argument of the perigee in the first place \citep{alf1984_perigee, dep1981_parallax}, and then the short-period terms due to the mean anomaly \citep{dep1982_delaunaynorm}. Finally, the transformed Hamiltonian yields, up to second order,
\begin{eqnarray}
\mathcal{K} & = & -\frac{\mu^2}{2 L''^2} + \epsilon \frac{\alpha^2 \mu^4}{4 \eta''^3 L''^6} (3 s''^2 - 2)
- \epsilon^2 \frac{3 \alpha ^4 \mu ^6 }{128 \eta''^7 L''^{10}} \left[ \left(5 \eta''^2+36 \eta'' +35\right) s''^4 \right. \nonumber \\[1ex] && \left.
+8 \left(\eta''^2-6 \eta'' -10\right) s''^2-8 \left(\eta''^2-2 \eta'' -5\right)\right],
\end{eqnarray}
\noindent
where $\eta'' = \sqrt{1-e''^2}$. It is worth noting that $\mathcal{K}$ is independent of the variables $l''$, $g''$ and $h''$, and thus Hamilton's equations can be easily integrated by quadratures.
The algebraic manipulations required to develop this analytical theory and its corresponding analytical orbit propagator program were built using a set of \textit{Mathematica} packages called MathATESAT \citep{san2011gru_mathatesat}, which is a reimplementation of the ATESAT \citep{san1994gru_atesat_cnes, san1998gru_atesatvspsimu_cnes}. The acronym PPD makes reference to the sequence of Lie transforms used to carry out this analytical theory; in this case, the involved transforms are the elimination of the Parallax, the elimination of the Perigee and the Delaunay normalization.
\section{Time series forecasting using exponential smoothing methods}
Exponential smoothing methods are forecasting algorithms for time series. Their main advantages are their ease of application, speed and reduced computational burden. Predictions generated by these methods are based on previously collected data, giving higher importance to more-recent observations. These methods assume a time series is the combination of three components: the trend or long-term variation, the seasonal component, which represents periodic oscillations that repeat at constant intervals, and the irregular or non-predictable component. There are two main procedures for combining these components, depending on the cyclic behaviour with respect to the trend: the additive and the multiplicative compositions. In the additive case, the series shows stable cyclic fluctuations, independently of the increase in the series level. On the contrary, the multiplicative model implies a change in the amplitude of the seasonal oscillations as the series trend varies. It is worth noting that a multiplicative model can be converted into an additive one through a Box-Cox transformation.
In mathematical terms, a time series, $\varepsilon_t$, can be decomposed into trend, $\mu_t$, seasonal variation, $s_t$, and irregular or non-predictable component, $\nu_t$. In an additive model, these components combine in the following manner:
\begin{equation}
\varepsilon_t=\mu_t + s_t + \nu_t.
\end{equation}
In particular, the Holt-Winters method \citep{win1960_forecexpma} combines a linear trend together with a periodic behaviour. In this method, the trend can be expressed as:
\begin{equation}
\mu_t=a+b t,
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $a$ and $b$ represent the level and slope of the series, respectively.
This method predicts the series value at time t according to the following recursive procedure
\begin{equation} \label{SE1}
\hat{\varepsilon}_{t}=A_{t-1}+ B_{t-1}+S_{t-s},
\end{equation}
\noindent
that is, the addition of level, $A_{t-1}$, and slope, $B_{t-1}$, at the previous instant, plus seasonal variation, $S_{t-s}$, $s$ epochs before, thus being $s$ the period of such seasonal variation.
The corresponding algorithm updates, at every epoch, the level, the slope of the trend and the values of the seasonal factors, by means of three equations. The first equation determines the series level at epoch $t$, $A_t$, as the weighted average of the deseasonalized series value at the same instant $t$ and the non-seasonal prediction at the previous epoch, that is,
\begin{equation} \label{SE2}
A_t=\alpha (\varepsilon_t-S_{t-s}) + (1-\alpha) (A_{t-1}+B_{t-1}),
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\alpha$ is a constant, named smoothing parameter, with values in the interval $[0,1]$.
With the equation
\begin{equation} \label{SE3}
B_t=\beta(A_t-A_{t-1}) + (1-\beta) B_{t-1}
\end{equation}
\noindent
the slope can be estimated as the weighted average of the slope at the previous epoch and its corresponding level change. The smoothing parameter $\beta$ can have values in the interval $[0,1]$.
The last equation determines the seasonal component at epoch $t$, $S_t$, as the weighted average of the detrended series and the seasonal value at the equivalent epoch in the previous period,
\begin{equation} \label{SE4}
S_t=\gamma(\varepsilon_t-A_{t}) + (1-\gamma) S_{t-s},
\end{equation}
\noindent
where $\gamma$ is another smoothing parameter which can also have values in the interval $[0,1]$.
The smoothing parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ are decisive in the estimation process. Parameter $\alpha$ controls the smoothing of the level equation, so that low values give more importance to historical data, whereas high values weight recent observations. Parameter $\beta$ modifies the slope estimation in such a way that a value close to $0$ gives more importance to trend, whereas a value near $1$ weights level changes. Finally, $\gamma$ controls the smoothing of the seasonal component, so that high values lead to predictions more sensitive to the series variations.
Algorithm 1 implements the Holt-Winters method; its inputs are the number of data per revolution, $s$, the number of revolutions for which precise observations are available, $c$, the epoch number, starting after the last available precise observation, for which the series value has to be predicted, $h$, and the error series $\{\varepsilon_t\}_{t=1}^{T}$ values with $T=s \times c$. The algorithm is designed to produce $\hat{\varepsilon}_{T+h|T}$ as the output, which represents the time-series forecast at the final instant $t_f=T+h$, based on the time-series value at the end of the control period $T$.
\begin{algorithm}
\begin{algorithmic}[1]
\REQUIRE $s$, $c$, $h$ and $\{\varepsilon_t\}_{t=1}^{T}$
\ENSURE $\hat{\varepsilon}_{T+h|T}$
\STATE Estimate the values of $A_0, B_0,S_{-s+1},\ldots, S_{-1},S_0$
\FOR {$t=1;\,t\leq T;\,t=t+1$}
\STATE $A_t = \alpha (\varepsilon_t-S_{t-s}) + (1-\alpha)(A_{t-1}+ B_{t-1})$
\STATE $B_t = \beta(A_t-A_{t-1}) + (1-\beta) B_{t-1}$
\STATE $S_t = \gamma(\varepsilon_t-A_{t}) + (1-\gamma) S_{t-s}$
\STATE $\hat{\varepsilon}_{t} = A_{t-1}+ B_{t-1} + S_{t-s}$
\ENDFOR
\STATE Select \texttt{error$\_$measure} $\in$ \{MSE,MAE,MAPE\} and obtain it as a function of the smoothing parameters
\STATE Obtain the smoothing parameters that minimize \texttt{error$\_$measure} using the L-BFGS-B method
\STATE Calculate $A_T, B_T, S_{T-s+1},\ldots, S_{T-1},S_T$ for the optimal smoothing parameters
\STATE $\hat{\varepsilon}_{T+h|T} = A_T + h B_T + S_{T-s+1+h\,\mathrm{mod}\, s}$
\RETURN $\hat{\varepsilon}_{T+h|T}$
\end{algorithmic}
\caption{ Holt-Winters }\label{alg1}
\end{algorithm}
The first step consists in estimating the initial values $A_0$, $B_0$, $S_{-s+1},\ldots$, $S_{-1}$ and $S_0$ by means of a heuristic method in which, in the first place, a classical additive decomposition into trend and seasonal variation over the two first revolutions of the satellite is performed. By doing so, the initial values of the seasonal component, $S_{-s+1},\ldots$, $S_{-1}$ and $S_0$, are obtained, whereas the linear regression coefficients over the trend lead to the initial values of level and slope, $A_0$ and $B_0$. Once these values have been obtained, the next step can be undertaken, in order to apply the recursive equations which allow for the calculation of the values of the components $A_t$, $B_t$ and $S_t$, as well as the single-step error prediction $\hat{\varepsilon}_{t}$ for control data, i.e. for $t=1,\ldots,T$ (lines 2--7). These values will remain as functions of the smoothing parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$. In the next step, one of the error functions is selected
\begin{equation} \label{med.err}
\begin{array}{l}
\displaystyle \mbox{MSE}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{i=1}^{T}{(\varepsilon_t-\hat{\varepsilon}_{t})^2},\\[3ex]
\displaystyle \mbox{MAE}=\frac{1}{T}\sum_{i=1}^{T}{|\varepsilon_t-\hat{\varepsilon}_{t}|} ,\\[3ex]
\displaystyle \mbox{MAPE}=\frac{1}{T} \sum_{i=1}^{T}{ \left| \frac{\varepsilon_t-\hat{\varepsilon}_{t}}{\varepsilon_t} \right|} 100,
\end{array}
\end{equation}
\noindent
and its value is determined as a function of the smoothing parameters. Next, the values of the smoothing parameters that minimize the chosen error function have to be determined. As it is not easy to minimize the error functions (14) analitycally, a numerical optimization method is necessary. The limited memory algorithm L-BFGS-B, which is one of the most usual ones, has been chosen for that purpose. The L-BFGS-B method \citep{byr1995_limmemopt}, which is a variation of the BFGS method \citep{bro1970_convminalg, fle1970_varmetric, gol1970_varmetric, sha1970_quasinewt}, named after its creators Broyden, Fletcher, Goldfarb and Shanno, is a quasi-Newton limited memory algorithm that allows optimization with restrictions, thus permitting to impose limitations on smoothing parameters.
With the optimal smoothing parameters, the level and slope values for the last control data ($A_T$ and $B_T$) are calculated, as well as the seasonal component values for the last revolution in control data ($S_{T-s+1},\ldots, S_{T-1},S_T$). With these data, it is possible to predict the value of the series $h$ epochs ahead, $\hat{\varepsilon}_{T+h|T} $ (line 11).
\section{Validation of the methodology}
The proposed methodology is applied to the \textit{main problem} of the artificial satellite theory so as to model the effect produced by the flattening of the Earth, which corresponds to the $J_2$ term of Earth's gravitational potential. Three analytical orbit propagator programs (AOPP) are used to conduct this study. They are derived from a second-order closed-form analytical theory based on Lie transforms, which has been briefly described in Section \ref{astPPD}. The first AOPP is PPD0, a propagator derived from the zero-order analytical theory, in which only the part corresponding to Kepler's problem has been taken into account. PPD1 is the second propagator; it implements the first-order analytical theory, i.e. the first-order $J_2$ approximation. Finally, PPD2 implements the second-order analytical theory, i.e. the full second-order $J_2$ approximation. From each of these AOPPs, a hybrid analytical orbit propagator program (HAOPP) has been developed. In these HAOPPs, statistical time series analysis has been applied to forecast the effects not taken into account in their corresponding initial AOPPs.
The propagator HPPD0 will be used to demonstrate the capability of this methodology to model the full $J_2$ effect. It is worth noting that this perturbation is not included in the initial propagator PPD0 at all. On the other hand, the propagators HPPD1 and HPPD2 will be used to explore the capability of this methodology to model the error introduced by the analytical approximations, $\mathcal{O}(J_2^{2})$ and $\mathcal{O}(J_2^{3})$ respectively. In this work, the additive Holt-Winters method will be used for forecasting the effects not taken into account in the initial AOPPs.
Finally, in order to compare and contrast the performance of the HAOPPs, several tests with numerically-simulated initial conditions corresponding to LEO orbits will be performed. The error measure to be considered will be the distance error over a prediction horizon of 30 days.
\subsection{Data preprocessing}
This methodology starts by choosing the set of variables that will be used for modelling purposes in the forecasting part of the hybrid propagator. In this work, Delaunay variables have been chosen, although other sets of variables can also be used. After that, in order to build the new propagator, two sets of values corresponding to the same satellite are necessary during the control period. The first consists of accurate values, obtained through the numerical integration of the original problem (\ref{ham}) by using a high-order Runge-Kutta method \citep{dor1989_rungekutta}, which are considered as actual values from precise observations. The second is obtained by applying the initial integrating part of the hybrid propagator; it contains approximate values which do not include, either in whole or in part, the effect that we want to model in the forecasting part. It is worth noting that the control data should include an amount of values which is enough to identify any pattern that we expect the forecasting part to model and reproduce.
Then, subtracting both data sets for each variable the error time series $(\varepsilon_t^l,\varepsilon_t^g,\varepsilon_t^h,\varepsilon_t^L,\varepsilon_t^G,\varepsilon_t^H)$ are obtained. After this operation, the angular-variable time series $\varepsilon_t^l$, $\varepsilon_t^g$ and $\varepsilon_t^h$ may include some outliers that differ from the rest of values in a quantity multiple of $2\pi$. Such differences correspond to complete spins and, although they have no effect on trigonometrical calculations, for time series analysis they represent abrupt discontinuities in values that are actually very close. Next, by adding or subtracting complete spins ($2\pi$), their values can be homogenized to the interval $(-\pi,\pi]$, thus avoiding this and other problems related to the periodic behaviour of these series.
The time series $\varepsilon_t^H$ is always 0 for the problem considered here, which means that the pure analytical theory is able to determine $H$ values accurately. Therefore, forecasting of this time series is not necessary. For each of the remaining time series, an univariate Holt-Winters model will be developed from a preliminary analysis so as to forecast its future values. This analysis includes the study of the sequence graphics, periodograms and autocorrelation functions (ACF). These graphics can help reveal the most important characteristics of the series, such as trend, stationarity, atypical values, etc.
Table \ref{table1} shows the orbital elements for nine fictitious satellites used for testing the HAOPPs. These initial conditions correspond to LEO orbits and all of them have been chosen to avoid the intrinsic singularities present in Delaunay variables.
\begin{table}[htbp!!]
\caption{Satellites used for validation studies of hybrid methodology.}\label{table1}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{rcccc}
Id & $a$ (km) & $e$ & Inclination (deg) & Period (min)\\ \hline
1 & 7228 & $0.0631$ & $ \:49$ & $101.926$\\
2 & 7872 & $0.1380$ & $144$ & $115.936$\\
3 & 7612 & $0.1132$ & $102$ & $110.156$\\
4 & 7674 & $0.1124$ & $ \:68$ & $111.505$\\
5 & 7064 & $0.0323$ & $ \:62$ & $\:98.477$\\
6 & 7087 & $0.0504$ & $ \:73$ & $\:98.958$\\
7 & 6992 & $0.0268$ & $ \:29$ & $\:96.975$\\
8 & 7269 & $0.0713$ & $ \:66$ & $102.795$\\
9 & 7128 & $0.0499$ & $ \:66$ & $99.818$\\
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{table1}
\end{table}%
\subsection{Modelling the full $J_2$ effect}
Satellite 1 will be used in this subsection to illustrate this methodology.
It is necessary to start mentioning that in the case of the Kepler problem, the orbital elements are constant over time (with the unique exception of the mean anomaly $M$, which varies between $0$ and $2\pi$ during each revolution of the satellite). However, adding the $J_2$ effect to the Kepler problem, i.e. the main problem, produces significant effects on the orbital elements, which include secular, long and short period variations.
Table \ref{table2} shows the distance error between PPD0 and the numerical integration of the main problem at different instants.
The distance error grows up to a maximum value of about $14500$ kilometers, which represents approximately the distance between perigee and apogee. These values will be used to evaluate the improvement introduced by the hybrid propagators.
\begin{table}[htbp!!]
\caption{ Maximum distance error between PPD0 and the numerical integration of the main problem for satellite 1 over different propagation spans.}\label{table2}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
Time & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Distance error (km) }\\ \hlin
$17$ hours & $\:\:864.80$ \\
$\:1$ day & $\:1202.24$ \\
$\:2$ days & $\:2408.31$ \\
$\:7$ days & $\:7894.81$ \\
$30$ days & $14506.50$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}
The first step in the preliminary analysis consists in plotting the time series $\varepsilon_t^l$, $\varepsilon_t^g$, $\varepsilon_t^h$, $\varepsilon_t^L$ and
$\varepsilon_t^G$. Initially, values have been generated every 10 minutes.
Figures \ref{figure2a} and \ref{figure2b} only show the sequence plots, periodograms and autocorrelation functions of the series $\varepsilon_t^l$, $\varepsilon_t^h$ and $\varepsilon_t^L$, because the behaviour of $\varepsilon_t^g$ and $\varepsilon_t^G$ is approximately the same as $\varepsilon_t^l$ and $\varepsilon_t^L$ respectively.
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig2}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig3}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig4}
\caption{Sequence plots of the series $\varepsilon_t^l$, $\varepsilon_t^h$ and $\varepsilon_t^L$. }\label{figure2a}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig5}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig6}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig7}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig8}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig9}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig10}
\caption{Periodograms (left) and autocorrelation functions (right) of the series $\varepsilon_t^l$, $\varepsilon_t^h$ and $\varepsilon_t^L$. }\label{figure2b}
\end{figure}
First, we begin analysing the sequence plots. The series $\varepsilon_t^l$ has a linear increasing trend and a periodic behaviour with a period of approximately $33.33$ minutes. On the other hand, the trend of $\varepsilon_t^h$ is linear and decreasing, but its periodic behaviour is difficult to discover because it is hidden by its trend, so other statistical tools are needed for its detection. Finally, the trend of $\varepsilon_t^L$ is not significant, so it can be considered constant; however, this series shows seasonal fluctuations, the first with a period of almost 50 minutes, whereas a repetitive pattern of alternate oscillations can be clearly observed approximately every 100 minutes.
Then, the periodograms and the autocorrelation functions are analysed. It is worth noting that these functions can only be applied to stationary series so, in the first place, it will be necessary to differentiate the series $\varepsilon^l_t$ and $\varepsilon^h_t$ so as to remove their trends.
The periodogram of $\nabla \varepsilon^l_t$ (Figure \ref{figure2b}) shows that the most significant frequency is close to $0.6 \pi$, that is, a periodic behaviour with an approximate period of $33.33$ minutes, whereas series $\nabla \varepsilon^h_t$ and $\varepsilon^L_t$ have their main frequency near $0.4 \pi$, which corresponds to a period of almost $50$ minutes.
Finally, from the analysis of the autocorrelation functions of series $\nabla \varepsilon^l_t$, $\nabla \varepsilon^h_t$ and $\varepsilon^L_t$, it can be observed that, despite having high correlation in several delays, the strongest one corresponds to lag 10, which implies a close relationship each 10 points (approximately each 100 minutes).
This preliminary analysis allows us to conclude that, although, in principle, it might seem that there are three main periodicities of approximate periods $ 33.33 $, $50$ and $100$ minutes, in reality, the most remarkable is the last one, which corresponds approximately to the Keplerian period of satellite 1, $101.926$ minutes.
Then, after estimating the initial values $A_0,\,B_0,\,S_{-s+1},\ldots, S_{-s}$ and $S_{0}$ by means of the heuristic method described in Section 4, the next step consists in the identification of the optimal values for the smoothing parameters $\alpha$, $\beta$ and $\gamma$ of the Holt-Winters method that minimize the distance error. As shown in Algorithm 1, their values are obtained by applying the L-BFGS-B algorithm to one of the error functions (\ref{med.err}), MSE in this case.
Finally, this model is analysed in order to experimentally determine the best amount of control data by choosing the number of both satellite revolutions and points per revolution which minimize the distance error over 30 days, taking into account that we are considering here the Keplerian period as the revolution period. We proceed by fixing the number of revolutions in the first place, with the aim of determining the optimal amount of points per revolution. Once it has been done, the best number of revolutions can be determined. Several configurations have been tested, keeping in mind as general guidelines that the control period has to be long enough so as to contain any dynamics to be modelled, and the sampling rate needs to be high enough so as to capture the highest frequency that the hybrid propagator is designed to model and reproduce. This analysis leads us to consider 10 satellite revolutions and 12 points per revolution as the best choice to constitute the control data for all the studied satellites, which represents a time span of approximately 17 hours in the case of satellite 1. More details about this analysis can be found in \cite{san2014gru_montse_phd}, although further research on this issue is being conducted in order to draw general conclusions regarding the optimal configuration of the control period.
Table \ref{table3} shows the distance error between HPPD0 and the numerical integration of the main problem at different instants. As can be seen, the distance error, even after a 30-day propagation, is lower than the pure analytical propagator PPD0 distance error only after 17 hours, i.e. the control period.
\begin{table}[htbp!!]
\caption{ Maximum distance error between HPPD0 and the numerical integration of the main problem for satellite 1 over different propagation spans.}\label{table3}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cc}
Time & \multicolumn{1}{c}{Distance error (km) }\\ \hlin
$17$ hours & $\:\:2.69$ \\
$\:1$ day & $\:\:2.85$ \\
$\:2$ days & $\:\:3.10$ \\
$\:7$ days & $10.83$ \\
$30$ days & $13.79$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{figure4} shows how the differences between the orbital elements of both HPPD0 and the numerical integration of the main problem evolve during 2 days for satellite 1.
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig11}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig12}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig13}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig14}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig15}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig16}
\caption{Evolution of the orbital-element differences between HPPD0 and the numerical integration of the main problem for satellite 1.}\label{figure4}
\end{figure}
Finally, Figure \ref{fig01} compares the distance error for both the zero-order hybrid propagator HPPD0 and the first-order pure analytical propagator PPD1. The error is lower for the analytical propagator during the first 25 days, as could be expected from a higher-order approximation, although both errors become similar as the last part of the 30-day studied period is reached.
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig17}
\caption{Distance error of the zero-order hybrid propagator HPPD0 (blue line) and the first-order pure analytical propagator PPD1 (red line) for satellite 1.}\label{fig01}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Improving the analytical approximation}
In this subsection we study the hybrid propagators based on the first-order and second-order analytical propagators, PPD1 and PPD2 respectively. All the analysed hybrid propagators improve the accuracy of the analytical theory they are based on; nevertheless, preliminary analysis leads us to conclude that, similarly to the zero-order propagator, optimum results are achieved when the exact revolution period is taken into account, in such a way that the data sampling rate is chosen in order to allow for a complete number of samples per satellite revolution.
Furthermore, the fact that not only periodograms and autocorrelation functions, but also the smoothing parameters to be obtained, are quite similar for the three studied orders of approximation, indicates that the error series $\varepsilon_t^l$, $\varepsilon_t^g$, $\varepsilon_t^h$, $\varepsilon_t^L$ and $\varepsilon_t^G$ maintain the same characteristics to be estimated, albeit with decreasing magnitudes for higher-order models, and consequently must be processed and forecasted by means of similar models.
According to what has been expounded, hybrid propagators that consider $MSE$ as the error function to be minimized, and take exactly 12 samples, at a regular rate, for each of the 10 revolutions that constitute the control period, are again the most accurate, leading to the best results for short, medium and long-term estimation.
Figure \ref{fig010} plots the differences in the evolution of the orbital elements of both the first-order hybrid propagator HPPD1 and the accurate numerical integration of the main problem for satellite 1.
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig18}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig19}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig20}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig21}\\
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig22}
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig23}
\caption{Evolution of the orbital-element differences between HPPD1 and the numerical integration of the main problem for satellite 1.}\label{fig010}
\end{figure}
Table \ref{errorANA010} shows the predictive capability of both the analytical and associated optimum hybrid propagators. It is worth noting that, after a 30-day propagation, distance error can be reduced by a factor of 20 in the case of first-order theory, or nearly 70 for second-order theory.
\begin{table}[htbp!!]
\caption{Distance error of the pure analytical and the hybrid propagators for both first and second-order theories (satellite 1).}\label{errorANA010}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{crrrr}
Time & \multicolumn{1}{c}{PPD1(km) }& \multicolumn{1}{c}{HPPD1(km) }&
\multicolumn{1}{c}{PPD2(km) }& \multicolumn{1}{c}{HPPD2(km) }\\ \hline
$17$ hours & $0.2758$ & $0.0008$ & $0.0007$ & $4.5\times 10^{-6}$ \\
$1$ day & $0.4037$ & $0.0015$ & $0.0010$ & $8.1\times 10^{-6}$ \\
$2$ days & $0.8223$ & $0.0061$ & $0.0020$ & $1.9\times 10^{-5}$\\
$7$ days & $2.9175$ & $0.0548$ & $0.0070$ & $4.2\times 10^{-5}$\\
$30$ days & $12.5706$ & $0.6462$ & $0.0290$ & $4.2\times 10^{-4}$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\label{default}
\end{table}
Figure \ref{fig102} plots the evolution of the distance error for the first-order hybrid propagator HPPD1 during a 30-day time span. It should be noted that the error remains quite low, just about 10 metres, for more than 5 days.
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.5]{fig24}
\caption{Distance error of the first-order hybrid propagator HPPD1 for satellite 1}\label{fig102}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Hybrid propagators for the complete set of satellites}
The importance of acquiring the seasonal variations originated by the satellite revolution period has been verified for satellite 1 in previous subsections. Therefore, for the rest of the satellites, data will also be considered with sampling rates adapted to each satellite period, in such a way that a complete number of samples per revolution is always guaranteed. Apart from that, sequence graphics, periodograms and autocorrelation functions show that, in addition to the revolution-time periodicity, other two periodicities with magnitudes half and third the same satellite revolution time also exist. For those reasons, and with the aim of acquiring such periodic behaviour, it would be desirable to choose a number of samples per revolution which is multiple of both 2 and 3. Taking into account that it is never advisable to consider an amount of data either too high or too low, it is concluded that 12 samples per satellite revolution is an appropriate value as sampling rate also for the remaining 8 satellites.
Figure \ref{figlast} and Table \ref{tab:kepa23} show the distance error of the pure analytical and the hybrid propagators for both zero and first-order theories after a 30-day propagation for the complete set of satellites analysed in this work. Taking into account that Figure \ref{figlast} has been plotted with logarithmic scale, it should be noted that, in general, the distance error is between 2 and 3 orders of magnitude lower for the hybrid propagator than for the pure analytical propagator in the case of the zero-order theory, i.e. HPPD0 versus PPD0. This hybrid propagator HPPD0 has distance errors between only 0 and 1 orders of magnitude higher than the first-order analytical propagator PPD1, which is one order of approximation higher, although in the case of satellite 7 the hybrid propagator is even more accurate than the superior analytical propagator. When the two first-order propagators are compared, it is found that the hybrid HPPD1 is between 1 and 2 orders of magnitude more accurate than the analytical PPD1.
\begin{figure}[!!htp]
\centering
\includegraphics[scale=.61]{fig25}
\includegraphics[scale=.59]{fig26}
\caption{Distance error of the pure analytical and the hybrid propagators for both zero and first-order theories after a 30-day propagation (satellites 1-9). }\label{figlast}
\end{figure}
\begin{table}[htbp!!]
\caption{Distance error of the pure analytical and the hybrid propagators for both zero and first-order theories after a 30-day propagation (satellites 1-9).}\label{tab:kepa23}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccccc}
Id & PPD0 (km) & HPPD0 (km) & PPD1(km) & HPPD1 (km) \\ \hline\\[-1.5ex]
1 & $14506.5$ & $13.792$ & $12.6$ & $0.634$\\
2 &$16183.7$& $49.136$ & $27.3$& $0.918$\\
3 &$15987.4$&$146.465$ & $12.5$ & $0.101$ \\
4 &$15922.4$& $107.905$ & $2.3$ & $0.106$\\
5 & $14292.2$& $23.774$ & $6.9$ & $0.083$\\
6 & $14456.9$&$128.633$ & $8.7$ & $0.058$ \\
7 & $14012.8$& $27.992$ & $68.6$ &$0.255$\\
8 & $14882.6$& $84.369$ & $3.4$ & $0.096$\\
9 & $14489.9$& $114.199$ &$3.2$ & $0.115$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\section{Conclusion}
In this work, we have presented a new approach called hybrid perturbation theory. The proposed methodology, which combines an integration method and a prediction technique, has been illustrated through the combination of a simplified general perturbation theory and a statistical time series model based on an additive Holt-Winters method. The hybrid propagators that have been developed have proven an increase in the accuracy of the analytical theory for predicting the position and velocity of the studied orbiters, as well as modelling higher-order terms and other external forces not considered in the analytical theory.
It has been found that the effect of considering a complete number of samples per revolution in hybrid propagators varies depending on the order of the underlying analytical theory, and thus on its margin for improvement. In the case of hybrid propagators based on the zero-order analytical theory, a dramatic reduction in distance error is achieved. In contrast, the second-order hybrid propagator, whose margin for improvement is very reduced, only reaches a slight increase in accuracy when the sample rate is such that a complete number of values fits into a satellite revolution.
Another remarkable conclusion is that similar smoothing parameters are obtained for hybrid propagators based on a certain analytical theory with different orders of approximation, which implies that the error time series to be modelled maintain the same characteristics, even though their magnitude can vary.
\section*{Acknowledgments}
This work has been funded by the Spanish Finance and Competitiveness Ministry under Project ESP2014-57071-R. The authors would like to thank the reviewers for their valuable suggestions.
\bibliographystyle{elsarticle-harv}
|
\section{Introduction}
To date, quantum key distribution (QKD) provides a powerful means to establish provably secure communication~\cite{Gisin02_QC,Scarani09_securityQKD,Vazirani_PRL_14}. In this perspective, QKD systems have already been commercialized, and laboratory demonstrations have achieved bit rates up to $\sim 1\rm\,Mbit/s$ at a distance of 50\,km~\cite{Lucamarini_50km_1Mbit_2013,Zhong_50km_1Mbit_2015}, extendible to up to 307\,km~\cite{Korzh_QKD300km_2015}.
Most of the reported approaches are based on laser pulses attenuated down to the single photon level.
In order to increase these rates, several multiplexing techniques can be exploited~\cite{Walborn_hyper_2008,Lucamarini_50km_1Mbit_2013,DWDM-QKD-Proposal,Ghalbouni_DWDM_OL_2013,Aktas_source_2016,Reimer_comb_2016}. Here, we focus on dense wavelength division multiplexing (DWDM), where similarly to today's classical telecommunication systems, $N$ signals at separate wavelengths can be multiplexed in, and demultiplexed out of, a fiber link, thus increasing the achievable bit rate by a factor $N$. However, for protocols based on faint laser pulses or single photons, this requires employing $N$ sources, and, depending on the protocol, up to $N$ analyzers, which strongly increases the resource overhead~\cite{Faint_Pulses_DWDM}.
In this perspective, entanglement-based DWDM QKD has the potential of increasing bit rates with significantly less technological resources.
Actually, particular \textit{single} sources of entangled photon pairs can naturally generate a broadband flux of wavelength correlated photon pairs which can be demultiplexed into $N$ correlated pairs of wavelength channels~\cite{DWDM-QKD-Proposal,Ghalbouni_DWDM_OL_2013,Aktas_source_2016,Reimer_comb_2016}.
Additionally, in comparison to QKD schemes based on laser pulses, entanglement-based approaches are compatible with device-independent network-enabling protocols~\cite{Brunner_Bell_14,SimonRepeater11,Kocsis_Heralded_Amplification,AnthoAmpli13,Simon07}. Moreover, this architecture is immune to side channel attacks, making it more robust for secure communication~\cite{Vazirani_PRL_14}.
Although long distance entanglement distribution has already been demonstrated~\cite{Takesue13_300km,Aktas_source_2016}, only a few experiments have considered DWDM QKD with, to date, in up to eight channel pairs~\citep{Aktas_source_2016}. However, in all of these realizations, the optimal analyzer settings showed a strong wavelength dependence, such that entanglement has been measured in multiple channel pairs sequentially~\cite{Lim10,Monolithic_DWDM,Aktas_source_2016}, \textit{i.e.} the analyzer settings had to be adapted for each individual channel pair. Considering that QKD implementations require measuring entanglement in two orthogonal bases, this implies that each user has to employ $2 \times N$ long-term stable individual analyzers, which is both impractical and resource demanding.
In principle, entanglement can be distributed using any observable. However, long-distance implementations often rely on energy-time or time-bin entanglement~\cite{Tittel_balanced_1999,Cuevas_balanced_2013,Antho12_CrossTB,Franson,Kwiat_EnergyTime,TimeBin_50km}, due to their immunity against polarization mode dispersion and drifts~\cite{hubel_high-fidelity_2007}.
In this paper, we demonstrate a scheme that requires only one entangled photon pair source and one analyzer per user and analysis basis to measure energy-time entanglement with less than 0.5\% error rate in a single shot over a spectral bandwidth of $\sim 80\rm\,nm$, corresponding to $N=46$ standard 100\,GHz telecommunication channel pairs.
We find that, compared to the standard configuration with identically unbalanced interferometers~\cite{Kwiat_EnergyTime,DWDM-QKD-Proposal}, the number of exploitable channel pairs can be augmented by three times when properly detuning one of the analyzers.
This represents a significant step towards cost-effective entanglement-based high bit rate QKD in DWDM networks.
\section{Experimental setup}
The experimental setup is shown in \figurename~\ref{Setup}.
A continuous-wave laser operating at $\lambda_{\rm p}=770\, \rm nm$ with a coherence length of $\sim 250\rm\,m$ pumps a periodically poled lithium niobate waveguide (PPLN/W) in which energy-time entangled photon pairs are generated around the degenerate wavelength of 1540\,nm by spontaneous parametric down-conversion (SPDC). The emitted photon pairs are directly collected into a butt-coupled single-mode fiber. The corresponding emission spectrum is shown in \figurename~\ref{Spectrum}, for which quasi phase-matching engineering leads to a bandwidth of 55\,nm $(\leftrightarrow 7\rm \, THz)$ which fully covers the commonly used telecom C-band ($1530-1565\rm\,nm)$, as well as parts of the adjacent S- ($1460-1530\rm\,nm$) and L-bands ($1565-1625\rm\,nm$).
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{Setup.eps}
\caption{\textbf{Experimental setup based on the Franson configuration\cite{Franson}.} The energy-time entangled photon pair source is made of a pump laser and a PPLN/W. Long (short) wavelength photons are sent to Alice (Bob) using two FBGs. Each user employs an unbalanced fiber interferometer for entanglement analysis. The interferometers' path length differences can be fine tuned using piezoelectric fiber stretchers. \label{Setup}}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{Spectrum2b.eps}
\caption{\textbf{Emission spectrum of the PPLN/W.} The 55\,nm broad emission spectrum covers the full telecom C-band, as well as parts of the adjacent S- and L-bands. Photon pairs are generated pairwise symmetrically apart from the degenerate wavelength of 1540\,nm. Photons above and below 1540\,nm are sent to Alice and Bob, respectively. \label{Spectrum}}
\end{figure}
Due to conservation of the energy during the SPDC process, the wavelengths of the paired photons $(\lambda_{\rm A,B})$ are related to the pump laser wavelength through the following relation:
\begin{equation}
\frac{1}{\lambda_{\rm p}} = \frac{1}{\lambda_{\rm A}} + \frac{1}{\lambda_{\rm B}}.\label{Energy}
\end{equation}
In other words, the photons are generated pairwise symmetrically apart from the degenerate wavelength.
The pairs are deterministically separated by sending long (short) wavelength photons to Alice (Bob) using a set of two broadband fiber Bragg gratings (FBG) and associated circulators (C).
Further dynamic wavelength filtering is achieved using two tunable filters with a 0.8\,nm ($\leftrightarrow 100\rm\,GHz$) flat-top transmission profile, mimicking standard 100\,GHz dense wavelength division multiplexers.
To reveal energy-time entanglement, Alice and Bob use each an unbalanced fiber interferometer (Franson configuration~\cite{Franson}), made of a beam-splitter and two Faraday mirrors. Both interferometers have a path length difference of $\Delta L_{\rm A,B} \approx 6.7\rm\,cm$, can be fine tuned, and are actively stabilized using piezoelectric fiber stretchers~\cite{TheKaiser14Long}.
At the interferometer output, Alice detects her photons using a free-running InGaAs single photon detector (SPD, IDQ id220, 20\% detection efficiency). At Bob's site, we use an additional circulator through which we can detect photons at both interferometer outputs using gated InGaAs SPDs (IDQ id201, 25\% detection efficiency).\\
Concerning the quantum state of the photon pairs at the interferometers' outputs, four contributions have to be considered. Either both photons take the short or long paths ($s_{\rm A}-s_{\rm B}$ or $l_{\rm A}-l_{\rm B}$), or both photons take opposite paths ($s_{\rm A}-l_{\rm B}$ or $l_{\rm A}-s_{\rm B}$).
Due to the spontaneous character of the photon pair generation process, the pair creation time in the PPLN/W remains unknown. This makes the contributions $s_{\rm A}-s_{\rm B}$ and $l_{\rm A}-l_{\rm B}$ indistinguishable, which leads to the observation of entanglement~\cite{Kwiat_EnergyTime}.
These contributions are selected using a fast coincidence logic, leading to a reduced quantum state
\begin{equation}
|\psi \rangle_{\rm post} = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( | s_{\rm A} \rangle | s_{\rm B} \rangle + {\rm e}^{{\rm i} \, \phi} | l_{\rm A} \rangle | l_{\rm B} \rangle\right),
\end{equation}
where $\phi = \phi_{\rm A} + \phi_{\rm B}$ stands as the two-photon phase. The individual contributions, $\phi_{\rm A,B}$, are related to the interferometers' path length differences by
\begin{equation}
\phi_{\rm A,B} = \frac{2\pi\,\Delta L_{\rm A,B} \, n(\lambda_{\rm A,B})}{\lambda_{\rm A,B}}.\label{Phases}
\end{equation}
Here, $n(\lambda_{\rm A,B})$ is the wavelength-dependent refractive index of the fibers in the interferometers.
According to reference~\cite{Kwiat_EnergyTime}, the rate of coincidences between detectors $\rm SPD_A$ and $\rm SPD_{B_1}$ follows $R_{\rm AB_1} \propto 1 + \cos \phi$, while the rate between detectors $\rm SPD_A$ and $\rm SPD_{B_2}$ follows $R_{\rm AB_2} \propto 1 - \cos \phi$.
For entanglement-based QKD using the Ekert protocol~\cite{Ekert91}, the analysis bases are defined by the following settings:
\begin{eqnarray}
\phi_{\rm A} + \phi_{\rm B} &=& 0\label{ZeroPhase}\\
\phi'_{\rm A} + \phi'_{\rm B} &=& \pi \qquad {\rm with} \qquad \phi'_{\rm A} = \phi_{\rm A} + \frac{\pi}{2}.\label{SecondBasis}
\end{eqnarray}
In general, these conditions cannot be fulfilled over a large spectral bandwidth for fixed path length differences ($\Delta L_{\rm A,B}$), which results in a wavelength dependent two-photon phase shift. Considering the setting given in equation~\ref{ZeroPhase}, this leads to an undesired non-zero anti-coincidence rate $R_{\rm AB_2}$. The associated quantum bit error rate (QBER) of the QKD link is then given by
\begin{equation}
{\rm QBER} = \frac{R_{\rm AB_2}}{R_{\rm AB_1}+R_{\rm AB_2}} = \sin^2 \left( \frac{\phi}{2}\right).\label{QBER}
\end{equation}
Although there exist several algorithms for QBER correction~\cite{Gisin02_QC,Scarani09_securityQKD}, they usually require additional resources, having repercussions on the attainable bit rate of the QKD link. Therefore, it is commonly acknowledged to keep the QBER as low as possible~\cite{Gisin02_QC,Scarani09_securityQKD,Vazirani_PRL_14}. Additionally, it has been demonstrated that high-dimensional QKD is only efficient at a QBER very close to zero~\cite{Lucamarini_50km_1Mbit_2013}.
For this reason, we fix the maximum allowed QBER induced by improper interferometer settings to a stringent value of 0.5\%, corresponding to an acceptable two-photon phase shift of $\phi = \pm 0.14\,\rm rad$.\\
\,\\
\textbf{Spectral dependence of the two-photon phase $\phi$}
To calculate the spectral dependence of $\phi$, we first express $n(\lambda)$ by a second order Taylor series, which reads
\begin{equation}
n(\lambda) \approx n_0 + \frac{dn}{d \lambda} \cdot \Delta \lambda + \frac{1}{2} \frac{d^2n}{d \lambda^2} \cdot (\Delta \lambda)^2.\label{RefIndex}
\end{equation}
Here, $n_0$, $\frac{dn}{d \lambda}$, and $\frac{d^2n}{d \lambda^2}$ are the fiber refractive index, the first, and second order derivatives, respectively, at the degenerate wavelength ($2\lambda_{\rm p}$). All coefficients can be inferred from Sellmeier equations~\cite{leviton_temperature-dependent_2008}.
By inserting equation~\ref{RefIndex} into equation~\ref{Phases}, and respecting equation~\ref{Energy}, we obtain
\begin{equation}
\phi = \phi \left(n_0,\frac{dn}{d \lambda},\frac{d^2n}{d \lambda^2},\Delta L_{\rm A},\Delta L_{\rm B},\lambda_{\rm A},\lambda_{\rm p} \right).\label{TotalPhase}
\end{equation}
It is often considered that the QBER is minimized for $\Delta L_{\rm A} = \Delta L_{\rm B}$~\cite{Tittel_balanced_1999,Cuevas_balanced_2013}. However, in section \ref{Non_identical_theory} we show that the optimal settings are rather obtained for identical path travel time differences.
In this case of $\Delta L_{\rm A} = \Delta L_{\rm B}$, equation~\ref{TotalPhase} simplifies to
\begin{equation}
\phi = \frac{d^2n}{d \lambda^2} \cdot \frac{\pi (\lambda_{\rm A} - 2\lambda_{\rm p})^2}{\lambda_{\rm A} - \lambda_{\rm p}} \cdot \Delta L_{\rm A} + \mathcal{C},\label{BalancedPhase}
\end{equation}
in which $\mathcal{C} = \frac{2 \pi \cdot n_0 \cdot \Delta L_{\rm A}}{\lambda_{\rm p}}$ is a constant as it is independent of the wavelengths of the paired photons ($\lambda_{\rm A,B}$).
\section{Results with identical analyzers}
For different wavelengths $\lambda_{\rm A}$ (and symmetrically associated wavelengths $\lambda_{\rm B}$), we infer the two-photon phase $\phi$ by measuring the QBER and solving equation~\ref{QBER}.
We first align both interferometers to exactly $\Delta L_{\rm A} = \Delta L_{\rm B}$. This is done by using an iterative procedure that amounts to infer the wavelength dependence of the QBER for different $\Delta L_{\rm A}$ until a flat distribution is found around 1540\,nm. Experimental results for $\Delta L_{\rm A} = \Delta L_{\rm B}$ are shown in \figurename~\ref{ResultsEqual}. Starting with $\phi=0$ at $\lambda_{\rm A} = 1540\rm\,nm$, we reach the threshold phase shift $\phi=-0.14\,\rm rad$ at $\lambda_{\rm A} \sim 1553\rm\,nm$ ($\lambda_{\rm B} \sim 1527\rm\,nm$).
Consequently, these interferometers can be used to analyse entanglement with a $\rm QBER<0.5\%$ for $1540\,{\rm nm} < \lambda_{\rm A} < 1553\,{\rm nm}$ ($1527\,{\rm nm} < \lambda_{\rm B} < 1540\,{\rm nm}$) simultaneously, which corresponds to 16 pairs of standard 100\,GHz telecommunication channels~\cite{ITU,Aktas_source_2016}.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{Equilibrated_Interferometersb.eps}
\caption{\textbf{Two-photon phase shift for identical analysis interferometers.} The yellow shaded area indicates the region in which the QBER stays below 0.5\%.
The exploitable bandwidth covers 16 pairs of standard 100\,GHz telecommunication channels.
Error bars assume poissonian photon number statistics. The fit to the data is obtained with equation~\ref{BalancedPhase}.\label{ResultsEqual}}
\end{figure}
Note that fully exploiting the emission bandwidth of our photon pair source requires analysing entanglement in at least 40 pairs of 100\,GHz channels simultaneously.
A straightforward solution would be to employ analysis interferometers made of custom-made components to shift or compensate dispersion. For example, by employing hybrid interferometers, made of single-mode and dispersion compensation fibers, instead of fully single-mode fiber interferometers, a 1.4\% increase in the interference visibility was observed over a spectral bandwidth of 1.6\,nm~\cite{Zhong_nonlocal_cancellation_2013}.
\section{Results with optimal analyzers \label{Non_identical_theory}}
In the following, we demonstrate a much cheaper and simpler approach which can be applied without changing any of the components in the standard setup. We note that our strategy is not limited to fiber-based analysis interferometers only. For example, planar lightwave circuits~\cite{Korzh_QKD300km_2015}, where dispersion compensation is not straightforward, could also benefit from the proposed method.
Let us consider the different central wavelengths of Alice's and Bob's photons, $\lambda^*_{\rm A} \sim 1560\,\rm nm$ and $\lambda^*_{\rm B} \sim 1521\,\rm nm$. Note that these spectral contributions show different group velocities
\begin{equation}
v_{\rm A,B} = \frac{c}{n_0-\dfrac{d n}{d \lambda}\cdot \lambda^*_{A,B}}.
\end{equation}
As a consequence, the wavepackets in Alice's and Bob's interferometers show non-identical path travel time differences between short and long arms.
To match these time differences, the following equation needs to be fulfilled
\begin{equation}
\dfrac{\Delta L_{\rm A}}{v_{\rm A}} = \dfrac{\Delta L_{\rm B}}{v_{\rm B}}. \label{GroupMatchedInterferometers}
\end{equation}
Using Sellmeier equations~\cite{leviton_temperature-dependent_2008} to infer $n_0$ and $\frac{dn}{d \lambda}$, and $\Delta L_{\rm B} = 6.7\rm\,cm$, we fulfill equation~\ref{GroupMatchedInterferometers} by setting the path length difference of Alice's interferometer to $\Delta L_{\rm A} = \left(\Delta L_{\rm B} - 12\rm\,\mu m \right)$.
\begin{figure}[t!]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=7cm]{Unequilibrated_Interferometersb.eps}
\caption{\textbf{Two-photon phase shift for non-identical analysis interferometers.} The path length difference of Alice's interferometer has been reduced by $\sim 12\rm\,\mu m$ compared to Bob's. Now, the region in which the QBER is below 0.5\% covers 46 pairs of standard telecommunication channels, meaning that the full telecom C-band, as well as some parts of the adjacent S- and L-bands, can be exploited simultaneously for entanglement analysis.\label{ResultsUnequal}}
\end{figure}
The associated experimental results are shown in \figurename~\ref{ResultsUnequal}. We have essentially shifted the curve in \figurename~\ref{ResultsEqual} by about $20\,\rm nm$ to $\lambda^*_{\rm A} \sim 1560\,\rm nm$ ($\lambda^*_{\rm B} \sim 1521\,\rm nm$). This way, we are now able to keep the two-photon phase within $\phi = \pm 0.14\,\rm rad$ for the full emission bandwidth of our source ($1541\,{\rm nm} < \lambda_{\rm A} < 1579\,{\rm nm}$ and $1503\,{\rm nm} < \lambda_{\rm B} < 1539\,{\rm nm}$), allowing to analyze entanglement with a QBER below 0.5\% in 46 pairs of standard 100\,GHz telecommunication channels in a single shot. We note that the improved bandwidth fully covers the most commonly used telecom C-band, as well as some parts of the adjacent S- and L-bands.
We envision the following configuration for realizing future DWDM QKD links. The tunable bandpass filters will be removed and Alice is also supplied with an interferometer having two outputs (as Bob's in our current configuration, see \figurename~\ref{Setup}). Wavelength division multiplexing is performed after the interferometers using standard telecom $N$-channel DWDMs.
Granting security of DWDM QKD protocols requires using a second analysis basis (see equation~\ref{SecondBasis}). This can be implemented by providing each Alice and Bob with a second interferometer for which the path length differences are set to $\Delta L'_{\rm A,B} = \Delta L_{\rm A,B} + \frac{\lambda_{\rm p}}{2\cdot n_0}$. In this case, group velocity dispersion causes a slight additional error in $\phi'$ over the full bandwidth of the source. From equation~\ref{Phases} we calculate that it will be below $\frac{2\pi}{300}$, which is essentially negligible for choosing two complementary bases.
In a long-distance scenario, group velocity dispersion in a standard fiber distribution link causes a broadening of the coincidence peaks such that the contributions $s_{\rm A} - s_{\rm B}$ and $l_{\rm A} - l_{\rm B}$ cannot be properly post-selected. However, this problem can be conveniently overcome using dispersion compensation~\cite{Fasel_30km_2004,Aktas_source_2016} and/or dispersion shifted fibers~\cite{Marcikic_Tele_2003}.
Finally, we stress that our approach can be also applied to optimize DWDM QKD with polarization entangled photon pairs where wavelength dependent birefringence in the half-wave plates is an issue~\cite{Lim10}. Analogously to the strategy for energy-time entangled photon pairs, this problem could be partially compensated by either using thicker/thinner half-wave plates (optimized for longer/shorter wavelengths), or by simply tilting the existing ones.
\section{Conclusion}
In conclusion, we analysed energy-time entanglement of a broadband photon pair source using fixed unbalanced fiber interferometers, in the perspective of DWDM QKD.
In the standard configuration, with identical analysis interferometers at Alice's and Bob's sites, group velocity dispersion limits the analysis bandwidth to 16 standard 100\,GHz channel pairs at a QBER threshold of 0.5\%.
Without replacing any components in the experimental setup, solely by properly unbalancing one of the two interferometers, we improved the analysis bandwidth to 46 channel pairs, covering not only the commonly used telecom C-band, but also some of the adjacent S- and L-bands.
We stress that the number of channel pairs could be increased to 368 by using the 12.5\,GHz ultra-dense DWDM grid, which underlines the tremendous potential for high bit rate entanglement-based DWDM QKD.
Therefore, we believe that our work will have a great impact for the optimal exploitation of current and future high bit rate DWDM QKD systems, especially in combination with other multiplexing techniques.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The authors acknowledge financial support from the Foundation Simone \& Cino Del Duca, the European Commission for the FP7-ITN PICQUE project (grant agreement No 608062), l'Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR) for the CONNEQT and SPOCQ projects (grants ANR-EMMA-002-01 and ANR-14- CE32-0019, respectively), and the iXCore Research Foundation.
|
\section{Introduction} \setcounter{equation}{0}
In Run 2 of the LHC, started in 2015, the proton-proton collisions at a center-of mass energy of 13 TeV
open a large new window towards the laws of nature at the shortest distances directly accessible so far.
In particular, the existence of resonances indicative of physics beyond the Standard Model (BSM) will be tested
up to higher masses and smaller cross sections than ever before.
Upon the observation of such a resonance, an important question will be how the new particle was produced. More precisely, it would be crucial to find out what is the initial state that produced the resonance, and whether
the resonance is produced by itself or in association with other particles.
Features of the signal events, including the amount of missing transverse energy or unusual jet activity, may indicate the presence of additional states.
However, it is possible that the presence of some final state particles is obscured by small mass splittings within cascade decays, leading to a signal being na\"ively interpreted at first as a singly-produced resonance.
The excess $\gamma\gamma$ events observed by the ATLAS and CMS experiments using the 2015 data \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2015-081,CMS:2015dxe,ATLAS-CONF-2016-018,CMS:2016owr}, which were subsequently
attributed to large statistical fluctuations \cite{ATLAS:2016eeo, Khachatryan:2016yec}, have highlighted the importance of these questions about production in the context of a diphoton resonance.
Many theoretical studies have been devoted to a ``canonical'' interpretation of a diphoton peak, in which a scalar particle produced from a gluon-gluon initial state that decays directly into two photons (for reviews, see \cite{Staub:2016dxq,Franceschini:2016gxv}, for earlier work see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Fox:2011qc}).
However, the possibility that a high-mass diphoton resonance be produced in association with other particles, particularly ones that are difficult to observe, is relatively unexplored.
In this paper we discuss alternative models that lead to $\gamma\gamma$ resonances, in which additional final state particles generate only a small amount of missing energy, such that the signal origin could be misinterpreted as the canonical model. We highlight kinematic distributions that may be useful in distinguishing between the models, and discuss model-building challenges.
Specifically, we present a couple of renormalizable models in which a diphoton resonance arises from cascade decays of some slightly heavier particles.
In the first model, a scalar particle produced in gluon fusion decays into two pseudoscalars,
one of which ($A$) is the diphoton resonance and the other ($A'$) is very light and quasi-stable (we refer to this as a 2-step model).
In the second model, a $Z'$ boson couples to the right-handed $s$ and $b$ quarks as well as to two new fermions, $N$ and $\nu_s$,
which are singlets under the SM gauge group. One of the $Z'$ decay modes is into $\bar \nu_s N$, with a subsequent decay of $N$ into $\nu_s$ and the diphoton resonance (we refer to this as a 3-step model).
We explore how the kinematic distributions could eventually differentiate between these models.
Two-step production topologies\footnote{Our model has little in common with the ``2-step decay" studied in \cite{Cho:2015nxy}.
Also, the fact that $A$ and $A'$ are different particles (with a large mass splitting) distinguishes our 2-step model from
the model where two diphoton particles are simultaneously produced \cite{Huang:2015evq,Altmannshofer:2015xfo}.}
were previously considered in \cite{Franceschini:2015kwy, Bernon:2016dow}, but only in the context of simplified models and with
focus on regions of parameter space in which the presence of additional final state particles would be immediately apparent.
A more complete 2-step model is discussed in \cite{Badziak:2016cfd} in the context of the NMSSM; again, the presence of a couple of $b$ jets in each diphoton event
would clearly distinguish such a model from the canonical model.
Our renormalizable 2-step model naturally accommodates the small mass splitting between the scalar ($\varphi$) produced in gluon fusion and the pseudoscalar $A$ that decays into photons by embedding them into the same complex scalar field.
The pseudoscalar $A'$ that escapes the detector is naturally very light because it is the pseudo-Nambu Goldstone boson associated with a $U(1)$ symmetry.
Consequently, in spite of the presence of an additional particle in the final state, missing energy is suppressed, and it may at first appear that the resonance was produced by itself.
The 3-step model is more peculiar, because the $s$-channel resonance is a spin-1 particle
(an alternative model is discussed in \cite{Altmannshofer:2015xfo}) and the initial state is mostly a strange-antistrange pair.
Even though some mass splittings are assumed to be small without a symmetry reason, this model
is interesting because the initial state does not involve gluon fusion, and so it leads to different pattens in QCD radiation and hence jet multiplicities. Meanwhile, sea quark production exhibits a $\sqrt{s}$ dependence
for the production cross section similar to that for the gluon-initiated process, consistent with the potential misidentification of the resonance as arising from gluon fusion.
In \Sref{sec:2step} we present the 2-step scalar model and discuss its phenomenological implications.
In \Sref{sec:3step} we construct and analyze the 3-step $Z'$ model. Examples of the kinematic
distributions predicted in these models, as well as in the canonical ``1-step" model, are shown in \Sref{sec:distributions}.
We also compare to the ATLAS kinematic distributions provided in \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2016-018} to demonstrate how even limited data could help distinguish
the canonical model from the multi-step models.
Our conclusions are presented in \Sref{sec:conclusions}.
\bigskip
\section{A 2-step scalar model} \setcounter{equation}{0}
\label{sec:2step}
In this section we present a simple model in which the spin-0 particle produced in gluon fusion is
different than the spin-0 particle that decays into a photon pair.
The model consists of two complex scalar fields, $\phi$ and $\phi'$, which are SM singlets, a real scalar field $\Theta^a$
that is a color-octet ($a = 1, ...,8$), and a lepton $\psi$ of electric charge one, which is vectorlike with respect to the SM gauge group.
The SM-singlet scalars are formed of the following real scalar fields:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \phi = \langle \phi \rangle + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left( \varphi + i A \right) ~~,
\nonumber \\ [2mm]
&& \phi' = \langle \phi' \rangle + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \, \left( \varphi' + i A^{\prime } \right) ~~,
\end{eqnarray}
We consider the case where the VEVs satisfy
$\langle \phi' \rangle \gg \langle \phi \rangle > 0$. We will neglect the $\phi$ VEV for now, and we will check later that this is a fair approximation.
The masses of the two CP-even scalars $\varphi$ and $\varphi'$, $M_\varphi$ and $M_{\varphi'}$, satisfy $M_\varphi < M_{\varphi'}$;
$\varphi'$ will not be important in what follows.
The masses of the two CP-odd scalars $A$ and $A^{\prime }$ satisfy $M_{A'} \ll M_A$ and
$M_\varphi > M_A + M_{A'} $. The CP-odd scalar $A$ will play the role of the diphoton resonance at the TeV scale.
The interactions of these spin-0 particles will be selected such that the cascade decay
$\varphi \to A' A \to A' \gamma\gamma$ has a large branching fraction, and $A'$ does not decay inside the detector.
\subsection{Scalar interactions}
\label{subsec:scalarints}
We assume that $\phi$ interacts with the color-octet scalar, $\Theta^a$, via the following CP-conserving term in the Lagrangian:
\begin{equation}
- \frac{\kappa}{2} \, \phi' \phi \, \Theta^a \Theta^a + {\rm H.c.} \supset - \frac{\kappa \langle \phi' \rangle}{ \sqrt{2}} \, \varphi \, \Theta^a \Theta^a ~~,
\label{eq:kappa}
\end{equation}
where $\kappa$ is a real\footnote{We impose CP symmetry on the term (\ref{eq:kappa}) in order to avoid an $A\Theta^a \Theta^a$ coupling that would
produce an $s$-channel diphoton resonance. If $\kappa$ had a complex phase $\alpha_\kappa$, then the ratio of $A$ and $\varphi$ production cross sections would be $\tan^2\!\alpha_\kappa$. } dimensionless parameter.
This coupling leads at one loop to $gg \to \varphi$ production at the LHC \cite{Boughezal:2010ry,Dobrescu:2011aa}.
Other terms in the potential that involve $\Theta^a$ are given by
\begin{equation}
V(\Theta) = \frac{1}{2} \left( M_\theta^2 + \kappa_1 |\phi|^2 + \kappa_2 |\phi'|^2 \right) \Theta^a \Theta^a + \frac{\lambda_\Theta}{8} \left( \Theta^a \Theta^a \right)^2 + \mu_\Theta \, d_{abc} \Theta^a \Theta^b \Theta^c ~~.
\label{Vtheta}
\end{equation}
Here $\lambda_\Theta >0$ is a dimensionless parameter relevant in \Sref{subsec:lhc2step}, and $\mu_\Theta$
is a trilinear coupling that allows the decay $\Theta \to gg $ at one loop \cite{Bai:2010dj}. The first term in $V(\Theta)$ leads to a squared-mass for the color-octet particle,
$M_\Theta^2 \simeq M_\theta^2 + \kappa_2 \langle \phi' \rangle^2$, which we take to be positive.
The $\phi$ and $\phi'$ fields have a dimension-4 coupling in the potential,
\begin{equation}
V_\lambda = \frac{\lambda}{4} \, (\phi \, \phi' )^2 + {\rm H.c.} ~~,
\label{eq:quartic}
\end{equation}
where again we impose CP symmetry so that $\lambda$ is a real dimensionless parameter (implying that the $A\to A'A'$ decay is negligible).
The above term includes the following interaction of $\varphi $ with the CP-odd scalars in the Lagrangian:
\begin{equation}
\frac{\lambda \langle \phi' \rangle }{\sqrt{2}} \, \varphi \, A A^{\prime } ~~.
\end{equation}
As a result, the $\varphi $ scalar decays into $A A'$ with a width
\begin{equation}
\Gamma (\varphi \to A A^{\prime } ) = \frac{\lambda^2 \langle \phi' \rangle^2}{32 \pi M_\varphi}
\left[ \left(1+ \frac{M_A} {M_\varphi} \right)^{\! 2} - \frac{M_{A'}^2} {M_\varphi^2} \right]^{\! 1/2}
\left[ \left(1- \frac{M_A} {M_\varphi} \right)^{\! 2} - \frac{M_{A'}^2} {M_\varphi^2} \right]^{\! 1/2}
~~.
\label{eq:phiAA}
\end{equation}
Even though this width is phase-space suppressed, the $\varphi \to A A^{\prime }$ branching fraction
is large because the only other significant decay mode of $\varphi $, into two gluons, is loop-suppressed; a quantitative assessment is postponed until \Sref{subsec:lhc2step}.
The primary ingredient necessary for associated production of a diphoton peak is thus in place: the ``2-step production" $gg \to \varphi \to A A'$.
The subsequent $A\to \gamma \gamma$ decay, discussed in \Sref{subsec:Abrs}, then gives rise to a diphoton signal at the LHC (see the diagram in \Fref{fig:phiAdiagram}).
The scalar interactions introduced so far, and below, exhibit a (spontaneously-broken) global $U(1)$ symmetry under which $\phi$ and $\phi'$ rotate oppositely. The full scalar potential allowed by this symmetry is
\begin{equation}
V(\phi,\phi') = M_0^2 |\phi|^2 - M_0'^{2} |\phi'|^2 - (b^2 \phi \phi' + {\rm H.c.}) + \frac{\lambda_1}{2} |\phi|^4 + \frac{\lambda_2}{2} |\phi'|^4 + \lambda_3 |\phi \phi'|^2 + V_\lambda ~~.
\label{eq:Vtheta}
\end{equation}
We assume that all parameters are real and positive and thus any VEVs are also positive. In addition we take
$b^2 \ll M_0^2$ so that $\langle \phi' \rangle \approx M'_0 / \sqrt{\lambda_2} \gg \langle \phi \rangle$.
Note that the VEV of $\phi$ is induced by the $b^2$ term,
\begin{equation}
\langle \phi \rangle \approx \frac{b^2 \langle \phi' \rangle}{M_0^2 + ( \lambda_3 + \lambda/2) \langle \phi' \rangle^2} ~~.
\end{equation}
In the $b/M_0 \to 0$ limit, the Nambu-Goldstone boson arising from the spontaneously broken $U(1)$ is the $A'$ component of $\phi'$. That limit, however, is unstable because
the coupling to $\Theta$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappa}) induces a 1-loop contribution to $b^2$. For $b^2 \neq 0$, the Nambu-Goldstone boson is a linear combination of $A'$ and $A$.
In practice it is sufficient to have $b/M_0 \!\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.34em \raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}} 0.3$, as the corrections to the $\varphi$ branching fractions and to the $M_\varphi - M_A$ mass splitting are only of order
$b^4/M_0^4$. We will neglect these corrections, so we will keep the $A'$ notation for the Nambu-Goldstone boson.
With the Lagrangian introduced so far, $A'$ remains strictly massless.
A small $A'$ mass can be easily induced by including an explicit breaking of the global $U(1)$, for example a
$M_{A'}^2 \phi^{\prime 2}$ term with $ M_{A'} \ll |M'_0|$.
As discussed in \Sref{subsec:lhc2step}, values of $M_{A'}$ as low as 6 MeV (and perhaps lower) are phenomenologically viable.
The quartic interaction $V_\lambda$ also leads to a mass splitting of $\varphi$ and $A$:
\begin{equation}
M_{\varphi,A}^2 = M_0^2 + \left( \lambda_3 \pm \frac{\lambda}{2} \right) \langle \phi' \rangle^2 ~~,
\end{equation}
so that the mass-squared difference is
\begin{equation}
M_\varphi^2 - M_A^2 = \lambda \langle \phi' \rangle^2 ~~.
\label{eq:lambda}
\end{equation}
The $V_\lambda$ term can be induced at 1-loop from the coupling to $\Theta$, thus in the absence of fine tuning one would expect that $ \lambda \!\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.34em \raise.4ex \hbox{$>$}}} \kappa^2/(8\pi^2)$.
At the same time, in order to suppress missing energy in the final state, we require $M_\varphi-M_A\!\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.34em \raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}} O(50) \text{ GeV}$, so
that $\lambda$ must be smaller than about $0.12 M_\varphi^2/ \langle \phi' \rangle^2$.
\begin{figure}[t]
\vspace*{-2.5cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, angle=0]{Diagrams-diphoton-2step.pdf}
\vspace*{-7.5cm}
\caption{Diagram for $A$ production at the LHC in the 2-step model, where $A$ is a heavy CP-odd scalar decaying into two photons.
$A'$ is a light pseudoscalar that escapes the detector. The black disk represents the sum over loop contributions from the color-octet scalar $\Theta$. }
\label{fig:phiAdiagram}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Branching fractions of $A$}
\label{subsec:Abrs}
To generate a diphoton signal, we introduce interactions allowing the decay $A \to \gamma \gamma$. This can be accomplished by coupling
the scalars $\phi$ and $\phi'$ to the vectorlike lepton $\psi$,
\begin{equation}
- y_\psi \, \phi \, \bar \psi_L \psi_R - y'_{\psi} \, \phi' \, \bar \psi_R \psi_L + {\rm H.c.} ~~,
\label{eq:Yukawa2step}
\end{equation}
where the Yukawa couplings are $y_\psi, y'_{\psi} >0$.
We assign global $U(1)$ charges to $\psi_L$ and $\psi_R$ such that the above terms are $U(1)$ invariant.
As a result, a mass term for $\psi$ can be generated only by the $U(1)$ breaking VEVs. Thus, the vectorlike lepton has a mass
\begin{equation}
m_\psi \simeq y'_{\psi} \langle \phi' \rangle ~~.
\label{eq:mpsi}
\end{equation}
The Yukawa interactions (\ref{eq:Yukawa2step}) contribute at one loop to the $b^2$ term in $V(\phi,\phi')$.
Hence, the values of the VEVs shift slightly. We neglect the effects of the $\psi$ loops, as they are not larger than those of the $\Theta$ loops discussed in \Sref{subsec:scalarints}.
As before, $A'$ remains a massless Nambu-Goldstone boson unless we choose to include explicit $U(1)$ breaking terms.
The first term in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Yukawa2step}) includes the following interaction:
\begin{equation}
- y_\psi \, i A \bar \psi \gamma_5 \psi ~~.
\end{equation}
For $m_\psi > M_{A}/2$, the vectorlike lepton can be integrated out leading to a dimension-5
interaction of the CP-odd scalar $A$ with two
SM gauge bosons. If $\psi$ is an $SU(2)_W$ singlet of hypercharge $+1$, the
dimension-5 interaction is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{\alpha \, y_\psi}{8\sqrt{2} \pi \, m_\psi \cos^2\!\theta_w } \; A \, B^{\mu\nu} \widetilde B_{\mu\nu}
\label{eq:hyper}
\end{equation}
where $\tilde{B}^{\mu \nu} = \frac{1}{2} \epsilon^{\mu \nu \alpha \beta} B_{\alpha \beta}$.
The resulting width for the $A$ decay into photons is given by
\begin{equation}
\Gamma (A \to \gamma\gamma) = \frac{\alpha^2 \, y_\psi^2 \, M_A^3 }{128\pi^3 \, m_\psi^2} ~~,
\label{eq:diphotonWidth}
\end{equation}
with the electromagnetic coupling constant $\alpha$ evaluated at a scale of order $M_A$.
Besides couplings to photons, the operator~(\ref{eq:hyper}) includes $A$ interactions with $Z\gamma$ and $ZZ$, which give the following
decay widths:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \Gamma (A \to Z \gamma) = 2 \tan^2\!\theta_w \; \Gamma (A \to \gamma\gamma) ~~,
\nonumber \\ [2mm]
&& \Gamma (A \to Z Z) = \tan^4\!\theta_w \; \Gamma (A \to \gamma\gamma) ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
Here $\theta_w$ is the electroweak mixing angle at the $M_\varphi$ scale, so that $ \tan^2\!\theta_w \approx 0.30$.
These subdominant channels offer alternative methods for confirming the existence and nature of the resonance. Here, we have taken $\psi$ to be an $SU(2)_W$ singlet such that the decay to diphotons dominates---other choices would lead to different branching fractions and, for non-singlet representations, a decay to $W^+ W^-$ would also be relevant.
The quartic coupling of $\phi$ to $\Theta$ and $\phi'$ shown in Eq.~(\ref{eq:kappa}) includes a
\begin{equation}
- \frac{\kappa}{2} A A' \, \Theta^a \Theta^a
\label{eq:AAgg}
\end{equation}
interaction. Consequently, the $A$ particle does not decay into gluons but it has a 1-loop, 3-body decay into $A' gg $:
\begin{equation}
\Gamma (A \to A'gg) \simeq
\frac{\alpha_s^2 \, \kappa^2 \, M_A^5 }{6 \, (8\pi)^5 M_\Theta^4 } ~~.
\end{equation}
There is an additional contribution to the $A\to A' gg $ amplitude from an off-shell $\varphi$, which interferes with the one due to Eq.~(\ref{eq:AAgg}). However, this
is a subdominant contribution when $M_\varphi - M_A \ll M_A$, and it can be safely neglected here.
We expect that higher-order QCD corrections
enhance $\Gamma (A \to\! A'gg)$ by a factor of order 2.
Let us compute the widths for some benchmark points in the parameter space.
We fix the couplings
\begin{equation}
\lambda = 0.1 \;\; , \;\; y_\psi = y'_\psi = \lambda_\Theta = 1 ~~,
\label{eq:coupling-values}
\end{equation}
and then we define benchmark point 1 by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
M_A = 750 \; {\rm GeV} \;\; , \;\; \langle \phi'\rangle = 680 \; {\rm GeV} \; \Rightarrow \; M_\varphi = 780 \; {\rm GeV} , \; m_\psi = 680 \; {\rm GeV} ~~,
\nonumber \\ [2mm]
&& M_\Theta = 800 \; {\rm GeV} \;\; , \;\; \kappa = 0.5 ~~,
\label{eq:bench}
\end{eqnarray}
and benchmark point 2 by
\begin{eqnarray}
&&
M_A = 1.5 \; {\rm TeV} \;\; , \;\; \langle \phi'\rangle = 1.1 \; {\rm TeV} \; \Rightarrow \; M_\varphi = 1.54 \; {\rm TeV} , \; m_\psi = 1.1 \; {\rm TeV} ~~,
\nonumber \\ [2mm]
&& M_\Theta = 1.6 \; {\rm TeV} \;\; , \;\; \kappa = 1 ~~.
\label{eq:bench2}
\end{eqnarray}
In the case of benchmark point 1, $ \Gamma (A \to A'gg) \approx 40$ eV is more than two orders of magnitude smaller than $\Gamma (A \to \gamma\gamma) \approx 14 $ keV.
The branching fractions of $A$ into $\gamma\gamma$, $Z\gamma$ and $ZZ$ are thus
59.1\%, 35.4\% and 5.3\%, respectively.
For benchmark point 2, $ \Gamma (A \to A'gg) \approx 0.3$ keV and $\Gamma (A \to \gamma\gamma) \approx 43 $ keV, so
the $A \to \gamma\gamma$, $Z\gamma$ and $ZZ$ branching fractions are only slightly smaller than for benchmark point 1.
\subsection{LHC signal rate in the 2-step model}
\label{subsec:lhc2step}
For a $\Theta^a$ mass $M_\Theta > M_\varphi/2$, the coupling (\ref{eq:kappa}) induces an
interaction of $\varphi$ with gluons approximately given by the dimension-5 operator
\begin{equation}
\frac{\alpha_s \kappa\, \langle \phi' \rangle \, {\cal C}_\Theta {\cal C}_{\rm loop} }{16\sqrt{2} \pi M_\Theta^2 }
\; \varphi \, G^{\mu\nu \, a} \, G_{\mu\nu}^{\, a} ~~,
\label{eq:dim5}
\end{equation}
where ${\cal C}_\Theta$ is a coefficient that includes the deviations from the small $M_\varphi^2/(2M_\Theta)^2$ limit
(the full expression without taking the large $M_\Theta$ limit can be extracted from \cite{Dobrescu:2011aa}):
\begin{equation}
{\cal C}_\Theta = 1+ \frac{2 M_\varphi^2}{15 M_\Theta^2} + \frac{3 M_\varphi^4}{140 M_\Theta^4} + O \left( M_\varphi^6/(2M_\Theta)^6 \right) ~~.
\end{equation}
The coefficient ${\cal C}_{\rm loop}$ includes higher-order loop corrections:
\begin{equation}
{\cal C}_{\rm loop} \simeq 1+ \frac{33\alpha_s}{4\pi} + \frac{5 \lambda_\Theta}{16 \pi^2} ~~.
\end{equation}
The first term here arises from integrating $\Theta^a$ out at one loop, while the next two terms arise at two loops and have been computed in \cite{Boughezal:2010ry}.
The term proportional to $\lambda_\Theta$ involves one insertion of the quartic $\Theta$ coupling, see Eq.~(\ref{Vtheta}).
We assumed $\mu_\Theta \ll M_\Theta$, so that the 2-loop contributions with trilinear $\Theta$ couplings are negligible.
The dimension-5 operator (\ref{eq:dim5}), which is responsible for $\varphi$ production, also leads to the decays of $\varphi$ into gluons and, at higher-orders in the QCD coupling, into quark pairs.
These decays have a width given at the next-to-leading order by
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \hspace*{-2cm} \Gamma (\varphi \to \! g g, 3g, g q\bar q ) \simeq \alpha_s^2(\mu_{\rm decay}) \, \frac{\kappa^2 \langle \phi' \rangle^2 M_\varphi^3 }{256 \pi^3\, M_\Theta^4}
\, \, {\cal C}_\Theta^2 \, {\cal C}_{\rm loop}^2
\nonumber \\ [3mm]
&& \hspace*{2.4cm} \times \left[ 1+ \frac{\alpha_s}{\pi} \left( \frac{73}{4} - \frac{7 N_f}{6} - \frac{33 - 2N_f}{3} \ln \frac{M_\varphi}{\mu_{\rm decay}} \right) \! \right] ~~.
\label{eq:gg}
\end{eqnarray}
The next-to-leading order corrections \cite{Djouadi:2005gi} shown here depend on the number $N_f$ of quark flavors lighter than $M_\varphi/2$.
As the $g t\bar t $ final state is phase-space suppressed, the effective value of $N_f$ is between 5 and 6.
These corrections also depend on a renormalization scale, which is taken to be
$\mu_{\rm decay} = M_\varphi$ in order to minimize higher-order corrections to the decay width \cite{Steinhauser:1998cm}.
The QCD coupling constant decreases from $\alpha_s (M_\varphi) \approx 0.092$ at the scale $M_\varphi = 780$ GeV to
$\alpha_s (M_\varphi) \approx 0.085$ at $M_\varphi = 1.54$ TeV \cite{Agashe:2014kda}.
Besides the unavoidable decay into jets, there are a few other more model-dependent decay modes.
Notably, the $\phi$ and $\phi'$ fields can couple to the SM Higgs doublet, $H$, via $|\phi|^2 H^\dagger H$, $|\phi'|^2H^\dagger H$, and $\phi \phi' H^\dagger H$ terms.
The latter, in particular, must have a suppressed coefficient (below $\sim 3 \times 10^{-2}$) to avoid a large mixing of $\varphi$ with the SM Higgs boson $h^0$. Otherwise, the dominant
decay modes of $\varphi$ would be into $WW, ZZ$ and $t\bar{t}$, and the branching fraction $B(\varphi \to A A')$ would be too small to yield an observable diphoton signal. We ignore the $\varphi - h^0$ mixing in what follows.
In addition, the small but nonzero $\langle \phi \rangle$ discussed in \Sref{subsec:scalarints} leads to
the $\varphi \to A'A'$ decay. The width for this decay is not phase-space suppressed, but it is proportional to
$(\langle \phi \rangle/\langle \phi' \rangle)^2 < 10^{-2}$, and it can be neglected compared to
the $\varphi \to A'A$ width.
Another subdominant decay of $\varphi$ is into $\gamma\gamma$, due to a $\psi$ loop; its branching fraction, of order 0.1\%, is too small to be phenomenologically relevant.
Comparing the main $\varphi$ decay widths given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:phiAA}) and (\ref{eq:gg}), we find that
the branching fraction for $\varphi \to A A'$ is sizable for a large range of parameters.
For example, the benchmark point 1 [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:bench})] implies $B(\varphi \to A A') \approx 91\%$ and a total width for
$\varphi$ given by $\Gamma_\varphi \approx 6 \times 10^{-6} M_\varphi$, while benchmark point 2 [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:bench2})] gives $B(\varphi \to A A') \approx 70\%$ and
$\Gamma_\varphi \approx 4 \times 10^{-6} M_\varphi$.
The dimension-5 operator (\ref{eq:dim5}) also leads to $s$-channel production of $\varphi$ at the LHC.
In that case, the renormalization scale that minimizes the higher-order corrections is approximately $M_\varphi/2$.
Including the interaction (\ref{eq:dim5}) in FeynRules \cite{Alloul:2013bka} with a coefficient that depends on the QCD coupling constant at the $M_\varphi/2$ scale, $\alpha_s(M_\varphi/2)$,
we have generated the model files for
MadGraph \cite{Alwall:2014hca} and obtained the leading-order cross section for inclusive $\varphi$ production at the 13 TeV LHC, $\sigma_{\rm LO} (p p \to \varphi X)$.
Let us focus first on benchmark point 1, for which we calculate
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm LO} (p p \to \varphi X) \approx 6.8 \; {\rm fb} \, \,
\left(\frac{\langle \phi'\rangle}{680 \; {\rm GeV} } \right)^{\! 2} \kappa^2
\end{equation}
for $M_\varphi = 780$ GeV [corresponding to $\alpha_s(390 \; {\rm GeV}) \approx 0.097$], $M_\Theta = 800$ GeV and, less importantly, $\lambda_\Theta =1$. Recall that Eq.~(\ref{eq:lambda}) implies
$\langle \phi'\rangle = 680$ GeV for $\lambda = 0.1$.
Higher-order corrections to $\varphi$ production are large; we break them down as follows: \\ [1.1mm]
1) The next-to-leading order QCD corrections, using the dimension-5 interaction (\ref{eq:dim5}), which include 1-loop corrections as well as a real emission from the initial state partons.
We have computed those using the MCFM code \cite{Campbell:2015qma}, and obtained a multiplicative $K$ factor given by $K_{\rm NLO} = 1.88$ for $M_\varphi = 780$ GeV. \\ [1.5mm]
2) The NNLO and N$^3$LO QCD corrections, again in the large $M_\Theta$ limit.
These have been computed in the case of Higgs production \cite{Anastasiou:2016cez}, and amount to an additional 30\% increase.
In the case of our $\varphi$ production,
we expect that these corrections are smaller by a factor of roughly $\alpha_s(M_\varphi/2)/ \alpha_s(M_h/2) \approx 0.8$ for $M_\varphi = 780$ GeV, so that the total multiplicative factor becomes
$K_{\rm N^3LO} \sim 1.24 K_{\rm NLO} \approx 2.3$. This estimate is consistent with the recent
result of Ref.~\cite{Anastasiou:2016hlm} ($K_{\rm N^3LO} \approx 2.3$ for a scalar of mass at 750 GeV). \\ [1.5mm]
3) Finite $M_\Theta$ effects on the QCD corrections. We will neglect these here. \\ [1.5mm]
Although the higher-order corrections to $\varphi$ production are smaller than the ones to Higgs production in the SM, they are essential for computing the correct signal rate.
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering
\hspace*{-1mm} \includegraphics[width=0.47\textwidth, angle=0]{xsecMphi750.pdf} \ \includegraphics[width=0.5\textwidth, angle=0]{xsecMphi1500.pdf}
\caption{Diphoton signal cross section at the 13 TeV LHC in the 2-step model, as a function of the $\varphi$ mass, for four different masses of the color-octet scalar $\Theta$ responsible for gluon fusion.
Left panel corresponds to $M_A = 750$ GeV and $\kappa = 0.5$, and right panel corresponds to $M_A = 1.5$ TeV and $\kappa = 1$ (the cross section scales as $\kappa^2$).
The other parameters used here are $\lambda = 0.1$, $\lambda_\Theta = y_\psi' = 1$ and $M_{A'} = 0$.}
\label{fig:xsecMphi}
\end{figure}
The $s$-channel production of $\varphi$ is followed by the $\varphi \to A A'$ and $A\to \gamma\gamma$ decays (see \Fref{fig:phiAdiagram}).
The nonresonant contribution to $gg \to A A'$ due to the (\ref{eq:AAgg}) interaction is two orders of magnitude smaller, and it can be safely ignored.
The total cross section times branching fractions of a diphoton signal at the 13 TeV LHC is thus
\begin{eqnarray}
&& \sigma_{\gamma\gamma} \equiv \sigma (p p \to \varphi \to A' A \to A' \gamma\gamma)
\nonumber \\ [3mm]
&& \hspace*{0.7cm}
= K_{\rm N^3LO} \; \sigma_{\rm LO} (p p \to \varphi X) \, B(\varphi \to A A') \, B(A \to \gamma\gamma) ~~.
\end{eqnarray}
For $M_\varphi = 780$ GeV, $M_\Theta = 800$ GeV, $M_A = 750 $ GeV, $M_{A'} \ll M_\varphi - M_A$, $\kappa = 0.5$
and using the values for dimensionless couplings given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:coupling-values}), we find $ \sigma_{\gamma\gamma} \approx 2.1$ fb.
For other values of $M_\varphi$ and $M_\Theta$, the signal cross section $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$ is shown in the left panel of \Fref{fig:xsecMphi}.
In the case of benchmark point 2 [see Eq.~(\ref{eq:bench2})], where $M_\varphi = 1540$ GeV, $M_\Theta = 1.6$ TeV, $M_A = 1.5 $ TeV, $M_{A'} \ll M_\varphi - M_A$ and $\kappa = 1$,
we find $K_{\rm N^3LO} \approx 2.2$ and $ \sigma_{\gamma\gamma} \approx 0.08$ fb.
Varying $M_\varphi$ and $M_\Theta$ while keeping the other parameters fixed gives the values of $\sigma_{\gamma\gamma}$ shown in the right panel of \Fref{fig:xsecMphi}.
Thus, it is clear that the 2-step model may lead to signal rates that are large enough to be observed at the 13 TeV LHC even for a diphoton resonance as heavy as 1.5 TeV.
Let us comment on limits relevant for the other particles present in this model.
The current lower
limit on $M_\Theta$ can be derived from the CMS search in the final state with a pair of dijet resonances of equal mass \cite{Khachatryan:2014lpa}.
The cross section for the process $pp \to \Theta \Theta$ depends on a single parameter, $M_\Theta$, as the $\Theta$ interaction with gluons is fixed by QCD,
and there is no $SU(2)_W$ invariant coupling of $ \Theta$ to the SM quarks.
The 1-loop process $\Theta \to gg$, which proceeds through the trilinear coupling $\lambda_\Theta$, has a branching fraction near 100\%.
The CMS limit of about 1 pb on the cross section for pair production of dijets corresponds to $M_\Theta \!\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.34em \raise.4ex \hbox{$>$}}} 400$ GeV
(note that the theoretical prediction shown in Figure 7 of \cite{Khachatryan:2014lpa} refers to a spin-1 particle, whose production rate is almost 40 times larger than
for the spin-0 color octet discussed here \cite{Dobrescu:2007yp}).
In order to avoid observable $A'$ decays into photons, we
take the $A'$ mass $M_{A'}$ sufficiently small so that the decay is outside the electromagnetic calorimeter.
The decay length of a light $A'$ in the rest frame is
\begin{equation}
L_{A'} \approx \frac{y^2_\psi M_A^3}{y^{\prime 2}_\psi M_{A'}^3 \, \Gamma (A \to \gamma\gamma)} ~~,
\end{equation}
where $y_\psi'$ is related to $m_\psi$ by Eq.~(\ref{eq:mpsi}).
In the lab frame, the decay length is increased by $E_{A'}/M_{A'}$, where the $A'$ energy $E_{A'}$ is of the order of $M_\varphi - M_A$.
For example, if $M_{A'} < 0.4$ GeV, $y_\psi'=y_\psi$, and $M_\varphi = 780$ GeV, then the $A'$ decay length is longer than 7 m.
A lower limit on $M_{A'}$ is set by star cooling constraints. Values of
$M_{A'}$ below about 6 MeV make the decay length comparable to the size of a supernova core, so $A'$ emission may modify
the supernova temperature \cite{Raffelt:1996wa}.
Even for $M_{A'} < 6$ MeV though, the $A'$ mean-free path may be smaller than the supernova core because an
$A'A' gg$ interaction is induced at one loop by the potential term proportional to $\kappa_2$ in Eq.~(\ref{eq:Vtheta}). In any case,
the range of $M_{A'}$ consistent with all the constraints spans at least two orders of magnitude.
Thus, we can assume that $M_{A'} \ll M_\varphi - M_A$, and that the $A'$ gives rise to missing transverse energy at the LHC.
The vectorlike lepton $\psi$ is a weak singlet and has hypercharge +1 ({\it i.e.}, electric charge +1). Therefore,
an $H \bar L_L \psi_R$ Yukawa coupling to the SM lepton doublets $L$ is gauge invariant. This coupling leads to mixing
of $\psi$ with the SM charged leptons. As a result, the main decay modes of the new heavy fermion are $\psi \to W\nu, Z\tau, h^0 \tau$.
The lower limits on $m_\psi$ set at colliders are loose, of order 100 GeV \cite{Falkowski:2013jya}.
Searches for vectorlike leptons produced in pairs at the LHC will provide a test for this model. One should recognize though that there is
some flexibility in choosing the particles running in the loops that lead to $A \to \gamma\gamma$. For example, if instead of a vectorlike lepton
there is a charged scalar that couples to $\phi$, then the diphoton signal would not changed. By contrast, the presence of the color-octet
scalar $\Theta$ in the production loop is a more robust feature. Note that if instead of $\Theta$ there were a vectorlike quark
responsible for $\varphi$ production through gluon fusion, then it would be difficult to avoid the coupling of $A$ to the vectorlike quark so that the main
decay of $A$ would be into gluons, rendering a too small rate for $A \to \gamma\gamma$.
Thus, searches for pair production of $\Theta$ are a more generic test of this 2-step model.
\bigskip
\section{A strange-production model} \setcounter{equation}{0}
\label{sec:3step}
In this section, we construct a model in which a diphoton resonance arises as part of a cascade decay of a new gauge boson $Z'$
produced predominantly via strange-quark fusion
\begin{equation}
p p \rightarrow Z' \rightarrow \bar \nu_s N \; , \; \; N \rightarrow \nu_s \Phi \; , \; \; \Phi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ is a (pseudo)scalar with a mass $M_\Phi$ near the TeV scale, $N$ is a SM-singlet heavy Dirac fermion, and $\nu_s$ is a sterile neutrino.
Unlike the gluon-initiated model of \Sref{sec:2step}, this model relies on sea-quark production. The production process could potentially be distinguished using differential distributions. For instance, variation in QCD radiation between quarks and gluons could lead to discernible differences in $N_{\rm jet}$ distributions, as we will show in \Sref{sec:distributions}.
\subsection{New fields and symmetries}
We introduce a new gauge symmetry $U(1)_{sb}$ under which the only SM states that are charged are the oppositely-charged right-handed $s$ and $b$ quarks. The $Z'$ couplings are flavor diagonal as long as the right-handed quark mass and gauge eigenstates coincide, and so are not subject to constraints from flavor processes ({\it e.g.}, $B_s$ mixing).
This charge assignment leads to a $U(1)_Y \left[U(1)_{sb} \right]^2$ anomaly, requiring the introduction of new fermions $f, f'$ (``anomalons'') that are vectorlike with respect to the SM gauge groups (and $SU(3)_c \times SU(2)_W$ singlets) but chiral under $U(1)_{sb}$.
An implication of the anomalons charged under both $U(1)_Y$ and $U(1)_{sb}$ is the loop-induced decays of the new (pseudo)scalars to two photons.\footnote{A model with similar charge assignment was proposed in a completely different context in \cite{Dobrescu:2014fca}. As an alternative model, the coupling of the $Z'$ to the SM could be through a higher-dimension operator, generated by integrating out fermions transforming under the SM gauge group as the right-handed strange quark \cite{Fox:2011qd}. }
We include three Weyl fermions $N_{\pm R}, N_L$, which are
SM singlets and permit the cascade decay of the $Z'$.
The relevant matter content of the theory is given in Table~\ref{table:U1}.
\begin{table}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.5}
\centering\begin{tabular}{M | M M M | M}\hline
\text{field} & SU(3)_c & SU(2)_W & U(1)_Y & \ U(1)_{sb} \\ [-0.03em] \hline\hline
s_R & 3 & \ 1 \ & \ \!\!-1/3 & +1 \\ [0.1em]
b_R & 3 & \ 1 \ & \ \!\!-1/3 & -1 \\ [0.1em]
\hline
f_R & 1 & 1 & \!\!+1 & +1 \\ [0.1em]
f_R' & 1 & 1 & \!\!+1 & -1 \\ [0.1em]
f_L, f_L' & 1 & 1 & \!\!+1 & 0 \\ [0.1em]
\hline
{N_+}_R & 1 & 1 & 0 & +1 \\ [0.1em]
{N_-}_R & 1 & 1 & 0 & -1 \\ [0.1em]
N_L & 1 & 1 & 0 & 0 \\ [0.1em]
\hline
\phi' , \phi & 1 & \ 1 \ & \ 0 \ & +1 \\ [0.3em]
\hline
\end{tabular}
\medskip \\
\caption{\small Fields charged under the $U(1)_{sb}$ gauge symmetry. The spin is 0 for $\phi'$ and $\phi$, and 1/2 for
the anomalons ($f$, $f'$), the $N$ fields, and the $s_R$ and $b_R$ quarks. }
\label{table:U1}
\end{table}
Along with the new fermions, the theory contains two new scalars charged under $U(1)_{sb}$, $\phi'$ and $\phi$. We assume to a first approximation (discussed later) that the scalar potential respects a ${\mathbb Z}_2$ symmetry under which $\phi \rightarrow - \phi$ and $\phi' \rightarrow \phi'$. Constraints on deviations from SM Higgs branching fractions, as well as the dihiggs production rate and $t\bar{t}$ resonance searches limit the size of couplings between the SM Higgs and $\phi$ and $\phi'$ so we also assume that the couplings to the SM Higgs field are small (we will discuss this more in \Sref{sec:productionanddecay}).
Under these assumptions, the most general renormalizable potential for the new spin-0 fields is
\begin{equation}
V \supset - M_{\phi'}^2 \abs{\phi'}^2 + M_{\phi}^2 \abs{\phi}^2 + \frac{\lambda_{\phi'}}{4} \abs{\phi'}^4 + \frac{\lambda_{\phi}}{4} \abs{\phi}^4 + \lambda_{\phi' \phi} \abs{\phi'}^2 \abs{\phi}^2 + \left[ \lambda'_{\phi' \phi} (\phi^\dagger\phi')^2 +\mathrm{H.c.} \right]~~.
\label{eq:threestepscalarpot}\end{equation}
We take the quartic couplings and the mass-squared parameters to be positive. In this limit, a non-zero VEV develops for $\phi'$ while $\vev{\phi} = 0$. As such, $\phi'$ is responsible for spontaneously breaking $U(1)_{sb}$, giving mass to the $Z'$ as well as to the anomalons.
The additional scalar $\phi$ will be the diphoton resonance, as we discuss below. After $U(1)_{sb}$ breaking the real spin-0 fields are
\begin{equation}
\phi' = \vev{\phi'} + \frac{\varphi'}{\sqrt{2}} \quad \quad, \quad \quad \quad \phi = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \left(\varphi + i A\right).
\end{equation}
The mass of the new gauge boson $M_{Z'} = \sqrt{2} g_z \vev{\phi'}$, where $g_z$ is the $U(1)_{sb}$ gauge coupling. We assume that $M_{\varphi'}$ is sufficiently large that this state does not play a role in the phenomenology of interest.
The scalars couple to anomalons via
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} \supset - y'_f \phi'^\dagger \bar{f}_L f_R - y'_{f'} \phi' \bar{f}'_L f'_R - y_f \phi^\dagger \bar{f}_L f_R - y_{f'} \phi \bar{f}'_L f'_R + \mathrm{H.c.}
\end{equation}
The anomalons acquire a mass from their coupling to $\phi'$, $m_{f^{(\prime)}} = y'_{f^{(\prime)}} \vev{\phi'}$, while the Yukawa couplings of $\phi$
permit the physical states $\varphi$ and $A$ to decay to photons at one loop.
We impose $m_f, m_{f'} > M_{Z'}/2 $ to forbid the decay of $Z'$ into anomalons.
Additional Yukawa terms of the type $\phi'^\dagger \bar f'_L f_R$ or $\phi' \bar f_L f_R^\prime$, or similarly with
$\phi'$ replaced by $\phi$, may be present,
leading to $f-f'$ mixing; however, such mixing is not consequential in what follows.
The SM Yukawas for $b$ and $s$ quarks are forbidden by $U(1)_{sb}$ but are allowed at dimension 5 and can be generated from a renormalizable theory by integrating out vectorlike fermions that have the same quantum numbers as $b_R$. For order one couplings these heavy fermions must be lighter than $\langle\phi'\rangle/y_q^{SM}\sim 10-100\ \mathrm{TeV}$. There are additional renormalizable terms $\phi' \bar{f}^c_R \ell_R$ which mix the anomalons with the right-handed leptons and allow the anomalons to decay to $W\nu,\,Z\ell$.
The scalars also couple to the $N$ fermions:
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} \supset - y'_+ \phi'^\dagger \bar{N}_L {N_+}_R - y'_- \phi' \bar{N}_L {N_-}_R - y_+ \phi^\dagger \bar{N}_L {N_+}_R - y_- \phi \bar{N}_L {N_-}_R + \mathrm{H.c.}
\label{eq:ypmyukawas}
\end{equation}
We assume that the $N$-number violating mass terms of the form $\bar{N}_L N_L^c$ and $\bar{N}^c_{+\, R} {N_-}_R$ are suppressed (or even completely forbidden) by a global $U(1)_N$ symmetry.
As such, for $\vev{\phi'} \neq 0$, the couplings $y'_\pm$ give mass to a Dirac fermion $N$, whose left-handed component is
$N_L$ (see Table 1), and whose right-handed component is a linear combination of ${N_\pm}_R$:
\begin{equation}
N_R = c_N {N_+}_R + s_N {N_-}_R ~~.
\end{equation}
The orthogonal linear combination of ${N_\pm}_R$ forms a massless 2-component fermion $\nu_s$,
\begin{equation}
{\nu_s}_R = - s_N {N_+}_R + c_N {N_-}_R ~~,
\end{equation}
with the mixing given by
\begin{equation}
s_N , c_N = \frac{y'_\mp}{\sqrt{{y'_+}^2 + {y'_-}^2}}
~~.
\end{equation}
As $\nu_s$ is a massless (or nearly massless if a small Majorana mass is introduced) fermion that is a SM singlet, it is appropriate to refer to it as
a sterile neutrino. Higher-dimensional operators may induce some small mixing between $\nu_s$ and the SM neutrinos; we will ignore here these effects.
The mass of $N$ is related to the $\phi'$ VEV by
\begin{equation}
m_N = \frac{y'_-}{s_N} \vev{\phi'} ~~.
\end{equation}
The Yukawa couplings of the components of $\phi$ to the physical fermions $N$ and $\nu_s$ are
\begin{equation}
{\cal L} \supset - \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \Big[ (- y_+ s_N + y_- c_N) \varphi + (y_+ s_N + y_- c_N) i A \Big] \bar{N}_L {\nu_s}_R +
\mathrm{H.c.}
\end{equation}
Note that any couplings of $\varphi$ or $A$ that can lead to their decays to $\nu_s\nu_s$ vanish in the limit of massless $\nu_s$.
The couplings of the $Z'$ boson to the electrically-neutral fermions are given by
\begin{equation}
{\cal L}_{\rm kin} \supset g_z (c_N^2 - s_N^2) \left(\bar{N}_R \slashed{Z}' N_R - {\overline\nu_s}_R \slashed{Z}' {\nu_s}_R \right)
- 2 g_z c_N s_N \left(\bar{N}_R \slashed{Z}' {\nu_s}_R + \mathrm{H.c.} \right)~~.
\end{equation}
We now have the interactions necessary to describe the production and decay of the particles that lead to a diphoton signal, as shown in \Fref{fig:phidiagrams}. Note that, unlike the previous model, there is no symmetry reason why the masses of $Z'$, $N$, and the scalar leading to the diphoton resonance should all be similar; although their masses are proportional to the same VEV, they involve unrelated couplings. However, it is possible that these couplings are related through renormalization group evolution \cite{Kearney:2013xwa}.
\begin{figure}[b]
\vspace*{-2.cm}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1\textwidth, angle=0]{Diagrams-diphoton-strange.pdf}
\vspace*{-7.5cm}
\caption{Diagram for $\varphi/A$ production at the LHC in the 3-step $Z'_{sb}$ model. The sterile neutrinos $\nu_s$ escape the detector. }
\label{fig:phidiagrams}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Production and decay}\label{sec:productionanddecay}
The dominant partial width of the $Z'$ is to pairs of right-handed $s$ and $b$ quarks,
\begin{equation}
\Gamma(Z'\rightarrow s\bar{s}) \simeq \Gamma(Z'\rightarrow b\bar{b}) \simeq \frac{g_z^2 }{8\pi} M_{Z'} ~~,
\end{equation}
while the widths to the neutral fermions are
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(Z'\rightarrow \nu_s \bar \nu_s) &=& \frac{g_z^2 (c_{N}^2 - s_N^2)^2}{24\pi} M_{Z'} ~~, \nonumber \\ [2mm]
\Gamma(Z'\rightarrow N \, \nu_s) &=& \frac{g_z^2 s_{N}^2 c_N^2 }{3\pi} M_{Z'} \left(1-\frac{3m_{N}^2}{2M_{Z'}^2}+\frac{m_{N}^6}{2M_{Z'}^6}\right)~~.
\end{eqnarray}
In a compressed spectrum the second decay is phase-space suppressed, $\Gamma(Z'\rightarrow N \, \nu_s) \approx g_z^2 s_{N}^2 c_N^2 (M_{Z'}-m_{N})^2/ (\pi M_{Z'})$.
In turn, the 2-body decays of $N$ are
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(N\rightarrow \varphi \, \nu_s) &=& \frac{(- y_+ s_N + y_- c_N)^2 }{64\pi} \, m_{N} \left(1-\frac{M_\varphi^2}{m_{N}^2}\right)^{\! 2} ~~, \nonumber \\ [2mm]
\Gamma(N\rightarrow A \, \nu_s) &=& \frac{(y_+ s_N + y_- c_N)^2}{64\pi} \, m_{N} \left(1-\frac{M_{A}^2}{m_{N}^2}\right)^{\! 2}~~.
\end{eqnarray}
These also become small as the splitting between $N$ and the scalar in the final state becomes small. Thus, the 3-body decay to a pair of $s$ or $b$ quarks, through an off-shell $Z'$, may compete. This width is
\begin{equation}
\Gamma (N\rightarrow \nu_s q\bar{q}) = \frac{3g_z^4 \, s_{N}^2 c_N^2 \, M_{Z'}^2}{16\pi^3 m_{N}}\left(1-\frac{m_{N}^2}{2M_{Z'}^2}-\frac{m_{N}^4}{6M_{Z'}^4}-\left(1-\frac{M_{Z'}^2}{m_{N}^2}\right)\ln \left(1-\frac{m_{N}^2}{M_{Z'}^2}\right)\right)~~,
\end{equation}
where we have ignored the quark masses.
The missing energy is difficult to observe at the LHC if the mass splittings $M_{Z'} \!\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.34em \raise.4ex \hbox{$>$}}} m_{N} \!\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.34em \raise.4ex \hbox{$>$}}} M_A$ are small. As a result of these small splittings, $N$ decays to the diphoton resonance are phase-space suppressed, while the 3-body decays to $\nu_s q\bar{q}$ are not.
To compensate for this and achieve a significant diphoton rate the couplings $y_\pm$ cannot be too small.
Furthermore, the phase-space suppression for $Z'\rightarrow N \nu_s$ means that there can be substantial contribution to $N \nu_s$ production from an off-shell $Z'$. This non-resonant production of the diphoton state can alter the kinematic distributions considerably, injecting additional missing transverse energy into the event relative to the case of on-shell production.
Note that this feature does not occur in the 2-step model, but rather represents a particular challenge for a vector cascade model due to the phase-space suppressed production of fermions via a vector boson. In the center-of-mass frame, the 3-step process is proportional to the final state velocity $\beta_f^3$, whereas near-threshold scalar production from a scalar resonance (as in the 2-step model) is proportional to $\beta_f$. As a result, gains from going off-shell are more substantial in the 3-step model, leading to a significant contribution from non-resonant $Z'$ production.
So far, we have remained agnostic as to whether $\varphi$ or $A$ is the observed resonance, since both can decay to diphotons (as well as $ZZ$ and $\gamma Z$) through a loop of anomalons. Integrating out the anomalons leads to effective dimension-5 operators coupling the scalars to the hypercharge field strength,
\begin{equation}
\frac{\alpha}{6\sqrt{2}\pi\cos^2\theta_w}\left(\frac{y_f}{m_f} + \frac{y_{f'}}{m_{f'}}\right) \varphi B^{\mu\nu}B_{\mu\nu}
+ \frac{\alpha}{8\sqrt{2}\pi\cos^2\theta_w} \left(-\frac{y_f}{m_f} + \frac{y_{f'}}{m_{f'}}\right) A \, B^{\mu\nu}\tilde{B}_{\mu\nu} ~~.
\end{equation}
The resulting widths are
\begin{eqnarray}
\Gamma(\varphi \rightarrow \gamma\gamma) &=& \frac{\alpha^2}{288\pi^3}\left(\frac{y_f}{m_f} + \frac{y_{f'}}{m_{f'}}\right)^2 M_\varphi^3 ~~, \\
\Gamma(A \rightarrow \gamma\gamma) &=& \frac{\alpha^2}{128\pi^3}\left(-\frac{y_f}{m_f} + \frac{y_{f'}}{m_{f'}}\right)^2 M_{A}^3~~.
\end{eqnarray}
As the anomalons are $SU(2)_W$ singlets, the $A$ pseudoscalar exhibits characteristic branching fractions to diphotons
$B(A \rightarrow \gamma \gamma) = 59.5\%$,
and so can serve as the resonance. Whether or not $\varphi$ has the same branching fraction and also contributes to the diphoton rate depends on details of the model we have not yet discussed. Specifically, additional terms in the scalar potential can give rise to terms that mix $\varphi$ and the SM Higgs boson.\footnote{Terms mixing $\varphi'$ and $h^0$ may also be present, but are irrelevant for the diphoton signal. Such terms must simply be small enough to be consistent with measurements of Higgs couplings.}
For instance, a term
\begin{equation}
\Delta V = \lambda_{\phi \phi' H} \left(\phi^\dagger \phi' + \phi \phi'^\dagger\right) \abs{H}^2
\end{equation}
will lead to $\varphi-h^0$ mixing, as well as inducing a VEV for $\phi$. Note that this term violates the ${\mathbb Z}_2$ symmetry $\phi \rightarrow -\phi$, but this parity is also collectively broken by the Yukawas, so it cannot be used to set the above term to zero.
The explicit breaking by the Yukawa couplings to the anomalons leads to this term being generated at two loops, so it is consistent to treat $\Delta V$ as a small perturbation on the potential of (\ref{eq:threestepscalarpot}).\footnote{Similar reasoning motivates neglecting the mass-mixing term $b^2 \phi^\dagger \phi'$, which only arises at one loop.}
Thus, one can imagine two scenarios. In the first case, the $\varphi-h^0$ mixing is very suppressed, $\lambda_{\phi \phi' H} \!\mathrel{\hbox{\rlap{\lower.55ex \hbox{$\sim$}} \kern-.34em \raise.4ex \hbox{$<$}}} 10^{-4}$, such that $\varphi$ decays predominantly via anomalon loops. Then, both $A$ and $\varphi$ can contribute to the diphoton rate.
A mass splitting between $\varphi$ and $A$ could broaden the diphoton signal, potentially leading to the intepretation that the signal arises from a single, wide resonance. This splitting can be generated from $\Delta V$, $\lambda'_{\phi' \phi}$ and the mass-mixing term.
Alternatively, $\varphi-h^0$ mixing may be non-negligible, leading to additional decays of $\varphi$ to SM states, notably $\varphi \rightarrow WW, ZZ, t \bar{t}$. As such, the diphoton signal comes entirely from $A$ and the model predicts a second resonance of mass close to $M_A$ with branching fractions characteristic of a singlet mixing with the Higgs. Since $\varphi$ no longer contributes to the diphoton rate, the decay $N \rightarrow A \, \nu_s$ must dominate over $N\rightarrow \varphi \, \nu_s$, for instance due to $M_\varphi > m_{N}$ or coincidental cancellations as for $y_+ \simeq y_-$ (supposing $c_N \simeq s_N$).
We now present a example parameter point with a diphoton resonance at 750 GeV:
\begin{eqnarray}
&& M_{Z'} = 790\, \text{ GeV} \;\; , \;\; \, g_z=0.3 \, \Rightarrow \, \langle \phi'\rangle \approx 1.9 \text{ TeV}~~, \nonumber\\
&& m_{N} = 760\, \text{ GeV} \;\; , \;\; \, y'_+ =0.3 \, \Rightarrow \, y'_- \approx 0.28~~,\nonumber\\
&& m_f=m_{f'}=500\, \text{ GeV} \, \Rightarrow \, y'_f=y'_{f'} \approx 0.27~~.
\label{eq:threestepexampleppoint}
\end{eqnarray}
At this point the $Z'$ width and relevant branching fraction are $\Gamma_{Z'}\approx 5.7\,\text{ GeV},\, B(Z'\rightarrow N \, \nu_s)\approx 2.7 \times 10^{-3}$. However, since the phase space for the decay $Z'\rightarrow N \, \nu_s$ is limited, approximately $20\%$ of $\sigma(pp\rightarrow N \, \nu_s)$ comes from off-resonance production. Including a $K$-factor\footnote{Due to different production channels, the NLO correction for a $Z'$ produced from sea quarks could be up to twice as large as that for a sequential $Z'$, $K_{\rm NLO} \approx 1.2$ \cite{Aad:2014cka}.
We view our estimate as conservative.} of $K_{\rm NLO}=1.3$ and using MadGraph \cite{Alwall:2014hca} to calculate the leading order production cross section we find
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm 13 TeV}^{\rm NLO}(p p \rightarrow N \, \nu_s ) \simeq 5.4 \text{ fb}~~.
\end{equation}
\begin{figure}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{three_step_BM.pdf}
\caption{Contours of signal cross section $\sigma_{\gamma \gamma}$ as a function of the Yukawa couplings of $\phi$ to $N$, $y_\pm$ (see Eq.~(\ref{eq:ypmyukawas})). The parameters are as described for the example point (\ref{eq:threestepexampleppoint}). Solid contours correspond to the case where only the pseudoscalar $A$ contributes to the signal, whereas dashed contours include both decays $N \rightarrow \varphi \, \nu_s , \, A \, \nu_s$.}
\label{fig:ypmp}
\end{figure}
The width for the 3-body decay of $N$ is $\Gamma(N \rightarrow \nu_s j j) \approx 1.9 \text{ MeV}$ and the values of $y_\pm$ must be large enough that the 2-body decay $N \rightarrow \nu_s \varphi/A $ dominates this small width. The required size will depend upon whether both $\varphi$ and $A$ contribute to a $\gamma\gamma$ signal at 750 GeV or just $A$. In \Fref{fig:ypmp}, we show the signal rate for both possibilities
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\gamma \gamma} = K_{\rm NLO} \, \sigma_{\rm LO}(p p \rightarrow N \, \nu_s) \, B(N \rightarrow \Phi \nu_s) \, B(\Phi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma) ~~,
\end{equation}
where $\Phi$ can represent only $A$ or a combination of $A$ and $\varphi$. We show the corresponding kinematic distributions for this parameter point in \Sref{sec:distributions}. For this benchmark point the production cross section of $Z'$ at the 8 TeV LHC is,
\begin{equation}
\sigma_{\rm 8 TeV}^{\rm NLO}(p p \rightarrow Z' ) \simeq 0.4 \text{ pb}~~,
\end{equation}
again including a $K$-factor of $K_{\rm NLO}=1.3$. This is consistent with the current limits on dijet resonances \cite{Khachatryan:2016ecr}.
We do not consider a second, heavier benchmark for two reasons. First, the tuning necessary to achieve a compressed spectrum increases with the overall mass scale. Second, the dijet constraints from the 13 TeV LHC~\cite{CMS:2016wpz} are already significant for $Z'$ mass above $\sim 1$ TeV. Therefore, it is unlikely that a heavier version of our three-step model would be first observed through final states involving diphotons rather than through $Z'$ decays to dijets.
\bigskip
\section{Kinematic distributions}
\label{sec:distributions}
\setcounter{equation}{0}
If a high-mass diphoton resonance will be observed at the LHC, then the 2-step model (presented in \Sref{sec:2step}) and the 3-step model (presented in \Sref{sec:3step})
provide viable alternative interpretations to the canonical model, where a scalar is resonantly produced through gluon fusion and decays
directly into two photons, $g g \rightarrow \varphi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$.
In this section we discuss kinematic distributions that may differentiate between these three models.
The missing transverse energy ($\slashed{E}_T$) may potentially distinguish the multi-step models, where there are final state particles that escape the detector,
from the canonical model. In addition, the number of jets ($N_j$) observed in association with diphotons of invariant mass near the resonance may differentiate between
the 3-step model, where the initial state is $s\bar s$, and the other models where the initial state is $gg$.
More generic information is provided by the transverse momentum distribution of the diphoton system ($p_{T\gamma\gamma}$), due to its sensitivity to anything in the event
against which the two photons can recoil.
The $\slashed{E}_T$, $N_j$ and $p_{T\gamma\gamma}$ distributions have been presented by the ATLAS Collaboration \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2016-018},
using 3.2 fb$^{-1}$ of data, for a diphoton invariant mass in the window $m_{\gamma \gamma} \in [700,840] \text{ GeV}$. That choice was motivated by the large
excess observed near $m_{\gamma \gamma} = 750$ GeV \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2015-081,CMS:2015dxe,ATLAS-CONF-2016-018,CMS:2016owr}.
Even though that excess was not confirmed in later data \cite{ATLAS:2016eeo, Khachatryan:2016yec}, we compare the ATLAS kinematic distributions to
the predictions of our multi-step models. This allows us to estimate how small the mass splittings need to be in order for
a cascade decay to be consistent with an initial interpretation of a diphoton resonance as being due to the canonical model.
The three distributions are shown in \Fref{fig:kindist} and are generated as follows. Partonic events are generated in MadGraph \cite{Alwall:2014hca}, with showering carried out subsequently in \textsc{Pythia 6.4} \cite{Sjostrand:2006za}. Detector simulation is carried out using \textsc{Delphes 3.3.0} \cite{deFavereau:2013fsa}.
For masses, we use the benchmark point 1 given in Eq.~(\ref{eq:bench})
for the 2-step model,
\begin{equation}
M_{\varphi} = 780 \text{ GeV} \;\; , \;\; M_A = 750 \text{ GeV} \;\; , \;\; M_{A'} = 0 ~~,
\end{equation}
and in Eq.~(\ref{eq:threestepexampleppoint})
for the 3-step model,
\begin{equation}
M_{Z'} = 790 \text{ GeV} \;\; , \;\; m_{N} = 760 \text{ GeV} \;\; , \;\; M_A = 750 \text{ GeV} \;\; , \;\; m_{\nu_s} = 0 ~~.
\end{equation}
For background, we take the distributions from \textsc{Sherpa} \cite{Gleisberg:2008ta} given by ATLAS \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2016-018}.
While the distributions shown here are for unmatched samples, the distributions are not significantly altered by matching.
Total expected distributions for each model are obtained by combining a weighted amount of the signal distribution to the background distribution. Based on the functional fit provided in \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2016-018}, which is in good agreement with recent theoretical calculations \cite{Campbell:2016yrh}, we take the expected number of background events in a putative signal window $m_{\gamma \gamma} \in [700,840] \text{ GeV}$ to be $N_b = 17$. We then add a signal corresponding to $N_s$ events and renormalize the distributions. In other words, we take
\begin{equation}
\left(\frac{1}{N} \frac{d N}{d x}\right)_{\rm total} = \frac{N_b}{N_s + N_b} \left(\frac{1}{N} \frac{d N}{d x}\right)_{\rm background} + \frac{N_s}{N_s + N_b} \left(\frac{1}{N} \frac{d N}{d x}\right)_{\rm signal}
\end{equation}
where $x$ represents a kinematic variable of interest.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.7\textwidth}
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ModelComparison_varysignal_Delphes_ET_SB.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.7\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ModelComparison_varysignal_Delphes_pT_SB.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.7\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{ModelComparison_varysignal_Delphes_Nj_SB.pdf}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{\label{fig:kindist} Normalized kinematic distributions for the 2-step, 3-step and canonical $g g \rightarrow \varphi \rightarrow \gamma \gamma$ models supposing
17 background events and $6 \leq N_s \leq 14$ signal events.
The acceptance/cut efficiency is $\epsilon \simeq 0.6$, so that this choice corresponds to $3.1 \text{ fb} \leq \sigma_{\gamma \gamma} \leq 7.3 \text{ fb}$ for $3.2 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of data.
Data (gray dots) are taken from \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2016-018}.
Top: Missing transverse energy; the uptick at the end corresponds to overflow, {\it i.e.}, events with $\slashed{E}_T > 150 \text{ GeV}$. Middle: $p_T$ of the $\gamma \gamma$ system. Bottom: Jet multiplicity; the overlap of the 2-step and canonical models (black and orange) is due to processes arising from the same initial state.}
\end{figure}
Supposing the excess observed in \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2015-081,CMS:2015dxe,ATLAS-CONF-2016-018,CMS:2016owr} had been due to a state with mass 750 GeV decaying to $\gamma\gamma$, the 31
events observed by ATLAS in the signal window would have corresponded to $N_s \simeq 14$. While a potential signal had also been observed at CMS, the rate was somewhat lower. Thus, we consider a range of signal events $6 \leq N_s \leq 14$, and require events satisfy $700 \text{ GeV} \leq m_{\gamma \gamma} \leq 840 \text{ GeV}$ and pass the ATLAS cuts.
For simplicity, we take these to be $p_{T,\gamma_1} > 300 \text{ GeV}$ and $p_{T,\gamma_2} > 225 \text{ GeV}$, as for photons arising from a 750 GeV resonance,
but have confirmed that the given distributions are not particularly sensitive to this choice.
The acceptance and cut efficiency for the various models is $\epsilon \simeq 0.6$, implying that the above $N_s$ range in $3.2 \text{ fb}^{-1}$ of data
corresponds to $3.1 \text{ fb} \leq \sigma_{\gamma \gamma} \leq 7.3 \text{ fb}$.
The lower limit of this range arises
from a fit to the combination of ATLAS and CMS datasets from both the 8 TeV run and the 2015 run at 13 TeV \cite{Buckley:2016mbr}.
Note that the benchmark points given in Eqs.~(\ref{eq:bench}) and (\ref{eq:threestepexampleppoint}) have been chosen to yield smaller
cross sections than the range discussed here, so that they are not ruled out by the large 2016 datasets \cite{ATLAS:2016eeo, Khachatryan:2016yec}.
The larger $\sigma_{\gamma \gamma}$ assumed in this section corresponds to $\kappa \approx 1$ in the 2-step model and $g_z \approx 0.5$ in in the 3-step model;
these larger values have no impact on the shape of the kinematic distributions, which is the focus of this section.
As the two models described above feature additional particles that escape the detector, they exhibit somewhat longer tails in the $\slashed{E}_T$ distribution compared to the canonical
$gg \rightarrow \varphi \rightarrow \gamma\gamma$ model.
Correspondingly, increasing $N_s$ shifts the distribution towards higher $\slashed{E}_T$ for these models, as can be seen in \Fref{fig:kindist}.
This is especially true for the 3-step model as two $\nu_s$ escape the detector, leading to additional $\slashed{E}_T$ and even an ``overflow'' of events with $\slashed{E}_T > 150 \text{ GeV}$.
By comparison, the $\slashed{E}_T$ distribution in the canonical model does not change substantially.
Overall, our multi-step models with mass splittings below 30 GeV or so cannot be easily differentiated from the canonical model.
Nevertheless, if a high-mass diphoton state were to be observed, then the kinematic distributions could immediately constrain the parameter spaces to exhibit such small splittings,
and with more data would discriminate between the various models.
In fact, depending on the cross section $\sigma_{\gamma \gamma}$, even smaller splittings may be required for the 3-step model to mimic the canonical model.
For $N_s = 6$ (14), this model predicts 3.1 (6.6) events with $\slashed{E}_T > 60 \text{ GeV}$, whereas ATLAS observed 0. This tension with data would be alleviated by smaller mass splittings (and correspondingly more tuning), but there is also tension between a compressed spectrum and achieving sufficiently large branching fractions and rate. Moreover, as discussed in \Sref{sec:productionanddecay}, off-shell $Z'$ contributions will still yield events with non-negligible $\slashed{E}_T$.
Thus, the 3-step model would more readily be disfavored by the non-observation of $\slashed{E}_T$.
Though, we note that potential alternatives do exist for alleviating tension in the 3-step model, for instance if the $\nu_s$ state were to be somewhat massive and/or decay producing soft jets, perhaps in conjunction with another, lighter state that escaped the detector.
For comparison, the expected number of events with $\slashed{E}_T > 60 \text{ GeV}$ is 1.3 (2.4) for the simple model and 1.7 (3.3) for the 2-step model, with background contributing 0.4 events.
Another difference between models appears in the $N_j$ distribution (see \Fref{fig:kindist}). Specifically, gluon-initiated processes (in the canonical and 2-step models)
exhibit
higher jet multiplicities than the sea quark ($s \bar{s}$ and $b \bar{b}$)-initiated 3-step model. While both types of processes are consistent with the
considered data, even this simple distribution may provide evidence for the production mechanism with a larger data set \cite{Ebert:2016idf}.
The $p_{T,\gamma\gamma}$ distributions, meanwhile, are less useful in distinguishing between these models, and do not change significantly with $N_s$ except at very low $p_{T,\gamma\gamma}$. This likely results from the small splittings required to satisfy the lack of observed $\slashed{E}_T$, which produce smaller boosts for the state that ultimately decays to two photons.
\section{Conclusions}\label{sec:conclusions}
We have proposed two weakly-coupled models capable of giving rise to signals that could, at first glance, be interpreted as arising from a scalar produced in gluon fusion and decaying directly to two photons.
Both feature additional final state particles, resulting in missing transverse momentum that could ultimately be used to distinguish these models from this minimal interpretation.
These models provide viable examples of different initial states: gluons in the 2-step model (\Sref{sec:2step}) and sea quarks in the 3-step model (\Sref{sec:3step}).
Differences in initial state radiation from quarks and gluons may appear in, {\it e.g.}, jet multiplicity distributions. Furthermore, the additional structure present in these models could be revealed by looking at other kinematic distributions such as $M_T$. Although the limited kinematic information presented by ATLAS \cite{ATLAS-CONF-2016-018}, when interpreted as a possible observation, restricts the spectrum of our models to have small splittings, we have shown that the data are incapable of distinguishing the canonical 1-step from our 2-step and 3-step models.
A distinctive feature of our models is that the particle produced in the $s$-channel is different from the one that decays to $\gamma \gamma$.
This avoids the tension between simultaneously achieving a sufficiently large production via gluon fusion
and a sufficiently large diphoton branching fraction
(overcoming the decay back to jets),
which typically requires the particles running in the loops to have large charges or multiplicities
(see, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Franceschini:2015kwy}).
In the 2-step model, the particle produced in the $s$-channel ($\varphi$) and the particle that decays into photons ($A$) are the two components of a complex scalar field whose VEV is much smaller than its mass. Consequently, their masses are naturally almost degenerate, leading to little activity in the event besides the two high-$p_T$ photons.
In the 3-step model, a spin-1 particle ($Z'$) is produced in the $s$-channel, and two spin-0 particles ($A$ and $\varphi$) decay into $\gamma\gamma$.
One notable feature of this model is that the process responsible for generating the signal does not involve loops of colored particles; production occurs at tree level, while the diphoton decay occurs via loops of ``anomalons'' required by the consistency of the theory.
Although all their masses are set by the VEV that breaks the gauged $U(1)$ symmetry, a mass splitting between the $Z'$ and the scalars of less than 10\% requires some tuning.
While it could simply be a coincidence, there are some possible explanations for this small mass splitting.
For example, in models where multiple particles have masses proportional to a single scale of spontaneous symmetry breaking, mass relations could be the result of renormalization
group fixed ratios as in, {\it e.g.}, \cite{Kearney:2013xwa}. A small mass splitting between $A$ and $\varphi$ is natural, and could potentially lead to the two resonances being initially observed as a single, wide resonance.
We also highlight that, depending on the spins of the particles involved, off-shell contributions to the diphoton rate can be significant in certain models because of relatively small splittings. It is important to take these effects into account as they can significantly alter kinematic distributions relative to the case where all intermediate state particles are on-shell.
There exist other exotic possibilities that may initially be misinterpreted as a directly-produced diphoton resonance. For instance, a resonantly-produced state could decay to two pairs of highly-collimated photons resulting from the decay of a light intermediate state \cite{Dobrescu:2000jt}. Beyond the diphoton final state, this work seeks to emphasise that any resonance-like signal requires careful analysis from all angles to confirm the true nature of the underlying model, and in particular that a multi-step process can to some extent mimic a single $s$-channel resonance.
\bigskip
\bigskip
\bigskip
{\it \bf Acknowledgments:}
BD and PJF would like to thank University of Oregon, and the organizers of the workshop ``Emerging New Physics at the LHC,'' for hospitality during the very final stages of this work.
This work was supported by the DoE under contract number DE-SC0007859 and Fermilab, operated by Fermi Research Alliance, LLC under contract number DE-AC02-07CH11359 with the United States Department of Energy.
\bigskip\bigskip
|
\subsection*{Abstract}
We examine WebRTC's suitability as a means of
Internet censorship circumvention.
WebRTC is a framework and suite of protocols
for peer-to-peer communication between web browsers.
We analyze the implementation differences
in instantiations of WebRTC that make it possible to
``fingerprint'' implementations---potentially distinguishing circumvention-related uses
from ordinary ones.
This question is relevant to Snowflake,
an upcoming circumvention system
that uses WebRTC to turn web browsers
into temporary peer-to-peer proxies.
We conduct a manual analysis of WebRTC-using applications
in order to map the space of distinguishing implementation features.
We run a fingerprinting script on a day's worth of network
traffic in order to quantify WebRTC's prevalence and diversity.
Throughout, we find pitfalls that indicate
that resisting fingerprinting in WebRTC is likely to be non-trivial.
\section{Background}
The job of an Internet censor is essentially that of traffic classification.
The censor observes traffic and decides,
perhaps on a per-packet or per-stream basis,
whether to block or allow it.
The censor incurs a cost whenever it classifies incorrectly,
whether by overblocking
(blocking what what should be allowed,
thereby diminishing the utility of the Internet),
or by underblocking
(allowing what should be blocked, thus failing in the task of censorship).
Circumvention attempts to increase the difficulty of the classification problem,
by making forbidden traffic look like allowed traffic
and causing the censor to misclassify more often.
This task
requires that the forbidden traffic resemble the allowed traffic
in every aspect that is easily observable to the censor---otherwise
the censor can easily separate the wheat from the chaff.
Even a naive censor will block direct access
to forbidden resources, for example web sites.
Therefore circumvention systems typically employ some kind of proxy
that provides indirect access to blocked resources.
The challenge for the censor, then, is to discover and block
communication with proxies.
Perhaps the biggest challenge in disguising proxy access
is camouflaging addressing information, such as the destination IP addresses.
The IP addresses of proxies must not be easily distinguishable
as belonging to circumvention,
or else the censor's classification task is very easy:
it can decide what to block or allow based on nothing more than the destination.
There are several systems that aim to solve this IP-blocking problem,
The one we focus on is Snowflake~\cite{snowflake}, now under development,
which takes the approach of running proxies inside of web browsers.
The browsers serve as a source of cheap and unpredictable IP addresses.
Suppose that Snowflake adequately solves the problem of IP blocking.
There remains another challenge,
network protocol classification.
which is classification by the network protocol used to
communicate with proxies.
Snowflake is based on WebRTC~\cite{ietf-rtcweb-overview-15},
a peer-to-peer framework built into web browsers.
The question we address is whether Snowflake's use of WebRTC protocols
stands out from other applications',
and whether there is enough use of WebRTC in the wild
that a censor cannot easily just block it wholesale.
Snowflake has two components that use WebRTC:
the proxy, implemented in JavaScript for a browser;
and the client, which uses a headless standalone implementation of WebRTC.
Because of the requirements of the circumvention design,
when establishing a WebRTC connection,
the proxy is the initiator and the client is the receiver;
i.e., the proxy plays the role of a WebRTC client
and the client plays the role of a server.
\subsection{WebRTC}
WebRTC is a rather complicated set of protocols and an API for
building communications applications.
It was originally designed for applications such as voice and video
chat---the ``RTC'' stands for real-time communications.
In addition to the transport of media streams,
WebRTC offers TCP-like reliable and UDP-like unreliable data channels.
WebRTC has only recently become commonly available
and well supported in web browsers.
What makes WebRTC interesting for circumvention
is its built-in support for traversal of
network address translation (NAT).
A lack of NAT traversal was a major impediment
to the adoption of flash proxy~\cite{Fifield2012a},
an earlier, TCP-based system that also used in-browser proxies.
WebRTC incorporates a bundle of related protocols.
It uses Interactive Connectivity Establishment (ICE)~\cite{rfc5245}
for NAT traversal.
ICE itself uses the NAT-traversal technologies
STUN~\cite{rfc5389} and TURN~\cite{rfc5766}.
Data channels are implemented as
a transport layer atop Datagram TLS (DTLS)~\cite{rfc6347}.
Media streams are carried over the
Secure Real-time Transport Protocol (SRTP)\cite{rfc3711},
however usually using a DTLS key exchange in a process known as
DTLS-SRTP~\cite{rfc5764}.
Some WebRTC applications that use SRTP make use of
an older type of key exchange called SDES~\cite{rfc4568}---in
this case no DTLS handshake occurs.
Our work is a preliminary step towards anticipating how successful
WebRTC-based circumvention is likely to be.
We investigate these questions:
\begin{enumerate}
\item How much WebRTC exists in the wild?
\item What kind of diversity is there in naturally occurring WebRTC fingerprints?
\item Is it feasible to mimic the fingerprint of an application that is important enough to resist blocking?
\end{enumerate}
\subsection{Threat model}
In our threat model,
the censor controls a perimeter around a censored user.
All a user's communication is mediated by the censor,
who decides what to block or allow according to its own policy and capabilities.
The censor, however, does not control the user's personal computer.
The user's goal is to reach some blocked network resource
outside the censor's control.
The censor is free to block, modify, replay, or inject
any traffic according to its own wishes.
We assume, however, that the censor seeks to avoid
overblocking; the potential for circumvention
increases the more this assumption holds.
\section{Candidate features}
Here we identify a number of WebRTC protocol features
that we expect to be useful for fingerprinting.
\begin{description}
\item[STUN and TURN]
The STUN and TURN NAT-traversal protocol are valuable in several ways.
Messages contain a list of attributes whose order and contents are left up to the implementer,
including a SOFTWARE attribute that explicitly identifies
the implementation, like the User-Agent header in HTTP.
Not only client traffic but also server traffic is distinguishable.
We can evaluate the type of server that the application connects to;
also, the selection of what STUN servers to use is a choice made by the client application.
The type of packets being sent can be used as a fingerprint.
The majority of applications send only Binding requests, successful Binding responses, Allocate requests, and successful Allocate responses.
The minority send, in addition, CreatePermission requests and responses, and send indication packets.
Some applications force the use of UDP relaying using TURN, against the guidelines of WebRTC.
\item[DTLS]
The DTLS layers has several features that contribute to fingerprinting,
mostly inherited from TLS.
These include the DTLS version (DTLSv1.0 and DTLSv1.2 are the possibilities),
the ordered lists of cipher suites and extensions offered by the client,
the cipher suite chosen by the servers, and the server's extensions.
The certificate offered by the server has interesting details too,
including the ``common name'' field and the period of validity.
\item[Media vs.~data transport]
Snowflake, at its current stage of development,
always uses reliable WebRTC data channels,
meaning that the on-the-wire protocol seen by the censor is DTLS.
Other WebRTC-based applications use media channels,
which use DTLS-SRTP or SRTP with SDES.
Though all these protocol are encrypted,
it is easy to distinguish one from another.
\end{description}
\section{Prior work}
Nick Mathewson wrote in 2012 on the difficulty of
disguising Tor's TLS connections~\cite{tor-tlshistory}:
\begin{quote}
``At this point, we hadn't actually learned very much about TLS internals:
we were treating TLS as an idealized black-block encrypted transport. Obviously, this was a mistake on our part.''
\end{quote}
This early lack of understanding was the cause
of some regrettable design decisions:
Tor's use of TLS is more complicated than necessary
because of incrementally added fingerprinting mitigations.
Our research aims to pre-empt these difficulties
when building with WebRTC,
by understanding the issues thoroughly at the start.
DTLS is an adaptation of TLS for datagram transports,
and therefore inherits the fingerprintability of TLS.
Majkowski~\cite{p0f-ssl} built a TLS client fingerprinting plugin
for p0f, the passive OS fingerprinting tool.
It used as features the TLS version, client ciphersuites and extensions,
and other implementation quirks.
Fifield et~al.~\cite{Fifield2015a} emphasized the importance
of matching a browser's fingerprint when using HTTPS
for circumvention.
Houmansadr et~al. in their influential
``parrot is dead'' paper~\cite{Houmansadr2013b}
argue that superficial protocol imitation
is fundamentally flawed,
due to the great many details
one must get exactly right in order to remain indistinguishable.
Subtle protocol details, such as endpoints'
behavior in the face of errors,
are enough to unmask naive protocol mimicry.
As WebRTC is a large framework consisting of
complicated protocols, imitation by mimicry
should be especially infeasible.
uProxy~\cite{uproxy} is a circumvention system that can,
among other things,
route censored users' traffic through the browsers
of their friends using data channels and WebRTC.
uProxy can additionally obfuscate the DTLS layer
using transformation programs that hide the fact that DTLS is in use~\cite{uproxy-obfuscators}.
This is possible for uProxy, and not for Snowflake,
because uProxy is a browser extension
that has extra capabilities compared to an ordinary web application.
The website \href{https://webrtchacks.com/}{webrtchacks.com}
has done reverse-engineering and discussion
of WebRTC applications,
which we found useful in our own investigation.
\section{Manual fingerprint analysis}
We began by analyzing several WebRTC implementations in web applications. Using Wireshark to capture the traffic, we attempted to discover notable features or idiosyncrasies in these implementations. We studied the DTLS connections, as well the STUN/TURN packets and DNS lookups of STUN/TURN servers, by manually analyzing the traces.
We analyzed traces from browser-to-browser Facebook Messenger, Google Hangouts, OpenTokRTC, Sharefest, and Snowflake. We chose Facebook Messenger and Google Hangouts because they are popular applications that were discovered~\cite{webrtchacks-facebook,webrtchacks-hangouts} to be using WebRTC. We chose OpenTokRTC because of its advertised usage of WebRTC. We chose to study Sharefest as it is a data-only connection, rather than the voice and video services of the prior applications.
\subsection{Google Hangouts}
Google Hangouts (\url{https://hangouts.google.com/}) video chat begins with STUN binding requests made to the Google STUN server. This is followed by Binding success responses. Through the \begin{NoHyper}\url{chrome://webrtc-internals}\end{NoHyper} display in Chrome, we see ``DtlsSrtpKeyAgreement:false'', meaning that the key is exchanged through SDES rather than through DTLS. DTLS is not present in this implementation.
\subsection{Facebook Messenger}
Facebook Messenger (\url{https://www.messenger.com/}) uses WebRTC with DTLS for browser-to-browser communication but uses WebRTC with SDES for any communication involving a mobile device. Messenger begins with Binding requests sent to both a Facebook STUN server and a Facebook TURN server, but then only sends Allocate requests and CreatePermission requests to the TURN server, indicating that Facebook has forced TURN usage. Several additional send indication TURN packets are sent, some over TCP, others over UDP. These are used to forward data to a peer through the TURN server.
Next, the DTLS connection begins. The DTLS client hello contained several potentially fingerprintable attributes: DTLSv1.0 was used, nine cipher suites were offered, there was a null compression method, the use\_srtp extension was present, and there were two elliptic curves offered. The server hello responds with the cipher suite TLS\_ECDHE\_RSA\_WITH\_AES\_256\_CBC\_SHA. The server's certificate includes the common name ``WebRTC''. The certificate has a validity period of 30 days. The connection continues with an SRTP-based connection.
\subsection{OpenTokRTC}
OpenTokRTC (\url{https://opentokrtc.com/}) is a WebRTC-based chat demo.
WebRTC begins in OpenTok with STUN binding requests and successes to TURN Tokbox servers. Several Allocate requests follow, many of which error. The error response code is consistently 401, meaning unauthorized. The response packets include two notable attributes. First, they carry a REALM attribute with the contents tokbox.com. Second, their SOFTWARE attribute identifies the server as ``Citrix-3.2.5.1 `Marshal West'''. This is defined as an identifier for a free TURN server~\cite{rfc5766-turn-server}. When the Allocate requests succeed, they provide a username.
The DTLS connection begins with DTLSv1.0. 73 cipher suites are offered by the client, many of them outdated and attackable. We do not expect this to appear on other WebRTC DTLS connections. The hello also includes a null compression method, the use\_srtp extension, and a heartbeat extension. The server hello chose cipher suite TLS\_ECDHE\_RSA\_WITH\_AES\_256\_CBC\_SHA. The server key was exchanged using elliptic key curve secp256r1. The certificate includes the common name ``WebRTC''. The certificate also had a validity period of 30 days. Following the establishment of the DTLS connection, the video chat continued over SRTP.
\subsection{Sharefest}
Sharefest (\url{https://sharefest.me/}) is a file sharing service that uses WebRTC to transmit over a data channel. Our trace of Sharefest began with a STUN connection to one of Google's STUN server. Only STUN binding requests and binding successes were sent.
The Sharefest DTLS connection began with two client hellos. The two hellos were identical, except for different IP header identification values and different sequence numbers. The client used DTLSv1.0, offered nine different cipher suites, a null compression method, the use\_srtp extension, and two elliptic curves. The server hello chose TLS\_ECDHE\_RSA\_WITH\_AES\_256\_CBC\_SHA, and included the use\_srtp extension. The server certificate has the common name ``WebRTC'' and a validity period of exactly 30 days. Additionally, the named elliptic curve was secp256r1. The DTLS connection transmitted the entirety of the data, which differed from the previous services.
\subsection{Snowflake}
Snowflake begins its WebRTC connection with STUN Binding requests sent to Google's STUN server. The STUN Binding requests and success responses continue. A DTLS connection begins with a client hello with DTLSv1.0 and server hello version of DTLSv1.2. This is the first connection we have seen willing to support DTLSv1.2. The client hello offers 17 cipher suites. The client hello also offers a null compression method, a signature algorithms extension, the use\_srtp extension, and the renegotiation info extension.
The DTLS server hello chooses DTLSv1.2. Snowflake is the only one of the applications we analyzed to use version 1.2. The server hello chose cipher suite TLS\_ECDHE\_RSA\_WITH\_AES\_128\_GCM\_SHA256, which is distinct from all of the other WebRTC applications. Also included was the use\_srtp extension. The server certificate includes the common name ``WebRTC'' with a validity period of 30 days.
\subsection{Observations}
Manual analysis gave us a list of factors that could influence a DTLS fingerprint. These include the list of client extensions, the cipher suites and elliptic curves, the certificate validity and common name. We discovered that Facebook Messenger and Google Hangouts did not use WebRTC for text-based chats, only for video chats. We also determined that Hangouts did not use DTLS to exchange keys.
\section{DTLS fingerprinting in a large traffic trace}
We wrote a DTLS fingerprinting script for Bro~\cite{bro}.
For every DTLS handshake, the script captures the timestamp; a unique ID;
the DTLS version;
the client's lists of cipher suites, extensions, and elliptic curves;
the server's chosen cipher suite, elliptic curve, compression method, and list of extensions;
and the interval of validity of the server certificate.
We combine these features into a fingerprint
consisting of a long text string.
The script records a log line whenever
a DTLS connection is successfully established,
or when there is a TLS alert message terminating the handshake.
The script captures only one part of the WebRTC protocol stack, DTLS.
DTLS is used for all WebRTC data channels, and some media channels;
other media channels, however, used SDES for key exchange
and would go undetected by our script.
It also does not capture any features related to ICE/STUN/TURN.
We ran the script on a day's worth of network traffic
from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.
The script found only seven DTLS handshakes,
with three unique client fingerprints and three unique server fingerprints.
This is less than we expected,
and indicates that there may not be all that much WebRTC
traffic in which to hide.
Part of the reason may be that Google Hangouts,
which we guessed would be the biggest contributor to WebRTC usage,
does not use DTLS.
\section{Future work}
We hope to expand this project by continuing to run the Bro script on other large traffic traces, improving the fingerprint found by this script, and creating automated scripts to fingerprint the STUN and TURN.
We ran the DTLS fingerprint script on only one day of traffic. We plan to run the script for longer periods of time, and on more traffic. The Bro script should also be improved. There is occasionally an anomaly present in DTLS connections,
which we haven't been able to explain yet,
where two consecutive client hellos are sent. These two packets are exactly the same, except for the sequence numbers, which are ``0'' then ``1''. Bro improperly handles these client hellos, leading to inaccurate results and missed logging of DTLS connections. Resolving this issue will go far in improving our knowledge of DTLS connections. Additionally, the STUN/TURN service should be analyzed on a large scale. This may involve creating another Bro script which checks for UDP connections to the STUN port (3478), then records the type of STUN packet and other features.
Snowflake uses data channels,
while most of the applications we surveyed use media channels.
Though both types of channel are encrypted,
they are distinguishable because one uses DTLS while the other uses SRTP.
This leaves open the possibility that a censor could block
only data channels, without blocking WebRTC entirely,
resulting in smaller amount of false-positive-related cost to the censor.
It may be possible to abuse media channels to instead send binary data,
akin to what Houmansadr et~al. did with Freewave~\cite{Houmansadr2013a},
which modulated a data stream into an acoustic signal
to be transmitted over VoIP.
This would entail extra implementation difficulties
such as the need to layer a reliable transport layer
onto the unreliable media channels,
but it would make Snowflake's streams
not trivially distinguishable from those of other applications.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We wish to express thanks to Johanna Amann for help with Bro scripting,
to Vern Paxson for running our script against traffic,
and to Serene Han and Arlo Breault for comments.
\section{Availability}
Our DTLS fingerprinting Bro script is available from
\url{https://github.com/miagilepner/DTLS-fingerprint}.
{\footnotesize \bibliographystyle{acm}
|
\section{Introduction}
An important goal of lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD) is the calculation of
weak transitions between hadronic states. The standard way to do this this is
to represent the weak interaction by an effective Hamiltonian and use the
lattice to calculate the matrix elements of this Hamiltonian. In the effective
Hamiltonian all particles much heavier than the lattice cutoff have been
integrated out.
The effective weak Hamiltonian is computed in continuum perturbation theory,
and the lattice Hamiltonian must be matched to the perturbative one. A
convenient set of matching conditions is given by the family of regularization
invariant (RI) renormalization schemes \cite{OriginalRI, RISMOM,
RISMOMPrecursor}. In these schemes we calculate the amputated Green's functions
of operators at a large off-shell Euclidean momentum point and require the
results to agree between the lattice and the continuum.
A curious aspect of this procedure is that operators which would usually vanish
by the equations of motion can mix with the physical operators. That is, in
off-shell Green's functions new divergences can appear which can only be
canceled by operators which vanish by the equations of motion. This happens
because the equations of motion are not valid in off-shell Green's functions
\cite{KlubergSternZuber, DeansDixon, JoglekarLee, Dawson1997}.
In this paper we focus on the $\Delta S = 1$ sector of the effective weak
Hamiltonian, which governs the important $K \to \pi\pi$ decay. At one loop, the
$\Delta S = 1$ weak Hamiltonian mixes with an operator $G_1$ which would
normally be redundant by the equations of motion. In perturbative calculations
of the renormalization of the weak Hamiltonian, the $G_1$ operator has been
taken into account \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors, BurasG123}. However, so far
$G_1$ has not been included on the lattice side of the matching calculation
\cite{OldRBCKPiPi, RBCUKQCDK2PiPi2015}. Previous calculations of lattice
renormalization factors for the effective weak Hamiltonian have therefore not
been strictly correct.
In this paper we give two ways of including the $G_1$ operator in the
nonperturbative renormalization (NPR) of the lattice effective weak
Hamiltonian. Our methods have the advantage that the effect of the $G_1$
operator is confined to the NPR procedure. Once the NPR has been carried out,
we can forget about the $G_1$ operator, since it is after all redundant by the
equations of motion. Its effect is encoded in the renormalization factor matrix
of the physical operators.
\subsection{Operator basis}
We work in a three-flavor effective theory where all particles heavier than the
strange quark have been integrated out. We briefly review the operator basis
for the $\Delta S = 1$ three-flavor effective Hamiltonian, following
\cite{ChristophMatchingFactors}. This effective Hamiltonian can be written as a
linear combination of a basis of ten four-quark operators
\cite{EffectiveWeakHamiltonian}. All operators have the structure of the
product of two currents, have dimension 6, and have $\overline s d$ flavor
quantum numbers. The ten-operator basis is traditionally given as
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Q_1 &= (\bar s_i d_i)_{V-A} (\bar u_j u_j)_{V-A} \\
Q_2 &= (\bar s_i d_j)_{V-A} (\bar u_j u_i)_{V-A} \\
Q_3 &= (\bar s_i d_i)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} (\bar q_j q_j)_{V-A} \\
Q_4 &= (\bar s_i d_j)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} (\bar q_j q_i)_{V-A} \\
Q_5 &= (\bar s_i d_i)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} (\bar q_j q_j)_{V+A} \\
Q_6 &= (\bar s_i d_j)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} (\bar q_j q_i)_{V+A} \\
Q_7 &= \frac{3}{2} (\bar s_i d_i)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} e_q (\bar q_j q_j)_{V+A} \\
Q_8 &= \frac{3}{2} (\bar s_i d_j)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} e_q (\bar q_j q_i)_{V+A} \\
Q_9 &= \frac{3}{2} (\bar s_i d_i)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} e_q (\bar q_j q_j)_{V-A} \\
Q_{10} &= \frac{3}{2} (\bar s_i d_j)_{V-A} \sum_{q=u,d,s} e_q (\bar q_j q_i)_{V-A}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent Here $i,j$ are color indices. The $V-A$ and $V+A$ subscripts denote
left and right-handed currents:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
(\bar q q)_{V-A} \equiv \overline q \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) q \\
(\bar q q)_{V+A} \equiv \overline q \gamma_\mu (1 + \gamma_5) q
\end{split}
\end{equation}
The effective Hamiltonian is then a linear combination
\begin{equation}
\mathcal H^\text{eff} = \sum_{i=1}^{10} w_i(\mu) Q_i(\mu)
\end{equation}
\noindent The $w_i(\mu)$ are Wilson coefficients. Both the Wilson coefficients
and the operators depend on the renormalization scheme and the renormalization
scale $\mu$. Continuum perturbation theory calculations usually renormalize the
four-quark operators in the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme.
Actually, this ten-operator basis is linearly dependent. The following
identities hold:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:TenOpBasisLinDep}
\begin{split}
Q_4 &= Q_2 + Q_3 - Q_1 \\
Q_9 &= \frac{3}{2}Q_1 - \frac{1}{2}Q_3 \\
Q_{10} &= \frac{1}{2}(Q_1 - Q_3) + Q_2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent Using these we can reduce our ten-operator basis to a seven-operator
basis, usually written
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Q'_1 &= 3Q_1 + 2Q_2 - Q_3 \\
Q'_2 &= \frac{1}{5}(2Q_1 - 2Q_2 + Q_3) \\
Q'_3 &= \frac{1}{5}(-3Q_1 + 3Q_2 + Q_3) \\
Q'_5 &= Q_5 \\
Q'_6 &= Q_6 \\
Q'_7 &= Q_7 \\
Q'_8 &= Q_8
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent Note that there is no $Q'_4$. This seven-operator basis has the
advantage that each operator transforms in a definite way under the $SU(3)_L
\otimes SU(3)_R$ chiral symmetry group of massless QCD. The operators fall into
three representations of this group:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Q'_1 &\in (27, 1) \\
Q'_{2,3,5,6} &\in (8, 1) \\
Q'_{7,8} &\in (8, 8)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent This seven-operator basis is called the chiral basis. When chiral
symmetry is preserved, for example when domain wall fermions are used, mixing
between operators in different representations is forbidden.
There is an eighth operator \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefineG1}
\begin{split}
G_1 & \equiv \frac{4}{ig^2} \overline s \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) [D_\nu, [D_\nu, D_\mu]] d \\
& = -\frac{4}{g^2} \overline s \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) (D_\nu G_{\nu\mu}) d
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent which is also dimension-6, has the same flavor quantum numbers as the
$\Delta S = 1$ operators, and transforms in the $(8, 1)$ representation of
$SU(3)_L \otimes SU(3)_R$. In the second line of \refeq{eq:DefineG1}, the
covariant derivative is in the adjoint representation: $D_\nu G_{\nu\mu} \equiv
\partial_\nu G_{\nu\mu} - i [A_\nu, G_{\nu\mu}]$.
In the RI schemes, this operator mixes with the four $(8, 1)$ four-quark
operators at one loop \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors}. There are even more
operators of this sort which mix at even higher loops; for example
\cite{BurasG123}
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
G_2 & = \overline s \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) \{D^2, D_\mu\} d \\
G_3 & = \overline s D_\mu D_\nu D_\lambda (\gamma_\mu \gamma_\nu \gamma_\lambda - \gamma_\lambda \gamma_\nu \gamma_\mu) d
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent We will only consider $G_1$, the only such operator to appear at one
loop.
In continuum QCD, the equation of motion of the gauge field is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:ContinuumEOM}
-\frac{1}{g^2} (D_\nu G_{\nu\mu}) = T^a \sum_q \overline q \gamma_\mu T^a q
\end{equation}
\noindent Here $a$ is an adjoint color index, $T^a$ are the su(3) generators,
and $q$ runs over the quark flavors. This can be used to rewrite $G_1$ as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:G1OnShellContinuum}
G_1 = Q_4 + Q_6 - \frac{1}{3}(Q_3 + Q_5) \equiv Q_p
\end{equation}
\noindent So it seems that $G_1$ is actually a linear combination of four-quark
operators in disguise. However, this is misleading. Inside a correlation
function, the equation of motion is only valid as an operator equation if there
are no contact terms. In the Green's functions used in the RI renormalization
schemes, contact terms spoil the equation of motion of the gauge field. One way
of understanding this is that the quark external states used in the RI schemes
are not gauge invariant. We deal with this by fixing Landau gauge, which can be
thought of as making the Green's function gauge invariant by contracting the
quark fields with Wilson lines. These Wilson lines can coincide with the
operator we are renormalizing, producing contact terms if we try to use the
equation of motion of the gauge field in that operator.
Therefore when we use the RI schemes we should treat $G_1$ as linearly
independent from the seven four-quark operators of the chiral basis, and we
should compute the mixing matrix of this expanded eight-operator basis.
While we need to include $G_1$ in our renormalization procedure, when we
compute physical matrix elements of the renormalized effective weak
Hamiltonian, we \emph{can} use the equations of motion. The reason is that in
physical matrix elements, the gauge-invariant operators that create and destroy
the external states are separated by some finite distance from the weak
Hamiltonian operator. Therefore we do not have to worry about contact terms.
So in that step $G_1$ really is redundant and we ought to be able to eliminate
it using a lattice analog of \refeq{eq:G1OnShellContinuum}.
\subsection{Regularization invariant schemes}
The RI schemes for nonperturbative renormalization are a class of procedures
for constructing renormalized operators $O^{RI}_i(\mu)$ from bare lattice
operators $O^{lat}_i(a)$. We will work in the 8-operator basis $\{O_i\} =
\{Q'_1, \ldots, Q'_8, G_1\}$. The relation between the renormalized and bare
operators is given by the $8 \times 8$ Z-factor matrix:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefZ8x8}
O^{RI}_i(\mu) = Z^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu, a) O^{lat}_j(a)
\end{equation}
We will work in the RI/SMOM scheme for the $\Delta S = 1$ operators, which is
defined in detail in \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors}. It is relatively
straightforward to implement this scheme on the lattice and obtain the $8
\times 8$ matrix $Z^{lat \to RI}$.
We extend the RI/SMOM scheme defined in \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors} in two
small ways. First, we modify Eq.~(88) of \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors} so
that the projector $P_{4p,G_1}$ has both a even parity part and an odd parity
part; we use
\begin{equation}
P_{4p,G_1} = \delta_{ij}\delta_{kl}[(\gamma^\mu)(1-\gamma_5)]_{\beta\alpha}(\gamma_\mu)_{\delta\gamma}
\end{equation}
\noindent This allows us to perform the NPR procedure using only the
parity-even parts of the operators or using only the parity-odd parts of the
operators.
Second, while \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors} only defines renormalization
conditions for the four-quark operators $Q'_i$, we also construct a
renormalized $G_1$. The renormalization conditions for $G_1$ are exactly
analogous to those for the four-quark operators: the projected amputated
Green's functions of the renormalized operator $G_1^{RI}$ in the eight external
states are chosen to be equal to their tree level values.
Once we have constructed the renormalized operators, we compute weak transition
amplitudes for the physical process $i \to f$ as a linear combination of the
matrix elements
\begin{equation}
\langle f | O^{RI}_i(\mu) | i \rangle = Z_{ij}^{lat \to RI}(\mu, a) \langle f | O^{lat}_j(a) | i \rangle
\end{equation}
\noindent In such matrix elements, the equations of motion are valid and so we
ought to be able to simplify these expressions by eliminating $G_1$ using the
equations of motion. In particular, it should never be necessary to calculate
$\langle f | G_1^{lat} | i\rangle$. In the rest of this paper we give two
methods of achieving this simplification.
\section{Method 1: Eliminating $G_1$ with perturbation theory}
\label{sec:PerturbativeMethod}
To distinguish the seven four-quark operators from $G_1$, we can split
\refeq{eq:DefZ8x8} into two equations:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:QprimeRI}
Q'^{RI}_i(\mu) = Z^{lat \to RI, 7 \times 7}_{ij}(\mu, a) Q'^{lat}_j(a) + c_i^{lat \to RI}(\mu, a) G_1^{lat}(a)
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:G1RI}
G_1^{RI}(\mu) = d^{lat \to RI}_i(\mu, a) Q'^{lat}_i(a) + Z_{G_1}^{lat \to RI}(\mu, a) G_1^{lat}(a)
\end{equation}
\noindent Here the $Q'_i$ are the seven four-quark operators, $Z^{lat \to RI, 7
\times 7}$ is the $7 \times 7$ block of the Z-factor matrix that gives the
mixing among the four-quark operators, and $c_i$, $d_i$, and $Z_{G_1}$ are the
rest of the $8 \times 8$ Z-factor matrix, which deal with $G_1$.
In the absence of contact terms, $G_1^{RI}(\mu)$ can be replaced by a
linear combination of the four-quark operators $Q'^{RI}_i(\mu)$ in matrix
elements:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:IntroduceSFactors}
\langle f | G_1^{RI}(\mu) | i \rangle = s_i(\mu) \langle f | Q'^{RI}_i(\mu) | i \rangle
\end{equation}
The coefficients $s_i(\mu)$ can be expanded in a perturbation series. To tree
level they are
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefineSFactors}
\left( \begin{array}{c}
s_1 \\ s_2 \\ s_3 \\ s_5 \\ s_6 \\ s_7 \\ s_8
\end{array} \right)
=
\left( \begin{array}{c}
0 \\ 1 \\ 7/3 \\ -1/3 \\ 1 \\ 0 \\ 0
\end{array} \right)
+ O(\alpha_s(\mu))
\end{equation}
\noindent These tree level values can be found from \refeq{eq:TenOpBasisLinDep}
and \refeq{eq:G1OnShellContinuum}. Those equations give us the tree level
relation because they are written in terms of bare continuum operators.
Now using \refeq{eq:QprimeRI} and \refeq{eq:G1RI} in
\refeq{eq:IntroduceSFactors} we obtain
\begin{equation}
\langle G_1^{lat}(a) \rangle = k_j(\mu,a) \langle Q'^{lat}_j(a) \rangle
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefineKFactors}
k_j(\mu,a) \equiv
\frac{s_i(\mu) Z_{ij}^{lat \to RI}(\mu,a) - d_j^{lat \to RI}(\mu,a)}
{Z_{G_1}^{lat \to RI}(\mu,a) - s_k(\mu) c_k^{lat \to RI}(\mu,a)}
\end{equation}
\noindent This equation tells us how to eliminate the lattice operator
$G_1^{lat}(a)$ in favor of the four-quark lattice operators $Q'^{lat}_i(a)$
when we have to compute a physical matrix element. It is a lattice analog of
\refeq{eq:G1OnShellContinuum}.
Now suppose we want to compute a physical
matrix element of a renormalized RI four-quark operator. Using
\refeq{eq:DefineKFactors} in \refeq{eq:QprimeRI} gives
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DeriveRMatrix}
\langle Q'^{RI}_i(\mu) \rangle = R^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu,a) \langle Q'^{lat}_j(a) \rangle
\end{equation}
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefineRMatrix}
R^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu, a) \equiv Z^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu,a) + c_i^{lat \to RI}(\mu,a) k_j(\mu, a)
\end{equation}
\noindent This $R$ matrix tells us how to compute a physical matrix element of
a renormalized four-quark operator solely in terms of lattice four-quark
operators, without having to compute physical matrix elements of $G_1^{lat}$.
Of course, we will still have to compute momentum-space Green's functions of
$G_1^{lat}$ to carry out the NPR procedure. But after that, the effect of $G_1$
on the renormalized four-quark operators is captured by the $c_i$ and $k_i$
factors. Once we have these and construct the $R^{lat \to RI}$ matrix, we can
forget about $G_1$.
This strategy is very convenient because in our application it is currently
only necessary to compute the coefficients $s_i$ at tree level. That is, we do
not have to calculate the $O(\alpha_s)$ corrections to
\refeq{eq:DefineSFactors}. The reason is that before we can use the $R^{lat \to
RI}$ matrix, we have to do another conversion from the RI renormalization
scheme to the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ renormalization scheme, because the effective weak
Hamiltonian is constructed in the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme in continuum perturbation
theory. We end up with a lattice to $\overline{\text{MS}}$ conversion matrix:
\begin{equation}
R^{lat \to \overline{\text{MS}}} = R^{RI \to \overline{\text{MS}}} \times R^{lat \to RI}
\end{equation}
\noindent The $R^{RI \to \overline{\text{MS}}}$ matrix has been computed perturbatively in
\cite{ChristophMatchingFactors}, but only to one loop. This limits our
calculation to one-loop accuracy, so we can consistently neglect two loop
effects. In \refeq{eq:DefineRMatrix}, the $s_i$ appear inside $k_j$, which
multiplies $c_i$. The quantity $c_i$ starts at one loop, so the one loop
correction to $s_i$ is a two-loop effect and can be neglected in our
calculation.
We will check after the fact that the change due to including $G_1$ in the NPR
is numerically fairly small. One-loop corrections to $s_i$ would produce a
small change in this small change, so their overall effect is very small and
can be neglected.
For us to trust the preceding argument, we should be using
\refeq{eq:DefineSFactors} at a reasonably high energy scale, such that we
believe the one-loop corrections to \refeq{eq:DefineSFactors} are indeed
substantially smaller than the tree level values.
\subsection{$G_1$ lattice operator}
On the lattice there are many possible discretizations of any continuum
operator. In the calculations presented below we use
\begin{equation}
G_1^{lat}(x) = \bar s_x \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) B_{x,\mu} d_x
\end{equation}
\noindent Here $B_{x,\mu}$ is a discretization of $D_\nu G_{\nu\mu}(x)$.
Inspired by the continuum equation of motion \refeq{eq:ContinuumEOM}, we choose
this discretization to be related to the lattice gauge field equation of
motion. Given a lattice gauge action $S_g^{lat}(U)$, we define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefineB}
B_{x,\mu} \equiv \frac{3}{\beta} i T^a (\partial^a_{x,\mu} + \tilde\partial^a_{x-\hat\mu,\mu}) S_g^{lat}(U) \\
\end{equation}
\noindent where the link derivatives are defined by
\begin{equation}
\partial^a_{x,\mu} f(U_{x,\mu}) \equiv \frac{d}{ds} f(e^{i s T^a} U_{x,\mu})|_{s = 0}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\tilde\partial^a_{x,\mu} f(U_{x,\mu}) \equiv \frac{d}{ds} f(U_{x,\mu} e^{i s T^a})|_{s = 0}
\end{equation}
\noindent and our convention for the generators $T^a$ is ${\rm tr}[T^a T^b] =
\delta^{ab}/2$. The combination of $\partial^a_{x,\mu}$ and $\tilde\partial^a_{x-\hat\mu,\mu}$ ensures that
$B_{x,\mu}$ transforms in a definite way under parity. \refeq{eq:DefineB} is
the lattice analog of the continuum equation
\begin{equation}
D_\nu G_{\nu\mu}(x) \propto \frac{\delta}{\delta A_\mu(x)} S_g^\text{cont}(A)
\end{equation}
\noindent where $S_g^\text{cont}$ is the pure Yang-Mills continuum action.
Explicitly, our $G_1$ operator is
\begin{equation}
G_1^{lat}(x) = \frac{1}{2} \overline s_x \gamma_\mu (1 - \gamma_5) [U_{x,\mu} L_{x,\mu} + L_{x-\hat\mu,\mu} U_{x-\hat\mu,\mu}]_{TA} d_x
\end{equation}
\noindent where $L_{x,\mu}$ is commonly called the ``staple'' for the gauge
action $S_g(U)$. The notation $[ \cdot ]_{TA}$ denotes the traceless
antihermitian part of a matrix. In the calculations below, $S_g(U)$ is the
Iwasaki gauge action.
\subsection{Results}
As an example of this strategy, we compute the $Z^{lat \to RI}$ and $R^{lat \to
RI}$ matrices on a $24^3 \times 64$ 2+1 flavor Shamir domain wall ensemble with
$m_l = 0.005$, $m_s = 0.04$, $L_s = 16$ \cite{RBC2432}. The gauge action is the
Iwasaki action with $\beta = 2.13$. The lattice spacing is $a^{-1} =
1.7848(50)$ GeV \cite{LatestEnsemblePaper}. We use the momenta
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
a p_1 & = \frac{2\pi}{24}(2, 4, -2, 0) \\
a p_2 & = \frac{2\pi}{24}(4, 2, 2, 0) \\
\mu & = |p_1| = |p_2| = 2.29 \text{ GeV}
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent We use a valence mass $a m_l = a m_s = 0.01$. We measure on 792
configurations. We use only the parity-odd parts of the operators and
projectors. We do not measure the wave function renormalization $Z_q$, so we
only give results up to a factor of $Z_q^{-2}$. We work in the
RI/SMOM($\gamma_\mu$, $\gamma_\mu$) scheme of \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors}.
We find
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hspace{-1.2in}&\hspace{1.2in}Z_q^{-2} Z^{lat \to RI} = \\
\hspace{-1.2in}&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrrr}
0.846179(42) & & & & & & & \\
& 0.9400(37) & -0.0860(20) & -0.0025(17) & 0.00076(81) & & & -0.0090(42) \\
& -0.0850(12) & 0.94007(93) & -0.00155(60) & -0.00076(29) & & & 0.0509(23) \\
& -0.028(12) & -0.0193(62) & 0.9659(48) & -0.1422(23) & & & -0.005(13) \\
& -0.0037(39) & 0.0034(28) & -0.0532(17) & 0.70199(92) & & & 0.1470(70) \\
& & & & & 0.959102(32) & -0.142791(16) & \\
& & & & & -0.052603(11) & 0.703316(50) & \\
& -0.007(31) & 0.248(22) & -0.147(16) & -0.0259(74) & & & 2.301(59) \\
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\noindent The upper-left $1 \times 1$ block corresponds to the $(27,1)$
operator $Q'_1$. The next $4 \times 4$ block corresponds to the $(8, 1)$
operators $Q'_{2,3,5,6}$. The next $2 \times 2$ block corresponds to the $(8,
8)$ operators $Q'_{7,8}$. The last $1 \times 1$ block corresponds to $G_1$.
Entries equal to zero have been omitted. In this and what follows, all quoted
errors are statistical only.
We see that there is no mixing between different representations of $SU(3)_L
\otimes SU(3)_R$ and that $G_1$ mixes with the $(8,1)$ operators, as expected.
We can read off the $c_i$'s of \refeq{eq:QprimeRI} from the last column:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
Z_q^{-2} c_2 & = -0.0090(42) \\
Z_q^{-2} c_3 & = 0.0509(23) \\
Z_q^{-2} c_5 & = -0.005(13) \\
Z_q^{-2} c_6 & = 0.1470(70) \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent These tell us how much $G_1^{lat}$ appears in each RI four-quark
operator. We see that $G_1$ mainly mixes with $Q'_3$ and $Q'_6$, and the
corresponding $c_i$'s are measured to about 5\%.
Having found the $8 \times 8$ Z-factor matrix, we next eliminate $G_1$
by computing the $k_i$'s of \refeq{eq:DefineKFactors}. Using
the tree-level values of $s_i$ from \refeq{eq:DefineSFactors}, we find
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
k_2 & = 0.370(18) \\
k_3 & = 0.915(28) \\
k_5 & = -0.115(8) \\
k_6 & = 0.379(10) \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
Finally we get the $7 \times 7$ $R^{lat \to RI}$ matrix:
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hspace{-0.6in}&\hspace{0.6in}Z_q^{-2} R^{lat \to RI} = \\
\hspace{-0.6in}&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0.846179(42) & & & & & & \\
& 0.9367(45) & -0.0942(51) & -0.0015(16) & -0.0026(15) & & \\
& -0.0661(16) & 0.9867(24) & -0.00738(66) & 0.01855(83) & & \\
& -0.029(14) & -0.024(15) & 0.9665(46) & -0.1440(45) & & \\
& 0.0506(53) & 0.1379(76) & -0.0700(18) & 0.7577(24) & & \\
& & & & & 0.959102(32) & -0.142791(16) \\
& & & & & -0.052603(11) & 0.703316(50) \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
We would like to understand what effect the inclusion of $G_1$ has had on our
final answer. So we also carry out the NPR procedure using only the original
7-operator basis, neglecting $G_1$, and compute the difference between our
$R^{lat \to RI}$ matrix and the $7 \times 7$ Z-factor matrix obtained by
neglecting $G_1$:
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefineDeltaR}
\Delta R^{lat \to RI} \equiv R^{lat \to RI} - Z^{lat \to RI, 7 \times 7, \text{ no } G_1}
\end{equation}
\noindent We find
\begin{equation} \label{eq:24cubedG1Difference}
\begin{split}
&Z_q^{-2} \Delta R^{lat \to RI} = \\
&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0 & & & & & & \\
& -0.00090(41) & -0.0025(12) & 0.00044(20) & -0.00090(42) & & \\
& 0.00510(24) & 0.01423(65) & -0.00248(11) & 0.00512(23) & & \\
& -0.0005(13) & -0.0013(36) & 0.00023(63) & -0.0005(13) & & \\
& 0.01470(76) & 0.0410(20) & -0.00717(35) & 0.01476(73) & & \\
& & & & & 0 & 0 \\
& & & & & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent Of course, only the $(8, 1)$ sub-block of the $R^{lat \to RI}$ matrix
is affected. We find that the biggest effect is in the third and fifth rows
corresponding to $Q^{'RI}_3$ and $Q^{'RI}_6$. The effect of including $G_1$ is
clearly resolved.
The fact that $\Delta R$, the change due to $G_1$, is fairly small compared to
the overall matrix $R$ reassures us that we are justified in neglecting
one-loop corrections to the $s_i$ coefficients. Those one-loop corrections
would only produce a small change in the already small matrix $\Delta R$.
\subsection{Step scaling for $K \to \pi\pi$} \label{sec:K2PiPiStepScaling}
The principal motivation for nonperturbative renormalization of the $\Delta S =
1$ weak Hamiltonian on the lattice is the calculation of the $K \to \pi\pi$
decay. In the recent RBC/UKQCD calculation in \cite{RBCUKQCDK2PiPi2015}, the
largest single systematic error came from operator renormalization. We now
renormalize the $\Delta S = 1$ Hamiltonian for this calculation, including the
effects of $G_1$.
The $K \to \pi\pi$ calculation was carried out on a relatively coarse lattice
with $a^{-1} \approx 1.38$ GeV. The ensemble parameters are those of the DSDR
lattices described in \cite{DSDRPaper} except that in the $K \to \pi\pi$
calculation the quark masses are physical. We carry out the NPR procedure on
the $a m_l = 0.001$ ensemble of \cite{DSDRPaper}.
Because this lattice is quite coarse, we cannot perform the NPR at a very high
energy scale. This is a problem because the perturbative step we rely on to
convert from the RI/SMOM scheme to the $\overline{\text{MS}}$ scheme is not reliable at this
low energy. To solve this, we perform a nonperturbative step scaling
calculation on the $24^3$ ensemble used above.
We briefly describe the step scaling procedure. Suppose we have a lattice with
a relatively coarse lattice spacing $a_\text{coarse}$. If we do nonperturbative
renormalization on this lattice we can only construct RI operators at some
relatively low energy scale $\mu_\text{low}$. We use an auxiliary lattice with
a finer lattice spacing $a_\text{fine} < a_\text{coarse}$ on which we can do
NPR both at the scale $\mu_\text{low}$ and at a higher scale $\mu_\text{high}$.
We use this lattice to find a relation between the RI operators at the low
scale and the high scale, as follows:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
O^{RI}_i(\mu_\text{low}) &= Z^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu_\text{low}, a_\text{fine}) O^{lat}_j(a_\text{fine}) \\
O^{RI}_i(\mu_\text{high}) &= Z^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu_\text{high}, a_\text{fine}) O^{lat}_j(a_\text{fine}) \\
O^{RI}_i(\mu_\text{high}) &= \Sigma_{ij}(\mu_\text{high}, \mu_\text{low}) O^{RI}_j(\mu_\text{low})
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent where the step scaling matrix is calculated as
\begin{equation} \label{eq:DefineSigma}
\Sigma_{ij}(\mu_\text{high}, \mu_\text{low})
= Z^{lat \to RI}_{ik}(\mu_\text{high}, a_\text{fine}) [Z^{lat \to RI}(\mu_\text{low}, a_\text{fine})]^{-1}_{kj}
\end{equation}
\noindent Finally we can construct operators renormalized at the high scale in
terms of lattice operators defined on the coarse lattice:
\begin{equation}
O^{RI}_i(\mu_\text{high}) = Z^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu_\text{high}, a_\text{coarse}) O^{lat}_j(a_\text{coarse})
\end{equation}
\noindent where
\begin{equation}
Z^{lat \to RI}_{ij}(\mu_\text{high}, a_\text{coarse})
\equiv \Sigma_{ij}(\mu_\text{high}, \mu_\text{low}) Z^{lat \to RI}_{jk}(\mu_\text{low}, a_\text{coarse})
\end{equation}
When we include $G_1$ in the NPR, the step-scaling should be carried out with
the $8 \times 8$ Z-factor matrices, giving an $8 \times 8$ step-scaling matrix
$\Sigma$ and eventually an $8 \times 8$ Z-factor matrix $Z^{lat \to
RI}(\mu_\text{high}, a_\text{coarse})$. From this Z-factor matrix, we can
construct the on-shell conversion matrix $R^{lat \to RI}(\mu_\text{high},
a_\text{coarse})$ using \refeq{eq:DefineRMatrix}.
We use the $24^3$ ensemble considered above as the fine lattice for step
scaling. So we have $a_\text{coarse}^{-1} \approx 1.37$ GeV, the lattice
spacing of the $32^3$ DSDR ensemble, and $a_\text{fine}^{-1} \approx 1.78$ GeV,
the lattice spacing of the finer $24^3$ Iwasaki ensemble. We use
$\mu_\text{low} = 1.33$ GeV and $\mu_\text{high} = 2.29$ GeV.
On the coarse $32^3$ lattice we average over two sets of momenta for the external states:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
a_\text{coarse} p_{1,\text{low},a} & = \frac{2\pi}{32}(-4, -2, 2, 0) \\
a_\text{coarse} p_{2,\text{low},a} & = \frac{2\pi}{32}(0, -2, 4, -2) \\
a_\text{coarse} p_{1,\text{low},b} & = \frac{2\pi}{32}(0, 4, -2, -2) \\
a_\text{coarse} p_{2,\text{low},b} & = \frac{2\pi}{32}(-2, 0, -2, -4) \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent These satisfy
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&p_{1,\text{low},a}^2 = p_{2,\text{low},a}^2 = (p_{1,\text{low},a} - p_{2,\text{low},a})^2 \\
&= p_{1,\text{low},b}^2 = p_{2,\text{low},b}^2 = (p_{1,\text{low},b} - p_{2,\text{low},b})^2 = \mu_\text{low}^2
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\noindent (The calculation on the coarse lattice dominates the statistical
error, so we average over two sets of momenta to increase our statistics). On
the fine $24^3$ lattice we use the momenta
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
a_\text{fine} p_{1,\text{low}} & = \frac{2\pi}{24}(0, 2, 2, 0) \\
a_\text{fine} p_{2,\text{low}} & = \frac{2\pi}{24}(2, 2, 0, 0) \\
a_\text{fine} p_{1,\text{high}} & = \frac{2\pi}{24}(2, 4, -2, 0) \\
a_\text{fine} p_{2,\text{high}} & = \frac{2\pi}{24}(4, 2, 2, 0) \\
\end{split}
\end{equation}
We use 792 configurations on the $24^3$ ensemble and 350 configurations on the $32^3$ ensemble.
We perform the NPR for two renormalization schemes, called
RI/SMOM($\gamma_\mu$, $\gamma_\mu$) and RI/SMOM($\slashed q$, $\slashed q$),
both defined in \cite{ChristophMatchingFactors}. These schemes are based on
different sets of projected Green's functions and use different wave function
renormalizations.
For each scheme we give the step-scaled $8 \times 8$ Z-factor matrix and the
resulting $R^{lat \to RI}$ matrix to be used on-shell. Again we can ask what
the effect of $G_1$ has been on the calculation. To do this we redo the entire
step scaling calculation with $7 \times 7$ Z-factor matrices neglecting $G_1$
(not shown below) and compute the $\Delta R$ matrix defined in
\refeq{eq:DefineDeltaR}. The errors we quote are purely statistical and do not
include the uncertainty in the wave function renormalization.
In the RI/SMOM($\gamma_\mu$, $\gamma_\mu$) scheme we find
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hspace{-1.2in}&\hspace{1.2in}
Z^{lat \to RI}(\mu_\text{high},a_\text{coarse}) = \\
\hspace{-1.2in}&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrrr}
0.404278(54) & & & & & & & \\
& 0.4753(79) & -0.0584(76) & -0.0038(33) & -0.0001(16) & & & 0.028(24) \\
& -0.0722(44) & 0.4620(45) & -0.0020(18) & 0.00210(96) & & & 0.017(15) \\
& 0.005(22) & 0.011(22) & 0.4593(91) & -0.0598(49) & & & 0.064(66) \\
& 0.005(16) & -0.009(16) & -0.0432(68) & 0.4008(34) & & & 0.091(53) \\
& & & & & 0.470405(61) & -0.062295(40) & \\
& & & & & -0.034206(53) & 0.39486(15) & \\
& -0.08(12) & -0.02(12) & -0.063(52) & 0.009(25) & & & 1.25(40) \\
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hspace{-1.2in}&\hspace{1.2in}
R^{lat \to RI}(\mu_\text{high},a_\text{coarse}) = \\
\hspace{-1.2in}&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0.404278(54) & & & & & & \\
& 0.485(13) & -0.033(27) & -0.0073(52) & 0.0104(84) & & \\
& -0.0663(82) & 0.478(17) & -0.0041(29) & 0.0084(52) & & \\
& 0.027(39) & 0.071(79) & 0.451(14) & -0.036(23) & & \\
& 0.036(29) & 0.074(62) & -0.055(11) & 0.435(19) & & \\
& & & & & 0.470405(61) & -0.062295(40) \\
& & & & & -0.034206(53) & 0.39486(15) \\
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\Delta R^{lat \to RI} = \\
&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0 & & & & & & \\
& 0.0100(79) & 0.028(21) & -0.0049(39) & 0.0089(70) & & \\
& -0.0012(47) & -0.003(13) & 0.0003(24) & -0.0002(43) & & \\
& 0.021(22) & 0.058(59) & -0.010(11) & 0.019(20) & & \\
& 0.010(17) & 0.029(47) & -0.0056(84) & 0.011(15) & & \\
& & & & & 0 & 0 \\
& & & & & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
In the RI/SMOM($\slashed q$, $\slashed q$) scheme we find
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hspace{-1.2in}&\hspace{1.2in}
Z^{lat \to RI}(\mu_\text{high},a_\text{coarse}) = \\
\hspace{-1.2in}&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrrr}
0.42650(11) & & & & & & & \\
& 0.414(14) & -0.188(16) & -0.0005(56) & -0.0025(31) & & & 0.017(22) \\
& 0.043(15) & 0.698(18) & -0.0053(62) & -0.0000(39) & & & 0.032(28) \\
& 0.029(47) & 0.051(53) & 0.464(18) & -0.068(11) & & & 0.064(74) \\
& 0.027(33) & 0.033(43) & -0.056(17) & 0.4590(95) & & & 0.105(66) \\
& & & & & 0.47130(15) & -0.063099(59) & \\
& & & & & -0.06136(11) & 0.45973(19) & \\
& 0.14(25) & 0.24(33) & -0.19(12) & 0.069(73) & & & 1.45(50) \\
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\footnotesize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\hspace{-1.2in}&\hspace{1.2in}
R^{lat \to RI}(\mu_\text{high},a_\text{coarse}) = \\
\hspace{-1.2in}&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0.42650(11) & & & & & & \\
& 0.419(17) & -0.171(31) & -0.0010(59) & 0.0031(90) & & \\
& 0.052(19) & 0.728(37) & -0.0062(66) & 0.010(11) & & \\
& 0.049(57) & 0.11(10) & 0.463(19) & -0.048(31) & & \\
& 0.059(41) & 0.133(91) & -0.059(17) & 0.493(27) & & \\
& & & & & 0.47130(15) & -0.063099(59) \\
& & & & & -0.06136(11) & 0.45973(19) \\
\end{array}\right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
\normalsize
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
&\Delta R^{lat \to RI} = \\
&\left(\begin{array}{rrrrrrr}
0 & & & & & & \\
& 0.0027(63) & 0.017(23) & -0.0035(42) & 0.0061(79) & & \\
& 0.0142(76) & 0.037(29) & -0.0048(50) & 0.0120(97) & & \\
& 0.016(21) & 0.066(79) & -0.012(14) & 0.023(27) & & \\
& 0.041(18) & 0.117(70) & -0.017(12) & 0.039(24) & & \\
& & & & & 0 & 0 \\
& & & & & 0 & 0 \\
\end{array} \right)
\end{split}
\end{equation}
These $R$ matrices can be used to renormalize the operators used in the $K \to
\pi\pi$ calculation. Because the statistical errors are much larger on the
$32^3$ ensemble, the effect of $G_1$ on the calculation is not as easy to
resolve as it was in \refeq{eq:24cubedG1Difference}. The values given above for
$\Delta R$ bound the effect of $G_1$ on this calculation to be fairly small.
\section{Method 2: Use the lattice equation of motion}
In this section we describe an alternative strategy for using the RI scheme
with the $G_1$ operator. The strategy of Section \ref{sec:PerturbativeMethod}
relies on perturbation theory. We might be interested in a strategy that
produces the $R^{lat \to RI}$ matrix without any reliance on perturbation
theory. Here we give a strategy for doing this which uses the exact equation of
motion for the lattice gauge field.
The idea is that the eighth operator in our basis need not be the $G_1$
operator, but rather we can choose it to be a related operator which vanishes
exactly by the equation of motion. In the continuum, this related operator
would be $G_1 - Q_p$. On the lattice, the equation of motion of the gauge field
is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:LatticeEOM}
M_1^{lat} \equiv i T^a \partial^a_{x,\mu} S^{lat}(U, \psi) = 0
\end{equation}
\noindent where $S^{lat}$ is the total lattice action, $U$ is the gauge field, and $\psi$
represents the fermion fields.
The operator $M_1^{lat}$ is the lattice analog of the operator $G_1 - Q_p$.
$M_1^{lat}$ vanishes exactly when the equations of motion are valid.
$M_1^{lat}$ does \emph{not} vanish in the momentum-space Green's functions used
to define the RI schemes. $M_1^{lat}$ can be used instead of $G_1^{lat}$ as the
eighth operator in our NPR basis.
This approach has advantages and disadvantages. The advantages are:
\begin{itemize}
\item Once we find $Z^{lat \to RI}$ there is no extra step needed to construct
$R^{lat \to RI}$, and in particular no need to eliminate $G_1^{lat}$ by a
perturbative calculation.
\item There is no need to define a renormalized $M_1^{RI}$ as we had to define
a renormalized $G_1^{RI}$. We only need the lattice operator $M_1^{lat}$.
\end{itemize}
\noindent To see how these advantages come about, write the seven RI four-quark
operators as
\begin{equation}
Q'^{RI}_i(\mu) = Z^{lat \to RI, 7 \times 7}(\mu, a) Q'^{lat}_i(a) + c^{lat \to RI}_i (\mu,a) M_1^{lat}(a)
\end{equation}
\noindent Here $i,j$ range only over the seven values $\{1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7,
8\}$. To determine $Z^{lat \to RI, 7 \times 7}$ and $c^{lat \to RI}$ we impose
exactly the same conditions we imposed on the $Q'^{RI}_i(\mu)$ in Section
\ref{sec:PerturbativeMethod}. Suppose we have done this. Then when we compute a
physical matrix element of $Q'^{RI}_i(\mu)$, the $M_1^{lat}$ operator drops out
by the equation of motion:
\begin{equation}
\begin{split}
\langle f | Q'^{RI}_i(\mu) | i \rangle & =
Z^{lat \to RI, 7 \times 7}(\mu, a) \langle f | Q'^{lat}_i(a) | i \rangle +
c^{lat \to RI}_i(\mu, a) \langle f | M_1^{lat}(a) | i \rangle \\
\langle f | Q'^{RI}_i(\mu) | i \rangle & =
Z^{lat \to RI, 7 \times 7}(\mu, a) \langle f | Q'^{lat}_i(a) | i \rangle
\end{split}
\end{equation}
So in this strategy $Z^{lat \to RI, 7 \times 7}$ is the same matrix as $R^{lat
\to RI}$. $M_1^{lat}$ drops out of physical matrix elements automatically, so
there is no need to do a perturbative calculation to eliminate it, so there is
no need to construct a renormalized $M_1^{RI}$ operator.
This is the same renormalization scheme as the one used in Section
\ref{sec:PerturbativeMethod}, because we impose the same renormalization
conditions on the four-quark operators $Q'^{RI}_i(\mu)$. We have merely chosen
a slightly different basis of lattice operators, which is our privilege. The
final results for $R^{lat \to RI}$ should differ only by lattice artifacts, and
because of the use of perturbation theory in finding the $s_i$'s in Section
\ref{sec:PerturbativeMethod}.
The disadvantage of this strategy is that the $M_1^{lat}$ operator is extremely
complicated. Its exact form depends on the details of the full action used to
generate the ensemble, and it is usually quite messy. Because of the link
derivative, $M_1^{lat}$ is point-split instead of local to one particular site.
In the case of domain wall fermions $M_1^{lat}$ involves five-dimensional
fermion fields, not just the fields on the four-dimensional boundary. This
makes the implementation of the contractions far more complicated and also
makes the computation much slower, since it is necessary to sum over the fifth
dimension. Some ensembles we work with use a dislocation-suppressing
determinant ratio \cite{DSDRPaper}, which adds a new, complicated term to
$M_1^{lat}$. For these reasons we prefer the strategy of Section
\ref{sec:PerturbativeMethod} in practice. The strategy described in this
section is an option if the perturbative approximation of the $s_i$
coefficients is not acceptable.
\section{Summary}
It is an interesting aspect of quantum field theory that that when we
renormalize an operator it may mix with operators which vanish by the equations
of motion. This occurs already at one loop when we renormalize the $\Delta S =
1$ weak Hamiltonian. In this case, the $G_1$ operator appears and we need to
properly account for its mixing with the physical four-quark current-current
operators. Previous lattice calculations of the important $K \to \pi\pi$ decay
have neglected this effect. We have given two practical methods for including
the effects of $G_1$.
The first method uses perturbation theory to compute the relation which holds
in physical matrix elements between the renormalized $G_1$ operator and the
renormalized four-quark operators. The second method uses instead the exact
lattice equation of motion. Both methods allow us to confine the effect of
$G_1$ to the NPR calculation, meaning that we never have to compute the lattice
matrix elements of $G_1$ between physical external states.
\section{Acknowledgements}
I thank Robert D. Mawhinney, Ziyuan Bai, and the rest of the RBC/UKQCD
collaboration for useful discussions. The calculations described here were
performed on Blue Gene/Q supercomputers at Brookhaven National Laboratory and
the Argonne Leadership Computing Facility. This work was supported in part by
U.S. DOE grant \#DE-SC0011941.
|
\section{Introduction}
Multi-component molecular machines are assembled in a living cell at the right place at the right time.
Assembling such a machine requires formation of molecular joints between specific components.
However, molecular joints in these machines, unlike those in their macroscopic counterparts, are
usually non-permanent. The {\it lifetime} and the {\it strength} are the two key characteristics of these
molecular joints. How these properties of the joints depend on the (a) structure, and (b) dynamics of
the participating components, and (c) interactions among these components are among the fundamental
questions from the perspective of statistical thermodynamics and stochastic kinetics. Similar questions
have been addressed by chemical physicists (or physical chemists) for many decades in the context of
various types of ligand-receptor bonds. The main aim of this paper is to develop stochastic models for
the kinetics of a class of molecular joints in a multi-component molecular machine and to compute its
lifetime and strength to elucidate the consequences of the unusual structure, dynamics and interaction
of the components that form this molecular joint. More specifically, the molecular joint that we investigate
in this paper is formed in a multi-component macromolecular machine called mitotic spindle \cite{wittmann01,karsenti01,helmke13}.
This self-organized machine carries out mitosis \cite{mcintosh12}, the process of segregation of replicated chromosomes, in eukaryotic cells.
One of the major components of a spindle is a stiff filament called microtubule (MT)
\cite{lawson13} each of which has a tubular structure. The unique feature of the kinetics of a MT is
dynamic instability \cite{desai97}. A polymerizing MT keeps growing in length till it suffers ``catastrophe''
whereby it abruptly begins to depolymerize. A depolymerizing MT would, eventually, disappear unless
its rapid shrinkage is stopped by a process called `rescue'' following which it resumes polymerization.
Because of the sequence of catastrophe and rescue, a single MT can exhibit several alternate phases of polymerization and depolymerization. On the surface of each sister chromatid, that results from DNA
replication, a proteinous complex called kinetochore (kt) is located \cite{cheeseman14}. During the
self-assembling of the spindle each kt attaches with one or more MTs; the actual number varies from
one species to another. The kt-MT attachment in budding yeast is known to be the simplest; each kt
can attach with only a single MT \cite{biggins13}. Significant progress has been made in the last few
years in understanding this simple kt-MT attachment after successful reconstitution of its kinetochore
{\it in-vitro} \cite{biggins13,akiyoshi12}. However, the identity of all the molecular components of the
coupler and its structure as well as its energetic stability and kinetics are currently under intense
investigation \cite{akiyoshi12,franck10,sarangapani14}. Complementary work on biochemical
reconstitution of mammalian kinetochores has just begun \cite{weir16}
The kt-MT attachments have many similarities with the chemical ligand-receptor bonds; the kt is
the analog of the receptor while each MT is the counterpart of a ligand. However, in spite of these
superficial similarities, there are several crucial differences. For example, the tip of each MT
remains free to polymerize/depolymerize and rapid turnover of its monomeric subunits continues
even when the attachments remains intact. Moreover, force plays all the three roles, namely, input,
output and signal, for different components of the same kt-MT attachment.
As the key force generators in mitosis, the MTs play crucial roles in proper positioning of
the chromosomes. Equally important is the opposing force exerted by the depolymerizing MTs
attached to the two sister chromatids that eventually pull the two sister chromatids apart and
away from each other in the late stages of mitosis \cite{mcintosh12}. It is the molecular joint
formed by the attachment of $N$ parallel MTs to a single kt (where $N \geq 1$), that we study
here from the perspective of chemical physics/ physical chemistry by treating it an unusual
ligand-receptor bond.
One of the counter-intuitive results has been obtained in the recent past from {\it in-vitro} experiments
where an external tension was applied on a single kt-MT attachment with an optical trap \cite{akiyoshi10}.
The stability was found to increase with increasing force provided the force was not too large;
beyond a moderate level further increase of the force, of course, reduced the stability of the
attachment. More specifically, in these ``force-clamp'' experiments the magnitude of the pulling
force was kept fixed and the lifetime of the attachment (i.e., the time taken to get ruptured)
was measured. The non-monotonic variation of the average lifetime with increasing strength
of the pulling force is reminiscent of catch-bonds formed by wide varieties of ligands with their
respective receptors \cite{thomas08a,thomas08b,sokurenko08,prezhdo09}.
In an earlier paper one of the authors (DC) of this paper (with two other co-authors) \cite{sharma14}
developed a minimal theoretical model (from now onwards referred to as SSC model) to account
for the observed catch-bond like behavior of the kt-MT attachment in budding yeast. This work
elucidated the crucial role of MT kinetics (particularly its force-dependence) that makes this
catch-bond fundamentally different from the common catch-bonds in chemical ligand-receptor
systems in spite of their superficial similarities. It also indicated the conditions under which the
same system would exhibit a slip-bond-like, instead of catch-bond like, behavior. However, the
theory was developed in ref.\cite{sharma14} only for the force-clamp situation, i.e., for the
calculation of lifetime distribution when the applied tension was held constant.
In this paper we first adapt the SSC model to calculate the distribution of the rupture force under
force-ramp conditions where the pulling force is increased with the passage of time. We draw
attention to the similar trends of variation of the rupture force distribution reported earlier for
catch-bonds formed in other ligand-receptor systems. We then extend the model to mimic the kt-MT
attachments in mammalian cells where up to a maximum of $N$ ($>1$) parallel MTs can simultaneously
attach to a single kt. In principle, our theoretical predictions for $N=1$ can be tested using the
reconstituted kinetochore of budding yeast {\it in-vitro} applying standard techniques of dynamic
force spectroscopy \cite{bizzarri12}; a typical set up would use an optical trap with controlled
ramp protocol \cite{franck10}. Recent reconstitution of mammalian kt {\it in-vitro} \cite{weir16}
indicates promising new routes for testing our results for $N > 1$.
\section{SSC model: from force-clamp to force-ramp for N = 1}
In this section we present a brief summary of the adaptation of the continuum formulation of
the SSC model, as well as its discretization, that is appropriate for theoretical analysis
of the force-ramp scenario.
The SSC model \cite{sharma14} is a minimal model in the sense that it does not make any
assumption about the molecular constituents or structure of the kt-MT attachment; it merely
assumes a cylindrical ``sleeve-like'' coupler (in the spirit of the Hill sleeve model \cite{hill85})
that is coaxial with the MT and has a diameter slightly larger than that of the MT. The sleeve
may be an abstract representation of the Dam1 ring \cite{buttrick11} while the ``rigid rod'',
that connects the sleeve with the kinetochore, captures the effects of Ndc80 proteins \cite{westermann07,davis07,foley13}.
In this model the instantaneous overlap between the outer surface of the MT and the inner surface of the
coaxial cylindrical sleeve is represented by a continuous variable $y(t)$ which is a function
of time $t$. The total length of the coupler is $L$ so that $0 \leq y(t) \leq L$. Two main postulates
of this model are as follows \cite{sharma14}:\\
Postulate (a): increasing overlap $y$ lowers the energy of the system and that this lowering
of energy is proportional to $y$ so that the kt-MT interaction potential $V_{b}(y)$ is assumed
to have the form
\begin{equation}
V_{b}(y)=-By,
\label{eq-Vb}
\end{equation}
where $B$ is the constant of proportionality. Accordingly, the magnitude of the depth of the potential
at $ y=L $ is $ BL $. \\
Postulate (b): the external force $F$ suppresses the rate of depolymerization $\beta$ of the MT and
that $\beta$ decreases exponentially with increasing $F$ following
\begin{equation}
\beta(F)=\beta_{0} exp(-F/F_{\star}),
\label{eq-betaF}
\end{equation}
where $\beta_{0} $ is depolymerization rate in the absence of any external force and the parameter
$F_{\star}$ is a characteristic force that determines the sharpness of the decrease of $\beta(F)$ with $F$.\\
The postulate (a) is essentially a limiting case of the Hill model in the sense that the ``roughness''
of the interface between the outer surface of the MT and inner surface of the sleeve is neglected
in the minimal version of the SSC model. The postulate (b) is qualitatively supported by the
{\it in-vitro} experiments of Franck et al. \cite{franck07}. The decrease of the rate $\beta$
with the external force $F$ need not be exponential; all the conclusions drawn from the SSC model
in ref.\cite{sharma14} remain valid as long as the decrease of $\beta$ with increasing $F$ is sufficiently
sharp.
The kinetics of this model kt-MT attachment can be formulated in terms of a Fokker-Planck (FP)
equation \cite{risken} for the probability density $P(y,t)$. The attachment survives as long as
$y$ remains non-zero; the rupture of the attachment is identified with the attainment of the
value $y=0$ {\it for the first time}. For the calculation of the lifetime of the attachment a unique
initial condition is required. In ref.\cite{sharma14} the authors assumed that initially (i.e., at
time $t=0$) the MT is fully inserted into the sleeve, i.e.,
\begin{equation}
y(t=0) = L ~~~~~~({\rm initial ~condition}).
\label{eq-ini}
\end{equation}
Since the MT is not allowed to penetrate the kinetochore plate, the overlap $y$ cannot exceed $L$.
This physical condition is captured mathematically by imposing the {\it reflecting} boundary
condition
\begin{equation}
J(y,t)\vert_{y=L}=0.
\label{eq-bc1}
\end{equation}
An absorbing boundary condition
\begin{equation}
P(y,t)\vert_{y=0}=0
\label{eq-bc2}
\end{equation}
is imposed at $y=0$ for the calculation of the life times. Starting from the initial condition
(\ref{eq-ini}), the time taken by the system to attain vanishing overlap ($y=0$) {\it for the first time}
was identified as the life time of the attachment. This lifetime fluctuates from one kt-MT
attachment to another; the distribution of the lifetime contains all the statistical information.
The FP equation for $y(t)$ can be viewed as that for the position of a hypothetical Brownian
particle, subjected to an external potential $V(y) = - B y + F y$, in a one dimensional
space with a reflecting boundary at $y=L$ and an absorbing boundary at $y=0$.
The calculation of the lifetime is essentially that of a {\it first passage time} for the Brownian
particle: the time it takes to reach $y=0$ for the first time starting from $y=L$ at $t=0$.
In ref.\cite{sharma14} the authors calculated the exact distribution of the lifetimes analytically
in the Laplace space and hence the mean lifetime $<t>$ to be
\begin{equation}
<t>=\frac{D}{v^{2}(F)}\biggl[e^{v(F)L/D}-1\biggr]-\frac{L}{v(F)}
\label{timeavg}
\end{equation}
where $D$ is the diffusion constant of the hypothetical Brownian particle while its
net drift velocity $v(F)$ is given by
\begin{equation}
v(F)=\frac{B-F}{\Gamma}+(\alpha-\beta(F)){\ell}
\label{velocity1}
\end{equation}
where ${\ell}$ is the length increased by the addition of each subunit of the MT and
$ \Gamma $ is the phenomenological coefficient that characterizes the viscous drag.
For the convenience of numerical computation of the distribution of the lifetimes by computer
simulation, the SSC model was discretized in ref.\cite{sharma14} following prescriptions
proposed earlier by Wang, Peskin and Elston (WPE) \cite{wang03,wang07}.
Following WPE, space was discretized into $M$ cells, each of length $h = L/M$ and the
continuous effective potential $\tilde{U}(x)$ was replaced by its discrete counterpart
\begin{equation}
\frac{\tilde{U}_{j}}{k_BT}=\biggl[\frac{(F-B)}{k_{B}T}+\ell\frac{\biggl(\beta_{max}e^{-F/F_*}-\alpha\biggr)}{D}\biggr] x_{j}
\label{eq-discreteU}
\end{equation}
where $x_j$ denotes the position of the center of the $j$-th cell. In the discrete formulation,
instead of a FP equation, a master equation describes the kinetics of the system in terms of
discrete jumps of the hypothetical Brownian particle from the center of a cell to that of its
adjacent cells, either in the forward or in the backward direction. The rates of forward and
backward jumps $\omega_{f}(j)$ and $\omega_{b}(j)$ on the discretized lattice were given by
\cite{wang03}
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_{f}(j)&=&\frac{D}{h^2}\frac{-\frac{\delta \tilde{U}_{j}}{k_{B}T}}{\exp\biggl(-\frac{\delta \tilde{U}_{j}}{k_{B}T}\biggr)-1}
= \dfrac{1}{h}\dfrac{\dfrac{B-F}{\Gamma}+\ell(\alpha-\beta)}{\exp\biggl(-\dfrac{\delta \tilde{U_{j}}}{k_{B}T}\biggr)-1}
\label{wf}
\end{eqnarray}
\begin{eqnarray}
\omega_{b}(j)&=&\frac{D}{h^2}\frac{\frac{\delta \tilde{U}_{j}}{k_{B}T}}{\exp\biggl(\frac{\delta \tilde{U}_{j}}{k_{B}T}\biggr)-1}
= \dfrac{1}{h}\dfrac{\dfrac{F-B}{\Gamma}+\ell(\beta-\alpha)}{\exp\biggl(\dfrac{\delta \tilde{U_{j}}}{k_{B}T}\biggr)-1}
\label{wb}
\end{eqnarray}
where
\begin{equation}
\delta \tilde{U}_{j}= \tilde{U}_{j+1}-\tilde{U}_{j}
\end{equation}
Excellent agreement between the results derived from the analytical theory and computer simulations
was reported in ref.\cite{sharma14}.
The external pulling force $F$ has two opposite effects on the MT. On the one hand, the
MT is bodily pulled out of the coupler by $F$. On the other hand, because of the suppression
of the depolymerization rate $\beta$ by the external pull $F$, the polymerization can dominate
over depolymerization resulting in a net growth of the MT. If the increase in $y$ resulting
from the net growth of the MT can more than compensate the decrease in $y$ caused by
the bodily movement of the MT out of the coupler, the net result will be an increase of $y$.
Such an increase of $y$, instead of the naively expected decrease, upon application of $F$
would be interpreted as an effective increase of the stability of the kt-MT attachment with
increasing strength of the applied force $F$. However, as the strength of $F$ increases,
$\beta(F)$ gradually saturates. Since $\beta$ practically stops decreasing further with the
further increase of $F$ the bodily movement of the MT out of the coupler at higher values
of $F$ can no longer be compensated by the tip growth into the coupler; the net decrease
of $y$ with further increase of $F$ in this regime manifests as decrease in the stability of the
kt-MT attachment. Such overall non-monotonic variation of the mean life time $<t>$ with $F$ is
interpreted as a catch bond-like behavior of the kt-MT attachment. However, increase of $<t>$
with $F$ in the small $F$ regime is possible only if $\beta(F)$ decreases sufficiently sharply with
increasing $F$. Otherwise, the kt-MT attachment would behave effectively as a slip bond.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{GC_Fig1.pdf}
\caption{(a) Linearly increasing force ($ F=at $); different straight lines correspond to different
rates of loading. The kt-MT attachment survives the increasing
tension up to a certain time and then gets ruptured. (b) A schematic depiction of the kt-MT
attachment in the presence of external force. (c) Hypothesized effective potentials $ V_{b}(y) $
and $ V_{f}(y,t) $ are plotted against the instantaneous length of overlap $ y(t) $.}
\label{fig_model}
\end{figure}
In ref.\cite{sharma14} the external $F$ was assumed to be independent of time $t$;
these corresponds to a ``force-clamp'' situation in the experiments. In this section
the time-dependent external force $F(t)$ is assumed to increase according to a well defined
protocol; this corresponds to a ``force-ramp'' in experiments. We adopt the postulates (a) and (b)
of the SSC model. For the sake of simplicity, we assume a linear ramp force, namely, $ F(t)=at $
where $ a $ is loading rate. The instantaneous external force $F(t)$ can be derived from the
corresponding instantaneous potential landscape, $ V_{f}(y,t)=F(t)y $ . The effective potentials
$ V_{b}(y) $ and $ V_{f}(y,t) $ at an arbitrary instant of time are plotted in Fig.\ref{fig_model}.
Net instantaneous potential $V(y,t)$ felt by the kinetochore is $ V(y,t)= V_{b}(y)+V_{f}(y,t) $.
For the theoretical treatment of the kt-MT attachment subjected to a ramp force $F(t)$,
we adapt the corresponding theory for ligand-receptor bond rupture, developed originally by
Bell \cite{bell78} and subsequently extended by Evans and Ritchie \cite{evans97} and by Evans and
Williams \cite{evans02} (see also the reviews in refs.\cite{friddle12,arya16}).
In the presence of a given force $F$, let $k_{on}(F)$ and $k_{off}(F)$ be the rates of binding
and unbinding, respectively, of a MT to the kt mediated by the coupler. Because of the
specific choice of the initial condition $y(t=0)=L$ and the absorbing boundary condition at
$y=0$, no rebinding of the MT is possible and, therefore, we can put $k_{on}(F)=0$.
Denoting the probability that $y\neq 0$ (i.e., MT is attached to the kt) at time $t$ by the
symbol $P_{on}(t)$, the equation governing the time evolution of $P_{on}(t)$ is
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP_{on}(t)}{dt} = - k_{off}(F) P_{on}(t).
\label{eq-Pont}
\end{equation}
Hence, in terms of $k_{off}(F)$, the survival probability $S(t)$ of the attachment (i.e., the
probability that the hypothetical Brownian particle has not reached $y=0$ before time $t$) can be
expressed as \cite{friddle12}
\begin{equation}
S(t)=exp\biggl[-\int_{0}^{t}k_{off}(F(t^{'}))dt^{'}\biggr]
\label{ramp_surv}
\end{equation}
Moreover, in terms of $k_{off}(F)$ the probability density $\rho_{fp}(F)$ of the rupture forces
is expressed as \cite{friddle12}
\begin{equation}
\rho_{fp}(F)=\frac{k_{off}(F)}{a}\biggl[exp\biggl(-\frac{1}{a}\int_{0}^{F}k_{off}(F')dF'\biggr)\biggr]
\label{ruptureforce}
\end{equation}
Thus, for the calculation of $S(t)$ and $\rho_{fp}(F)$ the analytical expression for $k_{off}(F)$
is required. For $k_{off}(F)$ we use the expression for the inverse of the average lifetime of a
single kt-MT attachment in the SSC model, reported in ref.\cite{sharma14}, namely,
\begin{equation}
k_{off}(F)=\frac{1}{<t>}=\frac{v^{2}(F)}{D(e^{v(F)L/D}-1)-Lv(F)}
\label{koff}
\end{equation}
where the expression $v(F)$ is given by Eq.(\ref{velocity1}).
Substituting Eq.(\ref{koff}) into the Eqs.(\ref{ramp_surv}) and (\ref{ruptureforce}) we get,
respectively, the survival probability $S(t)$
and the rupture force density $\rho_{fp}(F)$ by numerically evaluating the respective integrals.
For computer simulation of the model, we discretize the continuum version of the SSC model
following WPE prescription \cite{wang03,wang07} as explained in ref.\cite{sharma14}.
Instead of a constant force, a time-dependent external force $ F= a t $ is imposed. Carrying
out computer simulations of this discretized version of the model we directly compute the survival
probability $S(t)$ and the distribution $\rho_{fp}(F)$ of the rupture forces.
Throughout this section lines and discrete points, respectively, have been used to plot the
theoretical results derived from numerical integrations of eqns.(\ref{ramp_surv})-
(\ref{ruptureforce}) and the data obtained from computer simulations of the discretized model.
Parameter values that we used for numerical calculations are listed in table \ref{table-parameter}.
\begin{table}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{l*{2}{c}r}
Parameter & Values\\
\hline
Inter-space between MT binding site $ l $ \cite{joglekar02,hill85,shtylla11} & 8/13 $ nm $ \\
Total length of coupler $ L $ \cite{gonen12,bloom08,johnson10,salmon06} & 50 $ nm $\\
Polymerization rate $ \alpha $ \cite{joglekar02,hill85,shtylla11,waters96} & 30 $ s^{-1} $ \\
Maximum Depolymerization rate $ \beta_{0} $ \cite{joglekar02,hill85,shtylla11,waters96} & 350 $ s^{-1} $ \\
Characteristic force of Depolymerization $ F_{\star}$ \cite{sharma14} & 0.8 $ pN $ \\
Attractive force between kt-MT $ B $ \cite{sharma14} & 1.9 $ pN $ \\
Diffusion constant $ D $ \cite{joglekar02,hill85,shtylla11} & 700 $ nm^{2}s^{-1} $ \\
Viscous drag coefficient $ \Gamma $ \cite{joglekar02,hill85,shtylla11,marshall01} & 6$ pNs\mu^{-1} $ \\
\end{tabular}
\caption{Values of the parameters for kt-MT system }
\label{table-parameter}
\end{table}
\subsection{Result for the rupture of kt-MT attachment under ramp force for N=1}
\begin{figure}[htb]
(a)\\
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.8\textwidth]{GC_Fig2a.pdf}\\
(b)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(c) \\
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig2b.pdf}
\includegraphics[angle=-90,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig2c.pdf}\\
\caption{(a) Probability density of rupture force of the kt-MT attachment with $N=1$ for four different
loading rates, namely, $ a=3\times 10^{-4} pNs^{-1} $ (violet pentagon), $ a=1\times 10^{-3} pNs^{-1} $
(green square), $ a=3\times 10^{-3} pNs^{-1} $(blue triangle) and $ a=3\times 10^{-2} pNs^{-1} $
(red circle) are plotted. The continuous curves have been plotted by numerical integration
of the Eq.(\ref{ruptureforce}) whereas the discrete data points have been obtained from
computer simulations of the discretized version of the same model.
(b)Survival probability for different loading rates; the same symbols in (a) and (b) correspond to the
same set of values of the model parameters.
(c) Mean rupture force is plotted against the logarithm of the loading rate. Numerical values of all the
other parameters are listed in table-\ref{table-parameter}.}
\label{fig_1MT ramp}
\end{figure}
In the Fig.\ref{fig_1MT ramp}(a) the rupture force distribution obtained from numerical integration
of the eqns.(\ref{ramp_surv})-(\ref{ruptureforce}) of the continuum theory and those obtained
from computer simulation of the discretized model are plotted for four different loading rates.
At loading rates as low as $a=3\times10^{-4}pNs^{-1}$ (violet), the most probable rupture force is
vanishingly small. At such slow loading rates the rupture of the attachment is mostly spontaneous
dissociation caused by thermal fluctuation and is very rarely driven by the applied tension. However,
as the loading rate increases a second peak at a non-zero value of the force begins to emerge.
At moderate loading rates like $ a=1\times10^{-3}pNs^{-1} $ (blue line and triangle ) and
$ a=3\times10^{-3}pNs^{-1} $ (green line and square)), a large fraction of the kt-MT attachments
survive upto a high force before getting ruptured while another significant fraction of the attachments
still dissociate at a vanishingly small force. But, at sufficiently high rates of loading, for example at
$ a=3\times10^{-2}pNs^{-1} $ (red), an overwhelmingly large fraction survives up to a high force while
very few attachment get ruptured by very weak forces. The existence of two peaks at intermediate
rates of loading, where the peak at non-zero force rises with increasing loading rate while that at
the vanishing force decreases, is a key signature of catch bonds established by force-ramp
experiments with other well known catch bonds \cite{evans04}.
In the Fig.\ref{fig_1MT ramp}(b) the survival probabilities are plotted at the same loading
rates for which the rupture force distributions have been plotted in Fig.\ref{fig_1MT ramp}(a).
For the same set of parameter values, the data in the Figs.\ref{fig_1MT ramp}(a) and (b) are
consistent with each other. At very high loading rates the probability of survival remains high,
and practically unaffected by the applied force, upto quite high values of the force and,
accordingly, the most probable rupture force is also expected to be high. In contrast, sharp drop
in the survival probability with increasing force is also reflected in the vanishingly small most
probable rupture force at very low loading rates. In the Fig.\ref{fig_1MT ramp}(c) we have plotted mean rupture force as a function of loading rate. Mean rupture force increases with increasing loading rate.
The increase of mean and most probable rupture force with increasing loading rate is also
observed in case of common ligand-receptor attachments \cite{friddle12}; it follows from the
mathematical form of the equation
\begin{equation}
\frac{dP_{on}(F)}{dF} = - \frac{1}{a} k_{off}(F) P_{on}(F)
\label{eq-PonF}
\end{equation}
which is nothing but the equation (\ref{eq-Pont}) expressed in terms of force $F$ rather than
time $t$. Eqn.(\ref{eq-PonF}) implies that the rate of decay of the bound state of the bond
is inversely proportional to the loading rate $a$. Consequently, the ligand-receptor bond
persists up to higher values of force when subjected to faster loading rates.
\subsection{Comparison between Dogterom-Leibler model and SSC model}
It is worth pointing out that the FP equation describing the stochastic evolution of the probability
density of the overlap variable $x$ in the SSC model does not have any explicit terms describing
catastrophe and rescue \cite{desai97}. In order to justify their absence and to explain the nature
of the approximations let us begin with the Dogterom-Leibler model \cite{dogterom93} that
describe the polymerization-depolymerization of MTs in terms of mathematical equations.
Let $ v_{p} $ and $ v_{d} $ denote the average speeds of polymerization and depolymerization,
respectively, while $c$ and $r$ are the corresponding rates of catastrophe and rescue of the MTs.
In that model the stochastic equations governing the time evolution of the probability densities
$P_{\pm}$ of the polymerizing (+) and depolymerizing (-) MTs are given by
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial P_{+}(x,t)}{\partial t}+v_{p}\frac{\partial P_{+}(x,t)}{\partial x}=-cP_{+}(x,t)+rP_{-}(x,t)\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial P_{-}(x,t)}{\partial t}-v_{d}\frac{\partial P_{-}(x,t)}{\partial x}=-rP_{-}(x,t)+cP_{+}(x,t)
\label{eq-DL}
\end{eqnarray}
In the context of the kt-MT coupler, let us re-interpret the symbols $ P_{\pm}(x,t) $ as the probability
densities of overlap $x$ of polymerizing (+) and depolymerizing (-) MTs with the coaxial cylindrical
coupler at time $ t $. In principle, the eq.(\ref{eq-DL}) would still describe the time evolution of
$P_{\pm}(x,t)$ where the rate constants would be force-dependent. Now adding both the Eqn.(\ref{eq-DL}),
and defining the total probability density $P(x,t) = P_{+}(x,t) + P_{-}(x,t)$ we get the FP eq.
\begin{equation}
\frac{\partial P(x,t)}{\partial t}+ (v_{p}-v_{d}) \frac{\partial P(x,t)}{\partial x}=0
\label{eq-fpSSC}
\end{equation}
only if $\frac{\partial P_{+}(x,t)}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial P_{-}(x,t)}{\partial x}$. Incorporating the
extra terms arising from the diffusion of the kinetochore plate, the effective force $B$ arising from the
MT-coupler interaction and the external tension $F$ in eq.(\ref{eq-fpSSC}) we get the FP eqn. of the
SSC model (eqs. (6) and (7) of ref.\cite{sharma14}) identifying $v_{p}$ and $v_{d}$ with $\alpha$
and $\beta$, respectively. This comparison with the Dogterom-Leibler equations not only shows how
the terms corresponding to catastrophe and rescue in the equation for $P_{+}$ cancel out those in
the equation for $P_{-}$ but also establishes the nature of the approximation made in writing the
FP eqn for the SSC model in ref.\cite{sharma14}.
\subsection{Comparison between Dogterom-Leibler model and Akiyoshi et al.'s model}
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{GC_Fig3.pdf}
\caption{MT is attached with Kt and switching between growing and shrinking phase with frequency $ c $ and $ r $.
It can detach from Kt with rate $ k_{3} $ and $ k_{4} $.}
\label{fig_akiyoshi}
\end{figure}
Akiyoshi et al. \cite{akiyoshi10} used a simple kinetic model to account for their experimental data.
In that model each MT can switch between the states of polymerization and depolymerization with
the catastrophe and rescue frequencies $c$ and $r$, respectively. White still attached to the kt,
a MT can detach with the rate $k_{3}$ or $k_{4}$ depending on whether it is in the state of
polymerization or depolymerization at that instant of time (see Fig.\ref{fig_akiyoshi}.
We extend the Dogterom-Leibler equations incorporating the detachment process; the resulting
equations are
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial P_{+}(x,t)}{\partial t}+v_{p}\frac{\partial P_{+}(x,t)}{\partial x}=-(c+k_{3})P_{+}(x,t)+rP_{-}(x,t)\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial P_{-}(x,t)}{\partial t}-v_{d}\frac{\partial P_{-}(x,t)}{\partial x}=-(r+k_{4})P_{-}(x,t)+cP_{+}(x,t)
\label{eq-DLext}
\end{eqnarray}
Defining $ \int P_{\pm}(x,t)dx=P_{\pm}(t) $ and integrating both sides of the eq.(\ref{eq-DLext})
with respect to $x$, we get
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial P_{+}(t)}{\partial t}+v_{p} P_{+}(t)=-(c+k_{3})P_{+}(t)+rP_{-}(t)\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial P_{-}(t)}{\partial t}-v_{d}P_{-}(t)=-(r+k_{4})P_{-}(t)+cP_{+}(t)
\end{eqnarray}
The stochastic equations used by Akiyoshi et al.\cite{akiyoshi10}
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{\partial P_{+}(t)}{\partial t}=-(c+k_{3})P_{+}(t)+rP_{-}(t)\nonumber\\
\frac{\partial P_{-}(t)}{\partial t}=-(r+k_{4})P_{-}(t)+cP_{+}(t)
\end{eqnarray}
follows only if the terms with $v_{p}$ and $v_{d}$ are neglected. In other words, compared to Dogterom-Leibler scenario, the terms corresponding to polymerization and depolymerization are absent from the kinetic equations used by Akiyoshi model in analyzing their data. Thus, the SSC model \cite{sharma14} and the kinetic model presented by Akiyoshi et al.\cite{akiyoshi10} are complementary to each other in the sense that the catastrophe and rescue terms are absent in the former whereas the polymerization and depolymerization terms are absent in the latter.
\section{Extended SSC model of MT- single kt attachment for N $>$ 1}
In this section we extend the SSC model to capture some key features of the energetics and kinetics of
a dynamic attachment formed between a single kt and a bundle of $N$ parallel MTs. We study the strength
and stability of this model attachment by computer simulation of dynamic force spectroscopy under both
force-clamp and force-ramp conditions.
\begin{figure}[htb]
\center
\includegraphics[angle=0,width=0.5\textwidth]{GC_Fig4.pdf}
\caption{Three microtubule single kinetochore attachment in the presence of external force on kinetochore (violet wall).
Two types of external force are applied, constant over time (force clamp) and linearly increasing with time (force ramp).}
\label{fig_ktmt}
\end{figure}
In this extended SSC model at any arbitrary instant of time $t$, a single kt is attached to $n(t)$ ($1 \leq n(t) \leq N$) parallel MTs, each through its respective coupler, where $N$ is the maximum number of MTs that can attach to the kt simultaneously. For simplicity, all the couplers are assumed to have identical length $L$. The MTs are not directly coupled by any lateral bond (transverse to their axis). Instead, all the collective effects arise from their indirect coupling via the kinetochore to which $n(t)$ MTs are attached.
The physically motivated assumption of the model, which couple their kinetics is that at any instant of time $t$, the externally applied load tension $F$ is shared equally among the $n(t)$ MTs that are attached to the kt at that instant through their respective couplers, i.e., $F/n(t)$.
This assumption indicates that the forced detachment of one MT from the kt can increase the likelihood of that of the surviving ones through re-distribution of the load force $F$.
We consider two possible scenarios for the rupture of a joint formed by a kt initially with multiple MTs. In the first, once a MT detaches, its re-attachment to the same kt is not allowed. Number of MT $ N $ attached with kt varies irreversibly as
\begin{equation}
N\rightarrow N-1 \rightarrow N-2 \rightarrow N-3 \rightarrow...............2 \rightarrow 1 \rightarrow 0
\end{equation}
In the second scenario, once a MT detaches it can reattach again to the same kt and can grow inside the coupler because of its polymerization. So, in this case, the number of MT $ N $ attached to the kt varies reversibly as
\begin{equation}
N\rightleftharpoons N-1 \rightleftharpoons N-2 \rightleftharpoons N-3 \rightleftharpoons...............2 \rightleftharpoons 1 \rightarrow 0
\end{equation}
\section{Simulation method}
Extending the WPE prescription \cite{wang03,wang07} used earlier for the single MT-kt attachment, space is now discretized into $ M $ cells, each of length $ h=L/M $. Then the time-dependent discrete effective potential is given by
\begin{equation}
\frac{U_{nj}}{k_{B}T}=\biggl[\frac{\biggl(\frac{F}{n(t)}-B\biggr)}{k_{B}T}+{\ell}\frac{\beta_{max}e^{-\frac{F/n(t)}{F_{\star}}} -\alpha }{D}\biggr]x_{j}
\label{potential}
\end{equation}
where $n(t)$ is the number of MTs attached to the kt at the instant of time $t$.
Accordingly, the corresponding forward ($ w_{fn}(j)) $ and backward ($ w_{bn}(j)) $ transition rates are given by \cite{wang03}
\begin{equation}
w_{fn}(j)=\frac{D}{h^{2}}\frac{-\frac{\delta U_{j}}{k_{B}T}}{exp(-\frac{\delta U_{j}}{k_{B}T}-1)}
\label{wfn}
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
w_{bn}(j)=\frac{D}{h^{2}}\frac{\frac{\delta U_{j}}{k_{B}T}}{exp(\frac{\delta U_{j}}{k_{B}T}-1)}
\label{wbn}
\end{equation}
Where $ \delta U_{nj}=U_{nj+1}-U_{nj} $.
In our simulation of both the scenarios mentioned above, initially, all the $ N $ MT are fully inserted into the kt coupler.
In the first scenario, using the transition rates given by eq.(\ref{wfn}) and eq.(\ref{wbn}) the position of a MT tip inside its coupler is updated. But, once an attachment breaks its reattachment to the kt is not allowed; therefore, detached MT is no longer monitored in our simulation. However, the simulation is continued till the last surviving MT-kt attachment just breaks down. This first passage time is identified as the life time of the molecular joint consisting of $N$ MT with a single kt. The process is repeated many times, staring from the same initial condition, to obtain the distribution of the lifetimes. In the same scenario, under the force-ramp condition ($ F=at $) we collect the data similarly to obtain the distribution of rupture forces (i.e., the force at which the tip of the last surviving MT tip exits from its coupler).
In the alternative scenario, the transition rates eq.\ref{wfn} and eq.\ref{wbn} govern the kinetics of the tip of each MT as long as it moves inside the corresponding coupler. However, once the attachment between a MT and the kt, through the coupler, breaks down it must get an opportunity to reattach through its natural kinetics of polymerization and depolymerization outside the coupler. Therefore, in this scenario, the continuing forward and backward movement of the tip of a detached MT outside its coupler is monitored in our simulation. During this period the force-free kinetics of the MT tip outside its coupler is implemented in our simulation by replacing the potential (\ref{potential}) by the simpler potential
\begin{equation}
\frac{V_{j}}{k_{B}T}={\ell} \biggl[\frac{\beta_{max} -\alpha }{D}\biggr]x_{j}
\label{potentialR}
\end{equation}
and simultaneously replacing the transition rates (\ref{wfn}) and (\ref{wbn}) by
\begin{equation}
w_{f1}(j)=\frac{D}{h^{2}}\frac{-\frac{\delta V{j}}{k_{B}T}}{exp(-\frac{\delta V_{j}}{k_{B}T}-1)}
\label{wf11}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
w_{b1}(j)=\frac{D}{h^{2}}\frac{\frac{\delta V_{j}}{k_{B}T}}{exp(\frac{\delta V_{j}}{k_{B}T}-1)},
\label{wb11}
\end{equation}
respectively, where $ \delta V_{j}=V_{j+1}-V_{j} $. If, through this kinetics outside the coupler, a MT succeeds in re-entering its coupler its kinetics reverts back to that governed by the transition rates eq.\ref{wfn} and eq.\ref{wbn}.
Thus, starting from the initial state the time evolution of all the MTs are monitored till the instant when, for the first time, none of the MTs is attached to the kt; this first-passage time is identified as the lifetime of the attachment.
Repeating this process we have obtained the distributions of the lifetimes in the second scenario. Similarly for the ramp force we have obtained the distribution of the rupture force which is defined as the force at which, for the first time, none of the MTs is attached to the kt.
\subsection{Results on life time distribution under clamp force for N $>$ 1}
In Fig.\ref{fig_NMT_clamp} (a) and (b) survival probabilities of an attachment, consisting initially of $40$ MTs and a single kt, have been plotted as a function of time for the two cases where rebinding is (a) forbidden and (b) allowed,
respectively. The attachment survives for longer duration in intermediate range of the clamp force ($ F=0.5$pN, blue square) than at the high and low strength of the tension. In the inset the corresponding distributions of the lifetimes of the attachments are also shown.
The trends of variation of the survival probability with the clamp force indicates a catch-bond-like behavior. Indeed, this catch-bond-like behavior can be seen directly in Fig.\ref{fig_NMT_clamp}(c) where the mean life time $<t>$, plotted against the clamp force $F$, displays a maximum at a non-zero finite value of $F$ irrespective of whether rebinding of the MTs is allowed or forbidden. The physical cause of the catch-bond-like behavior is the same as that pointed out in the special case $N=1$. Moreover, as expected on physical grounds, for any given $F$, the mean life time $<t>$ is higher if rebinding is allowed as compared to the mean life time in the absence of rebinding.
In the Fig.\ref{fig_NMT_clamp}(d) mean lifetime is found to increase with the number of microtubule (N). This is consistent with one's intuitive expectation. Besides, for any given value of $N$, allowing rebinding of the MTs results in a higher life time. However, the interesting point is that the mean life time increases nonlinearly with $N$ in both the cases.
\begin{figure}[htb]
(a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(b)\\
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig5a.pdf}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig5b.pdf}\\
(c)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(d)\\
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig5c.pdf}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig5d.pdf}\\
\caption{
Survival probability is plotted as a function of time $t$, under force clamp condition (a) in the absence of rebinding, for three different values of the tension, $ F=0.01 $pN, (red circle), $ F=0.5 $pN (blue square) and $ F=1 $pN (green triangle), and (b) in the presence of rebinding, for three values of the tension $ F=0.01 $pN (red circle), $ F=0.6 $pN (blue square) and $ F=1.5 $ pN (green triangle). In the insets of both the figures the corresponding distributions of the lifetimes are shown. The mean life time $<t>$ is plotted against (c) tention $F$ for $N=40$ and (d) number $N$ for $F=10$ pN, $B=0.5$ pN, each for both the scenarios, namely with rebinding (blue circle) and without rebinding (red triangle). The numerical values of all the other parameters used in the simulation are listed in the table \ref{table-parameter}.}
\label{fig_NMT_clamp}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Results on rupture force distribution under force ramp for N $>$ 1}
In the Fig.\ref{fig_NMT_ramp}(a) and (b) survival probabilities (and the corresponding rupture force distribution in the insets) are plotted, respectively, in the absence and presence of rebinding for three different loading rates $ a=18$pN/s, $20$pN/s and $ 22 $pN/s. Survival probability remains high upto a certain force beyond which it drops quite sharply. In the Fig.\ref{fig_NMT_ramp}(c) and (d) the average rupture force is plotted, respectively, against the loading rate $a$ (for a given $N$) and against $N$ (for a given loading rate $a$). The log-scale along the X-axis in Fig.\ref{fig_NMT_ramp}(c) is used to cover a wide range of loading rates in the most suitable manner. The higher survival probability caused by reattachment of MTs is more pronounced at slower loading than at faster loading. This trend of variation follows from the fact that at faster loading detached MTs get smaller chances of reattaching before the complete rupture of the attachment. What is interesting from the quantitative point of view is that the average rupture force increases nonlinearly with increasing loading rate. Finally, the increase of the mean rupture force with increasing $N$ also seems to be nonlinear.
\begin{figure}[htb]
(a)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(b)\\
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig6a.pdf}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig6b.pdf}\\
(c)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(d)\\
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig6c.pdf}
\includegraphics[angle=-0,width=0.4\textwidth]{GC_Fig6d.pdf}
\caption{
Survival probabilities for three different loading rates $ a= 18 $pN/s (red circle), $ 20 $pN/s (blue square) and $ 22 $pN/s (green triangle) are plotted (a) in the absence of rebinding and (b) in the presence of rebinding . In the inset the corresponding distributions of the rupture forces are shown. Mean rupture force in plotted against (c) the loading rate $a$ for a fixed $N=40$, and (d) $N$ for a fixed loading rate $a=10$ pN/s . Logarithmic scale in used along the X-axis in (c) to cover a very broad range of $a$. In the inset of (c) the mean rupture force is plotted for lower loading rate where the difference between the results for the two cases (without and with rebinding) is significant. The numerical values of all the other parameters are listed in the table \ref{table-parameter}.}
\label{fig_NMT_ramp}
\end{figure}
\section{Summary and conclusion}
In this paper we have developed theoretical models to study the strength and stability of molecular joints formed by $N (\geq 1)$ parallel MT filaments with a single kt. We draw analogies between the kt-MT attachments and the common chemical ligand-receptor bonds where the kt is the analog of the receptor while each MT plays the role of a ligand. We also stress that, in spite of these superficial similarities, there are several crucial differences. The main sources of these differences arise from the fact that (i) each MT tip can grow or shrink because of ongoing polymerization or depolymerization of the MT and (ii) the rate of depolymerization is strongly suppressed by externally applied tension.
The strength and stability of non-covalent ligand-receptor bonds are routinely probed by dynamic force spectroscopy \cite{bizzarri12}. The rupture of such weak bonds is a thermally activated process; the
external force alters the potential landscape thereby affecting its strength and stability, i.e., assist or oppose the
thermally activated rupture process. Because of the intrinsic stochasticity of the rupture process, the lifetime
and the rupture force are randomly distributed quantities. Therefore, repetition of the force-clamp and force-ramp
experiments yield the probability densities of the lifetimes and rupture forces, respectively. Rupture dynamics
of single ligand-receptor bonds as well as that of multiple ligand-receptor bonds in parallel have been studied both theoretically and experimentally for decades \cite{evans97,evans01,evans02,williams03,friddle12,arya16}. In the same spirit, we model and analyze the kt-MT attachment as an unusual ligand-receptor bond.
In this paper we have briefly reviewed the SSC model of rupture of attachments, consisting initially of a single kt and a single MT in force-clamp set up. Experimental data corresponding to the force-clamp set up have been reported \cite{akiyoshi10}. Theories at different levels of molecular detail have been developed in the last few years to account for some unusual trends of variation observed with varying force in those experimental data \cite{akiyoshi10,sharma14,bertalan14}. In this paper we have extended the SSC model to the more general case where the attachment initially consists of $N (> 1)$ MTs attached simultaneously to a single kt. Moreover, the model is formulated in such a way that it can be appropriately adapted to study the effects of either clamp force or ramp force. The results of our theoretical investigation reported here display complementary signatures of the catch-bond-like behavior of the single kt - single MT attachments subjected to ramp force. The evidences in favor of catch-bond-like behavior are also obtained from our numerical studies of the model in the more general case where initially $N (> 1)$ MTs are attached to a single kt. Both the mean lifetime and mean rupture force are found to scale nonlinearly with $N$.
In the force-clamp set up with optical trap, the bead-trap separation is maintained at a fixed value
with a computer controlled feedback while the change in the length of the MT is recorded by
monitoring the movement of the specimen stage \cite{franck10}. A force-ramp set up, where the
bead-trap separation is gradually increased with time, has also been designed by modifying the
force-clamp software \cite{franck10}. This force-ramp can be used to test the corresponding
theoretical predictions made in this paper. To our knowledge, no experimental data are available at present to make direct comparison with the predictions of the general model developed here. However, very recent experimental breakthroughs \cite{weir16} suggest that both force-clamp and force-ramp experiments with reconstituted mammalian kinetochores {\it in-vitro} may become possible in near future.
\noindent{\bf Acknowledgements:} \\
One of the authors (DC) thanks Charles Asbury for valuable comments on a shorter preliminary draft of this manuscript. DC also thanks Raymond Friddle and Gaurav Arya for useful correspondences.
This work has been supported by a J.C. Bose National Fellowship (DC) and ``Prof. S. Sampath Chair''
Professorship (DC).
|
\section{Introduction}\label{sec:Intro}
In many scientific discoveries,
a fundamental question is how to identify important features within or across sources that may interact with each other in order to achieve better understanding of the risk factors. For instance, there is growing evidence in genome-wide association studies supporting the presence of interactions between different genes or single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) towards the risks of complex diseases
\citep{xu2004interaction, musani2007detection, schwender2008identification, cordell2009detecting}. It has also been increasingly recognized that the aetiology of most common diseases relates to not only genetic and environmental factors, but also interactions between the genes and environment \citep{hunter2005gene}. In these problems, ignoring interactions by considering main effects alone can lead to an inaccurate estimate of the population attributable risk associated with these factors. Identifying important interactions can also help improve model interpretability and prediction.
Interaction identification with large-scale data sets poses great challenges since the number of pairwise interactions increases quadratically with the number of covariates $p$ and that of higher-order interactions grows even faster. In the low-dimensional setting, one may include all possible interactions in a model and find significant ones by multiple testing or variable selection methods. This simple strategy, however, becomes impractical or even infeasible when $p$ is moderate or large, owing to rapid increase in dimensionality incurred by interactions.
There is a growing literature developing regularization methods to identify important interactions and main effects, with a focus on the low- or moderate-dimensional setting. Most of existing methods are rooted on a natural structural condition in certain applications, namely the strong or weak heredity assumption, and impose various constraints on coefficients to enforce the heredity assumption. Specifically, the strong heredity assumption requires that an interaction between two variables be included in the model only if both main effects are important, while the weak one relaxes such a constraint to the presence of at least one main effect being important. To name a few, \citet{yuan2009structured} employed the non-negative garrote \citep{breiman1995better} for structured variable selection and estimation by imposing multiple inequality constraints on coefficients. \citet{choi2010variable} reparameterized the coefficients of interactions to enforce the strong heredity constraint and showed that the resulting method enjoys the oracle property when $p=o(n^{1/10})$, where $n$ is the sample size. \citet{bien2013lasso} extended the Lasso \citep{tibshiranit1996regression} by adding a set of convex constraints to enforce the strong or weak heredity constraint.
The aforementioned methods with delicate design on the interaction structure are effective in identifying important interactions when the number of covariates $p$ is not large. In the regime of ultra-high dimensionality, that is, $p$ growing nonpolynomially with sample size $n$, those methods may, however, become inefficient or even fail, because they need to deal with complex penalty structures or multiple inequality constraints and thus the computational cost can be excessively expensive. In addition, it is unclear whether the theoretical results on variable selection for those methods can still hold when $p$ is ultra high. To reduce the computational cost, \citet{hall2014selecting} proposed a two-step recursive approach rooted on the strong heredity assumption
to screen interactions based on the sure independence screening \citep{fan2008sure}.
\citet{hao2014interaction} introduced a forward selection based procedure to identify interactions in a greedy fashion under the heredity assumption and developed two algorithms iFORT and iFORM.
\citet{hao2015model} studied regularization methods based on the Lasso for quadratic regression models
under the heredity assumption and proposed a new algorithm RAMP for interaction identification.
Although the heredity assumption is desired and natural in many applications, it can also be easily violated in some situations as documented in the literature. For example, \citet{Culverhouse2002} discussed the interaction models displaying no main effects and examined the extent to which pure epistatic interactions whose loci do not display any single-locus effects could account for the variation of the phenotype. In the Nature review paper \citet{cordell2009detecting}, concerns were raised that many existing methods may miss pure interactions in the absence of main effects. Efforts have already been made on detecting pure epistatic interactions in \cite{Ritchie2001}, where a real data example was presented to demonstrate the existence of such pure interactions.
In these applications, methods that are released from the heredity constraint can enjoy better flexibility and be more suitable for models with pure epistatic interactions.
To address the challenges of interaction identification in ultra-high dimensions and broader settings, we present our ideas by focusing on the linear interaction model
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:LM}
Y = \beta_0 + \sum_{j=1}^p\beta_j X_j + \sum_{k=1}^{p-1}\sum_{\ell = k+1}^p \gamma_{k\ell}X_k X_{\ell} + \varepsilon,
\end{eqnarray}
where $Y$ is the response variable, $\mbox{\bf x}=(X_1, \cdots, X_p)^T$ is a $p$-vector of covariates $X_j$'s, $\beta_0$ is the intercept, $\beta_j$'s and $\gamma_{k\ell}$'s are regression coefficients for main effects and interactions, respectively, and $\varepsilon$ is the mean zero random error independent of $X_j$'s.
Denote by $\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}_0 = (\beta_{0, j})_{1 \leq j \leq p}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}_0 = (\gamma_{0, k\ell})_{1 \leq k < \ell \leq p}$ the true regression coefficient vectors for main effects and interactions, respectively. To ease the presentation, throughout the paper $X_k X_{\ell}$ is referred to as an \textit{important interaction} if its regression coefficient $\gamma_{0, k\ell}$ is nonzero, and $X_k$ is called an \textit{active interaction variable} if there exists some $1\leq \ell \neq k \leq p$ such that $X_kX_{\ell}$ is an important interaction.
Under the above model setting, we suggest a new approach, called the interaction pursuit (IP), for interaction identification using the ideas of feature screening and selection. The IP is a two-step procedure that first reduces the number of interactions and main effects to a moderate scale by a new feature screening approach, and then identifies important interactions and main effects in the reduced feature space, with interactions reconstructed based on the retained interaction variables, using regularization methods. A key innovation of IP is to screen interaction variables
instead of interactions directly and thus the computational cost can be reduced substantially from a factor of $O(p^2)$ to $O(p)$.
Our interaction screening step shares a similar spirit to the SIRI proposed in \cite{jiang2014sliced} in the sense of detecting interactions by screening interaction variables. An important difference, however, lies in that SIRI was proposed under the sliced inverse index model and its theory relies heavily on the normality assumption.
The main contributions of this paper are threefold. First, the proposed procedure is computationally efficient thanks to the idea of interaction variable screening. Second, we provide theoretical justifications of the proposed procedure under mild interpretable conditions. Third, our procedure can deal with more general model settings without requiring the heredity or normality assumption, which provides more flexibility in applications. In particular, two key messages that we try to deliver in this paper are that a separate screening step for interactions can significantly improve the screening performance if one aims at finding important interactions, and screening interaction variables can be more effective and efficient than screening interactions directly due to the noise accumulation. We also would like to emphasize that although we advocate a separate screening step for interactions, we have no intension to downgrade the importance of main effect screening or even a joint screening of main effects and interactions. In fact, our interaction screening idea can be coupled with any main effect or joint screening procedure to boost the performance of feature screening in interaction models.
The rest of the paper is organized as follows. Section \ref{sec:Screening} introduces a new feature screening procedure for interaction models and investigates the theoretical properties of the proposed screening procedure. We exploit the regularization methods to further select important interactions and main effects and study the theoretical properties on variable selection in Section \ref{sec:Selection}. Section \ref{sec:Numerical} demonstrates the advantage of our proposed approach through simulation studies and a real data example. We discuss some implications and extensions of our method in Section \ref{sec:Discussion}.
The proofs of all the results and technical details as well as some additional simulation studies are provided in the Supplementary Material.
\section{Interaction screening}\label{sec:Screening}
We begin with considering the problem of feature screening in interaction models with ultra-high dimensions.
Define three sets of indices
\begin{align}
\mathcal{I} & =\left\{(k, \ell): 1\leq k < \ell\leq p \text{ with } \gamma_{0,k\ell}\neq 0\right\}, \nonumber\\
\mathcal{A} & =\left\{1\leq k\leq p: (k, \ell) \text{ or } (\ell, k) \in \mathcal{I} \text{ for some } \ell\right\}, \label{intvarsets} \\
\mathcal{B} & =\left\{1\leq j\leq p: \beta_{0,j}\neq 0\right\}.\nonumber
\end{align}
The set $\mathcal{I}$ contains all important interactions and the set $\mathcal{A}$ consists of all active interaction variables, while the set $\mathcal{B}$ is comprised of all important main effects. We combine sets $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$, and define the set of important features as $\mathcal{M}=\mathcal{A}\cup \mathcal{B}$. As demonstrated in Section B of Supplementary Material, the sets $\mathcal{A}$, $\mathcal{I}$, and $\mathcal{M}$ are invariant under affine transformations
$X_j^{new} = b_j(X_j-a_j)$ with $a_j \in \mathbb{R}$ and $b_j \in \mathbb{R}\setminus \{0\}$ for $1\leq j\leq p$.
{ We aim at recovering interactions in $\mathcal{I}$ and variables in $\mathcal{M}$} and thus there is no issue of identifiability. \footnote{We would like to thank a referee for helpful comments on the issue of invariance.}
\subsection{A new interaction screening procedure}\label{sec: IP}
Without loss of generality, assume that $E X_j=0$ and $E X_j^2=1$ for each random covariate $X_j$. To ensure model identifiability and interpretability, we impose the sparsity assumption that only a small portion of the interaction and main effects are important with nonzero regression coefficients $\gamma_{k\ell}$ and $\beta_j$ in interaction model \eqref{eq:LM}.
Our goal is to effectively identify all important interactions $\mathcal{I}$ and important features $\mathcal{M}$, and efficiently estimate the regression coefficients in \eqref{eq:LM} and predict the future response.
Clearly, $\mathcal{I}$ is a subset of all pairwise interactions constructed from variables in $\mathcal{A}$. Thus, as mentioned before, to recover the set of important interactions $\mathcal{I}$ we first aim at screening the interaction variables while retaining active ones in set $\mathcal{A}$.
Let us develop some insights into the problem of interaction screening by considering the following specific case of interaction model \eqref{eq:LM}:
\begin{eqnarray}\label{example}
Y = X_1X_2 + \varepsilon,
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mbox{\bf x}$ is further assumed to be $N(\mbox{\bf 0}, \mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$})$ with covariance matrix $\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}$ having diagonal entries $1$ and off-diagonal entries $-1 < \rho < 1$. Simple calculations show that $\mathrm{corr}(X_j, Y)=0$ for each $j$. This entails that screening the main effects based on their marginal correlations with the response can easily miss the active interaction variable $X_1$. An interesting observation is, however, that taking the squares of all variables leads to $\mathrm{cov}(X_1^2, Y^2)=2+10\rho^2$ and $\mathrm{cov}(X_j^2, Y^2) = 4\rho^2(1+2\rho)$ for each $j \geq 3$, where the former is always larger than the latter in absolute value regardless of the value of $-1 < \rho < 1$. Thus, the active interaction variable $X_1$ can be safely retained by ranking the marginal correlations between the squared covariates and the squared response, that is, $X_j^2$ and $Y^2$. By symmetry, the same is true for the other active interaction variable $X_2$.
Model \eqref{example} is a specific model with only one interaction. The following proposition provides justification for more general interaction models.
\begin{proposition}\label{prop1}
In interaction model \eqref{eq:LM} with $\mbox{\bf x} \sim N(\mbox{\bf 0}, I_p)$, it holds that for each $j$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: cov}
\mathrm{cov}(X_j^2, Y^2)=2\Big(\beta_{0,j}^2+ \sum_{k=1}^{j-1} \gamma_{0,kj}^2 + \sum_{\ell=j+1}^{p} \gamma_{0,j\ell}^2 \Big).
\end{eqnarray}
\end{proposition}
Proposition \ref{prop1} shows that for the specific case of $\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$} = I_p$, the correlation between $X_j^2$ and $Y^2$ is always nonzero as long as $X_j$ is an active interaction variable, regardless of whether or not $X_j$ is an important main effect. In contrast, such a correlation becomes zero if $X_j$ is neither an important main effect nor an active interaction variable. In fact, it is seen from \eqref{eq: cov} that $\mathrm{cov}(X_j^2, Y^2)$ measures the cumulative effect of $X_j$ as an important main effect or an active interaction variable.
Motivated by the simple interaction model \eqref{example} and Proposition \ref{prop1}, we propose to identify the set of active interaction variables $\mathcal{A}$ by first ranking the marginal correlations $\mathrm{corr}(X_k^2, Y^2)$ in magnitude,
and then retaining the top ones with absolute correlations bounded from below by some positive threshold. This gives a new interaction screening procedure which is the first step of IP.
More specifically, suppose we are given a sample $(\mbox{\bf x}_i, y_i)_{i = 1}^n$ of $n$ independent and identically distributed (i.i.d.) observations from $(\mbox{\bf x}, Y)$ in interaction model \eqref{eq:LM}. Observe that $\mathrm{corr}(X_k^2, Y^2) = \omega_k /\{\mathrm{var}(Y^2)\}^{1/2}$ with $\omega_k=\mathrm{cov}(X_k^2, Y^2)/\left\{\mathrm{var}(X_k^2)\right\}^{1/2}$.
Denote by $\widehat{\omega}_k$ the empirical version of the population quantity $\omega_k$ by plugging in the corresponding sample statistics, based on the sample $(\mbox{\bf x}_i, y_i)_{i = 1}^n$. Then the screening step of IP is equivalent to thresholding the absolute values of $\widehat{\omega}_k$'s; that is, we estimate the set of active interaction variables $\mathcal{A}$ as
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: Ahat}
\widehat{\mathcal{A}}=\left\{1\leq k\leq p: \left|\widehat{\omega}_k\right|\geq \tau\right\}
\end{eqnarray}
for some threshold $\tau > 0$.
The choice of threshold $\tau$ will be discussed later.
Based on the retained interaction variables in $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$, we can construct all pairwise interactions as
\begin{equation} \label{Ihatdef}
\widehat{\mathcal{I}}=\left\{(k,\ell): k, \ell\in\widehat{\mathcal{A}} \ \text{and } k < \ell\right\}.
\end{equation}
It is worth mentioning that $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}$ generally provides an overestimate of the set of important interactions $\mathcal{I}$, in the sense that some interactions in the constructed set $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}$ may be unimportant ones. This is, however, not an issue for the purpose of interaction screening and will be addressed later in the selection step of IP.
For completeness, we also briefly describe our procedure for main effect screening.
We adopt the SIS approach in \citet{fan2008sure} to screen unimportant main effects outside the set $\mathcal{B}$; that is, we first calculate the marginal correlations $\mathrm{corr}(X_j, Y)$ and then keep the ones with magnitude at or above some positive threshold $\widetilde{\tau}$.
Since we have assumed $E X_j=0$ and $E X_j^2=1$ for each covariate $X_j$, thresholding the marginal correlation between $X_j$ and $Y$ is equivalent to thresholding $\mathcal{\omega}_j^{\ast} = E(X_jY)$. Thus, we estimate the set
$\mathcal{B}$
by
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: Bhat}
\widehat{\mathcal{B}}=\left\{1\leq j\leq p: |\widehat{\omega}^{\ast}_j|\geq \widetilde{\tau}\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\widehat{\omega}^{\ast}_j$ is the sample version of the population quantity $\mathcal{\omega}_j^{\ast}$ and $\widetilde{\tau} > 0$ is some threshold. Finally the set of important features $\mathcal{M}$ can then be estimated as $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}=\widehat{\mathcal{A}}\cup \widehat{\mathcal{B}}$.
Although our approach for estimating the set
$\mathcal{B}$ is the same as SIS,
the theoretical developments on the screening property for main effects are distinct from those in \citet{fan2008sure} due to the presence of interactions in our model.
\subsection{Sure screening property}\label{sec: Screening-Property}
We now turn our attention to the theoretical properties of the proposed screening procedure in IP.
It is desirable for a feature screening procedure to possess the sure screening property \citep{fan2008sure}, which means that all important variables are retained after screening with probability tending to one. We aim at establishing such a property for IP in terms of screening of both interactions and main effects. To this end, we need the following conditions.
\begin{assumption}\label{con: sparsity}
There exist constants $0\leq \xi_1, \xi_2<1$ such that $s_1=|\mathcal{I}|=O(n^{\xi_1})$ and $s_2=|\mathcal{B}|=O(n^{\xi_2})$, and $|\beta_0|, \|\mbox{\boldmath $\beta$}_0\|_{\infty}, \|\mbox{\boldmath $\gamma$}_0\|_{\infty} = O(1)$ with $\|\cdot\|_\infty$ denoting the vector $L_\infty$-norm.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{con: XYtail-new}
There exist constants $\alpha_1, \alpha_2, c_1>0$ such that for any $t>0$, $P(|X_j|> t) \leq c_1\exp(-c_1^{-1}t^{\alpha_1})$ for each $1\leq j\leq p$ and $P(|\varepsilon|> t) \leq c_1\exp(-c_1^{-1}t^{\alpha_2})$, and $\mathrm{var}(X_j^2)$ are uniformly bounded away from zero.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{con: signal}
There exist some constants $0\leq \kappa_1, \kappa_2 <1/2$ and $c_2>0$ such that $\min\nolimits_{k\in \mathcal{A}}|\omega_k|\\ \geq 2c_2n^{-\kappa_1}$ and \textbf {$\min\nolimits_{j\in \mathcal{B}}|\omega^{\ast}_j|\geq 2c_2n^{-\kappa_2}$. }
\end{assumption}
Condition \ref{con: sparsity} allows the numbers of important interactions and important main effects to grow with the sample size $n$, and imposes an upper bound on the magnitude of true regression coefficients. See, for example, \cite{cho2012high} and \citet{hao2014interaction} for similar assumptions. Clearly, Condition \ref{con: sparsity} entails that the number of active interaction variables is at most $2 s_1$, that is, $|\mathcal{A}| \leq 2s_1$.
The first part of Condition \ref{con: XYtail-new} is a usual assumption to control the tail behavior of the covariates and
error, which is important for ensuring the sure screening property of our procedure. Similar assumptions have been made in such work as
\cite{fan2010sure}, \cite{chang2013marginal}, and \cite{barut2016conditional}.
The scenario of $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=2$ corresponds to the case of sub-Gaussian covariates and error, including distributions with bounded support and light tails.
Condition \ref{con: signal} puts constraints on the minimum marginal correlations, through different forms, for active interaction variables and important main effects, respectively. It is analogous to Condition 3 in \citet{fan2008sure}, and can be understood as an assumption on the minimum signal strength in the feature screening setting. Smaller constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$ correspond to stronger marginal signals. This condition is crucial for ensuring that the marginal utilities carry enough information about the active interaction variables and important main effects. To gain more insights into Condition \ref{con: signal}, consider the specific case of $\mbox{\bf x}\sim N(\mbox{\bf 0}, I_p)$. Note that $\mathrm{var}(X_k^2)$ are uniformly bounded by Condition \ref{con: XYtail-new}. Then it follows from Proposition \ref{prop1} that the constraint of $\min_{k\in\mathcal{A}}|\omega_k|\geq 2c_2n^{-\kappa_1}$ in Condition \ref{con: signal} is equivalent to that of
\begin{align*}
\min_{k\in \mathcal{A}}\Big(\beta_{0, k}^2+\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}\gamma^2_{0, jk}+\sum_{\ell=k+1}^p\gamma^2_{0, k\ell}\Big)\geq c n^{-\kappa_1},
\end{align*}
where $c$ is some positive constant which may be different from $c_2$. Thus Condition \ref{con: signal} can be understood as constraints imposed indirectly on the true nonzero regression coefficients.
Under these conditions, the following theorem shows that the sample estimates of the marginal utilities are sufficiently close to the population ones with significant probability, and establishes the sure screening property for both interaction and main effect screening.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th: Sure Screening-new}
(a) Under Conditions \ref{con: sparsity}--\ref{con: XYtail-new},
if $0\leq \max\{2\kappa_1+4\xi_1, 2\kappa_1+4\xi_2\}<1$ and $E(Y^4)=O(1)$, then for any $C>0$, there exists some constant $C_1>0$ depending on $C$ such that for $\log p=o(n^{\alpha_1\eta})$ with $\eta=\min\{(1-2\kappa_1-4\xi_2)/(8+\alpha_1),\,(1-2\kappa_1-4\xi_1)/(12+\alpha_1)\}$,
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: bound-omega-new}
P(\max_{1\leq k\leq p}|\widehat{\omega}_k-\omega_k|\geq Cn^{-\kappa_1})
=o(n^{-C_1}).
\end{eqnarray}
(b) Under Conditions \ref{con: sparsity}--\ref{con: XYtail-new},
if $0\leq \max\{2\kappa_2+2\xi_1, 2\kappa_2+2\xi_2\}<1$ and $E(Y^2)=O(1)$, then for any $C>0$, there exists some constant $C_2>0$ depending on $C$ such that
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: bound-omega-star-new}
P(\max_{1\leq j\leq p}|\widehat{\omega}^{\ast}_j-\omega^{\ast}_j|\geq Cn^{-\kappa_2})
=o(n^{-C_2})
\end{eqnarray}
for $\log p=o(n^{\alpha_1\eta'})$ with $\eta'=\min\{(1-2\kappa_2-2\xi_2)/(4+\alpha_1), (1-2\kappa_2-2\xi_1)/(6+\alpha_1)\}$.
(c) Under Conditions \ref{con: sparsity}--\ref{con: signal} and the choices of $\tau = c_2n^{-\kappa_1}$ and $\widetilde{\tau}= c_2n^{-\kappa_2}$, if $0 \leq \xi_1, \xi_2 < \min\{1/4-\kappa_1/2, 1/2-\kappa_2\}$ and $E(Y^4)=O(1)$, then we have
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq: sure1}
P\Big(\mathcal{I}\subset\widehat{\mathcal{I}} \ \text{ and } \ \mathcal{M}\subset\widehat{\mathcal{M}}\Big)
&=& 1-o\Big(n^{-\min\{C_1, C_2\}}\Big)
\end{eqnarray}
for $\log p = o(n^{\alpha_1 \min\{\eta, \eta'\}})$ with constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ given in \eqref{eq: bound-omega-new} and \eqref{eq: bound-omega-star-new}, respectively.
In addition, it holds that
\begin{align}
P & \left(|\widehat{\mathcal{I}}| \leq O\{n^{4\kappa_1} \lambda_{\max}^2(\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}^{\ast})\} \text{ and }
|\widehat{\mathcal{M}}|
\leq O\{n^{2\kappa_1}\lambda_{\max}(\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}^{\ast})+n^{2\kappa_2} \lambda_{\max}(\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$})\} \right) \nonumber\\
& = 1-o\left(n^{-\min\{C_1, C_2\}}\right) \label{eq: model-size-1},
\end{align}
where $\lambda_{\max}(\cdot)$ denotes the largest eigenvalue, $\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}=\mathrm{cov}(\mbox{\bf x})$, and $\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}^{\ast}=\mathrm{cov}(\mbox{\bf x}^{\ast})$ for $\mbox{\bf x}^{\ast}=(X_1^{\ast}, \cdots, X_p^{\ast})^T$ with $X_k^{\ast}=(X_k^2-E X_k^2)/\{\mathrm{var}(X_k^2)\}^{1/2}$.
\end{theorem}
Comparing the results from the first two parts of Theorem \ref{Th: Sure Screening-new} on interactions and main effects, respectively, we see that interaction screening generally requires more restrictive assumption on dimensionality $p$. This reflects that the task of interaction screening is intrinsically more challenging than that of main effect screening. In particular,
when $\alpha_1=2$, IP can handle ultra-high dimensionality up to
\begin{equation} \label{neweq001}
\log p
= o\left(n^{\min\{(1-2\kappa_1-4\xi_2)/5, \,(1-2\kappa_1-4\xi_1)/7, \, (1-2\kappa_2-2\xi_2)/3, \,(1-2\kappa_2-2\xi_1)/4\}}\right).
\end{equation}
It is worth mentioning that both constants $C_1$ and $C_2$ in the probability bounds \eqref{eq: bound-omega-new}--\eqref{eq: bound-omega-star-new} can be chosen arbitrarily large without affecting the order of $p$ and ranges of constants $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$. We also observe that stronger marginal signal strength for interaction variables and main effects, in terms of smaller values of $\kappa_1$ and $\kappa_2$, can enable us to tackle higher dimensionality.
The third part of Theorem \ref{Th: Sure Screening-new} shows that IP enjoys the sure screening property for both interaction and main effect screening, and admits an explicit bound on the size of the reduced model after screening. More specifically, an upper bound of the reduced model size is controlled by the choices of both thresholds $\tau$ and $\widetilde{\tau}$, and the largest eigenvalues of the two population covariance matrices $\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}^{\ast}$ and $\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}$. If we assume $\lambda_{\max}(\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}^{\ast})=O(n^{\xi_3})$ and $\lambda_{\max}(\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$})=O(n^{\xi_4})$ for some constants $\xi_3, \xi_4 \geq 0$, then with overwhelming probability the total number of interactions and main effects in the reduced model is at most of a polynomial order of sample size $n$.
The thresholds $\tau=c_2n^{-\kappa_1}$ and $\tilde{\tau}=c_2n^{-\kappa_2}$ given in Theorem 1 depend on unknown constants $c_2$, $\kappa_1$, and $\kappa_2$, and thus are unavailable in practice.
In real applications, to estimate the set of active interaction variables $\mathcal{A}$, we sort $|\hat{\omega}_k|, 1\leq k\leq p$, in decreasing order and then retain the top $d$ variables. This strategy is also widely used in the existing literature; see, for example, \cite{fan2008sure}, \cite{li2012feature}, \cite{he2013quantile}, \cite{shao2014martingale}, and \cite{cui2015model}.
The set of main effects $\mathcal{B}$ is estimated similarly
except that the marginal utility $|\hat\omega_k^*|$ is used.
Following the suggestion in \cite{fan2008sure}, one may choose the number of retained variables for each of sets $\mathcal{A}$ and $\mathcal{B}$ in a screening procedure as $n-1$ or $[c n/(\log n)]$ with $c$ some positive constant, depending on the available sample size $n$. The parameter $c$ can be tuned using some data-driven method such as the cross-validation.
It is worth pointing out that our result is weaker than that in \citet{fan2008sure} in terms of growth of dimensionality, where one can allow $\log p = o(n^{1-2\kappa_2})$. This is mainly because they considered linear models without interactions, indicating the intrinsic challenges of feature screening in the presence of interactions. Moreover, our assumptions on the distributions for the covariates and errors are more flexible.
The results in Theorem \ref{Th: Sure Screening-new} can be improved in the case when the covariates $X_j$'s and the response $Y$ are uniformly bounded. An application of the proofs for \eqref{eq: bound-omega-new}--\eqref{eq: bound-omega-star-new} in Section D of Supplementary Material yields
\begin{eqnarray*}
&& P\Big(\max_{1\leq k\leq p}|\widehat{\omega}_k-\omega_k|\geq c_2n^{-\kappa_1}\Big)
\leq pC_3\exp(-C_3^{-1}n^{1-2\kappa_1}), \\
&& P\Big(\max_{1\leq j\leq p}|\widehat{\omega}_j^{\ast}-\omega_j^{\ast}|\geq c_2n^{-\kappa_2}\Big)
\leq pC_3\exp(-C_3^{-1}n^{1-2\kappa_2}),
\end{eqnarray*}
where $C_3$ is some positive constant. In this case, IP can handle ultra-high dimensionality $\log p = o(n^{\xi})$ with $\xi=\min\{1-2\kappa_1, 1-2\kappa_2\}$.
\section{Interaction selection}\label{sec:Selection}
\subsection{Interaction models in reduced feature space} \label{sec: ReducedModel}
We now focus on the problem of interaction and main effect selection in the reduced feature space identified by the screening step of IP. To ease the presentation, we rewrite interaction model (\ref{eq:LM}) in the matrix form
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:LM:Mat}
\mbox{\bf y} = \beta_0 \mbox{\bf 1} + \widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}} \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} + \mbox{\boldmath $\varepsilon$},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mbox{\bf y} = (y_1, \cdots, y_n)^T$ is the response vector, $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} = (\theta_1, \cdots, \theta_{\widetilde{p}})^T$ is a parameter vector consisting of $\widetilde{p} = p(p+1)/2$ regression coefficients $\beta_j$ and $\gamma_{k \ell}$, $\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}$ is the corresponding $n \times \widetilde{p}$ augmented design matrix incorporating the covariate vectors for $X_j$'s and their interactions in columns, and $\mbox{\boldmath $\varepsilon$}$ is the error vector. Hereafter, for the simplicity of presentation and theoretical derivations, we slightly abuse the notation and still use $\mbox{\bf y}$ and $\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}$ to denote the de-meaned response and column de-meaned design
matrix, respectively, which leads to $\beta_0 = 0$. Denote by $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}=\{k_1, \cdots, k_{p_1}\}$ and
$\widehat{\mathcal{B}}=\{j_1, \cdots, j_{p_2}\}$ the sets of retained interaction variables and main effects, respectively, and $\mathcal{H}$ a subset of $\{1, \cdots, \widetilde{p}\}$ given by the features in
$\widehat{\mathcal{M}}=\widehat{\mathcal{A}}\cup \widehat{\mathcal{B}}$ and constructed interactions in $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}$ based on $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$ as defined in \eqref{Ihatdef}. To estimate the true value $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_0 = (\theta_{0, 1}, \cdots, \theta_{0, \widetilde{p}})^T$ of the parameter vector $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}$, we can consider the reduced feature space spanned by the
$q=2^{-1}p_1(p_1-1)+p_3$ columns of the augmented design matrix $\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}$ in $\mathcal{H}$ with $p_3$ the cardinality of $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}$, thanks to the sure screening property of IP shown in Theorem \ref{Th: Sure Screening-new}.
When the model dimensionality is reduced to a moderate scale $q$, one can apply any favorite variable selection procedure for effective selection of important interactions and main effects and efficient estimation of their effects. There is a large literature on the developments of various variable selection methods. Among all approaches, two classes of regularization methods, the convex ones (e.g., \cite{tibshiranit1996regression,zou2006adaptive,candes2007dantzig}) and the concave ones (e.g., \cite{fan2001variable,lv2009unified,zhang10mcp}), have been extensively investigated.
To combine the strengths of both classes, \citet{fan2014asymptotic} introduced the combined $L_1$ and concave regularization method. Such an approach can be understood as a coordinated intrinsic two-scale learning, in the sense that the Lasso component plays the screening role, in terms of reducing the complexity of intrinsic parameter space, whereas the concave component plays the selection role, in terms of refined estimation.
Following \citet{fan2014asymptotic}, we consider the following combined $L_1$ and concave regularization problem
\begin{eqnarray}\label{eq:IMObj}
\min_{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}\in \mathbb{R}^{\widetilde{p}}, \mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_{\mathcal{H}^c} = \mbox{\bf 0}}\left\{(2n)^{-1}\|\mbox{\bf y}-\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}\boldsymbol\theta\|^2_2
+\lambda_0\|\boldsymbol\theta_*\|_1+\|p_{\lambda}(\boldsymbol\theta_*)\|_1\right\},
\end{eqnarray}
where $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_{\mathcal{H}^c}$ denotes a subvector of $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}$ given by components in the complement $\mathcal{H}^c$ of the reduced set $\mathcal{H}$, $\lambda_0 \geq 0$ is the regularization parameter for the $L_1$-penalty, $p_\lambda(\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_*) = p_\lambda(|\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_*|) = (p_\lambda(|\theta_1^*|), \ldots, p_\lambda(|\theta_{\widetilde{p}}^*|))^T$ with $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_* = (\theta_1^*, \ldots, \theta_{\widetilde{p}}^*)^T$, and $p_\lambda(t)$ is an increasing concave penalty function on $[0, \infty)$ indexed by regularization parameter $\lambda \geq 0$. Here, $\boldsymbol\theta_* = \mbox{\bf D}\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$} = n^{-1/2}(\|\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}_1\|_2 \theta_1$, $\cdots, \|\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}_{\widetilde{p}}\|_2 \theta_{\widetilde{p}})^T$ is the coefficient vector corresponding to the design matrix with each column rescaled to have $L_2$-norm $n^{1/2}$, where $\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}} = (\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}_1, \cdots, \widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}_{\widetilde{p}})$ and $\mbox{\bf D} =\mathrm{diag}\{\mbox{\bf D}_{11}, \cdots, \mbox{\bf D}_{\widetilde{p}\widetilde{p}}\}$ with $\mbox{\bf D}_{mm} = n^{-1/2} \|\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}_m\|_2$, $m=1,\cdots, \widetilde p$, is the scale matrix.
The computational cost of solving the regularization problem \eqref{eq:IMObj} in $q$ dimensions after screening from ultra-high scale to moderate scale is substantially reduced compared to that of solving the same problem in $\widetilde{p}$ dimensions without screening. Moreover, important theoretical challenges arise in investigating the asymptotic properties of the resulting regularized estimator for IP. \citet{fan2014asymptotic} considered linear models with deterministic design matrix and no interactions, whereas we now need to study the interaction model with random design matrix. The presence of both interactions and additional randomness requires more delicate analyses.
We remark that although the combined $L_1$ and concave penalty is used in \eqref{eq:IMObj}, one can in fact use any favorite variable selection method in the selection step of IP. In particular, note that \eqref{eq:IMObj} does not automatically enforce the heredity constraint. If one believes in such constraint, other penalties, such as the ones in {\cite{yuan2009structured}, \cite{choi2010variable}, and \cite{bien2013lasso}, can be used in the selection step of IP to achieve this goal.
As specified in the Introduction, one major goal of our paper is to provide a methodological framework such that effective and efficient interaction screening can be conducted. So the penalty in \eqref{eq:IMObj} is just for demonstration purpose.
\subsection{Asymptotic properties of interaction and main effect selection} \label{sec: Theory-selection}
Before presenting the theoretical results,
we state some mild regularity conditions that are needed in our analysis. Without loss of generality, assume that the first $s = \|\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_0\|_0$ components of the true regression coefficient vector $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_0$ in \eqref{eq:LM:Mat} are nonzero. Throughout the paper, the regularization parameter for the $L_1$ component is fixed to be
$\lambda_0 = \widetilde{c}_0 \{(\log p)/n^{\alpha_1\alpha_2/(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2)}\}^{1/2}$ with $\widetilde{c}_0$ some positive constant. Some insights into this choice of $\lambda_0$ will be provided later. Denote by $p_{\text{H},\lambda}(t) = 2^{-1}\{\lambda^2-(\lambda-t)^2_{+}\}$, $t \geq 0$, the hard-thresholding penalty, where $(\cdot)_{+}$ denotes the positive part of a number.
\begin{assumption}\label{con:RE-new}
There exist some constants $\kappa_0, \kappa, L_1, L_2 > 0$ such that with probability $1-a_n$ satisfying $a_n=o(1)$, it holds that $\min_{\|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}\|_2=1,\, \|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}\|_0<2s} n^{-1/2}\|\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}\|_2 \geq \kappa_0$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\min\limits_{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}\neq0,\, \|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_2\|_1\leq 7\|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1\|_1}
\left\{n^{-1/2}\|\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}\|_2/(\|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1\|_2\vee \|\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}_2\|_2)\right\} \geq \kappa
\end{eqnarray*}
for $\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}=(\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1^T, \mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_2^T)^T\in \mathbb{R}^{\widetilde{p}}$ with $\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1\in \mathbb{R}^s$ and $\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}_2$ a subvector of $\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_2$ consisting of the $s$ largest components in magnitude, and $\mbox{\bf D}_{mm}$'s are bounded between $L_1\leq L_2$.
\end{assumption}
\begin{assumption}\label{con:pen-new}
The concave penalty satisfies that $p_{\lambda}(t)\geq p_{\emph{H},\lambda}(t)$
on $[0,\lambda]$, $p'_{\lambda}\{(1-{c_3})\lambda\}\leq \min\{\lambda_0/4, {c_3}\lambda\}$ for some constant ${c_3}\in [0, 1)$, and $-p''_{\lambda}(t)$ is
decreasing on $[0, (1-{c_3})\lambda]$. Moreover, $\min_{1 \leq j \leq s}|\theta_{0,j}|>L_1^{-1}\max\{(1-{c_3}) \lambda, 2 L_2 \kappa_0^{-1}p_{\lambda}^{1/2}(\infty)\}$
with $p_{\lambda}(\infty)=\lim\limits_{t\rightarrow \infty}p_{\lambda}(t)$.
\end{assumption}
Condition \ref{con:RE-new} is similar to Condition 1 in \citet{fan2014asymptotic} for the case of deterministic design matrix, except that the design matrix is now random in our setting and also augmented with interactions.
We provide in Section \ref{sec: RE condition} some sufficient conditions ensuring that Condition \ref{con:RE-new} holds.
Condition \ref{con:pen-new} puts some basic constraints on the concave penalty $p_\lambda(t)$ as in \citet{fan2014asymptotic}.
Under these regularity conditions, the following theorem presents the selection properties of the IP estimator $\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}} = (\widehat{\theta}_1, \cdots, \widehat{\theta}_{\widetilde{p}})^T$ including an explicit bound on the number of falsely discovered signs $\text{FS}(\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}})=|\{1\leq m \leq \widetilde{p}: \mathrm{sgn}(\widehat{\theta}_m)\neq \mathrm{sgn}(\theta_{0,m})\}|$, which provides a stronger measure on variable selection than the total number of false positives and false negatives.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th:global}
Assume that the conditions of part c) of Theorem \ref{Th: Sure Screening-new} and {Conditions \ref{con:RE-new}--\ref{con:pen-new} hold, $\log p = o\{n^{\alpha_1\alpha_2/(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2)}\}$ with $\alpha_1\alpha_2/(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2)\leq 1$}, and $p_{\lambda}(t)$ is continuously differentiable. Then the global minimizer $\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}$ of (\ref{eq:IMObj}) has the hard-thresholding property that each component is either zero or of magnitude larger than $(1-{c_3})\lambda$, and with probability at least $1-a_n-o(n^{-\min\{C_1, C_2\}}+ p^{-{c_4}})$, it satisfies simultaneously that
\begin{align*}
& n^{-1/2}\left\|\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}(\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}-\boldsymbol\theta_0)\right\|_2
= O(\kappa^{-1}\lambda_0s^{1/2}), \\
& \left\|\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}-\boldsymbol\theta_0\right\|_d
= O(\kappa^{-2} \lambda_0s^{1/d}), \quad d\in [1, 2], \\
& \emph{\text{FS}}(\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta})
= O\left\{\kappa^{-4} (\lambda_0/\lambda)^2s\right\},
\end{align*}
and furthermore $\mathrm{sgn}(\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta})=\mathrm{sgn}(\boldsymbol\theta_0)$ if $\lambda\geq 56(1-{c_3})^{-1}\kappa^{-2}\lambda_0s^{1/2}$, where ${c_4}$ is some positive constant. Moreover, the same results hold with probability at least $1-a_n-o(p^{-{c_4}})$ for the regularized estimator $\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}$ without prescreening, that is, without the constraint $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}_{\mathcal{H}^c} = \mbox{\bf 0}$ in (\ref{eq:IMObj}).
\end{theorem}
The results in Theorem \ref{Th:global} also apply to the regularized estimator with $p_1 = p_2 = p$ and $q = \widetilde{p} = p(p+1)/2$, that is, without any screening of variables. Theorem \ref{Th:global} shows that if the tuning parameter $\lambda$ satisfies
$\lambda_0/\lambda\rightarrow 0$, then the number of falsely discovered signs $\text{FS}(\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}})$
is of order $o(s)$ and thus the false sign rate $\text{FS}(\widehat{\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}})/s$
is asymptotically vanishing with probability tending to one. We also observe that the bounds for prediction and estimation losses are independent of the tuning parameter $\lambda$ for the concave penalty.
As shown in Theorem \ref{Th:global}, the regularization parameter for the $L_1$ component $\lambda_0 = \widetilde{c}_0 \{(\log p)/n^{\alpha_1\alpha_2/(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2)}\}^{1/2}$ plays a crucial role in characterizing the rates of convergence for the regularized estimator $\widehat{\boldsymbol\theta}$. Such a parameter basically measures the maximum noise level in interaction models. In particular, the exponent $\alpha_1\alpha_2/(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2)$ is a key parameter that reflects the level of difficulty in the problem of interaction selection. This quantity is determined by three sources of heavy-tailedness: covariates themselves, their interactions, and the error. To simplify the technical presentation, in this paper we have focused on the more challenging case of $\alpha_1\alpha_2/(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2)\leq 1$. Such a scenario includes two specific cases: 1) sub-Gaussian covariates and sub-Gaussian error, that is, $\alpha_1=\alpha_2=2$ and 2) sub-Gaussian covariates and sub-exponential error, that is, $\alpha_1=2, \alpha_2=1$. We remark that in the lighter-tailed case of $\alpha_1\alpha_2/(\alpha_1+2\alpha_2)>1$, one can simply set $\lambda_0 = \widetilde{c}_0 \{(\log p)/n\}^{1/2}$ and the results in Theorem \ref{Th:global} can still hold for this choice of $\lambda_0$ by resorting to Lemma \ref{lemma-Hao-Zhang-extend} and similar arguments in the proof of Theorem \ref{Th:global}.
\subsection{Verification of Condition \ref{con:RE-new}} \label{sec: RE condition}
Since Condition \ref{con:RE-new} is a key assumption for proving Theorem \ref{Th:global}, we provide some sufficient conditions that ensures this assumption on the augmented random design matrix $\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}} = (\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}_1, \cdots, \widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}_{\widetilde{p}})$. Denote by $\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ the population covariance matrix of the augmented covariate vector consisting of $p$ main effects $X_j$'s and $p(p-1)/2$ interactions $X_k X_{\ell}$'s.
\begin{assumption}\label{con: eigen}
There exists some constant $K > 0$ such that for $\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}=(\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1^T, \mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_2^T)^T\in \mathbb{R}^{\widetilde{p}}$,
\begin{eqnarray*}
\min_{\|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}\|_2=1,\, \|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}\|_0<2s}\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}^T\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$} \geq K \ \ \mbox{and} \ \
\min_{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$} \neq 0,\, \|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_2\|_1\leq 7\|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1\|_1} \mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}^T\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}/\left(\|\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1\|_2\vee \|\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}_2\|_2\right) \geq K,
\end{eqnarray*}
where $\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_1\in \mathbb{R}^s$ and $\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}}_2$ is a subvector of $\mbox{\boldmath $\delta$}_2$ consisting of the $s$ largest components in magnitude.
\end{assumption}
Condition \ref{con: eigen} is satisfied if the smallest eigenvalue of $\widetilde{\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}}$ is assumed to be bounded away from zero. Such a condition is in fact much weaker than the minimum eigenvalue assumption, since it is the population version of a mild sparse eigenvalue assumption and the restricted eigenvalue assumption. The following theorem shows that under some mild assumptions, Condition \ref{con:RE-new} holds for the full augmented design matrix $\widetilde{\mbox{\bf X}}$ and thus holds naturally for any $n \times q$ sub-design matrix with $q \leq \widetilde{p}$ and the sure screening property.
\begin{theorem}\label{Th:RE condition}
Assume that Condition \ref{con: eigen} holds, there exist some constants $\alpha_1, c_1 > 0$ such that for any $t>0$, $P(|X_j|> t) \leq c_1\exp(-c_1^{-1}t^{\alpha_1})$ for each $j$, $s=O(n^{\xi_0})$, and $\log p=o(n^{\min\{\alpha_1/4,\, 1\}- 2\xi_0})$ with constant $0\leq \xi_0<\min\{\alpha_1/8, 1/2\}$. Then Condition \ref{con:RE-new} holds with $n^{\min\{\alpha_1/4,\, 1\}-2\xi_0} = O(-\log a_n)$.
\end{theorem}
\section{Numerical studies}\label{sec:Numerical}
In this section, we design two simulation examples
to verify the theoretical results and examine the finite-sample performance of the suggested approach IP. We also present an analysis of a prostate cancer data set.
\subsection{Feature screening performance}\label{screening}
We start with comparing IP with several recent feature screening procedures: the SIS, DC-SIS \citep{li2012feature}, and SIRI \citep{jiang2014sliced}. The SIRI is an iterative procedure that
alternates between a large-scale variable screening step and a moderate-scale variable
selection step when the dimensionality $p$ is large. Since all other screening methods are non-iterative, in this section, we compare the initial screening step of SIRI with other methods and name the screening only procedure as SIRI*. The full iterative SIRI will be included in Section \ref{sec: selection} later for comparison of variable selection. SIRI*, SIS, and DC-SIS each return a set of variables without distinguishing between important main effects and active interaction variables. Thus, for each method, we construct interactions using all possible pairwise interactions of the recruited variables. By doing so, the strong heredity assumption is enforced. We name the resulting procedures as SIRI*2, SIS2, and DC-SIS2 to distinguish them from their original versions.
For IP, as mentioned in Section \ref{sec: Screening-Property}, we retain the top $[n/(\log n)]$ variables in each of sets $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{B}}$ defined in (\ref{eq: Ahat}) and (\ref{eq: Bhat}), respectively.
The features in the union set $\widehat{\mathcal{M}} = \widehat{\mathcal{A}} \cup \widehat{\mathcal{B}}$ are used as main effects while variables in set $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$ are used to build interactions in the selection step of IP. To ensure a fair comparison, the numbers of variables kept in SIRI*2, SIS2, and DC-SIS2 are all equal to the cardinality of $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}$, which is up to $2[n/(\log n)]$.
\medskip
\textbf{Example 1} (Gaussian distribution). We consider the following four interaction models linking the covariates $X_j$'s to the response $Y$:
\begin{itemize}
\item M1 (strong heredity): $Y =2X_1+2X_5 + 3 X_1X_5+\varepsilon_1$,
\item M2 (weak heredity): $Y=2X_1 +2X_{10}+ 3X_1X_5+\varepsilon_2$,
\item M3 (anti-heredity): $Y=2X_{10} + 2X_{15} + 3X_1X_5+\varepsilon_3$,
\item M4 (interactions only): $Y=3X_1X_5 + 3X_{10}X_{15}+\varepsilon_4$,
\end{itemize}
where the covariate vector $\mbox{\bf x}=(X_1, \cdots, X_p)^T \sim N(\mbox{\bf 0}, \mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$})$ with
$\mbox{\boldmath $\Sigma$}=(\rho^{|j-k|})_{1 \leq j, k \leq p}$ and the errors $\varepsilon_1 \sim N(0, 2.5^2)$, $\varepsilon_2 \sim N(0, 2^2)$, $\varepsilon_3 \sim N(0, 2^2)$, and $\varepsilon_4 \sim N(0, 1.5^2)$ are independent of $\mbox{\bf x}$. The first two models M1 and M2 satisfy the heredity assumption (either strong or weak), while the last two M3 and M4 do not obey such an assumption. Different levels of error variance are considered since the difficulty of feature screening varies across the four models. A sample of $n$ i.i.d. observations was generated from each of the four models. We further considered four different settings of $(n, p, \rho)=(200, 2000, 0)$,
$(200, 2000, 0.5)$, $(300, 5000, 0)$, and $(300, 5000, 0.5)$, and repeated each experiment 100 times.
\begin{center}
[Table \ref{tab:Ex1Screen} about here.]
\end{center}
Table \ref{tab:Ex1Screen} lists the comparison results for all screening methods in recovering each important interaction or main effect, and retaining all important ones. For model M1 satisfying the strong heredity assumption, all procedures performed rather similarly and all retaining percentages were either equal or close to 100\%.
Both DC-SIS2 and IP performed similarly and improved over SIS2 and SIRI*2 in model M2 in which the weak heredity assumption holds. In models M3 and M4, IP significantly outperformed all other methods in detecting interactions across all four settings, showing its advantage when the heredity assumption is not satisfied. We also observe that SIS2 failed to detect interactions, whereas SIRI*2 improved over DC-SIS2 in these two models. These results suggest that a separate screening step should be designed specifically for interactions to improve the screening accuracy, which is indeed one of the main innovations of IP.
\medskip
\textbf{Example 2} (Non-Gaussian distribution). The second example adopts the same four models as in Example 1, but with different distributions for the covariates $X_j$'s and error $\varepsilon$. We added an independently generated random variable $U_j$ to each covariate $X_j$ as given in Example 1 to obtain new covariates, where $U_j$'s are i.i.d. and follow the uniform distribution on $[-0.5, 0.5]$. The errors $\varepsilon_1 \sim t_{(3)}$, $\varepsilon_2 \sim t_{(4)}$, $\varepsilon_3 \sim t_{(4)}$, and $\varepsilon_4 \sim t_{(8)}$ are independent of $\mbox{\bf x}$.
\begin{center}
[Table \ref{tab:Ex2Screen} about here.]
\end{center}
The screening results of all the methods are summarized in Table \ref{tab:Ex2Screen}. Similarly as in Example 1, IP outperformed SIS2 in interaction screening.
{When the heredity assumption is satisfied, IP performed comparably to DC-SIS2. In particular, both approaches were better than SIS2 and SIRI*2 when the weak heredity assumption is satisfied.} The improvement of IP over all other methods in detecting interactions became substantial when the heredity assumption is violated.
We also calculated the overall signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the individual SNR for each model, where the former is defined as $\mathrm{var}(\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}^T\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})/\mathrm{var}(\varepsilon)$ with $\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}$ the augmented covariate vector defined in Section \ref{sec: ReducedModel}, $\varepsilon$ the error term and $\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$}$ given in model (\ref{eq:LM:Mat}), and the latter
is defined similarly by replacing $\mathrm{var}(\widetilde{\mbox{\bf x}}^T\mbox{\boldmath $\theta$})$ with the variance of each individual term. The overall and individual SNRs for the models considered in both Examples 1 and 2 are listed in Table \ref{tab:snr}. In particular, we see that although the overall SNRs are at decent levels, the individual ones are weaker, reflecting the general difficulty of retaining all important features for screening.
\begin{center}
[Table \ref{tab:snr} about here.]
\end{center}
\subsection{Variable selection performance}\label{sec: selection}
We further assess the variable selection performance of IP. For all screening methods but
SIRI*2, with each data set generated in Examples 1 and 2, we can employ regularization methods such as the Lasso and the combined $L_1$ and concave method to select important interactions and main effects after the screening step. As shown in \citet{fan2014asymptotic}, different choices of the concave penalty gave rise to similar performance. We thus implemented the combined $L_1$ and SICA ($L_1$+SICA) for simplicity. The approach of SIS2 followed by Lasso is referred to as SIS2-Lasso for short. All other combinations of screening and selection methods are defined similarly. We also paired up the hierNet \citep{bien2013lasso} with the IP for interaction identification.
For SIRI, we used the full iterative procedure as described in \cite{jiang2014sliced}. Since SIRI only returns a set of important variables, we added an additional refitting step using the selected variables to calculate model performance measures. We also included additional competitor
methods iFORT and iFORM in \cite{hao2014interaction} and RAMP in \cite{hao2015model} in our simulation studies.
The oracle procedure based on the true underlying interaction model was used as a reference point for comparisons. The cross-validation (CV) was used to select tuning parameters for all the methods, except that the BIC was applied to $L_1$+SICA related procedures for computational efficiency since two regularization parameters are involved.
To evaluate the variable selection performance of each method, we employed three performance measures. The first one is the prediction error (PE), which was calculated using an independent test sample of size 10,000. The second and third measures are the numbers of false positives (FP) and false negatives (FN), which are defined as the numbers of included noise variables and missed important variables in the final model, respectively.
\begin{center}
[Tables \ref{tab: Ex1Select} and \ref{tab: Ex2Select} about here.]
\end{center}
Table \ref{tab: Ex1Select} presents the medians and robust standard deviations (RSD) of these measures based on 100 simulations
for different models in Example 1. The RSD is defined as
the interquartile range (IQR) divided by 1.34. We used the median and RSD instead of the mean and standard deviation since these robust measures are better suited to summarize the results due to the existence of outliers. When the strong heredity assumption holds (model M1), both DC-SIS2-$L_1$+SICA and IP-$L_1$+SICA followed closely the oracle procedure,
and outperformed the other methods in terms of PE, FP, and FN across all four settings. In model M2 with the weak heredity assumption, variable selection methods based on both DC-SIS2 and IP performed fairly well. In the cases when the heredity assumption does not hold (models M3 and M4), the IP-$L_1$+SICA still mimicked the oracle procedure and uniformly outperformed the other methods over all settings. The inflated RSDs, relative to medians, in model M4 were due to the relatively low sure screening probabilities (see Tables \ref{tab:Ex1Screen} and \ref{tab:Ex2Screen}). When the sure screening probability is low, a nonnegligible number of replications can have nonzero false negatives, which inflated the corresponding prediction errors. The comparison results of variable selection for Example 2 are summarized in Table \ref{tab: Ex2Select}. The conclusions are similar to those for Example 1.
\subsection{Real data analysis}
In addition, we illustrate our procedure IP through an analysis of the prostate cancer data studied originally in \citet{singh2002gene} and analyzed also in \citet{fan2008high} and \citet{hall2014selecting}. This data set, which is available at http://www.broad.mit.edu/cgi-bin/cancer/datasets.cgi, contains $136$ samples with $77$ from the tumor group and $59$ from the normal group, each of which records the expression levels measured for $12,600$ genes. \citet{hall2014selecting} applied a four-step procedure to preprocess the data. Their procedure includes the truncation of intensities to make them positive, the removal of genes having little variation in intensity, the transformation of intensities to base $10$ logarithms, and the standardization of each data vector to have zero mean and unit variance. An application of the four-step procedure results in a total of $p=3,239$ genes.
We treated the disease status as the response and the resulting $3,239$ genes as covariates. The data set was randomly split into a training set
and a test set. Each training set consists of $69$ samples from the tumor group and $53$ samples from the normal group, and the test set is formed by the remaining samples. For each split, we applied the screening method IP to the training data and retained the top
$d=[cn/(\log n)] = [25.4 c]$ genes in each of sets $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$ and $\widehat{\mathcal{B}}$ with $c$ chosen from the grid $\{0.5, 1, 2\}$. For SIS2 and DC-SIS2, we retained the top $|\widehat{\mathcal{M}}|= |\widehat{\mathcal{A}}\cup \widehat{\mathcal{B}}|$ variables in the screening step. Because of the limited sample size, to increase the stability we constructed interactions in a more conservative way by using variables in set $\widehat{\mathcal{M}}$ instead of only $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}$ to build interactions in the selection step of IP. In addition, to overcome the difficulty caused by potential high
collinearity, in our real data analysis we used the elastic net penalty introduced in \cite{zou2005regularization}. We then tuned $c$ in terms of minimizing the classification error calculated using the test data. We also repeated the random split 100 times.
\begin{center}
[Table \ref{tab:real} about here.]
\end{center}
Three competing
methods SIS2-Enet, DC-SIS2-Enet, and IP-Enet were considered, where SIS2-Enet denotes the approach of
SIS2 followed by the elastic net, and the latter two methods are defined similarly. Since the same penalty is used for the step of variable selection, the difference in performance should come mainly from the screening step.
Table \ref{tab:real} summarizes the classification results and median model sizes for each method. We observe that the approach of IP-Enet yielded lower classification errors.
Paired $t$-tests of classification errors on the 100 splits of IP-Enet against SIS2-Enet and DC-SIS2-Enet gave $p$-values $4.95\times 10^{-10}$ and $1.62\times 10^{-8}$, respectively.
These results show that our proposed method outperformed significantly SIS2-Enet and DC-SIS2-Enet in classification error.
\begin{center}
[Table \ref{genes} about here.]
\end{center}
We also present in Table \ref{genes}
the top 10 interactions and top 10 main effects that were most frequently selected over 100 splits.
We see from Table \ref{genes} that a set of genes,
such as SERINC5, HPN, HSPD1, LMO3, and TARP,
were selected by all methods as main effects, revealing that those genes may play a significant role in the etiology of prostate cancer.
For example, \citet{Holt2010} claimed Hepsin (HPN) as one of the most consistently overexpressed genes in prostate cancer. In addition, evidence of the association between TARP gene variants and prostate cancer risk has been shown in \citet{Wolfgang2000}, \citet{Oh2004}, and \citet{Hillerdal2012}. Note that the gene ERG was missed by both SIS2-Enet and DC-SIS2-Enet in the top 10 main effects, but it was selected by IP-Enet as a main effect and part of an interaction (SLC7A1$\times$ERG).
There are a wide range of studies investigating the effect of ERG on prostate cancer \citep{Klezovitch2008, Furusato2010}.
The most frequently selected interaction DPT$\times$S100A4 by SIS2-Enet and DC-SIS2-Enet is also among the top 10 list by IP-Enet. Two more interactions, RARRES2$\times$KLK3 and MAF$\times$NELL2, are also among the top 10 lists by both IP-Enet and SIS2-Enet. However, some interactions involving PRKDC (PRKDC$\times$CFD and PRKDC$\times$KLK3) were very often selected by IP-Enet but missed by the other two methods.
There are studies showing that PRKDC is associated with prostate cancer (McCarthy et al., 2013). Such a finding favors the results of IP that the interactions PRKDC$\times$CFD and PRKDC$\times$KLK3 were identified to be associated with the phenotype.
}
\section{Discussion}\label{sec:Discussion}
We have considered in this paper the problem of interaction identification in ultra-high dimensions. The proposed method IP based on a new interaction screening procedure and post-screening variable selection is computationally efficient, and capable of reducing dimensionality from a large scale to a moderate one and recovering important interactions and main effects. To simplify the technical presentation, our analysis has been focused on the linear pairwise interaction models. Screening for main effects in more general model settings has been explored by many researchers; see, for example, \cite{fan2010sure}, \cite{fan2011nonparametric}, \cite{chang2013marginal}, and \cite{cheng2014nonparametric}. It would be interesting to extend the interaction screening idea of IP to
these and other more general model frameworks such as the generalized linear models, nonparametric models, and survival models with interactions.
The key idea of IP is to use different marginal utilities to screen interactions and main effects separately. As such, it can suffer from the same potential issues as the SIS. First, some noise interactions or main effects that are highly correlated with the important ones can have higher marginal utilities and thus priority to be selected than other important ones that are relatively weakly related to the response. Second, some important interactions or main effects that are jointly correlated but marginally uncorrelated with the response can be missed after screening. To address these issues, we next briefly discuss two extensions of IP that enable us to exploit more fully the joint information among the covariates.
Our first extension of IP, the iterative IP (IIP), is motivated by the idea of two-scale learning with the iterative SIS (ISIS) in \citet{fan2008sure} and \citet{fan2009ultrahigh}. The IIP works as follows by applying large-scale screening and moderate-scale selection in an iterative fashion. First, apply IP to the original sample $(\mbox{\bf x}_i, y_i)_{i = 1}^n$ to obtain two sets $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_1$ of interactions and
$\widehat{\mathcal{B}}_1$ of main effects,
and construct a set $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_1$ of interaction variables based on $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_1$ as in (\ref{intvarsets}).
Second, update the sets of candidate interaction variables as $\{1, \cdots, p\}\setminus \widehat{\mathcal{A}}_1$ and candidate main effects as
$\{1, \cdots, p\}\setminus \widehat{\mathcal{B}}_1$,
treat the residual vector from the previous iteration as the new response, and apply IP to the updated sample to obtain new sets $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_2$,
$\widehat{\mathcal{B}}_2$, and $\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_2$ defined similarly as before. Third, iteratively update the feature space for candidate interaction variables and main effects and the response, and apply IP to the updated sample to similarly obtain sequences of sets $(\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k)$,
$(\widehat{\mathcal{B}}_k)$, and $(\widehat{\mathcal{A}}_k)$, until the total number of selected interactions and main effects in sets $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k$'s and
$\widehat{\mathcal{B}}_k$'s
reaches a prespecified threshold. Fourth, finally select important interactions and main effects using a regularization method in the reduced feature space given by the union of $\widehat{\mathcal{I}}_k$'s and
$\widehat{\mathcal{B}}_k$'s.
The second extension of IP, the conditional IP (CIP), exploits the idea of the conditional SIS (CSIS) in \citet{barut2016conditional}, which replaces the simple marginal correlation with the conditional marginal correlation to assess the importance of covariates when some variables are known in advance to be important. Suppose we have some prior knowledge that two given sets $\mathcal{A}_0$,
$\mathcal{B}_0 \subset\{1, \cdots, p\}$ contain some active interaction variables and important main effects, respectively. For interaction screening, the CIP regresses the squared response $Y^2$ on each squared covariate $X_k^2$ with $k$ outside $\mathcal{A}_0$ by conditioning on $(X_\ell^2)_{\ell \in \mathcal{A}_0}$, and retains top ones in the conditional marginal utilities as interaction variables. Similarly, in main effect screening it employs marginal regression of the response $Y$ on each covariate $X_k$ with $k$ outside
$\mathcal{B}_0$ conditional on $(X_\ell)_{\ell \in \mathcal{B}_0}$.
After screening, CIP further selects important interactions and main effects using a variable selection procedure in the reduced feature space. The approach of CIP can also be incorporated into IIP by conditioning on selected variables in previous steps when calculating the marginal utilities along the course of iteration.
The investigation of these extensions is beyond the scope of the current paper and will be interesting topics for future research.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:Intro}
In some applications, error detection is at least as important as error correction.
This is the case of space telecommand (TC) links, where an uncorrected error may cause no command execution, when the error is detected, or wrong execution when the error is undetected.
The Space Link Coding and Synchronization Working Group of the Consultative Committee for Space Data Systems (CCSDS) has recently proposed to update the current recommendations \cite{CCSDS2010} through the inclusion of new low-density parity-check (LDPC) codes \cite{CCSDS2015}. In comparison with the code included in the current standard, which is a simple Bose-Chaudhuri-Hocquenghem (BCH) code able to correct $1$ error and to detect $2$ errors\footnote{In this case the code operates according to the so called single error correction (SEC) mode. Alternatively, a triple error detection (TED) mode is admitted where, however, the code is not allowed to correct any error.}, the new codes are characterized by much higher error correction capability. On the other hand, their error detection capability is known only in part, mostly because explicit formulas for the computation of the undetected codeword error rate (UCER) are not available and very long simulations are needed to estimate the UCER numerically.
Moreover, error detection depends on the decoding algorithm: in case of complete decoders the UCER coincides with the codeword error rate (CER), while using incomplete decoders allows to improve the UCER performance at the expense of CER performance.
Indeed, the CER values required in TC links (typically, $\leq 10^{-5}$) are significantly higher than those required for the UCER (typically, $\leq 10^{-9}$) \cite{Chiaraluce2014}, and this may be problematic with complete decoders.
A classical solution to improve the error detection performance consists of adding an outer cyclic redundancy check (CRC) code. The CRC code has no correction capability but it is able to detect a given number of random errors (in addition to some bursts error detection capability). Actually, the TC synchronization and channel coding standard includes, as an option, a $16$-bit CRC code which is able to detected up to $4$ errors \cite{CCSDS2015b}.
Combining the error detection capability of LDPC and CRC codes is gaining an increasing interest \cite{Prodan2013}.
In order to estimate the overall error detection performance, an approach often used consists of multiplying the UCER at the output of the LDPC decoder, estimated through simulation, by $2^{-P}$, being $P$ the number of redundancy bits of the CRC code.
In fact, the factor $2^{-P}$ represents the average fraction of input sequences that produce the same CRC syndrome, thus resulting indistinguishable one each other and eventually producing an undetected error.
Therefore, multiplying the LDPC decoder UCER by $2^{-P}$ corresponds to assume that an undetected error pattern at the output of the LDPC decoder may belong, with the same probability, to any syndrome coset.
This assumption is not obvious, and needs verification. So, one of the goals of this paper is to determine the overall UCER performance in a more precise way.
As we will show in the following, the exact estimation of the performance of the CRC code concatenated with the LDPC code requires the knowledge of the weight spectrum of the LDPC code, and this is generally a hard problem.
For the short LDPC codes proposed for TC links, this problem has been faced and the analysis developed around the subject has already produced valuable results, that will be reminded afterward.
Indeed, an exhaustive analysis is still not possible.
However, after validating our approach on a reduced scale, we are able to resort to an accurate approximation.
This way, we can obtain a reliable estimate of the UCER performance for the CRC + LDPC coding scheme in a scenario of practical interest and to compare it with the conventional approach.
This also allows to verify compliance with the error detection requirements of space TC links, which is another important goal of this study.
The organization of the paper is as follows. In Section \ref{sec:Codes} we describe the considered scheme and evaluate its CER/UCER performance in absence of CRC.
In Section \ref{sec:CRC} we introduce our analysis method and apply it to a toy example as well as to the LDPC codes of interest for TC links.
Finally, Section \ref{sec:Conclusion} concludes the paper.
\section{Description of the coding scheme}
\label{sec:Codes}
The considered encoding scheme is schematically shown in Fig. \ref{fig:Encoder}.
According to the standard \cite{CCSDS2010}, the $S$ bits at the output of the CRC, with $64 \leq S \leq 8192$, form the payload of a variable-length transfer frame (TF), which is then divided into $N = \lceil \frac{S}{k} \rceil$ blocks, with $k$ properly chosen.
Stuffing is used to complete the $N$-th block, if necessary. Then, each of these blocks is encoded by using a block code $C(n, k)$, where $n$ is the codeword length. The codewords pattern at the output of the parallel to serial (P/S) converter is sent to another block which adds start and tail sequences, that are introduced for aiding synchronization at the receiver side. These sequences, however, have no role in the present analysis and are therefore omitted.
At the receiver, the scheme is dual, that is, the received pattern is divided into $N$ blocks and each of them is decoded separately from the others. The $S$ bits at the output, after having eliminated the stuffing bits (if present), are then sent to the CRC for integrity checking.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=90mm, keepaspectratio]{Encoder.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Encoder} Block scheme of the considered encoder.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The CRC code is defined by the following generator polynomial \cite{CCSDS2015b}
\begin{equation}
g_{CRC}^{(16)}(x) = x^{16} + x^{12} + x^{5} + 1.
\label{gen_pol_16}
\end{equation}
Regarding $C(n, k)$, the current standard uses a BCH code with $n = 63$ and $k = 56$, which means that the rate is $R = 56/63$. The new LDPC codes, instead, have $R = 1/2$ and $k = 64$ or $k = 256$. In this paper, we mainly focus on the shortest LDPC(128, 64) code, though the analysis could be repeated for the longest one.
The parity-check matrix of the LDPC(128, 64) code can be obtained starting from the base matrix $\left[\mathbf{A} | \mathbf{B} \right]$, with \cite{CCSDS2015}:
\begin{align}
\mathbf{A} & = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
\mathbf{I}_M + \mathbf{\Phi}^7 & \mathbf{\Phi}^2 & \mathbf{\Phi}^{14} & \mathbf{\Phi}^6 \\
\mathbf{\Phi}^6 & \mathbf{I}_M + \mathbf{\Phi}^{15} & \mathbf{\Phi}^0 & \mathbf{\Phi}^1 \\
\mathbf{\Phi}^4 & \mathbf{\Phi}^1 & \mathbf{I}_M + \mathbf{\Phi}^{15} & \mathbf{\Phi}^{14} \\
\mathbf{\Phi}^0 & \mathbf{\Phi}^1 & \mathbf{\Phi}^9 & \mathbf{I}_M + \mathbf{\Phi}^{13}
\end{array} \right], \nonumber \\
\mathbf{B} & = \left[ \begin{array}{cccc}
\mathbf{0}_M & \mathbf{\Phi}^0 & \mathbf{\Phi}^{13} & \mathbf{I}_M \\
\mathbf{I}_M & \mathbf{0}_M & \mathbf{\Phi}^0 & \mathbf{\Phi}^7 \\
\mathbf{\Phi}^{11} & \mathbf{I}_M & \mathbf{0}_M & \mathbf{\Phi}^3 \\
\mathbf{\Phi}^{14} & \mathbf{\Phi}^1 & \mathbf{I}_M & \mathbf{0}_M
\end{array} \right].
\label{H_matrix}
\end{align}
According to (\ref{H_matrix}), the parity-check matrix is formed by $M \times M$ submatrices where $M = k/4 = n/8$.
$\mathbf{I}_M$ and $\mathbf{0}_M$ are the $M \times M$ identity and zero matrices, respectively, and $\mathbf{\Phi}$ is the first right circular shift of $\mathbf{I}_M$. Explicitly, this means that $\mathbf{\Phi}$ has a non-zero entry at row $i$ and column $j$ iff $j = i + 1 \mod M$. Consequently, $\mathbf{\Phi}^2$ is the second right circular shift of $\mathbf{I}_M$, that is, $\mathbf{\Phi}^2$ has a non-zero entry at row $i$ and column $j$ iff $j = i + 2 \mod M$, and so on. Obviously, $\mathbf{\Phi}^0 = \mathbf{I}_M$. The $\oplus$ operator indicates modulo-2 addition.
We have widely investigated the performance of this code over the AWGN channel, by considering binary phase shift keying (BPSK) modulation and using a variety of decoding algorithms. In Fig. \ref{fig:CER_128_64}, for example, we report the performance of three incomplete decoders exploiting iterative algorithms, namely, sum-product algorithm based on log-likelihood ratios (SPA-LLR) \cite{Hagenauer1996}, min-sum (MS) \cite{Fossorier1999} and normalized min-sum (NMS) \cite{Chen2002b}, and one complete decoder, based on the so called most reliable basis (MRB) algorithm \cite{Fossorier1995}. As evident from the figure, the complete decoder provides a significant gain with respect to the incomplete decoders, in terms of CER. Explicitly, the SNR (expressed as the ratio between the energy per bit $E_b$ and the one-side spectral density of the thermal noise $N_0$) required to achieve CER = $10^{-5}$ is $E_b/N_0 \approx 3.6$ dB for the MRB algorithm and $E_b/N_0 \approx 5.2$ dB for the SPA-LLR (and slightly greater for the other algorithms), therefore the gain achieved by MRB decoding is in the order of $1.6$ dB.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=85mm, keepaspectratio]{CER_LDPC.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:CER_128_64} CER performance of the LDPC(128, 64) code with BPSK modulated transmission over the AWGN channel and different decoding algorithms.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The figure also includes the so called union bound curve. This curve provides an upper bound on the error rate of the considered code under maximum likelihood (ML) decoding. The expression of the union bound for the CER (a similar expression can be derived for the bit error rate (BER)) is as follows \cite{Proakis1995}
\begin{equation}
{\rm CER_{UB}} = \sum_{w=d_{\min}}^{n} \frac{1}{2}A_w {\rm erfc} \sqrt{w R \frac{E_b}{N_0}}
\label{eq:UB_CER}
\end{equation}
where $A_w$ is the weight-$w$ multiplicity, that is, the number of codewords with weight $w$, and $d_{\min}$ is the minimum (Hamming) distance of the code $C(n, k)$. The first term of the sum, corresponding to $w = d_{\min}$, is also known as the ``error floor''. For sufficiently high values of $E_b/N_0$ it provides an excellent approximation of the performance of ML decoding.
The evaluation of the union bound requires the knowledge of the weight spectrum of the code. It is known that for LDPC codes this may be a non-trivial task. For the LDPC(128, 64) code, however, much work has been done to circumvent this issue. In particular, the first and most significant terms of the weight distribution for the LDPC(128, 64) code are specified in polynomial form as
\begin{align}
\left. A(x) \right|_{64 \times 128} &= 16x^{14} + 528x^{16} + 5632x^{18} \notag \\
&+ 35968x^{20} + 123888x^{22} + 364944x^{24} + \dots
\label{eq:EWFs}
\end{align}
where the presence of the term $A_w\, x^w$ means that there are $A_w$ codewords with Hamming weight $w$. The multiplicities $A_{14}$, $A_{16}$ and $A_{18}$ are exact \cite{JPL2015}; this part of the weight spectrum has been obtained through computer searches using a carefully tuned ``error impulse'' technique \cite{Declercq2008}. The other multiplicities are lower bounds on the actual values and have been obtained by using the approach proposed in \cite{Hu2004a}. It should be noted that any multiplicity can be expressed as a multiple of $16$. This is due to the quasi-cyclic structure of the code, according to which any codeword can be seen as the concatenation of $\frac{n}{M} = 8$ blocks, each one consisting of $M$ bits. Any cyclic shift by $1, 2, ..., M - 1$ positions within all blocks of a codeword (block-wise cyclic shift) produces another codeword. Explicitly, also in view of the application of the method we will propose next, this means that, for the LDPC(128, 64) code with $M = 16$, codewords are found in groups of $16$.
From Fig. \ref{fig:CER_128_64} we see that, also in comparison with the asymptotic ML behavior, the CER performance of the MRB algorithm is very good: the gap with respect to the union bound curve is about $0.5$ dB at CER = $10^{-5}$. On the opposite, the iterative algorithms are significantly suboptimal for the considered code.
On the other hand, if we pass to consider the UCER performance, the situation is reversed.
Let us consider first the SPA-LLR decoder. During simulations, undetected errors occur as a subset of the whole ensemble of errors. In the expected event that the UCER assumes very low values, at the SNR of interest, very long simulations are required to find a statistically significant number of undetected errors. More precisely, noting by $Q_u$ the number of undetected errors found at the output of a simulation that has produced $Q$ errors in total, the undetected error rate can be estimated as ${\rm UCER} = \frac{Q_u}{Q}{\rm CER}$. It is evident that, in order to have a sufficiently high statistical confidence, the value of $Q_u$ must be sufficiently large and, for such a goal, very long simulations are required.
The UCER curve of the LDPC(128, 64) code, under SPA-LLR decoding is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_128_64}. This curve has been obtained by imposing to find $500,000$ erred codewords, as the stopping rule, that is $5,000$ times greater than the standard criterion for example adopted to obtain the CER curves of Fig. \ref{fig:CER_128_64}. In both cases, the maximum number of iterations used was $I_{max} = 100$. We see that UCER = $10^{-9}$ is reached when $E_b/N_0 \approx 4.8$ dB, that is a value smaller than the working point ($E_b/N_0 \approx 5.2$ dB) required to satisfy the requirement on the CER.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=85mm, keepaspectratio]{UCER_LDPC.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:UCER_128_64} UCER performance of the LDPC(128, 64) code with BPSK modulated transmission over the AWGN channel and SPA-LLR and MRB decoding.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
The figure also shows the UCER curve when using the MRB algorithm. Actually, this curve coincides with that reported in Fig. \ref{fig:CER_128_64} since, as mentioned, UCER = CER for this scheme. The curve does not permit to estimate the SNR required to achieve UCER = $10^{-9}$. However, by artificially prolonging the curve, under the reasonable assumption that no error floor appears, we can foresee that the SNR required to satisfy the requirement on the UCER cannot be smaller than $E_b/N_0 \approx 5$ dB.
This value is significantly larger than the working point ($E_b/N_0 \approx 3.6$ dB) required to satisfy the requirement on the CER with the same decoding algorithm. This means that the potential advantage offered by the MRB algorithm may be frustrated and, wishing to satisfy both constraints (that is, on the CER and the UCER) the system should operate at an SNR comparable with that needed by the SPA-LLR decoder.
In such a scenario, the CRC can play a fundamental role, contributing to improve the UCER performance of the LDPC decoder. For the reasons explained above, the CRC is ``mandatory'' when adopting the MRB algorithm. However, it is certainly useful also when employing iterative algorithms.
So, in the following section we introduce a method for estimating the performance of the outer CRC code which is alternative to the rough approach reminded in the Introduction, and we provide relevant numerical results.
\section{Analysis of the CRC code performance}
\label{sec:CRC}
For the sake of simplicity, let us start by considering $S = 64$ bits, so that the encoded TF consists of only one codeword ($N = 1$). This assumption will be removed in Section \ref{subsec:Extension}. However, it is important to note that it corresponds to a situation of practical interest, occurring in case of short emergency commands.
Let us denote by $[\mathbf{s}|\mathbf{p}]$ the information ($\mathbf{s}$) plus CRC redundancy ($\mathbf{p}$) vector, of size $k$, representing the correct sequence and by $[\mathbf{s^*}|\mathbf{p^*}]$ an erred one resulting from an undetected error at the output of the LDPC decoder.
In the rare cases in which $\mathbf{p^*}$ actually corresponds to the CRC redundancy computed on $\mathbf{s^*}$, the error is undetected by the CRC code as well.
Let us denote by $c(x)$ the polynomial representing the erred codeword at the output of the LDPC decoder. The polynomial representing $[\mathbf{s^*}|\mathbf{p^*}]$, i.e., the first part of $c(x)$, can be written as $m(x) = \sum_{i=0}^{k - 1} a_i x^i$, $a_i \in[0, 1]$. If the remainder of the division of $m(x)$ by $g_{CRC}(x)$ is zero, then the CRC syndrome check is successful and the error remains undetected; otherwise, the error is detected by the CRC. We call such a procedure ``divisibility test''. In principle, $m(x)$ can assume all possible configurations, that is, any possible combination of powers of $x$.
Actually, We will show next that:
\begin{itemize}
\item the codewords at the output of the LDPC decoder when an undetected error occurs have weights concentrated in the neighborhood of a generally low value which depends on the decoding algorithm,
\item the divisibility of $m(x)$ by $g_{CRC}(x)$ depends on the weight of $c(x)$.
\end{itemize}
The second statement does not agree with the assumption of uniformity, which is at the basis of the multiplying factor $2^{-P}$ mentioned in the Introduction, and influences the value of the UCER at the CRC output. The remark on the weight of the codewords in case of undetected error is particularly important and, to the best of our knowledge, this is the first time such a phenomenon is explicitly observed.
Let us denote by ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{LDPC}}_j}$ the value of the UCER at the output of the LDPC decoder due to weight-$j$ codewords (which means that the erred codewords have weight $j$) and by ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j}$ the undetected error rate of these codewords by the CRC. The latter is, therefore, a conditional probability. The overall UCER, resulting from the concatenation of the LDPC decoder and the CRC is given by the following expression
\begin{equation}
{\rm UCER} = \sum_{j=d_{\min}}^{n} {\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{LDPC}}_j} \times {\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j}.
\label{eq:UCER_TOT}
\end{equation}
The values of ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{LDPC}}_j}$ can be estimated through long simulations, while those of ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j}$ can be determined via the polynomial division described above. More precisely, noting by $L_j$ the number of weight-$j$ codewords for which $m(x)$ is divisible by $g_{CRC}(x)$, we can write
\begin{equation}
{\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j} = \frac{L_j}{A_j}
\label{eq:UCER_CRC}
\end{equation}
where, according to (\ref{eq:EWFs}), $A_j$ is the weight-$j$ multiplicity.
\subsection{Application to a simple code.}
\label{subsec:Toy_example}
The method described above can be preliminarily applied to an LDPC(32, 16) code. This very short code has been designed by following the same approach, based on protographs, used for the codes to be included in the new standard \cite{CCSDS2015} and described in Section \ref{sec:Codes}. It is obviously not significant in the framework of TC links. However, it permits us to perform an exhaustive search of its codewords (whose number is $2^{16} = 65,536$), this way allowing a complete and rigorous evaluation of the terms ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j}$ in (\ref{eq:UCER_CRC}).
The generator polynomial of the CRC code for this example is assumed to be
\begin{equation}
g_{CRC}^{(8)}(x) = x^{8} + x^{7} + x^{6} + x^{4} + x^{2} + 1.
\label{gen_pol_8}
\end{equation}
The complete, exact weight distribution of the code is summarized in the following polynomial
\begin{align}
\left. A(x) \right|_{16 \times 32} &= 4x^{4} + 48x^{6} + 460x^{8} \notag \\
&+ 1776x^{10} + 6684x^{12} + 14048x^{14} + 19494x^{16} \notag \\
&+ 14048x^{18} + 6684x^{20} + 1776x^{22} + 460x^{24} \notag \\
&+ 48x^{26} + 4x^{28} + x^{32}.
\label{eq:EWFs_toy}
\end{align}
Let us focus on the MRB decoding algorithm, that we use with order $4$ (see \cite{Baldi2015} for details). A similar analysis can be developed for the SPA-LLR, but it is here omitted for saving space. In Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_32_16_MRB} we report the UCER curve (coincident, as usual, with the CER curve) decomposed into the contributions due to codewords of different weights. These curves are the result of a Montecarlo simulation; hence, they must be considered as an estimate. In particular, each curve is interrupted at the value of $E_b/N_0$ above which simulation has not found erred codewords with the specified weight. Weights larger than $14$ do not appear, for the same reason. However, their incidence, particularly for not too small values of $E_b/N_0$, is expected to be quite negligible. Indeed, we see that for higher and higher SNR, the major contribution to the UCER comes from the smallest weight codewords (those with weight $4$, in particular).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=85mm, keepaspectratio]{UCER_LDPC_short.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:UCER_32_16_MRB} UCER performance of the LDPC(32, 16) code, with detail of individual contributions, by using the MRB algorithm.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
As the weight spectrum of this code is completely known, it is possible to compute exactly the terms $L_i$. Those non null are reported in Table \ref{tab:Li_32_16}. For $i = 4, 6, 8, 26, 28, 32$ we have in fact $L_i = 0$ which means that undetected erred codewords with such weights, at the output of the LDPC decoder, are certainly identified by the CRC and do not contribute to the overall UCER at the receiver output. This is very important since, as seen in Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_32_16_MRB}, the low-weight codewords are responsible for the major contributions to the UCER at the output of the LDPC decoder, that will be, therefore, significantly smoothed in the presence of the CRC.
\begin{table}[t]
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.1}
\caption{Non null values of $L_i$ for the LDPC(32, 16) code.}
\label{tab:Li_32_16}
\centering
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
$i$ & $10$ & $12$ & $14$ & $16$ & $18$ & $20$ & $22$ & $24$\\
\hline
$L_i$ & $9$ & $26$ & $52$ & $72$ & $61$ & $28$ & $6$ & $1$\\
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
Actually, from the values of $L_i$, the ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j}$'s can be determined through (\ref{eq:UCER_CRC}). Finally, multiplying by the corresponding ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{LDPC}}_j}$ and summing, according to (\ref{eq:UCER_TOT}), the UCER curve after application of the LDPC (MRB) decoder and the CRC is that shown in Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_overall_short}. The curve stops at $E_b/N_0 = 5.5$ dB, as this is the last simulated point for the codewords with weight $i = 10$, which are the first to provide a non null contribution. The figure also shows a comparison with the curve obtainable by using the conventional method, as described in Section \ref{sec:Intro}, which consists of multiplying ${\rm{UCER}}_{\rm{LDPC}}$ by $2^{-P} = 2^{-8}$. We see that the difference between the two curves is significant: for this particular code, the conventional method overestimates the UCER by about two orders of magnitude at high SNRs, which are the most interesting in practice.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=85mm, keepaspectratio]{UCER_overall_short.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:UCER_overall_short} Estimated overall UCER for the LDPC(32, 16) code with MRB decoding and comparison with the result obtained by the conventional method.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Application to the LDPC(128, 64) code.}
\label{subsec:LDPC_example}
In principle, application of the method to the LDPC(128, 64) code proceeds exactly as described for the shorter code in Section \ref{subsec:Toy_example}. In this case, however, the number of codewords is $2^{64} \approx 1.8 \cdot 10^{19}$ and this prevents us from finding all codewords in an acceptable time, as required by the divisibility test. More precisely, we were able to determine all codewords with weight $i = 14, 16$ and $18$ (the same for which the multiplicities in (\ref{eq:EWFs}) are exact), while for the others we have been able to estimate a subset that, however, is significant enough for our evaluation.
Let us suppose to perform decoding by MRB of order $4$. Figure \ref{fig:Histograms_MRB} shows the number of erred codewords we have found through simulation, as a function of the codewords weight, for different values of $E_b/N_0$, at the output of the MRB decoder. For each SNR point, we have run simulations until finding $100$ erred codewords (and, in fact, the columns of the histogram sum to $100$). This guarantees a satisfactory confidence level for the error rates here considered. Differently from Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_32_16_MRB}, we have preferred to decompose the contributions due to different weight codewords by looking at the multiplicities instead of the error rate, as this helps to discuss results. Attention has been focused on the interval $E_b/N_0 \in [3, 4]$ dB since, according to Fig. \ref{fig:CER_128_64}, this is the region of interest in view of satisfying the constraint on the CER.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=60mm, keepaspectratio]{Histogram_MRB_3.eps}
\includegraphics[width=60mm, keepaspectratio]{Histogram_MRB_3_5.eps}
\includegraphics[width=60mm, keepaspectratio]{Histogram_MRB_4.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Histograms_MRB} Multiplicities of erred codewords at the output of the MRB decoder.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
From the figures we see that, similarly to the shorter code in Section \ref{subsec:Toy_example}, by increasing the value of $E_b/N_0$, the majority of the erred codewords tend to have lower and lower weights. Actually, this mechanism becomes even more evident by considering $E_b/N_0 > 4$ dB; the corresponding histograms are not reported here for the sake of brevity. We can conclude that if the SNR value is sufficiently high, the ${\rm{UCER}}_{\rm{LDPC}}$ curve is dominated by these low weight codewords, and the estimation error is acceptable, in the neighborhood of $E_b/N_0 = 3.5$ dB, by considering weights up to $28$.
As mentioned above, in this case we are not able to find the complete $L_i$-distribution, as we do not know the complete set of codewords. However, by using the subset of codewords we have found, we have been able to establish that $L_{14} = L_{16} = L_{18} = 0$. This result is exact, as for these weights the divisibility test was realized exhaustively. Accordingly, the sum in (\ref{eq:UCER_TOT}) can start from $j = 20$. On the other hand, for the reasons explained above, we can truncate the sum at $j = 28$, at the cost of an acceptable error.
Following this strategy, we have estimated the values of $L_j$, on the basis of the available codewords, for $j = 20, 22, 24, 26$ and $28$, replaced them in (\ref{eq:UCER_CRC}) (where the $A_j$ values are approximate as well), and finally combined the values of ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j}$ so obtained with those of ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{LDPC}}_j}$. This way, we have been able to derive a meaningful estimate of the overall UCER at the receiver output.
The result of such processing is shown in Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_overall_MRB} where, similarly to Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_overall_short}, a comparison has been done with the curve obtained by applying the conventional method, that here consists of multiplying ${\rm{UCER}}_{\rm{LDPC}}$ by $2^{-P} = 2^{-16}$. We see that, contrary to the LDPC(32, 16) code, in this case our method provides a curve very close to that achievable by applying the conventional method. Therefore, the latter can be applied with good confidence.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=85mm, keepaspectratio]{UCER_overall_MRB.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:UCER_overall_MRB} Estimated overall UCER for the LDPC(128, 64) code, with MRB decoding, and comparison with the result obtained by the conventional method.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
From a practical point of view, the most important conclusion we can draw from Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_overall_MRB} is that concatenation of the LDPC MRB decoder and the CRC allows to satisfy the constraint on the UCER at the working point fixed by the CER; at $E_b/N_0 = 3.6$ dB, in fact, we have ${\rm{UCER} \approx 10^{-10}}$. Actually, this conclusion could be drawn directly by applying the conventional method but the fact to have proven it by exploiting a more rigorous approach makes the analysis more convincing.
As seen in Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_128_64}, when the SPA-LLR is used for decoding the LDPC(128, 64) code the CRC is unnecessary, as the UCER requirement is satisfied at $E_b/N_0 = 5.2$ dB, that is the working point fixed by the constraint on the CER. However, the CRC can further lower the value of the UCER, this way increasing the margin with respect to the fixed requirement. So, the analysis developed above in case of applying the MRB algorithm has been repeated for the SPA-LLR. Figure \ref{fig:Histograms_SPA} shows the number of erred codewords we have found through simulation, as a function of the codewords weight, for values of $E_b/N_0 \in [4, 5]$ dB, at the output of the SPA-LLR decoder. Even more than in Fig. \ref{fig:Histograms_MRB} we see that the weights of the erred codewords tend to be concentrated around the smallest values. Despite the fact that the multiplicities have been found by simulating as large numbers of codewords as to have $500,000$ erred codewords in total, the number of undetected errors, particularly at $E_b/N_0 = 5$ dB, is very small.
However, even excluding the last point, the mentioned trend towards lower and lower weights is confirmed by the other values of $E_b/N_0$ (where the statistical confidence is higher).
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=60mm, keepaspectratio]{Histogram_SPA_4.eps}
\includegraphics[width=60mm, keepaspectratio]{Histogram_SPA_4_5.eps}
\includegraphics[width=60mm, keepaspectratio]{Histogram_SPA_5.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:Histograms_SPA} Multiplicities of erred codewords at the output of the SPA-LLR decoder.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
By combining the values of ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{LDPC}}_j}$, obtainable from Fig. \ref{fig:Histograms_SPA} (and similar for smaller $E_b/N_0$), with those of ${\rm{UCER}}_{{\rm{CRC}}_j}$, according to (\ref{eq:UCER_CRC}), we obtain the curve in Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_overall_SPA} which contains also the comparison with the conventional method. Contrary to Fig. \ref{fig:UCER_overall_MRB}, the result obtained through our method in this case is appreciably different from that obtained through the conventional method. Both curves do not reach $E_b/N_0 = 5.2$ dB because of the lack of statistical confidence of the simulation results. However, there is no doubt that the concatenation of the LDPC SPA-LLR decoder and the CRC allows to satisfy the constraint on the UCER at the working point fixed by the CER.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{centering}
\includegraphics[width=85mm, keepaspectratio]{UCER_overall_SPA.eps}
\caption{\label{fig:UCER_overall_SPA} Estimated overall UCER for the LDPC(128, 64) code, with SPA-LLR decoding, and comparison with the result obtained by the conventional method.}
\par\end{centering}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Extension to the case of $N > 1$.}
\label{subsec:Extension}
The analysis developed in the previous sections assumed $N = 1$. The conclusions drawn, however, remain basically unchanged even when the encoded TF consists of more than one codeword.
Let us consider the LDPC(128, 64) code.
In the most general case, the information sequence input to LDPC encoding before transmission over the channel can be written as the vector $[\mathbf{s}_1|\mathbf{s}_2|...|\mathbf{s}_N|\mathbf{p}]$, where each sub-vector $\mathbf{s}_i$, with $i = 1, 2,. . ., N - 1$, has size $k$, while $\mathbf{s}_N$ has size $k - 16$ and $\mathbf{p}$ is the CRC syndrome computed over all previous bits.
After transmission and LDPC decoding, one or more of these sub-vectors may be erred, depending on the decodings that failed.
However, the probability that two or more decodings result in undetected errors is obviously much smaller than the probability that a single undetected error event occurs.
So, it is realistic to consider the contribution due to a single failure as dominant.
The probability of this event has been computed in the previous sections for $N = 1$.
So, the previous analysis, under the assumption of a single failure, strictly holds when the error occurs in $\mathbf{s}_N$.
We remind that the divisibility test, which is at the basis of our method, consists of dividing the polynomial representing the information vector resulting from LDPC decoding by the generator polynomial of the CRC.
Let us suppose that LDPC decoding of the $N$-th codeword incurred in an undetected error, thus producing $[\mathbf{s}_1|\mathbf{s}_2|...|\mathbf{t}_N]$ as the information vector at the output of LDPC decoding,
with $\mathbf{t}_N \neq [\mathbf{s}_N|\mathbf{p}]$ being the information part of the $N$-th codeword. So, we can write
\begin{equation}
[\mathbf{s}_1|\mathbf{s}_2|...|\mathbf{t}_N] = [\mathbf{s}_1|\mathbf{s}_2|...|\mathbf{s}_N|\mathbf{p}] + [\mathbf{0}|\mathbf{0}|...|\mathbf{e}_N]
\label{eq:gen1}
\end{equation}
where $\mathbf{0}$ is the null vector of size $k$ and $\mathbf{e}_N = \mathbf{t}_N + [\mathbf{s}_N|\mathbf{p}]$ (plus is justified by the fact we are considering binary transmissions). Noting by $p(x)$ the polynomial representing the first vector at the right hand side (r.h.s.) of (\ref{eq:gen1}) and by $m(x)$ the polynomial representing the second vector, $p(x)$ certainly divides $g_{CRC}^{(16)}(x)$. So, in order to check if the CRC is able (or not) to detect the error, it is sufficient to check if $m(x)$ is not divisible (or divisible).
If the error is due to the $j$-th decoder, with $j < N$, in place of (\ref{eq:gen1}) we have
\begin{equation}
[\mathbf{s}_1|...|\mathbf{t}_j|...|\mathbf{s}_N|\mathbf{p}] = [\mathbf{s}_1|...|\mathbf{s}_j|...|\mathbf{s}_N|\mathbf{p}] + [\mathbf{0}|...|\mathbf{e}_j|...|\mathbf{0}]
\label{eq:gen2}
\end{equation}
being $\mathbf{e}_j = \mathbf{t}_j + \mathbf{s}_j$.
The polynomial representing the second vector at the r.h.s. of (\ref{eq:gen2}), noted by $m'(x)$, can be obtained from an $m(x)$ as $m'(x) = x^{64(N - j)} \cdot m(x)$.
Since division of $x^{64(N - j)}$ by $g_{CRC}^{(16)}(x)$ does not produce a remainder equal to zero, it is clear that $m'(x)$ is divisible by $g_{CRC}^{(16)}(x)$ iff $m(x)$ is divisible by $g_{CRC}^{(16)}(x)$.
Therefore, the UCER performance is independent of the position of the erred codeword, and the results obtained in the previous sections are also valid in the most general case.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{sec:Conclusion}
When a CRC code is used as the outer code in a concatenated scheme, evaluation of its performance must take into account the statistical and structural features of the codewords at the output of the inner decoder. By considering the case of short inner LDPC codes, in this paper we have presented a conceptually simple method which permits us to overcome the limits of previous analyses, thus providing a meaningful estimate of the UCER curve at the output of the concatenated system. The method has been applied to the relevant case of the new short LDPC codes recently proposed for updating the channel coding options in space TC links. We have shown that the codewords resulting from undetected error events at the output of the LDPC decoder very often have low weights. The CRC can reveal these low weight undetected error patterns, thus improving significantly the overall performance. This way, we have been able to confirm that, taking advantage of the CRC, the short LDPC codes can comply with the severe requirements set on the error detection capability for this kind of applications.
The main problem of the proposed method is the difficulty in knowing the weight spectrum of the LDPC codes and the need to carry out very long simulations for estimating the UCER performance of the LDPC decoder.
\bibliographystyle{IEEEtran}
|
\section{Conclusion}{\label{conclusion}}
We demonstrated that sensor fingerprinting is feasible on a much larger scale than previously studied. We showed that 90\% accuracy can be achieved for up to 400 devices, and \emph{at least} 12--16\% accuracy can be realized with 100\,000 devices, as predicted according to our model. Our measurement study reveals that motion sensors are already used by over 1\% of the top 100\,000 websites, and that sensor data are often sent to servers, which could serve as a vehicle for fingerprinting. Thus we can conclude that motion sensor fingerprinting is a realistic threat to mobile users' privacy.
We also evaluated the tradeoff between privacy and utility as realized by two different fingerprinting mitigation strategies. Our measurement study suggests that many applications of sensor data are unlikely to be affected. Our user study shows that even for sensitive applications that use motion sensors as control input, there is no significant impact of privacy mitigation techniques on the usability of motion sensors in this context, according to both subjective and objective metrics.
\section{Fingerprinting Smartphones}{\label{dist_distribution}}
In this section we will first look at how well we can fingerprint our participating smartphones. Next, we will discuss how we can expand our results to simulate experiments with large number of smartphones. Finally, we will provide simulation results for large number of smartphones.
\subsection{Results From Participating Smartphones}
\label{sec:realphones}
We had a total of 610 participants in our data collection study. To evaluate the performance of the classifiers, we first split our data set in training and testing set. As we have devices with different number of data samples (see figure~\ref{samples_per_device}), we evaluate F-score for different size of training set. We \emph{randomly} choose the training and testing samples. To prevent any bias in the selection of the training and testing set we rerun our experiments 10 times and report the average F-score \footnote{We also compute the 95\% confidence interval for F-score, but we found it to be less than 1\% in most cases.}. Table~\ref{realworld_result} summarizes the average F-score for different number of training samples per device.
\noindent\begin{minipage}{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Average F-score for different training set size}
\resizebox{0.65\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
{Training}&{Number}&{Avg. F-score (\%)}\\
\cline{3-3}
{samples}&{of}&Random\\
{per device}&{devices}&Forest\footnote{\scriptsize{100 bagged decision trees}}\\
\hline
1&586&33\\
\hline
2&567&65\\
\hline
3&545&78\\
\hline
4&524&83\\
\hline
5&501&86\\
\hline
6&483&88\\
\hline
7&468&89\\
\hline
8&444&89\\
\hline
9&400&90\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{realworld_result}
\end{minipage}
From Table~\ref{realworld_result} we see that we can achieve high classification accuracy even for this larger data set.
With five training samples, which correspond to about 25\,s of data, accuracy is 86\%, increasing to 90\% with 9 training samples. Even with a single 5\,s sample, we obtain 33\% accuracy, which may be sufficient if a small amount of extra information can be obtained through other browser fingerprinting techniques, however weak.
In terms of performance, we found that on average it takes around 100--200 ms to match a new fingerprint to an existing fingerprint. For our experiments we use a desktop machine with an Intel i7-2600 3.4GHz processor with 12GiB RAM.
\subsection{Analyzing Scalability}
\label{sec:scalability}
Although we have shown that we can reliably fingerprinting a few hundred devices, in real-world scenarios the fingerprinted population will be much larger. It is not feasible for us to collect data on much larger data sets; instead, we develop a model to predict how well a classifier will perform as the number of devices grows. However, although random forest provides the best classification performance, on our data set, its operation is hard to model, as different trees use a different random sample of features. We therefore base our analysis on nearest-neighbor classifier ($k$-NN), which uses a distance metric that we can model parametrically. Note that $k$-NN does not perform as well as random forest; as a result, our estimates are a \emph{conservative} measure of the actual attainable classification accuracy.
\noindent\begin{figure*}[b]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{cccc}
\epsfig{file=diffdevice_1.pdf,width=0.23\linewidth,clip=}&\epsfig{file=diffdevice_2.pdf,width=0.23\linewidth,clip=}&
\epsfig{file=diffdevice_3.pdf,width=0.23\linewidth,clip=}&\epsfig{file=diffdevice_4.pdf,width=0.23\linewidth,clip=}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Estimated inter-device distance distributions for 4 subsets of devices where each subset contains 141 devices.}
\label{diff_device_distr}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Distance Metric Learning}
The $k$-NN algorithm relies on a distance metric to identify neighboring points. It is possible to compute simple Euclidean distance between feature vectors; however, this is unlikely to yield optimal results as some features will tend to dominate.
Learning a better distance (or similarity) metric between data points has received much attention in the field of machine learning, pattern recognition and data mining for the past decade~\cite{BelletHS13}. Handcrafting a good distance metric for a specific problem is generally difficult and this has led to the emergence of metric learning. The goal of a distance metric learning algorithm is to take advantage of prior information, in form of labels, to automatically learn a transformation for the input feature space. A particular class of distance function that exhibits good generalization performance for distance-based classifiers such as \emph{k}-NN, is Mahalanobis metric learning~\cite{Kostinger:2012}. The aim is to find a global, linear transformation of the feature space such that relevant dimensions are emphasized while irrelevant ones are discarded. The linear transformation performs arbitrary rotations and scalings to conform to the desired geometry. After projection, Euclidean distance between data points is measured.
State-of-the-art Mahalanobis metric learning algorithms include \emph{Large Margin Nearest Neighbor} (LMNN)~\cite{weinberger2009distance}, \emph{Information Theoretic Metric Learning} (ITML)~\cite{Davis:2007} and \emph{Logistic Discriminant Metric Learning} (LDML)~\cite{Guillaumin:2009}. A brief description of these metric learning algorithms is provided by K\"{o}stinger et al.~\cite{Kostinger:2012}. To understand how these metric learning algorithms improve the performance \emph{k}-NN classifier, we first plot the \emph{mutual information} (MI) of each feature before and after each transformation. Figure~\ref{Mutual_Info} shows the amount of mutual information per feature under both untransformed and transformed settings.
\noindent\begin{minipage}{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Performance of different metric learning algorithms}
\resizebox{0.65\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multicolumn{4}{|c|}{Avg. F-score for \emph{k}-NN\footnote{\scriptsize{$k=1$, 3 training samples per device}}}\\
\hline
{Untransformed}&{LMNN}&{ITML}&{LDML}\\
\hline
35&41&46&50\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{metric_performance}
\end{minipage}
Figure~\ref{Mutual_Info} shows a clear benefit of the distance metric learning algorithms. All of the transformations provide higher degree of mutual information compared to the original untransformed data. Among the three transformations we see that LDML on average provides slightly higher amount mutual information per feature. This is confirmed when we rerun the \emph{k}-NN classifier on the transformed feature space. Table~\ref{metric_performance} highlights the average F-score for different metric learning algorithms. We see that for our data set, LDML seems to be the best choice. We, therefore, use LDML algorithm to transform our feature space before applying \emph{k}-NN for the rest of the paper. However, even with LDML, $k$-NN underperforms random forest, as seen in Table~\ref{realworld_KNN_result}: our $F$-score drops from 78\% to 54\% with 3 samples and from 86\% to 64\% with 5 samples.
\noindent\begin{minipage}{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Average F-score of $k$-NN after LDML}
\resizebox{0.9\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{Training}&{Number}&\multicolumn{3}{c|}{Avg. F-score (\%)}\\
\cline{3-5}
{samples}&{of}&\multirow{2}{*}{\emph{k}-NN}\footnote{\scriptsize{$k=1$}}&\multirow{2}{*}{\emph{k}-NN+LDML}\footnote{\scriptsize{$k=1$}}&Random\\
{per device}&{devices}&&&Forest\footnote{\scriptsize{100 bagged decision trees}}\\
\hline
1&586&24&38&33\\
\hline
2&567&31&43&65\\
\hline
3&545&35&50&78\\
\hline
4&524&36&52&83\\
\hline
5&501&38&54&86\\
\hline
6&483&38&54&88\\
\hline
7&468&38&53&89\\
\hline
8&444&37&52&89\\
\hline
9&400&35&50&90\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{realworld_KNN_result}
\end{minipage}
\noindent\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\epsfig{file=diffdevice_all.pdf,width=0.32\linewidth,clip=}&\epsfig{file=samedevice_all.pdf,width=0.32\linewidth,clip=}&
\epsfig{file=distributions.pdf,width=0.32\linewidth,clip=}\\
(a)&(b)&(c)
\end{tabular}
\caption{Estimated distributions for (a) inter-device distance ($C_{inter}$) (b) intra-device distance ($C_{intra}$). (c) Difference between intra and inter-device distance distribution.}
\label{dist_distr}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Intra and Inter-Device Distance}
To predict how $k$-NN will operate on larger data sets, we proceed to derive a distribution for distances between samples from different devices (inter-device), and a second distribution for distances between different samples from the same device (intra-device), after first applying the LDML transformation to the feature space. Since each data sample is a point in a $n$-dimensional feature space, we compute the Euclidean distance between any two data samples using the the following equation:\nolinebreak
\begin{equation}
d(p,q) = \sqrt{\sum_{i=1}^{n}(p_i-q_i)^2}
\end{equation}
where $p$ and $q$ represent two feature vectors defined as follows, $p=(p_1,p_2,...,p_n)$, $q=(q_1,q_2,...,q_n)$. We then group distances between feature vectors from the same device into one class $C_{intra}$ and distances between feature vectors from different devices into another class $C_{inter}$. Class $C_{intra}$ and $C_{inter}$ can be defined as follows:
\nolinebreak
\begin{align}
C_{intra}&=\{ x : x=d(p,q), p\in{D_i}, q\in{D_i}, \forall{i}\in{D}\}\nonumber\\
C_{inter}&=\{ x : x=d(p,q), p\in{D_i}, q\in{D_j}, i\neq{j}, \forall{i,j}\in{D}\}\nonumber
\end{align}
where $D$ refers to the set of all devices (we consider only devices with at least 2 traing samples, we have 567 such devices). We can now fit an individual distribution for each class. To do this we utilize MATLAB's \emph{fitdist} function~\cite{fitdist}. To avoid overfitting, we distribute our devices into four equal subsets. We then fit and compare distributions from each subset. Figure~\ref{diff_device_distr} shows the top five estimated inter-device distance ($C_{inter}$) distributions for each subset of devices. Here, the distributions are ranked based on \emph{Akaike Information Criterion} (AIC)~\cite{Akaike1998}. From figure~\ref{diff_device_distr} we can see that the top five distributions are more or less consistent across all four subsets.
Next, we plot the same inter-device distance distribution but this time we consider data from all 567 devices. Figure~\ref{dist_distr}(a) highlights the top five distributions. Comparing figure~\ref{diff_device_distr} and figure~\ref{dist_distr}(a), we see that the most representative inter-device distance distribution is an \emph{Inverse Gaussian} distribution. Similarly, we find that the most likely intra-device distance distribution ($C_{intra}$) is a \emph{Generalized extreme value} distribution as shown in figure~\ref{dist_distr}(b). Figure~\ref{dist_distr}(c) shows the difference between intra and inter-device distance distribution.
\begin{algorithm}[!h]
\caption{Simulating \emph{k}-NN classifier}
\label{simulate_knn}
\begin{algorithmic
\STATE {\bf Input:} {$k$, $N$, $D$, $Distr_{intra}$, $Distr_{inter}$, $Runs$}
\STATE{$\hspace{24pt}$ $k$ -- number of nearest neighbors (odd integer)}
\STATE{$\hspace{24pt}$ $N$ -- number of training samples per device}
\STATE{$\hspace{24pt}$ $D$ -- number of devices}
\STATE{$\hspace{24pt}$ $Distr_{intra}$ -- intra-device distance distribution}
\STATE{$\hspace{24pt}$ $Distr_{inter}$ -- inter-device distance distribution}
\STATE{$\hspace{24pt}$ $Runs$ -- number of runs}
\STATE {\bf Output:} {$Acc$}
\STATE{$\hspace{24pt}$ $Acc$ -- Average classification accuracy}
\STATE{$d \leftarrow \{\}$ \#list of (distance,label) tuple}
\STATE{$Acc\leftarrow 0$}
\FOR{$i:=1$ to $Runs$}
\STATE{\#add $N$ intra-distances and label each with 0}
\FOR{$j:=1$ to $N$}
\STATE{$d \leftarrow d + \{(random(Distr_{intra}),0)\}$}
\ENDFOR
\STATE{\#add $N{\times}(D-1)$ inter-distances and label each with 1}
\FOR{$j:=1$ to $N{\times}(D-1)$}
\STATE{$d \leftarrow d + \{(random(Distr_{inter}),1)\}$}
\ENDFOR
\STATE{$d \leftarrow sort(d)$ \#in ascending order of distance}
\STATE{$l \leftarrow label(d,k)$ \#return label for top $k$ elements}
\STATE{$imposters \leftarrow sum(l)$ \#sum top $k$ labels}
\IF{$imposters < k/2$}
\STATE{$Acc\leftarrow Acc+1$ \#correct decision}
\ENDIF
\ENDFOR
\STATE { $Acc\leftarrow Acc/Runs$}
\STATE {\textbf{return} $Acc$}
\end{algorithmic}
\end{algorithm}
\subsubsection{Simulating A Large Number Of Smartphones}
Now that we have representative distributions for intra and inter-device distances, we can simulate a \emph{k}-NN classifier. The pseudo code for simulating \emph{k}-NN classifier is provided in Algorithm~\ref{simulate_knn}. The algorithm works as follows. Let us assume that there are $D$ devices and for each device we have $N$ training samples. Now, for any given test sample, a \emph{k}-NN classifier, first computes $N{\times}D$ distances of which $N$ distances are with samples from the same device and $N{\times}(D-1)$ distances are with all samples belonging to $(D-1)$ other devices. We emulate these distances by drawing $N$ and $N{\times}(D-1)$ distances from our representative intra and inter-device distance distributions, respectively. \emph{k}-NN classifier then inspects the class label for the $k$ nearest neighbors. We can emulate this step by sorting the distances and picking the $k$ lowest distances. Lastly, \emph{k}-NN classifier outputs the class label with the majority vote. To emulate this step we assign each distance a label of either $0$ (meaning distance from same device) or $1$ (meaning distance from different device). We then check if label-$0$ dominates over label-$1$, if so we count that as a successful classification. This whole process repeats multiple times to provide us with an average classification accuracy.
\noindent\begin{figure*}[t]
\centering
\begin{tabular}{ccc}
\epsfig{file=KNN_real_vs_simulation_N3_K1.pdf,width=0.32\linewidth,clip=}&\epsfig{file=KNN_real_vs_simulation_N4_K1.pdf,width=0.32\linewidth,clip=}&\epsfig{file=KNN_real_vs_simulation_N5_K1.pdf,width=0.32\linewidth,clip=}
\end{tabular}
\caption{Comparison between real-world and simulation .Simulation results closely match real-world results. Even with 100K devices we can}
\label{knn_simulation}
\end{figure*}
Next, we run our \emph{k}-NN simulator for large number of devices. Figure~\ref{knn_simulation} shows the average classification accuracy achieved for different values of $N$ and $k$. Given that a user spends on average anywhere between 15 to 20 seconds on a web page~\cite{avgtimeonweb2,avgtimeonweb1} values of $N \leq 5$ seem most realistic (each of our data sample is 5 seconds worth of web session). We also experimented with other values of $k$, but found that setting $k=1$ provides the best overlap between real-world and simulation results.\footnote{%
Differences between our $k$-NN model and the actual $k$-NN classifier on real data arise from an imperfect fit of the distribution as well as the fact that our model makes an assumption that intra- and inter-phone distances are identically and independently distributed.}
From figure~\ref{knn_simulation} we see that our simulation results closely match our real-world results. Also we can see that the average classification accuracy is in the range of 12-16\% when we scale up to 100\,000 devices. This accuracy is unlikely to be sufficient if motion sensors are the unique source of a fingerprint, but it suggests that combining motion sensor data with even a weak browser-based fingerprint is likely to be effective at distinguishing users in large populations. Additionally, these classification accuracies are conservative and potentially provide a lower bound on performance, as random forests provide significantly better performance.
\section{Features and Evaluation Metrics}{\label{feature_algo}}
In this section we briefly describe the data collection and data preprocessing step. We also discuss the classification algorithms and evaluation metrics used in our evaluation.
\subsection{Data Collection}{\label{data_collection}}
To collect sensor data from smartphones we develop a web page\footnote{\url{http://datarepo.cs.illinois.edu/MTurkExp.html}. We obtain IRB approval for collecting sensor data.}. The web page contains a JavaScript to access motion sensors like accelerometer and gyroscope. We create an event listener for device motion in the following manner:\nolinebreak
{\small
\begin{verbatim}
window.addEventListener(`devicemotion',motionHandler)
\end{verbatim}
}
\noindent Once the event listener is registered, the \texttt{motionHandler} function can access accelerometer and gyroscope data in the following
manner:\nolinebreak
\begin{verbatim}
function motionHandler(event){
// Access Accelerometer Data
ax = event.accelerationIncludingGravity.x;
ay = event.accelerationIncludingGravity.y;
az = event.accelerationIncludingGravity.z;
// Access Gyroscope Data
rR = event.rotationRate;
if (rR != null){
gx = rR.alpha;
gy = rR.beta ;
gz = rR.gamma;
}
}
\end{verbatim}
Users are asked to visit our web page while placing their smartphone on a flat surface. Thus, mimicking the scenario where the user has placed his/her smartphone on a desk while browsing a web page. Our web page collects 10 samples consecutively where each sample is 5 seconds worth of sensor data (total participation time is in the range of 1 minute). We found that popular mobile web browsers such as Chrome, Safari and Opera all have a similar sampling rate in the range of 100-120 Hz (Firefox provided a sampling rate close to 180 Hz)\footnote{\url{http://datarepo.cs.illinois.edu/SamplingFreq.html}}. However, the sample rate available at any instance of time depends on multiple factors such as the current battery life and the number of applications running in the background. As a result we received data from participants at various sampling rates ranging from 20 Hz to 120 Hz. Initially, we recruited users through university mass email and social media like Facebook and Twitter. Later on, we recruited participants through Amazon Mechanical Turk~\cite{mturk}. In total, we had a total of 610 participants over a period of three months. We obtained data from 108 different brands (i.e., make and model) of smartphones with different models of iPhone comprising nearly half of the total devices\footnote{We used \url{https://web.wurfl.io/\#learnmore} to obtain the make and model of a smartphone.}. Figure~\ref{samples_per_device} shows the distribution of the different number of samples per device. Since some participation was voluntary for users not using Mechanical Turk, we see that many users provided fewer than 10 samples.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{Sample_distribution.eps}
\caption{Distribution of the number of data samples per smartphone.}
\label{samples_per_device}
\end{figure}
For the purpose of labeling our data we plant a unique random number inside the cookie. This provides us with ground truth
data, thus, making it possible to correlate data samples coming from the same physical device.\footnote{%
It is possible that users cleared this cookie, but we do not expect this to happen with enough frequency to significantly affect our data.}
\subsection{Processed Data Streams}{\label{preprocess}}
We process the accelerometer and gyroscope data into four time-series data streams, similar to the way Das et al. do in their
paper~\cite{anupam:2016}. At any given timestamp, $t$, we have the following two data vectors: 1) acceleration including gravity,
$\vec{a}(t)=(a_x,a_y,a_z)$ and 2) rotational rate, $\vec{\omega}(t)=(\omega_x,\omega_y,\omega_z)$. The accelerometer value includes gravity, i.e., whenever the device lies stationary flat on top of a surface we get a value of $9.81 ms^{-2}$ along the $z$-axis. To make the fingerprint technique independent of device orientation we take the magnitude of the acceleration vector, $|\vec{a}(t)|=\sqrt{a_x^2+a_y^2+a_z^2}$ as one of our processed data streams. For the gyroscope, since there is no baseline rotational speed (i.e., irrespective of device orientation a stationary device should register $0\,\mathtt{rad}s^{-1}$ rotation rate along all three axes), we consider each axis as a separate source of data stream. Thus, we end up with the following four streams of sensor data: $\{|\vec{a}(t)|,\omega_x(t),\omega_y(t),\omega_z(t)\}$. To obtain frequency domain characteristics we interpolate the non-equally spaced data stream into equally-spaced time-series data by using cubic-spline interpolation.
\subsection{Features}{\label{features}}
Inspired by the most recent work in this field by Das et al.~\cite{anupam:2016}, we extract the same set of 25 features from each data stream. We obtain the feature extraction code base from Das et al~\cite{anupam:2016}. Out of these 25 features, 10 are temporal features and the remaining 15 are spectral features\footnote{A detailed description of each feature is available in the technical report provided by Das et al.~\cite{DasBC15}}. As we have four data streams, we have a total of 100 features to summarize the unique characteristics of the motion sensors.
\subsection{Classification Algorithms and Metrics}{\label{classification-algo}}
\paragraphb{Classification Algorithms:}
Following the approach of Das et al., we use a supervised multi-class classifier. For any supervised algorithm we need to split our data set into training and testing set. The training set (labeled with true device identity) is used to train the classifier while the testing set is used to evaluate how well we can classify unseen data points. In this paper we explore the performance of the following two classifiers: \emph{k}-Nearest Neighbor (\emph{k}-NN) and Random Forest (MATLAB's Treebagger model)~\cite{matlabalgos}; the latter having been found by Das et al.\ to achieve the best classification performance.
\paragraphb{Evaluation metrics:}
For evaluation metric we use the well-known classification metric \emph{F-score}~\cite{Sokolova2009427}. F-score is the harmonic mean of precision and recall. To compute precision and recall we first compute the true positive ($TP$) rate for each class, i.e., the number of traces that are correctly classified. Similarly, we compute the false positive ($FP$) and false negative ($FN$) as the number of wrongly accepted and wrongly rejected traces, respectively, for each class $i$ ($1\leq i\leq n$). We then compute precision, recall, and F-score for each class using the following
equations:\nolinebreak
\begin{align}
\mbox{Precision, } Pr_i &= {TP_i}/(TP_i+FP_i)\\
\mbox{Recall, } Re_i &= {TP_i}/(TP_i+FN_i)\\
\mbox{F-Score, } \mathit{F}_i &= ({2\times Pr_i\times Re_i})/(Pr_i+Re_i)
\end{align}
To obtain the overall performance of the system we compute average values across all classes in the following way:\nolinebreak
\begin{align}
\mbox{Avg. Precision, } \mathit{AvgPr} &= \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}Pr_i}{n}\\
\mbox{Avg. Recall, } \mathit{AvgRe} &= \frac{\sum_{i=1}^{n}Re_i}{n}\\
\mbox{Avg. F-Score, } \mathit{AvgF} &= \frac{2\times AvgPr\times AvgRe}{AvgPr+AvgRe}
\end{align}
To evaluate our large scale simulation results we use \emph{Accuracy} as our evaluation metric\footnote{\emph{Accuracy} can be thought of as a relaxed version of \emph{F-score}.}. Accuracy is defined as the portion of test traces that are correctly classified.
\begin{align}
\mbox{Accuracy, } Acc = \frac{\text{\# of samples correctly classified}}{\text{Total test samples}}
\end{align}
\section{Websites Accessing Sensors}{\label{measurement_study}}
In this section we look at how many of the top websites access motion sensors. We also try to cluster the access patterns into broad use cases.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=1.0\columnwidth]{scan_JS.pdf}
\caption{Overview of our JavaScript analysis setup.}
\label{scan_JS}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Methodology}
Figure~\ref{scan_JS} provides an overview of our methodology to automatically capture and cluster JavaScripts accessing sensor data from mobile browsers. To automate this process, we use Selenium Web Driver~\cite{selenium} to run an instance of Chrome browser with a \emph{user agent} set for a smartphone client. In order to collect unfolded JavaScripts, we attach a debugger between the V8 JavaScript engine~\cite{v8_engine} and the web page. Specifically, we observe \texttt{script.parsed} function, which is invoked when new code is added with \texttt{<iframe>} or \texttt{<script>} tag. We implement the debugger as a Chrome extension and monitor all JavaScript snippets parsed on a web page. The debugger collects script snippets that access sensor data, i.e., scripts that invoke sensor APIs. Once scripts are collected, we aim to cluster them into a broad groups to identify their usage pattern. To analyze and quantify the similarity between JavaScript snippets, we parse them to produce \emph{Abstract Syntax Trees} (ASTs). ASTs have been used in prior literatures for JavaScript malware detection~\cite{Curtsinger:2011}. ASTs allow us to retain the structural and logical properties of the code while ignoring fine details like variable names, which are not useful for our analysis. We use the Esprima JavaScript parser~\cite{esprima} to visualize AST for each JavaScript snippet. We transform ASTs into normalized node sequences by performing \emph{pre-order traversal} on each tree. It should be mentioned that we start parsing each AST from the point where sensor data is first accessed. Each variable length sequence is composed of node types that appear in the tree. Since there are 88 distinct node types in JavaScript language, we transform the variable length normalized node sequences into 88-dimensional summary vectors. In other words, each JavaScript snippet is represented as a point in a 88-dimensional space, where each dimension corresponds to a node type. Finally, we attempt to perform unsupervised clustering on these summary vectors.
\subsection{Our Findings}
We run our experiment for the top 100\,000 Alexa websites~\cite{Alexa}. Among these websites we find that 1130 websites contain some form of JavaScript code that accesses at least one of the motion sensors. It is worth mentioning that a few of the scripts were downloaded from \emph{ad networks} as the web pages were loaded. Table~\ref{realworld_internetscan} shows a breakdown of the detected websites into their corresponding ranking groups. We see that majority (1022 out of the 1130) of our detected websites come from the top 10\,000--100\,000 websites. However, even 6 of the top 100 websites seems to access motion sensors.
\noindent\begin{minipage}{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Top websites accessing motion sensors}
\resizebox{0.4\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
\hline
{Rank}&{\# of sites}\\
\hline
1--100&6\\
\hline
101--1000&12\\
\hline
1001--10000&90\\
\hline
10001--100000&1022\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{realworld_internetscan}
\end{minipage}
\begin{figure*}[!hb]
\noindent\begin{minipage}{1.0\linewidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Generic use cases for accessing motion sensor data}
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{Cluster \#}&{\% of scripts}&{Use Case}&{Comment}\\
\hline
6&40.5&Transmit sensor data&Periodically sends motion sensor data to third party sites (can be marked suspicious)\\
\hline
4&16.6&Random number generator&Crypto libraries use sensor data to add entropy to random numbers~\cite{sjcl}\\
\hline
8&9.7&Detect device orientation&Detects device orientation periodically to readjust components in the website\\
\hline
5&8.9&Parallax scrolling/viewing&Parallax Engine that reacts to the orientation of a smart device~\cite{parallax}\\
\hline
2&7.1&Gesture detections&A \emph{jQuery} plug-in for gesture events such as `pinch', `rotate', `swipe', `tap' and `shake'~\cite{jGestures}\\
\hline
1&7.0&Motion captcha&A \emph{jQuery} CAPTCHA plug-in based on the HTML5 Canvas element~\cite{MotionCAPTCHA}\\
\hline
3&6.0&Miscellaneous&We were not able to point the exact use case for this cluster.\\
\hline
7&4.2&Specific Ad generation&Checks to see if accelerometer is present so that certain ad URLs can be requested\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{usecases}
\end{minipage}
\end{figure*}
Our next goal is to cluster these 1130 websites into individual groups based on their usage of sensor data, so that we can identify the major reasons as to why websites access motion sensors. To cluster the JavaScript snippets into a small number of groups we first perform feature reduction to remove irrelevant features. Many of the 88 features had a value of zero for all Javascript snippets, so we first throw out these features. This reduces the size of the feature vector to 31. We then use the MATLAB Toolbox provided by Laurens van der Maaten~\cite{dim_reduction} to further map the features into a low dimensional space. We find that \emph{Stochastic Proximity Embedding} (SPE) method~\cite{agrafiotis2003stochastic} provides the best outcome in terms of both reducing dimensions and providing good clusters. Our final reduced feature space had three dimensions. Figure~\ref{scatterplot} shows a scatter plot along the three dimensions for all the JavaScripts. We can clearly see that the JavaScripts form clusters. To determine the number of clusters that is a good fit for our data we run \emph{k}-means clustering algorithm for different number of clusters and perform \emph{Silhouette} analysis~\cite{ROUSSEEUW198753}. Silhouette analysis can be used to study the separation distance between the resulting clusters. Silhouette coefficient ranges from +1, indicating point are very distant from neighboring clusters, through 0, indicating points are very close to the decision boundary between two neighboring clusters, to -1, indicating points are probably assigned to the wrong cluster. Table~\ref{silhouette_coeff} summarizes the average silhouette coefficients ($C_{silhouette}$) for different number of clusters. We see that silhouette coefficient peaks for 8 clusters. The corresponding silhouette plot for 8 clusters in given in figure~\ref{clusters}. We see that on average samples in cluster 1,2,4,6 and 7 have silhouette coefficient value greater than 0.6 while the samples in cluster 3,5 and 8 have silhouette coefficient close to 0.5. We also see some samples with negative silhouette coefficients and this is likely caused by JavaScripts coping code snippets belonging to two different libraries. Here, our goal is not to generate a perfect clustering of all the JavaScripts rather to broadly cluster them to identify the major usage patterns for accessing motion sensors.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{scatterplot.eps}
\caption{Scatter plot for Javascript snippets accessing motion sensors along reduced dimensions.}
\label{scatterplot}
\end{figure}
\noindent\begin{minipage}{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Silhouette coefficient for different number of clusters}
\resizebox{1.0\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|c|}
\hline
{Clusters}&3&4&5&6&7&8&9&10\\
\hline
{$C_{silhouette}$}&0.51&0.59&0.59&0.62&0.63&0.65&0.64&0.38\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{silhouette_coeff}
\end{minipage}
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{8cluster.eps}
\caption{Silhouette plot for the estimated 8 clusters. Clusters 1,2,4,6 and 7 have silhouette coefficient value greater than 0.6.}
\label{clusters}
\end{figure}
Once we have the general clusters we then go back to the JavaScripts to understand their usage for motion sensor data. This part of the analysis was carried out manually. However, since we generated 8 clusters we sampled multiple JavaScripts from each cluster to verify if they were performing similar functionality with the sensor data. We were able to identify 8 generic use cases for the motion sensors.
Table~\ref{usecases} summarizes our findings. We see that majority of the detected scripts periodically send sensor data to some third party sites. We were not able to pinpoint the exact usage for sending motion sensor data to third party sites as we did not have access to third party code. The next big usage for motion sensor data is that they are used in generating random numbers. Other uses cases include parallax viewing, gesture detection, motion captcha, specific ad generation and orientation detection. We were not able to concretely identify the use case for cluster 3 as we found that it contains multiple scripts all performing different tasks; some were doing touch analytics using accelerometer to detect tilt while others were doing something similar to parallax scrolling. We intend to perform a more thorough in-depth analysis of this usage patterns in the future.
\section{Introduction}
We are in the middle of a war over user privacy on the web. After the failure of the ``Do Not Track'' proposal, users have increasingly started using tools such as ad- and tracker-blocking extensions, as well as private browsing modes, to protect their privacy. In turn, advertisers have started using browser fingerprinting~\cite{Eckersley:2010,canvas-fingerprint,Acar:2014} to track users across the web without the use of cookies. As the battleground shifts to mobile platforms, which are quickly becoming the dominant mode for web browsing~\cite{moretime1,moretime2,moretime3,mobiletraffic}, existing fingerprinting techniques become less effective~\cite{Hupperich:2015,Spooren:2015}; at the same time, new threats emerge: mobile browsers give web pages access to internal motion sensors (accelerometers and gyroscopes) and researchers have showed that imperfections in these sensors can be used to fingerprint \emph{devices}~\cite{anupam:2016,Hupperich:2015,accelprint}, boosting the accuracy of a weakened \emph{browser} fingerprint.
An important question not addressed by prior work is whether such fingerprinting can be effective at scale, as state-of-the-art techniques~\cite{anupam:2016} have only been evaluated on a set of 100 devices. We first perform a larger-scale evaluation of the methods, collecting motion sensor data from a total of 610 devices, and showing that high accuracy classification is still feasible. We then used the data we collected to develop a model to predict classification accuracy for larger data sets, by fitting a parametric distribution to model inter- and intra-cluster distances. We can then use these distributions to predict the accuracy of a $k$-NN classifier, used with state-of-the-art distance metric learning techniques; our evaluation shows that even with 100\,000 devices, 12--16\% accuracy can be achieved, depending on training set size, which suggests that motion sensor fingerprinting can be effective when combined with even a weak browser fingerprint. Note that because $k$-NN underperforms other classifiers, such as bagged trees, our estimate of accuracy is quite conservative.
A second question we wanted to answer was, how are motion sensors used on the web? We analyzed the static and dynamic JavaScripts used by the Alexa top-100K websites~\cite{Alexa} and identified over 1\,000 instances of motion sensor access. After clustering, we were able to identify a number of common uses of motion sensors, including orientation detection and random number generation. More distressingly, we noted that a large fraction of scripts send motion data back to a server, while others use the presence of motion sensors in advertising decisions. Thus, although we have not been able to identify cases of motion sensor fingerprinting in the wild, the infrastructure for collecting and analyzing this data is already there in some cases.
These results suggest that motion sensor fingerprinting is a realistic privacy threat. We therefore wanted to understand the feasibility of defending against fingerprinting through browser- or OS-based techniques. Although several defenses have been proposed to mitigate motion sensor fingerprinting, they reduce the potential utility of the sensor data by adding noise or other transforms. We wanted to understand how this trade off between privacy and utility plays out for the likely uses of the device motion API. To do this, we implement a game that uses motion sensors for controls---a relatively demanding application. We then carry out a user study to investigate the impact of privacy protections on the game difficulty. We evaluate an obfuscation method proposed by Das et al.~\cite{anupam:2016} and develop a new quantization-based protection method. Encouragingly, we find that neither method creates a statistically significant impact on motion sensor utility, as measured by both subjective and objective measures. This suggests that user privacy may be preserved without sacrificing much utility.
In summary, we make the following contributions:\nolinebreak
\begin{itemize*
\item We evaluate the state-of-the-art fingerprinting techniques by Das et al.~\cite{anupam:2016} on a large data set of 610 devices. (\S\ref{sec:realphones})
\item We develop a model for predicting how the $k$-NN classifier will perform on larger data sets and use it to obtain a conservative estimate of fingerprinting accuracy for up to 100\,000 devices. (\S\ref{sec:scalability})
\item We perform a measurement study to evaluate how motion sensor information is used by existing websites. We identify several common uses for motion sensor data and find that motion data is frequently sent to servers. (\S\ref{measurement_study})
\item We develop a new fingerprinting countermeasure that uses quantization of data in polar coordinates. (\S\ref{sec:quantization})
\item We carry out a user study to evaluate the impact of our countermeasure, as well as the obfuscation technique proposed by Das et al.~\cite{anupam:2016}, on the utility of motion sensors and find that users experience no significant ill effects from the countermeasures. (\S\ref{sec:user_study})
\end{itemize*}
\paragraphb{Roadmap.} The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. We present background information and related work in Section {\ref{related}}. In Section {\ref{feature_algo}}, we briefly describe our data collection and feature extraction process along with the classification algorithms and metrics used in our evaluation. Section {\ref{dist_distribution}}, describes how we extrapolate fingerprinting accuracy at large scale by deriving intra- and inter-class distance distributions. We present our measurement study on how top websites access motion sensors in Section {\ref{measurement_study}}. Section {~\ref{sec:countermeasures}} evaluates the usability impact of fingerprinting countermeasures through a large-scale online user study.
Finally, we conclude in Section {~\ref{conclusion}}.
\section{Related Work}{\label{related}}
Fingerprinting devices has been an interesting research area for many decades. It all started with a rich body of research that looked at fingerprinting wireless devices by analyzing the spectral characteristics of wireless transmitters~\cite{Riezenman2000,Li:2006,Patwari:2007}. Researchers then moved onto fingerprinting computers by exploiting their clock skew rate~\cite{Moon99}. Later on, as computers got connected to the Internet, researcher were able to exploit such skew rates to distinguish connected devices through TCP and ICMP timestamps~\cite{Kohno:2005}. Installed software has also been used to track devices, as different devices usually have a different software base installed. Researchers have utilized such strategy to uniquely distinguish subtle differences in the firmwares and device drivers~\cite{Franklin:2006}. Moreover, there are open source toolkits like Nmap~\cite{nmap} and Xprobe~\cite{xprobe} that can fingerprint the underlying operating system remotely by analyzing the responses from the TCP/IP stack. The latest trend in fingerprinting devices is through the web browser. We will now describe some of the most recent and well-known results in this field.
\paragraph{Browser Fingerprinting} The primary application of browser fingerprinting is to uniquely track a user across multiple websites for advertisement purpose. Traditionally this has been done through the injection of cookies. However, privacy concerns have pushed browser developers to provide ways to clear cookies, and also provide options to browse in private mode which does not store long-term cookies. This has forced publishers to come up with new ways to uniquely identify and track users. The Panopticlick project was one of the first works that looked into exploiting easily accessible browser properties such as installed fonts and plug-ins to fingerprint browsers~\cite{Eckersley:2010}. In recent years, researchers have come up with a more advanced technique that uses HTML5 canvas elements to fingerprint the fonts and rendering engines used by the browser~\cite{canvas-fingerprint}. Moreover, users can be profiled and tracked by their browsing history~\cite{olejnik:hal-00747841}. Many studies have shown that all of these techniques are actually used in the wild~\cite{Acar:2013,Acar:2014,nikiforakis:2012}. Researchers have also looked at countermeasures that typically disable or limit the ability of a web publisher to probe particular browser characteristics. Privaricator~\cite{privaricator} is one such approach that adds noise to the fingerprint to break linkability across multiple visits.
With the rapid growth of smart devices, researchers are now focusing on adopting existing fingerprinting techniques in the context of smart devices. Like cookies, app developers have looked at using device IDs such as Unique Device Identifier (UDID) or International Mobile Station Equipment Identity (IMEI) to track users across multiple applications. However, Apple ceased the use of UDID since iOS 6~\cite{udiddead} and for Andriod accessing IMEI requires explicit user permission~\cite{androidIMEI}. Moreover, due to constrained hardware and software environment existing methods often lack in precision for smartphones and recent studies have shown this to be true~\cite{Hupperich:2015,Spooren:2015}. However, this year Laperdrix et al. have shown that it is in fact possible to fingerprint smartphones effectively through \emph{user-agent string} which is becoming richer every day due to the numerous vendors with their different firmware versions~\cite{Laperdrix:2016}. Others have looked at fingerprinting smartphones by exploiting the personal configuration settings which are often accessible to third party apps~\cite{kurtz:fingerprinting}.
\paragraph{Sensor Fingerprinting} Today's smartphones come with a wide range of sensors, all of which provide different useful functionality. However, such sensors can also provide side-channels that can be exploited by an adversary to uniquely fingerprint smartphones. Recent studies have looked at exploiting microphones and speakers to fingerprint smartphones~\cite{Das:2014,Zhou:2014,BojinovMNB14}. Others have looked at utilizing motion sensors like accelerometer to uniquely distinguish smartphones~\cite{accelprint,BojinovMNB14}. And most recently, Das et al. have shown that they can improve the fingerprinting accuracy by combining gyroscope with inaudible sound~\cite{anupam:2016}. Our approach builds on the work done by Das et al. However, our work provides a real-world perspective on the problem. We not only show that sensor-based fingerprinting works at large scale but also show how websites are accessing the sensor data in the wild. Moreover, we also provide a new countermeasure technique where we quantize sensor data to lower the resolution of the sensor. We also by perform a large scale user study to where users play a online game to show that our countermeasure does not affect the utility of the sensors.
\section{Countermeasures}{\label{sec:countermeasures}}
In this section we look at the performance and usability of two countermeasures against sensor-based smartphone fingerprinting. We evaluate sensor \emph{obfuscation}, one of the countermeasures proposed by Das et al.~\cite{anupam:2016}) and sensor \emph{quantization}, a new approach that we propose in this paper. We first look at their effectiveness against sensor fingerprinting. Next, we look are how these countermeasures impact the utility of the sensors by developing a web based \emph{labyrinth} game. .
\subsection{Obfuscation Vs. Quantization}
\label{sec:quantization}
First, we will briefly describe the operations of the countermeasures. Intuitively, obfuscation tries to randomize the sensor fingerprint by scattering the fingerprint at different locations in the feature space. On the other hand, quantization tries to group multiple fingerprints into the same location and thereby making it hard for the adversary to pinpoint the true device. The formal definition of the two approaches is given below.
\paragraphb{Obfuscation:}
Obfuscation technique adds small amount of noise to the raw sensor values. The main idea is that since sensors themselves are not well calibrated, adding small noise to their raw value is equivalent to switching to a different (mis)calibrated sensor. We add obfuscation noise to the sensor data in the following manner: $s^O = s^M*g^O+o^O$, where $g^O$ and $o^O$ are the obfuscation gain and offset, respectively. Based from the study conducted by Das et al.~\cite{anupam:2016}, we set our offset and gain range to [-1.5,1.5] and [0.75,1.25], respectively.
\paragraphb{Quantization:}
The basic idea behind quantization is that human brain cannot discriminate minute changes in angle or magnitude. As a result if the raw values of a sensor are altered slightly, it should not adversely impact the functionality of the sensor. We perform quantization in the polar coordinate system as it is easy to perceive. So, our first task is to covert the accelerometer data into its equivalent polar vector form as shown below:\nolinebreak
\begin{align}
radius, r&=\sqrt{a_x^2+a_y^2+a_z^2}\nonumber\\
inclination, \theta&=\cos^{-1} \frac{a_z}{r}\nonumber\\
azimuth, \psi&=\tan^{-1}\frac{a_y}{a_x}\nonumber
\end{align}
where $<a_x,a_y,a_z>$ represent the accelerometer data in the Cartesian coordinate system. Since gyroscope provides rotational rate in $rads^{-1}$, we do not perform any conversion for gyroscope data. Next we pass our sensor data through the following \emph{quantization} function:
\begin{verbatim}
function quatization(val,type,bin_size){
// val: raw sensor value
// type: data type (angle or magnitude)
// bin_size: quantization size
bin_num = floor(val/bin_size);
remainder = mod(val,bin_size);
if remainder >= binsize/2{
bin_num = bin_num +1;
}
return bin_num*bin_size;
}
\end{verbatim}
For angle related data ($\theta$,$\psi$ and gyroscope data) we set $bin_{size}=6$ while for magnitude (i.e., radius) we set $bin_{size}=1$. In other words, we place angles into 6 degree bins and for accelerometer magnitude we map it to the nearest integer. Once performing quantization on the accelerometer data, we remap it to Cartesian coordinate system using the following equations:
$a_x=r\sin\theta\cos\psi$, $a_y=r\sin\theta\sin\psi$ and $a_z=r\cos\theta$.
\subsection{Effectiveness of Countermeasures}
In this section we will look at how the countermeasures impact the fingerprinting F-score. For this setup we run our fingerprinting scheme under three setting: baseline, obfuscation and quantization. For each setting we then evaluate F-score for both random forest and \emph{k}-NN (with LDML). Table~\ref{scheme_compare} shows our results for devices with at least 3 training samples (total 545 devices).
\noindent\begin{minipage}{1.0\columnwidth}
\centering
\captionof{table}{Comparing obfuscation and quantization with baseline}
\resizebox{0.8\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
\multirow{2}{*}{Scheme}&\multicolumn{2}{c|}{Avg. F-score(\%)}\\
\cline{2-3}
&\emph{k}-NN with LDML&Random Forest\\
\hline
Baseline&50&78\\
\hline
Quantization&17&32\\
\hline
Obfuscation&7&26\\
\hline
\end{tabular}}
\label{scheme_compare}
\end{minipage}
We can see that the countermeasure schemes significantly reduce the F-score. Next we see how the countermeasure schemes react to different numbers of devices. Figure~\ref{dev_scheme} highlights our findings. We see that irrespective of the device number the F-score reduces significantly under both countermeasure schemes. Theses results indicate that simple countermeasures can thwart device fingerprinting significantly.
\begin{figure}[!h]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.7\columnwidth]{KNN_realworld_N3_K1.eps}
\caption{Comparing countermeasure schemes against baseline.}
\label{dev_scheme}
\end{figure}
\subsection{User Study}
\label{sec:user_study}
The above countermeasures degrade the readings from the motion sensors and we wanted to better understand the impact of the countermeasures on the utility of the sensors to web applications. Of course, motion sensors have a wide range of uses, from simple orientation detection to activity classification, step counting, and other health metrics. Many of these, however, are deployed in application form, whereas we wanted to focus on the threat of fingerprinting by web pages. We performed a survey of web pages to identify how motions sensors are actually used. We found that one of the most common application of motion sensors was to detect orientation change in order to adjust page layout; such a drastic change in the gravity vector will be minimally impacted by countermeasures. We did, however, find several instances where web pages used the motion sensors as a means of gesture recognition in the form of tilt-based input controlling a video game.
To study the impact of countermeasures on the utility of such tilt-based controls, we carried out a user study where participants were asked to play a game using tilt control while we applied privacy countermeasures to their motion sensor data. We then evaluated the impact of the countermeasures through both objective metrics of in-game performance, as well as subjective ratings given by the participants. Our study was approved by our institutional research board (IRB).
\subsubsection{Study Design} After receiving some information about the study, our participants were invited to play a game using their personal smartphone (Figure~\ref{fig:gameplay}). The objective of the game is to roll a ball to its destination through a maze, while avoiding traps (hitting a trap restarts the level from the beginning). The game had five levels, which the participants played in order of increasing difficulty. Each level was played three times with different privacy countermeasures applied: baseline (no countermeasures), obfuscation, and quantization. The order of countermeasure settings was randomized for each participant and for each level, and not revealed to the participants. After completing a level three times, the participants were asked to rate each of the three settings in terms of difficulty of controlling the game on a scale of 1 to 5. Participants also were invited to provide free-form feedback (Figure~\ref{fig:feedback}).
Their ratings and feedback, along with the settings and metrics regarding the time spent on each game, and the number of times the game was restarted due to traps, were then sent to our server for analysis.
\begin{figure}[h]
\subfigure[Level 2 of the game]{
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{gameplay.png}
\label{fig:gameplay}}
\subfigure[Feedback form]{
\includegraphics[width=0.48\linewidth]{feedback.png}
\label{fig:feedback}}
\caption{Game interface. The object is to roll the ball to the flag while avoiding traps by tilting the smartphone. The user
is then asked for feedback about the relative difficulty of each level using different privacy settings.}
\end{figure}
After completing a level, a user is invited to play the next level. Users were required to play levels in order of increasing difficulty, but participants were allowed to replay previous levels. We identified such repeat plays by setting a cookie in a user's browser and discarded repeat plays in our analysis.
\begin{table}[!h]
\begin{center}
\caption{Number of users that completed the first $n$ levels recruited through Amazon's Mechanical Turk and other means.}
\label{level-table}
\resizebox{0.7\columnwidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|c|}
\hline {\bf Levels} & {\bf MTurk} & {\bf non-MTurk} & Total \\
{\bf completed} & & & \\ \hline \hline
1 & 0 & 26 & 26 \\ \hline
1--2 & 1 & 14 & 15 \\ \hline
1--3 & 0 & 34 & 34 \\ \hline
1--4 & 91 & 67 & 158 \\ \hline
1--5 & 107 & 63 & 170 \\ \hline \hline
{\bf Total} & 199 & 204 & 403 \\ \hline
\end{tabular}}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{per-level.pdf}
\caption{Subjective and objective difficulty metrics increase across game levels. Box plots show the median (horizontal line) and the interquartile range (box), while whiskers show the range between the 5th and 95th percentile, with the outliers being individually represented. The notch in the box denotes the 95\% confidence interval around the median. Note: level 1 has no traps.}
\label{fig:difficulty-per-level}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{training-effect.pdf}
\caption{Reduced game durations and number of restarts, as each level is played three times. A large training effect is observed between the first and second attempt, with a smaller effect between the second and third. Restarts on levels 1 and 2 are not shown.}
\label{fig:training-effect}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}[!h]
\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{level3.pdf}
\caption{Impact of privacy method on subjective and objective ratings, when considering second and third attempts only. Shown are the histogram of subjective ratings and CDFs of game durations and number of restarts on level 3. No significant difference is observed in any of the metrics.}
\label{fig:level-3}
\end{figure*}
\subsubsection{Study Results} We recruited users through institutional mailing lists, social media, as well as Amazon's Mechanical Turk. We collected data from 202 users via Mechanical Turk and 206 users that were recruited through other means, for a total of 408 users; several users' data had to be discarded due to irregularities in data collection. Note that not all users played through all five levels, as shown in Table~\ref{level-table}. Note that Mechanical Turk users had to complete five levels to receive their reward, but in some cases we were not able to receive some of their data due to network congestion at our server.
We found that, when considering the entire data set, the choice of privacy protection method did not significantly influence the subjective ratings assigned to the level ($\chi^2$ test, $p = 0.34$) nor the objective metrics of the game duration (pairwise t-tests, $p=0.10$ and $0.75$ comparing baseline to obfuscation and quantization, respectively) or the number of restarts due to traps (pairwise t-tests, $p=0.11$ and $0.47$). However, as expected, all difficulty metrics were significantly impacted by which level the person was playing, as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:difficulty-per-level}.
Furthermore, we observed a significant training effect between the first and second time a user played the level (each level is played a total of 3 times using different privacy methods), as seen in Figure~\ref{fig:training-effect}. Interestingly, this was not reflected in the subjective ratings (as verified by a $\chi^2$ test for each level), suggesting that participants corrected for the training effect during their reporting. There was a smaller training effect between the second and third time a level was played; the improved performance was statistically significant only for durations of levels 4 and 5 and for the number of restarts on level 5; which makes sense given the difficulty of these levels.
We therefore compared the difficulty of metrics for different privacy methods across only the second and third attempts at a level, discarding the first attempt as training. For reasons of space, we show the results for level 3 only in Figure~\ref{fig:level-3}. Results for other levels are similar. Significance tests fail to detect any differences between the difficulty metrics when privacy methods are applied on any level.\footnote{The raw $p$-value comparing the number of restarts on level 5 between baseline and obfuscated cases is $0.025$ but note that this is not significant at a $p<0.05$ level after the Bonferroni correction is applied.}
\paragraphb{Limitations:} Although the study failed to detect a significant impact of privacy methods on utility, it does not definitively show that no impact exists---failure to reject a null hypothesis does not demonstrate that the null hypothesis is true. In particular, given the large variance in game performance across users, as seen in, e.g., Figure~\ref{fig:difficulty-per-level}, we would like to compare how different privacy methods change a single user's performance; however, given the low impact of privacy protection we have observed so far, we would need to modify our study to reduce or eliminate the training effect. Additionally, we tested our privacy methods in a short game, and perhaps in games with a longer duration some effects would materialize. However, we feel our results are promising in showing that users may not have to lose much utility to employ privacy protection methods.
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The question of thermalization, i.e., whether or not a closed many-body quantum system
can act as a heat-bath for its own subsystems when the rest of the system is much bigger, has
remained an open issue of fundamental importance since the inception of
quantum mechanics.
The basis for classical statistical mechanics is
the hypothesis of equal a priori probability (EAP), which states that all
microstates with equal energy are equally likely to occur during the time
evolution of
a closed generic (interacting) system (see, e.g.,~\cite{Landau_Lifshitz}). This gives a possible justification of the use of the microcanonical ensemble.
On the other hand, a quantum many-body system, prepared in an energy eigenstate, remains in the same energy state. In this case, EAP is extended
to the level of single many-body eigenstates resulting in the Eigenstate
Thermalization Hypothesis (ETH)~\cite{Srednicki,Deutsch, Rigol_nature, Luca_etal_Review_ETH}.
ETH implies that even if a generic many-body system
is kept in one of its eigenstates, its (local) subsystems are provided with enough quantum fluctuations
by the rest of the system, so that they can be described by the most general (unbiased)
ensemble compatible with the conservation of energy of the total system.
Thus suppose that the total system, described by a Hamiltonian $H$,
is in an eigenstate $|\psi \rangle$, and is described by the corresponding density matrix $\rho = |\psi \rangle \langle \psi|$.
Then it is expected that the reduced density matrix of the subsystem $\mathcal{S}$, $\rho_{\mathcal{S}} = \mathrm{Tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{S}}} \rho$, obtained by integrating out its complement $\bar{\mathcal{S}}$, should be described by an
effective density matrix of the form
$\mathrm{Tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{S}}} \rho_{\mathrm{GE}}~,$
where $\rho_{\mathrm{GE}} =\frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}}\exp^{-\beta H}$, with ${\cal Z}$ being the relevant normalization constant (partition function), and the parameter $\beta$ (inverse temperature)
is fixed solely by requiring that $\rho_{\mathrm{GE}}$ gives an energy density which equals that of the eigenstate.
ETH was implicit in the foundations of quantum statistical mechanics
(see, e.g.,~\cite{Neumann,Landau_Lifshitz}).
However, there are important classes of systems e.g., those which can be mapped to non-interacting
degrees of freedom (see, e.g., ~\cite{BKC-Book, Subir-Book}), where there are infinitely many (of the order of the size of the system) {\it relevant}
conserved quantities that restricts the statistical distributions of the subsystems.
If one used an entropy maximisation principle (as in \cite{Jaynes}),
these conserved quantities are to be treated in the same footing as energy, and that implies a ``generalized" Gibbs
ensemble (GGE) for the subsystem, which is characterized by as many parameters as there are conserved quantities
~\cite{Jaynes}. Extension of this to the eigenstate level implies a restricted (generalized) ETH:
such systems would effectively be described by a reduced
density matrix of the form
$\mathrm{Tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{S}}} \rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}~,$
where $\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}} = \exp{\left[-\sum_{i}^{{\mathcal N}_{L}} \lambda_{i} \hat{\cal{I}}_{i}\right]}/{\cal Z}$, where $\hat{{\cal I}}_{i}$ denotes the
relevant integrals of motion, $\lambda_{i}$ are their corresponding Lagrange multipliers and ${\cal N}_{L}$ is proportional to the system size~\cite{Jaynes, Rigol_Prl,Cassidy_etal,Caux_Essler_PRL}.
An important question here is whether {\it all} the integrals of motion
$\hat{\cal{I}}_{i}$ are necessary to describe the properties of a finite subsystem.
This idea of equilibrium statistical mechanics has been extended to describe the asymptotic synchronized states of periodically driven non-interacting systems
(or those mappable to it) using periodic Gibbs' ensemble~\cite{AAR-PRL}, hence the question is not necessarily limited to the domain of equilibrium statistical mechanics.
Another related approach to thermalization is to start from a pure state,
usually the ground state of a local (pre-quench) Hamiltonian, that is not
an eigenstate of the system's final (post-quench) Hamiltonian, and let it
evolve
in time under the resulting unitary
dynamics~\cite{Rigol_nature,Rigol_Prl,Calabrese_Cardy_PRL,Kollath_Lauchli_Altman_PRL,Kris-Rev}.
If the system can act as its own reservoir, as ETH implies, then the long-time
evolved state can also be described by a thermal density matrix as far as
local operators
are concerned. However, if the evolution of the state is due to an integrable
Hamiltonian, the
long time behavior of local operators should instead be again described by a
GGE (and not GE)
which respects the extensive number of conservation laws forced by the unitary
dynamics
of the (post-quench) Hamiltonian. Whether the infinite amount of information
regarding all the conserved quantities $\hat{\cal{I}}_{i}$ is really
necessary
to understand local properties is again an important issue in describing steady states that eventually arise from such dynamics.
In this work, we consider the finite energy density eigenstates of the
transverse field Ising model (TFIM) in one dimension ($1$D) and study the
reduced density matrices (RDMs) and local correlation functions in subsystems
of $l$ consecutive spins by performing an unbiased sampling of the individual
eigenstates in chains of linear dimension $L$ (with $L$ ranging upto $10^5$
spins). By doing a careful finite-size scaling, we find that the RDMs of a
{\it typical} finite energy density eigenstate approaches the standard GE form
(and not a GGE) determined only by the energy density of the eigenstate for $l
\ll L$, but not for finite $l/L$, as $L \rightarrow \infty$. This is inspite
of the integrable nature of the model and is because the densities of all the
additional ``local'' conserved quantities approach their ``thermal''
values as $L \rightarrow \infty$, and so the corresponding Lagrange
multipliers vanish. This provides an explicit example of {\it weak}
ETH~\cite{Canonical_typicality_PRL,PRL_Lauchli_rarestates} where typical (but
not all) energy eigenstates appear thermal when local correlation functions
are probed. We note that such a weak ETH scenario has been recently
numerically demonstrated in a different kind of (Bethe integrable) spin model~\cite{Alba_PRB_ETH}
and a Bose gas~\cite{Ueda_etal_weakETH} in one dimension. However, only the
infinite temperature ensemble was considered in Ref.~\onlinecite{Alba_PRB_ETH}, while we have no such restriction on the average energy density of the sampled eigenstates.
Moreover these studies obtained eigenstates using Bethe ansatz, and so were limited to small system sizes. Furthermore, we also consider the local properties of the rare eigenstates where the effects of the other integrals of motion (apart from the Hamiltonian) becomes apparent. The presence of (rare) eigenstates which do not follow a GE locally in the thermodynamic limit is a consequence of the integrability of the model, since such states are believed to be absent in a generic system (for numerical tests of the same, see Refs.~\onlinecite{SantosRigolPRE,Kim_Ikeda_Huse,Masud_etal_ETH}). The fraction of such rare eigenstates shrinks to zero in the thermodynamic limit but these can also be sampled efficiently by our method and their local properties are then shown to be described by RDMs that approach appropriate ``truncated'' GGEs as $L \rightarrow \infty$ and $l \ll L$ where only a {\it few} ($\mathcal{O}(1)$) integrals of motion need to be retained for an accurate description for a majority of such states.
Furthermore, we also consider a sudden quench of the magnetic field in the
$1$D TFIM where the initial state is not the ground state of the pre-quench
Hamiltonian (see also Ref.~\onlinecite{Calabrese_quench_excited_state}) but instead a typical finite energy density eigenstate, and study the nature of the steady state obtained at asymptotically large times. We show that even though the initial (pure) state is locally thermal, the final state needs a full GGE description for its local properties. The behaviour of the Lagrange multipliers in the GGE however has important differences compared to a quench starting from the ground state of the pre-quench Hamiltonian~\cite{Fagotti_Essler_PRB}, which we point out here.
The rest of the paper is arranged in the following manner. In Sec.~\ref{basics}, we review some results relevant for our work and set the notations for the rest of the paper. In Sec.~\ref{MC}, we describe our numerical procedure for sampling any given finite energy density eigenstates of the $1$D TFIM in chains of size $L$. The behaviour of the typical eigenstates is described in Sec.~\ref{results_typical}, and we consider the rare eigenstates that requires a GGE description in Sec.~\ref{results_rare}. In Sec.~\ref{quench}, we obtain an analytic expression for the GGE which describes the steady state after a quench, where the initial state is a typical finite energy density eigenstate. Finally, we summarize our results and conclude in Sec.~\ref{conclude}.
\section{$1$D TFIM: some preliminaries}
\label{basics}
The $1$D TFIM is defined by the following Hamiltonian:
\be
H =-\sum_{j=1}^L (g \sigma_j^x + \sigma_j^z \sigma_{j+1}^z)
\label{tfim}
\ee
where $\sigma^{x,y,z}$ are the Pauli operators and the external magnetic field equals $g$. We further impose periodic boundary condition ($\sigma_{L+1}^\alpha = \sigma_1^\alpha$ where $\alpha=x,y,z$) with $L$ being even. The ground state of this model is ferromagnetic when $-1<g<1$ and paramagnetic otherwise, with continuous quantum critical points at $g = \pm1$~\cite{Subir-Book}.
This model can be solved exactly for any finite $L$ using a well-known mapping of the spins to {\it spinless fermions} (Jordan-Wigner transformation) (e.g. see Ref.~\onlinecite{BKC-Book,Subir-Book}):
\be
\sigma_n^x &=& 1-2c^{\dagger}_n c_n \nonumber \\
\sigma_n^z &=& -(c_n+c_n^{\dagger})\prod_{m=1}^{n-1}(1-2c^{\dagger}_m c_m)
\label{jw}
\ee
From Eq.~\ref{jw}, the vacuum state of the $c$ fermions, which we denote by $|0\rangle$, corresponds to $\sigma^x=+1$ for all sites. Writing $H$ (Eqn.~\ref{tfim}) in terms of these fermions, we obtain (after omitting constant terms)
\be
H &=& 2g\sum_{j=1}^L c^{\dagger}_j c_j -\sum_{j=1}^{L-1} \left(c^{\dagger}_jc_{j+1}+c^\dagger_{j}c^\dagger_{j+1} + \mathrm{h.c.} \right) \nonumber \\
&+& (-1)^{N_F}[c_L^\dagger c_1+ c_L^\dagger c_1^\dagger + \mathrm{h.c.} ]
\label{fermionH}
\ee
The sign of the boundary term depends on whether the total number $N_F$ of the
$c$ fermions is odd or even. If $N_F$ is odd, periodic boundary conditions on
the fermions is required ($c_{L+1} = c_1$), whereas for $N_F$ even,
antiperiodic boundary condition is imposed ($c_{L+1} = -c_1$). Since the
Hamiltonian conserves fermion parity, these sectors do not mix and we restrict ourselves to even $N_F$ for the rest of this paper.
To diagonalize the Hamiltonian, we go to momentum space and accordingly define
\be
c_k &=& \frac{\exp(i\pi/4)}{\sqrt{L}}\sum_x \exp(-i k x)c_x
\ee
where $k = 2\pi m/L$ with $m = -(L-1)/2, \cdots, -1/2,1/2, \cdots , (L-1)/2$. Re-writing $H$ in terms of $c_k,c_k^{\dagger}$, we get $H = \sum_{k>0} H_k$ where
\be
H_k &=& 2(g-\cos(k))[c^{\dagger}_k c_k - c_{-k}c^{\dagger}_{-k}] \nonumber \\
&+& 2 \sin(k) [c_{-k}c_k + c^{\dagger}_k c^{\dagger}_{-k}]~.
\label{hk2}
\ee
This Hamiltonian connects the vacuum (of the $c$ fermions) $|0 \rangle$ with $|k,-k \rangle =c_k^{\dagger}c^{\dagger}_{-k}|0 \rangle$, and $|k \rangle = c_k^{\dagger} |0 \rangle$ with $|-k \rangle = c_{-k}^{\dagger}|0 \rangle$.
We further restrict ourselves to the parity invariant states (PIS) in which
all the positive and negative momentum modes are populated with the same
weights. All the eigenstates $|\psi \rangle$ of the TFIM at a magnetic field
strength $g$ which are also PIS can then be written in the form
\be
|\psi \rangle &=& \otimes_{k>0}|\psi_k \rangle \nonumber \\
|\psi_k \rangle &=& U_{kn}(g)c^{\dagger}_k c^{\dagger}_{-k} |0 \rangle + V_{kn}(g)|0 \rangle
\label{producteigenstates}
\ee
where $(U_{kn}(g),V_{kn}(g))$ can only have either of the two forms shown below at each $k$ to be an eigenstate:
\be
(U_{k0}(g),V_{k0}(g)) &=& \left(-\sin \left(\frac{\theta^g_k}{2} \right),\cos\left(\frac{\theta^g_k}{2} \right) \right) \nonumber \\
(U_{k1}(g),V_{k1}(g)) &=& \left(-\cos\left(\frac{\theta^g_k}{2} \right),-\sin\left(\frac{\theta^g_k}{2} \right)\right) \nonumber \\
\sin(\theta^g_k) &=& \frac{\sin(k)}{\sqrt{(g-\cos(k))^2+(\sin(k))^2}}
\label{eigenstates1}
\ee
These eigenstates can be equivalently represented by strings with either $0$ or $1$ at each $k>0$, which we denote by the label $n_k$, where $0 (1)$ refers to $(U_{k0(1)}(g),V_{k0(1)}(g))$. The total energy of such an eigenstate is given by
\be
E&=&\sum_{k>0}\epsilon_k(g) (2n_k-1) \nonumber \\
\epsilon_k(g) &=& 2\sqrt{(g-\cos(k))^2+(\sin(k))^2}
\label{energyexp1}
\ee
These states represent $2^{L/2}$ of the $2^L$ eigenstates of the TFIM
(including its ground state) in a chain of length $L$ and we will focus exclusively on these states in this study. A quantum quench (by suddenly changing the magnetic field $g$) in which the initial state is such an eigenstate of the TFIM continues to be a PIS (though not an eigenstate of the post-quench Hamiltonian) under the unitary dynamics.
For completeness, note that $H_k$ in Eq.~\ref{hk2} can be easily diagonalized through a Bogoliubov rotation with an angle $\theta_k^g/2$ (with $\theta^g_k$ as defined in Eq.~\ref{eigenstates1}) to give
\be
H = \sum_{k>0} \epsilon_k(g) (\mathcal{A}_k^\dagger \mathcal{A}_k +\mathcal{A}_{-k}^\dagger \mathcal{A}_{-k} -1)
\label{energyexp2}
\ee
with $\mathcal{A}_k=V^*_{k0}(g)c_k - U_{-k0}(g)c^{\dagger}_{-k}$ denoting the
Bogoluibov fermion operator at momentum $k$. Thus $n_k$ equals $\mathcal{A}_k^\dagger \mathcal{A}_k = 0 (1)$ and represents such an unoccupied (occupied) single-particle level at momentum $k$. Since we are considering parity invariant eigenstates, the Bogoluibov fermions at $k$ and $-k$ are always (un)occupied in pairs giving Eq.~\ref{energyexp1} from Eq.~\ref{energyexp2}.
\subsection{Local properties of individual eigenstates}
\label{localRDMs}
\subsubsection{Generalized Gibbs ensemble}
\label{integrals}
To write down the GGE description for the individual eigenstates (Eq.~\ref{producteigenstates}) in the TFIM or for the steady state obtained after a quantum quench, we need to specify the extensive number of integrals of motion $\hat{\cal{I}}_{i}$ present in the model. From the (non-local) mapping of the spins to free fermions using the Jordan-Wigner transformation as discussed in the previous section, it is clear that the average occupation number of the Bogoluibov fermion at each momentum $k$, i.e. $n_k = \mathcal{A}_k^\dagger \mathcal{A}_k$, is a conserved quantity and the number of such conserved quantities scales extensively with $L$. For the case of quantum quenches, the following GGE construction~\cite{Rigol_Prl,Cassidy_etal} has been shown to provide the correct description for properties of the steady state of the system:
\be
\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}=\frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}} \exp(-\sum_{k}\lambda_k n_k)
\label{GGE_standard}
\ee
where the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_k$ is defined as
\be
\lambda_k = \log \left(\frac{1-\langle n_k \rangle}{\langle n_k \rangle} \right)
\label{lambdak}
\ee
with $\langle n_k \rangle = \langle \psi|\mathcal{A}_k^\dagger \mathcal{A}_k|\psi \rangle $, where $\mathcal{A}_k^\dagger \mathcal{A}_k$ refers to the Bogoluibov fermion occupation of the post-quench Hamiltonian in case of the quantum quench.
This form of the GGE, however, does not make it clear as to which conserved
quantities need to be retained and which can be ignored when describing local
properties of the system, since the occupation numbers $n_k$ are {\it
non-local} in real space. Moreover, these conservations do not possess
corresponding local densities, unlike the Hamiltonian. Another problem with
this form of $\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}$ arises when considering exact eigenstates
of the TFIM, and not the steady state following a quench, since there the
corresponding Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_k$ are not defined microscopically
as each $n_k$ can only be $0$ or $1$.
An equivalent representation of $\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}$ was recently constructed by Fagotti and Essler for the TFIM~\cite{Fagotti_Essler_PRB} where only the local (in space) conservations $I^{\pm}_n$ (where $n$ is a non-negative integer) present in the model were considered for constructing the GGE. Each such $I^{\pm}_n$ involves $n+2$ neighboring spins but can be written in a straightforward manner in terms of the occupations numbers $n_k$~\cite{Fagotti_Essler_PRB} as
\be
I_n^{+}&=& \sum_k \cos(nk) \epsilon_k(g) n_k \nonumber \\
I_n^{-} &=& -\sum_k 2 \sin[(n+1)k] n_k
\label{In_def}
\ee
Again, it is implicit here that $n_k$ in the definition of $I_n^{\pm}$ refers
to the average Bogoluibov fermion occupation of the post-quench Hamiltonian in
the case of a quantum quench.
The GGE can now be defined in terms of these local integrals of motion as
\be
\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}} = \frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}}\exp \left(-\sum_{n=0}^{(L/2)-1} \sum_{\sigma=\pm}[\lambda_n^{\sigma}I_n^{\sigma}] \right)
\label{GGE_FE}
\ee
where the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_n^{\sigma}$ are fixed by the conditions:
\be
\mathrm{Tr}[\rho_{GGE}I_n^\sigma] = {\langle \psi|I_n^\sigma|\psi \rangle}~.
\ee
This representation of the RDMs serves as the ideal starting point for the issues that we address here. Firstly, as was shown in Ref.~\onlinecite{Fagotti_Essler_PRB} for the case of quantum quenches in the TFIM, the properties of local subsystems with $l$ consecutive spins in the final steady state can be understood by only considering the $y$ most local conservation laws, i.e.,
\be
\rho^{(y)}_{GGE} = \frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}_y}\exp \left(-\sum_{n=0}^{y-1} \sum_{\sigma=\pm}[\lambda_{n,y}^{\sigma}I_n^{\sigma}] \right)
\label{GGE_y}
\ee
where $y \sim \mathcal{O}(l)$ gives a very good description of the sub-system properities and including more non-local conservation laws only gives an exponentially small $\exp(-y)$ correction thereafter. Thus, for describing the properties of subsystems of size $l$, $I_n^{\sigma}$ with $n \gg l$ can be completely ignored. We will show later that similar behaviour occurs for the RDMs for $l$ consecutive spins when finite energy density eigenstates of the TFIM are considered, with $y \sim \mathcal{O}(l)$ providing a very good description of the subsystem. Secondly, unlike $\lambda_k$, the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_{n,y}^{\sigma}$ are well-defined microscopically for the eigenstates.
For the eigenstates which are also PIS (Eqn.~\ref{producteigenstates}), it is easy to see that $I_n^{-}=0$ because $n_k = n_{-k}$ (Eqn.~\ref{In_def}). Thus, we need to only consider the integrals of motion $I_n^{+}$ and will henceforth suppress the index $+$ from both $I_n^{+}$ and $\lambda_n^+$. Also, $I_0$ equals the total energy of the system (shifted such that the ground state has zero energy) and thus the Lagrange multiplier $\lambda_0$ can be identified with the inverse temperature $\beta$. Since both the descriptions of $\rho_{\rm GGE}$ are equivalent (Eqn.~\ref{GGE_standard} and Eqn.~\ref{GGE_FE}), it is possible to transform from $\lambda_k$ to $\lambda_n$ by using:
\be
\lambda_n = \left(\frac{2-\delta_{n,0}}{L}\right) \sum_{k>0} \frac{\lambda_k}{\epsilon_k}\cos(n k).
\label{lambdan}
\ee
\subsubsection{Reduced density matrices and the distance measure}
We proceed in a similar way to Ref.~\onlinecite{Kitaev_PRL_entanglement} to calculate the entanglement of $l$ adjacent spins for the TFIM. The RDMs for any individual eigenstate of the form Eqn.~\ref{producteigenstates} is most simply calculated after expressing that state in terms of the $c$ fermions. Since the transformation between the spins and the fermions is non-local, we {\it cannot} express the RDM of $l$ non-adjacent spins in any simple manner in terms of the fermion correlations involving only the sites within the subsystem. However, if we take $l$ adjacent spins as the subsystem, then all the non-zero spin correlations involving any subset of these $l$ sites for a finite $L$ can be expressed in terms of the fermionic correlation functions at these $l$ sites~\cite{Essler1,Essler2}. This is straightforward to see for correlation functions involving $\sigma^x_n$ only since these are local in terms of the $c$ fermions. Moreover, even for correlations functions involving an even number of $\sigma^z_n$, ($\sigma^z_n$ being non-local in terms of the $c$ fermions, see Eqn.~\ref{jw}), the Jorgan-Wigner strings outside the subsystem cancel and the resulting expression is in terms of the fermions within the subsystem only. Correlations functions with an odd number of $\sigma^z_n$ are zero due to the $\mathcal{Z}_2$ symmetry of the model. The RDM can then be calculated solely by considering the correlation functions of the fermions in the subsystem. Furthermore, since the fermions are non-interacting, all higher point fermionic correlators can be calculated from the two-point correlation functions using Wick's theorem~\cite{Peschel_PRB_freefermions}.
The two-point fermionic correlations can be expressed in terms of two $l \times l$ matrices~\cite{Peschel_PRB_freefermions},
${\bf C}$ and ${\bf F}$, whose elements are constructed by knowing
($U_{kn}(g)$, $V_{kn}(g)$) for the eigenstate $|\psi \rangle$
(Eqn.~\ref{producteigenstates} and Eqn.~\ref{eigenstates1}):
\be
C_{ij} &=& \langle \psi| c^{\dagger}_{i} c_{j} |\psi \rangle = \frac{2}{L} \sum_{k>0} |U_{kn}(g)|^2 \cos(k (i-j)) \nonumber \\
F_{ij} &=& \langle \psi| c^{\dagger}_{i} c^{\dagger}_{j}|\psi \rangle = \frac{2}{L} \sum_{k >0} U^*_{kn}(g) V_{kn} (g)\sin(k(i-j)) \nonumber \\
\label{matrices1}
\ee
where $i,j$ refer to sites in the subsystem.
The RDM for a block of $l$ adjacent spins may then be written in terms of the $c$ fermions as
\be
\rho_\mathcal{S} &=& \frac{1}{Z_\mathcal{S}}\exp(-\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{S}), \nonumber \\
\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{S} &=& \sum_{k=1}^l \mathcal{E}_{k,\mathcal{S}} \eta_{k,\mathcal{S}}^\dagger \eta_{k,\mathcal{S}}
\label{reducedr} \ee
where $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{S}$ denotes its ``entanglement Hamiltonian''
which is diagonal in terms of operators
$\eta_{k,\mathcal{S}},\eta_{k,\mathcal{S}}^\dagger$ that are fermionic operators for single particle
states with energies $\mathcal{E}_{k,\mathcal{S}}$ and linearly related to the
operators $c_i,c^{\dagger}_i$.
$Z_{\mathcal{S}}$ ensures the
correct normalization $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_\mathcal{S})=1$.
\iffalse
\be
\eta_{k,\mathcal{S}} &=& \sum_i (g_{ki}c_i + h_{ki}c^\dagger_i) \nonumber \\
\eta_{k,\mathcal{S}}^\dagger &=& \sum_i (g^*_{ki}c_i^\dagger + h^*_{ki}c_i).
\label{ft}
\ee
Since $\eta,\eta^\dagger$ satisfy anti commutation
algebra, we can easily verify that the matrix $\mathbf{T}$ defined
as
\be
\quad
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{g} & \mathbf{h} \\
\mathbf{h}^* & \mathbf{g}^*
\end{pmatrix}
\ee
is a $2l \times 2l$ unitary matrix. The constant $Z_{\mathcal{S}}$ ensures the
correct normalization $\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_\mathcal{S})=1$.
\fi
Since {\it all}
correlation functions of the subsystem can be expressed in terms of
the quadratic fermionic correlations by using Wick's Theorem here, the entanglement Hamiltonian $\mathcal{H}_\mathcal{S}$, and hence $\rho_\mathcal{S}$, is
fully determined by the condition that it gives the {\it right} quadratic
correlation functions $C_{ij}$ and $F_{ij}$ for the sites that
belong to the subsystem~\cite{Peschel_PRB_freefermions}. Calculating $\rho_{\mathcal{S}}$ thus requires only the eigenvectors and eigenvalues of the $2l \times 2l$ matrix $\mathcal{C}$ defined as
\be \quad
\begin{pmatrix}
\mathbf{I-C} & \mathbf{F^{\dagger}} \\
\mathbf{F} & \mathbf{C}
\end{pmatrix}
\ee
Particularly, the entanglement entropy of the subsystem $S_{ent}(l)$ only requires the eigenvalues:
\be
S_{ent}(l) &=& -\mathrm{Tr}(\rho_\mathcal{S} \log \rho_\mathcal{S}) \nonumber \\
&=& -\sum_{k=1}^{2l}p_k \log(p_k)
\ee
where $p_k$ denotes the eigenvalue of the $\mathcal{C}$ matrix.
We now define a distance measure for the RDMs in an eigenstate $|\psi \rangle$
to quantify how well these operators are described by the truncated GGEs based
on a few local integrals of motion. Since all the local conservations $I_n$
are quadratic in the $c$ fermions (Eqn.~\ref{In_def}), one can simply define the distance measure using the correlation matrices $\mathcal{C}(l)$ and $\mathcal{C}_{\mathrm{GGE}}^{(y)}(l)$~\cite{AS-KS}, where the latter is calculated assuming the density matrix of the full system to be $\rho_{\mathrm{GGE}}^{(y)}$ (Eqn.~\ref{GGE_y}). We use the standard trace distance between these two matrices to define the distance measure $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{C}(l),\mathcal{C}^{(y)}_{\mathrm{GGE}} (l))$ as
\be
\frac{1}{2l} \mathrm{Tr} \sqrt{(\mathcal{C}^{(y)}_{\mathrm{GGE}} (l)-\mathcal{C}(l))^\dagger (\mathcal{C}^{(y)}_{\mathrm{GGE}} (l)-\mathcal{C}(l))}
\ee
Note that $0 \leq \mathcal{D}(\mathcal{C}(l),\mathcal{C}^{(y)}_{\mathrm{GGE}}
(l)) \leq 1$ and is identically zero only when
$\mathcal{C}^{(y)}_{\mathrm{GGE}} (l)=\mathcal{C}(l)$. When
$\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{C}(l),\mathcal{C}^{(y)}_{\mathrm{GGE}} (l))=0$, it
implies that all the (non-zero) correlation functions $\langle \psi |
\mathcal{O} | \psi \rangle$, where $\mathcal{O}$ is defined using any subset
of the $l$ spins in the subsystem,
coincides with the values obtained from the corresponding truncated GGE.
\section{Algorithm for sampling eigenstates}
\label{MC}
For a large chain of size $L$, since there are $2^{L/2}$ eigenstates that are parity invariant, it is not possible to extract the local properties for each individual state in a numerical calculation. Instead, we use an unbiased sampling procedure which we detail below, to extract individual eigenstates from a microcanonical ensemble with the mean value of the energy density $e=\langle \psi|H|\psi \rangle /L$ being equal to the ``target'' energy density $e_T$ and the fluctuations around the mean $\Delta e \rightarrow 0$ as $L \rightarrow \infty$. Our sampling is based on the standard algorithm for performing a microcanonical Monte-Carlo (MC) simulation introduced by Creutz~\cite{Creutz_PRL}, where an extra degree of freedom, which we call ``demon'', travels throughout the system exchanging energy with it, and changing the dynamical variables as a result.
In the context of the TFIM, we can think of the demon traveling in $k$ space, and attempting to update the Bogoluibov fermion occupations $n_k (=0(1))$ which fully define the eigenstate (Eqn.~\ref{producteigenstates}). In detail, a momentum $k$ from the allowed positive momenta at system size $L$ is chosen at random. Upon reaching $k$, the demon attempts to flip the variable $n_k$ from $0(1)$ to $1(0)$. If this move lowers the energy of the system $E=\sum_{k>0} 2\epsilon_k(g) n_k$, this energy is then given to the demon and the flip is accepted. The demon energy, which we denote by $E_D$, is then updated to $E_{D^{'}}$ as follows
\be
E_D \rightarrow E_{D^{'}} = E_D + E - E^{'}
\label{demonenergy}
\ee
where $E^{'}$ is the new energy of the system. Note that the total energy of
the system and the demon remains conserved in this process. Similarly, if the
system's energy is increased by the flip, the demon supplies that required
energy and its own energy is decreased accordingly. However, to keep the demon
from running off with all the energy, we restrict $E_D \geq 0$ and so only
those flips are accepted for which $E_{D^{'}} \geq 0$, otherwise the flip is
rejected. This Monte-Carlo (MC) procedure thus generates an unbiased random
walk in the space of configurations with $E+E_D = E_T$ since the transition
$(E_D,E) \rightarrow (E_{D^{'}}, E^{'})$ and its reverse are allowed with
equal probability. The mean energy density of the sampled energy eigenstates
during the MC can be tuned to a required target energy density $e_T$ by
starting with an initial demon energy $E_D=0$ and choosing an initial
eigenstate with the appropriate energy density $E_T/L$.
The width in the energy densities of the sampled eigenstates $\Delta e
\rightarrow 0$
as $L \rightarrow \infty$ since $E_D \ll E$ as $L \gg 1$. We define one
Monte-Carlo step (MCS) as $L/2$ flip attempts by the demon, and use
the first $10^4$ MCS as warm-up so that the memory of the initial eigenstate
choice is lost, and then use the next $10^6$ MCS for measurements of the individual properties of these sampled eigenstates.
\section{Properies of typical eigenstates}
\label{results_typical}
To understand the local properties of the {\it typical} eigenstates from a
microcanonical ensemble with a desired mean energy density $e_T$ at a
magnetic field strength $g$, we sample such states using our MC and measure
$\langle \psi |\sigma^x| \psi \rangle$, $\langle \psi |I_1| \psi \rangle /L$, the distance measure $\mathcal{D}(\mathcal{C}(l),\mathcal{C}^{(y)}_{\mathrm{GGE}} (l))$ (all of which may be readily calculated in the $c$ fermion representation) with different choices of truncated GGEs for subsystems of $l$ adjacent spins and the entanglement entropy $S_{\mathrm{ent}}(l)$ of such a block for each of the generated eigenstate.
Here, we show the results of the MC for $g=2$ with a mean energy density of
$e_T=0.3986$ (within error bars). The average demon energy $\langle E_D
\rangle$ is finite and equals $3.84$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig1}, inset).
Firstly, we see that for large chain sizes, the sampled eigenstates
have an energy density $E/L$ which has a very narrow spread that
rapidly shrinks to zero with increasing $L$ (see Fig.~\ref{paperfig1}),
thus leading to an unbiased sampling of eigenstates from the microcanonical
ensemble.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig1}}
\caption{ Probability density of $E/L$ for the sampled eigenstates at coupling
$g=2$ and target energy density of $e_T = 0.3986$. For the chain sizes used,
the range of the sampled $E/L$ is very small and mimics a Microcanonical
ensemble. The inset shows the behaviour of the demon energy $E_D$ during the
sampling procedure.
\label{paperfig1}}
\end{figure}
We show the probability densities of the sampled values of $\langle \psi
|\sigma^x| \psi \rangle$ and $\langle \psi |I_1| \psi \rangle /L$
obtained from the MC in
Fig.~\ref{paperfig2}. The sampled values have a Gaussian
distribution whose mean depends only on $e_T$ for a given $g$ and standard
deviation that decays to zero as $L^{-1/2}$ (insets of
Fig.~\ref{paperfig2}). This numerical evidence strongly suggets that, in the
thermodynamic limit, the local properties for any {\it typical} eigenstate of
the TFIM (the atypical states contribute to the tails of the distributions
becoming increasingly rare with increasing system size during the MC) depends
{\it only} on the energy density $e_T$. Then, the natural ensemble to get the
local properties correctly as $L \rightarrow \infty$ is the GE where the
inverse temperature $\beta$ is calculated from the mean energy density $e_T$,
and is $\beta = 0.2604$ in this case.
This is indeed what is observed when the mean values of $\langle \psi
|\sigma^x| \psi \rangle$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig2}, top panel) and $\langle \psi |I_1| \psi
\rangle/L$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig2}, bottom panel) are
calculated from the sampled eigenstates. Since the
width around the mean shrinks to zero when $L \rightarrow 0$, typical
eigenstates have the corresponding thermal values for $\langle \psi |\sigma^x|
\psi \rangle$ and $\langle \psi |I_1| \psi \rangle / L$ in this limit. Indeed,
normal distribution of the fluctuations about the mean thermal value and the
$L^{-1/2}$ scaling of the standard deviation
was also observed in free models~\cite{PRL_Lauchli_rarestates} and
in quantities studied in Ref.~\onlinecite{Alba_PRB_ETH}, and may be
a generic feature of many observables in typical eigenstates of
integrable models at finite sizes.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig2a}} \\
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig2b}}
\caption{Probability density generated from the sampled values of
$\langle \psi |\sigma^x| \psi \rangle$ (Top panel) and $\langle \psi |I_1| \psi
\rangle /L$ (Bottom panel)
for various $L$ at $g=2$ from within a Microcanonical ensemble with average
energy density of $e_T = 0.3986$.
$\sigma^x_{\rm{TH}}$ and $(I_1/L)_{\rm{TH}}$ denote the corresponding thermal
values at a
finite $\beta$ fixed only by the average energy density $e_T$ in the
thermodynamic limit.
The insets of both the figures show that the standard deviation $\sigma$ decreases as $L^{-1/2}$.
\label{paperfig2}}
\end{figure}
It is useful to note here that that not all local operator expectation values in these typical eigenstates are normally distributed about the thermal mean value at finite chain size $L$. E.g., we show the behaviour of the connected correlation function $G_c^{xx}(r) = \langle \psi |\sigma^x(r+1) \sigma^x(1)| \psi \rangle- \langle \psi| \sigma^x| \psi \rangle^2$ for $r=2$ in Fig.~\ref{paperfig3}, where the distribution function is clearly asymmetric (and not Gaussian about the corresponding thermal mean value) but shrinks to the thermal value again as $L \rightarrow \infty$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig3}}
\caption{ Probability density generated from the sampled values of $G_c^{xx}(r) = \langle \psi |\sigma^x(r+1) \sigma^x(1)| \psi \rangle- \langle \psi| \sigma^x| \psi \rangle^2$ for $r=2$ from within a Microcanonical shell with energy density $e_T = 0.3986$. The probability density is asymmetric about the thermal mean value but shrinks to it when $L \rightarrow \infty$.
\label{paperfig3}}
\end{figure}
To show unambigiously that the equivalence to GE holds at the level of the RDMs, which implies that
\be
\rho_{\mathcal{S}} = \mathrm{Tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{S}}} |\psi \rangle \langle \psi| = \mathrm{Tr}_{\bar{\mathcal{S}}} \rho_{\mathrm{GE}}
\ee
where $\rho_{\mathrm{GE}} = \frac{1}{\mathcal{Z}} \exp(-\beta H)$ for a typical eigenstate $|\psi \rangle$ when $L \rightarrow \infty$ as long as the subsystem is local (i.e. $l \ll L$), we consider the behaviour of
the average $\mathcal{D}(C(l),C^{(1)}_{\rm{GGE}}(l))$ (where the truncated GGE
with $y=1$ coincides with GE, and we have used the inverse temperature $\beta
= 0.2604$ which is fixed to give the the correct average energy density $e_T$
of the sampled eigenstates) and see that the distance measure itself goes to
zero for the typical states as $L \rightarrow \infty$ (see
Fig.~\ref{paperfig4}, top panel), again as $L^{-1/2}$ at large $L$ (we have
also verified this for bigger subsystems till $l \leq 100$). This implies that
{\it all} typical eigenstates are locally described by a GE in the
thermodynamic limit. We also see that if subsystems with finite $l/L$ are
considered, then the distance measure does not go to zero as $L \rightarrow
\infty$ even when $l/L$ is very small (Fig.~\ref{paperfig4}, bottom panel). This is because global operators which involve spins at a spatial seperation $l \sim \mathcal{O}(L)$ cannot be described by a thermal reduced density matrix as the rest of the system cannot then act as a bath for the subsystem.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig4a}} \\
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig4b}}
\caption{(Top panel) The distance measure $\mathcal{D}(C(l),C^{(1)}_{\rm{GGE}}(l)) \rightarrow 0$ as $L \rightarrow \infty$ when $l \ll L$ implying that the local RDMs are thermal. This is however not the case when subsystems with finite $l/L$ are considered (Bottom panel).
\label{paperfig4}}
\end{figure}
Finally, we show evidence that this feature, of typical eigenstates locally behave as if they are thermal, holds at all values of energy density $e_T$ for the coupling $g=2$. With our MC, we can also access eigenstates with a {\it negative} values of $\beta$ (i.e., eigenstates which lie {\it above} the middle of the spectrum) by restricting the demon energy to be $E_D \leq 0$ (instead of $E_D \geq 0$) in the MC and these continue to be described by the corresponding GEs. To demonstrate the local thermal behaviour, we calculate the entanglement entropy $S_{\rm{ent}}(l)$ directly from the sampled eigenstates and see that these agree very well with the corresponding thermal value of the entropy $S_{\rm{TH}}(l)$ assuming a GE for the full system (see Fig.~\ref{paperfig5}). Since the spectrum of the TFIM is bounded, the entanglement shows a non-monotonic behaviour with varying energy density. We have further checked that typical eigenstates at other values of the magnetic field $g$ also behave thermally as far as local properties are concerned. Since we are considering a one-dimensional model here, such eigenstates are always paramagnetic (i.e. $\langle \psi| \sigma^z| \psi \rangle = 0$) in the thermodynamic limit for any finite energy density irrespective of the value of $g$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig5}}
\caption{ The entanglement entropy of small subsystems of size $l$, denoted by $S_{\rm{ent}}(l)$, obtained from the typical eigenstates sampled at different energy densities $E/L$ at coupling $g=2$ for a chain size of $L=5000$. These match very well with the corresponding thermal entropy $S_{\rm{TH}}(l)$ obtained from the average energy density of the sampled eigenstates.
\label{paperfig5}}
\end{figure}
The thermal behaviour of the local observables in the typical eigenstates of the TFIM in the thermodynamic limit can be related to an analogous behaviour of the Bogoluibov fermion occupation $n_k$ which determine the densities of {\it all} the (local) conserved quantites of the model (Eqn.~\ref{In_def}). When $L \rightarrow \infty$, we get
\be
\frac{I_n}{L} = \frac{1}{\pi} \int_0^\pi \cos(nk) \epsilon(k) n_c(k)
\label{coarsegrainednk}
\ee
where the momentum $k$ becomes a continuous variable and $n_c(k) \in [0,1]$ represents the average occupation of the Bogoluibov fermions at momentum $k$.
For free fermions, it was demonstrated in Ref.~\onlinecite{ETH_freefermions}
(see also Refs.~\onlinecite{RRPSingh_freefermions,SDSarma_freefermions}) that
if a ``coarse-grained'' occupation number $n_c(k)$, defined through some
suitable averaging procedure of the microscopic variables $n_k$ in a shell of
(infinitesimal) width $\delta k$ around $k$ is considered, then the most
probable form of $n_c(k)$ appears thermal (i.e. the Fermi-Dirac distribution
for free fermions) by the standard entropy maximization argument. Clearly,
many different microscopic realizations of $n_k = 0,1$ can give the same
``coarse-grained'' $n_c(k)$ in the thermodynamic limit, which explains the
resulting thermal values of the densities, $I_n/L$, for the typical
eigenstates as $L \rightarrow \infty$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig2}). For a finite system size of $L$, there are $\mathcal{O}(\delta k L)$ momentum modes in a shell of width $\delta k$ around $k$, and hence fluctuations of $\mathcal{O}(1/\sqrt{L})$ that are normally distributed around the most probable $n_c(k)$ can be expected for typical eigenstates by the Central Limit Theorem. This explains the normal distribution of $\langle \psi | \sigma^x |\psi \rangle$ and $\langle \psi | I_1 |\psi \rangle/L$ about the corresponding thermal values at finite $L$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig2}) since these quantities depend linearly on the fermion occupation.
\section{Sampling atypical eigenstates}
\label{results_rare}
The demon algorithm can be easily generalized to generate atypical eigenstates
from within the Microcanonical ensemble that do not satisfy GE. These states
are characterized by {\it athermal} values of the densities $I_n/L$ and there
is again a large number of such eigenstates ($\mathcal{O}(e^L)$) for a chain
of size $L$. We adapt our algorithm to sample energy eigenstates from within a
truncated {\it generalized} Microcanonical ensemble defined by $(E/L, I_1/L,
\cdots)$ where the densities of the other integrals of motion $(I_1/L,\cdots)$
are set to be significantly different from their corresponding thermal values
in the thermodynamic limit.
Such eigenstates can clearly not be described by a GE locally. Here, we
discuss our
results for {\it typical} eigenstates from within the simplest (truncated)
generalized Microcanonical ensemble $(E/L,I_1/L)$ and the extension to other cases is immediate.
For sampling such rare eigenstates, we now endow the demon with two properties $E_D$ and $(I_1)_D$. The demon again visits a momentum $k$ randomly from the allowed positive momenta at system size $L$ and attempts to flip the variable $n_k$ from $0(1)$ to $1(0)$. The demon variables $E_D$ and $(I_1)_D$ are simultaneously updated as
\be
E_D &\rightarrow& E_{D^{'}} = E_D + E - E^{'} \nonumber \\
(I_1)_D &\rightarrow& (I_1)_{D^{'}} = (I_1)_D + I_1 - I_1^{'}
\ee
where $E = \sum_{k>0}2\epsilon_k n_k$ and $I_1 = \sum_{k>0}2\epsilon_k n_k
\cos(k)$ as defined earlier, and $E^{'}$ and $I_1^{'}$ are the correspondingly
values after the flip. We further restrict the demon to have $E_D \geq 0$ and
$(I_1)_D \geq 0$ at all times and only those flips which satisfy these
conditions simultaneously are accepted, otherwise the flip attempt is aborted
and another $k$ is chosen at random. We choose the initial seed eigenstate
with appropriate values of $E_T$ and $(I_1)_T$ and initialize $E_D,
(I_1)_D=0$. Since the MC conserves $E+E_D=E_T$ and $I_1+(I_1)_D = (I_1)_T$ and
in a large system, since $E_D \ll E$ and $(I_1)_D \ll I_1$, we therefore only
sample eigenstates with a fixed energy per site {\it and} a fixed density
$(I_1)/L$ when $L \rightarrow \infty$. Here, we show sampling of eigenstates
at $g=2$ with the
same $E/L = 0.3986$ as in the previous section but
now with a very atypical value of $(I_1)/L = -0.093$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig6})
which is far from the corresponding thermal value of $(I_1/L)_{\rm{TH}} =+0.075$ given the energy density.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig6}}
\caption{ Probability density of $(I_1/L)$ for the sampled eigenstates when
the demon has both $E_D$ and $(I_1)_D$ as its properties at the same target
energy density $e_T = 0.3986$ at $g=2$ as in Fig.~\ref{paperfig1}
but with very different $I_1/L$ compared to the corresponding thermal value of $(I_1/L)_{\rm TH} = 0.075$.
\label{paperfig6}}
\end{figure}
For the typical eigenstates generated in this generalized Microcanonical
ensemble, we clearly see that the RDMs {{\it cannot}} be described with
corresponding GEs, unlike in the previous case (Fig.~\ref{paperfig7}, top
panel) since now the distance measure does not go to zero with $y=1$. However,
the truncated GGE with $y=2$ (i.e. with the athermal density of $I_1$ taken
into account through $\lambda_1$), which gives $\beta = 0.296$ and $\lambda_1
= 0.129$, exactly describes the local properties of these sampled eigenstates
in the thermodynamic limit when $l \ll L$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig7}, bottom panel).
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig7a}} \\
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig7b}}
\caption{The local properties of {\it typical} eigenstates with $E/L =0.3986$
and $(I_1)/L = -0.093$ at $g=2$ (which is very different from
$(I_1/L)_{\rm{TH}} = +0.075$) are not described by a GE in the thermodynamic
limit (Top panel), but by a $y=2$ truncated GGE with $\beta = 0.296$ and
$\lambda_1 = 0.129$ (Bottom panel).
\label{paperfig7}}
\end{figure}
Using the basic definition of entropy $S=\log(\Omega)$, where $\Omega$ denotes
the number of eigenstates that share the same local properties, we thus see
that the probability of encountering an eigenstate which is described by a
$y=2$ ensemble characterized by $(E/L,I_1/L)$ (where $I_1/L$ is athermal)
versus an eigenstate described by a GE characterized by $E/L$ alone equals
$\exp[-L\{s(E/L)-s(E/L,I_1/L)\}]$,
where $s(E/L)$ is the entropy density of the system at inverse temperature
$\beta$ fixed by $E/L$ and $s(E/L,I_1/L)$ is the corresponding entropy density
for the system described by a $y=2$ truncated GGE, with $(\beta,\lambda_1)$
fixed jointly by $(E/L,I_1/L)$.
This quantifies why such athermal eigenstates are ``rare'' states in the TFIM, even though their number still scales exponentially with system size.
Similarly, we have numerically verified that a {\it typical} energy eigenstate
from other generalized Microcanonical ensembles with the first $m+1$ local
conservations laws specified is completely characterized (as far as all local
properties are concerned) by a suitable truncated GGE with only $y=m+1$ as $L
\rightarrow \infty$. This behaviour in the thermodynamic limit can be argued
from the corresponding most probable distribution of the coarse-grained (in
momentum space) Bogoluibov fermions occupations $n_c(k)$
(Eqn.~\ref{coarsegrainednk}) by extending the arguments of Ref.~\onlinecite{ETH_freefermions}, taking into account the additional conservation laws which specify the generalized Microcanonical ensembles in terms of the Bogoluibov fermion occupations $n_k$.
\subsection{Truncated GGE for an arbitrary eigenstate}
\label{sec:truncatedgge}
For typical eigenstates drawn from generalized Microcanonical ensembles in the
TFIM, we have demonstrated that only a {\it few} Lagrange multipliers are
necessary for describing all the local properties of the state in a
thermodynamically large system and all other Lagrange multipliers can be set
to zero. E.g. a GE with only $\lambda_0=\beta$ being non-zero, and all other
Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_n=0$, provides the description for all local
properties for typical eigenstates drawn from a Microcanonical ensemble as
shown in Sec.~\ref{results_typical}. What about eigenstates where the
Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_n$ {\it cannot} be set to be zero beyond a
certain $n$ and a full GGE description is therefore necessary? These
eigenstates nonetheless have a finite energy density $E/L$ and show a volume
law behaviour for the entanglement entropy and we study the RDMs of these
states in this section. These eigenstates are generated by ensuring that the
coarse-grained (in momentum space) Bogoluibov fermion occupation $n_c(k)$ is
a {\it discontinuous} function of $k$ in the thermodynamic limit. There are
several ways to achieve this and most simply, these eigenstates are obtained
by placing the Bogoluibov fermion occupations $n_k=0 (1)$ with probability
$1-p_1 (p_1)$ in the first $L/2$ positive $k$ modes and with a different
probability $1-p_2 (p_2)$ in the next $L/2$ modes. For a large chain size
$L$, any typical realization of this random process of placing $n_k=0(1)$
generates an energy eigenstate where the coarse-grained $n_c(k)$ is $p_1$ for
$0 \leq k \leq \pi/2$, and $p_2$ for $\pi/2 \leq k \leq \pi$. The
discontinuity in $n_c(k)$ then leads to a slow decay of $|\lambda_n|$ as
$1/n$ (see Fig.~\ref{paperfig8} (Top panel)) for any $p_1 \neq p_2$. In Fig.~\ref{paperfig8} (Bottom panel), we
show the results of the comparison of the RDMs
for such an atypical eigenstate in a chain size of $L=2000$, where we take
$p_1 = 0.1$ and $p_2=0.4$, with
various truncated GGEs.
Even though the full GGE is required if we need the accurate description of {\it all} local properties for such eigenstates in the thermodynamic limit, we clearly see that depending on the subsystem size $l$ being considered, one still requires only the first $y \sim l$ most local conservation laws for an ``accurate'' description of the properties of even such eigenstates and not {\it all} the integrals of motion from the behaviour of the distance measure $D(l)$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig8}, bottom panel). Going to bigger subsystems requires specifying a larger number ($y$) of integrals of motion to reduce $D(l)$. However, even for such eigenstates, we see that the most local integrals of motion play the most important role in describing local properties, and this constitutes the ``eigenstate thermalization version'' of a similar conclusion reached in Ref.~\onlinecite{Fagotti_Essler_PRB} for steady states following quantum quenches in the $1$D TFIM.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig8a}}\\
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig8b}}
\caption{ (Top panel) The decay of $|\lambda_n|$ as a function of $n$ in an
eigenstate where the coarse-grained $n_c(k)$ is discontinuous in the
thermodynamic limit with $p_1 = 0.1$ and $p_2=0.4$. (Bottom panel) Results
for the distance measure $D(l)$ for such a highly atypical eigenstate
generated with
$p_1 = 0.1$ and $p_2=0.4$ for a chain size of $L=2000$ as a function of $l$ with different truncated GGEs.
\label{paperfig8}}
\end{figure}
\section{Quench from a typical eigenstate}
\label{quench}
We now address the situation when the Hamiltonian is time-dependent and consider the simplest case of a quantum quench, where the magnetic field ($g$) is suddenly changed from a pre-quench to a post-quench value at $t=0$. Typically, when considering quantum quenches, the starting state is assumed to be the ground state of the pre-quench Hamiltonian. Here, we consider the case where the initial state is instead a typical excited eigenstate of the pre-quench Hamiltonian (see also Ref.~\onlinecite{Calabrese_quench_excited_state}). Since such initial states are locally thermal as we explictly showed in the previous sections, a natural question is whether the unitary dynamics following the quantum quench at $t=0$ keeps them thermal at long times.
We will show here that this is not the case since such states do not
have a finite overlap with the typical eigenstates of the post-quench
Hamiltonian but only with its rare eigenstates in the thermodynamic
limit. However, if the initial state was an
eigenstate of a non-integrable model, the final steady state
might appear thermal~\cite{Rigol_PRL_quench}.
Thus, the long time description of the steady state again requires a GGE but
there are important differences
when compared to a ground state quench.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig9}}
\caption{ The time evolution of the expectation value of the local operator $\sigma^x$ where the starting state at $t=0$ is a typical eigenstate (generated from the demon algorithm) at the coupling $g_i=2$ and chain size $L=30000$. The system's magnetic field is quenched to $g_f=3$ at $t=0$ and the unitary dynamics of the state leads to the Diagonal ensemble at long time (but smaller than the revival time of the finite system).
\label{paperfig9}}
\end{figure}
The density matrix of the full system at a finite time can be written formally as
\be
&&\rho(t) = |\psi(t) \rangle \langle \psi(t)| \nonumber \\
&=& \sum_i |\langle \psi_{i}^f|\psi (0) \rangle|^2 | \psi_{i}^f \rangle \langle \psi_{i}^f | \nonumber \\
&+& \sum_{i_1 \neq i_2} e^{-i(E_{i_1}^f-E_{i_2}^f)t}\langle \psi_{i_1}^f| \psi(0) \rangle \langle \psi(0)| \psi_{i_2}^f \rangle | \psi_{i_1}^f \rangle \langle \psi_{i_2}^f | \nonumber \\
\ee
where $|\psi_{i}^f \rangle$ represent the eigenstates of the post-quench
Hamiltonian, $E^f_i$ its energy and $|\psi(0) \rangle$ denotes the starting
state at $t=0$.
In the thermodynamic limit, the $i_1 \neq i_2$ terms cancel each other out
when $t \rightarrow \infty$~\cite{Rigol_nature, Caux_Essler_PRL}
and hence, the density matrix of the steady state of the system coincides with the Diagonal ensemble (DE), described by the time-independent density matrix $\rho_{\rm{DE}}$:
\be
\rho_{\rm{DE}} = \sum_i |\langle \psi_{i}^f|\psi(0) \rangle|^2 | \psi_{i}^f \rangle \langle \psi_{i}^f |.
\ee
In a finite system, any local operator will show revivals but this time scale
becomes progressively larger and diverges~\cite{Quantumrevivals_PRA} as $L \rightarrow \infty$.
The time-dependent wavefunction $|\psi (t) \rangle = \otimes_{k>0}|\psi_k (t)\rangle$ for the quench, where $|\psi_k (t)\rangle = U^n_{k}(t)c^{\dagger}_k c^{\dagger}_{-k} |0 \rangle + V^n_{k}(t)|0 \rangle$, can be easily worked out for $t>0$, by expressing the $t=0^-$ state at each $k$ in terms of the $(U_{k0(1)}(g_f),V_{k0(1)}(g_f))$ at the new coupling $g_f$. Doing this, we obtain $U^n_k(t)$ and $V^n_k(t)$ as follows:
\begin{widetext}
\be
\left( \begin{array}{c} U^0_{k}(t) \\ V^0_{k}(t) \end{array} \right) &=& +e^{+i\epsilon_k(g_f)t} \cos ((\theta^i_k-\theta^f_k)/2) \left( \begin{array}{c} U_{k0}(g_f) \\ V_{k0}(g_f) \end{array} \right) + e^{-i\epsilon_k(g_f)t} \sin ((\theta^i_k-\theta^f_k)/2) \left( \begin{array}{c} U_{k1}(g_f) \\ V_{k1}(g_f) \end{array} \right) \nonumber \\
\left( \begin{array}{c} U^1_{k}(t) \\ V^1_{k}(t) \end{array} \right) &=& -e^{+i\epsilon_k(g_f)t} \sin ((\theta^i_k-\theta^f_k)/2) \left( \begin{array}{c} U_{k0}(g_f) \\ V_{k0}(g_f) \end{array} \right) + e^{-i\epsilon_k(g_f)t} \cos ((\theta^i_k-\theta^f_k)/2) \left( \begin{array}{c} U_{k1}(g_f) \\ V_{k1}(g_f) \end{array} \right)
\ee
\label{timedependence}
\end{widetext}
with the $n=0(1)$ index in $U^n_k(t)$ and $V^n_k(t)$ denoting whether the $t=0^-$ eigenstate at $g=g_i$ is $(U_{kn}(g_i),V_{kn}(g_i))$ at momentum $k$, and $\theta_k^i,\theta_k^f$ denote the Bogoluibov angles $\theta^g_k$ (see Eq.~\ref{eigenstates1}) for the pre-quench ($g_i$) and post-quench ($g_f$) values of the magnetic field respectively. We show the result of $\langle \psi(t)| \sigma^x | \psi(t) \rangle$ for a typical eigenstate at $g_i=2$ generated from the demon algorithm with $e_T = 0.3986$ where the magnetic field is quenched to $g_f=3$ at $t=0$ in Fig.~\ref{paperfig9}. We see that that $\langle \psi(t)| \sigma^x | \psi(t) \rangle$ already converges close to the DE result after a relatively short time $t \sim 5$.
We next calculate the steady state values of local observables $\langle H(g_f)
\rangle /L$, $\langle I_1(g_f) \rangle/L$ and $ \langle \sigma^x \rangle$
given that the quench starts from each of the sampled eigenstates from the MC
(with $g_i=2$ and $e_T = 0.3986$) at $t=0$ using the appropriate DE
determined by the initial state at $g_i$ and the value of $g_f$ and
show the probability distributions of these steady state quantities in Fig.~\ref{paperfig10}.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig10a}}\\
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig10b}}
\caption{ (Top panel) The probability density of $\langle I_1(g_f) \rangle/L$
obtained from the steady state of the system starting from typical
eigenstates at chain size $L$ and at coupling $g_i=2$ and quenched to a
post-quench coupling of $g_f=3$. The inset shows the corresponding
probability density for $\langle H(g_f)
\rangle /L$ in the steady state. (Bottom panel) The corresponding probability
density of $ \langle \sigma^x \rangle$ in the steady state.
Clearly, the system's steady state is no longer described by a GE after the quench.
\label{paperfig10}}
\end{figure}
The distribitions of the DE values for the quantities shown in
Fig.~\ref{paperfig10} are normally distributed and the standard deviation
progressively shrinks to zero as $L$ is increased, which implies that in the
thermodynamic limit, quenches originating from {\it any} typical eigenstate
characterised by the same initial energy density $e_T$ at coupling $g_i$ lead
to steady states which are identical as far as local properties are
concerned. However, the mean values of the steady state distributions of
$\langle I_1(g_f) \rangle/L$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig10}, Top panel) and $ \langle
\sigma^x \rangle$ (Fig.~\ref{paperfig10}, Bottom panel) are very different
from the expected GE results fixed by the
mean energy density of the final post-quench Hamiltonian (see inset of Top
panel in Fig.~\ref{paperfig10}).
Thus the steady state obtained after a quantum quench from a typical
eigenstate of the pre-quench Hamiltonian is not thermal and
further conservation laws are needed for a quantitative agreement.
We now detail the construction of the GGE in the thermodynamic limit, and give the analytic expression for the Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_n$. The mean of the probability distributions of the different quantities shown in Fig.~\ref{paperfig10} ($\langle H(g_f) \rangle /L$, $\langle I_1(g_f) \rangle/L$ and $ \langle \sigma^x \rangle$) are all correctly captured by this GGE, and provides strong numerical support for its correctness in the thermodynamic limit.
After a quench, the average Bologuibov fermion number $\langle n_k^{i,f} \rangle$ at each $k$ is conserved (and thus does not change as a function of $t$) because of the form of the post-quench Hamiltonian. Then, we have
\be
\langle n_k^{i,f} \rangle = (p)\sin^2 \left(\frac{\theta_k^i -\theta_k^f}{2} \right)+(1-p)\cos^2 \left(\frac{\theta_k^i -\theta_k^f}{2} \right) \nonumber \\
\label{athermal_n}
\ee
where $p=0(1)$ if $n_k(g_i) = 0(1)$ for the eigenstate of $g_i$ at $t=0$. In the thermodynamic limit, all the microscopic $n_k(g_i)$ lead to the same coarse-grained $n_c(k)$ which follows a thermal distribution that is fixed only by the average energy density of the eigenstate. Thus, when $L \rightarrow \infty$, we can replace the $p$ variables (which equal $n_k(g_i)$ microscopically) by the same thermal distribution to get its coarse-grained version:
\be
p_c(k) = \frac{\exp(-\beta \epsilon_k^i)}{\exp(-\beta \epsilon_k^i)+\exp(+\beta \epsilon_k^i)}
\ee
where $\beta$ is the inverse temperature of the GE that describes the local properties of the typical eigenstates at $g_i$. Thus, in the $L \rightarrow \infty$ limit, we obtain
\be
\langle n_k^{i,f} \rangle = \frac{e^{-\beta \epsilon_k^i} \cos^2 \left(\frac{\theta_k^i -\theta_k^f}{2}\right) +e^{\beta \epsilon_k^i} \sin^2 \left(\frac{\theta_k^i -\theta_k^f}{2} \right)}{e^{-\beta \epsilon_k^i} + e^{\beta \epsilon_k^i}}
\ee
The Lagrange multipliers $\lambda_n$ wrt the final post-quench Hamiltonian (at $g_f$) are then defined by using Eqn.~\ref{lambdak} and Eqn.~\ref{lambdan}:
\be
\lambda_n &=& \frac{2-\delta_{n,0}}{\pi}\int_0^\pi \cos(nk) \mathcal{F} (g_i,g_f,\beta,k) \nonumber \\
\mathcal{F} (g_i,g_f,\beta,k) &=& \frac{1}{2\epsilon^f_k} \log \left(\frac{1-\langle n_k^{i,f} \rangle}{\langle n_k^{i,f} \rangle} \right)
\ee
Thus, knowing the initial energy density of the typical eigenstate at the pre-quench magnetic field value of $g_i$, and the couplings $g_i$ and $g_f$, completely fixes the Lagrange multipliers ($\lambda_n$) and hence the GGE from Eqn.~\ref{GGE_y}. The values obtained from this GGE are fully consistent with the mean values of $\langle H(g_f)\rangle/L, \langle I_1(g_f)\rangle/L, \sigma^x$ in the steady state around which the standard deviation shrinks to zero as $L \rightarrow \infty$ in Fig.~\ref{paperfig10}. At low $\beta$, this expression can be further simplied to give
\be
\lambda_n = \left(\frac{2-\delta_{n,0}}{\pi} \right) \beta \int_0^\pi \left( \frac{\epsilon^i_k}{\epsilon^f_k} \cos(\theta_k^i -\theta_k^f) \right) \cos(nk)
\ee
Clearly, only when $\beta = 0$ for the initial pre-quench eigenstate is the
final steady state also thermal (with $\beta=0$ again) with respect to the
final post-quench Hamiltonian. Even at small $\beta$, $\lambda_n$ for $n>0$
are non-zero (though small) and hence one obtains a GGE for the steady
state. The athermal nature of the ensemble is related to the athermal
behaviour of $\langle n_k^{i,f} \rangle$ (Eqn.~\ref{athermal_n}), which fixes
all the (local) conserved quantities, since it cannot be expressed as
$\exp(-\beta_f \epsilon_k(g_f))/(\exp(+\beta_f \epsilon_k(g_f))+\exp(-\beta_f
\epsilon_k(g_f)))$ for any $\beta_f$ as long as the initial $\beta \neq 0$.
\begin{figure}[htb]
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig11a}}
{\includegraphics[width=\hsize]{fig11b}}
\caption{(Top panel) The singularities present in $\mathcal{F}
(g_i,g_f,\beta \rightarrow \infty,k)$ at $k=0,\pi$ get rounded off at finite
$\beta$ that corresponds to the energy density of a typical (pre-quench
Hamiltonian's) eigenstate. (Bottom panel)
The decay of the Lagrange multipliers for the post-quench GGE as a function of
distance $n$.
Here, $g_i=2$, $g_f=3$ and $\beta$ is fixed only by the energy density of the typical eigenstate of the pre-quench Hamiltonian.
\label{paperfig11}}
\end{figure}
Note that the $\lambda_n$ when the initial state is the ground state of the
pre-quench Hamiltonian can be simply obtained by taking $\beta \rightarrow
\infty$ and matches the results obtained in that context by Fagotti and
Essler~\cite{Fagotti_Essler_PRB}. From this previous work, it is known that
$\lambda_n$ decay rather slowly with distance as $1/n$ when the $t=0$ state is
the pre-quench Hamiltonian's ground state, because of the logarithmic
singularity of $\mathcal{F}(g_i,g_f,\beta \rightarrow \infty,k)$ at $k=0$ and
$k=\pi$.
However, for any finite $\beta$ (which corresponds to a highly excited
eigenstate at $t=0$), the singularities are rounded off as shown in
Fig.~\ref{paperfig11} (Top panel).
This instead leads to an exponential decay of $|\lambda_n| \sim \exp(-n/\xi)$
as shown in Fig.~\ref{paperfig11} (Bottom panel), where $\xi$ indicates the
length-scale associated with the exponential decay in $n$.
It will be interesting to obtain an analytic expression for $\xi$ as a function of $\beta,g_i,g_f$.
\section{Conclusions}
\label{conclude}
We have studied the reduced density matrices and local properties of highly excited eigenstates of the transverse field Ising chain, sampling them using an unbiased Monte-Carlo technique. We find that, in spite of being integrable with an extensive number of conserved quantities, typical high energy eigenstates are described by a finite temperature Gibbs ensemble for all local properties in the thermodynamic limit. Our sampling method also allows us exploring rare (athermal) eigenstates, and we explictly demonstrate that such states are locally described by appropriate truncated Generalized Gibbs ensembles with only a few non-zero Lagrange multipliers. We also consider a class of high energy eigenstates for which the full GGE is required to describe local properties accurately. Nonetheless, the most local conservation laws still play the most important role in describing local properties. We, however, show that even for a quantum quench from a typical high-energy eigenstate of the pre-quench Hamiltonian, the resulting steady state requires a full GGE description. Our study leaves many open issues for future studies. For example, it will be interesting to investigate the behaviour of unequal time correlation functions of high energy excited states, especially in light of the results presented in Ref.~\onlinecite{Maldacenaetal_Chaos}. Another interesting question is whether this picture of typicality holds
for free Hamiltonians with long range interctions. A related question is regarding the typical nature of the periodic Gibbs' ensemble~\cite{AAR-PRL} produced by driving
free-fermions (or other integrable models mapable to that) periodically: if we observe the asymptotic synchronized state stroboscopically, do we typically get a thermal
state? The question is interesting, since the effective Floquet hamiltonian, though still bilinear in fermions, may be long-ranged, and can often be non-local in terms
of the original degrees of freedom.
\bibliographystyle{apsrev4-1}
|
\section*{Appendix: Connection between the normalizations by Muljarov \lowercase{\emph{et al.}} and Sauvan \lowercase{\emph{et al.}}}
In Ref.~\cite{1}, we presented calculations showing the connection, for general resonators, between the normalizations by Lai \emph{et al.}~\cite{Lai} and Sauvan \emph{et al.}~\cite{Sauvan} as well as the connection between the normalizations by Lai \emph{et al} and Muljarov \emph{et al.} \cite{EPL}. To complete the picture, we show here the connection between the normalizations by Sauvan \emph{et al.} and Muljarov \emph{et al.} for general resonators made from isotropic and non-magnetic materials as considered also in Ref.~\cite{1}.
From Eq. (S2) of the supplementary information in Ref.~\cite{Sauvan}, setting $\mathbf{j}_1=\mathbf{j}_2=0$, and adopting the notation in Ref.~\cite{1}, we have the relation
\begin{align}
0 =\; \frac{\text{i}}{2}&\int_V\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\big[\tilde{\omega}_\mu\epsilon_\mathbf{r}(\mathbf{r},\tilde{\omega}_\mu) - \omega\epsilon_\mathbf{r}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\big]\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega) -\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}(\tilde{\omega}_\mu-\omega)\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{g}}(\mathbf{r},\omega) \mathrm{d} V \nonumber \\ &- \frac{1}{2\epsilon_0}\int_{\partial V} \big[\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\times\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) - \tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\times\tilde{\mathbf{g}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\big]\cdot\mathbf{n}\;\mathrm{d} A,
\end{align}
where $\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})$ denote the electric and magnetic field QNMs, respectively, with complex (angular) resonance frequency $\tilde{\omega}_\mu$. Following Muljarov \emph{et al.}~\cite{EPL,2}, the fields $\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)$ and $\tilde{\mathbf{g}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)$ denote analytical continuations of the QNMs in the vicinity of $\omega=\tilde{\omega}_\mu$.
Sauvan \emph{et al.} argues that in calculations using perfectly matched layers (PMLs) the surface integral can be immediately set to zero, because it is evaluated at the (complex) coordinate transformed positions beyond the PMLs where the fields vanish~\cite{Sauvan}. Nevertheless, the Lorentz reciprocity theorem holds for all volumes $V$, and for finite sized volumes, we must keep the second term~\cite{Kathrin}. In the limit $\omega\approx\tilde{\omega}_\mu$, and hence $\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\approx\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})$, we follow Sauvan and co-workers and write $\omega\epsilon_\text{r}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\approx\tilde{\omega}_\mu\epsilon_\text{r}(\mathbf{r},\tilde{\omega}_\mu) + \eta(\mathbf{r},\tilde{\omega}_\mu)(\omega-\tilde{\omega}_\mu)$, where
$\eta(\mathbf{r},\omega) = \partial_\omega[\omega\epsilon_\text{r}(\mathbf{r},\omega)]$. In this limit we can then write
\begin{align}
0 =\; (\tilde{\omega}_\mu-\omega)\Big[\frac{\text{1}}{2}&\int_V\eta(\mathbf{r},\tilde{\omega}_\mu)\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega) -\frac{\mu_0}{\epsilon_0}\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{g}}(\mathbf{r},\omega) \mathrm{d} V \nonumber \\ &+\frac{\text{i}}{2\epsilon_0(\tilde{\omega}_\mu-\omega)}\int_{\partial V} \big[\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\times\tilde{\mathbf{g}}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) - \tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\times\tilde{\mathbf{g}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\big]\cdot\mathbf{n}\;\mathrm{d} A\Big].
\end{align}
which shows that the sum of the integrals may be different from zero as $\omega\rightarrow\tilde{\omega}_\mu$, in which case it becomes the norm $\langle\langle\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu|\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu\rangle\rangle$. To explore this limit, we may rewrite the expression using
\begin{align}
\tilde{\mathbf{g}}(\mathbf{r},\omega) = -\frac{\text{i}}{\mu_0\omega}\nabla\times\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)
\end{align}
and the vector Green's identity of the first kind,
\begin{align}
\int_V (\nabla\times\mathbf{P})\cdot(\nabla\times\mathbf{Q})&- \mathbf{P}\cdot\nabla\times\nabla\times\mathbf{Q}\,\mathrm{d} V =\int_{\partial V}\mathbf{n}\cdot(\mathbf{P}\times\nabla\times\mathbf{Q})\,\mathrm{d} A,
\end{align}
as
\begin{align}
\langle\langle\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu|\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu\rangle\rangle = \lim_{\omega\rightarrow\tilde{\omega}_\mu}&\Big\{ \int_V\sigma(\mathbf{r},\omega)\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\mathrm{d} V \nonumber \\
&+ \frac{\text{c}^2}{2\tilde{\omega}_\mu\omega}\int_{\partial V} \Big[\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\times\nabla\times\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)
-\frac{ \omega\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\times\nabla\times\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) - \tilde{\omega}_\mu\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\times\nabla\times\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega) }{\omega-\tilde{\omega}_\mu}\Big]\cdot\mathbf{n}\;\mathrm{d} A\Big\},
\end{align}
where $\sigma(\mathbf{r},\omega) = \partial_\omega[\omega^2\epsilon_\text{r}(\mathbf{r},\omega)]/2\omega$. To further investigate the behavior of the last term as $\omega\rightarrow\tilde{\omega}_\mu$, we follow Muljarov \emph{et al.}~\cite{EPL,2} and write
\begin{align}
\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega) &\approx
\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) + \frac{\omega-\tilde{\omega}_\mu}{\tilde{\omega}_\mu}\mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r}),
\label{Eq:E_1_w_K_1}
\end{align}
in which $\mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r})=(\mathbf{r}\cdot\nabla)\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})$ as detailed in Ref.~\cite{2}. Inserting in the second integral and taking the limit $\omega\rightarrow \tilde{\omega}_\mu$ (and thus $\tilde{\mathbf{f}}(\mathbf{r},\omega)\rightarrow \tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})$), we find
\begin{align}
\langle\langle\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu|\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu\rangle\rangle = &\int_V\sigma(\mathbf{r},\tilde{\omega}_\mu)\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\mathrm{d} V + \frac{\text{c}^2}{2\tilde{\omega}_\mu^2}\int_{\partial V} \big[ \tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\times\nabla\times\mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) - \mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) \times\nabla\times\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) \big] \cdot\mathbf{n}\;\mathrm{d} A.
\label{Eq:norm_w_curls}
\end{align}
Now, we can use the general result
\begin{align}
\big[\mathbf{P}\cdot\nabla\times\mathbf{Q}\big]\cdot\mathbf{n} = \mathbf{P}\cdot\partial_\mathbf{n}\mathbf{Q}-\big[\mathbf{P}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{Q}\big]\cdot\mathbf{n},
\end{align}
where $\partial_\mathbf{n}\mathbf{Q}$ denotes differentiation of each component of $\mathbf{Q}$ in the direction of the unit vector $\mathbf{n}$ and $\nabla\mathbf{Q} = \sum_{m,n} \partial_m Q_n\mathbf{e}_m\mathbf{e}_n$, to rewrite the expression as
\begin{align}
\langle\langle\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu|\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu\rangle\rangle = \int_V\sigma(\mathbf{r},\tilde{\omega}_\mu)\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\mathrm{d} V &+ \frac{\text{c}^2}{2\tilde{\omega}_\mu^2}\int_{\partial V} \big[ \tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\partial_\mathbf{n} \mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) - \mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\partial_\mathbf{n} \tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\big] \cdot \mathbf{n}\;\mathrm{d} A \nonumber \\
&- \frac{\text{c}^2}{2\tilde{\omega}_\mu^2}\int_{\partial V} \big[\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\nabla\mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) - \mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r})\cdot\nabla\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r}) \big] \cdot \mathbf{n}\;\mathrm{d} A.
\label{Eq:norm_w_grads}
\end{align}
Last, since $\nabla\cdot\tilde{\mathbf{f}}_\mu(\mathbf{r})=\nabla\cdot\mathbf{K}_\mu(\mathbf{r})=0$ on the calculation domain boundary, we can use the general product rule
\begin{align}
\nabla\times\big[\mathbf{P}\times\mathbf{Q}\big] = \mathbf{P}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{Q}-\mathbf{Q}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{P}+\mathbf{P}\big[\nabla\cdot\mathbf{Q}\big]-\mathbf{Q}\big[\nabla\cdot\mathbf{P}\big],
\end{align}
to rewrite the third integral as the flux of the curl through a closed surface, which vanishes by virtue of Stokes' integral theorem. The normalization then takes the exact form presented by Muljarov \emph{et al.}~\cite{EPL}.
|
\section{Introduction}
Topology is a ubiquitous concept in physics, ranging from electrons in solid state~\cite{hasan10,qi11}, quantum degenerate gases~\cite{galitski13,jotzu14}, and sound~\cite{yang15,peano15,wang15,huber15}. A key manifestation of topological physics is the presence of edge modes which are robust to local disorder. The prospect of using topological photonic materials for such robust propagation of light has attracted a great deal of interest~\cite{lu14,hafezi14}.
Topologically-protected edge states have been experimentally demonstrated in systems at microwave freqencies~\cite{wang09,khanikev16} and optical frequencies, specifically in ring resonators~\cite{hafezi13, mittal14}, and in coupled waveguides ~\cite{rechtsman13}. Subsequent work measured the invariants characterizing the topology of two-dimensional photonic systems~\cite{mittal16}. Embedding quantum emitters into these optical frequency devices could generate strong optical non-linearities that exhibit new physical behavior. Theoretical work has shown that the interplay between emitters and chiral states results in intriguing phenomena such as many-body position-independent scattering~\cite{gritsev14}, dimerization of driven emitters~\cite{pichler15} and fractional quantum Hall states~\cite{cho08,carusotto12,hafezi13b}.
Strong light-matter interactions with optical emitters usually require the concentration of light to small mode-volume nanophotonic devices~\cite{joannopoulos08}. Two-dimensional photonic crystals are one of the most promising nanophotonic platforms for this application because they confine light to less than an optical wavelength~\cite{polman15,lodahl15}. Recently, several works have proposed photonic crystal structures where deformations open a gap in the Dirac cone dispersion to achieve non-trivial topological bands~\cite{wu15,ma15,ma16,longphotonic,dong15}. However, these proposals either make use of dielectric cylinders, which make it difficult to experimentally achieve out-of-plane confinement in planar all-dielectric nanophotonic systems, or make use of metallic mirrors to achieve out-of-plane confinement, which is undesirable for devices operating at optical frequencies where loss in metals is significant. Thus, it would be highly desirable to create an all-dielectric topological photonic crystal which is confined in the out-of-plane direction without the use of metal.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig1v3.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:structure} Schematic of our proposed honeycomb-lattice-like photonic crystal. (a) Baseline structure of equilateral triangular holes arranged in a honeycomb lattice in a dielectric material. This honeycomb lattice can be viewed as a triangular lattice of two-hole unit cells (black solid rhombus), or alternatively as a triangular lattice of six-hole unit cells (white dashed hexagons), which we call honeycomb clusters with $R=a_0/3$. (b) First Brillouin zones for the six-hole (solid) and two-hole (dashed) unit cells. The letters indicate high-symmetry points. (c) [and (d)] Same structure as in (a) except that $R<a_0/3$ ($R>a_0/3)$, which we call shrunken (expanded) clusters.}
\end{figure}
Here we demonstrate that an all-dielectric topological photonic crystal can exhibit two-dimensional edge states confined by total internal reflection in a dielectric slab, enabling low-loss confinement of light in the third dimension. This structure addresses the challenge of experimentally realizing topological photonic crystals and enabling strong interactions with optical emitters. Our system exhibits spin quantum Hall physics for pseudo-spin photonic polarizations. As a result of time-reversal symmetry, the edge states are helical: edge states of opposite helicity travel in opposite directions. We utilize a honeycomb periodic structure with six-fold symmetry based on triangular holes. This structure ensures a complete bandgap for transverse-electric-like modes. Deformations of the unit cell that preserve its rotational symmetry change the topology of the structure. We show that interfacing two materials of different band topologies results in robust two-dimensionally confined edge states that can propagate around sharp bends.
\section{Photonic Crystal Design and Band Structure}
Fig.~\ref{fig:structure} shows a schematic of our photonic crystal structure. The starting point is a honeycomb lattice made of equilateral triangular holes in a dielectric material as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}(a). We can view this system as a triangular lattice with a basis consisting of two triangular holes, as is typically done in studies of graphene~\cite{neto09}. The black outline shows such a two-hole unit cell. Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}(b) shows the first Brillouin zone (dashed line), which is a hexagon. We denote the high-symmetry points~\cite{sakoda01} by $\Gamma$, $\widetilde{\rm{M}}$ and $\widetilde{\rm{K}}$. Alternatively, we can also view this structure as a triangular lattice of six-hole unit cells [white dashed hexagons in Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}(a) which we call honeycomb clusters], where the relevant parameters are the lattice constant of the triangular lattice $a_0$, the distance between the center of each cluster to the centroid of each triangular hole $R$, the length of each side of the equilateral triangular holes $s$, and the height of the dielectric material $h$. In the honeycomb lattice, the relationship $R = a_0/3$ holds. Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}(b) shows the first Brillouin zone as a solid hexagon and $\Gamma$, M and K indicate the high symmetry points. Note that the first Brillouin zone for the six-hole unit cell is smaller than for the two-hole unit cell due to the larger real space unit cell area.
We first analyze the band structure of this photonic crystal in the two-hole unit cell picture using three-dimensional numerical finite-difference time-domain calculations (Lumerical FDTD Solutions). We perform simulations using GaAs as the dielectric substrate, with index of refraction taken from Ref.~\cite{palik97}. The parameters we use are $a_0=445$ nm, $s=140$ nm, and $h=160$ nm, which are typical dimensions for photonic crystal structures~\cite{painter99,englund05,kim13}. We focus on the transverse-electric-like modes of the system where the electric field at the symmetric plane of the system lies in-plane. Fig.~\ref{fig:band}(a) shows the band structure of the honeycomb lattice corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:structure}(a) along the high-symmetry points of the Brillouin zone. The gray region indicates the portion of the band structure above the light line where there are no guided modes confined in the dielectric material of finite thickness~\cite{johnson99}. There is a Dirac point at the $\widetilde{\rm{K}}$ point, indicated by the red arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig:band}(a), located below the light line. Near this Dirac point, we can modify the topological properties of the photonic crystal by changing the ratio $R/a_0$~\cite{wu15}. However, these perturbations also change the symmetry of the lattice and so we can no longer use the rhombus-shaped two-hole unit cell to construct the band structure. Instead, we use the hexagonal six-hole unit cell to construct the band structure without destroying the rotational symmetry of the system.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig2v6.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:band} Band structures show opening and closing of a band gap around the Dirac point as we perturb the lattice. (a) Band structure of the honeycomb lattice in the two-hole unit cell picture. The gray area represents the region above the light line, where light can leak out of the plane. A Dirac point exists at the $\widetilde{\rm{K}}$ point (red arrow) and is below the light line. (b),(c) and (d) Band structure calculated with the six-hole unit cell with honeycomb clusters ($R = a_0/3$), shrunken clusters ($R = 0.91 \times a_0/3$), and expanded clusters ($R = 1.09 \times a_0/3$) respectively. The red arrow indicates the Dirac point, and the green areas represent the band gap.}
\end{figure}
We obtain the band structure for the six-hole unit cell by appropriate band folding of the bands obtained from the two-hole unit cell~\cite{suppl}. Although both Brillouin zones share the same $\Gamma$ point, the $\widetilde{\rm{K}}$ and $\widetilde{\rm{K}}'$ points for the two-hole unit cell~\cite{neto09} become folded over onto the $\Gamma$ point of the six-hole unit cell to form a doubly-degenerate Dirac point at 319 THz (which corresponds to 940 nm) as indicated by the red arrow in Fig.~\ref{fig:band}(b).
We perturb this system by varying $R$ with respect to $a_0$ to get clusters that are shrunken ($R<a_0/3$) or expanded ($R>a_0/3$) as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:structure}(c) and (d) respectively. Figs.~\ref{fig:band}(c) and (d) show the corresponding band structures specifically for $R = 0.91 \times a_0/3$ and $R = 1.09 \times a_0/3$ respectively. Increasing or decreasing the ratio $R/a_0$ about the honeycomb lattice opens a band gap at the Dirac point. In particular, the band gaps are 13 THz and 25 THz wide for the shrunken and expanded clusters respectively. By comparing the eigenstates at the $\Gamma$ point for the expanded and shrunken structures, we see that the eigenstates are inverted between the two structures, indicating that the band topology changes as we tune the ratio $R/a_0$~\cite{suppl}.
To further confirm the numerically observed band inversion, we also analytically study the system with a tight-binding model~\cite{suppl}. The Hamiltonian of our system reduces to the Bernevig-Hughes-Zhang model for the quantum spin Hall effect~\cite{bernevig06}, where the mass term changes sign when the clusters are shrunken and expanded around $R=a_0/3$. Consequently, the bands acquire non-zero Chern numbers that are the direct indication of non-trivial band topology. In this case, the polarization profile of the in-plane electric field acts as the pseudo-spin~\cite{suppl}.
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.8\columnwidth]{fig3v4.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:edge}
Schematic and band structure which gives rise to topological edge states. (a) Schematic of two regions with different band topologies. White dotted line marks the boundary between the two regions. The star (green) indicates the location where we placed a circularly-polarized electric dipole to excite topological edge states. (b) Corresponding one-dimensional band structure shows two bands crossing the band gap in bulk. The opposite group velocities in the crossing region indicate the existence of counter-propagating directional edge states.}
\end{figure}
\section{Two-Dimensionally Confined Topological Edge States}
Non-trivial band topologies manifest themselves most dramatically in the form of guided topological edge states at the boundary between two gapped regions that have different band topologies. To confirm this, we perform three-dimensional simulations of the structure schematically shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:edge}(a) using the same values for the parameters $a_0$, $s$ and $h$ as previously. We examine topological edge states at an interface between one region composed of unit cells with shrunken clusters (13 clusters wide) and another region of expanded clusters (12 clusters wide). These two regions share a common band gap in bulk as shown in Figs.~\ref{fig:band}(c) and (d).
Figure~\ref{fig:edge}(b) shows the one-dimensional band structure along the $x$-direction. Note that introducing an interface creates two bands crossing the original bandgap of the individual regions. The two newly formed bands have opposite group velocities, indicating counter-propagating directional edge states.
The edge states in this system are helical, \textit{i.e.}, the pseudo-spin degree of freedom controls the direction of propagation~\cite{hasan10}. We verify the helicity of the edge states by exciting the system with a circularly-polarized electric dipole placed at the location indicated by the green star in Fig.~\ref{fig:edge}(a). By choosing the excitation polarization to be positively (negatively) circularly polarized, we can selectively excite an edge mode propagating in the $-x$ ($+x$) direction (Fig.~\ref{fig:3d}(b-$i$)[(b-$ii$)]). The excitation frequency is 320 THz (equivalent to a wavelength of 938 nm).
\begin{figure}[htbp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\columnwidth]{fig4v2.jpg}
\caption{\label{fig:3d} Three-dimensional, vertically-confined topological edge states at optical frequencies in an all-dielectric material. (a) Schematic diagram of the three-dimensional photonic crystal where the colored planes correspond to the cross-sections shown in (b), (c), and (d). (b-$i$) and (b-$ii$) Electric field intensities for a topological edge state excited with a positively and negatively circularly-polarized electric dipole show directional propagation in the $-x$ and $+x$ directions respectively. (c) and (d) Cross-section view along the $xz$ and $yz$ plane of the electric field intensity confirms that total internal reflection at the air-dielectric boundary prevents light from leaking out of the plane. (e) Electric field intensity for an edge state with four $90^{\circ}$ bends show that light can propagate around defects without backscattering.}
\end{figure}
Figs.~\ref{fig:3d}(c) and (d) show the electric field intensity distribution of the three-dimensional, vertically confined edge state [corresponding to Fig.~\ref{fig:3d}(b-$ii$)] in $xz$ and $yz$ cross-sections respectively. The field is confined within the dielectric slab due to total internal reflection at the air-dielectric boundary. This proves that one can realize topological edge states in three dimensions within dielectric materials at optical frequencies without significant out-of-plane loss.
One of the most distinguishing features of topological edge states is their robustness against perturbations. To test this robustness, we introduced four $90^{\circ}$ bends to the structure as shown in Fig.~\ref{fig:3d}(e). Excitation of the edge mode in this configuration shows that there is very little backscattering along the entire path. Thus our edge states exhibit topological protection against certain disorder and defects, in contrast to chiral, but topologically-trivial, waveguide modes~\cite{petersen14,sollner15}.
\section{Discussion and Conclusion}
We note that the topological protection we obtain in the presence of time-reversal symmetry differs in an important respect from that of electronic quantum spin Hall systems. The general classification of topological insulators reveals that the $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological invariant describing the latter requires that $T^2 = -1$, where $T$ is the time-reversal symmetry operator. The minus sign is a particular feature of fermionic systems. In contrast, Maxwell's equations (and other bosonic systems) obey $T^2 = 1$. This symmetry taken alone does not afford any topological protection in two dimensions.
However, we can construct a `pseudo' time-reversal symmetry operator based on the ($C_{6v}$) crystal symmetry of the lattice which obeys $T^2 = -1$~\cite{wu15}. While this assures that the bulk may be classified according to a $\mathbb{Z}_2$ topological invariant, gapless edge modes are not guaranteed since this symmetry is broken at the boundaries. This symmetry breaking can mix the counter-propagating edge states and open a mini-gap in the edge mode~\cite{longphotonic}; in a quantum spin Hall system, this would be akin to a magnetic impurity at the edge of the system. Apparently, in our realization this symmetry breaking is weak since we do not observe a gap in the edge states [Fig~\ref{fig:edge}(b)]. We can decouple the pseudo-spin degrees of freedom up to linear order in $\mathbf{k}$ near the $\Gamma$ point. By considering these degrees of freedom as being completely decoupled, we can characterize the topology of the system by a stronger $\mathbb{Z}$ spin Chern number given by the difference of the Chern numbers for each pseudo-spin~\cite{albert15}.
To conclude, we have proposed a new all-dielectric photonic crystal design and presented simulation results showing that three-dimensionally guided topological edge states at optical frequencies can be realized. Our design parameters are amenable to implementation with well-established nanofabrication techniques. Our simulations focus on GaAs as the dielectric substrate but the photonic crystal design principles that give rise to topological edge states are applicable to many other dielectric materials such as indium phosphide, silicon, and diamond. With the future prospect of integration with various quantum emitters ranging from quantum dots~\cite{press08,berezovsky08,sun16}, defects in two-dimensional materials~\cite{xia14} and diamond~\cite{aharonovich11,aharonovich11b}, this system promises to open a new path to research in topological phenomena with optical systems.
\section{Acknowledgments}
We thank Sunil Mittal, Mikael Rechtsman, Alberto Amo, and Jay Sau for fruitful discussions. This research was supported by Air Force Office of Scientific Research, Sloan Foundation, Office of Naval Research and the Physics Frontier Center at the Joint Quantum Institute. KITP is supported by NSF PHY11-25915.
\section{References}
|
\section{Introduction}
In the following, we discuss the anomalous localized resonance phenomenon
(ALR) appearing at the interface between materials with positive and
negative material parameters in the finite frequency regime. We
consider the particular slab geometry described by (see
Figure~\ref{fig:slab})
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:CSM}
\mathcal{C} \equiv \{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : x < 0\}; \quad
\mathcal{S} \equiv \{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : 0 < x < a\}; \quad
\mathcal{M} \equiv \{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : x > a\};
\end{equation}
where $a>0$ denotes the width of the slab and the sets $\mathcal{C}$,
$\mathcal{S}$, $\mathcal{M}$ represent the regions to the left of the
slab, within the slab, and to the right of the slab, respectively.
We also define
\[
d_0 \equiv \min \{x : (x,y) \in \mathrm{supp} f\} \eqtext{and}
d_1 \equiv \max \{x : (x,y) \in \mathrm{supp} f\}.
\]
\begin{figure}[!hbpp]
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{./slab_figure.pdf}
\caption{\emph{In this figure, we illustrate the geometry of the
problem we consider in this paper.}}
\label{fig:slab}
\end{figure}
In this geometry, we assume that all materials are homogeneous and
nonmagnetic (i.e., with magnetic permeability $\mu=1$); the electrical
permittivity is given by
\begin{equation}\label{1}
\varepsilon \equiv
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{for } x < 0, \\
-1 - \mathrm{i}\delta &\text{for } 0 < x < a, \\
1 &\text{for } x > a
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
for some $\delta \in (0,1)$. We consider the following partial
differential equation (PDE) in 2D:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:finite_freq}
\nabla\cdot\left(\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\nabla V\right) + (k_0^2+i\zeta) V =
-f \quad \text{in } \mathbb{R}^2,
\end{equation}
where $\zeta\geq0$, $k_0>0$, $f \in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with compact
support in $\mathcal{M}$, and $\varepsilon$ is given in \eqref{1} (see
\S~\ref{subsec:Maxwell_to_Helmholtz} for a derivation of
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq} from the Maxwell equations).
For convenience, we define
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Vcsm_def}
V_c \equiv V|_{\mathcal{C}}; \quad
V_s \equiv V|_{\mathcal{S}}; \quad
V_m \equiv V|_{\mathcal{M}}.
\end{equation}
We assume the solution $V$ also satisfies the following continuity
conditions across the boundaries at $x = 0$ and $x = a$ for almost every
$y \in \mathbb{R}$:
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:continuity_conditions}
\begin{cases}
V_c(0,y) = V_s(0,y); \quad &
\dfrac{\partial V_c}{\partial x}(0,y) =
\dfrac{1}{-1-\mathrm{i}\delta}\dfrac{\partial V_s}{\partial x}(0,y),
\\[0.2in]{}
V_s(a,y) = V_m(a,y); \quad &
\dfrac{1}{-1-\mathrm{i}\delta}\dfrac{\partial V_s}{\partial x}(a,y) =
\dfrac{\partial V_m}{\partial x}(a,y).
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
In what follows we assume that the parameters and data are such
that problem \eqref{eqn:finite_freq}, \eqref{eqn:continuity_conditions}
admits a unique solution $V\in L^2_{loc}(\mathbb{R}^2)$ with
$V(x,\cdot)\in H^{1}(\mathbb{R})$ and $\frac{\partial V}{\partial
x}(x,\cdot)\in L^{2}(\mathbb{R})$ for almost every $x\in \mathbb{R}$.
\begin{remark}
Note that in the case when $\zeta>0$, the unique solution of the
problem will have the property that $V(x,y)\rightarrow 0$ as
$|x|\rightarrow\infty$ for almost every $y\in\mathbb{R}$; for
$\zeta\ll 1$, this solution will be well approximated by the
solution in the case $\zeta=0$.
\end{remark}
We say anomalous localized resonance (ALR) occurs if the following two
properties hold as $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$ \cite{Milton:2005:PSQ}:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $|V| \rightarrow \infty$ in certain localized regions with
boundaries that are not defined by discontinuities in the
relative permittivity and
\item $V$ approaches a smooth limit outside these localized regions.
\end{enumerate}
In \cite{Milton:2005:PSQ}, Milton, Nicorovici, McPhedran, and Podolskiy
showed that if $f$ is a dipole and $\varepsilon_c = \varepsilon_m = 1$,
then ALR occurs if $a < d_0 < 2a$, where $d_0$ is the location of the
dipole. In this case there are two locally resonant strips --- one
centered on each face of the slab. As the loss parameter (represented
by $\delta$) tends to zero, the potential diverges and oscillates wildly
in these resonant regions. Outside these regions the potential
converges to a smooth function. Also, if the source is far enough away
from the slab, i.e., if $d_0 > 2a$, then there is no resonance and again
the potential converges to a smooth function.
Applications of ALR to superlensing were first discussed by Nicorovici,
McPhedran, and Milton in \cite{Nicorovici:1994:ODP} and were analyzed in
more depth in \cite{Milton:2005:PSQ} (see also the works by Yan, Yan,
and Qiu \cite{Yan:2008:CSC}, Bergman \cite{Bergman:2014:PIP}, Nguyen
\cite{Nguyen:2013:SUC}, Pendry \cite{Pendry:2000:NRM}, and Pendry and
Ramakrishna \cite{Pendry:2002:NFL} for a description of superlensing
phenomena).
Applications of ALR to cloaking in the quasistatic regime were first
analyzed Milton and Nicorovici \cite{Milton:2006:CEA}; they showed that
if $\varepsilon_c = \varepsilon_m = 1$ and a fixed field is applied to
the system (e.g., a uniform field at infinity), then a polarizable
dipole located in the region $a < d_0 < 3a/2$ causes anomalous localized
resonance and is cloaked in the limit $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$. Cloaking
due to anomalous localized resonance (CALR) in the quasistatic regime
was further discussed in \cite{Ammari:2013:ALR, Kohn:2012:VPC,
Ammari:2013:STN, Ammari:2013:STNII, Bouchitte:2010:CSO, Bruno:2007:SCS,
Nicorovici:2009:CPR, Xiao:2012:TEC, Nguyen:2015:CVA2}. CALR in the
long-time limit regime was discussed in \cite{Milton:2007:OPL,
Xiao:2012:TEC} (see also \cite{Yaghjian:2006:PWS}).
In \cite{Nicorovici:2008:FWC}, Nicorovici, McPhedran, Enoch, and Tayeb
studied CALR for the circular cylindrical superlens in the
finite-frequency case; they showed that for small values of $\delta$
the cloaking device (the superlens) can effectively cloak a tiny
cylindrical inclusion located within the cloaking region but that the
superlens does not necessarily cloak itself --- they deemed this
phenomenon the ``ostrich effect.'' The finite-frequency case was further
discussed by Kettunen, Lassas, and Ola \cite{Kettunen:2015:OAE} and
Nguyen \cite{Nguyen:2015:CVA}.
In the present report we prove, analytically and numerically, the
existence of a limit value $\gamma_*$, such that for $k_0$ with
$k_0a>\gamma_*$, ALR does not occur regardless of the position of the
source with respect to the slab interface. Under suitable conditions on
the source, we present numerical evidence for the occurrence of ALR in
the regime $k_0a<\gamma_*$ when the source is close enough to the
material interface, and we discuss some characteristics of the
phenomenon in this frequency regime as well. In the end we present two
examples of sources $f$ which do not generate ALR regardless of the
frequency regime and their relative position with respect to the
material interface.
The paper is organized as follows: in \S~\ref{Fourier} we present
highlights of the derivation of the unique solution in the Fourier
domain while in \S~\ref{Energy} we describe the energy around the right
interface of the slab. In \S~\ref{sec:large_gamma}, we show the absence
of ALR phenomena for large enough values of $k_0a$ while in
\S~\ref{subsec:shielding} we present an interesting side effect of the
nonmagnetic case, namely the shielding effect of the slab which behaves
as an almost perfect reflector. Next, for suitable conditions on the
source, in \S~\ref{subsec:pd_small_gamma} we present numerical evidence
for the ALR phenomenon in the case of small enough values of $k_0a$. In
\S~\ref{subsec:ALR_busting}, we construct two examples of possible
sources for which there is no ALR phenomenon regardless of the range of
$k_0a$ or the relative position of the source with respect to the slab
interface. The Appendix contains the technical proofs and derivations
which where not included in the main text.
\subsection{Solution in Fourier domain}
\label{Fourier}
Due to our wellposedness assumption it follows that our problem will
admit a unique solution after applying the Fourier transform with
respect to the $ y $ variable. Recall that, for a given function
$h(x,\cdot) \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ for some $x \in \mathbb{R}$, the
Fourier transform of $h$ with respect to $y$ is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Fourier_def}
\widehat{h}(x,q) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} h(x,y)\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} q y}
\di{y}.
\end{equation}
We will study the Fourier domain solution in each of the relevant sub-domains defined in \eqref{eqn:CSM}.
\subsubsection{The solution in $\mathcal{C}$}
In the region $\mathcal{C}$, the relevant equation is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:core_equation}
\frac{\partial^2 V_c}{\partial x^2} +
\frac{\partial^2 V_c}{\partial y^2} + k_0^2 V_c = 0.
\end{equation}
Taking the Fourier transform of \eqref{eqn:core_equation} with respect
to $y$, we find that $\widehat{V}_c(x,q)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:core_equation_hat}
\frac{\partial^2 \widehat{V}_c}{\partial x^2} - k_0^2\nu_c^2\widehat{V}_c = 0,
\eqtext{where}
\nu_c^2 \equiv \frac{q^2}{k_0^2}-1.
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:principal_root}
Here and throughout the paper, we take the principal square root of
complex numbers; that is, for a complex number $z = z' + \mathrm{i} z'' =
|z|\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta}$ where $\theta \in (-\pi,\pi]$, we take
\[
\sqrt{z} = |z|^{1/2}\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta/2},
\]
where $\theta/2 \in (-\pi/2,\pi/2]$. In particular, this implies
$\real\sqrt{z} \ge 0$.
\end{remark}
Remark~\ref{rem:principal_root} implies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:nuc}
\nu_c =
\begin{cases}
\mathrm{i}\sqrt{|q^2/k_0^2 - 1|} &\text{if } q^2/k_0^2 < 1, \\
\sqrt{q^2/k_0^2 - 1} &\text{if } q^2/k_0^2 \ge 1.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then the general solution to \eqref{eqn:core_equation_hat} is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Vc_hat_gen}
\widehat{V}_c(x,q) = A_q\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_c x} + B_q\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\nu_c x}
\end{equation}
for coefficients $A_q$ and $B_q$ that are independent of $x$.
If $q^2/k_0^2 < 1$, then $\nu_c$ is purely imaginary. Because $V_c$
should be outgoing (i.e., leftgoing) as $x\rightarrow -\infty$ and we
are considering $\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}$ time dependence (see
\S~\ref{subsec:Maxwell_to_Helmholtz}), we should have
\[
\widehat{V}_c \sim \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i} k_0\sqrt{|q^2/k_0^2-1|}x} \eqtext{as} x
\rightarrow -\infty.
\]
From \eqref{eqn:nuc} and \eqref{eqn:Vc_hat_gen}, we see that we can
ensure this by taking $B_q = 0$.
On the other hand, if $q^2/k_0^2 > 1$, then $\nu_c > 0$. Thus we take
$B_q = 0$ in this case to ensure that $\widehat{V}_c(x,q) \rightarrow 0$ as $x
\rightarrow \infty$. Finally, without loss of generality we may also
take $B_q = 0$ for $q^2/k_0^2 = 1$. Therefore,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Vc_hat}
\widehat{V}_c(x,q) = A_q\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_c x}.
\end{equation}
\subsubsection{The solution in $\mathcal{S}$}
In the region $\mathcal{S}$, the Fourier transform of $V_s$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:shell_equation_hat}
\frac{\partial^2 \widehat{V}_s}{\partial x^2} - k_0^2\nu_s^2\widehat{V}_s = 0,
\eqtext{where}
\nu_s^2 \equiv \left(\frac{q^2}{k_0^2} + 1\right) + \mathrm{i}\delta.
\end{equation}
The general solution is
\[
\widehat{V}_s(x,q) = C_q\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_s x} + D_q\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\nu_s x};
\]
the coefficients $C_q$ and $D_q$ may be found by using the
continuity conditions across $x = 0$ from
\eqref{eqn:continuity_conditions}. In particular, we find
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Vs_hat}
\widehat{V}_s(x,q) = A_q\left(\frac{\alpha+1}{2\alpha}\right)
\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_s x}\left(1 + R\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_s x}\right),
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:alpha_R}
\alpha \equiv \frac{\nu_s}{(-1-\mathrm{i}\delta)\nu_c}
\eqtext{and}
R \equiv \frac{\alpha-1}{\alpha+1} =
\frac{\nu_s + (1+\mathrm{i}\delta)\nu_c}{\nu_s - (1+\mathrm{i}\delta)\nu_c}.
\end{equation}
Although one can observe that $\alpha$ degenerates for $q^2=k_0^2$ we will see in \eqref{3}, \eqref{4} that
$\displaystyle\frac{A_q}{\alpha}$ is well defined in the limit when $q^2=k_0^2$.
\subsubsection{The solution in $\mathcal{M}$}
In the region $\mathcal{M}$, the Fourier transform of $V_m$ satisfies
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:matrix_equation_hat}
\frac{\partial^2 \widehat{V}_m}{\partial x^2} - k_0^2\nu_m^2\widehat{V}_m =
-\widehat{f}(x,q),
\eqtext{where}
\nu_m^2 \equiv \frac{q^2}{k_0^2} - 1.
\end{equation}
If $q^2/k_0^2 \ne 1$, then the general solution to
\eqref{eqn:matrix_equation_hat} can be found using the Laplace transform
and the continuity conditions across $x = a$ from
\eqref{eqn:continuity_conditions} \cite{Thaler:2014:BVI,
Meklachi:2016:SAL}; we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:matrix_hat_general}
\begin{aligned}
\widehat{V}_m(x,q) =
&\frac{\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_m x}}{2}
\left[A_q\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\nu_m a}\left(\psi_q^+ +
\frac{\psi_q^-}{\nu_m}\right) -
\frac{1}{k_0\nu_m}\int_{d_0}^x \mathrm{e}^{-k_0\nu_m s}\widehat{f}(s,q)
\di{s}\right] \\[0.2in]{}
+ &\frac{\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\nu_m x}}{2}
\left[A_q\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_m a}\left(\psi_q^+ -
\frac{\psi_q^-}{\nu_m}\right) +
\frac{1}{k_0\nu_m}\int_{d_0}^x \mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_m s}\widehat{f}(s,q)
\di{s}\right],
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:psi}
\begin{aligned}
\psi_q^+
&\equiv \frac{1}{A_q}\widehat{V}_s(a,q)
= \left(\frac{\alpha+1}{2\alpha}\right)
\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_sa}\left(1+R\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_sa}\right); \\
\psi_q^-
&\equiv \frac{1}{k_0A_q}\left(\frac{1}{(-1-\mathrm{i}\delta)}
\frac{\partial\widehat{V}_s}{\partial x}(a,q) \right)
= \left(\frac{\nu_s}{-1-\mathrm{i}\delta}\right)
\left(\frac{\alpha+1}{2\alpha}\right)
\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_sa}\left(1-R\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_sa}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
If $q^2/k_0^2 < 1$, then $\nu_m$ is purely imaginary. Because $V_m$
should be outgoing (i.e., rightgoing) as $x\rightarrow \infty$ and we
are considering $\mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\omega t}$ time dependence, we should have
\[
\widehat{V}_m \sim \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} k_0\sqrt{|q^2/k_0^2-1|} x} \eqtext{as} x
\rightarrow \infty.
\]
To ensure this, we take the first expression in brackets in
\eqref{eqn:matrix_hat_general} to be zero and find that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Aq}
A_q \equiv \frac{I_q\mathrm{e}^{k_0\nu_m a}}{k_0\left(\nu_m\psi_q^+ +
\psi_q^-\right)},
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Iq}
I_q \equiv \int_{d_0}^{d_1} \widehat{f}(s,q)\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\nu_m s} \di{s}.
\end{equation}
If $q^2/k_0^2 > 1$, then $\nu_m > 0$; to ensure that $\widehat{V}_m(x,q)
\rightarrow 0$ as $x\rightarrow \infty$, we again take $A_q$ as in
\eqref{eqn:Aq}.
Finally, if $q^2/k_0^2 = 1$, then we can use the Laplace transform and
the continuity conditions across $x = a$ to find that
\begin{equation}
\label{3}
\widehat{V}_m(x,\pm k_0) = A_{\pm k_0}(\psi_{\pm k_0}^+ - a\psi_{\pm k_0}^-) + \int_{d_0}^x s\widehat{f}(s,{\pm k_0})
\di{s} + x\left[k_0A_{\pm k_0}\psi_{\pm k_0}^- - \int_{d_0}^x \widehat{f}(s,{\pm k_0})
\di{s}\right].
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:psi-k0}
\begin{aligned}
\psi_{\pm k_0}^+
&
= \left(1+\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_sa}\right); \\
\psi_{\pm k_0}^-
&
= \left(\frac{\nu_s}{-1-\mathrm{i}\delta}\right)
\left(1-\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_sa}\right).
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
with $\nu_s$ defined at \eqref{eqn:shell_equation_hat} is computed for $q=\pm k_0$, and where again we take $A_{\pm k_0}$ so that we ensure $\widehat{V}_m$ is outgoing as $x\rightarrow \infty$; in this case
\begin{equation}
\label{4}
A_{\pm k_0} = \frac{1}{k_0\psi_{\pm k_0}^-}\int_{d_0}^{d_1} \widehat{f}(s,{\pm k_0})\di{s}.
\end{equation}
\subsection{Energy discussion}
\label{Energy}
For $0 < \xi \le a$, we define the strip
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:S_xi}
S_{\xi} \equiv \{(x,y) \in \mathbb{R}^2 : a-\xi < x < a\}.
\end{equation}
Then, due to the Plancherel
Theorem and properties of Fourier transforms, we have
\begin{align*}
\|\nabla V\|^2_{L^2(S_{\xi})}
&= \int_{a-\xi}^a \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |\nabla V_s(x,y)|^2
\di{y}\di{x} \\
&= \int_{a-\xi}^a \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left|\frac{\partial^2 V_s}{\partial x^2}\right|^2 +
\left|\frac{\partial^2 V_s}{\partial y^2}\right|^2 \di{y} \di{x}
\\
&= \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{a-\xi}^a \int_{-\infty}^{\infty}
\left|\frac{\partial^2 \widehat{V}_s}{\partial x^2}\right|^2 +
|q|^2\left|\widehat{V}_s\right|^2 \di{q} \di{x}.
\end{align*}
Using \eqref{eqn:Vs_hat}--\eqref{eqn:alpha_R} and
\eqref{eqn:psi}--\eqref{eqn:Iq} in this expression, switching the order
of integration, computing the integral with respect to $x$, using the
fact that $|\nabla V_s|^2$ is an even function of $q$ if $f$ is
real-valued, making the change of variables $p = q/k_0$, and simplifying
the resulting expression, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:pd}
\begin{aligned}
E_{\delta}(\xi)
&\equiv \|\nabla V\|^2_{L^2(S_{\xi})} \\
&= \frac{1+\delta^2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{|I_p|^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_0\nu_m'a}|\nu_s-(1+\mathrm{i}\delta)\nu_m|^2}
{|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|^2}\cdot\\
&\qquad\left\{
\left(|\nu_s|^2 + |p|^2\right)
\left[\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_s'\xi}}{2\nu_s'}\right)
+ |R|^2\mathrm{e}^{-4k_0\nu_s'\left(a-\frac{\xi}{2}\right)}
\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_s'\xi}}{2\nu_s'}\right)\right]
\right.\\
&\qquad\left.
+ 2\left(-|\nu_s|^2 + |p|^2\right)
\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_s'a}\imag
\left[\overline{R}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} k_0\nu_s''a}
\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} k_0\nu_s''\xi}}{2\nu_s''}\right)
\right]\right\}\di{p},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
where
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:g}
g_{\delta}(p;\gamma) \equiv
\left[\nu_s-\left(1+\mathrm{i}\delta\right)\nu_m\right]^2 - \left[\nu_s +
\left(1+\mathrm{i}\delta\right)\nu_m\right]^2 \mathrm{e}^{-2\gamma\nu_s},
\end{equation}
we have used that fact that $\nu_c = \nu_m$ (see \eqref{eqn:nuc} and
\eqref{eqn:matrix_equation_hat}), and we have replaced $q$ by $k_0 p$
throughout the integrand (e.g., we have $\nu_m = \sqrt{p^2-1}$).
Similarly, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:v_int}
\begin{aligned}
\|V\|^2_{L^2(S_{\xi})}
&= \frac{1+\delta^2}{\pi}\int_{0}^{\infty}
\frac{|I_p|^2\mathrm{e}^{2k_0\nu_m'a}|\nu_s-(1+\mathrm{i}\delta)\nu_m|^2}
{|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|^2}\cdot\\
&\qquad\left\{
\left[\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_s'\xi}}{2\nu_s'}\right)
+ |R|^2\mathrm{e}^{-4k_0\nu_s'\left(a-\frac{\xi}{2}\right)}
\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_s'\xi}}{2\nu_s'}\right)\right]
\right.\\
&\qquad\left.
+ 2
\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\nu_s'a}\imag
\left[\overline{R}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} k_0\nu_s''a}
\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} k_0\nu_s''\xi}}{2\nu_s''}\right)
\right]\right\}\di{p},
\end{aligned}
\end{equation}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:V_and_grad_V}
One of the quantities we are most interested in studying in this
paper is
\[
\|V\|_{H^1(S_{\xi})}^2 = \|V\|_{L^2(S_{\xi})}^2 +
\|\nabla V\|_{L^2(S_{\xi})}^2.
\]
Due to the similarity between the expressions in \eqref{eqn:pd} and
\eqref{eqn:v_int}, without loss of generality we focus on $\|\nabla
V\|^2_{L^2(S_{\xi})}$. In particular, our arguments
depend heavily on the exponential terms in the integrands in
\eqref{eqn:pd} and \eqref{eqn:v_int}, so the additional terms
$|\nu_s|^2$ and $|q|^2$ in \eqref{eqn:pd} will have no bearing on
our results.
\end{remark}
\section{Properties of $g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$}
In this section, we collect some essential properties about the
denominator $|g_{\delta}|^2$ in \eqref{eqn:pd}. As we will see, the
parameter
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:gamma}
\gamma \equiv k_0 a
\end{equation}
plays a crucial role in the behavior of the solution $V$ and
$E_{\delta}(a)$ in the limit $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:g_0}
Suppose $g_{\delta}$ is defined as in \eqref{eqn:g}. Then for $p
\ge 0$ and $\gamma > 0$ we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:g_0}
\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0^+} g_{\delta}(p;\gamma) =
g_0(p;\gamma)
\equiv
\left(\sqrt{p^2+1}-\sqrt{p^2-1}\right)^2 -
\left(\sqrt{p^2+1}+\sqrt{p^2-1}\right)^2
\mathrm{e}^{-2\gamma\sqrt{p^2+1}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The result follows from direct calculations since $g_{\delta}$ is a
continuous function of $\delta$.
\end{proof}
The next lemma plays an essential role in the following discussion.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:g_0_roots}
Suppose $g_0(p;\gamma)$ is defined as in \eqref{eqn:g_0} for $p\ge
0$ and $\gamma > 0$. Then
there is a $\gamma_* \approx 0.9373$ such that
\begin{enumerate}
\item if $0 < \gamma < \gamma_*$, then $g_0(p;\gamma)$ has two
distinct real roots of order $1$, namely $1 < p^1_{\gamma}
< p^2_{\gamma}$;
\item if $\gamma > \gamma_*$, then $g_0(p;\gamma)$ has no
real roots.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
We note that $\gamma_*$ can be computed as the solution of an
optimization problem; more importantly, we emphasize that
Lemmas~\ref{lem:g_0}--\ref{lem:g_0_roots} are \emph{independent} of the
source term $f$ in \eqref{eqn:finite_freq}. We will see later that the
roots of $g_0(p;\gamma)$ are indicative of anomalous localized
resonance. For brevity, we defer the proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:g_0_roots}
to the appendix.
\section{Short wavelength/high frequency regime ($\gamma > \gamma_*$)}
\label{sec:large_gamma}
In this section, we prove that, for $\gamma > \gamma_*$ (where $\gamma$ was introduced at \eqref{eqn:gamma}), $E_{a}(\delta)$ remains bounded as
$\delta \rightarrow 0^+$ for all sources $f\in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with
bounded support in $\mathcal{M}$, regardless of how close the source is
to the slab. In addition, we also prove that the slab lens behaves as a
``shield'' in the sense that the solution to the left of the lens, i.e.,
$V_c$, is vanishingly small in the limit $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$.
\subsection{$E_{\delta}(a)$ for $\gamma > \gamma_*$}
\label{subsec:pd_large_gamma}
From \eqref{eqn:pd}, we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:pd_a}
E_{\delta}(a) = \int_0^{\infty} L_{\delta}(p;\gamma) \di{p},
\end{equation}
where, for $\delta > 0$, $p \ge 0$, and $\gamma > 0$,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:L}
L_{\delta}(p;\gamma) \equiv
\frac{|I_p|^2\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma\nu_m'}}{|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|^2}
M_{\delta}(p;\gamma)
\end{equation}
and
\begin{multline}\label{eqn:M}
M_{\delta}(p;\gamma) \equiv
\frac{1+\delta^2}{\pi}|\nu_s-(1+\mathrm{i}\delta)\nu_m|^2\left\{
\left(|\nu_s|^2 + p^2\right)
\left[\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2\gamma\nu_s'}}{2\nu_s'}\right)
+ |R|^2\mathrm{e}^{-2\gamma\nu_s'}
\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2\gamma\nu_s'}}{2\nu_s'}\right)\right]
\right.\\
\left.
+ 2\left(-|\nu_s|^2 + p^2\right)
\mathrm{e}^{-2\gamma\nu_s'}\imag
\left[\overline{R}\mathrm{e}^{2\mathrm{i} \gamma\nu_s''}
\left(\frac{1-\mathrm{e}^{-2\mathrm{i} \gamma\nu_s''}}{2\nu_s''}\right)
\right]\right\}.
\end{multline}
We now state the main theorem from this section.
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:bounded}
Suppose $\gamma > \gamma_*$ (where $\gamma_*$ is introduced in
Lemma~\ref{lem:g_0_roots}). If there is a constant $C > 0$ such
that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:I_p_bounds}
|I_p| \le
\begin{cases}
C &\text{for } 0 \le p \le 1,\\
C\mathrm{e}^{-\gamma\frac{d_0}{a}\sqrt{p^2-1}} &\text{for } 1 \le p
< \infty,
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
then there is a constant $C_{\gamma} > 0$ and a $\delta_{\gamma} >
0$ such that $\|V\|_{H^1(S_a)} \le C_{\gamma}$ as for all $\delta
\le \delta_{\gamma}$.
\end{theorem}
The proof of this theorem is somewhat tedious and may be found in the
appendix --- although we only prove the theorem for $\|\nabla
V\|^2_{L^2(S_a)}$, Remark~\ref{rem:V_and_grad_V} implies that it holds
for $\|V\|_{L^2(S_a)}$ as well. In the next lemma, we show that the bound \eqref{eqn:I_p_bounds} holds
for very general sources $f$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:I_p_upper_bound}
Suppose $f\in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with compact support; then
\eqref{eqn:I_p_bounds} holds.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For $0 \le p \le 1$, recall from \eqref{eqn:Iq} that
\[
I_p = \int_{d_0}^{d_1} \widehat{f}(s,k_0p)
\mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} k_0\sqrt{1-p^2}s} \di{s}.
\]
Then the triangle, Cauchy--Schwarz, and Jensen inequalities
imply
\begin{align*}
|I_p| &\le \int_{d_0}^{d_1} \left|\widehat{f}(s,k_0p)\right|\di{s}
\\
&\le (d_1-d_0)^{1/2} \left[\int_{d_0}^{d_1}
\left|\widehat{f}(s,k_0p)\right|^2\di{s}\right]^{1/2} \\
&= (d_1-d_0)^{1/2} \left[\int_{d_0}^{d_1}
\left|\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(s,y) \mathrm{e}^{-\mathrm{i} k_0py}
\di{y}\right|^2\di{s}\right]^{1/2} \\
&\le(d_1-d_0)^{1/2} \left[\int_{d_0}^{d_1}
\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \left|f(s,y)\right|^2 \di{y}
\di{s}\right]^{1/2} \\
&= (d_1-d_0)^{1/2}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}.
\end{align*}
Similarly, for $p \ge 1$, recall from \eqref{eqn:Iq} that
\[
I_p = \int_{d_0}^{d_1} \widehat{f}(s,k_0p)
\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\sqrt{p^2-1}s}\di{s}.
\]
Then
\begin{align*}
|I_p| &\le \int_{d_0}^{d_1} \left|\widehat{f}(s,k_0p)\right|
\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\sqrt{p^2-1}s} \di{s} \\
&\le (d_1-d_0)^{1/2}\left[\int_{d_0}^{d_1}
\left|\widehat{f}(s,k_0p)\right|^2\mathrm{e}^{-2k_0\sqrt{p^2-1}s}
\di{s}\right]^{1/2} \\
&\le (d_1-d_0)^{1/2}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}
\mathrm{e}^{-k_0d_0\sqrt{p^2-1}} \\
&= (d_1-d_0)^{1/2}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}
\mathrm{e}^{-\gamma \frac{d_0}{a}\sqrt{p^2-1}}.
\end{align*}
To complete the proof, we define $C \equiv
(d_1-d_0)^{1/2}\|f\|_{L^2(\mathcal{M})}$.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Shielding effect for large $\gamma$}
\label{subsec:shielding}
It turns out that the slab lens behaves as a shield and acts as an almost perfect reflector. This fact was also observed in \cite{Kettunen:2015:OAE} where it was explained based on the fact that, at least in the lossless non-magnetic case $\epsilon=-1, \mu=1$ will give a purely imaginary wave number inside the slab and thus no propagation beyond the slab in region $C$. We have,
\begin{theorem}\label{thm:shielding}
Suppose $\gamma \ge 2\gamma_*$, $|I_p|$ satisfies
\eqref{eqn:I_p_bounds}, and choose $0 < \eta < 1$; then there
is a constant $C_{\eta} > 0$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:V_c_exp_bound}
|V_c(x,y)| \le C_\eta\mathrm{e}^{-\eta\gamma}
\eqtext{for\ all} (x,y) \in \mathcal{C}.
\end{equation}
In particular,
\[
|V_c(x,y)| \rightarrow 0 \eqtext{as} k_0 \rightarrow \infty
\eqtext{for\ all} (x,y) \in \mathcal{C}.
\]
\end{theorem}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:dipole_bounded}
Lemma~\ref{lem:I_p_upper_bound} implies that
Theorems~\ref{thm:bounded} and \ref{thm:shielding} hold for all
sources $f \in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with compact support. However, the
bound in \eqref{eqn:I_p_bounds} is stronger than we need. For
example, suppose there is a positive, real-valued function
$B(p;\gamma)$ that is continuous for $0 \le p < \infty$ and
$\gamma_* \le \gamma < \infty$. In addition, for every $\epsilon
>0$, suppose that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:B_p_lim}
\lim_{p\rightarrow\infty}
B(p;\gamma)\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon\gamma\sqrt{p^2-1}} = 0 \eqtext{for\ all}
\gamma \ge \gamma_*
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:B_gamma_lim}
\lim_{\gamma\rightarrow\infty}
B(p;\gamma)\mathrm{e}^{-\epsilon\gamma\sqrt{p^2-1}} = 0 \eqtext{for\ all}
p\ge 1.
\end{equation}
For example, if $B(p;\gamma)$ is a continuous function of $p$ and
$\gamma$ that is of polynomial order for $p \rightarrow \infty$ and
$\gamma \rightarrow \infty$, it will satisfy \eqref{eqn:B_p_lim} and
\eqref{eqn:B_gamma_lim}.
Finally, suppose
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:I_p_stricter_bounds}
|I_p| \le
\begin{cases}
B(p;\gamma) &\text{for } 0 \le p \le 1,\\
B(p;\gamma)\mathrm{e}^{-\gamma\frac{d_0}{a}\sqrt{p^2-1}}
&\text{for } 1 \le p < \infty.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
Then, by appropriately modifying
\eqref{eqn:L_small_p_bound}--\eqref{eqn:L_int_large_p_bound}, one
can prove that the result of Theorem~\ref{thm:bounded} will hold for
sources satisfying \eqref{eqn:I_p_stricter_bounds}. Similarly,
by appropriately modifying
\eqref{eqn:shielding_small_p}--\eqref{eqn:shielding_large_p}, one can
show that Theorem~\ref{thm:shielding} also holds for sources
satisfying \eqref{eqn:I_p_stricter_bounds} as long as we replace
\eqref{eqn:V_c_exp_bound} by
\[
|V_c(x,y)| \le C_{\eta}\mathrm{e}^{-(\eta-\epsilon)\gamma}
\]
where $0 < \epsilon < \eta$.
In particular, certain distributional sources such as dipoles,
quadrupoles, etc.\ satisfy \eqref{eqn:I_p_stricter_bounds} --- see
\S~\ref{subsec:dipole} for more details.
\end{remark}
In Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_large_gamma}, we plot the solution $V$ to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq} in the case where $f$ is a dipole with dipole
moment $[1,0]^T$, $\delta = 10^{-12}$, and $\gamma = 4\gamma_*$ (we take
$a = 1$ in all figures throughout the paper). In
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_large_gamma}(a) and (b), the dipole is located
at the point $(d_0,0) = (4a,0)$; in
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_large_gamma}(c) and (d), the dipole is located
closer to the slab at the point $(d_0,0) = (1.2a,0)$. The solution $V$
is smooth throughout the domain; in addition, we observe the ``shielding
effect'' from Theorem~\ref{thm:shielding} in the region to the left of
the lens.
\begin{figure}[!hbpp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dlfr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dlfi.png}
\\
(a) & (b) \\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dlcr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dlci.png}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{This is a plot of $V$, the solution to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq}, when $f$ is a dipole and
$\gamma = 2\gamma_*$: (a) $\real(V)$ and (b) $\imag(V)$
for $d_0 = 4a$; (c) $\real(V)$ and (d) $\imag(V)$ for
$d_0 = 1.2a$. To make the behavior of $V$ more clear,
we clipped the maximum and minimum values in each plot
to $0.2$ (yellow) and $-0.2$ (blue) respectively.}}
\label{fig:dipole_large_gamma}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
In Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_bounded_pd}, we plot $E_{\delta}(a)$ as a
function of various parameters for a dipole source $f$. The parameters
we used are in the ranges $10^{-12} \le \delta \le 10^{-10}$,
$1.01\gamma_* \le \gamma \le 2\gamma_*$, and $1.2a \le d_0 \le 2a$. We
note that $E_{\delta}(a)$ depends strongly on $\delta$, $\gamma$, and
$d_0$, but, because $\gamma > \gamma_*$, $E_{\delta}(a)$ is quite small.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./bounded_pd_delta_gamma_small_d_0.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./bounded_pd_delta_gamma_large_d_0.png}
\\[0.2in]{}
(a) & (b)\\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./bounded_pd_delta_d_0_small_gamma.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./bounded_pd_delta_d_0_large_gamma.png}
\\[0.2in]{}
(c) & (d)\\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./bounded_pd_gamma_d_0_small_delta.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./bounded_pd_gamma_d_0_large_delta.png}
\\[0.2in]{}
(e) & (f)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{These are plots of $E_{\delta}(a)$ as a function
of (a) $\delta$ and $\gamma$ ($d_0 = 1.2a$); (b)
$\delta$ and $\gamma$ ($d_0 = 4a$); (c) $\delta$ and
$d_0$ ($\gamma = 1.01\gamma_*$); (d) $\delta$ and $d_0$
($\gamma = 2\gamma_*$); (e) $\gamma$ and $d_0$ ($\delta
= 10^{-10}$); (f) $\gamma$ and $d_0$
($\delta = 10^{-12}$).}}
\label{fig:dipole_bounded_pd}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Figure~\ref{fig:general_large_gamma} is similar to
Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_large_gamma}, except in
Figure~\ref{fig:general_large_gamma} we take
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:general}
f(x,y) =
\begin{cases}
\begin{aligned}
&C\left[\dfrac{2}{d_1-d_0}\left(x-d_0\right)-1\right]^3
\left[\left|\frac{2}{d_1-d_0}\left(x-d_0\right)-1\right|
-1\right]^3\\
&\qquad
\cdot\left[\dfrac{2}{h_1-h_0}\left(y-h_0\right)-1\right]^3
\left[\left|\frac{2}{h_1-h_0}\left(y-d_0\right)-1\right|
-1\right]^3
\end{aligned}
&\text{for } d_0 \le x \le d_1, h_0 \le y \le h_1 \\
0 &\text{otherwise}.
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
To construct the plots, we have taken $C = 10^4$, $h_1 = -h_0 = 1$, and
$d_1 = d_0 + 2$. The solution $V$ is smooth throughout the domain and
very small in the region to the left of the slab.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./glfr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./glfi.png}
\\
(a) & (b) \\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./glcr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./glci.png}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{This is a plot of $V$, the solution to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq}, when $f$ is the function in
\eqref{eqn:general} and
$\gamma = 2\gamma_*$: (a) $\real(V)$ and (b) $\imag(V)$
for $d_0 = 4a$; (c) $\real(V)$ and (d) $\imag(V)$ for
$d_0 = 1.2a$. To make the behavior of $V$ more clear,
we clipped the maximum and minimum values in each plot
to $0.2$ (yellow) and $-0.2$ (blue) respectively.}}
\label{fig:general_large_gamma}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\section{Long wavelength/low frequency regime ($\gamma < \gamma_*$)}
Unfortunately, the complicated nature of the expression \eqref{eqn:pd}
has thus far prevented us from deriving lower bounds on
$E_{\delta}(a)$ that would allow us to prove that $E_{\delta}(a)
\rightarrow \infty$ as $\delta\rightarrow 0^+$. Undaunted, in this
section we present an heuristic argument, coupled with numerical
experiments, to illustrate why we believe the slab lens under
consideration exhibits ALR in the long-wavelength regime.
\subsection{Blow-up of $E_{\delta}(a)$}\label{subsec:pd_small_gamma}
The key result of this section is Lemma~\ref{lem:g_0_roots}:
$|g_0(p;\gamma)|$ has two real roots when $\gamma < \gamma_*$, namely $1
< p^1_{\gamma} < p^2_{\gamma}$. Because both roots are larger than $1$,
the main contribution to the blow-up of $E_{\delta}(a)$ comes from the
integral over the interval $1 \le p < \infty$. Indeed, the following
lemma shows that we do not need to worry about the integral over the
interval $0 \le p \le 1$.
\begin{lemma}\label{lem:blow_up_small_p}
Suppose $0 < \gamma \le \gamma_*$ and $f \in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with
compact support. Then there is a positive
constant $C_{\gamma}$ and a $\delta_{\gamma} > 0$ such that
\[
\int_0^1 L_{\delta}(p;\gamma) \di{p} =
\int_0^1 \frac{|I_p|^2}{|g_{\delta}|^2}M_{\delta}(p;\gamma)
\di{p} \le C_{\gamma}
\]
for all $0 < \delta \le \delta_{\gamma}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:blow_up}
We emphasize that Lemma~\ref{lem:blow_up_small_p} also holds for
those sources for which the bound in \eqref{eqn:I_p_stricter_bounds}
holds (e.g., dipole sources) --- see
Remark~\ref{rem:dipole_bounded}.
\end{remark}
\begin{proof}
First, we note that $M_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ is continuous for
$\delta\in[0,1]$, $p \in [0,1]$, and $\gamma \in [0,\gamma_*]$, so
it is bounded by a constant independent of $\delta$, $p$, and
$\gamma$. Additionally, $|I_p|^2$ is also bounded by a constant,
thanks to Lemma~\ref{lem:I_p_upper_bound}. All that remains for us
to show is that $|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|$ is bounded away from $0$.
We define the function
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Xi_def}
\Xi_{\delta}(\gamma) \equiv \max_{p\in [0,1]}
\left||g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|-|g_0(p;\gamma)|\right|.
\end{equation}
Because $|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|$ and $|g_0(p;\gamma)|$ are both
continuous for $0 \le p \le 1$, the above maximum is attained, say
at $p = p^*_{\delta}(\gamma)$. This means that
\[
\Xi_{\delta}(\gamma) = ||g(p^*_{\delta}(\gamma);\gamma)| -
|g_0(p^*_{\delta}(\gamma);\gamma)||.
\]
Now let $\{\delta_n\}_{n=1}^{\infty}$ be a sequence converging to
$0$ as $n \rightarrow \infty$. Because $p^*_{\delta_n}(\gamma)$
is a bounded sequence, it has a convergent subsequence
$p^*_{\delta_{n_k}}(\gamma)$. Along this subsequence,
\[
\Xi_{\delta_{n_k}}(\gamma) =
||g_{\delta_{n_k}}(p^*_{\delta_{n_k}}(\gamma);\gamma)| -
|g_0(p^*_{\delta_{n_k}}(\gamma);\gamma)||
\rightarrow 0 \eqtext{as } k \rightarrow
\infty
\]
by Lemma~\ref{lem:g_0}. In other words, every sequence
$\Xi_{\delta_n}(\gamma)$ has a subsequence that converges to $0$,
which implies that every sequence $\Xi_{\delta_n}$ converges to $0$.
Because the original sequence $\delta_n$ was arbitrary, this implies
that
\[
\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0^+}\Xi_{\delta}(\gamma) = 0.
\]
In combination with \eqref{eqn:Xi_def}, this implies
that $|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|$ converges to
$|g_0(p;\gamma)|$ \emph{uniformly} in $p$ for $0 \le p \le 1$.
Thus for every $\epsilon > 0$ there is a $\delta_{\gamma} > 0$
such that
\[
|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)| \ge |g_0(p;\gamma)| - \epsilon
\]
for all $p \in [0,1]$ and all $0 < \delta \le \delta_{\gamma}$.
If we take
\[
\epsilon = \frac{1}{2}\min_{0 \le p \le 1} |g_0(p;\gamma)|,
\]
then
\[
|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)| \ge \frac{1}{2}|g_0(p;\gamma)| \ge
C_{\gamma} > 0
\]
for all $p \in [0,1]$ (the last two inequalities hold because the
roots of $|g_0|$ are larger than $1$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:g_0_roots}).
Combining this result with the first paragraph of the proof gives
us the bound
\[
\int_0^1 \frac{|I_p|^2}{|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|^2}
M_{\delta}(p;\gamma) \di{p}
\le
C\int_0^1 \frac{1}{|g_0(p;\gamma)|^2} \di{p} \le C_{\gamma}
\]
for some constant $C_{\gamma} > 0$.
\end{proof}
The preceding lemma proves that we only need to study the integral in
\eqref{eqn:pd} over the interval $1 \le p < \infty$. Because
$|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)| \rightarrow |g_0(p;\gamma)|$ as $\delta
\rightarrow 0^+$, it should be the case that $|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|
\approx 0$ near the roots of $|g_0(p;\gamma)|$. Inspired by our earlier
work in the quasistatic regime, we conjecture that
$|g_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma};\gamma)|$ and
$|g_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma};\gamma)|$ are on the order of $\delta$ as
$\delta \rightarrow 0^+$.
\begin{conjecture}\label{con:g_order_delta}
Suppose $0 < \gamma < \gamma_*$, and let $1 < p^1_{\gamma} <
p^2_{\gamma}$ be the
roots of $g_0(p;\gamma)$. Then there is a $\delta_{\gamma} > 0$
such that $|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)| \ne 0$ for all $1 \le p < \infty$
and all $0 < \delta \le \delta_{\gamma}$; however,
$|g_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma};\gamma)| = \mathcal{O}(\delta)$ and
$|g_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma};\gamma)| = \mathcal{O}(\delta)$ as $\delta
\rightarrow 0^+$.
\end{conjecture}
One way to prove this conjecture would be to expand
$|g_{\delta}(p^j_{\gamma};\gamma)|$ (for $j = 1$, $2$) in Taylor series
around $\delta = 0$ and then prove that
$\partial|g_{\delta}(p^j_{\gamma};\gamma)|/\partial \delta$ is uniformly
bounded for $p \in [1,\infty)$ and $\delta$ small enough.
Unfortunately, these derivatives are quite complicated; moreover,
numerical experiments indicate that they become unbounded as $p
\rightarrow \infty$, so it is unlikely that this technique would
work even if the expressions were suitable for analytic study.
To provide some justification for Conjecture~\ref{con:g_order_delta}, in Figures~\ref{fig:g_delta}(a) and (b) we plot
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:g1g2}
\frac{|g_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma}; \gamma)|}{\delta} \eqtext{and}
\frac{|g_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma}; \gamma)|}{\delta}
\end{equation}
as functions of $\delta$ and $\gamma$ over the ranges $10^{-12}\le
\delta \le 10^{-10}$ and $0.1\gamma_* \le \gamma \le
0.99\gamma_*$\footnote{We believe the functions in \eqref{eqn:g1g2}
remain bounded as $\delta \rightarrow 0$ for all $0 < \gamma <
\gamma_*$; however, $p^2_{\gamma} \rightarrow \infty$ as $\gamma
\rightarrow 0$, so the numerical computation of the roots becomes
more difficult as $\gamma$ gets closer to $0$. Similarly,
$p^1_{\gamma_*} = p^2_{\gamma_*}$, so as $\gamma$ gets close to
$\gamma_*$ it becomes difficult to distinguish the roots}. For
each $\gamma$, we see that the functions in \eqref{eqn:g1g2} remain
bounded as $\delta$ gets close to $0$, which seems to indicate that
$|g_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma}; \gamma)| = \mathcal{O}(\delta)$ and
$|g_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma}; \gamma)| = \mathcal{O}(\delta)$ as $\delta
\rightarrow 0$. Curiously, both functions in \eqref{eqn:g1g2} seem to
depend very weakly on $\delta$.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./g_1_order_delta.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./g_2_order_delta.png}
\\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{In this figure we plot (a)
$|g_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma};\gamma)|/\delta$ and (b)
$|g_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma};\gamma)|/\delta$ over the
range $10^{-12} \le \delta \le 10^{-10}$ and
$0.1\gamma_* \le \gamma \le 0.99\gamma_*$.}}
\label{fig:g_delta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Next, we conjecture that the $\mathcal{O}(\delta)$ behavior of
$|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|$ near $p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$ is not
canceled by the term $M_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ in the numerator.
\begin{conjecture}\label{con:M_not_zero}
Suppose $0 < \gamma < \gamma_*$, and define $M_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$
as in \eqref{eqn:M}. Then there exist positive constants
$\delta_{\gamma}$ and $C_{\gamma}$ such that $M_{\delta}(p;\gamma)
\ge C_{\gamma}$ near $p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$ for all $0 <
\delta \le \delta_{\gamma}$.
\end{conjecture}
If Conjectures~\ref{con:g_order_delta} and \ref{con:M_not_zero} are
true, then \eqref{eqn:pd_a}--\eqref{eqn:L} imply that the part of the integrand $L_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ that is
independent of the source $f$, namely
\[
\mathrm{e}^{2\gamma\nu_m'}\frac{M_{\delta}(p;\gamma)}
{|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|^2},
\]
is on the order of $\delta^{-2}$ near $p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$
as $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$. If $|I_p|^2$ is also bounded away from $0$
near $p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$, the entire integrand
$L_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ will have values on the order of $\delta^{-2}$
near $p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$.
To provide some justification for Conjecture~\ref{con:M_not_zero}, in
Figures~\ref{fig:M_delta}(a) and (b) we plot
\[
M_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma};\gamma) \eqtext{and}
M_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma};\gamma)
\]
as functions of $\delta$ and $\gamma$ over the same intervals as in
Figure~\ref{fig:g_delta}. In particular, we note that
$M_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma};\gamma)$ and $M_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma};\gamma)$
are both bounded away from $0$ and seem to depend quite weakly on
$\delta$.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./M_1_order_one.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./M_2_order_one.png}
\\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{In this figure we plot (a)
$M_{\delta}(p^1_{\gamma};\gamma)$ and (b)
$M_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma};\gamma)$ over the
range $10^{-12} \le \delta \le 10^{-10}$ and
$0.1\gamma_* \le \gamma \le 0.99\gamma_*$.}}
\label{fig:M_delta}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Finally, to obtain a blow-up in $E_{\delta}(a)$, it should be the
case that $|I_p|$ does not conquer the small values of $|g_{\delta}|$
near $p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$. Heuristically, there will be
no blow-up if $|I_p| \approx 0$ near
$p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$. In the next section, we present
numerical evidence that suggests that sources with $|I_{p^1_{\gamma}}| =
|I_{p^2_{\gamma}}| = 0$ do not lead to ALR.
On the other hand, recall from \eqref{eqn:Iq} that
\begin{equation*}
I_p = \int_{d_0}^{d_1} \widehat{f}(x,k_0p)\mathrm{e}^{-k_0\sqrt{p^2-1}s} \di{s}.
\end{equation*}
Again we take our inspiration from the quasistatic case
\cite{Thaler:2014:BVI, Meklachi:2016:SAL}.
If $d_0 \gg a$, then the exponential in the above integrand will be
extremely small (especially because $p_{\gamma}^1$ and $p_{\gamma}^2$
are both greater than $1$). In particular, the exponential may be small
enough so that it cancels out the effect of the denominator near
$p^1_{\gamma}$ and $p^2_{\gamma}$. We emphasize that this is not
rigorous, but we hope that it may provide a starting point for future
investigations.
\begin{conjecture}\label{con:pd_blow_up}
Suppose $0 < \gamma < \gamma_*$. Then there exist sources $f\!\in\! L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with compact support or distributional such as
dipoles) such that, for any $0 < \xi \le a$,
$E_{\delta}(\xi)\rightarrow \infty$ if $d_0$ is ``close enough'' to
$a$ and $E_{\delta}(\xi) \le C_{\gamma}$ for some positive constant
$C_{\gamma}$ if $d_0$ is ``far enough away'' from $a$. This
critical distance may depend on $\gamma$.
Moreover, there are positive constants $b_{\gamma}$, $C_{\gamma}$,
and $\delta_{\gamma}$ such that, for all $0 < \delta \le
\delta_{\gamma}$,
\[
|V(x,y)| \le C_{\gamma}
\]
for all $(x,y) \in \mathcal{C}\cup\mathcal{M}$ with $|x| >
b_{\gamma}$.
\end{conjecture}
\begin{remark}\label{rem:weak}
If it is only the case that
\[
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0^+} E_{\delta}(\xi) = \infty,
\]
then we say that \emph{weak} ALR occurs. Because $E_{\delta}(\xi)$
is difficult to deal with analytically, we cannot say much more on
this. It is difficult to determine whether
\[
\limsup_{\delta\rightarrow 0^+} E_{\delta}(\xi) = \infty
\eqtext{or}
\lim_{\delta\rightarrow 0^+} E_{\delta}(\xi) = \infty
\]
using only numerical techniques. In particular, if the limit
supremum of $E_{\delta}(\xi)$ is $\infty$, there is at least one
sequence $\delta_n\rightarrow 0^+$ along which
$E_{\delta_n}(\xi)\rightarrow \infty$; however, it may be the case
that $E_{\delta_n}(\xi) \rightarrow \infty$ for all sequences
$\delta_n \rightarrow 0^+$ except
a few very special sequences that would be extremely difficult to
find via numerical experiments alone.
\end{remark}
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma} and \ref{fig:general_small_gamma}
are exactly the same as Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_large_gamma} and
\ref{fig:general_large_gamma} except $\gamma = 0.5\gamma_*$ in
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma} and \ref{fig:general_small_gamma}.
In Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma}(a) and (b) and
Figures~\ref{fig:general_small_gamma}(a) and (b), the sources (a dipole
in Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma} and the source $f$ from
\eqref{eqn:general} in Figure~\ref{fig:general_small_gamma}) are located
at $d_0 = 4a$, and the solution $V$ appears to be smooth throughout the
domain. As the sources move closer to the slab, resonant regions appear
around both boundaries of the slab at $x = 0$ and $x = a$.
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma}(c) and (d) and
Figures~\ref{fig:general_small_gamma}(c) and (d) contain plots of $V$ when
$d_0 = 1.2a$. From these figures we see that the extreme oscillations
of $V$ are contained near the boundaries of the slab, and that the
boundaries between the resonant and nonresonant regions are sharp and
not defined by the boundaries of the slab; away from the slab, $V$ is
smooth and bounded. This is highly
characteristic of ALR (see, e.g., \cite{Milton:2005:PSQ,
Thaler:2014:BVI}, and the references therein).
Moreover, Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma} and
\ref{fig:general_small_gamma} indicate that an image of (part of) the
solution $V$ is focused in the region to the left of the lens (outside
of the resonant region); this is in stark contrast to the high frequency
regime illustrated in Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_large_gamma} and
\ref{fig:general_large_gamma}, in which the solution $V$ in the region
to the left of the slab is barely noticeable. Indeed, in the
quasistatic regime, ALR is closely associated with this so-called
superlensing \cite{Milton:2005:PSQ}; since ALR does not occur for $\gamma >
\gamma_*$ (see Theorem~\ref{thm:bounded}), we do not expect to see the
superlensing effect in this regime (see Theorem~\ref{thm:shielding}).
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma}(c) and
\ref{fig:general_small_gamma}(c) provide an additional insight into
Conjecture~\ref{con:pd_blow_up}. In general, for $q \approx
k_0p^2_{\gamma}$ (where $p^2_{\gamma}$ is the larger root of
$g_0(p;\gamma)$) the coefficient $A_q$ from \eqref{eqn:Aq} becomes very large
since its denominator is proportional to $g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$
and $g_{\delta}(p^2_{\gamma};\gamma) \approx g_0(p^2_{\gamma}; \gamma)
= 0$ for $\delta$ small enough. Recalling that the Fourier transform
variable $q = k_0p$ represents a wavenumber in the $y$-direction with
corresponding wavelength $\lambda = 2\pi/q$, this
implies that the solution $V$ should exhibit prominent oscillations with
wavelength on the order of
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:lambda_gamma}
\lambda_{\gamma} = \frac{2\pi}{k_0p^2_{\gamma}}.
\end{equation}
In Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma}(c) and
\ref{fig:general_small_gamma}(c), we have drawn a vertical,
red line of length $2\lambda_{\gamma}$. This red line covers
approximately $2$ wavelengths of oscillation in the resonant region,
which seems to indicate that at least one of the zeros of $g_0$, namely
$p^2_{\gamma}$, is responsible for ALR. Because $p^2_{\gamma}$ is
independent of $f$, the above argument also suggests that the wavelength
of the resonant oscillations of $V$ is also independent of the source
$f$. We emphasize that this is speculative at best, but it would be
interesting to investigate further.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dsfr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dsfi.png}
\\
(a) & (b) \\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dscr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dsci.png}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{This is a plot of $V$, the solution to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq}, when $f$ is a dipole and
$\gamma = 0.5\gamma_*$: (a) $\real(V)$ and (b) $\imag(V)$
for $d_0 = 4a$; (c) $\real(V)$ and (d) $\imag(V)$ for
$d_0 = 1.2a$. To make the behavior of $V$ more clear,
we clipped the maximum and minimum values in each plot
to $0.2$ (yellow) and $-0.2$ (blue) respectively. The
vertical, red line in (c) extends a distance of
$2\lambda_{\gamma}$, where $\lambda_{\gamma}$ is defined in
\eqref{eqn:lambda_gamma}.}}
\label{fig:dipole_small_gamma}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./gsfr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./gsfi.png}
\\
(a) & (b)\\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./gscr.png}
& \includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./gsci.png}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{This is a plot of $V$, the solution to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq}, when $f$ is the function in
\eqref{eqn:general} and
$\gamma = 0.5\gamma_*$: (a) $\real(V)$ and (b) $\imag(V)$
for $d_0 = 4a$; (c) $\real(V)$ and (d) $\imag(V)$ for
$d_0 = 1.2a$. To make the behavior of $\real V$ more
clear, in (a) and (c)
we clipped the maximum and minimum values in each plot
to $0.1$ (yellow) and $-0.1$ (blue) respectively. The
vertical, red line in (c) extends a distance of
$2\lambda_{\gamma}$, where $\lambda_{\gamma}$ is defined in
\eqref{eqn:lambda_gamma}.}}
\label{fig:general_small_gamma}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
To illustrate how drastically different the behavior of $V$ is for
$\gamma > \gamma_*$ and $\gamma < \gamma_*$, in
Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_compare} we plotted $V$ corresponding to a dipole
source located at $d_0 = 1.2a$ for two different values of $\gamma$. In
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_compare}(a) and (b) we took $\gamma = 1.01\gamma_*$
while in Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_compare}(c) and (d) we took $\gamma =
0.99\gamma_*$. The ALR is present when $\gamma < \gamma_*$ in
Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_compare}(c); on the other hand, in
Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_compare}(a) there are a few oscillations near
the $x$-axis, but they quickly die out as $|y|$ grows.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_compare_large_r.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_compare_large_i.png}
\\
(a) & (b) \\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_compare_small_r.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_compare_small_i.png}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{This is a plot of $V$, the solution to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq}, when $f$ is a dipole located at
$d_0 = 1.2a$: (a) $\real(V)$ and (b) $\imag(V)$ for
$\gamma = 1.01\gamma_*$; (c) $\real(V)$ and (d)
$\imag(V)$ for $\gamma = 0.99\gamma_*$. To make the
behavior of $V$ more clear, in (a), (c), and (d) we clipped the maximum and minimum
values in each plot to $0.1$ (yellow) and $-0.1$ (blue) respectively.}}
\label{fig:dipole_compare}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
Unfortunately, we cannot provide an figure analogous to
Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_bounded_pd} for $E_{\delta}(a)$ when $f$ is a
dipole source --- MATLAB is unable to accurately compute the integral
\[
\int_{1}^{\infty} L_{\delta}(p;\gamma) \di{p}
\]
because $|g_{\delta}(p;\gamma)|$ is very close to $0$ near the roots of
$g_0(p;\delta)$ for small values of $\delta$ (see
Conjecture~\ref{con:g_order_delta}). However, to get a sense of what is
going on, we plotted
$L_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ on a logarithmic scale for a dipole source $f$
with $\gamma =
0.99\gamma_*$ in Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}(a) and (b) and $\gamma =
1.01\gamma_*$ in Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}(c) and (d). Each curve is
$L_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ as a function of $p$ for various values of
$\delta$. In Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}(a) and (b), where $\gamma <
\gamma_*$, we see that $L_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ is quite large near
the poles of $g_0(p;\gamma)$, even if $\delta = 10^{-4}$.
Additionally, on comparing the $y$-axis scales in Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}(a) and
(b), we note that the poles seem somewhat less severe in
Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}(a) than in
Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}(b), which, in combination with results
from the quasistatic regime \cite{Meklachi:2016:SAL}, lends credence to our conjecture
(Conjecture~\ref{con:pd_blow_up})
that ALR may be present only if the source is located close enough to
the lens. On the other
hand, in Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}(c) and (d), $\gamma > \gamma_*$ and
we see that $L_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$ remains bounded regardless of $d_0$\footnote{In
Figure~\ref{fig:dipole_integrand}, all of the functions rapidly tend
to $0$ for larger values of $p$ (not shown in the figure).}.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_integrand_small_gamma_small_d_0.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_integrand_small_gamma_large_d_0.png}
\\
(a) & (b) \\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_integrand_large_gamma_small_d_0.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./dipole_integrand_large_gamma_large_d_0.png}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{A plot of the integrand $L_{\delta}(p;\gamma)$
from \eqref{eqn:pd_a} for several parameter values. The
separate curves in each plot represent different values of
$\delta$, indicated in the legend: (a) $\gamma
= 0.99\gamma_*$ and $d_0 = 1.2a$; (b) $\gamma = 0.99\gamma_*$ and $d_0 =
4a$; (c) $\gamma = 1.01\gamma_*$ and $d_0 = 1.2a$; (d) $\gamma =
1.01\gamma_*$ and $d_0 = 4a$.}}
\label{fig:dipole_integrand}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Sources for which ALR does not occur}
\label{subsec:ALR_busting}
When $0 < \gamma < \gamma_*$, the conjectures from the previous section
suggest that the zeros of $g_0(p;\gamma)$ are responsible for forcing
$E_{\delta}(a)$ to blow up in the limit as $\delta \rightarrow
0^+$. This begs the question of whether one can design a (realistic)
source in the finite frequency regime (with $0 < \gamma < \gamma_*$)
that effectively cancels the poles that show up in the limit $\delta
\rightarrow 0^+$. In other words, we would like to design a source such
that $|I_p| = 0$ exactly at the zeros of $g_0(p;\gamma)$; heuristically,
in the limit as $\delta \rightarrow 0^+$, this would force the integrand
in \eqref{eqn:pd} to remain bounded at the zeros of $g_0(p;\gamma)$ and
annihilate the anomalous localized resonance that occurs in this limit.
Recall from \eqref{eqn:Iq} that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:Ip}
I_p = \int_{d_0}^{d_1} \widehat{f}(s, k_0p) \mathrm{e}^{-k_0\nu_m s} \di{s}.
\end{equation}
Lemma~\ref{lem:g_0_roots} implies that $g_0(p;\gamma)$ has two roots $1
< p^1_{\gamma} < p^2_{\gamma}$. Using this and \eqref{eqn:Ip}, we see
that an ``ALR-busting'' source $f(x,y)$ can be constructed by choosing
$f$ such that $\widehat{f}(s, k_0p^1_{\gamma}) = \widehat{f}(s, k_0p^2_{\gamma}) =
0$ for all $s \in [d_0,d_1]$ (which implies $I_{p^1_{\gamma}} =
I_{p^2_{\gamma}} = 0$). We do not want to just choose any $\widehat{f}$
satisfying this property, however; we restrict ourselves to those
sources $f \in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with compact support. In summary, we
make the following conjecture.
\begin{conjecture}\label{con:ALR_busting}
Suppose $f\in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ has compact support and
\[
\widehat{f}(x,k_0p^1_{\gamma}) = \widehat{f}(x,k_0p^2_{\gamma}) = 0,
\]
where $1 < p^1_{\gamma} < p^2_{\gamma}$ are the zeros of
$g_0(p;\gamma)$ from Lemma~\ref{lem:g_0_roots} and $k_0p^j_{\gamma}$
are zeros of order at least $1$ for $\widehat{f}(x,k_0p)$. Then there is
a $\delta_{\gamma} > 0$ and a constant $C_{\gamma} > 0$ such that
$E_{\delta}(a) \le C_{\gamma}$ for all $0 < \delta \le
\delta_{\gamma}$.
\end{conjecture}
There are many sources that satisfy the hypotheses of this theorem. We
will present $2$ examples here. First, consider
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_f_specific_Fourier}
\widehat{f}(x,q) =-\mathrm{i}\chi_{(d_0,d_1)}(x)\sinc(\alpha_1 q)\sin(\alpha_2 q),
\end{equation}
where $\sinc(x) = \sin(x)/x$,
\[
\chi_{(d_0,d_1)}(x) =
\begin{cases}
1 &\text{for } d_0 < x < d_1, \\
0 &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\]
\[
\alpha_1 \equiv \frac{\pi}{k_0p^1_{\gamma}}, \eqtext{and}
\alpha_2 \equiv \frac{\pi}{k_0p^2_{\gamma}}.
\]
Then $\widehat{f}(x,\cdot) \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ and, hence, $f(x,\cdot) \in
L^2(\mathbb{R})$ by the Plancherel Theorem; moreover,
$\widehat{f}(x,k_0p^1_{\gamma}) = \widehat{f}(x,k_0p^2_{\gamma}) = 0$, where the
zeros are order $1$. Finally, by direct calculations we have
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:specific_special_f}
f(x,y) = \chi_{(d_0,d_1)}(x) \cdot \frac{1}{4\alpha_1}
\left[H(-y-\alpha_1-\alpha_2) - H(-y-\alpha_1+\alpha_2) +
H(-y+\alpha_1+\alpha_2) - H(-y-\alpha_2+\alpha_1)\right],
\end{equation}
where $H(z)$ is the Heaviside step function; this $f \in
L^2(\mathcal{M})$ has compact support and thus satisfies the hypotheses
of Conjecture~\ref{con:ALR_busting}.
We may also take
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_Bessel_Fourier}
\widehat{f}(x,q) = \chi_{(d_0,d_1)}(x)J_0(\beta_0 q)J_1(\beta_1 q),
\end{equation}
where $J_0$ and $J_1$ are the Bessel functions of the first kind of
orders $0$ and $1$, respectively, and $\beta_0$ and $\beta_1$ are such
that $J_0(\beta_0 k_0 p^1_{\gamma}) = J_1(\beta_1 k_0 p^2_{\gamma}) = 0$
(we note that these zeros are also of order $1$). Because the Bessel
functions of the first kind are $O(q^{-1/2})$ as $q\rightarrow \infty$
\cite{Watson:1996:WWW}, we have $\widehat{f}(x,\cdot) \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$. By the
convolution theorem for Fourier transforms,
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_Bessel}
f(x,y) = \chi_{(d_0,d_1)}(x)(f_0 \ast f_1)(y),
\end{equation}
where $\ast$ denotes convolution and $f_0$ and $f_1$ are the inverse
Fourier transforms of $J_0(\beta_0 q)$ and $J_1(\beta_1 q)$,
respectively; in particular, we obtain
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:f0f1}
f_0(y) =
\frac{1}{\pi\sqrt{\beta_0^2-y^2}}\chi_{(-\beta_0,\beta_0)}(y)
\eqtext{and}
f_1(y) = \frac{-y}{\beta_1\pi\sqrt{\beta_1^2-y^2}}
\chi_{(-\beta_1,\beta_1)}(y).
\end{equation}
Although the convolution in \eqref{eqn:special_Bessel} is difficult to
compute analytically, since $f_0$ and $f_1$ both have compact support
the convolution of $f_0$ with $f_1$ will as well. Thus $f$ as defined
in \eqref{eqn:special_Bessel} is in $L^2(\mathcal{M})$ and has compact
support.
In Figures~\ref{fig:ALR_bust}(a) and (b) we plot $\real(V)$ and
$\imag(V)$, respectively, for the source from
\eqref{eqn:special_f_specific_Fourier} (equivalently,
\eqref{eqn:specific_special_f}); in Figures~\ref{fig:ALR_bust}(c) and
(d), we plot $\real(V)$ and
$\imag(V)$, respectively, for the source from
\eqref{eqn:special_Bessel_Fourier} (equivalently,
\eqref{eqn:special_Bessel}). We take the same parameters that we used
in Figures~\ref{fig:dipole_small_gamma}(c)--(d) and
Figures~\ref{fig:general_small_gamma}(c)--(d), namely $d_0 = 1.2a$ and
$\gamma = 0.5\gamma_*$. In stark contrast with those figures, the
solution $V$ is well-behaved in Figure~\ref{fig:ALR_bust}.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./sinc_sin_ALR_bust_r.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./sinc_sin_ALR_bust_i.png}
\\
(a) & (b) \\[0.2in]{}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./Bessel_ALR_bust_r.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./Bessel_ALR_bust_i.png}
\\
(c) & (d)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{This is a plot of $V$, the solution to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq}, for two different sources with
$d_0 = 1.2a$ and $\gamma = 0.5\gamma_*$: (a) $\real(V)$
and (b) $\imag(V)$ for $f$ as in
\eqref{eqn:special_f_specific_Fourier} (equivalently,
\eqref{eqn:specific_special_f}); (c) $\real(V)$ and (d)
$\imag(V)$ for $f$ as in
\eqref{eqn:special_Bessel_Fourier} (equivalently
\eqref{eqn:special_Bessel}).}}
\label{fig:ALR_bust}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\subsubsection{Current sources for which ALR does not occur}
In the monochromatic electromagnetic setting, $f$ must satisfy
additional restrictions for it to represent a realistic
(divergence-free) current source --- see
\S~\ref{subsec:Maxwell_to_Helmholtz}. In particular, the function $f$
should be in $L^2(\mathcal{M})$ with compact support and be of the form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:f}
f = \mu_0\left(\frac{\partial \widetilde{J}_y}{\partial x} -
\frac{\partial \widetilde{J}_x}{\partial y}\right)
\end{equation}
for a current
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_current_main}
\widetilde{\mathbf{J}} = \widetilde{J}_x(x,y)\mathbf{e}_x +
\widetilde{J}_y(x,y)\mathbf{e}_y
\end{equation}
satisfying the continuity equation
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:2D_cont_main}
\frac{\partial \widetilde{J}_x}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial
\widetilde{J}_y}{\partial y} = 0.
\end{equation}
We now construct a source $f$ satisfying the hypotheses of
Conjecture~\ref{con:ALR_busting} that is of the form
\eqref{eqn:f}--\eqref{eqn:2D_cont_main}. For simplicity, we assume that
the current from \eqref{eqn:special_current_main} has the form
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_J_separated}
\widetilde{J}_x(x,y) = r_1(x)t_1(y) \eqtext{and}
\widetilde{J}_y(x,y) = r_2(x)t_2(y).
\end{equation}
with $r_1, r_2, t_1, t_2$ smooth enough. Then the continuity equation \eqref{eqn:2D_cont_main} becomes
\[
r_1'(x)t_1(y) + r_2(x)t_2'(y) = 0.
\]
Taking the Fourier transform of this equation with respect to $y$ gives
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:cont_Fourier}
r_1'(x)\widehat{t}_1(q) + r_2(x)\mathrm{i} q\widehat{t}_2(q) = 0.
\end{equation}
We further simplify the problem by taking
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_q_condition}
\widehat{t}_1(q) = \mathrm{i} q\widehat{t}_2(q).
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{eqn:cont_Fourier} becomes
\[
\left[r_1'(x) + r_2(x)\right]\widehat{t}_1(q) = 0,
\]
which is satisfied for all $x$ and $q$ if
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_x_condition}
r_2(x) = -r_1'(x).
\end{equation}
Then \eqref{eqn:f}, \eqref{eqn:special_J_separated},
\eqref{eqn:special_q_condition}, and
\eqref{eqn:special_x_condition} imply that
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_f_general}
\widehat{f}(x,q)
= \mu_0\left[r_2'(x)\widehat{t}_2(q) - r_1(x)\mathrm{i} qt_1(q)\right]
= \mu_0\left[-r_1''(x)\widehat{t}_2(q) + r_1(x)q^2\widehat{t}_2(q)\right]
\end{equation}
At this point, $f$ satisfies \eqref{eqn:f}--\eqref{eqn:2D_cont_main}.
By the Plancherel Theorem and \eqref{eqn:special_f_general},
$f\in L^2(\mathcal{M})$ if and only if $\widehat{t}_2(q) \in
L^2(\mathbb{R})$ and $q^2\widehat{t}_2(q) \in
L^2(\mathbb{R})$. We must also be careful to also choose
$\widehat{t}_2(q)$ in such a way that $\widehat{t}_2(k_0p^1_{\gamma}) =
\widehat{t}_2(k_0p^2_{\gamma}) = 0$ and $f(x,y) =
\mu_0\left[-r_1''(x)t_2(y) - r_1(x)t_2''(y)\right]$
has compact support in $y$.
There are many examples of functions that accomplish these tasks.
Unfortunately, the functions in \eqref{eqn:specific_special_f} and
\eqref{eqn:special_Bessel} lead to current sources that are
discontinuous and, hence, not divergence free, so we need to be a bit
more careful. To find a smooth current with compact support satisfying
our requirements, we take
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_t_2}
\widehat{t}_2(q) = \sinc^3(\alpha_1 q) \sinc^2(\alpha_2 q),
\end{equation}
\[
\alpha_1 \equiv \frac{\pi}{k_0p^1_{\gamma}}, \eqtext{and}
\alpha_2 \equiv \frac{\pi}{k_0p^2_{\gamma}}.
\]
Then $\widehat{t}_2(q) \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$, $q^2\widehat{t}_2(q) \in
L^2(\mathbb{R})$ and $\widehat{f}(x,k_0p^1_{\gamma}) =
\widehat{f}(x,k_0p^2_{\gamma}) = 0$\footnote{Here the zeros are of order $3$ and
$2$, respectively, so they are stronger than what we need according to
Conjecture~\ref{con:ALR_busting}. We take
these higher-order zeros to ensure that $t_2(y)$ and $t_2''(y)$ are both
continuous. There may be other choices of continuous functions $t_2(y)$
and $t_2''(y)$ such that $\widehat{t}_2(q) \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$ that has
zeros of order $1$ at $q = k_0p_1$ and $q = k_0p_2$.}.
One possible choice of $r_1(x)$ from \eqref{eqn:special_f_general} is
\begin{equation}\label{eqn:special_r_1}
r_1(x) =
\begin{cases}
C\left[\frac{2}{d_1-d_0}\left(x-d_0\right)-1\right]^3
\left[\left|\frac{2}{d_1-d_0}\left(x-d_0\right)-1\right|
-1\right]^3 &\text{for } d_0 \le x \le d_1, \\
0 &\text{otherwise},
\end{cases}
\end{equation}
where $C$ is a nonzero constant. The function $r_1(x)$ is twice
continuously differentiable and has compact support, so $r_1''(x)$ is
continuous with compact support.
Finally, $\widehat{f}(x,q)$ may be computed via \eqref{eqn:special_f_general},
\eqref{eqn:special_t_2}, and \eqref{eqn:special_r_1}. We note that the
inverse Fourier transform of $\widehat{f}(x,q)$ can be computed analytically; for the benefit of the reader, we avoid writing out the
expression. Importantly, $f$ is continuous with compact support.
The current source corresponding to this $f$ may be computed via
\eqref{eqn:special_current_main}, \eqref{eqn:special_J_separated},
\eqref{eqn:special_q_condition}, \eqref{eqn:special_x_condition},
\eqref{eqn:special_t_2}, and \eqref{eqn:special_r_1}. We emphasize that
both $\widetilde{J}_x(x,y)$ and $\widetilde{J}_y(x,y)$ are continuously
differentiable functions with compact support in $\mathcal{M}$.
In Figure~\ref{fig:realistic_source}, we plot the source $f$ defined by
\eqref{eqn:special_f_general}--\eqref{eqn:special_r_1} with $C =
10^3\mu_0^{-1}$. In Figures~\ref{fig:realistic_sine}(a) and (b), we
plot $\real(V)$ and $\imag(V)$, respectively, corresponding to this
source. As expected, we see that there is no resonant region near the
slab even though the source is quite close to the slab ($d_0 = 1.2a$),
$\gamma = 0.5\gamma_*$, and $\delta = 10^{-12}$.
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=0.75\textwidth]{./realistic_f.png}
\caption{\emph{The source $f$ defined by
\eqref{eqn:special_f_general}--\eqref{eqn:special_r_1} with
the parameters $d_0 = 1.2a$ and $d_1 = d_0 + 2$.}}
\label{fig:realistic_source}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[!hbp]
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c c}
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./realistic_sine_r.png}
&
\includegraphics[width=0.45\textwidth]{./realistic_sine_i.png}
\\
(a) & (b)
\end{tabular}
\caption{\emph{In this figure, we plot (a) $\real(V)$ and (b)
$\imag(V)$, where $V$ is the solution to
\eqref{eqn:finite_freq} corresponding to the source $f$
defined through
\eqref{eqn:special_f_general}--\eqref{eqn:special_r_1}
with the parameters $d_0 = 1.2a$, $\gamma = 0.5\gamma_*$,
and $\delta = 10^{-12}$. To make the behavior of $V$
more clear, we clipped the maximum and minimum values in
each plot to $0.2$ (yellow) and $-0.2$ (blue)
respectively.}}
\label{fig:realistic_sine}
\end{center}
\end{figure}
|
\section{Introduction}
This paper is concerned with properties of \emph{non-radiating} (NR) sources within the scope of the classical electrodynamics. We define an NR source as an oscillating charge-current configuration of a finite size, which does not generate any fields outside the volume it occupies. An alternative way of defining an NR source is to request that no energy is to be emitted into the far-field zone. However, as shown in \cite{devaney1973radiating}, this seemingly less restrictive definition also implies that the electromagnetic fields of the NR source are localized, i.e. they vanish outside the source volume. The interest in NR sources arose at the beginning of the twentieth century in the context of extended electron models, electromagnetic self-force and radiation reaction (see \cite{goedecke1964classically} and references therein). More recently, NR sources have become the subject of interest in relation to the inverse scattering problem of electrodynamics, i.e. reconstruction of sources from radiated fields (see \cite{friedlander1973inverse, devaney1973radiating, bleistein1977nonuniqueness, hoenders1997existence, marengo2000inverse, marengo2000nonradiating} for some representative works, and \cite{gbur2003nonradiating} for a review).
An example of a non-trivial yet simple NR source was theoretically proposed in the context of the so-called toroidal multipoles, the third independent family of dynamic multipoles that complement the conventional electric and magnetic ones (see for example \cite{afanasiev1998some}, \cite{costescu1987induced}). In particular, it was noted that the emissions of toroidal and electric dipoles have the same angular distribution and parity properties. Correspondingly, the electromagnetic fields radiated by coherently oscillating point toroidal and electric dipoles placed at the origin could be made to interfere destructively and disappear everywhere apart from the origin \cite{afanasiev1995electromagnetic}. This combination of interfering toroidal and electric dipoles forms a non-trivial point-like NR source, which is also known as the elementary \emph{dynamic anapole} (DA) \cite{dubovik2000material, raybould2015focused}.
Despite its exotic appearance DA is anything but an abstract concept. First demonstrated experimentally in a specially designed microwave metamaterial, it was shown to play a key role in a new mechanism of electromagnetic transparency and scattering suppression \cite{fedotov2013resonant}. More recent works have confirmed the importance of DA also in the realms of plasmonics and nanophotonics, where dominant contributions of DAs were identified in the optical response of very simple types of dielectric and metallic nano-structures, such as discs and wires etc \cite{basharin2015dielectric, miroshnichenko2015nonradiating, liu2015toroidal, kim2015subwavelength, liu2015invisible, grinblat2016enhanced, xiang2016generic, tasolamprou2016toroidal, evlyukhin2016optical}.
\new{In this paper we show that for a particular choice of gauge the vector potential of an NR source is localized, just as its electric and magnetic fields are. Exploiting the localization of potentials as the defining property of NR sources helps, for example, to find constraints on the actual current density in a relatively simple fashion, without using the heavy machinery of the multipole expansion \cite{radescu2002exact}. It allows one to consider NR sources as distributions of elementary DAs (in the same way as any radiating source can considered as a distribution of point charges), and therefore helps to build intuition about the internal structure of NR sources enabling the construction of explicit realizations.}
\new{Our approach provides a powerful alternative to that used by Devaney and Wolf in \cite{devaney1973radiating}, who first obtained the necessary and sufficient condition for an electromagnetic source to be non-radiating. It was formulated as a constraint on the Fourier components of oscillating current density. Since NR sources and their fields are, by definition, localized in space, the customary language of the Fourier modes, which are non-localized plane waves, may not always be a convenient choice. Working directly in the coordinate rather than momentum space (as it is done in the present work) should simplify the analysis and yield a clearer physical picture.}
We also conclude that NR sources provide a viable platform for observing the time-dependent Aharonov-Bohm effect. This idea had been originally proposed in \cite{afanasiev1995electromagnetic} but was met with skepticism by some authors, who argued that the dynamic version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect could not exist \cite{marengo2002nonradiating}. Using an explicit design of a finite-size NR source we show that some of the assumptions made in \cite{marengo2002nonradiating} may be relaxed, and that the key signature of the static Aharonov-Bohm effect will be present in the dynamic case.
\section{Elementary dynamic anapole}
\new{Before discussing general NR sources we describe the simplest example known as the elementary dynamic \textit{anapole} (DA), which is formed by collocated electric and toroidal point dipoles.}
A dynamic electric dipole $\boldsymbol{d}$ corresponds to the following spatial distributions of time-dependent charge and current density
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{d}=-(\boldsymbol{d}\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla})\,\delta(\boldsymbol{r}), \quad \boldsymbol{j}_d=\partial_t\boldsymbol{d}\,\delta(\boldsymbol{r}), \label{el dip current}
\end{eqnarray}
while dynamic toroidal dipole $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ corresponds to
\begin{eqnarray}
\rho_{\tau}=0,\quad \boldsymbol{j}_{\tau}=c\operatorname{rot}^2{\boldsymbol{\tau}\delta(\boldsymbol{r})} \label{tor dip current}
\end{eqnarray}
If $\boldsymbol{d} = c^{-1}\partial_t\boldsymbol{\tau}$ then these two elementary sources are known to produce exactly the same electric and magnetic fields everywhere except for $\boldsymbol{r}=0$ \cite{afanasiev1995electromagnetic}. They also give rise to electromagnetic potentials, which are gauge equivalent beyond $\boldsymbol{r}=0$.
In principle, this allows one to create a dynamic source that does not radiate. Without loss of generality we assume harmonic time-dependence with frequency $\omega$, and hence we replace $\boldsymbol{d}\to\boldsymbol{d}e^{-i\omega t}, \boldsymbol{\tau}\to\boldsymbol{\tau}e^{-i\omega t}$ with $\boldsymbol{d}$ and $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ now being constant vectors. Electric and magnetic fields of the two dipoles, which are placed at the same point, will interfere destructively provided that
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{d}=-ik\boldsymbol{\tau}, \label{d to tau relation}
\end{eqnarray}
with $k=\omega/c$. It is this configuration that yields the elementary dynamic anapole. Below, we will characterize elementary DA by its toroidal dipole moment $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ keeping in mind that it is always accompanied by an electric dipole moment \eqref{d to tau relation}. There is a gauge choice for which the potentials of the elementary DA become
\begin{align}
\phi_{DA}&=\phi_d+\phi_{\tau}=0 \label{anapole scalar potential}\\
\boldsymbol{A}_{DA}&=\boldsymbol{A}_d+\boldsymbol{A}_{\tau}=e^{-i\omega t}4\pi\boldsymbol{\tau}\delta(\boldsymbol{r}) \label{anapole potential}
\end{align}
Electric and magnetic fields of DA can be obtained from the usual relations
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{E}=-\boldsymbol{\nabla}{\phi}-\partial_t\boldsymbol{A},\quad \boldsymbol{H}=\operatorname{rot}\boldsymbol{A}
\end{eqnarray}
which, taking into account \eqref{anapole scalar potential} and \eqref{anapole potential}, give
\begin{align}
\boldsymbol{E}_{DA}&=e^{-i\omega t}4\pi i k\boldsymbol{\tau}\delta(\boldsymbol{r})\label{anapole electric field}\\
\boldsymbol{H}_{DA}&=e^{-i\omega t}4\pi \operatorname{rot}\boldsymbol{\tau}\delta(\boldsymbol{r})\label{anapole magnetic field}
\end{align}
By substituting \eqref{anapole electric field} and \eqref{anapole magnetic field} into Maxwell's equations one can easily verify that these fields indeed correspond to a combination of the electric and toroidal dipole currents given by \eqref{el dip current} and \eqref{tor dip current}.
It will prove useful to visualize electric and magnetic fields of the elementary DA (see fig. \ref{elementary anapole}). Electric field points in the direction of the toroidal moment $\boldsymbol{\tau}$ while the magnetic field is represented by an infinitesimal loop in the plane orthogonal to the electric field.
\begin{figure}
\begin{subfigure}{0.5\textwidth}
\centering
\includegraphics[width=0.5\linewidth]{elementary_DA.jpg}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{An artistic impression of the elementary dynamic anapole. The anapole is presented in terms of its electric and magnetic fields, and the volumes they occupy. In an elementary dynamic anapole the magnetic field forms an infinitesimal loop, which encirles the electric field confined to a point.}
\label{elementary anapole}
\end{figure}
\section{General non-radiating sources \label{general sources}}
\new{By definition, an NR source does not produce electric or magnetic fields outside the volume it occupies. We will now show that in a certain gauge the vector potential generated by an NR source is also zero outside the volume of the source.
}
Indeed, any electromagnetic field can be described by vector and scalar potentials $\phi, \boldsymbol{A}$. Due to gauge freedom the scalar potential can be always chosen vanishing $\phi=0$ (the Weyl gauge). Without loss of generality we restrict analysis to the vector potential with harmonic time behavior $\boldsymbol{A}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=e^{-i\omega t}\boldsymbol{A}(\boldsymbol{r})$. \new{Clearly, these two conditions specify the chosen gauge uniquely.\footnote{\new{The Weyl gauge is incomplete since it leaves residual gauge transformations $\boldsymbol{A}\to \boldsymbol{A}+\nabla{\chi}$ with arbitrary time-independent function $\chi$. The requirement that $\boldsymbol{A}$ must be harmonic in time eliminates this freedom.}} Now, in this gauge the electric field is given by the time-derivative of the vector potential $\boldsymbol{E}=-c^{-1}\partial_t \boldsymbol{A}=ik\boldsymbol{A}$. Hereby, if the vector potential is non-zero at some point in space so is the electric field. Therefore, the vector potential of any NR source must vanish everywhere where the electric field does, i.e. outside the volume that the source occupies.\footnote{\new{This argument of course fails in the static case $k=0$ where non-trivial potentials can exist in the absence of fields.}} The latter suggests that for time-dependent NR sources the condition $\phi=0$ is a natural gauge fixing. It is in some sense the most economic gauge: the vector potential is only present where the electric or magnetic fields are non-vanishing. We will use the Weyl gauge throughout the paper, often without mentioning it explicitly.}
\new{In paper \cite{devaney1973radiating} the necessary and sufficient condition for a source to be non-radiating was formulated in terms of the Fourier components of the charge-current density. We prove in appendix \ref{nr criteria} that both formulations are in fact equivalent. Nevertheless, characterizing NR sources by their potentials can be advantageous from several standpoints. First of all, one is free to choose arbitrary localized vector potential and then find the corresponding current density describing the NR source at hand using Maxwell's equations. The latter is much easier than describing the NR source directly in terms of the charge-current density, which must satisfy non-trivial (and non-local) conditions derived by Devaney and Wolf in \cite{devaney1973radiating}. This particular advantage of our approach is clearly illustrated in the previous section: starting with the simplest possible form of the localized vector potential \eqref{anapole potential} one discovers the elementary DA, a quite non-trivial configuration of currents. Instead of specifying an NR source in terms of localized potentials one may also attempt to do the same using localized electric and magnetic fields. That, however, will be typically a more involving task since electric and magnetic fields must satisfy Maxwell's equations and therefore cannot be chosen arbitrarily. In contrast, the electromagnetic potentials are not constrained and in this sense represent independent degrees of freedom.}
\new{Viewing NR sources in terms of potentials also provides some intuition about their properties and allows to construct explicit examples, as we will show in the next section.}
\new{Note that the vector potential of the elementary DA is proportional to the $\delta$-function \eqref{anapole potential}. Hence, the potential of the elementary DA may serve as a building block out of which arbitrary potential can be composed.
} Indeed, consider three DAs with their unit moments directed along Cartesian co-ordinate axes
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{A}^\alpha_{DA}=e^{-i\omega t}\,\widehat{\boldsymbol{r}}^\alpha\delta(\boldsymbol{r})\label{basis anapoles}
\end{eqnarray}
Vector potential of an electromagnetic field can then be decomposed in co-ordinate basis as $\boldsymbol{A}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\widehat{\boldsymbol{r}}^\alpha A^\alpha(t,\boldsymbol{r})$. Correspondingly, for any vector potential $\boldsymbol{A}$ holds
\begin{multline}
\boldsymbol{A}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\widehat{\boldsymbol{r}}^\alpha \int d\boldsymbol{r}'\, A^\alpha(t,\boldsymbol{r}')\delta(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}')=\\\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\int d\boldsymbol{r}'\, A^\alpha(\boldsymbol{r}')\boldsymbol{A}^\alpha_{DA}(t,\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}')\label{potential from anapoles}
\end{multline}
This expression represents arbitrary vector potential as a superposition of the vector potentials due to the elementary DAs. Since this conclusion might seem counter-intuitive we make some clarifications in appendix \ref{clarifications}.
\new{In equation \eqref{potential from anapoles} the integration effectively runs over the domain where the vector potential is non-vanishing. As shown above, for NR sources this domain has a finite volume. The latter implies that the corresponding charge-current density is composed out of the elementary DA densities
\begin{align}
\rho(t,\boldsymbol{r})=\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\int d\boldsymbol{r}'\, A^\alpha(\boldsymbol{r}')\rho^\alpha_{DA}(t,\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}')\\
\boldsymbol{j}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\int d\boldsymbol{r}'\, A^\alpha(\boldsymbol{r}')\boldsymbol{j}^\alpha_{DA}(t,\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}')\label{densities from anapoles}
\end{align}
where
\begin{align}
\rho^\alpha_{DA} &=e^{-i\omega t} \frac{ik}{4\pi}(\widehat{\boldsymbol{r}}^\alpha\cdot\boldsymbol{\nabla})\, \delta(\boldsymbol{r})\\
\boldsymbol{j}^\alpha_{DA} &=e^{-i\omega t}\frac{c}{4\pi}\left( \operatorname{rot}^2 \widehat{\boldsymbol{r}}^\alpha\delta(\boldsymbol{r})-k^2 \widehat{\boldsymbol{r}}^\alpha \delta(\boldsymbol{r})\right) \label{anapole current}
\end{align}
}
\new{Accepting that the vector potential of an NR source is localized also allowed us to check the validity of
\eqref{d to tau relation} for spatially extended NR sources. Our analysis does not rely on the multipole expansion but merely uses the definitions of $\boldsymbol{D}$ and $\boldsymbol{T}$
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\alpha=-\f1{i\omega}\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, j_\alpha \label{D def}\\
T_\alpha=\f1{10c}\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, (r_\alpha r_\beta-2r^2\delta_{\alpha\beta})j_\beta \label{T def}
\end{eqnarray}
We now show this assuming only the localization property. In the Weyl gauge, the current density is related to the vector potential as follows (in tensor notation)
\begin{eqnarray}
j_\alpha(\boldsymbol{r})=\frac{c}{4\pi}\left(-(k^2+\Delta)\delta_{\alpha\beta}+\nabla_\alpha\nabla_\beta\right)A_\beta(\boldsymbol{r}) \label{current via vector potential}
\end{eqnarray}
Let us substitute \eqref{current via vector potential} to \eqref{D def}
\begin{multline}
D_\alpha=-\frac{1}{4\pi ik}\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, \left(-(k^2+\Delta)\delta_{\alpha\beta}+\nabla_\alpha\nabla_\beta\right)A_\beta=\\\frac{-ik}{4\pi}\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, A_\alpha+\frac{1}{4\pi ik}\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, \left(\delta_{\alpha\beta}\Delta-\nabla_\alpha\nabla_\beta\right)A_\beta
\end{multline}
The last integral can be reduced to a surface integral by the Gauss theorem. Since the vector potential is localized the surface integral vanishes and one gets
\begin{eqnarray}
D_\alpha=\frac{-ik}{4\pi}\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, A_\alpha
\end{eqnarray}
Similarly, substituting \eqref{current via vector potential} to \eqref{T def}, integrating by parts twice, and disregarding the boundary terms one arrives at
\begin{eqnarray}
T_{\alpha}=\frac{1}{4\pi}\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, A_\alpha-\frac{k^2}{40\pi}\int(r_\alpha r_\beta -2r^2\delta_{\alpha\beta})A_{\beta} \nonumber\\\label{T res}
\end{eqnarray}
The last contribution can be estimated as
\begin{eqnarray}
\frac{k^2\int(r_\alpha r_\beta -2r^2\delta_{\alpha\beta})A_{\beta}}{\int d\boldsymbol{r}\, A_\alpha}=O(a^2k^2)
\end{eqnarray}
where $a$ is the spatial extent of the source. Hence, we obtain relation
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{D}=-ik\boldsymbol{T}(1+O(a^2k^2))\label{D to T general}
\end{eqnarray}
Although somewhat surprising, this result fully agrees with \cite{radescu2002exact}.
In general, relation \eqref{D to T general} cannot be satisfied exactly (unless $\boldsymbol{D}=0$), because $\boldsymbol{T}$, being a higher order multipole moment, depends on the origin of the multipole
expansion, and so the high-order correction $O(a^2 k^2)$ in \eqref{D to T general} arises as the result of this uncertainty}.
\section{Example of a spatially extended non-radiating source \label{extended anapole}}
As a particular example let us consider a flat disk $D$ of radius $R$ uniformly filled with elementary DAs of surface density $\sigma$ (see fig. \ref{disk anapole}b) so that $\Delta\boldsymbol{\tau}=\boldsymbol{n}\sigma \Delta S$ is the toroidal dipole moment gathered in area $\Delta S$ with normal vector $\boldsymbol{n}$. The vector potential of this disk is a superposition of the potentials for the constituent DAs
\begin{multline}
\boldsymbol{A}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=\sum_{\alpha=1}^3\iint_{D} d^2s\,\sigma \,n^\alpha\boldsymbol{A}^\alpha_{DA}(t, \boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_s)=\\epsilon^{-i\omega t}\sigma \boldsymbol{n}\iint_{D} d^2s\,\delta(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_s), \label{disk potential}
\end{multline}
where $\boldsymbol{r}_s$ are position vectors of the points at the disk $D$.
Outside disk $D$ the electric and magnetic fields vanish. It is instructive to see how they are distributed within the disk. Electric field is computed as the time-derivative of the vector potential
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{E}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=e^{-i\omega t}i\omega\sigma\boldsymbol{n}\iint_{D} d^2s\,\delta( \boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_s) \label{disk electric field}
\end{eqnarray}
It is homogeneous and directed along the normal vector $\boldsymbol{n}$. Magnetic field is given by
\begin{multline}
\boldsymbol{H}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=e^{-i\omega t}\sigma \iint_D d^2s\, \operatorname{rot} \boldsymbol{n}\,\delta(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_s)=\\epsilon^{-i\omega t}\sigma \oint_C d\boldsymbol{l}\,\delta(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_l) \label{disk magnetic field}
\end{multline}
Stokes' theorem was used to rewrite surface integral as the integral over circle $C$ which is the boundary of disk $D$ and consists of points $\boldsymbol{r}_l$. We see that the magnetic field exists only at the boundary, and is constant in magnitude and oriented along the tangent line.
\begin{figure}
\begin{center}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\draw[dashed] (0,0) ellipse (1.8 and 1.3);
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centx}{0}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centy}{0}
\draw[line width =1, blue, ->] (\centx,\centy) ellipse (0.3 and 0.2);
\draw[line width = 1, blue, ->] (\centx-0.3,\centy) --++ (0, -0.05);
\draw[line width = 1, blue, ->] (\centx+0.3,\centy) --++ (0, +0.05);
\draw[line width = 1, red, ->] (\centx, \centy) --++ (0, 0.35);
\def1.5{1.5}
\def1{1}
\foreach \r in {0.5, 1}{
\pgfmathsetmacro{\start}{30/\r}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\step}{60/\r}
\foreach \an in {\start,\step,...,360}{
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centx}{1.5*\r*cos(\an)}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centy}{1*\r*sin(\an)}
\draw[line width = 1, blue, ->] (\centx,\centy) ellipse (0.3 and 0.2);
\draw[line width = 1, blue, ->] (\centx-0.3,\centy) --++ (0, -0.05);
\draw[line width = 1, blue, ->] (\centx+0.3,\centy) --++ (0, +0.05);
\draw[line width = 1, red, ->] (\centx, \centy) --++ (0, 0.35);
}
}
\node at (2.5,0) {$\Rightarrow$};
\filldraw[color=lightpink, line width = 1.2] (5,0) ellipse (1.7 and 1.2);
\draw[dashed] (5,0) ellipse (1.8 and 1.3);
\draw[blue, line width = 1.2] (5,0) ellipse (1.7 and 1.2);
\draw[blue, line width = 2,->] (5-1.7,0) --++ (0,-0.01);
\draw[blue, line width = 2,->] (5+1.7,0) --++ (0,+0.01);
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centx}{5}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centy}{0}
\draw[line width = 1, red, ->] (\centx, \centy) --++ (0, 0.35);
\def1.5{1.5}
\def1{1}
\foreach \r in {0.5, 1}{
\pgfmathsetmacro{\start}{30/\r}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\step}{60/\r}
\foreach \an in {\start,\step,...,360}{
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centx}{1.5*\r*cos(\an)+5}
\pgfmathsetmacro{\centy}{1*\r*sin(\an)}
\draw[line width = 1, red, ->] (\centx, \centy) --++ (0, 0.35);
}
}
\node at (0,-1.8) {(a)};
\node at (5,-1.8) {(b)};
\end{tikzpicture}
\end{center}
\caption{A schematic of an extended non-radiating source -- a disk uniformly filled with anapoles.}
\label{disk anapole}
\end{figure}
These results have a simple geometric explanation. If each constituent DA is visualized according to fig. \ref{elementary anapole}, then the non-radiating disk can be depicted as shown in fig. \ref{disk anapole}a. The electric fields of the adjacent anapoles do not interfere and result in a uniform total electric field. The magnetic fields of the adjacent anapoles are oriented oppositely and cancel each other, so the net magnetic field is zero everywhere within the area of the disk. The resulting field configurations are shown in fig. \ref{disk anapole}b, and are indeed described by expressions \eqref{disk electric field} and \eqref{disk magnetic field}, yielding an extended NR source. Note that the electric and magnetic fields, as well as the magnetic flux carried by the boundary magnetic line
\begin{eqnarray}
\Phi=e^{-i\omega t}\sigma \label{anapole magnetic flux},
\end{eqnarray}
depend on the density $\sigma$ but not on the disk radius $R$.
Fig. \ref{disk anapole}b can be regarded as non-radiating generalization of the field configuration of an ordinary static magnetic solenoid.
In the static case (frequency $\omega=0$) the electric field within the disk vanishes and only the boundary magnetic line with a constant flux remains. In the dynamic case, however, such a field configuration is supplemented by the electric field but only in the region encircled by the magnetic field.
Similarly to fig. \ref{disk anapole}, it is straightforward to visualize field configurations of more general NR sources. Indeed, formulas \eqref{disk potential}, \eqref{disk electric field}, \eqref{disk magnetic field} are valid for a flat layer $D$ with boundary $C$ of any shape (not necessarily a disk). Consequently, any three-dimensional domain filled with elementary anapoles homogeneously distributed over its volume V can be rendered as a stack of flat layers each of which is treated as above. It takes all but a small step to conclude that such a domain will feature homogeneous electric field in its volume and magnetic field confined to its boundary. Non-uniform electric field and non-vanishing magnetic field in the bulk can then be achieved by allowing anapole density and orientation to vary. Such more complex configurations can be considered as an overlap of homogeneous extended NR sources.
\section{Time-dependent Aharonov-Bohm effect \label{AB effect}}
We now turn to the discussion of the prospects which dynamic NR sources open in connection with the Aharonov-Bohm (AB) effect. The AB effect rests on the observation that in the quantum theory particles can be affected by electromagnetic interaction even if they do not contact electric or magnetic fields directly.
The most celebrated example of a system supporting the AB effect is a solenoid bent into a torus with a constant magnetic flux, see fig. \ref{ab toroid}. Magnetic field is only present inside the torus while electric field is absent everywhere. Probability amplitudes for a particle of charge $e$ to travel from point $A$ to $B$ along two paths, one of which lies inside and the other outside the torus hole, will have additional relative phase shift due to the vector potential
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta \phi =e/\hbar c \oint_\gamma \boldsymbol{A}\,d\boldsymbol{r} \label{phase shift}
\end{eqnarray}
where the integral is taken along the contour $\gamma$ winding on the torus. By Stokes' theorem this integral is proportional to the magnetic flux $\Phi$ inside the torus $\delta \phi=e\Phi/\hbar c$. This phase shift has physically measurable consequences which were confirmed in many works, see e.g. \cite{peshkin1989aharonov}.
It is natural to attempt to generalize the AB effect, extending its reach towards the time-dependent case. In the context of the NR sources this question was previously addressed in \cite{marengo2002nonradiating, afanasiev1996interaction}. The most clear version of the effect would imply
\noindent (i) Presence of some volume $V$ inside which electric and/or magnetic field is non-zero (and time-dependent) but outside which both of them are absent.
\newline (ii) Non-vanishing time-dependent phase shifts for some paths which lie outside $V$.
Requirement (ii) can be alternatively formulated as non-triviality of the electromagnetic potential outside $V$. Despite the fact that the AB effect is an essentially quantum phenomenon, our focus is on the classical electromagnetic fields and potentials. Thus, we are referring to phase shifts for brevity, as we mainly discuss the properties of classical fields.
As claimed in section \eqref{general sources} it is not possible to radiate the vector potential without also radiating the electric field, hence conditions (i, ii) are not possible to satisfy simultaneously. This leads to an immediate conclusion that the time-dependent version of the AB effect is simply not possible, at least not in its original form. However, such sharp contrast with the static case calls for an explanation.
One of the reasons behind discontinuity between static and dynamic situations originates from the fact that different contours must be considered. As mentioned earlier, the configuration in fig. \ref{disk anapole} serves as a dynamic non-radiating counterpart of a static toroidal solenoid\footnote{Instead of infinitesimally thin solenoid one is free to consider its realistic three-dimensional prototype. This has no effect on our conclusions but unnecessarily obstructs the computations.}. In the dynamic case the absence of radiation implies that the electric field is localized within the hole of the torus. Correspondingly, any contour penetrating the hole (as considered in the static case) will cross the region of non-zero electric field and therefore become ineligible in the context of the original effect. Other contours, which do not cross the field lines (similar to $\widetilde{\gamma}$ shown in fig. \ref{ab toroid}), will produce phase shifts neither in the static nor dynamic cases. This is because these contours do not encircle the region of non-zero magnetic field and therefore the integral \eqref{phase shift} has to vanish in accordance with Stokes' theorem.
\begin{figure}
\centering
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\draw[line width = 1.5] (0,0) ellipse (2 and 1.5);
\draw[line width = 1.5] (-1.2,.2) to [out=-45, in=-135] (1.2,.2);
\draw[line width = 1.5] (-1,0) to [out=45, in=135] (1,0);
\draw[orange, line width = 1.5] (-0.6,-0.2) to [out=80, in=0] (-1.5,2) to [out=180,in=180] (-2,-2.2) to [out=10,in=-120] (-1,-1.4);
\draw[orange,dashed,line width=1.5] (-1,-1.4) to [out=60,in=80] (-0.6,-0.2);
\filldraw (-1.5,2) circle (0.05);
\node[above] at (-1.5,2) {$B$};
\filldraw (-2,-2.2) circle (0.05);
\node[above] at (-2,-2.2) {$A$};
\node at (-2.8,-.3) {$\boldsymbol{\gamma}$};
\draw[orange,line width=1.5] (2,2) ellipse (1.2 and 0.5);
\node at (2.5,1.9) {$\boldsymbol{\widetilde{\gamma}}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{ab toroid}
\end{subfigure}%
\begin{subfigure}{0.24\textwidth}
\centering
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=0.5]
\filldraw[color=lightpink, line width = 1.2] (0,0) ellipse (1.9 and 1.4);
\draw[blue, line width = 1.2] (0,0) ellipse (1.9 and 1.4);
\draw[blue, line width = 2,->] (-1.9,0) --++ (0,-0.01);
\draw[blue, line width = 2,->] (+1.9,0) --++ (0,+0.01);
\draw[orange, line width = 1.5] (-0.6,-0.2) to [out=80, in=0] (-1.5,2) to [out=180,in=180] (-2,-2.2) to [out=10,in=-120] (-1,-1.4);
\draw[orange,dashed,line width=1.5] (-1,-1.4) to [out=60,in=80] (-0.6,-0.2);
\draw[white,line width=1.5] (2,2) ellipse (1.2 and 0.5);
\node at (1.2, 0.3) {$\boldsymbol{E}$};
\node at (1.7, -1.2) {$\boldsymbol{H}$};
\node at (-2.8,-.3) {$\boldsymbol{\gamma}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\caption{}
\label{disk with contours}
\end{subfigure}
\caption{Contours in the Aharonov-Bohm effect: (a) static case (b) dynamic case.}
\end{figure}
Let us consider a non-trivial contour $\gamma$ in the dynamic case, see fig \ref{disk with contours} (electric field arrows are suppressed). Assume that the particles in the Aharonov-Bohm experiment travel fast enough so that the fields do not change much during their flight. Then, we could use the same formula for the phase shift as in the static case \eqref{phase shift} provided that the vector potential is taken at the appropriate instant. \new{Applying Stokes' theorem to integral \eqref{phase shift} in the time-dependent case yields
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\phi(t)=\frac{e\Phi(t)}{\hbar c}=e^{-i\omega t}\frac{e\sigma}{\hbar c} \label{time phase shift}
\end{eqnarray}
This phase shift is proportional to the time-dependent magnetic flux \eqref{anapole magnetic flux}.} Therefore, one can maintain the same interpretation for this phase shift as in the static case, i.e. conclude that it is solely due to the magnetic flux in the excluded region.
This observation is also interesting for the following reason. The naive way of producing a time-dependent phase shift would be to take an ordinary wire solenoid and vary the magnetic field with time, for example, by varying electric current in the windings. However, as noticed in paper \cite{Singleton:2013qva}, this trick would not work as the phase shift in fact remains constant. This is due to the fact that these time-varying currents are bound to produce electromagnetic field outside the solenoid. Its contribution to the phase shift appears to cancel exactly the time-dependent part resulting from the magnetic flux inside the torus. This again highlights the peculiarity of NR sources where the time-dependent phase shift arises naturally.
One might raise a natural objection to calling the described thought experiment as time-dependent AB effect. After all, the local impact of the electric field is still present. It is easy to see though, that this impact cannot account for the phase shift \eqref{time phase shift}. To make the arguments precise let us consider another non-radiating source, which is characterized by zero scalar potential and the following vector potential
\begin{equation}
\boldsymbol{A}_{cap}(t,\boldsymbol{r})=-i\omega t \sigma \boldsymbol{n}\iint_{D} d^2s\,\delta(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_s) \label{capacitor potential}
\end{equation}
Notation here is the same as in formula \eqref{disk potential}. The electric field derived from \eqref{capacitor potential} is time-independent and coincides with the electric field of the disk-shaped dynamic anapole \eqref{disk electric field} taken at the moment $t=0$, $\boldsymbol{E}_{cap}(\boldsymbol{r})=\boldsymbol{E}(\boldsymbol{r},0)$. Since electric field is static and homogeneous, such a non-radiating source resembles an ordinary electric capacitor. However, by insisting that the fields outside the capacitor are strictly zero, we have also incorporated magnetic field at the boundary
\begin{eqnarray}
\boldsymbol{H}_{cap}(\boldsymbol{r},t)=-\omega t \sigma \int_{C} d\boldsymbol{l}\,\delta(\boldsymbol{r}-\boldsymbol{r}_l) \label{capacitor magnetic field}
\end{eqnarray}
The phase shift for the contour penetrating the capacitor is given by magnetic flux, which linearly grows with time
\begin{eqnarray}
\delta\phi_{cap}(t)=-\omega t\frac{e\sigma}{\hbar c} \label{capacitor phase shift}
\end{eqnarray}
Hereby, the oscillating anapole and non-radiating capacitor have the same electric field at $t=0$, but different magnetic fluxes leading to different phase shifts \eqref{time phase shift} and \eqref{capacitor phase shift}.
Taking a slightly shifted perspective one can say that the essence of the AB effect is that the experimental setups equivalent in the classical sense do not in general exhibit the same behavior at the quantum level. Indeed, the standard AB experimental configuration with static magnetic field confined to an excluded region is classically equivalent to the complete absence of electromagnetic fields, yet it causes a measurable phase shift in probability amplitudes of a charged particle. Comparison of the oscillating anapole and non-radiating capacitor shows that a similar discrepancy is expected in the time-dependent experiment. Charged particles traveling fast enough would feel the same electric field in both cases (hence the classical equivalence) but would acquire different phase shifts resulting in observable discrepancies. Thus we conclude that in the dynamic case the main signature of the AB effect will still be present.
\section{Summary and discussion}
\new{We have shown that in the Weyl gauge the vector potential of an arbitrary NR source is spatially localized. We have also proven that this apparently local condition for an electromagnetic source to be non-radiating is equivalent (although in a non-trivial way) to the non-local criterion formulated in \cite{devaney1973radiating} by Devaney and Wolf. Using the obtained local non-radiating condition we confirmed that the relation $\boldsymbol{D}=-ik\boldsymbol{T}$, which holds for point NR sources, is also valid for spatially extended but physically small NR sources, where $\boldsymbol{D}$ and $\boldsymbol{T}$ are correspondingly the total electric and toroidal dipole moments of the system.}
\new{We have shown that any NR source can be viewed as a distribution of elementary dynamic anapoles -- NR point sources of the most fundamental type. Such an approach allows one to build concrete examples of spatially extended NR sources and study their properties. As an illustration, we considered a simple scenario for the dynamic version of the Aharonov-Bohm effect in the context of non-radiating sources. We came up with an explicit example of an NR source for which the phase shift in a dynamic experiment would arise exactly as in the static case, while retaining its dependence on time.}
Apart from the electrodynamics in general, the formalism developed here will be of particular importance for the fields of metamaterials and nanophotonics, which currently witness a surge of interest in the properties of the dynamic anapole and non-radiating systems (see \cite{raybould2015focused} and references therein). \new{Indeed, a number of recent works have already confirmed the key role of anapole excitations in controlling scattering properties of very simple electromagnetic systems, such as nanodisks and nanowires \cite{basharin2015dielectric, miroshnichenko2015nonradiating, liu2015toroidal, kim2015subwavelength, liu2015invisible, grinblat2016enhanced, xiang2016generic, tasolamprou2016toroidal, evlyukhin2016optical}. Correspondingly, one may want to revisit the analysis of the electromagnetic response of structurally more complex metamaterials, where the dynamic anapoles could underpin, for example, the microscopic mechanisms of electromagnetic transparency \cite{fedotov2013resonant} and high-Q effects. Our approach to non-radiating sources could be also useful in the analysis of non-radiating modes of antennas and scattering suppression in stealth applications. In particular, it might aid in designing stealth antennas and minimizing the radar cross-section of other elements that protrude from the airframe (such as meteorological sensors, guns, landing gear etc).}
\section*{Acknowledgments}
The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support of the Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation in the framework of Increase Competitiveness Program of NUST "MISiS" (\textnumero K4-2015-031) the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant Agreement
No. 16-02-00789)
|
\section{Introduction}
The X-ray emission from remnants of Type Ia supernovae (SNe) holds
important clues about the nature of these explosions, which are used
as standardizeable candles to determine the expansion history of the
Universe \citep{riess+1998,perlmutter+1999}. Additionally there is
increasing evidence that the high-speed shock waves driven by these
explosions accelerate cosmic rays to PeV energies \citep[see][for the
specific case of Tycho's supernova remnant]{slane+2014}. To
investigate these two important scientific questions, measurements of
key dynamical quantities, such as ejecta bulk velocity flows,
turbulence, and ion temperatures, are critical, yet such measurements
are extremely challenging to make with current instrumentation.
Tycho's supernova remnant (SNR), recorded by Tycho Brahe in 1572 and
studied by him for more than a year, is known to be the result of a
type Ia supernova (SNIa) based, circumstantially, on the light curve
from Tycho's observations
\citep*{1945ApJ...102..309B,2004Natur.431.1069R} and, definitively, on
the light-echo spectrum obtained with modern instrumentation
\citep{2008Natur.456..617K}. As the prototypical Galactic example of
a SNIa explosion, Tycho's SNR has been well studied for insights into
the SNIa explosion mechanism. \cite{2006ApJ...645.1373B} made a
detailed comparison between the ejecta X-ray emission properties of
Tycho's SNR and several SNIa explosion models. They concluded that
the X-ray morphology and integrated spectrum was well reproduced by a
one-dimensional delayed detonation model with compositionally
stratified ejecta, expanding into a uniform ambient medium density
with density $\rho \sim 2 \times 10^{-24}$ g cm$^{-3}$. Some
collisionless electron heating at the reverse shock ($\beta \equiv
T_e/T_{\rm ion} \sim 0.03$) was necessary to explain the {\it
XMM-Newton} and {\it Chandra} observations. In this model, the mean
velocity of the shocked ejecta was estimated to be $\sim$2000 km s$^{-1}$.
The expansion velocities of the forward shock and shocked ejecta have
also been studied through proper motion measurements.
\cite{2000ApJ...545L..53H} made the first accurate X-ray expansion
rate measurement by comparing the brightness profiles from two
observations by the {\it ROSAT} high resolution imager taken in 1990
and 1995. This indicated expansion rates of
0.22$^{\prime\prime}$--0.44$^{\prime\prime}$ yr$^{-1}$ at the outer
rim of Tycho, where the range represents the variation in expansion
rate from the peak of the ejecta emission to the remnant's edge.
\cite{2010ApJ...709.1387K} used {\it Chandra} observations to measure
the expansion rates of both the forward-shock and the ejecta. They
found the proper motion of the reverse-shocked ejecta to be
0.21--0.31$^{\prime\prime}$ yr$^{-1}$, consistent with the earlier
{\it ROSAT} work. Converting these rates into shock velocities
requires knowledge of the remnant's distance which remains uncertain
with a spread of published values mostly between 2 kpc and 4 kpc
\citep[see][for a review of distance determinations to Tycho's
SNR]{2010ApJ...725..894H}. For reference, an angular expansion rate
of 0.26$^{\prime\prime}$ yr$^{-1}$ corresponds to a velocity of
$\sim$3700 km s$^{-1}$\ for a distance of 3 kpc.
Spectral measurements have also revealed evidence for significant
ejecta expansion velocities. Using data from the {\it Suzaku}
satellite, \cite{2009ApJ...693L..61F} and \cite{2010ApJ...725..894H}
found broadened X-ray line spectra from the remnant's interior, which
both studies interpreted as being due to the Doppler shifting of lines
from the approaching and receding hemispheres of the SNR. They
required expansion velocities of the Si, S and Ar ejecta to be
4700$\pm$100 km s$^{-1}$, somewhat larger than the inferred velocity of the
Fe ejecta (4000$\pm$300 km s$^{-1}$). The ejecta velocities measured by
these two different methods (proper motion and line broadening) are
broadly consistent and higher than the predicted velocity in
\cite{2006ApJ...645.1373B}. However, direct measurements of ejecta
velocities in Tycho's SNR have not been done yet.
In this paper, we aim to directly measure the velocities of the
shocked ejecta with {\it Chandra}. From high angular resolution X-ray
imaging over the years (e.g., with {\it Einstein}, {\it ROSAT} and
{\it Chandra}), clumpy ejecta structures have been clearly noted in
Tycho's SNR
\citep*[e.g.,][]{1983ApJ...266..287S,1995ApJ...441..680V,2002ApJ...581.1101H}.
It is plausible to suspect that such clumps could have different
velocities along the line of sight as a result of, for example, being
located on either the approaching or receding side of the remnant. If
so it should be possible to separate these with a sufficiently good
combination of X-ray imaging and spectroscopy.
This paper is organized as follows. The next section discusses the
observations used and the data reduction procedures applied to the
data. In \S 3 we present our imaging and spectroscopic analysis of the
data and results on ejecta velocities in Tycho's SNR. Section 4 places
our results in the broader context and the final section concludes.
An Appendix presents an additional validation test of our ejecta
velocity measurements with {\it Chandra}. Throughout this article
uncertainties are quoted at the 90\% confidence level, unless
explicitly stated otherwise.
\section{Observation and Data Reduction}
\subsection{Chandra ACIS-I and ACIS-S Data Sets}
\label{sec:acis}
The {\it Chandra} Advanced CCD Imaging Spectrometer Imaging-array
\citep[ACIS-I,][]{garmire+92,bautz+98} observed Tycho's SNR in April
2009 (PI: Hughes) for a effective exposure of 734.1 ksec. The
observation was carried out using nine ObsIds as summarized in Table
\ref{tab:chandradata}. We reprocessed all the level-1 event data,
applying standard data reduction procedures using tasks from version
4.7 of the {\it Chandra} Interactive Analysis of Observations
(CIAO\footnote{Available at {\tt http://cxc.harvard.edu/ciao/}})
package with calibration data from the version 4.6.1 CALDB. For
spectral extraction, we used {\tt specextract} and made weighted
response files using this script. { The default aspect solution for
each ObdID was used; previous work has shown that the relative
registration for the ObsIDs of this Tycho data set is good
\citep{2011ApJ...728L..28E}.} Unless otherwise stated, background
was taken from the exterior detector area beyond a radius of 4.75
arcmin centered on the remnant. Fits were done using XSPEC 12.8.2 { and AtomDB 2.0.2}.
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Log of {\it Chandra}\ Observations Used in this Study}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{cccccc}
\hline
& & Date & Exposure & Roll Angle \\
Detector & ObsID & (YYYY/MM/DD) & time (ks) & (deg) \\ \hline
ACIS-S & 115 & 2000/09/20 & 48.9 & 171.0 \\ \hline
ACIS-I & 10093 & 2009/04/13 & 118.4 & 29.2 \\
" & 10094 & 2009/04/18 & 90.0 & 29.2 \\
" & 10095 & 2009/04/23 & 173.4 & 29.2 \\
" & 10096 & 2009/04/27 & 105.7 & 29.2 \\
" & 10097 & 2009/04/11 & 107.4 & 26.3 \\
" & 10902 & 2009/04/15 & 39.5 & 29.2 \\
" & 10903 & 2009/04/17 & 23.9 & 29.2 \\
" & 10904 & 2009/04/13 & 34.7 & 29.2 \\
" & 10906 & 2009/05/03 & 41.1 & 37.2 \\ \hline
ACIS-I & sum & $\ldots$ & 734.1 & $\ldots$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:chandradata}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Log of {\it Suzaku} Observations Used in this Study}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{ccccc}
\hline
& & Date & Exposure (ks) & \\
Name & ObsID & (YYYY/MM/DD) & [XIS0+3] & SCI\tablenotemark{a} \\ \hline
Tycho's SNR & 500024010 & 2006/06/27 & 202.2 & off \\
" & 503085020 & 2008/08/11 & 205.7 & on \\ \hline
E0102$-$72\ & 100044030 & 2006/02/02 & 42.6 & off \\
" & 103001030 & 2008/08/12 & 22.6 & on \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{1}{Spaced-row Charge Injection mode (see text)}
\label{tab:suzakudata}
\end{center}
\end{table}
In addition to the frontside-illuminated CCD chips on ACIS-I,
{\it Chandra}\ carries a spectroscopic array (ACIS-S) with a
backside-illuminated chip that can be used for imaging. An
observation of Tycho's SNR using ACIS-S was carried out early in the
mission for an effective exposure time of 48.9 ks (see Table
\ref{tab:chandradata}). The effective area and spectral resolution of
the ACIS-I and ACIS-S detectors are quite different; additionally the
two detectors allow us to sample two independent sets of readout
electronics for the spectra of individual features in the remnant.
Therefore we utilized both detectors as a powerful cross-check of our
spectral results and to establish the level of systematic error in
derived velocities. Data reduction and analysis techniques for the
ACIS-S data were the same as for ACIS-I.
\subsection{Suzaku XIS}
\label{sec:suzakuXIS}
For an additional comparison with the {\it Chandra} data, we also
analyzed data from the X-ray Imaging Spectrometers
\citep[XIS,][]{koyama+07} onboard {\it Suzaku}. The {\it Suzaku} XIS
observed Tycho's SNR twice as summarized in Table
\ref{tab:suzakudata}. The primary data reduction was performed
following the standard procedures recommended by the instrument team
as implemented in the {\tt aepipeline} task (using
HEASOFT\footnote{Available at {\tt http://heasarc.nasa.gov/lheasoft/}}
version 6.16). Ancillary response files (arf) and redistribution
matrix files (rmf) were generated using {\tt xissimarfgen} and {\tt
xisrmfgen}, respectively. For calculating the XIS effective area,
we assumed the {\it Chandra}\ image in the 1.6--2 keV band as the input sky
map. For spectral analysis, we used only the XIS data of the
front-illuminated CCDs (XIS0 and 3). Background data were taken from
the nearby source-free sky area and subtracted from the source
spectrum.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=17.0cm]{f1.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: {\it Suzaku} spectra of E0102$-$72\ in the vicinity of the
Ne X Ly$\alpha$ line from observations taken in 2006 and 2008.
Right: Comparison of the centroid energy of the Ne X Ly$\alpha$ line
between 2006 and 2008. The dashed horizontal line shows the expected
Ne X Ly$\alpha$ line energy of E0102$-$72\ from high spectral resolution
observations \citep{2016arXiv160703069P}.}
\label{fig:E0102}
\end{figure*}
From October 2006, the XIS observed using the Spaced-row Charge
Injection mode \citep[SCI:][]{2009PASJ...61S...9U}. The two
observations of Tycho's SNR were therefore observed in each of these
different modes. We found a discrepancy in the fitted line
centroid energy between these two modes. Figure \ref{fig:E0102} (left
panel) shows the XIS spectra of the calibration source SNR E0102$-$72\ in
these epochs over the energy band that contains the Ne IX He$\alpha$
and Ne X Ly$\alpha$ lines. Fits were done using individual Gaussian
models for the two line features plus a powerlaw continuum. The Ne X
Ly$\alpha$ line centroid in the 2006 observation is inconsistent by
$\sim$10 eV (Figure \ref{fig:E0102} - right panel) with the value
determined by \cite{2016arXiv160703069P}, who use high spectral
resolution grating instruments to characterize E0102$-$72's 0.3--2.5 keV
band emission and establish this source as an effective calibration
standard. The centroid energy from our analysis of the 2008 data is,
however, consistent with \cite{2016arXiv160703069P}.
\section{Data Analysis and Results}
\subsection{Radial Profile}
\label{sec:RP}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=17cm]{f2.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Radial profile of surface brightness, centroid energy and
line width. Top, middle and bottom show the { Si-He$\alpha$,
S-He$\alpha$ and Fe-K$\alpha$} lines, respectively. We divided the
whole SNR into 12 ``Sky" regions. Black curves show the results from
{\it Suzaku} \citep{2010ApJ...725..894H}, while the red curves show
the {\it Chandra}\ results from this work. The regions from the innermost
to the outermost are referred to as Sky1--Sky12. { The regions
were all centered on the geometric center of the remnant: 00$^{\rm
h} $25$^{\rm m}$19$^{\rm s}$,
64$^\circ$08$^\prime$10$^{\prime\prime}$ (J2000). The outer radii
of the Sky1--Sky12 regions were 0.87$^{\prime}$, 1.41$^{\prime}$,
1.95$^{\prime}$, 2.49$^{\prime}$, 2.76$^{\prime}$,
3.03$^{\prime}$, 3.3$^{\prime}$, 3.44$^{\prime}$, 3.58$^{\prime}$,
3.85$^{\prime}$, 4.12$^{\prime}$ and 4.66$^{\prime}$,
respectively. The Sky1 to Sky2 regions were complete
circles/annuli. For the remaining regions (Sky3 to Sky12), we
excluded the southeast portion of the remnant corresponding to
position angles between 60$^{\circ}$ and 150$^{\circ}$.}
Uncertainties are shown at the 90 \% confidence level. Solid
(dashed) green lines show the best-fit values of centroid energy
from the entire SNR from 2006 (2008) {\it Suzaku}
observation. Dash-dotted and dotted green lines show the {\it
XMM-Newton} results from regions A and B, respectively from
\citet{2006ApJ...645.1373B}.}
\label{fig:rp}
\end{figure*}
In this section, we check the consistency of the radial
profiles\footnote{As in \cite{2010ApJ...725..894H} we exclude the
southeastern portion of Tycho's SNR\ from our radial profiles, because of
the failure of a simple shell geometry to describe the images there
as shown by \cite{2005ApJ...634..376W}}
of line properties from our {\it Chandra}\ analysis with past results and,
because of {\it Chandra}'s sharper point-spread-function (PSF), we also
investigate finer radial dependencies. Figure \ref{fig:rp} shows the
radial profiles of the surface brightness, centroid energies and line
widths of the K$\alpha$ line blends of Si, S and Fe from {\it Chandra}
(red curves). The black curves show the {\it Suzaku} profiles
\citep{2010ApJ...725..894H}. Four radial bins were used in that work.
In our analysis, we divided essentially the same area into 12 radial
bins (referred to later as Sky1 through Sky12). {\it Chandra}\ spectral
fits followed the same procedure as used in the {\it Suzaku} analysis:
a set a broadened Gaussian lines and a powerlaw continuum fit over the
energy range 1.7--3.4 keV for the Si+S band and 5.0--7.0 for the Fe
band, which also includes the Cr K line.
{ Specifically the lines we included as Gaussians were
Si-He$\alpha$, Si-Ly$\alpha$, Si-He$\beta$, Si-He$\gamma$,
S-He$\alpha$, S-Ly$\alpha$, S-He$\beta$ and
Ar-He$\alpha$(+S-He$\beta$) in the Si+S band and Cr-K$\alpha$ and
Fe-K$\alpha$ in the Fe band. We treated the He-like
complexes as single broadened Gaussians with their centroid energies
and normalizations as free parameters. The line widths of the
prominent He$\alpha$ blends of Si, S, Ar were fitted freely. For the
other blends (e.g., He$\beta$, He$\gamma$ and Ly$\alpha$), we fixed
the line width to the He$\alpha$ value. The intensity, centroid, and
width of the Fe-K$\alpha$ line were free parameters; the width of
the Cr-K$\alpha$ line was fixed to that of the Fe line. We note that
the energy centroid of the Fe K$\alpha$ line in Tycho is $\sim$6.4
keV and corrresponds to a mean ionization state of Fe XVII
\citep*{2014ApJ...780..136Y}; over the entire remnant it can be
described well by a single broadened Gaussian line.}
The radial bins in the {\it Chandra}\ profiles are all fully independent,
unlike the {\it Suzaku} profiles where the broader PSF of the {\it
Suzaku} X-ray telescope (with a half-power diameter of
$\sim$2$^\prime$) causes significant amounts of flux to mix from one
bin to the others. Consequently, we obtain much sharper surface
brightness profiles than {\it Suzaku}. We found that the Si-He$\alpha$ and the
S-He$\alpha$ lines peak in intensity at a radius of
$\sim$3.3$^{\prime}$--3.5$^{\prime}$, consistent with {\it XMM-Newton}
\citep*{2001A&A...365L.218D}. We note that the S-He$\alpha$ line appears to
peak at a slightly higher radius than the Si-He$\alpha$ line.
For Fe-K$\alpha$, we found an intensity peak at a radius of
$\sim$3.0$^{\prime}$, which is also consistent with past results
\citep*[e.g.,][]{2005ApJ...634..376W,2014ApJ...780..136Y}.
The energy centroid profiles are shown in the middle columns of Figure
\ref{fig:rp}. Again the {\it Chandra}\ profiles are shown in red and the
published {\it Suzaku} ones are in black. The green lines show other
values integrated over the remnant from the literature
\citep[XMM:][]{2006ApJ...645.1373B} or our own analysis of the 2006
and 2008 {\it Suzaku} data. For the Si and S line centroid energies,
the new {\it Chandra}\ profiles are inconsistent with the {\it Suzaku} data
taken in 2006, which are $\sim$10 eV too high. This is also the data
set with inconsistent line centroids for the calibration target
E0102$-$72, so we are justified in ignoring it for this consistency
check. Since the {\it Chandra}\ profiles are consistent with all the other
data sets, we are confident that the energy scale of the
{\it Chandra}\ observation is accurate.
In principle, for a perfectly uniform emitting shell, the energy
centroid profiles should be flat. In fact, however, the
{\it Chandra}\ profiles show significant radial structure. One notable
feature is the statistically significant jump in centroid energy from
the innermost bin to the second one. For the Si-He$\alpha$ line, this jump is
$\sim$9 eV, which corresponds to a difference in line-of-sight
velocity of $\sim$1450 km s$^{-1}$. This value is about 30\% of the
expansion speed of the Si-rich shell and it can be explained if we
assume that there is an factor of approximately two difference in the
intrinsic intensity of the approaching and receding hemispheres in
this radial bin. We propose that the patchy nature of the remnant's
emission is the source of the structures seen in the Si and S line
centroid profiles. We consider this in further detail in
\S~\ref{sec:largescale} below. We also consider the increasing Fe line
centroid energy beyond the peak emission below
(\S~\ref{sec:fe-increase}).
For the line width profile, we found a gradual decrease from the
center toward the edge. This feature was also seen (albeit at lower
resolution) by {\it Suzaku}
\citep*{2009ApJ...693L..61F,2010ApJ...725..894H}; these authors
interpreted the variation of the line width radial profile as the
signature of an expanding shell of ejecta. An important new feature
of the {\it Chandra}\ profiles is the clear minimum in the line width at a
radius of $\sim$3.4$^{\prime}$ (the Sky8 region). This is also where
the line intensity peaks. We identify this as the region where the
ejecta are moving most closely to the plane of the sky and therefore
show little to no Doppler shift.
\subsection{Expansion Velocity}
\label{sec:expvel}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Best-fit Parameters of the Double Gaussian Model from the Central Regions\tablenotemark{a} Using {\it Chandra}}
\begin{center}
\small
\begin{tabular}{cccccccc}
\hline
& Width\tablenotemark{b} & $E_{\rm red}$ & $E_{\rm blue}$ & 2$\delta E$ & $v_\perp$\tablenotemark{c} & $v_{\rm exp}$\tablenotemark{c} (km s$^{-1}$) & $v_{\rm exp}$ (km s$^{-1}$) \\
Lines & (eV) & (keV) & (keV) & (eV) & (km s$^{-1}$) & (this work) & (Hayato et al.~2010) \\\hline
Si-He$\alpha$ & 12.6 & 1.821$\pm$0.003 & 1.880$^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$ & 59$\pm$4 & 4780$\pm$320 & 5010$\pm$340 & 4730$^{+30}_{-20}$ \\
S-He$\alpha$ & 15 & 2.393$^{+0.006}_{-0.009}$ & 2.478$^{+0.004}_{-0.006}$ & 87$^{+7}_{-11}$ & 5240$^{+430}_{-680}$ & 5490$^{+450}_{-710}$ & 4660$\pm$50 \\
Fe-K$\alpha$ & 41 & 6.36$\pm$0.02 & 6.53$\pm$0.02 & 170$\pm$30 & 4000$\pm$700 & 4200$\pm$800 & 4000$\pm$300 \\\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{Using only high surface brightness pixels} \\
Si-He$\alpha$ & 12.6 & 1.822$\pm$0.003 & 1.884$^{+0.002}_{-0.003}$ & 62$\pm$4 & 5020$\pm$320 & 5260$\pm$340 & --- \\
S-He$\alpha$ & 15 & 2.389$\pm$0.007 & 2.478$^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$ & 89$^{+8}_{-9}$ & 5490$^{+490}_{-550}$ & 5750$^{+510}_{-580}$ & --- \\\hline
\multicolumn{8}{c}{Using only low surface brightness pixels} \\
Si-He$\alpha$ & 12.6 & 1.821$^{+0.004}_{-0.005}$ & 1.880$^{+0.003}_{-0.004}$ & 59$^{+4}_{-5}$ & 4780$^{+320}_{-410}$ & 5010$^{+340}_{-430}$ & --- \\
S-He$\alpha$ & 15 & 2.395$^{+0.008}_{-0.009}$ & 2.479$^{+0.007}_{-0.008}$ & 84$^{+11}_{-12}$ & 5170$^{+680}_{-740}$ & 5410$^{+710}_{-770}$ & --- \\\hline
\end{tabular}
\tablenotetext{1}{From within the central 1.41$^\prime$ radius (Sky1+Sky2 regions).}
\tablenotetext{2}{Fixed at the appropriate minimum values from the radial profiles (for region Sky 8).}
\tablenotetext{3}{ Velocities are based on the centroid shifts of the Gaussian models.}
\label{tab:exp}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Here we estimate the shell expansion velocity from the Si, S, and Fe K
lines using the {\it Chandra}\ data from the center of Tycho's SNR, extracting
the spectrum from within a radius of 1.41$^\prime$ (Sky1 plus Sky2
regions) to match the previous work with {\it Suzaku}. We modeled the
line broadening as in previous work \citep{2010ApJ...725..894H} with
two Gaussian lines corresponding to the Doppler-shifted components
from the receding and approaching hemispheres of the expanding shell
of ejecta. { The faint lines (specifically Ly$\alpha$, He$\beta$
and He$\gamma$) were included in several ways: as single narrow or
broadened lines, or as narrow lines linked in velocity to the
corresponding red- or blueshifted He$\alpha$ line. We also allowed
the width of each of the double He$\alpha$ Gaussian lines to vary
within the allowed range from the Sky8 region fits ($^{+0.5}_{-0.6}$
eV for Si-He$\alpha$ and $\pm$2 eV for S-He$\alpha$). In all cases
the derived energy differences between the red- and blueshifted
components for both Si and S were in agreement. The final
uncertainty on the energy difference includes the statistical
uncertainty plus the range from the different spectral models.}
Results of the {\it Chandra}\ fits for the three species are given in Table
\ref{tab:exp} { (for now we only consider the top three entries
that correspond to the integrated spectrum from the central
region).} For the Si+S band the best fit yields $\chi^2=146.75$ for
92 degrees of freedom and for the Fe band $\chi^2=137.32$ for 127
degrees of freedom. Figure~\ref{fig:specdoublegauss} shows that the
double Gaussian model is a good fit to the spectra data.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=8cm]{f3.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Double Gaussian model fit to the {\it Chandra}\ spectrum from the
center of Tycho's SNR\ (Sky1+Sky2 regions) in the Si+S band (top panel)
and the Fe-K$\alpha$ band (bottom panel). The weak bump at $\sim$5.6
keV in the bottom panel is Cr K$\alpha$ line emission. The continuum
emission is fitted with a power-law model.}
\label{fig:specdoublegauss}
\end{figure}
For the spectral fits, line widths were fixed at the values determined
from the minima in each radial profile. The radial velocity
($v_\perp$) was calculated from the average energy of the red- and
blue-shifted components and $\delta E$. To convert $v_\perp$ to the
shell expansion speed we needed to correct for the projection factor
over the central 1.41$^\prime$ of the remnant. For Si-He$\alpha$ and
S-He$\alpha$, we assumed a spherically symmetric shell extending over
190$^{\prime\prime}$--220$^{\prime\prime}$ and for Fe-K$\alpha$, we
assumed the shell covered the radial range
180$^{\prime\prime}$--200$^{\prime\prime}$. We calculated the
projection factor using the method in section A.1 of
\cite{2010ApJ...725..894H}. We determined projection factors of 0.955
for Si-He$\alpha$ and S-He$\alpha$ and 0.948 for Fe-K$\alpha$. For
{\it Suzaku}, an additional correction was necessary to account for
the flux spreading due to the broad {\it Suzaku} PSF. This can be
ignored for the {\it Chandra} analysis.
The shell expansion velocities from {\it Chandra}\ are in the range of
$\sim$4200--5500 km s$^{-1}$; all are consistent with the {\it Suzaku}
results. The large uncertainty on the Fe shell expansion from
{\it Chandra}\ alone does not allow us to exclude that it is moving at the
same speed as the other species. However, by combining all of the Si
and S measurements (both {\it Chandra} and {\it Suzaku}, i.e.,
using a weighted combination of the values in the last two columns
of Table~\ref{tab:exp}) we arrive at an expansion velocity for the
Si+S shell of $4724^{+27}_{-19}$ km s$^{-1}$\ that is
significantly greater ($>$4$\sigma$) than the (similarly
combined) Fe-shell expansion velocity of $4025\pm 280$ km s$^{-1}$.
{ The results quoted above correspond to an
emission-measure-weighted mean velocity difference for the
approaching and receding hemispheres. Although this is a practical
approach from an observational perspective, it may not produce an
unbiased result.
If, for example, there is a correlation between expansion speed and
emission-measure (say, because higher intensity spots, such as
compact blobs of ejecta, tend to expand more quickly) then we will
get a biased velocity difference. However, thanks to {\it Chandra}'s
high angular resolution we can assess this effect. We divided all
pixels within the central 1.41$^{\prime}$ region by surface
brightness into either high or low values (splitting at the mean
level of $\sim$$6\times10^{-4}$ ph s$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ arcmin$^{-2}$)
and extracted a separate spectrum for each pixel set. Results for
the Si and S lines are given in the bottom entries of Table
\ref{tab:exp} and in all cases (Si and S, high and low surface
brightness), the velocity differences are statistically in agreement
with the result from the integrated spectrum. This suggests that in
general there is not a strong correlation between expansion speed
and the brightness of features through the center of Tycho's SNR. }
\subsection{Mean Photon Energy Map of Si-He$\alpha$}
\label{sec:meanphotonmap}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim= 50 150 50 150,clip,width=8cm]{f4a.pdf}
\includegraphics[trim= 50 150 50 150,clip,width=8cm]{f4b.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: Mean photon energy map in the Si-He$\alpha$ band (1.6--2.1 keV)
from the deep {\it Chandra}\ ACIS-I observation of Tycho's SNR. Voroni
Tessellation was used to combine pixels to produce varying-sized
regions with similar signal-to-noise ratio in each region. We chose
a S/N of 20 for this image (i.e., approximately 400 detected Si line
photons). The color scale varies linearly from energy centroid values
of 1.816 keV (dark) to 1.879 (light). The dark ring around the edge
is where nonthermal dominates over thermal emission. Right: Map of
the Si-He$\alpha$ band data projected onto the Principal Component that
separates red- and blue-shifted emission (see text). The color
scale here has been adjusted to approximately match that in the left
panel.}
\label{fig:img}
\end{figure*}
Small clumpy structures in the ejecta in Tycho's SNR have been noted
since the {\it Einstein Observatory} High Resolution Imager
observations in the late 1970s \citep*[e.g.,][]{1983ApJ...266..287S}.
We consider here the possibility that these structures or blobs might
have different expansion speeds which would be manifest as differences
in line centroid energy due to the Doppler effect. For this we used the
Si-He$\alpha$ line because of its large statistical signal.
We divided the 1.6--2.1 keV band into 34 energy bins { (each 15 eV
in width)} and made fluxed images at each energy using the {\tt
merge\_obs} script in CIAO. We computed the mean photon energy in
each bin using
\begin{equation*}
E_{\rm mean} = \frac{\sum_{i} E_i I_i}{\sum_{i} I_i},
\end{equation*}
where $E_i$ and $I_i$ are the photon energy and the intensity at each
energy bin ($i = 1,2,...,34$). To equalize the signal-to-noise across
the map, we used Voroni Tessellation
\citep*[e.g.,][]{2003MNRAS.342..345C,2006MNRAS.368..497D} to merge
pixels together to reach a uniform signal-to-noise ratio of 20 in each
bin. Hereafter we refer to these as VT bins.
Figure \ref{fig:img} (left panel) shows the mean photon energy map for
the Si-He$\alpha$ line in Tycho's SNR. The image is dominated by patchy
structures that, in many cases but not all, can be associated with
specific features in the intensity map. There is some striping in the
image that correlates with the readout direction of the chips (toward
the NE and SW), but this effect is clearly
subdominant to the patchy structure of the remnant. The dark region
around the rim of the remnant is where nonthermal continuum emission
dominates; we do not remove the continuum in our map-making procedure
so these regions are not correct in this map. The maximum range of mean
photon energy values is $\gtrsim$60 eV, which corresponds to a range of
ejecta velocities of $\gtrsim$9,700 km s$^{-1}$. This is quite close to
twice the Si-He$\alpha$ expansion velocity determined above (see Table
\ref{tab:exp}).
We have also done a Principal Components Analysis (PCA) of the Si-He$\alpha$
band images following closely the previous application of this method
to Tycho's SNR \citep{2005ApJ...634..376W}. In our application here,
we generated a large number of Si-He$\alpha$ line spectra (one from each VT bin)
and compressed each from 34 spectral bins into 18 by { summing together bins in}
the fainter wings of the line profile. These spectra were input to the
PCA algorithm \citep{murtaghheck87} to identify new axes in the
18-dimensional space of the data set that maximized its variance.
As discussed by \cite{2005ApJ...634..376W}, there is no guarantee, in
general, that the Principal Components (PCs) identified by PCA have a
unique astrophysical interpretation. However, in this case of a
specific emission line, we found that the first three PCs have
spectral templates with a clear and unequivocal interpretation: (1)
line equivalent width, (2) line energy centroid, and (3) line energy
width. There are as many PCs as spectral bins (18 here) and in the
case of a totally random dataset, each PC would account for $\sim$6\%
of the variance of the full data set. Here we found that the first
three PCs each account for 17\%, 15\% and 6\% of the variance with the
remaining components each accounting for less than 5\%. We conclude
therefore that the first two PCs are significant, the third is
marginal, and that the remaining PCs are all insignificant.
A map of the {\it Chandra}\ Si-He$\alpha$ spectral data projected onto the second PC
is shown in Figure \ref{fig:img} (right panel). This map closely
matches the mean centroid map shown in the left panel validating our
interpretation of it as being due to line centroid variations. The
agreement between the two maps is poor near the outer rim, where
continuum emission causes the centroid calculation to produce spurious
results.
Together these maps indicate that there is enough variation in the
Si-He$\alpha$ line centroids to motivate identifying individual red- and
blue-shifted blobs and measuring their velocities through spectral
analysis. We turn to this in the next section.
\subsection{Spectral Analysis of Specific Blobs}
\label{sec:blobs}
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 150 0, clip,width=12cm]{f5.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Three-color image of the Si-He$\alpha$ line from the {\it Chandra}\ ACIS-I
observation of Tycho's SNR. The red, green and blue images come
from the 1.7666--1.7812 keV, 1.8396--1.8542 keV, and 1.9564--1.971
keV bands. Magneta, blue, and green circles identify the redshifted,
blueshifted and low velocity blobs, respectively, used for the
spectral analysis. Likewise the cyan circles show the knots in the
southeastern quadrant that we studied.}
\label{fig:three_color}
\end{figure*}
Figure \ref{fig:three_color} shows a color image of Tycho's SNR
constructed from three narrow energy slices of the Si-He$\alpha$ line
as noted in the figure caption. In this figure, we see two kinds of
Si-He$\alpha$ blobs in the central region: blobs with higher (bluish
color) or lower (reddish color) photon energy. We defined
appropriately sized, { circular} regions { (r = 0.1$^{\prime}$)}
for these blobs and extracted their spectra (shown in Figure
\ref{fig:img_spec}). There is a clear separation of the centroid
energies between the red- and the blue-shifted blobs. { Rough eyeball
estimates for the Si-He$\alpha$ and the S-He$\alpha$ lines suggest
centroid energy differences of $\sim$60 eV and $\sim$70 eV,
respectively, or Doppler velocity differences of $\sim$9,000 km
s$^{-1}$.}
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{f6.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Typical spectra of the red- and blue-shifted blobs. The
symbol types and numeric labels correspond to the regions from which
the spectra were extracted shown on Figure~\ref{fig:three_color}.
Vertical bars show the 1 $\sigma$ uncertainty on intensity;
horizontal bars just indicate the size of the energy bin.}
\label{fig:img_spec}
\end{figure}
In addition to the Doppler effect, line centroids are also sensitive
to the shock-heating history of the line-emitting material. In
particular the ionization age (which is the product of the electron
density and the time since the material was shock heated, $n_e t$)
{ can affect the prominence of the H-like Ly$\alpha$ line and, for
lower values, can also affect the energy centroid of the He-like
complex}. Increasing the ionization age tends to increase the mean
charge state which tends to increase the centroid of the K
line. However, over rather wide ranges of ionization ages, the charge
state is dominated by the He-like species (as in the case of Tycho's SNR)
and the dependence of line centroid on ionization age is weak.
Furthermore, increases in charge state from He-like to H-like produce
noticeable distortions in the shape of the Si K line (i.e., making it
double peaked) even at CCD spectral resolution. We see no significant
evidence for { such} line shape distortions in the PCA results {
(i.e., the significant PCs correspond to the first three moments of
the line: intensity, centroid, and width, while there are no
significant PCs corresponding to higher moments, such as skewness or
bimodality)}, so large ionization age variations are not expected.
Nevertheless, to separate Doppler shifts from any possible ionization
state changes, we carried out detailed spectral analyses using
nonequilibium ionization (NEI) models. We extracted the spectra from
27 regions in total including the red- and blue-shifted blobs
mentioned above, as well as several low velocity blobs near the edge
of Tycho's SNR. These were fitted with the vnei model (for the NEI thermal
component) and the srcut model (for the nonthermal continuum component)
in XSPEC. Also, we allowed for the model spectra to be broadened using
the gsmooth model since thermal broadening and/or multiple Doppler
components might be present. For the srcut model, we assumed a
constant radio spectral index of $\alpha = -0.65$
\citep{2006A&A...457.1081K} based on the integrated flux densities at
408 and 1420 MHz and allowed the cutoff frequency and radio intensity
to be free parameters. Absorption due to the intervening column
density of interstellar material is negligible in this band ($>$1.6
keV) so we ignored it for these fits.
Figure \ref{fig:V} shows a scatter plot of the best-fit line-of-sight
velocity versus the ionization age for each blob. The maximum
separation of blob velocity reaches $\sim$9000 km s$^{-1}$\ even taking into
account the variability of the ionization age. From the thermal model,
the ionization ages are in the range of $\sim10^{10}$--$10^{11}$
cm$^{-3}$ s, and electron temperatures are $\sim$0.9--2.7 keV (mean
$kT\sim$1.3 keV). We also analyzed a number of blobs close to the
edge of the remnant. These blobs have smaller velocities than the
blobs from the interior, but a similar range of ionization timescales.
The pattern of line-of-sight velocities shown in Figure \ref{fig:V} is
consistent with the effect of projection on the line-of-sight
velocities and agrees qualitatively with the results in Figure
\ref{fig:rp}.
{ The detector gain for ACIS is monitored and updated by regular
observation of the external $^{55}$Fe source onboard
{\it Chandra}. However, since} there is no simultaneous,
independent gain reference for the ACIS-I detector during any specific
observation, we are potentially subject to uncalibrated gain
variations. In order to assess this effect we extracted matched
spectra of 8 blobs from the ACIS-S detector and fit them using the
same model as above. In this analysis, we initially conducted a joint
fit between the ACIS-I and the ACIS-S data for each blob. Then we
linked all parameters except for the gsmooth and redshift parameters
and fitted for independent values of the broadening and velocity.
The ACIS-S spectral fitting results are shown in Figure \ref{fig:V}
using the same symbol types as for the ACIS-I results, except now with
dashed error bars. Table \ref{tab:blob_id} gives the sky locations of
the jointly fitted blobs, their locations on the detector (i.e., CCD
chip and readout node), and the best-fit velocity for the two data
sets. We obtained similar velocities in the two ACIS data sets. There
is a discrepancy of $\sim$500--2,000 km s$^{-1}$\ in the sense that the
ACIS-S detector tends to yield more redshifted spectra than ACIS-I.
However, even when averaging all of the velocity measurements, we
still see a velocity difference of $>$8,000 km s$^{-1}$\ between the red- and
blue-shifted blobs. Thus we conclude that our spectral separation of
the red- and the blue-shifted components correspond to intrinsic
velocity differences in Tycho's SNR. Velocity measurements, however,
carry a systematic uncertainty of $\sim$500--2,000 km s$^{-1}$. Improvements
of the ACIS gain calibration may help to reduce this systematic error.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 35 0 5,clip,width=8.5cm]{f7.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Scatter plot between the line-of-sight velocity and the
ionization age ($n_e t$) for each blob. Velocities are based on
the vnei model ``redshift'' parameter. The open symbols,
identification numbers, and red or blue colors correspond to the 8
regions in Figure \ref{fig:img_spec}. Solid and dashed error bars
show results from the ACIS-I and ACIS-S detectors, respectively. The
filled circles show the results of the other 19 regions in Figure
\ref{fig:img_spec} and the colors correspond to redshifted (red),
blueshifted (blue) or low velocity (green) blobs.}
\label{fig:V}
\end{figure}
\begin{table*}[t]
\caption{Summary of Joint ACIS-I and ACIS-S Spectral Analysis of Red- and Blue-shifted Blobs}\label{tab:blob_id}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{ccccccccccccc}
\hline
& & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{ACIS-I} & ACIS-S & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Sky Background} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{Blob Local Background} &\\
& id & (R.A., Decl.) & chip & node & node & $V_{\rm I}$\tablenotemark{a} [km s$^{-1}$] &$V_{\rm S}$\tablenotemark{b} [km s$^{-1}$] & $V_{\rm I}$\tablenotemark{a} [km s$^{-1}$] & $V_{\rm S}$\tablenotemark{b} [km s$^{-1}$] &\\ \hline
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\bf Blueshifted blobs}& & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(Mean: $-3220\pm$970)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(Mean: $-4310\pm$880)} &\\
&Blob1 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$24$^{\rm s}$.952, 64$^\circ$09$^\prime$33$^{\prime\prime}$.76) & 2 & 0 & 1 & $-3616^{+4}_{-88}$ & $-2390^{+700}_{-140}$ & $-4880^{+140}_{-30}$ & $-3440^{+700}_{-140}$ &\\
&Blob2 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$24$^{\rm s}$.843, 64$^\circ$09$^\prime$21$^{\prime\prime}$.72) & 2 & 0 & 1 & $-4730^{+30}_{-190}$ & $-2400^{+10}_{-1100}$ & $-5030^{+170}_{-40}$ & $-3350^{+30}_{-160}$ &\\
&Blob3 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$28$^{\rm s}$.633, 64$^\circ$08$^\prime$37$^{\prime\prime}$.08) & 2 & 0 & 1, 2 & $-4000^{+190}_{-180}$ & $-3370^{+60}_{-190}$ & $-5040^{+140}_{-50}$ & $-4910^{+90}_{-900}$ &\\
&Blob4 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$25$^{\rm s}$.275, 64$^\circ$08$^\prime$25$^{\prime\prime}$.04) & 2, 3 & 0, 3 & 1 & $-3700^{+80}_{-40}$ & $-1550^{+420}_{-500}$ & $-5030^{+50}_{-70}$ & $-2790^{+500}_{-900}$ &\\
&Blob5 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$27$^{\rm s}$.538, 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$57$^{\prime\prime}$.05) & 0, 1, 2 & 0, 3 & --- & $-3540^{+200}_{-660}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob6 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$28$^{\rm s}$.710, 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$39$^{\prime\prime}$.33) & 0, 1 & 0, 3 & --- & $-3010^{+580}_{-420}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob7 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$06$^{\rm s}$.514, 64$^\circ$08$^\prime$25$^{\prime\prime}$.35) & 3 & 3 & --- & $-2370^{+26}_{-40}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob8 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$04$^{\rm s}$.715, 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$52$^{\prime\prime}$.27) & 3 & 3 & --- & $-2984^{+4}_{-1}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\bf Redshifted blobs} & & & & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(Mean: $+4980\pm$740)} & \multicolumn{2}{c}{(Mean: $+7230\pm$840)} &\\
&Blob1 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$16$^{\rm s}$.180, 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$58$^{\prime\prime}$.82) & 3 & 3 & 1 & $+5200^{+480}_{-150}$ & $+5840^{+470}_{-100}$ & $+7780^{+420}_{-220}$ & $+7580^{+710}_{-310}$ &\\
&Blob2 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$14$^{\rm s}$.237, 64$^\circ$06$^\prime$50$^{\prime\prime}$.80) & 1 & 0 & 1 & $+5020^{+20}_{-140}$ & $+5650^{+690}_{-300}$ & $+7580^{+710}_{-210}$ & $+7420^{+1870}_{-680}$ &\\
&Blob3 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$04$^{\rm s}$.588, 64$^\circ$08$^\prime$49$^{\prime\prime}$.07) & 3 & 2, 3 & 0 & $+4950\pm90$ & $+5550^{+200}_{-150}$ & $+7580^{+680}_{-180}$ & $+7610^{+1480}_{-170}$ &\\
&Blob4 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$07$^{\rm s}$.629, 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$50$^{\prime\prime}$.99) & 3 & 3 & 0, 1 & $+3500^{+260}_{-320}$ & $+4150^{+680}_{-90}$ & $+5040^{+140}_{-110}$ & $+7210\pm330$ &\\
&Blob5 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$14$^{\rm s}$.709, 64$^\circ$08$^\prime$43$^{\prime\prime}$.20) & 0, 1 & 0, 3 & --- & $+2420^{+50}_{-190}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob6 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$26$^{\rm s}$.368, 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$35$^{\prime\prime}$.43) & 1 & 0 & --- & $+3360^{+450}_{-130}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob7 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$14$^{\rm s}$.237, 64$^\circ$06$^\prime$50$^{\prime\prime}$.80) & 1, 3 & 0, 3 & --- & $+4510^{+140}_{-430}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob8 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$09$^{\rm s}$.489, 64$^\circ$06$^\prime$44$^{\prime\prime}$.50) & 3 & 3 & --- & $+4110^{+430}_{-30}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
\multicolumn{3}{l}{\bf Low velocity blobs} & & & & &\\
&Blob1 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$41$^{\rm s}$.454, 64$^\circ$11$^\prime$11$^{\prime\prime}$.91) & 2 & 0, 1 & --- & $+850^{+30}_{-40}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob2 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$43$^{\rm s}$.965, 64$^\circ$09$^\prime$39$^{\prime\prime}$.19) & 0, 2 & 0, 3 & --- & $-1700^{+390}_{-10}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob3 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$52$^{\rm s}$.184, 64$^\circ$09$^\prime$43$^{\prime\prime}$.82) & 0, 2 & 0, 3 & --- & $-40^{+120}_{-50}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob4 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$35$^{\rm s}$.171, 64$^\circ$05$^\prime$17$^{\prime\prime}$.71) & 1 & 1 & --- & $+810^{+481}_{-3}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob5 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$23$^{\rm s}$.641, 64$^\circ$04$^\prime$38$^{\prime\prime}$.78) & 1 & 1 & --- & $+811^{+117}_{-1}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob6 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$14$^{\rm s}$.187, 64$^\circ$04$^\prime$44$^{\prime\prime}$.08) & 1 & 0, 1 & --- & $+930^{+350}_{-30}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob7 & (00$^{\rm h}$24$^{\rm m}$59$^{\rm s}$.954, 64$^\circ$05$^\prime$14$^{\prime\prime}$.10) & 1 & 0, 1 & --- & $+780^{+20}_{-340}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob8 & (00$^{\rm h}$24$^{\rm m}$52$^{\rm s}$.735, 64$^\circ$05$^\prime$57$^{\prime\prime}$.71) & 1, 3 & 0, 3 & --- & $-780^{+270}_{-60}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob9 & (00$^{\rm h}$24$^{\rm m}$45$^{\rm s}$.049, 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$10$^{\prime\prime}$.81) & 3 & 2, 3 & --- & $-1710^{+50}_{-20}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob10 & (00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$51$^{\rm s}$.594, 64$^\circ$09$^\prime$15$^{\prime\prime}$.48) & 3 & 2 & --- & $+910^{+10}_{-130}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\
&Blob11 & (00$^{\rm h}$24$^{\rm m}$43$^{\rm s}$.913, 64$^\circ$09$^\prime$33$^{\prime\prime}$.67) & 3 & 2 & --- & $+60^{+30}_{-390}$ & --- & --- & --- &\\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\tablenotetext{1}{Line-of-sight velocity using the ACIS-I detector.
Velocities are based on the vnei model ``redshift'' parameter.}
\tablenotetext{2}{Line-of-sight velocity using the ACIS-S detector.
Velocities are based on the vnei model ``redshift'' parameter.}
\end{table*}
Finally we consider the possibility of contamination of a blob's
spectrum from material in the extraction region at a different
velocity (from, for example, the other side of the shell). Such
contamination would tend to reduce a blob's observed velocity compared
to its actual velocity. To assess this effect, we extracted local
background spectra from regions near each blob (the fits presented
above used spectra of blank-sky regions from beyond the remnant's
edge) and carried out the spectral fits with the new background
spectra. In Table \ref{tab:blob_id}, we summarize the fit results
under the columns labeled ``Blob Local Background.'' Not surprisingly
we found best-fit velocities higher by $\sim$1,000-2,000 km s$^{-1}$\ than
with the traditional blank-sky background. Additionally best-fit line
widths were smaller. In the case of the blank-sky background, line
widths were in the range of $\sim$20--40 eV, while with the local blob
background, line widths were typically a factor of two lower and
generally consistent with the minimum line widths obtained from the
Sky8 region (see Figure \ref{fig:sigma} for the comparison). These
results suggest that there is some contamination from different
velocity components in the blob spectra and that the actual velocities
of the blobs could be as high as in the last two columns (``Blob
Local Background'') of Table \ref{tab:blob_id}. However, the
highly structured nature of the X-ray emission on arcsecond scales
makes a {\it precise} determination of the amount of contaminating
material in any individual blob's spectrum difficult to do in
practice. However, as an ensemble, it is plausible to conclude that
fits using local blob background spectra provide reasonable
upperbounds on the velocities of the red- and blue-shifted blobs of
$\lesssim 7,800$ km s$^{-1}$ and $\lesssim 5,000$ km s$^{-1}$,
respectively.
\begin{figure}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[clip,width=8cm]{f8.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Best-fit Si-He$\alpha$ line widths for 8 individual blobs using local
regions near each blob for background. Circle (box) symbols show the
results of fits using the gsmooth (Gaussian lines) model. Solid and
dashed lines show the best-fit value and 90\% confidence level
uncertainty from the Sky8 region. }
\label{fig:sigma}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Large Scale Distribution of Apparent Ejecta Velocity}
\label{sec:largescale}
Here we focus on the large scale velocity structure of Tycho's SNR.
Inspection of the mean photon energy map (Figure \ref{fig:img} shows
an obvious asymmetry in the distribution of red- and blue-shifted
blobs between the northern and southern sides. This asymmetry is also
clearly visible in the ACIS-S data (image not shown).
When the remnant is divided into northern and southern parts (using
the two green semicircular regions shown in Figure \ref{fig:AE},
left), we find different mean energies: $\sim$1.860 kev from the north
and $\sim$1.851 keV from the south (Figure \ref{fig:AE} right). The
mean energy of the Si-He$\alpha$ line at the edge of the remnant (in the Sky8
region where the line width is minimum), determined using the same
method, is $\sim$1.856 keV, which is approximately halfway between the
energies of the two halves just determined. Taking this energy as the
``rest frame'' of Tycho's SNR\ we find that the bulk of the northern and
southern halves appear to be moving along the line-of-sight at
$\sim$$\pm$700 km s$^{-1}$\ with respect to this frame.
\begin{figure*}[t]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 250,clip,width=18cm]{f9.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Left: definition of the northern and southern side regions
with the mean photon energy map. Two green polygon regions are used
for making the histogram. Two circles are used for the spectral
analysis. Right: the histogram of the number of pixels in the two
green semicircular regions as shown in the left figure.}
\label{fig:AE}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table}[h]
\caption{Line Centroid Energies in the Northern and Southern Regions of Tycho's SNR with {\it Chandra} \& {\it Suzaku}}
\begin{center}
\scriptsize
\begin{tabular}{l|ccc}
\hline
& ACIS-I & ACIS-S & {\it Suzaku} \\ \hline
{\underline {\bf Si-He$\alpha$}} & & & \\
North (keV) & 1.8634$\pm$0.0003 & 1.8613$\pm$0.0005 & 1.8571$^{+0.0003}_{-0.0002}$ \\
South (keV) & 1.8493$\pm$0.0003 & 1.8490$\pm$0.0007 & 1.8545$\pm$0.0003 \\
$\delta E$ (eV) & 14.1$\pm$0.4 & 12.3$\pm$0.9 & 2.7$^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$ \\
$\delta V$ (km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{a} & 2280$\pm$60 & 1990$\pm$150 & 440$^{+60}_{-50}$ \\ \hline
{\underline {\bf S--He$\alpha$}} & & & \\
North (keV) & 2.4494$\pm$0.0007 & 2.4481$^{+0.0035}_{-0.0027}$ & 2.4506$^{+0.0017}_{-0.0010}$ \\
South (keV) & 2.4318$^{+0.0017}_{-0.0014}$ & 2.4282$^{+0.0047}_{-0.0030}$ & 2.4441$^{+0.0016}_{-0.0014}$ \\
$\delta E$ (eV) & 17.6$^{+1.8}_{-1.6}$ & 19.9$^{+5.9}_{-4.0}$ & 6.5$^{+2.3}_{-1.7}$ \\
$\delta V$ (km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{a} & 2160$^{+220}_{-200}$ & 2450$^{+730}_{-490}$ & 800$^{+280}_{-210}$ \\ \hline
{\underline {\bf Fe-K$\alpha$}} & & & \\
North (keV) & 6.452$^{+0.006}_{-0.007}$ & 6.435$^{+0.014}_{-0.012}$ & 6.430$\pm$0.005 \\
South (keV) & 6.413$\pm$0.006 & 6.415$\pm$0.014 & 6.420$^{+0.006}_{-0.007}$ \\
$\delta E$ (eV) & 39$^{+8}_{-9}$ & 19$^{+20}_{-19}$ & 10$^{+8}_{-9}$ \\
$\delta V$ (km s$^{-1}$)\tablenotemark{a} & 1820$^{+370}_{-420}$ & 890$^{+930}_{-890}$ & 690$^{+550}_{-620}$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:AE}
\end{center}
\tablenotetext{1}{Velocities are based on the centroid shifts of the Gaussian models.}
\end{table}
To examine this issue in more detail we extracted ACIS-I, ACIS-S, and
{\it Suzaku} XIS spectra from the two circular regions shown in Figure
\ref{fig:AE} (the northern region is centered at [R.A., Decl.] =
[00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$17$^{\rm s}$.519,
64$^\circ$10$^\prime$06$^{\prime\prime}$.53], the southern one is
at [R.A., Decl.] = [00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$15$^{\rm s}$.581,
64$^\circ$06$^\prime$41$^{\prime\prime}$.07], and both regions are
1 arcmin in radius). Fits were done using the same Gaussian model
as in \S~\ref{sec:RP}. Results are given in Table \ref{tab:AE}. We
found a strong tendency for the northern region to have higher
centroid energies than the southern region. Of particular note is the
excellent numerical consistency between the ACIS-I and ACIS-S
detectors, which demonstrates that this effect is not an observational
artifact. For the Si-He$\alpha$ and S-He$\alpha$ line, the difference
of centroid energies corresponds to a line-of-sight velocity
difference of $\sim$2000 km s$^{-1}$. The result for the {\it Suzaku}
XIS is not as large due to the smoothing induced by {\it Suzaku}'s
broad PSF.
Before jumping to the conclusion that this velocity difference implies
a kinematic asymmetry in the original SN explosion, we first must
explore the possibility that the velocity difference is due to the
patchy nature of the ejecta shell. Recall that we interpret the
fluctuations in the mean line centroid in the radial profiles
(Figure~\ref{fig:rp}) in this way. We can estimate the average
velocities in the northern and southern regions assuming different
relative amounts of emission from the approaching and receding
hemispheres using this simple algebraic function
\begin{equation*}
\langle v_{N,S}\rangle = \frac{v_{\rm red}I_{{\rm red},N,S}+v_{\rm blue}I_{{\rm blue},N,S}}{I_{{\rm red},N,S}+I_{{\rm blue},N,S}},
\end{equation*}
where the labels ``red'' and ``blue'' indicate the red and blueshifted
components, the labels ``N'' and ``S'' refer to the northern and
southern sides, and $I$ is the line intensity from each of the four
relevant locations. Then $\langle v_{N,S}\rangle$ are the average
speeds in each region. Next we define the relative intensity ratio
$\chi_{N,S} \equiv I_{{\rm blue},N,S}/I_{{\rm red},N,S}$ allowing us
to define the difference of the average velocities between the
northern and southern regions as
\begin{equation*}
\langle v_{N}\rangle - \langle v_{S}\rangle = v \left(\frac{1-\chi_N}{1+\chi_N} - \frac{1-\chi_S}{1+\chi_S} \right),
\end{equation*}
where we have made the simplest assumption that the north and south
regions have the identical expansion speed, $v$, along the line of
sight. We choose the northern and southern circular regions to be
offset symmetrically from the center so this assumption is
reasonable. Because of the offset, the radial speed in each region is
less than the shell expansion speed (Table~\ref{tab:exp}), by a
projection factor. For a Si shell radius of $\sim$3.4$^{\prime}$ the
offset location of the circular regions ($\sim$1.7$^{\prime}$) yields
a projection factor to the line-of-sight of $\cos \, 30^\circ =
0.866$, which yields a projected speed of $v\sim 4000$ km s$^{-1}$. The
observed north-south velocity difference is $\sim$ $-2000$ km s$^{-1}$, so
the value in the parentheses of the above equation is $-0.5$. This
value can be accommodated by a range of front-back intensity ratios
for the north and south in the (physically plausible) range $\chi_N
=1/3$ and $\chi_S=0$ to $\chi_N =3$ and $\chi_S=1$. The most modest
intensity ratio differences are $\chi_N =5/3$ and $\chi_S =3/5$, less
than a factor of two for each side.
Thus a biased {\it intensity} distribution for a uniformly expanding
shell of ejecta can account for the observed north to south {\it
velocity} difference in Tycho's SNR. And the biased intensity
distribution is not necessarily the result of an asymmetric explosion,
since local variations in the ambient medium density can result in
significant local intensity differences in the ejecta. A higher
ambient medium density is likely why the ejecta emission is so much
brighter in the northwest quadrant of Tycho's SNR\ \citep[see,
e.g.,][]{2010ApJ...709.1387K}. To explain the velocity difference,
we suggest that this enhancement extends over the front (blueshifted)
part of the shell but not over the back (redshifted) part. This would
require that the mean ejecta density be $\lesssim$ $\sqrt{3}$ higher in
the front than the back, which is plausible given the estimated
ambient density enhancement of a factor of $\sim$2 in the northwest
\citep{2010ApJ...709.1387K}.
\subsection{Velocities of Southeastern Knots}
\label{sec:VSK}
The southeastern (SE) quadrant of Tycho's SNR\ is morphologically and
compositionally different from the rest of the remnant. For example,
the bright knots\footnote{
We refer to these features in the SE, historically identified by
composition and brightness, as ``knots'' to distinguish them from the
``blobs'' introduced in this article that are features identified by
radial velocity.}
in the SE are located at a radius of $\sim$4.2$^{\prime}$, which is
$\sim$20\%-30\% further out from the center than the peak
Si-He$\alpha$ and Fe-K$\alpha$ line intensity over the rest of the
remnant. In addition, the SE knots show strong differences in
relative Si to Fe abundances \citep[e.g.,][]{1995ApJ...441..680V,
2001A&A...365L.218D,2005ApJ...634..376W}. Here we study the
kinematic properties of compact knots in this region, focusing on the
six knots identified in Figure \ref{fig:three_color} (cyan circles).
\begin{figure*}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 150,clip,width=18cm]{f10.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{X-ray spectra and the best-fit models for the southeastern
knots in Tycho's SNR. Labels in each panel (e.g., Knot1, Knot2, and so
on) correspond to the region number in Figure \ref{fig:three_color}.
Green and red curves show the model for the IME component and the
iron component, respectively. Blue curves show the power-law
continuum model. Orange dashed curves show the additional Gaussian
models. Error bars on the spectra are shown at 1 $\sigma$}
\label{fig:SE_Knots}
\end{figure*}
\begin{table*}[t]
\tabletypesize{\small}
\caption{Fit Results for the Southeastern Knots}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{l|ccccccc}
\hline
Parameter & Knot1 & Knot2 & Knot3 & Knot4 & Knot5 & Knot6 \\ \hline
R.A. & 00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$53$^{\rm s}$.647 & 00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$57$^{\rm s}$.141 & 00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$56$^{\rm s}$.998 & 00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$57$^{\rm s}$.509 & 00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$57$^{\rm s}$.627 & 00$^{\rm h}$25$^{\rm m}$51$^{\rm s}$.481 \\
Decl. & 64$^\circ$08$^\prime$10$^{\prime\prime}$.69 & 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$47$^{\prime\prime}$.42 & 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$32$^{\prime\prime}$.52 & 64$^\circ$07$^\prime$05$^{\prime\prime}$.03 & 64$^\circ$06$^\prime$45$^{\prime\prime}$.35 & 64$^\circ$05$^\prime$42$^{\prime\prime}$.36 \\ \hline
$\chi^2$/d.o.f & 433/379 & 302/254 & 476/305 & 248/286 & 198/163 & 307/265 \\
$N_{\rm H}$ (10$^{22}$cm$^{-2}$) & 0.55$\pm$0.05 & 0.59$^{+0.03}_{-0.02}$ & 0.61$\pm0.01$ & 0.65$^{+0.05}_{-0.01}$ & 0.66$^{+0.01}_{-0.04}$ & 0.48$^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ \\
Line broadening (eV) & 29$\pm$2 & 23$\pm$1 & 25$\pm$1 & 16$^{+6}_{-9}$ & 15$^{+5}_{-6}$ & 24$\pm$2 \\
Velocity\tablenotemark{c} (km s$^{-1}$) & $-$2330$^{+270}_{-10}$ & $-$2410$^{+10}_{-100}$ & $-$2393$^{+2}_{-10}$ & $-$1880$^{+180}_{-100}$ & $-$1050$^{+90}_{-160}$ & $+$900$^{+50}_{-110}$ \\
{\underline {\bf IME component}} & & & & & & \\
$kT_{\rm e}$ (keV) & 2.6$^{+2.1}_{-1.0}$ & 1.3$\pm0.1$ & 1.23$\pm$0.04 & 0.75$\pm$0.03 & 0.60$\pm$0.01 & 1.7$^{+0.3}_{-0.2}$ \\
$n_{\rm e}t$ (10$^{10}$cm$^{-3}$ s) & 2.0$^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ & 4.8$^{+0.7}_{-0.2}$ & 5.1$\pm$0.2 & 28$^{+41}_{-5}$ & 1000\tablenotemark{a} & 3.1$\pm$0.6 \\
${\rm [Mg/C]/[Mg/C]}_{\odot}$ & 1.4$^{+0.6}_{-0.3}$ & 5.8$\pm$0.9 & 2.8$\pm$0.1 & 360$\pm30$ & 110$\pm$6 & 32$^{+36}_{-2}$ \\
${\rm [Si/C]/[Si/C]}_{\odot}$ & 9$^{+4}_{-2}$ & 120$^{+40}_{-20}$ & 61$\pm$10 & 430$^{+160}_{-40}$ & 140$^{+9}_{-7}$ & 430$^{+490}_{-10}$ \\
${\rm [S/C]/[S/C]}_{\odot}$ & 10$^{+5}_{-3}$ & 160$^{+40}_{-20}$ & 80$\pm$13 & 480$^{+100}_{-110}$ & 400${\pm30}$ & 430$^{+20}_{-160}$ \\
${\rm [Ar/C]/[Ar/C]}_{\odot}$ & 7$^{+5}_{-3}$ & 180$^{+80}_{-30}$ & 79$\pm$5 & 870$^{+2900}_{-720}$ & 780$^{+190}_{-180}$ & 320$\pm50$ \\
${\rm [Ca/C]/[Ca/C]}_{\odot}$ & 22$^{+20}_{-14}$ & 400$^{+180}_{-70}$ & 180$\pm$20 & 4000$^{+6000}_{-3000}$ & 2000$^{+8000}_{-1000}$ & 900$^{+700}_{-200}$ \\
norm $\int n_e n_{\rm C} dV/4\pi d^2 /[{\rm C}/{\rm H}]_\odot$ ($10^{9}$ cm$^{-5}$) & 6$^{+4}_{-2}$ & 1.9$^{+1.1}_{-0.7}$ & 8.8$^{+0.1}_{-0.6}$ & 0.057$^{+0.61}_{-0.001}$ & 0.39$^{+0.57}_{-0.01}$ & 0.36$^{+0.23}_{-0.01}$ \\
{\underline {\bf Fe component}} & & & & & & \\
$kT_{\rm e}$ (keV) & 1.2$^{+2.0}_{-0.5}$ & 8.6$^{+0.5}_{-1.4}$ & 9.3$\pm$0.1 & 9.2$^{+0.4}_{-0.2}$ & 9.1$\pm0.1$ & 10$^{+7}_{-1}$ \\
$n_{\rm e}t$ (10$^{10}$cm$^{-3}$ s) & 2$^{+3}_{-1}$ & 1.31$\pm$0.05 & 1.09$\pm$0.03 & 1.58$\pm$0.03 & 1.52$^{+0.04}_{-0.02}$ & 0.97$\pm$0.08 \\
${\rm [Fe/C]/[Fe/C]}_{\odot}$ & 1.1$^{+0.9}_{-0.4}$ & 5.8$^{+1.0}_{-0.9}$ & 4.8$^{+0.9}_{-0.1}$ & 360$^{+9600}_{-10}$ & 70$^{+110}_{-2}$ & 18.4$^{+4.8}_{-0.7}$ \\
norm $\int n_e n_{\rm C} dV/4\pi d^2 / [{\rm C}/{\rm H}]_\odot$ ($10^{9}$ cm$^{-5}$) & 6\tablenotemark{b} & 1.9\tablenotemark{b} & 8.8\tablenotemark{b} & 0.057\tablenotemark{b} & 0.39\tablenotemark{b} & 0.36\tablenotemark{b} \\
{\underline {\bf power-law component}} & & & & & & \\
$\Gamma$ & 2.71$^{+0.06}_{-0.05}$ & 2.4$\pm0.3$ & 2.45$^{+0.07}_{-0.06}$ & 2.83$\pm$0.03 & 2.59$^{+0.09}_{-0.06}$ & 2.3$^{+0.2}_{-0.1}$ \\
norm ($\times10^{-5}$ ph keV$^{-1}$ cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$ at 1 keV) & 32$\pm2$ & 2.3$^{+1.1}_{-0.7}$ & 4.6$\pm$0.5 & 11.80$^{+0.14}_{-0.03}$ & 2.2$\pm0.2$ & 3.6$\pm$0.6 \\
{\underline {\bf Additional lines}} & & & & & & \\
Fe L + O K Center (keV) & 0.73$^{+0.02}_{-0.03}$ & 0.74$^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ & 0.75$\pm$0.01 & 0.78$\pm$0.01 & 0.80$\pm$0.01 & 0.68$^{+0.02}_{-0.01}$ \\
Fe L + O K norm ($\times10^{-6}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) & 5$\pm2$ & 3.5$^{+0.9}_{-1.1}$ & 13.9$\pm$1.6 & 3.3$^{+0.7}_{-0.8}$ & 5.5$^{+0.7}_{-1.2}$ & 6.0$^{+1.4}_{-1.6}$ \\
Fe L Center (keV) & --- & 1.25$\pm$0.01 & 1.247$\pm$0.004 & 1.242$\pm$0.006 & 1.247$\pm$0.006 & 1.21$^{+0.03}_{-0.01}$ \\
Fe L norm ($\times10^{-6}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) & --- & 1.9$^{+0.5}_{-0.3}$ & 11.2$\pm$0.7 & 4.1$^{+0.7}_{-1.3}$ & 4.0$\pm0.4$ & 2.5$^{+1.0}_{-1.1}$ \\
Cr K Center (keV) & --- & 5.6$^{+0.6}_{-0.1}$ & 5.65$^{+0.14}_{-0.21}$ & 5.61$\pm$0.11 & --- & 5.61$^{+0.62}_{-0.10}$ \\
Cr K norm ($\times10^{-8}$ ph cm$^{-2}$ s$^{-1}$) & --- & 7$\pm$6 & 9$\pm$8 & 8$\pm$8 & --- & 10$\pm9$ \\ \hline
\end{tabular}
\label{tab:SE_Knots}
\end{center}
\tablenotetext{1}{Value fixed to the equilibrium ionization limit. }
\tablenotetext{2}{Emission measure of Fe model component linked to the value for the IME component. }
\tablenotetext{3}{Velocities are based on the vnei model ``redshift'' parameter.}
\end{table*}
We extracted the spectra from these circular regions (with
radius 0.1$^\prime$) and fit them
over the 0.5--10 keV energy band
with a two component NEI model, power-law continuum, and
additional Gaussian lines. The two NEI models account for iron
emission separately from the intermediate-mass elements (IMEs), Si, S,
Ar, and Ca. We link the redshift parameters for the two NEI
components. We assume no hydrogen, helium, or nitrogen in the shocked
SN Ia ejecta and quote abundances with respect to carbon (the
lowest atomic number species that we include in our spectral
analysis). Oxygen and neon are kept fixed at their solar value with
respect to carbon; the abundances of the other species are allowed
to be free. Several Gaussian lines at $\sim$0.7 keV, $\sim$1.2 keV
and $\sim$5.6 keV were added to account for missing lines, such as
Fe-L \citep[$n = 3s, 3d \rightarrow 2p$ for Fe XVIII as shown
in][]{2007ApJ...670.1504G} and/or O-K \citep[K-shell transition
lines higher than K$\delta$ as shown in][]{2008PASJ...60S.141Y},
Fe-L \citep[$n = 6,7,8 \rightarrow 2$ for Fe XVII, $n = 6,7
\rightarrow 2$ for Fe XVIII, and $n = 6 \rightarrow 2$ for Fe XIX
as shown in][]{2000ApJ...530..387B,2001A&A...365L.329A}, and
Cr-K$\alpha$, respectively, in the atomic databases. Line broadening
of the plasma models is included using the gsmooth model, and the
broadening of the additional Gaussian lines is linked to the same
value. Absorption is included assuming solar abundances
\citep{1989GeCoA..53..197A}.
The spectral data and best-fit models are shown in Figure
\ref{fig:SE_Knots} and numerical values of the fit parameters are
given in Table \ref{tab:SE_Knots}. The quoted abundances are
relative to carbon relative to the solar value and in nearly all
cases, as expected for SN Ia ejecta, are much greater than unity.
This model provided good results (with $\chi^2$/d.o.f $<$ 1.6), and
has highlighted some differences among the knots. Knot2, Knot3, and
Knot6 are more Si-rich, while Knot4 and Knot5 are more Fe-rich; both
points are consistent with previous results. Knot1 is dominated by
nonthermal emission compared to both the Si and Fe thermal components.
The velocities of the Si-rich and Fe-rich knots are $\sim-$2400 km
s$^{-1}$ and $\sim-$1900 to $-$1100 km s$^{-1}$, respectively. This is
unexpected for a spherical expansion, where the edge of the shell
should have no velocity along the line of sight. These results
suggest that the SE knots are in fact inclined to the plane of the sky
and are therefore moving faster than their proper motion would
imply. We return to this point below. Of course the reader should
keep in mind the systematic uncertainty of $\sim$500--2000 km s$^{-1}$\ in
the velocities of individual blobs as demonstrated in section
\ref{sec:blobs}.
\section{Discussion}
Thanks to the high angular resolution of {\it Chandra}, we have
obtained (1) a more detailed view of the radial profiles of line
centroid and width, (2) consistency of our expansion velocity
measurements with previous results and (3) clear identification of
red- and blue-shifted components on multiple angular scales in Tycho's SNR.
These basic results hold the hope of advancing our understanding of
the type Ia SNe mechanism. In this section, we begin this effort as we
consider the implications of our results for the distance to Tycho's SNR,
the origin and nature of the southeastern (SE) knots, and the shock heating
processes in the ejecta.
\subsection{Distance to Tycho's SNR}
The expansion rate of Tycho's SNR\ has been studied using proper motion
measurements from X-ray imaging. \cite{2010ApJ...709.1387K}
investigated the expansion rates of both the forward-shock and the
reverse-shocked ejecta using {\it Chandra} ACIS high-resolution images
of Tycho's SNR\ obtained in multiple epochs. For the reverse-shocked
ejecta, they presented proper motion measurements for five azimuthal
sectors around the rim for two sets of epoch pairs \citep*[see Table 3
in][]{2010ApJ...709.1387K}. We use the 2003--2007 comparison (since
it uses the same instrument ACIS-I for both epochs) and average their
five azimuthal results to arrive at a mean proper motion of $\mu =
(0.267 \pm 0.056)^{\prime\prime}$ yr$^{-1}$. The uncertainty here is
taken to be the standard deviation of the five azimuthal values
(multiplied by 1.6 to approximate the 90\% confidence level), rather
than the uncertainty on the mean. Combining this with our expansion
velocity of 5010$\pm$340 km s$^{-1}$, we estimate an allowed range on
the distance to Tycho's SNR\ of $D = (4.0 \pm 0.3
~^{+1.0}_{-0.7})(V/5010 {\rm ~km~s}^{-1}) (\mu/0.267^{\prime\prime}
{\rm ~yr}^{-1} )$ kpc, where the first and second terms show the
uncertainties from expansion velocity and proper motion. This is
consistent with the result from {\it Suzaku}
\citep*[][]{2010ApJ...725..894H}: 4 $\pm$ 1 kpc as well as the result
based on the SN peak luminosity, as established by the observed
optical light-echo spectrum, and the maximum apparent brightness from
the historical records: 3.8$^{+1.5}_{-1.1}$ kpc
\citep*[][]{2008Natur.456..617K}.
Although the {\it Chandra}\ expansion speed measurement seems redundant in
that it reproduces the apparently more precise value from {\it
Suzaku}, it is important to note that the {\it Suzaku} result is
subject to a correction factor due to that telescope's large PSF that
is completely eliminated in the case of {\it Chandra}. Additionally,
the high angular resolution of {\it Chandra}\ has allowed us to assess
whether there is an intensity-dependent bias in the measured
velocity difference, which might arise if, for example, brighter
blobs tended to move at higher or lower speeds than fainter ones.
We find that this is not a concern. The velocity difference between
high and low surface brightness regions in the central region of
Tycho's SNR is small (less than 10\%) and not statistically
significant.
Estimating the remnant's distance from the individual blob analyses
will be more uncertain due to the several systematic effects on the
velocity measurements (see \S 3.4) and because of difficulty in
identifying an appropriate matched sample of knots with good proper
motion measurements.
\subsection{High Velocity Knots in the Southeastern Quadrant}
The SE quadrant is one of the most mysterious features in
Tycho's SNR, and it is not yet understood how such a prominent
structure could be made. An aspherical explosion is one of the
possibilities. Theorists have found a number of ways to produce
asymmetric SN Ia explosions, including, pre-explosion convection
\citep{2006ApJ...640..407K}, off-center ignition of the burning front
\citep{maeda+10,ropke+07}, and gravitationally confined detonations
\citep{plewa+04,jordan+08}. On the observational front,
\cite{2010Natur.466...82M} have argued for large scale explosion
asymmetries to explain the diversity in the spectral evolution of SN
Ia. In addition to Tycho's SNR, the elemental composition in SN~1006
inferred from {\it Suzaku} observations also appears to be
asymmetric \cite{2013ApJ...771...56U}.
The light-echo spectrum of Tycho's SNR \cite{2008Natur.456..617K},
spectrum shows a high velocity feature (HVF) identified as the Ca II
triplet at a velocity of 20,000--24,000 km s$^{-1}$\ during the early
evolutionary phase of the SN that Tycho observed. Similar HVFs have
been found in many SNe
\citep*[e.g.,][]{2005ApJ...623L..37M,2014MNRAS.437..338C}, as a result
of asphericity in the explosion due to, for example, accretion from a
companion or an intrinsic effect of the explosion itself
\citep*[][]{2003ApJ...591.1110W,2003ApJ...593..788K,2006ApJ...645..470T}.
In section \ref{sec:VSK}, we found that the SE knots have blueshifted
spectra; we adopt mean radial velocity values of 2400 km s$^{-1}$ for
the Si-rich knots and 1500 km s$^{-1}$ for the Fe-rich knots (note
that we restrict our discussion here to Knot2 through Knot5).
\cite{2010ApJ...709.1387K} determined the proper motions of these
knots. For the Si- and Fe-rich knots, the proper motions are
0.219--0.231 arcsec yr$^{-1}$ and 0.279--0.293 arcsec yr$^{-1}$,
respectively. Assuming a distance of 4.0 kpc, we can estimate
the transverse velocities as 4160--4380 km s$^{-1}$\ (Si) and
5290--5560 km s$^{-1}$\ (Fe). Combining with the radial velocities, yields
3-dimensional space velocities of 4800--5000 km s$^{-1}$\ for the
Si-rich knots, which are comparable to the Si expansion speed of the
rest of the remnant, and and 5500--5760 km s$^{-1}$\ for the Fe-rich
knots, which are some 33\%--44\% higher than the expansion speed
for Fe. Although large, these values are not outside the range of
velocities we see elsewhere in the remnant
(Figure~\ref{fig:V}).
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 0 0 170,clip,width=8cm]{f11.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Schematic view of the positional relationship between the
southeastern knots and the light-echo.}
\label{fig:LEK}
\end{figure}
Now we consider the relationship between the HVFs seen in the light
echo spectrum and the SE knots by examining the positional
relationship between them. Figure \ref{fig:LEK} shows a schematic view
to guide the discussion. The plane of the sky lies in the plane
defined by the NS-EW axes and we indicate a sphere with unit radius
centered at the remnant's center. We use a spherical polar coordinate
system ($\theta$,$\phi$) as defined by the blue dot on the unit
sphere. We assume a distance of 4.0 kpc.
The SE knots (indicated by the labeled red dot on the unit sphere)
are slightly in front of the sky plane and are slightly south of the
EW axis. According to \citet{2010ApJ...709.1387K} the
SE knots are located at angles of 97.5--107.5$^{\circ}$ from
north; we adopt the central value of $\theta_{\rm SK} =
102.5^{\circ}$. We determine $\phi_{\rm SK}$ from the ratios of
transverse and radial velocities, namely 0.55--0.58 (Si-rich knots)
and 0.27--0.28 (Fe-rich knots). We assume the mean ratio
($\sim$0.42)
which yields a value of $\phi_{\rm SK} \sim
23^{\circ}+270^{\circ} =
293^{\circ}$.
The position on the sky of the light echo is about $3^{\circ}$ away
from the center of Tycho's SNR\ toward the NW and the polar angle is
$\theta_{\rm LE} = 62^{\circ}$; for our assumed distance of 4.0
kpc to Tycho's SNR, the scattering angle is $65^{\circ}$. From these
values \citep[which we updated from the values in
][]{2008Natur.456..617K}, we determine that $\phi_{\rm LE} =
270^{\circ}-(90^{\circ}-3^{\circ}-65^{\circ}) = 248^{\circ}$. Using
spherical trigonometry, we determine that there is an angular
separation of $\sim$$59^\circ$ between the centroid of the SE knots
and the viewing direction of the light echo. The separation between
the Fe-rich knots and the light echo is about the same
$\sim$$59^\circ$.
There are systematic uncertainties on this result from the light
echo (whose location with respect to the remnant depends on the
assumed distance, since it must satisfy light-travel time arguments)
and uncertainty on the radial velocities (as discussed above) and
transverse velocities (whose main uncertainty is the assumed
distance). Still we can set a robust lower limit on the angular
separation between these based on the very accurately determined
polar angles: $>$40$^\circ$ (for the mean of the SE knots) and
$>$45$^\circ$ (for the Fe-rich knots).
Three-dimensional models suggest that large blobs (opening angle:
$\sim$80$^{\circ}$) or a thick torus (opening angle:
$\sim$60$^{\circ}$) can naturally explain observations of the HVFs
\citep*[][]{2006ApJ...645..470T}. Although the angular separation
between the knots and the direction to the light echo is similar to
the sizes of these proposed structures, the unique feature of the SE
quadrant is the presence there of Fe-rich knots, which are very
localized. We therefore conclude that it is unlikely for the Fe-rich
knots in the SE quadrant to be responsible for the HVF in the light
echo spectrum.
Examining all six knots in the SE region (and ignoring systematic
uncertainties in radial and transverse velocities) we find that they
cover a full angular spread of $\Delta\theta\sim35^\circ$ and
$\Delta\phi \sim 40^\circ$. Yet how the knots are located is not
random; there is a correlation between $\theta$ and $\phi$. Near the
top of the feature (e.g., Knot1) $\phi \sim 299^\circ$, in the middle
(e.g., Knot4) $\phi \sim 289^\circ$, and at the bottom (e.g., Knot6)
$\phi \sim 260^\circ$. The knots appear to be distributed in a chain
along the edge of the remnant and therefore form a distinct, fairly
compact, and kinematically connected structure in Tycho's SNR.
\begin{figure}[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[trim=0 10 0 0,clip,width=8.5cm]{f12.pdf}
\end{center}
\caption{Radial profiles of the Fe-K$\alpha$ surface brightness (top),
centroid energy (middle), and ionization age (bottom) for Tycho's SNR.
The bottom panel is the result of spectral analysis using a
vnei plus srcut model assuming fixed temperatures of 3 keV (red)
and 10 keV (black) across the radial range shown. Dashed lines
show the peak position of the Fe-K$\beta$ intensity
\citep*{2014ApJ...780..136Y} and the location where the S/Si line
ratio begins to increase while moving out from the remnant's center
\citep*{2015ApJ...805..142L}.}
\label{fig:Fe}
\end{figure}
\subsection{Fe Ionization State Increase at the Edge of Tycho's SNR}
\label{sec:fe-increase}
The ejecta are heated as the reverse shock propagates from the outside
of the remnant to the interior. Thus the ionization age of the
shocked thermal plasma should vary with the time since the reverse
shock passed (ignoring variations in the density of the ejecta). This
is key information for our understanding of the heating processes at
the reverse shock. Some recent X-ray imaging and spectroscopy studies
have begun to shed light on this process. One example is the work by
\cite{2014ApJ...780..136Y} on the variation of the Fe ionization state
near the reverse shock mentioned in the last section. In other work,
\cite{2015ApJ...805..142L} found a systematic increase in the sulfur
to silicon K$\alpha$ line flux ratio with radius through the outer
edge of Tycho's SNR, which they interpreted as a radial dependence of
the ionization age.
In section \ref{sec:RP}, we found a strong increase in the Fe-K
centroid energy also at the outer edge of Tycho's SNR (see Figure
\ref{fig:Fe}). The line centroid energy (middle panel) increases by
$\sim$90 eV over a radial distance of approximately
1$^\prime$. Carrying along in the same vein as the studies mentioned
in the previous paragraph, we interpret this change as being due to a
difference in the Fe ionization state and carried out spectral fits of
the Fe-K$\alpha$ band spectra using the srcut (continuum) and vnei
(thermal) models in XSPEC. The temperature of the vnei model was
fixed at values of 3 keV and 10 keV; we used the ionization age
parameter ($n_e t$) to account for the observed changes in centroid
energy. As before for the srcut model, we fixed the radio spectral
index to $\alpha = -0.65$. Note that the scenario we investigate
here is intended to be illustrative. A future, more definitive
study would consider the time evolution of temperature and density
for a realistic ejecta density profile.
We found a gradual, modest increase of the ionization age from
$10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ s to $1.7\times 10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ s (10 keV) or
$2.0\times 10^{10}$ cm$^{-3}$ s (3 keV) over radii of
$\sim$2.8$^{\prime}$ to $\sim$3.8$^{\prime}$. The inner radius is
close to the peak position of the Fe-K$\beta$ emission and also to
where the S/Si line ratio begins to increase moving out. The
difference in Fe ionization age over the outer edge of Tycho's SNR\ is
$\Delta n_e t \sim (0.7-1.0)\times10^{10}\, {\rm cm^{-3} s} \sim
(220-320) (n_e/{\rm 1\, cm^{-3}})$ yr. This is a plausible range
given the known age of Tycho's SNR\ (440 yr); additionally the ionization
timescale profile from the one-dimensional models of
Tycho's SNR\ \citep{2006ApJ...645.1373B} show a strong radial gradient
reaching values of $n_et \sim 2\times10^{10}\, {\rm cm^{-3} s}$ at the
edge of the ejecta, while the electron temperature remains
relatively flat at a value of $\sim$3 keV. However the radial
region over which we see this variation is exactly where 1D models
fail, i.e., where the Rayleigh-Taylor instability dominates the
structure of the remnant. Understanding the thermodynamic evolution
of the plasma in this region will allow us to better understand and
model this important region.
\section{Conclusions}
In this paper we have carried out a detailed analysis of the deep
{\it Chandra}\ ACIS-I observation ($\sim$734 ks in total exposure) of
Tycho's SNR. We have presented measurements of ejecta velocities and have
investigated the heating processes in the ejecta. Our results can be
summarized as follows.
\begin{enumerate}
\setlength{\parskip}{0.0cm}
\setlength{\itemsep}{0.1cm}
\item We investigated the radial dependence of the Si-He$\alpha$,
S-He$\alpha$, and Fe K$\alpha$ line intensity, line centroid, and
line width and obtained results consistent with previous work.
{\it Chandra}'s exceptional angular resolution allowed us to discover
several new features in the radial profiles, including radial
energy centroid shifts, a deep minimum in the line width profile
for all species at a radius of $\sim$3.4$^\prime$, and a gradual
increase in the Fe line centroid beyond radii of $\sim$3$^\prime$.
From the line width profile we determined the expansion velocity of
the Si-rich ejecta shell to be {$5010\pm340$ km s$^{-1}$} and, with the
published proper motion of the Si-shell, obtained a distance
measurement to Tycho's SNR of {$4.0 \pm 0.3 ~^{+1.0}_{-0.7}$} kpc.
Although this is fully consistent with the previous {\it Suzaku}
result, it is subject to fewer systematic uncertainties.
\item The Si-He$\alpha$ line from Tycho's SNR\ shows large ($\sim$60 eV)
energy centroid shifts across the image with the largest range
appearing near the center of the remnant. The distribution of
centroid shifts is structured on scales ranging from arcseconds to
arcminutes, which agrees qualitatively with the highly structured
intensity distribution. Structure in the energy centroid image can
be matched to features in the line centroid radial profile. We
argue that these structures are due largely to differences in the
intrinsic intensity of the approaching and receding hemispheres of
the SNR.
\item We perform detailed spectral fits on 27 blobs using
nonequiliubrium ionization thermal plasma models. We succeed in
separating these features cleanly into redshifted, blueshifted, and
low velocity clumps of ejecta. The determination of velocities is
shown to be robust with respect to other spectral fit parameters
that can influence line centroids, such as the ionization age
parameter. For a subset of the most rapidly moving blobs we perform
joint fits with the ACIS-S data in order to establish the level of
systematic velocity uncertainty: $\sim$500--2,000 km s$^{-1}$\ where the
ACIS-S spectra tend to be more redshifted than ACIS-I. Using a
local background for each blob tends to increase fitted velocities
by approximately 1000--2000 km s$^{-1}$. We conclude after considering
these factors that the velocities of the redshifted and blueshifted
blobs are $\lesssim 7,800$ km s$^{-1}$ and $\lesssim 5,000$ km
s$^{-1}$, respectively.
\item
We conclude based on geometric considerations that the unusual
Fe-rich knots in the southeastern quadrant are not likely to be
responsible for the high velocity Ca II absorption features seen in
the light echo spectrum. And if this exceptional set of knots is not
responsible, then perhaps the origin of the HVF may be due to one of
the more numerous, compact Si-rich knots that lie closer to the light
echo direction. Future spectral and kinematic studies of the knots
in this direction may yield important clues to the nature of the HVF
in SN Ia spectra. A major step forward would be to obtain a light
echo spectrum from a region off toward the SE of Tycho's SNR\ \citep[such
as the fields 4523, 4821, and 5717 in][]{rest+08} that may provide
a more direct view of the SE Fe-rich knots during the explosion.
\item We also note the detection of Cr K$\alpha$ line emission from 4
out of the 6 SE knots analyzed. Cr is also detected in most of the
spectra from the radial profiles (at least out to Sky9). A careful
study of the relative abundances of the Fe-group elements in the SE
Fe-rich knots versus the rest of the remnant should in principle
yield information about the explosion Si-burning processes in both
regions.
\item Finally, we found that the Fe-K$\alpha$ energy centroid showed a
gradual increase beyond the radius of the peak intensity. We
interpreted this as a difference in the elapsed ionization time by
an amount $\Delta n_et \sim (220 - 320) (n_e/{\rm 1\, cm^{-3}})$
cm$^{-3}$ yr since the material was shock heated. The region over
which we see this happening is the region where Rayleigh-Taylor
fingers of ejecta extend out into the forward shock region.
Studying this region in more detail will yield useful information on
this process.
\end{enumerate}
This work was initiated in preparation for observations of
Tycho's SNR\ with the {\it Hitomi} ({\it ASTRO-H}) satellite, which was
sadly lost in March 2016. Our work with the {\it Chandra}\ ACIS detectors
shows the richness of the science that can be extracted from the
kinematics of SNRs. There is still much that {\it Chandra}\ can do in this
area. The {\it Chandra}\ High Energy Transmission Gratings have been used
to extract useful information on the kinematics of compact features in
the extended remnants Cas A \citep{lazendic+06} and G292.0+1.8
\citep{bhalerao+15} and an observation of Kepler's SNR (PI: Sangwook
Park) with a similar goal was observed in 2016 July. Hopefully more
remnants will be observed in coming cycles.
\acknowledgments{ The authors are grateful to the {\it ASTRO-H}
science team for giving us the opportunity to begin this
collaboration during a visit by T.S.\ to Rutgers University in
June--July 2015. We are also grateful for the travel support from
Tokyo Metropolitan University for T.S.'s subsequent trip to Rutgers
in January--April 2016. T.S.\ was also supported by the Japan
Society for the Promotion of Science (JSPS) KAKENHI Grant Number
16J03448. The research was also supported in part by NASA grant
NNX15AK71G. We thank the anonymous referee for a report that helped
to improve the article. }
\bibliographystyle{yahapj}
|
\section*{Introduction}
Let $S$ be an oriented surface with finitely many punctures. Suppose that $S$ is endowed with a negatively curved Riemannian metric and that in a neighborhood of each puncture the metric is ``asymptotically modeled" on a surface of revolution obtained by rotating the curve $y= x^r$, for some $ r>2$, about the $x$-axis in $\RR^3$ (where $r$ may depend on the puncture). The results in this paper allow us to conclude that the geodesic flow on $T^1S$ mixes exponentially fast.
Before stating the hypotheses precisely, we recall some facts about the metric on a surface $R$ of revolution for the function $y= x^r$. This surface is negatively curved, incomplete and the curvature can be expressed as a function of the distance to the cusp point $p_0$ where $x=y=0$. Denote by $\rho(\cdot,\cdot)$ the induced Riemannian path metric and $\delta \colon R\to \RR_{\geq 0}$ the Riemannian distance to the cusp:
$$
\delta (p) = \rho(p,p_0).
$$
Then for $r>1$, the Gaussian curvature on $R$ has the following asymptotic expansion in $\delta$, as $\delta\to 0$:
\[K(p) = -\frac{r(r-1)}{\delta(p)^2} + O(\delta(p)^{-1}).\]
Our main theorem applies to any incomplete, negatively curved surface with
singularities of this form. More precisely, we have:
\begin{mainthm}\label{t=main} Let $X$ be a closed surface, and let $\{p_1,\ldots, p_k\}\subset X$. Suppose that the punctured surface $S = X\setminus \{p_1,\ldots, p_k\}$ carries a $C^5$, negatively curved Riemannian metric that extends to a complete distance metric $\rho$ on $X$.
Assume that the lift of this metric to the universal cover $\widetilde S$ is geodesically convex.
Denote by $\delta_i\colon S\to \RR_+$ the distance
$\delta_i(p) = \rho(p, p_i)$, for $i=1,\ldots, k$.
Assume that there exist $r_1,\ldots,r_k > 2$ such that the Gaussian curvature $K$ satisfies
\[ K(p) = \sum_{i=1}^k -\frac{r_i(r_i-1)}{\delta_i(p)^2} + O(\delta_i(p)^{-1}) \]
and
\[ \|\nabla^j K(p)\| = \sum_{i=1}^k O({\delta_i(p)^{-2-j}}),
\]
for $j=1,2,3$ and all $p\in S$.
Then the geodesic flow $\varphi_t\colon T^1 S\to T^1S$ is exponentially mixing: there exist constants $c, C > 0$ such that
for every pair of $C^1$ functions $u_1, u_2 \in L^\infty(T^1S, \vol)$, we have
\[\left| \int_{T^1S} u_1 \, u_2\circ\varphi_t \,d\vol - \int u_1\, d\vol \int u_2\, d\vol \right| \leq Ce^{-ct}\|u_1\|_{C^1} \|u_2\|_{C^1},
\]
for all $t>0$, where $\vol$ denotes the Riemannian volume on $T^1S$ (which is finite) normalized so that
$\vol(T^1S)=1$.
\end{mainthm}
The regularity hypotheses on $u_1, u_2$ are not optimal. See Corollary~\ref{c=main} in the last section for precise formulations.
Theorem~\ref{t=main} has a direct application to the dynamics of the Weil-Petersson flow,
which is the geodesic flow for the Weil-Petersson metric $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_{WP}$ of the moduli spaces $\mathcal{M}_{g,n}$ of Riemann surfaces of genus $g \geq 0$
and $n \geq 0$ punctures, defined for $3g - 3 + n \geq 1$. For a discussion of the WP metric and properties
of its flow, see the recent, related work \cite{BMMW1}.
As a corollary, we obtain the following result, which originally motivated this study.
\begin{corollary}\label{c=WP} The Weil-Petersson geodesic flow on $T^1\mathcal{M}_{(g,n)}$ mixes exponentially fast when $(g,n) = (1,1)$ or $(0,4)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Corollary] Wolpert shows in \cite{Wol11} that the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{t=main} are satisfied by the WP metric on $\mathcal{M}_{g,n}$, for $3g - 3 + n = 1$.
\end{proof}
Mixing of the WP flow (for all $(g,n)$) had previously been established in \cite{BMW}. For $(g,n) \notin \{ (1,1), (0,4)\}$, the conclusions of Corollary~\ref{c=WP} do {\em not} hold \cite{BMMW1}: for every $k>0$, there exist
compactly supported,
$C^k$ test functions $u_1, u_2$ such that the correlation between $u_1$ and $u_2\circ\varphi_T$ decays at best polynomially in $T$.
\begin{remark} The geodesic convexity assumption in Theorem~\ref{t=main} can be replaced by a variety of other equivalent assumptions. For example, it is enough to assume that
$\delta_i = \beta_i + o(\delta_i)$, where $\beta_i$ is a convex function (as is the case in the WP metric). Alternatively, one may assume a more detailed expansion for the metric in the neighborhood of the cusps. For example, the assumptions near the cusp are satisfied for a surface of revolution for the function $y= u(x)x^r$, where $u\colon [0,1]\to \RR_{\geq 0}$ is $C^5$, with $u(0)\neq 0$ and $r>2$. One can easily formulate further perturbations of this metric outside the class of surfaces of revolutions for which the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{t=main} hold near $\delta=0$.
\end{remark}
To simplify the exposition and reduce as much as possible the use of unspecified constants, we will assume
in our proof that $k=1$, so that $ S$ has only one cusp.
\subsection{Discussion}
In a landmark paper \cite{D}, Dolgopyat established that the geodesic flow for any negatively-curved compact surface is exponentially mixing. His techniques, building in part on earlier work of Ruelle, Pollicott and Chernov, have since been extracted and generalized in a series of papers, first by Baladi-Vall\'ee \cite{BV}, then Avila-Gou\"ezel-Yoccoz \cite{AGY}, and most recently in the work of Ara\'ujo-Melbourne \cite{AM}, upon which this paper relies.
Ultimately, the obstructions to applying Dolgopyat's original argument in this context are purely technical, but to overcome these obstructions in any context is the heart of the matter. The solution to the analogous problem in the billiards context -- exponential mixing for Sinai billiards of finite horizon -- has only been recently established \cite{BDL}.
To prove exponential mixing using the symbolic-dynamical approach of Dolgopyat, Baladi-Vall\'ee $\hbox{et. al.}$, one constructs a section to the flow
with certain analytic and symbolic dynamical properties. In sum, one seeks a surface $\Sigma\subset T^1S$ transverse to the flow $\varphi_t$ in the three manifold $T^1S$ on which the dynamics of the return map can be tightly organized.
In particular, we seek a return time function $R\colon \Sigma_0\to \RR_{>0}$
defined on a full measure subset $\Sigma_0\subset \Sigma$, with
$\varphi_{R(v)}(v)\in \Sigma$ for all $v\in \Sigma_0$ and so that the dynamics of $F\colon v\mapsto \varphi_{R(v)}(v)$ on $\Sigma_0$ are hyperbolic and can be modeled on a full shift on countably many symbols. For $\varphi_t$ to be exponentially mixing, the function $R$ must be constant along stable manifolds, have
exponential tails and satisfy a non-integrability condition (UNI) (which will hold automatically if the flow $\varphi_t$ preserves a contact form, as is the case here).
Whereas in \cite{BV} and \cite{AGY} the map $F$ is required to be piecewise uniformly $C^2$, the regularity of $F$ is relaxed to $C^{1+\alpha}$ in \cite{AM}. This relaxation in regularity might seem mild, but it is crucial in applications to nonuniformly hyperbolic flows with singularities. The reason is that the surface $\Sigma$ is required to be saturated
by leaves of the (strong) stable foliation $\mathcal{W}^s$ for the flow $\varphi_t$. The smoothness of the foliation $\mathcal{W}^s$ thus dictates the smoothness of the surface $\Sigma$ which then determines the smoothness of $F$ (up to the smoothness of the original flow $\varphi_t$). {\em Even in the case of contact Anosov flows in dimension 3,} the foliation $\mathcal{W}^s$ is no better than $C^{1+\alpha}$, for some $\alpha\in(0,1)$, unless the flow is algebraic in nature.\footnote{This issue is bypassed in the application to the Teichm\"uller flow in \cite{AG, AGY} because there the stable and unstable foliations are locally affine.}
While it has long been known that this $C^{1+\alpha}$ regularity condition holds for the stable and unstable foliations of contact Anosov flows in dimension 3, this is far from the case for singular and nonuniformly hyperbolic flows, even in low dimension. In the context of this paper, the geodesic flow $\varphi_t$ is not even complete, and the standard singular hyperbolic theory fails to produce $\varphi_t$-invariant foliations $\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\mathcal{W}^s$, let alone foliations with $C^{1+\alpha}$ regularity.
The flows $\varphi_t$ considered here, while incomplete, bear several resemblances to Anosov flows. Most notably, there exist $D\varphi_t$-invariant stable and unstable cone fields that are defined {\em everywhere} in $T^1S$. The angle between these cone fields
tends to zero as the basepoint in $T^1S$ approaches the singularity. The action of $D\varphi_t$ in these cones
is strongly hyperbolic, with the strength of the hyperbolicity approaching infinity as the orbit comes close to the
singularity.
The key observation in this paper is that by changing the Riemannian metric on $T^1S$ {\em and} performing a natural time change in $\varphi_t$ one obtains a volume-preserving {\em Anosov} flow on a {\em complete} Riemannian manifold of finite volume. This time change does not change orbits and has a predictable effect on stable and unstable bundles. One can apply all of the known machinery for Anosov flows to this rescaled flow, and transferring the information back to the original flow, one concludes that $\varphi_t$ possesses invariant
stable and unstable foliations $\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\mathcal{W}^s$ that are locally uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$. This gives the crucial input in constructing the section $\Sigma$ and return function $R$ defined above.
In the setting of Weil-Petersson geometry, one can summarize the results of this time change: in the exceptional case $3g - 3 + n=1$, the Weil-Petersson geodesic flow, when run at unit speed {\em in the Teichm\"uller metric} is (like the Teichm\"uller flow) an Anosov flow. For $3g - 3 + n>1$, the WP flow is not Anosov, even when viewed in the Teichm\"uller metric (or an equivalent Riemannian metric such as in \cite{McMo}), but it might be fruitful to study the flow from this perspective. We remark here that Hamenst\"adt \cite{Ham} has recently constructed measurable orbit equivalences between the WP and Teichm\"uller geodesic flows
for all $3g - 3 + n\geq 1$.
A different approach, using anisotropic function spaces, has been employed by Liverani to establish exponential mixing for contact Anosov flows in arbitrary dimension, even when the foliations $\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\mathcal{W}^s$ fail to be $C^1$ \cite{Liv}. This method is more holistic (though no less technical) as the arguments take place in the manifold itself (not a section) and avoid symbolic dynamics. It would be interesting to attempt to import this machinery to the present context. This is the approach employed in the recent work of Baladi, Demers and Liverani on Sinai billiards in \cite{BDL} mentioned above.
This paper is organized as follows. In Section~\ref{s=prelim} we recall some facts about geodesic flows and basic comparison lemmas for ODEs. In Section~\ref{s=deltaregularity}, we establish (under the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{t=main}) $C^4$ regularity for the functions $\delta_i$ measuring distance to the cusps in $S$. The arguments there bear much in common with standard proofs of regularity of Busemann functions in negative curvature, but additional attention to detail is required to obtain the correct order estimates on the size of the derivatives of the $\delta_i$. In Section~\ref{s=revolution} we establish basic geometric properties of the surfaces considered here, in close analogy to properties of surfaces of revolution. These results refine some known properties of the Weil-Petersson metric.
Section~\ref{s=global} addresses the global properties of the flow $\varphi_t$. Here we construct a new Riemannian metric
on $T^1S$, which we call the $\star$ metric, in which $T^1S$ is complete. Rescaling $\varphi_t$ to be unit speed in the $\star$ metric, we obtain a new flow $\psi_t$ which we prove is Anosov, with {\em uniform} bounds on its first three derivatives (in the $\star$ metric). We derive consequences of this, including ergodicity of $\varphi_t$ and existence and $C^{1+\alpha}$ regularity of $\varphi_t$ invariant unstable and stable foliations $\mathcal{W}^s$ and $\mathcal{W}^u$.
In the final section (Section~\ref{s=expmix}), we construct the section $\Sigma$ to the flow and return time function $R$ satisfying the hypotheses of the Ara\'ujo-Melbourne theorem. In essence this is equivalent to constructing a Young tower for the return map to $\Sigma$ and is carried out using standard methods. Here the properties of geodesics established in Section~\ref{s=revolution} come into play in describing the dynamics of the return map of the flow to the compact part of $T^1S$.
We thank Scott Wolpert, Sebastien Gou\"ezel, Carlangelo Liverani and Curtis McMullen for useful conversations, and Viviane Baladi and Ian Melbourne for comments on a draft of this paper.
\section{Notation and preliminaries}\label{s=prelim}
Let $S$ be an oriented surface endowed with a Riemannian metric. As usual $\langle v,w\rangle$ denotes the inner product of two vectors and $\nabla$ is the Levi-Civita connection defined by the Riemannian metric. It is the unique connection that is symmetric and compatible with the metric.
The surface $S$ carries a unique almost complex structure compatible with the metric.
We denote this structure by $J$; for $v \in T^1_p S$, the vector $J v$ is the unique tangent vector in $T^1_pS$ such that $(v, Jv)$ is a positively oriented orthonormal frame.
The covariant derivative along a curve $t \mapsto c(t)$ in $S$ is denoted by $D_c$, $\frac D{dt}$ or simply $'$ if it is not necessary to specify the curve; if $V(t)$ is a vector field along $c$ that extends to a vector field $\widehat V$ on $S$, we have $V'(t) = \nabla_{\dot c(t)} \widehat V$.
Given a smooth map $(s,t) \mapsto \alpha(s,t)\in S$, we let $\frac D{\partial s}$ denote covariant differentiation along a curve of the form $s \mapsto \alpha(s,t)$ for a fixed $t$. Similarly $\frac D{\partial t}$ denotes
covariant differentiation along a curve of the form $t \mapsto \alpha(s,t)$ for a fixed $s$. The symmetry of the Levi-Civita connection means that
$$
\frac D{\partial s}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial t}(s,t) = \frac D{\partial t}\frac{\partial\alpha}{\partial s}(s,t)
$$
for all $s$ and $t$.
A geodesic segment $\gamma\colon I\to S$ is a curve satisfying $\gamma''(t) = D_\gamma \dot \gamma(t) = 0$, for all $t\in I$. Throughout this paper, all geodesics are assumed to be unit speed: $\|\dot\gamma\|\equiv 1$.
The Riemannian curvature tensor $R$ is defined by
$$
R(A,B)C = (\nabla_A\nabla_B - \nabla_B\nabla_A - \nabla_{[A,B]})C
$$
and the Gaussian curvature $K\colon S\to \RR$ is defined by
\[K(p) =\langle R(v, Jv)Jv, v\rangle,
\]
where $v\in T^1_pS$ is an arbitrary unit vector.
For $v\in TS$, we represent each element $\xi\in T_vTS$ in the standard way as a pair
$\xi = (v_1,v_2)$ with $v_1\in T_pS$ and $v_2\in T_pS$, as follows.
Each element $\xi\in T_vTS$ is tangent to a curve $V\colon (-1,1) \to T^1S$ with $V(0) = v$. Let
$c = \pi\circ V\colon (-1,1) \to S$ be the curve of basepoints of $V$ in $S$, where
$\pi\colon TS\to S$ is the standard projection. Then $\xi$ is represented
by the pair
$$
(\dot c(0), D_cV(0)) \in T_pS\times T_pS.
$$
Regarding $TTS$ as a bundle over $S$ in this way
gives rise to a natural Riemannian metric on $TS$, called the {\em Sasaki metric}. In this metric, the
inner product of two elements $(v_1,w_1)$ and $(v_2,w_2)$ of $T_vTS$ is defined:
$$
\langle (v_1,w_1) , (v_2,w_2) \rangle_{Sas} = \langle v_1 , v_2 \rangle + \langle w_1 , w_2 \rangle .
$$
This metric is induced by a symplectic form $d\omega$ on $TTS$; for vectors $(v_1,w_1)$ and
$(v_2,w_2)$ in $T_vTS$, we have:
$$
d\omega((v_1,w_1) , (v_2,w_2)) = \langle v_1,w_2 \rangle - \langle w_1,v_2 \rangle.
$$
This symplectic form is the pull back of the canonical symplectic form on the cotangent bundle $T^*S$ by the map from $TS$ to $T^*S$ induced by identifying a vector $v \in T_pS$ with the linear function $\langle v, \cdot\rangle$ on $T_pS$.
\subsection{The geodesic flow and Jacobi fields}
For $v \in TS$ let $\gamma_v$ denote the unique geodesic $\gamma_v$ satisfying $\dot\gamma_v(0) = v$. The geodesic flow $\varphi_t : TS\to TS$ is defined by
$$
\varphi_t(v) = \dot\gamma_v(t),
$$
wherever this is well-defined. The geodesic flow is always defined locally.
The {\em geodesic spray} is the vector field $\dot\varphi$ on $TS$ (that is, a section of $TTS$) generating the geodesic flow. In the natural coordinates on $TTS$ given by the connection,
we have $\dot\varphi(v) = (v,0)$, for each $v\in TS$. The spray is tangent to the level sets $\|\cdot\| = const$. Henceforth when we refer to the geodesic flow $\varphi_t$, we implicity mean the restriction of this flow to the unit tangent bundle $T^1S$.
Since the geodesic flow is Hamiltonian, it preserves a natural volume form on $T^1S$ called the Liouville volume form. When the integral of this form is finite, it induces a unique probability measure on $T^1S$ called the {\em Liouville measure} or {\em Liouville volume}.
Consider now a one-parameter family of geodesics, that is a map $\alpha:(-1,1)^2\to S$ with the property that
$\alpha(s,\cdot)$ is a geodesic for each $s\in (-1,1)$. Denote by $\mathcal{J}(t)$ the vector field
$$
\mathcal{J}(t) = \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial s}(0,t)
$$
along the geodesic $\gamma(t) = \alpha(0,t)$.
Then $\mathcal{J}$ satisfies the {\em Jacobi equation:}
\begin{equation}\label{e=jacobi}
\mathcal{J}'' + R(\mathcal{J},\dot\gamma)\dot\gamma = 0,
\end{equation}
in which $'$ denotes covariant differentiation along $\gamma$.
Since this is a second order linear ODE,
the pair of
vectors $(\mathcal{J}(0), \mathcal{J}'(0)) \in T_{\gamma(0)}M \times T_{\gamma(0)}M$ uniquely determines the vectors
$\mathcal{J}(t)$ and $\mathcal{J}'(t)$ along $\gamma(t)$. A vector field $\mathcal{J}$ along a geodesic $\gamma$ satisfying the Jacobi equation is called a {\em Jacobi field}.
The pair $(\mathcal{J}(t),\mathcal{J}'(t))$ corresponds in the manner described above to the tangent vector at $s= t$ to the
curve $s \mapsto \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial t}(s,t) = \varphi_t \circ V(s)$, which is $D\varphi_t(V'(0))$. Thus
\begin{proposition} \label{prop:key}
The image of the tangent vector $(v_1,v_2)\in T_vTS$ under the derivative of the
geodesic flow $D_v\varphi_t$ is the tangent vector $(\mathcal{J}(t),\mathcal{J}'(t))\in T_{\varphi_t(v)}TS$, where $\mathcal{J}$ is the unique
Jacobi field along $\gamma$ satisfying $\mathcal{J}(0) = v_1$ and $\mathcal{J}'(0) = v_2$.
\end{proposition}
Computing the Wronskian of the Jacobi field $\dot\gamma$ and an arbitrary Jacobi field $\mathcal{J}$ shows that $\langle \mathcal{J}', \dot\gamma \rangle$ is constant.
It follows that if $\mathcal{J}'(t_0) \perp \dot\gamma(t_0)$ for some $t_0$, then $\mathcal{J}'(t) \perp \dot\gamma(t)$ for all $t$. Similarly if $\mathcal{J}(t_0) \perp \dot\gamma(t_0)$ and $\mathcal{J}'(t_0) \perp \dot\gamma(t_0)$ for some $t_0$, then $\mathcal{J}(t) \perp \dot\gamma(t)$ and $\mathcal{J}'(t) \perp \dot\gamma(t)$ for all $t$; in this case we call $\mathcal{J}$ a {\em perpendicular Jacobi field}.
If $\alpha$ is a variation of geodesics giving rise to a perpendicular Jacobi field, then we
call $\alpha$ a {\em perpendicular variation of geodesics}.
The space of all perpendicular Jacobi fields along a unit speed geodesic $\gamma$
corresponds to the orthogonal complement $\dot\varphi^\perp(v)$ (in the Sasaki metric) to the geodesic spray $\dot\varphi(v)$ at the point $v = \dot\gamma(0) \in T^1S$. To estimate the norm of the derivative $D\varphi_t$ on $TT^1S$, it suffices to restrict attention to vectors in the invariant subspace $\dot\varphi^\perp$; that is, it suffices to estimate the growth of perpendicular Jacobi fields along unit speed geodesics.
Because $S$ is a surface, the Jacobi equation (\ref{e=jacobi}) of a perpendicular Jacobi field along a unit speed geodesic segment can be expressed as a scalar ODE in one variable. Given such a geodesic
$\gamma\colon I\to S$, any perpendicular Jacobi field $\mathcal{J}$ along $\gamma$ can be written in the form
$(\mathcal{J}(t), \mathcal{J}'(t)) = (j(t)J\dot\gamma(t), j'(t)J\dot\gamma(t))$, where $j\colon I\to\RR$ satisfies the
{\em scalar Jacobi equation:}
\begin{equation}\label{e=scalarjacobi}
j''(t) = -K(\gamma(t)) j(t).
\end{equation}
To analyze solutions to (\ref{e=scalarjacobi}) it is often convenient to consider the functions
$u(t) = j'(t)/j(t)$ and $\zeta(t) = j(t)/j'(t)$ which satisfy the Riccati equations
$u'(t) = -K(\gamma(t)) - u^2(t)$ and $\zeta'(t) = 1 + K(\gamma(t))\zeta^2(t)$, respectively.
In the next subsection, we describe some techniques for analyzing solutions to these types of equations.
\subsection{Comparison lemmas for Ordinary Differential Equations}\label{s=comparison}
We will use a few basic comparison lemmas for solutions to ordinary differential equations.
The first is standard and is presented without proof:
\begin{lemma}\label{l=comparison}{\bf [Basic comparison]}
Let $F\colon \RR \times [t_0, t_1] \to \RR$ be $C^1$, and let $\zeta\colon [t_0, t_1] \to \RR$ be a solution to the ODE
\begin{equation}\label{e=basicODE}
\zeta'(t) = F(\zeta(t), t).
\end{equation}
Suppose that $\underline u,\overline u\colon [t_0,t_1]\to\RR$ are $C^1$ functions satisfying $\underline u(t_0) \leq \zeta(t_0) \leq \overline u(t_0)$. Then the following hold:
\begin{itemize}
\item If $F(\overline u(t), t) \leq \overline u'(t)$
for all $t\in [t_0, t_1]$, then $\zeta(t)\leq \overline u(t)$ for all $t\in [t_0,t_1]$.
\item If $F(\overline u(t), t) < \overline u'(t)$
for all $t\in [t_0, t_1]$, then $\zeta(t) < \overline u(t)$ for all $t\in (t_0,t_1]$.
\item If $F(\underline u(t), t) \geq \underline u'(t)$
for all $t\in [t_0, t_1]$, then $\zeta(t)\geq \underline u(t)$ for all $t\in [t_0,t_1]$.
\item If $F(\underline u(t), t) > \underline u'(t)$
for all $t\in [t_0, t_1]$, then $\zeta(t) > \underline u(t)$ for all $t\in (t_0,t_1]$.
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
We will have several occasions to deal with Riccati equations of the form
$\zeta'(t) = 1 - k^2(t)\zeta^2(t)$ on an interval $[t_0,t_1]$ (where typically $-k^2(t) = K(\gamma(t))$ for some geodesic segment $\gamma$).
Since the curvature of the surfaces we consider is not bounded away from $-\infty$, most of the ODEs we deal with will have unbounded coefficients. This necessitates reproving some standard results about solutions. A key basic result is the following.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=monotone2}{\bf[Existence of Unstable Riccati Solutions]}
Suppose $k\colon (t_0, t_1] \to \RR_{>0}$ is a $C^1$ function satisfying
$\lim_{t\to t_0} k(t) = \infty$.
Then there exists a unique solution $\zeta(t)$ to the Riccati equation
\begin{equation}\label{e=Riccsimple}
\zeta' = 1 - k^2 \zeta^2
\end{equation}
for $t\in(t_0,t_1]$ satisfying $\zeta(t)>0$ on $(t_0,t_1]$
and $\lim_{t\to t_0} \zeta(t)= 0$.
Moreover, if $\underline k\colon (t_0,t_1] \to \RR_{>0}$ is any $C^1$ function satisfying
$\underline k'(t) < 0$ and $\underline k(t) \leq k(t)$, for all $t\in (t_0,t_1]$, then
$\zeta(t) \leq \underline k(t)^{-1}$,
for all $t\in [t_0,t_1]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $\underline k$ be a function satisfying the hypotheses of the lemma.
Then there is a function $k_0: (t_0,t_1] \to \RR_{>0}$ such that $k_0'(t) < 0$ and $\underline k(t) \leq k_0(t) \leq k(t)$ for all $t \in (t_0,t_1]$ and $k_0(t)^{-1} \to 0$ as $t \to t_0$. Observe that $(d/dt)(k_0^{-1}(t)) > 0 \geq 1 - k(t)^2k_0(t)^{-2}$ for $t_0 < t \leq t_1$.
Now fix a decreasing sequence $t_n\to t_0$ in $(t_0, t_1)$.
For each $n > 1$ let $\zeta_n$ be the solution to (\ref{e=Riccsimple}) on $[t_n,t_1]$ with $\zeta_n(t_n)=0$.
We can
apply Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} to equation (\ref{e=Riccsimple}) on the interval $[t_n,t_1]$ with $\underline u(t) = 0$ and $\overline u(t) = k_0(t)^{-1}$. This gives us $0 < \zeta_n(t) \leq k_0(t)^{-1}$ for $t_n < t \leq t_1$.
We can also apply Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} on this interval with $\zeta = \zeta_m$ for $m \geq n$ and $\underline u = \zeta_n$. This gives us $\zeta_m(t) \geq \zeta_n(t)$, for $t_n \leq t \leq t_1$.
The sequence of solutions $\zeta_n$ is thus increasing, positive and bounded above by $k_0^{-1}$. It follows
that the function $\zeta := \lim_{n\to \infty} \zeta_n$ is a solution to (\ref{e=Riccsimple}), is
positive on $(t_0, t_1]$, is bounded above by $k_0^{-1}$, and thus satisfies $\lim_{t\to t_0} \zeta(t) = 0$.
It remains to show that $\zeta$ is the only solution of (\ref{e=Riccsimple}) with the desired properties. Suppose $\eta$ is another such solution. Since the graphs of two solutions of (\ref{e=Riccsimple}) cannot cross, we may assume that $\zeta(t) \geq \eta(t) \geq 0$ for $t_0 \leq t \leq t_1$. But then
$$
(\zeta - \eta)'(t) = k(t)^2[(\eta(t)^2 - \zeta(t)^2] \leq 0
$$
for $t_0 < t \leq t_1$. Since $(\zeta - \eta)(t) \to 0$ as $t \to t_0$, this is possible only if $\zeta (t) = \eta(t)$ for $t_0 \leq t \leq t_1$.
\end{proof}
We call the solution of the Riccati equation defined by the previous lemma the {\em unstable solution} on $(t_0,t_1]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=monotone2.5}{\bf[Comparison of Unstable Riccati Solutions]}
For $i = 1,2$, let $k_i : (t_0, t_1] \to \RR_{>0}$ be a $C^1$ function satisfying
$\lim_{t\to t_0} k_i(t) = \infty$ and let $\zeta_i: (t_0, t_1] \to \RR_{>0}$ be the unstable solution.
Suppose
$k_1(t) \geq k_2(t)$ for all $t\in(t_0,t_1]$. Then $\zeta_1(t)\leq \zeta_2(t)$ for all $t\in[t_0,t_1]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Suppose $\zeta_2(t'_0) \geq \zeta_1(t'_0)$ for some $t'_0 \in (t_0,t_1]$. Then we can apply Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} to the equation $\zeta' = 1 - k_1^2 \zeta^2$ with $\zeta = \zeta_1$ and $\overline u = \zeta_2$ to obtain $\zeta_2(t)\geq \zeta_1(t)$ for all $t\in[t'_0,t_1]$.
It now suffices to show that if there is $t'_1 \in (t_0,t_1]$ such that $\zeta_1(t) \geq \zeta_2(t)$ for all $t\in[t_0,t'_1]$, then we must have $\zeta_1(t) = \zeta_2(t)$ for all $t\in[t_0,t'_1]$. But if
$\zeta_1 \geq \zeta_2 \geq 0$ on $(t_0,t_1']$ we have
$$
(\zeta_1 - \zeta_2)'(t) = k_2(t)^2\zeta_2(t)^2 - k_1(t)^2\zeta_1(t)^2 \leq 0
$$
for $t_0 < t \leq t'_1$. Since $(\zeta_1 - \zeta_2)(t) \to 0$ as $t \to t_0$, this is possible only if $\zeta_1 (t) = \zeta_2(t)$ for $t_0 \leq t \leq t'_1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma}\label{l=monotone3}
Let $k\colon (0, t_1] \to \RR_{>0}$ be a $C^1$ function satisfying
$\lim_{t\to 0} k(t) = \infty$,
and let $\zeta(t)$ be the unstable solution. Let $r > 1$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $k(t)^2 \geq r(r-1)/t^2$ for all $t \in (0,t_1]$, then
$ \zeta(t) \leq t/r$ for all $t \in (0,t_1]$.
\item If $k(t)^2 \leq r(r-1)/t^2$ for all $t \in (0,t_1]$, then
$ \zeta(t) \geq t/r$ for all $t \in (0,t_1]$.
\item Suppose $N>0$, $0<t_2<\min\{t_1, (r-1)/N\}$ and
$$
k(t)^2 \in \left [ \frac{r(r-1)}{t^2} - \frac Nt , \frac{r(r-1)}{t^2} + \frac Nt \right]\qquad\text{for all $t \in (0,t_2]$.}
$$
Then there exists $M>0$ such that
$$
\zeta(t) \in \left[ \frac{t}{r} - Mt^2, \frac{t}{r} + Mt^2\right] \qquad\text{for all $t \in (0,t_2]$.}
$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
1~and 2. \ These follow from Lemma~\ref{l=monotone2.5} because $\zeta(t) = t/r$ is the unstable solution for
$$
\zeta' = 1 - \frac{r(r-1)}{t^2}\zeta^2.
$$
\medskip
3. \ Choose $\delta >0$ such that $0<t_2<1/2\delta<(r-1)/N$. Then,
$$
\frac{(r - \delta t)(r - \delta t-1)}{t^2} \leq \frac{r(r - 1)}{t^2} - \frac Nt
\quad\text{and}\quad
\frac{(r + \delta t)(r + \delta t -1)}{t^2} \geq \frac{r(r+1)}{t^2} + \frac Nt
$$
for $0 < t \leq t_2$. It follows from parts 1 and 2 of this lemma that for each $\tau \in (0,t_2]$ we have
$\zeta(t) \in \left[ t/{(r + \delta\tau)}, t/{(r - \delta\tau)} \right]$,
for all $t \in (0,\tau]$. Consequently,
$ \zeta(t) \in \left[ t/{(r +\delta t)}, t/{(r -\delta t)} \right]$,
for all $t \in (0,t_2]$.
Now choose $M > 2\delta/r$. We then have
$$
\frac{t}{r} - Mt^2 \leq \frac t{(r +\delta t)} \quad \text{and}\quad
\frac t{(r - \delta t)} \leq \frac{t}{r} + Mt^2,
$$
for $0< t \leq t_2$. We conclude that $\zeta(t) \in [t/r - Mt^2, t/r + Mt^2]$, for $0\leq t \leq t_2$.
\end{proof}
\section{Regularity of the distance $\delta$ to the cusp}\label{s=deltaregularity}
Suppose $S$ satisfies the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{t=main}, with $k=1$.
Before considering the global properties of the metric on $S$, we introduce local coordinates about the puncture $p_1$ and study the behavior of geodesics that remain in this cuspidal region during some time interval.
In this section and the next, we thus assume that the punctured disk $\DD^\ast$ has been endowed with an incomplete Riemannian metric, whose completion is the closed disk $\overline \DD$.
Assume that the lift of this metric to $\widetilde{\DD^\ast}$ is {\em geodesically convex:} that is, any two points in $\widetilde{\DD^\ast}$ can be connected by a unique geodesic in $\widetilde{\DD^\ast}$.
Let $\rho$ be the Riemannian distance metric on $\overline \DD$ and for $z\in\DD$, let
$\delta(z) = \rho(z,0)$. For $\delta_0\in (0,1)$, we denote by $\DD^\ast(\delta_0)$ the set of
$z\in\DD^\ast$ with $\delta(z) < \delta_0$.
Assume that that there exists $r>2$ such that for all $z\neq 0$ the curvature of the Riemannian metric satisfies:
\begin{equation}\label{e=Kassump}
0 > K(z) = - \frac{r(r-1)}{\delta(z)^2} + O(\delta(z)^{-1}),
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}\label{e=nablaKassump}
\|\nabla^j K(z)\| = O({\delta(z)^{-2-j}}),
\end{equation}
for $j=1,2,3$.
The main result of this section establishes regularity of the function $\delta$ and estimates on the size of its derivatives. We also introduce a function $c$ that measures the geodesic curvature of the level sets of $\delta$ and establish some of its properties.
The results in this section establish in this incomplete, singular setting the standard regularity properties of Busemann functions for compact, negatively curved manifolds (see, e.g. \cite{HeintzeImHof}) -- in particular, Busemann functions for a $C^k$ metric are $C^{k-1}$. The main techniques are thus fairly standard but require some care in the use of comparison lemmas for ODEs. To avoid tedium, we have described many calculations in detail but have left others to the reader.
\begin{proposition}\label{p=c} The cusp distance function $\delta$ is $C^4$.
Let $V = \nabla\delta$, and let $c\colon \DD^\ast\to \RR_{>0}$ be the geodesic curvature function defined by
\begin{equation}\label{e=cdef}
c = \langle \nabla_{JV} V , JV\rangle.
\end{equation}
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\nabla_{JV} V = [JV,V] = cJV$.
\item for any vector field $U$:
$\nabla_UV= c \langle U,JV\rangle JV,\,\hbox{ and } \, \nabla_U JV=-c \langle U,JV\rangle V$.
\item $c = {r}/{\delta} + O(1)$.
\item $\| \nabla c\| = O(\delta^{-2})$.
\item $\| \nabla^2 c\| = O(\delta^{-3})$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{corollary}\label{l=cuspdist}
The function $\delta$ satisfies: $\|\nabla \delta\| = 1$ and $\|\nabla^i \delta\| = O(\delta^{1-i})$, for $i=2,3,4$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} This follows from the facts: $\nabla_U \delta = \langle U, V \rangle$,
$\nabla_U V = c \langle U,JV\rangle JV = O(\delta^{-1})\|U\|$,
and $\|\nabla^j c\| = O(\delta^{-1-j})$, $j=1, 2$, proved in Proposition~\ref{p=c}.
\end{proof}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{p=c}] We prove first that $\delta$ is $C^4$, in several steps.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Step 0: $\delta$ is continuous.}
We realize the universal cover of the punctured disk ${\DD^\ast}$ as the strip
$\RR\times (0,1)$ with the deck transformations $(x,t)\mapsto (x+n,t)$, $n\in \ZZ$. Endow $\RR\times (0,1)$ with the lifted metric, which is geodesically convex by assumption, and lift $\delta$ to a function $\tilde \delta$.
By assumption, the completion of ${\DD^\ast}$ is $\overline\DD$, and so the completion
$\overline{\RR\times (0,1)}$ in this metric is the union of $\RR\times (0,1]$ with a single point $p^\ast$.
Since $\RR\times (0,1)$ is negatively curved and geodesically convex, it is in particular $CAT(0)$. The $CAT(0)$ property is preserved under completion, and so $\overline{\RR\times (0,1]}$ is also $CAT(0)$.
Thus for every
for every $\tilde z_0 \in \RR\times (0,1]$, there is a unique
unit-speed geodesic from $\tilde z_0$ to $p^\ast$. This projects to a (unique) geodesic in
$\DD$ from $z_0$ to $0$.
Fix $z_0\in \DD^\ast$ with lift $\tilde z_0 \in \RR\times (0,1]$, and let $\gamma_{0,z_0}\colon [0,\delta(z_0)]\to \overline \DD$ be
the unit-speed geodesic from $0$ to $z_0$ found by the previous argument. It has the property
that $\delta(\gamma_{0,z_0}(t))= \rho(0, \gamma_{0,z_0}(t) ) = t$ for every $t\in [0,\delta(z_0)]$.
Let $t_n\to 0$ be a sequence of times
in $(0,\delta(z_0))$, and define a sequence of functions
$\tilde \delta_n\colon\RR\times (0,1] \to \RR_{>0}$ by $\delta_n(\tilde z) = \tilde\rho(\tilde z, \tilde\gamma_{0,\tilde z_0}(t_n))$. The $\tilde \delta_n$ are convex, $C^3$ away from $\tilde\gamma_{0, \tilde z_0}(t_n)$, and $\|\nabla \delta_n\| = 1$ for all $n$.
\begin{lemma} For every $\tilde z\in\RR\times (0,1]$ and all $m\geq n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e=deltadiff}|\tilde \delta_n(\tilde z) - \tilde \delta_m(\tilde z)| \leq t_n-t_m\leq t_n,
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This follows from the triangle inequality.
\end{proof}
Since $\tilde\delta_n$ is Cauchy, it converges (locally uniformly in $\RR\times (0,1]$) to a continuous, convex function $\widehat\delta$. Moreover $\widehat\delta(\tilde z)$ is the distance $\tilde\rho(\tilde z,p^\ast)$. It follows that $\tilde\delta$ is continuous (and convex), and so $\delta$ is continuous.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Step 1: $\delta$ is $C^1$.}
Let $\tilde V_n = \nabla \tilde \delta_n$ be the corresponding sequence of radial vector fields on $\RR\times (0,1]$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=Vn}
Fix $\tilde z\in\RR\times (0,1]$. For all $m\geq n$ sufficiently large, we have:
$$
\|\tilde V_n(\tilde z) - \tilde V_m(\tilde z)\| \leq \frac{t_n}{\tilde \delta(\tilde z) - t_n}.
$$
Thus $\tilde V_n$ is a Cauchy sequence in the local uniform topology.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
This is a standard argument in negative curvature (in fact nonpositive curvature suffices).
This uses that $\|\nabla \delta_n\| = 1$ for all $n$.
\end{proof}
This lemma implies that $\delta$ is $C^1$. Let $\tilde V$ be the local uniform limit of the $\tilde V_n$: by definition, $V = \nabla \tilde \delta$.
Let $V = \nabla \delta$ be the projection of $\tilde V$ to $\DD^\ast$.
It remains to show that $V$ is $C^3$, which implies that $\delta$ is $C^4$.
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Step 2: $V$ is $C^1$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{l=VisC1} There exists $\delta_0>0$, such that for every $z_0\in \DD^\ast$ with $\delta(z_0) < \delta_0$,
the following holds.
For every vector field $U$, $ \nabla_U V$ exists and is continuous in a neighborhood of $\gamma_{0,z_0}((0,\delta(z_0)])$.
Moreover:
\begin{equation}\label{e=jvstuff} \nabla_{JV} V (\gamma_{0,z_0}(t)) = \zeta(t)^{-1} JV(\gamma_{0,z_0}(t)),
\end{equation}
for all $t\in (0,\delta(z_0)]$, where $\zeta$ is the positive solution to the Riccati equation
\begin{equation}\label{e=zetaeq}
\zeta'(t) = 1 + K(\gamma_{0,z_0}(t)) \zeta(t)^2,
\end{equation}
given by Lemma~\ref{l=monotone2}, satisfying $\zeta(0) = 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Fix $\delta_0>0$ (we will specify how small it must be later). Fix $z_0$ with $\delta(z_0)\leq \delta_0$, and denote by $\gamma$ the geodesic $\gamma_{0,z_0}$.
For each $n$, define a perpendicular, radial variation of geodesics $\gamma_n(s,t)$ by the properties:
$\gamma_n(0,t) = \gamma(t)$, $\gamma_n(s,t_n) = \gamma(t_n)$ and
$$\frac{D^2 \gamma_n}{\partial s\partial t} (s,\delta_0) = J\dot \gamma_n (s, \delta_0),$$
for all $s,t$ with $t\geq t_n$ (and $s$ belonging to a small, fixed neighborhood of $0$). Let $\delta_n\colon \DD^\ast \to \RR_{>0}$ be defined by $\delta_n(z) = \rho(z, \gamma(t_n))$;
then for $t\geq t_n$, and $s$ sufficiently small, we have
\[\delta_n(\gamma_n(s,t)) = t - t_n.\]
It follows that for any $\epsilon>0$, if $n$ sufficiently large and $t\geq (1+2/\varepsilon)t_n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e=uniformtn}
\delta(\gamma_n(s,t)) \in[ (1-\epsilon)t + \epsilon t_n , t ].
\end{equation}
We have already shown (working on the universal cover) that in a neighborhood of $\gamma$, we have $\delta_n\to\delta$ and $V_n =\nabla \delta_n \to V$ uniformly on compact sets.
Let $\gamma(s,t)$ be the limiting variation of geodesics, which satisfies
$\gamma(0,t) = \gamma(t)$, and $\delta(\gamma(s,t)) = t$. At this point we have shown that $\gamma$ is $C^1$,
with $\partial \gamma/\partial s (s,\delta_0) = JV(\gamma(s,\delta_0))$.
Note that
$V_n(\gamma_n(0,t)) = V(\gamma_n(0,t)) = V(\gamma(t))$,
for all $n$, $t\geq t_n$.
Since $V_n\to V$, it suffices to show that
$$\nabla_{V_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t) )\to \nabla_V V(\gamma(s,t) )\, \hbox{ and } \nabla_{JV_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t)) \to \nabla_{JV} V (\gamma(s,t)).
$$
The proof that $\nabla_{V_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t)) \to \nabla_V V(\gamma(s,t))$ is immediate:
since $\gamma_n$ is a variation of geodesics, we have
$\gamma_n'' = \nabla_{V_n}V_n \equiv 0 \equiv \nabla_{V}V = \gamma''$.
We now show that $\nabla_{JV_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t)) \to \nabla_{JV} V (\gamma(s,t))$.
Let $j_n(s,t)$ be the scalar Jacobi field associated with the perpendicular variation $\gamma_n$:
$$
\frac{\partial\gamma_n}{\partial s} = j_n(s,t)J \dot\gamma_n(s,t) = j_n(s,t)J V_n(s,t).
$$
On the one hand,
$$ \frac{D}{\partial s} V_n(\gamma_n(s,t)) = \frac{D^2}{\partial s\partial t} \gamma_n(s,t) = j_n'(s,t) J V_n(s,t),$$
while on the other hand,
$$ \frac{D}{\partial s} V_n(\gamma_n(s,t)) = \nabla_{j_n(s,t)J V_n(s,t)} V_n = j_n(s,t) \nabla_{J V_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t)).
$$
Writing $\zeta_n(s,t) = j_n(s,t)/j_n'(s,t)$, we thus have
$ \zeta_n(s,t) \nabla_{J V_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t)) = J V_n (\gamma_n(s,t))$.
We prove that $\zeta_n(s,t)$ converges to $\zeta(s,t)$, the positive solution to (\ref{e=zetaeq}).
To see this, we first establish uniform upper and lower bounds for $\zeta_n(s,t)$, for $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon)t_n$. The $\zeta_n$ satisfy the Riccati equation:
\begin{equation}\label{e=zetan}
\zeta_n'(s,t) = 1 + K(\gamma_n(s,t)) \zeta_n(s,t)^2,
\end{equation}
with $\zeta_n(s,t_n) = 0$, for all $s$.
Now $$K(\gamma_n(s,t)) = -\frac{r(r-1)}{\delta(\gamma_n(s,t))^2} + O(\delta(\gamma_n(s,t))^{-1}).$$
By (\ref{e=uniformtn}) we thus have:
\begin{equation}\label{e=crudeKbounds}
K(\gamma_n(s,t)) \in \left[-\frac{r^2}{t^2} , -\frac{(r-1)^2}{ t^2} \right],
\end{equation}
if $\delta(z_0) \leq \delta_0$ is sufficiently small, $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$, and $n$ is sufficiently large.
We show that there exists $\mu\in (0,1)$ such that,
for $n$ sufficiently large, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e=zetamu}
\zeta_n (t)\in [\mu(t-t_n), \mu^{-1}(t-t_n)].
\end{equation}
To see the lower bound, let $u = \mu(t-t_n)$. Then $u' = \mu$. On the other hand,
when $\zeta_n(t) = u$, we have $\zeta_n' = 1 + K\mu^2(t-t_n)^2$. This is larger than $u'$ provided that
$1 + K\mu^2(t-t_n)^2 > \mu$. But this will hold if
$1 - r^2\mu^2 > \mu$.
The upper bound is similarly obtained.
By Lemma~\ref{l=comparison}, $\zeta_n(t) \geq \mu(t-t_n)$ for all $t\geq t_n$, which proves (\ref{e=zetamu}).
We now use Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} to prove that for some large but fixed $C$:
\begin{equation}\label{e=zetamzetan}
|(\zeta_{m} - \zeta_n)(s,t)| \leq C t_n,
\end{equation}
for all $s$ and $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$.
For $m\geq n$, we have, since $\zeta_n(s, t_n) = 0$:
\[|(\zeta_{m} - \zeta_n)(s,t_n)| \leq |\zeta_{m}(s,t_n)| + |\zeta_n(s,t_n)| = |\zeta_{m}(s,t_n)| \leq t_n.\]
Subtracting the ODEs for $\zeta_m$ and $\zeta_n$, we have for $t>t_n$:
\[
(\zeta_n - \zeta_m)'(s,t) = K(\gamma_n(s,t)) \zeta_n(s,t)^2 - K(\gamma_m(s,t)) \zeta_m(s,t)^2 =
\]
\[ \left( K(\gamma_n(s,t)) - K(\gamma_m(s,t)) \right) \zeta_m(s,t)^2 +
K(\gamma_n(s,t)) \left(\zeta_n(s,t)^2 - \zeta_m(s,t)^2 \right )
\]
\[
= O\left( \frac{t_n (t-t_n)^2}{t^3}\right) + K(\gamma_n(s,t))(\zeta_n(s,t)+\zeta_m(s,t))(\zeta_n(s,t) - \zeta_m(s,t)),
\]
since $\|\nabla K(\gamma_n(s,t)) \|= O(\delta(\gamma_n(s,t))^{-3}) = O(t^{-3}$),
$\rho(\gamma_n(s,t), \gamma_m(s,t)) = O(t_n)$, and $\zeta_m(s,t) = O(t-t_m)$.
Writing $y = \zeta_n - \zeta_m$, we have that $y$ satisfies the ODE
\begin{equation}\label{e=y}
y' = O\left( \frac{t_n(t-t_n)^2}{t^3}\right) + K(\gamma_n(s,t))(\zeta_n(s,t)+\zeta_m(s,t))y.
\end{equation}
Fix $n$ and let $u(t) = C t_n$. Then $u'(t) = 0$, and $y'$ evaluated at $y=u$ is
\[
y' = O\left( \frac{t_n (t-t_n)^2}{t^3}\right) + K(\gamma_n(s,t))(\zeta_n(s,t)+\zeta_m(s,t))C t_n
\]
We claim that if $C$ is sufficiently large, then $y' \leq 0 = u'$. To see this fix $N>0$ such that
\[
y' \leq \frac{N t_n (t-t_n)^2}{t^3} + K(\gamma_n(s,t))(\zeta_n(s,t)+\zeta_m(s,t))y.
\]
Then (\ref{e=crudeKbounds}) and (\ref{e=zetamu}) imply that
\[
y' \leq \frac{N t_n (t-t_n)^2}{t^3} - 2 \frac{(r-1)^2}{t^2} \mu(t-t_n) C t_n
\leq \frac{ t_n (t - t_n)}{t^2} \left( N - 2 (r-1)^2 \mu C \right).
\]
Clearly this is $\leq 0$ for $t\geq t_n$ if $C$ is sufficiently large.
Since $y(t_n) \leq t_n\leq u$, for all $C\geq1$,
this implies by Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} that $y \leq u$ for all $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon)t_n$; a similar argument shows that $y\geq -u$, and hence if $C$ is sufficiently large and $m\geq n$, then for all $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon)t_n$ (\ref{e=zetamzetan}) holds.
Thus $|(\zeta_{m} - \zeta_n)(s,t)|$ tends to $0$ as $t_n\to 0$, with $s,t$ fixed. Thus the $\zeta_n(s,t)$ converge, and since they satisfy
(\ref{e=zetan}),
their limit $\zeta(s,t)$ satisfies (\ref{e=zetaeq}).
We obtain that the functions $\zeta_n(s,t) \nabla_{JV_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t)) = JV_n(\gamma_n(s,t))$
converge locally uniformly, and hence $\nabla_{JV} V$ exists and is continuous.
Since
$\nabla_{JV_n} V_n (\gamma_n(s,t)) = \zeta_n(s,t)^{-1} JV_n(\gamma_n(s,t))$,
$\zeta_n\to \zeta$, and $JV_n\to JV$,
we obtain (\ref{e=jvstuff}) by taking a limit and setting $s=0$.\end{proof}
In light of Lemma~\ref{l=VisC1}, we define a function $\nu\colon \DD^\ast\to \RR_{>0}$
as follows. For each $z\in \DD^\ast$, let $\zeta\colon [0,\delta(z)]\to \RR_{>0}$ be the positive solution to
(\ref{e=zetaeq}) given by Lemma~\ref{l=monotone2}. We then set $\nu(z):= \zeta(\delta(z))$.
It follows immediately from Lemma~\ref{l=VisC1} that for every $z\in \DD^\ast$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e=nuproperty}
\nabla_{JV} V(z) = \nu(z)^{-1} JV(z).
\end{equation}
\medskip
\noindent{\bf Step 3: $\nu$ is $C^1$.}
To prove that $\delta$ is $C^3$, it thus suffices to show that $\nu$ is $C^1$.
Equation (\ref{e=zetaeq})
implies that $\nabla_V\nu$ exists and is continuous.
It remains to show that
$\nabla_{JV}\nu$ exists and is continuous.
We fix $\delta_0>0$ as above and let $z_0\in \DD^\ast(\delta_0)$, and we reintroduce the variations of geodesics
$\gamma_n(s,t)$ defined by the properties:
$\gamma_n(0,t) = \gamma_{0,z_0}(t)$, $\gamma_n(s,t_n) = \gamma_{0,z_0}(t_n)$ and
$$\frac{D^2 \gamma_n}{\partial s\partial t} (s,\delta_0) =
j_n'(s,\delta_0)J\dot \gamma_n (s, \delta_0),$$
for all $s$. As above, write $\gamma = \gamma_{0,z_0}$, and let $\gamma(s,t)$
be the limiting variation of geodesics.
We observe that Lemma~\ref{l=VisC1} also implies that $j_n\to j$ and $j_n' \to j'$, locally uniformly,
where $\partial \gamma/\partial s = j JV$ and $D^2 \gamma/\partial s\partial t = j' JV$.
The convergence follows from the formulae:
\[
j_n'(s,t) = \exp\left( \int_{t}^{\delta_0} K(\gamma_n(s,x))\zeta_n(x)\, dx\right), \;\, j'(s,t) = \exp\left( \int_{t}^{\delta_0} K(\gamma(s,x))\zeta(x)\, dx\right),
\]
\[
j_n(s,t) = \zeta_n(s,t) j_n'(s,t), \quad\hbox{ and }\, j(s,t) = \zeta(s,t) j'(s,t).
\]
Thus the variation $\gamma$ is $C^2$ on $\DD^\ast$, and satisfies $\gamma(s,0) = 0$.
We record here a lemma, which follows easily from these formulae, combined with (\ref{e=deltadiff}), (\ref{e=crudeKbounds}) and (\ref{e=zetamzetan}).
\begin{lemma}\label{l=jratio} For all $t\geq t_n$, we have
${j_n'(t)}/{j_m'(t)} = 1+ O\left({t_n}/{t}\right)$,
and for all $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$, we have
${j_n(t)}/{j_m(t)} = 1+ O\left({t_n}/{t}\right)$.
\end{lemma}
As above, let $\zeta_n(s,t)$ be the solution to (\ref{e=zetan}), and let $\zeta(s,t)$ be the solution to (\ref{e=zetaeq}).
Note that $\nu(\gamma(s,t)) = \zeta(s,t)$.
To prove that $\nabla_{JV}\nu$ exists and is continuous, we show that $\partial_s\zeta_n(s,t)$ converges uniformly to $\partial_s\zeta(s,t)$, the unique bounded solution to
\begin{equation}\label{e=partialszeta}
\partial_s\zeta'(s,t) = \partial_s K(\gamma(s,t)) \zeta(s,t)^2 + 2\zeta(s,t) K (\gamma(s,t)) \partial_s\zeta(s,t),
\end{equation}
which satisfies $\partial_s\zeta(s,0) = 0$, for all $s$.
Since $\partial_s\zeta = j(s,t) \nabla_{JV} \zeta$
and $j_n\to j >0$ locally uniformly, this will imply that $\nabla_{JV} \zeta$ exists and is continuous.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=partialzetadiff} There exists $M>0$ such for all $ m\geq n$ and all $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e=partialzetadiff}
|\partial_s\zeta_n (s,t) - \partial_s\zeta_m(s,t)| \leq M t_n j_n'(s,t).
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Differentiating equation (\ref{e=zetan}) with respect to $s$, we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{e=partialzetan}
\partial_s\zeta_n'(s,t) = \partial_s K(\gamma_n(s,t)) \zeta_n(s,t)^2 + 2\zeta_n(s,t) K(\gamma_n(s,t))\partial_s\zeta_n(s,t).
\end{equation}
Note that since $\zeta_n(s,t_n) = 0$, for all $n$, we have that $\partial_s\zeta_n(s,t_n) = 0$, for all $n$.
To simplify notation, fix $s$, and write $w_n(t) = \partial_s\zeta_n(s,t)$,
$u_n(t) = \zeta_n(s,t)$, and $u=\zeta(s,t)$. Then $u_n(t_n) = 0$, for all $n$. From equations (\ref{e=zetamu}) and (\ref{e=zetamzetan}), we have $|u_n| \leq C t$ and $|u_n - u_m| \leq Ct_n$. Then equation (\ref{e=partialzetan}) gives
\begin{equation}\label{e=partialzetanshort}
w_n' = j_n (\nabla_{JV_n} K ) u_n^2 + 2 u_n (K\circ \gamma_n )w_n
\end{equation}
We first claim there exists $C>0$ such that $|w_n(t)|\leq C j_n(t)$, for all $t\geq t_n$.
Let $y = C j_n(t)$. Then $y' = Cj_n'(t)$,
whereas $w_n'$ evaluated at $w_n = y$ gives $w_n' = j_n (\nabla_{JV_n} K ) u_n^2 + 2 C u_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) j_n$.
Then $w_n' \leq y'$ if and only if
$ j_n (\nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 + 2 C u_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) j_n \leq Cj_n'$;
dividing through by $j_n'$, and recalling that $u_n = j_n/j_n'$, we are reduced to showing:
\[ \nabla_{JV_n} K u_n^3 + 2 C u_n^2 (K\circ \gamma_n ) \leq C,
\]
which holds if and only if
$C(1- 2 u_n^2 (K\circ \gamma_n ) ) \geq ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^3$.
Since $u_n = O(t)$, $K<0$, and $\| \nabla_{JV_n} K \|= O(\delta^{-3}) =O(t^{-3})$, for $n$ sufficiently large, this will hold provided that $C$
and $n$ are sufficiently large. We conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{l=wnbound}
|w_n(t)| \leq C j_n (t),
\end{equation}
for all $t\geq t_n$.
We next claim that there exists $M>0$ such that for $m\geq n$ sufficiently large and $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e=wndiff}
|w_n(t) - w_m(t)| \leq \ M t_n j_n'(t)
\end{equation}
This will give the conclusion (\ref{e=partialzetadiff}) of Lemma~\ref{l=partialzetadiff}.
For $m\geq n$, subtracting the corresponding equations in (\ref{e=partialzetanshort}), we obtain:
\begin{equation}\label{e=wnminuswm}
(w_n - w_m)'=j_n ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2 + 2 u_n (K\circ \gamma_n )w_n - 2 u_m (K\circ \gamma_m )w_m.
\end{equation}
We claim that there exists $N>0$ such that for $m\geq n$, and
$t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$, we have
\begin{equation}\label{e=epsilonclaim}
|(w_n - w_m)' - 2 u_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) (w_n - w_m)| \leq \frac{N t_n j_n }{t^2}.
\end{equation}
Assuming this claim, let us complete the proof of (\ref{e=wndiff}). Let $N$ be given so that (\ref{e=epsilonclaim}) holds for $m\geq n$, and
$t\geq (1+2/\epsilon)t_n$. Let
$y(t) = w_n(t) - w_m(t)$. Then $|y' - 2u_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) y| \leq \epsilon j_n/t^2$, and
(\ref{l=wnbound}) implies that
\[y((1+2/\epsilon)t_n) = |w_n( (1+2/\epsilon)t_n) - w_m( (1+2/\epsilon) t_n)| \leq |w_m((1+2/\epsilon)t_n)| + |w_n((1+2/\epsilon)t_n)|
\]
\[ \leq C( j_m ((1+2/\epsilon) t_n) + j_n ((1+2/\epsilon) t_n))\] \[ \leq C\left( j_m'((1+2/\epsilon)t_n) u_m( (1+2/\epsilon)t_n) +j_n'((1+2/\epsilon)t_n) u_n( (1+2/\epsilon)t_n) \right)\] \[< N t_n j_n'((1+2/\epsilon)t_n),\]
for some $N>0$, since
$u_m( (1+2/\epsilon)t_n) , u_n((1+2/\epsilon) t_n) \leq 2\epsilon^{-1}\mu^{-1} t_n$, by (\ref{e=zetamu}), and
$j_n'(t)/j_m'(t) = 1 + O(t_n/t)$, by Lemma~\ref{l=jratio}. This shows that (\ref{e=wndiff}) holds at $t= (1+2/\epsilon)t_n$, provided $n$ is sufficiently large.
We claim that there exists $M>0$ such that
for all such $m,n$, we have $|y(t)| \leq M t_n j_n'(t) $, for $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon)t_n$.
We prove the upper bound; the lower bound is similar. We will employ Lemma~\ref{l=comparison}.
To this end, let $z(t) = M t_n j_n'(t) $. Note that
$z' = Mt_n j_n'' = -M t_n (K\circ\gamma_n) j_n$,
whereas evaluating $y'$ at $y=z$, we get
\[
y'(t) \leq 2 M t_n u_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) j_n' + \frac{Nt_n j_m}{t^2} = 2M t_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) j_n + \frac{N t_n j_m}{t^2}.
\]
To satisfy the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{l=comparison}, we require that $y'(t)\leq z'(t)$ whenever $y=z$, which is implied by:
\[
2M t_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) j_n + \frac{N t_n j_n}{t^2} \leq -M t_n (K\circ\gamma_n) j_n,
\]
or:
\[
\frac{N t_n j_n}{t^2} \leq -3 M t_n (K\circ\gamma_n) j_n.
\]
Since $-K\circ\gamma_n(t) \geq (r-1)^2/t^2$ (by \ref{e=crudeKbounds}), we see that this will hold (for all $n$ sufficiently large) if $M> N/ 3(r-1)^2$.
This establishes (\ref{e=wndiff}).
We return to the proof of the claim that there exists an $N>0$ such that for $m\geq n$, and
$t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$ the inequality (\ref{e=epsilonclaim}) holds. The proof amounts to adding and subtracting terms
within the left hand side of (\ref{e=epsilonclaim}), varying one at a time the multiplied quantity in each term. The added and subtracted terms are grouped in twos and the absolute value of the difference in each pair is bounded above. To illustrate, consider the difference appearing on the left hand side of (\ref{e=epsilonclaim}). The first two terms appearing in that difference, coming from (\ref{e=wnminuswm}), are:
\[
j_n ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2 \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad \qquad \]
\[ \qquad\qquad \qquad=\left( j_n ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 \right) + \left( j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2 \right).
\]
The quantity $ j_n ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2$ can be bounded, and the remaining term $j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2 $ can be further decomposed, as follows. First, using (\ref{e=zetamu}) to bound $|u_n|$, the assumption that $\|\nabla K\| = O(\delta^{-3})$ together with (\ref{e=uniformtn}) to bound $\|\nabla_{JV_n} K\|$, and the fact from Lemma~\ref{l=jratio} that $(j_m - j_n) = j_n O(t_n/t)$, we have that
\[
|j_n ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2| =
j_n u_n^2 \left| \nabla_{JV_n} K \right| \left| 1 - \frac{j_m}{j_n}\right| \leq j_n O\left(\frac{t_n }{t^2}\right) .
\]
Second, to deal with the remaining term $j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2$, we write:
\[
j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2 \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad\qquad \qquad\qquad \]
\[ \qquad \qquad= \left( j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_m^2 \right) + \left( j_m ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_m^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2 \right),
\]
and bound each term separately in a similar way to give a bound on the initial quantity $|j_n ( \nabla_{JV_n} K) u_n^2 - j_m ( \nabla_{JV_m} K) u_m^2| $ of order $j_n t_n/t^2$. The same procedure is used to bound the remaining part of the difference
appearing in (\ref{e=epsilonclaim}), which is:
\[
|\left(2 u_n (K\circ \gamma_n )w_n - 2 u_m (K\circ \gamma_m )w_m\right) - 2 u_n (K\circ \gamma_n ) (w_n - w_m) | \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad
\]
\[
\qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad= |- 2 u_m (K\circ \gamma_m )w_m + 2 u_n (K\circ \gamma_n )w_m|.
\]
In all, we use the following bounds:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\delta$ is comparable to $t$, by (\ref{e=uniformtn});
\item $u_n = O(t)$, by (\ref{e=zetamu});
\item $|u_n - u_m| = O( t_n)$, by (\ref{e=zetamzetan});
\item $|j_n - j_m| = O(j_n t_n/t)$, for $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon)t_n$, by Lemma~\ref{l=jratio};
\item $|K\circ\gamma_n - K\circ \gamma_m| = O(t_n t^{-2})$, since $|K| = O(t^{-2})$ and $d(\gamma_n,\gamma_m) = O(t_n)$;
\item $|\nabla_{JV_n} K - \nabla_{JV_m} K| = O(t_n t^{-3})$, which uses the bounds on $\|\nabla K\|$ and $\|\nabla^2 K\|$, as well as (\ref{e=uniformtn}) and Lemma~\ref{l=Vn}.
\end{itemize}
The details are left to the patient reader.
\bigskip
This finishes the verification of the claim in (\ref{e=epsilonclaim}), and thus the proof of Lemma~\ref{l=partialzetadiff}.\end{proof}
To finish the proof that $\nu$ is $C^1$, note that equation (\ref{e=partialzetadiff}) can then be re-expressed using (\ref{e=zetamu}):
\begin{equation}\label{e=wndiff2}
|\partial_s\zeta_n(s,t) - \partial_s\zeta_m(s,t)| \leq M t_n \zeta_n^{-1}(s,t) j_n(s,t) \leq \frac{M t_n j_n(s,t)}{\mu(t-t_n)} \leq \frac{2 M t_n j_n(s,t)}{\mu t},
\end{equation}
for $t\geq (1+2/\epsilon) t_n$.
Recalling that $j_n\to j$,
we conclude that $\partial_s \zeta_n(s,t) \to \partial_s \zeta(s,t)$ locally uniformly in $s,t$. The bounds
$|\partial_s \zeta_n(s,t)| \leq C j_n(s, t)$ from (\ref{l=wnbound}) become in the limit
$|\partial_s \zeta(s,t)| \leq C j(s,t)$. But $\partial_s\zeta(s,t) = j(s,t) \nabla_{JV} \zeta$, and so we conclude that
\begin{equation}\label{e=JVnubound}
|\nabla_{JV}\nu| \leq C.
\end{equation}
\noindent{\bf Step 4: $\nu$ is $C^2$.}
A very similar proof to the one in Step 3 (with more terms to estimate, but using, in addition to the previously obtained bounds, the bound $\|\nabla^3 K\| = O(\delta^{-5})$) gives that $\nu$ is $C^2$ with $\|\nabla^2\nu\| = O(\delta^{-1})$. One obtains this estimate as in the previous step by bounding $\|\nabla_{V}^2\nu\|$, $\|\nabla_{V}\nabla_{JV}\nu\|$, $\|\nabla_{JV}\nabla_V\nu\|$, and $\|\nabla_{JV}^2\nu\|$. Each of these is controlled by a differential equation, whose solutions can be estimated using a double variation of geodesics
$\gamma(s_1,s_2,t)$. The key point, illustrated by the previous computations, is that because $K$ has the ``expected" order of derivatives with respect to $\delta$, any quantity obtained by solving a first-order linear differential equation derived from the Riccati equation with coefficients expressed in terms of these derivatives will have the ``expected" order in $\delta$ as well. Thus,
$\|\nabla^i K\| = O(\delta^{-2-i})$ for $i=1,2,3$ implies that $\|\nabla^{i} \nu\| = O(\delta^{1-i})$, for $i=1,2$.
This completes the proof that $\delta$ is $C^4$.
We now turn to items 1-5.
\medskip
1. \ $\nabla_{JV}V - \nabla_V JV = [JV,V]$ by the symmetry of the Levi-Civita connection. But $\nabla_{V} JV =0$.
2. \ For arbitrary $U$, we have $\nabla_U V=\langle U,V\rangle \nabla_VV+\langle U,JV\rangle \nabla_{JV} V= c \langle U,JV\rangle JV$, giving the first conclusion: $\nabla_UV= c \langle U,JV\rangle JV$. The second conclusion follows from the first and the fact that $J$ is parallel.
3. \ Note that $\nu = c^{-1}$. It then is equivalent to prove that
$\nu = {\delta}/{r} + O(\delta^2)$.
Fix $z$ and let $\gamma = \gamma_{0,z}$. Along this geodesic, $\zeta(t) = \nu(\gamma(t))$ satisfies the equation (\ref{e=zetaeq}).
On the other hand $-K(\gamma(t)) = r(r-1)/t^2 + O(t^{-1})$. Part 3 of Lemma~\ref{l=monotone3} implies the desired result.
4. \
The desired estimate $\nabla_{JV}c = O(\delta^{-2})$ is equivalent to $\nabla_{JV}\nu = O(1)$ because $\nabla_{JV}\nu = -c^{-2}\nabla_{JV}c$ and $c= O(\delta^{-1})$. But (\ref{e=JVnubound}) gives that $\nabla_{JV}\nu = O(1)$.
5. \
The estimate $\|\nabla^2 c\| = O(\delta^{-3})$ is equivalent to $\|\nabla^2\nu\| = O(\delta^{-1})$. This estimate was
obtained in Step 4 above. \end{proof}
\section{Geometry of the cusp: commonalities with surfaces of revolution}\label{s=revolution}
We continue to work locally in $\DD^\ast$ with a metric satisfying (\ref{e=Kassump}) and
(\ref{e=nablaKassump}). In this section we establish properties of geodesics in this cuspidal region. The theme of this section is that metrics of this form inherit many of the geodesic properties of
a surface of revolution for a profile function $y= x^r$, with $r>2$.
In $\RR^3$, coordinates on this surface are
\[(x, \phi)\mapsto (x, x^r\cos\phi, x^r\sin\phi), \quad x\in (0,1], \,\phi\in [0,2\pi].\]
As remarked in the introduction, if $\delta$ denotes the distance to the cusp $(0,0,0)$ on this surface, then
$\delta(x,\phi) = x + o(x)$ and (\ref{e=Kassump}) holds. Other properties are:
\begin{itemize}
\item {\bf Area:} The area of the region $\{\delta \leq t_0\}$ is $2 \pi (r+1)^{-1} t_0^{r+1} + O( t_0^{r+2})$.
\item {\bf Clairaut Integral:} Let $\gamma(t)$ be a geodesic segment in the surface of revolution, and let $\theta(t)$ be the angle between $\dot\gamma(t)$ and the foliation $\{\phi = const.\}$. Then
the function $t\mapsto x(\gamma(t))^r \sin\theta(t)$ is constant.
\end{itemize}
We establish here in Sections~\ref{s=area}-\ref{s=QC} the analogues of these properties in our setting. We also establish in Section~\ref{s=jacobi} some coarse invariance properties of positive Jacobi fields in $\DD^\ast$.
\subsection{Area}\label{s=area}
Fix $\delta_0>0$, and for $t_0 \leq \delta_0$, denote by $\DD^\ast(t_0)$ the disk $\delta\leq t_0$. Let $c$ be the geodesic curvature function defined in the previous section, $d\ell$ the arclength element and $d\vol$ is the area element defined by the metric.
Let $\gamma(s,t)$ be the radial unstable variation of geodesics
described in the previous section, defined by the properties
\begin{itemize}
\item $\gamma(s,0) = 0$, for all $s$,
\item $\gamma'(s,t) = V(\gamma(s,t))$, for all $s,t$, and
\item $\partial_s\gamma(s,\delta_0) = JV(\gamma(s,\delta_0))$, for all $s$.
\end{itemize}
The arclength element is found by differentiating $\gamma(s,t)$
with respect to $s$:
\[d\ell(\gamma(s, t)) = {\partial_s \gamma} \, ds = {j(s,t)}\,d s.\]
Using part 3 of Proposition~\ref{p=c}, we estimate $j(s,t)$ by
\[j(s,t) = j(s,\delta_0) \exp\left(\int_{t}^{\delta_0} -c(\gamma(s,x))\, dx \,\right) = \exp\left(\int_{\delta_0}^t (\frac{r}{x} + O(1))\, dx \,\right)
= \frac{t^r}{\delta_0^r} + O(t^{r+1}),\]
and so $d\ell(\gamma(s,t)) = ({t^r}\delta_0^{-r} + O(t^{r+1})) \, ds$.
We obtain that:
\begin{equation}\label{e=volume}
d\vol(\gamma(s, t)) = \left( \frac{t^r}{\delta_0^{r}} + O(t^{r+1}) \right) ds\,dt.
\end{equation}
The volume of the region $\DD^\ast(t_0)$ is obtained by integrating
$d\vol(\gamma(s, t))$ over the region $s\in[0,\ell(\delta_0)]; t\in [0,t_0]$,
where $\ell(\delta_0)$ is the length
of the curve $\delta = \delta_0$.
It follows that
\[\vol(\DD^\ast(t_0)) = \frac{\ell(\delta_0) t_0^{r+1}}{(r+1)\delta_0^{r}} + O(t_0^{r+2}).
\]
\subsection{The angular cuspidal functions $a$ and $b$}
For $v\in T^1 \DD^*$, we define $a(v), b(v)$ by:
\begin{equation}\label{e=abdef}
a(v) = \langle v, V\rangle,\,\hbox{ and }\, b(v) = \langle v, JV \rangle.
\end{equation}
Thus the vectors $v$ with $b(v)=0$ and $a(v) = -1$ point directly at the cusp $0$ -- that is, the geodesics that they determine hit the cusp in finite time -- and the vectors with
$b(v)=0$ and $a(v) = 1$ point away from $0$.
The functions $a,b\colon T^1\DD^*\to [-1,1]$ satisfy $a^2 + b^2 = 1$; in the example of the surface of revolution mentioned in the beginning of the section we have $a(v)=\cos\theta(v)$ and $b=\sin\theta(v)$, where $\theta(v)$ is the angle
between $v$ and the foliation $\{\phi = const.\}$, measured from the direction pointing into the cusp.
Recall the definition $c(p) = \langle \nabla_{JV} V(p), JV(p)\rangle_p$ from (\ref{e=cdef}). We study here how the functions
$a, b$ and $c$ vary along a geodesic in $\DD^\ast$.
\begin{lemma} \label{l=derivs} Let $\gamma\colon[0,T]\to \DD^\ast$ be a geodesic segment, and for $t\in[0,T]$,
write $a(t) = a(\dot\gamma(t)), b(t) = b(\dot\gamma(t))$, and $c(t) = c(\gamma(t))$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\delta' = a$;
\item $a' = b^2c = r b^2/\delta + O(b^2)$;
\item $b' = -abc = -rab/\delta + O(ab)$;
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is a straightforward verification. From the definitions, we have $\delta' = \langle \dot \gamma, \nabla \delta\rangle = \langle \dot \gamma, V \rangle = a$, and
$a'=\nabla_{\dot\gamma}\langle \dot\gamma,V\rangle=\langle\dot\gamma,\nabla_{\dot\gamma}V\rangle=\langle\dot\gamma, b c JV\rangle= b^2 c$.
Similarly,
$b' =\langle\dot\gamma,\nabla_{\dot\gamma}JV\rangle=-\langle\dot\gamma,b c V\rangle=-abc$. We apply conclusion 3 of Proposition~\ref{p=c} to get the final estimate.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Quasi-Clairaut Relations}\label{s=QC}
We next prove that there is a Clairaut-type integral for geodesic rays in $\DD^*$.
Recall that for $\delta_0\in(0,1)$, $\DD^\ast(\delta_0)$ denotes the set of
$z\in\DD^\ast$ with $\delta(z) \leq \delta_0$.
\begin{proposition}
\label{p=Clairaut}
If $\delta_0$ is sufficiently small, then there exists $C=1+O(\delta_0)$, such that for every geodesic segment
$\gamma_v\colon [0,T]\to \DD^\ast(\delta_0)$,
the following quasi-Clairaut formula holds, for all $t_1,t_2\in[0,T]$:
\[
C^{-1}\delta(\gamma_v(t_2))^rb(\dot\gamma_v(t_2))\leq \delta(\gamma_v(t_1))^rb(\dot \gamma_v(t_1))\leq C\delta(\gamma_v(t_2))^rb(\dot\gamma_v(t_2)).\]
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}[Proof of Proposition~\ref{p=Clairaut}]
First note that the statement is trivially true if $b(\dot\gamma_v(0))=0$; hence we may assume $b(\dot\gamma_v(t))\neq 0$.
Let $\gamma_v\colon[t_1,t_2]\to \DD^\ast(\delta_0)$, where $\delta_0$ will be specified later.
As in the previous section, write
$$
a(t) = a(\dot\gamma_v(t)), b(t) = b(\dot\gamma_v(t)), c(t) = c(\gamma_v(t)),\;\hbox{ and }
\delta(t) = \delta(\gamma_v(t)).
$$
The first main ingredient in the proof of Proposition~\ref{p=Clairaut} is the following lemma.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=convexd}
For every $v\in T^1\DD^*$, the function $\delta$ is convex along $\gamma_v$ and strictly convex if $a(v)\notin \{-1,+1\}$,
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
At any time $t$ where $\delta'(t)=a(t)=0$ we have $b(t)=1$ so that by Lemma~\ref{l=derivs}, we have
$\delta''(t)=a'(t)= b(t)^2 c(t) = c(t)$, which is positive,
by Proposition~\ref{p=c}.
\end{proof}
Returning to the proof of Proposition~\ref{p=Clairaut}, let $g=\delta^rb$. We first calculate:
$$g' = (\delta^rb)'=r\delta^{r-1}b\delta'+\delta^rb'=r\delta^{r-1}ab+\delta^r\frac{-rab}{\delta}+O(|a|b\delta^{r}),$$
and so $g'/g=O(|a|)$. Thus there is a constant $C$ such that
$\left|{g'}/{g}\right|\leq C|a|=C|\delta'|$.
Fixing $t_1 < t_2$, we have
$$\left |\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \frac{g'}{g} \right|\leq \int_{t_1}^{t_2} \left |\frac{g'}{g } \right|\leq \int_{t_1}^{t_2} C|\delta'|.$$
Thus
$$\exp\left({-C\int_{t_1}^{t_2} |\delta'|}\right)\leq \frac{g(t_1)}{g(t_2)}\leq \exp\left({C\int_{t_1}^{t_2}|\delta'|}\right).$$
Since $\delta$ is convex and $\delta(t_1), \delta(t_2)\leq \delta_0$, we have $\delta(t)\leq \delta_0$ for all $t\in [t_1,t_2]$,
and there is at most one $t_*\in [t_1,t_2]$ where $\delta'$ vanishes. It follows easily that
$\int_{t_1}^{t_2} |\delta'| \leq 2 \delta_0$,
which implies the conclusion.
\end{proof}
\begin{corollary}\label{p=leave} Every unit-speed geodesic in $\DD^\ast$ that enters the region $\DD^\ast(\delta_0)$ leaves the
region in time $\leq 2\delta_0$.
\end{corollary}
\subsection{Cuspidal Jacobi fields}\label{s=jacobi}
For $\gamma$ a geodesic segment in $\DD^\ast$, we consider solutions to the Riccati equation:
\begin{equation}\label{e=zeta}
\zeta'(t) = 1+K(\gamma(t)) \zeta(t)^2,
\end{equation}
which is defined on a time interval containing $0$. The next lemma shows that there is a ``cone condition" on initial data that is preserved by solutions to (\ref{e=zeta}). We use this in the next section to construct an invariant cone field for solutions to (\ref{e=zeta}) in $S$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=cone} For every $\epsilon >0 $ there exists $\delta_0>0$ such that
the following holds for every geodesic segment $\gamma\colon[0,T]\to \DD^\ast(\delta_0)$.
Let $\zeta$ be a solution to (\ref{e=zeta}) along $\gamma$.
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $\zeta(0) \leq \delta(v)/(r-1-\epsilon )$, then
$\zeta(t) \leq \delta(t)/(r-1-\epsilon)$ for all $t\in [0, T]$, and
\item if $\zeta(0) \geq \delta(v)/(r+\epsilon)$,
then $\zeta(t)\geq \delta(t)/(r+\epsilon)$, for all $t\in [0, T]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} We establish the lower bound first. To this end let $w=\delta/(r+\epsilon)$. Then
$w' = a/(r+\epsilon)$. To show that $w\leq \zeta$, it suffices by Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} to show that
$$
\frac{a}{r+\epsilon} \leq 1 + K w^2 = 1 + \left( - \frac{r(r-1)}{\delta^2} + O(\delta^{-1}) \right)\frac{\delta^2}{(r+\epsilon)^2};
$$
equivalently, it suffices to show that
$ r - ar +2r \epsilon - a\epsilon + \epsilon^2 \geq O(\delta)$.
Since $a\leq 1$, this clearly will hold if $\delta_0$ is sufficiently small.
The upper bound is proved similarly.
\end{proof}
\section{Global properties of the flow in $T^1 S$}\label{s=global}
Now consider the surface $S$ with one puncture, satisying the hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{t=main}. Let $\delta$ be the distance to the cusp.
For $\delta_0>0$, denote by $ \mathcal{N}(\delta_0) = \{p: \delta(p)\leq \delta_0\}$ the convex
$\delta_0$-neighborhood of the cusp. In this section, we modify the function $\delta$ outside of a neighborhood $\mathcal{N}(\delta_1)$ and use the modified function $\overline\delta$ to construct a $D\varphi_t$-invariant conefield on $T T^1S$. We also use the modified function $\overline\delta$ to construct a new Riemannian metric on $T^1S$,
called the $\star$ metric, that makes $T^1S$ complete.
Having done this, we consider the flow $\psi_t$ on $T^1S$ given by rescaling $\varphi_t$ to have unit speed in the $\star$ metric. We prove that this flow is Anosov in the $\star$ metric and preserves a smooth, finite volume. This allows us to conclude that $\varphi_t$ is ergodic and has smooth invariant stable and unstable foliations on which $\varphi_t$ acts with bounded distortion.
\subsection{Invariant cone field}
In this subsection, we prove the following key technical result, which we will use to prove that a rescaled version of $\varphi_t$ is Anosov.
\begin{proposition}\label{p=cones4}{\bf[Cones]} For every $\epsilon>0$ sufficiently small, if $\delta_1$ is sufficiently small, then the following holds.
There exists $\beta>0$, an extension $\overline\delta:S\to(0,\infty)$ of $\delta|_{\mathcal{N}(\delta_1/2)}$ and a function $\chi\colon S\to [\beta, r-1-\epsilon]$ satisfying $\chi(p) = r-1-\epsilon$ for $\overline\delta(p) \leq \delta_1$,
\[\chi(p) - \|\nabla \overline\delta(p)\| \geq \beta,\]
for all $p\in S$,
and such that the following holds. Let $\gamma\colon [0,T]\to S$ be a geodesic segment in $S$. Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $u$ is a solution to (\ref{e=Ricplain}) below then
\[ u(0) \in \left[\frac{\chi(\gamma(0))}{\overline\delta(\gamma(0))}, \frac{r+\epsilon}{\overline\delta(\gamma(0))}\right]\implies u(t) \in \left[\frac{\chi(\gamma(t))}{\overline\delta(\gamma(t))}, \frac{r+\epsilon}{\overline\delta(\gamma(t))}\right],\]
for all $t\in [0,T]$,
\item If $u$ is a solution to (\ref{e=Ricplain}) below then
\[ u(T) \in \left[- \frac{r+\epsilon}{\overline\delta(\gamma(T))}, -\frac{\chi(\gamma(T))}{\overline\delta(\gamma(T))}\right] \implies u(t) \in \left[- \frac{r+\epsilon}{\overline\delta(\gamma(r))}, -\frac{\chi(\gamma(t))}{\overline\delta(\gamma(t))}\right], \]
for all $t\in [0,T]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
The proof is broken into a few steps.
\subsubsection{The lower edge of the cone: $j'/j\geq g$.}
\begin{lemma}\label{l=cone2} For every $\epsilon>0$, there exist $\mu \in (0,1) $ and for every
$\delta_0>0$ sufficiently small, a continuous function $g \colon S\to (0,\infty)$
with the following properties:
\begin{enumerate}
\item For every $p\in S$, we have
$g(p) \leq {(r- 1- \epsilon)}/{ \delta(p) }$.
\item For every $p\in \mathcal{N}(\mu\delta_0)$, we have
$g (p) = {(r- 1- \epsilon)}/{ \delta(p) }$.
\item
Let $\gamma\colon [0,T]\to S$ be a geodesic segment in $ S$, and let $u$ be any solution to
\begin{equation}\label{e=Ricplain} u'(t) = -K(\gamma(t))-u(t)^2.
\end{equation}
Suppose that
$u(0) \geq g(\gamma(0))$.
Then $u(t) \geq g(\gamma(t))$,
for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Given $\epsilon < (r-2)/2$, we choose
$\delta_0\in(0,1)$ sufficiently small according to Lemma~\ref{l=cone}.
Let $-\kappa_0^2$ be an upper bound on the curvature on $S$, and let
\[
\theta = \min\left\{\kappa_0, \inf_{p\in S}\frac{r-1-\epsilon}{\delta(p)}\right\}.
\]
We fix $\mu = \mu(\epsilon) >0$ very small (to be specified later).
Let $\eta\colon [\mu\delta_0,\delta_0]\to \RR_{>0}$ be the affine function satisfying
\[\eta(\mu\delta_0) = r-1-\epsilon,\,\hbox{ and }\eta(\delta_0) = \theta\delta_0,\]
and define $g\colon S\to (0,\infty)$ by:
\[g(p) = \begin{cases}
\theta &\mbox{ if } p\in S\setminus \mathcal{N}(\delta_0), \\
\frac{\eta(\delta(p))}{\delta(p)}& \mbox{ if } p\in \mathcal{N}(\delta_0) \setminus \mathcal{N}(\mu\delta_0),
\\
\frac{r- 1- \epsilon}{ \delta(p) } &\mbox{ if } p\in \mathcal{N}(\mu\delta_0). \\
\end{cases}
\]
By construction, $g$ satisfy conditions 1 and 2.
We check invariance of the condition $u(t)\geq g(\gamma(t))$; to this end, let $\gamma\colon [0,T]\to S$ be a geodesic, and suppose that $u$ is a solution to (\ref{e=Ricplain}) satisfying $u(0)\geq g(\gamma(0))$.
By breaking $\gamma$ into pieces if necessary, we may assume that one of the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item[] {\bf Case 1.} $\gamma[0,T]\subset S\setminus \mathcal{N}(\delta_0)$,
\item[] {\bf Case 2.} $\gamma[0,T]\subset \mathcal{N}(\delta_0) \setminus \mathcal{N}(\mu\delta_0)$, or
\item[] {\bf Case 3.} $\gamma[0,T]\subset \mathcal{N}(\mu\delta_0)$.
\end{enumerate}
Cases 1 and 3 are pretty trivial. In Case 1, $g\equiv \theta$, and the fact that $-K\geq \kappa_0^2 \geq \theta^2$ implies that the condition $u\geq \theta$ is invariant. In Case 3, $g = (r-1-\epsilon)/\delta$, and we apply Lemma~\ref{l=cone}.
In Case 2, we will apply Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} to the function $u_0(t):= g(\gamma(t))$.
Differentiating $u_0$, we have
\[
u_0'(t) = \left(\frac{\eta(\delta(\gamma(t)))}{\delta(t)}\right)' = \frac{\eta'(\delta(\gamma(t))) a(\gamma(t))}{\delta(\gamma(t))} - \frac{\eta(\delta(\gamma(t)))a(\gamma(t))}{\delta(\gamma(t))^2}.
\]
Lemma~\ref{l=comparison} implies that $u(t)\geq u_0(t)$ for all $t\in[0,T]$ provided that
$u(0)\geq u_0(0)$ and $-K(\gamma(t)) - u_0(t)^2 \geq u_0'(t)$, for all $t$. The latter is equivalent to:
\begin{equation}\label{e=u0comp} -K(\gamma(t)) -\left( \frac{\eta(\delta(\gamma(t)))}{\delta(\gamma(t))} \right)^2\geq \frac{\eta'(\delta(\gamma(t))) a(\gamma(t))}{\delta(\gamma(t))} - \frac{\eta(\delta(\gamma(t)))a(\gamma(t))}{\delta(\gamma(t))^2}.
\end{equation}
Since $K = - r(r-1)/\delta^2 + O(1/\delta)$, if $\epsilon$ and $\delta_0$ are sufficiently small, inequality (\ref{e=u0comp}) will hold provided that
\begin{equation}\label{e=etacomp}
r(r-1-\epsilon) - \eta^2 \geq a\eta' \delta - a \eta.
\end{equation}
Since $\eta \in (0, r-1-\epsilon]$ and $\eta' < 0$, inequality (\ref{e=etacomp}) holds automatically when $a\geq 0$. For $a\leq 0$, inequality (\ref{e=etacomp}) will hold provided that for all $\delta\in [\mu\delta_0,\delta_0]$, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{e=etacomp2}
r(r-1-\epsilon) - \eta^2 - \eta \geq -\eta' \delta.
\end{equation}
Since
$-\eta' \leq {(r-1-\epsilon)}/{((1-\mu)\delta_0)}$,
we are reduced to proving the inequality
\[
r(r-1-\epsilon) - \eta^2 - \eta \geq \frac{(r-1-\epsilon)\delta} {(1-\mu)\delta_0}.
\]
To verify this, it suffices to show that the correct inequality holds at the endpoints
$\delta = \mu\delta_0$ and $\delta = \delta_0$; this is easily verified provided $\delta_0$ and $\mu = \mu(\epsilon)$
are sufficiently small.\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Definition of the modified distance function
$\overline\delta$.}\label{ss=bardelta}
Fix $\epsilon < (r-2)/2$, and let $\delta_0>0$ and $\mu\in(0,1)$ be given by Lemma~\ref{l=cone2}. Let $\delta_1 = \mu\delta_0$.
Since $S\setminus\mathcal{N}(\delta_1)$ is compact, we may assume that $\delta_0$ (and hence $\delta_1$) is small enough that
\[
-\kappa_1^2(\delta_1):= \inf_{p\in S\setminus\mathcal{N}(\delta_1)} K(p) > - \frac{(r+\epsilon)(r-1+\epsilon) }{\delta_1^2}.
\]
Fix $\lambda\in (0,1)$ close enough to $1$ that
\[
-\kappa_1^2(\delta_1) > - \frac{(r+\epsilon)(r-1+\epsilon) }{(\lambda\delta_1)^2},
\]
and
$\beta_0:= \lambda(r-1-\epsilon) -1 > 0$.
We extend $\delta$ to a $C^4$ function $\overline\delta\colon S\to \RR_{>0}$
satisfying $\overline\delta(p) = \delta(p)$ for $p\in \mathcal{N}(\delta_1/2)$ and $\overline\delta(p) =\lambda\delta_1$,
for $p\in S \setminus \mathcal{N}(\delta_1)$. We may do this so that
$\overline\delta/\delta \geq \lambda$, and $\|\nabla\overline\delta\|\leq 1$
in $\mathcal{N}(\delta_1)$.
We also denote by $\overline\delta$ the function on $T^1 S$ defined by
$\overline\delta(v) = \overline\delta(\pi(v))$,
which is constant on the fibers of $T^1 S$. Thus if $v\in T^1 S$, and $t\in \RR$, we have:
\[
\overline\delta(\varphi_t(v)) = \overline\delta(\gamma_v(t)),
\]
and we will at times write these expressions interchangeably.
Let $g\colon S\to \RR_{>0}$ be the lower cone function given by Lemma~\ref{l=cone2}. Define
$\chi\colon S \to \RR_{>0}$ by $\chi(p) = \overline\delta(p) g(p)$. As with
$\overline\delta$, we will lift $\chi$ to a function on $T^1S$ and write $\chi(v) = \chi(\pi(v))$.
Our choice of $\lambda$ ensures that the following lemma holds
\begin{lemma}\label{l=chi} For all $p\in S$, we have $\chi(p) \leq r-1-\epsilon$.
There exists $\beta >0$ such that for all $p\in S$, we have
$\chi(p) - \|\nabla \overline\delta(p)\| \geq \beta$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
The first assertion follows easily from the fact that
$\overline\delta/\delta \leq 1$ and part 1 of Lemma~\ref{l=cone2}.
If $p\in S\setminus \mathcal{N}(\delta_1)$, then $\nabla\overline\delta(p)=0$, and the conclusion holds with $\beta_1 = \inf_{S\setminus \mathcal{N}(\delta_1)} \chi > 0$. If $p\in \mathcal{N}(\delta_1)$, then $\chi(p) = (r-1-\epsilon)\overline\delta(p)/\delta(p)$, $\overline\delta(p)/\delta(p) \geq \lambda$ and $\|\nabla\overline\delta(p)\|\leq 1$; thus
$\chi(p) - \|\nabla \overline\delta(p)\| \geq \lambda(r -1-\epsilon) - 1 = \beta_0>0$.
We conclude by setting $\beta = \min\{\beta_0,\beta_1\}$.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{The upper edge of the cone: $j'/j\leq (r+\epsilon)/\overline\delta$.}
Using the modified cuspidal distance function $\overline\delta$, we now can define an upper edge to an invariant cone field for solutions to (\ref{e=Ricplain}).
\begin{lemma}\label{l=cone3} Let $\overline\delta$ be defined as in Section~\ref{ss=bardelta}.
Let $\gamma\colon [0,T]\to S$ be a geodesic segment in $S$, and let $u$ be any solution to (\ref{e=Ricplain}) with
$u(0) \leq (r+\epsilon)/\overline\delta(\gamma(0))$.
Then $u(t) \leq (r+\epsilon)/\overline\delta(\gamma(t))$,
for all $t\in[0,T]$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is a straightforward application of Lemma~\ref{l=comparison}, using only the facts that $\|\nabla \overline\delta\|\leq 1$, and
$-K(p) \leq {(r+\epsilon)(r-1+\epsilon) }/{\overline\delta(p)^2}$,
for all $p\in S$.
\end{proof}
Lemmas~\ref{l=cone2}, \ref{l=chi} and \ref{l=cone3} can be applied as well to the flow $\varphi_{-t}$ to obtain invariant negative cones for solutions to the equation (\ref{e=Ricplain}).
One can do this using the same functions $\chi,\overline\delta$ satisfying both (1) and (2) in the conclusion of Proposition~\ref{p=cones4}
This completes the proof of the proposition. \end{proof}
\subsection{An adapted, complete metric on $T^1 S$}\label{s=adapted}
Define a new Riemannian metric on $T^1 S$ by
\[\langle (w_1, w_1'), (w_2, w_2') \rangle_{\star,v} = \frac{1}{\overline\delta(v)^2}\langle w_1, w_2 \rangle_{\pi(v)} +
{\langle w_1', w_2' \rangle_{\pi(v)}},\]
for $v\in T^1S$.
\begin{remark} The $\star$ metric on $T^1S$ is comparable (i.e. bi-Lipschitz equivalent) to the induced Sasaki metric for the so-called Ricci metric on
$S$. (The Ricci metric on $S$ is obtained by scaling the original metric by $-K$.) We briefly explain.
Define a metric $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\dagger$ on $S$ by conformally rescaling the original metric, as follows:
\[
\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\dagger = \overline\delta^{-2} \langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle.
\]
This is comparable to the Ricci metric, since $-K$ is comparable to $\overline\delta^{-2}$.
We claim that the metric on $T^1S$ induced by the Sasaki metric for $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\dagger$ is comparable
to $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\star$.
Here is a crude sketch of the proof.
The unit tangent bundle $T^1S$ for the original metric is clearly not the $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\dagger$ unit tangent bundle, but angles remain the same, and so $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle$ angular distance in
the vertical fibers of $T^1S$ coincides with $\langle\cdot,\cdot\rangle_\dagger$
angular distance. On the other hand, $\dagger$-distance in the horizontal fibers of $TS$ (with respect to the original connection) is the original distance scaled by $\overline\delta^{-1}$. Thus the formulas are comparable.
As it is more convenient to work with the $\star$ metric, we will not pursue here further the properties of the $\dagger$ metric on $S$, but one can prove that (for $\delta_0$ sufficiently small) it is complete, negatively curved with pinched curvature, and of finite volume. In the case where the original metric is the WP metric, the $\dagger$ metric is comparable to the Teichm\"uller metric, which is the hyperbolic metric. We will not be using the Riemannian properties of the $\star$ metric beyond completeness and finite volume.
\end{remark}
\medskip
Let $\rho_\star$ be the Riemannian distance on $T^1 S$ induced by $\langle\;,\,\rangle_\star$.
\begin{lemma}
$\rho_\star$ is complete.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By the Hopf-Rinow theorem, it suffices to show that any
$\star$-geodesic is defined for all time. The only way in which a geodesic in $T^1S$ can stop being defined is for its projection to
$S$ to hit the cusp. But the projection to $S$ of a $\star$-geodesic is a curve that has speed $\delta$ when it is at distance $\delta$ from the cusp in the geometry of our Riemannian metric $\langle \cdot,\cdot \rangle$ on $S$. It is clear that such a curve cannot reach the cusp in finite time.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Lie brackets and $\star$-covariant differentiation on $T^1S$}
If $X$ is a vector field on $S$, then $X$ has two well-defined lifts $X^h$ and $X^v$ to vector fields on
$TS$, the {\em horizontal} and {\em vertical} lifts, respectively. They are defined by
\[
X^h(u) = (X(\pi(u)),0),\quad\hbox{ and } X^v(u) = (0, X(\pi(u))),
\]
for $u\in T^1S$.
The following formulas for Lie brackets of such lifts are standard; see \cite{Ko}.
\begin{lemma} Let $X$ and $Y$ be arbitrary vector fields on $S$. Then
\begin{itemize}
\item $[X^v, Y^v]_u = 0$
\item $[X^h, Y^v]_u = (0, \nabla_XY)$
\item $[X^h, Y^h]_u = ([X,Y], - R(X,Y)u)$
\end{itemize}
\end{lemma}
Recall the definitions of $\overline V = \nabla \overline\delta$ and $J\overline V$. To simplify notation, and since the calculations that follow are only interesting in the thin part $\mathcal{N}(\delta_1/2)$ where
$\delta = \overline\delta$, we will write
$V, JV$, and $\delta$ for their barred counterparts in what follows.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=brackets} Denote by $V^h, JV^h, V^v, JV^v$ the horizontal and vertical lifts, respectively, of $V$ and $JV$. Then for $u\in \mathcal{N}(\delta_1/2)$, we have:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $[V^v, JV^v]_u = [V^h, JV^v]_u = [V^h, V^v]_u = 0$,
\item $[JV^h, V^v]_u = (0, cJV)$
\item $[JV^h, V^h]_u = (cJV, -R(JV,V)u)$
\item $[JV^h, JV^v]_u = (0, -cV)$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is a direct application of the previous lemma and the fact that
$\nabla_{JV} V = [JV,V] = cJV$ from Proposition~\ref{p=c}.
\end{proof}
Observe that $\|V^h\|_\star = \|JV^h\|_\star = \delta^{-1}$, and
$\|V^v\|_\star = \|JV^v\|_\star = 1$. We have:
\begin{lemma} Let $X$ and $Y$ be arbitrary vector fields on $S$ with $\|X\|=\|Y\| = 1$,
and denote by $X^h, X^v, Y^h, Y^v$ their horizontal and vertical lifts. Then
\[
\|\nabla^\star_{X^h} Y^h\|_\star = O(\delta^{-2}), \, \|\nabla^\star_{X^h} Y^v\|_\star = O(\delta^{-1}), \, \|\nabla^\star_{X^v} Y^h\|_\star = O(\delta^{-1}),\]
and
\[
\nabla^\star_{X^v} Y^v = 0.
\]
In particular, the $\star$ connection is summarized in Table 1.
\end{lemma}
\begin{table}[ht]
\resizebox{\textwidth}{!}{%
\begingroup
\setlength{\tabcolsep}{2pt}
\renewcommand{\arraystretch}{1.6}
\begin{tabular}{ r|c|c|c|c| }
\multicolumn{1}{r}{}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V^h$}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$JV^h$}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$V^v$}
& \multicolumn{1}{c}{$JV^v$}
\\
\cline{2-5}
$V^h$ & & $-\delta^{-1} JV^h $ & & \\
& $- \delta^{-1} V^h$ & $+ \frac{1}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u) ,V\rangle V^v $ &$ - \frac{\delta^2}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u), V\rangle JV^h$ &$ - \frac{\delta^2}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u, JV\rangle JV^h$ \\
& & $ + \frac{1}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u, JV\rangle JV^v$ & & \\
\cline{2-5}
$JV^h$ & $(- \delta^{-1} + c)JV^h $ & & & \\
& $ -\frac{1}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u, V \rangle V^v$ & $( \delta^{-1} - c ) V^h $ & $\frac{\delta^2}{2}\langle R(JV,V)u),V\rangle V^h$ & $\frac{\delta^2}{2}\langle R(JV,V)u),JV\rangle V^h$\\
& $ -\frac{1}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u, JV\rangle JV^v$ & & $+c JV^v $& $-cV^v$\\
\cline{2-5}
$V^v$ & $ -\frac{\delta^2} 2 \langle R(JV,V)u,V\rangle JV^h$ & $ \frac{\delta^2}{2}\langle R(JV,V)u),V\rangle V^h$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\cline{2-5}
$JV^v$ & $-\frac{\delta^2}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u), JV \rangle JV^h$ & $\frac{\delta^2}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u), JV \rangle V^h$ & $0$ & $0$ \\
\cline{2-5}
\end{tabular}
\endgroup}
\end{table}
\noindent \centerline{{\bf Table 1:} $\nabla^\star_X Y(u)$, for $u\in T^1\mathcal{N}(\delta_1/2)$, where $X$ is the row vector field,} \\ \centerline{and $Y$ is the column vector field.}
\bigskip\medskip
\begin{proof} The proof is a calculation using Lemma~\ref{l=brackets} and
Koszul's formula:
\[\begin{array}{cc}2 \langle \nabla_X^\star Y, Z\rangle_\star &=\, X (\langle Y,Z\rangle_\star) + Y (\langle X,Z\rangle_\star) - Z (\langle X,Y\rangle_\star) \\&\quad+\, \langle[X,Y],Z\rangle_\star - \langle [X,Z],Y\rangle_\star - \langle[Y,Z],X\rangle_\star.\end{array}\]
The details can be found in \cite{preprint}.
\end{proof}
\begin{lemma} Let $a(w) = \langle w, V(\pi(w))\rangle, b(w) =\langle w, JV(\pi(w))\rangle$ be defined as above. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $V^h(a) = V^h(b) = 0$,
\item $JV^h(a) = bc$, and $JV^h(b) = -ac$,
\item $V^v(a) =1$, and $V^v(b) =0$
\item $JV^v(a) =0$, and $JV^v(b) =1$
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} \ 1. \
To differentiate a function $\phi$ on $T^1S$ with respect to $V^h$ at $w\in T^1S$, we parallel translate $w$ along the geodesic $\gamma(t)$
through $\pi(w)$ tangent to $V$ to obtain $\Pi_t^V(w)$, and then differentiate the function $\phi(\Pi^V_t(w))$ with respect to $t$ at $t=0$. Since $\gamma$ is a geodesic tangent to $V$, the angle between $\Pi^V_t(w)$ and $V$ remains constant, and so $a(\Pi_t^V(w))$ and $b(\Pi_t^V(w))$ are both constant. Thus their derivatives are both zero.
2.\
Let $\Pi_t^{JV}(w)$ be the parallel translate of $w$ along the integral curve of the vector field $JV$ through $\pi(w)$. Then
\[JV^h(a)(w) = \frac{d}{dt} \langle \Pi_t^{JV}(w), V\rangle \vert_{t=0} = \langle w, \nabla_{JV} V\rangle =
\langle w, c JV\rangle = bc,
\]
and
\[JV^h(b)(w) = \frac{d}{dt} \langle \Pi_t^{JV}(w), JV\rangle \vert_{t=0} = \langle w, \nabla_{JV} JV\rangle =
\langle w, -c V\rangle = -ac.
\]
3.\
To compute the derivative $V^v\phi$ at $w$, we differentiate $\phi(w+tV)$ at $t=0$ in the fiber over $\pi(w)$.
Thus
\[V^v(a)(w) = \frac{d}{dt} \langle w + tV, V\rangle \vert_{t=0} = \frac{d}{dt} t \langle V, V\rangle \vert_{t=0} = 1,
\]
and
\[V^v(b)(w) = \frac{d}{dt} \langle w + tV, JV\rangle \vert_{t=0} = \frac{d}{dt} t \langle V, JV\rangle \vert_{t=0} = 0.
\]
4.\
To compute the derivative $JV^v\phi$ at $w$, we differentiate $\phi(w+tJV)$ at $t=0$ in the fiber over $\pi(w)$. The calculations are similar to those in 3.
\end{proof}
\bigskip
\begin{proposition}\label{p=starnabla} Let $X$ be any vector field on $T^1S$ with $\|X\|_\star = 1$.
Then $$\|\nabla^{\star}_X \dot\varphi\|_\star = O(\delta^{-1}).$$ In particular:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\nabla^\star_{V^h} \dot \varphi = -a \delta^{-1} V^h - b \delta^{-1} JV^h - \frac{b^2 K}{2} V^v + \frac{ab K}{2} JV^v $
\item $\nabla^\star_{JV^h} \dot \varphi = b\delta^{-1}V^h - a\delta^{-1} JV^h + \frac12 Kab V^v - \frac12 Ka^2JV^v$
\item $\nabla^\star_{V^v} \dot \varphi = \frac{K ab\delta^2} {2} JV^h+ \left(\frac{-Kb^2\delta^2}{2} + 1\right) V^h $
\item $\nabla^\star_{JV^v} \dot \varphi = \left(1-\frac{Ka^2\delta^2}{2}\right) JV^h + \frac{K ab \delta^2}{2} V^h $
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof} The proof is just a calculation. To see 1, for example, observe that
\[
\nabla^\star_{V^h} \dot\varphi =
\nabla^\star_{V^h} (aV^h + bJV^h)
= a \nabla^\star_{V^h} V_h + b \nabla^\star_{V^h} JV_h \]
\[= -a \delta^{-1} V^h - b \delta^{-1} JV^h + \frac{b}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u ,V\rangle V^v + \frac{b}{2} \langle R(JV,V)u ,JV\rangle JV^v,
\]
where $u=aV + bJV$.
Thus
\[\nabla^\star_{V^h} \dot\varphi = -a \delta^{-1} V^h - b \delta^{-1} JV^h - \frac{b^2 K}{2} V^v + \frac{ab K}{2} JV^v .
\]
The other formulas are proved similarly; see \cite{preprint} for the details.
\end{proof}
\subsection{Time change to an Anosov flow}
As above, let $\dot\varphi$ be the geodesic spray; i.e. the generator of the geodesic flow on $T^1 S$.
Define a new flow $\psi_t$ on $T^1 S$ with generator
$$
\dot\psi(v) = \overline\delta(v) \dot\varphi(v).
$$
One might ask first whether this flow is complete; that is, is it defined for all time $t\in\RR$, for each $v\in T^1 S$? Note that the original flow $\varphi_t$ is not complete, since it is the geodesic flow of an incomplete manifold. The completeness of $\psi_t$ follows from the completeness of $T^1 S$ in the
$\star$-metric defined above, and the following lemma.
\begin{lemma} The vector field $\dot\psi$ is $C^3$, and there exists a constant $C>0$ such that for every
$v\in T^1 S$,
$$\|\dot\psi\|_\star = 1, \quad\hbox{and } \, \|{\nabla^{\star}} ^i\dot\psi\|_\star \leq C, \quad \hbox{ for } i=1,2,3.
$$
The flow $\dot\psi_t$ preserves a finite measure $\mu$ on $T^1\Sigma$ that is equivalent to Liouville volume
for the original metric:
$d\mu = { \overline\delta }^{-1} {d\vol}$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} By definition of the $\star$ metric, we have $\|\dot\psi\|_\star = \|\overline\delta\dot\varphi\|_\star= 1$.
Since $\overline\delta(v) = \overline\delta(\pi(v))$, the derivatives of $\overline\delta$ have no vertical component, and
Corollary~\ref{l=cuspdist} gives that $\|\nabla^i \overline\delta\| = O(\overline\delta^{1-i})$. A unit horizonal
vector in the $\star$ norm is of the form $(\xi_H, 0)$, where $\|\xi_H\| = \overline\delta$. Thus
\begin{equation}\label{e=diffdelta}
\|{\nabla^\star}^i\overline\delta\|_\star = \overline\delta^i \|{\nabla}^i \overline\delta\| = O(\overline\delta),
\end{equation}
for $i=1,2,3$.
Proposition~\ref{p=starnabla} implies $\|\nabla^\star\dot\varphi\|_\star$ has magnitude $\overline\delta(v)^{-1}$ in the $\star$ metric. A similar calculation taking higher covariant derivatives of the formulas in Proposition~\ref{p=starnabla} and using the facts that
$\|\nabla K\| = O(\overline\delta^{-3})$, $\|\nabla^2 K\| = O(\overline\delta^{-4})$,
$\|\nabla^i c\| = \delta^{-1-i}$, and (\ref{e=diffdelta})
gives that
\begin{equation}\label{e=diffdotvarphi}
\|{\nabla^\star}^i\dot\varphi\|_\star = O(\overline\delta^{-1}),
\end{equation} for $i=1,2,3$.
Combining (\ref{e=diffdotvarphi}) and (\ref{e=diffdelta}), we obtain that
$$\|\nabla^\star(\overline\delta\dot\varphi)\|_\star = \| \nabla^\star (\overline\delta) \dot\varphi \|_\star + \|\overline\delta \nabla^\star \dot\varphi\|_\star
\leq \| \nabla^\star (\overline\delta) \|_\star \| \dot\varphi \|_\star + \overline\delta \| \nabla^\star \dot\varphi\|_\star = O(1).
$$
Similarly, we obtain that $\|{\nabla^\star}^i(\overline\delta\dot\varphi)\|_\star = O(1)$, for $i= 2,3$.
Let $\omega$ be the canonical one form on the tangent bundle $T S$ with respect to the
original metric. Then $\varphi^\ast_t \omega = \omega$, for all $t$, and
$d\vol = \omega\wedge d\omega$ on $T^1S$. We have that:
$$
\mathcal{L}_{\dot\psi}\left( \overline\delta^{-1} \omega\wedge d\omega\right) = d\left(\iota_{\dot\psi} \left(\overline\delta^{-1} \omega\wedge d\omega \right)\right) = d (d\omega) = 0,
$$
since $\overline\delta^{-1} \omega(\dot\psi) = \omega(\dot\varphi) \equiv 1$. Thus
$\psi_t$ preserves the smooth measure $\mu$ defined by $d\mu = \overline\delta^{-1} \omega\wedge d\omega = \overline\delta^{-1} d\vol$.
To see that $\mu(T^1S)<\infty$, we use the expression for $d\vol$ from (\ref{e=volume}) and integrate:
\[
\mu(T^1S) = \int_{T^1S} \overline\delta^{-1} d\vol = O\left( \int_{0}^{\delta_0} x^{r-1} \,{dx} \right) < \infty.
\]\end{proof}
The flow $\psi_t$ is a time change of $\varphi_t$; that is, it has the same orbits, but they are traversed at a different speed, depending on the distance to the singular locus. Indeed, defining the cocycle $\tau\colon T^1 S\times \RR\to \RR$ by the implicit formula
\begin{equation}\label{e=taudef}
\int_0^{\tau(v,t)} \frac{dx}{\overline\delta(\varphi_x(v))} = t,
\end{equation}
we have that $\psi_{t}(v) = \varphi_{\tau(v,t)}(v)$,
for all $v\in T^1 S$, $t\in\RR$. This gives an alternate way to see the completeness of the flow $\psi$: the
function $\overline\delta$ clearly remains positive along orbits of $\psi$ for all time.
\begin{theorem}\label{t=accelanosov}
The flow $\psi_t$ is an Anosov flow in the $\star$-metric. That is, there exists a $D\psi_t$-invariant, continuous splitting
of the tangent bundle:
$$
T\left(T^1 S\right) = E^u_\psi\oplus \RR\dot\psi \oplus E^s_\psi
$$
and constants $C>0$, $\lambda > 1$ such that for every $v\in T^1 S$, and every $t>0$:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\xi\in E^u_\psi(v) \implies \|D\psi_{-t} (\xi)\|_\star \leq C\lambda^{-t} \|\xi\|_\star$, and
\item $\xi\in E^s_\psi(v) \implies \|D\psi_t (\xi)\|_\star \leq C\lambda^{-t} \|\xi\|_\star$.
\end{itemize}
\end{theorem}
From Theorem~\ref{t=accelanosov} we obtain several important properties of both $\psi_t$ and $\varphi_t$.
The first is ergodicity.
Since volume preserving Anosov flows are ergodic, the flows $\varphi_t$ and $\psi_t$ have the same orbits,
and the $\star$ volume is equivalent to (i.e. has the same zero sets as) the original volume on $T^1S$, we obtain:
\begin{corollary}\label{c=ergodic}
The flow $\psi_t$ is ergodic with respect to the invariant volume $\mu$. Consequently, $\varphi_t$ is ergodic with respect to volume.
\end{corollary}
In the next corollary we obtain a splitting of $TT^1S$, invariant under $D\varphi_t$ .
\begin{corollary} $D\varphi_t$ has an invariant singular hyperbolic splitting
$$
T\left(T^1 S\right) = E^u_\varphi \oplus \RR\dot\varphi \oplus E^s_\varphi,
$$
with $E^u_\varphi $ and $E^s_\varphi $ given by intersecting $E^u_\psi \oplus \RR\dot\psi$ and $E^s_\psi \oplus \RR\dot\psi$ with the smooth, $D\varphi_t$-invariant bundle $\dot\varphi^\perp$.
\end{corollary}
Since the weak stable and unstable distributions of a $C^3$ Anosov flow in dimension $3$ are $C^{1+\alpha}$, for some $\alpha>0$, we also obtain:
\begin{corollary} The distributions $E^u_\psi \oplus \RR\dot\psi$ and $E^s_\psi \oplus \RR\dot\psi$
are $C^{1+\alpha}$, for some $\alpha>0$. The distributions $E^u_\varphi$ and $E^s_\varphi$ are also $C^{1+\alpha}$, when measured in the $\star$ metric. Thus in the compact part $\overline\delta\geq \delta_0$, the
distributions $E^u_\varphi$ and $E^s_\varphi$ are uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{remark} If $\overline\delta(p)\leq \delta_1/2$, then the vector $V(p) = \nabla\overline\delta(p)$ points directly away from the cusp.
It is not difficult to see that
the unstable manifold $\mathcal{W}^u_\psi(V(p))$ consists of the restriction of the vector field $V$ to the circle
$\overline\delta = \overline\delta(v)$. For these vectors, the unstable bundles $E^u_\psi$ and $E^u_\varphi$ coincide.
\end{remark}
Finally we obtain the key bounds on distortion for the flow $\varphi_t$ that will be used to prove exponential mixing.
\begin{corollary}[Distortion control]\label{c=distortion} For $t\in \RR$ and $v\in T^1S$ denote by $\|D^s_v\psi_t\|_\star$ and $\|D^u_v\psi_t\|_\star$ the $\star$- norm of the restriction of $D_v\psi_t$ to $E^s_\psi$ and $E^u_\psi$, respectively. Similarly define
$\|D^s_v\varphi_t\|_\star$ and $\|D^u_v\varphi_t\|_\star$ using the bundles $E^s_\varphi$ and $E^u_\varphi$.
There exist $\theta>0$, $C\geq 1$ and $\sigma>0$ such that for every $v\in T^1S$:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $w\in \mathcal{W}^s_\psi(v, \sigma)$ and $w'\in \mathcal{W}^u_\psi(v, \sigma)$, then for all $t>0$:
\[ \left|\log \|D^s_v\psi_t\|_\star - \log \|D^s_w\psi_t\|_\star \right| \leq C \rho_\star(v,w)^{\theta},
\]
and
\[ \left |\log \|D^u_v\psi_{-t}\|_\star - \log \|D^u_{w'}\psi_{-t}\|_\star \right| \leq C \rho_\star(v,w')^{\theta}.
\]
\item If $w\in \mathcal{W}^s_\varphi(v, \sigma)$ and $w'\in \mathcal{W}^u_\varphi(v, \sigma)$, then for all $t>0$:
\[\left |\log \|D^s_v\varphi_t\|_\star - \log \|D^s_w\varphi_t\|_\star \right | \leq C \rho_\star(v,w)^{\theta},
\]
and
\[ \left |\log \|D^u_v\varphi_{-t}\|_\star - \log \|D^u_{w'}\varphi_{-t}\|_\star \right| \leq C \rho_\star(v,w')^{\theta}.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} The results for $\psi_t$ are standard properties of Anosov flows. For $\varphi_t$, we need only note that the map induced by $\varphi_t$ between any two $\mathcal{W}^s_{\varphi}$ manifolds on the same orbit is just the composition of the map induced by $\psi_t$ between the corresponding $\mathcal{W}^s_{\psi}$ manifolds with projections along flow lines at both ends between the $\mathcal{W}^s_{\varphi}$ and $\mathcal{W}^s_{\psi}$ manifolds. These latter projections are uniformly $C^2$.
\end{proof}
\begin{remark} It is not hard to see that the stable and unstable
bundles $E^u_\psi$ and $E^s_\psi$ are not jointly integrable. It follows that the Anosov flow $\psi_t$ is mixing with respect to the measure $\mu$. This leads to the question: is $\psi_t$ exponentially mixing (if, for example, $\delta_0$ is chosen small enough in the construction)?
\end{remark}
\subsection{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t=accelanosov}}
By standard arguments in smooth dynamics, to prove that $\psi_t$ is an Anosov flow, it suffices to find nontrivial cone fields $\mathcal{C}^+$ and $\mathcal{C}^-$ over $T^1 S$ and constants $C>0$, $\lambda>1$
with the properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\mathcal{C}^+(v)\cap \mathcal{C}^-(v) = \{0\}$, and $\mathcal{C}^\pm(v)\cap \RR\dot\psi = \{0\}$;
\item $D_v\psi_1(\mathcal{C}^+(v)) \subset \mathcal{C}^+(\psi_1(v))$, and $D_v\psi_{-1}(\mathcal{C}^-(v)) \subset \mathcal{C}^-(\psi_{-1}(v))$; and
\item For all $t>0$, and all $\xi^+\in \mathcal{C}^+(v)$ and $\xi^-\in \mathcal{C}^-(v)$, we have
$$
\|D_v\psi_t(\xi^+)\|_\star \geq C\lambda^{t}\, \hbox{ and } \|D_v\psi_{-t}(\xi^-)\|_\star \geq C\lambda^{t}.
$$
\end{itemize}
The derivative of $\psi_t$ restricted to $\dot\varphi^\perp$ has a component in the $\dot\varphi$ direction of $TT^1 S$ owing to the time change. We have:
\begin{equation}\label{e=dpsi}
D_v\psi_t(\xi) = D_v\varphi_{\tau(v,t)} (\xi) = D_v\varphi_{s}\vert_{s=\tau(v,t)} (\xi) + D_v\tau(v,t)(\xi) \, \dot\varphi(v).
\end{equation}
Our strategy to find the cone fields is summarized in two steps.
\begin{enumerate}
\item Use the properties of $D_v\varphi_{\tau_t}$ previously obtained in Lemma~\ref{l=cone2} to define the perpendicular components (i.e. in $\dot\varphi^\perp$) of $\mathcal{C}^\pm$.
\item Using a bound on the ``shear term" $D_v\tau_t(\xi)$ in the $\star$ norm, we then define the components of $\mathcal{C}^{\pm}$ in the
$\RR\dot\varphi$ direction.
\end{enumerate}
We carry out these steps in the following sections.
\subsubsection{Action of $D\varphi_s$}
Here we fix $t>0$ and study the action of $D_v\varphi_s\colon \dot\varphi^\perp(v) \to \dot\varphi^\perp(\varphi_s(v))$
at $s = \tau(v,t)$. The derivatives of $\tau$ do not enter into these calculations; we are essentially
establishing properties of the original flow $\varphi_s$ (as measured in the $\star$-metric).
\begin{proposition}\label{p=yzstuff} For any $v\in T^1 S$, and any real numbers $y_0, z_0$
satisfying $z_0/y_0 \in [\chi(v), r+\epsilon]$, the following holds.
For $s\geq 0$, define $y_s$ and $z_s$ by:
$$
D_v\varphi_{s} \left(y_0\overline\delta(v) Jv, z_0 J v \right) = \left(y_{s}\overline\delta(\gamma_v(s)) J \dot\gamma_v(s), z_{s} J \dot\gamma_v(s)\right).
$$
Then:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $z_s/y_s \in [\chi(\varphi_s(v)), r+\epsilon]$, for all $s\geq 0 $,
and
\item for every $t>0$:
$$\frac{y_{\tau(v,t)}}{y_0} \geq e^{\beta t}.$$
\end{enumerate}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
For $s>0$, let $j(s)= \overline\delta(\gamma_v(s)) y_s$. Then, since
$(j(s) J \dot\gamma_v(s), j'(s) J \dot\gamma_v(s))$
is a perpendicular Jacobi field, the definition of $y_s$, $z_s$ implies that $j'(s) = z_s$. In particular,
$j'(s)/j(s) = z_s/\overline\delta(\gamma_v(s)) y_s$.
Suppose that $z_0/y_0 \in [\chi(v), r+\epsilon]$. Then
\begin{equation}\label{e=yzcone}
j'(s)/j(s) \in \left[\frac{\chi(\gamma(s))}{\overline\delta(\gamma_v(s))}, \frac{r+\epsilon}{\overline\delta(\gamma_v(s))}\right]
\end{equation}
holds for $s=0$, and
Proposition~\ref{p=cones4} implies that (\ref{e=yzcone}) holds for all $s>0$. We conclude that
$z_s /y_s \in [\chi(\varphi_s(v)), r+\epsilon]$, for all $s>0$.
Turning to the second item in the proposition, we have that
$$
\frac{\overline\delta(\gamma_v(s)) y_s}{\overline\delta(\gamma_v(0)) y_0 }= \frac{j(s)}{j(0)} = \exp\left( \int_0^s \frac{j'(u)}{j(u)}\,du\right),
$$
which gives that
$y_s/y_0 = \overline\delta(\gamma_v(0))/\overline\delta(\gamma_v(s)) \exp( \int_0^s z_u/(\overline\delta(\gamma_v(u)) y_u) ds),$
and so
\[
y_s = y_0\exp\left(\int_0^s \frac{-D\overline\delta(\dot\varphi(\varphi_u(v)))}{\overline \delta(\varphi_u(v))} + \frac{z_u}{y_u \overline\delta(\varphi_u(v))} \,du \right).
\]
Since $z_u/y_u \geq \chi(\varphi_u(v))$, for $u\leq s$, and $\chi - \|\nabla\delta\| >\beta$, we have
\[
\frac{y_s}{y_0} \geq \exp\left(\int_0^s \frac{\beta}{\overline\delta(\varphi_u(v))}\,du\right).
\]
We make the substitution $s=\tau(v,t)$ and use the fact that
$\int_0^{\tau(v,t)} \overline\delta(\varphi_u(v))^{-1} \,du = t$ to obtain the conclusion.
\end{proof}
\subsubsection{Invariant cone fields}
We define invariant stable and unstable cones $\mathcal{C}^-$ and $\mathcal{C}^+$. The angle between $\mathcal{C}^+$ and $\mathcal{C}^-$ will be uniformly bounded in the $\star$-metric, as will be the angle between either of them and $\dot\psi$. We establish the properties of $\mathcal{C}^+$ in detail; the analogous properties for $\mathcal{C}^-$ are obtained by the same proof, reversing the direction of time.
Fix $B>0$ to be specified later, and let
\[\mathcal{C}^+(v):= \{ \left(\overline\delta(v) \left(x v + y Jv\right), z Jv\right) : z/y \in \left[\chi(v),r+\epsilon\right] \, \& \, |x| \leq B |y|\}\cup\{0\},
\]
and
\[\mathcal{C}^-(v):= \{ \left(\overline\delta(v) \left(x v + y Jv\right), z Jv\right) : z /y \in\left[
-(r+\epsilon), -\chi(v)\right] \,\&\, |x| \leq B |y|\}\cup\{0\}.
\]
Note that since $\chi$ is bounded below away from $0$, if $\xi = \left(\overline\delta(v) \left(x v + y Jv\right), z Jv\right) \in \mathcal{C}^\pm(v)$, then $\|\xi\|_\star$ is uniformly comparable to both $|y|$ and $|z|$.
\begin{lemma} If $B>0$ is sufficiently large, then $D_v\psi_1(\mathcal{C}^+(v)) \subset \mathcal{C}^+(\psi_1(v))$, and there exists $C>0$ such that
$$\xi\in \mathcal{C}^+(v) \implies \|D\psi_t (\xi)\|_\star \geq C e^{\beta t} \|\xi\|_\star,
$$
for all $t\geq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Recall that $\dot\psi(v) = (\overline\delta(v) v,0)$, and
$D_v\psi_t(\dot\psi(v)) = \dot\psi(\psi_t(v))$.
Applying $D_v\psi_t$ to $\xi = \left(\overline\delta(v) \left(x_0 v + y_0 Jv\right), z_0 Jv\right)$ and using (\ref{e=dpsi}), we get
$$D_v\psi_t(\xi)
= D_v\psi_t(x_0 \dot\psi(v)) + D_v\psi_t(\overline\delta(v) y_0 Jv, z_0 Jv)$$
\[
= D_v\psi_t(x_0 \dot\psi(v)) + D_v\varphi_{s}\vert_{s=\tau(v,t)} \left(y_0\overline\delta(v) Jv, z_0 Jv\right) + D_v\tau(v,t) \left(y_0\overline\delta(v) Jv, z_0 Jv\right)\dot\varphi(\psi_t(v))
\]
$$ = \left(x_0 \overline\delta(\psi_t(v)) +D_v\tau(v,t)\left(y_0\overline\delta(v) Jv, z_0 Jv\right)\right) \left(\psi_t(v),0\right)\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\,\,\,
$$
$$\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad+ D_v\varphi_{s}\mid_{s=\tau(v,t)}\left(y_0\overline\delta(v) J\psi_t(v), z_ 0 J\psi_t(v)\right).
$$
$$
=: (x_\tau \overline\delta(\varphi_\tau(v)) \varphi_\tau(v), 0 ) + ( y_\tau \overline\delta(\varphi_\tau(v)) J\varphi_\tau(v), z_\tau J\varphi_\tau(v)),
$$
where in the last expression we've used the abbreviation $\tau = \tau(v,t)$.
Assume that $\xi\in \mathcal{C}^+(v)$ and
without loss of generality that $y_0\geq 0$. This implies that
$z_0 \in [\chi(v) y_0, (r+\epsilon)y_0]$ and $|x_0| \leq B |y_0|$.
Proposition~\ref{p=yzstuff} implies that for any $t>0$:
\[|x_\tau| = |x_0 + \frac{1}{\overline\delta(\varphi_{\tau}(v))} D_v\tau(v,t)\left(y_0\overline\delta(v) Jv, z_0 Jv\right) | \leq |x_0| + \|D_v\tau(t,\cdot)\|_\star \| (y_0\overline\delta(v) Jv, z_0 Jv) \|_\star\]
\[\leq |x_0| + (1+1/\beta) \|D_v\tau(t,\cdot)\|_\star |z_0|,\]
$y_\tau \geq e^{\beta t} y_0$,
and
$z_\tau \in \left[ \chi(\varphi_\tau(v)) y_\tau, (r+\epsilon) y_\tau\right]$.
Now fix $t=1$, and let $\tau_1 = \tau(v,1)$.
We want to show that $D_v\psi_1(\xi) \in \mathcal{C}^+(\psi_1(v)) =\mathcal{C}^+(\varphi_{\tau_1}(v)) $; i.e. that
$z_{\tau_1}/y_{\tau_1} \in [\chi(\psi_1(v)),r+\epsilon]$ and $|x_{\tau_1}| \leq B |y_{\tau_1}|$.
From the previous discussion, we have $z_{\tau_1} \in \left[ \chi(\varphi_{\tau_1}(v)) y_{\tau_1}, (r+\epsilon) y_{\tau_1}\right]$,
and setting $C_1 = (1+1/\beta)\|D_v\tau(1,\cdot)\|_\star$, we also have:
\[|x_{\tau_1}| \leq |x_0| + C_1|z_0| \leq B y_0+ C_1|z_0|
\leq (B + C_1(r+\epsilon)) y_0 \leq (B + C_1e(r+\epsilon))e^{-\beta} y_{\tau_1}.
\]
Thus we want choose $B$ such that $(B + C_1(r+\epsilon))e^{-\beta}\leq B$,
which holds if
\[
B\geq \frac{C_1 (r+\epsilon) e^{-\beta}}{1- e^{-\beta}}.
\]
A similar argument works for $y_0<0$.
Finally if $\xi\in \mathcal{C}^+(v)$, then $\|D\psi_t (\xi)\|_\star$ is uniformly comparable to $|y_\tau|$;
since $|y_\tau|$ grows exponentially on the order $e^{\beta t}$, so does
$\|D_v\psi_t\xi\|_\star$.
\end{proof}
\section{Exponential Mixing}\label{s=expmix}
As mentioned in the introduction, to prove exponential mixing of $\varphi_t$, we will construct a
Young tower -- a special section to the flow -- whose return times have exponential tails.
Since orbits of $\varphi_t$ spend only a bounded amount of time in the cuspidal region,
ensuring exponential tails for the return time is not difficult.
Fix $\delta_2\leq\delta_1/2$ sufficiently small, and denote by $ Z = Z(\delta_2)$ the circle $\{p: \overline\delta(p)=\delta_2\}$.
Then $ Z$ lifts to two distinguished circles $ Z^u, Z^s\subset T^1_{ Z} S$
in the unit tangent bundle:
\[
Z^u:= \{ \nabla \overline\delta(p) : p\in Z\},\; \hbox{ and } Z^s:= \{- \nabla \overline\delta(p) : p\in Z\}.
\]
Then $ Z^u$ is a closed leaf of the unstable foliation $\mathcal{W}^u$ for $\varphi_t$, and $ Z^s$ is a closed leaf of the stable foliation. In a neighborhood $U$ of $ Z^u$ in $T^1S$, there is a well-defined projection
$\pi^{cs}\colon U\to Z^u$ along local leaves of the weak-stable foliation $\mathcal{W}^{cs}$ for $\varphi_t$. Since the foliation
$\mathcal{W}^{cs}$ is $C^{1+\alpha}$, the map $\pi^{cs}$ is a
$C^{1+\alpha}$ fibration.
We will prove:
\begin{theorem}\label{t=tower} For any $v_0\in Z^u$, there are constants $C \geq 1$, $\lambda, \alpha \in(0,1)$, a collection of disjoint, open subintervals $\mathcal{I} = \{\Delta_j : j\geq 1 \}$, with $\Delta_j\subset \Delta_0 := Z^u\setminus \{v_0\}$, for $j\geq 1$,
and a function $R\colon \bigcup \mathcal{I} \to [C^{-1},\infty)$ such that:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\left|\Delta_0 \setminus \bigcup \mathcal{I} \right|=0$, where $|\cdot|$ denotes Lebesgue measure on unstable leaves.
\item For each $v\in \bigcup \mathcal{I}$, there exists $v'\in \Delta_0$ such that
$\varphi_{R(v)}(v) \in \mathcal{W}^s_{loc}(v')$.
\item Define $F\colon \mathcal{I} \to \Delta_0$ by $F(v) = \pi^{cs}\varphi_{R(v)}(v)$.
For each $j\geq 1$ there is a diffeomorphism $h_j: \Delta_0\to \Delta_j$ such that for all $v\in \Delta_0$:
\[F\circ h_j(v) = v.\]
\item $h_j$ is a uniform contraction: $d(h_j(v_1), h_j(v_2)) \leq \lambda$.
\item $\log h_j'$ is uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$:
\[|\log h_j'(v_1)- \log h_j'(v_2)| \leq C d(v_1,v_2)^{\alpha},
\]
for all $v_1, v_2 \in \Delta_0$.
\item $\|(R\circ h_j)'\|_\infty \leq C$ for all $j$.
\item For each $k>0$, we have
$\left| \left\{v\in \bigcup \mathcal{I} \ : R(v)\geq k \right\} \right| \leq C \lambda^{k}$; moreover,
there exists $\epsilon>0$ such that
\[\sum_j \exp(\epsilon |R\circ h_j|_\infty) |h_j'|_\infty<\infty.\]
\item (UNI Condition) For $n\geq 1$, let $R_n = \sum_{i=0}^{n-1} R\circ F^i$ (where defined)
and let
\[\mathcal{H}_n = \{h_{\mathbf j}:= h_{j_n}\circ h_{j_{n-1}} \circ\cdots \circ h_{j_1}: {\mathbf j} = (j_1, \ldots, j_n),\, j_k\geq 1 \}\] be the set of inverse branches of $F^n$, which satisfy $F^n\circ h_{\mathbf j} = id_{\Delta_0}$, for all $h_{\mathbf j} \in \mathcal{H}_n$. Then there exists $D>0$ such that, for all $N \geq 1$, there exist $n\geq N$ and
$h_{\mathbf j_1} , h_{\mathbf j_2} \in \mathcal{H}_n$ such that
\[\inf_{v\in \Delta_0} \left|\left(R_n\circ h_{\mathbf j_1} - R_n\circ h_{\mathbf j_2}\right)'(v) \right| \geq D.
\]
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
A recent result of Ara\'ujo-Melbourne \cite{AM} shows that conditions (1)--(8) imply exponential mixing of $\varphi_t$.
For $\theta\in (0,1]$, define $C^\theta (T^1S)$ to be the set of of $L^\infty$ functions $u \colon T^1S\to \RR$ such that
$\|u\|_\theta := |u|_\infty + |u|_\theta < \infty$, where
\[|u|_\theta := \sup_{v \neq v' } \frac{ |u(v)-u(v')|}{\rho(v,v')^\theta}.\]
\begin{corollary}\label{c=main} The flow $\varphi_t$ is exponentially mixing: for every $\theta\in (0,1]$, there exist constants $c, C > 0$ such that
for every $u_1, u_2 \in C^\theta(T^1S)$, we have
\[\left| \int_{T^1S} u_1 \, u_2\circ\varphi_t \,d\vol - \int u_1\, d\vol \int u_2\, d\vol \right| \leq Ce^{-ct}\|u_1\|_{\theta} \|u_2\|_{\theta},
\]
for all $t>0$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof} In the language of \cite{AM}, conditions (1)-(8) in Theorem~\ref{t=tower} imply that we can express the ergodic flow $\varphi_t$ as the natural extension of
a $C^{1+\alpha}$ skew product flow satisfying the UNI condition. See the discussion in \cite{AM} after Remark 4.1. Theorem 3.3 in \cite{AM} then applies to give that $\varphi_t$ is exponentially mixing for a suitable function space of observables, in particular those that are $C^3$. A standard mollification argument gives exponential mixing for observables
in $C^\theta$ (see Remark 3.4 in \cite{AM}).
\end{proof}
The construction is carried out in two parts. First, in Subsection~\ref{ss=sections}, we isolate those orbits that leave the thick part of $T^1S$ and travel deeply into the cusp. These orbits are easily described on a topological level using the Quasi-Clairaut relation developed in Section~\ref{s=QC}. We give a precise description of the first return map to the thick part for these orbits. Next, in Subsection~\ref{ss=thick}, we analyze the orbits beginning in $ Z^u$ and decompose into pieces visiting the thin part in a controlled way. We combine these analyses to obtain the desired decomposition of $\Delta_0$ in Theorem~\ref{t=tower}.
\subsection{Constructing sections to the flow in the cusp} \label{ss=sections}
We will work with $\delta_2 \leq \delta_1/2$ so that for $\overline\delta(p)\leq \delta_2$, we have $\overline\delta(p) = \delta(p)$ and $\chi(p) = r-1-\epsilon$, where $\chi$ is the function appearing in Proposition~\ref{p=cones4}.
Let $ \mathcal{T}(\delta_2)\subset T^1S$ be the torus consisting of all unit tangent vectors to $S$ with footpoint in $ Z(\delta_2)$:
\[\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)= T^1_{ Z(\delta_2)}S.\]
This torus is transverse to the vector field $\dot\varphi$, except at the two circles
\[ C^{+} := \{ J\nabla \overline\delta(p) : p\in Z\},\; \hbox{ and } C^{-}:= \{-J \nabla \overline\delta(p) : p\in Z\}.
\]
Let $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$ be the laminations of $\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)$ obtained by
intersecting leaves of the weak foliations $\mathcal{W}^{cu}$ and $\mathcal{W}^{cs}$ with $\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)$.
On $\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)\setminus ( C^+\cup C^-)$, the laminations $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$
are transverse foliations with $1$-dimensional leaves.
Each lamination $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$ has exactly one closed leaf, the curves $ Z^u$ and $ Z^s$ respectively, which are also unstable and stable manifolds for $\varphi_t$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[scale=0.4]{BMMWfoliations.pdf}\end{center}
\caption{The laminations $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$. The singular loci $C^{\pm}$ are the labeled circles where the leaves of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$ become tangent.}
\end{figure}
For $\eta_0>0$ we define two open subsets $ \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, \eta_0)$ and
$ \mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, \eta_0)$ of $\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)$ as follows:
\[\mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, \eta_0) := \{v\in \mathcal{T}(\delta_2) : a(v) < 0\,\,\&\, |b(v)| \leq \eta_0\}, \]
and
\[\mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, \eta_0) := \{v\in \mathcal{T} (\delta_2): a(v) >0\,\,\&\, |b(v)| \leq \eta_0\}, \]
where $a$ and $b$ are defined by (\ref{e=abdef}).
Note that $ Z^u\subset \mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, \eta_0)$, and
$ Z^s\subset \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, \eta_0)$, for all $\eta_0>0$.
If $\eta_0<1$, then $ \mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, \eta_0)$ and $\mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2,\eta_0)$
are disjoint from $C^{\pm}$, and so $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$
form uniformly transverse foliations in these cylinders.
Proposition~\ref{p=Clairaut} implies that if $\delta_2$ is sufficiently small, then for all $\eta_0<1/2$,
there is a well-defined first return map
\[\mathcal{R}\colon \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, \eta_0) \setminus Z^s \to \mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, 2\eta_0)\]
for the flow $\varphi_t$, with a local inverse
$\mathcal{R}^{-1} \colon\mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, \eta_0)\setminus Z^u \to \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, 2\eta_0)$.
These maps, where defined, are $C^3$ and preserve the foliations $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$.
Fix $v_0\in Z^u$ and recall that $\mathcal{W}^u(v_0) = \widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_0)= Z^u$.
Fix $\eta$ small, and let $I_0=\widehat\mathcal{W}^s(v_0,\eta)$. The image of $I_0\setminus\{v_0\}$ under $\mathcal{R}^{-1}$ is the union of two infinite rays spiraling into the unique closed stable manifold $ Z^s$ in $\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)$. Fix another point $v_0' \in Z^s$ (for example, $v_0' = -v_0$), and fix two points
$v_L', v_R' \in \widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_0',\eta)\cap \mathcal{R}^{-1}(I_0)$, to the left and right, respectively, of $v_0'$ in
$\widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_0',\eta)$ with respect to some fixed orientation.
Let $v_L = \mathcal{R}(v_L')$, and let $v_R = \mathcal{R}(v_R')$. The unstable manifold $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_L)$ contains an infinite ray from $v_L$, spiraling into $ Z^u$ from the left and cutting $I_0$ infinitely many times. Let $w_L$ be the first intersection point of this ray with $I_0$; it lies to the right of $v_L$, and to the left of $v_0$. The points $v_L, w_L$ define a closed
curve $c_L$ in $\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)$, consisting of the piece of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_L)$ connecting
$v_L$ to $w_L$ and the subinterval of $I_0 =\widehat\mathcal{W}^s(v_0,\eta)$ from $v_L$ to $w_L$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{Sigmaout.pdf}\end{center}
\caption{The section $\Sigma_{out}$ of vectors pointing out of the cusp.}
\end{figure}
Similarly, let $w_R$ be the first intersection of the
infinite ray $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_R)$ spiraling into $ Z^u$ from the right, and let
$c_R$ be the curve constructed analogously. The two curves $c_L$ and $c_R$ bound a cylindrical region $\Sigma_{out}$ in $\mathcal{T}(\delta_2)$, which is depicted in Figure~2.
Let $\pi^s\colon \Sigma_{out}\to Z^u$ be the projection along leaves of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$, which is simply the
restriction of the projection $\pi^{cs}$ previously defined to the domain $ \Sigma_{out}$.
Then $\pi^s$ is $C^{1+\alpha}$ and maps the boundary curves $c_L$ and $c_R$ onto $ Z^u$. The map $\pi^s$ is a diffeomorphism when restricted to the interior of any interval of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$ that begins and ends in $I_0$ and makes one revolution around $\Sigma_{out}$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[scale=0.28]{Sigmain.pdf}\end{center}
\caption{The section $\Sigma_{in}$ of vectors pointing toward the cusp.}
\end{figure}
We define the section $\Sigma_{in}\subset \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2,\eta_0)$ similarly: it is bounded by two curves $c_L'$ and $c_R'$, where $c_L'$ is the union of two segments of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_L')$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s(v_L')$, and $c_R'$ is the union of segments of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u(v_R')$ and $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s(v_R')$. See Figure 3. By construction, we have that $\mathcal{R}(c_L') = c_L$, $\mathcal{R}(c_R') = c_R$, and:
\[\mathcal{R}\left(\Sigma_{in}\setminus Z^s \right) = \Sigma_{out}\setminus Z^u.
\]
If the radius $\eta$ of $I_0$ was initially chosen sufficiently small, then there exists $\eta_0\in (0,1/8)$ such that
\begin{equation}\label{e=b0def}
\mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, \eta_0/2) \subset \Sigma_{out} \subset \mathcal{T}_{out}(\delta_2, \eta_0),\;\hbox{ and }
\mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, \eta_0/2) \subset \Sigma_{in} \subset \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, \eta_0).
\end{equation}
Fix this $\eta_0$.
Let $\pi^u\colon \Sigma_{in}\to Z^s$ be the projection along leaves of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$, which is
the restriction of the center-unstable $\pi^{cu}$ to $ \Sigma_{in}$. The fibers of
$\pi^u$ are pieces of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u$-unstable manifold.
Let us examine the return time function for the flow on the fibers of $\pi^u$. Let $\mathcal{N}$ be a small neighborhood of $\Sigma_{in}\setminus Z^s$ defined by flowing $\Sigma_{in}\setminus Z^s$ under
$\varphi_t$ in a small time interval.
For $v\in \mathcal{N}$, let
$t_{\mathcal{R}}(v)$ be the smallest time $t>0$ satisfying $\varphi_t(v)\in \Sigma_{out}$:
\begin{equation}\label{e=defT_1}
t_{\mathcal{R}}(v) = \inf\left\{t>0 : \varphi_{t}(v)\in \Sigma_{out}\right\};
\end{equation}
thus $\mathcal{R}(v) = \varphi_{t_{\mathcal{R}}(v)}(v)$, for all $v\in \Sigma_{in}\setminus Z^s$.
\begin{figure}[ht]
\begin{center}\includegraphics[scale=0.36]{fundamental.pdf}\end{center}
\caption{The action of $\mathcal{R}$ on fundamental intervals.}
\end{figure}
Let $v\in Z^s$ and let $I\subset (\pi^u)^{-1}(v)$ be a closed interval. We say that $I$ is a {\em fundamental interval} if the endpoints of $I$ lie on the same leaf of the $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$ foliation and the interior of $I$ contains no points on that leaf.
\begin{lemma} There exists $C_1 \geq 1$ such that for any fundamental interval $I$, the following holds:
\begin{enumerate}
\item $\pi^s\left( \mathcal{R}(I) \right) = Z^u$, and the restriction of $\pi^s\circ\mathcal{R}$ to the interior of $I$ is a $C^{1+\alpha}$ diffeomorphism, whose inverse has uniformly bounded distortion.
\item For any $w\in I$, we have $\|\mathcal{R}'(w)\| \asymp |I|^{-1}$, where $\mathcal{R}'(w)$ denotes the derivative of the restriction of $\mathcal{R}$ to $I$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Property (1) follows from the construction of fundamental intervals and the fact that the foliation $\mathcal{W}^{cs}_{\varphi}$ is uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$. Property (2) follows from Corollary~\ref{c=distortion}. \end{proof}
\begin{lemma} \label{l=intervalstretch}
There exist $C_2\geq 1$ and $\alpha>0$ such that if $I$ is a fundamental interval, and
$b(I) = \inf_{v\in I} |b(v)|$, then \[|I| \leq C_2 |b(I)|^{1+\alpha}.\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
For a point $v\in I$, let $t_1$ be the return time of $v$ for $\varphi_t$ to $\Sigma_{out}$.
Note that $\delta(\varphi_{t_1}(v))= \delta(v)$ and $b(\varphi_{t_1}(v)) \approx b(v)$ (by Proposition~\ref{p=Clairaut}). Let $t_0\in (0,t_1)$ be the point where $a(\varphi_{t_0}(v)) = 0$.
We write $a(t), b(t), c(t)$ for $a(\varphi_t(v)), b(\varphi_t(v)), c(\varphi_t(v))$, respectively.
Lemma~\ref{l=derivs} implies that $c = \frac{1}{|a|} \frac{b'}{b} \geq \frac{b'}{b}$, and
so
\[\exp\left(\int_0^{t_0} c \right) \geq \exp\left(\int_0^{t_0} \frac{b'}{b} \right) = \exp(-\ln(b(0))) = |b(0)|^{-1}.\]
Thus, since $c = r/\delta + O(1)$ by Proposition~\ref{p=c}, we have
\[\exp\left(\int_0^{t_1} \frac{r}{\delta} \right) \geq C^{-1} |b(0)|^{-2},\]
for some $C\geq 1$,
and
\[ \|\mathcal{R}'(w)\| \asymp \|D\varphi_{t_1} E^u\| \geq \exp\left(\int_0^{t_1} \frac{r-1-\epsilon}{\delta} \right) \geq C^{-1} |b(0)|^{-2(r-1-\epsilon)/r}.\]
Then, since distortion is bounded on small intervals by Corollary~\ref{c=distortion}, we have \[|I| \asymp \|\mathcal{R}'(w)\|^{-1} \leq C_2 |b(0)|^{2(r-1-\epsilon)/r} \leq C_2 |b(I)|^{1+\alpha},\] for some $\alpha>0$, since $r>2$. \end{proof}
As a corollary, we obtain:
\begin{lemma} \label{l=IBcompare} There exist $C\geq 1$ and $\alpha\in (0,1)$ such that the following holds. If $B$ is a $\widehat W^u$-interval in $\Sigma_{in}$ with $Z^s\cap B\neq \emptyset$, and $I\subset B$ is a fundamental interval, then $|I| \leq C|B|^{1+\alpha}$. In particular, if $|B|$ is sufficiently small then $|I| \leq |B|/4$.
\end{lemma}
\subsection{Building a Young tower}\label{ss=thick}
\begin{lemma}\label{l=meets} Fix a compact set $K\subset T^1S$, $\eta>0$ and $\sigma>0$. There exists $U_0>0$ such that for any $v\in K$, there exists $w\in \mathcal{W}^u(v,\sigma)$ and $t\in(0,U_0]$ such that
$\varphi_t(w)\in \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2,\eta)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This is a consequence of ergodicity (indeed transitivity) of $\varphi_t$, compactness of $K$, and
the Anosov condition on $\psi_t$.
Let $\eta,\sigma$ and $K$ be given. Let $\sigma_1<\eta/8$ be small enough such that for all $v_1,v_2\in K$, if $d(v_1,v_2) <\sigma_1$, then $\mathcal{W}^s(v_1,\sigma)\cap \mathcal{W}^{cu}(v_2,\sigma) \neq \emptyset$ (because $\psi_t$ is Anosov, this holds for the restriction of the $\star$ metric to $K$, which is then comparable to the original metric, since $K$ is compact).
Since $\varphi_t$ is ergodic (by Corollary~\ref{c=ergodic}) there exists $u\in T^1S$ whose backward orbit is dense in $T^1S$ and
such that \[\varphi_{[-\sigma_1/2,\sigma_1/2]}(u)\cap \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2,\eta/2) \neq \emptyset.\]
Cover the compact set $K$ with a finite collection of $\sigma_1/2$-balls.
Fix $s_0>0$ such that $\varphi_{-s_0}\left(\mathcal{W}^s(u,\sigma_1/4))\right)$ has length $>\sigma$.
If $s_1$ is sufficiently large, then $\varphi_{[-s_1,-s_0]}(u)$ meets all of the $\sigma_1/2$-balls, and thus
meets every $\sigma$-center unstable manifold. This implies the conclusion, with $U_0= s_1+\sigma_1$.
\end{proof}
We now describe the procedure for partitioning $\Delta_0 = Z^u\setminus \{v_0\}$ into a full measure set of subintervals $\{\Delta_j: j\geq 1\}$ mapping onto $\Delta_0$ under $\pi^{cs}\circ\varphi_R$, where $R\colon \bigcup_j \Delta_j\to \RR$.
\medskip
We assume $\delta_2$ and $\eta_0$ are very small, so that by Corollary~\ref{c=distortion} distortion is at most $4/3$ on unstable intervals of length $\leq 2\eta_0$:
\[w\in \mathcal{W}^u(v,2\eta_0) \implies \frac{ \|D^u_w\varphi_{-t} \|}{ \|D^u_v\varphi_{-t}\|} \in \left[ \frac34, \frac43 \right], \forall t>0.
\]
Denote by $\ell>0$ the circumference of $Z^u$, which is less than $1$ if $\delta_2$ is small enough, and
without loss of generality assume $\eta_0 < \ell/2$.
Let $t_{\mathcal{R}}\colon \Sigma_{in}\setminus Z^s\to \mathbb{R}$ be the return function defined by (\ref{e=defT_1}).
Fix $\Theta \subset T^1 S$ the thick part defined by
\[\Theta = \{ v\in T^1S : \overline\delta(v) \geq \delta_2 \}.\]
Note that $\Sigma_{in}\cup\Sigma_{out} \subset \Theta$.
Lemma~\ref{l=meets} implies that there exists $U_0>0$ such that for any $v\in \Theta$, there exists $w\in \mathcal{W}^u(v, \eta_0 )$ and $t\in(0,U_0]$ such that $\varphi_{t}(w)\in \mathcal{T}_{in}(\delta_2, \eta_0 )$.
Let $s_0$ be the maximum time needed for a piece of unstable interval to double in length under $\varphi_t$. Let
$U = U_0 + s_0 + 2\delta_2$.
Denote by $Z^{cs}$ the singular set consisting of all vectors $v\in T^1S$ with $\overline \delta(v)\leq \delta_2$ and
such that $\varphi_t(v)$ hits the cusp in time $t \leq \delta_2$; that is:
\[Z^{cs} := \varphi_{[0,\delta_2]}(Z^s).
\]
We begin by chopping $Z^u$ into a collection $\mathcal{G}_0$ of intervals of length in $[\eta_0 , 2\eta_0 )$. We say that an open interval $G\subset Z^u$ is {\em active gap interval at time $t\geq 0$} if $\varphi_{[0,t]}(G)\cap Z^{cs}= \emptyset$ and
$|\varphi_t(G)|\in[\eta_0 , 2\eta_0 )$. Thus $\mathcal{G}_0$ consists of active gap intervals at time $0$.
Recall from Corollary~\ref{p=leave} that for all $v\in \Sigma_{in}\setminus Z^s$, $\varphi_{2\delta_2}(v)\in \Theta$.
This implies that if $G\subset Z^u$ is {\em any} piece of unstable manifold of
length less than $\eta_0$ such that:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\varphi_{t_0}(G)\cap \Sigma_{in} \neq\emptyset$, and
\item $\pi^{cs}(\varphi_{t_0}(G))$ contains a fundamental interval,
\end{itemize}
then there exists $t_1\in (0,2\delta_2)$ such that $G$ is an active gap interval at time $t_0+t_1$.
We now describe an algorithm for evolving an active gap interval to produce new active gap intervals and other intervals called border intervals.
Let $G\subset Z^u$ be an active gap interval at some time $t_0\geq 0$.
We then flow $G$ forward until the first $t > t_0$ when one of two things happens:
\begin{itemize}
\item[(a)] $|\varphi_t(G)| = 2\eta_0 $, or
\item[(b)] $\varphi_t(G)\cap Z^s\neq \emptyset$.
\end{itemize}
Either (a) or (b) will occur within time $s_0$.
If (a) happens first, we chop $G$ into two new gap intervals, $G_1$ and $G_2$, so that $|\varphi_{t}(G_1)| = |\varphi_{t}(G_2)| = \eta_0 $. We say that $G_1$ and $G_2$
are {\em born} and become {\em active} at time $t$ and write $t_b(G_1) = t_a(G_1)=t_a(G_2) = t_b(G_2) = t$. Note that $G = G_1\cup \{v_0\} \cup G_2$, where $v_0$ is the point where the interval $G$ is cut. Since distortion is bounded by $4/3$ on intervals of length $\leq 2\eta_0 $, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{e=ratio1}
\frac{|G_1|}{|G_2|} \in \left[ \frac34, \frac43 \right],\;\hbox{ and } \frac{|G_i|}{|G|}\in \left[ \frac38, \frac23 \right], i=1,2.
\end{equation}
We say that $G$ is {\em inactive} in the time interval $[t,\infty)$, and that $G_1, G_2$ are inactive in the time interval
$[0,t)$.
If (b) happens first, then $G$ gives birth to two {\em border intervals} $B_1$ and $B_2$ and two gap intervals $G_1, G_2$ as follows. Let $v\in G$ be the unique point satisfying $\varphi_t(v)\in Z^s$.
Let $X_1$ and $X_2$ be the components of $G\setminus \{v\}$ that lie to the left and right of $v$, respectively.
For $i=1,2$, let $B_i\subset X_i$ be the largest interval satisfying:
\begin{itemize}
\item $\{v\}\cup B_i$ is a closed interval,
\item $\pi^{cs} \varphi_t(B_i)$ is a countable union of fundamental intervals, and
\item $\pi^{cs} \varphi_t(G_i)$ contains exactly one fundamental interval, where $G_i = X_i\setminus B_i$.
\end{itemize}
For $i=1,2$, we define the {\em birthday} of $B_i$ and $G_i$ to be $t_b(B_i) = t_b(G_i) = t$.
Let
$t_a(G_i)$ to be the first time such that $\varphi_{t_a(G_i)}$ is an active interval. Note that
since $\varphi_t(G_i)$ meets $\Sigma_{in}$ and $\pi^{cs}\left(\varphi_t(G_i)\right)$ contains a fundamental interval, we have that
$t_a(G_i) \in (t, t + 2\delta_2]$. Similarly, any fundamental interval in $\pi^{cs}\varphi_t(B_i)$ will return to $\Sigma_{out}$ in time at most $2\delta_2$.
To summarize, in case b) we produce a decomposition of the original active gap interval $G$ into disjoint subintervals
\[
G = G_1 \cup B_1\cup B_2 \cup G_2,
\]
(up to a finite set of points)
with the following properties:
\begin{itemize}
\item $G_1$ and $G_2$ are gap intervals that are born at time $t_b(G_1) = t_b(G_2) \in [t_0, t_0+s_0]$, respectively.
For $i=1,2$, there exists $t_a(G_i)\in [t_b(G_i), t_b(G_i)+2\delta_2]$ such that $G_i$ is active at time $t_a(G_i)$. We say that
$G_i$ is {\em inactive} in the time period $(0, t_b(G_i))$ and {\em dormant} during the period
$[t_b(G_i), t_a(G_i))$.
\item $B_1$ and $B_2$ are border intervals that are born at time $t_b(B_1)=t_b(B_2)\in [t_0, t_0+s_0]$, respectively. For $i=1,2$, the set $\varphi_{t_b (B_i)}(B_i)$ is a countable union of fundamental intervals,
and for any $v\in B_i$, we have $t_{\mathcal{R}}(\varphi_{t_b(B_i)} (v))\in
(0, 2\delta_2]$.
\item Since each $\pi^{cs}\varphi_{t_b(G_i)}(G_i)$ contains exactly one fundamental interval (and no more), it has bounded length when it first returns to $\Theta$: when this forward image is projected onto $Z^{u}$ it covers at least once, but not more than twice. Thus, assuming that $\delta_1, \eta_0$ etc. are small enough, we have that
if $t_1 > t_b(G_i)$
is the smallest time such that $\varphi_{t_1}(G_i)\cap \Sigma_{out}\neq \emptyset$,
then
\begin{equation}\label{e=boundedreturn}
\left|\varphi_{ t_1 }(G_i) \right| \in [\ell/2, 3\ell).
\end{equation}
\item Since each $\pi^{cs}\varphi_{t_b(G_i)}(G_i)$ is contained in two fundamental intervals,
Lemma~\ref{l=IBcompare} implies that $|\varphi_{t_b(G_1)} (G_1\cup G_2)| \leq \frac12 |\varphi_{t_b(G_1)} (G)|$; since distortion is bounded
by $4/3$ on intervals of length $\leq 2\eta_0 $, we have:
\begin{equation}\label{e=ratio2}
|G_1\cup G_2| \leq \frac23 |G|.
\end{equation}
\end{itemize}
Starting with the intervals in $\mathcal{G}_0$ and applying the algorithm to all active gap intervals, we obtain for any time $t\geq 0$, three disjoint collections of disjoint intervals $\mathcal{A}_t$, $\mathcal{B}_t$ and $\mathcal{D}_t$, the active, border and dormant intervals. The set $\mathcal{A}_t$ consists of the gap intervals that are active at time $t$, the set $\mathcal{B}_t$
consists of border intervals $B$ with birth time $t_b(B) \leq t$, and $\mathcal{D}_t$ are the gap intervals that are dormant at time $t$. Let $\mathcal{G}_t = \mathcal{A}_t\cup \mathcal{D}_t$ be the collection of all gap intervals active or dormant at time $t$.
Observe that for any $t>0$, we have
\[Z^u = \bigcup \mathcal{B}_t \cup \bigcup \mathcal{G}_t \cup \bigcup \mathcal{V}_t,
\]
where $\mathcal{V}_t$ is a finite collection of points. (Note that at $t=0$, we have $\mathcal{G}_0 = \mathcal{A}_0$, $\mathcal{B}_0 = \mathcal{D}_0 = \emptyset$,
and $\mathcal{V}_0 = \{v_0\}$).
\begin{lemma}\label{l=lambda0} There exists $\lambda_0\in(0,1)$ such that for any $k\geq 0$:
\[\left| Z^u\setminus \bigcup \mathcal{B}_{kU} \right| = \left| \bigcup \mathcal{G}_{kU} \right| \leq \lambda_0^k.
\]
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Let $G\in \mathcal{G}_{kU}$. Then $G$ is either active or dormant at time $kU$. Since an interval cannot be active for more than time $s_0\leq U$ and cannot be dormant for more than time $2\delta_2\leq U$, it follows that $G$ is inactive at time $(k-1)U$. It follows that $G$ has a unique {\em ancestor} in $\mathcal{G}_{(k-1)U}$; that is, there exists $G'\in \mathcal{G}_{(k-1)U}$ such that $G\subset G'$ and $G'$ gives birth in the time interval $[(k-1)U, kU]$.
Now suppose $G'\in \mathcal{G}_{(k-1)U}$. Then $G'$ will become active within time $2\delta_2$ and some point $v\in G'$ will intersect $Z^s$ within time $2\delta_2 + U_0\leq U$.
Thus during the time
period $[(k-1)U, kU]$, the interval $G'$ will divide finitely many times, and at least one active piece will intersect $Z^s$.
The number of times this division can occur is uniformly bounded. As the gap evolves in the time interval $[(k-1)U, kU]$, it gives birth to new gaps according to rule (a) or (b) above. The number of times that case (a) can apply between two occurrences of case (b) is bounded: if a gap $G''$ is produced by rule (b), then by (\ref{e=boundedreturn}), we have $|\varphi_{t_1}(G'')|\in [\ell/2, 3\ell)$, where $t_1\geq t_b(G'')$ is the first time $G''$ returns to $\Sigma_{out}$. In $\Theta$, the derivative $D\varphi_t$ is bounded above, and so any active interval meeting $\Theta$ can divide a bounded number of times before some descendent meets $Z^s$ (which happens within time $U_0$). Thus the number of times (a) can apply within two occurrences of (b) is uniformly bounded.
We conclude that $G' = G_1\cup \cdots \cup G_n \cup B_1\cdots \cup B_{2m}$,
with $n\geq 2m\geq 2$, where $G_1,\ldots,G_n\in \mathcal{G}_{kU}$, and
$B_{1},\ldots, B_{2m}\in \mathcal{B}_{kU}$. Moreover, there exists $N>0$, independent of $k, G'$ such that $n\leq Nm$.
Combined with (\ref{e=ratio1}) and (\ref{e=ratio2}), this implies that there exists $\lambda_0\in (0,1)$ such that
\[\left| G_1\cup \cdots \cup G_{n} \right| \leq \lambda_0 |G'|.
\]
Thus $|\mathcal{G}_{kU}|\leq \lambda_0 |\mathcal{G}_{(k-1)U}|$; since $|\mathcal{G}_{0}| < 1$, we obtain the conclusion.
\end{proof}
Let $\mathcal{B}_\infty = \bigcup_{t>0} \mathcal{B}_t$. Then $\mathcal{B}_\infty$ is a collection of disjoint intervals with
$\left|Z^u \setminus \bigcup \mathcal{B}_\infty \right| = 0$.
\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{t=tower}]
We create a countable collection $\mathcal{I}$ of intervals $\Delta_j$ as follows:
we decompose each $B\in \mathcal{B}_\infty$ into a countable union $B = \bigsqcup_{j\geq 1} \Delta_{B,j}$ such that for each $j$,
$\pi^{cs}\varphi_{t_b(B)}(\Delta_{B,j})$ is a fundamental interval. Then we set
\[\mathcal{I} = \{ \Delta_{B,j} :\, B\in \mathcal{B}_\infty, \, j\geq 1\}.
\]
Note that
$\left| Z^u\setminus \bigcup \mathcal{I} \right| = \left| Z^u\setminus \bigcup \mathcal{B}_\infty \right| = 0$,
and so conclusion (1) of Theorem~\ref{t=tower} holds.
We extend the definition of $t_b$ to intervals in $\mathcal{I}$ in the natural way: if $\Delta_j \subset B \in \mathcal{B}_{\infty}$, we set $t_b(\Delta_j) = t_b(B)$.
For $v\in \Delta_j \subset \mathcal{I}$, let
\[R_0(v) = t_b(\Delta_j) + t_{\mathcal{R}}(\varphi_{t_b(\Delta_j)} (v)).\] Then
$R_0(v)$ is the the minimal time $> t_b(\Delta_j)$ such that
$\varphi_{R_0(v)}(v)\in \Sigma_{out}$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=R_0bound} There exist $\lambda\in(0,1)$ and $C\geq 1$ such that the function $R_0\colon \bigcup \mathcal{I}\to \RR_{>0}$ satisfies
\[\left| \left\{v\in \bigcup\mathcal{I} : R_0(v)\geq k \right\} \right| \leq C \lambda^k,
\]
for each $k\geq 0$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} Since $t_{\mathcal{R}}$ is bounded it suffices to find $\lambda_1\in(0,1)$ such that
\[\left| \bigcup \left\{B\in \mathcal{B}_\infty : t_b(B)\geq k \right\} \right| \leq C \lambda_1^k.\] But this follows immediately from the construction with $\lambda_1 = \lambda_0$ appearing in Lemma~\ref{l=lambda0}.
\end{proof}
We now define the return time function $R\colon \bigcup I\to \RR_{>0}$. Recall the projection
$\pi^s\colon \Sigma_{out} \to Z^u$ along the leaves of $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$. The fibers
of $\pi^s$ are local $\widehat\mathcal{W}^s$ manifolds. Over each point $v\in \Sigma_{out}$ there
lies a unique point $w(v)\in \mathcal{W}^s_{loc}(\pi^s(v))$ such that $w(v) = \varphi_{r(v)}(v)$, for some small value of $r(v)$. Let $\overline \Sigma_{out} = w(\Sigma_{out})$.
\begin{lemma}\label{l=barSigma} The function
$r\colon \Sigma_{out}\to \RR$ is uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$, and $\overline\Sigma_{out}$ is a $C^{1+\alpha}$ manifold. The map $w\colon \Sigma_{out} \to \overline \Sigma_{out}$ is a $C^{1+\alpha}$ diffeomorphism.
The manifold $\overline \Sigma_{out}$ is $C^{1+\alpha}$ foliated by local $\mathcal{W}^s$-leaves:
\[\overline\Sigma_{out} \subset \bigcup_{v'\in \Delta_0} \mathcal{W}^s_{loc}(v'),
\]
and the projection $\overline\pi^s \colon\overline\Sigma_0\to Z^u$ along these local leaves is a $C^{1+\alpha}$ submersion.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof} This follows from the fact that the foliation $\mathcal{W}^s$ is uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$.
\end{proof}
We define $R\colon \bigcup \mathcal{I} \to \RR$ by $R(v) = R_0(v) + r(\varphi_{R_0(v)}(v))$;
it has the property that $\varphi_{R(v)}(v)\in \overline\Sigma_{out}$.
Lemma~\ref{l=barSigma} implies that for each $v\in \bigcup \mathcal{I}$, there exists a unique $v'\in \Delta_0$ -- namely,
$v' = \overline\pi^s\varphi_{R(v)}(v)$ -- such that
$\varphi_{R(v)}(v)\in \mathcal{W}^s_{loc}(v')$, giving conclusion (2).
For $\Delta_j\in \mathcal{I}$, we define $h_j\colon \Delta_0\to \Delta_j$ to be the inverse of the map $F_j = \pi^{cs}\circ \varphi_{R(\cdot)} = \overline\pi^s \circ \varphi_{R(\cdot)} \colon \Delta_j\to \Delta_0$.
This
is well-defined, because
\[\overline\pi^s(\varphi_{R(\cdot)}(\Delta_j)) = \pi^{s}(\mathcal{R}( \pi^{cs} \circ\varphi_{t_b(\Delta_j)}(\Delta_j))) = \Delta_0,\]
since $ \pi^{cs} \varphi_{t_b(\Delta_j)}(\Delta_j)$ is a fundamental interval.
Since $\pi^s$ is a submersion, and the map $v \mapsto \mathcal{R}( \pi^{cs} \varphi_{t_b(B)})(v)$ is a diffeomorphism from $\Delta_j$ onto its image, the composition is a diffeomorphism from $\Delta_j$ to $\Delta_0$. Thus its inverse $h_j\colon \Delta_0\to \Delta_j$ is a diffeomorphism. This establishes conclusion (3).
Note that $|h_j'(v)| \sim \|D^u_{h_j(v)}\varphi_{R_0(h_j( v))}\|^{-1}$, and so conclusion (4) holds.
Conclusion (5) follows from the facts that $\varphi_t$ has bounded distortion and the map
$\pi^{cs}$ is uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$. Indeed note that the map $F_j = h_j^{-1}$ can also be expressed in the following way. We fix some point $\hat v\in \Delta_j$ and
consider the image $\varphi_{R(\hat v)}(\Delta_j)$ under the constant time flow $\varphi_{R(\hat v)}$. This is a piece of unstable manifold that meets $\overline \Sigma_{out}$. The map $F_j = h_j^{-1}$ is
just the composition $F_j = \pi^{cs}\circ \varphi_{R(\hat v)}$ of this flow with the center-stable projection $\pi^{cs}\colon U \to Z^u$, defined in the beginning of the section. This latter projection is a uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$ submersion and a local diffeomorphism when restricted to local unstable manifolds, since the foliation
$\mathcal{W}^{cs}$ is uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$. Thus $h_j$ is uniformly $C^{1+\alpha}$.
Let's examine the map $R\circ h_j$. Again fix a point $\hat v\in \Delta_j$, and consider the image $\varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}\left(\Delta_j \right)$, which is a piece of unstable manifold meeting $\Sigma_{out}$ at the point $\varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}( \hat v)$. It follows that there is a uniformly bounded $C^{2}$ function $\hat r\colon \varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}\left(\Delta_j \right) \to\RR$ such that
$\varphi_{\hat r(\cdot)}$ sends the piece of unstable manifold $ \varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}\left(\Delta_j \right)$ to $\widehat\mathcal{W}^u_{loc}(\varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}( \hat v))\subset \Sigma_{out}$. Then $R_0(v) = R_0(\hat v) + \hat r( \varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}( v))$, and so
$R(v) = R_0(\hat v) + \hat r( \varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}( v) )+ r(\varphi_{R_0(v)}(v))$.
Thus
\[|R'(v)| \leq |\hat r'( \varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}( v) )|\|D^u_v\varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}\| \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \qquad \]\[ + |r'(\varphi_{R_0(v)}(v))|\left(\|D^u_v\varphi_{R_0(v)}\||+ \|\dot\varphi(\varphi_{R_0(v)}(v)\| |\hat r'( \varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}( v) )| \|D^u_v\varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}\| \right)\qquad\]
\[= |\hat r'( \varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}( v) )|\|D^u_v\varphi_{R_0(\hat v)}\|(1+ |r'(\varphi_{R_0(v)}(v))|) + |r'(\varphi_{R_0(v)}(v))|\|D^u_v\varphi_{R_0(v)}\||.
\]
The derivatives $r'$ and $\hat r'$ are uniformly bounded.
Since $|h_j'(v)| \asymp \|D^u_{h_j(v)}\varphi_{R_0(h_j( v))}\|^{-1}$, we obtain that
there exists a uniform constant $C\geq 1$ such that
$|(R\circ h_j)'|\leq C$, for all $j$. This gives conclusion (6).
Since the function $r$ is bounded, Lemma~\ref{l=R_0bound} implies that for each $k>0$, we have
\[\left| \left\{v\in \bigcup\mathcal{I} : R(v)\geq k \right\} \right| \leq C \lambda^k;
\]
since $|h_j'|\asymp |\Delta_j|$, this gives conclusion (7) of Theorem~\ref{t=tower}, where $\epsilon>0$ is chosen so that $\lambda \exp(C\epsilon) < 1$.
Finally we verify that the UNI Condition in conclusion (8) holds.
This is a direct consequence of the fact that $\varphi_t$ preserves a contact $1$-form $\omega$, which implies that the foliations $\mathcal{W}^s$ and $\mathcal{W}^u$ are not jointly integrable. The details are carried out in Lemma 12 of \cite{ABV} (in the Axiom A context) and Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 4.3 of \cite{AM} (close to the current context). \end{proof}
|
\section{Introduction}
Over the past decade, kidney exchange and matching based market design
in general, have become one of the most appealing applications at
the interface of economics and computer science. In economics, designing
desirable matching mechanism has been a topic of intensive research,
ever since the seminal work on college admission and stable marriage
problem~\cite{gale1962,roth1992two}. In computer science and the
multiagent system community, designing and fielding efficient clearing
algorithms for such markets has been under close scrutiny lately~\cite{abraham07,Awasthi09,Ashlagi2010,Dickerson2012dynamic,Dickerson13,dickerson2014price,Li2014}.
In a typical kidney exchange system %
\footnote{See, for example, \url{http://www.unos.org/} %
}, a patient with renal disease teams up with a known but incompatible
donor. While the pair donate a kidney to help some other compatible
patient in the system, they obtain a compatible kidney in return.
Both patients receive a compatible kidney in the end, resulting in
social welfare improvement. Nowadays, kidney exchange serves as alternative
solution besides cadaver donations and has been fielded successfully
in a number of countries. For a comprehensive introduction of background,
refer to~\cite{roth2004kidney,roth2005pairwise,abraham07} and the
references therein.
In this paper, we explore the kidney exchange problem from a computational
perspective. The problem, described in the terminology of graph theory,
is to find a set of vertex-disjoint cycles that maximize the total
weight in a weighted digraph. Each vertex in the graph represents
a patient-donor pair and each arc represents compatibility between
the pairs, with the arc weight denoting the payoff by performing the
surgery. A cycle of length $L$ requires $2L$ people in simultaneous
surgeries. To lessen the logistical pressure imposed by simultaneous
surgeries, in practice, every cycle length is constrained to be less
than or equal to $3$~\cite{abraham07} %
\footnote{An alternative solution is to include ``chains'', which start with
a cadaver or altruistic donor that does not look for anything in return.
Chain plays an important role in current kidney exchange systems.
See, e.g.,~\cite{roth2004kidney,Dickerson2012chains,Ashlagi2012,dickerson2014price}.
We do not consider chains in the current paper. %
}. For $L\leq3$, Abraham et. al.~\cite{abraham07} show that the
kidney exchange problem is \textsc{NP-hard}. They demonstrate an effective
integer programming formulation with an advanced tree search algorithm
that can solve a graph with $10000$ nodes.
We further explore computational complexity of this problem, for both
$L\leq3$ and general $L$, in both weighted and unweighted graphs.
Our conclusion is that the problem, under various definitions, is
computationally hard to approximate. The seemingly-straightforward
algorithms we propose can give good solutions on simulated data. In
particular, we make the following contributions:
\subsection{Our contribution}
\begin{enumerate}
\item We prove that, for a weighted graph with general $L$, the kidney
exchange problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within a factor
of $\tfrac{14}{13}$. The inapproximability result is obtained via
a reduction from the inapproximability of \emph{maximum 3-variable
linear equations modular 2 satisfiability problem} (aka. \textsc{Max-3Lin-2})
by H{\aa}stad~\cite{Hastad01}.
\item We prove that, for a weighted graph with $L\leq3$, the kidney exchange
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within a factor of $\tfrac{434}{433}$.
The proof is via a reduction from the \emph{bounded occurrence version
of the maximum 3-variable linear equations modular 2 satisfiability
problem} (aka. \textsc{Max-3Lin-2($3$)}).
\item We show that, for an unweighted graph with $L\leq3$, the kidney exchange
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within a factor of $\frac{698}{697}$.
The proof is via a reduction of the \textsc{Maximum-3-Dimensional-Matching}
problem.
\item For the unweighted graph with $L=3$, we propose two algorithms which
are easy to analyse and implement. We implement the algorithms and
test them on simulated data. Both of them yield good experimental
performance on these data.
\end{enumerate}
For the three inapproximability results, these problems has previous
been known to be \textsc{APX-hard}~\cite{biro2006inapproximability},
i.e., there is no polynomial time approximation scheme for these problems
(i.e., hard to find a $1-\epsilon$ approximation ). We advance the
theoretical understandings on these problems by showing that it is
hard to find a constant approximation.
These results have important implications. First, our hardness results
complement the work by Abraham et. al.~\cite{abraham07} and can
serve as a justification of their choice of integer programming implementation
over approximation algorithm. Second, our proof techniques shed light
on the close relations between the kidney exchange problem and several
other landmark computational optimization problems, and thus can serve
as technical basis for proving similar results in the kidney exchange
literature. Third, the two simple and practical algorithms and experimental
results suggest that there exist fast, near-optimal algorithms in
practice.
\section{Preliminary}
\subsection{The kidney exchange problem}
We model kidney exchange as a directed weighted graph $\mathcal{G}=(V,E)(|V|=n,|E|=m)$,
where each vertex stands for a donor-patient pair and each edge represents
a possible one-way kidney exchange. A cycle in the graph serves as
a basic building block of the exchange outcome, where a patient receives
a kidney from the donor in the preceding vertex along the cycle. The
weight of each cycle is the sum of weights for each arc along the
cycle. Depending on the specific application scenarios, edges can
be both weighted~\cite{abraham07} or unweighted (with uniform weight
on each arc)~\cite{roth2005pairwise}. Our goal is then to find a
collection of vertex-disjoint cycles that maximize the total weight
in weighted graphs and the total size in unweighted graphs. In other
words, the goal is to find a clearing algorithm that maximizes social
welfare.
We denote the problem by \textsc{Max-Weight-$L$-Exchange} for weighted
graphs and\textsc{ Max-Size-$L$-Exchange} for unweighted graphs,
where $L$ is the restriction of the exchange cycle length.
\subsection{Gap problems and inapproximability}
We first recall basic definitions of gap version optimization problems.
For more information about the theory of gap problems and inapproximability
of optimization problems, see, e.g.,~\cite{vazirani2001}.
Let $\mathcal{A}$ be any maximization problem, then the gap version
of $\mathcal{A}$ with parameter $0<a<b\leq1$, denoted by \textsc{Gap}-$\mathcal{A}$-{[}a,b{]},
is the following decision problem: Given an instance $\mathcal{I}$
of $\mathcal{A}$, distinguish whether the optimal solution has fractional
size at least $b$ or less than $a$. When fractional size of the
optimal solution is between $a$ and $b$, any output suffices.
Clearly, if there exists a polynomial time $\frac{b}{a}$-approximation
algorithm of the original problem $\mathcal{A}$, we can distinguish
the two cases in polynomial time. Conversely, if the gap version problem
\textsc{Gap}-$\mathcal{A}$-{[}a,b{]} is \textsc{NP-hard}, then the
original problem $\mathcal{A}$ is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate
within a factor of $\frac{b}{a}$.
Gap version of optimization problems plays a central role in proving
inapproximability results. It has been widely studied in the theory
community. Many landmark problems were shown to be \textsc{NP-hard}
to approximate.
\begin{definition} \textsc{Max-3Lin-$q$} is the following optimization
problem:
\textbf{Input:} $n$ variables $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}$ with range
$[q]=\{0,1,\ldots,q-1\}$, and a set of $m$ constraints $c_{1},c_{2},\ldots,c_{m}$,
where each $c_{i}$ is a linear equation modular $q$ with $3$ variables,
e.g., $x_{1}+x_{4}+x_{8}=1\mod q$\textbf{.}
\textbf{Output:} Find an assignment satisfying the maximum number
of constraints. \end{definition}
Following the monumental $\mathcal{PCP}$-theorem~\cite{arora1998,arora1998probabilistic},
H{\aa}stad has proved the following celebrated theorem~\cite{Hastad01},
which serves as the start point of many inapproximability results:
\begin{theorem}[\textbf{H{\aa}stad}] \label{thm:max3lin} \textsc{Gap-Max-3Lin-$q$}-$[\tfrac{1}{q}+\epsilon,1-\epsilon]$
is \textsc{NP-hard} for any small constant $\epsilon>0$. The theorem
also holds when $m=O(n)$ where the constant only depends on $\epsilon$.
\end{theorem}
One natural variation of the \textsc{Max-3Lin-2} problem is to restrict
the number of occurrence of each variable in all the equations, we
denote this problem by \textsc{Max-3Lin-2($t$)}. For $t=3$, the
problem has been shown to be \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within
some constant factor~\cite{bermanysome}:
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:max3linbounded} The \textsc{Max-3Lin-2($3$)}
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within a factor of $\tfrac{62}{61}$.
More precisely, the \textsc{Gap-Max-3Lin-2($3$)}-$[\tfrac{61}{62}+\epsilon,1-\epsilon]$
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} for any small constant $\epsilon>0$.
\end{theorem}
\textsc{3-Dimensional-Matching} is one of Karp's 21 \textsc{NP-complete}
problems~\cite{karp1972}. \textsc{Maximum-3-Dimensional-Matching}
is a generalization of maximum matching in bipartite graphs to maximum
hyperedge matching in tripartite graphs and also has been shown to
be \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate:
\begin{theorem}[\textbf{Berman and Karpinski 2003}] \label{thm:3dmatching}\textsc{
Gap-Maximum-3-Dimensional-Matching}-$[\tfrac{697}{700}+\epsilon,\tfrac{698}{700}-\epsilon]$
is \textsc{NP-hard} for any small constant $\epsilon>0$. \end{theorem}
\section{Max-Weight-L-Exchange}
In this section, we prove that the \textsc{Max-Weight-$L$-Exchange}
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within factor $\tfrac{14}{13}$.
To our best knowledge, this problem is only known to be \textsc{APX-hard}.
Here, we give the first explicit constant factor inapproximability
result.
\begin{theorem} The \textsc{Max-Weight-$L$-Exchange} problem is
\textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within a factor $\tfrac{14}{13}$.
More precisely, the \textsc{Gap-Max-Weight-$L$-Exchange}-$[\tfrac{13}{14}+\epsilon,1-\epsilon]$
problem is \textsc{NP-hard}. \end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof}. We reduce from the \textsc{Gap-Max-3Lin-2}-$[\tfrac{1}{2}+\epsilon,1-\epsilon]$
problem.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.9\linewidth]{Figure1}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:Construction for super node}The construction of \emph{variable
gadgets}}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Construction:} Given any \textsc{Max-3Lin-2} system with $n$
variables and $m$ equations (or constraints), we first construct
a \emph{variable gadget} for each variable $x_{i}$ with $2m+1$ nodes
as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:Construction for super node}.
The node in the center is named the \emph{super node} for $x_{i}$.
If $x_{i}$ appears in the $j$-th equation(as shown in boxes with
bold frames in Figure~\ref{fig:Construction for super node}), then
the arc entering the $j$-th row has weight $2$, otherwise the weight
will be $0$. We call the cycles passing through the super node \emph{variable
cycles}. The weight for any variable cycle associated with $x_{i}$
is $m_{i}$, where $m_{i}$ is the total number of equations that
variable $x_{i}$ appears.
Second, for each equation, we use the six nodes in the corresponding
row to construct \emph{equation gadget}. Figure~\ref{fig:Construction for a constraint}
illustrates an example of constraint gadget construction for the equation
$x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}\equiv1\mod2$. If the equation is equal to $0$,
we can construct the graph symmetrically.
In each equation gadget, each arc is associated with weight $\frac{1}{3}$.
A property of the equation gadget is that there are exactly four cycles
with length $3$ in total for each equation and the weight of each
cycle is exactly $1$. There exists cycles which length is greater
than $3$ in this gadget, but the total weights is at most $2$. Each
cycle with length $3$ corresponds to one possible satisfiable assignment
of the equation. We call these cycles \emph{equation cycles}.
At last, we set $L=m+1$. The total number of vertices is $N=(2m+1)n=O(n^{2})$.
The reduction can be computed in polynomial time.
\textbf{Completeness:} We want to show that if there exists an assignment
$\sigma$ satisfying at least $(1-\epsilon)m$ constraints, we can
always construct a collection $C$ of cycles with a total weight at
least $6m+(1-\epsilon)m$. The proof is straightforward. For each
$x_{i}$, if $x_{i}$ is assigned with $1$, then we add the variable
cycle passing through nodes labeled with $x_{i}=0$; otherwise we
add the other variable cycle involving nodes labeled with $x_{i}=1$.
For each satisfiable constraint, we add the corresponding constraint
cycle in the corresponding constraint gadget. All the cycles in $C$
are vertex-disjoint. The sum of weight of variable cycles is $6m$,
and the sum of weight of equation cycles is at least $(1-\epsilon)m$.
Therefore the total weight is at least $6m+(1-\epsilon)m$.
\textbf{Soundness: } We need to show that if there is a collection
$C$ of cycles in the constructed graph with total weight $\geq6m+(\tfrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)m$,
we can resolve assignments to the variables such that at least $(\tfrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)m$
constraints are satisfied.
For each valid collection $C$ of cycles, if for each variable $x_{i}$,
there is exactly one variable cycle in $C$, then we call $C$ a \emph{good}
collection. Otherwise we call $C$ a \emph{bad} collection.
Our first claim is that for any bad collection $C$ of cycles, we
can always adjust $C$ to some good collection $C'$ without decreasing
the total weight. Suppose that neither of the variable cycles passing
through the super node for $x_{i}$ is included in $C$. Recall that
the number of appearance of $x_{i}$ is $m_{i}$. We know that there
will be at most $m_{i}$ cycles passing through the nodes associated
with the variable $x_{i}$. Adding the variable cycle will break up
at most $m_{i}$ equation cycles associated with $x_{i}$. We add
that variable cycle and delete all the broken equation cycles. As
the weight of the variable cycle is $m_{i}$, the total weight will
not decrease. By repeating this process, we will get a good collection.
Therefore we can assume that there is a good collection of cycles
with total weight $\geq6m+(\tfrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)m$. The contribution
of variable cycles is $3m$ exactly. Therefore there are at least
$(\tfrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)m$ equation cycles in $C$. We assign $x_{i}=0$
if the variable cycle passing through nodes on the right column is
included in $C$ and assign $x_{i}=1$ otherwise. As $C$ is a valid
collection of cycles, all the constraints with equation cycles in
$C$ are satisfied by the above assignments. Therefore at least $(\tfrac{1}{2}+\epsilon)m$
constraints are satisfied.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.7\linewidth]{Figure2}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:Construction for a constraint}The construction of \emph{equation
gadget} for $x_{1}+x_{2}+x_{3}\equiv1\mod2$}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Inapproximability ratio:} The total weight of cycles is at
most $7m$. Together with Theorem~\ref{thm:max3lin}, it is \textsc{NP-hard}
to distinguish whether the optimal solution is at least $\tfrac{6m+(1-\epsilon)m}{7m}=1-\epsilon'$
or at most $\frac{6m+(\frac{1}{2}+\epsilon)n}{7m}=\frac{13}{14}+\epsilon'$,
where $\epsilon'=\tfrac{1}{7}\epsilon$. Therefore the \textsc{Max-Weight-$L$-Exchange}
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within $\tfrac{14}{13}$.
\section{Max-Weight-3-Exchange}
In this section, we prove that the \textsc{Max-Weight-3-Exchange}
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within a constant factor:
\begin{theorem} The \textsc{Max-Weight-3-Exchange} problem is \textsc{NP-hard}
to approximate within $\tfrac{434}{433}$. More precisely, the \textsc{Gap-Max-Weight-3-Exchange}-$[\tfrac{433}{434}+\epsilon,1-\epsilon]$
is \textsc{NP-hard} for any small constant $\epsilon>0$. \end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof}. We reduce from a bounded occurrence version of the
\textsc{Max-3Lin-2($3$)} problem:
\textbf{Construction:} Given an instance of the \textsc{Max-3Lin-2($3$)}
with $n$ variables $x_{1},x_{2},\ldots,x_{n}$ and $m$ constraints
$c_{1},c_{2},\ldots,c_{m}$, where each constraint is a linear equation
modular 2 with 3 variables. Moreover, each variable $x_{i}$ appears
in at most 3 constraints. As shown in~\cite{bermanysome}, it is
\textsc{NP-hard} to distinguish whether the optimal solution satisfies
$\geq(1-\epsilon)m$ constraints or $\leq(\tfrac{61}{62}+\epsilon)m$
constraints for any constant $\epsilon>0$.
For each variable $x_{i}$, we construct a \emph{variable gadget}
as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:Construction for a variable} depending
on the number of appearances. Note that the total weight of cycles
with thin edges and the total weight of cycles with thick edges are
both exactly twice as the number of appearances of $x_{i}$.
For each equation constraint, we construct a \emph{constraint gadget}
involving the $6$ corresponding nodes. The constraint gadget is the
same as before, illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:Construction for a constraint}.
Each of the four cycles with length $3$ has weight $1$ and the longer
cycles need not be considered since the constraint $L=3$. The reduction
can be computed in polynomial time.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure3}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:Construction for a variable}The construction of \emph{variable
gadget} for $x_{1}$}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Completeness:} We show that if there is a good assignment
to the \textsc{Max-3Lin-2($3$)} instance with more than $(1-\epsilon)m$
satisfiable constraints, then we can construct a collection of cycles
$C$ as following: If $x_{i}=0$, then we add the cycles with thick
edges in the variable gadget, otherwise we add the cycles with thin
edges; for each constraint, if it is satisfied, then add the corresponding
cycle in the constraint gadget. As the sum of appearance of all variables
is $3m$, the weight contributed by the cycles from variable gadget
is $6m$. Moreover, there are at least $(1-\epsilon)m$ cycles from
the constraint gadgets. Therefore the total weight is at least $6m+(1-\epsilon)m$.
\textbf{Soundness:} We claim that if there is a collection $C$ of
cycles in the constructed graph with total weight $\geq6m+(\tfrac{61}{62}+\epsilon)m$,
we can find assignments to the variables such that $(\tfrac{61}{62}+\epsilon)m$
constraints are satisfied.
For any collection $C$ of cycles, if for all variable gadgets, either
all the cycles with thin edges are in $C$ or all the cycles with
thick edges are in $C$, then we call $C$ a \emph{good} collection.
Otherwise we say $C$ is \emph{bad}.
We claim that for any bad collection $C$, we can adjust $C$ to a
good collection $C'$, while the total weight will not decrease. We
assume that there is a good collection of cycles with weight $\geq6m+(\tfrac{61}{62}+\epsilon)m$.
As the contribution by cycles from variable gadgets is exactly $6m$,
there are at least $(\tfrac{61}{62}+\epsilon)m$ cycles from constraint
gadgets in $C$. We construct an assignment as following: for each
$x_{i}$, if all the thin edges are in $C$, then we assign $x_{i}=1$;
otherwise we assign $x_{i}=0$. For each cycle from constraint gadgets
in $C$, the corresponding constraint is satisfiable under the above
assignment. So at least $(\tfrac{61}{62}+\epsilon)m$ constraints
are satisfied.
\textbf{Inapproximability ratio:} The total weight is at most $7m$.
Together with Theorem~\ref{thm:max3linbounded}, it is \textsc{NP-hard}
to distinguish whether the optimal solution is at least $\tfrac{6m+(1-\epsilon)m}{7m}=1-\epsilon'$
or at most $\tfrac{6m+(\frac{61}{62}+\epsilon)m}{7m}=\tfrac{433}{434}+\epsilon'$,
where $\epsilon'=\tfrac{\epsilon}{7}$. Therefore the \textsc{Max-Weight-3-Exchange}
problem is \textsc{NP-hard} to approximate within $\tfrac{434}{433}$.
\section{Max-Size-3-Exchange}
In this section we prove an inapproximability result for the \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange}
problem. The unweighted exchange problem is a special case of the
weighted exchange problem with equal weights on each edge, therefore
the weighted exchange problem is even harder. Thus this inapproximability
result also holds for \textsc{Max-Weight-3-Exchange}.
\begin{theorem} The \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange} problem is \textsc{NP-hard}
to approximate within $\tfrac{698}{697}$. More precisely, the \textsc{Gap-Max-Size-3-Exchange}-$[\tfrac{697}{700}+\epsilon,\tfrac{698}{700}-\epsilon]$
is \textsc{NP-hard} for any small constant $\epsilon>0$. \end{theorem}
\textbf{Proof}. We reduce from the \textsc{Gap-Maximum-3-Dimensional-Matching}
problem.
\textbf{Construction:} In~\cite{berman2003improved}, a family of
\textsc{3-Dimensional-Matching} instances have been constructed, where
$|X|=|Y|=|Z|=100k$ for some integer $k$, with $m=200k$ triples,
and each element in $X\cup Y\cup Z$ appears in exactly 2 triples.
It is \textsc{NP-hard} to distinguish whether the size of the maximum
matching is at least $(98-\epsilon)k$ or at most $(97+\epsilon)k$.
Given such an instance, we construct a graph $G$ as followings: for
each element in $X\cup Y\cup Z$, we have a node for the element with
the same label; for each triple $t=\{x_{a},y_{b},z_{c}\}\in T$, we
add a gadget as shown in Figure~\ref{fig:Construction for a triple}.
There are 7 cycles in the gadget, we call the three cycles at the
bottom \emph{down cycles}, the three cycles in the middle \emph{upper
cycles}, and the cycle on the top \emph{triple cycle}. All cycles
has uniform weight. The reduction can be computed in polynomial time.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure4}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:Construction for a triple}The construction for a triple
$t=\{x_{a},y_{b},z_{c}\}$}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Completeness:} If there is a matching $T'\subseteq T$ with
size $\geq(98-\epsilon)k$, we construct a collection $C$ of cycles
as followings: for each triple $t=\{x_{a},y_{b},z_{c}\}$, if $t\in T'$,
then we add the \emph{triple cycle} and the three \emph{down cycles}
to $C$. Otherwise we add the three \emph{upper cycles} into $C$.
As $T'$ is a matching, all the cycles in $C$ are vertex disjoint.
The total number of cycles in $C$ is at least $200k*3+(98-\epsilon)k=(698-\epsilon)k$.
\textbf{Soundness:} If there is a collection $C$ of disjoint cycles
of size at least $(697+\epsilon)k$, we construct a matching $T'\subseteq T$
with size at least $(97+\epsilon)k$.
For the gadget for any triple, if the corresponding triple cycle is
in $C$, then the three upper cycles are not in $C$; if any of the
down cycles is not in $C$, then there are at most $3$ cycles in
$C$ within this gadget, therefore we can replace these cycles with
the three upper cycles, and the number of cycles will not decrease.
If the triple cycle is not in $C$, then we can just choose the 3
upper cycles, making no effects on other gadgets, and the number of
cycles will not decrease. After the adjusting processes, within each
gadget, either the three upper cycles are chosen, or the triple cycle
and the three down cycles are chosen. Therefore there are at least
$(97+\epsilon)k$ triple cycles in $C$. All the corresponding triples
are pairwise disjoint, otherwise the down cycles will not be disjoint.
So there is a matching of size at least $(97+\epsilon)k$.
\textbf{Inapproximability ratio:} The total number of cycles is at
most $700k$. Together with Theorem~\ref{thm:3dmatching}, it is
\textsc{NP-hard} to distinguish whether the optimal solution is at
least $\tfrac{(698-\epsilon)k}{700k}=\tfrac{698}{700}-\epsilon'$
or at most $\tfrac{(697+\epsilon)k}{700k}=\tfrac{697}{700}+\epsilon'$,
where $\epsilon'=\tfrac{\epsilon}{700}$. Therefore it is \textsc{NP-hard}
to approximate the \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange} problem within $\tfrac{698}{697}$.
\section{Algorithms for Max-Size-3-Exchange}
In this section, we mainly focus on the \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange}
problem. Previously, we have shown that it is \textsc{NP-hard} to
approximate within a factor of $\frac{698}{697}$. Now we propose
two simple and practical algorithms.
\subsection{Algorithm 1 via greedy search}
We present the basic greedy algorithm first. For the \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange}
problem, we figure out all the cycles with length $2$ or $3$ and
initialize our solution to be an empty set. We then pick up the cycles
with length $2$ or $3$ one by one and check whether it is available
to be appended in the solution. After this greedy process, the solution
is the final result of the algorithm.
\begin{theorem} \label{thm:approximation ratio} The approximation
ratio of the basic greedy algorithm is $3$. \end{theorem}
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure5}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:An example of approximation algorithm 2}An example of
algorithm 2}
\end{figure}
\textbf{Proof}. For any given graph $G$ in the \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange}
problem, suppose the optimal solution is $T$. Assume that there are
$d$ and $t$ cycles with length $2$ and $3$ respectively in the
optimal solution so that the size of solution is $|T|=2\times d+3\times t$.
We denote the approximation result by $T'$. It is clear that for
any cycles with length $2$ or $3$, there is at least one node which
is in $T'$. As a result, we have $|T'|\geqslant d+t$ and
\[
\frac{|T|}{|T'|}\leq\frac{2\times d+3\times t}{d+t}\leq3.
\]
So the approximation ratio is $3$.
We now add an important heuristics that improves the performance of
the basic greedy algorithm. We consider the degree of each node in
the graph. Intuitively, the smaller the degree of node is, the more
difficult it is to be chosen in a cycle. The strategy is that we pick
the cycles with length $3$ first and pick up the cycles with smaller
degrees in priority by ordering the nodes according to the number
of degrees.
Given a graph $G$, calculate the number of in-degree and out-degree
for each node. Sort the order of nodes increasingly by $\#(indegree)\times\#(outdegree)$.
Find out all the cycles with length $3$ in $G$ and sort them with
lexicographical order. From the smallest number to the biggest number,
pick up the cycle if it is available, and delete the nodes in $G$.
After that, using the same method, find out all the cycles with length
$2$ in the remaining graph $G$, then sort them and pick up one by
one if possible. At last, output all the cycles which we have picked
up as final results. In the experiments section, we will implement
the algorithm above and test its performance using simulated data.
\subsection{Algorithm 2 via maximum matching}
Based on the fact that given a graph, the optimal solution of the
\textsc{Max-Size-2-Exchange} is close to the solution of \textsc{Max-Size-Exchange}
problem~\cite{abraham07}, we propose a straightforward method to
improve the results of \textsc{Max-Size-2-Exchange}. The idea is that,
after we figure out the maximum matching, we use the remaining nodes
and the matching edges to constitute cycles with length $3$ as far
as possible. For this purpose, we create a weighted graph and compute
the maximum matching for the second time in order to improve the opportunity
of using the remaining nodes.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure6}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:The experiment results of U.S. data}The experiment results
of the US data}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure7}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:The experiment results of Chinese data}The experiment
results of the China data}
\end{figure}
Given a graph $G$, find the maximum matching in the bi-directional
edge of $G$ first. Suppose $A$ is the set of nodes which are not
in the maximum matching and $B$ is the nodes which are in the maximum
matching. As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:An example of approximation algorithm 2},
the colours of set $A$ and $B$ are green and yellow respectively.
For each node $u$ in $B$, we construct a new node $u'$ in $G'$.
For any cycle $(u,v)$ in $B$, we add a edge $(u',v')$ into $G'$
with a constant weight $w$ ($w=10$ in Figure~\ref{fig:An example of approximation algorithm 2}).
For any node $a$ in $A$, if node $a,u,v$ can constitute a cycle,
then add a edge $(u',v')$ with weight $1$. The weights of the same
edge will be added up. Then find the maximum matching of $G'$ as
illustrated by the red edges. Assume the matching is $M$. Construct
a bipartite graph $H$. The nodes in the left side stand for the nodes
of $A$ while the right side represent the edges in $M$. If the node
and the edge can constitute a cycle in the original graph $G$, then
add the edge in $H$. At last, find the maximum matching of $H$ as
shown by the blue edges. For any matching edge in $H$, output the
corresponding cycle with length $3$ in $G$. For any node in the
right side of $H$ but not in the matching edge, output the corresponding
cycle with length $2$ if exists.
Both algorithms 1 and 2 are easy to implement and run in polynomial
time. We will show in the next section that the two simple algorithms
yield good experimental performance.
\section{Experimental results}
In this section, we implement the algorithms proposed in the previous
section and compare their performance both in terms of running time
and solution quality.
\subsection{Experiments setup}
All our experiments are performed in Linux (openSUSE 13.1), using
a PC with four 3.2GHz Intel i5-3470 processors, and 4GB of RAM. Our
experimental data is carefully simulated based on the statistics of
US and China populations. We simulate the US data according to UNOS
waiting list and living donors, and simulate China data based on the
transplant researches~\cite{Tan2006Tissue,Tu2005The}.
Since it is \textsc{NP-hard} to figure out the optimal solution in
polynomial time, we use the following method to analyse the experimental
performance. Both \textsc{Max-Size-2-Exchange} and \textsc{Max-Size-Exchange}
can be solved in polynomial time using the maximum matching technique~\cite{abraham07}.
For any given graph, since the size of \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange}
will not be smaller than the \textsc{Max-Size-2-Exchange} and the
size of \textsc{Max-Size-Exchange} will be the largest among them,
the results of \textsc{Max-Size-2-Exchange} and \textsc{Max-Size-Exchange}
can be considered as the lower bound and the upper bound of \textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange}
problem respectively. We compare the solution of our algorithms with
these bounds in order to analyse the performance.
For a particular size of nodes, we randomly generate $10$ copies
of the simulated graph and calculate the average of solutions of each
algorithm.
\subsection{Experimental results}
Figure~\ref{fig:The experiment results of U.S. data} and \ref{fig:The experiment results of Chinese data}
show the quality of solutions for each size of graph in proportion
to \textsc{Max-Size-Exchange} in the US data and the China data respectively.
Figure~\ref{fig:The running time of U.S. data} and \ref{fig:The running time of Chinese data}
show the running time for each size of nodes in the US data and the
China data respectively.
The difference between the US data and China data is that the simulated
graph of the China data is sparser than the US data. This leads to
the result that the running time in the US data is more than in the
China data while the result of the US data is higher than the China
data. The approximation ratio of algorithm 1 is $3$, while algorithm
2 runs faster and yields better solution.
\begin{figure}
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure8}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:The running time of U.S. data}The running time of the
US data}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}[t]
\centering \includegraphics[width=0.8\linewidth]{Figure9}
\protect\caption{\label{fig:The running time of Chinese data}The running time of the
China data}
\end{figure}
As shown in Figure~\ref{fig:The experiment results of U.S. data}
and~\ref{fig:The experiment results of Chinese data}, the solutions
of our algorithms are extremely close to the upper bound. In particular,
algorithm 2 has even figured out the optimal solution for $5$ times
out of $10$ test points in the case that the size of nodes is $2000$
in the US data. Both algorithms return within two minutes.
To sum up, both algorithm 1 and 2 are easy to implement and yield
good experimental performance on simulated data.
\section{Conclusion and future work}
We explore computational complexity of the clearing problem in the
kidney exchange market. Our inapproximability results, in comparison
to the best existing ones, are summarized in Table~\ref{tab:Summary-of-inapproximability}.
We have proposed two algorithms which run in polynomial time and perform
well on the simulated data as illustrated in Figure~\ref{fig:The experiment results of U.S. data}.
Both of these two algorithms are easy to implement, and give the solution
which are very close to the optimal. We make a conclusion that, the
kidney exchange problem in practice can be solved by a satisfactory
solution using the practical algorithms.
\begin{table}[b]
\centering \protect\caption{\label{tab:Summary-of-inapproximability}Summary of inapproximability
results.}
\begin{tabular}{|c|c|c|}
\hline
Problem & Our ratio & Previous \tabularnewline
\hline
\hline
\textsc{Max-Weight-$L$-Exchange} & $14/13$ & \textsc{APX-hard}\tabularnewline
\hline
\textsc{Max-Weight-3-Exchange} & $434/433$ & \textsc{APX-hard}\tabularnewline
\hline
\textsc{Max-Size-3-Exchange} & $698/697$ & \textsc{APX-hard}\tabularnewline
\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
There are several exciting directions for future research. First of
all, we are interested in closing the gap between approximation and
inapproximability. In particular, we are interested in improving the
$\tfrac{14}{13}$ result. In addition, we are interested in the complexity
of the clearing problems in similar matching markets. From a practical
perspective, to test the average performance, we are going to experimentally
test the new algorithms using real data.
\balance \bibliographystyle{named}
|
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
The calculation of hadronic excitation energies is an important
area of activity for lattice QCD. Hadrons containing both heavy and
light quarks present
an interesting challenge since one has to deal with quarks at
many different mass scales. Recently results for radial excitations
of heavy-light hadrons were reviewed \cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd}
and it was found that in the
meson sector there was reasonably good agreement between lattice QCD
simulations, quark models and available (but still incomplete) experimental
data. However, for baryons containing a single charm or bottom quark there
seems to be a puzzle. The few results obtained for radial excitations
of S-wave singly heavy baryons are consistently larger than quark model
values. Whereas the quark model suggests that excitation energies of
heavy-light baryons should be smaller than that of heavy-light mesons the
lattice results reviewed in \cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd} do not show this
qualitative feature. Unfortunately, experiment is unlikely to settle
this issue any time soon.
In addition to predicting that baryonic excitations are smaller than
mesonic ones, quark models also predict that the lowest lying radial
excitation of a doubly heavy baryon should be significantly smaller
than of a singly heavy baryon (see, for example, fig. 3 in \cite{Roberts:2007ni}).
This is due
to the different excitation modes at play \cite{Roberts:2007ni,Ebert:2002ig,Yoshida:2015tia}.
In a singly heavy baryon the
lowest lying excitation is due to the motion of the heavy quark relative to
the diquark system formed by the light quarks. In a doubly heavy baryon
it is the excitation of the heavy quark pair that is important.
This effect is particularly pronounced for bottom baryons. It is
natural to ask if the features of the spectrum which these quark model
mechanisms predict are reproduced in a lattice QCD simulation. This is
the theme of the present paper.
In this work we focus on the lattice simulation of spin $\nicefrac{1}{2}$
baryons $\Omega_{b}$ and $\Omega_{bb}.$ Since the valence quark content
of these baryons consists only of strange and bottom the values of the
$u$ and $d$ sea quark masses are of secondary importance. For our simulation
the $u$ and $d$ quarks are near physical corresponding to a pion mass
of $156(7) MeV$ so $u,d$ mass extrapolation is not carried out. Secondly,
with strange quark valence content statistical fluctuations are considerably
smaller than what would have been possible if $u,d$ valence quarks would
have been used.
The lattice setup for the present work is described in sect. \ref{sec:1}.
In sect. \ref{sec:2} the analysis method and results are presented. The
results are compared to a number of recent quark model calculations.
A summary is given in sect. \ref{sec:3}.
\section{Lattice setup}
\label{sec:1}
The $2+1$ dynamical flavour gauge field configurations used in this
work were generated by the PACS-CS Collaboration \cite{pacscs09}
on a $32^4 \times 64$ lattice using the Iwasaki action
($\beta = 1.90$) for the gauge field and the clover-Wilson action for the
fermions. The strange quark hopping parameter used here was $0.13666$ which is
slightly different than that used by the PACS-CS Collaboration and is in line
with the value determined from earlier work on the $D_{s}$ spectrum
\cite{Lang:2014yfa}. The strange
quark clover coefficient was $1.715$. The gauge field ensemble had 198
configurations. For this ensemble PACS-CS determined a lattice spacing
of $a = 0.0907(13) fm$.
The bottom quark was described using tadpole-improved lattice NRQCD \cite{Lepage:1992}. The
Hamiltonian is the same as used in previous calculation of bottom baryon
masses and may be found in the Appendix of ref. \cite{Lewis:2009}
Terms up to order $v^4$ were
retained in the nonrelativistic expansion. The $b$-quark bare mass was
$1.945$ as determined in ref. \cite{Lewis:2011} from tuning to S-wave
bottomonium. The average
link in Landau gauge, estimated to be $0.8463$, was used for tadpole improvement
and the stability parameter $n$ appearing in the NRQCD Hamiltionian was taken
to be 4. As a check of the lattice NRQCD setup the $\Upsilon$ - $\eta_b$ mass
difference was calculated with the result $58.1(1.5) MeV$ in excellent
agreement with the experimental value $57.9(2.4) MeV$ obtained using the
PDG \cite{pdg} value for the $\Upsilon$ mass and the Belle result \cite{Belle:2012}
for $\eta_b$.
The baryon operators used in our calculation take the form
\begin{equation}
\epsilon^{abc}[q_{a}^{T}C\gamma_{5}q'_{b}]q_{c}
\label{eq:bary}
\end{equation}
where for the spin $\nicefrac{1}{2}$ $\Omega_{b}$ baryon $q$ is a
strange quark field and $q'$ is bottom.
For $\Omega_{bb}$, $q$ is a bottom quark field and $q'$ is strange.
The simplest operator that one can construct of the form (\ref{eq:bary})
has all quark fields at the same space-time point. However to disentangle
ground and excited state contributions to correlation functions it is
advantageous to use a variety of spatially smeared operators which will
lead to different admixtures of states in the correlators. Successful
phenomenological descriptions of baryons are often made using a quark-diquark
model which implies strong spatial correlations among the constituents.
Ideally, we would like to construct lattice baryon operators incorporating
quark-quark correlations. However a usable scheme for doing this is not
available so here independent spatial smearing of the quark fields is
carried out.
Quark fields are smeared according to
\begin{equation}
\tilde{\psi}({\bf x})=\sum_{\bf y} f({\bf x}-{\bf y})\,\psi({\bf y}) \label{gaugefixsmear}
\end{equation}
where f is a gauge field independent profile function. Since this is not gauge
covariant a gauge fixing to Coulomb gauge is carried out on the gauge field
links prior to use. A choice for the profile $f$ which has been used
successfully in NRQCD applications is motivated by the shape of wavefunctions
for the Coulomb potential \cite{Gray:2005,Davies:2010}.
In this work we use mostly a smearing function of
the form $e^{-\frac{r}{a_{0}}}$ where $r$ is the shortest distance between
${\bf y}$ and ${\bf x}$ in a periodic box. This will be referred to as ground
state smearing. An excited state smearing function
$(a_n - r)e^{-\frac{r}{a_{1}}})$ was also considered. Since excited state
smearing tends to lead to noisier correlators this smearing was used only
in a supplementary calculation.
The strange quark field was given a more spatially extended profile than the
bottom quark. After some trials the smearing parameters (in lattice units) chosen for this
work were $a_0 = 1.6, a_1 = 3.2, a_n = 3.17$ for the bottom quark and
$a_0 = 3.0, a_1 = 5.5, a_n = 7.0$ for strange.
\section{Analysis and results}
\label{sec:2}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\includegraphics*[width=90mm]{./figs1.eps}}
\caption{Effective simulation energies in lattice units for the ground and
first excited state of $\Omega_{b}$. The horizontal lines indicate the fit
value and time range used.}
\label{fig:1}
\end{figure}
Lattice Euclidean-time correlation functions are typically dominated by
the ground state after a fairly small number of time steps. To extract
excited state information requires some work. The approach used here is
the so-called variational method \cite{Luscher:1990,Michael:1985,Blossier:2009}.
A set of basis operators $\{O\}$ is chosen
and one constructs the correlator matrix
\begin{equation}
C_{ij}(t=t_f-t_i)=\langle 0|O_i(t_f)O_j^\dagger(t_i)|0\rangle
\end{equation}
where $t_i$ and $t_f$ denote the source and sink times. The generalized
eigenvalue problem \cite{Blossier:2009} is solved for each time step larger than some reference
time $t_0$
\begin{equation}
C(t)\vec{w}^{(k)}=\lambda^{(k)}(t)C(t_0)\vec{w}^{(k)}.
\label{eq:gevp}
\end{equation}
Energies are extracted from the time dependence of the eigenvalues $\lambda$
and for a well chosen basis and $t_0$ the eigenvalues of the lowest lying
states are dominated by a single exponential function.
For the main calculation a set of six operators with different combinations
of unsmeared ($p$) and ground state smeared ($g$) fields is used. The operators
are denoted as
\begin{equation}
ppp, ppg, gpg, pgp, pgg, ggg
\label{eq:ops1}
\end{equation}
where the first and third
letters indicate the smearing level of $q$ fields in eq. (1) (strange for
$\Omega_b$, bottom for $\Omega_{bb}$) and the second letter indicates the
smearing level of $q'$ field (bottom for $\Omega_b$, strange for $\Omega_{bb}$).
Note that for $\Omega_b$ energies of both positive and negative parity states
can be extracted by choosing different components of the relativistic operator.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\includegraphics*[width=90mm]{./figs2.eps}}
\caption{Effective simulation energies in lattice units for the ground state of
the negative parity $\Omega_{b}$. The horizontal lines indicate the fit
value and time range used.}
\label{figs:2}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\includegraphics*[width=90mm]{./figs3.eps}}
\caption{Effective simulation energies in lattice unitsfor the ground and
first excited state of $\Omega_{b}$. The horizontal lines indicate the fit
value and time range used.}
\label{figs:3}
\end{figure}
For each configuration correlation functions were averaged over 16
different source time positions. The generalized eigenvalue problem
(\ref{eq:gevp}) was solved using $t_0 = 2$. The effective simulation
energies (lattice units) for the positive parity $\Omega_b$ extracted
from the eigenvalues
of the two lowest states are shown in fig. \ref{fig:1}. The horizontal
lines show the fitted simulation energy values along with time range used to
determine them.
The ground state is very well determined. The first excited state is well
separated from the ground state and the energy can be extracted with a
reasonably small statistical uncertainty. Figure 2 shows the ground state
simulation energy for $\Omega_{b}({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^-)$. In this case only
the ground state is reasonably well determined.
The simulation energy results for $\Omega_{bb}$ are plotted in fig. 3. For
$\Omega_{bb}$ only the positive parity state is available due to the
nonrelativistic treatment of the bottom quark.
\begin{table}
\caption{Extracted simulation energies in lattice units for the variational
and multiexponential fitting methods.}
\label{tab:1}
\centering{}\begin{tabular}{lll}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
State & Variational & Multiexponential\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
$\Omega_{b}({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^+)$ g.s. & 0.7324(50)(24) & 0.7262(43) \\
$\Omega_{b}({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^+)$ excited & 0.9938(278)(10) & 0.9904(329) \\
$\Omega_{b}({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^-)$ g.s. & 0.8847(99)(90) & 0.8801(44) \\
$\Omega_{bb}({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^+)$ g.s. & 0.6201(29)(20) & 0.6137(22) \\
$\Omega_{bb}({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^+)$ excited & 0.8267(133)(24) & 0.8015(139) \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table}
The values for the fitted simulation energies are given in table 1. The
first error is statistical, the second is an estimate of the uncertainty
due to different choices of time range to include in the fit.
To provide additional confirmation that our extraction of excited state
energies is reliable a second analysis was done using a different method
and a different set of correlation functions. Since smearing at the sink usually
leads to noisier correlators than smearing at the source a set of correlation
function was constructed with source operators using combinations of fields
\begin{equation}
gpg, gpe, epe, ggg, ege
\label{eq:ops2}
\end{equation}
where $e$ denotes smearing with an excited state profile
and a local operator $ppp$ at the sink. A simultaneous constrained
multiexponential fit \cite{Lepage:2001ym} to the five correlation functions
was done using four terms. As in the
variational analysis correlation functions were averaged over a set of sixteen
different time sources for each gauge configuration. The correlation functions
and fits are shown in fig. \ref{figs:4} to fig. \ref{figs:6}. The time range
used for fitting was 2 to 18
for $\Omega_b$ and 3 to 20 for $\Omega_{bb}$. The source corresponds to $t=1$.
The simulation energies for the ground and first excited states are given in
table \ref{tab:1}. They are compatible within statistical errors with the
results obtained using the correlator matrix variational method.
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\includegraphics*[width=85mm]{./figs4.eps}}
\caption{Correlation functions for the positive parity $\Omega_b$ along with the
result of a simultaneous four-term multiexponential fit.}
\label{figs:4}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\includegraphics*[width=85mm]{./figs5.eps}}
\caption{Correlation functions for the negative parity $\Omega_b$ along with the
result of a simultaneous four-term multiexponential fit.}
\label{figs:5}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\centerline{
\includegraphics*[width=85mm]{./figs6.eps}}
\caption{Correlation functions for the $\Omega_{bb}$ along with the
result of a simultaneous four-term multiexponential fit. Due to the node
in the excited state profile file function the correlator with source
smearing $gpe$ has a negative piece and is omitted from the plot.}
\label{figs:6}
\end{figure}
Since quark mass has been removed from the lattice NRQCD Hamiltonian
the simulation energies extracted from the correlation do not give the
hadron mass directly. However, differences between simulation energies
in lattice units are related to mass differences by the inverse of the
lattice spacing. Our calculated mass differences ${\Delta}M$ between the
first radial excitation and the ground state for $\Omega_b$ and for
$\Omega_{bb}$ are given in table \ref{tab:2}. The three errors shown for this
work are the statistical error and uncertainties due to fitting time range
and the lattice spacing determination.
Table \ref{tab:2} also shows the calculated mass difference between the
positive and negative parity ground states of $\Omega_b$. For comparison we
note that an earlier lattice study \cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd}
gave mass differences for $\Lambda_b$
and $\Sigma_b$ of $344(105) MeV$ and $252(60) MeV$ respectively. The PGD
value for the $\Lambda_b({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^-) - \Lambda_b({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^+)$
mass difference is $293(1) MeV$.
\begin{table*}
\caption{Mass differences and masses in MeV from this work and some
recent quark model calculations. The errors associated to this work are due
to statistics, fitting and scale setting}
\label{tab:2}
\centering{}\begin{tabular}{llllll}
\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
& This work & ref. \cite{Roberts:2007ni} & ref. \cite{Ebert:2002ig,Ebert:2011kk}& ref. \cite{Yoshida:2015tia} & ref. \cite{Garcilazo:2007eh}\\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline\noalign{\smallskip}
${\Delta}M(\Omega_b)$ & $569(61)(6)(8)$ & $391$ & $386$ & $441$ & $330$\\
${\Delta}M(\Omega_{bb})$ & $450(29)(6)(6)$ & $239$ & $251$ & $260$ & \\
$\Omega_b({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^-) - \Omega_b({\nicefrac{1}{2}}^+)$ & $331(24)(19)(5)$ & $220$ & $275$ & $257$ & $241$ \\
$M_{\Omega_b}$ & $6038(11)(5)(18)$ & $6081$ & $6064$ & $6076$ & $6037$\\
$M_{\Omega_{bb}}$ & $10238(6)(4)(11)$ & $10454$ & $10359$ & $10447$ & \\
\noalign{\smallskip}\hline
\end{tabular}
\end{table*}
One way to get the baryon mass would be to calculate the kinetic energy
as a function of momentum and determine a kinetic mass. However, this would
be very time consuming and likely would have large statistical errors. Instead
we use the fact the bottom quark bare mass was tuned by fitting the mass of
bottomonium. The simulation energy of $\Upsilon$ can related to the mass
by
\begin{equation}
M_{\Upsilon}=E_{sim}^{\Upsilon}+{\frac{1}{2}}(ZM_0-E_{shift}).
\label{eq:mups}
\end{equation}
In (\ref{eq:mups}) $M_0$ is the bottom bare mass, $Z$ is the mass
renormalization factor and $E_{shift}$ is an additive mass shift that
appears in lattice NRQCD \cite{Lepage:1992}.
These quantities are independent of the hadron
state so the combination appearing in the right hand side of (\ref{eq:mups})
can be determined using the known $\Upsilon$ mass and the value of
$E_{sim}^{\Upsilon}$ which is calculated to be $0.2624(7)$. Then
\begin{equation}
M_{\Omega_b}=E_{sim}^{\Omega_b}+{\frac{1}{2}}(M_{\Upsilon}-E_{sim}^{\Upsilon})
\label{eq:momegb}
\end{equation}
and
\begin{equation}
M_{\Omega_{bb}}=E_{sim}^{\Omega_{bb}}+M_{\Upsilon}-E_{sim}^{\Upsilon}.
\label{eq:momegbb}
\end{equation}
The values obtained in this way are given in table \ref{tab:2}. Note that the
calculated value for the mass of the ground state of $\Omega_b$ is compatible
with the experimental value \cite{pdg} of $6048(3) MeV$.
In table \ref{tab:2} the results from several recent quark model calculations
are also shown. The quark models have the feature that the energy of the lowest
lying radial excitation of $\Omega_{bb}$ is significantly smaller than that of
$\Omega_b$. This is due to different modes being excited as illustrated very
nicely in ref. \cite{Roberts:2007ni} for example. The lattice results also
indicate a reduction of excitation energy in $\Omega_{bb}$ compared to
$\Omega_b$ but not to the same level as the quark models. A similar effect is
present in a lattice calculation done for charm baryons \cite{Bali:2015lka}
where, for example, radial excitation energies of $\Omega_c$ and $\Omega_{cc}$
were found to be $626(48)(53) MeV$ and $434(32)(33) MeV$ respectively.
For comparison, the quark model of ref. \cite{Roberts:2007ni} gives
$434 MeV$ for $\Omega_c$ and $365$ for $\Omega_{cc}$.
In this work, and in other lattice QCD studies where single-bottom baryon
\cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd} and
heavy-light charm baryon \cite{Bali:2015lka,Padmanath:2014bxa,Padmanath:2015jea}
radial excitation energies were calculated, it is a
consistent finding that lattice QCD yields excitation energies larger than
quark models. In \cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd} it is also pointed out that
lattice QCD values for radial excitation energies of singly-heavy baryons
are generally larger or comparable to the excitation energies of heavy-light
mesons while quark model baryonic excitations are found to be smaller than
those of mesons. It should also be noted that lattice QCD and quark models
give reasonably compatible results for excitation energies of
heavy-light mesons \cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd}.
It is natural to ask if this work and other the lattice calculations done
to date \cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd,Bali:2015lka,Padmanath:2014bxa,Padmanath:2015jea}
indicate an irreconcilable difference with quark models for heavy-light
baryon spectroscopy. It is probably premature to conclude this as there are
still systematic effects that have not been studied systematically. Lattice
calculations have been done in a variety of lattice setups for up and down
quark masses, including the present work where there are no valance u,d
quarks and the sea u,d quark masses are near physical. Since the qualitative
comparison of lattice simulations with quark models is the same for all
setups light quark mass extrapolation may not be a primary issue. Perhaps
more significantly no continuum extrapolation was carried out
in the lattice calculations mentioned above. It is tempting to point to this
systematic as the source of all discrepancies. However, ground state mass
values tend to be well described by these simulations so finite lattice
spacing is not an obvious big issue.
The spatial lattice size used in the simulations discussed here ranges from
$1.8$ to $2.9 fm$. Only in \cite{Bali:2015lka} was the lattice volume
effect considered. For excited states, it was difficult to see the finite
volume effect due to large statistical fluctuations. What we propose here
is that differences seen between present lattice simulations and quark models
for radial excitation energies may at the same time be pointing to the
resolution of the issue.
The lattice QCD discrepancy with quark models is seen to be larger for
singly heavy baryons than for doubly heavy baryons. Since it is
expected that singly heavy baryons are more strongly affected by finite
volume effects this may be indicating the need for baryon simulations in
larger spatial volumes.
\section{Summary}
\label{sec:3}
Masses for spin ${\nicefrac{1}{2}}$ $\Omega_{b}$ and $\Omega_{bb}$ baryons
were calculated using lattice QCD. As well, the energies of lowest lying
radial excitations were computed. At present, there is no experimental
information about radial excitations in heavy-light baryons so comparison
is made to quark models. Quark models have the interesting feature that
the radial excitation energies in doubly-heavy baryons are significantly
smaller than for singly-heavy baryons. This is particularly evident for
bottom baryons. This effect is seen in the present calculation but not
to the extent predicted by quark models.
Summarizing the comparison of this work and a number of other lattice
QCD calculations
\cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd,Bali:2015lka,Padmanath:2014bxa,Padmanath:2015jea}
for heavy-light baryons with quark model results one notes that excitation
energies are consistently larger in the lattice calculations. This is
particularly evident for charm baryons \cite{Bali:2015lka,Padmanath:2014bxa}.
However, it is probably premature to conclude that lattice QCD and quark models
predict very different heavy-light baryon spectroscopy since systematic effects
in the lattice simulations still have not been explored fully. The largest
discrepancy between lattice simulations and quark models occurs for
single charm baryons (See ref. \cite{Woloshyn:2016cgd}) and decreases for
double charm and bottom baryons. It is suggested that this pattern maybe due
to finite lattice volume effects.
We hope that this work will provide motivation for further studies of
heavy-light baryons to fill in
the gaps in lattice QCD simulations and in experimental information.
We thank R.~Lewis and D.~Mohler for helpful comments and the PACS-CS
Collaboration for making their dynamical gauge field configurations
available. TRIUMF receives federal funding via a contribution agreement
with the National Research Council of Canada.
|
\section{Appendix:\\
$T_{\rm CR}$ spectra for grains with an equilibrium temperature $T_0=10$~K}
\label{app-a}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.05~$\mu$m bare olivine grains with equilibrium temperature of 10~K. Parameters $T_{\rm CR}$ and $E_{\rm grain}$ are the average values for the indicated temperature interval and the corresponding energy interval with a width of $\Delta T_{\rm CR}$ and $\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, respectively.}
\label{tab-A1}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval\tablenotemark{a}, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval\tablenotemark{b}, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.72 & 11.14--11.00 & 0.87 & 6.262E+00 & 1.099--8.966 & 7.816E+00 & 9.124E-14 \\
2 & 11.87 & 11.01--12.00 & 1.00 & 1.898E+01 & ...--2.069E+01 & 1.177E+01 & 3.397E-10 \\
3 & 12.53 & 12.01--13.00 & 1.00 & 2.839E+01 & ...--3.573E+01 & 1.505E+01 & 9.615E-10 \\
4 & 13.49 & 13.01--14.00 & 1.00 & 4.470E+01 & ...--5.468E+01 & 1.895E+01 & 1.151E-09 \\
5 & 14.52 & 14.01--15.00 & 1.00 & 6.640E+01 & ...--7.814E+01 & 2.347E+01 & 9.853E-10 \\
6 & 15.49 & 15.01--16.00 & 1.00 & 9.172E+01 & ...--1.068E+02 & 2.866E+01 & 1.052E-09 \\
7 & 16.50 & 16.01--17.00 & 1.00 & 1.236E+02 & ...--1.410E+02 & 3.418E+01 & 8.869E-10 \\
8 & 17.49 & 17.01--18.00 & 1.00 & 1.612E+02 & ...--1.821E+02 & 4.115E+01 & 9.577E-10 \\
9 & 18.53 & 18.01--19.00 & 1.00 & 2.077E+02 & ...--2.308E+02 & 4.861E+01 & 8.080E-10 \\
10 & 19.53 & 19.01--20.00 & 1.00 & 2.606E+02 & ...--2.877E+02 & 5.693E+01 & 7.125E-10 \\
11 & 20.45 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 3.174E+02 & ...--3.538E+02 & 6.614E+01 & 6.190E-10 \\
12 & 21.43 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 3.870E+02 & ...--4.301E+02 & 7.629E+01 & 6.348E-10 \\
13 & 22.46 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 4.707E+02 & ...--5.176E+02 & 8.744E+01 & 5.656E-10 \\
14 & 23.50 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 5.671E+02 & ...--6.172E+02 & 9.962E+01 & 5.401E-10 \\
15 & 24.50 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 6.737E+02 & ...--7.300E+02 & 1.129E+02 & 4.540E-10 \\
16 & 25.48 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 7.915E+02 & ...--8.573E+02 & 1.273E+02 & 4.096E-10 \\
17 & 26.51 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 9.306E+02 & ...--1.000E+03 & 1.428E+02 & 3.795E-10 \\
18 & 27.50 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 1.081E+03 & ...--1.160E+03 & 1.596E+02 & 3.371E-10 \\
19 & 28.44 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 1.239E+03 & ...--1.337E+03 & 1.777E+02 & 3.033E-10 \\
20 & 29.48 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 1.433E+03 & ...--1.534E+03 & 1.970E+02 & 3.065E-10 \\
21 & 30.52 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 1.649E+03 & ...--1.752E+03 & 2.177E+02 & 2.357E-10 \\
22 & 31.48 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 1.869E+03 & ...--1.992E+03 & 2.399E+02 & 2.299E-10 \\
23 & 32.53 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 2.132E+03 & ...--2.256E+03 & 2.634E+02 & 2.111E-10 \\
24 & 33.50 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 2.400E+03 & ...--2.544E+03 & 2.885E+02 & 1.675E-10 \\
25 & 34.44 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 2.683E+03 & ...--2.859E+03 & 3.151E+02 & 1.803E-10 \\
26 & 35.48 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 3.025E+03 & ...--3.202E+03 & 3.433E+02 & 1.428E-10 \\
27 & 36.47 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 3.380E+03 & ...--3.576E+03 & 3.732E+02 & 1.458E-10 \\
28 & 37.45 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 3.759E+03 & ...--3.980E+03 & 4.047E+02 & 1.225E-10 \\
29 & 38.47 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 4.188E+03 & ...--4.418E+03 & 4.379E+02 & 1.316E-10 \\
30 & 39.54 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 4.678E+03 & ...--4.891E+03 & 4.729E+02 & 1.141E-10 \\
31 & 40.50 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 5.149E+03 & ...--5.401E+03 & 5.098E+02 & 8.901E-11 \\
32 & 41.50 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 5.680E+03 & ...--5.949E+03 & 5.485E+02 & 9.621E-11 \\
33 & 42.50 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 6.244E+03 & ...--6.538E+03 & 5.891E+02 & 8.568E-11 \\
34 & 43.49 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 6.852E+03 & ...--7.177E+03 & 6.382E+02 & 8.533E-11 \\
35 & 44.54 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 7.541E+03 & ...--7.853E+03 & 6.767E+02 & 7.650E-11 \\
36 & 45.52 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 8.229E+03 & ...--8.577E+03 & 7.233E+02 & 6.728E-11 \\
37 & 46.43 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 8.902E+03 & ...--9.349E+03 & 7.720E+02 & 5.951E-11 \\
38 & 47.36 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 9.640E+03 & ...--1.017E+04 & 8.229E+02 & 5.908E-11 \\
39 & 48.42 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 1.053E+04 & ...--1.105E+04 & 8.759E+02 & 6.657E-11 \\
40 & 49.47 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 1.148E+04 & ...--1.198E+04 & 9.312E+02 & 5.938E-11 \\
41 & 50.53 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 1.250E+04 & ...--1.297E+04 & 9.888E+02 & 6.543E-11 \\
42 & 51.55 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 1.354E+04 & ...--1.402E+04 & 1.049E+03 & 4.134E-11 \\
43 & 52.42 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 1.448E+04 & ...--1.513E+04 & 1.111E+03 & 5.279E-11 \\
44 & 53.53 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 1.575E+04 & ...--1.630E+04 & 1.176E+03 & 5.252E-11 \\
45 & 54.49 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 1.690E+04 & ...--1.755E+04 & 1.243E+03 & 3.858E-11 \\
46 & 55.40 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 1.807E+04 & ...--1.886E+04 & 1.312E+03 & 4.638E-11 \\
47 & 56.48 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 1.951E+04 & ...--2.024E+04 & 1.385E+03 & 4.556E-11 \\
48 & 57.59 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 2.109E+04 & ...--2.170E+04 & 1.459E+03 & 4.400E-11 \\
49 & 58.50 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 2.246E+04 & ...--2.324E+04 & 1.537E+03 & 3.182E-11 \\
50 & 59.44 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 2.395E+04 & ...--2.486E+04 & 1.617E+03 & 3.848E-11 \\
51 & 60.57 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 2.582E+04 & ...--2.656E+04 & 1.700E+03 & 4.211E-11 \\
52 & 61.60 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 2.762E+04 & ...--2.834E+04 & 1.786E+03 & 3.232E-11 \\
53 & 62.59 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 2.943E+04 & ...--3.022E+04 & 1.874E+03 & 3.477E-11 \\
54 & 63.64 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 3.148E+04 & ...--3.218E+04 & 1.966E+03 & 3.164E-11 \\
55 & 64.59 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 3.339E+04 & ...--3.424E+04 & 2.060E+03 & 2.530E-11 \\
56 & 65.42 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 3.515E+04 & ...--3.640E+04 & 2.157E+03 & 2.688E-11 \\
57 & 66.42 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 3.734E+04 & ...--3.866E+04 & 2.257E+03 & 2.898E-11 \\
58 & 67.55 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 3.996E+04 & ...--4.102E+04 & 2.361E+03 & 2.926E-11 \\
59 & 68.53 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 4.231E+04 & ...--4.348E+04 & 2.467E+03 & 2.078E-11 \\
60 & 69.49 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 4.474E+04 & ...--4.606E+04 & 2.577E+03 & 2.548E-11 \\
61 & 70.59 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 4.765E+04 & ...--4.875E+04 & 2.690E+03 & 2.125E-11 \\
62 & 71.40 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 4.985E+04 & ...--5.153E+04 & 2.777E+03 & 1.780E-11 \\
63 & 72.39 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 5.270E+04 & ...--5.445E+04 & 2.924E+03 & 2.263E-11 \\
64 & 73.50 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 5.599E+04 & ...--5.750E+04 & 3.047E+03 & 2.042E-11 \\
65 & 74.52 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 5.916E+04 & ...--6.067E+04 & 3.173E+03 & 1.747E-11 \\
66 & 75.52 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 6.242E+04 & ...--6.397E+04 & 3.302E+03 & 1.912E-11 \\
67 & 76.50 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 6.573E+04 & ...--6.741E+04 & 3.435E+03 & 1.511E-11 \\
68 & 77.44 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 6.902E+04 & ...--7.098E+04 & 3.572E+03 & 1.557E-11 \\
69 & 78.49 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 7.282E+04 & ...--7.469E+04 & 3.712E+03 & 1.638E-11 \\
70 & 79.59 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 7.701E+04 & ...--7.855E+04 & 3.855E+03 & 1.599E-11 \\
71 & 80.54 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 8.073E+04 & ...--8.255E+04 & 4.003E+03 & 8.958E-12 \\
72 & 81.35 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 8.404E+04 & ...--8.670E+04 & 4.154E+03 & 1.395E-11 \\
73 & 82.55 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 8.909E+04 & ...--9.101E+04 & 4.308E+03 & 1.405E-11 \\
74 & 83.51 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 9.332E+04 & ...--9.548E+04 & 4.467E+03 & 9.972E-12 \\
75 & 84.62 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 9.839E+04 & ...--1.001E+05 & 4.629E+03 & 1.376E-11 \\
76 & 85.54 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 1.028E+05 & ...--1.049E+05 & 4.796E+03 & 6.672E-12 \\
77 & 86.51 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 1.075E+05 & ...--1.099E+05 & 4.966E+03 & 1.115E-11 \\
78 & 87.65 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 1.133E+05 & ...--1.150E+05 & 5.140E+03 & 1.111E-11 \\
79 & 88.67 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 1.186E+05 & ...--1.203E+05 & 5.318E+03 & 6.133E-12 \\
80 & 89.51 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 1.232E+05 & ...--1.258E+05 & 5.501E+03 & 9.134E-12 \\
81 & 90.46 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 1.285E+05 & ...--1.315E+05 & 5.687E+03 & 6.424E-12 \\
82 & 91.43 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 1.341E+05 & ...--1.374E+05 & 5.878E+03 & 8.255E-12 \\
83 & 92.46 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 1.402E+05 & ...--1.435E+05 & 6.073E+03 & 6.287E-12 \\
84 & 93.51 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 1.467E+05 & ...--1.497E+05 & 6.272E+03 & 7.295E-12 \\
85 & 94.59 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 1.536E+05 & ...--1.562E+05 & 6.475E+03 & 6.002E-12 \\
86 & 95.48 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 1.594E+05 & ...--1.629E+05 & 6.683E+03 & 5.517E-12 \\
87 & 96.53 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 1.666E+05 & ...--1.698E+05 & 6.895E+03 & 5.390E-12 \\
88 & 97.36 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 1.724E+05 & ...--1.769E+05 & 7.112E+03 & 5.239E-12 \\
89 & 98.74 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 1.824E+05 & ...--1.842E+05 & 7.333E+03 & 6.329E-12 \\
90 & 99.46 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 1.878E+05 & ...--1.918E+05 & 7.558E+03 & 3.268E-12 \\
91 & 100.72 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 1.975E+05 & ...--1.996E+05 & 7.788E+03 & 5.293E-12 \\
92 & 101.53 & 101.01--102.00 & 1.00 & 2.039E+05 & ...--2.076E+05 & 8.023E+03 & 2.771E-12 \\
93 & 102.48 & 102.01--103.00 & 1.00 & 2.117E+05 & ...--2.159E+05 & 8.263E+03 & 4.216E-12 \\
94 & 103.55 & 103.01--104.00 & 1.00 & 2.206E+05 & ...--2.244E+05 & 8.507E+03 & 3.766E-12 \\
95 & 104.48 & 104.01--105.00 & 1.00 & 2.286E+05 & ...--2.331E+05 & 8.756E+03 & 2.828E-12 \\
96 & 105.44 & 105.01--106.00 & 1.00 & 2.372E+05 & ...--2.421E+05 & 9.010E+03 & 3.856E-12 \\
97 & 106.66 & 106.01--107.00 & 1.00 & 2.483E+05 & ...--2.514E+05 & 9.268E+03 & 3.583E-12 \\
98 & 107.51 & 107.01--108.00 & 1.00 & 2.564E+05 & ...--2.609E+05 & 9.532E+03 & 1.471E-12 \\
99 & 108.32 & 108.01--109.00 & 1.00 & 2.641E+05 & ...--2.707E+05 & 9.800E+03 & 3.149E-12 \\
100 & 109.57 & 109.01--110.00 & 1.00 & 2.765E+05 & ...--2.808E+05 & 1.007E+04 & 3.564E-12 \\
101 & 110.59 & 110.01--111.00 & 1.00 & 2.870E+05 & ...--2.912E+05 & 1.035E+04 & 1.693E-12 \\
102 & 111.46 & 111.01--112.00 & 1.00 & 2.962E+05 & ...--3.018E+05 & 1.064E+04 & 2.778E-12 \\
103 & 112.48 & 112.01--113.00 & 1.00 & 3.071E+05 & ...--3.127E+05 & 1.092E+04 & 1.779E-12 \\
104 & 113.40 & 113.01--114.00 & 1.00 & 3.173E+05 & ...--3.239E+05 & 1.122E+04 & 2.516E-12 \\
105 & 114.31 & 114.01--115.00 & 1.00 & 3.276E+05 & ...--3.355E+05 & 1.152E+04 & 1.439E-12 \\
106 & 115.51 & 115.01--116.00 & 1.00 & 3.416E+05 & ...--3.473E+05 & 1.182E+04 & 2.908E-12 \\
107 & 116.56 & 116.01--117.00 & 1.00 & 3.541E+05 & ...--3.594E+05 & 1.213E+04 & 1.236E-12 \\
108 & 117.69 & 117.01--118.00 & 1.00 & 3.681E+05 & ...--3.719E+05 & 1.245E+04 & 2.012E-12 \\
109 & 118.46 & 118.01--119.00 & 1.00 & 3.779E+05 & ...--3.846E+05 & 1.277E+04 & 1.790E-12 \\
110 & 119.35 & 119.01--120.00 & 1.00 & 3.893E+05 & ...--3.977E+05 & 1.309E+04 & 9.121E-13 \\
111 & 120.48 & 120.01--121.00 & 1.00 & 4.042E+05 & ...--4.111E+05 & 1.342E+04 & 1.029E-12 \\
112 & 121.83 & 121.01--122.00 & 1.00 & 4.227E+05 & ...--4.249E+05 & 1.376E+04 & 9.823E-13 \\
113 & 122.57 & 122.01--123.00 & 1.00 & 4.331E+05 & ...--4.390E+05 & 1.410E+04 & 2.895E-13 \\
114 & 123.48 & 123.01--124.00 & 1.00 & 4.460E+05 & ...--4.535E+05 & 1.445E+04 & 8.882E-13 \\
115 & 124.83 & 124.01--125.00 & 1.00 & 4.660E+05 & ...--4.683E+05 & 1.481E+04 & 9.072E-13 \\
116 & 125.55 & 125.01--126.00 & 1.00 & 4.767E+05 & ...--4.834E+05 & 1.517E+04 & 2.611E-13 \\
117 & 126.62 & 126.01--127.00 & 1.00 & 4.932E+05 & ...--4.990E+05 & 1.553E+04 & 7.314E-13 \\
118 & 127.52 & 127.01--128.00 & 1.00 & 5.074E+05 & ...--5.149E+05 & 1.590E+04 & 5.186E-13 \\
119 & 128.44 & 128.01--129.00 & 1.00 & 5.221E+05 & ...--5.312E+05 & 1.628E+04 & 5.449E-13 \\
120 & 129.38 & 129.01--130.00 & 1.00 & 5.376E+05 & ...--5.478E+05 & 1.666E+04 & 5.439E-13 \\
121 & 130.35 & 130.01--131.00 & 1.00 & 5.539E+05 & ...--5.649E+05 & 1.705E+04 & 4.939E-13 \\
122 & 131.39 & 131.01--132.00 & 1.00 & 5.718E+05 & ...--5.823E+05 & 1.745E+04 & 5.243E-13 \\
123 & 132.38 & 132.01--133.00 & 1.00 & 5.893E+05 & ...--6.002E+05 & 1.785E+04 & 4.879E-13 \\
124 & 133.36 & 133.01--134.00 & 1.00 & 6.069E+05 & ...--6.184E+05 & 1.826E+04 & 4.804E-13 \\
125 & 134.45 & 134.01--135.00 & 1.00 & 6.270E+05 & ...--6.371E+05 & 1.867E+04 & 4.583E-13 \\
126 & 135.44 & 135.01--136.00 & 1.00 & 6.456E+05 & ...--6.562E+05 & 1.909E+04 & 4.108E-13 \\
127 & 136.56 & 136.01--137.00 & 1.00 & 6.672E+05 & ...--6.757E+05 & 1.951E+04 & 4.567E-13 \\
128 & 137.61 & 137.01--138.00 & 1.00 & 6.880E+05 & ...--6.956E+05 & 1.995E+04 & 3.594E-13 \\
129 & 138.52 & 138.01--139.00 & 1.00 & 7.065E+05 & ...--7.160E+05 & 2.038E+04 & 6.542E-13 \\
130 & 139.52 & 139.01--140.00 & 1.00 & 7.271E+05 & ...--7.368E+05 & 2.083E+04 & 2.053E-14 \\
131 & 140.40 & 140.01--140.66 & 0.66 & 7.456E+05 & ...--7.511E+05 & 1.421E+04 & 3.756E-14 \\
\enddata
\tablenotetext{a}{$T_{\rm CR}$ has a predefined precision of 0.01~K.}
\tablenotetext{b}{For entry No. 1, the full range is indicated. For others, the upper boundary of the interval is indicated, while the lower boundary is that of the previous entry. This pertains to $E_{\rm grain}$ intervals also for other tables in Appendix A.}
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.05~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thin (0.005~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A2}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.68 & 10.04--11.00 & 0.97 & 1.718E+01 & 1.099--25.78 & 2.468E+01 & 1.362E-09 \\
2 & 11.50 & 11.01--12.00 & 1.00 & 4.104E+01 & ...--5.758E+01 & 3.180E+01 & 2.439E-09 \\
3 & 12.48 & 12.01--13.00 & 1.00 & 7.555E+01 & ...--9.634E+01 & 3.876E+01 & 1.774E-09 \\
4 & 13.46 & 13.01--14.00 & 1.00 & 1.174E+02 & ...--1.429E+02 & 4.660E+01 & 1.624E-09 \\
5 & 14.49 & 14.01--15.00 & 1.00 & 1.693E+02 & ...--1.983E+02 & 5.536E+01 & 1.347E-09 \\
6 & 15.46 & 15.01--16.00 & 1.00 & 2.273E+02 & ...--2.634E+02 & 6.510E+01 & 1.057E-09 \\
7 & 16.48 & 16.01--17.00 & 1.00 & 2.986E+02 & ...--3.384E+02 & 7.504E+01 & 1.046E-09 \\
8 & 17.50 & 17.01--18.00 & 1.00 & 3.817E+02 & ...--4.260E+02 & 8.754E+01 & 8.071E-10 \\
9 & 18.50 & 18.01--19.00 & 1.00 & 4.762E+02 & ...--5.264E+02 & 1.005E+02 & 7.598E-10 \\
10 & 19.51 & 19.01--20.00 & 1.00 & 5.851E+02 & ...--6.410E+02 & 1.145E+02 & 6.237E-10 \\
11 & 20.51 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 7.077E+02 & ...--7.708E+02 & 1.298E+02 & 6.020E-10 \\
12 & 21.51 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 8.448E+02 & ...--9.171E+02 & 1.463E+02 & 4.659E-10 \\
13 & 22.49 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 9.976E+02 & ...--1.081E+03 & 1.641E+02 & 4.663E-10 \\
14 & 23.52 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 1.176E+03 & ...--1.264E+03 & 1.833E+02 & 3.802E-10 \\
15 & 24.49 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 1.364E+03 & ...--1.468E+03 & 2.038E+02 & 3.820E-10 \\
16 & 25.45 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 1.570E+03 & ...--1.694E+03 & 2.258E+02 & 2.778E-10 \\
17 & 26.50 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 1.819E+03 & ...--1.943E+03 & 2.492E+02 & 3.283E-10 \\
18 & 27.56 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 2.097E+03 & ...--2.217E+03 & 2.742E+02 & 2.422E-10 \\
19 & 28.51 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 2.371E+03 & ...--2.518E+03 & 3.007E+02 & 2.191E-10 \\
20 & 29.51 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 2.688E+03 & ...--2.847E+03 & 3.288E+02 & 2.146E-10 \\
21 & 30.48 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 3.020E+03 & ...--3.206E+03 & 3.586E+02 & 1.608E-10 \\
22 & 31.49 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 3.397E+03 & ...--3.596E+03 & 3.902E+02 & 1.852E-10 \\
23 & 32.52 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 3.819E+03 & ...--4.019E+03 & 4.234E+02 & 1.535E-10 \\
24 & 33.51 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 4.255E+03 & ...--4.478E+03 & 4.585E+02 & 1.386E-10 \\
25 & 34.51 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 4.732E+03 & ...--4.973E+03 & 4.954E+02 & 1.341E-10 \\
26 & 35.55 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 5.267E+03 & ...--5.507E+03 & 5.342E+02 & 1.245E-10 \\
27 & 36.52 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 5.810E+03 & ...--6.082E+03 & 5.749E+02 & 9.790E-11 \\
28 & 37.51 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 6.398E+03 & ...--6.700E+03 & 6.177E+02 & 1.090E-10 \\
29 & 38.55 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 7.068E+03 & ...--7.362E+03 & 6.624E+02 & 9.782E-11 \\
30 & 39.47 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 7.699E+03 & ...--8.071E+03 & 7.092E+02 & 7.863E-11 \\
31 & 40.40 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 8.378E+03 & ...--8.830E+03 & 7.582E+02 & 8.463E-11 \\
32 & 41.49 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 9.226E+03 & ...--9.639E+03 & 8.093E+02 & 8.586E-11 \\
33 & 42.51 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 1.008E+04 & ...--1.050E+04 & 8.626E+02 & 7.134E-11 \\
34 & 43.55 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 1.101E+04 & ...--1.143E+04 & 9.277E+02 & 7.108E-11 \\
35 & 44.53 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 1.194E+04 & ...--1.241E+04 & 9.767E+02 & 6.231E-11 \\
36 & 45.55 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 1.297E+04 & ...--1.344E+04 & 1.037E+03 & 7.006E-11 \\
37 & 46.54 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 1.404E+04 & ...--1.454E+04 & 1.100E+03 & 5.414E-11 \\
38 & 47.43 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 1.504E+04 & ...--1.571E+04 & 1.165E+03 & 5.406E-11 \\
39 & 48.47 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 1.628E+04 & ...--1.694E+04 & 1.232E+03 & 5.513E-11 \\
40 & 49.47 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 1.755E+04 & ...--1.824E+04 & 1.302E+03 & 5.405E-11 \\
41 & 50.46 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 1.887E+04 & ...--1.962E+04 & 1.375E+03 & 4.756E-11 \\
42 & 51.44 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 2.025E+04 & ...--2.107E+04 & 1.449E+03 & 4.850E-11 \\
43 & 52.41 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 2.169E+04 & ...--2.259E+04 & 1.521E+03 & 4.335E-11 \\
44 & 53.44 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 2.328E+04 & ...--2.418E+04 & 1.596E+03 & 4.726E-11 \\
45 & 54.51 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 2.502E+04 & ...--2.586E+04 & 1.673E+03 & 4.040E-11 \\
46 & 55.49 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 2.670E+04 & ...--2.761E+04 & 1.753E+03 & 3.934E-11 \\
47 & 56.47 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 2.846E+04 & ...--2.944E+04 & 1.836E+03 & 3.906E-11 \\
48 & 57.49 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 3.038E+04 & ...--3.137E+04 & 1.921E+03 & 3.465E-11 \\
49 & 58.50 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 3.236E+04 & ...--3.337E+04 & 2.009E+03 & 3.734E-11 \\
50 & 59.55 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 3.452E+04 & ...--3.547E+04 & 2.100E+03 & 3.170E-11 \\
51 & 60.48 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 3.651E+04 & ...--3.767E+04 & 2.193E+03 & 2.903E-11 \\
52 & 61.45 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 3.869E+04 & ...--3.996E+04 & 2.289E+03 & 3.029E-11 \\
53 & 62.56 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 4.130E+04 & ...--4.235E+04 & 2.389E+03 & 3.068E-11 \\
54 & 63.49 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 4.357E+04 & ...--4.484E+04 & 2.491E+03 & 2.251E-11 \\
55 & 64.42 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 4.593E+04 & ...--4.743E+04 & 2.596E+03 & 2.480E-11 \\
56 & 65.42 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 4.856E+04 & ...--5.014E+04 & 2.704E+03 & 2.306E-11 \\
57 & 66.46 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 5.142E+04 & ...--5.295E+04 & 2.815E+03 & 2.542E-11 \\
58 & 67.48 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 5.434E+04 & ...--5.588E+04 & 2.929E+03 & 2.105E-11 \\
59 & 68.47 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 5.729E+04 & ...--5.893E+04 & 3.047E+03 & 1.989E-11 \\
60 & 69.47 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 6.041E+04 & ...--6.209E+04 & 3.167E+03 & 1.901E-11 \\
61 & 70.39 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 6.338E+04 & ...--6.539E+04 & 3.291E+03 & 1.745E-11 \\
62 & 71.41 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 6.676E+04 & ...--6.877E+04 & 3.384E+03 & 1.939E-11 \\
63 & 72.45 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 7.038E+04 & ...--7.232E+04 & 3.548E+03 & 1.674E-11 \\
64 & 73.50 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 7.419E+04 & ...--7.600E+04 & 3.682E+03 & 1.661E-11 \\
65 & 74.48 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 7.785E+04 & ...--7.982E+04 & 3.819E+03 & 1.558E-11 \\
66 & 75.55 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 8.202E+04 & ...--8.378E+04 & 3.960E+03 & 1.586E-11 \\
67 & 76.55 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 8.606E+04 & ...--8.788E+04 & 4.104E+03 & 1.195E-11 \\
68 & 77.46 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 8.988E+04 & ...--9.213E+04 & 4.252E+03 & 1.247E-11 \\
69 & 78.58 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 9.469E+04 & ...--9.654E+04 & 4.403E+03 & 1.440E-11 \\
70 & 79.48 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 9.878E+04 & ...--1.011E+05 & 4.558E+03 & 9.229E-12 \\
71 & 80.51 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 1.036E+05 & ...--1.058E+05 & 4.717E+03 & 1.271E-11 \\
72 & 81.51 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 1.083E+05 & ...--1.107E+05 & 4.880E+03 & 9.464E-12 \\
73 & 82.50 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 1.132E+05 & ...--1.157E+05 & 5.046E+03 & 1.007E-11 \\
74 & 83.46 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 1.182E+05 & ...--1.210E+05 & 5.216E+03 & 9.420E-12 \\
75 & 84.49 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 1.237E+05 & ...--1.263E+05 & 5.390E+03 & 9.048E-12 \\
76 & 85.46 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 1.290E+05 & ...--1.319E+05 & 5.569E+03 & 7.798E-12 \\
77 & 86.43 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 1.344E+05 & ...--1.377E+05 & 5.751E+03 & 8.888E-12 \\
78 & 87.52 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 1.408E+05 & ...--1.436E+05 & 5.937E+03 & 8.510E-12 \\
79 & 88.61 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 1.474E+05 & ...--1.497E+05 & 6.127E+03 & 5.889E-12 \\
80 & 89.29 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 1.516E+05 & ...--1.560E+05 & 6.321E+03 & 6.007E-12 \\
81 & 90.51 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 1.594E+05 & ...--1.626E+05 & 6.519E+03 & 7.978E-12 \\
82 & 91.45 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 1.657E+05 & ...--1.693E+05 & 6.722E+03 & 3.966E-12 \\
83 & 92.40 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 1.721E+05 & ...--1.762E+05 & 6.929E+03 & 7.418E-12 \\
84 & 93.64 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 1.809E+05 & ...--1.834E+05 & 7.140E+03 & 5.549E-12 \\
85 & 94.65 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 1.882E+05 & ...--1.907E+05 & 7.355E+03 & 4.325E-12 \\
86 & 95.62 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 1.955E+05 & ...--1.983E+05 & 7.575E+03 & 5.386E-12 \\
87 & 96.67 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 2.036E+05 & ...--2.061E+05 & 7.799E+03 & 3.649E-12 \\
88 & 97.69 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 2.117E+05 & ...--2.141E+05 & 8.028E+03 & 4.790E-12 \\
89 & 98.69 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 2.199E+05 & ...--2.224E+05 & 8.262E+03 & 2.976E-12 \\
90 & 99.36 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 2.255E+05 & ...--2.309E+05 & 8.499E+03 & 3.073E-12 \\
91 & 100.37 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 2.342E+05 & ...--2.396E+05 & 8.742E+03 & 3.797E-12 \\
92 & 101.48 & 101.01--102.00 & 1.00 & 2.439E+05 & ...--2.486E+05 & 8.989E+03 & 3.855E-12 \\
93 & 102.68 & 102.01--103.00 & 1.00 & 2.550E+05 & ...--2.578E+05 & 9.241E+03 & 3.592E-12 \\
94 & 103.52 & 103.01--104.00 & 1.00 & 2.629E+05 & ...--2.673E+05 & 9.498E+03 & 1.513E-12 \\
95 & 104.39 & 104.01--105.00 & 1.00 & 2.712E+05 & ...--2.771E+05 & 9.759E+03 & 3.756E-12 \\
96 & 105.59 & 105.01--106.00 & 1.00 & 2.831E+05 & ...--2.871E+05 & 1.003E+04 & 1.925E-12 \\
97 & 106.36 & 106.01--107.00 & 1.00 & 2.909E+05 & ...--2.974E+05 & 1.030E+04 & 3.015E-12 \\
98 & 107.66 & 107.01--108.00 & 1.00 & 3.045E+05 & ...--3.080E+05 & 1.057E+04 & 2.913E-12 \\
99 & 108.54 & 108.01--109.00 & 1.00 & 3.140E+05 & ...--3.189E+05 & 1.085E+04 & 2.139E-12 \\
100 & 109.76 & 109.01--110.00 & 1.00 & 3.274E+05 & ...--3.300E+05 & 1.114E+04 & 2.702E-12 \\
101 & 110.58 & 110.01--111.00 & 1.00 & 3.367E+05 & ...--3.414E+05 & 1.143E+04 & 1.469E-12 \\
102 & 111.53 & 111.01--112.00 & 1.00 & 3.477E+05 & ...--3.532E+05 & 1.173E+04 & 1.352E-12 \\
103 & 112.37 & 112.01--113.00 & 1.00 & 3.577E+05 & ...--3.652E+05 & 1.203E+04 & 2.545E-12 \\
104 & 113.51 & 113.01--114.00 & 1.00 & 3.716E+05 & ...--3.775E+05 & 1.234E+04 & 1.287E-12 \\
105 & 114.57 & 114.01--115.00 & 1.00 & 3.848E+05 & ...--3.902E+05 & 1.265E+04 & 2.239E-12 \\
106 & 115.69 & 115.01--116.00 & 1.00 & 3.992E+05 & ...--4.031E+05 & 1.296E+04 & 1.706E-12 \\
107 & 116.50 & 116.01--117.00 & 1.00 & 4.099E+05 & ...--4.164E+05 & 1.329E+04 & 1.381E-12 \\
108 & 117.41 & 117.01--118.00 & 1.00 & 4.222E+05 & ...--4.300E+05 & 1.362E+04 & 1.035E-12 \\
109 & 118.65 & 118.01--119.00 & 1.00 & 4.392E+05 & ...--4.440E+05 & 1.395E+04 & 1.056E-12 \\
110 & 119.49 & 119.01--120.00 & 1.00 & 4.511E+05 & ...--4.583E+05 & 1.429E+04 & 4.426E-13 \\
111 & 120.37 & 120.01--121.00 & 1.00 & 4.637E+05 & ...--4.729E+05 & 1.463E+04 & 9.429E-13 \\
112 & 121.71 & 121.01--122.00 & 1.00 & 4.837E+05 & ...--4.879E+05 & 1.498E+04 & 1.016E-12 \\
113 & 122.50 & 122.01--123.00 & 1.00 & 4.957E+05 & ...--5.032E+05 & 1.534E+04 & 3.303E-13 \\
114 & 123.56 & 123.01--124.00 & 1.00 & 5.121E+05 & ...--5.189E+05 & 1.570E+04 & 8.755E-13 \\
115 & 124.47 & 124.01--125.00 & 1.00 & 5.266E+05 & ...--5.350E+05 & 1.607E+04 & 5.661E-13 \\
116 & 125.45 & 125.01--126.00 & 1.00 & 5.424E+05 & ...--5.514E+05 & 1.644E+04 & 5.591E-13 \\
117 & 126.41 & 126.01--127.00 & 1.00 & 5.583E+05 & ...--5.682E+05 & 1.682E+04 & 5.250E-13 \\
118 & 127.37 & 127.01--128.00 & 1.00 & 5.747E+05 & ...--5.854E+05 & 1.720E+04 & 4.843E-13 \\
119 & 128.42 & 128.01--129.00 & 1.00 & 5.929E+05 & ...--6.030E+05 & 1.759E+04 & 5.088E-13 \\
120 & 129.49 & 129.01--130.00 & 1.00 & 6.119E+05 & ...--6.210E+05 & 1.799E+04 & 5.323E-13 \\
121 & 130.48 & 130.01--131.00 & 1.00 & 6.299E+05 & ...--6.394E+05 & 1.839E+04 & 4.376E-13 \\
122 & 131.55 & 131.01--132.00 & 1.00 & 6.500E+05 & ...--6.582E+05 & 1.880E+04 & 4.449E-13 \\
123 & 132.58 & 132.01--133.00 & 1.00 & 6.695E+05 & ...--6.774E+05 & 1.921E+04 & 4.343E-13 \\
124 & 133.59 & 133.01--134.00 & 1.00 & 6.892E+05 & ...--6.971E+05 & 1.963E+04 & 3.390E-13 \\
125 & 134.50 & 134.01--135.00 & 1.00 & 7.074E+05 & ...--7.171E+05 & 2.006E+04 & 3.501E-13 \\
126 & 135.54 & 135.01--136.00 & 1.00 & 7.284E+05 & ...--7.376E+05 & 2.049E+04 & 5.150E-13 \\
127 & 136.18 & 136.01--137.00 & 1.00 & 7.416E+05 & ...--7.586E+05 & 2.093E+04 & 3.134E-13 \\
128 & 137.72 & 137.01--138.10 & 1.10 & 7.741E+05 & ...--7.823E+05 & 2.376E+04 & 4.509E-14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.05~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thick (0.015~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A3}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.54 & 10.01--11.00 & 1.00 & 3.643E+01 & 1.099--69.78 & 6.868E+01 & 6.524E-09 \\
2 & 11.45 & 11.01--12.00 & 1.00 & 1.062E+02 & ...--1.541E+02 & 8.432E+01 & 4.271E-09 \\
3 & 12.47 & 12.01--13.00 & 1.00 & 2.001E+02 & ...--2.549E+02 & 1.008E+02 & 2.944E-09 \\
4 & 13.49 & 13.01--14.00 & 1.00 & 3.117E+02 & ...--3.739E+02 & 1.189E+02 & 1.894E-09 \\
5 & 14.45 & 14.01--15.00 & 1.00 & 4.354E+02 & ...--5.127E+02 & 1.388E+02 & 1.518E-09 \\
6 & 15.49 & 15.01--16.00 & 1.00 & 5.894E+02 & ...--6.731E+02 & 1.604E+02 & 1.308E-09 \\
7 & 16.52 & 16.01--17.00 & 1.00 & 7.673E+02 & ...--8.550E+02 & 1.819E+02 & 9.851E-10 \\
8 & 17.49 & 17.01--18.00 & 1.00 & 9.574E+02 & ...--1.064E+03 & 2.089E+02 & 7.535E-10 \\
9 & 18.46 & 18.01--19.00 & 1.00 & 1.174E+03 & ...--1.300E+03 & 2.361E+02 & 7.178E-10 \\
10 & 19.51 & 19.01--20.00 & 1.00 & 1.434E+03 & ...--1.565E+03 & 2.652E+02 & 6.244E-10 \\
11 & 20.53 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 1.723E+03 & ...--1.862E+03 & 2.963E+02 & 4.815E-10 \\
12 & 21.49 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 2.024E+03 & ...--2.191E+03 & 3.295E+02 & 4.133E-10 \\
13 & 22.49 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 2.372E+03 & ...--2.556E+03 & 3.647E+02 & 3.918E-10 \\
14 & 23.50 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 2.758E+03 & ...--2.958E+03 & 4.021E+02 & 3.197E-10 \\
15 & 24.51 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 3.185E+03 & ...--3.400E+03 & 4.417E+02 & 2.967E-10 \\
16 & 25.52 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 3.651E+03 & ...--3.883E+03 & 4.834E+02 & 2.475E-10 \\
17 & 26.48 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 4.138E+03 & ...--4.411E+03 & 5.275E+02 & 2.239E-10 \\
18 & 27.48 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 4.687E+03 & ...--4.984E+03 & 5.738E+02 & 2.064E-10 \\
19 & 28.47 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 5.276E+03 & ...--5.607E+03 & 6.225E+02 & 1.858E-10 \\
20 & 29.50 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 5.945E+03 & ...--6.281E+03 & 6.737E+02 & 1.751E-10 \\
21 & 30.52 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 6.661E+03 & ...--7.008E+03 & 7.273E+02 & 1.645E-10 \\
22 & 31.51 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 7.414E+03 & ...--7.791E+03 & 7.833E+02 & 1.399E-10 \\
23 & 32.48 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 8.195E+03 & ...--8.633E+03 & 8.420E+02 & 1.309E-10 \\
24 & 33.50 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 9.089E+03 & ...--9.536E+03 & 9.032E+02 & 1.382E-10 \\
25 & 34.54 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 1.006E+04 & ...--1.050E+04 & 9.670E+02 & 1.036E-10 \\
26 & 35.51 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 1.104E+04 & ...--1.154E+04 & 1.034E+03 & 1.204E-10 \\
27 & 36.56 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 1.216E+04 & ...--1.264E+04 & 1.103E+03 & 9.446E-11 \\
28 & 37.52 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 1.326E+04 & ...--1.381E+04 & 1.175E+03 & 9.648E-11 \\
29 & 38.49 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 1.444E+04 & ...--1.506E+04 & 1.250E+03 & 8.214E-11 \\
30 & 39.50 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 1.574E+04 & ...--1.639E+04 & 1.327E+03 & 9.453E-11 \\
31 & 40.55 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 1.717E+04 & ...--1.780E+04 & 1.408E+03 & 7.479E-11 \\
32 & 41.52 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 1.858E+04 & ...--1.929E+04 & 1.492E+03 & 7.613E-11 \\
33 & 42.45 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 2.001E+04 & ...--2.087E+04 & 1.578E+03 & 6.494E-11 \\
34 & 43.44 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 2.161E+04 & ...--2.256E+04 & 1.685E+03 & 7.101E-11 \\
35 & 44.48 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 2.339E+04 & ...--2.432E+04 & 1.762E+03 & 6.697E-11 \\
36 & 45.52 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 2.528E+04 & ...--2.617E+04 & 1.858E+03 & 6.670E-11 \\
37 & 46.53 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 2.720E+04 & ...--2.813E+04 & 1.957E+03 & 5.398E-11 \\
38 & 47.48 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 2.911E+04 & ...--3.019E+04 & 2.059E+03 & 5.349E-11 \\
39 & 48.51 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 3.128E+04 & ...--3.235E+04 & 2.165E+03 & 5.422E-11 \\
40 & 49.48 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 3.344E+04 & ...--3.463E+04 & 2.274E+03 & 4.783E-11 \\
41 & 50.49 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 3.577E+04 & ...--3.701E+04 & 2.386E+03 & 4.614E-11 \\
42 & 51.49 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 3.824E+04 & ...--3.951E+04 & 2.495E+03 & 4.664E-11 \\
43 & 52.54 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 4.089E+04 & ...--4.210E+04 & 2.594E+03 & 4.404E-11 \\
44 & 53.57 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 4.364E+04 & ...--4.480E+04 & 2.695E+03 & 3.679E-11 \\
45 & 54.48 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 4.614E+04 & ...--4.760E+04 & 2.800E+03 & 3.491E-11 \\
46 & 55.55 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 4.918E+04 & ...--5.050E+04 & 2.906E+03 & 3.822E-11 \\
47 & 56.50 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 5.202E+04 & ...--5.352E+04 & 3.016E+03 & 2.552E-11 \\
48 & 57.42 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 5.483E+04 & ...--5.665E+04 & 3.129E+03 & 3.268E-11 \\
49 & 58.50 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 5.828E+04 & ...--5.989E+04 & 3.244E+03 & 2.923E-11 \\
50 & 59.46 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 6.142E+04 & ...--6.326E+04 & 3.362E+03 & 2.550E-11 \\
51 & 60.42 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 6.472E+04 & ...--6.674E+04 & 3.483E+03 & 2.607E-11 \\
52 & 61.50 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 6.854E+04 & ...--7.035E+04 & 3.607E+03 & 2.643E-11 \\
53 & 62.52 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 7.227E+04 & ...--7.408E+04 & 3.734E+03 & 2.245E-11 \\
54 & 63.47 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 7.591E+04 & ...--7.794E+04 & 3.864E+03 & 1.985E-11 \\
55 & 64.55 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 8.015E+04 & ...--8.194E+04 & 3.998E+03 & 2.297E-11 \\
56 & 65.57 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 8.430E+04 & ...--8.608E+04 & 4.134E+03 & 1.634E-11 \\
57 & 66.50 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 8.821E+04 & ...--9.035E+04 & 4.274E+03 & 1.869E-11 \\
58 & 67.56 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 9.280E+04 & ...--9.477E+04 & 4.417E+03 & 1.745E-11 \\
59 & 68.58 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 9.739E+04 & ...--9.933E+04 & 4.563E+03 & 1.381E-11 \\
60 & 69.44 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 1.014E+05 & ...--1.040E+05 & 4.712E+03 & 1.360E-11 \\
61 & 70.44 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 1.062E+05 & ...--1.089E+05 & 4.865E+03 & 1.533E-11 \\
62 & 71.41 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 1.110E+05 & ...--1.139E+05 & 4.970E+03 & 1.265E-11 \\
63 & 72.49 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 1.165E+05 & ...--1.191E+05 & 5.179E+03 & 1.354E-11 \\
64 & 73.42 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 1.213E+05 & ...--1.244E+05 & 5.343E+03 & 1.067E-11 \\
65 & 74.41 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 1.267E+05 & ...--1.299E+05 & 5.509E+03 & 1.285E-11 \\
66 & 75.54 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 1.330E+05 & ...--1.356E+05 & 5.680E+03 & 1.150E-11 \\
67 & 76.55 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 1.389E+05 & ...--1.414E+05 & 5.854E+03 & 1.065E-11 \\
68 & 77.50 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 1.445E+05 & ...--1.475E+05 & 6.031E+03 & 7.006E-12 \\
69 & 78.39 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 1.499E+05 & ...--1.537E+05 & 6.213E+03 & 1.122E-11 \\
70 & 79.64 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 1.578E+05 & ...--1.601E+05 & 6.398E+03 & 9.296E-12 \\
71 & 80.50 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 1.634E+05 & ...--1.667E+05 & 6.587E+03 & 6.616E-12 \\
72 & 81.52 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 1.702E+05 & ...--1.735E+05 & 6.780E+03 & 8.870E-12 \\
73 & 82.53 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 1.772E+05 & ...--1.804E+05 & 6.976E+03 & 5.859E-12 \\
74 & 83.46 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 1.837E+05 & ...--1.876E+05 & 7.177E+03 & 7.262E-12 \\
75 & 84.43 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 1.909E+05 & ...--1.950E+05 & 7.382E+03 & 6.477E-12 \\
76 & 85.60 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 1.996E+05 & ...--2.026E+05 & 7.591E+03 & 6.387E-12 \\
77 & 86.41 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 2.059E+05 & ...--2.104E+05 & 7.803E+03 & 5.713E-12 \\
78 & 87.56 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 2.150E+05 & ...--2.184E+05 & 8.020E+03 & 5.394E-12 \\
79 & 88.49 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 2.225E+05 & ...--2.266E+05 & 8.241E+03 & 5.261E-12 \\
80 & 89.38 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 2.299E+05 & ...--2.351E+05 & 8.467E+03 & 3.600E-12 \\
81 & 90.47 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 2.393E+05 & ...--2.438E+05 & 8.696E+03 & 5.915E-12 \\
82 & 91.51 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 2.484E+05 & ...--2.527E+05 & 8.930E+03 & 3.894E-12 \\
83 & 92.50 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 2.574E+05 & ...--2.619E+05 & 9.169E+03 & 3.868E-12 \\
84 & 93.30 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 2.648E+05 & ...--2.713E+05 & 9.411E+03 & 2.511E-12 \\
85 & 94.47 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 2.759E+05 & ...--2.810E+05 & 9.658E+03 & 4.230E-12 \\
86 & 95.69 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 2.879E+05 & ...--2.909E+05 & 9.910E+03 & 3.319E-12 \\
87 & 96.51 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 2.961E+05 & ...--3.010E+05 & 1.017E+04 & 1.173E-12 \\
88 & 97.45 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 3.058E+05 & ...--3.115E+05 & 1.043E+04 & 3.837E-12 \\
89 & 98.62 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 3.181E+05 & ...--3.222E+05 & 1.069E+04 & 2.109E-12 \\
90 & 99.51 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 3.279E+05 & ...--3.331E+05 & 1.096E+04 & 2.720E-12 \\
91 & 100.36 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 3.373E+05 & ...--3.444E+05 & 1.124E+04 & 1.594E-12 \\
92 & 101.49 & 101.01--102.00 & 1.00 & 3.502E+05 & ...--3.559E+05 & 1.152E+04 & 3.262E-12 \\
93 & 102.62 & 102.01--103.00 & 1.00 & 3.633E+05 & ...--3.677E+05 & 1.180E+04 & 1.669E-12 \\
94 & 103.73 & 103.01--104.00 & 1.00 & 3.766E+05 & ...--3.798E+05 & 1.209E+04 & 2.236E-12 \\
95 & 104.43 & 104.01--105.00 & 1.00 & 3.852E+05 & ...--3.922E+05 & 1.238E+04 & 1.661E-12 \\
96 & 105.42 & 105.01--106.00 & 1.00 & 3.975E+05 & ...--4.048E+05 & 1.268E+04 & 1.071E-12 \\
97 & 106.45 & 106.01--107.00 & 1.00 & 4.108E+05 & ...--4.178E+05 & 1.299E+04 & 2.352E-12 \\
98 & 107.55 & 107.01--108.00 & 1.00 & 4.253E+05 & ...--4.311E+05 & 1.330E+04 & 1.823E-12 \\
99 & 108.55 & 108.01--109.00 & 1.00 & 4.387E+05 & ...--4.447E+05 & 1.361E+04 & 1.310E-12 \\
100 & 109.51 & 109.01--110.00 & 1.00 & 4.520E+05 & ...--4.587E+05 & 1.393E+04 & 1.586E-12 \\
101 & 110.68 & 110.01--111.00 & 1.00 & 4.684E+05 & ...--4.729E+05 & 1.425E+04 & 1.953E-12 \\
102 & 111.56 & 111.01--112.00 & 1.00 & 4.812E+05 & ...--4.875E+05 & 1.458E+04 & 4.113E-13 \\
103 & 112.45 & 112.01--113.00 & 1.00 & 4.943E+05 & ...--5.024E+05 & 1.492E+04 & 1.203E-12 \\
104 & 113.39 & 113.01--114.00 & 1.00 & 5.085E+05 & ...--5.177E+05 & 1.526E+04 & 5.201E-13 \\
105 & 114.29 & 114.01--115.00 & 1.00 & 5.224E+05 & ...--5.333E+05 & 1.560E+04 & 1.139E-12 \\
106 & 115.72 & 115.01--116.00 & 1.00 & 5.448E+05 & ...--5.492E+05 & 1.595E+04 & 9.230E-13 \\
107 & 116.63 & 116.01--117.00 & 1.00 & 5.597E+05 & ...--5.655E+05 & 1.631E+04 & 7.343E-13 \\
108 & 117.65 & 117.01--118.00 & 1.00 & 5.766E+05 & ...--5.822E+05 & 1.667E+04 & 7.904E-13 \\
109 & 118.69 & 118.01--119.00 & 1.00 & 5.941E+05 & ...--5.993E+05 & 1.704E+04 & 7.607E-13 \\
110 & 119.64 & 119.01--120.00 & 1.00 & 6.105E+05 & ...--6.167E+05 & 1.741E+04 & 7.291E-13 \\
111 & 120.46 & 120.01--121.00 & 1.00 & 6.250E+05 & ...--6.345E+05 & 1.779E+04 & 1.955E-13 \\
112 & 121.16 & 121.01--122.00 & 1.00 & 6.375E+05 & ...--6.526E+05 & 1.817E+04 & 4.883E-13 \\
113 & 122.26 & 122.01--123.00 & 1.00 & 6.577E+05 & ...--6.712E+05 & 1.856E+04 & 5.071E-13 \\
114 & 123.30 & 123.01--124.00 & 1.00 & 6.770E+05 & ...--6.902E+05 & 1.896E+04 & 4.540E-13 \\
115 & 124.45 & 124.01--125.00 & 1.00 & 6.991E+05 & ...--7.095E+05 & 1.936E+04 & 4.372E-13 \\
116 & 125.51 & 125.01--126.00 & 1.00 & 7.197E+05 & ...--7.293E+05 & 1.977E+04 & 4.153E-13 \\
117 & 126.56 & 126.01--127.00 & 1.00 & 7.407E+05 & ...--7.495E+05 & 2.018E+04 & 3.317E-13 \\
118 & 127.48 & 127.01--128.00 & 1.00 & 7.596E+05 & ...--7.701E+05 & 2.060E+04 & 3.165E-13 \\
119 & 128.43 & 128.01--129.00 & 1.00 & 7.792E+05 & ...--7.911E+05 & 2.103E+04 & 4.073E-13 \\
120 & 129.24 & 129.01--130.00 & 1.00 & 7.963E+05 & ...--8.126E+05 & 2.146E+04 & 4.528E-13 \\
121 & 130.64 & 130.01--131.00 & 1.00 & 8.267E+05 & ...--8.344E+05 & 2.189E+04 & 2.731E-14 \\
122 & 131.18 & 131.01--131.32 & 0.32 & 8.387E+05 & ...--8.418E+05 & 7.322E+03 & 1.989E-14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.1~$\mu$m bare olivine grains at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.77 & 10.01--11.00 & 1.00 & 5.353E+01 & 1.099--71.73 & 7.063E+01 & 5.148E-09 \\
2 & 11.49 & 11.01--12.00 & 1.00 & 1.159E+02 & ...--1.655E+02 & 9.377E+01 & 8.943E-09 \\
3 & 12.49 & 12.01--13.00 & 1.00 & 2.219E+02 & ...--2.859E+02 & 1.204E+02 & 7.047E-09 \\
4 & 13.48 & 13.01--14.00 & 1.00 & 3.561E+02 & ...--4.374E+02 & 1.516E+02 & 5.826E-09 \\
5 & 14.49 & 14.01--15.00 & 1.00 & 5.272E+02 & ...--6.252E+02 & 1.877E+02 & 4.895E-09 \\
6 & 15.49 & 15.01--16.00 & 1.00 & 7.343E+02 & ...--8.544E+02 & 2.293E+02 & 3.869E-09 \\
7 & 16.53 & 16.01--17.00 & 1.00 & 9.968E+02 & ...--1.128E+03 & 2.735E+02 & 3.651E-09 \\
8 & 17.53 & 17.01--18.00 & 1.00 & 1.302E+03 & ...--1.457E+03 & 3.292E+02 & 2.644E-09 \\
9 & 18.46 & 18.01--19.00 & 1.00 & 1.632E+03 & ...--1.846E+03 & 3.889E+02 & 2.325E-09 \\
10 & 19.41 & 19.01--20.00 & 1.00 & 2.034E+03 & ...--2.301E+03 & 4.554E+02 & 2.043E-09 \\
11 & 20.45 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 2.541E+03 & ...--2.831E+03 & 5.291E+02 & 2.127E-09 \\
12 & 21.51 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 3.143E+03 & ...--3.441E+03 & 6.103E+02 & 1.518E-09 \\
13 & 22.48 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 3.775E+03 & ...--4.140E+03 & 6.995E+02 & 1.239E-09 \\
14 & 23.43 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 4.480E+03 & ...--4.937E+03 & 7.969E+02 & 1.152E-09 \\
15 & 24.44 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 5.339E+03 & ...--5.840E+03 & 9.030E+02 & 1.073E-09 \\
16 & 25.43 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 6.281E+03 & ...--6.859E+03 & 1.018E+03 & 8.135E-10 \\
17 & 26.46 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 7.390E+03 & ...--8.001E+03 & 1.143E+03 & 8.602E-10 \\
18 & 27.49 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 8.629E+03 & ...--9.278E+03 & 1.277E+03 & 6.601E-10 \\
19 & 28.46 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 9.927E+03 & ...--1.070E+04 & 1.421E+03 & 5.941E-10 \\
20 & 29.46 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 1.142E+04 & ...--1.228E+04 & 1.576E+03 & 5.419E-10 \\
21 & 30.44 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 1.304E+04 & ...--1.402E+04 & 1.742E+03 & 4.853E-10 \\
22 & 31.47 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 1.492E+04 & ...--1.594E+04 & 1.919E+03 & 4.819E-10 \\
23 & 32.52 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 1.704E+04 & ...--1.804E+04 & 2.108E+03 & 4.201E-10 \\
24 & 33.54 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 1.929E+04 & ...--2.035E+04 & 2.308E+03 & 3.558E-10 \\
25 & 34.47 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 2.154E+04 & ...--2.287E+04 & 2.521E+03 & 3.043E-10 \\
26 & 35.43 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 2.408E+04 & ...--2.562E+04 & 2.747E+03 & 3.306E-10 \\
27 & 36.45 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 2.697E+04 & ...--2.861E+04 & 2.985E+03 & 3.272E-10 \\
28 & 37.47 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 3.015E+04 & ...--3.184E+04 & 3.237E+03 & 2.854E-10 \\
29 & 38.51 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 3.364E+04 & ...--3.535E+04 & 3.503E+03 & 2.702E-10 \\
30 & 39.48 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 3.717E+04 & ...--3.913E+04 & 3.783E+03 & 2.381E-10 \\
31 & 40.49 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 4.114E+04 & ...--4.321E+04 & 4.078E+03 & 2.560E-10 \\
32 & 41.51 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 4.546E+04 & ...--4.760E+04 & 4.388E+03 & 2.155E-10 \\
33 & 42.47 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 4.985E+04 & ...--5.231E+04 & 4.713E+03 & 2.014E-10 \\
34 & 43.50 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 5.485E+04 & ...--5.741E+04 & 5.105E+03 & 2.145E-10 \\
35 & 44.57 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 6.049E+04 & ...--6.283E+04 & 5.413E+03 & 1.985E-10 \\
36 & 45.56 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 6.605E+04 & ...--6.861E+04 & 5.786E+03 & 1.629E-10 \\
37 & 46.52 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 7.180E+04 & ...--7.479E+04 & 6.176E+03 & 1.642E-10 \\
38 & 47.52 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 7.816E+04 & ...--8.137E+04 & 6.583E+03 & 1.535E-10 \\
39 & 48.50 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 8.487E+04 & ...--8.838E+04 & 7.008E+03 & 1.362E-10 \\
40 & 49.53 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 9.229E+04 & ...--9.583E+04 & 7.450E+03 & 1.455E-10 \\
41 & 50.58 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 1.004E+05 & ...--1.037E+05 & 7.910E+03 & 1.182E-10 \\
42 & 51.51 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 1.080E+05 & ...--1.121E+05 & 8.390E+03 & 1.130E-10 \\
43 & 52.44 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 1.160E+05 & ...--1.210E+05 & 8.888E+03 & 1.002E-10 \\
44 & 53.50 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 1.257E+05 & ...--1.304E+05 & 9.405E+03 & 1.168E-10 \\
45 & 54.52 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 1.356E+05 & ...--1.404E+05 & 9.942E+03 & 8.805E-11 \\
46 & 55.50 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 1.456E+05 & ...--1.509E+05 & 1.050E+04 & 8.738E-11 \\
47 & 56.47 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 1.560E+05 & ...--1.619E+05 & 1.108E+04 & 8.125E-11 \\
48 & 57.43 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 1.669E+05 & ...--1.736E+05 & 1.168E+04 & 7.341E-11 \\
49 & 58.40 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 1.785E+05 & ...--1.859E+05 & 1.230E+04 & 6.877E-11 \\
50 & 59.42 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 1.913E+05 & ...--1.989E+05 & 1.294E+04 & 6.997E-11 \\
51 & 60.55 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 2.063E+05 & ...--2.125E+05 & 1.360E+04 & 7.356E-11 \\
52 & 61.61 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 2.212E+05 & ...--2.267E+05 & 1.429E+04 & 4.786E-11 \\
53 & 62.51 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 2.343E+05 & ...--2.417E+05 & 1.499E+04 & 4.997E-11 \\
54 & 63.46 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 2.488E+05 & ...--2.575E+05 & 1.572E+04 & 5.023E-11 \\
55 & 64.50 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 2.656E+05 & ...--2.739E+05 & 1.648E+04 & 4.553E-11 \\
56 & 65.53 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 2.829E+05 & ...--2.912E+05 & 1.726E+04 & 4.299E-11 \\
57 & 66.49 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 2.999E+05 & ...--3.092E+05 & 1.806E+04 & 3.318E-11 \\
58 & 67.52 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 3.190E+05 & ...--3.281E+05 & 1.889E+04 & 3.963E-11 \\
59 & 68.48 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 3.375E+05 & ...--3.479E+05 & 1.974E+04 & 2.736E-11 \\
60 & 69.46 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 3.572E+05 & ...--3.685E+05 & 2.062E+04 & 3.504E-11 \\
61 & 70.69 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 3.834E+05 & ...--3.900E+05 & 2.152E+04 & 3.102E-11 \\
62 & 71.48 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 4.006E+05 & ...--4.122E+05 & 2.222E+04 & 1.634E-11 \\
63 & 72.50 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 4.241E+05 & ...--4.356E+05 & 2.339E+04 & 2.943E-11 \\
64 & 73.55 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 4.491E+05 & ...--4.600E+05 & 2.437E+04 & 1.852E-11 \\
65 & 74.55 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 4.742E+05 & ...--4.854E+05 & 2.538E+04 & 2.210E-11 \\
66 & 75.58 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 5.008E+05 & ...--5.118E+05 & 2.642E+04 & 1.823E-11 \\
67 & 76.57 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 5.277E+05 & ...--5.393E+05 & 2.748E+04 & 1.661E-11 \\
68 & 77.59 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 5.562E+05 & ...--5.678E+05 & 2.857E+04 & 1.529E-11 \\
69 & 78.61 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 5.860E+05 & ...--5.975E+05 & 2.969E+04 & 1.557E-11 \\
70 & 79.68 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 6.187E+05 & ...--6.284E+05 & 3.084E+04 & 1.392E-11 \\
71 & 80.50 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 6.446E+05 & ...--6.604E+05 & 3.202E+04 & 9.894E-12 \\
72 & 81.50 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 6.773E+05 & ...--6.936E+05 & 3.323E+04 & 1.448E-11 \\
73 & 82.72 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 7.187E+05 & ...--7.281E+05 & 3.447E+04 & 1.124E-11 \\
74 & 83.47 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 7.454E+05 & ...--7.638E+05 & 3.574E+04 & 7.258E-12 \\
75 & 84.58 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 7.854E+05 & ...--8.009E+05 & 3.703E+04 & 1.113E-11 \\
76 & 85.45 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 8.182E+05 & ...--8.392E+05 & 3.837E+04 & 8.563E-12 \\
77 & 86.51 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 8.599E+05 & ...--8.790E+05 & 3.973E+04 & 4.639E-12 \\
78 & 87.56 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 9.025E+05 & ...--9.201E+05 & 4.112E+04 & 4.130E-12 \\
79 & 88.59 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 9.455E+05 & ...--9.626E+05 & 4.255E+04 & 4.246E-12 \\
80 & 89.67 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 9.921E+05 & ...--1.007E+06 & 4.401E+04 & 3.788E-12 \\
81 & 90.74 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 1.041E+06 & ...--1.052E+06 & 4.550E+04 & 3.266E-12 \\
82 & 91.53 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 1.077E+06 & ...--1.099E+06 & 4.702E+04 & 2.737E-12 \\
83 & 92.57 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 1.127E+06 & ...--1.148E+06 & 4.858E+04 & 3.756E-12 \\
84 & 93.53 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 1.175E+06 & ...--1.198E+06 & 5.017E+04 & 2.286E-12 \\
85 & 94.40 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 1.219E+06 & ...--1.250E+06 & 5.180E+04 & 2.294E-12 \\
86 & 95.47 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 1.276E+06 & ...--1.303E+06 & 5.346E+04 & 3.684E-12 \\
87 & 96.61 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 1.337E+06 & ...--1.358E+06 & 5.516E+04 & 1.892E-12 \\
88 & 97.50 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 1.387E+06 & ...--1.415E+06 & 5.689E+04 & 2.359E-12 \\
89 & 98.54 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 1.447E+06 & ...--1.474E+06 & 5.866E+04 & 2.047E-12 \\
90 & 99.59 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 1.510E+06 & ...--1.534E+06 & 6.047E+04 & 3.264E-12 \\
91 & 100.63 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 1.574E+06 & ...--1.597E+06 & 6.231E+04 & 1.556E-13 \\
92 & 101.14 & 101.01--101.22 & 0.22 & 1.606E+06 & ...--1.611E+06 & 1.459E+04 & 7.424E-14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.1~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thin (0.01~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A5}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.51 & 10.01--11.00 & 1.00 & 1.007E+02 & 1.830--206.3 & 2.044E+02 & 2.320E-08 \\
2 & 11.46 & 11.01--12.00 & 1.00 & 3.197E+02 & ...--4.606E+02 & 2.544E+02 & 1.248E-08 \\
3 & 12.47 & 12.01--13.00 & 1.00 & 6.013E+02 & ...--7.707E+02 & 3.101E+02 & 7.952E-09 \\
4 & 13.47 & 13.01--14.00 & 1.00 & 9.419E+02 & ...--1.143E+03 & 3.728E+02 & 5.426E-09 \\
5 & 14.47 & 14.01--15.00 & 1.00 & 1.345E+03 & ...--1.586E+03 & 4.429E+02 & 4.162E-09 \\
6 & 15.47 & 15.01--16.00 & 1.00 & 1.826E+03 & ...--2.107E+03 & 5.208E+02 & 3.319E-09 \\
7 & 16.50 & 16.01--17.00 & 1.00 & 2.405E+03 & ...--2.708E+03 & 6.003E+02 & 2.691E-09 \\
8 & 17.51 & 17.01--18.00 & 1.00 & 3.066E+03 & ...--3.408E+03 & 7.004E+02 & 2.178E-09 \\
9 & 18.53 & 18.01--19.00 & 1.00 & 3.830E+03 & ...--4.212E+03 & 8.037E+02 & 1.717E-09 \\
10 & 19.52 & 19.01--20.00 & 1.00 & 4.683E+03 & ...--5.128E+03 & 9.162E+02 & 1.432E-09 \\
11 & 20.46 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 5.608E+03 & ...--6.166E+03 & 1.038E+03 & 1.167E-09 \\
12 & 21.47 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 6.719E+03 & ...--7.337E+03 & 1.170E+03 & 1.121E-09 \\
13 & 22.52 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 8.024E+03 & ...--8.650E+03 & 1.313E+03 & 9.482E-10 \\
14 & 23.50 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 9.375E+03 & ...--1.012E+04 & 1.466E+03 & 7.318E-10 \\
15 & 24.46 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 1.086E+04 & ...--1.175E+04 & 1.630E+03 & 7.259E-10 \\
16 & 25.46 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 1.258E+04 & ...--1.355E+04 & 1.806E+03 & 6.015E-10 \\
17 & 26.46 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 1.448E+04 & ...--1.555E+04 & 1.994E+03 & 6.050E-10 \\
18 & 27.50 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 1.664E+04 & ...--1.774E+04 & 2.193E+03 & 5.306E-10 \\
19 & 28.52 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 1.898E+04 & ...--2.014E+04 & 2.405E+03 & 4.336E-10 \\
20 & 29.44 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 2.130E+04 & ...--2.278E+04 & 2.631E+03 & 3.869E-10 \\
21 & 30.46 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 2.411E+04 & ...--2.564E+04 & 2.869E+03 & 4.159E-10 \\
22 & 31.53 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 2.730E+04 & ...--2.877E+04 & 3.121E+03 & 4.016E-10 \\
23 & 32.55 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 3.062E+04 & ...--3.215E+04 & 3.387E+03 & 3.060E-10 \\
24 & 33.51 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 3.404E+04 & ...--3.582E+04 & 3.668E+03 & 3.173E-10 \\
25 & 34.51 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 3.787E+04 & ...--3.978E+04 & 3.963E+03 & 2.936E-10 \\
26 & 35.52 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 4.201E+04 & ...--4.406E+04 & 4.274E+03 & 2.677E-10 \\
27 & 36.45 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 4.615E+04 & ...--4.866E+04 & 4.599E+03 & 2.340E-10 \\
28 & 37.41 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 5.069E+04 & ...--5.360E+04 & 4.941E+03 & 2.518E-10 \\
29 & 38.49 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 5.625E+04 & ...--5.890E+04 & 5.299E+03 & 2.465E-10 \\
30 & 39.52 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 6.185E+04 & ...--6.457E+04 & 5.674E+03 & 2.114E-10 \\
31 & 40.53 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 6.782E+04 & ...--7.064E+04 & 6.065E+03 & 2.003E-10 \\
32 & 41.49 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 7.387E+04 & ...--7.711E+04 & 6.474E+03 & 1.703E-10 \\
33 & 42.50 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 8.059E+04 & ...--8.401E+04 & 6.901E+03 & 1.931E-10 \\
34 & 43.55 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 8.812E+04 & ...--9.143E+04 & 7.421E+03 & 1.555E-10 \\
35 & 44.54 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 9.560E+04 & ...--9.925E+04 & 7.814E+03 & 1.442E-10 \\
36 & 45.52 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 1.035E+05 & ...--1.075E+05 & 8.296E+03 & 1.289E-10 \\
37 & 46.51 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 1.120E+05 & ...--1.163E+05 & 8.797E+03 & 1.404E-10 \\
38 & 47.49 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 1.208E+05 & ...--1.257E+05 & 9.318E+03 & 1.039E-10 \\
39 & 48.48 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 1.304E+05 & ...--1.355E+05 & 9.859E+03 & 1.202E-10 \\
40 & 49.53 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 1.409E+05 & ...--1.459E+05 & 1.042E+04 & 1.021E-10 \\
41 & 50.51 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 1.515E+05 & ...--1.569E+05 & 1.100E+04 & 9.419E-11 \\
42 & 51.52 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 1.629E+05 & ...--1.685E+05 & 1.159E+04 & 9.141E-11 \\
43 & 52.49 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 1.744E+05 & ...--1.807E+05 & 1.217E+04 & 8.003E-11 \\
44 & 53.45 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 1.864E+05 & ...--1.935E+05 & 1.277E+04 & 6.928E-11 \\
45 & 54.49 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 1.999E+05 & ...--2.068E+05 & 1.339E+04 & 8.063E-11 \\
46 & 55.60 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 2.152E+05 & ...--2.209E+05 & 1.403E+04 & 6.966E-11 \\
47 & 56.54 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 2.287E+05 & ...--2.356E+05 & 1.469E+04 & 4.714E-11 \\
48 & 57.51 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 2.434E+05 & ...--2.509E+05 & 1.537E+04 & 6.604E-11 \\
49 & 58.50 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 2.589E+05 & ...--2.670E+05 & 1.607E+04 & 4.430E-11 \\
50 & 59.54 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 2.760E+05 & ...--2.838E+05 & 1.680E+04 & 5.481E-11 \\
51 & 60.61 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 2.945E+05 & ...--3.013E+05 & 1.754E+04 & 4.411E-11 \\
52 & 61.60 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 3.122E+05 & ...--3.197E+05 & 1.831E+04 & 3.895E-11 \\
53 & 62.57 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 3.305E+05 & ...--3.388E+05 & 1.911E+04 & 3.242E-11 \\
54 & 63.38 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 3.462E+05 & ...--3.587E+05 & 1.993E+04 & 2.914E-11 \\
55 & 64.36 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 3.661E+05 & ...--3.795E+05 & 2.077E+04 & 3.448E-11 \\
56 & 65.52 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 3.907E+05 & ...--4.011E+05 & 2.163E+04 & 3.253E-11 \\
57 & 66.58 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 4.141E+05 & ...--4.236E+05 & 2.252E+04 & 2.558E-11 \\
58 & 67.51 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 4.354E+05 & ...--4.470E+05 & 2.343E+04 & 1.970E-11 \\
59 & 68.44 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 4.578E+05 & ...--4.714E+05 & 2.437E+04 & 2.419E-11 \\
60 & 69.51 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 4.843E+05 & ...--4.968E+05 & 2.534E+04 & 2.295E-11 \\
61 & 70.59 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 5.123E+05 & ...--5.231E+05 & 2.633E+04 & 1.848E-11 \\
62 & 71.58 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 5.389E+05 & ...--5.502E+05 & 2.707E+04 & 1.736E-11 \\
63 & 72.63 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 5.681E+05 & ...--5.785E+05 & 2.838E+04 & 1.676E-11 \\
64 & 73.57 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 5.956E+05 & ...--6.080E+05 & 2.945E+04 & 1.130E-11 \\
65 & 74.43 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 6.215E+05 & ...--6.385E+05 & 3.055E+04 & 1.532E-11 \\
66 & 75.45 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 6.530E+05 & ...--6.702E+05 & 3.168E+04 & 1.292E-11 \\
67 & 76.60 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 6.901E+05 & ...--7.030E+05 & 3.283E+04 & 1.547E-11 \\
68 & 77.52 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 7.209E+05 & ...--7.371E+05 & 3.401E+04 & 7.456E-12 \\
69 & 78.52 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 7.555E+05 & ...--7.723E+05 & 3.523E+04 & 1.327E-11 \\
70 & 79.54 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 7.921E+05 & ...--8.088E+05 & 3.647E+04 & 6.240E-12 \\
71 & 80.42 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 8.247E+05 & ...--8.465E+05 & 3.774E+04 & 1.089E-11 \\
72 & 81.52 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 8.672E+05 & ...--8.855E+05 & 3.904E+04 & 1.008E-11 \\
73 & 82.33 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 8.990E+05 & ...--9.259E+05 & 4.037E+04 & 4.458E-12 \\
74 & 83.37 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 9.416E+05 & ...--9.676E+05 & 4.173E+04 & 5.387E-12 \\
75 & 84.42 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 9.861E+05 & ...--1.011E+06 & 4.312E+04 & 4.180E-12 \\
76 & 85.46 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 1.031E+06 & ...--1.055E+06 & 4.455E+04 & 4.453E-12 \\
77 & 86.61 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 1.084E+06 & ...--1.101E+06 & 4.600E+04 & 4.038E-12 \\
78 & 87.43 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 1.122E+06 & ...--1.149E+06 & 4.749E+04 & 2.797E-12 \\
79 & 88.47 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 1.172E+06 & ...--1.198E+06 & 4.901E+04 & 3.928E-12 \\
80 & 89.49 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 1.223E+06 & ...--1.248E+06 & 5.057E+04 & 2.149E-12 \\
81 & 90.36 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 1.267E+06 & ...--1.301E+06 & 5.215E+04 & 2.294E-12 \\
82 & 91.44 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 1.325E+06 & ...--1.354E+06 & 5.377E+04 & 3.546E-12 \\
83 & 92.59 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 1.388E+06 & ...--1.410E+06 & 5.543E+04 & 1.942E-12 \\
84 & 93.54 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 1.441E+06 & ...--1.467E+06 & 5.712E+04 & 2.385E-12 \\
85 & 94.61 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 1.503E+06 & ...--1.526E+06 & 5.884E+04 & 1.974E-12 \\
86 & 95.59 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 1.562E+06 & ...--1.586E+06 & 6.060E+04 & 2.370E-12 \\
87 & 96.11 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 1.594E+06 & ...--1.649E+06 & 6.240E+04 & 1.114E-12 \\
88 & 97.24 & 97.01--97.45 & 0.45 & 1.665E+06 & ...--1.678E+06 & 2.931E+04 & 1.455E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.1~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thick (0.03~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A6}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.37 & 10.01--11.00 & 1.00 & 1.986E+02 & 5.006--558.2 & 5.532E+02 & 5.541E-08 \\
2 & 11.44 & 11.01--12.00 & 1.00 & 8.457E+02 & ...--1.233E+03 & 6.746E+02 & 1.585E-08 \\
3 & 12.46 & 12.01--13.00 & 1.00 & 1.594E+03 & ...--2.039E+03 & 8.064E+02 & 8.094E-09 \\
4 & 13.47 & 13.01--14.00 & 1.00 & 2.477E+03 & ...--2.991E+03 & 9.516E+02 & 5.442E-09 \\
5 & 14.48 & 14.01--15.00 & 1.00 & 3.513E+03 & ...--4.101E+03 & 1.111E+03 & 3.683E-09 \\
6 & 15.49 & 15.01--16.00 & 1.00 & 4.716E+03 & ...--5.385E+03 & 1.284E+03 & 2.769E-09 \\
7 & 16.48 & 16.01--17.00 & 1.00 & 6.082E+03 & ...--6.840E+03 & 1.455E+03 & 2.079E-09 \\
8 & 17.49 & 17.01--18.00 & 1.00 & 7.661E+03 & ...--8.512E+03 & 1.671E+03 & 1.718E-09 \\
9 & 18.50 & 18.01--19.00 & 1.00 & 9.460E+03 & ...--1.040E+04 & 1.889E+03 & 1.393E-09 \\
10 & 19.50 & 19.01--20.00 & 1.00 & 1.147E+04 & ...--1.252E+04 & 2.122E+03 & 1.175E-09 \\
11 & 20.53 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 1.378E+04 & ...--1.489E+04 & 2.371E+03 & 1.034E-09 \\
12 & 21.53 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 1.630E+04 & ...--1.753E+04 & 2.636E+03 & 8.607E-10 \\
13 & 22.49 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 1.897E+04 & ...--2.045E+04 & 2.918E+03 & 7.430E-10 \\
14 & 23.47 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 2.196E+04 & ...--2.366E+04 & 3.217E+03 & 6.746E-10 \\
15 & 24.48 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 2.537E+04 & ...--2.720E+04 & 3.533E+03 & 6.430E-10 \\
16 & 25.52 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 2.921E+04 & ...--3.106E+04 & 3.867E+03 & 5.886E-10 \\
17 & 26.50 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 3.318E+04 & ...--3.528E+04 & 4.220E+03 & 4.653E-10 \\
18 & 27.48 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 3.752E+04 & ...--3.987E+04 & 4.591E+03 & 4.875E-10 \\
19 & 28.51 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 4.242E+04 & ...--4.486E+04 & 4.980E+03 & 4.309E-10 \\
20 & 29.51 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 4.760E+04 & ...--5.024E+04 & 5.389E+03 & 3.953E-10 \\
21 & 30.50 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 5.320E+04 & ...--5.606E+04 & 5.818E+03 & 3.745E-10 \\
22 & 31.54 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 5.946E+04 & ...--6.233E+04 & 6.267E+03 & 3.363E-10 \\
23 & 32.52 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 6.587E+04 & ...--6.906E+04 & 6.736E+03 & 2.983E-10 \\
24 & 33.51 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 7.276E+04 & ...--7.629E+04 & 7.225E+03 & 2.892E-10 \\
25 & 34.53 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 8.044E+04 & ...--8.403E+04 & 7.736E+03 & 2.653E-10 \\
26 & 35.50 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 8.820E+04 & ...--9.229E+04 & 8.268E+03 & 2.280E-10 \\
27 & 36.48 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 9.656E+04 & ...--1.011E+05 & 8.823E+03 & 2.214E-10 \\
28 & 37.48 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 1.057E+05 & ...--1.105E+05 & 9.399E+03 & 2.048E-10 \\
29 & 38.50 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 1.155E+05 & ...--1.205E+05 & 9.998E+03 & 1.830E-10 \\
30 & 39.52 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 1.261E+05 & ...--1.311E+05 & 1.062E+04 & 1.845E-10 \\
31 & 40.51 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 1.369E+05 & ...--1.424E+05 & 1.126E+04 & 1.432E-10 \\
32 & 41.48 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 1.482E+05 & ...--1.543E+05 & 1.193E+04 & 1.483E-10 \\
33 & 42.51 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 1.608E+05 & ...--1.670E+05 & 1.263E+04 & 1.348E-10 \\
34 & 43.51 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 1.738E+05 & ...--1.804E+05 & 1.348E+04 & 1.142E-10 \\
35 & 44.46 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 1.869E+05 & ...--1.945E+05 & 1.409E+04 & 1.053E-10 \\
36 & 45.44 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 2.011E+05 & ...--2.094E+05 & 1.486E+04 & 1.012E-10 \\
37 & 46.47 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 2.167E+05 & ...--2.250E+05 & 1.565E+04 & 9.383E-11 \\
38 & 47.43 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 2.320E+05 & ...--2.415E+05 & 1.647E+04 & 8.224E-11 \\
39 & 48.50 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 2.501E+05 & ...--2.588E+05 & 1.732E+04 & 8.679E-11 \\
40 & 49.50 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 2.679E+05 & ...--2.770E+05 & 1.819E+04 & 6.438E-11 \\
41 & 50.45 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 2.855E+05 & ...--2.961E+05 & 1.909E+04 & 6.791E-11 \\
42 & 51.54 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 3.069E+05 & ...--3.161E+05 & 1.996E+04 & 6.824E-11 \\
43 & 52.59 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 3.283E+05 & ...--3.368E+05 & 2.075E+04 & 5.332E-11 \\
44 & 53.51 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 3.477E+05 & ...--3.584E+05 & 2.156E+04 & 4.362E-11 \\
45 & 54.47 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 3.688E+05 & ...--3.808E+05 & 2.240E+04 & 4.710E-11 \\
46 & 55.57 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 3.940E+05 & ...--4.040E+05 & 2.325E+04 & 4.780E-11 \\
47 & 56.62 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 4.189E+05 & ...--4.282E+05 & 2.413E+04 & 3.082E-11 \\
48 & 57.45 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 4.394E+05 & ...--4.532E+05 & 2.503E+04 & 3.356E-11 \\
49 & 58.52 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 4.667E+05 & ...--4.791E+05 & 2.595E+04 & 3.452E-11 \\
50 & 59.51 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 4.928E+05 & ...--5.060E+05 & 2.690E+04 & 2.456E-11 \\
51 & 60.47 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 5.192E+05 & ...--5.339E+05 & 2.786E+04 & 2.860E-11 \\
52 & 61.51 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 5.484E+05 & ...--5.628E+05 & 2.886E+04 & 2.321E-11 \\
53 & 62.51 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 5.780E+05 & ...--5.926E+05 & 2.987E+04 & 1.588E-11 \\
54 & 63.47 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 6.072E+05 & ...--6.236E+05 & 3.092E+04 & 1.993E-11 \\
55 & 64.65 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 6.443E+05 & ...--6.555E+05 & 3.198E+04 & 1.666E-11 \\
56 & 65.59 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 6.748E+05 & ...--6.886E+05 & 3.307E+04 & 1.178E-11 \\
57 & 66.44 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 7.037E+05 & ...--7.228E+05 & 3.419E+04 & 1.497E-11 \\
58 & 67.55 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 7.421E+05 & ...--7.581E+05 & 3.533E+04 & 1.376E-11 \\
59 & 68.51 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 7.765E+05 & ...--7.946E+05 & 3.650E+04 & 9.556E-12 \\
60 & 69.43 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 8.109E+05 & ...--8.323E+05 & 3.770E+04 & 1.235E-11 \\
61 & 70.56 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 8.540E+05 & ...--8.713E+05 & 3.892E+04 & 8.451E-12 \\
62 & 71.37 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 8.858E+05 & ...--9.110E+05 & 3.976E+04 & 1.017E-11 \\
63 & 72.40 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 9.280E+05 & ...--9.525E+05 & 4.144E+04 & 8.817E-12 \\
64 & 73.39 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 9.696E+05 & ...--9.952E+05 & 4.274E+04 & 8.169E-12 \\
65 & 74.30 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 1.009E+06 & ...--1.039E+06 & 4.408E+04 & 7.420E-12 \\
66 & 75.37 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 1.056E+06 & ...--1.085E+06 & 4.544E+04 & 5.830E-12 \\
67 & 76.43 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 1.105E+06 & ...--1.132E+06 & 4.683E+04 & 5.096E-12 \\
68 & 77.59 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 1.160E+06 & ...--1.180E+06 & 4.825E+04 & 4.911E-12 \\
69 & 78.47 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 1.203E+06 & ...--1.229E+06 & 4.970E+04 & 3.236E-12 \\
70 & 79.48 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 1.255E+06 & ...--1.281E+06 & 5.118E+04 & 5.218E-12 \\
71 & 80.48 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 1.306E+06 & ...--1.333E+06 & 5.270E+04 & 3.376E-12 \\
72 & 81.42 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 1.356E+06 & ...--1.388E+06 & 5.424E+04 & 2.252E-12 \\
73 & 82.53 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 1.418E+06 & ...--1.443E+06 & 5.581E+04 & 3.492E-12 \\
74 & 83.67 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 1.482E+06 & ...--1.501E+06 & 5.742E+04 & 1.873E-12 \\
75 & 84.57 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 1.535E+06 & ...--1.560E+06 & 5.905E+04 & 2.051E-12 \\
76 & 85.55 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 1.594E+06 & ...--1.621E+06 & 6.072E+04 & 1.877E-12 \\
77 & 86.62 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 1.660E+06 & ...--1.683E+06 & 6.243E+04 & 2.310E-12 \\
78 & 87.39 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 1.708E+06 & ...--1.747E+06 & 6.416E+04 & 1.849E-12 \\
79 & 88.54 & 88.01--88.88 & 0.88 & 1.784E+06 & ...--1.806E+06 & 5.859E+04 & 1.864E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.2~$\mu$m bare olivine grains at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A7}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.31 & 10.01--10.50 & 0.50 & 1.647E+02 & 4.925--267.8 & 2.629E+02 & 4.439E-08 \\
2 & 10.74 & 10.51--11.00 & 0.50 & 4.103E+02 & ...--5.738E+02 & 3.060E+02 & 3.706E-08 \\
3 & 11.24 & 11.01--11.50 & 0.50 & 7.366E+02 & ...--9.245E+02 & 3.507E+02 & 2.641E-08 \\
4 & 11.74 & 11.51--12.00 & 0.50 & 1.113E+03 & ...--1.324E+03 & 3.995E+02 & 1.871E-08 \\
5 & 12.25 & 12.01--12.50 & 0.50 & 1.548E+03 & ...--1.777E+03 & 4.526E+02 & 1.595E-08 \\
6 & 12.75 & 12.51--13.00 & 0.50 & 2.025E+03 & ...--2.287E+03 & 5.103E+02 & 1.082E-08 \\
7 & 13.26 & 13.01--13.50 & 0.50 & 2.579E+03 & ...--2.860E+03 & 5.726E+02 & 1.183E-08 \\
8 & 13.80 & 13.51--14.00 & 0.50 & 3.234E+03 & ...--3.499E+03 & 6.399E+02 & 8.699E-09 \\
9 & 14.29 & 14.01--14.50 & 0.50 & 3.900E+03 & ...--4.212E+03 & 7.122E+02 & 6.821E-09 \\
10 & 14.76 & 14.51--15.00 & 0.50 & 4.613E+03 & ...--5.001E+03 & 7.897E+02 & 5.969E-09 \\
11 & 15.24 & 15.01--15.50 & 0.50 & 5.413E+03 & ...--5.874E+03 & 8.727E+02 & 6.286E-09 \\
12 & 15.74 & 15.51--16.00 & 0.50 & 6.329E+03 & ...--6.835E+03 & 9.613E+02 & 4.544E-09 \\
13 & 16.22 & 16.01--16.50 & 0.50 & 7.304E+03 & ...--7.891E+03 & 1.056E+03 & 4.355E-09 \\
14 & 16.74 & 16.51--17.00 & 0.50 & 8.445E+03 & ...--9.023E+03 & 1.132E+03 & 4.181E-09 \\
15 & 17.27 & 17.01--17.50 & 0.50 & 9.727E+03 & ...--1.028E+04 & 1.261E+03 & 3.650E-09 \\
16 & 17.79 & 17.51--18.00 & 0.50 & 1.110E+04 & ...--1.166E+04 & 1.373E+03 & 3.100E-09 \\
17 & 18.26 & 18.01--18.50 & 0.50 & 1.245E+04 & ...--1.315E+04 & 1.493E+03 & 2.473E-09 \\
18 & 18.72 & 18.51--19.00 & 0.50 & 1.388E+04 & ...--1.477E+04 & 1.619E+03 & 2.124E-09 \\
19 & 19.22 & 19.01--19.50 & 0.50 & 1.558E+04 & ...--1.652E+04 & 1.752E+03 & 2.708E-09 \\
20 & 19.74 & 19.51--20.00 & 0.50 & 1.747E+04 & ...--1.841E+04 & 1.892E+03 & 1.967E-09 \\
21 & 20.24 & 20.01--20.50 & 0.50 & 1.943E+04 & ...--2.045E+04 & 2.039E+03 & 1.882E-09 \\
22 & 20.73 & 20.51--21.00 & 0.50 & 2.148E+04 & ...--2.264E+04 & 2.194E+03 & 1.725E-09 \\
23 & 21.23 & 21.01--21.50 & 0.50 & 2.375E+04 & ...--2.500E+04 & 2.356E+03 & 1.549E-09 \\
24 & 21.71 & 21.51--22.00 & 0.50 & 2.612E+04 & ...--2.753E+04 & 2.527E+03 & 1.311E-09 \\
25 & 22.17 & 22.01--22.50 & 0.50 & 2.849E+04 & ...--3.023E+04 & 2.705E+03 & 1.396E-09 \\
26 & 22.70 & 22.51--23.00 & 0.50 & 3.141E+04 & ...--3.312E+04 & 2.891E+03 & 1.411E-09 \\
27 & 23.24 & 23.01--23.50 & 0.50 & 3.463E+04 & ...--3.621E+04 & 3.086E+03 & 1.322E-09 \\
28 & 23.77 & 23.51--24.00 & 0.50 & 3.806E+04 & ...--3.950E+04 & 3.289E+03 & 1.070E-09 \\
29 & 24.29 & 24.01--24.50 & 0.50 & 4.160E+04 & ...--4.300E+04 & 3.502E+03 & 1.154E-09 \\
30 & 24.80 & 24.51--25.00 & 0.50 & 4.525E+04 & ...--4.672E+04 & 3.723E+03 & 8.344E-10 \\
31 & 25.26 & 25.01--25.50 & 0.50 & 4.889E+04 & ...--5.068E+04 & 3.953E+03 & 9.452E-10 \\
32 & 25.74 & 25.51--26.00 & 0.50 & 5.272E+04 & ...--5.487E+04 & 4.192E+03 & 8.677E-10 \\
33 & 26.22 & 26.01--26.50 & 0.50 & 5.685E+04 & ...--5.931E+04 & 4.441E+03 & 8.833E-10 \\
34 & 26.76 & 26.51--27.00 & 0.50 & 6.188E+04 & ...--6.401E+04 & 4.700E+03 & 9.062E-10 \\
35 & 27.27 & 27.01--27.50 & 0.50 & 6.674E+04 & ...--6.898E+04 & 4.968E+03 & 7.539E-10 \\
36 & 27.77 & 27.51--28.00 & 0.50 & 7.191E+04 & ...--7.423E+04 & 5.247E+03 & 7.287E-10 \\
37 & 28.27 & 28.01--28.50 & 0.50 & 7.728E+04 & ...--7.976E+04 & 5.536E+03 & 7.143E-10 \\
38 & 28.77 & 28.51--29.00 & 0.50 & 8.306E+04 & ...--8.560E+04 & 5.835E+03 & 7.153E-10 \\
39 & 29.27 & 29.01--29.50 & 0.50 & 8.903E+04 & ...--9.174E+04 & 6.145E+03 & 6.561E-10 \\
40 & 29.77 & 29.51--30.00 & 0.50 & 9.536E+04 & ...--9.821E+04 & 6.465E+03 & 6.085E-10 \\
41 & 30.21 & 30.01--30.50 & 0.50 & 1.011E+05 & ...--1.050E+05 & 6.797E+03 & 5.552E-10 \\
42 & 30.74 & 30.51--31.00 & 0.50 & 1.085E+05 & ...--1.121E+05 & 7.139E+03 & 6.356E-10 \\
43 & 31.29 & 31.01--31.50 & 0.50 & 1.166E+05 & ...--1.196E+05 & 7.493E+03 & 5.761E-10 \\
44 & 31.79 & 31.51--32.00 & 0.50 & 1.243E+05 & ...--1.275E+05 & 7.859E+03 & 5.468E-10 \\
45 & 32.25 & 32.01--32.50 & 0.50 & 1.318E+05 & ...--1.357E+05 & 8.236E+03 & 4.449E-10 \\
46 & 32.75 & 32.51--33.00 & 0.50 & 1.401E+05 & ...--1.444E+05 & 8.625E+03 & 5.302E-10 \\
47 & 33.23 & 33.01--33.50 & 0.50 & 1.487E+05 & ...--1.534E+05 & 9.026E+03 & 3.925E-10 \\
48 & 33.71 & 33.51--34.00 & 0.50 & 1.575E+05 & ...--1.628E+05 & 9.439E+03 & 4.940E-10 \\
49 & 34.26 & 34.01--34.50 & 0.50 & 1.681E+05 & ...--1.727E+05 & 9.865E+03 & 4.765E-10 \\
50 & 34.81 & 34.51--35.00 & 0.50 & 1.792E+05 & ...--1.830E+05 & 1.030E+04 & 3.926E-10 \\
51 & 35.24 & 35.01--35.50 & 0.50 & 1.884E+05 & ...--1.937E+05 & 1.075E+04 & 3.662E-10 \\
52 & 35.82 & 35.51--36.00 & 0.50 & 2.011E+05 & ...--2.050E+05 & 1.122E+04 & 4.314E-10 \\
53 & 36.27 & 36.01--36.50 & 0.50 & 2.115E+05 & ...--2.167E+05 & 1.170E+04 & 2.067E-10 \\
54 & 36.70 & 36.51--37.00 & 0.50 & 2.218E+05 & ...--2.288E+05 & 1.219E+04 & 3.968E-10 \\
55 & 37.26 & 37.01--37.50 & 0.50 & 2.357E+05 & ...--2.415E+05 & 1.269E+04 & 3.376E-10 \\
56 & 37.74 & 37.51--38.00 & 0.50 & 2.482E+05 & ...--2.547E+05 & 1.321E+04 & 2.700E-10 \\
57 & 38.26 & 38.01--38.50 & 0.50 & 2.621E+05 & ...--2.685E+05 & 1.374E+04 & 3.333E-10 \\
58 & 38.79 & 38.51--39.00 & 0.50 & 2.769E+05 & ...--2.828E+05 & 1.429E+04 & 2.495E-10 \\
59 & 39.23 & 39.01--39.50 & 0.50 & 2.897E+05 & ...--2.976E+05 & 1.485E+04 & 2.478E-10 \\
60 & 39.78 & 39.51--40.00 & 0.50 & 3.066E+05 & ...--3.130E+05 & 1.542E+04 & 2.950E-10 \\
61 & 40.30 & 40.01--40.50 & 0.50 & 3.228E+05 & ...--3.290E+05 & 1.601E+04 & 2.045E-10 \\
62 & 40.72 & 40.51--41.00 & 0.50 & 3.364E+05 & ...--3.457E+05 & 1.661E+04 & 2.169E-10 \\
63 & 41.24 & 41.01--41.50 & 0.50 & 3.541E+05 & ...--3.629E+05 & 1.723E+04 & 2.493E-10 \\
64 & 41.84 & 41.51--42.00 & 0.50 & 3.752E+05 & ...--3.808E+05 & 1.787E+04 & 2.157E-10 \\
65 & 42.22 & 42.01--42.50 & 0.50 & 3.891E+05 & ...--3.993E+05 & 1.852E+04 & 1.172E-10 \\
66 & 42.70 & 42.51--43.00 & 0.50 & 4.073E+05 & ...--4.185E+05 & 1.918E+04 & 2.379E-10 \\
67 & 43.26 & 43.01--43.50 & 0.50 & 4.293E+05 & ...--4.383E+05 & 1.986E+04 & 1.348E-10 \\
68 & 43.71 & 43.51--44.00 & 0.50 & 4.471E+05 & ...--4.593E+05 & 2.098E+04 & 2.058E-10 \\
69 & 44.32 & 44.01--44.50 & 0.50 & 4.728E+05 & ...--4.806E+05 & 2.129E+04 & 1.486E-10 \\
70 & 44.76 & 44.51--45.00 & 0.50 & 4.919E+05 & ...--5.026E+05 & 2.202E+04 & 1.605E-10 \\
71 & 45.30 & 45.01--45.50 & 0.50 & 5.161E+05 & ...--5.254E+05 & 2.276E+04 & 1.323E-10 \\
72 & 45.76 & 45.51--46.00 & 0.50 & 5.376E+05 & ...--5.489E+05 & 2.353E+04 & 1.345E-10 \\
73 & 46.30 & 46.01--46.50 & 0.50 & 5.635E+05 & ...--5.732E+05 & 2.431E+04 & 1.343E-10 \\
74 & 46.80 & 46.51--47.00 & 0.50 & 5.883E+05 & ...--5.983E+05 & 2.510E+04 & 1.106E-10 \\
75 & 47.23 & 47.01--47.50 & 0.50 & 6.099E+05 & ...--6.242E+05 & 2.592E+04 & 1.084E-10 \\
76 & 47.79 & 47.51--48.00 & 0.50 & 6.394E+05 & ...--6.510E+05 & 2.675E+04 & 1.253E-10 \\
77 & 48.33 & 48.01--48.50 & 0.50 & 6.690E+05 & ...--6.786E+05 & 2.760E+04 & 9.406E-11 \\
78 & 48.81 & 48.51--49.00 & 0.50 & 6.962E+05 & ...--7.070E+05 & 2.846E+04 & 8.835E-11 \\
79 & 49.24 & 49.01--49.50 & 0.50 & 7.212E+05 & ...--7.364E+05 & 2.935E+04 & 7.939E-11 \\
80 & 49.76 & 49.51--50.00 & 0.50 & 7.520E+05 & ...--7.666E+05 & 3.025E+04 & 9.377E-11 \\
81 & 50.20 & 50.01--50.50 & 0.50 & 7.792E+05 & ...--7.978E+05 & 3.117E+04 & 7.762E-11 \\
82 & 50.79 & 50.51--51.00 & 0.50 & 8.163E+05 & ...--8.299E+05 & 3.211E+04 & 6.858E-11 \\
83 & 51.17 & 51.01--51.50 & 0.50 & 8.411E+05 & ...--8.630E+05 & 3.307E+04 & 8.131E-11 \\
84 & 51.81 & 51.51--52.00 & 0.50 & 8.839E+05 & ...--8.970E+05 & 3.405E+04 & 6.343E-11 \\
85 & 52.25 & 52.01--52.50 & 0.50 & 9.144E+05 & ...--9.321E+05 & 3.504E+04 & 7.879E-11 \\
86 & 52.81 & 52.51--53.00 & 0.50 & 9.546E+05 & ...--9.681E+05 & 3.606E+04 & 5.841E-11 \\
87 & 53.25 & 53.01--53.50 & 0.50 & 9.866E+05 & ...--1.005E+06 & 3.709E+04 & 4.524E-11 \\
88 & 53.77 & 53.51--54.00 & 0.50 & 1.026E+06 & ...--1.043E+06 & 3.815E+04 & 6.407E-11 \\
89 & 54.20 & 54.01--54.50 & 0.50 & 1.059E+06 & ...--1.083E+06 & 3.922E+04 & 3.929E-11 \\
90 & 54.74 & 54.51--55.00 & 0.50 & 1.102E+06 & ...--1.123E+06 & 4.032E+04 & 5.999E-11 \\
91 & 55.25 & 55.01--55.50 & 0.50 & 1.144E+06 & ...--1.164E+06 & 4.143E+04 & 4.162E-11 \\
92 & 55.75 & 55.51--56.00 & 0.50 & 1.186E+06 & ...--1.207E+06 & 4.257E+04 & 4.039E-11 \\
93 & 56.24 & 56.01--56.50 & 0.50 & 1.228E+06 & ...--1.251E+06 & 4.372E+04 & 4.132E-11 \\
94 & 56.69 & 56.51--57.00 & 0.50 & 1.268E+06 & ...--1.296E+06 & 4.490E+04 & 4.140E-11 \\
95 & 57.25 & 57.01--57.50 & 0.50 & 1.318E+06 & ...--1.342E+06 & 4.609E+04 & 3.170E-11 \\
96 & 57.63 & 57.51--58.00 & 0.50 & 1.354E+06 & ...--1.389E+06 & 4.731E+04 & 4.059E-11 \\
97 & 58.24 & 58.01--58.50 & 0.50 & 1.412E+06 & ...--1.437E+06 & 4.855E+04 & 2.869E-11 \\
98 & 58.62 & 58.51--59.00 & 0.50 & 1.450E+06 & ...--1.487E+06 & 4.981E+04 & 4.088E-11 \\
99 & 59.16 & 59.01--59.50 & 0.50 & 1.503E+06 & ...--1.538E+06 & 5.110E+04 & 1.989E-11 \\
100 & 59.71 & 59.51--60.00 & 0.50 & 1.560E+06 & ...--1.591E+06 & 5.240E+04 & 4.687E-11 \\
101 & 60.27 & 60.01--60.50 & 0.50 & 1.619E+06 & ...--1.645E+06 & 5.373E+04 & 1.625E-11 \\
102 & 60.83 & 60.51--61.00 & 0.50 & 1.681E+06 & ...--1.700E+06 & 5.507E+04 & 3.460E-11 \\
103 & 61.27 & 61.01--61.50 & 0.50 & 1.730E+06 & ...--1.756E+06 & 5.644E+04 & 2.130E-11 \\
104 & 61.62 & 61.51--62.00 & 0.50 & 1.771E+06 & ...--1.814E+06 & 5.784E+04 & 2.377E-11 \\
105 & 62.24 & 62.01--62.50 & 0.50 & 1.843E+06 & ...--1.873E+06 & 5.925E+04 & 1.674E-11 \\
106 & 62.80 & 62.51--63.00 & 0.50 & 1.909E+06 & ...--1.934E+06 & 6.069E+04 & 5.316E-12 \\
107 & 63.12 & 63.01--63.50 & 0.50 & 1.949E+06 & ...--1.996E+06 & 6.216E+04 & 1.485E-11 \\
108 & 63.80 & 63.51--64.00 & 0.50 & 2.034E+06 & ...--2.060E+06 & 6.364E+04 & 1.388E-11 \\
109 & 64.32 & 64.01--64.50 & 0.50 & 2.101E+06 & ...--2.125E+06 & 6.515E+04 & 4.639E-12 \\
110 & 64.63 & 64.51--65.00 & 0.50 & 2.142E+06 & ...--2.191E+06 & 6.668E+04 & 1.329E-11 \\
111 & 65.38 & 65.01--65.50 & 0.50 & 2.244E+06 & ...--2.260E+06 & 6.824E+04 & 1.106E-11 \\
112 & 65.83 & 65.51--66.00 & 0.50 & 2.306E+06 & ...--2.330E+06 & 6.982E+04 & 8.775E-12 \\
113 & 66.32 & 66.01--66.50 & 0.50 & 2.376E+06 & ...--2.401E+06 & 7.142E+04 & 8.924E-12 \\
114 & 66.86 & 66.51--67.00 & 0.50 & 2.453E+06 & ...--2.474E+06 & 7.305E+04 & 8.870E-12 \\
115 & 67.37 & 67.01--67.50 & 0.50 & 2.528E+06 & ...--2.549E+06 & 7.471E+04 & 8.029E-12 \\
116 & 67.88 & 67.51--68.00 & 0.50 & 2.607E+06 & ...--2.625E+06 & 7.639E+04 & 7.585E-12 \\
117 & 68.40 & 68.01--68.50 & 0.50 & 2.688E+06 & ...--2.703E+06 & 7.809E+04 & 7.600E-12 \\
118 & 68.88 & 68.51--69.00 & 0.50 & 2.764E+06 & ...--2.783E+06 & 7.982E+04 & 8.045E-12 \\
119 & 69.23 & 69.01--69.50 & 0.50 & 2.820E+06 & ...--3.173E+06 & 8.157E+04 & 2.247E-12 \\
120 & 69.63 & 69.51--70.00 & 0.50 & 2.887E+06 & ...--2.948E+06 & 8.335E+04 & 7.008E-12 \\
121 & 70.15 & 70.01--70.50 & 0.50 & 2.974E+06 & ...--3.033E+06 & 8.516E+04 & 6.795E-12 \\
122 & 70.76 & 70.51--71.00 & 0.50 & 3.077E+06 & ...--3.120E+06 & 8.699E+04 & 7.249E-12 \\
123 & 71.31 & 71.01--71.50 & 0.50 & 3.175E+06 & ...--3.209E+06 & 8.884E+04 & 5.272E-12 \\
124 & 71.78 & 71.51--72.00 & 0.50 & 3.260E+06 & ...--3.298E+06 & 8.889E+04 & 8.647E-12 \\
125 & 72.05 & 72.01--72.50 & 0.50 & 3.310E+06 & ...--3.390E+06 & 9.260E+04 & 2.827E-12 \\
126 & 72.80 & 72.51--72.97 & 0.47 & 3.449E+06 & ...--3.481E+06 & 9.072E+04 & 6.347E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.2~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thin (0.02~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A8}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.21 & 10.01--10.50 & 0.50 & 3.254E+02 & 14.64--78.29 & 7.683E+02 & 1.298E-07 \\
2 & 10.73 & 10.51--11.00 & 0.50 & 1.171E+03 & ...--1.650E+03 & 8.672E+02 & 4.509E-08 \\
3 & 11.24 & 11.01--11.50 & 0.50 & 2.098E+03 & ...--2.615E+03 & 9.652E+02 & 2.535E-08 \\
4 & 11.73 & 11.51--12.00 & 0.50 & 3.096E+03 & ...--3.685E+03 & 1.070E+03 & 1.623E-08 \\
5 & 12.23 & 12.01--12.50 & 0.50 & 4.219E+03 & ...--4.866E+03 & 1.181E+03 & 1.309E-08 \\
6 & 12.74 & 12.51--13.00 & 0.50 & 5.486E+03 & ...--6.166E+03 & 1.299E+03 & 9.449E-09 \\
7 & 13.24 & 13.01--13.50 & 0.50 & 6.827E+03 & ...--7.590E+03 & 1.425E+03 & 7.661E-09 \\
8 & 13.75 & 13.51--14.00 & 0.50 & 8.352E+03 & ...--9.148E+03 & 1.558E+03 & 6.072E-09 \\
9 & 14.26 & 14.01--14.50 & 0.50 & 1.001E+04 & ...--1.085E+04 & 1.698E+03 & 5.326E-09 \\
10 & 14.75 & 14.51--15.00 & 0.50 & 1.178E+04 & ...--1.269E+04 & 1.846E+03 & 4.156E-09 \\
11 & 15.25 & 15.01--15.50 & 0.50 & 1.366E+04 & ...--1.469E+04 & 2.001E+03 & 3.505E-09 \\
12 & 15.74 & 15.51--16.00 & 0.50 & 1.573E+04 & ...--1.686E+04 & 2.165E+03 & 3.267E-09 \\
13 & 16.25 & 16.01--16.50 & 0.50 & 1.799E+04 & ...--1.919E+04 & 2.337E+03 & 2.819E-09 \\
14 & 16.74 & 16.51--17.00 & 0.50 & 2.038E+04 & ...--2.166E+04 & 2.465E+03 & 2.474E-09 \\
15 & 17.22 & 17.01--17.50 & 0.50 & 2.291E+04 & ...--2.436E+04 & 2.703E+03 & 2.154E-09 \\
16 & 17.74 & 17.51--18.00 & 0.50 & 2.577E+04 & ...--2.726E+04 & 2.900E+03 & 2.181E-09 \\
17 & 18.26 & 18.01--18.50 & 0.50 & 2.894E+04 & ...--3.037E+04 & 3.107E+03 & 1.881E-09 \\
18 & 18.77 & 18.51--19.00 & 0.50 & 3.222E+04 & ...--3.369E+04 & 3.323E+03 & 1.701E-09 \\
19 & 19.26 & 19.01--19.50 & 0.50 & 3.562E+04 & ...--3.724E+04 & 3.548E+03 & 1.539E-09 \\
20 & 19.76 & 19.51--20.00 & 0.50 & 3.928E+04 & ...--4.102E+04 & 3.782E+03 & 1.341E-09 \\
21 & 20.24 & 20.01--20.50 & 0.50 & 4.299E+04 & ...--4.505E+04 & 4.026E+03 & 1.262E-09 \\
22 & 20.70 & 20.51--21.00 & 0.50 & 4.687E+04 & ...--4.933E+04 & 4.280E+03 & 1.114E-09 \\
23 & 21.25 & 21.01--21.50 & 0.50 & 5.166E+04 & ...--5.387E+04 & 4.545E+03 & 1.410E-09 \\
24 & 21.78 & 21.51--22.00 & 0.50 & 5.665E+04 & ...--5.869E+04 & 4.819E+03 & 1.027E-09 \\
25 & 22.22 & 22.01--22.50 & 0.50 & 6.103E+04 & ...--6.380E+04 & 5.104E+03 & 9.168E-10 \\
26 & 22.74 & 22.51--23.00 & 0.50 & 6.651E+04 & ...--6.920E+04 & 5.400E+03 & 1.131E-09 \\
27 & 23.27 & 23.01--23.50 & 0.50 & 7.239E+04 & ...--7.490E+04 & 5.706E+03 & 8.137E-10 \\
28 & 23.73 & 23.51--24.00 & 0.50 & 7.780E+04 & ...--8.093E+04 & 6.023E+03 & 8.743E-10 \\
29 & 24.23 & 24.01--24.50 & 0.50 & 8.395E+04 & ...--8.728E+04 & 6.352E+03 & 8.211E-10 \\
30 & 24.74 & 24.51--25.00 & 0.50 & 9.064E+04 & ...--9.397E+04 & 6.691E+03 & 8.038E-10 \\
31 & 25.24 & 25.01--25.50 & 0.50 & 9.741E+04 & ...--1.010E+05 & 7.043E+03 & 7.727E-10 \\
32 & 25.76 & 25.51--26.00 & 0.50 & 1.050E+05 & ...--1.084E+05 & 7.406E+03 & 7.859E-10 \\
33 & 26.27 & 26.01--26.50 & 0.50 & 1.128E+05 & ...--1.162E+05 & 7.781E+03 & 5.760E-10 \\
34 & 26.71 & 26.51--27.00 & 0.50 & 1.198E+05 & ...--1.244E+05 & 8.168E+03 & 6.152E-10 \\
35 & 27.23 & 27.01--27.50 & 0.50 & 1.284E+05 & ...--1.329E+05 & 8.567E+03 & 7.207E-10 \\
36 & 27.77 & 27.51--28.00 & 0.50 & 1.380E+05 & ...--1.419E+05 & 8.979E+03 & 5.933E-10 \\
37 & 28.30 & 28.01--28.50 & 0.50 & 1.478E+05 & ...--1.513E+05 & 9.403E+03 & 6.101E-10 \\
38 & 28.76 & 28.51--29.00 & 0.50 & 1.566E+05 & ...--1.612E+05 & 9.841E+03 & 3.956E-10 \\
39 & 29.19 & 29.01--29.50 & 0.50 & 1.653E+05 & ...--1.714E+05 & 1.029E+04 & 5.206E-10 \\
40 & 29.75 & 29.51--30.00 & 0.50 & 1.769E+05 & ...--1.822E+05 & 1.075E+04 & 5.664E-10 \\
41 & 30.30 & 30.01--30.50 & 0.50 & 1.892E+05 & ...--1.934E+05 & 1.123E+04 & 4.543E-10 \\
42 & 30.80 & 30.51--31.00 & 0.50 & 2.006E+05 & ...--2.052E+05 & 1.172E+04 & 4.262E-10 \\
43 & 31.26 & 31.01--31.50 & 0.50 & 2.118E+05 & ...--2.174E+05 & 1.223E+04 & 3.499E-10 \\
44 & 31.73 & 31.51--32.00 & 0.50 & 2.235E+05 & ...--2.301E+05 & 1.274E+04 & 3.792E-10 \\
45 & 32.23 & 32.01--32.50 & 0.50 & 2.364E+05 & ...--2.434E+05 & 1.328E+04 & 3.736E-10 \\
46 & 32.75 & 32.51--33.00 & 0.50 & 2.505E+05 & ...--2.572E+05 & 1.382E+04 & 3.726E-10 \\
47 & 33.24 & 33.01--33.50 & 0.50 & 2.643E+05 & ...--2.716E+05 & 1.438E+04 & 2.869E-10 \\
48 & 33.73 & 33.51--34.00 & 0.50 & 2.788E+05 & ...--2.866E+05 & 1.496E+04 & 3.466E-10 \\
49 & 34.25 & 34.01--34.50 & 0.50 & 2.947E+05 & ...--3.021E+05 & 1.555E+04 & 2.903E-10 \\
50 & 34.71 & 34.51--35.00 & 0.50 & 3.093E+05 & ...--3.183E+05 & 1.616E+04 & 2.587E-10 \\
51 & 35.23 & 35.01--35.50 & 0.50 & 3.263E+05 & ...--3.350E+05 & 1.678E+04 & 2.993E-10 \\
52 & 35.79 & 35.51--36.00 & 0.50 & 3.455E+05 & ...--3.525E+05 & 1.741E+04 & 2.751E-10 \\
53 & 36.29 & 36.01--36.50 & 0.50 & 3.634E+05 & ...--3.705E+05 & 1.806E+04 & 2.299E-10 \\
54 & 36.70 & 36.51--37.00 & 0.50 & 3.785E+05 & ...--3.893E+05 & 1.873E+04 & 1.955E-10 \\
55 & 37.23 & 37.01--37.50 & 0.50 & 3.984E+05 & ...--4.087E+05 & 1.942E+04 & 2.478E-10 \\
56 & 37.77 & 37.51--38.00 & 0.50 & 4.199E+05 & ...--4.288E+05 & 2.011E+04 & 1.623E-10 \\
57 & 38.19 & 38.01--38.50 & 0.50 & 4.370E+05 & ...--4.496E+05 & 2.083E+04 & 2.267E-10 \\
58 & 38.81 & 38.51--39.00 & 0.50 & 4.632E+05 & ...--4.712E+05 & 2.156E+04 & 2.222E-10 \\
59 & 39.31 & 39.01--39.50 & 0.50 & 4.853E+05 & ...--4.935E+05 & 2.231E+04 & 1.354E-10 \\
60 & 39.77 & 39.51--40.00 & 0.50 & 5.065E+05 & ...--5.166E+05 & 2.308E+04 & 1.728E-10 \\
61 & 40.28 & 40.01--40.50 & 0.50 & 5.301E+05 & ...--5.404E+05 & 2.386E+04 & 1.666E-10 \\
62 & 40.78 & 40.51--41.00 & 0.50 & 5.546E+05 & ...--5.651E+05 & 2.466E+04 & 1.424E-10 \\
63 & 41.28 & 41.01--41.50 & 0.50 & 5.796E+05 & ...--5.906E+05 & 2.548E+04 & 1.253E-10 \\
64 & 41.69 & 41.51--42.00 & 0.50 & 6.011E+05 & ...--6.169E+05 & 2.632E+04 & 1.206E-10 \\
65 & 42.25 & 42.01--42.50 & 0.50 & 6.309E+05 & ...--6.441E+05 & 2.717E+04 & 1.585E-10 \\
66 & 42.79 & 42.51--43.00 & 0.50 & 6.607E+05 & ...--6.721E+05 & 2.804E+04 & 1.018E-10 \\
67 & 43.21 & 43.01--43.50 & 0.50 & 6.847E+05 & ...--7.010E+05 & 2.893E+04 & 1.117E-10 \\
68 & 43.82 & 43.51--44.00 & 0.50 & 7.207E+05 & ...--7.315E+05 & 3.044E+04 & 1.254E-10 \\
69 & 44.28 & 44.01--44.50 & 0.50 & 7.488E+05 & ...--7.622E+05 & 3.078E+04 & 5.932E-11 \\
70 & 44.73 & 44.51--45.00 & 0.50 & 7.767E+05 & ...--7.940E+05 & 3.173E+04 & 1.216E-10 \\
71 & 45.36 & 45.01--45.50 & 0.50 & 8.177E+05 & ...--8.267E+05 & 3.269E+04 & 8.265E-11 \\
72 & 45.77 & 45.51--46.00 & 0.50 & 8.450E+05 & ...--8.603E+05 & 3.367E+04 & 7.341E-11 \\
73 & 46.31 & 46.01--46.50 & 0.50 & 8.821E+05 & ...--8.950E+05 & 3.468E+04 & 7.946E-11 \\
74 & 46.79 & 46.51--47.00 & 0.50 & 9.152E+05 & ...--9.307E+05 & 3.570E+04 & 7.000E-11 \\
75 & 47.30 & 47.01--47.50 & 0.50 & 9.527E+05 & ...--9.675E+05 & 3.674E+04 & 5.740E-11 \\
76 & 47.73 & 47.51--48.00 & 0.50 & 9.850E+05 & ...--1.005E+06 & 3.780E+04 & 6.959E-11 \\
77 & 48.19 & 48.01--48.50 & 0.50 & 1.020E+06 & ...--1.044E+06 & 3.888E+04 & 4.969E-11 \\
78 & 48.69 & 48.51--49.00 & 0.50 & 1.060E+06 & ...--1.084E+06 & 3.999E+04 & 6.268E-11 \\
79 & 49.22 & 49.01--49.50 & 0.50 & 1.102E+06 & ...--1.125E+06 & 4.111E+04 & 5.651E-11 \\
80 & 49.76 & 49.51--50.00 & 0.50 & 1.147E+06 & ...--1.167E+06 & 4.225E+04 & 4.838E-11 \\
81 & 50.19 & 50.01--50.50 & 0.50 & 1.184E+06 & ...--1.211E+06 & 4.341E+04 & 4.295E-11 \\
82 & 50.72 & 50.51--51.00 & 0.50 & 1.231E+06 & ...--1.255E+06 & 4.460E+04 & 5.720E-11 \\
83 & 51.34 & 51.01--51.50 & 0.50 & 1.287E+06 & ...--1.301E+06 & 4.578E+04 & 3.250E-11 \\
84 & 51.68 & 51.51--52.00 & 0.50 & 1.318E+06 & ...--1.348E+06 & 4.693E+04 & 4.522E-11 \\
85 & 52.33 & 52.01--52.50 & 0.50 & 1.380E+06 & ...--1.396E+06 & 4.808E+04 & 4.802E-11 \\
86 & 52.72 & 52.51--53.00 & 0.50 & 1.418E+06 & ...--1.446E+06 & 4.926E+04 & 2.292E-11 \\
87 & 53.31 & 53.01--53.50 & 0.50 & 1.477E+06 & ...--1.496E+06 & 5.046E+04 & 4.959E-11 \\
88 & 53.70 & 53.51--54.00 & 0.50 & 1.516E+06 & ...--1.548E+06 & 5.168E+04 & 2.233E-11 \\
89 & 54.17 & 54.01--54.50 & 0.50 & 1.566E+06 & ...--1.601E+06 & 5.292E+04 & 2.071E-11 \\
90 & 54.64 & 54.51--55.00 & 0.50 & 1.615E+06 & ...--1.655E+06 & 5.417E+04 & 4.228E-11 \\
91 & 55.24 & 55.01--55.50 & 0.50 & 1.681E+06 & ...--1.710E+06 & 5.545E+04 & 2.572E-11 \\
92 & 55.82 & 55.51--56.00 & 0.50 & 1.746E+06 & ...--1.767E+06 & 5.675E+04 & 3.149E-11 \\
93 & 56.25 & 56.01--56.50 & 0.50 & 1.796E+06 & ...--1.825E+06 & 5.807E+04 & 2.089E-11 \\
94 & 56.70 & 56.51--57.00 & 0.50 & 1.849E+06 & ...--1.884E+06 & 5.942E+04 & 2.597E-11 \\
95 & 57.22 & 57.01--57.50 & 0.50 & 1.910E+06 & ...--1.945E+06 & 6.078E+04 & 2.809E-11 \\
96 & 57.81 & 57.51--58.00 & 0.50 & 1.984E+06 & ...--2.007E+06 & 6.217E+04 & 8.170E-12 \\
97 & 58.14 & 58.01--58.50 & 0.50 & 2.026E+06 & ...--2.071E+06 & 6.357E+04 & 1.663E-11 \\
98 & 58.81 & 58.51--59.00 & 0.50 & 2.112E+06 & ...--2.136E+06 & 6.500E+04 & 1.530E-11 \\
99 & 59.31 & 59.01--59.50 & 0.50 & 2.178E+06 & ...--2.202E+06 & 6.645E+04 & 5.639E-12 \\
100 & 59.64 & 59.51--60.00 & 0.50 & 2.221E+06 & ...--2.270E+06 & 6.792E+04 & 1.397E-11 \\
101 & 60.38 & 60.01--60.50 & 0.50 & 2.323E+06 & ...--2.340E+06 & 6.942E+04 & 1.370E-11 \\
102 & 60.86 & 60.51--61.00 & 0.50 & 2.391E+06 & ...--2.411E+06 & 7.094E+04 & 1.003E-11 \\
103 & 61.34 & 61.01--61.50 & 0.50 & 2.461E+06 & ...--2.483E+06 & 7.248E+04 & 1.000E-11 \\
104 & 61.91 & 61.51--62.00 & 0.50 & 2.544E+06 & ...--2.557E+06 & 7.404E+04 & 8.080E-12 \\
105 & 62.40 & 62.01--62.50 & 0.50 & 2.617E+06 & ...--2.633E+06 & 7.563E+04 & 8.686E-12 \\
106 & 62.78 & 62.51--63.00 & 0.50 & 2.676E+06 & ...--2.710E+06 & 7.724E+04 & 2.668E-12 \\
107 & 63.13 & 63.01--63.50 & 0.50 & 2.729E+06 & ...--2.789E+06 & 7.887E+04 & 7.708E-12 \\
108 & 63.67 & 63.51--64.00 & 0.50 & 2.817E+06 & ...--2.870E+06 & 8.053E+04 & 7.823E-12 \\
109 & 64.16 & 64.01--64.50 & 0.50 & 2.896E+06 & ...--2.952E+06 & 8.221E+04 & 7.215E-12 \\
110 & 64.73 & 64.51--65.00 & 0.50 & 2.990E+06 & ...--3.036E+06 & 8.392E+04 & 6.490E-12 \\
111 & 65.28 & 65.01--65.50 & 0.50 & 3.083E+06 & ...--3.121E+06 & 8.565E+04 & 7.589E-12 \\
112 & 65.82 & 65.51--66.00 & 0.50 & 3.177E+06 & ...--3.209E+06 & 8.740E+04 & 4.930E-12 \\
113 & 66.28 & 66.01--66.50 & 0.50 & 3.258E+06 & ...--3.298E+06 & 8.918E+04 & 5.293E-12 \\
114 & 66.79 & 66.51--67.00 & 0.50 & 3.351E+06 & ...--3.389E+06 & 9.098E+04 & 6.858E-12 \\
115 & 67.22 & 67.01--67.50 & 0.50 & 3.429E+06 & ...--3.482E+06 & 9.281E+04 & 7.180E-12 \\
116 & 67.79 & 67.51--68.00 & 0.50 & 3.537E+06 & ...--3.576E+06 & 9.466E+04 & 3.980E-13 \\
117 & 68.14 & 68.01--68.26 & 0.26 & 3.604E+06 & ...--3.626E+06 & 4.997E+04 & 4.316E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lccccccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.2~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thick (0.06~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=10$~K.}
\label{tab-A9}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{interval, eV} & \colhead{$\Delta E_{\rm grain}$, eV} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 10.15 & 10.01--10.50 & 0.50 & 6.373E+02 & 40.05--2131 & 2.090E+03 & 2.702E-07 \\
2 & 10.71 & 10.51--11.00 & 0.50 & 3.117E+03 & ...--4.466E+03 & 2.313E+03 & 4.812E-08 \\
3 & 11.22 & 11.01--11.50 & 0.50 & 5.581E+03 & ...--7.039E+03 & 2.573E+03 & 2.538E-08 \\
4 & 11.74 & 11.51--12.00 & 0.50 & 8.355E+03 & ...--9.862E+03 & 2.824E+03 & 1.533E-08 \\
5 & 12.24 & 12.01--12.50 & 0.50 & 1.131E+04 & ...--1.295E+04 & 3.087E+03 & 1.002E-08 \\
6 & 12.73 & 12.51--13.00 & 0.50 & 1.447E+04 & ...--1.631E+04 & 3.364E+03 & 7.581E-09 \\
7 & 13.23 & 13.01--13.50 & 0.50 & 1.800E+04 & ...--1.997E+04 & 3.654E+03 & 6.137E-09 \\
8 & 13.74 & 13.51--14.00 & 0.50 & 2.186E+04 & ...--2.393E+04 & 3.958E+03 & 4.770E-09 \\
9 & 14.24 & 14.01--14.50 & 0.50 & 2.595E+04 & ...--2.820E+04 & 4.276E+03 & 4.091E-09 \\
10 & 14.74 & 14.51--15.00 & 0.50 & 3.042E+04 & ...--3.281E+04 & 4.608E+03 & 3.470E-09 \\
11 & 15.24 & 15.01--15.50 & 0.50 & 3.520E+04 & ...--3.776E+04 & 4.954E+03 & 3.036E-09 \\
12 & 15.75 & 15.51--16.00 & 0.50 & 4.043E+04 & ...--4.308E+04 & 5.315E+03 & 2.758E-09 \\
13 & 16.24 & 16.01--16.50 & 0.50 & 4.582E+04 & ...--4.877E+04 & 5.690E+03 & 2.159E-09 \\
14 & 16.74 & 16.51--17.00 & 0.50 & 5.160E+04 & ...--5.472E+04 & 5.954E+03 & 2.247E-09 \\
15 & 17.25 & 17.01--17.50 & 0.50 & 5.803E+04 & ...--6.120E+04 & 6.476E+03 & 1.928E-09 \\
16 & 17.75 & 17.51--18.00 & 0.50 & 6.468E+04 & ...--6.809E+04 & 6.895E+03 & 1.756E-09 \\
17 & 18.24 & 18.01--18.50 & 0.50 & 7.171E+04 & ...--7.542E+04 & 7.330E+03 & 1.635E-09 \\
18 & 18.76 & 18.51--19.00 & 0.50 & 7.955E+04 & ...--8.320E+04 & 7.780E+03 & 1.583E-09 \\
19 & 19.24 & 19.01--19.50 & 0.50 & 8.735E+04 & ...--9.145E+04 & 8.246E+03 & 1.264E-09 \\
20 & 19.73 & 19.51--20.00 & 0.50 & 9.561E+04 & ...--1.002E+05 & 8.728E+03 & 1.291E-09 \\
21 & 20.24 & 20.01--20.50 & 0.50 & 1.048E+05 & ...--1.094E+05 & 9.226E+03 & 1.300E-09 \\
22 & 20.75 & 20.51--21.00 & 0.50 & 1.145E+05 & ...--1.191E+05 & 9.740E+03 & 1.147E-09 \\
23 & 21.23 & 21.01--21.50 & 0.50 & 1.240E+05 & ...--1.294E+05 & 1.027E+04 & 9.232E-10 \\
24 & 21.72 & 21.51--22.00 & 0.50 & 1.344E+05 & ...--1.402E+05 & 1.082E+04 & 1.048E-09 \\
25 & 22.26 & 22.01--22.50 & 0.50 & 1.462E+05 & ...--1.516E+05 & 1.138E+04 & 1.001E-09 \\
26 & 22.76 & 22.51--23.00 & 0.50 & 1.579E+05 & ...--1.636E+05 & 1.196E+04 & 7.907E-10 \\
27 & 23.25 & 23.01--23.50 & 0.50 & 1.700E+05 & ...--1.761E+05 & 1.256E+04 & 8.201E-10 \\
28 & 23.77 & 23.51--24.00 & 0.50 & 1.835E+05 & ...--1.893E+05 & 1.318E+04 & 8.182E-10 \\
29 & 24.29 & 24.01--24.50 & 0.50 & 1.976E+05 & ...--2.031E+05 & 1.381E+04 & 6.840E-10 \\
30 & 24.76 & 24.51--25.00 & 0.50 & 2.108E+05 & ...--2.176E+05 & 1.446E+04 & 6.129E-10 \\
31 & 25.27 & 25.01--25.50 & 0.50 & 2.259E+05 & ...--2.327E+05 & 1.513E+04 & 6.497E-10 \\
32 & 25.79 & 25.51--26.00 & 0.50 & 2.421E+05 & ...--2.485E+05 & 1.581E+04 & 5.578E-10 \\
33 & 26.27 & 26.01--26.50 & 0.50 & 2.576E+05 & ...--2.650E+05 & 1.652E+04 & 4.975E-10 \\
34 & 26.74 & 26.51--27.00 & 0.50 & 2.737E+05 & ...--2.823E+05 & 1.724E+04 & 5.032E-10 \\
35 & 27.22 & 27.01--27.50 & 0.50 & 2.906E+05 & ...--3.003E+05 & 1.798E+04 & 4.628E-10 \\
36 & 27.77 & 27.51--28.00 & 0.50 & 3.108E+05 & ...--3.190E+05 & 1.874E+04 & 5.026E-10 \\
37 & 28.27 & 28.01--28.50 & 0.50 & 3.299E+05 & ...--3.385E+05 & 1.952E+04 & 3.681E-10 \\
38 & 28.76 & 28.51--29.00 & 0.50 & 3.494E+05 & ...--3.588E+05 & 2.032E+04 & 3.931E-10 \\
39 & 29.26 & 29.01--29.50 & 0.50 & 3.702E+05 & ...--3.800E+05 & 2.114E+04 & 3.457E-10 \\
40 & 29.76 & 29.51--30.00 & 0.50 & 3.919E+05 & ...--4.020E+05 & 2.198E+04 & 3.478E-10 \\
41 & 30.29 & 30.01--30.50 & 0.50 & 4.155E+05 & ...--4.248E+05 & 2.283E+04 & 3.321E-10 \\
42 & 30.80 & 30.51--31.00 & 0.50 & 4.395E+05 & ...--4.485E+05 & 2.371E+04 & 2.719E-10 \\
43 & 31.24 & 31.01--31.50 & 0.50 & 4.605E+05 & ...--4.731E+05 & 2.461E+04 & 2.245E-10 \\
44 & 31.73 & 31.51--32.00 & 0.50 & 4.851E+05 & ...--4.986E+05 & 2.553E+04 & 3.021E-10 \\
45 & 32.28 & 32.01--32.50 & 0.50 & 5.141E+05 & ...--5.251E+05 & 2.646E+04 & 2.145E-10 \\
46 & 32.72 & 32.51--33.00 & 0.50 & 5.378E+05 & ...--5.525E+05 & 2.742E+04 & 2.398E-10 \\
47 & 33.28 & 33.01--33.50 & 0.50 & 5.689E+05 & ...--5.809E+05 & 2.840E+04 & 2.328E-10 \\
48 & 33.78 & 33.51--34.00 & 0.50 & 5.980E+05 & ...--6.103E+05 & 2.940E+04 & 1.951E-10 \\
49 & 34.25 & 34.01--34.50 & 0.50 & 6.263E+05 & ...--6.407E+05 & 3.042E+04 & 1.728E-10 \\
50 & 34.75 & 34.51--35.00 & 0.50 & 6.573E+05 & ...--6.722E+05 & 3.147E+04 & 1.742E-10 \\
51 & 35.19 & 35.01--35.50 & 0.50 & 6.852E+05 & ...--7.047E+05 & 3.253E+04 & 1.547E-10 \\
52 & 35.74 & 35.51--36.00 & 0.50 & 7.214E+05 & ...--7.384E+05 & 3.362E+04 & 1.776E-10 \\
53 & 36.29 & 36.01--36.50 & 0.50 & 7.591E+05 & ...--7.731E+05 & 3.473E+04 & 1.501E-10 \\
54 & 36.76 & 36.51--37.00 & 0.50 & 7.923E+05 & ...--8.089E+05 & 3.586E+04 & 1.190E-10 \\
55 & 37.25 & 37.01--37.50 & 0.50 & 8.283E+05 & ...--8.459E+05 & 3.701E+04 & 1.400E-10 \\
56 & 37.75 & 37.51--38.00 & 0.50 & 8.656E+05 & ...--8.841E+05 & 3.818E+04 & 1.035E-10 \\
57 & 38.26 & 38.01--38.50 & 0.50 & 9.051E+05 & ...--9.235E+05 & 3.938E+04 & 1.125E-10 \\
58 & 38.72 & 38.51--39.00 & 0.50 & 9.417E+05 & ...--9.641E+05 & 4.060E+04 & 1.021E-10 \\
59 & 39.28 & 39.01--39.50 & 0.50 & 9.880E+05 & ...--1.006E+06 & 4.185E+04 & 1.123E-10 \\
60 & 39.72 & 39.51--40.00 & 0.50 & 1.026E+06 & ...--1.049E+06 & 4.311E+04 & 7.617E-11 \\
61 & 40.29 & 40.01--40.50 & 0.50 & 1.076E+06 & ...--1.093E+06 & 4.440E+04 & 9.819E-11 \\
62 & 40.79 & 40.51--41.00 & 0.50 & 1.121E+06 & ...--1.139E+06 & 4.572E+04 & 7.563E-11 \\
63 & 41.27 & 41.01--41.50 & 0.50 & 1.165E+06 & ...--1.186E+06 & 4.705E+04 & 7.230E-11 \\
64 & 41.78 & 41.51--42.00 & 0.50 & 1.215E+06 & ...--1.235E+06 & 4.842E+04 & 6.142E-11 \\
65 & 42.27 & 42.01--42.50 & 0.50 & 1.263E+06 & ...--1.284E+06 & 4.980E+04 & 5.383E-11 \\
66 & 42.78 & 42.51--43.00 & 0.50 & 1.313E+06 & ...--1.336E+06 & 5.121E+04 & 5.518E-11 \\
67 & 43.36 & 43.01--43.50 & 0.50 & 1.375E+06 & ...--1.388E+06 & 5.265E+04 & 4.149E-11 \\
68 & 43.64 & 43.51--44.00 & 0.50 & 1.405E+06 & ...--1.444E+06 & 5.520E+04 & 4.023E-11 \\
69 & 44.27 & 44.01--44.50 & 0.50 & 1.473E+06 & ...--1.499E+06 & 5.562E+04 & 5.786E-11 \\
70 & 44.73 & 44.51--45.00 & 0.50 & 1.525E+06 & ...--1.556E+06 & 5.713E+04 & 3.284E-11 \\
71 & 45.29 & 45.01--45.50 & 0.50 & 1.590E+06 & ...--1.615E+06 & 5.866E+04 & 5.437E-11 \\
72 & 45.77 & 45.51--46.00 & 0.50 & 1.647E+06 & ...--1.675E+06 & 6.022E+04 & 2.116E-11 \\
73 & 46.27 & 46.01--46.50 & 0.50 & 1.709E+06 & ...--1.737E+06 & 6.181E+04 & 4.548E-11 \\
74 & 46.69 & 46.51--47.00 & 0.50 & 1.761E+06 & ...--1.800E+06 & 6.342E+04 & 2.517E-11 \\
75 & 47.24 & 47.01--47.50 & 0.50 & 1.831E+06 & ...--1.865E+06 & 6.506E+04 & 2.533E-11 \\
76 & 47.69 & 47.51--48.00 & 0.50 & 1.891E+06 & ...--1.932E+06 & 6.672E+04 & 4.046E-11 \\
77 & 48.23 & 48.01--48.50 & 0.50 & 1.964E+06 & ...--2.001E+06 & 6.841E+04 & 2.703E-11 \\
78 & 48.78 & 48.51--49.00 & 0.50 & 2.041E+06 & ...--2.071E+06 & 7.013E+04 & 2.925E-11 \\
79 & 49.26 & 49.01--49.50 & 0.50 & 2.108E+06 & ...--2.143E+06 & 7.187E+04 & 1.725E-11 \\
80 & 49.65 & 49.51--50.00 & 0.50 & 2.165E+06 & ...--2.216E+06 & 7.364E+04 & 2.937E-11 \\
81 & 50.27 & 50.01--50.50 & 0.50 & 2.256E+06 & ...--2.292E+06 & 7.544E+04 & 1.983E-11 \\
82 & 50.75 & 50.51--51.00 & 0.50 & 2.329E+06 & ...--2.369E+06 & 7.727E+04 & 9.231E-12 \\
83 & 51.13 & 51.01--51.50 & 0.50 & 2.389E+06 & ...--2.448E+06 & 7.905E+04 & 1.836E-11 \\
84 & 51.81 & 51.51--52.00 & 0.50 & 2.497E+06 & ...--2.529E+06 & 8.062E+04 & 1.549E-11 \\
85 & 52.26 & 52.01--52.50 & 0.50 & 2.571E+06 & ...--2.611E+06 & 8.220E+04 & 1.161E-11 \\
86 & 52.74 & 52.51--53.00 & 0.50 & 2.651E+06 & ...--2.695E+06 & 8.381E+04 & 1.293E-11 \\
87 & 53.24 & 53.01--53.50 & 0.50 & 2.736E+06 & ...--2.780E+06 & 8.543E+04 & 1.237E-11 \\
88 & 53.72 & 53.51--54.00 & 0.50 & 2.818E+06 & ...--2.867E+06 & 8.708E+04 & 1.223E-11 \\
89 & 54.26 & 54.01--54.50 & 0.50 & 2.913E+06 & ...--2.956E+06 & 8.874E+04 & 8.337E-12 \\
90 & 54.79 & 54.51--55.00 & 0.50 & 3.007E+06 & ...--3.046E+06 & 9.043E+04 & 7.947E-12 \\
91 & 55.27 & 55.01--55.50 & 0.50 & 3.096E+06 & ...--3.138E+06 & 9.214E+04 & 7.788E-12 \\
92 & 55.83 & 55.51--56.00 & 0.50 & 3.201E+06 & ...--3.232E+06 & 9.387E+04 & 6.571E-12 \\
93 & 56.32 & 56.01--56.50 & 0.50 & 3.293E+06 & ...--3.328E+06 & 9.563E+04 & 5.827E-12 \\
94 & 56.71 & 56.51--57.00 & 0.50 & 3.368E+06 & ...--3.425E+06 & 9.740E+04 & 4.974E-12 \\
95 & 57.19 & 57.01--57.50 & 0.50 & 3.464E+06 & ...--3.525E+06 & 9.920E+04 & 5.457E-12 \\
96 & 57.72 & 57.51--58.00 & 0.50 & 3.569E+06 & ...--3.626E+06 & 1.010E+05 & 6.531E-12 \\
97 & 58.25 & 58.01--58.50 & 0.50 & 3.678E+06 & ...--3.728E+06 & 1.029E+05 & 9.583E-12 \\
98 & 58.81 & 58.51--59.00 & 0.50 & 3.793E+06 & ...--3.833E+06 & 1.047E+05 & 3.816E-13 \\
99 & 59.19 & 59.01--59.32 & 0.32 & 3.874E+06 & ...--3.901E+06 & 6.802E+04 & 4.745E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\section{Appendix:\\
$T_{\rm CR}$ spectra for grains with an equilibrium temperature $T_0=20$~K}
\label{app-b}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.05~$\mu$m bare olivine grains at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B1}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.60 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 2.944E-09 \\
2 & 21.47 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 2.563E-09 \\
3 & 22.50 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 1.635E-09 \\
4 & 23.48 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 1.123E-09 \\
5 & 24.50 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 1.017E-09 \\
6 & 25.53 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 6.828E-10 \\
7 & 26.51 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 6.623E-10 \\
8 & 27.46 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 4.519E-10 \\
9 & 28.44 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 4.878E-10 \\
10 & 29.49 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 3.827E-10 \\
11 & 30.44 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 3.343E-10 \\
12 & 31.48 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 3.179E-10 \\
13 & 32.54 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 2.579E-10 \\
14 & 33.55 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 2.211E-10 \\
15 & 34.56 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 2.133E-10 \\
16 & 35.50 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 1.503E-10 \\
17 & 36.46 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 1.588E-10 \\
18 & 37.43 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 1.474E-10 \\
19 & 38.49 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 1.490E-10 \\
20 & 39.51 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 1.124E-10 \\
21 & 40.42 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 9.400E-11 \\
22 & 41.47 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 1.263E-10 \\
23 & 42.58 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 8.641E-11 \\
24 & 43.43 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 7.049E-11 \\
25 & 44.39 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 9.120E-11 \\
26 & 45.42 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 7.228E-11 \\
27 & 46.48 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 7.616E-11 \\
28 & 47.48 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 6.380E-11 \\
29 & 48.46 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 5.636E-11 \\
30 & 49.46 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 6.374E-11 \\
31 & 50.49 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 5.871E-11 \\
32 & 51.48 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 5.346E-11 \\
33 & 52.46 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 5.385E-11 \\
34 & 53.55 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 4.942E-11 \\
35 & 54.44 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 4.263E-11 \\
36 & 55.49 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 5.298E-11 \\
37 & 56.54 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 3.842E-11 \\
38 & 57.48 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 4.154E-11 \\
39 & 58.48 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 3.983E-11 \\
40 & 59.46 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 3.598E-11 \\
41 & 60.51 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 3.794E-11 \\
42 & 61.48 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 3.553E-11 \\
43 & 62.50 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 3.436E-11 \\
44 & 63.47 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 2.954E-11 \\
45 & 64.39 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 2.755E-11 \\
46 & 65.35 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 3.028E-11 \\
47 & 66.36 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 2.827E-11 \\
48 & 67.52 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 3.103E-11 \\
49 & 68.49 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 2.232E-11 \\
50 & 69.47 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 2.375E-11 \\
51 & 70.54 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 2.230E-11 \\
52 & 71.43 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 2.059E-11 \\
53 & 72.48 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 2.255E-11 \\
54 & 73.50 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 1.776E-11 \\
55 & 74.45 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 1.759E-11 \\
56 & 75.39 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 1.731E-11 \\
57 & 76.41 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 1.795E-11 \\
58 & 77.46 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 1.686E-11 \\
59 & 78.55 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 1.665E-11 \\
60 & 79.64 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 1.528E-11 \\
61 & 80.53 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 9.240E-12 \\
62 & 81.40 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 1.442E-11 \\
63 & 82.59 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 1.367E-11 \\
64 & 83.53 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 1.024E-11 \\
65 & 84.65 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 1.344E-11 \\
66 & 85.56 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 7.264E-12 \\
67 & 86.55 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 1.079E-11 \\
68 & 87.62 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 9.576E-12 \\
69 & 88.55 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 7.946E-12 \\
70 & 89.42 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 7.091E-12 \\
71 & 90.39 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 8.511E-12 \\
72 & 91.46 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 8.049E-12 \\
73 & 92.48 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 6.434E-12 \\
74 & 93.53 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 7.208E-12 \\
75 & 94.60 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 5.933E-12 \\
76 & 95.48 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 5.599E-12 \\
77 & 96.54 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 5.351E-12 \\
78 & 97.37 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 5.276E-12 \\
79 & 98.75 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 6.280E-12 \\
80 & 99.47 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 3.490E-12 \\
81 & 100.64 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 3.605E-12 \\
82 & 101.36 & 101.01--102.00 & 1.00 & 4.459E-12 \\
83 & 102.50 & 102.01--103.00 & 1.00 & 4.011E-12 \\
84 & 103.52 & 103.01--104.00 & 1.00 & 3.716E-12 \\
85 & 104.44 & 104.01--105.00 & 1.00 & 2.944E-12 \\
86 & 105.45 & 105.01--106.00 & 1.00 & 3.953E-12 \\
87 & 106.67 & 106.01--107.00 & 1.00 & 3.530E-12 \\
88 & 107.48 & 107.01--108.00 & 1.00 & 1.467E-12 \\
89 & 108.32 & 108.01--109.00 & 1.00 & 3.190E-12 \\
90 & 109.58 & 109.01--110.00 & 1.00 & 3.620E-12 \\
91 & 110.61 & 110.01--111.00 & 1.00 & 1.696E-12 \\
92 & 111.48 & 111.01--112.00 & 1.00 & 2.725E-12 \\
93 & 112.48 & 112.01--113.00 & 1.00 & 1.787E-12 \\
94 & 113.42 & 113.01--114.00 & 1.00 & 2.561E-12 \\
95 & 114.33 & 114.01--115.00 & 1.00 & 1.435E-12 \\
96 & 115.54 & 115.01--116.00 & 1.00 & 2.913E-12 \\
97 & 116.57 & 116.01--117.00 & 1.00 & 1.229E-12 \\
98 & 117.71 & 117.01--118.00 & 1.00 & 2.018E-12 \\
99 & 118.49 & 118.01--119.00 & 1.00 & 1.789E-12 \\
100 & 119.37 & 119.01--120.00 & 1.00 & 9.102E-13 \\
101 & 120.50 & 120.01--121.00 & 1.00 & 1.032E-12 \\
102 & 121.55 & 121.01--122.00 & 1.00 & 3.429E-13 \\
103 & 122.20 & 122.01--123.00 & 1.00 & 9.277E-13 \\
104 & 123.50 & 123.01--124.00 & 1.00 & 8.894E-13 \\
105 & 124.85 & 124.01--125.00 & 1.00 & 9.022E-13 \\
106 & 125.56 & 125.01--126.00 & 1.00 & 2.662E-13 \\
107 & 126.63 & 126.01--127.00 & 1.00 & 7.080E-13 \\
108 & 127.50 & 127.01--128.00 & 1.00 & 5.223E-13 \\
109 & 128.44 & 128.01--129.00 & 1.00 & 5.647E-13 \\
110 & 129.39 & 129.01--130.00 & 1.00 & 5.424E-13 \\
111 & 130.37 & 130.01--131.00 & 1.00 & 4.954E-13 \\
112 & 131.41 & 131.01--132.00 & 1.00 & 5.243E-13 \\
113 & 132.40 & 132.01--133.00 & 1.00 & 4.879E-13 \\
114 & 133.37 & 133.01--134.00 & 1.00 & 4.691E-13 \\
115 & 134.45 & 134.01--135.00 & 1.00 & 4.696E-13 \\
116 & 135.45 & 135.01--136.00 & 1.00 & 4.108E-13 \\
117 & 136.57 & 136.01--137.00 & 1.00 & 4.567E-13 \\
118 & 137.62 & 137.01--138.00 & 1.00 & 3.594E-13 \\
119 & 138.54 & 138.01--139.00 & 1.00 & 6.542E-13 \\
120 & 139.54 & 139.01--140.00 & 1.00 & 2.053E-14 \\
121 & 140.42 & 140.01--140.68 & 0.68 & 3.756E-14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.05~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thin (0.005~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B2}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.45 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 6.821E-09 \\
2 & 21.45 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 3.078E-09 \\
3 & 22.49 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 1.745E-09 \\
4 & 23.52 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 1.147E-09 \\
5 & 24.50 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 8.344E-10 \\
6 & 25.47 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 6.612E-10 \\
7 & 26.50 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 5.704E-10 \\
8 & 27.49 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 4.136E-10 \\
9 & 28.44 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 3.639E-10 \\
10 & 29.46 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 3.288E-10 \\
11 & 30.49 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 2.757E-10 \\
12 & 31.47 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 2.168E-10 \\
13 & 32.45 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 2.084E-10 \\
14 & 33.46 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 1.817E-10 \\
15 & 34.50 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 1.733E-10 \\
16 & 35.51 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 1.408E-10 \\
17 & 36.49 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 1.332E-10 \\
18 & 37.50 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 1.191E-10 \\
19 & 38.51 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 1.113E-10 \\
20 & 39.55 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 1.108E-10 \\
21 & 40.59 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 9.489E-11 \\
22 & 41.53 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 7.244E-11 \\
23 & 42.43 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 7.921E-11 \\
24 & 43.45 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 7.895E-11 \\
25 & 44.49 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 6.953E-11 \\
26 & 45.50 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 7.147E-11 \\
27 & 46.49 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 6.496E-11 \\
28 & 47.56 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 6.270E-11 \\
29 & 48.54 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 5.459E-11 \\
30 & 49.51 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 5.634E-11 \\
31 & 50.53 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 5.123E-11 \\
32 & 51.55 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 5.246E-11 \\
33 & 52.55 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 4.343E-11 \\
34 & 53.54 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 4.579E-11 \\
35 & 54.45 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 3.976E-11 \\
36 & 55.48 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 4.284E-11 \\
37 & 56.52 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 4.003E-11 \\
38 & 57.52 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 3.755E-11 \\
39 & 58.51 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 3.377E-11 \\
40 & 59.52 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 3.489E-11 \\
41 & 60.52 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 3.137E-11 \\
42 & 61.54 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 3.301E-11 \\
43 & 62.56 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 2.310E-11 \\
44 & 63.37 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 2.736E-11 \\
45 & 64.49 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 2.908E-11 \\
46 & 65.49 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 2.122E-11 \\
47 & 66.51 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 2.599E-11 \\
48 & 67.57 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 2.320E-11 \\
49 & 68.58 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 1.981E-11 \\
50 & 69.50 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 1.712E-11 \\
51 & 70.42 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 1.871E-11 \\
52 & 71.44 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 1.867E-11 \\
53 & 72.46 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 1.751E-11 \\
54 & 73.53 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 1.713E-11 \\
55 & 74.54 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 1.607E-11 \\
56 & 75.54 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 1.383E-11 \\
57 & 76.53 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 1.481E-11 \\
58 & 77.51 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 1.157E-11 \\
59 & 78.62 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 1.468E-11 \\
60 & 79.48 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 9.267E-12 \\
61 & 80.55 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 1.299E-11 \\
62 & 81.52 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 9.199E-12 \\
63 & 82.52 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 1.057E-11 \\
64 & 83.54 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 1.005E-11 \\
65 & 84.57 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 8.681E-12 \\
66 & 85.50 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 7.720E-12 \\
67 & 86.49 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 9.186E-12 \\
68 & 87.57 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 8.181E-12 \\
69 & 88.45 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 4.588E-12 \\
70 & 89.28 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 7.522E-12 \\
71 & 90.55 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 8.089E-12 \\
72 & 91.48 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 3.998E-12 \\
73 & 92.47 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 7.560E-12 \\
74 & 93.69 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 5.346E-12 \\
75 & 94.67 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 4.452E-12 \\
76 & 95.66 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 5.273E-12 \\
77 & 96.65 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 3.543E-12 \\
78 & 97.70 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 5.138E-12 \\
79 & 98.58 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 1.980E-12 \\
80 & 99.30 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 4.021E-12 \\
81 & 100.36 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 3.576E-12 \\
82 & 101.49 & 101.01--102.00 & 1.00 & 4.156E-12 \\
83 & 102.73 & 102.01--103.00 & 1.00 & 3.574E-12 \\
84 & 103.55 & 103.01--104.00 & 1.00 & 1.569E-12 \\
85 & 104.45 & 104.01--105.00 & 1.00 & 3.786E-12 \\
86 & 105.65 & 105.01--106.00 & 1.00 & 1.870E-12 \\
87 & 106.42 & 106.01--107.00 & 1.00 & 3.070E-12 \\
88 & 107.71 & 107.01--108.00 & 1.00 & 2.841E-12 \\
89 & 108.57 & 108.01--109.00 & 1.00 & 2.167E-12 \\
90 & 109.80 & 109.01--110.00 & 1.00 & 2.717E-12 \\
91 & 110.59 & 110.01--111.00 & 1.00 & 1.411E-12 \\
92 & 111.54 & 111.01--112.00 & 1.00 & 1.440E-12 \\
93 & 112.41 & 112.01--113.00 & 1.00 & 2.522E-12 \\
94 & 113.52 & 113.01--114.00 & 1.00 & 1.220E-12 \\
95 & 114.54 & 114.01--115.00 & 1.00 & 2.067E-12 \\
96 & 115.62 & 115.01--116.00 & 1.00 & 1.909E-12 \\
97 & 116.53 & 116.01--117.00 & 1.00 & 1.447E-12 \\
98 & 117.46 & 117.01--118.00 & 1.00 & 1.029E-12 \\
99 & 118.68 & 118.01--119.00 & 1.00 & 1.050E-12 \\
100 & 119.52 & 119.01--120.00 & 1.00 & 4.485E-13 \\
101 & 120.41 & 120.01--121.00 & 1.00 & 9.485E-13 \\
102 & 121.74 & 121.01--122.00 & 1.00 & 9.901E-13 \\
103 & 122.50 & 122.01--123.00 & 1.00 & 3.558E-13 \\
104 & 123.59 & 123.01--124.00 & 1.00 & 8.524E-13 \\
105 & 124.47 & 124.01--125.00 & 1.00 & 5.720E-13 \\
106 & 125.42 & 125.01--126.00 & 1.00 & 5.286E-13 \\
107 & 126.40 & 126.01--127.00 & 1.00 & 5.732E-13 \\
108 & 127.40 & 127.01--128.00 & 1.00 & 4.856E-13 \\
109 & 128.45 & 128.01--129.00 & 1.00 & 5.088E-13 \\
110 & 129.52 & 129.01--130.00 & 1.00 & 5.323E-13 \\
111 & 130.51 & 130.01--131.00 & 1.00 & 4.365E-13 \\
112 & 131.59 & 131.01--132.00 & 1.00 & 4.460E-13 \\
113 & 132.61 & 132.01--133.00 & 1.00 & 4.343E-13 \\
114 & 133.62 & 133.01--134.00 & 1.00 & 3.390E-13 \\
115 & 134.54 & 134.01--135.00 & 1.00 & 3.501E-13 \\
116 & 135.57 & 135.01--136.00 & 1.00 & 5.148E-13 \\
117 & 136.21 & 136.01--137.00 & 1.00 & 3.137E-13 \\
118 & 137.75 & 137.01--138.13 & 1.13 & 4.509E-14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.05~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thick (0.015~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B3}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.35 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 1.444E-08 \\
2 & 21.43 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 3.673E-09 \\
3 & 22.47 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 1.903E-09 \\
4 & 23.50 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 1.164E-09 \\
5 & 24.48 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 7.876E-10 \\
6 & 25.48 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 6.271E-10 \\
7 & 26.48 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 4.629E-10 \\
8 & 27.47 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 3.944E-10 \\
9 & 28.51 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 3.220E-10 \\
10 & 29.50 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 2.661E-10 \\
11 & 30.51 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 2.372E-10 \\
12 & 31.52 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 1.937E-10 \\
13 & 32.51 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 1.942E-10 \\
14 & 33.51 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 1.525E-10 \\
15 & 34.49 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 1.559E-10 \\
16 & 35.50 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 1.293E-10 \\
17 & 36.47 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 1.237E-10 \\
18 & 37.46 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 1.086E-10 \\
19 & 38.45 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 1.086E-10 \\
20 & 39.49 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 1.025E-10 \\
21 & 40.50 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 9.000E-11 \\
22 & 41.52 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 8.872E-11 \\
23 & 42.53 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 7.753E-11 \\
24 & 43.48 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 7.245E-11 \\
25 & 44.44 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 6.895E-11 \\
26 & 45.45 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 6.975E-11 \\
27 & 46.50 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 7.052E-11 \\
28 & 47.54 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 5.539E-11 \\
29 & 48.48 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 5.404E-11 \\
30 & 49.48 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 5.420E-11 \\
31 & 50.47 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 5.016E-11 \\
32 & 51.51 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 5.015E-11 \\
33 & 52.50 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 4.092E-11 \\
34 & 53.48 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 4.397E-11 \\
35 & 54.52 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 3.924E-11 \\
36 & 55.51 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 3.217E-11 \\
37 & 56.46 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 3.734E-11 \\
38 & 57.58 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 3.389E-11 \\
39 & 58.54 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 2.529E-11 \\
40 & 59.51 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 3.242E-11 \\
41 & 60.57 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 2.609E-11 \\
42 & 61.50 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 2.199E-11 \\
43 & 62.47 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 2.499E-11 \\
44 & 63.47 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 2.113E-11 \\
45 & 64.52 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 2.226E-11 \\
46 & 65.52 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 1.863E-11 \\
47 & 66.52 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 1.935E-11 \\
48 & 67.57 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 1.851E-11 \\
49 & 68.57 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 1.394E-11 \\
50 & 69.49 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 1.526E-11 \\
51 & 70.50 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 1.393E-11 \\
52 & 71.44 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 1.502E-11 \\
53 & 72.61 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 1.297E-11 \\
54 & 73.49 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 1.174E-11 \\
55 & 74.59 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 1.387E-11 \\
56 & 75.64 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 9.515E-12 \\
57 & 76.48 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 9.398E-12 \\
58 & 77.44 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 9.791E-12 \\
59 & 78.51 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 1.098E-11 \\
60 & 79.61 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 7.754E-12 \\
61 & 80.41 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 7.889E-12 \\
62 & 81.59 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 9.783E-12 \\
63 & 82.61 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 6.045E-12 \\
64 & 83.57 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 7.286E-12 \\
65 & 84.51 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 6.317E-12 \\
66 & 85.48 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 4.436E-12 \\
67 & 86.36 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 7.594E-12 \\
68 & 87.45 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 4.499E-12 \\
69 & 88.45 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 6.078E-12 \\
70 & 89.40 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 4.298E-12 \\
71 & 90.55 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 5.534E-12 \\
72 & 91.57 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 4.446E-12 \\
73 & 92.63 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 3.906E-12 \\
74 & 93.39 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 2.452E-12 \\
75 & 94.42 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 3.161E-12 \\
76 & 95.59 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 4.311E-12 \\
77 & 96.42 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 1.156E-12 \\
78 & 97.51 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 3.845E-12 \\
79 & 98.64 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 2.216E-12 \\
80 & 99.60 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 2.804E-12 \\
81 & 100.45 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 1.636E-12 \\
82 & 101.59 & 101.01--102.00 & 1.00 & 3.119E-12 \\
83 & 102.47 & 102.01--103.00 & 1.00 & 1.268E-12 \\
84 & 103.37 & 103.01--104.00 & 1.00 & 1.589E-12 \\
85 & 104.33 & 104.01--105.00 & 1.00 & 2.752E-12 \\
86 & 105.38 & 105.01--106.00 & 1.00 & 1.055E-12 \\
87 & 106.51 & 106.01--107.00 & 1.00 & 2.401E-12 \\
88 & 107.35 & 107.01--108.00 & 1.00 & 1.170E-12 \\
89 & 108.32 & 108.01--109.00 & 1.00 & 1.778E-12 \\
90 & 109.47 & 109.01--110.00 & 1.00 & 1.706E-12 \\
91 & 110.50 & 110.01--111.00 & 1.00 & 1.285E-12 \\
92 & 111.23 & 111.01--112.00 & 1.00 & 1.246E-12 \\
93 & 112.53 & 112.01--113.00 & 1.00 & 1.213E-12 \\
94 & 113.46 & 113.01--114.00 & 1.00 & 5.314E-13 \\
95 & 114.34 & 114.01--115.00 & 1.00 & 1.077E-12 \\
96 & 115.47 & 115.01--116.00 & 1.00 & 4.879E-13 \\
97 & 116.44 & 116.01--117.00 & 1.00 & 1.218E-12 \\
98 & 117.70 & 117.01--118.00 & 1.00 & 7.490E-13 \\
99 & 118.71 & 118.01--119.00 & 1.00 & 7.620E-13 \\
100 & 119.42 & 119.01--120.00 & 1.00 & 4.577E-13 \\
101 & 120.21 & 120.01--121.00 & 1.00 & 5.294E-13 \\
102 & 121.24 & 121.01--122.00 & 1.00 & 4.837E-13 \\
103 & 122.32 & 122.01--123.00 & 1.00 & 4.910E-13 \\
104 & 123.32 & 123.01--124.00 & 1.00 & 4.470E-13 \\
105 & 124.49 & 124.01--125.00 & 1.00 & 4.542E-13 \\
106 & 125.56 & 125.01--126.00 & 1.00 & 4.158E-13 \\
107 & 126.62 & 126.01--127.00 & 1.00 & 3.421E-13 \\
108 & 127.56 & 127.01--128.00 & 1.00 & 3.165E-13 \\
109 & 128.50 & 128.01--129.00 & 1.00 & 4.073E-13 \\
110 & 129.30 & 129.01--130.00 & 1.00 & 4.481E-13 \\
111 & 130.60 & 130.01--131.00 & 1.00 & 3.141E-14 \\
112 & 131.25 & 131.01--131.39 & 0.39 & 2.044E-14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.1~$\mu$m bare olivine grains at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B4}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.41 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 3.000E-08 \\
2 & 21.47 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 9.484E-09 \\
3 & 22.47 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 4.865E-09 \\
4 & 23.46 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 3.479E-09 \\
5 & 24.45 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 2.310E-09 \\
6 & 25.47 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 1.878E-09 \\
7 & 26.48 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 1.344E-09 \\
8 & 27.46 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 1.062E-09 \\
9 & 28.47 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 9.929E-10 \\
10 & 29.48 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 7.159E-10 \\
11 & 30.44 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 6.648E-10 \\
12 & 31.47 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 5.761E-10 \\
13 & 32.49 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 5.268E-10 \\
14 & 33.52 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 4.608E-10 \\
15 & 34.54 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 4.008E-10 \\
16 & 35.51 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 3.221E-10 \\
17 & 36.49 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 3.774E-10 \\
18 & 37.49 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 2.944E-10 \\
19 & 38.41 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 2.735E-10 \\
20 & 39.43 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 2.970E-10 \\
21 & 40.49 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 2.692E-10 \\
22 & 41.49 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 2.287E-10 \\
23 & 42.47 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 2.273E-10 \\
24 & 43.46 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 1.966E-10 \\
25 & 44.49 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 2.323E-10 \\
26 & 45.55 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 1.653E-10 \\
27 & 46.47 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 1.641E-10 \\
28 & 47.51 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 1.927E-10 \\
29 & 48.60 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 1.412E-10 \\
30 & 49.48 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 1.166E-10 \\
31 & 50.40 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 1.241E-10 \\
32 & 51.44 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 1.362E-10 \\
33 & 52.49 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 1.160E-10 \\
34 & 53.48 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 9.323E-11 \\
35 & 54.48 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 1.131E-10 \\
36 & 55.52 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 7.969E-11 \\
37 & 56.47 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 8.953E-11 \\
38 & 57.47 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 7.662E-11 \\
39 & 58.46 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 7.115E-11 \\
40 & 59.49 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 7.005E-11 \\
41 & 60.58 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 6.921E-11 \\
42 & 61.57 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 5.162E-11 \\
43 & 62.43 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 4.518E-11 \\
44 & 63.48 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 6.187E-11 \\
45 & 64.59 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 4.396E-11 \\
46 & 65.58 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 4.218E-11 \\
47 & 66.54 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 3.543E-11 \\
48 & 67.49 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 3.223E-11 \\
49 & 68.42 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 3.339E-11 \\
50 & 69.50 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 3.582E-11 \\
51 & 70.60 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 2.304E-11 \\
52 & 71.37 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 2.583E-11 \\
53 & 72.50 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 2.486E-11 \\
54 & 73.49 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 2.289E-11 \\
55 & 74.46 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 1.690E-11 \\
56 & 75.48 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 2.300E-11 \\
57 & 76.61 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 1.776E-11 \\
58 & 77.65 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 1.480E-11 \\
59 & 78.59 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 1.357E-11 \\
60 & 79.45 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 1.150E-11 \\
61 & 80.37 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 1.432E-11 \\
62 & 81.45 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 1.269E-11 \\
63 & 82.45 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 8.692E-12 \\
64 & 83.30 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 1.181E-11 \\
65 & 84.59 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 1.083E-11 \\
66 & 85.47 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 9.223E-12 \\
67 & 86.54 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 4.444E-12 \\
68 & 87.59 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 4.364E-12 \\
69 & 88.64 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 4.257E-12 \\
70 & 89.71 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 3.764E-12 \\
71 & 90.78 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 3.295E-12 \\
72 & 91.57 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 2.661E-12 \\
73 & 92.61 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 3.807E-12 \\
74 & 93.57 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 2.310E-12 \\
75 & 94.45 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 2.294E-12 \\
76 & 95.51 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 3.577E-12 \\
77 & 96.61 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 1.973E-12 \\
78 & 97.53 & 97.01--98.00 & 1.00 & 2.329E-12 \\
79 & 98.53 & 98.01--99.00 & 1.00 & 1.973E-12 \\
80 & 99.60 & 99.01--100.00 & 1.00 & 3.390E-12 \\
81 & 100.57 & 100.01--101.00 & 1.00 & 1.365E-13 \\
82 & 101.13 & 101.01--101.26 & 0.26 & 9.892E-14 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.1~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thin (0.01~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B5}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.30 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 4.791E-08 \\
2 & 21.43 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 9.203E-09 \\
3 & 22.46 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 4.512E-09 \\
4 & 23.47 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 2.707E-09 \\
5 & 24.46 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 1.886E-09 \\
6 & 25.48 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 1.390E-09 \\
7 & 26.48 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 1.102E-09 \\
8 & 27.49 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 8.717E-10 \\
9 & 28.49 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 7.388E-10 \\
10 & 29.49 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 6.410E-10 \\
11 & 30.50 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 5.305E-10 \\
12 & 31.50 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 4.814E-10 \\
13 & 32.48 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 4.082E-10 \\
14 & 33.48 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 4.186E-10 \\
15 & 34.52 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 3.697E-10 \\
16 & 35.52 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 3.026E-10 \\
17 & 36.48 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 3.087E-10 \\
18 & 37.47 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 2.649E-10 \\
19 & 38.42 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 2.546E-10 \\
20 & 39.49 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 2.756E-10 \\
21 & 40.52 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 2.059E-10 \\
22 & 41.51 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 2.168E-10 \\
23 & 42.54 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 1.931E-10 \\
24 & 43.52 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 1.662E-10 \\
25 & 44.45 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 1.518E-10 \\
26 & 45.48 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 1.663E-10 \\
27 & 46.57 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 1.441E-10 \\
28 & 47.54 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 1.133E-10 \\
29 & 48.48 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 1.220E-10 \\
30 & 49.51 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 1.087E-10 \\
31 & 50.49 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 1.020E-10 \\
32 & 51.54 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 9.943E-11 \\
33 & 52.55 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 9.137E-11 \\
34 & 53.60 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 7.935E-11 \\
35 & 54.58 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 6.418E-11 \\
36 & 55.43 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 6.426E-11 \\
37 & 56.46 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 6.894E-11 \\
38 & 57.48 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 5.259E-11 \\
39 & 58.46 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 5.845E-11 \\
40 & 59.52 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 5.068E-11 \\
41 & 60.54 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 4.624E-11 \\
42 & 61.42 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 3.489E-11 \\
43 & 62.33 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 3.702E-11 \\
44 & 63.38 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 3.938E-11 \\
45 & 64.47 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 3.478E-11 \\
46 & 65.48 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 2.558E-11 \\
47 & 66.52 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 3.174E-11 \\
48 & 67.47 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 2.000E-11 \\
49 & 68.40 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 2.222E-11 \\
50 & 69.45 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 2.476E-11 \\
51 & 70.52 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 1.837E-11 \\
52 & 71.57 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 2.100E-11 \\
53 & 72.72 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 1.692E-11 \\
54 & 73.49 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 8.707E-12 \\
55 & 74.35 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 1.605E-11 \\
56 & 75.48 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 1.535E-11 \\
57 & 76.65 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 1.370E-11 \\
58 & 77.49 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 9.653E-12 \\
59 & 78.55 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 1.125E-11 \\
60 & 79.45 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 7.846E-12 \\
61 & 80.44 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 1.048E-11 \\
62 & 81.47 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 9.118E-12 \\
63 & 82.31 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 6.583E-12 \\
64 & 83.47 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 5.370E-12 \\
65 & 84.52 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 4.275E-12 \\
66 & 85.57 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 4.462E-12 \\
67 & 86.70 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 3.832E-12 \\
68 & 87.49 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 3.001E-12 \\
69 & 88.55 & 88.01--89.00 & 1.00 & 3.766E-12 \\
70 & 89.55 & 89.01--90.00 & 1.00 & 2.326E-12 \\
71 & 90.44 & 90.01--91.00 & 1.00 & 2.237E-12 \\
72 & 91.50 & 91.01--92.00 & 1.00 & 3.397E-12 \\
73 & 92.61 & 92.01--93.00 & 1.00 & 2.066E-12 \\
74 & 93.47 & 93.01--94.00 & 1.00 & 1.865E-12 \\
75 & 94.41 & 94.01--95.00 & 1.00 & 2.060E-12 \\
76 & 95.53 & 95.01--96.00 & 1.00 & 2.711E-12 \\
77 & 96.18 & 96.01--97.00 & 1.00 & 1.288E-12 \\
78 & 97.31 & 97.01--97.53 & 0.53 & 1.512E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.1~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thick (0.03~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B6}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.22 & 20.01--21.00 & 1.00 & 8.045E-08 \\
2 & 21.42 & 21.01--22.00 & 1.00 & 8.884E-09 \\
3 & 22.46 & 22.01--23.00 & 1.00 & 3.927E-09 \\
4 & 23.47 & 23.01--24.00 & 1.00 & 2.298E-09 \\
5 & 24.47 & 24.01--25.00 & 1.00 & 1.703E-09 \\
6 & 25.49 & 25.01--26.00 & 1.00 & 1.245E-09 \\
7 & 26.49 & 26.01--27.00 & 1.00 & 9.992E-10 \\
8 & 27.50 & 27.01--28.00 & 1.00 & 8.185E-10 \\
9 & 28.49 & 28.01--29.00 & 1.00 & 6.972E-10 \\
10 & 29.49 & 29.01--30.00 & 1.00 & 6.030E-10 \\
11 & 30.49 & 30.01--31.00 & 1.00 & 5.235E-10 \\
12 & 31.51 & 31.01--32.00 & 1.00 & 4.960E-10 \\
13 & 32.50 & 32.01--33.00 & 1.00 & 4.031E-10 \\
14 & 33.48 & 33.01--34.00 & 1.00 & 3.805E-10 \\
15 & 34.51 & 34.01--35.00 & 1.00 & 3.523E-10 \\
16 & 35.51 & 35.01--36.00 & 1.00 & 2.932E-10 \\
17 & 36.52 & 36.01--37.00 & 1.00 & 2.958E-10 \\
18 & 37.53 & 37.01--38.00 & 1.00 & 2.435E-10 \\
19 & 38.56 & 38.01--39.00 & 1.00 & 2.334E-10 \\
20 & 39.54 & 39.01--40.00 & 1.00 & 1.870E-10 \\
21 & 40.51 & 40.01--41.00 & 1.00 & 1.841E-10 \\
22 & 41.46 & 41.01--42.00 & 1.00 & 1.614E-10 \\
23 & 42.46 & 42.01--43.00 & 1.00 & 1.604E-10 \\
24 & 43.49 & 43.01--44.00 & 1.00 & 1.389E-10 \\
25 & 44.47 & 44.01--45.00 & 1.00 & 1.164E-10 \\
26 & 45.46 & 45.01--46.00 & 1.00 & 1.218E-10 \\
27 & 46.48 & 46.01--47.00 & 1.00 & 9.975E-11 \\
28 & 47.51 & 47.01--48.00 & 1.00 & 9.858E-11 \\
29 & 48.52 & 48.01--49.00 & 1.00 & 8.353E-11 \\
30 & 49.47 & 49.01--50.00 & 1.00 & 7.428E-11 \\
31 & 50.44 & 50.01--51.00 & 1.00 & 7.476E-11 \\
32 & 51.49 & 51.01--52.00 & 1.00 & 7.036E-11 \\
33 & 52.51 & 52.01--53.00 & 1.00 & 5.687E-11 \\
34 & 53.53 & 53.01--54.00 & 1.00 & 5.693E-11 \\
35 & 54.55 & 54.01--55.00 & 1.00 & 4.883E-11 \\
36 & 55.60 & 55.01--56.00 & 1.00 & 4.648E-11 \\
37 & 56.52 & 56.01--57.00 & 1.00 & 3.372E-11 \\
38 & 57.52 & 57.01--58.00 & 1.00 & 4.070E-11 \\
39 & 58.54 & 58.01--59.00 & 1.00 & 2.926E-11 \\
40 & 59.40 & 59.01--60.00 & 1.00 & 2.992E-11 \\
41 & 60.47 & 60.01--61.00 & 1.00 & 2.797E-11 \\
42 & 61.52 & 61.01--62.00 & 1.00 & 2.980E-11 \\
43 & 62.58 & 62.01--63.00 & 1.00 & 1.714E-11 \\
44 & 63.40 & 63.01--64.00 & 1.00 & 1.403E-11 \\
45 & 64.28 & 64.01--65.00 & 1.00 & 1.600E-11 \\
46 & 65.36 & 65.01--66.00 & 1.00 & 1.854E-11 \\
47 & 66.51 & 66.01--67.00 & 1.00 & 1.684E-11 \\
48 & 67.74 & 67.01--68.00 & 1.00 & 1.631E-11 \\
49 & 68.63 & 68.01--69.00 & 1.00 & 7.637E-12 \\
50 & 69.56 & 69.01--70.00 & 1.00 & 1.255E-11 \\
51 & 70.37 & 70.01--71.00 & 1.00 & 7.185E-12 \\
52 & 71.48 & 71.01--72.00 & 1.00 & 1.291E-11 \\
53 & 72.47 & 72.01--73.00 & 1.00 & 7.544E-12 \\
54 & 73.46 & 73.01--74.00 & 1.00 & 9.376E-12 \\
55 & 74.47 & 74.01--75.00 & 1.00 & 8.198E-12 \\
56 & 75.51 & 75.01--76.00 & 1.00 & 5.435E-12 \\
57 & 76.56 & 76.01--77.00 & 1.00 & 5.703E-12 \\
58 & 77.72 & 77.01--78.00 & 1.00 & 4.495E-12 \\
59 & 78.56 & 78.01--79.00 & 1.00 & 3.712E-12 \\
60 & 79.48 & 79.01--80.00 & 1.00 & 3.644E-12 \\
61 & 80.47 & 80.01--81.00 & 1.00 & 5.127E-12 \\
62 & 81.59 & 81.01--82.00 & 1.00 & 2.293E-12 \\
63 & 82.48 & 82.01--83.00 & 1.00 & 2.219E-12 \\
64 & 83.54 & 83.01--84.00 & 1.00 & 3.098E-12 \\
65 & 84.60 & 84.01--85.00 & 1.00 & 1.602E-12 \\
66 & 85.44 & 85.01--86.00 & 1.00 & 1.908E-12 \\
67 & 86.54 & 86.01--87.00 & 1.00 & 2.324E-12 \\
68 & 87.49 & 87.01--88.00 & 1.00 & 2.402E-12 \\
69 & 88.66 & 88.01--89.07 & 1.07 & 2.074E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.2~$\mu$m bare olivine grains at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B7}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.16 & 20.01--20.50 & 0.50 & 1.486E-07 \\
2 & 20.71 & 20.51--21.00 & 0.50 & 3.214E-08 \\
3 & 21.23 & 21.01--21.50 & 0.50 & 1.590E-08 \\
4 & 21.73 & 21.51--22.00 & 0.50 & 9.555E-09 \\
5 & 22.25 & 22.01--22.50 & 0.50 & 7.017E-09 \\
6 & 22.74 & 22.51--23.00 & 0.50 & 4.056E-09 \\
7 & 23.23 & 23.01--23.50 & 0.50 & 4.304E-09 \\
8 & 23.75 & 23.51--24.00 & 0.50 & 2.843E-09 \\
9 & 24.24 & 24.01--24.50 & 0.50 & 2.620E-09 \\
10 & 24.79 & 24.51--25.00 & 0.50 & 2.349E-09 \\
11 & 25.27 & 25.01--25.50 & 0.50 & 1.580E-09 \\
12 & 25.75 & 25.51--26.00 & 0.50 & 1.724E-09 \\
13 & 26.26 & 26.01--26.50 & 0.50 & 1.372E-09 \\
14 & 26.71 & 26.51--27.00 & 0.50 & 1.193E-09 \\
15 & 27.24 & 27.01--27.50 & 0.50 & 1.354E-09 \\
16 & 27.75 & 27.51--28.00 & 0.50 & 1.100E-09 \\
17 & 28.25 & 28.01--28.50 & 0.50 & 1.078E-09 \\
18 & 28.75 & 28.51--29.00 & 0.50 & 9.345E-10 \\
19 & 29.29 & 29.01--29.50 & 0.50 & 1.004E-09 \\
20 & 29.79 & 29.51--30.00 & 0.50 & 7.402E-10 \\
21 & 30.27 & 30.01--30.50 & 0.50 & 8.489E-10 \\
22 & 30.79 & 30.51--31.00 & 0.50 & 7.609E-10 \\
23 & 31.28 & 31.01--31.50 & 0.50 & 6.688E-10 \\
24 & 31.77 & 31.51--32.00 & 0.50 & 6.752E-10 \\
25 & 32.28 & 32.01--32.50 & 0.50 & 5.735E-10 \\
26 & 32.73 & 32.51--33.00 & 0.50 & 5.877E-10 \\
27 & 33.24 & 33.01--33.50 & 0.50 & 6.212E-10 \\
28 & 33.76 & 33.51--34.00 & 0.50 & 5.328E-10 \\
29 & 34.25 & 34.01--34.50 & 0.50 & 4.534E-10 \\
30 & 34.70 & 34.51--35.00 & 0.50 & 4.784E-10 \\
31 & 35.21 & 35.01--35.50 & 0.50 & 4.874E-10 \\
32 & 35.76 & 35.51--36.00 & 0.50 & 4.711E-10 \\
33 & 36.25 & 36.01--36.50 & 0.50 & 3.569E-10 \\
34 & 36.73 & 36.51--37.00 & 0.50 & 4.037E-10 \\
35 & 37.31 & 37.01--37.50 & 0.50 & 3.952E-10 \\
36 & 37.77 & 37.51--38.00 & 0.50 & 2.725E-10 \\
37 & 38.21 & 38.01--38.50 & 0.50 & 3.619E-10 \\
38 & 38.80 & 38.51--39.00 & 0.50 & 3.424E-10 \\
39 & 39.31 & 39.01--39.50 & 0.50 & 2.928E-10 \\
40 & 39.79 & 39.51--40.00 & 0.50 & 2.617E-10 \\
41 & 40.32 & 40.01--40.50 & 0.50 & 2.759E-10 \\
42 & 40.79 & 40.51--41.00 & 0.50 & 2.168E-10 \\
43 & 41.23 & 41.01--41.50 & 0.50 & 2.369E-10 \\
44 & 41.75 & 41.51--42.00 & 0.50 & 2.490E-10 \\
45 & 42.33 & 42.01--42.50 & 0.50 & 2.204E-10 \\
46 & 42.72 & 42.51--43.00 & 0.50 & 1.217E-10 \\
47 & 43.18 & 43.01--43.50 & 0.50 & 2.374E-10 \\
48 & 43.81 & 43.51--44.00 & 0.50 & 1.853E-10 \\
49 & 44.21 & 44.01--44.50 & 0.50 & 1.582E-10 \\
50 & 44.79 & 44.51--45.00 & 0.50 & 1.675E-10 \\
51 & 45.21 & 45.01--45.50 & 0.50 & 1.368E-10 \\
52 & 45.74 & 45.51--46.00 & 0.50 & 1.600E-10 \\
53 & 46.23 & 46.01--46.50 & 0.50 & 1.155E-10 \\
54 & 46.74 & 46.51--47.00 & 0.50 & 1.526E-10 \\
55 & 47.28 & 47.01--47.50 & 0.50 & 1.035E-10 \\
56 & 47.68 & 47.51--48.00 & 0.50 & 1.066E-10 \\
57 & 48.19 & 48.01--48.50 & 0.50 & 1.184E-10 \\
58 & 48.72 & 48.51--49.00 & 0.50 & 9.095E-11 \\
59 & 49.19 & 49.01--49.50 & 0.50 & 9.128E-11 \\
60 & 49.69 & 49.51--50.00 & 0.50 & 9.396E-11 \\
61 & 50.23 & 50.01--50.50 & 0.50 & 1.149E-10 \\
62 & 50.77 & 50.51--51.00 & 0.50 & 5.275E-11 \\
63 & 51.27 & 51.01--51.50 & 0.50 & 1.002E-10 \\
64 & 51.78 & 51.51--52.00 & 0.50 & 4.989E-11 \\
65 & 52.28 & 52.01--52.50 & 0.50 & 8.050E-11 \\
66 & 52.76 & 52.51--53.00 & 0.50 & 6.458E-11 \\
67 & 53.25 & 53.01--53.50 & 0.50 & 5.046E-11 \\
68 & 53.72 & 53.51--54.00 & 0.50 & 5.687E-11 \\
69 & 54.28 & 54.01--54.50 & 0.50 & 6.384E-11 \\
70 & 54.80 & 54.51--55.00 & 0.50 & 4.361E-11 \\
71 & 55.31 & 55.01--55.50 & 0.50 & 5.752E-11 \\
72 & 55.83 & 55.51--56.00 & 0.50 & 3.746E-11 \\
73 & 56.23 & 56.01--56.50 & 0.50 & 3.476E-11 \\
74 & 56.73 & 56.51--57.00 & 0.50 & 4.582E-11 \\
75 & 57.26 & 57.01--57.50 & 0.50 & 3.739E-11 \\
76 & 57.75 & 57.51--58.00 & 0.50 & 4.545E-11 \\
77 & 58.33 & 58.01--58.50 & 0.50 & 2.593E-11 \\
78 & 58.74 & 58.51--59.00 & 0.50 & 4.155E-11 \\
79 & 59.25 & 59.01--59.50 & 0.50 & 2.422E-11 \\
80 & 59.81 & 59.51--60.00 & 0.50 & 3.881E-11 \\
81 & 60.21 & 60.01--60.50 & 0.50 & 1.769E-11 \\
82 & 60.73 & 60.51--61.00 & 0.50 & 2.184E-11 \\
83 & 61.19 & 61.01--61.50 & 0.50 & 3.578E-11 \\
84 & 61.74 & 61.51--62.00 & 0.50 & 2.957E-11 \\
85 & 62.36 & 62.01--62.50 & 0.50 & 1.625E-11 \\
86 & 62.69 & 62.51--63.00 & 0.50 & 3.892E-12 \\
87 & 63.19 & 63.01--63.50 & 0.50 & 1.552E-11 \\
88 & 63.87 & 63.51--64.00 & 0.50 & 1.480E-11 \\
89 & 64.28 & 64.01--64.50 & 0.50 & 4.074E-12 \\
90 & 64.71 & 64.51--65.00 & 0.50 & 1.367E-11 \\
91 & 65.23 & 65.01--65.50 & 0.50 & 4.073E-12 \\
92 & 65.64 & 65.51--66.00 & 0.50 & 1.155E-11 \\
93 & 66.12 & 66.01--66.50 & 0.50 & 8.173E-12 \\
94 & 66.59 & 66.51--67.00 & 0.50 & 8.300E-12 \\
95 & 67.10 & 67.01--67.50 & 0.50 & 9.145E-12 \\
96 & 67.62 & 67.51--68.00 & 0.50 & 7.944E-12 \\
97 & 68.13 & 68.01--68.50 & 0.50 & 7.839E-12 \\
98 & 68.67 & 68.51--69.00 & 0.50 & 7.893E-12 \\
99 & 69.16 & 69.01--69.50 & 0.50 & 7.334E-12 \\
100 & 69.73 & 69.51--70.00 & 0.50 & 7.086E-12 \\
101 & 70.24 & 70.01--70.50 & 0.50 & 6.820E-12 \\
102 & 70.76 & 70.51--71.00 & 0.50 & 5.307E-12 \\
103 & 71.23 & 71.01--71.50 & 0.50 & 5.602E-12 \\
104 & 71.76 & 71.51--72.00 & 0.50 & 8.223E-12 \\
105 & 72.11 & 72.01--72.50 & 0.50 & 5.014E-12 \\
106 & 72.85 & 72.51--73.07 & 0.57 & 7.415E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.2~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thin (0.02~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B8}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.13 & 20.01--20.50 & 0.50 & 2.128E-07 \\
2 & 20.71 & 20.51--21.00 & 0.50 & 2.774E-08 \\
3 & 21.23 & 21.01--21.50 & 0.50 & 1.280E-08 \\
4 & 21.74 & 21.51--22.00 & 0.50 & 7.557E-09 \\
5 & 22.25 & 22.01--22.50 & 0.50 & 5.151E-09 \\
6 & 22.75 & 22.51--23.00 & 0.50 & 3.756E-09 \\
7 & 23.24 & 23.01--23.50 & 0.50 & 3.040E-09 \\
8 & 23.74 & 23.51--24.00 & 0.50 & 2.463E-09 \\
9 & 24.26 & 24.01--24.50 & 0.50 & 2.252E-09 \\
10 & 24.76 & 24.51--25.00 & 0.50 & 1.485E-09 \\
11 & 25.24 & 25.01--25.50 & 0.50 & 1.754E-09 \\
12 & 25.75 & 25.51--26.00 & 0.50 & 1.414E-09 \\
13 & 26.26 & 26.01--26.50 & 0.50 & 1.247E-09 \\
14 & 26.77 & 26.51--27.00 & 0.50 & 1.240E-09 \\
15 & 27.28 & 27.01--27.50 & 0.50 & 1.014E-09 \\
16 & 27.76 & 27.51--28.00 & 0.50 & 9.359E-10 \\
17 & 28.26 & 28.01--28.50 & 0.50 & 9.413E-10 \\
18 & 28.77 & 28.51--29.00 & 0.50 & 8.067E-10 \\
19 & 29.27 & 29.01--29.50 & 0.50 & 7.596E-10 \\
20 & 29.76 & 29.51--30.00 & 0.50 & 7.369E-10 \\
21 & 30.28 & 30.01--30.50 & 0.50 & 7.101E-10 \\
22 & 30.77 & 30.51--31.00 & 0.50 & 5.115E-10 \\
23 & 31.24 & 31.01--31.50 & 0.50 & 6.425E-10 \\
24 & 31.72 & 31.51--32.00 & 0.50 & 4.501E-10 \\
25 & 32.17 & 32.01--32.50 & 0.50 & 4.980E-10 \\
26 & 32.70 & 32.51--33.00 & 0.50 & 5.111E-10 \\
27 & 33.23 & 33.01--33.50 & 0.50 & 4.452E-10 \\
28 & 33.73 & 33.51--34.00 & 0.50 & 4.030E-10 \\
29 & 34.24 & 34.01--34.50 & 0.50 & 4.389E-10 \\
30 & 34.79 & 34.51--35.00 & 0.50 & 3.254E-10 \\
31 & 35.24 & 35.01--35.50 & 0.50 & 3.160E-10 \\
32 & 35.75 & 35.51--36.00 & 0.50 & 3.599E-10 \\
33 & 36.30 & 36.01--36.50 & 0.50 & 3.016E-10 \\
34 & 36.81 & 36.51--37.00 & 0.50 & 2.818E-10 \\
35 & 37.27 & 37.01--37.50 & 0.50 & 2.393E-10 \\
36 & 37.71 & 37.51--38.00 & 0.50 & 2.348E-10 \\
37 & 38.24 & 38.01--38.50 & 0.50 & 2.569E-10 \\
38 & 38.84 & 38.51--39.00 & 0.50 & 2.524E-10 \\
39 & 39.27 & 39.01--39.50 & 0.50 & 1.552E-10 \\
40 & 39.76 & 39.51--40.00 & 0.50 & 2.127E-10 \\
41 & 40.24 & 40.01--40.50 & 0.50 & 1.404E-10 \\
42 & 40.69 & 40.51--41.00 & 0.50 & 1.897E-10 \\
43 & 41.22 & 41.01--41.50 & 0.50 & 1.719E-10 \\
44 & 41.68 & 41.51--42.00 & 0.50 & 1.288E-10 \\
45 & 42.22 & 42.01--42.50 & 0.50 & 1.774E-10 \\
46 & 42.78 & 42.51--43.00 & 0.50 & 1.328E-10 \\
47 & 43.23 & 43.01--43.50 & 0.50 & 1.263E-10 \\
48 & 43.77 & 43.51--44.00 & 0.50 & 1.297E-10 \\
49 & 44.33 & 44.01--44.50 & 0.50 & 9.686E-11 \\
50 & 44.70 & 44.51--45.00 & 0.50 & 9.983E-11 \\
51 & 45.31 & 45.01--45.50 & 0.50 & 1.267E-10 \\
52 & 45.77 & 45.51--46.00 & 0.50 & 4.750E-11 \\
53 & 46.24 & 46.01--46.50 & 0.50 & 1.130E-10 \\
54 & 46.77 & 46.51--47.00 & 0.50 & 5.492E-11 \\
55 & 47.24 & 47.01--47.50 & 0.50 & 9.971E-11 \\
56 & 47.83 & 47.51--48.00 & 0.50 & 5.815E-11 \\
57 & 48.26 & 48.01--48.50 & 0.50 & 7.124E-11 \\
58 & 48.70 & 48.51--49.00 & 0.50 & 4.793E-11 \\
59 & 49.20 & 49.01--49.50 & 0.50 & 6.446E-11 \\
60 & 49.72 & 49.51--50.00 & 0.50 & 5.671E-11 \\
61 & 50.31 & 50.01--50.50 & 0.50 & 6.418E-11 \\
62 & 50.76 & 50.51--51.00 & 0.50 & 2.744E-11 \\
63 & 51.19 & 51.01--51.50 & 0.50 & 5.815E-11 \\
64 & 51.87 & 51.51--52.00 & 0.50 & 5.131E-11 \\
65 & 52.26 & 52.01--52.50 & 0.50 & 2.895E-11 \\
66 & 52.79 & 52.51--53.00 & 0.50 & 4.733E-11 \\
67 & 53.25 & 53.01--53.50 & 0.50 & 2.662E-11 \\
68 & 53.80 & 53.51--54.00 & 0.50 & 5.306E-11 \\
69 & 54.31 & 54.01--54.50 & 0.50 & 2.150E-11 \\
70 & 54.88 & 54.51--55.00 & 0.50 & 4.243E-11 \\
71 & 55.29 & 55.01--55.50 & 0.50 & 2.181E-11 \\
72 & 55.80 & 55.51--56.00 & 0.50 & 1.921E-11 \\
73 & 56.26 & 56.01--56.50 & 0.50 & 3.537E-11 \\
74 & 56.80 & 56.51--57.00 & 0.50 & 2.418E-11 \\
75 & 57.26 & 57.01--57.50 & 0.50 & 2.345E-11 \\
76 & 57.64 & 57.51--58.00 & 0.50 & 2.145E-11 \\
77 & 58.31 & 58.01--58.50 & 0.50 & 1.690E-11 \\
78 & 58.77 & 58.51--59.00 & 0.50 & 7.484E-12 \\
79 & 59.18 & 59.01--59.50 & 0.50 & 1.483E-11 \\
80 & 59.85 & 59.51--60.00 & 0.50 & 1.632E-11 \\
81 & 60.31 & 60.01--60.50 & 0.50 & 4.926E-12 \\
82 & 60.79 & 60.51--61.00 & 0.50 & 1.272E-11 \\
83 & 61.27 & 61.01--61.50 & 0.50 & 1.107E-11 \\
84 & 61.74 & 61.51--62.00 & 0.50 & 7.591E-12 \\
85 & 62.23 & 62.01--62.50 & 0.50 & 8.841E-12 \\
86 & 62.75 & 62.51--63.00 & 0.50 & 8.326E-12 \\
87 & 63.31 & 63.01--63.50 & 0.50 & 7.928E-12 \\
88 & 63.84 & 63.51--64.00 & 0.50 & 7.288E-12 \\
89 & 64.31 & 64.01--64.50 & 0.50 & 7.846E-12 \\
90 & 64.89 & 64.51--65.00 & 0.50 & 6.592E-12 \\
91 & 65.37 & 65.01--65.50 & 0.50 & 5.791E-12 \\
92 & 65.78 & 65.51--66.00 & 0.50 & 5.217E-12 \\
93 & 66.27 & 66.01--66.50 & 0.50 & 5.367E-12 \\
94 & 66.77 & 66.51--67.00 & 0.50 & 5.288E-12 \\
95 & 67.26 & 67.01--67.50 & 0.50 & 8.641E-12 \\
96 & 67.54 & 67.51--68.00 & 0.50 & 2.813E-12 \\
97 & 68.29 & 68.01--68.47 & 0.47 & 6.387E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\clearpage
\begin{deluxetable}{lcccc}
\tablewidth{0pt}
\tabletypesize{\scriptsize}
\tablecaption{Calculated temperature frequency $f_T$ spectrum for CR-induced whole-grain heating of 0.2~$\mu$m olivine grains with a thick (0.06~$\mu$m) icy mantle at $T_0=20$~K.}
\label{tab-B9}
\tablehead{
\colhead{No.} & \colhead{$T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{interval, K} & \colhead{$\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, K} & \colhead{$f_T$, s$^{-1}$}
}
\startdata
1 & 20.10 & 20.01--20.50 & 0.50 & 2.957E-07 \\
2 & 20.71 & 20.51--21.00 & 0.50 & 2.455E-08 \\
3 & 21.23 & 21.01--21.50 & 0.50 & 1.118E-08 \\
4 & 21.75 & 21.51--22.00 & 0.50 & 6.823E-09 \\
5 & 22.25 & 22.01--22.50 & 0.50 & 4.771E-09 \\
6 & 22.76 & 22.51--23.00 & 0.50 & 3.533E-09 \\
7 & 23.25 & 23.01--23.50 & 0.50 & 2.874E-09 \\
8 & 23.75 & 23.51--24.00 & 0.50 & 2.468E-09 \\
9 & 24.25 & 24.01--24.50 & 0.50 & 1.890E-09 \\
10 & 24.73 & 24.51--25.00 & 0.50 & 1.845E-09 \\
11 & 25.25 & 25.01--25.50 & 0.50 & 1.632E-09 \\
12 & 25.76 & 25.51--26.00 & 0.50 & 1.248E-09 \\
13 & 26.24 & 26.01--26.50 & 0.50 & 1.251E-09 \\
14 & 26.75 & 26.51--27.00 & 0.50 & 1.026E-09 \\
15 & 27.23 & 27.01--27.50 & 0.50 & 9.322E-10 \\
16 & 27.73 & 27.51--28.00 & 0.50 & 9.031E-10 \\
17 & 28.23 & 28.01--28.50 & 0.50 & 7.226E-10 \\
18 & 28.73 & 28.51--29.00 & 0.50 & 7.228E-10 \\
19 & 29.24 & 29.01--29.50 & 0.50 & 6.459E-10 \\
20 & 29.73 & 29.51--30.00 & 0.50 & 5.687E-10 \\
21 & 30.25 & 30.01--30.50 & 0.50 & 5.637E-10 \\
22 & 30.77 & 30.51--31.00 & 0.50 & 4.752E-10 \\
23 & 31.26 & 31.01--31.50 & 0.50 & 4.284E-10 \\
24 & 31.78 & 31.51--32.00 & 0.50 & 4.123E-10 \\
25 & 32.29 & 32.01--32.50 & 0.50 & 3.705E-10 \\
26 & 32.78 & 32.51--33.00 & 0.50 & 3.030E-10 \\
27 & 33.26 & 33.01--33.50 & 0.50 & 2.935E-10 \\
28 & 33.70 & 33.51--34.00 & 0.50 & 2.807E-10 \\
29 & 34.28 & 34.01--34.50 & 0.50 & 3.040E-10 \\
30 & 34.80 & 34.51--35.00 & 0.50 & 2.303E-10 \\
31 & 35.24 & 35.01--35.50 & 0.50 & 2.133E-10 \\
32 & 35.73 & 35.51--36.00 & 0.50 & 2.115E-10 \\
33 & 36.25 & 36.01--36.50 & 0.50 & 1.934E-10 \\
34 & 36.69 & 36.51--37.00 & 0.50 & 1.663E-10 \\
35 & 37.21 & 37.01--37.50 & 0.50 & 1.884E-10 \\
36 & 37.78 & 37.51--38.00 & 0.50 & 1.792E-10 \\
37 & 38.29 & 38.01--38.50 & 0.50 & 1.121E-10 \\
38 & 38.75 & 38.51--39.00 & 0.50 & 1.520E-10 \\
39 & 39.26 & 39.01--39.50 & 0.50 & 9.731E-11 \\
40 & 39.71 & 39.51--40.00 & 0.50 & 1.334E-10 \\
41 & 40.27 & 40.01--40.50 & 0.50 & 9.931E-11 \\
42 & 40.74 & 40.51--41.00 & 0.50 & 1.105E-10 \\
43 & 41.28 & 41.01--41.50 & 0.50 & 7.295E-11 \\
44 & 41.70 & 41.51--42.00 & 0.50 & 9.011E-11 \\
45 & 42.25 & 42.01--42.50 & 0.50 & 8.971E-11 \\
46 & 42.78 & 42.51--43.00 & 0.50 & 6.231E-11 \\
47 & 43.26 & 43.01--43.50 & 0.50 & 5.511E-11 \\
48 & 43.75 & 43.51--44.00 & 0.50 & 5.702E-11 \\
49 & 44.36 & 44.01--44.50 & 0.50 & 6.203E-11 \\
50 & 44.80 & 44.51--45.00 & 0.50 & 2.759E-11 \\
51 & 45.23 & 45.01--45.50 & 0.50 & 5.723E-11 \\
52 & 45.74 & 45.51--46.00 & 0.50 & 3.066E-11 \\
53 & 46.18 & 46.01--46.50 & 0.50 & 4.929E-11 \\
54 & 46.76 & 46.51--47.00 & 0.50 & 3.586E-11 \\
55 & 47.28 & 47.01--47.50 & 0.50 & 4.694E-11 \\
56 & 47.79 & 47.51--48.00 & 0.50 & 2.028E-11 \\
57 & 48.28 & 48.01--48.50 & 0.50 & 3.660E-11 \\
58 & 48.77 & 48.51--49.00 & 0.50 & 3.202E-11 \\
59 & 49.26 & 49.01--49.50 & 0.50 & 2.370E-11 \\
60 & 49.71 & 49.51--50.00 & 0.50 & 2.735E-11 \\
61 & 50.27 & 50.01--50.50 & 0.50 & 3.154E-11 \\
62 & 50.86 & 50.51--51.00 & 0.50 & 2.047E-11 \\
63 & 51.26 & 51.01--51.50 & 0.50 & 9.028E-12 \\
64 & 51.68 & 51.51--52.00 & 0.50 & 1.844E-11 \\
65 & 52.35 & 52.01--52.50 & 0.50 & 1.636E-11 \\
66 & 52.81 & 52.51--53.00 & 0.50 & 1.226E-11 \\
67 & 53.28 & 53.01--53.50 & 0.50 & 1.213E-11 \\
68 & 53.78 & 53.51--54.00 & 0.50 & 1.357E-11 \\
69 & 54.28 & 54.01--54.50 & 0.50 & 1.266E-11 \\
70 & 54.81 & 54.51--55.00 & 0.50 & 7.989E-12 \\
71 & 55.30 & 55.01--55.50 & 0.50 & 7.621E-12 \\
72 & 55.79 & 55.51--56.00 & 0.50 & 8.514E-12 \\
73 & 56.36 & 56.01--56.50 & 0.50 & 6.595E-12 \\
74 & 56.84 & 56.51--57.00 & 0.50 & 5.827E-12 \\
75 & 57.22 & 57.01--57.50 & 0.50 & 4.974E-12 \\
76 & 57.70 & 57.51--58.00 & 0.50 & 5.457E-12 \\
77 & 58.21 & 58.01--58.50 & 0.50 & 6.531E-12 \\
78 & 58.74 & 58.51--59.00 & 0.50 & 9.583E-12 \\
79 & 59.29 & 59.01--59.50 & 0.50 & 3.948E-13 \\
80 & 59.67 & 59.51--59.79 & 0.29 & 4.613E-13 \\
\enddata
\end{deluxetable}
\section{Introduction}
\label{intro}
Among the various processes that affect dust grains in the interstellar medium is interaction with cosmic-ray (CR) particles. These may deposit a considerable amount of energy into the grains, which induces whole-grain heating. Studies of such events have been inspired by their possible effect on the gas-grain chemistry in dark cloud cores and star-forming regions. The initial research by \citet*{Leger85} studied the effects of olivine grain collisions with iron nuclei CRs, while those of \citet{Shen04,deBarros11b,deBarros11d} and \citet{Ivlev15r} covered the deposition of CR energy into grains in additional detail. Grain heating events are of interest because they serve as an energy source for some surface processes in dark clouds. Such processes include chemical explosions \citep{Leger85,Shen04}, molecule evaporation \citep{Hasegawa93,Willacy93,Roberts07}, diffusion \citep{Reboussin14,Kalvans14ba}, and chemical reactions \citep{Kalvans15a} for molecules adsorbed on interstellar or circumstellar grains.
The above studies investigate molecular processes, approximating CR-induced grain heating to a minimum temperature $T_{\rm CR}$, K, threshold most relevant for the process in consideration. Each $T_{\rm CR}$ threshold has its characteristic occurrence frequency $\Sigma f_T$, s$^{-1}$. For example, a 70~K threshold was adopted by \citet{Hasegawa93} to describe evaporation, while 27~K was adopted by \citet{Leger85} as a sufficient temperature to enable radical mobility on grain surfaces, triggering chemical explosions in the ice layer.
The interstellar grains are affected by CR particles consisting of many elements with various energies and frequencies. Additionally, the CR hits deposit different proportions of their energy into the grains, depending on the properties of the particular CR particle, its trajectory through the grain, and grain material. The situation becomes more complex, when inhomogeneous grains are considered. The resulting CR-induced heating can be described with a spectrum of grain temperatures $T_{\rm CR}$, each of which occurs with a certain frequency $f_T$.
The aim of this paper is to present a dedicated study to compute such a spectrum. This involves two tasks. The first is to calculate the data considering as much detail as necessary, within reason. The second task is to present the results in a comprehensive but convenient manner. To fulfil this, we include the whole temperature spectrum for CR-heated grains, not just a few threshold temperatures and their occurrence frequencies, as in previous studies. Such a $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum will allow, for example, to include whole-grain heating in astrochemical models that study certain physical or chemical processes (evaporation, surface diffusion, reactions) that require a characteristic minimum grain temperature. The study was motivated by the lack of published proper whole-grain heating data as discussed by \citet{Kalvans15a}.
It is important to clearly state that we do not consider the cooling of the grains. Cooling determines how long a heated grain will remain within a certain temperature range. Cooling by evaporation of volatiles, such as the CO molecule, is likely to be the main mechanism in molecular clouds \citep{Leger85}. The number of evaporated CO molecules \citep[$>10^5$,][]{Roberts07} is comparable to or lower than the number of adsorption sites on grain surface. This means that the existence of even a very thin ice layer may make evaporative cooling the dominant mechanism, which means that the cooling rate depends on the chemical composition of the ice layer. The computation of ice composition and thus, an accurate cooling rate, is a task for astrochemical simulations. Here, we deal exclusively with grain heating by CRs to a certain temperature $T_{\rm CR}$, which is reached before cooling processes become significant.
\section{Methodology}
\label{meth}
A number of aspects have to be taken into account when calculating the temperature spectrum of CR-heated grains. Cosmic rays of different energies $E_{\rm CR}$ (MeV/ion or MeV/amu) have different abundances, i.e., they have a characteristic energy spectrum. This initial spectrum is modified by the medium, where the CR particles propagate. The CR particles include many chemical elements, each of which also has a different abundance.
Various cosmic-ray species interact differently with grain material. This means that each CR element loses a different amount of energy ($E_{\rm lost}$, eV) upon impacting a grain. This energy also depends on the composition of grain, its density, size, and shape. The latter determines the exact cross-section and path length for CR particles striking the grain. Additionally, part of $E_{\rm lost}$ is carried away, when energetic electrons, released by the CR impact, escape from the finite-sized grain. The energy received by grains $E_{\rm grain}$ (eV) is transformed into heat and temporary raises grain temperature to $T_{CR}$. Each $T_{CR}$ occurs with a certain frequency $f_T$,~s$^{-1}$. The corresponding frequency for $E_{\rm grain}$ is $f_E$.
In the below sections, the above steps are described in detail. While each step has some uncertainties, we opted for the most plausible assortment of parameters to produce a single set of readily usable results. Along with the calculated $T_{\rm CR}$ spectra, the Appendices provide also $E_{\rm grain}$ spectra that allows to recalculate $T_{\rm CR}$ with a different approach on grain heat capacities.
\subsection{Cosmic-ray composition and energy spectrum}
\label{cr}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Adopted abundances of cosmic-ray constituents.}
\label{tab-ab}
\begin{tabular}{lc}
\tableline\tableline
X & [X]/[H] \\
\tableline
$^1$H & 1.00 \\
$^2$D & 1.60E-02 \\
$^3$He & 1.00E-02 \\
$^4$He & 8.36E-02 \\
Li & 9.65E-04 \\
Be & 1.16E-04 \\
B & 1.28E-03 \\
C & 5.19E-03 \\
N & 1.21E-03 \\
O & 5.01E-03 \\
F & 7.20E-05 \\
Ne & 7.06E-04 \\
Na & 1.34E-04 \\
Mg & 9.67E-04 \\
Al & 1.43E-04 \\
Si & 7.07E-04 \\
P & 1.85E-05 \\
S & 1.11E-04 \\
Cl & 1.76E-05 \\
Ar & 4.16E-05 \\
K & 2.94E-05 \\
Ca & 8.82E-05 \\
Sc & 1.84E-05 \\
Ti & 7.10E-05 \\
V & 3.23E-05 \\
Cr & 6.99E-05 \\
Mn & 4.34E-05 \\
Fe & 4.62E-04 \\
Co & 2.62E-06 \\
Ni & 1.97E-05 \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-2cm}
\hspace{-1cm}
\includegraphics[width=18.0cm]{att-en.eps}
\vspace{-17.5cm}
\caption{Calculated energy spectra for selected cosmic-ray components.}
\label{att-en}
\end{figure*}
The CR energy spectrum was calculated generally following the work by \citet{Chabot16}. Cosmic-ray elements with atomic numbers from 1 to 28, i.e., from H to Ni, were considered. The relative abundances of the heavier elements starting with B were adopted from \citet{George09}. For estimating the relative abundance of hydrogen CRs, the Si/H ratio from \citet{Meyer98} was used. This approach results in that the important Fe/H abundance ratio falls approximately in the middle of the values used by other authors considering CR interactions with interstellar dust grains \citep{Leger85,Shen04,Roberts07,deBarros11d,Kalvans15a,Chabot16} and has an uncertainty of about a factor of two.
Regarding the lighter elements, we used a value of 8.36~\% for He/H abundance ratio from a dedicated study of light element CRs by \citet{Wang02}. These authors also indicate that CRs contain a considerable amount ($\approx1$~\% relative to H) of the isotopes D and $^3$He. The abundances of Li and Be were adopted from the Li/C and Be/C abundance ratios reported by \citet{deNolfo06}. Table~\ref{tab-ab} summarizes the adopted initial relative abundances of chemical elements in CRs.
It has been shown \citep{McCall03,Indriolo07,Indriolo09,Padovani09,Morlino15} that the flux of interstellar low-energy CRs is likely to be different and higher than earlier estimates \citep[e.g.,][]{Webber83} or the flux observed on Earth \citep{George09}. This can significantly affect grain heating because low-energy ions ($\approx1$~MeV/amu) are the most effective at depositing energy into the grains. Therefore, we adopted the ``High'' initial spectrum of CR protons recently devised by \citet{Ivlev15p}. This means that
\begin{equation}
\label{cr1}
J_{p,0} = 2.4\times10^{15}\frac{E^{-1.5}}{(E+5\times10^8~\rm{eV})^{1.9}}~\rm eV^{-1} cm^{-2} s^{-1} sr^{-1}.
\end{equation}
Where $J_{p,0}$ is the initial spectrum of protons and $E$ is their energy per atomic mass unit. This spectrum was scaled by the abundances in Table~\ref{tab-ab} to obtain the initial spectra of the various other CR particles.
The CRs propagate through the interstellar cloud, interacting with its atoms. The resulting changes in the energy distribution of the CR particles were calculated according to
\begin{equation}
\label{cr2}
J_{k,N_H}=J_{k,0}\frac{L_k(E_{k,0})}{L_k(E_{k,N_H})},
\end{equation}
where $J_{k,N_H}$ is the spectrum of species $k$ at a hydrogen column density $N_H$ (cm$^{-2}$) in the cloud and $E_k$ is measured in MeV/amu \citep{Padovani09}. Parameter $L_k$ is the CR energy loss function (eV per amount of matter), discussed below.
To calculate the CR spectrum, the value of $N_H$ has to be chosen. It is proportional to the interstellar visual extinction, $A_V$, measured in magnitudes. For the purposes of the present paper, two prerequisites have to be fulfilled: (1) that the chosen $A_V$ is characteristic for translucent molecular clouds and (2) that accumulation of ices is possible at the chosen $A_V$, so that our results are relevant to interstellar grain surface chemistry.
The range of extinctions, where these two conditions are met is fairly small, which allows us to employ a single $A_V$ value. Interstellar ice appears ar $A_V=3.2$~mag \citep{Whittet01}, which corresponds to an extinction of approximately 1.6~mag in the densest, central part of the cloud, where ice formation is taking place. Here we adopt a somewhat larger standard value of $A_V=2.0$~mag to account for the probability that at 1.6~mag the formation of ices may be just barely begun. Whole-grain heating at higher optical depths will be covered in a subsequent study.
To calculate the column density at $A_V=2.0$~mag, the value of the $N_H/A_V$ ratio has to be defined. The values suggested range from around $1.8\times10^{21}$ \citep{Reina73,Predehl95} to $2.2\times10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$~mag$^{-1}$ \citep{Gorenstein75,Guver09}. Here we adopt a conventional middle value of $2.0\times10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$~mag$^{-1}$.
Therefore, we assume that CR ions propagate through gas with hydrogen column density of $4.0\times10^{21}$~cm$^{-2}$. The loss function $L_k$ was calculated with the \textsc{srim}\footnote{http://www.srim.org/} package \citep{Ziegler85,Ziegler10} for a gas consisting of H, He ($\rm [He]/[H]=0.1$), and heavy elements C, N, O, Si, and Fe with relative abundances from \citet[parameter $F_\ast$ taken to be 0]{Jenkins09}. The calculated $L_k$ values are 1.2 times higher than those used by \citet{Chabot16}, mainly because of the inclusion of helium as a target gas component (note that for H we consider atoms, not molecules). Figure~\ref{att-en} shows the final spectrum of selected CR elements.
\subsection{Geometrical grain model}
\label{geom}
\begin{table}
\begin{center}
\caption{Assumed radius and ice thickness for the nine types of spherical interstellar grains considered in the study.}
\label{tab-sizes}
\begin{tabular}{clcc}
\tableline\tableline
& & Olivine core & Ice mantle \\
No. & Type & radius $a$, $\mu$m & thickness $b$, $\mu$m \\
\tableline
1 & Bare grain & 0.05 & - \\
2 & Thin ice & 0.05 & 0.005 \\
3 & Thick ice & 0.05 & 0.015 \\
4 & Bare grain & 0.1 & - \\
5 & Thin ice & 0.1 & 0.01 \\
6 & Thick ice & 0.1 & 0.03 \\
7 & Bare grain & 0.2 & - \\
8 & Thin ice & 0.2 & 0.02 \\
9 & Thick ice & 0.2 & 0.06 \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{figure*}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=5.0cm]{att-baregrain.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=5.0cm]{att-thinice.eps}
\includegraphics[angle=270,width=5.0cm]{att-thickice.eps}
\caption{Three-dimensional visualization of interstellar grain models, used for calculating cross-sections and path lengths for grain encounters with cosmic rays. From left to right: bare olivine grain, grain coated in thin ice mantle, and grain in thick ice mantle. The additional lines indicate the allowed directions of CRs, passing through the grain.}
\label{att-model}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-2cm}
\hspace{-3cm}
\includegraphics{att-crossect.eps}
\vspace{-23cm}
\caption{Cross-sections for CR particle paths in bare grains, grains covered with a thin layer of ice, and those with a thick ice layer. Capital letters indicate the assumed possible CR paths through the grain: A--path through olivine; B--through olivine and ice; C--only through ice. The permitted paths are in the horizontal plane, either directly to or from the viewer, or perpendicularly to his line of sight. Lower case letters indicate the six parameters that characterize grain sizes--$a_1$ and $a_2$ for the bare olivine grains; $b_1$ and $b_2$ for the thin ice layer; $b_3$ and $b_4$ for the thick ice layer.}
\label{att-crossect}
\end{figure*}
Spherical grains with radius of $a=0.1\,\mu$m are typically adopted for astrochemical studies of molecular clouds. To enable the fitting of our data to a variety of environments, we consider grains with radius 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2~$\mu$m. The grain core material is olivine MgFeSiO$_4$. In dark cloud cores, the grains increase in size, probably because of accumulation of an ice layer \citep[e.g.,][]{Whittet01}. Therefore, for each grain size, we consider two additional cases: grains coated with a thin ice layer and grains in a thick ice mantle. Here, `thin ice' means ice with a uniform thickness of $b=0.1a$ and `thick ice'--with $b=0.3a$. For an average 0.1~$\mu$m grain, the thin and thick ice layers mean $\approx30$ and $\approx100$ ice molecule monolayers, corresponding to partial freeze-out in clouds and almost complete freeze-out in cloud cores, respectively. These ice thickness values are based on the results of our previous simulations of chemistry in contracting prestellar and starless cores \citep{Kalvans15a,Kalvans15c,Kalvans15b}. Table~\ref{tab-sizes} lists the basic parameters for the nine grain types considered.
We do not consider carbonaceous particles, such as PAHs, as grain constituents. These particles constitute $\approx10$~\% of grain mass \citep{Shen04}. Their light, carbon-dominated composition and relatively low density means that they are able to absorb little energy from passing CRs. Additionally, the heat capacity for carbonaceous material can be expected to be rather low, when compared to ices or silicates. It is also unclear to what extent such small carbonaceous particles are adsorbed onto dust grains in translucent clouds. Because the additional energy, absorbed by the carbonaceous materials from CRs and their additional heat capacity partially cancel each other out, we estimate that their contribution affects the $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum by less than 10~\%.
Cosmic-ray particles pass through spherical interstellar grains with radius $a$ and ice layer thickness $b$. Each such CR particle transit has its path characterized by length $l$ through the grain and probability, proportional to the surface area d$S$, corresponding for each $l$. The energy deposited by the CR particle along its path through the grain is directly proportional to $l$. For grains with a core-mantle structure, $l$ can be further differentiated in path length through the olivine grain core $l_{\rm oli}\leq2a$ and through the icy mantle $l_{\rm ice}\geq2b$.
Previous authors \citep{Leger85,Shen04,Chabot16} assumed that the full cross-section ($\pi a^2$) of an interstellar grain corresponds to $l$ of one diameter, 2$a$. Practically, this means that the grains are assumed to be cylindrical and that all CR particles enter one of the ends of the cylinder, perpendicularly to its surface. Moreover, \citet{Shen04} considered icy grains and assumed that ice is evenly dispersed in the grain, without a core-mantle icy grain structure.
While adequate for the uncertainties regarding CRs and interstellar dust, the above approach can be improved. First, the volume of a cylindrical grain exceeds that of a sphere by a factor of 1.5. This overestimates the average CR path length and, therefore, the energy received by the grains because, in practice, the $E_{\rm grain}$ spectrum is affected by the existence of CR paths shorter than 2$a$. Second, an ice layer on the surface means that there are CR paths that do not touch the grain core. This is important because CRs deposit much less energy in the less-dense and light-element ices than in the olivine core. Thus, a path right through the center of the grain will generate much more heat than a path that merely touches the ice layer. These aspects have not yet been taken into account in studies considering CR-induced whole-grain heating.
We explored a number of possibilities on how to adequately reflect the interaction of spherical grains with CRs, while not producing an excessive amount of data. A convenient way is to assume a grain shape model that consists of a number of cuboids. To describe CR interaction with interstellar grains, a number of rules have to be obeyed for such a model: (1) the longest CR path must be 2$a$; (2) total area of the surface exposed to CRs must equal 2$\pi a^2$; (3) the total volume of the olivine core and the ice mantle must be close to that of a spherical grain. Rule (1) ensures that grain maximum temperatures are calculated properly, rule (2) means that the computed frequency of CR hits to the grains is correct, while rule (3) ensures that the average CR path length approximately matches that of a spherical grain (here, grain volume is the total grain cross-section multiplied by the average $l$). These three rules mean that the overall shape of the temperature spectrum for CR-heated grains and maximum temperatures are retained similar to the case of spherical grains. For grains with ice mantles, there are two additional rules: (4) $l_{\rm ice}$ must not be less than twice the thickness $b$ of the ice layer of a spherical grain and (5) CR path(s) through ice that do not touch the olivine core must be included.
Figure~\ref{att-model} displays the grain shapes employed for the calculation of cross-sections corresponding to specific CR path lengths. The edges of the olivine core model are characterized by parameters $a_1$ and $a_2$. Thin ice edges have two additional base edge lengths $b_1$ and $b_2$, while thick ice edge lengths are $b_3$ and $b_4$, as shown in Figure~\ref{att-crossect}. We assume that CRs may hit the grains only from certain directions, as indicated in the figures. There are two different CR paths for the bare grain model, five paths for the thin ice grain model, and six for grains with the thick ice layer.
The parameters $a_1$, $a_2$, $b_1$, $b_2$, $b_3$, and $b_4$ were chosen so that the rules (1-4) are fulfilled with a deviation of no more than $\pm6$~\%. Olivine and ice cross-sections are reproduced precisely by our model (margin of error $<0.2$~\%). Compared with the cylindrical grain models of earlier studies, the CR paths through the grain and the amount of energy deposited in the grain are now calculated more precisely.
\subsection{Transfer of energy from cosmic ray particles to grains}
\label{srim}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-3cm}
\hspace{-1cm}
\includegraphics[width=22.0cm]{att-srim.eps}
\vspace{-22.5cm}
\caption{Energy lost by a selection of CR elemental particles when impacting the center part of a bare interstellar grain with radius $a=0.1\,\mu$m (i.e., passing through 0.2~$\mu$m of olivine). Data calculated with the \textsc{srim} program. The straight diagonal lines on the left-hand side indicate that the whole energy of the fast ion is lost upon impact.}
\label{att-srim}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-2cm}
\hspace{-1cm}
\includegraphics{att-ev.eps}
\vspace{-20cm}
\caption{The spectrum of energy absorbed by interstellar grains from encounters with CRs. The frequency $f_E$ density per eV of CR collisions with grains is plotted versus the energy $E_{\rm grain}$ these encounters deliver to the grains. Data shown for bare grains, grains with a thin ice mantle and a thick ice mantle with olivine core sizes of 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2~$\mu$m.}
\label{att-ev}
\end{figure}
As a CR nucleon transits an interstellar grain, it loses energy $E_{\rm lost}$ when interacting with electrons and atomic nuclei in the grain. The amount of $E_{\rm lost}$ depends on $l$, grain material, and density. We assumed that the grain core, with its geometry described above, is made of olivine MgFeSiO$_4$ (density 3.32~g~cm$^{-3}$). The ice has an assumed density of 1.0~g~cm$^{-3}$ and consists of H$_2$O, CO, CO$_2$, and CH$_3$OH with abundance ratios 100:31:38:4 \citep{Oberg11}. For a CR particle that travels a distance through olivine and ice, $E_{\rm lost}$ was calculated with the \textsc{srim} package. Electronic and nuclear interactions both were included. Figure~\ref{att-srim} presents examples for the amount of energy lost by selected CR elements when passing through the center part of a 0.1~$\mu$m bare olivine grain.
As a CR particle zips through the grain, it releases electrons from grain material and a cylinder along the fast ion's path becomes heated and ionized. This occurs in a picosecond timescale \citep{Iza06}. Some of the electrons released by the impact escape the grain. The proportion of energy carried away with the escaping electrons was calculated according to the data from \citet{Leger85}. The remaining energy is converted into heat. Within $\approx10^{-10}$~s the heat diffuses to the whole grain \citep{Leger85}. For the purpose of the the present study, we assume that all of the energy deposited in the grain ($E_{\rm grain}$) instantly transforms into heat, before any substantial cooling occurs.
Figure~\ref{att-ev} shows the frequency $f_E$ density (s$^{-1}$eV$^{-1}$) spectrum of energy $E_{\rm grain}$ received by grains of different radii and ice thickness. These data, presented in tabulated form in Appendix~\ref{app-a}, were calculated as explained in the above sections and were used for the calculation of the $T_{\rm CR}$ spectra in Section~\ref{wgh}. The `energy frequency' $f_E$ corresponds to a certain `temperature frequency' $f_T$, with grain heat capacity as the conversion factor between $E_{\rm grain}$ and $T_{\rm CR}$.
\subsection{Calculation of grain temperatures}
\label{wgh}
\begin{figure}
\vspace{-2cm}
\hspace{3cm}
\includegraphics{att-cgrain.eps}
\vspace{-24cm}
\caption{Comparison of heat capacities for olivine and ice spheres with a radius of 0.1~$\mu$m.}
\label{att-cgrain}
\end{figure}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-3cm}
\hspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics{att-tcr0.05.eps}
\vspace{-21cm}
\caption{The temperature $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum of grains with $a=0.05\,\mu$m, heated by CR particles. The frequency $f_T$ density per K of CR encounters with grains is plotted versus the temperature $T_{\rm CR}$ achieved by the grains due to impacts by CR particles.}
\label{att-tcr0.05}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-3cm}
\hspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics{att-tcr0.1.eps}
\vspace{-21cm}
\caption{The temperature $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum of grains with $a=0.1\,\mu$m, heated by CR particles.}
\label{att-tcr0.1}
\end{figure*}
\begin{figure*}
\vspace{-2cm}
\hspace{-2cm}
\includegraphics{att-tcr0.2.eps}
\vspace{-21cm}
\caption{The temperature $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum of grains with $a=0.2\,\mu$m, heated by CR particles.}
\label{att-tcr0.2}
\end{figure*}
For a grain that has received a certain energy amount $E_{\rm grain}$, the reached temperature $T_{\rm CR}$ depends on heat capacity $C_{\rm grain}$ (eV~K$^{-1}$) and initial (equilibrium) grain temperature $T_0$. For the later, 10~K can be regarded as a typical value in molecular clouds, which also has often been employed in astrochemical simulations. Therefore, we take 10~K as a valid `standard' value for $T_0$. Heat capacities at temperatures below 10~K are very low. Because of this, 10~K is representative also for dark and dense cores, where $T_0$ can be as low as 5~K. For more diffuse gas and cloud cores affected by some kind of energy influx, we adopt a second value for $T_0=20$~K. Thus, nine grain types (Table~\ref{tab-sizes}) and two $T_0$ values of 10 and 20~K bring the total number of data sets to 18.
Whole-grain heating for grains with $T_0>20$~K was not included because such heating has a limited chemical effect. For example, a process with an activation energy $E_A$ barrier of 1000~K can be enabled by whole-grain heating of 10~K grains. The same process on 20~K grains occurs with an already appreciable rate without additional energy influx. From our presented data, we estimate that processes with $1200<E_A<1500$~K could be enabled by CR-induced heating of 20~K grains. For grains with even higher $T_0$, such $E_A$ range is even narrower. Additionally, warmer grains, when heated, do not reach significantly higher $T_{\rm CR}$ values than cold grains, because the higher the temperature, the higher is grain heat capacity (Figure~\ref{att-cgrain}).
We calculate the heat capacity for the olivine grains $C_{\rm grain}$ according to Eq.~(18) of \citet{Cuppen06}. Following \citet{Leger85}, who indicate that the volumnic heat capacity of amorphous water ice at lower temperatures is slightly higher than that of silicates, we calculate the heat capacity of the ice layer according to the latter authors' approach. Here, we use the geometry of spherical grains coated with icy mantles of uniform thickness, not the grain model outlined in Section~\ref{geom}. Figure~\ref{att-cgrain} shows a comparison of heat capacities for fictional olivine and ice particles.
With the acquisition of an ice mantle, the grains get larger, which results in more frequent CR hits. These additional hits touch only the ice layer and do not deposit high amounts of energy in the grain. However, the additional heat capacity of the icy mantle is considerable even for grains with a thin ice layer. As a consequence, we find that the occurrence frequency $f_T$ for a certain value of $T_{\rm CR}$ is always lowered with the addition of the ice layer to a grain.
The full calculated whole-grain heating temperature spectra is listed in the Appendices. Appendix~\ref{app-a} lists also the energies $E_{\rm grain}$ that allow to recalculate the $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum for various grain equilibrium temperatures and different approaches on heat capacities.
In the calculations, temperatures were rounded to a precision of 0.01~K. The $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum is best represented by approximately hundred data points because we calculate $E_{\rm grain}$ for a finite number of ion energies, representing the CR energy spectra. The $\approx$hundred entries correspond to 1~K temperature intervals for 0.05 and 0.1~$\mu$m grains and 0.5~K intervals for grains with $a=0.2\,\mu$m. We found that this approach resolves the $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum with its characteristic major features in sufficient detail (Figures~\ref{att-tcr0.05}--\ref{att-tcr0.2}).
\subsection{Uncertainties and application limits}
\label{uncer}
Uncertainties in the calculated temperatures $T_{\rm CR}$ arise from approximations in grain interaction with CR particles (Section~\ref{srim}) and grain material properties (\ref{wgh}). We estimate that their margins of error do not exceed factor of 1.5. Each of these aspects was treated in a more detailed manner than in previous studies considering whole-grain heating \citep{Leger85,Hasegawa93,Roberts07}. The latter statement is true also for grain geometry (\ref{geom}), where errors are relatively negligible.
Uncertainties in $f_T$ arise from the calculated CR spectra (Section~\ref{cr}), which largely depend on the loss function and less so on the adopted initial low-energy spectrum \citep{Padovani09,Morlino15}. The margin of error for the final spectra probably lies within a factor of few. Additionally, while a cloud with $A_V=2$~mag was considered, the calculated CR fluxes change within a factor of two in $A_V$ range of 1...5~mag. The above means that, for the case of translucent clouds, the calculated $T_{\rm CR}$ spectra have a maximum uncertainty of about an order of magnitude, comparable to that of CR-induced ionization rate in diffuse clouds.
\section{Results and discussion}
\label{disco}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\caption{Frequency of CR encounters with grains ($T_0=10$~K) that lift the grain temperature above a certain minimum $T_{\rm CR}$ threshold. The summed-over frequency $\Sigma f_T$ is in units of s$^{-1}$ and the average time $t_{\rm CR}$ between CR hits to the grain is in years.}
\label{tab-yr10}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{llccccccccc}
\tableline\tableline
& & 0.05 $\mu$m & 0.05 $\mu$m & 0.05 $\mu$m & 0.1 $\mu$m & 0.1 $\mu$m & 0.1 $\mu$m & 0.2 $\mu$m & 0.2 $\mu$m & 0.2 $\mu$m \\
$T_{\rm CR}$, K & & bare grain & thin ice & thick ice & bare grain & thin ice & thick ice & bare grain & thin ice & thick ice \\
\tableline
$>20$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 8.14E-09 & 6.51E-09 & 5.54E-09 & 1.76E-08 & 1.29E-08 & 1.07E-08 & 3.39E-08 & 2.46E-08 & 1.85E-08 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 3.89E+00 & 4.86E+00 & 5.72E+00 & 1.80E+00 & 2.46E+00 & 2.97E+00 & 9.35E-01 & 1.29E+00 & 1.72E+00 \\
$>27$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 4.54E-09 & 3.61E-09 & 3.16E-09 & 8.81E-09 & 6.96E-09 & 5.68E-09 & 1.66E-08 & 1.17E-08 & 7.11E-09 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 6.98E+00 & 8.77E+00 & 1.00E+01 & 3.60E+00 & 4.55E+00 & 5.58E+00 & 1.91E+00 & 2.71E+00 & 4.46E+00 \\
$>30$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 3.59E-09 & 2.94E-09 & 2.59E-09 & 7.01E-09 & 5.61E-09 & 4.36E-09 & 1.25E-08 & 8.28E-09 & 4.69E-09 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 8.82E+00 & 1.08E+01 & 1.22E+01 & 4.52E+00 & 5.65E+00 & 7.26E+00 & 2.54E+00 & 3.83E+00 & 6.76E+00 \\
$>40$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.91E-09 & 1.66E-09 & 1.43E-09 & 3.51E-09 & 2.66E-09 & 1.78E-09 & 4.28E-09 & 2.57E-09 & 1.08E-09 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 1.66E+01 & 1.91E+01 & 2.22E+01 & 9.02E+00 & 1.19E+01 & 1.78E+01 & 7.41E+00 & 1.23E+01 & 2.93E+01 \\
$>50$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.17E-09 & 9.94E-10 & 7.99E-10 & 1.67E-09 & 1.20E-09 & 7.05E-10 & 1.28E-09 & 6.91E-10 & 1.76E-10 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 2.72E+01 & 3.19E+01 & 3.97E+01 & 1.90E+01 & 2.63E+01 & 4.50E+01 & 2.47E+01 & 4.59E+01 & 1.80E+02 \\
$>60$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 7.09E-10 & 5.85E-10 & 4.39E-10 & 7.50E-10 & 5.07E-10 & 2.53E-10 & 2.74E-10 & 1.15E-10 & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 4.47E+01 & 5.41E+01 & 7.22E+01 & 4.23E+01 & 6.25E+01 & 1.25E+02 & 1.16E+02 & 2.75E+02 & \nodata \\
$>70$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 4.11E-10 & 3.40E-10 & 2.42E-10 & 3.04E-10 & 2.03E-10 & 8.66E-11 & 3.14E-11 & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 7.70E+01 & 9.33E+01 & 1.31E+02 & 1.04E+02 & 1.56E+02 & 3.66E+02 & 1.01E+03 & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>80$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 2.30E-10 & 1.90E-10 & 1.27E-10 & 1.07E-10 & 6.81E-11 & 1.93E-11 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 1.38E+02 & 1.67E+02 & 2.50E+02 & 2.96E+02 & 4.65E+02 & 1.64E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>90$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.25E-10 & 1.02E-10 & 6.54E-11 & 2.78E-11 & 1.58E-11 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 2.54E+02 & 3.11E+02 & 4.85E+02 & 1.14E+03 & 2.01E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>100$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 6.46E-11 & 5.29E-11 & 3.18E-11 & 2.30E-13 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 4.90E+02 & 5.99E+02 & 9.97E+02 & 1.38E+05 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>110$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 3.01E-11 & 2.37E-11 & 1.32E-11 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 1.05E+03 & 1.34E+03 & 2.40E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>120$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.11E-11 & 9.22E-12 & 4.05E-12 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 2.86E+03 & 3.44E+03 & 7.82E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>130$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 4.38E-12 & 2.88E-12 & 4.72E-14 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 7.23E+03 & 1.10E+04 & 6.71E+05 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>140$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 3.76E-14 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 8.44E+05 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
\begin{table*}
\begin{center}
\footnotesize
\caption{Frequency of CR encounters with grains ($T_0=20$~K) that lift the grain temperature above a certain $T_{\rm CR}$ threshold. $\Sigma f_T$ is in units of s$^{-1}$ and $t_{\rm CR}$ is in years.}
\label{tab-yr20}
\resizebox{\linewidth}{!}{
\begin{tabular}{llccccccccc}
\tableline\tableline
& & 0.05 $\mu$m & 0.05 $\mu$m & 0.05 $\mu$m & 0.1 $\mu$m & 0.1 $\mu$m & 0.1 $\mu$m & 0.2 $\mu$m & 0.2 $\mu$m & 0.2 $\mu$m \\
$T_{\rm CR}$, K & & bare grain & thin ice & thick ice & bare grain & thin ice & thick ice & bare grain & thin ice & thick ice \\
\tableline
$>30$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 4.05E-09 & 3.39E-09 & 3.04E-09 & 7.85E-09 & 6.46E-09 & 5.40E-09 & 1.44E-08 & 1.04E-08 & 6.61E-09 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 7.83E+00 & 9.34E+00 & 1.04E+01 & 4.03E+00 & 4.91E+00 & 5.87E+00 & 2.20E+00 & 3.04E+00 & 4.80E+00 \\
$>40$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.98E-09 & 1.72E-09 & 1.53E-09 & 3.66E-09 & 2.84E-09 & 1.99E-09 & 4.59E-09 & 2.87E-09 & 1.30E-09 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 1.60E+01 & 1.84E+01 & 2.07E+01 & 8.66E+00 & 1.11E+01 & 1.59E+01 & 6.90E+00 & 1.10E+01 & 2.44E+01 \\
$>50$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.18E-09 & 1.02E-09 & 8.33E-10 & 1.73E-09 & 1.26E-09 & 7.54E-10 & 1.35E-09 & 7.39E-10 & 2.10E-10 \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 2.68E+01 & 3.12E+01 & 3.81E+01 & 1.83E+01 & 2.52E+01 & 4.20E+01 & 2.35E+01 & 4.29E+01 & 1.51E+02 \\
$>60$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 7.16E-10 & 5.95E-10 & 4.47E-10 & 7.57E-10 & 5.24E-10 & 2.66E-10 & 2.84E-10 & 1.17E-10 & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 4.43E+01 & 5.33E+01 & 7.09E+01 & 4.18E+01 & 6.04E+01 & 1.19E+02 & 1.12E+02 & 2.71E+02 & \nodata \\
$>70$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 4.15E-10 & 3.43E-10 & 2.45E-10 & 3.06E-10 & 2.08E-10 & 8.94E-11 & 3.17E-11 & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 7.63E+01 & 9.23E+01 & 1.29E+02 & 1.03E+02 & 1.52E+02 & 3.55E+02 & 9.99E+02 & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>80$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 2.30E-10 & 1.91E-10 & 1.30E-10 & 1.12E-10 & 6.90E-11 & 2.12E-11 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 1.38E+02 & 1.66E+02 & 2.44E+02 & 2.82E+02 & 4.59E+02 & 1.50E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>90$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.27E-10 & 1.02E-10 & 6.57E-11 & 2.78E-11 & 1.58E-11 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 2.50E+02 & 3.09E+02 & 4.82E+02 & 1.14E+03 & 2.01E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>100$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 6.46E-11 & 5.31E-11 & 3.19E-11 & 2.35E-13 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 4.90E+02 & 5.97E+02 & 9.94E+02 & 1.35E+05 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>110$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 3.01E-11 & 2.38E-11 & 1.34E-11 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 1.05E+03 & 1.33E+03 & 2.36E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>120$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 1.11E-11 & 9.23E-12 & 4.39E-12 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 2.86E+03 & 3.43E+03 & 7.22E+03 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>130$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 4.39E-12 & 2.88E-12 & 5.19E-14 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 7.23E+03 & 1.10E+04 & 6.11E+05 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
$>140$ & $\Sigma f_T$ & 3.76E-14 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
& $t_{\rm CR}$ & 8.44E+05 & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata & \nodata \\
\tableline
\end{tabular}
}
\end{center}
\end{table*}
Appendix~\ref{app-a} presents the temperature $T_{\rm CR}$ spectra for CR-induced whole-grain heating of $T_0=10$~K interstellar grains with properties described above (Sections \ref{geom} and \ref{srim}). Tables of Appendix~\ref{app-b} list the $T_{\rm CR}$ spectra for 20~K grains. We remind that the nine grain types include grains with olivine core radius $a$ 0.05, 0.1, and 0.2~$\mu$m; bare grains, and grains with thin and thick icy mantles. The data of temperature spectra are shown graphically in Figures \ref{att-tcr0.05}--\ref{att-tcr0.2}.
To ensure a safe reproduction of our calculated temperature spectra from data in the Appendices, for each entry, we state the $T_{\rm CR}$ interval, its width $\Delta T_{\rm CR}$, and the corresponding weighed average $T_{\rm CR}$ value for each interval. The corresponding $T_{\rm CR}$ occurrence frequency $f_T$ is the sum of impact frequencies for CR nuclei H through Ni that deliver the energy $E_{\rm grain}$ required to lift grain temperature to a $T_{\rm CR}$ value, which falls in the specified temperature interval. For example, a grain with radius $a=0.1\, \mu$m, ice mantle thickness $b=0.03\,\mu$m, and $T_0=10$~K can reach temperatures in the interval 32.01--33.00~K due of hits by He nuclei with $E_{\rm CR}=1.7$~MeV/ion that pass right through the center of the grain, due to hits by 9~GeV/ion Ni nuclei that touch only the ice layer, and due to hits by all CR components in between.
Appendix~\ref{app-a} includes also data on the received energy $E_{\rm grain}$ spectrum for all the grain types in consideration, as shown in Figure~\ref{att-ev}. This energy is received by the grain from a CR hit and has a corresponding grain temperature $T_{\rm CR}$. We specify the weighed average $E_{\rm grain}$, its corresponding energy interval (pay attention to footnote b below Table~\ref{tab-A1}), and interval width $\Delta E_{\rm grain}$. In the specified $T_{\rm CR}$ and $E_{\rm grain}$ intervals of each entry, $f_T$ equals $f_E$ (see also Section~\ref{srim}). The conversion factors between $E_{\rm grain}$ and $T_{\rm CR}$ is the Boltzmann constant and the total grain heat capacity $C_{T_0-T_{\rm CR}}$ (eV) in the relevant temperature interval from $T_0$ to $T_{\rm CR}$:
\begin{equation}
\label{phys1}
C_{T_0-T_{\rm CR}}=\int^{T_0}_{T_{\rm CR}}C_{\rm{grain}}{\rm{d}}T.
\end{equation}
Because there can be more than one variant on how to calculate grain heat capacity $C_{\rm grain}$, the $E_{\rm grain}$ frequency spectrum allows to recalculate the $T_{\rm CR}$ spectrum with a different approach on $C_{\rm grain}$. We do not provide the $E_{\rm grain}$ data in Appendix~\ref{app-b} because this quantity is independent of temperature, while tables in Appendix~\ref{app-a} simply have more data entries.
In astrochemical models, CR-induced physico-chemical surface processes have often been described with the help of a threshold grain temperature, which is reached due to CR impacts and has a certain occurrence frequency (Section~\ref{intro}). For example, \citet{Leger85} and \citet{Shen04} assume 27~K as the triggering temperature for ice chemical explosions, while \citet{Hasegawa93} assume a 70~K threshold for CR-induced evaporation of ice molecules. The 70~K threshold has also been employed to describe CR-induced diffusion and chemical reactions of surface species \citep{Reboussin14,Kalvans14ba,Kalvans15a}. Tables \ref{tab-yr10} and \ref{tab-yr20} display frequencies $\Sigma f_T$ for a range of such minimum $T_{\rm CR}$ values. We also provide the average time, in years, between two successive CR strikes that lift the grain temperature to or above the indicated $T_{\rm CR}$ threshold.
The above data suggest that, in the case of translucent clouds, CR-induced whole-grain heating has a frequency notably higher than that obtained in previous studies. For example, a 0.1~$\mu$m olivine grain is heated to temperatures in excess of 70~K with a frequency $\Sigma f_{>70}=3\times10^{-10}$~s$^{-1}$, compared to $\approx10^{-12}$~s$^{-1}$ assumed previously \citep{Bringa04,Roberts07}. Ice covered grains have $\Sigma f_{>70}$ around $10^{-10}$~s$^{-1}$. The difference spans two orders of magnitude and thus is significant also when the uncertainties of the research are considered. Note that, for grains with $a=0.1$~$\mu$m, $\Sigma f_{>70}$ corresponds to an average temperature of 76-78~K, not 70~K.
Even if $\Sigma f_{>70}$ is ten times lower than our results indicate (because of calculation uncertainties, shielding by magnetic fields, or a higher $N_H$ in starless cloud cores), such a result is important in astrochemistry, for example, due to more efficient CR-induced desorption. Cosmic-ray induced whole-grain heating as a desorption mechanism is used in many independent contemporary astrochemical models \citep[e.g.,][]{Kalvans10,Semenov10,Taquet12,Tassis12,Garrod13,Vasyunin13}.
A second aspect of high importance is the frequent heating of 10~K grains to or above modest temperatures in the range 20--30~K. Depending on grain size and ice thickness, such heating occurs with $t_{\rm CR}$ intervals of 1-10 years (Table~\ref{tab-yr10}). Given their high frequency, such temperatures are sufficient to overcome energy barriers of up to $\approx800$~K and promote the mobility of atomic H and other light species in the icy mantles of interstellar grains. This allows the synthesis for some species, reducing the radical content in ices.
The short intervals between grain heating events to 20--30~K place constraints on the possibility of chemical explosions in ices \citep{Greenberg73,dHendecourt82,Schutte91}. Such a modest heating, often caused by CR protons, should not induce explosions, otherwise excessive molecule desorption from grains would prevent the accumulation of icy mantles \citep{Ivlev15r}. Despite this, it has been shown that 27~K is a characteristic ignition temperature for irradiated interstellar ice analogs \citep{dHendecourt82}. The radicals necessary for the explosions become mobile at this temperature and are consumed in chemical reactions. Thus, only relatively immobile radicals with high binding energies (OH, NH$_2$) can accumulate. Even their accumulation might not be possible, if grain heating to 20--30~K induces reactions involving abundant ice species. An example is the OH~+~CO reaction with an energy barrier of only 80~K and sufficient surface mobility for CO (binding energy $\approx600$~K).
We conclude that the present results do not favor the possibility of chemical explosions in interstellar ices. Other CR-induced desorption mechanisms, such as spot heating \citep{deJong73,Leger85,Willacy93,Ivlev15r}, sputtering \citep{Draine79}, and ejection of ice fragments \citep{Johnson91,Duley96} probably are more effective than currently assumed in the case of translucent clouds.
Interesting is the dependence of $f_T$ on grain sizes for equal temperatures. The larger grains have larger cross-sections, which means that they receive more CR particle hits. On the other hand, many of these impacts are not effective at significantly raising the grain temperature because of a higher heat capacity. Smaller grains receive less hits, but these are more efficient at raising the grain temperature. Moreover, light element CRs passing through the icy mantle and delivering little energy are sometimes unable to raise the grain temperature even 0.01~K above $T_0$, the resolution limit of this study. In the Appendix tables, they are not accounted for.
\section{Conclusion}
\label{concl}
Summarizing, the paper presents a detailed calculation on whole-grain heating of interstellar grains by CRs at a visual extinction $A_V=2$~mag, corresponding to a translucent molecular cloud. Differences of our calculations and previous studies \citep{Leger85,Shen04,Roberts07} arise primarily because an updated CR energy spectrum was employed (Section~\ref{cr}). The results show that, in the case of translucent clouds, CR-induced whole-grain heating events are about two orders of magnitude more frequent than assumed before. We emphasize the potential significance of CR-induced low-temperature grain heating to influence processes in interstellar ices.
The main results of the present study are datasets for uses in astrochemical numerical simulations. Data in Tables \ref{tab-yr10} and \ref{tab-yr20} can be readily used to describe CR-induced processes in interstellar ices with such models. Moreover, in Appendices \ref{app-a} and \ref{app-b} we report the full $T_{\rm CR}$ and $E_{\rm grain}$ spectra for grains of different sizes and ice layer thickness. These data can be used for more specific investigations considering the interaction between CRs and interstellar grains.
\acknowledgments
I thank Meldra Kemere for the inspiration and initial discussions on this work. This research was supported by the Ventspils City Council and has made use of NASA’s Astrophysics Data System. Finally, I am grateful to the anonymous referee, who helped to improve this article.
|
\section{Introduction}
The Eulerian polynomials have a long and rich history in combinatorics. Euler first defined the Eulerian polynomials as the numerator for the generating function of the $n$'th powers, that is, the degree $n$ polynomial satisfying $A_n(x)=(1-x)^{n+1}\sum_{k\geq 0}k^nx^k$. Equivalently, the Eulerian polynomials can be defined as a sum over descents in the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$, namely as $A_n(x)=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}x^{1+d(\pi)}$, for $d(\pi)$ the number of descents of $\pi$. Yet another way to arrive at the Eulerian polynomials is as the $h$-polynomial of the permutohedron $P_n$.
In this paper we define the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials for $\alpha$ a positive integer. We develop an $\alpha$-colored analog for the descent and permutohedron constructions of the usual Eulerian polynomials mentioned above, but we arrive at our polynomials in a different order than was done classically. Namely, we first construct the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials in Section~\ref{section_polynomial} as the $h$-polynomials of the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron, $P_n^\alpha$, which we develop in Section~\ref{alpha_complex_section}. In Section~\ref{section_colored_permutations} we develop the combinatorial theory of $\alpha$-colored permutations and express the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials in terms of descents. Lastly, we give a recurrence relation for the $\alpha$-Eulerian numbers which is derived using the combinatorial theory developed in Section~\ref{section_colored_permutations}.
As a generalization of the usual Eulerian polynomials, the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials are real rooted, and hence log-concave, as will be shown in Section~\ref{section_polynomial}. It is worth mentioning now that any results about $\alpha$-colored constructions recover classical results by taking $\alpha=1$.
\section{preliminaries}
We begin with a discussion of the lattice of compositions of $n$, denoted $\Comp(n)$, as well as a discussion of the ordered partition lattice, $Q_n$. Throughout the paper, we denote the $n$-set by $[n]=\{1,2,\dots,n\}$.
\begin{definition}[$\Comp{(n)}$]
Let $\Comp(n)$ denote the poset of ordered integer partitions of $n$ into non-negative parts, with cover relation given by adding adjacent parts. The minimum and maximum elements of $\Comp{(n)}$ are $\hat{0}=(1,1,\dots,1)$ and $\hat{1}=(n)$ respectively. For a composition $\vec{c}=(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_k)$ we refer to $c_i$ as the $i$'th part of $\vec{c}$.
\end{definition}
Let $Q_n$ denote the poset of ordered set partitions on $n$ objects. In contrast to the usual partition lattice $\Pi_n$, order among the blocks in $Q_n$ matters. The cover relation in $Q_n$ is given by the merging of adjacent blocks.
The \emph{type} of an ordered set partition $\tau=(B_1,B_2,\dots,B_k)$ in $Q_n$ is defined to be the composition of $n$ given by the cardinality of the blocks of $\tau$ in order, or $\type(\tau)=(|B_1|,|B_2|,\dots,|B_k|)$ in $\Comp(n)$.
\begin{definition}[$\alpha$-colored partition lattice]
\label{Q_n_alpha}
Let $Q_n^\alpha$ be the collection of ordered set partitions where each block has one of $\alpha$ colors, with the last block a fixed color. The cover relationship in $Q_n^\alpha$ is given by the merging of adjacent blocks of the same color.
\end{definition}
There is a clear bijection between elements of $Q_n^\alpha$ and ordered set partitions where we color the breaks between the blocks of the partition, namely by coloring bars between blocks the color of the block to its left and forgetting the color of the last block. This bijection only holds on the level of elements--we are not asserting a poset structure on the set of ordered set partitions with colored bars.
\begin{example}
~\label{red_green}
Let $n=5$ and $\alpha=2$. Instead of having two colors, we will let our blocks be hatted or bald, and force our last block to be hatted. Four distinct elements of $Q_5^2$ are $\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}|\hat{4}\hat{5}$, $123|\hat{4}\hat{5}$, $\hat{4}\hat{5}|\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}$ and $45|\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}$.
Alternatively, the elements of $Q_n^\alpha$ can be thought of as having colored bars $|$ and $\hat{|}$, yielding the respective elements
$123\hat{|}45, 123|45, 45\hat{|}123,$ and $45|123$.
\end{example}
While $Q_n^\alpha$ is primarily introduced as a means to develop the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron $P_n^\alpha$, we remark that just as ordered set partitions are an important tool in the computation of the composition of ordinary generating functions, the poset $Q_n^\alpha$ is an indexing poset for the $n$-fold composition of ordinary generating functions. This suggests another interpretation of $Q_n^\alpha$.
When $\alpha=1$, $Q_n^1$ is the usual ordered partition lattice, which we think of as lists of sets. When $\alpha=2$, with ``colors" $|$ and $\hat{|}$ as in Example~\ref{red_green}, then $Q_n^2$ can be thought of as lists of lists of sets, where $\hat{|}$ denotes a comma in an outer list and $|$ denotes a comma in an inner list. Continuing in this fashion, we can think of $Q_n^3$ as lists of lists of lists of sets, and so on. The use of the terminology lists of lists of sets comes from Motzkin's paper~\cite{Motzkin}. This correspondence is demonstrated in the following example.
\begin{example}
Let $n=5$ and $\alpha=2$, with bars $|$ and $\hat{|}$. Then:
\begin{align*}
1\hat{|}23|45&\longleftrightarrow \{1,\{23,45\}\}\\ 45|1\hat{|}2{\color{green}}3&\longleftrightarrow\{\{45,1\},23\}\\
45|1|2{\color{red}}3&\longleftrightarrow\{\{45,1,23\}\}\\
\end{align*}
\end{example}
\begin{proposition}
The exponential generating function for the $\alpha$-colored ordered partition lattice is given by
$$\sum_{n\geq 1}\frac{|Q_n^\alpha|}{n!}x^n=\frac{e^x-1}{1-\alpha(e^x-1)}.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We use the composition principle of exponential generating functions.
The $\alpha$-colored ordered partition lattice can be described as a composition of two structures on the set $[n]$, namely, an inner non-empty structure given by $e^x-1$, and an outer $\alpha$-colored permutation structure with generating function given by ~$x/(1-\alpha\cdot x)$.
\qedhere
\end{proof}
\section{$\alpha$-colored ordered set partitions, Eulerian polynomials, and the permutohedron.}
In this section we demonstrate the close relationship between the Eulerian polynomials and the permutohedron. By means of Theorem~\ref{theorem_main}, we show that the Eulerian polynomial computes the Euler characteristic of the permutohedron. The key ingredient to the proof is that the face lattice of the permutohedron $P_n$ is the ordered set partition lattice $Q_n$. In Section~\ref{alpha_complex_section} we will mirror the analogy between the permutohedron and the Eulerian polynomial with a new polytopal complex which we call the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron, and subsequently, with the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials in Section~\ref{section_polynomial}. We now proceed with the definition of descents in the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ and of the permutohedron.
For a permutation $\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n$, the descent set of $\pi$ is given by $D(\pi)=\{i\in[n-1]:\,\pi(i)>\pi(i+1)\}$. We let $d(\pi)$ be the number of descents of $\pi$, or $d(\pi)=|D(\pi)|$. It will often be more advantageous to think of the descent set of $\pi$ as a composition of $n$ in the usual way, and thus we define:
\begin{definition}
Let the descent set of $\pi$ in the symmetric group $\mathfrak{S}_n$ be given by $\{i_1,i_2,\dots,i_k\}$. We convert this descent set into the \emph{descent composition} of $\pi$ by
$D(\pi)=(i_1,i_2-i_1,\dots,i_k-i_{k-1},n-i_k)$.
\end{definition}
We now define the Eulerian polynomial, as in Chapter $1$ of ~\cite{EC1}.
\begin{definition}
$A_n(x)=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}x^{1+d(\pi)}$ is the \emph{Eulerian polynomial}.
\end{definition}
Recall that the \emph{permutohedron}, $P_n$, is the $(n-1)$-dimensional polytope obtained by taking the convex hull of the permutations of $\mathfrak{S}_n$ in $\mathbb{R}^n$. The $d$-dimensional faces of $P_n$ are in one to one correspondence with ordered set partitions of $n$ into $n-d$ parts. For example, the vertices of $P_n$ are
given by permutations in $\mathfrak{S}_n$, which are in bijection with ordered set partitions of $n$ into $n=n-0$ parts. We note that the interior of $P_n$, of dimension $n-1$, must then be in bijection with ordered set partitions of $n$ into $n-(n-1)=1$ part. In other words, $P_n$ is contractible.
In parallel to Proposition~\ref{proposition_Euler_alpha} to come in Section~\ref{alpha_complex_section}, we now demonstrate that the Euler characteristic of the permutohedron $P_n$ can be computed with the Eulerian polynomial $A_n(x)$. We do this by counting the elements of the $\alpha$-colored ordered partition lattice $Q_n^\alpha$ with the Eulerian polynomial in Theorem~\ref{theorem_main}. Recall that the \emph{Stirling number of the second kind}, $S(n,k)$, is the number of partitions of $n$ into $k$ non-zero parts.
\begin{corollary}
\label{Euler_P_n}
The Euler characteristic of $P_n$ can be computed from the Eulerian polynomial $A_n(x)$.
\end{corollary}
\begin{proof}
Given that the face lattice of the permutohedron is the dual of the ordered set partition lattice yields
$$\chi(P_n)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(-1)^k f_k(P_n)=\sum_{k=0}^{n-1}(-1)^kS(n,n-k)k!=1,$$ since $P_n$ is contractible.
Using Theorem~\ref{theorem_main} we have that:
\begin{align*}
\sum_{k=0}^n S(n,k)k!\alpha^{k-1}&=(\alpha+1)^n/\alpha\cdot A_n(\alpha/(\alpha+1))\\
&=(\alpha+1)^n/\alpha\cdot\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}(\alpha/(\alpha+1))^{1+d(\pi)}\\
&= (\alpha+1)/\alpha \cdot L+\frac{(\alpha+1)^n}{\alpha}\cdot\frac{\alpha^n}{(\alpha+1)^n}\\
&=(\alpha+1)/\alpha \cdot L+\alpha^{n-1},
\end{align*}
where $L$ is all terms of $A_n(\alpha/(\alpha+1))$ except for the term corresponding to the permutation with $n$ descents. Lastly, let $\alpha=-1$ to obtain
$\sum_{k=0}^{n}S(n,k)k!(-1)^{k-1}=(-1)^{n-1}$. The latter sum is the Euler characteristic of $P_n$ when $n$ is odd, and when $n$ is even the Euler characteristic of $P_n$ is obtained by multiplying both sides of the latter sum by $-1$.
\end{proof}
\begin{theorem}
\label{theorem_main}
The following identity holds between the Eulerian polynomial and the Stirling numbers of the second kind:$$\frac{(\alpha+1)^n}{\alpha} A_n\left(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha+1}\right)=\sum_{k=0}^n S(n,k)k!\alpha^{k-1}.$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
We construct a map $P:Q_n^{\alpha}\longrightarrow\mathfrak{S}_n$ given by writing out the elements of each block of an $\alpha$-colored ordered set partition in increasing order, then considering this string as a permutation, in one line notation, in $\mathfrak{S}_n$. We will think of elements in $Q_n^\alpha$ as having bars with one of $\alpha$ colors, as discussed in Example~\ref{red_green}.
Let $\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ such that $d(\pi)=k$. Any $\alpha$-colored ordered set partition in the fiber $P^{-1}(\pi)$ must have $\alpha$-colored breaks at the descents of $\pi$, but otherwise it is free to have $\alpha$-colored breaks at any position. Hence if the descent runs of $\pi$ have sizes $d_1,d_2,\dots, d_{d(\pi)+1}$, then we have that
\begin{align*}
|P^{-1}(\pi)|&=(\alpha+1)^{d_1-1}(\alpha+1)^{d_2-1}\cdots(\alpha+1)^{d_{d(\pi)+1}-1}\alpha^{d(\pi)}\\
&=(\alpha+1)^{d_1+d_2+\dots+d_{k+1}-(k+1)}\alpha^{d(\pi)}\\
&=(\alpha+1)^{n-k-1}\alpha^{d(\pi)}\\
&=(\alpha+1)^{n-d(\pi)-1}\alpha^{d(\pi)}.
\end{align*}
Since $P$ is surjective we have that:
\begin{align*}
|Q_{n}^\alpha|&=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}|P^{-1}(\pi)|\\
&=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}(\alpha+1)^{n-d(\pi)-1}\alpha^{d(\pi)}\\
&=(\alpha+1)^{n}(1/\alpha) \sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}(\alpha+1)^{-d(\pi)-1}\alpha^{d(\pi)+1}\\
&=(\alpha+1)^{n} (1/\alpha) \sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}(\alpha/(\alpha+1))^{1+d(\pi)}\\
&=(\alpha+1)^n (1/\alpha)A_n(\alpha/(\alpha+1)).
\end{align*}
Finally, we note that the cardinality of $\alpha$-colored ordered set partitions is given by $|Q_n^{\alpha}|=\sum_{k=0}^n S(n,k)k!\alpha^{k-1}$, since the number of $\alpha$-colored ordered set partitions into $k$ blocks is counted by $k!\cdot S(n,k)$ times $\alpha^{k-1}$, with the latter term accounting for the $\alpha$ possible colors of the $k-1$ breaks.
\end{proof}
Note that Theorem~\ref{theorem_main} recovers Theorem $5.3$ of \cite{Petersen}, as the latter author defines the Eulerian polynomial as $A_n(x)=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}x^{d(\pi)}$.
\begin{corollary}
\label{stanley_result}
$2^n \cdot A_n(1/2)=|Q_n^1|=|Q_n|$.
\end{corollary}
The result follows by letting $\alpha=1$ in Theorem~\ref{theorem_main} and by the symmetry of the Eulerian polynomials. Additionally, Corollary~\ref{stanley_result} recaptures Exercise $33$ of Chapter $1$ of ~\cite{EC1}.
We now give a non-topological consequence of Theorem~\ref{theorem_main}.
Recall Euler's generating function definition for the Eulerian polynomials:
\begin{equation}
\label{n_power}
\sum_{k\geq 0}k^nx^k=\frac{A_n(x)}{(1-x)^{n+1}}.
\end{equation}
Using Theorem ~\ref{theorem_main} and Equation~\eqref{n_power} we obtain the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}
For $\alpha\in\mathbb{C}$ with $\operatorname{Re}(\alpha)>-1/2$ we have that
$$\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}k^n\left(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha+1}\right)^k=(\alpha+1)\cdot\alpha\sum_{k=0}^n S(n,k)k!\alpha^{k-1}.$$
\end{corollary}
\section{The construction of $P_n^\alpha$}
\label{alpha_complex_section}
When $\alpha=1$, $Q_n^\alpha$ is the usual ordered partition lattice, where the number of elements in $Q_n$ of rank $i$ count the $(n-i)$-dimensional faces of the permutohedron, $P_n$. In this section we define an analogous polytopal complex $P_n^\alpha$ whose $(n-i)$-dimensional faces are counted by the elements of rank $i$ in $Q_n^\alpha$. We call $P_n^\alpha$ the \emph{$\alpha$-colored permutohedron}, see Definition~\ref{alpha_complex}.
Over the course of this section we will see that $P_n^\alpha$ has many similarities to the usual permutohedron $P_n$. Namely, the face lattice of $P_n^\alpha$ is $Q_n^\alpha$, while the face lattice of $P_n$ is $Q_n$. Furthermore, Proposition~\ref{proposition_Euler_alpha} shows that the Euler characteristic of $P_n^\alpha$ can be computed with the Eulerian polynomial $A_n(x)$ in a similar fashion to Corollary~\ref{Euler_P_n}. Lastly, the components of $P_n^\alpha$ are products of permutohedra, and therefore $P_n^\alpha$ is a union of contractible components, just as $P_n$ is contractible.
Keeping in mind that the face lattice of $P_n^\alpha$ should be $Q_n^\alpha$, we reverse engineer the construction of $P_n^\alpha$ by describing the facets of the polytopal complex--each of which will determine a unique connected component of the complex.
Let $\vec{c}=(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_k)$ be a composition of $n$. Recall the \emph{multinomial coefficient} $\binom{n}{\vec{c}}=\binom{n}{c_1,c_2,\dots,c_k}$. Notice that there are ~$(\alpha-1)^{k-1}\cdot\binom{n}{\vec{c}}$ elements of $Q_n^\alpha$ of type $\vec{c}$ with no adjacent blocks of the same color. For each of these alternating color ordered partitions we define the facet $P_{|c_1|}\times P_{|c_2|}\times\dots\times P_{|c_k|}$ of $P_n^\alpha$. As the goal is to define a polytopal complex $P_n^\alpha$ with face lattice $Q_n^\alpha$, defining facets of $P_n^\alpha$ in this manner makes sense. This is because an $\alpha$-colored ordered set partition $\tau$ of type $\vec{c}$ with alternating colors is not covered by any element in $Q_n^\alpha$ per Definition~\ref{Q_n_alpha}, and thus should correspond to a facet of $P_n^\alpha$.
Moreover, any element $\tau'\in Q_n^\alpha$ with $\tau'\leq\tau$ can be formed by splitting blocks of $\tau$ and by flipping blocks of $\tau$ of the same color. This splitting and flipping can be done independently, and since the faces of the usual permutohedron $P_n$ are enumerated by the ordered partition lattice $Q_n$, the face lattice of the component $P_{|c_1|}\times P_{|c_2|}\times\dots\times P_{|c_k|}$ will be the lower order ideal generated by its defining alternating color ordered set partition $\tau$ of type $\vec{c}$ in $Q_n^\alpha$. Since our components are disjoint, this construction will yield $f(P_n^\alpha)=Q_n^\alpha$, and gives the following definition.
\begin{definition}[$\alpha$-colored permutohedron]
\label{alpha_complex}
Let $P_n^\alpha$ be the polytopal complex with $(\alpha-1)^{k-1}\cdot\binom{n}{\vec{c}}$ disjoint facets $P_{|c_1|}\times P_{|c_2|}\times\dots\times P_{|c_k|}$ for each composition $\vec{c}=(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_k)$ of $n$. Each of these facets is labeled by a unique $\alpha$-colored ordered partition, $\tau$, of type $\vec{c}$ with no adjacent blocks of the same color.
The lower dimensional faces of codimension $i$ in the facet labeled by $\tau$ are labeled by $\alpha$-colored ordered set partitions in the lower order ideal generated by $\tau$ in $Q_n^\alpha$ into $|\tau|+i$ parts. By virtue of construction, we have that the face lattice of $P_n^\alpha$ is given by $Q_n^\alpha$, that is $f(P_n^\alpha)=Q_n^\alpha$.
\end{definition}
We now look at an example.
\begin{example}
{\rm
Figure~\ref{blue_red} shows $P_3^2$. Per Definition~\ref{alpha_complex}, $P_3^2$ has facets labeled by $2$-colored ordered set partitions with alternating colors, which we mark as bald blocks and hatted blocks. Instead of a fixed last color, we force the last block of each $2$-colored ordered set partition to be hatted. We now compute the facets of $P_3^2$ using Lemma~\ref{components_p_n}. The compositions of three are $(1,1,1),(1,2),(2,1)$ and $(3)$. Since $\binom{3}{1,1,1}=6$, $\binom{3}{2,1}=3$, $\binom{3}{1,2}=3$ and $\binom{3}{3}=1$, there are $6$ facets of type $(1,1,1)$, $3$ facets of type $(2,1)$, $3$ facets of type $(1,2)$, and $1$ facet of type $(3)$. Each of these facets must be alternating in color with last color hatted.
}\end{example}
We now list relevant topological properties of $P_n^\alpha$.
\begin{lemma}
\label{components_p_n}
The number of components of $P_n^\alpha$ is given by
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:comp}
\sum_{\vec{c}\in\Comp{(n)}}(\alpha-1)^{|\vec{c}\,|-1}\cdot\binom{n}{\vec{c}}.
\end{equation}
\end{lemma}
The above sum enumerates all elements of $Q_n^\alpha$ with adjacent blocks having different colors. Since each of these partitions determine a component, the result follows.
\begin{corollary}
The number of connected components of $P_n^\alpha$ is the total number of faces in $P_n^{\alpha-1}$.
\end{corollary}
We can view equation \eqref{eq:comp} as summing over all $(\alpha-1)$-colored ordered set partitions of type $\vec{c}$, and the result follows from Lemma~\ref{components_p_n}.
\begin{corollary}
\label{euler_alpha_perm}
The Euler characteristic $\chi(P_n^\alpha)$ can be counted in two ways as
\begin{equation}
\label{eq:Eulerian_des}
\sum_{k=0}^n (-1)^k S(n,n-k)\cdot(n-k)!\cdot\alpha^{n-k-1}=\sum_{\vec{c}\in\Comp{(n)}}(\alpha-1)^{|\vec{c}\,|-1}\cdot\binom{n}{\vec{c}}.
\end{equation}
\end{corollary}
Since $P_n^\alpha$ is a union of contractible components, Lemma~\ref{components_p_n} counts the Euler characteristic of $P_n^\alpha$. We can also count the Euler characteristic by the alternating sum of the face numbers of $Q_n^\alpha$, which is the left hand side of \eqref{eq:Eulerian_des}.
Note that letting $\alpha=1$ in Corollary~\ref{euler_alpha_perm} recaptures that the usual permutohedron is contractible, and thus has Euler characteristic $1$.
Lastly, to complete the analogy between $P_n^\alpha$ and the usual permutohedron $P_n$, we show that the Eulerian polynomial can also be used to compute the Euler characteristic $\chi(P_n^\alpha)$, just as we showed the Eulerian polynomial can be used to compute $\chi(P_n)$ in Corollary \ref{Euler_P_n}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{proposition_Euler_alpha}
The Euler characteristic of $P_n^\alpha$ is given by
$$\chi(P_n^\alpha)=\frac{(\alpha-1)^n}{\alpha}A_n\left(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}\right).$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
This proof will mimic the proof of Theorem~\ref{theorem_main}.
Consider the restriction of the map $P:Q_n^\alpha\longrightarrow\mathfrak{S}_n$ to partitions alternating in color. We denote this map $P_A$. Since partitions alternating in colors are the facets of $P_n^{\alpha}$, the sum $\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}|P_A^{-1}(\pi)|$ will give us our desired Euler characteristic.
For a fixed $\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n$, the size of the fiber $P_A^{-1}(\pi)$ is given by
$$|P_A^{-1}(\pi)|=\sum_{\vec{d}\,\leq D(\pi)}(\alpha-1)^{|\vec{d}\,|-1},$$
as we are allowed to add breaks between descents of $\pi$ while maintaining alternating colors.
Therefore,
\begin{align*}
\chi(P_n^\alpha)&=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}|P_A^{-1}(\pi)|\\
&=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}\sum_{\vec{d}\,\leq D(\pi)}(\alpha-1)^{|\vec{d}\,|-1}\\
&=(\alpha-1)^{n-1}\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}\sum_{\vec{d}\,\leq D(\pi)}(1/(\alpha-1))^{n-|\vec{d}\,|}.
\end{align*}
Notice that the last sum $\sum_{\vec{d}\,\leq D(\pi)}(\alpha-1)^{n-|\vec{d}\,|}$ is the rank generating function for the lower order ideal generated by $D(\pi)=\vec{c}=(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_k)$ in $\Comp(n)$, evaluated at $\alpha-1$. As lower order ideals in $\Comp(n)$ are products of Boolean algebras, we may express this inner sum as a product of rank generating functions for corresponding Boolean algebras:
\begin{align*}
\chi(P_n^\alpha)&=(\alpha-1)^{n-1}\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}\sum_{\vec{d}\,\leq D(\pi)}(1/(\alpha-1))^{n-|\vec{d}\,|}\\
&=(\alpha-1)^{n-1}\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}\prod_{i=1}^{k}F_{B_{c_i}}(1/(\alpha-1))\\
&=(\alpha-1)^{n-1}\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}\prod_{i=1}^{k}(1+1/(\alpha-1))^{c_i-1}\\
&=(\alpha-1)^{n-1}\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}\left(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}\right)^{n-k}\\
&=\frac{(\alpha-1)^n}{\alpha}A_n\left(\frac{\alpha}{\alpha-1}\right).
\end{align*}
Observe we have used that the rank generating function of the Boolean Algebra $B_n$ is given by $F_{B_n}(x)=(1+x)^{n-1}$. While some steps at the end of the calculation have been omitted, the reader may see Theorem~\ref{theorem_main} for similar reasoning.
\end{proof}
\begin{figure}
\caption{$P_3^2$ with ``colors" bald and hatted. We force the last block to be hatted. Notice that each connected
component of $P_3^2$ is a product of permutohedra. The hexagon, a two dimensional permutohedron, also has edges and vertices labeled by $2$ colored ordered set partitions, all of color type hatted, hatted, hatted. Each of the six edges are a product of zero dimensional permutohedra, with facets having color type bald, hatted. Lastly, the disconnected vertices are all zero dimensional permutohedra, with facets of color type hatted, bald, hatted.}
\begin{tikzpicture}
\node at (4,2)[label=above:{1}-{2}-{$\hat{3}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (6,2)[label=above:{2}-{1}-{$\hat{3}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (5,1.7){12-{$\hat{3}$}};
\node at (4,0.25)[label=above:{1}-{3}-{$\hat{2}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (6,0.25)[label=above:{3}-{1}-{$\hat{2}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (5,-0.05){13-{$\hat{2}$}};
\node at (4,-1.5)[label=above:{3}-{2}-{$\hat{1}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (6,-1.5)[label=above:{2}-{3}-{$\hat{1}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (5,-1.8){23-{$\hat{1}$}};
\node at (8,2)[label=above:{1}-{$\hat{2}$}-{$\hat{3}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (10,2)[label=above:{1}-{$\hat{3}$}-{$\hat{2}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (9,1.7){1-{$\hat{2}\hat{3}$}};
\node at (8,0.25)[label=above:{2}-{$\hat{1}$}-{$\hat{3}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (10,0.25)[label=above:{2}-{$\hat{3}$}-{$\hat{1}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (9,-0.05){2-{$\hat{1}\hat{3}$}};
\node at (8,-1.5)[label=above:{3}-{$\hat{1}$}-{$\hat{2}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (10,-1.5)[label=above:{3}-{$\hat{2}$}-{$\hat{1}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (9,-1.8){3-{$\hat{1}\hat{2}$}};
\node at (-1,-1)[label=above:{$\hat{1}$}-{2}-{$\hat{3}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (1,-1)[label=above:{$\hat{2}$}-{1}-{$\hat{3}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,-1)[label=above:{$\hat{3}$}-{1}-{$\hat{2}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (-1,-2)[label=above:{$\hat{1}$}-{3}-{$\hat{2}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (1,-2)[label=above:{$\hat{2}$}-{3}-{$\hat{1}$}]{$\bullet$};
\node at (2.5,-2)[label=above:{$\hat{3}$}-{2}-{$\hat{1}$}]{$\bullet$};
\draw[thick,pattern=north west lines, pattern color=gray!80](-1,1)--(0,0)--(2,0)--(3,1)--(2,2)--(0,2)--(-1,1);
\node (1) at (-1,1){$\bullet$};
\node (2) at (0,0){$\bullet$};
\node (3) at (2,0){$\bullet$};
\node (4) at (3,1){$\bullet$};
\node (5) at (2,2){$\bullet$};
\node (6) at (0,2){$\bullet$};
\draw[thick](4,2)--(6,2);
\draw[thick](4,0.25)--(6,0.25);
\draw[thick](4,-1.5)--(6,-1.5);
\draw[thick](8,2)--(10,2);
\draw[thick](8,0.25)--(10,0.25);
\draw[thick](8,-1.5)--(10,-1.5);
\node at (1,1){\LARGE$\hat{1}\hat{2}\hat{3}$};
\end{tikzpicture}
\label{blue_red}
\end{figure}
\section{$\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials}
\label{section_polynomial}
We continue with the narrative started in Section ~\ref{alpha_complex_section}, namely, we generalize properties of the usual permutohedron to the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron. Associated with any simplicial complex is its $h$-polynomial, the polynomial obtained by applying a certain transformation to the $f$-polynomial. It is known that the $h$-polynomial of the usual permutohedron is the Eulerian polynomial $A_n(x)$. By extending the $h$-polynomial to polytopal complexes, we now explore the $\alpha$-colored analog for the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron, $P_n^\alpha$.
\begin{definition}
\label{h_poly}
The \emph{$h$-polynomial} of a polytopal complex $P$ of dimension $n$ is the polynomial obtained by transforming the $f$-polynomial of $P$ by $h(t) = (1-t)^{n-1}f(t/(1-t))$.
\end{definition}
\begin{remark}
\label{remark_h_poly}
Note that an alternate definition of the $h$-polynomial of a simplicial or polytopal complex is $h(t)=f(t-1)$, for $f(t)$ the $f$-polynomial of the complex. This definition will yield the reverse of the $h$-polynomial given in Definition~\ref{h_poly}.
\end{remark}
Computing the $h$-polynomial for the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron $P_n^\alpha$ will give us a generalization of the Eulerian polynomials, which we will refer to as the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials.
\begin{definition}
\label{alpha_polynomial}
The \emph{$\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomial}, denoted $A_n^\alpha(t)$, is defined to be the $h$-polynomial of $P_n^\alpha$.
\end{definition}
\begin{proposition}
\label{f_alpha}
The $f$-polynomial of $P_n^\alpha$ is given by the $f$ polynomial for the usual permutohedron evaluated at $\alpha\cdot t$, that is, $f(P_n^\alpha;t)=f(P_n;\alpha\cdot t)$.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
Faces of dimension $n-k$ in the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron $P_n^\alpha$ are in one to one correspondence with the elements of rank $k$ in $Q_n^{\alpha}$. An $\alpha$-colored ordered set partition of rank $k$ has $n-k+1$ parts, of which $n-k$ are free to have any of $\alpha$ colors. Therefore, the number of elements of rank $k$ in $Q_n^\alpha$ equals the number of elements of rank $k$ in the usual ordered set partition lattice $Q_n$ times $\alpha^{n-k}$. Translating back to the permutohedron, this implies that the number of elements of dimension $n-k$ in $P_n^\alpha$ is $\alpha^{n-k}$ times the number of elements of dimension $n-k$ in $P_n$, and the result follows.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{coefficient}
The $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomial of order $n$ is given by $h_n(t)=\sum_{i=0}^{n-1}\gamma_i t^i$ for
$$\gamma_i=\sum_{j=n-i}^n S(n,n-j)(n-j)!\alpha^{n-j-1}\binom{j}{n-i}(-1)^{j-n+i}.$$
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
We have that $f(P_n^\alpha)=\sum_{i=1}^n S(n,n-i)(n-i)!\alpha^{n-i-1}x^i$, since the face lattice of $P_n^\alpha$ is the dual of $Q_n^\alpha$. Now compute $h(P_n^{\alpha})$ by evaluating the latter polynomial at $x=t-1$ and reversing the coefficients to obtain the desired result (see Remark~\ref{remark_h_poly}).
\end{proof}
Notice that when $\alpha=1$, the expression above for $\gamma_i$ reduces to the usual Eulerian number $A(n,i)$ using ~\cite[Theorem 1.18]{Bona}.
Table~\ref{table_polynomials} lists the two colored Eulerian polynomials $A_n^2(t)$ for $n$ from $2$ to $6$.
\begin{table}
\caption{\label{table_polynomials}The two colored Eulerian polynomials, $A_n^2(t)$.}
\begin{center}
\begin{tabular}{c | c }
$n$ & $A_n^2(t)$\\
\hline
2 & $3t+1$\\
\hline
3 & $13t^2+10t+1$\\
\hline
4 & $75t^3+91t^2+25t+1$\\
\hline
5& $541t^4+896t^3+426t^2+56t+1$\\
\hline
6& $4683t^5+9829t^4+6734t^3+1674t^2+119t+1$
\end{tabular}
\end{center}
\end{table}
\begin{proposition}
\label{closed_form_h}
When written as a sum over permutations, the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomial $A_n^\alpha(t)$ satisfies
\begin{equation}
\label{closed_form}
A_n^\alpha(t):=h(P_n^\alpha)=\sum_{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n}(\alpha t)^{d(\pi)}(1+(\alpha-1)t)^{n-1-d(\pi)}.
\end{equation}
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
By Proposition ~\ref{f_alpha}, $f(P_n^{\alpha}; t) = f(P_n; \alpha\cdot t)$. So
\begin{align*}
A_n^\alpha(t)=h(P_n^\alpha,t)&=f(P_n^\alpha,t/(1-t))\cdot(1-t)^{n-1}\\
&=f(P_n,\alpha t/(1-t))\cdot(1-t)^{n-1}.
\end{align*}
Now use $\alpha\cdot t/(1-t)=\beta/(1-\beta)$ where $\beta=\alpha\cdot t/(1+(\alpha-1)t)$. Lastly apply the $f$ to $h$ transform of Definition~\ref{h_poly} once more to obtain the desired result.
\end{proof}
By inspection, we notice that the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials appear to be unimodal. We show that, in fact, they are real rooted.
\begin{proposition}
The $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomial $A_n^\alpha(x)$ has all real roots.
\end{proposition}
\begin{proof}
When $\alpha=1$ the result is clear. For $\alpha>1$,
by Proposition~\ref{closed_form_h} we have that
\begin{equation}
\label{usual_euler}
A_n^{\alpha}(t)=(1+(\alpha-1)t)^{n-1}\cdot A_n(\alpha t/ (1+(\alpha-1)t).
\end{equation}Using the real-rootedness of the Eulerian polynomials, Equation~\eqref{usual_euler} gives us that the possible roots of $A_n^{\alpha}(t)$ are $t=-1/(\alpha-1)$ or \\$t=\beta/(\alpha-\beta(\alpha-1))$, for $\beta$ a (real) root of the usual Eulerian polynomial~$A_n(t)$.
\end{proof}
We record a property, the proof of which is immediately obtained by letting $t=1$ in Equation~\eqref{closed_form}.
\begin{proposition}
\label{sum}
The sum of the coefficients of $A_n^\alpha(t)$ is given by $\alpha^{n-1}n!.$
\end{proposition}
Proposition~\ref{sum} indicates that the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials may be defined combinatorially, in particular, as ``descents" over $\alpha$-colored permutations with a fixed last color. Section~\ref{section_colored_permutations} explores this avenue, and in particular, develops the correct notion of descent.
\section{combinatorial description for $A_n^{\alpha}$}
\label{section_colored_permutations}
In section~\ref{section_polynomial} we developed the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials as the $h$-polynomials of the $\alpha$-colored permutohedron. As the usual Eulerian polynomials are defined in terms of descents in the symmetric group, we now develop the analogous combinatorial description for the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomials.
\begin{definition}[$\alpha$-colored permutation]
\label{colored_permutation}
\rm{An $\alpha$-colored permutation is a list ~$w_1^{c_1}w_2^{c_2}\dots w_n^{c_n}$ with $w_1w_2\dots w_n\in\mathfrak{S}_n$, and the tuple $(c_1,\dots,c_n)$ a list of colors where each $c_i$ is one of
$\alpha$ colors. We denote the collection of $\alpha$-colored permutations as $\mathfrak{S}_n^\alpha$. Furthermore,
we denote the collection of $\alpha$-colored permutations with a fixed last color $\beta$ as $\mathfrak{S}_{n,\beta}^\alpha$.
}
\end{definition}
We now define descents for $\alpha$-colored permutations.
\begin{definition}
\label{def_alpha_descent}
Let $\tau$ be an $\alpha$-colored permutation. The \emph{descents} of $\tau$ are indices where
$w$ has a descent or where colors change. That is, $\Des(\tau)$ is the subset of $[n-1]$ given by
$$\Des{(\tau)} = \{ i : w_i > w_{i+1} \,{\rm or}\, c_i \neq c_{i+1} \}.$$
\end{definition}
\begin{example}
\rm{
Let $\alpha=2$ and $n=3$. Let $\tau=2^11^23^1$. Then we have the permutation $w=213$ and color vector $c=(1,2,1)$.
The descent set of $\tau$ is given by $\Des(\tau)=\{1,2\}$. We have a descent in position one since we have a descent in the permutation $w$ in position one and we have a change in color from color $1$ to color $2$. We have a descent in the second position because in moving from position two to position three we change from color $2$ to color $1$. Note that we do not double count descents, namely, even though in position $1$ we have a descent for $w$ and a color change for $c$, the index $1$ is only included once in $\Des(\tau)$.
}
\end{example}
\begin{theorem}
\label{permutation_interpretation}
The $\alpha$-colored Eulerian polynomial $A_n^{\alpha}$ can be defined over the descents of $\alpha$-colored permutations with a fixed last color $\beta$. In particular,
$$A_n^{\alpha}(x)=\sum_{\tau\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,\beta}^\alpha}x^{d(\tau)}$$
\end{theorem}
\begin{proof}
Proposition~\ref{closed_form} and the binomial theorem show the coefficient of $t^m$ in $A_n^{\alpha}(t)$ to be
\begin{equation}
\label{coeff_t}
\sum_{\substack{\pi\in\mathfrak{S}_n\\ 0\leq d(\pi)\leq m}} \alpha^{d(\pi)}(\alpha-1)^{m-d(\pi)}\binom{n-1-d(\pi)}{m-d(\pi)}.
\end{equation}
We now show that equation~\eqref{coeff_t} also counts the number of $\alpha$-colored permutations with $m$ descents with a fixed last color $\beta$.
An $\alpha$-colored permutation $\tau=w_1^{c_1}w_2^{c_2}\dots w_n^{c_n}$ has $m$ descents precisely when the permutation $w_1w_2\dots w_n\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ satisfies $0\leq d(w)\leq m$ and the color vector $c$ changes $m-d(w)$ times for indices not in the descent set of $w$.
Fix a permutation $w\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ with $0\leq d(w)\leq m$. We now enumerate all $\tau\in\mathfrak{S}_{n,\beta}^\alpha$ so that $\tau=w_1^{c_1}w_2^{c_2}\dots w_n^{c_n}$ has $m$ descents.
Of the $n-1-d(w)$ positions where $w$ does not have a descent, choose $m-d(w)$ positions where our color vector $c$ will change, of which there are $\binom{n-1-d(w)}{m-d(w)}$ ways to do so. This will determine $m-d(w)+1$ runs in $c$ of the same color. The rightmost color run of $c$ will be the color of the last block, since this is a fixed color. Moving left from the last run, we have $(\alpha-1)$ color choices for each run, as each run must be a different color than the run that succeeds it to guarantee a descent is introduced. Therefore, we have $(\alpha-1)^{m-d(w)}$ choices for our color runs. Furthermore, since descents in $\mathfrak{S}_{n,\beta}^\alpha$ are not double counted, we may also change the color $c_i$ for each index $i$ where the permutation $w$ has a descent, giving us $\alpha^{d(w)}$ choices. Finally, summing over $w\in\mathfrak{S}_n$ with $0\leq d(w)\leq m$ gives the desired result.
\end{proof}
\begin{proposition}
\label{recurrence}
Let $A^\alpha(n,k)$ be the coefficient of $x^k$ in $A_n^{\alpha}(x)$, which we call the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian numbers. A recurrence relation for the $\alpha$-colored Eulerian numbers is given by:
\begin{align*}
&A^\alpha(n,k)=\\
&(k+1)A^\alpha(n-1,k)+\\
&[\alpha+n-k-1+(k-1)(\alpha-1)+(\alpha-1)(\alpha-1)!]A^\alpha(n-1,k-1)+\\
&(\alpha-1)(n-k)A^\alpha(n-1,k-2).
\end{align*}
\end{proposition}
Using Theorem~\ref{permutation_interpretation}, we now describe how to prove the recursion. We create a colored permutation in $\mathfrak{S}_{n,\beta}^\alpha$ with $k$ descents by inserting an $n$ into the appropriate permutations in $\mathfrak{S}_{n-1,\beta}^\alpha$. Care is needed is developing the recursion, as the $n$ we insert can have one of $\alpha$ colors. Additionally, the insertion of $n$ can produce two descents, hence we have a three term recursion.
Notice that $\alpha=1$ recovers the recursion for the usual Eulerian numbers, see Theorem $1.7$ of \cite{Bona}.
\section{Acknowledgments}
The author thanks his advisor, Dr.\ Richard Ehrenborg, for assisting with this exploration. The author also thanks Dr.\ Kyle Petersen of Depaul University for his great text on Eulerian numbers~\cite{Petersen}, as well as for invaluable help via email, specifically with the combinatorial description of $A_n^{\alpha}(x)$ given in Theorem~\ref{permutation_interpretation}.
\bibliographystyle{plain}
|
Subsets and Splits